Copy and paste the above and take out the spaces to get to the Patch article.

Hi, Brad - I didn't have anything to do with the comments, but I remember talking to you earlier and am glad we were able to work something out. Take care.

I really don't understand the comments about seven courts being this highly unsafe road. It's not crucial, really. One pedestrian gets hit and all of a sudden, it's a war zone. It's sad and unfortunate, but it happens. The brick island will make traffic more congested if anything, it certainly won't alleviate traffic. More congestion will ultimately make it less safe for people crossing the street at the schools because there will be longer lines of cars due to all the slow drivers holding things up. I think this is a huge oversight. The effect on traffic flow will be a negative one, but who knows, I've been wrong before.

Oh c'mon, not even the cops go the speed limit around here. Slowing traffic has much more potential to be disasterous than it does positive. Seven courts is too busy of a street, not a typical residential street. There's not a single house facing the street until just after or just before the school depending on which way you're going. If seven courts will be single lane, traffic has a huge potential to be a problem. I would even say accidents would be more likely as well. Time will tell, but I think it's a bad idea.

Furthermore, Joppa road is a four lane highway with a 35mph speed limit and there are *loads* of houses facing the street. Should Joppa road be made single lane on both sides too? It just doesn't make any sense at all. With that 10 grand, they could have hired crossing guards to deal with that one section that is affected by the school like every other school does instead of changing the whole street. Just more knee jerk overreactions to problems that have common sense answers, but people love to abandon common sense in favor of raging emotional reactions these days. It doesn't make sense, period.

I agree about the circle, it didn't really help anything and personally, I don't see why it was put there in the first place because it was unnecessary and unneeded. Things were just fine there before the circle and now, it's a cluster F of traffic. I've been cut off at the circle several times myself. People just try to roll through it even if there are cars arriving at the same time as them or if there are cars already in the circle. If simply speeding makes drivers ignorant, then you can include all the cops as being ignorant drivers too. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the speed limits are too low. Instead of exploring solutions to this that go with the grain, we go against the grain and it just ends up making roads *more* dangerous. This new change to seven courts is just par for the course for nonsensical decision making we're used to seeing.

...and yes, traffic lights would be the common sense solution, but common sense is out of style.

Agreed, as said earlier, seven courts is not the typical residential street and the road was made with four lanes because it was anticipated to be a busy street and it gives traffic chance to flow to and from Joppa road. If anything, it was a terrible place to put a school. Furthermore, the school doesn't even face the street. Hell, it's nowhere NEAR the street, it can't even be seen. I too think that seven courts is too busy to have bike lanes. I'm not against bikers being more safe, but unless you're going to somehow deter traffic from seven courts, this is going to be a nightmare. People think it's such a dangerous road now, just wait until everyone needs to use one lane and cars are bumper to bumper with brake lights during rush hour and let's see how safe you think the road is then. Bad, bad idea.

The plan was drafted by professional engineers in the Department of Public Works.

A four way stop sign would have been a better solution IMO. The circle was just excessive. I can't tell you how many times I've almost been hit because of people coming up Proctor and they just hurry through it instead of stopping to assess the situation before they proceed. There's a way to handle it when there are no cars and a way to handle it during times of congestion. Most people only handle it as if there are no cars regardless of the situation.

Crossing in this place is tricky as it is because of the hills, but there should be a traffic light. God, that would solve so many problems in this area and it's such a no brainer. Perhaps you could try crossing down the street from the senior center so cars have more of a chance to react to you? Can you imagine how hard it would be if all the cars were packed into one lane? You'll really have to run then.

Keep seven courts the same, just put a traffic light there. Problem solved! Why people can't see this as the simplest solution just blows my mind, really. Crossing guards too for school letting out. It's so simple, cmon guys.

Don't worry the County will do what it wants, these elected officials don't want to listen to the people who live in the area, but at election time, they will be waving on the corners and making annoying phone calls pestering people for their votes.
Things are fine the way they are, I don't know why things have to change, I also agree the stop signs worked fine, the accidents occurred at Proctor and 7 cts because drivers who were in a hurry didn't stop at the stop sign, they just made their right like they do now without yielding. So the bottom line is the county will do what they want.

It doesn't have to be a full fledged traffic light, it can be one that flashes amber when school is letting out and apply a 25mph speed limit in front of the school when the light is flashing. The street is four lanes in parts for a good reason. Once houses are facing the street, it narrows to one lane like it should. It's kind of amusing that people complain about being passed on the road and that it's some kind of problem.11 people may agree, but that doesn't mean it makes any sense. Changing the road in this way will only make it more dangerous and more congested and all for one little area that spans what, 100 feet? So change a mile of the road and this is supposed to make sense? Still, all being changed because of a drunk driver hitting a pedestrian and not a single bit of this would prevent it from happening again. It's nonsense.

The man that was driving drunk and killed the woman was caught and is in prison, that should be the end of the whole issue, but people just wanna drag it on and on and on.

Brad, David Marks actually lives in Perry Hall. In the Seven Courts area, he got the elementary school air conditioned and preserved the area north of the senior center from development. That doesn't sound like someone who just pops up during the election. Quite frankly, I don't know why he should listen to all the people on here who just complain and act like they know what's best.

I don't mind speed humps personally, but if they are changing the routes of fire trucks making them take longer, why are they there? This article is just more proof of what you're saying, though. No one was asked or polled, the people who live in this community weren't asked and allowed to have a debate so WE could figure out what was the best solution. At least that way, if we're paying extra money for it, we know exactly what we're paying for and we'd know the majority discussed and decided on it. This is just a situation where we're being told "This is what's going to happen, deal with it, you get no say", it's par for the course with politicians in general and in this case, this decision has serious potential to cause the dangerous conditions all you people talk about which don't currently exist. Most of what I hear is people don't like to be passed, so do something about it! There are some legitimate things too, but again this was born out of an issue (hit and run, DUI) that has been solved, the criminal dealt with. It's over, done. Now, it's all about the kids? Fine, make the *school zone* safer, don't change the whole street. It makes no sense, none of this does.

..and to be honest, this "solution" shows a severe lack of creativity. Even if you had those diamond shaped yellow signs on the light poles that flashed yellow during school hours indicating a 25mph speed limit during those times, that would be great. How much does one of those signs cost? A couple hundred dollars? Crossing guards? It is an extremely small part of this street. It would be like if your stove caught on fire due to a fault and instead of replacing the stove and taking extra safety precautions in the kitchen, you tear down the whole house and build it again. It's a SEVERE overreaction to a very easily solved problem. Reel in your emotions and use some common sense thinking. The solution is so easy yet it's being made into this yawning chasm of need and an excuse to do more than what is necessary. Nonsense.

Then Joppa road is also idiocy. When you think of a way to reduce the huge flow of traffic on seven courts so that a single lane wouldn't result in traffic jams, which already sort of exist during rush hours, you propose it. The traffic flow is much higher than a typical residential street and the four lane area has no houses near the road. There's nothing idiotic about it. So, you reduce the traffic by at least half and then you have a point. Until then, your point is closer to idiocy than the current state.

I would disagree. The traffic enters Seven Courts in a single lane, why four lanes? The traffic exits Seven Courts in a single lane, why need four lanes? Name another road in the area that goes into a major subdivision like Oakhurst that has four lanes leading into it. If you live in Oakhurst, I did, how long will it take you to go from Joppa to Parkfalls at 30 mph? Four minutes instead of three? Are you in that much of a hurry? Wow!

Gosh Evets, I did it in my head. Does that take the traffic circle into account?

I have the solution, widen Northwind down the hill to four lanes also. Wheeeeee! More speed traps there.

Seven courts connects with a major four lane highway and is a high traffic area. You cannot compare it to Northwind, that's ridiculous. Cars are turning onto Seven courts from Joppa in two directions plus people entering and exiting the food store area. It's much easier to get in and out of there with two lanes to turn into instead of four and people who have to wait to turn into the food store don't hold up the whole line of traffic waiting to turn in because you can just go around them. Name another major road that connects with another high traffic street the way Joppa and 7crts do. There really isnt another residential street that is like seven courts unless I'm just missing something. Traffic enters both sides with two lanes on each side, not four, so I don't know why you're taking it from single lane to four lanes just to exaggerate your point because it doesn't make sense. There are many turn offs on seven courts and two lanes/wider road allows people to go around them instead of backing traffic up down the street unnecessarily. Traffic isn't a problem now because of how the road is, but this is an extremely busy street for being residential, way more of a major road than Northwind will ever be. That's a ridiculous comparison. It's really not hard to see why Seven Courts was designed this way and changing it for the reasons its being changed for doesn't make any sense. The crime happened, the criminal is in jail and said problems only affect a small part of the road.

.. and by the way, Harford road goes from four to two lanes on each side and that road leads into a heavily populated residential area with many side streets leading to more residential areas. It's not hard to see why. In that case, Harford road runs past highway on and offramps and traffic needs time to situate itself in that section of Harford road. Before and after this section (between two lights), it goes back to single lane. It's not hard to understand. Seven courts doesn't have highway on and offramps, but similar high volumes of traffic affect the part of seven courts that has four lanes. It's pretty simple really.

Mike, you are just wrong. Of course I was being facetious about Northwind to make a point.

Traffic turns into Seven Courts from Joppa one car at a time, not two as you suggest and very easily creates a single lane of traffic. Yes, a few cars may enter Seven Courts from Weis but that is insignificant. The sole purpose of having two lanes going into Seven Courts is so that the impatient driver can pass as once you reach the school you are supposed to be in a single lane anyway. Your need to pass people in that small stretch of road is nutty and dangerous. Yes, traffic leaving Seven Courts onto Joppa need a right and left turn lane. You don't need two lanes going into Oakhurst though.

No, I'm really not wrong. Having two lanes there isn't hurting anything and never has. You're creating a problem out of nothing and then screaming for change based on it. Traffic comes from two major roads into seven courts: they come from Joppa which also comes directly from Belair road, that's two major roads that filter into seven courts. During the day, there's almost always people coming out of the food store. I'm not wrong and the Harford road example proves it. If Harford road was single lane in that area, it would be a MESS. Many residential streets off seven courts are constantly producing traffic, all headed to Joppa road. The Joppa road side is constantly producing traffic, there is no break. I really don't care to see cargo-train sized lines of traffic up and down my street because that makes it even harder for cars to pull out especially for buses coming out of the school or people who live on Plantaganent, Hapsburg or further down. You take away space for cars in that situation and you have more chaos. You have more cars parked on the side of the road and you have more problems pulling out because you can't see. There is no problem here, only in people's minds and this imaginary complex of problems simply does not exist. This is making change for the sake of making change and has more potential to cause more problems than it does to solve anything. These problems simply don't exist, only in people's minds who hate being passed on the road.

Brad, people have tunnel vision when it comes to this stuff. If something *must* be done for people to shut up about this, the sensible, logical solution would be to apply something to that part of seven courts, not the whole street. It doesn't make sense to do all this because of one accident and it wasn't because of speeding, it was because the guy was drunk! He's in jail, it's over and done with and over this one incident, we're going to change the whole road? All I'm saying is if you're going to make any changes, apply them to the school zone only. I agree that I don't think any change is needed really. I don't mind change so long as it makes sense and this doesn't make sense.

Well I got the information here about that as I'm sure we had a discussion about the fact that he was drunk during the time this occured. Him serving only 18 months wouldn't surprise me even if he was drunk. Unfortunately, I know two people who have multiple DUI's and reckless driving that haven't spent a single day in prison. But ok, let's assume he wasn't drunk. Why does everyone else have to be punished for the actions of ONE man? If I remember correctly, this is only the third time in the history of seven courts that a pedestrian has been hit by a car? In 25 years? The ONE person responsible for this incident has been punished and it should end there. This is an isolated incident, not something that happens 10 times a year or even ONCE a year on average, far less than that. Just because something happens once every 8 years or so doesn't mean you make sweeping changes that are unnecessary. It's a knee jerk overreaction. Drunk or not, the guy is paying for his crime and everyone else who lives in the area should not be punished along with him for no good reason.

I mean that because of a freak occurrence where one driver was so out of his mind for whatever reason that he not only hit a pedestrian, but fled the scene and probably would have never been caught if he didn't turn himself in, you are changing something that affects everyone else unnecessarily. It's like it will be assumed that all drivers who travel on seven courts are exactly like this guy and so something must be done. It is "punishment" in the sense that all drivers are now assumed to be dangerous, so drastic, sweeping changes are needed and it's just not true. This kind of thing simply does not happen nearly enough to warrant something like this and it certainly doesn't mean that all drivers should now be assumed to be dangerous just because of one man's actions. He's paying for what he did, enough said, end of discussion.

..and what happens to seven courts when houses are facing the street? Single lane. You want to make the school zone safer, hire crossing guards, paint a crosswalk on there and have yellow flashing lights on during times when school lets out and impose a 25 MPH speed limit during those times. Problem solved, no need to tear up the street and it's a hell of a lot cheaper too. Keep the street as it is, that's all I'm saying. I'm for NOT changing it, not for changing it. There's nothing misguided about it, I've given plenty of valid reasons as to why I have this opinion. If there is no good reason to change it, don't change it and there is no good reason.

That is where your argument falls apart Mr. Fisher. Crossing guards for life or a single lane. Which is really cheaper? There are 180 mandated school days per year. If the crossing guards were only hired for 3 hours per day times 180 times a year the minimum wage of $7.25 plus fringe costs of FICA, etc. That is $4,000 per year. I guess we catch up to that $10,000 pretty quick and then pass it along the way like it appears you wish to do. Of course that assumes you can find someone to work for a total of $21.75. Ask amark or CP, maybe they have some friends that will do it.

If you're so worried about that, then put signs up with the flashing yellow lights signaling a 25mph speed limit while it's flashing. A couple of those signs wouldnt even run two grand I bet and it doesn't make the road more dangerous. Nothing falls apart. Changing this road after what, 25 years where there is no significant traffic risk, barely any accidents, less than five pedestrians being hit by cars since the creation of the road for NO REASON is BS... and no, whining about being passed by other cars isn't a reason. An incident with a drunk driver who is now in prison isn't a reason. There is NO good reason to change anything, it is change for the sake of change. My argument doesn't fall apart at all, at least it's based on logic as opposed to the "change it because I think it's better, but have no evidence to warrant such a change except my feelings" argument. No evidence of dangerous driving conditions, no evidence of a higher rate of accidents along this street, no evidence of a higher rate of pedestrians being hit, simply no evidence period. There is no reason to do this at all.

Ok, so where is the abundance of lost lives that warrant such a change? In 25 years of existence, can you point out to me the dozens and dozens of lives that have been lost on seven courts drive? You can't because they don't exist. This is a non-issue and the event that is causing all this was an isolated incident and it should be treated as such. What lives will be saved by making traffic more congested and where are all these lost lives? Again, it is a knee-jerk overreaction based on nothing but exaggerating one incident that has been dealt with by the law and turning it into this HUGE issue.

Before it's too late? There is no reason to anticipate any of this except fear and making decisions based on fear is never good. They are too low, even the cops think so because they don't even follow the speed limits around here. In another thread where we talked about this, traffic studies proved that slower drivers are more likely to be involved in an accident, so that's not simply people "thinking" that, it's been proven. I've never heard the stop sign one before and as far as the law, if you rear end someone, it's always your fault unless I'm wrong, so that's kind of a moot point... and you're wrong about cutting down lanes because one incident might happen in 25 years. It's not worth it if it makes the roads more dangerous overall. Accidents will happen and three in 25 years is VERY good. Saving one life might mean costing 20 more. You don't make changes unless there is good reason to make them and there is no reason. Accidents will happen and will continue to happen. If there's only three in 25 years, there is no reason to change it because that is a very good track record. Is saving one life worth costing 10 or 20 more, theoretically? Of course it's not. How do you cut down on three lives in 25 years and why would you want to unless you think perfection is possible?

The new layout is completely ridiculous. All it does is squeeze traffic into a tighter spot. I think it's going to cause more accidents and I think it's going to make the area even more hazardous for pedestrians. This change was completely unnecessary and completely lacked vision. This was the great idea? Completely ridiculous and unnecessary. I guess I will be taking Magelet, Hines and Joppa road more often to get back to my house just to avoid the beginning of seven courts. It's more dangerous with the new layout than it's ever been. There was a reason the street was designed that way and the relatively low incidence of accidents and pedestrian problems proved they were right with the initial design. These changes will cause problems that never existed before, just watch. There was no good reason to do this and it looks horrible. How long before a head on collision in the turn lane I wonder? Horrible planning, horrible vision and horrible execution on a horrible idea.