Brought this over.
quote:
Originally posted by james weatherford
Yes, roundabout really is only a tool -- only one traffic control tool among others.
The problem is, it is a very effective one that our County Dept of Public Works and the State Dept of Transportation have refused to even consider for most projects -- that is, roundabouts never even come into the decision making process. The basic question is never asked, on installation and/or alteration to an intersection. These agencies have not simply passively neglected this tool, they have explicitly refused to ask this simple question, "Will a roundabout work best?" -- this is what needs changing, the policy of evaluating the potential for using this proven and effective tool.
The break gave me a chance to do some more research. This time I went looking for why roundabouts are dismissed without review. Here’s what my traffic engineer and a roadway civil engineer I know basically said.
/1/ Roundabouts are often not considered simply because the people responsible haven’t a clue. They are outside their comfort zone and most likely have no practical knowledge so they don’t even look at them.
/2/ Roundabout require much more preplanning studies versus a normal intersection. Most municipalities lack the ability to do these so even if they like the idea, they need funding to hire firms that specialize in roundabouts to conduct a proper review.
/3/ They both said that it’s false that roundabouts use less land. Roundabouts are land intense traffic control devices. The CE did a quick drawing showing a 2 lane road intersecting another 2 lane road. If it must handle A’s and B’s, the standard intersection will be at the minimum about 700 square feet. A roundabout for the same traffic spec is about 5,800 square feet. According to them, most people get away with the numbers by reclassifying the center circle not as part of the road system, but as a park or something else. That enables the planners to hide the intensity of the roundabout.
/4/ Roundabouts requires a look into the future. You have to plan the design around what will occur down the road. They said if that’s not done, you end up with roundabouts that fail and have to have controls just like an intersection. When a roundabout fails, it presents a worst traffic situation than a standard intersection, so realistic planning is key. Likewise, a properly planed roundabout would initially look too big for the need.
/5 / Politics. Yes politics play a big role because if the government doesn’t own the land needed for the roundabout, eminent domain may be the solution. And, ever since Kelo, no politician wants to put their fingerprints on it.
So they basically said, if they are not ready to look at them, they are not ready. Pushing it often times end up hurting because the planners will grab the next project, even if a roundabout was never realistic, and go through the steps just for the consultants to say it’s not feasible. That gives them the ability to look at you and say, “I told you so! Look at all the money you caused us to waste”, and roundabouts could be dead for a lot longer.