A Roundabout Issue...Long and Political.

I need a gut check

I have found myself in the dubious position of having to stake out vocal opposition to a planned roundabout at an intersection near one of the main staging areas for many of our club rides. The Citizens Action Committee narrowly voted to defer this project a year for deeper evaluation, but that committee is one of 9 votes to occur in a couple weeks at the Policy Committee, and I have to gauge how/if I will stand again in opposition.

The Engineering Presentation

As a motorist, I have looked forward to this traffic circle; the intersection is prone to peak hour backups (not major - of about 20 minutes) and slow downs when the adjacent church lets out, but mostly because the motorists just don't get how to efficiently handle the existing four way stop. The area is active with walkers, road riders, leasure/path riders, skaters, etc. The field to the southwest has become a defacto community park.

Here's my issue:
- this is an intersection used often by our club as we frequently gather for group rides (25 participants last Tuesday) at the church to the southwest.
- currently, with the four way stop, cyclists stand in equal position as the cars...and traffic is slowed by the stop.
- as I see this, the cars will not have to stop, will go faster (regardless of the posted speed), the multi lane ramps will cause confusion for all, and cyclists will be more vulnerable in the circle, but all bike/ped activities will be at greater risk in crossing because of faster moving cars.

The City Engineer quickly pointed out the new sidepath/crosswalk design and pointed out that vulnerable cyclists could simply enter the sidepaths and cross there. I told him that the expectation that one class of user would be expected to abandon their legal right to safe road access was simply offensive.

So, please:
Look at the design.

Am I overreacting?

Do any of you live in communities with rotary designs like this? How do they work?

I don't oppose accommodation to improve the flow of traffic (of all types), but I see this as actually increasing the speed of vehicles at the risk of all vulnerable road users.

The intersection gets about 12,000 cars/day and will be the first rotary here installed at the intersection of two arterials.

Our community was considering a roundabout and my top question is - how do you deal with pedestrians and bikers in a roundabout? Let's be serious, when I'm driving in a roundabout I am watching for cars. I don't think roundabouts lend themselves to pedestrians and bikes.

The sidewalks are yellow in the plan that I linked. The crosswalks would be "sheltered" with "pedestrian refuge islands"...but I still believe the traffic will be moving faster.

This would be our third or fourth rotary...but a larger one like this is not "traffic calming"

Is it enough to suggest signs indicating that "all cars yield to bikes and pedestrians". Are there speed slowing features that could be added?

I see several things that are not right with the proposal but I will try to keep it brief :rolleyes:

I think the most important thing to remember is that many of the people doing planning and engineering tend to lump bikes with pedestrians. Bikes and peds have very different needs. Here, let me say that again: bikes and peds have very different needs. But the traditional way of doing business has been to lump them. Many local governments have established bicycle transportation working groups and really do want to improve conditions for bikes but the reality is that when faced with construction and right of way costs (and political pressure from the driving public), the biggest losers will be non-cars. I think many cities would like to do more but don't because they feel hamstrung either by hits to their already small budgets or by the requirements of funding partners (such as matching funds that they might receive through a federal transportation program).

And of course there is the problem that many planning and engineering types don't think bikes belong on the roads. I say this with absolute confidence since I work with these people every day. In most cases it's not malicious. They don't ride bikes, so they simply don't know. A very normal response that I get when I ask them to join me for a ride is "it's too dangerous" (followed by "and there are too many hills" :p ).

All that said, multiple lane roundies are tough for drivers, but I do think this is going to change over time as we see more of them and people learn how to use them. However, they make lane choice in the roundie difficult for someone on a bicycle. Speeds will generally be posted as quite slow (well, they should be), but whether drivers heed the speed limit is another story. Slow enough and savvy cyclists can ride with the speed of traffic (take the lane) and negotiate.

One of the legs has a split that would help eliminate some of the multiple lane choice problem. However, this type of design requires a lot more space, which means more right of way, bigger footprint (and associated environmental effects), and much higher cost. I suspect the city is probably using a limited grant-funded pot of money.

And I look at the side streets leading into the intersection and don't see those as being very bicycle friendly unless the speed limits are such that bikes can ride at the speed of traffic. It's really easy to create more problems by improving an intersection for cars but not the streets that feed the intersection.

Hope that adds to your collection of thoughts about the situation. Good luck!

(Sorry, this got long.....)

There's a roundabout that was put in close to me at a similar intersection--one road had fairly heavy traffic (beltway exit about a half mile in one direction; intersection with a road with I-95 access about a half a mile in the other direction). The cross road was generally not so busy, but has a university campus on one side so at certain times of the day and during basketball games it would have very heavy traffic. This is also a route with lots of cyclists--the Park and Ride lot near I-95 is a staging area for group rides, there's a popular mountain biking trail entrance to the state park across from that, and the residential area to the north has lots of rental housing popular with the university students who do, on occasion, ride bikes. Few to no pedestrains, though--no sidewalks on the main road, and although there's a bus line that comes through, there are no stops right in that vicinity. Pedestrians from the residential area going to the college do have to cross the road, however. Average daily traffic volume on the main road according to a 2010 county map is about 25,000, but a 2005 study I read said the *intersection* handles 12,000 cars a day. Not sure if the volume has increased that much in five years or if the other side roads take a lot of the cars before they reach the intersection. Probably something in between.

I *love* the roundabout they put in. In general I'm a fan of roundabouts--I like how they keep traffic moving and how it makes it so much easier to turn left whether you're on a bike or in a car. I like it that you don't have to sit there looking at the other drivers trying to figure out who got there first and who is to the right of who. I like how they generally decrease the speed of the traffic going through (no one just zips straight through like you get at a typical intersection--everyone has to slow to navigate the circle, but no one has to come to a complete stop except at the busiest times of the day) and that they essentially keep everyone moving in pretty much the same direction, which is just easier to navigate. And the research I've read also points out that when accidents do happen, they tend to be less serious--fewer people hitting others broadside and lower speed accidents overall. As a cyclist, I find that I can usually go through a roundabout without even pausing--if you're going right or straight, you can just get to the right and keep moving. Turning left requires a bit more attention, but I find it less hair raising than turning left in most other circumstances. I've never had a problem with drivers not noticing me when I'm cycling through a roundabout.

That said, the roundabout near me is NOTHING like the one they are proposing for your area. They kept ours with just one lane in each direction, not two like they are proposing for yours, and there are no extra ramps and no sidepaths and sidewalks like yours shows. That level of roundabout seems unnecessarily large for that intersection, given the nature and volume of the roads. I tend to agree with you that it will probably speed up the traffic going through, particularly for anyone turning right--they're just going to whiz through those ramps. I can't help but wonder if this is being put in in advance of a lot of development? Are they planning to put a shopping center in there somewhere, or some office buildings? Is there going to be a lot of increase in residential development and traffic? I just look at that plan and think that they must have a long-term plan to widen the roads to allow for a big increase in the traffic volume.

Roundabouts seem increasingly popular around here, but for folks with vision impairments, they're really difficult. At least that's the message I've heard from some local people here in response to the roundabouts.

In the last 5 years, my city has put in at least a dozen roundabouts. I really like them, both bike and car. We have one I hate on both the bike and the car - it has 2 lanes and the inner lane MAY exit but the outer doesn't have to - that is a nightmare and I can't believe we haven't had more accidents on it. I avoid that one on the bike, or I ride right in the middle of both lanes. I don't care who that ticks off.
My take on roundabouts - they generally (always?) have suggested posted speed limits <25 mph. On a bike I take the lane, as a group of cyclists, I'd take the lane... I can easily go 15 mph on my bike through the intersection and that's what I do. Only once have I had a truck get upset with me, and I don't think he was upset, I think he was stupid. Midway through the single lane roundabout, he past me by driving up the center concrete area.
My second least favorite one is like yours - where there is a right turn lane somewhat separate from the roundabout to allow cars just turning right to not really enter it. This one isn't a problem, except the merging on the other side - but so far cars turning right have always yielded to me getting over across them before they merge into the continuing lane. This one is within a mile of my house, and I've taken it 100s of times.
I wonder instead of lobbying against it, lobby for posted bike signs and education? It would be easy to post suggested speed limits and bike signs and "bikes take lane" (or whatever would be appropriate) in the roundabout entrances?

We too have a roundabout where our first spring ride will lead off from in late April 2011. The last time we used this route, there was a driver that did nothing but BEEP at the riders in the roundabout. She was coming from the left, and there was enough time for four of the 15 or so bikes to get out to the right side of the roundabout lane without interfering with her progression. Very unnerving to ride next to a constantly honking car! As one poster said, their community thought perhaps cyclists should dismount and cross.(!) That to me would be unnecessary here as bicyclists have the same rules of the road here as cars, and there would be more of delay as we all parade across like a line of ducklings. Here in Green Bay, there is also a "mound" often with plantings, at the center of each roundabout which impedes a cyclist's view of what is coming around the bend. In Wisconsin all new roads are supposed to be pedestrian/biker accessible, and pedestrians in crosswalks have right of way. BUT: I don't see crosswalks on the roundabouts. It is like dodge'em on the roundabouts - especially the multi-laners. So how ARE other communities/bike groups handling this?

Why do you say this one won't be traffic calming? What's the difference?

Sue, the current intersection has a 4 Way Stop. That's the best type of traffic calming.

The planned change, despite a 15mph posted speed, is projected by the City Engineer to result in 17mph left turns, 25mph straight through, and 27mph right turns. That's not calming...and adds to the inherent risk to the cyclist IMHO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TsPoet

My second least favorite one is like yours - where there is a right turn lane somewhat separate from the roundabout to allow cars just turning right to not really enter it. ...

I wonder instead of lobbying against it, lobby for posted bike signs and education? It would be easy to post suggested speed limits and bike signs and "bikes take lane" (or whatever would be appropriate) in the roundabout entrances?

---

I agree, I'm not so sure about the safety of the design of your particular roundabout with dual lane entries and single lane exits.

And well-designed signage and education programs could go a long way.

It might be worth your while to do some research to find out what safety/accident statistics exist for roundabouts similar to the one proposed in your community, and at the same time look for some design strategies, whether it be signage, an education program, or a different lane configuration, that might improve bicycle safety in this case.

I would also hope that your DOT/traffic engineers would also have some good data regarding vehicle speeds during peak traffic flow vs. speeds during non-peak times. Overlaying that with what you know about how the number of cyclists using the intersection varies throughout the week might provide valuable insight for all parties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NbyNW

I would also hope that your DOT/traffic engineers would also have some good data regarding vehicle speeds during peak traffic flow vs. speeds during non-peak times. Overlaying that with what you know about how the number of cyclists using the intersection varies throughout the week might provide valuable insight for all parties.

---

In an experiment in a nearby traffic circle, I informed the City Engineer that someone :rolleyes::p was able to go straight through at 42mph without any traffic and the tires didn't even squeal. He wasn't surprised, and the point was made.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Bloom

In an experiment in a nearby traffic circle, I informed the City Engineer that someone :rolleyes::p was able to go straight through at 42mph without any traffic and the tires didn't even squeal. He wasn't surprised, and the point was made.

---

what point?
I can drive 120 mph on the bypass on my way to work. I could also drive 120 mph through a stop sign. (that's the max speed my car can supposedly drive comfortably according to the MINI forum, I've never driven it that fast to verify).
Roundabouts are wonderful things, they truly are. They are, in fact traffic calming. Stopping is not calming - it results in turbulence. flowing is calming.
Americans need educated on how to drive (and ride) them, though.

Calming does not result in more danger than presently exists...

Maybe we are arguing semantics...as a motorist, I have looked forward to this circle for years! Now that I see the design, the only loser I see is a road cyclist turning either left of going straight. Their right to the road is protected by law, but they come out considerably more vulnerable with this design and increased speed.

My point on the speed is that part of the justification for it being traffic calming was the posted 15mph speed...but the engineer himself noted that design will allow for a speed considerably greater than that...making the cyclist that much more vulnerable...

Tonight, i learned that the mayor pulled the project from this Year's agenda so the design can be reviewed to address safety concerns.