Posts: 2,163
Threads: 17
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
76
Quote:Grant’s secondary motive in removing roundabouts, however, is traffic control.
[...] “A roundabout doesn’t give us sufficient control of the network to control priority and demand.”
He clicks play on a video of blinking lights that move across another map of the city. These are cars, captured by number plate recognition. Grant points to large areas that are dark: gaps in his control of the network. “Look here,” he says. “Roundabout, roundabout, roundabout ... we had no control of that corridor of the city. It was a known unknown. Sometimes you can nudge people who drive in a Thaler-and-Sunstein way (authors of the influential book on human behaviour). But sometimes you have to actually intervene. If gaining more control means replacing roundabouts, then that’s the way it has to be.”
Aha, the traffic engineers are getting frustrated with a lack of absolute control. This explains a lot.
Posts: 1,227
Threads: 6
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
31
(10-23-2015, 09:54 AM)Canard Wrote: I am sure that there are dozens of engineers and planners who have done hard data and aren't just sitting around getting all hot and heavy reading "Roundabouts Weekly". 
I'm sure of the opposite, human nature being what it is and having managed engineers in the work place. We are after all techies who love the latest technological breakthrough, often forgetting to leave well enough alone. As for proof I'd say Homer Watson is plenty of examples of ill conceived roundabouts that do not work in terms of pedestrian traffic or turn-to-the-right lanes.
Posts: 6,905
Threads: 32
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
224
What's wrong with exiting the right of a Roundabout? That is the easiest transition to make in one.
Posts: 1,227
Threads: 6
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
31
(10-23-2015, 02:30 PM)Canard Wrote: What's wrong with exiting the right of a Roundabout? That is the easiest transition to make in one.
In busy roundabouts you want channelized right turns. This makes the roundabout safer for pedestrians while allowing higher traffic volumes to go through.
Posts: 1,227
Threads: 6
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
31
10-23-2015, 03:02 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-23-2015, 03:07 PM by BuildingScout.)
Or alternatively use this design:
![[Image: turbo-roundabout.jpg]](https://bicycledutch.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/turbo-roundabout.jpg)
Posts: 10,270
Threads: 65
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
293
Bu really, how much pedestrian traffic is there in our roundabouts, apart from the one at Block Line and Homer Watson (which I think is the wrong solution for that intersection, both for cars and for pedestrians)?
Posts: 744
Threads: 2
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
11
(10-23-2015, 03:04 PM)tomh009 Wrote: Bu really, how much pedestrian traffic is there in our roundabouts, apart from the one at Block Line and Homer Watson (which I think is the wrong solution for that intersection, both for cars and for pedestrians)?
A different question is how much pedestrian traffic do we want to have. I think there's a lot of intention by local governments to get more people walking and taking transit, including in suburban areas. With much better transit on Ira Needles, that's not theoretical.
Posts: 10,270
Threads: 65
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
293
(10-23-2015, 05:42 PM)mpd618 Wrote: (10-23-2015, 03:04 PM)tomh009 Wrote: Bu really, how much pedestrian traffic is there in our roundabouts, apart from the one at Block Line and Homer Watson (which I think is the wrong solution for that intersection, both for cars and for pedestrians)?
A different question is how much pedestrian traffic do we want to have. I think there's a lot of intention by local governments to get more people walking and taking transit, including in suburban areas. With much better transit on Ira Needles, that's not theoretical.
However, transit will bring people to the area, and take them back. It won't induce them to cross the road -- all the commercial properties are on the west side of Ira Needles. And if that's the case, the roundabouts are a non-problem as far as pedestrians go.
Posts: 744
Threads: 2
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
11
(10-23-2015, 07:38 PM)tomh009 Wrote: However, transit will bring people to the area, and take them back. It won't induce them to cross the road -- all the commercial properties are on the west side of Ira Needles. And if that's the case, the roundabouts are a non-problem as far as pedestrians go.
It's also people that live in the neighbourhood. And there's commercial along Ira Needles more than at the Boardwalk - e.g. if you're going to Dutchie's, you'll need to cross the street to get on a return bus.
Posts: 278
Threads: 4
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
5
For a forum that is predominantly pro-bike and pedestrian, I've often found the seemingly blind love of roundabouts to be hard to reconcile; at least not without some kind of pedestrian alternative pushed for by these intersections.
Posts: 10,270
Threads: 65
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
293
I can only speak for myself ... I walk a lot, and will walk a lot more next month when we move downtown. I will probably even bicycle more. Not to mention LRT once it starts running.
But the reality is that there are a LOT of people driving: private cars (and commercial vehicles) make up more than 95% of the traffic, and the roads need to work for them, too. The roundabouts we have now (Homer Watson/Block Line notwithstanding) seem to do pretty well in keeping the traffic moving and reducing idling (and pollution) at red lights, with few problems, maybe because there are not so many cyclists or pedestrians on those roads.
But I don't think it's blind love -- I don't even subscribe to Roundabouts Weekly!
Posts: 6,905
Threads: 32
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
224
I am so glad that you touched on the idling thing. Yes, this forum is predominantly focused on cycling/walkability, but as a hypermiler (I own the two most fuel-efficeint cars sold in Canada), there is nothing as disheartening as getting into a a nice pulse-and-glide cycle, anticipating traffic up ahead carefully, and then seeing a light change to yellow... not because cross-traffic or a pedestrian triggered/requested it... but because it was on a timer and nobody's there. So much wasted energy. I wish someone would do a study on fuel consumption wasted with deceleration/idling/re-acceleration with "dumb" traffic lights. It's not a question of being impatient and wanting to not be held up - it's quite the opposite. I would much rather travel at a lower, consistent average speed, vs. having to stop often but travel quicker in between those stops (what most people illogically want). Everything is smoother, quieter, more relaxed.
Driving carefully on Ira Needles by adjusting your speed (slowing down, basically) to wait for gaps and then inserting at just the right time into roundabouts not only is more fuel efficient, but it's smoother and more predictable for everyone around you.
My least-favourite urban sound is when a light turns green and everyone just stupidly floors it - wasting fuel, shorting the longevity of their vehicles, and creating noise pollution.
TL;DR: Roundabouts make for smoother, calmer driving, which is better for everyone.
Posts: 1,310
Threads: 2
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
39
I often take H-W out of town, either down through to Blair Rd or the 401 depending on where works takes me. The traffic flows best between block-line and Ottawa. I think a pedestrian bridge wouwith ramps would have been the better solution for the current roundabout. I don't think traffic lights would make that intersection any safer for any users, lots of pedestrians seem to be killed at intersections that have traffic lights.
Posts: 6,905
Threads: 32
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
224
The Franklin/Sheldon roundabout opened sometime this week, and I'm absolutely loving it!!
Posts: 1,094
Threads: 3
Joined: Aug 2015
Reputation:
57
The Franklin / Savage one opened a few eels ago too, I believe. Anyone give it a test run?
|
