Wisconsin overspending on roundabouts?

[peterj920]

Another roundabout is being constructed by WISDOT at Wis 57 and County X in De Pere.  The price tag is $1.7 million and the intersection will close for about 3 months.  About 15 miles south, the intersection of Wis 57 and US 10 had traffic signals, but were replaced with a $2 million roundabout.  There have also been numerous projects around Northeast Wisconsin where traffic signals were replaced by roundabouts that cost $1 million+.  Wouldn't it be cheaper to leave the intersections with signals alone and consider traffic signals instead of roundabouts at some intersections?  The intersections also would not have to close for 2-3 months and signals would probably cost $200,000 at the most to install, which is the fraction of what these roundabouts cost. 

[TheHighwayMan3561]

You also have to consider the electric bills traffic lights rack up. While it may not look like a lot of money per individual signal, if you remove a bunch of them you can make a big dent.

[peterj920]

You also have to consider the electric bills traffic lights rack up. While it may not look like a lot of money per individual signal, if you remove a bunch of them you can make a big dent.

I saw a press release from the DOT when the traffic signals were being converted to LED they said the electric bill would be reduced from $3000/year per intersection to $500/year per intersection. 
The electric bill argument doesn't fly in Wisconsin since they put way more street lights up at a roundabout intersection than at a traffic signal.  I know that they're only on at night, but I have an image posted below of a typical WISDOT roundabout.  Look how many street lights there are at the intersection. 

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.213638,-88.283492,3a,90y,43.21h,85.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1saeR0dywGCr81x1v0NlYC3A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

[jakeroot]

If the state has the money to build an intersection which is safer, better for the environment, and better for traffic congestion, by all means it should spend the money.

[lordsutch]

At least in Georgia, the latest roundabouts that are being installed are using solar-powered LED lighting systems; with the feed-in tariff they're probably making GDOT money in the summers.

Besides which, signals also have ongoing maintenance costs beyond the cost of electricity; the controllers can fry out, LEDs need to be replaced (although usually less often than in the past), detector loops/sensors, crosswalk buttons, and mounting systems fail, etc.

[The Ghostbuster]

I don't mind the roundabouts. Maybe that's easy for me to say since I've never driven a car in my life.

[I-39]

Wisconsin is indeed overspending on roundabouts, and it's highway system in general.

I hear there may not be enough money to finish the Verona Road project because of budget issues. Yet, I sit here and look at all the pointless highway building Wisconsin has done over the last two decades and wonder why they didn't see this coming.

[Molandfreak]

The River Falls 29/35/65 roundabout shouldn't exist, but that's about it. I'm glad Wisconsin gets around to improving traffic flow wherever/whenever possible.

[GeekJedi]

Wisconsin is indeed overspending on roundabouts, and it's highway system in general.

I hear there may not be enough money to finish the Verona Road project because of budget issues. Yet, I sit here and look at all the pointless highway building Wisconsin has done over the last two decades and wonder why they didn't see this coming.

As someone who pays taxes in Wisconsin, I completely disagree with you. There is a significant amount of effort put into roundabout studies, and in most cases the roundabouts improve traffic flow, reduce fuel usage, reduce accidents and (in the case of previously signaled intersections) save money, especially now with LED lighting.

If you want to go back two decades, please do. Up until recently, the funding for those projects was completely paid for by gas taxes and segregated from the state budget. They essentially were required to use the money only for road projects, so they did. For those of us who use the roads on a daily basis, I'd hardly say that it's pointless.

[JREwing78]

Honestly, I would be OK with another 20 cents per gallon in fuel taxes to continue our current construction program and not have to bond to do it.

I also pay Wisconsin taxes.

[Roadguy]

Another roundabout is being constructed by WISDOT at Wis 57 and County X in De Pere.  The price tag is $1.7 million and the intersection will close for about 3 months.  About 15 miles south, the intersection of Wis 57 and US 10 had traffic signals, but were replaced with a $2 million roundabout.  There have also been numerous projects around Northeast Wisconsin where traffic signals were replaced by roundabouts that cost $1 million+.  Wouldn't it be cheaper to leave the intersections with signals alone and consider traffic signals instead of roundabouts at some intersections?  The intersections also would not have to close for 2-3 months and signals would probably cost $200,000 at the most to install, which is the fraction of what these roundabouts cost.

Particularly at WIS 57 and County Road X there is a horizontal curve to the north of the intersection and vehicles turning out of County Road X have a hard time judging if they have an adequate gap to pull out onto WIS 57.  There are two reasons, it is so close to the speed limit change that there is a large variation of speed on WIS 57 and horizontal curves skew drivers judgement of how far a vehicle is away from them.  Another thing is that the peak hours in the AM and PM it is tough to find gaps in traffic on WIS 57, the longer drivers wait, the more impatient they get and the greater risk they will take to pull into traffic.  There are also not turn lanes on WIS 57 to County Road X which is creates a less safe intersection.

If you really wanted to know the answer, call the DOT and request the ICE (Intersection Control Evaluation) report for that intersection.  DOT typically looks at safety, operations, construction cost, right of way costs, practically, operations and maintenance costs, environmental impacts, pedestrians and bikes, and oversize/overweight vehicles.

Cost of the equipment especially with the new monotubes is a bit higher at $250k and that is just for the materials and labor to put up the signal.  That does not include other improvements that are necessary like left and right turn lanes, pedestrian accommodations, etc.  Those additional pavement, drainage, right of way, etc costs add up quickly and can amount to more than a roundabout easily.  Then throw in maintenance costs that lighting at a roundabout is way cheaper to maintain than traffic signal equipment. 

Lastly, safety is a huge factor as well. At virtually every roundabout versus signal, consider the fact that anyone can still run a red light at a signal and T-bone someone (which happens and at high speeds like WIS 57 and County Road X usually is a fatality or incapacitating injury meaning they will live the the injury for the rest of their life) versus a roundabout the typical crash is a side-swipe which typically is much lower in injury severity or even just vehicular damage where the occupants walk away unharmed.

[DaBigE]

You also have to consider the electric bills traffic lights rack up. While it may not look like a lot of money per individual signal, if you remove a bunch of them you can make a big dent.

I saw a press release from the DOT when the traffic signals were being converted to LED they said the electric bill would be reduced from $3000/year per intersection to $500/year per intersection. 
The electric bill argument doesn't fly in Wisconsin since they put way more street lights up at a roundabout intersection than at a traffic signal.  I know that they're only on at night, but I have an image posted below of a typical WISDOT roundabout.  Look how many street lights there are at the intersection. 

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.213638,-88.283492,3a,90y,43.21h,85.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1saeR0dywGCr81x1v0NlYC3A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

From what I've heard, WisDOT may be finally reevaluating roundabout lighting. This is their current guidance TGM 11-04-01 for details vs their signalized intersection guidance: TGM 11-05-01. One key difference is the roundabout lighting policy takes into account transitional lighting (going from an unlit roadway to a fully illuminated intersection) which explains the proliferation of light poles. Yet they're perfectly ok going from 0 to fully illuminated with signalized intersections and no lighting at most all-way stop-controlled intersections.

[peterj920]

Another roundabout is being constructed by WISDOT at Wis 57 and County X in De Pere.  The price tag is $1.7 million and the intersection will close for about 3 months.  About 15 miles south, the intersection of Wis 57 and US 10 had traffic signals, but were replaced with a $2 million roundabout.  There have also been numerous projects around Northeast Wisconsin where traffic signals were replaced by roundabouts that cost $1 million+.  Wouldn't it be cheaper to leave the intersections with signals alone and consider traffic signals instead of roundabouts at some intersections?  The intersections also would not have to close for 2-3 months and signals would probably cost $200,000 at the most to install, which is the fraction of what these roundabouts cost.

Particularly at WIS 57 and County Road X there is a horizontal curve to the north of the intersection and vehicles turning out of County Road X have a hard time judging if they have an adequate gap to pull out onto WIS 57.  There are two reasons, it is so close to the speed limit change that there is a large variation of speed on WIS 57 and horizontal curves skew drivers judgement of how far a vehicle is away from them.  Another thing is that the peak hours in the AM and PM it is tough to find gaps in traffic on WIS 57, the longer drivers wait, the more impatient they get and the greater risk they will take to pull into traffic.  There are also not turn lanes on WIS 57 to County Road X which is creates a less safe intersection.

If you really wanted to know the answer, call the DOT and request the ICE (Intersection Control Evaluation) report for that intersection.  DOT typically looks at safety, operations, construction cost, right of way costs, practically, operations and maintenance costs, environmental impacts, pedestrians and bikes, and oversize/overweight vehicles.

Cost of the equipment especially with the new monotubes is a bit higher at $250k and that is just for the materials and labor to put up the signal.  That does not include other improvements that are necessary like left and right turn lanes, pedestrian accommodations, etc.  Those additional pavement, drainage, right of way, etc costs add up quickly and can amount to more than a roundabout easily.  Then throw in maintenance costs that lighting at a roundabout is way cheaper to maintain than traffic signal equipment. 

Lastly, safety is a huge factor as well. At virtually every roundabout versus signal, consider the fact that anyone can still run a red light at a signal and T-bone someone (which happens and at high speeds like WIS 57 and County Road X usually is a fatality or incapacitating injury meaning they will live the the injury for the rest of their life) versus a roundabout the typical crash is a side-swipe which typically is much lower in injury severity or even just vehicular damage where the occupants walk away unharmed.

I actually drive that intersection quite a bit and I think traffic signals would make more sense since it's more of a rural intersection.   There's more traffic on Wis 57 than County X and I don't think roundabouts are good fits for roads that are signed at 55 mph.  Even with turn lanes, a traffic signal would be a lot cheaper.  I know a roundabout would be cheaper to maintain, but it is significantly more expensive and in 100 years I don't think the maintenance costs of a signal would add up to the cost of a roundabout.  $1.8 million is a lot of money.  Even if the signals cost more and some money would have to be used to put some turn lanes in, it would still be cheaper.   What do you think about intersections that already have traffic signals, do you think the roundabout replacements are worth it?  Personally I don't think so.  The intersection of US 10 and Wis 57 worked perfectly with signals.  The traffic on US 10 stayed green since it carried more traffic until a car pulled up on Wis 57, then the signal would change.  There were hardly, if any crashes there so why spend $2 million on a roundabout when the intersection was working just fine?

[GeekJedi]

Actually, roundabouts are GREAT fits for busy or sight-limited intersections at roads with 55 MPH limits! It forces traffic to slow and all but eliminates the problems with cross traffic plowing into cars driving 60+ MPH.

[jakeroot]

...I think traffic signals would make more sense since it's more of a rural intersection.   There's more traffic on Wis 57 than County X and I don't think roundabouts are good fits for roads that are signed at 55 mph.

Actually, roundabouts are GREAT fits for busy or sight-limited intersections at roads with 55 MPH limits! It forces traffic to slow and all but eliminates the problems with cross traffic plowing into cars driving 60+ MPH.

That's what I was gonna say, GeekJedi. Getting T-boned at 55 to 60 mph is gonna fuckin' hurt. Peter, even if a roundabout is more expensive, roundabouts are significantly safer in the long-term. And, they can handle a lot more traffic than a signal, so they'll last longer without needing to be maintained. Honestly in the long run I think roundabouts are cheaper.

[Mdcastle]

All the light poles they save by refusing to light even the busiest of rural interchanges are evidently going to roundabouts.

[Brandon]

All the light poles they save by refusing to light even the busiest of rural interchanges are evidently going to roundabouts.

Why do you need light poles at interchanges?  They're a waste, IMHO.  With all the lighting vehicles already have, and all the reflectorization, lighting is redundant.  In addition, the high mast lights that IDOT seems to prefer do nothing but scatter light during fog and mist conditions.  It's better without the lights.

[The Ghostbuster]

I don't think Wisconsin's DOT is going to stop building roundabouts anytime soon.

Ho Ho! Hey Hey! Roundabouts are here to stay! (Or something like that)

[dvferyance]

The answer is yes no question about. This is a heated topic right now the DOT is flat broke. They should care about what the people feel and stop building so many roundabouts. We are paying for them they effect our lives not theirs.

[dvferyance]

Actually, roundabouts are GREAT fits for busy or sight-limited intersections at roads with 55 MPH limits! It forces traffic to slow and all but eliminates the problems with cross traffic plowing into cars driving 60+ MPH.

How is that a good thing? When I am going 55 it can be dangerous to have to slow way way down in such a short amount of time. Roundabouts are not meant for high speed roads they don't even have them on high speed roads in Europe.

[jakeroot]

Actually, roundabouts are GREAT fits for busy or sight-limited intersections at roads with 55 MPH limits! It forces traffic to slow and all but eliminates the problems with cross traffic plowing into cars driving 60+ MPH.

How is that a good thing? When I am going 55 it can be dangerous to have to slow way way down in such a short amount of time.

It's your choice to slow down in such short order. There's plenty of warning.

Roundabouts are effective in rural locations because rural highways have rather high speeds, so when collisions occur at traditional four-way junctions, they can be ridiculously bad. Having traffic pass through a roundabout has been proven to be much safer. Are they a little annoying? Sure. But the benefits are well-established (most rural locations are 1-lane roundabouts, which have excellent safety records), and most DOT's simply don't care if it's annoying; the ultimate goal is safety, after all.

Roundabouts are not meant for high speed roads they don't even have them on high speed roads in Europe.

That's not even remotely true. GB uses roundabouts at most major dual-carriageway junctions that aren't grade-separated (speed limit 70 leading up to many).

[GeekJedi]

Actually, roundabouts are GREAT fits for busy or sight-limited intersections at roads with 55 MPH limits! It forces traffic to slow and all but eliminates the problems with cross traffic plowing into cars driving 60+ MPH.

How is that a good thing? When I am going 55 it can be dangerous to have to slow way way down in such a short amount of time. Roundabouts are not meant for high speed roads they don't even have them on high speed roads in Europe.

Jakeroot did a pretty good job at shutting down your argument, but I'll add:

It's not dangerous at all to slow down from 55 on a rural road. We're talking about exceptionally well signed and lit areas with good sight lines. The roundabouts themselves are designed to be pretty safe if for some reason you're an idiot talking on the cell or texting and happen to be flying into one. I guess the stoplights on WI-50, WI-36, and a million other state highways should be removed because they cause you to slow down from 55 when they're red? The difference is that it's much easier to blow a red light and kill someone than it is to do it in a roundabout.

And, by the way, can you cite a single study that says that roundabouts are not meant for high-speed roads? One single actual study anywhere? Because there have been plenty done that show the traffic "calming" effect has actually reduced the number of serious crashes at uncontrolled high-speed intersections. Just in case you missed them, here's a sample:

"A 2005 study for the California Department of Transportation evaluated the perceived concern of roundabouts at high-speed roadways through five case studies of roundabouts in the United States and Canada. The report concluded that there is not statistically sufficient evidence of a correlation between geometric design of high-speed approaches and the intersection safety performance in North America. This study also found that positive safety performance is typically attributed to visible entries, reduced entry speeds, extension of the splitter island to the deceleration length, and landscaped center islands that prevent "see through"  (15)." From: http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1429&context=etd

"Michigan roundabouts with high speed approaches. To our knowledge, all of these locations are functioning well, with safety performance significantly better than would be available through other intersection control types." From: http://www.mqtcty.org/Projects/MSC-DLP/Road-Improvements/High%20Speed%20Approach%20Memo%20(4-1-16).pdf

"Although, little published research has focused on the overall safety effectiveness of roundabouts on high speed roadways two studies (14,15) show substantial reduction in injury crashes at roundabouts . Isebrands (15) reports the average injury crash frequency was reduced by 84%, average injury crash rate was reduced by 89%, angle crashes were reduced by 86%, and fatal crashes were eliminated at seventeen rural roundabouts with high speed approaches." From: http://docs.trb.org/prp/14-5582.pdf

Would you like me to continue?

[kalvado]

Actually, roundabouts are GREAT fits for busy or sight-limited intersections at roads with 55 MPH limits! It forces traffic to slow and all but eliminates the problems with cross traffic plowing into cars driving 60+ MPH.

How is that a good thing? When I am going 55 it can be dangerous to have to slow way way down in such a short amount of time.

It's your choice to slow down in such short order. There's plenty of warning.

Roundabouts are effective in rural locations because rural highways have rather high speeds, so when collisions occur at traditional four-way junctions, they can be ridiculously bad. Having traffic pass through a roundabout has been proven to be much safer. Are they a little annoying? Sure. But the benefits are well-established (most rural locations are 1-lane roundabouts, which have excellent safety records), and most DOT's simply don't care if it's annoying; the ultimate goal is safety, after all.

Roundabouts are not meant for high speed roads they don't even have them on high speed roads in Europe.

That's not even remotely true. GB uses roundabouts at most major dual-carriageway junctions that aren't grade-separated (speed limit 70 leading up to many).

And in another thread you confess that studies on roundabout  safety are seriously flawed..

[kphoger]

And in another thread you confess that studies on roundabout  safety are seriously flawed..

Therefore everything he said is total schlock, while your statements with nothing substantial to back them up still stand with a golden halo?  You're the one who resurrected the thread from its ten-month-old coffin; it's time for you to grow an argument.

[Chris]

Count the roundabouts in this area of Green Bay:


I've noticed the high volume of roundabouts in Wisconsin on my browsing through Google Earth.

Roundabouts are pretty efficient (also for U-turns) but too many of them are annoying. At least they're building large roundabouts in most of Wisconsin, some European roundabouts (particularly in the Netherlands, but also Germany from time to time) are very tight resulting in very low traffic speeds (under 15 mph) and discomfort due to the tight turns. Many Dutch roundabouts only have a 50 - 60 ft radius, even on higher speed roads outside urban areas.