Wisconsin overspending on roundabouts?

[peterj920]

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.

Since that picture was taken another roundabout was added in the area.  The I-41project between Green Bay and Oshkosh added 40 roundabouts, which is considered the largest roundabout project in the world according to the International Conference of Roundabouts, which is holding their convention from May 8-10 2017 in Green Bay.

[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.

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).

Since when is Green Bay in Europe? I don't know how you can say going from 55 way down to 20 in less than a 1/4 of a mile is safer than going at a consistent speed. That makes no sense I am not the only one that feels this way local talk radio host in Milwaukee have raised this very same point as I have. The US 18 roundabout in Dodgeville is a perfect example of this you go from 45 up to 55 but then have to slow way down just after you have accelerated to go through the roundabout. That's more dangerous not safer. These roundabouts have nothing to do with safety. The DOT builds them because they receive federal funds for doing it.

[lordsutch]

GB = Great Britain, not Green Bay, in the post.

[jakeroot]

GB = Great Britain, not Green Bay, in the post.

Thank you. I thought it would be obvious given the context...I guess not.

I don't know how you can say going from 55 way down to 20 in less than a 1/4 of a mile is safer than going at a consistent speed. That makes no sense I am not the only one that feels this way local talk radio host in Milwaukee have raised this very same point as I have. The US 18 roundabout in Dodgeville is a perfect example of this you go from 45 up to 55 but then have to slow way down just after you have accelerated to go through the roundabout. That's more dangerous not safer. These roundabouts have nothing to do with safety. The DOT builds them because they receive federal funds for doing it.

Slowing down and speeding up is not inherently dangerous. Slowing down quickly, because you t-boned somebody who was making a left (and didn't see you) ... that's where quickly slowing down can be dangerous.

As the great Jeremy Clarkson once said,

Speed has never killed anyone. Suddenly becoming stationary, that's what gets you.

[jeffandnicole]

I don't know how you can say going from 55 way down to 20 in less than a 1/4 of a mile is safer than going at a consistent speed.

What about going from 55 to 0 when a traffic light turns red as you approach it? If the yellow cycle is timed for 6 seconds, that give a driver about 1/10th of a mile to slow down...a lot less than 1/4 mile.

Also, traffic jams on our highways, including normal, everyday congestion, very often involve situations where motorists go from about 70 mph to very slow speeds (or stopped) in the matter of seconds, without advanced warning.

(Edited to fix quoted material)

[kphoger]

I don't know how you can say going from 55 way down to 20 in less than a 1/4 of a mile is safer than going at a consistent speed.

What about going from 55 to 0 when a traffic light turns red as you approach it? If the yellow cycle is timed for 6 seconds, that give a driver about 1/10th of a mile to slow down...a lot less than 1/4 mile.

[fixed quote]

Exactly.  Drivers slow way down all the time in all sorts of situations, and stoplights are chief among them.  Or, in other words, we can say going from 55 way down to 20 in less than a 1/4 of a mile is safer than going at a consistent speed because roundabouts preclude the possibility of a T-bone or head-on collision from someone who blew a red light.

Since when is Green Bay in Europe?

Face.  Palm.

The US 18 roundabout in Dodgeville is a perfect example of this you go from 45 up to 55 but then have to slow way down just after you have accelerated to go through the roundabout. That's more dangerous not safer.

You may find it annoying, but that doesn't make it more dangerous.  I could say "That's safer, not more dangerous" with just as much authority, because neither you nor I provided any crash statistics to back up the claim.  Accidents at lower speeds (roundabouts) are less severe than accidents at higher speeds (stoplights).

As to the specific roundabout you mention, it seems to me the more reasonable thing would be to lower the 55-mph limit stretch down to 40 mph (it's 40 to the west of there, not 45, right?).  But not because it's more dangerous the way it is, just because of the annoyance factor.

I am not the only one that feels this way local talk radio host in Milwaukee have raised this very same point as I have.

Well then!  It must be true!

[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.

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).

Since when is Green Bay in Europe? I don't know how you can say going from 55 way down to 20 in less than a 1/4 of a mile is safer than going at a consistent speed. That makes no sense I am not the only one that feels this way local talk radio host in Milwaukee have raised this very same point as I have. The US 18 roundabout in Dodgeville is a perfect example of this you go from 45 up to 55 but then have to slow way down just after you have accelerated to go through the roundabout. That's more dangerous not safer. These roundabouts have nothing to do with safety. The DOT builds them because they receive federal funds for doing it.

False. Of course, if you'd like to produce proof that "These roundabouts have nothing to do with safety. The DOT builds them because they receive federal funds for doing it", we'd love to see it. Because, so far, I've provided you with links to studies PROVING their safety and all you've brought is, well, nothing. Other that "they're bad because I don't like them".

[ScottRAB]

First cost is the wrong way to compare projects. It would be like buying a car without knowing the fuel economy or safety of the thing, just its price to buy.

     Present Value Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) is the best way to compare two or more choices.  When comparing modern roundabouts to signals for a 20-year life cycle (the standard period), modern roundabouts usually cost less.  Costs to compare include: first cost (design/land/construction), operation and maintenance (electricity, re-striping, upgrades, etc.), crash reduction (what's your/your family's safety worth?), daily delay (what's your time worth?), daily fuel consumption (spend much on gas?), point source pollution (generated by stopped vehicles = health cost), area insurance rates (this costs more where it is less safe to drive).  Each of these things, and others, can be estimated for any two choices and everyone near or using the project area will pay some portion of all of these costs (and also gain benefits).    

More info:  http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_w220.pdf

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Roundabouts aren't that difficult of a concept. The typical driver just seems to have no interest in learning how to use them properly which is probably why some have high accident rates.

[SEWIGuy]

I think there is a growing acceptance of them in Wisconsin.  I hear less b***hing about them now than I did a few years ago.

[GeekJedi]

I think there is a growing acceptance of them in Wisconsin.  I hear less b***hing about them now than I did a few years ago.

Exactly.

People used to complain about wearing seat belts too. Time progresses and we find new ways to improve safety on the roads. People complain because it's a change, but eventually everyone gets used to it and it becomes a way of life.

[The Ghostbuster]

Wisconsin will probably continue building roundabouts until the end of time.

[triplemultiplex]

There's a four-way STOP between me and work and every time I go through there, I curse the fact that it is not a roundabout.
That image Chris posted; I look at that and think, "Great!  I can get to Fleet Farm without stopping!"
I also think, "HEY!  North isn't up!!"  But that's another topic.

Keep the roundabouts coming, WisDOT.

[slorydn1]

I think most of the bitching is being done by those who would have had priority (read:no stop sign) on the road they were on and all of a sudden now they have to navigate a roundabout. I can see both sides of that. The person who used to have to stop would love it, the person on the higher priority road would hate it.

What I can't see, is why anyone would bitch about NOT having to stop any more at a former 4-way stop, most of the time all they have to do is slow down to navigate the roundabout. I can see where several in a row can be uncomfortable to someone who doesn't like tight turns; my advice to them would be to slow down to minimize the G-forces, LOL.

Right now, we only have one in my town, at what used to be a 4 way intersection when the old Neuse River drawbridge carried US-17 right through downtown:

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.1076821,-77.0353894,19z/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

After the old drawbridge to Bridgeton was removed they removed the traffic signal and had a 3-way stop sign situation and then did the roundabout later. Inexplicably there used to be at least 2-3 crashes a week at this intersection when they had the 3 way stop and I can't remember the last time there was a wreck here since the roundabout (not counting 18 wheeler's that occasionally get caught up on the center island as a wreck, of course.

[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.

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).

Since when is Green Bay in Europe? I don't know how you can say going from 55 way down to 20 in less than a 1/4 of a mile is safer than going at a consistent speed. That makes no sense I am not the only one that feels this way local talk radio host in Milwaukee have raised this very same point as I have. The US 18 roundabout in Dodgeville is a perfect example of this you go from 45 up to 55 but then have to slow way down just after you have accelerated to go through the roundabout. That's more dangerous not safer. These roundabouts have nothing to do with safety. The DOT builds them because they receive federal funds for doing it.

False. Of course, if you'd like to produce proof that "These roundabouts have nothing to do with safety. The DOT builds them because they receive federal funds for doing it", we'd love to see it. Because, so far, I've provided you with links to studies PROVING their safety and all you've brought is, well, nothing. Other that "they're bad because I don't like them".

A got that information from WISN radio if they are wrong then it's on them. I admit there may be some truth to some safety advantages with roundabouts for some intersections. But it's not the case for everywhere. The Moorland roundabouts in New Berlin are the most dangerous intersections in all of New Berlin and are in the top 10 in Waukesha County. That certainly wasn't the case before. It's not like the DOT is building roundabouts at intersections where there have been a lot of serious crashes. They are just rolling the dice and building them randomly where ever. It's more than I just don't like them 2 summers ago I was in for the scare of my life probably the closest to being in an accident that I have ever been in at the so called safer roundabout at Moorland and Rock Ridge.

[dvferyance]

There's a four-way STOP between me and work and every time I go through there, I curse the fact that it is not a roundabout.
That image Chris posted; I look at that and think, "Great!  I can get to Fleet Farm without stopping!"
I also think, "HEY!  North isn't up!!"  But that's another topic.

Keep the roundabouts coming, WisDOT.

So 500 roundabouts in Wisconsin still isn't enough? What is then?

[JREwing78]

Spoken like someone who hates roundabouts and has an axe to grind.

FACT: collisions in roundabouts happen at far lower speeds than at a traditional intersection. That is by design - unless you're completely oblivious and miss all the signs you're approaching a roundabout (i.e. driving under the influence), you're entering it at about 20 mph. Slower, if you're a truck.

Slower speeds = less severe crashes. That's physics.

You also have fewer ways to get into a crash. They're called conflict points. A traditional intersection has 32 of them - 32 different ways you can collide with another vehicle. A roundabout only has 8 conflict points - you just got rid of 75% of the possible ways to crash.

People are unfamiliar with roundabouts, and trucks have trouble navigating them. These things are true. But I'll take a roundabout over a 4-way stop - where people are similarly confused and more likely to crash. I'll also take them over a stoplight - which delays me unnecessarily, and is prone to cross traffic doing unexpected things when you're least able to avoid a collision.

[GeekJedi]

A got that information from WISN radio if they are wrong then it's on them.

It's on them because it's wrong, and it's on you because you believe it without independently doing your own research. Keep in mind that WISN isn't a news station, it's a talk station, so it's filled with opinion rather than fact. They don't have a news department.

You've been presented with pages of ACTUAL RESEARCH proving you wrong, yet since the one station in town (with an admittedly obvious agenda) says it, than it must be true? Really?

[GeekJedi]

There's a four-way STOP between me and work and every time I go through there, I curse the fact that it is not a roundabout.
That image Chris posted; I look at that and think, "Great!  I can get to Fleet Farm without stopping!"
I also think, "HEY!  North isn't up!!"  But that's another topic.

Keep the roundabouts coming, WisDOT.

So 500 roundabouts in Wisconsin still isn't enough? What is then?

There's no such answer as "enough". It's not like it's a contest! The answer is: as many as is needed to make traveling safe and efficient. That might be 500. That might be 5000.

[dvferyance]

A got that information from WISN radio if they are wrong then it's on them.

It's on them because it's wrong, and it's on you because you believe it without independently doing your own research. Keep in mind that WISN isn't a news station, it's a talk station, so it's filled with opinion rather than fact. They don't have a news department.

You've been presented with pages of ACTUAL RESEARCH proving you wrong, yet since the one station in town (with an admittedly obvious agenda) says it, than it must be true? Really?

Chris all media is biased one way or the other. There is no such thing as independent media. How do you know they are wrong? I am not sure what you mean by they don't have a news department when they report news on every hour. But this is kind of off topic. The whole point here is the DOT is out of money and they need to stop overspending on roundabouts. Roundabouts cost way more than 4 way stops and money doesn't grow on trees. Now if you want to write the DOT a check to help pay for roundabouts sure go right ahead. But I would rather keep my hard earned money myself. Our gas tax is one of the highest in the nation. I pay enough already.

[SEWIGuy]

A got that information from WISN radio if they are wrong then it's on them.

It's on them because it's wrong, and it's on you because you believe it without independently doing your own research. Keep in mind that WISN isn't a news station, it's a talk station, so it's filled with opinion rather than fact. They don't have a news department.

You've been presented with pages of ACTUAL RESEARCH proving you wrong, yet since the one station in town (with an admittedly obvious agenda) says it, than it must be true? Really?

Chris all media is biased one way or the other. There is no such thing as independent media. How do you know they are wrong? I am not sure what you mean by they don't have a news department when they report news on every hour. But this is kind of off topic. The whole point here is the DOT is out of money and they need to stop overspending on roundabouts. Roundabouts cost way more than 4 way stops and money doesn't grow on trees. Now if you want to write the DOT a check to help pay for roundabouts sure go right ahead. But I would rather keep my hard earned money myself. Our gas tax is one of the highest in the nation. I pay enough already.

Of course, you are not including a few things.  Sure a roundabout may be more expensive than a four-way stop to construct, but if there are more crashes at four way stops, did you factor in insurance costs?  Costs to investigate the incident?  Missed days work due to injury?  Quality of life loss due to injury?

You know what's even cheaper than four way stops?  Uncontrolled intersections.  I mean if all we are going to do is look at the direct construction costs...

[GeekJedi]

Chris all media is biased one way or the other. There is no such thing as independent media. How do you know they are wrong? I am not sure what you mean by they don't have a news department when they report news on every hour. But this is kind of off topic. The whole point here is the DOT is out of money and they need to stop overspending on roundabouts. Roundabouts cost way more than 4 way stops and money doesn't grow on trees. Now if you want to write the DOT a check to help pay for roundabouts sure go right ahead. But I would rather keep my hard earned money myself. Our gas tax is one of the highest in the nation. I pay enough already.

The research that proves you wrong isn't from the media. It's from actual studies and data. There is absolutely no bias.

And the answer is not "Roundabouts cost way more than 4 way stops". Over time, they cost substantially less. It's that short-sighted point of view that's the problem. When you have a tumor, the best answer isn't to take aspirin because it's cheaper right now. You spend a little more for surgery now and spend much less on aspirin over the next several years.

[tradephoric]

You also have fewer ways to get into a crash. They're called conflict points. A traditional intersection has 32 of them - 32 different ways you can collide with another vehicle. A roundabout only has 8 conflict points - you just got rid of 75% of the possible ways to crash.

So in theory, since there are fewer conflict points there should be fewer crashes.  Unfortunately reality doesn't match the theory.  Of the 30 Wisconsin roundabouts analyzed in the Phase 2 study funded by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, there was a 12% increase in total crashes:

http://www.topslab.wisc.edu/programs/safety/projects/roundabouts/WI%20Roundabout%20Evaluation%20FINAL%20REPORT%20-%20Phase%202.pdf

[SEWIGuy]

You also have fewer ways to get into a crash. They're called conflict points. A traditional intersection has 32 of them - 32 different ways you can collide with another vehicle. A roundabout only has 8 conflict points - you just got rid of 75% of the possible ways to crash.

So in theory, since there are fewer conflict points there should be fewer crashes.  Unfortunately reality doesn't match the theory.  Of the 30 Wisconsin roundabouts analyzed in the Phase 2 study funded by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, there was a 12% increase in total crashes:

http://www.topslab.wisc.edu/programs/safety/projects/roundabouts/WI%20Roundabout%20Evaluation%20FINAL%20REPORT%20-%20Phase%202.pdf

And a 38% decrease in injury crashes. 

[tradephoric]

And a 38% decrease in injury crashes. 

I gotta make a few points:

#1.   A 38% reduction in injury crashes is a lot less than the 76% reduction cited in the 2000 Insurance Institute for Highway Safety study.  I bring up this 16 year old study since it is commonplace for agencies to cite the safety statistics found in the IIHS report when promoting roundabouts to the public.  Why are Wisconsin roundabouts so far off the mark when it comes to reducing injury crashes?

#2.  The roundabouts analyzed in the Wisconsin study were a mix of single-lane, multi-lane, and spiral roundabouts.  Of the 30 roundabouts analyzed, only one was a true 2x2 multi-lane roundabout (STH 32/STH 57 Broadway in De Pere).  These complex multi-lane roundabouts are giving drivers the most trouble and the ones seeing spikes in crashes.  Below is a list of before/after crash data taken from the study with the De Pere roundabout highlighted in purple:



The De Pere roundabout was one of the worst performing roundabouts in the study.  It went from averaging 4.33 injury crashes/year before the roundabout to 7 injury crashes/year after the roundabout (that's a 61% increase in injury crashes).  That De Pere roundabout has failed to improve safety (and they decided to eliminate a circulating lane inside the roundabout... a recent trend being seen across the country at these complex 2x2 and 2x3 roundabouts).  The point is not all roundabouts are created equal and not all roundabouts will lead to a reduction in injury crashes.  Anyone who leads you to believe they will is being disingenuous.