Crash prone 'modern roundabouts'

[tradephoric]

I'll take any stats at this point.  For the amount of double and triple lane roundabouts in Green Bay it's difficult to track down up to date crash data for them. 

[tradephoric]

Are the majority of roundabouts not at least double-lane? All of them around here are double-lane. They're not crash-prone. Triple-lane is a different discussion - once you get to the point of needing a triple-lane roundabout, alternative options should be considered - but double lane roundabouts are extremely common and the majority of them have no issues with crashes.

The majority of modern roundabouts in America are not double-lane.  I have a database of over 10,000 roundabouts and roughly 75% of them are single-lane roundabouts.  Not all double-lane roundabouts are prone to crashes either, it's mainly the 2X2 roundabouts that see these high crash rates.  Case in point a 2x2 roundabout in Deland Florida has been the site of 94 crashes and it's been open less than a year. 

Resident asks: Is a roundabout causing crashes in DeLand?
https://www.mynews13.com/fl/orlando/news/2023/03/06/traffic-inbox-roundabout-causing-crashes-in-deland#:~:text=Volusia%20County%20opened%20a%20roundabout,spot%20since%20the%20roundabout%20opened

[kphoger]

Are the majority of roundabouts not at least double-lane? All of them around here are double-lane. They're not crash-prone. Triple-lane is a different discussion - once you get to the point of needing a triple-lane roundabout, alternative options should be considered - but double lane roundabouts are extremely common and the majority of them have no issues with crashes.

The majority of modern roundabouts in America are not double-lane.  I have a database of over 10,000 roundabouts and roughly 75% of them are single-lane roundabouts.  Not all double-lane roundabouts are prone to crashes either, it's mainly the 2X2 roundabouts that see these high crash rates.

It's been a few years, but I remember trying to come up with multi-lane counterexamples, and it actually ended up being difficult for me to list examples where there were two lanes circulating around the entire circle.  A lot of what we think of as two-lane roundabouts are actually one/two hybrids.

I'm curious to know if you categorize those as single-lane, multi-lane, or something else.

[kalvado]

Are the majority of roundabouts not at least double-lane? All of them around here are double-lane. They're not crash-prone. Triple-lane is a different discussion - once you get to the point of needing a triple-lane roundabout, alternative options should be considered - but double lane roundabouts are extremely common and the majority of them have no issues with crashes.

The majority of modern roundabouts in America are not double-lane.  I have a database of over 10,000 roundabouts and roughly 75% of them are single-lane roundabouts.  Not all double-lane roundabouts are prone to crashes either, it's mainly the 2X2 roundabouts that see these high crash rates.

It's been a few years, but I remember trying to come up with multi-lane counterexamples, and it actually ended up being difficult for me to list examples where there were two lanes circulating around the entire circle.  A lot of what we think of as two-lane roundabouts are actually one/two hybrids.

I'm curious to know if you categorize those as single-lane, multi-lane, or something else.

Not very specific to 2x1 intersection, but a "turbo roundabout" name is being used.

[kphoger]

I thought "turbo" was specific to the ones that funnel you out of the roundabout before reaching the 270° point.

[kalvado]

I thought "turbo" was specific to the ones that funnel you out of the roundabout before reaching the 270° point.

Yes, basically a circle made of pieces of lanes wound around the center, with every piece <360 degrees. (that is not more than 270 in case of perpendicular intersection of 2 roads)
apparently all-single-lane circle cannot be made that way.   

[kphoger]

I thought "turbo" was specific to the ones that funnel you out of the roundabout before reaching the 270° point.

Yes, basically a circle made of pieces of lanes wound around the center, with every piece <360 degrees. (that is not more than 270 in case of perpendicular intersection of 2 roads)
apparently all-single-lane circle cannot be made that way.   

That still leaves roundabouts that are neither 100% single-lane, 100% multi-lane, nor turbo.  Like this, for example.

[kalvado]

I thought "turbo" was specific to the ones that funnel you out of the roundabout before reaching the 270° point.

Yes, basically a circle made of pieces of lanes wound around the center, with every piece <360 degrees. (that is not more than 270 in case of perpendicular intersection of 2 roads)
apparently all-single-lane circle cannot be made that way.   

That still leaves roundabouts that are neither 100% single-lane, 100% multi-lane, nor turbo.  Like this, for example.

As far as I understand, this is a "traffic circle" rather than a "modern roundabout"

[kphoger]

As far as I understand, this is a "traffic circle" rather than a "modern roundabout"

What criteria are not met?

[kalvado]

As far as I understand, this is a "traffic circle" rather than a "modern roundabout"

What criteria are not met?

Lane arrangement. For example, there is a conflict in exit to Branson Landing at 4 o'clock and exit to Parnell drive at 1 o'clock  - an outer lane heading to Parnell must yield to inner lane exiting to BL.
Just try plotting possible trajectories from Skaggs to those two exits

[jakeroot]

As far as I understand, this is a "traffic circle" rather than a "modern roundabout"

What criteria are not met?

Lane arrangement. For example, there is a conflict in exit to Branson Landing at 4 o'clock and exit to Parnell drive at 1 o'clock  - an outer lane heading to Parnell must yield to inner lane exiting to BL.
Just try plotting possible trajectories from Skaggs to those two exits

I don't think that is an unusual circumstance for roundabouts where an entry and exit meet, both with two lanes like here. Traffic intending to continue around the circle can either turn into the inside or outside lane; there is a small yellow painted chevron area to encourage traffic to "spiral" into the outer lane, discouraging traffic for Parnell from entering the inner lane and then suddenly dashing across the outside lane to exit.

I would personally consider that a "modern roundabout" without any shadow of a doubt. The fifth leg complicates it a bit, but only slightly. The markings, overall size, deflection, and signage are all consistent with modern roundabout standards. MTJ, the company that designed it, also calls it a roundabout.

[kalvado]

As far as I understand, this is a "traffic circle" rather than a "modern roundabout"

What criteria are not met?

Lane arrangement. For example, there is a conflict in exit to Branson Landing at 4 o'clock and exit to Parnell drive at 1 o'clock  - an outer lane heading to Parnell must yield to inner lane exiting to BL.
Just try plotting possible trajectories from Skaggs to those two exits

I don't think that is an unusual circumstance for roundabouts where an entry and exit meet, both with two lanes like here. Traffic intending to continue around the circle can either turn into the inside or outside lane; there is a small yellow painted chevron area to encourage traffic to "spiral" into the outer lane, discouraging traffic for Parnell from entering the inner lane and then suddenly dashing across the outside lane to exit.

I would personally consider that a "modern roundabout" without any shadow of a doubt. The fifth leg complicates it a bit, but only slightly. The markings, overall size, deflection, and signage are all consistent with modern roundabout standards. MTJ, the company that designed it, also calls it a roundabout.

OK, looked at the signage a bit closer.  Let me put it so - if I ever had to order roundabout design, now I know who should not be asked for a bid.
Signage is too poor to discuss. I agree that with some better minimal stripping and signage it could become a roundabout - but for now it is an exhibit 1 of "why some roundabouts are so bad"

[jakeroot]

As far as I understand, this is a "traffic circle" rather than a "modern roundabout"

What criteria are not met?

Lane arrangement. For example, there is a conflict in exit to Branson Landing at 4 o'clock and exit to Parnell drive at 1 o'clock  - an outer lane heading to Parnell must yield to inner lane exiting to BL.
Just try plotting possible trajectories from Skaggs to those two exits

I don't think that is an unusual circumstance for roundabouts where an entry and exit meet, both with two lanes like here. Traffic intending to continue around the circle can either turn into the inside or outside lane; there is a small yellow painted chevron area to encourage traffic to "spiral" into the outer lane, discouraging traffic for Parnell from entering the inner lane and then suddenly dashing across the outside lane to exit.

I would personally consider that a "modern roundabout" without any shadow of a doubt. The fifth leg complicates it a bit, but only slightly. The markings, overall size, deflection, and signage are all consistent with modern roundabout standards. MTJ, the company that designed it, also calls it a roundabout.

OK, looked at the signage a bit closer.  Let me put it so - if I ever had to order roundabout design, now I know who should not be asked for a bid.
Signage is too poor to discuss. I agree that with some better minimal stripping and signage it could become a roundabout - but for now it is an exhibit 1 of "why some roundabouts are so bad"

Did a little more digging. The roundabout was built in 2005, and opened in 2005 or early 2006. It opened with striping nearly identical to what we see today. This is the striping at the entry from Veterans Blvd when it first opened; the arrows are messed up but the striping is solid.

Looking back at historic street view, they seem to have messed up the striping around 2013, making it seem like the outside lane could continue circulating around the circle at the Veterans Blvd entry, though the arrows still correctly showed both lanes in the roundabout as being able to exit onto Branson Landing, and the inside lane being able to continue around. This striping error was rectified around late 2014 or early 2015 when the inside lane was repaved.

There are now double white lines at that point, to [try and] ensure traffic does not circulate around towards Parnell from the outside lane. While double white lines are unusual at roundabouts, at least at points where traffic absolutely must cross them (as traffic entering from Veterans Blvd must to enter the roundabout), vehicles will eventually create a natural gap through tire track degradation.

This all said, the roundabout seems just fine, and I don't see any issues with anything MTJ did. Could you be a little more specific as to the exact problem with the current roundabout? To go back to your original point, I don't see any place where an outer lane yields to an inner lane.

[kalvado]

As far as I understand, this is a "traffic circle" rather than a "modern roundabout"

What criteria are not met?

Lane arrangement. For example, there is a conflict in exit to Branson Landing at 4 o'clock and exit to Parnell drive at 1 o'clock  - an outer lane heading to Parnell must yield to inner lane exiting to BL.
Just try plotting possible trajectories from Skaggs to those two exits

I don't think that is an unusual circumstance for roundabouts where an entry and exit meet, both with two lanes like here. Traffic intending to continue around the circle can either turn into the inside or outside lane; there is a small yellow painted chevron area to encourage traffic to "spiral" into the outer lane, discouraging traffic for Parnell from entering the inner lane and then suddenly dashing across the outside lane to exit.

I would personally consider that a "modern roundabout" without any shadow of a doubt. The fifth leg complicates it a bit, but only slightly. The markings, overall size, deflection, and signage are all consistent with modern roundabout standards. MTJ, the company that designed it, also calls it a roundabout.

OK, looked at the signage a bit closer.  Let me put it so - if I ever had to order roundabout design, now I know who should not be asked for a bid.
Signage is too poor to discuss. I agree that with some better minimal stripping and signage it could become a roundabout - but for now it is an exhibit 1 of "why some roundabouts are so bad"

Did a little more digging. The roundabout was built in 2005, and opened in 2005 or early 2006. It opened with striping nearly identical to what we see today. This is the striping at the entry from Veterans Blvd when it first opened; the arrows are messed up but the striping is solid.

Looking back at historic street view, they seem to have messed up the striping around 2013, making it seem like the outside lane could continue circulating around the circle at the Veterans Blvd entry, though the arrows still correctly showed both lanes in the roundabout as being able to exit onto Branson Landing, and the inside lane being able to continue around. This striping error was rectified around late 2014 or early 2015 when the inside lane was repaved.

There are now double white lines at that point, to [try and] ensure traffic does not circulate around towards Parnell from the outside lane. While double white lines are unusual at roundabouts, at least at points where traffic absolutely must cross them (as traffic entering from Veterans Blvd must to enter the roundabout), vehicles will eventually create a natural gap through tire track degradation.

This all said, the roundabout seems just fine, and I don't see any issues with anything MTJ did. Could you be a little more specific as to the exact problem with the current roundabout? To go back to your original point, I don't see any place where an outer lane yields to an inner lane.

According to this sign, there is at least one point. Hard to tell where it is, though.
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.6496759,-93.2207263,3a,75y,112.83h,78.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sB9cloEhzT16MrLnUeY7Yvw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[jakeroot]

As far as I understand, this is a "traffic circle" rather than a "modern roundabout"

What criteria are not met?

Lane arrangement. For example, there is a conflict in exit to Branson Landing at 4 o'clock and exit to Parnell drive at 1 o'clock  - an outer lane heading to Parnell must yield to inner lane exiting to BL.
Just try plotting possible trajectories from Skaggs to those two exits

I don't think that is an unusual circumstance for roundabouts where an entry and exit meet, both with two lanes like here. Traffic intending to continue around the circle can either turn into the inside or outside lane; there is a small yellow painted chevron area to encourage traffic to "spiral" into the outer lane, discouraging traffic for Parnell from entering the inner lane and then suddenly dashing across the outside lane to exit.

I would personally consider that a "modern roundabout" without any shadow of a doubt. The fifth leg complicates it a bit, but only slightly. The markings, overall size, deflection, and signage are all consistent with modern roundabout standards. MTJ, the company that designed it, also calls it a roundabout.

OK, looked at the signage a bit closer.  Let me put it so - if I ever had to order roundabout design, now I know who should not be asked for a bid.
Signage is too poor to discuss. I agree that with some better minimal stripping and signage it could become a roundabout - but for now it is an exhibit 1 of "why some roundabouts are so bad"

Did a little more digging. The roundabout was built in 2005, and opened in 2005 or early 2006. It opened with striping nearly identical to what we see today. This is the striping at the entry from Veterans Blvd when it first opened; the arrows are messed up but the striping is solid.

Looking back at historic street view, they seem to have messed up the striping around 2013, making it seem like the outside lane could continue circulating around the circle at the Veterans Blvd entry, though the arrows still correctly showed both lanes in the roundabout as being able to exit onto Branson Landing, and the inside lane being able to continue around. This striping error was rectified around late 2014 or early 2015 when the inside lane was repaved.

There are now double white lines at that point, to [try and] ensure traffic does not circulate around towards Parnell from the outside lane. While double white lines are unusual at roundabouts, at least at points where traffic absolutely must cross them (as traffic entering from Veterans Blvd must to enter the roundabout), vehicles will eventually create a natural gap through tire track degradation.

This all said, the roundabout seems just fine, and I don't see any issues with anything MTJ did. Could you be a little more specific as to the exact problem with the current roundabout? To go back to your original point, I don't see any place where an outer lane yields to an inner lane.

According to this sign, there is at least one point. Hard to tell where it is, though.
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.6496759,-93.2207263,3a,75y,112.83h,78.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sB9cloEhzT16MrLnUeY7Yvw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Oh, that's pretty easily explained: the arrows are very poorly aligned. It's just saying the right lane can take the first or second exit, and the left lane can take...something close to the second exit or any exit thereafter.

In fairness, MTJ originally installed this sign (blurry but shows both lanes going straight-on and the right lane being able to go right), which was a lot simpler. Not necessarily super accurate, but likely a bit less confusing.

[kalvado]

As far as I understand, this is a "traffic circle" rather than a "modern roundabout"

What criteria are not met?

Lane arrangement. For example, there is a conflict in exit to Branson Landing at 4 o'clock and exit to Parnell drive at 1 o'clock  - an outer lane heading to Parnell must yield to inner lane exiting to BL.
Just try plotting possible trajectories from Skaggs to those two exits

I don't think that is an unusual circumstance for roundabouts where an entry and exit meet, both with two lanes like here. Traffic intending to continue around the circle can either turn into the inside or outside lane; there is a small yellow painted chevron area to encourage traffic to "spiral" into the outer lane, discouraging traffic for Parnell from entering the inner lane and then suddenly dashing across the outside lane to exit.

I would personally consider that a "modern roundabout" without any shadow of a doubt. The fifth leg complicates it a bit, but only slightly. The markings, overall size, deflection, and signage are all consistent with modern roundabout standards. MTJ, the company that designed it, also calls it a roundabout.

OK, looked at the signage a bit closer.  Let me put it so - if I ever had to order roundabout design, now I know who should not be asked for a bid.
Signage is too poor to discuss. I agree that with some better minimal stripping and signage it could become a roundabout - but for now it is an exhibit 1 of "why some roundabouts are so bad"

Did a little more digging. The roundabout was built in 2005, and opened in 2005 or early 2006. It opened with striping nearly identical to what we see today. This is the striping at the entry from Veterans Blvd when it first opened; the arrows are messed up but the striping is solid.

Looking back at historic street view, they seem to have messed up the striping around 2013, making it seem like the outside lane could continue circulating around the circle at the Veterans Blvd entry, though the arrows still correctly showed both lanes in the roundabout as being able to exit onto Branson Landing, and the inside lane being able to continue around. This striping error was rectified around late 2014 or early 2015 when the inside lane was repaved.

There are now double white lines at that point, to [try and] ensure traffic does not circulate around towards Parnell from the outside lane. While double white lines are unusual at roundabouts, at least at points where traffic absolutely must cross them (as traffic entering from Veterans Blvd must to enter the roundabout), vehicles will eventually create a natural gap through tire track degradation.

This all said, the roundabout seems just fine, and I don't see any issues with anything MTJ did. Could you be a little more specific as to the exact problem with the current roundabout? To go back to your original point, I don't see any place where an outer lane yields to an inner lane.

According to this sign, there is at least one point. Hard to tell where it is, though.
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.6496759,-93.2207263,3a,75y,112.83h,78.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sB9cloEhzT16MrLnUeY7Yvw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Oh, that's pretty easily explained: the arrows are very poorly aligned. It's just saying the right lane can take the first or second exit, and the left lane can take...something close to the second exit or any exit thereafter.

In fairness, MTJ originally installed this sign (blurry but shows both lanes going straight-on and the right lane being able to go right), which was a lot simpler. Not necessarily super accurate, but likely a bit less confusing.

Overall, it's a great example how neither transportation authorities nor private contractors are qualified to design and maintain roundabouts properly. Sorting traffic into lanes by trajectory, and making sure drivers are aware of proper lane use is critical for safe operation. I wonder what is the accident rate there....

[Rothman]

As far as I understand, this is a "traffic circle" rather than a "modern roundabout"

What criteria are not met?

Lane arrangement. For example, there is a conflict in exit to Branson Landing at 4 o'clock and exit to Parnell drive at 1 o'clock  - an outer lane heading to Parnell must yield to inner lane exiting to BL.
Just try plotting possible trajectories from Skaggs to those two exits

I don't think that is an unusual circumstance for roundabouts where an entry and exit meet, both with two lanes like here. Traffic intending to continue around the circle can either turn into the inside or outside lane; there is a small yellow painted chevron area to encourage traffic to "spiral" into the outer lane, discouraging traffic for Parnell from entering the inner lane and then suddenly dashing across the outside lane to exit.

I would personally consider that a "modern roundabout" without any shadow of a doubt. The fifth leg complicates it a bit, but only slightly. The markings, overall size, deflection, and signage are all consistent with modern roundabout standards. MTJ, the company that designed it, also calls it a roundabout.

OK, looked at the signage a bit closer.  Let me put it so - if I ever had to order roundabout design, now I know who should not be asked for a bid.
Signage is too poor to discuss. I agree that with some better minimal stripping and signage it could become a roundabout - but for now it is an exhibit 1 of "why some roundabouts are so bad"

Did a little more digging. The roundabout was built in 2005, and opened in 2005 or early 2006. It opened with striping nearly identical to what we see today. This is the striping at the entry from Veterans Blvd when it first opened; the arrows are messed up but the striping is solid.

Looking back at historic street view, they seem to have messed up the striping around 2013, making it seem like the outside lane could continue circulating around the circle at the Veterans Blvd entry, though the arrows still correctly showed both lanes in the roundabout as being able to exit onto Branson Landing, and the inside lane being able to continue around. This striping error was rectified around late 2014 or early 2015 when the inside lane was repaved.

There are now double white lines at that point, to [try and] ensure traffic does not circulate around towards Parnell from the outside lane. While double white lines are unusual at roundabouts, at least at points where traffic absolutely must cross them (as traffic entering from Veterans Blvd must to enter the roundabout), vehicles will eventually create a natural gap through tire track degradation.

This all said, the roundabout seems just fine, and I don't see any issues with anything MTJ did. Could you be a little more specific as to the exact problem with the current roundabout? To go back to your original point, I don't see any place where an outer lane yields to an inner lane.

According to this sign, there is at least one point. Hard to tell where it is, though.
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.6496759,-93.2207263,3a,75y,112.83h,78.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sB9cloEhzT16MrLnUeY7Yvw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Oh, that's pretty easily explained: the arrows are very poorly aligned. It's just saying the right lane can take the first or second exit, and the left lane can take...something close to the second exit or any exit thereafter.

In fairness, MTJ originally installed this sign (blurry but shows both lanes going straight-on and the right lane being able to go right), which was a lot simpler. Not necessarily super accurate, but likely a bit less confusing.

Overall, it's a great example how neither transportation authorities nor private contractors are qualified to design and maintain roundabouts properly. Sorting traffic into lanes by trajectory, and making sure drivers are aware of proper lane use is critical for safe operation. I wonder what is the accident rate there....

Pfft.  Plenty of roundabouts out there function perfectly well to make such a generalization false on its face.

[kalvado]

As far as I understand, this is a "traffic circle" rather than a "modern roundabout"

What criteria are not met?

Lane arrangement. For example, there is a conflict in exit to Branson Landing at 4 o'clock and exit to Parnell drive at 1 o'clock  - an outer lane heading to Parnell must yield to inner lane exiting to BL.
Just try plotting possible trajectories from Skaggs to those two exits

I don't think that is an unusual circumstance for roundabouts where an entry and exit meet, both with two lanes like here. Traffic intending to continue around the circle can either turn into the inside or outside lane; there is a small yellow painted chevron area to encourage traffic to "spiral" into the outer lane, discouraging traffic for Parnell from entering the inner lane and then suddenly dashing across the outside lane to exit.

I would personally consider that a "modern roundabout" without any shadow of a doubt. The fifth leg complicates it a bit, but only slightly. The markings, overall size, deflection, and signage are all consistent with modern roundabout standards. MTJ, the company that designed it, also calls it a roundabout.

OK, looked at the signage a bit closer.  Let me put it so - if I ever had to order roundabout design, now I know who should not be asked for a bid.
Signage is too poor to discuss. I agree that with some better minimal stripping and signage it could become a roundabout - but for now it is an exhibit 1 of "why some roundabouts are so bad"

Did a little more digging. The roundabout was built in 2005, and opened in 2005 or early 2006. It opened with striping nearly identical to what we see today. This is the striping at the entry from Veterans Blvd when it first opened; the arrows are messed up but the striping is solid.

Looking back at historic street view, they seem to have messed up the striping around 2013, making it seem like the outside lane could continue circulating around the circle at the Veterans Blvd entry, though the arrows still correctly showed both lanes in the roundabout as being able to exit onto Branson Landing, and the inside lane being able to continue around. This striping error was rectified around late 2014 or early 2015 when the inside lane was repaved.

There are now double white lines at that point, to [try and] ensure traffic does not circulate around towards Parnell from the outside lane. While double white lines are unusual at roundabouts, at least at points where traffic absolutely must cross them (as traffic entering from Veterans Blvd must to enter the roundabout), vehicles will eventually create a natural gap through tire track degradation.

This all said, the roundabout seems just fine, and I don't see any issues with anything MTJ did. Could you be a little more specific as to the exact problem with the current roundabout? To go back to your original point, I don't see any place where an outer lane yields to an inner lane.

According to this sign, there is at least one point. Hard to tell where it is, though.
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.6496759,-93.2207263,3a,75y,112.83h,78.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sB9cloEhzT16MrLnUeY7Yvw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Oh, that's pretty easily explained: the arrows are very poorly aligned. It's just saying the right lane can take the first or second exit, and the left lane can take...something close to the second exit or any exit thereafter.

In fairness, MTJ originally installed this sign (blurry but shows both lanes going straight-on and the right lane being able to go right), which was a lot simpler. Not necessarily super accurate, but likely a bit less confusing.

Overall, it's a great example how neither transportation authorities nor private contractors are qualified to design and maintain roundabouts properly. Sorting traffic into lanes by trajectory, and making sure drivers are aware of proper lane use is critical for safe operation. I wonder what is the accident rate there....

Pfft.  Plenty of roundabouts out there function perfectly well to make such a generalization false on its face.

Yep, some of those perfectly functioning ones are listed here:
https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/The-Capital-Region-s-most-dangerous-intersections-11281734.php

I have to give Albany engineers some credit here, they are not trying to be creative but seem to Ctrl-C Ctrl-V the reference design. Maybe you guys are right, that should be the scope of the DOT engineer job. At least explains why no obviously needed changes are made even in  major reconstruction projects over here...

[kphoger]

Wow, all this discussion...

For what it's worth, I remember the opening of this roundabout quite well, even though I've never lived in Branson.  My wife and I were married at a church just north of there in April 2006, so the road construction process is pretty firm in my memory.  I think it was just before or after the wedding rehearsal that our maid of honor asked what I thought of the new roundabout, because her father is the one who designed it.  At the time, I wasn't too thrilled with its not having two circulating lanes throughout, and I may have mentioned that.  But anything is better than the five-way stoplight that probably would have been installed otherwise.

When it opened, the southeast leg was little-used, because Branson Landing wasn't quite done being developed, so hardly any traffic needed to go that way instead of right through downtown.

The roundabout's construction coincided with that part of US-65-Business being decommissioned and turned over to the city of Branson.  I heard at the time that this was because the descent from the north was too steep for the roundabout to meet federal roundabout guidelines–therefore the solution was to simply remove its US-Business designation.  I had printed detailed directions to the church and included them in our wedding invitations, to help out-of-town guests find their way from US-65.  My directions said to get off at the US-65-Business exit but, by the time the wedding rolled around, the exit sign no longer had a US-65-Business shield on it at all.  Fortunately, I think everyone still found the church OK.

Honestly, the only real problem I've seen there is that retirees on vacation from Arkansas don't seem to have a clue how to navigate a roundabout to begin with...

[kalvado]

A second very interesting event in our neck of the woods within past few years:

https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/tanker-truck-crash-closes-road-near-18075691.php?IPID=Times-Union-HP-latest-news

tanker was carrying a nonflammable chemical

I wonder if that means HF or TMAH? Both are used by GF in large quantities...
Few more historic pictures from the same general area:



Looks like more hazmat events than I would like to see...

[tradephoric]

International news about a fatal bus crash that killed 10 in New South Wales Australia.  According to the article it's the biggest road tragedy in NSW since 1989.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaR5WyNr5sQ
Fatal bus crash on a Wine Country Drive roundabout at Greta, in NSW Hunter Valley, driver arrested

[kphoger]

International news about a fatal bus crash that killed 10 in New South Wales Australia.  According to the article it's the biggest road tragedy in NSW since 1989.

Is it crash-prone?

[kalvado]

International news about a fatal bus crash that killed 10 in New South Wales Australia.  According to the article it's the biggest road tragedy in NSW since 1989.

Is it crash-prone?

(looking into the Boeing "PR standard phrases" textbook) - no, this is primarily lack of driver's skills in the third world countries. Operator should recognize full responsibility and ensure better training for the drivers!

[kphoger]

third world countries

[jakeroot]

The fact that "ten dead" is the worst crash since the 80s is a testament to how much driver training actually occurs in Australia.