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.
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.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on July 07, 2015, 04:53:46 PM
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
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.
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.
I don't mind the roundabouts. Maybe that's easy for me to say since I've never driven a car in my life.
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.
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.
Quote from: I-39 on July 07, 2015, 08:20:44 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: peterj920 on July 07, 2015, 04:49:56 PM
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.
Quote from: peterj920 on July 07, 2015, 05:34:45 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on July 07, 2015, 04:53:46 PM
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 (http://wisconsindot.gov/dtsdManuals/traffic-ops/manuals-and-standards/tgm/11/11-04-01.pdf) for details vs their signalized intersection guidance: TGM 11-05-01 (http://wisconsindot.gov/dtsdManuals/traffic-ops/manuals-and-standards/tgm/11/11-05-01.pdf). 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. :hmmm:
Quote from: Roadguy on July 08, 2015, 10:42:31 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on July 07, 2015, 04:49:56 PM
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?
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.
Quote from: peterj920 on July 09, 2015, 02:30:23 AM
...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.
Quote from: GeekJedi on July 09, 2015, 08:37:23 AM
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.
All the light poles they save by refusing to light even the busiest of rural interchanges are evidently going to roundabouts.
Quote from: Mdcastle on August 11, 2015, 03:35:01 PM
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.
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)
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.
Quote from: GeekJedi on July 09, 2015, 08:37:23 AM
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.
Quote from: dvferyance on June 17, 2016, 10:04:35 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on July 09, 2015, 08:37:23 AM
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.
Quote from: dvferyance on June 17, 2016, 10:04:35 PM
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).
Quote from: dvferyance on June 17, 2016, 10:04:35 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on July 09, 2015, 08:37:23 AM
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?
Quote from: jakeroot on June 18, 2016, 03:00:10 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on June 17, 2016, 10:04:35 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on July 09, 2015, 08:37:23 AM
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.
Quote from: dvferyance on June 17, 2016, 10:04:35 PM
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..
Quote from: kalvado on June 18, 2016, 08:49:22 AM
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.
Count the roundabouts in this area of Green Bay:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FQT6E3WL.jpg&hash=e685b6fb4eb235da78fc575c27180155ed5246a0)
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.
Quote from: Chris on June 18, 2016, 05:36:42 PM
Count the roundabouts in this area of Green Bay:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FQT6E3WL.jpg&hash=e685b6fb4eb235da78fc575c27180155ed5246a0)
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.
Quote from: jakeroot on June 18, 2016, 03:00:10 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on June 17, 2016, 10:04:35 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on July 09, 2015, 08:37:23 AM
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.
Quote from: dvferyance on June 17, 2016, 10:04:35 PM
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.
GB = Great Britain, not Green Bay, in the post.
Quote from: lordsutch on June 19, 2016, 12:41:44 AM
GB = Great Britain, not Green Bay, in the post.
Thank you. I thought it would be obvious given the context...I guess not.
Quote from: dvferyance on June 18, 2016, 11:52:25 PM
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,
Quote
Speed has never killed anyone. Suddenly becoming stationary, that's what gets you.
QuoteI 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)
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 19, 2016, 06:22:26 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on June 18, 2016, 11:52:25 PM
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.
Quote from: dvferyance on June 18, 2016, 11:52:25 PM
Since when is Green Bay in Europe?
Face. Palm.
Quote from: dvferyance on June 18, 2016, 11:52:25 PM
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.
Quote from: dvferyance on June 18, 2016, 11:52:25 PM
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!
Quote from: dvferyance on June 18, 2016, 11:52:25 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 18, 2016, 03:00:10 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on June 17, 2016, 10:04:35 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on July 09, 2015, 08:37:23 AM
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.
Quote from: dvferyance on June 17, 2016, 10:04:35 PM
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".
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
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.
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.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 20, 2016, 03:36:47 PM
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.
Wisconsin will probably continue building roundabouts until the end of time.
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.
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 (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.
Quote from: GeekJedi on June 19, 2016, 11:17:57 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on June 18, 2016, 11:52:25 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 18, 2016, 03:00:10 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on June 17, 2016, 10:04:35 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on July 09, 2015, 08:37:23 AM
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.
Quote from: dvferyance on June 17, 2016, 10:04:35 PM
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.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on June 20, 2016, 09:20:32 PM
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?
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.
Quote from: dvferyance on July 17, 2016, 11:23:00 PM
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?
Quote from: dvferyance on July 17, 2016, 11:29:12 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on June 20, 2016, 09:20:32 PM
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.
Quote from: GeekJedi on July 18, 2016, 07:21:41 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on July 17, 2016, 11:23:00 PM
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.
Quote from: dvferyance on July 18, 2016, 12:54:58 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on July 18, 2016, 07:21:41 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on July 17, 2016, 11:23:00 PM
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...
Quote from: dvferyance on July 18, 2016, 12:54:58 PM
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.
Quote from: JREwing78 on July 18, 2016, 12:18:32 AM
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
Quote from: tradephoric on July 22, 2016, 11:23:34 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on July 18, 2016, 12:18:32 AM
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.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 22, 2016, 03:14:36 PMAnd 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:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi478.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Frr144%2Ftradephoric%2FTransportation%2520Pictures%2FRoundabouts%2FWisc_zps2mnymeqf.png&hash=ad9d4b97a770215bbde8855f35ed7e938aaee6a0)
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.
That same table, however, shows that any increase is almost all in minor 'fender-bender' type collisions. The De Pere one is an outlier for sure, but I'm tempted to say, "so what?". One doesn't draw systemic conclusions from outliers.
The accident reduction is less than 'predicted' because it covers the period of driver acclimation that occurs after new roundabouts go in. The WisDOT study shows collisions over a very small period before and after roundabout construction so that means a limited sample size that is heavily influenced by a spike in minor collisions as drivers get used to a new roundabout. They don't match the 76% 'target' in the nationwide study because that study covers a time period 3 times as long.
Quote from: dvferyance on July 17, 2016, 11:29:12 PM
So 500 roundabouts in Wisconsin still isn't enough? What is then?
501
:pan:
Quote from: tradephoric on July 22, 2016, 04:27:31 PM
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.
I don't think anyone is trying to lead anyone to believe that *all* roundabouts will lead to a reduction of injury crashes. There are no absolutes in anything. However, *most* of the time there is a reduction, and that's what matters.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on July 24, 2016, 12:00:54 PM
The De Pere one is an outlier for sure, but I'm tempted to say, "so what?". One doesn't draw systemic conclusions from outliers.
The average crash rate of a signalized intersection is roughly 0.8 MEV. Agencies are often required to undergo safety audits for signalized intersection that have a crash rate over 2.0 MEV. Now take a look at the crash rates of these complex 3x2 and 2x2 multi-lane roundabouts. They are off the charts! The roundabouts highlighted in yellow have had circulating lanes removed due to their abysmal crash rates.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi478.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Frr144%2Ftradephoric%2FTransportation%2520Pictures%2FRoundabouts%2Fcrashrate_zpsglb8qh4x.png&hash=315f0c3426b0b4d1cb76f977bb4999567f30f952)
This is only looking at total crashes but any crash has the potential to lead to an injury. When you have crash rates 4X higher than a typical signalized intersection there is no guarantee that you will see a reduction in injury crashes. Some will argue that people have to get use to roundabouts and the crash rate will go down. But there are roundabouts that have been around for over a decade that are experiencing over 100 crashes a year. At some point this driver unfamiliarity argument is ineffective at explaining away the high crash rates.
Where the hell is Bellingham, Oregon?
Quote from: jakeroot on July 24, 2016, 01:53:51 PM
Where the hell is Bellingham, Oregon?
Touche Jake. Your comment was effective at discrediting the accuracy of the entire chart. We can breath a sigh of relieve that agencies can keep designing and constructing these complex crash prone roundabouts now.
Quote from: tradephoric on July 24, 2016, 02:11:38 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 24, 2016, 01:53:51 PM
Where the hell is Bellingham, Oregon?
Touche Jake. Your comment was effective at discrediting the accuracy of the entire chart. We can breath a sigh of relieve that agencies can keep designing and constructing these complex crash prone roundabouts now.
Just to make it plain, while I have not always seen eye-to-eye with you on roundabouts, I have no reason to believe your chart is incorrect. I'm not trying to discredit anything. I was simply pointing out a discrepancy.
The Steptoe Roundabout (#6) is being remodeled by WSDOT: http://goo.gl/kWNe0i
Where the hell is Bethleham, New York?
Quote from: Alps on July 24, 2016, 08:41:15 PM
Where the hell is Bethleham, New York?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fefdreams.com%2Fdata_images%2Fdreams%2Fham%2Fham-07.jpg&hash=26ac4acc6f67742cdf47a78371a48afd9473ae7c)
Quote from: jakeroot on July 24, 2016, 03:11:22 PM
The Steptoe Roundabout (#6) is being remodeled by WSDOT: http://goo.gl/kWNe0i
Thanks for the info Jake. Interestingly a circulating lane inside the roundabout is being removed. Crews are switching from a double lane to a single lane entrance to the roundabout along Columbia Park Trail.
There are also plans to remove a circulating lane at the Venice Ave Roundabout (#7). This roundabout has been the top intersection for wrecks in Sarasota and Manatee Counties since it's construction in 2008:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5g7zzBC6Bw
In addition, the Homer Watson roundabout in Kitchener (#9) had a circulating lane on the SB approach striped out shortly after being constructed. This should have been highlighted yellow as well.
Quote from: tradephoric on July 25, 2016, 09:57:18 AM
In addition, the Homer Watson roundabout in Kitchener (#9) had a circulating lane on the SB approach striped out shortly after being constructed. This should have been highlighted yellow as well.
Yep, the third lane has been gone for at least a few years now. Damn, it's the 9th worst roundabout in the US and Canada? I didn't realize it was
that bad :-D
Whether they are safer or not is really a separate topic. The fact is the transportation fund is broke as I read an article in today's Journal Sentinel. And changes in spending are going to have to be made. Sure I admit there are some roundabouts they build that were good and they did a nice job with but there is such a thing is overdoing. Roundabouts are expensive to build that's the reality and if the money isn't there it may be necessary to put a hold on them.
Quote from: dvferyance on July 28, 2016, 10:14:57 PM
Whether they are safer or not is really a separate topic.
No, it's not. The reason they are being built is because they're safer. Guess what? It's expensive to put seatbelts in cars, but we do it anyway because it's safer.
Want to fix the problem with our road spending? Don't approve projects that the legislature isn't willing to fund. Don't assume the money will "magically" appear.
Roundabouts are not the problem here.
Quote from: GeekJedi on July 29, 2016, 07:37:07 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on July 28, 2016, 10:14:57 PM
Whether they are safer or not is really a separate topic.
No, it's not.
Yes, it is. Is the price tag on Wisconsin's roundabouts higher than it should be? Is Wisconsin converting to roundabouts intersections that were functioning just fine? Does Wisconsin need to be spending its money on more pressing needs instead? These are the questions that fit the topic. You might love roundabouts or hate roundabouts, but there are is another thread for discussing crash-prone modern roundabouts.
Quote from: kphoger on July 29, 2016, 12:23:18 PM
Yes, it is. Is the price tag on Wisconsin's roundabouts higher than it should be? Is Wisconsin converting to roundabouts intersections that were functioning just fine? Does Wisconsin need to be spending its money on more pressing needs instead? These are the questions that fit the topic. You might love roundabouts or hate roundabouts, but there are is another thread for discussing crash-prone modern roundabouts.
No, it's not.
Wisconsin does very thorough studies before installing roundabouts, and (in the case of putting one in that's *not* part of a larger project) will only do them in areas where there have been significant accidents. So no, they aren't converting intersections that were functioning "just fine", nor are these roundabouts happening at the expense of more pressing needs. Safety is *the* most pressing need, and Wisconsin only does roundabouts in areas where those numbers play out. They have not installed them for the sake of installing them. That's why it's not a different topic - they are entirely related to each other.
Quote from: GeekJedi on July 29, 2016, 03:30:04 PM
Quote from: kphoger on July 29, 2016, 12:23:18 PM
Yes, it is. Is the price tag on Wisconsin's roundabouts higher than it should be? Is Wisconsin converting to roundabouts intersections that were functioning just fine? Does Wisconsin need to be spending its money on more pressing needs instead? These are the questions that fit the topic. You might love roundabouts or hate roundabouts, but there are is another thread for discussing crash-prone modern roundabouts.
No, it's not.
Wisconsin does very thorough studies before installing roundabouts, and (in the case of putting one in that's *not* part of a larger project) will only do them in areas where there have been significant accidents. So no, they aren't converting intersections that were functioning "just fine", nor are these roundabouts happening at the expense of more pressing needs. Safety is *the* most pressing need, and Wisconsin only does roundabouts in areas where those numbers play out. They have not installed them for the sake of installing them. That's why it's not a different topic - they are entirely related to each other.
Well they sure didn't do that when it come to the ones on Moorland that's for sure. Those intersections were just fine they way they were now it's mess. They weren't anywhere close to being roundabout suitable and it's only going to get worse.
Quote from: dvferyance on July 29, 2016, 05:51:05 PM
Quote from: GeekJedi on July 29, 2016, 03:30:04 PM
Quote from: kphoger on July 29, 2016, 12:23:18 PM
Yes, it is. Is the price tag on Wisconsin's roundabouts higher than it should be? Is Wisconsin converting to roundabouts intersections that were functioning just fine? Does Wisconsin need to be spending its money on more pressing needs instead? These are the questions that fit the topic. You might love roundabouts or hate roundabouts, but there are is another thread for discussing crash-prone modern roundabouts.
No, it's not.
Wisconsin does very thorough studies before installing roundabouts, and (in the case of putting one in that's *not* part of a larger project) will only do them in areas where there have been significant accidents. So no, they aren't converting intersections that were functioning "just fine", nor are these roundabouts happening at the expense of more pressing needs. Safety is *the* most pressing need, and Wisconsin only does roundabouts in areas where those numbers play out. They have not installed them for the sake of installing them. That's why it's not a different topic - they are entirely related to each other.
Well they sure didn't do that when it come to the ones on Moorland that's for sure. Those intersections were just fine they way they were now it's mess. They weren't anywhere close to being roundabout suitable and it's only going to get worse.
They didn't do what, exactly? Thorough studies? I kind of doubt that.
Quote from: dvferyance on July 29, 2016, 05:51:05 PM
Those intersections were just fine they way they were now it's mess, in my opinion.
Fixed that for you.
Quote from: dvferyance on July 29, 2016, 05:51:05 PM
Well they sure didn't do that when it come to the ones on Moorland that's for sure. Those intersections were just fine they way they were now it's mess. They weren't anywhere close to being roundabout suitable and it's only going to get worse.
Those ones at the I-43 ramp terminals? Never gave me a problem. But since we are judging roundabouts based on our anecdotal, biased experiences now, they must be working perfectly. :?
Or I'll be less shitty about it and ask what are the specific deficiencies you have observed at this particular location? That's your neck of the woods and I take it you use them frequently. Correct me if I'm wrong, but based on my knowledge of the area, I wager a guess that this roundabout pair is the only place you have to use them regularly. So what are the problems you are encountering? Backups? Lane discipline? Cars stopping when they should be yielding? Vise versa? Issues with semis?
Let's get into it.
I'll make this even more simple...
Before:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w9jol.com%2Fbefore.png&hash=3aafc23ec1af7d58abe570a90094c09fc3a64ad0)
After:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w9jol.com%2Fafter.png&hash=6618f065dd02ccbb54bdd716d4f5cf84d833bb3f)
You can see (even with that random image) what the problem was with the old configuration. Based on the traffic on I-43, that wasn't even a peak traffic period. Go on Google Earth and check all the old images...there is always traffic stacked there. They added the roundabouts when they rebuilt the I-43 bridge and reconfigured the ramps. I can guarantee that the roundabouts didn't add significant cost to the entire project, yet improved traffic flow once the public got used to the roundabouts.
Quote from: GeekJedi on July 30, 2016, 11:59:37 AM
I'll make this even more simple...
Before:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w9jol.com%2Fbefore.png&hash=3aafc23ec1af7d58abe570a90094c09fc3a64ad0)
After:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w9jol.com%2Fafter.png&hash=6618f065dd02ccbb54bdd716d4f5cf84d833bb3f)
You can see (even with that random image) what the problem was with the old configuration. Based on the traffic on I-43, that wasn't even a peak traffic period. Go on Google Earth and check all the old images...there is always traffic stacked there. They added the roundabouts when they rebuilt the I-43 bridge and reconfigured the ramps. I can guarantee that the roundabouts didn't add significant cost to the entire project, yet improved traffic flow once the public got used to the roundabouts.
It's not just the cost it's the fact that accidents went way up and backups occur frequently during peak times. Either onto I-43 or at Moorland SB to Beloit. I attended the public hearing back in 2007 the overwhelming majority didn't want them. The DOT should have respected the wishes of the people of New Berlin and not done it. It was wrong to shove them down our throats against our will. The DOT even admitted themselves that 3 lane roundabouts are a bit too much and they are not going to do any more of them. But of course we are stuck with the one here.
Quote from: dvferyance on July 30, 2016, 04:47:03 PM
It's not just the cost it's the fact that accidents went way up and backups occur frequently during peak times. Either onto I-43 or at Moorland SB to Beloit. I attended the public hearing back in 2007 the overwhelming majority didn't want them. The DOT should have respected the wishes of the people of New Berlin and not done it. It was wrong to shove them down our throats against our will. The DOT even admitted themselves that 3 lane roundabouts are a bit too much and they are not going to do any more of them. But of course we are stuck with the one here.
First of all, the public are not engineers. As important as public input is, its impact should be limited to small-scale stuff, not the layout of the ramps, etc. Of course, not everyone agrees with me on this; not even I would agree with me if large-scale ROW acquisition is involved.
Second, overwhelming data available at the time of construction supported roundabouts at the ramp terminals. I suspect that, if the interchange were rebuilt today, roundabouts would likely not be the first recommendation. But at the time, it made sense.
Quote from: dvferyance on July 30, 2016, 04:47:03 PM
I attended the public hearing back in 2007 the overwhelming majority didn't want them. The DOT should have respected the wishes of the people of New Berlin and not done it.
How many people were at the meeting? 25? 50? 100? The population of New Berlin is 40,000. So no, those weren't what "the wishes of the people of New Berlin" were. Those were the wishes of the people that were in the room.
How many times has someone come to a DOT meeting strictly to support something? I know as a fact that the number is much lower than those who show up to oppose. Basically, those meetings are to get feedback, not to place a final vote.
I'll go one higher than jakeroot - I still think roundabouts at that intersection would be the preferred alternative. Probably not three lanes, but it would likely still be roundabouts. Those intersections were awful in their previous configuration with traffic stacking and waiting all over the place - especially with the tight spacing with the Beloit Rd. intersection to the North, and Rock Run to the South.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on July 30, 2016, 11:10:43 AM
Those ones at the I-43 ramp terminals? Never gave me a problem. But since we are judging roundabouts based on our anecdotal, biased experiences now, they must be working perfectly. :?
Or I'll be less shitty about it and ask what are the specific deficiencies you have observed at this particular location? That's your neck of the woods and I take it you use them frequently. Correct me if I'm wrong, but based on my knowledge of the area, I wager a guess that this roundabout pair is the only place you have to use them regularly. So what are the problems you are encountering? Backups? Lane discipline? Cars stopping when they should be yielding? Vise versa? Issues with semis?
Not my neck of the woods, nor do I go through that interchange that often, but I've sometimes found it hard to get gaps to enter the roundabouts from the I-43 ramps.
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 31, 2016, 07:47:39 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on July 30, 2016, 11:10:43 AM
Those ones at the I-43 ramp terminals? Never gave me a problem. But since we are judging roundabouts based on our anecdotal, biased experiences now, they must be working perfectly. :?
Or I'll be less shitty about it and ask what are the specific deficiencies you have observed at this particular location? That's your neck of the woods and I take it you use them frequently. Correct me if I'm wrong, but based on my knowledge of the area, I wager a guess that this roundabout pair is the only place you have to use them regularly. So what are the problems you are encountering? Backups? Lane discipline? Cars stopping when they should be yielding? Vise versa? Issues with semis?
Not my neck of the woods, nor do I go through that interchange that often, but I've sometimes found it hard to get gaps to enter the roundabouts from the I-43 ramps.
It can be, but typically it's less of a wait than a stoplight would be. (I drive through them at least twice a day, often more)
Get used to the roundabouts. They're not going anywhere.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 01, 2016, 03:09:14 PM
Get used to the roundabouts. They're not going anywhere.
Roundabouts are not going anywhere, no doubt, but the complex roundabouts that were aggressively built in Wisconsin over the past 8 years may become a thing of the past. Back in 2008 there were zero roundabouts in Wisconsin that had 3 circulating lanes (by all means correct me if I'm wrong). Today, there are 20 roundabouts in the state that have 3 circulating lanes. From my understanding there is now a moratorium in Wisconsin on designing roundabouts that have 3 circulating lanes due to the problems they have encountered (specially high crash rates.. one example being the Moorland roundabout already mentioned). They are finally getting a feel for which roundabouts work well and which ones are likely to be problematic.
I don't expect them to go away completely but I sure wish they would get rid of the ones on Moorland. Those are the worst ones by far. I don't like the ones on Hwy 83 either except for the one at 59 I am ok with that one. Most of the rest I am ok with but I do think there are enough in this state as is and if the the transportation budget has a shortfall a moratorium is necessary.
Quote from: GeekJedi on July 31, 2016, 11:04:01 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on July 30, 2016, 04:47:03 PM
I attended the public hearing back in 2007 the overwhelming majority didn't want them. The DOT should have respected the wishes of the people of New Berlin and not done it.
How many people were at the meeting? 25? 50? 100? The population of New Berlin is 40,000. So no, those weren't what "the wishes of the people of New Berlin" were. Those were the wishes of the people that were in the room.
How many times has someone come to a DOT meeting strictly to support something? I know as a fact that the number is much lower than those who show up to oppose. Basically, those meetings are to get feedback, not to place a final vote.
I'll go one higher than jakeroot - I still think roundabouts at that intersection would be the preferred alternative. Probably not three lanes, but it would likely still be roundabouts. Those intersections were awful in their previous configuration with traffic stacking and waiting all over the place - especially with the tight spacing with the Beloit Rd. intersection to the North, and Rock Run to the South.
So how do you know what the wishes of the people of New Berlin were? You don't even live in New Berlin. I do know the city leaders were against it. If the DOT isn't listening to the people at the meeting then there was no point in having the meeting in the first place. It was a waste of all of our time that night to come to it.
Quote from: dvferyance on August 02, 2016, 11:15:42 PM
I don't expect them to go away completely but I sure wish they would get rid of the ones on Moorland.
Quote from: dvferyance on August 02, 2016, 11:21:38 PM
So how do you know what the wishes of the people of New Berlin were? You don't even live in New Berlin. I do know the city leaders were against it. If the DOT isn't listening to the people at the meeting then there was no point in having the meeting in the first place. It was a waste of all of our time that night to come to it.
Generally, the public supports a given road project unless they voice an opinion stating otherwise. In the case of New Berlin, while there was some opposition, there wasn't enough for the DOT to spend millions re-working the design. Should the two roundabouts go away? No, but I think that WisDOT would be wise to revisit the roundabout in five to seven years, to see if crash rates drop or not.
Quote from: dvferyance on August 02, 2016, 11:15:42 PM
Most of the rest I am ok with but I do think there are enough in this state as is and if the the transportation budget has a shortfall a moratorium is necessary.
That doesn't make any sense. Roundabouts don't usually cost anymore than a signal (though there's obviously exceptions on both sides of the spectrum). Unless you're talking about replacing roundabouts with two-way stops (which is silly), the state isn't going to save any money by building traditional signalized intersections (two way stops don't have the same through-put as roundabouts, so for the purpose of this discussion, the only two options for intersections are roundabouts and signals).
In this state signals are usually cheaper than roundabouts. In most cases signals at an intersection cost about $200,000 while roundabouts cost between $1-$2 million, along with an intersection that has to be closed for about 2 months. Brown County was building roundabouts for about half that cost. WISDOT also spends way more on landscaping and lighting on their roundabouts. I put 2 streetviews of roundabouts on US 10 to get an idea of how many lights are placed at a rural roundabout intersection by the agency.
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.2139482,-88.2831605,3a,75y,279.45h,78.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sH5j98RHq_fGDluoVoaBHag!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
There is a curve that is lit below, but there are quite a few lights.
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.213052,-88.3229724,3a,75y,43.65h,78.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYejDVJ2RCpxH89cws4MoOQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
Quote from: peterj920 on August 03, 2016, 03:16:01 AM
In this state signals are usually cheaper than roundabouts. In most cases signals at an intersection cost about $200,000 while roundabouts cost between $1-$2 million, along with an intersection that has to be closed for about 2 months. Brown County was building roundabouts for about half that cost.
If the intersection doesn't need to be modified, certainly signals are cheaper. But many times, intersections are modified because one of the intersecting roads is being widened. If this is the case, roundabouts and signals cost roughly the same thing (both require new pavement, wiring for lights, etc). Roundabouts have the advantage of being cheaper to maintain, and can operate without power.
Quote from: dvferyance on August 02, 2016, 11:21:38 PM
So how do you know what the wishes of the people of New Berlin were? You don't even live in New Berlin. I do know the city leaders were against it. If the DOT isn't listening to the people at the meeting then there was no point in having the meeting in the first place. It was a waste of all of our time that night to come to it.
Unlike you, I'm *not* projecting onto them and assuming 40,000 people agree with me based on those in attendance at a meeting. I'm simply saying you're wrong in assuming that you "do* know. You simply don't. My fact is just that - more people attend a public meeting to complain about something than support something. Period. When it comes to stuff like this, people that don't want something are more passionate than those who do.
The point of the meeting was not to make a final decision. That's foolish. You're not going to make a major transportation decision because a handful of people in a room disagree. You will take their concerns into consideration, but you just don't cancel a project because 50 people don't like it.
Also, keep in mind that roundabouts here have become politically charged. There are some talk show hosts that have decided that roundabouts are a "Liberal Jim Doyle" thing and that's why they should not be built. Those people are immediately filtered out.
Quote from: GeekJedi on August 03, 2016, 07:32:04 AM
Also, keep in mind that roundabouts here have become politically charged. There are some talk show hosts that have decided that roundabouts are a "Liberal Jim Doyle" thing and that's why they should not be built. Those people are immediately filtered out.
I can pretty much guaranty you that this is the source of the OP's rage on this issue.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 03, 2016, 08:34:05 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on August 03, 2016, 07:32:04 AM
Also, keep in mind that roundabouts here have become politically charged. There are some talk show hosts that have decided that roundabouts are a "Liberal Jim Doyle" thing and that's why they should not be built. Those people are immediately filtered out.
I can pretty much guaranty you that this is the source of the OP's rage on this issue.
From Jim Doyle to Scott Walker roundabouts are still being built at the same pace. I just have a hard time seeing tall grass along roadways and Waysides closing, yet roundabouts are replacing traffic signals that work fine in a lot of areas. In Northeast Wisconsin, US 10/Wis 57, Wis 54/Seminary Rd and Wis 32/County B were intersections that worked perfectly fine with the traffic signals in place. The roundabout construction closed the intersections for nearly 3 months, and cost over $1 million a piece. The US 10/Wis 57 roundabout cost over $2 million because of real estate costs and having to tear down a building to make room for it. Back when WISDOT cut back on grass cutting, they said it would save $1.5 million. Constructing one less roundabout would nearly cover that expense. I also think WISDOT overspends on construction costs for building them since Brown County has been building roundabouts for about half the cost of WISDOT.
Quote from: peterj920 on August 03, 2016, 01:07:25 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 03, 2016, 08:34:05 AM
Quote from: GeekJedi on August 03, 2016, 07:32:04 AM
Also, keep in mind that roundabouts here have become politically charged. There are some talk show hosts that have decided that roundabouts are a "Liberal Jim Doyle" thing and that's why they should not be built. Those people are immediately filtered out.
I can pretty much guaranty you that this is the source of the OP's rage on this issue.
From Jim Doyle to Scott Walker roundabouts are still being built at the same pace. I just have a hard time seeing tall grass along roadways and Waysides closing, yet roundabouts are replacing traffic signals that work fine in a lot of areas. In Northeast Wisconsin, US 10/Wis 57, Wis 54/Seminary Rd and Wis 32/County B were intersections that worked perfectly fine with the traffic signals in place. The roundabout construction closed the intersections for nearly 3 months, and cost over $1 million a piece. The US 10/Wis 57 roundabout cost over $2 million because of real estate costs and having to tear down a building to make room for it. Back when WISDOT cut back on grass cutting, they said it would save $1.5 million. Constructing one less roundabout would nearly cover that expense. I also think WISDOT overspends on construction costs for building them since Brown County has been building roundabouts for about half the cost of WISDOT.
It isn't apples to apples comparing the capital cost of a roundabout, which will then have a usable life measuring in the decades, with the annual operating costs of cutting grass. That is why the capital costs of roadways (and roundabouts) are usually covered through bonding - the public pays for them over time because they have a use over time.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 03, 2016, 03:52:23 PM
It isn't apples to apples comparing the capital cost of a roundabout, which will then have a usable life measuring in the decades, with the annual operating costs of cutting grass. That is why the capital costs of roadways (and roundabouts) are usually covered through bonding - the public pays for them over time because they have a use over time.
Exactly. And we get back to the simple fact that things like mowing aren't getting cut at the expense of roundabouts. It's not even comparing apples to oranges. It's more like comparing apples to missile launchers in this case.
At least in the case of Georgia, the roundabouts have been coming in substantially cheaper than $1-2 million per intersection, and typically don't require the intersection to be closed during construction. One example I'm aware of near Macon on US 80 near Lizella did close the cross street for a couple of months, but the detour was only a few thousand feet and there was a lot of grading involved to get the land level for the roundabout.
Quote from: lordsutch on August 03, 2016, 06:04:01 PM
At least in the case of Georgia, the roundabouts have been coming in substantially cheaper than $1-2 million per intersection, and typically don't require the intersection to be closed during construction. One example I'm aware of near Macon on US 80 near Lizella did close the cross street for a couple of months, but the detour was only a few thousand feet and there was a lot of grading involved to get the land level for the roundabout.
They're also building a pair of roundabouts in Waterloo, ON on Erb St, and they've managed to keep the road open during their construction. They appear to be half done (the north halves of both roundabouts are paved and have curbs).
This article (http://m.therecord.com/news-story/6439957-costco-road-and-roundabout-construction-starts-next-week-in-waterloo) on the project says the following:
QuoteThe developer is footing the $1.4-million bill for the roundabout at the Costco site and some related work.
It says roundabout singular, even though there are two of them, so I'm not sure if they cost $1.4 million combined or each. Also, with currency conversion, $1.4 million CAD is about $1.07 million USD.
As I recall years ago the DOT was thinking about putting a roundabout at the intersection of University and Summit in Waukesha. I don't know why they didn't I would have been perfectly fine with one there. Would have made way more sense then the ones in New Berlin that's for sure.
The project below is a big reason why I started this thread. The intersection of US 45 and Wis 96 works perfectly fine with the traffic signals. Why does money need to be spent on a roundabout if signals are already in place?
http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/about-wisdot/newsroom/news-rel/124a-nc.aspx
Quote from: peterj920 on August 19, 2016, 11:30:45 PM
The project below is a big reason why I started this thread. The intersection of US 45 and Wis 96 works perfectly fine with the traffic signals. Why does money need to be spent on a roundabout if signals are already in place?
http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/about-wisdot/newsroom/news-rel/124a-nc.aspx
I guess you didn't read their justification just one click away from the page you linked. Doesn't sound like the signals are adequate from a safety perspective.
"Overview
A recent crash analysis identified a safety concern at the US 45/WIS 96 intersection on US 45 between Waupaca/Outagamie County D and Waupaca County W.
Between 2010 and 2014, there were four right angle crashes; three westbound-southbound crashes and one eastbound-southbound crash. Of those, two westbound vehicles ran a red light and one eastbound vehicle ran a red light. Westbound and eastbound traffic may have had difficulty seeing the traffic signals.
There was also one left-turn angle crash, one sideswipe, one run-off-the-road crash, and four rear-end crashes. Three of the four rear-end crashes were vehicles slowing or stopped for a red light. Five of the 11 crashes at this intersection occurred on wet/snowy/icy pavement.
Current left turn lane lengths on US 45 are not long enough to provide adequate deceleration for turning vehicles. Additionally, the turn lanes are configured in a way that opposing left turn vehicles obstruct the view of oncoming traffic.
The purpose of this project is to increase safety by reducing the number and severity of potential crashes while maintaining current and future capacity needs for the intersection and overall functional needs of the US 45 corridor."
Living in a bit more of an open area in Illinois, I don't understand why we don't have more roundabouts. We have one in Johnsburg and traffic flows a lot better than before. Every time I see a mention in a study about to much traffic at an intersection the solution always seems to be a traffic light. But the traffic count at the intersection does not warrant it. I've come to the conclusion that old people don't know how to navigate them and just complain every time they are added as a possible solution for the problem.