In response to more cyclists on the road, UK cities are starting to tear out some roundabouts and replace them with traffic signals. One main reason? Injuries to cyclists are high at some of these roundabouts.
QuoteInside the Civic Centre of Newcastle City Council, head of transport investment Graham Grant spreads out a map of the city's roads. Accident black-spots are highlighted: an algorithm has ranked roundabouts and junctions according to casualties and injuries. Three roundabouts in the northern Gosforth suburb rank fourth, seventh and 10th worst for injuries caused by motor vehicle collisions. In terms of injuries to cyclists, however, they're one-two-three.
http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/oct/19/traffic-lights-roundabouts-way-out
Roundabouts are great for traffic flow. But not so great when drivers don't yield to bikes/peds...
Roundabouts are so so for non motorist traffic, it's nice having an island, but the fact that you don't have to stop when you see a pedestrian, or the fact that drivers don't pay attention, makes for an issue. I don't see this coming to the US any time soon though, most cities are trying to do the opposite. I love roundabouts and hate signals though, so I'm biased. I think it's too easy to add a signal where it's not needed.
Like all road designs, not every design is suitable for every situation. And when traffic demands shift, it's normal and proper to see how other road designs could improve traffic flow.
In other words, welcome to the everyday life of a transportation department.
Thing is, what the UK calls a "roundabout", we call a rotary. Our roundabouts are smaller and lower speed, which helps bike/ped use. Modern ones even include transfer points where bicyclists can switch to the shoulder if they choose, but with the lower speeds, they're generally bike-accessible. Due to pedestrian issues, the FHWA will be requiring that new multi-lane roundabouts have some form of pedestrian signal (regular signal, HAWK, or the yellow flashing beacons) at the crosswalks.
And you do have to stop when you see a pedestrian, people just don't.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 11, 2015, 10:45:54 AM
Like all road designs, not every design is suitable for every situation. And when traffic demands shift, it's normal and proper to see how other road designs could improve traffic flow.
In other words, welcome to the everyday life of a transportation department.
Here's a roundabout in Farndon, UK that was constructed in 2012. It's pretty shocking that somebody though this rural roundabout was a good idea to build. You may be giving government agencies too much credit when implying that they are just reacting to changing traffic demands. Some designs should never have been built in the first place and they are just fixing their self-inflicted boo-boos. In 2015, this circle underwent a major redesign just a few years after being built.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi478.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Frr144%2Ftradephoric%2FTransportation%2520Pictures%2FRoundabouts%2FFardon_zpsyiyqhpfa.png&hash=527e5d4fecbed767d051ad82709f1a8b3076fce2)
http://newarkadvertiser.co.uk/articles/news/A46-Farndon-roundabout-layout-will-be-changed
Quote from: tradephoric on December 11, 2015, 02:25:50 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 11, 2015, 10:45:54 AM
Like all road designs, not every design is suitable for every situation. And when traffic demands shift, it's normal and proper to see how other road designs could improve traffic flow.
In other words, welcome to the everyday life of a transportation department.
Here's a roundabout in Farndon, UK that was constructed in 2012. It's pretty shocking that somebody though this rural roundabout was a good idea to build. You may be giving government agencies too much credit when implying that they are just reacting to changing traffic demands. Some designs should never have been built in the first place and they are just fixing their self-inflicted boo-boos. In 2015, this circle underwent a major redesign just a few years after being built.
Is it the size, or the number of lanes that you find shocking? English Si would probably know better than I, but neither seem particularly unique to this roundabout per English standards. I don't think the Highways department would have ever constructed a signal at this intersection (given the rural nature of the area), but I will agree that maybe something a little smaller, with only two lanes would have worked better. Then again, much smaller, and it starts getting difficult to get the side roads to meet properly without a bunch of slip lanes.
This roundabout might be a good candidate for a redesign (either interchange or intersection).
^A large roundabout (high circulating speeds) in a rural environment (encourages high speeds) with poor entry deflection angles (encourages high speeds) and marked for 3-lanes (increasing the number of conflict points). Taken together, that Farndon roundabout is just a failed design. According to some of the user comments in the article, the roundabout was redesigned in 2015 (removing some circulating lanes). This redesign took place just 3 years after being built.
It was also mentioned in the story that at least one approach consisted of 70 mph lanes.
But, as far as your 'giving too much credit to government agencies' comment...there are millions of miles of road, tens of thousands of intersections, thousands of transportation departments, and you try to negate all of that with one example. You, my friend, are amazing. Yes, not everything works well, and some designs are head scratchers. What sounds good in theory may not work well in practice. But the overwhelming majority of times, it does.
Quote from: tradephoric on December 11, 2015, 03:14:59 PM
^A large roundabout (high circulating speeds) in a rural environment (encourages high speeds) with poor entry deflection angles (encourages high speeds) and marked for 3-lanes (increasing the number of conflict points). Taken together, that Farndon roundabout is just a failed design. According to some of the user comments in the article, the roundabout was redesigned in 2015 (removing some circulating lanes). This redesign took place just 3 years after being built.
I agree with everything except the deflection. The deflection is nothing less than anything you'd see across the UK. The Australian/US-style deflection (with chicanes) is unheard of (except for at least one location (https://goo.gl/9jdTUl)). As it exists (now and then), the deflection is perfectly acceptable. Too much chicaning and people don't stay in their lanes, which is
more dangerous. The current English style of straight-on then sharp left seems to work fine.
Technically that thing in Farndon is NOT a roundabout at all. It's a traffic circle/rotary. A roundabout is small, can't be traversed at more than ~20 mph (at the MOST; 10-15 mph is more common) and has truck aprons. More like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7239627,-73.7912535,168m/data=!3m1!1e3
Quote from: tradephoric on December 11, 2015, 02:25:50 PMHere's a roundabout in Farndon, UK that was constructed in 2012. It's pretty shocking that somebody though this rural roundabout was a good idea to build.
Why? You want traffic signals when one arm is a 70mph dual carriageway, and another is a 60mph single carriageway? A GSJ wouldn't really work, given the lane drop and high levels of turning traffic. And all a GSJ would do is simply move the problem of a fast trunk road ending at a roundabout one junction further - albeit a roundabout from the 80s that has seen fewer crashes than the modern one.
The concept of a rural, 70mph, 3-lane roundabout isn't the problem here. The problem was shitty engineering.
QuoteIn 2015, this circle underwent a major redesign just a few years after being built.
Which you cheered as it got rid of a lane.
Sadly it fixed nothing, as the roundabout didn't meet sensible design in the first place with too much deflection, especially on exits (which also narrowed from two lanes to one), and poor signage - both of which were the reasons for the huge accident rate - were left unchanged.
The redesign of this roundabout lead to every DOT employee on SABRE questioning it, as a step sideways at best. The original design was dire and the whole thing spun off into a ranty thread about how a load of highway engineers know nothing. It will be redesigned again at some point in the near future as an old-school style roundabout.
Quote from: english si on December 11, 2015, 05:02:06 PM
...the roundabout didn't meet sensible design in the first place with too much deflection, especially on exits (which also narrowed from two lanes to one)...
Very interesting. So in the UK, is no deflection on exit preferred? I know in the US, deflection on each entry/exit leg is preferred to keep speed down. Then again, too big of a curve hides pedestrians, so I personally prefer a straight exit leg.
Quote from: english si on December 11, 2015, 05:02:06 PM
It will be redesigned again at some point in the near future as an old-school style roundabout.
Does that mean removing lane lines altogether (instead using arrows prior to entry)? Removing the lane lines at the point where cars cross? I know both are somewhat common in the UK.
Quote from: vdeane on December 11, 2015, 04:00:27 PM
Technically that thing in Farndon is NOT a roundabout at all. It's a traffic circle/rotary. A roundabout is small, can't be traversed at more than ~20 mph (at the MOST; 10-15 mph is more common) and has truck aprons. More like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7239627,-73.7912535,168m/data=!3m1!1e3
That's the American definition. The UK definition is much looser. Then again, to me, a roundabout is any circular intersection where traffic entering yields to traffic circulating...size, number of lanes, etc are not relevant (so the Farndon roundabout above is a roundabout, to me). As for trucks aprons, that appears to be more common in North America/Australia, where are trucks are more of the conventional nose-out design. Most of Europe uses cab-over designs, which have much tighter turning radii (plus, places like Germany don't like aprons because of cost and maintenance). But there are still plenty of roundabouts in Europe with aprons, just not at rural roundabouts (the Farndon roundabout would never, ever need an apron).
Quote from: jakeroot on December 11, 2015, 05:36:19 PM
That's the American definition. The UK definition is much looser. Then again, to me, a roundabout is any circular intersection where traffic entering yields to traffic circulating...size, number of lanes, etc are not relevant (so the Farndon roundabout above is a roundabout, to me).
Seconded. A roundabout in most parts of the world is "any circular intersection where traffic entering yields to traffic circulating".
Roundabout = a circle.
Quote from: noelbotevera on December 11, 2015, 08:49:15 PM
Roundabout = a circle.
No. A traffic circle where traffic in the circle must yield to traffic entering the circle is not a roundabout.
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 12, 2015, 04:12:52 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on December 11, 2015, 08:49:15 PM
Roundabout = a circle.
No. A traffic circle where traffic in the circle must yield to traffic entering the circle is not a roundabout.
Or there's no specific traffic control whatsoever, as found in many NJ traffic circles.
As Si says the example linked is pretty poor; it seems to be a symptom of the UK skills shortage in highway design where people are reading a design manual and not really understanding what they're reading.
A multiple arm roundabout of that size would possibly be given signalised entries to mitigate the deflection issues.
Incidentally, the roundabout referred to in the original post at Cowgate was funded as a 'local pinch point' scheme - e.g. signals have been provided to improve side road access as the old roundabout had too much of a dominant flow from the city centre to the A1.
I worked on the Road Safety Audit for it, which if you're building a new road scheme over here you should undertake as routine.
Quote from: riiga on December 11, 2015, 07:34:40 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 11, 2015, 05:36:19 PM
That's the American definition. The UK definition is much looser. Then again, to me, a roundabout is any circular intersection where traffic entering yields to traffic circulating...size, number of lanes, etc are not relevant (so the Farndon roundabout above is a roundabout, to me).
Seconded. A roundabout in most parts of the world is "any circular intersection where traffic entering yields to traffic circulating".
Let's put it this way. There are roundabouts and there are traffic circles/rotaries. One is an innovative intersection type that calms traffic and makes the roads safer, especially for pedestrians/cyclists. The other is a death trap that isn't built on this side of the pond any more for VERY good reasons. I'm not sure why the rest of the world doesn't make the distinction.
Quote from: vdeane on December 12, 2015, 08:37:18 PM
Quote from: riiga on December 11, 2015, 07:34:40 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 11, 2015, 05:36:19 PM
That's the American definition. The UK definition is much looser. Then again, to me, a roundabout is any circular intersection where traffic entering yields to traffic circulating...size, number of lanes, etc are not relevant (so the Farndon roundabout above is a roundabout, to me).
Seconded. A roundabout in most parts of the world is "any circular intersection where traffic entering yields to traffic circulating".
Let's put it this way. There are roundabouts and there are traffic circles/rotaries. One is an innovative intersection type that calms traffic and makes the roads safer, especially for pedestrians/cyclists. The other is a death trap that isn't built on this side of the pond any more for VERY good reasons. I'm not sure why the rest of the world doesn't make the distinction.
Let's put it another way: American transportation departments don't know how to sign and mark rotaries very well, so they work equally shitty. The rest of the world understands how pavement markings work, so they use them, usually effectively. See these two comparisons, UK left, vs US right...something tells me that the UK does it right (t
hough that image looks a little doctored...allow me to find a better image the roundabout was just recently redesigned).
AFAIC, a roundabout can be any size, as long as it has proper markings and signage.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.stevesdriving.co.uk%2Fwpimages%2Fwpd073194c_05_06.jpg&hash=4d65b6f2f8cb59f2e7d2283337ed771a43c702da)(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmw2.google.com%2Fmw-panoramio%2Fphotos%2Fmedium%2F3258655.jpg&hash=595e2868c40158ff789683095f6c06b79a892442)
Some actual newer roundabouts in the U.S. are much safer compared to something akin to New Jersey traffic circles and Massachusetts rotaries. Like vdeane said, there is a clear distinction between roundabouts and circles over here. For one, I feel like circles don't have standards - which is why many of them are elliptical or ovular. Roundabouts seem to be near perfect 360 degree circles.
Quote from: Zeffy on December 12, 2015, 10:03:06 PM
Some actual newer roundabouts in the U.S. are much safer compared to something akin to New Jersey traffic circles and Massachusetts rotaries. Like vdeane said, there is a clear distinction between roundabouts and circles over here. For one, I feel like circles don't have standards - which is why many of them are elliptical or ovular. Roundabouts seem to be near perfect 360 degree circles.
But that doesn't have to be so. Sommerville Circle has huge potential, but NJDOT doesn't have any clue how to sign a traffic circle. If they signed it properly, it would be fantastic.
There are some examples of "racetrack" roundabouts in the US: Towson, MD, Santa Barbara, CA, and Colville, WA:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F4sItOzQ.png&hash=b3331fef5138ce18d7ac1152afc377fd3fc3024f)(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FypX5PMX.png&hash=21bfe33a057594bce6cb4b5119c740935c77fd26)(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FBrmemMl.png&hash=26e2267d2b63354b6e9c79d882499054a672e837)
Quote from: jakeroot on December 12, 2015, 10:33:02 PM
But that doesn't have to be so. Somerville Circle has huge potential, but NJDOT doesn't have any clue how to sign a traffic circle. If they signed it properly, it would be fantastic.
You're right, it does have potential. However, it's not just the signing - we also have the issue of not having pavement markings in the circle. This is a bad mistake, because there's no concept of lanes - it's more like "well I think I can be here".
For example:
Brunswick Circle in Trenton, NJ: https://www.google.ca/maps/@40.2451584,-74.7427503,183m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en
Flemington Circle in Flemington, NJ: https://www.google.ca/maps/@40.5024394,-74.8535027,217m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en
Brooklawn Circle in Brooklawn, NJ: https://www.google.ca/maps/@39.875767,-75.1227327,261m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en
Even better is that next to the Flemington Circle, you have this one, which is (IMO) safer than the Flemington Circle solely because the lanes are defined clearly:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@40.5018398,-74.8584492,153m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en
Quote from: Zeffy on December 12, 2015, 11:03:51 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 12, 2015, 10:33:02 PM
But that doesn't have to be so. Somerville Circle has huge potential, but NJDOT doesn't have any clue how to sign a traffic circle. If they signed it properly, it would be fantastic.
You're right, it does have potential. However, it's not just the signing - we also have the issue of not having pavement markings in the circle. This is a bad mistake, because there's no concept of lanes - it's more like "well I think I can be here".
Good point. I do realize this, but I forgot to write it. I just kept saying "sign" and "signed" over and over again. :-D
Quote from: Zeffy on December 12, 2015, 11:03:51 PM
Even better is that next to the Flemington Circle, you have this one, which is (IMO) safer than the Flemington Circle solely because the lanes are defined clearly:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@40.5018398,-74.8584492,153m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en
Yes, yes!! Bingo! See, in that case, the size of the roundabout isn't really relevant. There is clearly defined lane lines, yield lines, etc, and the signs, albeit not my favorite, are a step in the right direction towards helping drivers understand their path prior to entry. You could argue that there is some speed issues here, but I don't think that's a big deal, given the good deal of deflection for the entries. At most, drivers are going 25-30 by the time they hit their exit. Slightly faster than the FHWA would prefer but a billion times better than the junk that preceded it.
Then there are horrible things like this:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2260534,-74.0386719,586m/data=!3m1!1e3
Which suffer from both drunk geometry and lack of proper signage. Traffic seeking to follow NJ 35 through here in either direction must change lanes. Not that any signs or markings clearly tell you that.
If you're going to do a multilane roundabout properly (regardless of size), it needs to be clearly signed and marked such that drivers can properly select the appropriate lane for their destination before entering. Last minute lane changes by drivers who were confused as to what lane they were supposed to be in are what cause accidents.
I will grant you there is some driver awareness involved in properly handling a roundabout that a lot of Americans don't seem to "get". I have no problem navigating them, but I understand how they work. I have seen many drivers mishandle them by trying to yield when they have the right of way, flying into the circle when they're supposed to yield, obliviously getting in the wrong lane despite clear markings, or my personal biggest pet peeve - not signalling their exit so entering drivers know they can proceed without conflict.
None of this counts as anything against roundabouts in my mind, though. There is nothing wrong with the design, it is merely the traffic engineering equivalent of a PEBKAC situation.
This one is fun, because not only are there very sporadic signs, there are yield signs for cars
IN the circle - so if you're entering the circle, you technically have the right of way. Uh, what?
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0109902,-74.3264961,3a,63.9y,96.05h,81.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sp3MF1TkeNabdhmB2A5qnEg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Quote from: Duke87 on December 13, 2015, 12:36:40 AM
I will grant you there is some driver awareness involved in properly handling a roundabout that a lot of Americans don't seem to "get". I have no problem navigating them, but I understand how they work. I have seen many drivers mishandle them by trying to yield when they have the right of way, flying into the circle when they're supposed to yield, obliviously getting in the wrong lane despite clear markings, or my personal biggest pet peeve - not signalling their exit so entering drivers know they can proceed without conflict.
Yes, there needs to be a heightened sense of awareness on both sides when navigating any sort of roundabout/circle, mainly because lane switching can occur in a short amount of time and you have to be prepared for it - not that you should ride people's asses in any situation, but here is a good place where it's a horrible idea.
Also, traffic in the Flemington Circle moves at almost 40 MPH. That is just crazy.
Quote from: Duke87 on December 13, 2015, 12:36:40 AM
I will grant you there is some driver awareness involved in properly handling a roundabout that a lot of Americans don't seem to "get". I have no problem navigating them, but I understand how they work. I have seen many drivers mishandle them by trying to yield when they have the right of way, flying into the circle when they're supposed to yield, obliviously getting in the wrong lane despite clear markings, or my personal biggest pet peeve - not signalling their exit so entering drivers know they can proceed without conflict.
None of this counts as anything against roundabouts in my mind, though. There is nothing wrong with the design, it is merely the traffic engineering equivalent of a PEBKAC situation.
The problem with the design is that it doesn't match reality. Take a look at this simulation model of 14th & Superior where drivers are perfectly traveling through the roundabout. This isn't what you see in the real world. It's important to focus on where the rubber meets the road and not just think "roundabouts work in theory" . This Yogism sums it up best...
"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0H2URY7BX0
Quote from: jakeroot on December 12, 2015, 11:47:57 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on December 12, 2015, 11:03:51 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 12, 2015, 10:33:02 PM
But that doesn't have to be so. Somerville Circle has huge potential, but NJDOT doesn't have any clue how to sign a traffic circle. If they signed it properly, it would be fantastic.
You're right, it does have potential. However, it's not just the signing - we also have the issue of not having pavement markings in the circle. This is a bad mistake, because there's no concept of lanes - it's more like "well I think I can be here".
Good point. I do realize this, but I forgot to write it. I just kept saying "sign" and "signed" over and over again. :-D
Quote from: Zeffy on December 12, 2015, 11:03:51 PM
Even better is that next to the Flemington Circle, you have this one, which is (IMO) safer than the Flemington Circle solely because the lanes are defined clearly:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@40.5018398,-74.8584492,153m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en
Yes, yes!! Bingo! See, in that case, the size of the roundabout isn't really relevant. There is clearly defined lane lines, yield lines, etc, and the signs, albeit not my favorite, are a step in the right direction towards helping drivers understand their path prior to entry. You could argue that there is some speed issues here, but I don't think that's a big deal, given the good deal of deflection for the entries. At most, drivers are going 25-30 by the time they hit their exit. Slightly faster than the FHWA would prefer but a billion times better than the junk that preceded it.
I could go AT LEAST 40 in that circle. In Latham Circle near here, which is a bit smaller (and retrofitted to act more like a roundabout) I often go 25-30. Vehicle speed is a definite issue. I can't even imagine having to navigate a roundabout at 70... sounds dangerous, as one has to wait until cars in the circle pass or exit to know what they do. At 70, there is no time for that judgement call, and if you guess wrong, you could cause a serious accident.
Latham Circle is a CF no matter how you look at it because of the amount of traffic the area gets. Thankfully, US 9 traffic tunnels underneath so you don't have that adding to it.
As far as large traffic circles go, I remember the old Kingston traffic circle at Thruway Exit 19. Depending on what you consider a traffic circle, I-587 may or may not have connected directly. They redid it in the late 90s or early 2000s to make it a much smaller 2-lane roundabout with bypass lanes for most of the right turn movements, but I remember how it was before the rebuild, as my grandmother lives in the area. My father often took it at highway speed. That and Latham Circle were two of NYSDOT's first modern roundabouts.
There are a few crazy high-speed traffic circles in the Hudson Valley. If going from NY 17 to the Taconic, you encounter 3. One at the US 6/PIP/Seven Lakes Drive interchange, one at the west end of the Bear Mountain Bridge, and one at US 9 immediately north of the Bear Mountain Parkway. All are typically taken at high speed and all but the last have at least one approach that is 55. Seven Lakes Drive has a couple more. There's also one at the northern end of the Bronx River Parkway. None of these have been converted. Heck, the Taconic/Saw Mill interchange was a traffic circle until they started construction on the Sprain Brook.
Quote from: cl94 on December 13, 2015, 06:11:00 PM
Latham Circle is a CF no matter how you look at it because of the amount of traffic the area gets. Thankfully, US 9 traffic tunnels underneath so you don't have that adding to it.
I've never had a problem going through there. It's very clearly marked.
Latham Circle used to be a mess when it was marked as 2 lanes all around and was somewhat of a free-for-all. But clear signage and lane markings have made it much better. With all the signs, especially coming in from either direction on Route 2, people should be able to get into the lane they need to be in.
Quote from: Jim on December 14, 2015, 09:46:05 AM
Latham Circle used to be a mess when it was marked as 2 lanes all around and was somewhat of a free-for-all. But clear signage and lane markings have made it much better.
Right. The remarking of Latham Circle happened years ago. I remember seeing the visualizations about a decade ago.
Latham Circle is a mess only because of traffic. If a bunch of people turn left, NY 2 will be stopped for a while.
They did the remarking in 2003 or 2004. Historic Aerials from 2004 has the new markings.
Heh. I hate this thing in Williamstown. :D
https://goo.gl/maps/vzzWtjysEw92
Quote from: Rothman on December 15, 2015, 09:23:35 AM
Heh. I hate this thing in Williamstown. :D
https://goo.gl/maps/vzzWtjysEw92
When I first lived there, part of it had 2-way traffic (you could turn left from US 7 South to MA 2 East) and I think you might have even been able to continue onto South Street (southbound) without going around the circle-like-thing. If I'm remembering right, it was reconfigured to the way it is now about 10 years ago.
Quote from: Rothman on December 15, 2015, 09:23:35 AM
Heh. I hate this thing in Williamstown. :D
https://goo.gl/maps/vzzWtjysEw92
Why the hate? At least it's marked (I'm gonna go ahead and ignore the fact that much of the markings have worn away).
Quote from: Rothman on December 15, 2015, 09:23:35 AM
Heh. I hate this thing in Williamstown. :D
https://goo.gl/maps/vzzWtjysEw92
Reminds me of this thing (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.6241865,-72.5199717,278m/data=!3m1!1e3) in Woodstock.
If we're going to talk about New England town squares, can't forget this triangle-shaped thing (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3015633,-73.5861866,278m/data=!3m1!1e3) in Hudson Falls, NY.
Quote from: cl94 on December 15, 2015, 05:40:29 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 15, 2015, 09:23:35 AM
Heh. I hate this thing in Williamstown. :D
https://goo.gl/maps/vzzWtjysEw92
Reminds me of this thing (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.6241865,-72.5199717,278m/data=!3m1!1e3) in Woodstock.
If we're going to talk about New England town squares, can't forget this triangle-shaped thing (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3015633,-73.5861866,278m/data=!3m1!1e3) in Hudson Falls, NY.
What's your opinion on those two intersections, CL? Both seem like they work fine. I mean, what's the big deal about a couple of yield lines and some one-way streets? Unique? Hell yeah, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Quote from: Jim on December 14, 2015, 09:46:05 AM
Latham Circle used to be a mess when it was marked as 2 lanes all around and was somewhat of a free-for-all. But clear signage and lane markings have made it much better. With all the signs, especially coming in from either direction on Route 2, people should be able to get into the lane they need to be in.
Why I love free-for-alls! Where do I sign up?
-----------------------------------------------------
On topic, really roundabouts are a mess. Everyone is gonna stick to the right lane like glue. Just stick up traffic lights at each leg so that entering and exiting traffic is controlled IMO. I'm not an engineer, but that's my two cents.
Quote from: noelbotevera on December 15, 2015, 05:58:33 PM
On topic, really roundabouts are a mess. Everyone is gonna stick to the right lane like glue. Just stick up traffic lights at each leg so that entering and exiting traffic is controlled IMO. I'm not an engineer, but that's my two cents.
That kind of ruins the point, though.
Also, when you start driving, you'll discover that people drift all over the place. No one sticks to the right lane anywhere, even when massive fucking signs tell them to.
Quote from: noelbotevera on December 15, 2015, 05:58:33 PM
On topic, really roundabouts are a mess. Everyone is gonna stick to the right lane like glue. Just stick up traffic lights at each leg so that entering and exiting traffic is controlled IMO. I'm not an engineer, but that's my two cents.
The whole purpose of a roundabout is to keep traffic moving. Having to stop at a red light completely fails to accomplish that.
Quote from: jakeroot on December 15, 2015, 06:08:22 PM
Also, when you start driving, you'll discover that people drift all over the place. No one sticks to the right lane anywhere, even when massive fucking signs tell them to.
Yep, and you have to be ready to jam on the brakes in case the idiot in the adjacent lane realizes he's in the wrong lane and without looking cuts you off.
Quote from: jakeroot on December 15, 2015, 05:55:11 PM
Quote from: cl94 on December 15, 2015, 05:40:29 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 15, 2015, 09:23:35 AM
Heh. I hate this thing in Williamstown. :D
https://goo.gl/maps/vzzWtjysEw92
Reminds me of this thing (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.6241865,-72.5199717,278m/data=!3m1!1e3) in Woodstock.
If we're going to talk about New England town squares, can't forget this triangle-shaped thing (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3015633,-73.5861866,278m/data=!3m1!1e3) in Hudson Falls, NY.
What's your opinion on those two intersections, CL? Both seem like they work fine. I mean, what's the big deal about a couple of yield lines and some one-way streets? Unique? Hell yeah, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
I'm not saying it's all bad, but I've seen people do weird things at both, especially Hudson Falls. I grew up a couple miles from there, but it's close enough to tourist stuff and on one of the routes between central/northern Vermont and the rest of the country for nonlocals to be in there. On NB US 4, it's nothing more than a one-way street. SB, you have 2 lane changes within 300 feet and if you don't see the sign while trying to merge over for the first one, it's easy to end up on NY 254 by mistake. A lot of people turn around at Spring Street.
What's really weird about that one is that, while US 4 would appear to be the through route, traffic between the south and west never encounters a yield sign. In fact, the movements between NY 254 and US 4 south of the circle are the only two movements that always have the right of way. Yield signs are only where SB US 4 enters and on the southern U-turn ramp (which doesn't get much usage because locals know to use Warren CR 79/Washington CR 75 (Boulevard) or NY 32 to make that movement).