Indiana DOT plans 28 intersections for roundabouts (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-in-indotroundabouts,0,6545837.story) (from Chicago Tribune)
"Safety concerns are driving the Indiana Department of Transportation to plan the installation of roundabouts at 28 more intersections across the state over the next five years..."
In case anyone was curious as to where these new roundabouts are located, since you can only buy or get a paid subscription to the Indianapolis Business Journal, where this article orginated from the article was a little misleading. Twelve are planned for Central Indiana, eight of them at the interchanges along the new U.S. 31 corridor being built in Hamilton County. Those roundabouts would be at Rangeline Road, 131st, 136th and 161st Streets. The others are at SR 32 and US 421 in Boone County, SR 144 and Kitchen Road in Morgan County and two along SR 267 at County Roads 300 South and 150 South in the Plainfield/Avon area. Plus, there are some more planned for throughout the state but the article wasn't that specific, only mentioning the planned roundabout at SR 25 to the east of I-65 along the new Hoosier Heartland corridor.
In addition, it seems that there are two new roundabouts planned along Indianapolis city streets on the south side that are slated for completion in 2013, making these the first since Monunment Circle, which the aritcle IMO incorrectly called a roundabout (I say it's a traffic circle, but oh well.) As well, a few more roundabouts are under consideration for other parts of the city.
You say traffic circle, I say roundabout
You say tomayto, I say tomahto
Let's blow every damn one of them up!
Quote from: hbelkins on January 11, 2012, 02:05:41 PM
You say traffic circle, I say roundabout
You say tomayto, I say tomahto
Let's blow every damn one of them up!
Sure. Get FHWA to ban roundabouts in the MUTCD.
Quote from: NE2 on January 11, 2012, 05:15:33 PM
Sure. Get FHWA to ban roundabouts in the MUTCD.
Since a roundabout isn't a traffic control device, that wouldn't work.
i'd rather put political pressure on lawmakers to put political pressure on DOTs not to build them. :bigass:
Quote from: hbelkins on January 11, 2012, 10:36:05 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 11, 2012, 05:15:33 PM
Sure. Get FHWA to ban roundabouts in the MUTCD.
Since a roundabout isn't a traffic control device, that wouldn't work.
i'd rather put political pressure on lawmakers to put political pressure on DOTs not to build them. :bigass:
What do you propose replacing them with?
Quote from: hbelkins on January 11, 2012, 10:36:05 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 11, 2012, 05:15:33 PM
Sure. Get FHWA to ban roundabouts in the MUTCD.
Since a roundabout isn't a traffic control device, that wouldn't work.
A roundabout is totally a traffic control device. It's being used by The Man to control us into going to the right of center.
Quote from: tdindy88 on January 10, 2012, 12:42:06 AM
...Monunment Circle, which the aritcle IMO incorrectly called a roundabout (I say it's a traffic circle, but oh well.)...
Quote from: hbelkins on January 11, 2012, 02:05:41 PM
You say traffic circle, I say roundabout
You say tomayto, I say tomahto
Let's blow every damn one of them up!
The biggest difference between a circle and a roundabout is that in a circle vehicles entering have the right of way and in a roundabout vehicle leaving have the right of way. This is also the biggest reason why a roundabout has a much higher capacity than a circle of the same dimensions.
Not saying you have to like them, just saying they're very different.
Everybody hates roundabouts right up until the point they're built and traffic flow improves. Then people are curiously silent on the issue. But, in a city where a poorly designed traffic circle of days gone by created mass chaos, hysteria, and carnage, it's very hard to convince people that a well designed roundabout can be safer and more efficient than a signalized intersection. The first one's always the hardest.
You should have heard how people in Branson complained about the Branson Landing roundabout; now that it efficiently carries as much traffic daily as the Strip, the compalining has stopped and there are more being built; they even have a new diverging diamond interchange just up the street.
Quote from: qguy on January 12, 2012, 09:17:09 AM
The biggest difference between a circle and a roundabout is that in a circle vehicles entering have the right of way and in a roundabout vehicle leaving have the right of way.
Please stop spreading this BS. American circle == British roundabout == New England rotary, which is just a circular intersection. Usually in all cases traffic already in the circle has the right of way. Recently the term 'modern roundabout' has come into use for a specific efficient design. Since Americans weren't using 'roundabout' already, the 'modern' is often dropped in the U.S.
Wow, a roundabout at SR 32/US 421. That is a 4-way stop right now, with SR 32 being four lanes with left-turn lanes. I drive through there frequently and have repeatedly seen drivers on 32 blow right through that stop. The roundabout will be welcome.
Quote from: NE2 on January 12, 2012, 10:38:16 AMPlease stop spreading this BS. American circle == British roundabout == New England rotary, which is just a circular intersection.
As a Brit, American Circle doesn't not equal British Roundabout. Stop spreading this BS.
In UK English, a circular interchange where traffic circulating has to give way to traffic entering is a traffic circle, which - as they are so rare - is a loan word from US English and the days before SABRE (10-12 years ago) when the few online British roadgeeks were on m.t.r.. Such a junction is considered by no Brit (not even traffic engineers) to be a roundabout. Also, in UK English, a roundabout isn't necessarily circular (or even ovoid).
In the Aruba thread, froggie had the difference as being size - modern roundabouts were certain size, therefore all bigger ones were traffic circles and not roundabouts (in fact they seem to be a specific type of roundabout the Dutch use called turbo roundabouts).
Thus I've seen three differing definitions for the difference between traffic circles and roundabouts on this forum in the past week or so - size, UK/US English and priority. Where's our
Academie Française to dictate which one is correct? Oh wait, English is a flexible language with definition defined by usage, rather than decreed by elites.
BTW, The Magic Roundabout was officially called 'County Islands' and the type of junction (for it's not unique) was officially a 'ring junction'. However common usage has meant that County Islands is now officially 'The Magic Roundabout' and the type of junction is officially a magic roundabout.
Quote from: english si on January 12, 2012, 01:25:43 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 12, 2012, 10:38:16 AMPlease stop spreading this BS. American circle == British roundabout == New England rotary, which is just a circular intersection.
As a Brit, American Circle doesn't not equal British Roundabout. Stop spreading this BS.
In UK English, a circular interchange where traffic circulating has to give way to traffic entering is a traffic circle, which - as they are so rare - is a loan word from US English and the days before SABRE (10-12 years ago) when the few online British roadgeeks were on m.t.r.. Such a junction is considered by no Brit (not even traffic engineers) to be a roundabout. Also, in UK English, a roundabout isn't necessarily circular (or even ovoid).
You just said (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=5889.msg129742#msg129742) that this use of 'traffic circle' is "probably only used by British roadgeeks". Why, then, should I care about that usage?
But we're getting away from the main issue - that is, a traffic circle in the U.S. does not necessarily have yield-to-entering-traffic (and in fact, usually does not). Regardless of whether I was correct about Britland, qguy's statement was a load of BS.
Quote from: US71 on January 11, 2012, 11:16:46 PM
What do you propose replacing them with?
Traffic lights or stop signs.
Quote from: NE2 on January 12, 2012, 01:55:47 PMYou just said (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=5889.msg129742#msg129742) that this use of 'traffic circle' is "probably only used by British roadgeeks". Why, then, should I care about that usage?
Because qguy is not British: as qguy is a speaker of US English, then my points about definition being defined by usage, not diktat, stand. The word probably shows that if I put money on the side with the better odds, I would have lost. If I missed the word 'probably', then I'd have been wrong. You should care about that usage as US English speakers are using it, not just UK English speakers
It also shows that your treatment of 'traffic circle' and 'roundabout' as being synonymous terms in US/UK English respectively isn't true, which was actually my main point in mentioning the UK English definition of traffic circle.
Finally, that it's a US loan word suggests that it was considered, by the people of m.t.r. (or at least the Brits thought so and it wasn't challenged or refuted), that traffic going round gives way to that entering the junction was the main US arrangement for round intersections. If 'traffic circle' was normally the same priority as roundabouts, then it would have been a pointless word to use to distinguish the two different priorities.
Quote from: kphoger on January 12, 2012, 09:52:26 AM
Everybody hates roundabouts right up until the point they're built and traffic flow improves. Then people are curiously silent on the issue. But, in a city where a poorly designed traffic circle of days gone by created mass chaos, hysteria, and carnage, it's very hard to convince people that a well designed roundabout can be safer and more efficient than a signalized intersection. The first one's always the hardest.
You should have heard how people in Branson complained about the Branson Landing roundabout; now that it efficiently carries as much traffic daily as the Strip, the compalining has stopped and there are more being built; they even have a new diverging diamond interchange just up the street.
i would absoloutely come to the same conclusion as you, the first one is definitely the hardest....here in oshkosh WI. we had our first built at a buisy 4way intersection, a few years before we got 16 or so more allong the highway...polls showed that only like4% of people supported them....however its now well of 50% approval...probely closer to 70-80%...i personaly was a hater...but i absoloutely love them now...go through 1 at least twice a day :)
Quote from: NE2 on January 12, 2012, 01:55:47 PM
...a traffic circle in the U.S. does not necessarily have yield-to-entering-traffic (and in fact, usually does not). Regardless of whether I was correct about Britland, qguy's statement was a load of BS.
Perhaps in Florida. Throughout the northeast, however, there have been a lot of circles for a long, long time. Almost every one of them, larger or small, gave the right of way to traffic entering the circle. So don't be so quick to label every thing you disagree with as "a load of BS." A simple acknowledgement of regional differences would suffice.
Quote from: english si on January 12, 2012, 05:38:46 PM
Finally, that it's a US loan word suggests that it was considered ... that traffic going round gives way to that entering the junction was the main US arrangement for round intersections. If 'traffic circle' was normally the same priority as roundabouts, then it would have been a pointless word to use to distinguish the two different priorities.
Precisely. As a former PennDOT employee, I can definitively say that this is exactly why the word "roundabout" is now used–to *distinguish* it (ahem) from the usual arrangement in a circle. Or else we would just call them circles. (Duh.)
As I say, at least throughout the northeast US.
Quote from: qguy on January 12, 2012, 06:01:20 PM
Throughout the northeast, however, there have been a lot of circles for a long, long time. Almost every one of them, larger or small, gave the right of way to traffic entering the circle......As I say, at least throughout the northeast US.
Don't Massachusetts (and other New England) circles/rotaries give right of way to those in the circle, not those entering? At least growing up there that's what I thought I remember.
Quote from: PurdueBill on January 12, 2012, 09:18:57 PM
Quote from: qguy on January 12, 2012, 06:01:20 PM
Throughout the northeast, however, there have been a lot of circles for a long, long time. Almost every one of them, larger or small, gave the right of way to traffic entering the circle......As I say, at least throughout the northeast US.
Don't Massachusetts (and other New England) circles/rotaries give right of way to those in the circle, not those entering? At least growing up there that's what I thought I remember.
You might be right, at least for some of them. Virtually all of the circles I've seen though in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, etc. give or gave the right of way to traffic entering. Which isn't to say there aren't or weren't exceptions.
Interestingly, the FHWA's guide to roundabouts (PDF here: www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/00067/00067.pdf) identifies the entry/exit right of way feature the key design difference between the roundabout and the circle. A quick survey of DOT websites reveals that a regionally diverse group (New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Wisconsin, Kansas, Oregon, and Washington) feature information pages which identify the same entry/exit right of way difference. Independent engineering websites show the same.
Many information guides use the word "some" or "many" when describing circle as having exiting traffic yielding to entering traffic. In some areas, all circles may have been set up that way; in other areas, many or at least some. In still other areas, perhaps none were. The key difference is that ALL roundabouts feature entering traffic yielding to exiting traffic.
Look, I don't wish to flog a dead horse (probably too late for that at any rate :rolleyes:). It's just that no one can claim that there's no difference between circles and roundabouts. Entry/exit right of way is just the dominant difference. Others include entry deflection, slower operational speed, generally smaller size, and lack of pedestrian entry to the central hub, all of which may or may not have been present in any given circle but are present in every roundabout.
Love 'em, hate 'em, or somewhere in between, you simply can't shrug them off as the same thing, either by characteristic or traffic handling results.
(BTW, PennDOT's guide is here: ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/Bureaus/design/PUB414/GuideToRoundabouts.pdf)
Quote from: qguy on January 12, 2012, 10:27:47 PM
You might be right, at least for some of them. Virtually all of the circles I've seen though in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, etc. give or gave the right of way to traffic entering. Which isn't to say there aren't or weren't exceptions.
I grew up in New Jersey and spent some time in New England. I know of no circle/rotary that gives right of way to entering traffic as a rule. There are definitely some that give right of way to traffic entering
on some approaches, but that's probably still a minority. Perhaps you can name one or two where all entering traffic gets right of way?
Really, in U.S. usage, (modern) roundabout is a subset of circle/rotary. Something designed as a modern roundabout before the current fad would have been called a circle/rotary.
Quote from: hbelkins on January 11, 2012, 02:05:41 PM
You say traffic circle, I say roundabout
You say tomayto, I say tomahto
Quote from: NE2 on January 13, 2012, 02:45:53 AM
Really, in U.S. usage, (modern) roundabout is a subset of circle/rotary.
I was just responding to your post that seemed to say that you thought a circle and a roundabout were the same thing. Here you say that a roundabout is a different kind of circle.
Well, yeah, OK, they are. Perhaps I was taking you wrong originally. In which case, my profuse apologies for the trip down Weedy Lane.
I avoid roundabouts like the plague. I want nothing to do with those monstrosities.
I've been known to go out of my way just to USE a roundabout. I love them.
To date, I've used roundabouts in....
Princeton, MN
Medord, MN
Columbia, MO
Olathe, KS
Fredonia, KS
Emporia, KS
Florence, KS
Branson, MO
Wichita, KS
...as well as the following circles that either aren't fully yield-upon-entry or are uncontrolled:
Jonesboro, IL
Benton, IL
Marion, IL
Belleville, IL
Parras de la Fuente, Coah
Puerto Vallarta, Jal
Tequila, Jal
Punta Mita, Nay
Maybe more, I'm sure I left one or two out. The only ones I've had any issues with are those in the second list, specifically Benton and Belleville; both of those are single-lane uncontrolled circles with high traffic volumes.
I have an interest in roundabouts but wouldn't say i'm a roundabout lover. I did, however, create a Google KML of over 1,700 roundabouts that have been constructed in the USA and Canada with the year of construction associated with every roundabout (you can use the slider within Google Earth to see how they have popped up like pimples since 1990). I posted this on another thread but it didn't seem to get much interest.
http://www.mediafire.com/?77yqodwcczt4fc8 (http://www.mediafire.com/?77yqodwcczt4fc8)
Alas, I am on a work computer, so clicking 'Download' is not something I'm wont to do...
Quote from: kphoger on January 17, 2012, 02:25:32 PM
I've been known to go out of my way just to USE a roundabout. I love them.
....
Me too, and last month when we were visiting my sister-in-law in Florida it drove her nuts because she absolutely hates the roundabout near her house and avoids it whenever possible. Seems she had a near-miss a while back when some old fart decided not to yield. I guess I understand that. But I always prefer any setup (like a roundabout) that (a) doesn't require you to come to a stop unless there's actually a reason why you need to come to a stop and (b) that assumes that drivers are competent to obey yield rules instead of assuming that nobody will ever yield to anybody else.
I suppose a discussion of roundabouts you've driven through would probably deserve its own thread in the general discussion forum. I doubt I could come up with a full list for myself because I've driven in England and Scotland and so I've encountered a vast number of them there.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 17, 2012, 03:37:48 PM
I suppose a discussion of roundabouts you've driven through would probably deserve its own thread in the general discussion forum. I doubt I could come up with a full list for myself because I've driven in England and Scotland and so I've encountered a vast number of them there.
My point in making a list was to say that I've navigated many roundabouts, and have only had issues with the ones that aren't 'proper' 'modern' roundabouts.
Quote from: kphoger on January 17, 2012, 03:47:10 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 17, 2012, 03:37:48 PM
I suppose a discussion of roundabouts you've driven through would probably deserve its own thread in the general discussion forum. I doubt I could come up with a full list for myself because I've driven in England and Scotland and so I've encountered a vast number of them there.
My point in making a list was to say that I've navigated many roundabouts, and have only had issues with the ones that aren't 'proper' 'modern' roundabouts.
Fair enough. Off the top of my head I can think of at least 20 roundabouts I've driven through in the US and Canada (not counting "traffic circles") and I'm sure I've encountered at least that many in the UK. I won't go so far as to say I've never had "issues" with proper modern roundabouts, but the issues I've had have come from other drivers being reckless or stupid (ignoring yield signs, stopping when there was no need to stop, and failing to signal properly are the three problems I've encountered). To me that sort of thing constitutes user error rather than a problem with the roundabout itself.
On rural roundabouts, I do have a habit of not slowing down enough in time. I'm not sure why I do that, but sometimes it freaks my wife out :wow:. It's not like you have to slow down less for a red light, but somehow my brain just doesn't calculate things correctly.
Quote from: nds76 on January 17, 2012, 11:07:44 AM
I avoid roundabouts like the plague. I want nothing to do with those monstrosities.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ft0.gstatic.com%2Fimages%3Fq%3Dtbn%3AANd9GcRUUscJ_QdTQ-kTPXpXNtnh3-zWHkpI3ffC1lzViUx2-K3J2UcmiA&hash=d02e01131150379ed0bc488cf433f08acdcfe520)
I realize I'm bumping an old topic, but I was surprised to see a DOT employee (hbelkins) so opposed to roundabouts. I guess most DOT employees I hear talk about roundabouts seem to think they're useful (in some circumstances). Roundabouts seem to be getting proposed more and more often around here. hbelkins is your opinion shared by your DOT, or are you a rebel? :-P Can you tell us what sort of work you do?
Quote from: johndoe on January 16, 2013, 11:03:43 PM
I realize I'm bumping an old topic, but I was surprised to see a DOT employee (hbelkins) so opposed to roundabouts. I guess most DOT employees I hear talk about roundabouts seem to think they're useful (in some circumstances). Roundabouts seem to be getting proposed more and more often around here. hbelkins is your opinion shared by your DOT, or are you a rebel? :-P Can you tell us what sort of work you do?
I'm not an engineer. I do public relations for an eastern Kentucky district office.
And yes, I'm allowed to have opinions and express them publicly. Kentucky does not have a lot of roundabouts and I don't know if we have an official position on them or not.
I've heard all the arguments in favor of them, but I don't like them basically because so many people don't know how to drive in them. Plus, if the roundabout is full of traffic, sometimes you have to sit and wait forever before there's a big enough gap in traffic to enter it. At least with a traffic light, you know it's going to turn green sometime and you will be assured of a chance to go.
Quote from: hbelkins on January 17, 2013, 02:11:17 PM
I've heard all the arguments in favor of them, but I don't like them basically because so many people don't know how to drive in them. Plus, if the roundabout is full of traffic, sometimes you have to sit and wait forever before there's a big enough gap in traffic to enter it. At least with a traffic light, you know it's going to turn green sometime and you will be assured of a chance to go.
Conway, Arkansas has two within 1/4 mile of each other (one replaced a traffic signal). I agree that many people don't know how to drive them. Approaching traffic is supposed to yield, but doesn't. Traffic in the roundabout randomly stops for incoming traffic or switches lanes without notice (especially when it's their "exit").
Fayetteville, Arkansas is finishing up work on their first and people don't know how to drive in it yet, if they ever will.
give 'em time, i was adamantly opposed to them here in oshkosh, WI. when they began planning and building them, but now i love them. occasionaly ther are close calls, and sometimes you will have to wait what seems like forever, but im gonna be honest, im so used to zipping up and getting through these roundabouts in only a few seconds, that when i do have to wait, im still not waiting for the length of the light that the roundabout replaced. there are still alot of people that dont know how to use them (there is definitely a learning 'curve' to using these circles) but overall, theyare very effective. the biggest problem i see, is when large bursts of traffic are coming from a stoplight up the road. with some of the projects they did, they replaced intersections at ramp terminals and the frontage roads, but not any farther up/down the road. these lights still collect alot of cars, that all hit the roundabout at once, so i wouald actually like to see many more of these lights become roundabouts, they work better in sequece.
Quote from: hbelkins on January 17, 2013, 02:11:17 PM
Plus, if the roundabout is full of traffic, sometimes you have to sit and wait forever before there's a big enough gap in traffic to enter it. At least with a traffic light, you know it's going to turn green sometime and you will be assured of a chance to go.
I haven't seen that situation at any of the Indy area roundabouts, but I sure did in Ann Arbor at the Geddes Rd interchange with US 23 in the morning rush. I would say that whole road was designed poorly, though.
Google map (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Ann+Arbor,+MI&hl=en&ll=42.273498,-83.677197&spn=0.017306,0.042272&oq=ann+arbor&t=h&hnear=Ann+Arbor,+Washtenaw,+Michigan&z=15)
Except for this one in Ann Arbor, I like them.
Quote from: mukade on January 17, 2013, 08:41:17 PM
Google map (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Ann+Arbor,+MI&hl=en&ll=42.273498,-83.677197&spn=0.017306,0.042272&oq=ann+arbor&t=h&hnear=Ann+Arbor,+Washtenaw,+Michigan&z=15)
If you turn off lables, it looks like construction was going on when the satellite image was made. I'm confused: were the roundabouts going in or coming out?
Going in because they are there now.
I'm not a huge fan of roundabouts either. In Terre Haute they are putting roundabouts in at the SR 46 / SR 641 interchange. I wish INDOT would put a trumpet exit in and run RIley road under 641 along its current route. Roundabouts arent really used in Terre Haute so no one knows how to drive them.
Quote from: US71 on January 17, 2013, 02:28:34 PM
Conway, Arkansas has two within 1/4 mile of each other (one replaced a traffic signal). I agree that many people don't know how to drive them. Approaching traffic is supposed to yield, but doesn't. Traffic in the roundabout randomly stops for incoming traffic or switches lanes without notice (especially when it's their "exit").
Are those the ones in from of the new high school? What a DUMB place for them.
rte66man