News:

While the Forum is up and running, there are still thousands of guests (bots). Downtime may occur as a result.
- Alex

Main Menu

Roundabouts vs Signals

Started by Mdcastle, March 18, 2014, 08:34:54 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Mdcastle

I've notice a lot of Mn/DOT projects have signals and roundabouts at seemingly random locations. Assuming you're building in a cornfield with plenty of land, what operational issues might lead you to pick one over the other, and is there any benefit to mixing them. The Flying Cloud Drive project has a roundabout, then a traffic signal, then another roundabout. Why not build three roundabouts?


NE2

If it's this project, it looks like Carver County made the decision.
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

tradephoric

Quote from: Mdcastle on March 18, 2014, 08:34:54 AM
Assuming you're building in a cornfield with plenty of land, what operational issues might lead you to pick one over the other
I don't like general rules, but...  if the AADT of an intersection exceeds 50,000, a roundabout probably isn't your best bet.  Unequal traffic distributions can also be problematic.

Quote from: Mdcastle on March 18, 2014, 08:34:54 AM
and is there any benefit to mixing them.
There could be a benefit as traffic signals help meter traffic.  Some signals operate solely for the purpose of creating gaps in traffic. 

roadfro

Quote from: Mdcastle on March 18, 2014, 08:34:54 AM
I've notice a lot of Mn/DOT projects have signals and roundabouts at seemingly random locations. Assuming you're building in a cornfield with plenty of land, what operational issues might lead you to pick one over the other, and is there any benefit to mixing them.

A couple of things. What's the traffic like? If it's not an overly-busy intersection, it might not meet traffic signal warrants but might be too busy for a 2-/4-way stop. There's also the operational costs...once you pave a roundabout there are no ongoing operational costs outside of pavement wear and occasional sign replacement; however, a traffic signal also has the electric cost of operating the signal, replacement bulb/hardware, and more potential for malfunction/maintenance needs.

Quote from: tradephoric on March 18, 2014, 02:16:26 PM
Quote from: Mdcastle on March 18, 2014, 08:34:54 AM
and is there any benefit to mixing them.
There could be a benefit as traffic signals help meter traffic.  Some signals operate solely for the purpose of creating gaps in traffic.
You could also say that the roundabout also helps meter traffic in a way, as they could re-distribute a platoon into something more steady.
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

txstateends

Some places (I'm firmly convinced) only wanted to do a roundabout to install an ugly monstrosity like this:
https://www.google.com/maps?ll=32.961414,-96.825946&spn=0.001033,0.001853&t=h&z=19

instead of something on the order of, maybe a *fountain* or even nice landscaping.  Fortunately, over the years, the trees planted along the intersecting streets have grown enough to cover up most of the 'view' there, so I don't have to reach for the eye-wash as much now :-|
\/ \/ click for a bigger image \/ \/

tradephoric

Quote from: roadfro on March 19, 2014, 03:43:30 AM
You could also say that the roundabout also helps meter traffic in a way, as they could re-distribute a platoon into something more steady.

That's a good point.  I don't think i gave the best description when i stated that traffic signals help "meter" traffic.  I should have said traffic signals help create large gaps in traffic (making it easier for someone making a left out of a mid-block drive to find an available gap).



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.