'Traffic lights are so dictatorial' ... but are roundabouts on the way out?

[Duke87]

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.

[Zeffy]

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

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.

[tradephoric]

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

[vdeane]

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.

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.

[cl94]

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.

[Rothman]

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.

[Jim]

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.

[Rothman]

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.

[cl94]

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.

[Rothman]

Heh.  I hate this thing in Williamstown. 

https://goo.gl/maps/vzzWtjysEw92

[Jim]

Heh.  I hate this thing in Williamstown. 

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.

[jakeroot]

Heh.  I hate this thing in Williamstown. 

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).

[cl94]

Heh.  I hate this thing in Williamstown. 

https://goo.gl/maps/vzzWtjysEw92

Reminds me of this thing in Woodstock.

If we're going to talk about New England town squares, can't forget this triangle-shaped thing in Hudson Falls, NY.

[jakeroot]

Heh.  I hate this thing in Williamstown. 

https://goo.gl/maps/vzzWtjysEw92

Reminds me of this thing in Woodstock.

If we're going to talk about New England town squares, can't forget this triangle-shaped thing 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.

[noelbotevera]

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.

[jakeroot]

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.

[Zeffy]

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.

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.

[cl94]

Heh.  I hate this thing in Williamstown. 

https://goo.gl/maps/vzzWtjysEw92

Reminds me of this thing in Woodstock.

If we're going to talk about New England town squares, can't forget this triangle-shaped thing 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).