On the U.S. roundabout listserv a
commenter lamented about the roundabout not being a panacea for intersections,
saying “…roundabouts are not the universal panaceas I once imagined - but can
be excellent if designed correctly in an appropriate situation.”
My response was as follows:
Yes the roundabout does represent a
panacea for intersections--well designed or not in most cases--compared to the
alternative. Note the overall issues here--walk/bike/car occupant
injuries and fatalities, use of gasoline, delay for all users, scenic quality,
pollution/global warming gas generation, walkable/bikable nodes and corridors,
land use density, enabling cycle track, transit oriented development (TOD),
livable communities, addressing half of all senior driver fatalities at
non-roundabout intersections (compared to less than a quarter for younger
drivers), the United States soaring relative highway fatality rates, the U.S.
abysmal fatality rates for walk-bike modes, etc. Pick your subject and
show how traffic signals or sign control perform so much better in all these
categories. Blaming all roundabouts for the design flaws of a few is
illogical. Any case studies of signals replacing roundabouts and
performing better in all of the above areas of concern?
Unfortunately the dead bodies are on
our urban streets in all these categories for all to see each and every day
while in a small but agonizingly slow way there are nodes and now over 60
roundabout corridors showing an alternative way to the U.S. mean streets, the
kind of urban environment you and I are forced to submit to each day.
Tony
No comments:
Post a Comment