Links
Afternoon links: Fascinating juxtapositions
Photo by reallyboring on Flickr.
Diffrent Democrats' attitudes on bike lanes: Former Congressman and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, now a candidate for Chicago mayor, wants to build new bike lanes including cycle tracks as a major portion of his platform. Meanwhile, New York Senator Chuck Schumer is lobbying hard against a popular bike lane on Prospect Park West in Brooklyn, where he lives. (Streetsblog)
Different councils' reaction to Walmart: At a New York City Council hearing on Walmart, the retailer didn't show and elected officials vociferiously criticized the chain; in contrast, no DC Councilmembers showed up to a rally today asking for a community benefits agreement for DC's planned Walmarts, and members seem uninterested in pushing for any concessions. (Housing Complex)
Urbanist-economic bloggers discuss tea party article: Libertarian urbanist Stephen Smith agrees with our post on the Virginia tea party. Matt Yglesias isn't surprised at the tea partiers' behavior, and Ryan Avent elaborates on the emotional paradox involved. A conservative-libertarian think tank guy defends the tea partiers.
Refute traffic engineers, get investigated?: A resident rebutted North Carolina DOT engineers' conclusions with some engineering analysis of his own. Instead of changing their minds, the chief engineer asked a state board to investigate whether this counted as practicing engineering without a license. (NewsObserver, @EricFidler)
Roundabout works, residents admit: Residents of an upstate NY town admit they were wrong about a new roundabout. Almost everyone opposed the project, but it works great for both drivers and pedestrians and is now hugely popular. (WalkBikeJersey)
New Hampshire could limit student vote: A New Hampshire legislator has proposed a law that would disallow the state's college students from registering to vote in their college town unless they lived there prior to matriculating. (The Boston Globe)
ICC to Georgia opening soon: The first segment of the Intercounty Connector, from 270 to Georgia Avenue, will open February 22. It could reduce sprawl up 270 at the expense of fostering more driving in general... if people want to pay the tolls. (BeyondDC)
Have a tip for the links? Submit it here.
 | David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington. He has had a lifelong interest in great cities and great communities. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater.   |
Comments
Successful speed cameras require fair speed limits
- Successful speed cameras require fair speed limits
- Amid scandal, don't lose sight of Gray's policy achievements
- Montgomery plans 160-mile, "gold standard" BRT system
- VDOT ignores own data, pushes widening I-66
- DC's parks are 5th best in the nation, says "Park Score"
- Bethesda gets new but terrible bike racks
- DC's divide need not be black and white
Thu May 24
6:30 pm M Street SE/SW public meeting
Wed May 30
10:00 am Bike-ped safety enforcement hearing
Mon Jun 4
Wed Jun 6
6:30 pm WMATA Riders' Advisory Council
Of course they do. Can we keep a permanent or automatic link to that video for every time we talk about roundabouts here?
by Jasper on Feb 7, 2011 4:38 pm
In my 17 years living here, I have never seen traffic move that smoothly and quickly through the circle as they did when the lights went out.
by Brad on Feb 7, 2011 4:50 pm
(And where else does a yellow light mean you *explicitly don't* have the right of way?)
Of course, the signal-less roundabouts in DC are by far the smoothest. I particularly love the European-style mini-roundabout on the Brentwood Parkway. The one on RI Ave in Brentwood, MD also works well.
That all said, I still find Washington Circle to be terrifying. I've had *way* too many close calls there.
by andrew on Feb 7, 2011 5:16 pm
by andrew on Feb 7, 2011 5:19 pm
by andrew on Feb 7, 2011 5:34 pm
@ Andrew: The roundabout on RIA is in Mt. Rainier. While generally being quite good for moving vehicles, it's crap for pedestrians (probably more a function of poor driving than the design however) as speeds are too high coming from DC and the speed camera in the westbound lane is too far away from the roundabout so vehicles slow coming into it then accelerate towards the circle...no good.
by thump on Feb 7, 2011 5:41 pm
by cminus on Feb 7, 2011 5:54 pm
by cherylcort on Feb 7, 2011 5:59 pm
Be careful, you can get lambasted around here if you point out that Christie might have been right.
by David desJardins on Feb 7, 2011 6:23 pm
by Bob See on Feb 7, 2011 6:59 pm
by Phil on Feb 7, 2011 7:19 pm
The roundabout video is interesting. I don't like roundabouts as a pedestrian, but in that example, the drivers all stopped and waited even if the pedestrian had only just begun crossing the other lane. In large portions of the country, that wouldnt happen. Props to local drivers for following the law.
by JJJJJ on Feb 7, 2011 7:33 pm
Traffic engineers, like many guilds, are more concerned with job protection than social integration. That is NOT always a bad thing, but never accept they as impartial "experts."
Washington Circle seems very easy to me as a driver. Well signed. Yes, there are a lot of stupid people entering on Pennsylvania Avenue, and the pedestrian signal near the hospital needs to be a lot longer.
I've noticed they taken GGW's suggestion and put a circulator stop in, which is causing a lot of havoc. Bad!
by charlie on Feb 7, 2011 8:20 pm
by Some Ideas on Feb 7, 2011 8:35 pm
by Canaan on Feb 7, 2011 9:26 pm
That's clearly disenfranchisment. If a student wants to vote in the town they go to school in then it's their perogative. If they don't (b/c they'd rather vote in their hometown for the time being or just pure apathy) then they simply won't vote thus not influencing elections. College students are in town for at least 8-9 months out of the year. I know of a fair amount of retirees who spend less time in their voting residence and would be appalled at a measure directed at them. However most college students have voting (especially in local elections) low on their priorities because they have things like school, work, and learning how to be an adult before that. Plus unless your parents educate you then (from anecdotal experience) a lot of college age students haven't yet realized all the things that go into changing your residency from one locality to another.
by Canaan on Feb 7, 2011 9:34 pm
The liberatarian business is a waste of time. They will never stick their necks out for anything other than tax cuts for the wealthy. better to ignore than to engage.
by Rich on Feb 7, 2011 9:52 pm
This made quick rounds through the traffic engineering listserv... most folk come out on the side of the citizen: the general masses can write whatever they want, so long as they don't come out and say it's an engineering document or claim themselves to be engineers. "Engineer" is a legally protected term; so long as that's not used, people can chat and sketch and doodle to their hearts' desires.
The municipality should've accepted the submission as public testimony then performed their own legitimate engineering study to evaluate the peoples' information, thoroughly documenting any instances where there is disagreement and why the agency chooses not to concur with them.
---------------------------------------
RE: Christie
If he's cutting to save money, the ARC did have some design & cost issues; and if the electorate really wants cost-cutting: so be it. Doesn't mean I agree with the decision, but I can respect it. But when the savings are put right back into roads & not used to actually pay down the deficit: suddenly reducing spending no longer seems to be the full truth... and that kind of bothers me. If he really wants to put more money into roads in lieu of transit: at least be honest about it.
---------------------------------------
@andrew, RE: flashing yellow
As an intersection control, they're actually increasingly common, with a number of local areas testing them out. They're now permitted for use nationwide for various uses as per the latest MUTCD (which is basically the Bible of traffic engineering).
As a hazard warning, flashing yellows have been in extensive use since the earliest days of traffic signals. There are countless examples of them in use throughout this area as well as throughout the country & world.
by Bossi on Feb 7, 2011 10:35 pm
Christie's position was that ARC was too expensive for NJ, relative to the benefits. That's different from cutting to save money; it's about getting value for the money you (and others) spend. He hasn't ruled out contributing to a better project.
by David desJardins on Feb 7, 2011 10:50 pm
by David Alpert on Feb 7, 2011 10:53 pm
by Andrew on Feb 7, 2011 11:01 pm
The same was said when the 4 way stop at North Division Street and East Ceder Lane in Fruitland Maryland was rebuilt as a roundabout by the Maryland State Highway Administration a couple of years ago.
The naysayers said it would be a waist of money and would confuse motorists. Most wanted the 4 way stop at the intersection upgraded to a traffic signal. The knee jerk response over here on the Eastern Shore when people are delayed or motor vehicle wrecks happen at intersection controlled by nothing more then a stop signs is, "They should put a traffic signal at that intersection".
Mind you prior to it's installation, traffic would backup on Ceder Lane a 1/4 mile in both direction during peak times.
To every ones surprise traffic moves freely through the roundabout with little on no delay to both motorists and pedestrians at all times of the day.
(The big box store to the north of the soybean field is a Wal*Mart Super Center.)
by Sand Box Johnc on Feb 7, 2011 11:27 pm
And, yes. I'm mad at Christie for canceling the ARC, mainly for the rationale behind it. Unless the Fed agrees to pick up more of the tab for the 'Gateway' tunnel, I can't see it being a better value for the NJ taxpayers, given that they'll have to share with Amtrak, and the project doesn't appear to include the turnaround loops for Main/Bergen line trains at Secaucus. (On the other hand, the fact that it will allow through-running, amtrak trains, and share platforms with the existing Penn Station makes it a much, much better project overall, once you think beyond the scope of New Jersey. It's the design that should have been selected from the start.) It's unfortunate for political reasons that the Portal Bridge Replacement got lumped into this project, making it look much more costly than the ARC. I also don't quite understand the need to quadruple-track the lines past the Kearny Connection, all the way to Newark.
The 7 extension is also rather interesting, because the 7 Line would actually do a better job of connecting commuters to their jobs, and would ease crowding at Penn Station, applying a Metrorail-like paradigm to the NYC Subway. In an ideal world, one could justify both projects...
by andrew on Feb 7, 2011 11:27 pm
The process of accepting lousy projects because they have momentum and funding, rather than trying to make the best possible use of taxpayer money (whether it's NJ money or NY money or Federal money), is to blame for an awful lot of poorly designed projects that get built.
by David desJardins on Feb 7, 2011 11:33 pm
I agree with you on that... but in that case: I'd say the process & outcome could've been far more tactful than it ended up being.
by Bossi on Feb 7, 2011 11:35 pm
New Jersey voters seem to mostly like Christie's style. Perhaps they feel we've had too much "tact" in the past.
Here's an interesting, if somewhat complex, assessment of public opinion:
http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/state/public-support-for-christies-decision-to-halt-hudson-rail-tunnel-work-continues-to-grow-poll-finds
by David desJardins on Feb 7, 2011 11:39 pm
by Bossi on Feb 7, 2011 11:48 pm
Didn't property requirements for voting go out of style? Which is worse, the town having to deal with the votes of students or thousands of students being subjected to the arbitrary rule of their neighbors?
The whole episode shows how much election law has become a partisan issue. Four decades ago it wasn't like this, but now Republicans only care about voter fraud and Democrats only care about voter intimidation. It's absurd.
And the baby-boomers too - they don't understand lifestyles that move from place to place often, so they don't want the people that live them to be able to vote.
by ADW on Feb 8, 2011 12:53 am
Basically, they work as follows:
"Neighborhood" traffic circle = circles are found in suburban streets more to slow traffic than to direct it, they're like speedbumps. One lane feeds into them, and cars should slow to 10-15mph to go around it. There is usually so little traffic that yielding rules don't apply because there's nobody to yield to.
Roundabouts have one or two lanes feeding into them and they're meant to flow at 20-35mph. Traffic entering yields to traffic in the circle. Usually, the lanes are very clearly marked. You'll find yield teeth, specific lanes for specific directions, an abundance of signs etc. You're supposed to be in the correct lane when you enter, as changing lanes in the roundabout is discouraged. They are considered safer than 4 way stops and are all the rage these days.
Rotaries have 1-3 lanes feeding into them and are meant to be high speed, up to 50mph even. In most of the country, entering traffic yields, I believe the exception is NJ. They're very pedestrian unfriendly. They also tend to lack pavement markings, the circle itself is a free-for-all, with people changing lanes every which way. They are unsafe and no longer built.
Rotaries tend to be enormous.
http://maps.google.com/maps?t=h&q=42.210278,-70.996667&ie=UTF8&ll=42.210489,-70.995691&spn=0.003838,0.008529&z=17
Big ass traffic circles are like those found all around DC, and operate as squares essentially. Traffic goes around them, but it's almost no different to making 3 left turns, like you would at mt vernon square. These arent really built anymore, as they dont handle traffic well and take up too much space.
Wikipedia goes into detail:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundabout
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_%28intersection%29
by JJJJJ on Feb 8, 2011 4:55 am
In an area where we profess to be concerned about traffic congestion and air pollution, it makes eminent sense to explore a design that allows traffic to keep moving (at a slower pace) as opposed to having lots of cars idling at red lights or four-way stops. Motorized vehicles get zero mpg when stopped, and impatient drivers tend to drive that much faster between four-way stops to try to make up the time they feel they lost in the queue.
BTW, one key to roundabouts is the proper use of turn indicators, and I think that's one reason many Americans fear them--they figure nobody signals. Roundabouts work best when nobody has to guess at what the other person is doing. You signal a right turn when you're leaving the roundabout, and it tells the entering driver that he doesn't have to yield to you. If you don't signal, he's frozen--he has no way of knowing what you're doing. This is why it is also important to signal LEFT if you are going more than halfway around the roundabout (i.e., making a left or U-turn). You signal left from entry until you pass the exit before the one you want, then you signal right to show that you're exiting. The left signal tells entering traffic that you plan to stay on the roundabout and that they must yield to you. For some reason, Virginia and Maryland teach this incorrectly in their roundabout publicity materials. Compare it to the British Highway Code, where the equivalent signal (there, a right signal, due to driving on the left) is strictly required. It works much better that way. I wonder if the fear in the USA is that some idiot will signal left and then try to make a left turn. I tend to think that anyone who tries to go the wrong way on a roundabout is not competent to hold a driver's license!
**********************
Regarding flashing yellow lights, as has been mentioned, the new MUTCD calls for them, so you may start seeing them more often. There are several of them in Alexandria along Duke Street in the Foxchase/Cameron Station area, the most notable probably being the one at the entrance to Cameron Station. From what I understand, the MUTCD's theory is that the flashing yellow would come on in conjunction with the green ball indicator. That is, traditionally you'd have a green arrow denoting that turning traffic was entitled to the right-of-way. A steady yellow arrow would come on at the end of the exclusive cycle, and then often you'd see just a green ball (at the so-called "doghouse" lights, where the green ball denotes that you can go straight or turn but that left turns have to yield). Apparently now the green ball is to be accompanied by a flashing yellow arrow, indicating that it's OK to turn in that direction but that you must use caution and yield if necessary. Seems to me that it smacks of the same sort of thing I said before--once again, it's being presumed that people are too stupid to know what to do without hand-holding. The green ball tells you that you can go, and the lack of a turn arrow tells you that the normal yielding rules apply--that is, if you were going left from a road with no traffic light or stop sign, you'd have to yield to oncoming traffic, bikes, or pedestrians, so why do we now need a special light cycle to tell us that the default rule applies?
by Rich on Feb 8, 2011 8:30 am
by Dizzy on Feb 8, 2011 8:33 am
by Fritz on Feb 8, 2011 9:02 am
Roundabouts handle very heavy traffic poorly in the UK. They get gummed up and create a "blocking the box" effect during rush hours that don't easily clear. The level of traffic in DC would overwhelm UK driving infrastructure.
by Joe on Feb 8, 2011 9:22 am
I do agree your "roundabouts" handle high volume poorly. And again, I don't know everyone bags on Washington Circle. It isn't that bad, and a few changes would fix it.
@Rich; yes, I agree US traffic laws treats us like idiots. However, after several generations of this we do have a lot of idiots.
by charlie on Feb 8, 2011 9:29 am
Anyway. As long as we can agree that these circular thingies, in virtually every way they exist work better than normal traffic light intersections, I don't care what they're called.
by Jasper on Feb 8, 2011 9:50 am
That depends on where you are and the specific intersection. I've driven fairly widely in the UK and have seldom run into problems at any roundabouts with the exception of a couple of signalised roundabouts (which are more akin to DC-style "traffic circles"). Roundabouts are not an ideal solution at all intersections and sometimes a traffic light is more effective, especially when one of the two roads has significantly higher volumes of traffic than the other (because in that situation it can be difficult for traffic on the smaller road to find a gap). In some urban areas where there are extremely high traffic volumes, a roundabout won't work because of the tailbacks extending too far and gridlocking the next roundabout. That's why you tend to see fewer roundabouts (except signalised ones) in the cities. If my post came across as saying that roundabouts are ALWAYS better, then I wasn't being clear. Putting a roundabout at the big mess of an intersection at Seven Corners in Virginia might well be a disaster. But go down to Old Town Alexandria sometime and go down some of the secondary streets like West Street. There's an all-way stop at every corner. The majority of those could be replaced by mini-roundabouts if some tweaks to the parking rules were made, and the traffic would flow quite well.
The Magic Roundabout in Swindon is glorious. Do a Google search if you're unfamiliar with it. Every time I picture that design being tried in the USA I burst out laughing. I loved driving through it, but the result of trying it here would no doubt be carnage.
I do not really understand rotaries. Logically, it does *not* make sense that traffic entering would have the right of way, because that could lead to a situation in which the rotary is full of traffic trying to get off, but having to yield to incoming traffic that has the right of way, but can not enter because the circle is full.
Indeed the French had exactly this problem for many years. They employed the universal rule of "priorité à droite" (with rare exceptions for certain roads) and didn't change it in roundabouts. That meant that you could brazenly enter a roundabout because you had the right-of-way....only to see yourself "priorité'd" at the next entrance by another entering driver. If you wanted to take the second exit, you had a problem due to the guy entering at the intermediate entrance. Many French roundabouts now follow the "priorité à gauche" rule precisely to solve this problem--i.e., traffic on the roundabout has the right-of-way. A number of British friends of mine tout this as one advantage of driving on the left--you don't have to make an exception to the "yield to traffic coming from your right." In my mind the idea of an "exception" isn't a big deal if you accept that the rule is simply "yield to traffic already on the roundabout unless a sign or light tells you otherwise."
(As a technicality, BTW, in many US states nobody "has the right-of-way"--rather, the rules of the road require a particular party to YIELD the right-of-way to someone else.)
by Rich on Feb 8, 2011 10:05 am
Yeah. That's the general rule in Europe. But most roads up end up being priority roads anyway (yellow diamond signs) to end the confusion. The same can be done on roundabouts.
A number of British friends of mine tout this as one advantage of driving on the left--you don't have to make an exception to the "yield to traffic coming from your right."
Don't the Brits prioritize to the left as a standard, recreating the problem?
(As a technicality, BTW, in many US states nobody "has the right-of-way"--rather, the rules of the road require a particular party to YIELD the right-of-way to someone else.)
Yeah, the US has a very different underlying philosophy with prioritization rules. Oddly, the result is pretty much the same.
Roundabouts are not an ideal solution at all intersections
Correct. However, hey are the ideal solution on nearly all intersections that as now regulated with traffic lights. And they lead to an improved flow at many intersections that have stop signs on "side" streets. Furthermore, they calm traffic on all roads where they are applied. A good roundabout is designed in such a way that you can not speed across is, without damaging your suspension.
by Jasper on Feb 8, 2011 10:47 am
They do not. They don't have a general "priority" rule of the sort used on the Continent, except for the rule of yielding to traffic already on a roundabout (which in practice means priority to the right at roundabouts, as "magic roundabouts" legally constitute a series of mini-roundabouts at each of which the normal rules apply). In general, though, they'll have a line painted on the road as either a "give way" or "stop" line (the "give way" sign is often not present).
I think the reason my British friend said driving on the left makes it easier to observe a "give way to the right" rule is that in principle when you join a larger road from a smaller one (e.g., merging onto the motorway) you will have traffic coming from your right to which you'll need to yield. It's certainly not impossible to think of situations where you may also have to give way to the left, of course, such as entering a one-way street that's a bigger street than the one you're presently on.
by Rich on Feb 8, 2011 11:08 am
Didn't know that. I guess the US did take it's road rules from the Brits when you kicked them out...
by Jasper on Feb 8, 2011 11:16 am
So when you come across that one intersection that doesn't, there is confusion because you see the green on the far left of the intersections and may assume that it's like every other one.
@Jasper, that's only new jersey. Massachusetts, home to the most rotaries has entering traffic yielding, as does every other state.
by JJJJJ on Feb 8, 2011 4:17 pm
So when you come across that one intersection that doesn't, there is confusion because you see the green on the far left of the intersections and may assume that it's like every other one.
I did a little more research and found that part of the issue is what's sometimes called the "yellow trap." An example of a DC intersection that would have a yellow trap, if left turns were allowed, is northbound 14th Street at G Street NW. There's no left turn there in that direction, but if there were, and if the current light cycle were maintained, there would be a hazard because southbound traffic has an extended green after northbound traffic gets the red (this to allow left turns from southbound 14th to G).
The "yellow trap" refers to the concept that many drivers waiting to go left watch the light for their side, see it go red, and assume that the other side also gets a red. So they go and it causes a crash when the driver going the other way, who has a green, isn't prepared to stop suddenly. The flashing yellow arrow--which the MUTCD says is supposed to be used in conjunction with a sign saying "Oncoming Traffic May Have Extended Green"--is supposed to warn drivers that the way may not be clear (due to the yellow color). The light on westbound Duke Street outside Cameron Station has that sort of sign, although it's hard to see because in the afternoon it's often right in front of the sun and it's also up on the mast arm on the far side of the intersection and uses small print.
by Rich on Feb 8, 2011 10:41 pm
Christie said ARC was too expensive. That's why he axed it. This proposal is even more expensive: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/nyregion/08tunnel.html?scp=2&sq=arc%20tunnel&st=cse
How does that make Christie right?
Christie never said anything about the design issues with ARC so far as I am aware. Did I miss something? Instead he canceled the project, citing concerns about cost and the "deal" that NJ had made, with no discussion with anyone about cost or design. After the original cancellation he reconsidered... IMO this just served to stretch out the story. For Christie, this issue was mainly about scoring political points with Republican primary voters in Iowa.
Now we have a vague discussion of a project that will cost much more and open later. Whether it is better is debatable since the pressing need is more commuter access to the city...see here for some analysis:
http://secondavenuesagas.com/2011/02/08/gateway-gab-for-nj-commuters-gateway-is-no-arc/
But again, Christie never said anything about the design of ARC. The fact that responsible people are looking to find other solutions after his petulant cut does not make him right.
by DavidDuck on Feb 8, 2011 10:42 pm
Fortunately I don't think there is much chance the angry old people in NH are going to get their way. Like it or not those college students live there. It's been a long time since I've read about such wise College Republicans.
Not a great day for civil liberties in the links, is it?
by DavidDuck on Feb 8, 2011 11:05 pm
whenever i read that 'both drivers and pedestrians' like something, i know i'm about to stumble upon a project which is probably not so friendly to bikers.
i don't know how many folks bike in Glens Falls, but i sure didn't see anyone ride through that traffic circle on a bike. the speed of the cars looked to be very high -- def not something a biker would want to be on/near.
the noise of the motorized traffic is incredible. interviewees are basically yelling over the din at various points.
the original 5-point intersection is huge. the resulting traffic circle is still huge, which strikes me as lame -- why not try to reclaim some space for pedestrians and maybe even bikers? if nothing else, create outdoor seating, bike parking, etc. it seems the town wanted to find a way to get cars and trucks through that intersection at light speed instead of wanting them to slow down and smell the coffee. i think if the circle was about half its current size, it could become friendlier, and possibly conducive to cycling, more business, could become a decent place to actually hang out, a decent/dignified place to gather or have some coffee, etc. instead, they rammed a highway right through their town's main intersection, and they're happy about it. seems weird to me, but self-determination rules the day -- whatever they want.
i'm assuming they wanted to keep the circle huge to accommodate lumber/timber trucks -- i say too bad, make the trucks go around -- they don't belong in the city anyways -- too dangerous, they scare bikers, etc.
circles like this seem to make pedestrians walk further than they would otherwise have to -- maybe not a big deal, but just seems a little off to me. either you have to walk way around one of the 'legs' of the circle to cross, and/or you have to cross in a V-shaped crosswalk -- not even a straight line! it's like, how much does your town hate pedestrians?
and, it seems like, even though traffic circles are statistically safer for probably all users, bike accident/collision rates at traffic circles occurs at a higher rate than on non-signaled and regular/signaled intersections -- that leads me to believe that the alleged increase in safety, at least for bikers, is largely an illusion -- just like one-way streets are safer for pedestrians in spite of the auto traffic moving at higher speeds (the real reason is probably because the roads are so unpleasant that nobody walks on them). it's all about subjective safety.
it's kind of like Governor Christie -- he had the wrong motivations for killing the ARC tunnel (i.e. he was acting evil), but the end result could be good. similarly, it seems traffic engineers want to speed up traffic into/out of/through town (i.e. they are acting evil), so they install traffic circles, but the end result could be good (increased safety for everyone, possibly/maybe?). does it matter if the primary motivation of a street/road redesign is to move cars faster when the end result is good for most people? i'd say 'no,' but i'm not necessarily convinced auto-dominated traffic circles like this are a good idea, even as a replacement to an auto-dominated 5-point intersection -- i think we need to do better.
i know i almost got myself killed on my bike in SF on a badly-designed traffic circle (no 'mountable curb,' wide lanes, etc.) -- so hopefully all newish circles are designed correctly/better, but that experience seems to stick with me. and the high speeds of cars on the circle making cycling on/through there feel more than a little bit unwelcoming.
and the smooth flow of the traffic -- seems like a good demonstration of the Idaho Stop -- though, it still seems dangerous to pedestrians to me -- like even in the video you can see some pedestrians (I think with a stroller) about to head out into the crosswalk and then pull back when a car/truck suddenly decides to exit the circle -- the driver then yields to the pedestrians, but as a pedestrian or biker, you can't really know drivers' intentions because there's no time for them to signal, because they're moving so fast, and the turns are not even really turns, and the drivers' hands are on the wheel, etc.
finish w/ a 2004 quote from UK guy -- member of the Roundabout Appreciation Society:
Let's add cyclist safety to the mix.by Peter Smith on Feb 9, 2011 12:01 pm
What's a "mountable curb"? Aren't all curbs mountable?
http://www.ehow.com/how_14107_parallel-bunny-hop.html
http://www.ehow.com/how_14552_bike-over-curb.html
by oboe on Feb 9, 2011 12:18 pm
Peter Smith's comment wrongly equates the term "traffic circle" with "roundabout." As amply discussed elsewhere in these comments, they are not the same thing.
by Rich on Feb 9, 2011 1:38 pm
Add a Comment