Let me preface by saying, I love roundabouts. Seriously, I love them. As an engineer, I've been involved with roundabout projects, I understand their benefits, realize the accident reduction factors in certain cases and know they can work for certain problematic intersections.But, what we have is an intersection that is not problematic. There is virtually no accident data for the Court/Chenango/Exchange Street intersection - originally in fact, in a small meeting/presentation by the roundabout designers for this project, the engineers said there was "no accident history"... later at a public information meeting about the project they said there was "an average rate of accidents at that intersection"... hmm...
At any rate, they have also said that replacing the signal with actuated signals would provide a sufficient Level of Service (LOS) for 20 year projected traffic volumes.
We have an intersection that works and does not have accident data to support replacing it with a roundabout. So, why the roundabout? For the additional cost of $700k as well as extended construction delays, angst amongst the public, is it worth it?The City nor the Public were ever truly presented with the pros and cons - only the pros were provided and not in a measured manner.
Here are some of the issues that should have been presented:
Historic DistrictThis section of Court Street is on the National Historic Register for historic districts. This intersection and the courthouse lawn are key features to the district. Adding the roundabout will affect the character and look of the intersection and the core of this district. The County Courthouse is also listed individually on the register. Consider Brunelli's painting of this intersection, it is an icon.
Aesthetics
The simulations provided at the public information meetings were very misleading. What they failed to show are all the signs and roadway striping that are required for all roundabouts. Go visit the JC Roundabout. Seriously, take a look at it, approach it from Riverside and then from Floral Ave.... look at the signs, the striping of the asphalt - much of the same is what will be put in place in our downtown Binghamton if this roundabout is installed - and all of that will be in the center of a historic intersection between four historic buildings. And as motorists go through that intersection, negotiating the roundabout, will they even be able to look at our lovely historic buildings anymore?
Not enough data to support their claims
Roundabouts use is relatively new in New York state and rare for urban settings. They were first introduced to the US in 1990. The Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) roundabout design guide was first released in 2000, just seven years ago. And, their use in urban settings is even less frequent. In fact, I have yet to find an example close to the setting for this proposed roundabout. I sat next to a NYS Department of Transportation Engineer at the NYS Association of Transportation Engineers who was saying that many NYSDOT engineers know that the information being released to the public on the benefits of roundabouts is false - it's false or inflated data because the reduction in accidents is not taking into account long term patterns which are just now being seen. He explained how the pattern works - there's a problematic intersection... a roundabout is constructed - because of the change in the traffic flows and the use of something new, people automatically slow down and drive cautiously - for the first 2-3 years after installation of the roundabout - and so, accident numbers and the severity of accidents are lessened... however, as people in the area become more comfortable with the roundabout, speeds increase, less care is taken and in the next 3-6 years you see a significant increase in accidents. Of course, this is hearsay. This is coming from me, sitting next to another engineer listening to what he had to say - not documented research.
So, for documented research:
Pedestrian Safety
Despite their claims that roundabouts are safer for pedestrians, there have been recent statistics proving otherwise. In fact, there are roundabouts that are now being signalized due to pedestrian safety concerns.
Here's a quote from an abstract on the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) website:
"It has been widely observed that motorists frequently fail to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks, even though most motorists are aware of this legal requirement." It went on to list statistics from specific studies and concluded the paragraph with, "Yield rates ranged from 0 to 58 percent and averaged 19 percent."
(To read this entire abstract: http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pedbike/pubs/05080/01.htm)
In other words, we have a 20% chance that motorists will yield to pedestrians making an attempt to cross at the roundabout. I wonder if New York driver habits are factored in?
Another paper produced by the American Society of Civil Engineers says, "While the safety of roundabouts for pedestrians will continue to be 'inferred,' rather than observed, there is presently much debate over the issue of pedestrian access..." (http://www.itre.ncsu.edu/VAMS/research/documents/ASCEpub_Final.pdf)
Also, they are clearly not 'more' safe for particular pedestrian types: Elderly (we have at least three retirement/senior homes within three blocks of this intersection), children (YMCA, YWCA and the Binghamton High School) and the visually impaired (AVRE, Sheltered Workshop) are of particular concern. This from FHWA's Guide to Roundabouts: "The two populations at opposite ends of the continuum - children and the elderly - and people with disabilities are particularly at risk at these intersections"... "Elderly pedestrians, children and the disabled find it more difficult to cross unprotected road crossings."
Bicyclists
From the FHWA Guide to Roundabouts, "The complexity of vehicle interactions within a roundabout leaves a cyclist vulnerable, and for this reason, bike lanes within the circulatory roadway should never be used." Isn't our Mayor trying to promote sustainable living? Isn't people powered transportation a significant element of sustainable living?
Visually Impaired
There are significant national concerns that roundabouts are problematic for visually impaired persons. There are talks that signilization may be REQUIRED in the future.
Here's a link to another FHWA document regarding studies performed for safety of visually impaired persons and crosswalks: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersections/roundaboutsummit/rndabtatt4.htm. It specifically states, "Reports from pedestrians who are blind or visually impaired indicate that roundabouts are often considered a barrier to independent travel."
Here is a quote from an FHWA abstract, "The FHWA'S Intersection Safety Research Program is focused on improving highway safety through increasing knowledge and understanding of the effects of intersection design on safety and operational efficiency. Roundabout intersections have been shown to have both safety and operational benefits compared to alternative stop-controlled and signalized intersections; however, these benefits do not necessarily extend to all users. In particular, pedestrians who have visual impairments have reported difficulty using the pedestrian facilities at some roundabouts."
From the FHWA Guide to Roundabouts, "The complexity of vehicle interactions within a roundabout leaves a cyclist vulnerable, and for this reason, bike lanes within the circulatory roadway should never be used." Isn't our Mayor trying to promote sustainable living? Isn't people powered transportation a significant element of sustainable living?
Visually Impaired
There are significant national concerns that roundabouts are problematic for visually impaired persons. There are talks that signilization may be REQUIRED in the future.
Here's a link to another FHWA document regarding studies performed for safety of visually impaired persons and crosswalks: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersections/roundaboutsummit/rndabtatt4.htm. It specifically states, "Reports from pedestrians who are blind or visually impaired indicate that roundabouts are often considered a barrier to independent travel."
Here is a quote from an FHWA abstract, "The FHWA'S Intersection Safety Research Program is focused on improving highway safety through increasing knowledge and understanding of the effects of intersection design on safety and operational efficiency. Roundabout intersections have been shown to have both safety and operational benefits compared to alternative stop-controlled and signalized intersections; however, these benefits do not necessarily extend to all users. In particular, pedestrians who have visual impairments have reported difficulty using the pedestrian facilities at some roundabouts."
From FHWA, examples of what a visually impaired person may see as they approach an intersection:
The Association for Visual Rehabilitation and Employment has recently moved to 174 Court Street - members of that association were at the public meetings in the spring and they asked how this will affect them and stated their concerns. The reply by the presenters was, "This is an outstanding issue." Period... that was it. The City just spent considerable funds and efforts to upgrade current pedestrian crossings with audible indicators due to the high percentage of visually impaired persons being downtown. How can they do that and consider installing a roundabout with known safety hazards for this segment of our population? What will they do? Will they signalize the roundabout? How can the city ignore the concerns for the visually impaireds' safety?
Signalizing the Roundabout
From my 16 years in transportation engineering, I suspect that if the roundabout project is approved, that they will (if not now, eventually) be required to signalize it due to the presence of visually impaired persons in the area (as well as a high percentage of elderly for whom many of the same concerns exist). Signalizing a roundabout completely negates all the possible benefits of a roundabout. And why, if signalization is the only answer, a likely outcome and it reduces the LOS, why would they still insist on using a roundabout?
A quote from FHWA's "Roundabouts, An Informational Guide", "Roundabouts should never be planned for metering or signalization." (for a full read: http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/00-0671.pdf).
And from the American Society of Civil Engineers, "This recommendation (to signalize roundabouts) runs counter to the basic engineering premise of effective roundabout operation..."
Signalizing the Roundabout
From my 16 years in transportation engineering, I suspect that if the roundabout project is approved, that they will (if not now, eventually) be required to signalize it due to the presence of visually impaired persons in the area (as well as a high percentage of elderly for whom many of the same concerns exist). Signalizing a roundabout completely negates all the possible benefits of a roundabout. And why, if signalization is the only answer, a likely outcome and it reduces the LOS, why would they still insist on using a roundabout?
A quote from FHWA's "Roundabouts, An Informational Guide", "Roundabouts should never be planned for metering or signalization." (for a full read: http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/00-0671.pdf).
And from the American Society of Civil Engineers, "This recommendation (to signalize roundabouts) runs counter to the basic engineering premise of effective roundabout operation..."
And they may be forced to. There is a draft recommendation by the US Access Board which proposes that signalization is a necessary condition to ensure access for blind pedestrians. (http://www.itre.ncsu.edu/VAMS/research/documents/ASCEpub_Final.pdf)
Compromises/Changes
See the picture of the proposed roundabout in the pressconnects story (sorry, I was unable to get my hands on a jpg of the image!) - See how Exchange Street still intersects Court Street at a 90 degree angle in front of the Security Mutual Building (east of the roundabout)? This was a change/addition/compromise to meet the needs of the businesses in that building. This will adversely affect traffic flow from the roundabout - see how cars coming from Exchange will be turning right on Court just in front of traffic coming off the roundabout eastward on Court? The FHWA's Roundabout Guidelines specifically states, "It may be difficult for minor street drivers at unsignalized intersections to enter the link." Looks like a terrible situation to me and one I think may not have been thought through thoroughly. I doubt NYSDOT or FHWA will approve this design. Further complications of this issue are again, pedestrians - now pedestrians have to not only consider the roundabout traffic, but also those non-signalized right-turning vehicles....
Context
Again from the FHWA's Roundabout Guidelines: "Some conditions may preclude a roundabout at a specific location... A number of these include: - Heavy pedestrian or bicyle movements in conflict with high traffic volumes.... There is very little experience on this topic in the U.S., mostly due to a lack of existing roundabout sites with heavy intermodal conflicts). - Intersections located on arterial streets within a coordinated signal network (may create a problem). In these situations, the level of service on the arterial might be better with a signalized interesection incorporated into the system."
Compromises/Changes
See the picture of the proposed roundabout in the pressconnects story (sorry, I was unable to get my hands on a jpg of the image!) - See how Exchange Street still intersects Court Street at a 90 degree angle in front of the Security Mutual Building (east of the roundabout)? This was a change/addition/compromise to meet the needs of the businesses in that building. This will adversely affect traffic flow from the roundabout - see how cars coming from Exchange will be turning right on Court just in front of traffic coming off the roundabout eastward on Court? The FHWA's Roundabout Guidelines specifically states, "It may be difficult for minor street drivers at unsignalized intersections to enter the link." Looks like a terrible situation to me and one I think may not have been thought through thoroughly. I doubt NYSDOT or FHWA will approve this design. Further complications of this issue are again, pedestrians - now pedestrians have to not only consider the roundabout traffic, but also those non-signalized right-turning vehicles....
Context
Again from the FHWA's Roundabout Guidelines: "Some conditions may preclude a roundabout at a specific location... A number of these include: - Heavy pedestrian or bicyle movements in conflict with high traffic volumes.... There is very little experience on this topic in the U.S., mostly due to a lack of existing roundabout sites with heavy intermodal conflicts). - Intersections located on arterial streets within a coordinated signal network (may create a problem). In these situations, the level of service on the arterial might be better with a signalized interesection incorporated into the system."
This may be the most important point in all of this. Considering what Binghamton has (high pedestrian traffic mixed with vehicular), a higher percentage of visually impaired persons due to AVRE and the Sheltered Workshop, the configuration of the intersection and what we need, how can a roundabout be considered a viable solution?
Construction
Yes, the project will be 2 years regardless, however, as admitted by the engineers during one public meeting when asked more directly, the roundabout specifically will have more construction impacts than simply replacing and actuating the signals. Construction impacts = dollars.
As often is the case, all of the pros and cons are not being presented. I have a feeling there will be more controversy to come when this project goes to NYSDOT and FHWA for approval (actually, I've heard there already is trouble - FHWA is not buying into the economic justifications as of yet) - between the historic district, the visually impaired and the Exchange Street configuration, the proposed project may not fly - should we spend more money and time trying to make a round peg fit into a triangular hole? If the roundabout were to fit, great, I'd be all for it, but does it? And is it worth it if the public is against it?
Construction
Yes, the project will be 2 years regardless, however, as admitted by the engineers during one public meeting when asked more directly, the roundabout specifically will have more construction impacts than simply replacing and actuating the signals. Construction impacts = dollars.
As often is the case, all of the pros and cons are not being presented. I have a feeling there will be more controversy to come when this project goes to NYSDOT and FHWA for approval (actually, I've heard there already is trouble - FHWA is not buying into the economic justifications as of yet) - between the historic district, the visually impaired and the Exchange Street configuration, the proposed project may not fly - should we spend more money and time trying to make a round peg fit into a triangular hole? If the roundabout were to fit, great, I'd be all for it, but does it? And is it worth it if the public is against it?
