3 ms·
Given the amount of space if I were driving through it I'd wish they had just made it a little larger so it could be a normal "full circle" roundabout. Sometime
by zamadatix 2y ago
Given the amount of space if I were driving through it I'd wish they had just made it a little larger so it could be a normal "full circle" roundabout. Sometimes the biggest problems with roundabouts is the number of variations. "You can use this lane to go that way here but a mile up if you want to go that way you want to make sure you're in the other lane". Not to mention it seems somewhat easy to speed through without even bothering to slow down for certain entrance/exit pairs.
- mannykannot 2y agoYes, this leaves me with an uneasy feeling: "Drivers going northbound on SR 203 traffic may need to yield twice – once when entering the roundabout and again if traffic is passing between the two islands. If you think about it, that’s just following the same rules a second time." [my emphasis.] Firstly, of course, if you are new to it and have not heard about it in advance, you won't have much time to think about it. Secondly, if your mental model of a roundabout is "yield to enter, then you have right of way", this will seem counter-intuitive. I hope they put up a yield sign and corresponding road markings at that point, but the latter are not there in the accompanying aerial photo. I am also curious as to how navigation systems will tell drivers how to negotiate this roundabout. They have trouble with a somewhat similar roundabout in Kingston NY, at the intersection of Albany ave., Broadway and Colonel Chandler drive. Update: The accompanying video shows there will be yield lines at the point I am concerned about, but it is also ambiguous about how the rules of the road apply there: "The circulating roadway goes around and between both central islands... Those drivers already in the circulating roadway have the right-of-way." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07_m7HHiZRw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07_m7HHiZRw
- timdiggerm 2y agoDid you read the blog post? >The new roundabout needed to be built in the same space as the old intersection. To the east is a steep hill. To the southwest there are protected wetlands. There wasn’t space or budget to mitigate the potential impact in either direction.
- zamadatix 2y agoI'd like to think I'm clever but I cannot claim to be able to come up with alternative shapes to intersections without first having read the blog post about what they chose :). Budget to fix the hill yes, it's a real life thing, but one can still wish they had been able to allocate things to do it right. As far as the wetlands... https://i.imgur.com/x0WGHXa.jpeg https://i.imgur.com/x0WGHXa.jpeg how many lives is a small part of that narrow strip of wetlands between a farm and 2 roads worth? Easy to change? No... but the right thing to have changed? I think so. Now that they've done neither the intersection is still not very safe (IMO, time will tell) and the limited budget was consumed in doing so. Solely focused on dealing with "what sounded like the easiest and cheapest intersection to put in" I think they did a decent job, I just wish they had been able to do more. Intersections like this not only remain unsafe but give a bad public taste to roundabouts that are able to be properly done - "Oh I HATE roundabouts, I can't ever tell when to yield or where the lanes go. I don't want one in town" when really it's just a horrific roundabout they went through.