Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P.
You're up late, Mark. 
I do not like roundabouts generally and find the ones at Uteck poorly designed for reasons you cite. The ones at Cunard and at North Park are better though, and work OK because they are simply designed better. The one problem they all have in the city, though, is pedestrian access. You are so busy looking for other vehicles trying to run into you that your attention is distracted from the multiple crosswalks in every entry/exit leg. They are extremely hazardous for pedestrians and IMO the crosswalks should not be located inside the roundabout itself as they are in these but rather be some distance away on the actual streets themselves.
A big part of the problem is that HRM Planning is populated by a large number of young, inexperienced planners who have had the idea drilled into their heads at school that cars are bad and must be eliminated/discouraged as much as possible, along with the corollary that roundabouts are good for discouraging car use because they are slow and create congestion. Hence the sentiment among some that more roundabouts are always the solution to whatever traffic problem exists. They are not. |
Such is my schedule sometimes...
I agree with your comments about Uteck vs the ones by the Commons, and regarding crosswalk location. Those are valid concerns and it troubles me a little that HRM planning/traffic people don't seem to be paying attention, as they just seem to be churning out the same design features time and again.
I personally don't mind roundabouts so much, when they are designed well and are applied appropriately to their traffic situation. The aspect of traversing one can actually be fun if you're somebody who enjoys the challenge of accelerating, braking, and tight turns (I do
). However I'm also a firm believer that road infrastructure should be designed such that it's easy to understand at a quick glance for anybody, not just those familiar with the area. This is why I bristle a little when reading the timid driver comments... if infrastructure is designed well, nobody will be timid because they will understand exactly what they have to do to get through it without having to call their insurance company...
I have to say, though, that I don't think roundabouts are part of a nefarious plot to rid the roads of cars. I honestly think that traffic planners are well-intentioned, and that there are sound reasons to install them, such as legacy costs associated with maintaining lighted intersections - roundabouts take up a little more land, but they are only pavement and have no extra costs associated with maintenance - just pavement, painted lines, and plowing requirements... but roundabouts do not have electrical/electronic equipment to manage (which also gives them the advantage during power failures). I'm sure there is somebody here with in-depth knowledge that could prove me wrong, if I am, so feel free to correct me if that's the case.
They are also superior in light traffic situations, where normally some cars would be sitting, waiting for the light to change with little to no traffic coming the other way. The roundabout lets you judge the traffic coming at you and go as soon as it's reasonable to do so.
On the other hand, I really don't think they are the best plan for heavy traffic areas, such as the one being discussed in this thread.
Sorry, I'm rambling again...
Prev
Linear Mode
