Roundabouts in HRM

[hfx_chris]

Good question re. art. Aside from a few flower beds, I'm not sure what else I would want to see them installing in a roundabout, drivers in this city are distracted enough. It's not like sitting at a red light where you've got time to gaze, you need to be paying attention at all times at a roundabout.
They were talking about benches... seriously?

If Rainnie was turned into a one-way street from Gottingen westward for example, they could install angled parking spaces along it.


Edit: Quick Q regarding the driveway up to the Citadel. Is that two way or one way? I seem to recall there was a gate there for a while stopping you from going up, making it basically an exit only.

[Dmajackson]

It appears NSTIR will be installing a roundabout at Highway 102 in Waverley. I believe it is for the four-way intersection servicing Perrin Drive and the northbound highway lanes.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

Also, closing Rainnie... looks like a terrible idea on all fronts.

Please, do enlighten us as to why.

I think it's a great idea closing it as far as the Gottingen corner:
1) Removing it will remove one corner from that crazy intersection.
2) No buildings front onto it.
3) It's a redundant transportation route.
4) Going from Gottingen to the bottom end of Rainnie will actually be reasonable once cars aren't coming from the right.
5) It can be used as more parking for Metro Centre events and/or a way to divert bikes away from Cogswell.

[xanaxanax]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

Please, do enlighten us as to why.

I think it's a great idea closing it as far as the Gottingen corner:
1) Removing it will remove one corner from that crazy intersection.
2) No buildings front onto it.
3) It's a redundant transportation route.
4) Going from Gottingen to the bottom end of Rainnie will actually be reasonable once cars aren't coming from the right.
5) It can be used as more parking for Metro Centre events and/or a way to divert bikes away from Cogswell.

1) is a simplistic intersection that any moron can figure out

2) who cares, its a scenic route and Cogswell is more ugly to drive down.

Going down Rainnie from North Park, or Cogswell to is the majority of people's main chose for going onto to Brunswick or Duke weather it is by foot, bike or car, Hardly anyone uses Cogswell to bike down or walk down to those areas.
its not a redundant transportation route at all coming from the north end, turning right from Gottingen onto Rainnie is a redundant that serves no purpose unless you made a mistake in where you are going.

4. Going from Gottingen onto Rainnie is easy as pie pretty much any time of day ever ever.

5) fewer people would park along Rainnie for Metro Centre events is you made it a one way street,

driving down Cogswell or Gottingen just to drive up Rainnie to find a place to park is moronic,

Under no circumstance would it mean more traffic down Gottingen, it would just mean more traffic down Cogswell. Its like saying making lower water street one way has made more traffic down Agricola

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by xanaxanax

1) is a simplistic intersection that any moron can figure out

Really? It's one of the most confusing intersections I've ever seen.

[hfx_chris]

Originally Posted by xanaxanax

...

1. Yep, dead easy intersection. That's why they're proposing a radically different design. That's also why there are so many accidents there, it's just too simple. People aren't being challenged enough.

2. Scenic route.. not even going to touch that one. However let's not forget a roundabout needs a certain amount of space, and if you add more streets you need to make the circle bigger to accommodate it. Trollope and Ahern would take up quite a bit of space already because the streets aren't right next to each other. I just don't think there's enough room for all six streets, given the amount of room they have for the circle, and Rainnie is the logical street to leave out.

3. Not sure if anyone noticed or not, but on one of those images it looks like they're partially redesigning the intersection of Cogswell and Gottingen, to make right turns onto Gottingen (from North Park, in front of the pool) easier and more natural.

4. If it's such an easy left turn, then that means there's very little traffic coming down Rainnie from the right. You kinda just undermined your point.

5. Fewer people would park along Rainnie for Metro Centre events if it was one-way? Really? People are just going to drive right past a bunch of empty parking spaces a block away from the MC, in favour of what, parking 3-5 blocks away on some other side street?

[JET]

"redesigning the intersection of Cogswell and Gottingen, to make right turns onto Gottingen (from North Park, in front of the pool) "

I don't follow this

[rkannegi]

Originally Posted by JET

"redesigning the intersection of Cogswell and Gottingen, to make right turns onto Gottingen (from North Park, in front of the pool) "

I don't follow this

The image is here in the Photos section of the North Park Street Redesign page on Shape Your City Halifax (unfortunately I can't zoom in):

http://shapeyourcityhalifax.ca/proje...oto_id=619.jpg

Under the current 50% plan referenced above, HRM intends on adding a right turn ramp at the southwest corner of the intersection of Gottingen and Cogswell (eastbound Cogswell turning right onto southbound Gottingen). Given that a second stop line also appears on the intersection of Gottingen and Rainnie on the referenced image, I suspect that HRM will install a traffic signal at the south end of Gottingen with it defaulted to green for Gottingen when no one is coming downhill along Rainnie.

The right turn ramp from eastbound Cogswell to southbound Gottingen would offset the partial closure of Rainnie (no more need for each of eastbound right turns to always come to a complete stop when Cogswell has the red light). However, the lack of a four-lane cross section for Cogswell between North Park and Gottingen and the lack of double-lane passage through the roundabout, for both eastbound and westbound traffic, may become a problem. The reduced delay of the four-way roundabout may be enough to allow for single lane passage for Cogswell's east-west through traffic, compared to the very high delay of the current five-way traffic signal intersection (which was a six-way traffic signal intersection when Ahern and Trollope were two-way roads prior to the opening of the new Citadel High School). However, if Cogswell to the east of Gottingen remains at its current width on the ultimate traffic planning horizon, even after the Cogswell interchange is torn down and replaced with a new road and ramp arrangement, HRM had better be prepared to expand the North Park/Cogswell roundabout and the section of Cogswell between North Park and Gottingen to remove the single-lane-each-way "bottleneck" off of Cogswell when its gets busier. We don't need future traffic to be messed up by another Young-Street-style bottleneck (referring to Young between Robie and Agricola). Unnecessarily inconsistent and erratic road design unnecessarily jams up traffic and causes crashes.

Back in the February 2013 forum, while I recommended the partial shutdown of Rainnie, I also wanted to see Cogswell Street expanded to a four-lane divided road between Gottingen and North Park so that it would the have a consistent design (and width) all the way from Quinpool Road to the Cogswell interchange. HRM seems to have land set aside for this, so they may as well do it when they rebuild North Park Street.

At least HRM is not going to have a sudden change from single lane to double lane and than pack to single lane along the northbound side of North Park. They were thinking about it, but at the February 2013 North Park forum, I advised the project engineers on how erratic changes in road design along a corridor can adversely affect traffic. I reference the following road in Maryland (Bradley Boulevard where it crosses over the Washington, DC Beltway (I-495)):

http://greatergreaterwashington.org/...-a-crazy-fail/

Not surprisingly, I'm suspicious that the current design plans for North Park between the planned roundabouts now feature more consistent lane design as a result of my reference to the web link above, and it is also why I'm not surprised that HRM eliminated the sudden lane splits on Windsor Street three months ago at both North Street and Almon Street when they added the bike lane,s resulting in more consistent traffic flow (even though the ability to bypass left turns along Windsor Street at these two intersections has been partially sacrificed).

[hfx_chris]

Could it also be a possibility that, if Rainnie is to be excluded from the new roundabout, and presumably traffic along Rainnie were to decrease, the intersection of Gottingen and Rainnie would be reconfigured such that southbound Gottingen traffic (including traffic from Cogswell) would flow directly onto Rainnie eastbound without any need for traffic signals (simple stop sign on eastbound Rainnie)

[rkannegi]

Yes it's possible, depending on the amount of gaps in Gottingen's traffic (in both directions) that would allow Rainnie's traffic to enter, let alone the design of any pedestrian crossings. This would be one-way STOP or YIELD with Quinpool-style signalized pedestrian crossing across "Gottingen", where the lights would stay green for "Gottingen", except when pedestrians push the crossing button ("Gottingen" would consist of the existing Gottingen and the section of Rainnie to the east of Gottingen). Also, if eastbound Rainnie's traffic can't easily turn directly onto northbound Gottingen due to heavy traffic, they could just "turn right" onto the new "Gottingen" mainline and then turn left onto northbound Brunswick and then use Cogswell westbound to recover their intended route along Gottingen northbound.

A semi-pictographic sign could be placed at the east end of the planned one-way section of Rainnie (depicting the Gottingen/Rainnie/Brunswick/Cogswell block with arrows turning left around the block) suggesting drivers that are planning turning left from the one-way Rainnie onto northbound Gottingen to "turn right and then turn left around the block during heavy traffic" (may avoid the need for a full left turn ban while keeping unfamiliar drivers informed of a safe way to head onto northbound Gottingen during heavy traffic hours, also while letting drivers make direct lefts from the Rainnie one-way during low traffic hours). This would save the need for a traffic light for left turns from the Rainnie one-way (aside from the required pedestrian signal crossing), unless if Gottingen's traffic ever got so heavy that even a right turn would be difficult, but in that case, I suspect that would likely only happen during severe gridlock, at which point, once a driver on the Rainnie one-way has fully stopped for the stop sign, the next driver that's stuck in line along Gottingen would alternate right of way with the stopped driver on the Rainnie one-way, let alone that there are already traffic signals nearby on Brunswick and Cogswell.

(Alternating traffic during gridlock at unsignalized intersections, but only during gridlock - exactly the same as Germany's Reißverschluss traffic rule for stop and yield intersections under gridlock conditions, known in English as the "zipper" rule, similar to the "zipper merge" for merge intersections).

Cheers,

Richard Kannegiesser

(for those who don't know, ß in German spelling is the same as "ss" in English spelling)

[Keith P.]

I cannot see how or why Rainnie would be abandoned. It seems a crazy idea since Rainnie is the one and only way most drivers get to and from the downtown core from North Park. Using Cogswell for that requires additional intersections and turns and frankly seems absurd. None of what has been shown in this thread so far explains why this is a good idea or what the new version looks like. Frankly, if it is only being done to allow a roundabout to function a bit better, maybe then you need a better idea for the intersection than a roundabout.

[Waye Mason]

Close Rainne from roundabout to Gottingen, realign eastern remainder of Rainne to be an extension of Gottingen, put a roundabout at Gottingen/Cogswell with the right off of Cogswell inbound as a pass through to Gottingen inbound.

None of this needs to happen until Cogswell interchange planning comes down. In the interim Rainne stays open off of Cogswell inbound.

All the traffic modelling shows that this would work, and have plenty of capacity for growth.

[terrynorthend]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

Closing Rainnie is an interesting idea, but I'd want to see a traffic impact study to know for certain that the traffic flow patterns aren't going to be drastically affected (I suspect not, but still...).

From the diagram, I'd say that they are making a right in/right out connection to Cogswell with Rainnie. This way, if you come off the roundabout you can head down Cogswell or turn right and head onto Rainnie down the hill. Then if you are heading up Rainnie, you would then have to take a right onto Gottingen Street to be able to eventually get up to the roundabout and head to Quinpool because if you stayed on Rainnie, you would get to this new intersection where you would be forced to make a right turn (back down Cogswell).

One benefit (if you can call it that) is that you could create a new lane of on street parking on Rainnie (on the side closest to the Centennial pool) with this configuration.

I think this is a good idea. I would like to see as an extension to this, boulevarding of the orphaned section of Cogswell Street running from the roundabout to Gottingen Street. There is plenty of room for this, trimming a small strip off of the north side of the Centennial Triangle properties. This could be reclaimed on the Rainnie side (which will be a much quieter roadway now) if desired. A four lane boulevard would go a long way to increasing traffic capacity on the east-west Quinpool-Cogswell corridor. It would provide a consistent look and feel to the Cogswell gateway into downtown too, especially striking driving east towards the harbour when the interchange is replaced by new development.

[Dmajackson]

Halifax's wonderful winter weather has resulted in the open house being rescheduled to next Wednesday (February 5th), Maritime Hall at the Forum, 7-9pm.

Source : Halifax Regional Municipality Public Service Announcement

[rkannegi]

I just went to the public engagement session at the Maritime Hall of the Halifax Forum.

Overall I like the 50% roundabout design they currently have. I voiced a concern about cyclists being doored when forced into a bike lane immediately next to parked cars, even those HRM has had this setup for a while on South Park Street. Might a shared bike/car lane work better in order to avoid dooring incidents for the bikes that need to road on this specific stretch of road? Maybe. At least for Windsor Street's curbside bike lanes you don't have to worry much about cars dooring bikes.

The current single lane roundabout plans will be able to handle the traffic load of a fully four-laned boulevard along all of Cogswell. The ultimate configuration of Cogswell east of Gottingen is dependent on the outcome of the Cogswell Interchange demolition planning (still uncertain at this time).

I have good news about the Rainnie/Gottingen intersection. In the initial phase of one-way Rainnie on implementation of the Cogswell/North Park roundabout in 2015, the one-way section of Rainnie will face a STOP sign at Gottingen, while southbound Gottingen will be freeflow (except when yielding to pedestrians). Westbound Rainnie Drive traffic will be forced through the existing right turn YIELD onto northbound Gottingen (the existing right turn island will be extended southward to the existing centreline of Rainnie). Westbound Rainnie traffic will only need to yield to pedestrians and to traffic that turned left onto northbound Gottingen from the the stop sign that will face one-way eastbound Rainnie. I had suspected that HRM was looking at this kind of an intersection for Gottingen at Rainnie.

A right turn ramp will be installed on eastbound Cogswell at Gottingen (eastbound-southbound right turns), while traffic signal phasing will be adjusted accordingly for the increase in left turns at the Cogswell/Gottingen intersection.

Overall, I am very happy that not only is the roundabout design progressing well, but also that Gottingen Street will finally have a solid connection to the Metro Centre area, which will may getting through much easier, regardless of mode of transport, active or vehicular. I even suggested the possibility of picnic tables at on the north (one-way Rainnie) side of the Citadel along with parking and multi-use path facilities.

The North End neighbourhood has be fighting for many years for a better connection to downtown. The "Gottingen Street Extension" is basically the first part of it. The next phase of joining the North End to downtown will be the Cogswell Interchange Demolition Party.

In hindsight, I'm still floored (in a good way) at how my idea of partially closing Rainnie Drive took off since the February 27, 2013 forum. Now it's to the point that Rainnie Drive itself is going to become its own Shape Your City project in the near future. That's why I say to people that if they have ideas that would likely work from both a combined engineering and a liveability perspective, SPEAK UP. Hiding gets us nowhere (as what happened with the attempt at changing the design of the intersection of Duffus, Novalea & Devonshire).

Cheers,

Richard Kannegiesser

[Keith P.]

Disaster awaits. Totally ridiculous. This is going to be a monumental failure.

[HalifaxRetales]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Disaster awaits. Totally ridiculous. This is going to be a monumental failure.

you are so negative all the time that your opinion is moot.


These will be great, I really like the design and makes it way safer for pedestrians

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by rkannegi

In hindsight, I'm still floored (in a good way) at how my idea of partially closing Rainnie Drive took off since the February 27, 2013 forum. Now it's to the point that Rainnie Drive itself is going to become its own Shape Your City project in the near future. That's why I say to people that if they have ideas that would likely work from both a combined engineering and a liveability perspective, SPEAK UP. Hiding gets us nowhere (as what happened with the attempt at changing the design of the intersection of Duffus, Novalea & Devonshire).

Cheers,

Richard Kannegiesser

No offense, Richard, but this is what really troubles me.

We have an army of HRM bureaucrats and traffic engineers and outside consultants who have been working on this thing for years. How is it possible that the idea of a random citizen at a public session had never been thought of before and even worse, becomes a key component of the project?

The mind boggles.

Is this the level of thinking that has gone into this project?

What land mines await in implementation if, as seems clear, they did not consider all possibilities?

I hate roundabouts. I think bike lanes are a complete waste of money. I think the priority for any street project should be moving vehicle traffic first and foremost, as that is what streets are for.

HRM has gone off the rails, badly.

[pchipman]

I think the priority for any street project should be to move people and goods as efficiently as possible.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by pchipman

I think the priority for any street project should be to move people and goods as efficiently as possible.

In most places that remains true. In Halifax it seems the priority has become one of building as many bike lanes as possible and narrowing our already narrow streets to accommodate them, building roundabouts to further slow down traffic from moving efficiently, and closing other streets to traffic entirely because they are deemed too risky for the handful of cyclists who use them.

It is nuts.