The Case for More Traffic Roundabouts
In the 1980s cult classic, National
Lampoon's European Vacation, Clark Griswold drives into London,
England with a beaming smile. Tucked into a yellow Austin Maxi hatchback, his
wife and two children eagerly take in the sights and sounds of the new city.
Then, without warning, Griswold endures a true American nightmare: he enters a roundabout.
A roundabout in
Shanghai, China
Unable to get over into the left lane and
exit, he helplessly circumnavigates the concrete orb for hours. Eventually, his
repeated cries — “Hey look kids, there’s Big Ben! Parliament!” — grow
increasingly more desperate, and he is driven to the point of mental
instability.
Unfortunately, this is telling of most
Americans’ opinion of roundabouts. As beacons of unfamiliarity, the roughly
3,700 circular traffic intersections in the U.S. are feared, avoided, and even
loathed, often without good reason. It seems that every time traffic engineers
propose to build a new one, there is protest and uproar.
Elsewhere, roundabouts are more revered: Australia has more than 10,000.
France features 32,000. The UK not only boasts 25,000 (the most in the world,
as a proportion of total road space), but maintains the “British Roundabout Appreciation Society,”
a collective of grateful denizens who tout the roundabout as “an oasis on a sea
of tarmac.”
Discover agrees: “The roundabout,” wrote the
magazine in 2001, “is the single most important device ever created to help
control traffic safely and smoothly.”
Here’s why: Using simple principles of
physics, roundabouts dramatically reduce crash rates, as well as injuries and
deaths. They diminish vehicle emissions. They are a more effective use of road
space, and cost less to maintain than traditional four-way intersections.
And it’s time that America learns to love
them.
Roundabouts: A History of Hatred
America’s fear of roundabouts
is rooted in the invention’s history.
More than a century ago, city planners began
to experiment with integrating large traffic circles in cities. Columbus Circle,
built on the south west corner of Central Park, New York in 1905, is
largely acknowledged as the first of these, serving as a formidable (if not
confusing) alternative to a four-way intersection. The concept spread, and by
the mid 20th-century, many large, circular rotaries had had built across the
United States, as well as throughout Europe and South America.
While these early traffic circles added
aesthetic value to crowded cities, they were incredibly dangerous and
impractical — mainly for one reason: entering
traffic had the right of way, while circulating traffic had to yield. This
“offside priority” rule led to high-speed merging and over-congestion which, in
turn, increased the frequency of collisions. Some 40 years after being
integrated, traffic circles had earned a negative reputation and largely fell
out of favor -- not just in the U.S., but internationally. Then, as quickly as
they’d been written off, they made a comeback.
In 1966, Frank Blackmore, a city engineer in
the UK’s Transport Research Laboratory, was looking for a way to optimize the
flow of traffic at certain junctions, and decided to revisit the concept of
traffic circles. Recognizing that they were inherently flawed but had a lot of
potential, he pioneered the “modern roundabout” — the design that is largely in
use today.
Modern roundabouts
reversed the rule of older traffic circles in the sense that entering vehicles
no longer had the right of way, and now had to yield to circulating traffic. They also
significantly reduced entry speed: while older traffic circles were intended
for speeds of 25+ mph, modern roundabouts employed curved entries that limited
speeds to 15 mph. These simple changes would prove to be massively effective: within a decade, thousands of new
roundabouts were constructed in England, and accident rates plummeted.
A “modern”
roundabout, in which entering vehicles must yield to circulating traffic
While modern roundabouts flourished in
popularity overseas, an American engineer named Leif Ourston resolved to bring them to U.S. soil as an
alternative to ever-dangerous four-way intersections. There was one issue:
Americans unanimously detested them, largely due to their negative associations
with outdated, dangerous traffic circles. Similarly, the engineering community
strongly opposed bringing modern roundabouts to America. They considered them a
“radical” innovation.
A true rebel, Ourston launched his own
engineering firm in 1984, then wrote a pleading letter to Frank
Black more (the man who’d designed the modern roundabout in the U.K.):
"In 1941, Sir Winston Churchill asked America to join
Britain in a struggle to protect democracy. We joined you and together we
triumphed. Now, 45 years later, I am calling upon you to help me with a
difficult struggle in which we are both engaged. We are trying to bring the
British-style roundabout to the western hemisphere. The fighting is tough, the
slogging is slow, and the resistance is stiff. In the spirit of Anglo-American
cooperation, will you join us and lend a hand?"
On his own dime, Ourston flew Blackmore out to
California and the two embarked on a tour around the state, trying to convince
various transportation heads to build more roundabouts. Time after time, they
were given the same response: roundabouts confused and frustrated American drivers,
and were therefore impractical. Everywhere the duo went, surveys found that
only around 20% of drivers were in favor of roundabouts; the rest were
vehemently opposed.
Throughout the late 80s, Ourston secured
proposals to build roundabouts, only to have the projects cancelled at the last
minute due to protests. Then, finally, in 1990, he succeeded in replacing two
four-way intersections in Nevada with roundabouts.
When these roundabouts exhibited successful
results, Ourston, armed with “statistical proof of safety,” was very
gradually able to convince other municipalities to follow suit.
As we will demonstrate, there is ample “proof”
that roundabouts are safer, better for the environment, and improve traffic
flow. Yet, despite the many proven successes of roundabouts, America still
hasn’t made strides to integrate them on a larger level. Today, nearly three
decades after Ourston’s quest, only 3,700 roundabouts occupy our country’s roads.
The United States has hardly given
roundabouts a chance. There are some 4,092,000 miles of paved road in America
(gauged with France's 612,000, and the U.K.'s 245,000), yet we have nearly 10x
fewer roundabouts than the latter. We maintain only 90 roundabouts per 100,000
miles of paved road, while France has 4,900, and the U.K. has a mind-boggling
10,200.
We have fervently avoided the integration of
roundabouts — and it's time we reconsidered this decision.
Here's why.
Roundabouts Are Safer
According to data from the International Road
Traffic Accident Database, some six million traffic
accidents occur each year in the U.S.; of these, 40% happen in intersections.
Statistically speaking, intersections (both
4-way, and t-shaped) are deadly places: Based on data collected between 1998 and 2007, 21.5% of all traffic-related deaths, and 44.8% of all traffic-related
injuries occur in intersections. On average, 9,000 people die and another
767,000 are injured in intersection collisions every year in the U.S.
Intersections may be convenient and familiar
for drivers, but their inherent design allows for a proliferation of
high-speed, high-impact crashes. Utilizing simple physics, roundabouts
significantly mitigate these risks. Tom Vanderbilt, author of Traffic:
Why We Drive the Way We Do, explains why:
“Roundabouts are typically built using what's called
‘negative superelevation,’ meaning that water flows away from the center and
also that the road slopes against the direction of a driver's turn. As a
result, any crashes in a roundabout take place at lower speeds and are thus
less likely to be fatal...They also eliminate the left turn against oncoming
traffic — itself one of the main reasons for intersection danger — as well as
the prospect of vehicles running a red light or speeding up as they
approach an intersection to ‘beat the light."
Roundabouts reduce crashes by the very nature
of their geometry. While traditional four-way intersections have 32 possible
collision conflict points, roundabouts have only 8:
Interestingly, our fear of roundabouts also plays a
role in making them safer: since they are unfamiliar to us, we are wary about
entering them and are extra cautious. On the other hand, we’re accustomed to
intersections, and more likely to take risks when driving through them.
So just how much safer are roundabouts are
than intersections?
A 2001 report in the American Journal of Public Health selected 24 intersections that were
converted into roundabouts in 8 different states, and analyzed the before and
after crash data. In most cases, the time period (in months) was the same in
the before and after periods; where it was not, the Bayes method was used for
normalization. Researchers found that, overall, roundabouts reduce
all crashes by 38% and reduce injuries by a whopping 76%.
In addition to these reductions, researchers have found that roundabouts reduce fatal collisions by as
much as 90%, and pedestrian/cyclist incidents by 40%, when gauged with
traditional intersections.
The city of Carmel, Indiana presents another
interesting case study. With 60 roundabouts, it
has more than any other city in the United States — and, as a result, has seen
an 80% reduction in injuries, and a 40% reduction in overall crashes.
International reports have produced similarly favorable results:
roundabouts have been found to decrease car accident injuries in Australia (87%),
France (78%), Amsterdam (71%), and the U.K. (39%).
Roundabouts Reduce Vehicle
Emissions
Every year, Americans produce 7 billion metric tons of greenhouse gasses. It is estimated that
47-55% of these emissions come from motor vehicles. In the recent words of California’s governor, Jerry Brown, “the consequence
[of global warming] are real” — and roundabouts can help make a difference.
In addition to being safer than intersections,
roundabouts are also more forgiving on Mother Earth.
A study by a team of researchers at Kansas State
University monitored the emissions of various vehicle pollutants at six sites
with varying traffic flow: three intersections and three roundabouts. Twice
daily (AM, PM), gas levels were captured and recorded. The results confirm that
cars in roundabouts emit remarkably less pollutants than cars in intersections.
On average, carbon monoxide emissions
decreased by 33%; carbon dioxide (which accounts for far and away the largest
percentage of America’s pollution) is reduced by an astounding 46%. Other
gasses (nitrogen oxide, and hydrocarbons) are cut by one-third, and one-half,
respectively.
Tom Vanderbilt, an author and traffic expert, explains why:
“Accelerating from a dead stop is the least efficient
thing a car's engine can do. By reducing stop-start queuing—and eliminating it
at ‘off-peak times,’ like the moments at 2 a.m. when you're idling at a
red-light at an near-empty intersection—roundabouts not only waste less time
than traditional intersections but also less energy, as various studies have
confirmed.”
With roundabouts, vehicle idle time is
significantly reduced. Even when there is traffic in a roundabout (which isn’t
uncommon during rush hour), they are still less damaging than stop light
intersections, which almost perennially have a queue of cars idling at any
given moment. At most times of the day, roundabouts keep cars in constant motion,
and eliminate the need to come to a full stop.
Roundabouts Improve Traffic Flow
and Are More Efficient
A common misperception about roundabouts is
that they’re inefficient and always congested with traffic. This is simply not
true: while roundabouts feature much slower speeds than intersections, they
actually invite less traffic, and are more optimal
for traffic flow.
In 2004, researchers decided to compare
the operational performance of roundabouts with controlled intersections (those
with either stop signs or traffic lights). For their study, 11 modern
roundabouts and a variety of intersections in Kansas were monitored by camera.
The footage was sorted through using traffic
engineering design software which analyzed it for a variety of metrics: average
intersection delay, maximum approach delay (the amount of time it took a car to
reach the intersection), 95% queue length (the queue length, in vehicles, that
has only a 5% probability of being exceeded during the analysis time period),degree of saturation (how much demand an intersection is
experiencing compared to its total capacity), proportion of vehicles stopped,
and maximum proportion of vehicles stopped.
In every single metric, roundabouts
outperformed intersections in terms of efficiency. Average delays were cut by
65%, no more that one-third of vehicles were not in motion at any given time,
and the circle never went over 22% of its full capacity.
Roundabouts are, on average, less congested
and more efficient than intersections; as such, they save drivers precious
time. For instance, after the town of Golden, Colorado converted a series of signalized intersections to
roundabouts in 1999, the average speed of commuters dropped by 10 mph on those
sections, but “the time to travel the entire stretch of road dropped.”
It is not uncommon to read stories about
American drivers going out of their way to avoid roundabouts — one California woman drove an extra 9 miles each day to do just
that — but as the data shows, this behaviour is unjustified. Roundabouts are
often a quicker alternative to traditional 4-way
intersections.
Going In Circles
Like any engineering or design implementation,
roundabouts aren't always the answer: some intersections are too small or too
big, or have too much traffic volume for them to work effectively. But where
they have instituted, roundabouts are safer, more environmentally-friendly, and
more efficient than signalized intersections.
The benefits of roundabouts certainly don’t
stop there. The “islands” they create are often stylized by urban planners,
which improves aesthetics. They allow the elimination of ever-wasteful
left-turn lanes (which are vastly underutilized on most roads), freeing up more
space for bike lanes and landscaping. By negating the need for traffic lights,
roundabouts also save an estimated $5,000 per year per intersection in electricity and maintenance.
Still, America has its reservations. Why?
According to journalist Stephen Beard, “The
roundabout [has] flourished in Britain because it requires the British virtues
of compromise and cooperation,” while “the U.S.’s more aggressive,
confrontational culture may explain why the roundabout has not been more widely
adopted by Americans.” Of course, this is tongue-in-cheek (Beard is a Brit
himself).
More likely, our detestation of roundabouts is
a textbook case of availability
heuristic — that is, when we think of
roundabouts, we make a judgement based on the immediate thoughts and memories
we associate with them. We think of Clark Griswold stuck in the never-ending
mire of an old rotary, unable to escape the right lane. We are reminded of Homer Simpson fruitlessly
circling Lambeth Bridge Roundabout for hours before swerving out in an act of
desperation, nearly killing Queen Elizabeth II. And of course, we conjure
images of older, much more dangerous traffic circles — many of which still operate
on the East Coast — and assume that the new ones will be just as wicked.
But the solution to our intolerance, posits
Tom Vanderbilt, ultimately lies in realizing that unfamiliarity does not equate
to impracticality.
“Americans in general dislike ambiguity in traffic; we like wide
roads with clearly demarcated lanes,” he tells us. “[Roundabouts] seem more
dangerous in the moment because they demand more cognitive bandwidth, but we
can only appreciate the safety statistics when we step back and think.”
Comments
Post a Comment