Walley has a traffic circle on his doorstep thanks to his promotion of the idea. He can't change his point of view now really. What he might consider though, is the fact that each corner where one is considered should be looked at very closely for how it will fit the volume and type of traffic that will use it. To make this point stronger, I point to the recent circle placed at the corner of 14th Avenue and King Gearge. It is ABSOLUTELY impossible for a truck and trailer to negotiate that circle without running over the inside curb. They are definetely not an end all solutionand much thought must be put into the decision to install one.

I have not read any mention yet about Alberta's decision to rip out about 80% of the ones that they put into the Edmonton area because they failed to solve their problems with safety. That would require a teeny bit homework on the part of both the engineering department and the good ole boys, but alas......

They say that there's none so blind as those who will not see. There's also some who have not found the benefits of the internet! These days repeating the mistakes of others should be a rare occurance.
Methinks | 02.28.08 - 4:59 pm | #

HA! Hey Dr. Methinks, cure yourself! I did your teeny bit of research, and found you were, once again, completely wrong! The second hit on Google when you enter “Edmonton Traffic Circle Removal” is a report prepared for the city of Edmonton on the subject. Notable quotes:

“In the 1950s Edmonton constructed 12 two-lane roundabouts on major roadways in the City. Subsequently, 7 of these roundabouts were replaced with 5 of them being replaced in the 1979 to 1993, period primarily for capacity reasons.” ---hardly 80%. And we are talking replacing intersections on major arterial routes over a 50-year span. Amazing that 40% are still there, when you think about it.

“…5 are still in operation as roundabouts some 40 to 50 years after they were first constructed. A sixth roundabout is also still operational, but was converted to a signalized roundabout approximately 25 years ago. It should be noted that…in recent years Edmonton has constructed 2 new roundabouts and is planning other roundabouts.” ----so they are building more, not ripping more out.

“The 12 roundabouts constructed in Edmonton in the 1950s…appear to have been designed with geometrics intended to maximize traffic flows.” ---they weren’t built to “solve safety problems”, they were built to maximize flow, therefore their geometry was biased towards flow and away from safety to start with!

“The issue of roundabouts being removed in Edmonton and replaced with traffic signals is often cited as a concern by stakeholders in considering the adoption of roundabouts as an acceptable form of intersection control. Often this concern is raised without any of the parties having a good understanding of the reasons for the removal of these
roundabouts.”----Sound familiar?

For the record, I am neither for nor against roundabouts, and I don’t live on 16th. I just love to see how many ways Methinks can be wrong in a 34-word sentence.
R C | 02.29.08 - 11:13 am | #

Split hairs all you want RC, but they claimed they were removed for safety reasons, and the accident rate was too high. I have no idea which ones were selected for removal or when. I am only familiar personally with one of the circles from visits to Edmonton in the past, and this one was really large, and handled an enormous volume of traffic. It struck me as being quite safe, but????. I don't know if it was one of those removed.

The doughnuts that I've seen here in the lower mainland do nothing for safety IMO. I hope that the one going in at 216 and 16th breaks that routine, but I have doubts that it will, in spite of the high volume of trucks on that route. I really hope the eng dept proves me wrong though, because I also use that route because the bumps on Zero Avenue make driving my truck on it too miserable.

You do remember Zero Avenue of course? That's the great east/west artery that the township engineering department decided to deliberately cripple. It is also one solution that would relieve the heavy load that 16th has been forced to carry. It is never mentioned though as such, and the reason why, has not been truthfully disclosed IMO.

If you have a preference for circles RC. watch the truck traffic at 14th Ave and King George foa a bit. There's no way you will be convinced that it has done anything for public safety. I have 3 others that are just as bad and as obvious, and one other that is just so rediculous it's unbelievable that any prideful engineer should not be sick when looking at it.
Methinks | 02.29.08 - 4:05 pm | #

R.C, Before you give off another one of your HA-HA I gotchas, wend your way through the Edmanton traffic stats if you can find all of the links. When you get to the right info, you will find some interesting data regards accident rates at intersections. The study includes about 200 intersections. In the leading top ten offenders that were accident prone, numbers 1,2,5,and 10 were traffic circles! Tough stats!

Based on those stats I get a bit nervous about the safety of circles. On the other hand, raw numbers can be misleading because there are other mitigating factors may not be appreciated.

Not stated, but a general opinion among those involved, suggests that all traffic circles where traffic is dense, should have at least two lanes within the circle itself. I am of the same opinion, and certainly 16th Ave is at the high upper limits of hight traffic, and the number of trucks make this more convincing. For example, if there is a bunching up of vehicles in an east/west direction because of a need to slow down to navigate the circle, those entering from the north or south will be under stress while unsuccessfully looking for a break in the flow. It doesn't help that heavy vehicle drivers have an understandable reason to keep their all-up weight rolling if they can.

I think everyone agrees 216th Street and 16th Avenue needs something to make the intersection safer. If it's a circle, I hope they don't do a half assed job. If they do, I'll be very disappointed. If they do a good job, I'll be a very happy motorist.
Methinks | 02.29.08 - 9:21 pm | #

I’m not splitting hairs, Methinks. I am demonstrating that the thesis of your comment is fundamentally wrong. And you are wrong again in your retort:

a) No-where does it say that the roundabouts were removed for safety reasons, they were removed as the capacity on the arterial roads increased over a 40-to 50-year span.

b) You hardly “gotchas” me. I never said traffic circles were safer than other intersection types. However, the report does indicate that these large, two-lane roundabouts were poorly designed from a safety standpoint, and that was probably the reason the safety stats for them are worse than similar circles in other jurisdictions. One would assume if they installed circles at 16th, they would not follow the Edmonton design.

As I said, I have no preferences for or against traffic circles, nor do I live on 16th, and I rarely drive on 16th, so my only point here is to point out how you are wrong. My editorial opinion on truck traffic at intersections is that we need to do something about the large number of trucks that now see the yellow-turning-red light as a reason to honk their horn before entering the intersection instead of a reason to stop.
R C | 03.03.08 - 10:51 am | #

Well R.C, we'll just have to wait and see what the engineering department at township hall dishes up.

If they really want to relieve traffic, they could restore Zero Avenue into a good servicable road at very little cost. I don't think the mayor and his band of nodding heads would approve though. That is too logical a thought for a such a hopeless lot IMO.
Methinks | 03.03.08 - 11:33 am | #