Why not a Roundabout?

The most direct route from Dublin, in the east, to Sligo in the northwest of Ireland begins with the M4, a fast, modern motorway much like Interstate 95 (except for the terrors of entering and exiting and driving on the left).  Then to state highway N4, much like Massachusetts Route 140, sometimes four lanes, but mostly two. In less than three hours, one can transit from the shores of the Irish Sea to the North Atlantic, traversing verdant farm fields, rolling hills, and charming villages in between. This is Ireland.

There are a few traffic signals (red lights), in the larger towns, but mostly you will encounter roundabouts at intersections.

To the typical New Englander, this reference to circular intersections raises horrific specters of Neponset Circle and the Sagamore Rotary. But rotaries and traffic circles are not roundabouts.

Traffic circles and rotaries (we will say rotary from here on) tend to be very large – several hundred feet in diameter. And because of their relatively large size, the speed of traffic into and through the rotary tends to be fairly high. Couple this with drivers unfamiliar with rotary etiquette and you have a recipe for disaster. No wonder that we hate things circular.

But roundabouts are different. The Federal Highway Administration (FHA) likes roundabouts.  According to them, “A roundabout is a type of circular intersection, but is quite unlike a neighborhood traffic circle or large rotary.  Roundabouts have been proven safer and more efficient than other types of circular intersections.”

Roundabouts are safer because they are smaller. A roundabout can fit in the space of many existing intersections, requiring little if any additional land. Very importantly, the speed through the roundabout is low, 15-20 miles per hour.  The FHA, again, says that “roundabouts REDUCE the types of crashes where people are seriously hurt or killed by 78-82% when compared to conventional stop-controlled and signalized intersections.”

According to the experts, roundabouts are safer and more esthetically pleasing than signalized intersections. What else might they offer?

In addition to safety, roundabouts improve traffic flow and reduce delays . According to Wikipedia, “Under many traffic conditions, a roundabout operates with less delay than signalised or all-way stop approaches. Roundabouts do not stop all entering vehicles, reducing both individual and queuing delays. Throughput further improves because drivers proceed when traffic is clear without waiting for a signal to change.”

Now we can add ecological benefits – roundabouts reduce delays and wasted emissions significantly. When considering all of these benefits, (by the way including increased pedestrian safety), why aren’t roundabouts more widely used?  In New England, certainly, part of the problem is that we have been traumatized by horrific rotaries and traffic circles, tainting the reputation of any circular traffic control approach.

And in addition, there is simply a great amount of ignorance regarding how to negotiate a roundabout. The FHA, again: “Still, because they may be unfamiliar to most people, successful implementation of a roundabout requires extra outreach and education.” This is a problem that can be solved.

With all of this in mind, it makes one wonder why the Southeast Regional Planning and Economic Development District (SPREDD) is recommending adding traffic signals to the intersection of Route 123 and North and South Worcester streets in Norton (Attleboro Sun Chronicle, September 9). Traffic is heavy enough, and dangerous enough, that some improvement is required. But let’s compare, for a moment, the relative merits of a traffic signal versus a roundabout.

A traffic signal would have the following characteristics:

-          More dangerous than a roundabout (additional and more serious accidents)

-          Higher risk to pedestrians

-          Poorer traffic flow; greater delays

-          Worse ecological impact; greater emissions

Why in the world would we intentionally choose such a solution? Building a roundabout instead would offer the opposite of each of the above ills. Safer to all, improved traffic flow, reduced delays, and more friendly to the environment. Global warmists would rejoice. Roundabouts should be at the top of the list for all of our intersection improvement projects.

But perhaps, at root, Massachusetts progressives are not so progressive after all.