It turns out that roundabouts may be part of the panacea for our greatest traffic woes. Across America, towns and cities of all shapes and sizes have been choosing modern roundabouts over antiquated signalization equipment and expensive grade separated interchanges. The choice of a roundabout, or a modern roundabout, rather, makes sense for several reasons: they have proven to improve the flow of traffic, reduce cost, improve safety, and enhance the quality of place.

The idea of a “one-way rotary system” was first proposed in 1903 for Columbus Circle in New York City by William Phelps Eno, “the father of traffic control.” The Columbus Circle roundabout was built in 1905, and the idea quickly caught on in Western Europe. The first modern roundabouts in the US were installed in Nevada in 1990; but it has been a slow progression, after 104 years we only have about 1000 modern roundabouts in the entire country. France, on the other hand, leads the world with an estimated 15,000 modern roundabouts, and has been building them at a rate of about 1,000 per year.

One of the most touted benefits of modern roundabouts is their ability to improve traffic flow. Studies by Kansas State University have measured traffic flow at intersections before and after conversion to roundabouts. In each case, installing a roundabout led to a 20 percent reduction in delays. The proportion of vehicles that had to stop – just long enough for a gap in traffic – was also reduced. Because of their ability to reduce congestion, the Department of Transportation (DOT) of New York, Arizona, Wisconsin, Washington State, and Oregon, are at some point in the process of developing a modern roundabout program.
It may seem counter-intuitive, but modern roundabouts can actually improve safety while improving the flow of traffic. In March 2000, a report was published by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety entitled A Study of Crash Reductions Following Installation of Roundabouts in the United States, which demonstrated that roundabouts reduce crashes by 75 percent at intersections where stop signs or automated signals were previously used for traffic control. According to the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), there are several reasons why roundabouts are safe: 1) Low travel speeds – because drivers must yield to traffic before entering a roundabout, they naturally slow down, 2) no red lights to run – roundabouts are designed to keep traffic flowing without requiring vehicles to stop, so the incentive for drivers to speed up to make it through a yellow or red light is removed, and 3) less potential for serious crashes – since vehicles all travel around the center island in the same direction, head-on and left-hand turn (T-bone) collisions are eliminated.
Congestion and safety are often discussed, but what’s not often discussed is the ability of modern roundabouts to greatly improve public space. Increased safety promotes biking and walking, which increases the vibrancy of the place, activates the street, and has several other multiplier effects that can create a destination. Therefore, roundabouts can play important roles in creating a destination, not just an area people drive through.

In many instances, the roundabout itself can become a place. By adding a sculpture, water feature, benches, or other architectural feature that will attract attention, the roundabout can become a community focal point and even a gathering space. When you’re giving directions, meeting friends after work, or walking your dog, you may find yourself heading towards the roundabout. Now, how often have you walked your dog to the grade separated interchange?

Traditional intersections can serve as points of identification for a community, but they do not add to the sense of place. They are often dangerous places that are to be avoided. Modern roundabouts, however, afford opportunities for streets to be places, and allow the community to reclaim intersections as community space.

Below is an image of a Michael Wallwork designed roundabout that PPS proposed for a project in British Columbia. The image is an overlay of our roundabout proposal, on top of a traditional “jug handle” design, which proposes long and wide on and off-ramps. As you can see, the roundabout preserves a significant amount more land than the alternative design. The land preserved by the roundabout includes a park, residential development, and a community arts center; all very important community assets that would be severely compromised if the jug handle were built.

Several areas in the US have fully embraced the modern roundabout. Vail, Colorado was the first; they built a series of 5 roundabouts that eliminated 37 stop signs in the Vail Valley. But it’s the town of Carmel, Indiana that wins the title for implementing the most successful roundabout program. The suburb of Indianapolis has built over 40 modern roundabouts, with several more proposed.

Here is a short video of the Mayor of Carmel presenting the town’s roundabout program. I’ve also included several other links where you can find the roundabout information referenced above.

http://www.carmellink.org/index.php?act=plan1
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_syn_264.pdf
http://www.ksu.edu/roundabouts
http://www.contextsensitivesolutions.org/

Keep your finger on the pulse–sign up for Placemaking News today! subscribe

  • Pingback: You spin me right round at Greater City: Providence

  • Pingback: The Daily Dig - ‘Embrace the Roundabout’ Edition » INFRASTRUCTURIST

  • Pingback: BrianLang.ca » Blog Archive » links for 2009-07-08

  • Louis Merlin

    Great post, except there is no definition of what distinguishes a “modern roundabout” from the old fashioned kind…

  • Pingback: In Defense Of The Roundabout - Environment and Energy

  • Jeremy

    You mention the idea of public space, but how is a pedestrian supposed to cross a roundabout to get there? Where crosswalks exist, drivers always fail to observe them.

  • http://~ justin

    I’m sorry but this is way off.
    how can you come from a position of place making and then sing the praises of constant traffic flow?
    Yes, the”jug handle” is just bizarre but don’t be afraid to stop the cars. By creating a traditional, signaled, intersection you can still provide the community assets, as well as a more positive urban form with more usable space and pedestrian friendly crossings.

  • Pingback: Streetsblog San Francisco » Today’s Headlines

  • Marcus Garnet

    When living in England and also visiting France, I hated crossing at or near roundabouts as a pedestrian. There were cars coming from all directions at considerable speed, and no safe place to cross. So it seems to me that roundabouts would be a good subsitute for internchanges, but not for traffic lights, if we want to encourage pedestrian convenience.

  • Aaron B.

    In San Francisco, the Parkmerced development adjacent to SF State University has virtually only roundabouts – and it’s terrible! No matter what mode of transport you’re using – walking, biking, or driving. Roundabouts create lots of ambiguity and too much to watch for. They improve vehicular traffic flow but butt-out pedestrians and bicyclists. There are accidents there all the time – especially pedestrians getting hit. I once fell off my scooter avoiding a car that cut me off in the roundabout because he thought he could make it in front of me (and then tried to blame me). It doesn’t feel like a welcoming community space – more like a pool of circling sharks!

  • Scott U

    This article could use some clarification. First, clarifying the difference between “traditional” urban intersections (narrow streets, small turn radii, low speeds) and “conventional” suburban intersections (several lanes wide, very large turn radii, high speeds). I think if you compare the data, traditional intersections are not “dangerous places that are to be avoided.”

    Second, the statement that “Increased safety promotes biking and walking, which increases the vibrancy of the place, activates the street, and has several other multiplier effects that can create a destination” is deceiving. “Increased safety” can also involve widening and straightening streets and clearing road-sides of any visual obstructions or distractions. Do these measures increase the vibrancy of the place, activate the street, and promote biking and walking? Increasing CAR safety does not equal increased OVERALL safety.

    What about the increase in pedestrian crossing distances? What about the constant flow of traffic? And putting benches inside the circle??? Who wants to BE inside one of those circles, surrounded by confused cars and trucks, let alone trying to GET inside the circle?

    I think the conclusion should have been that these things are only preferable to interchanges, which is totally reasonable and a clear improvement. For other intersections, power outages in California have shown that four-way stops or a complete lack of signs/signals achieves the same safety results. This sort of placemaking comes at a cost.

  • Schuyler

    The idea that roundabouts would be a place to go walk the dog is incredibly wrongheaded. When I walk (no dog, don’t have one) the last place I want to go is somewhere built for the convenience of traffic. These are not “public spaces” in any sense except that they are publicly owned.

    The only sensible use for these is as a replaement for grade-separated interchanges where speed is not a consideration. Diamond interchanges are suitable for highways where continuous flow at speeds over 30 mph is anticipated or desireable. Roundabouts can be useful on nominally limited access roadways which have somewhat limited speeds (otherwise the backups in the queue waiting to enter can be dangerous).

    There is NOTHING wrong with a conventional intersection. Left turn lanes are a very good addition at busy intersections, but for “normal” intersections (low speed and limited, local traffic) stop signs, either four way or two way, or even no signs as noted in an earlier comment, work fine. Busy intersections need traffic controls in the form of signals.

    Keene NH has substituted a roundabout with signals for a major intersection on the south side of town. It is hugely inconvenient and in my opinion, much more dangerous than the previous signalized, left turn lane equipped intersection that it replaced. I am sure there are more accidents than there were before.

    The only claim I will agree with is that by installing sculpture or a fountain or some other notable feature in the center, one can establish a landmark useful for giving directions . . . whether that is a good investment of public monies is another question.

  • Roundabout Hater

    Roundabout’s DO NOT reduce accidents. They MAY reduce fatalities, but there is evidence that there are actual increases in the number of accidents. My main concern about Roundabouts is that most people do not know how to properly enter and/or exit a Roundabout. If Roundabouts in my town existed since 1903, maybe I’d like them. But right now with the vast number of ignorant drivers out there, Roundabouts are dangerous, expensive and frustrating.

  • Pingback: Brilang.com » Blog Archive » links for 2009-07-08

  • Daniel

    Very informative and useful points you have mentioned in your post.

    Great best of luck.

    Thanks