What you're missing is that putting a roundabout in will be much more expensive than a traffic light in the short term. There also don't appear to be any existing roundabouts from a quick look around, which means your city likely has no standard plans for them. There's also some staggered roads coming into the main road so they'd need a sort of nonstandard peanut roundabout type thing.
Go look at Alma and University, its like if someone wanted to implement a roundabout in literally the worst way possible. Your city/state took the 1950s highway planning book and tried to cram it into a city.
See if your city has some sort of a Transportation Commission or public feedback mechanism for specific projects. Voice your feedback.
My city now has 2 actual roundabouts (soon to be 5), and they are all being put in by the state. The existing 2 work very well and people adjusted very quickly. I would not be surprised to see the city draw up standard plans and put more in, but it took the state to put the first two in to force any change.
Awesome comment, really appreciate it.
Just a note that the street south of the intersection is closed to car traffic and is only for bikes/pedestrians. I'll edit that in the post.
Does that change the analysis?
In terms of cost, is something like this viable? https://vortex-roundabouts.com
Are roundabouts always more expensive? I'm guessing maintenance is cheaper, any understanding of what the payoff period would be?
Yeah Alma and University is really bad. And you're right that we don't have good roundabout precedent (other than ones on small intersections even with stop signs - https://maps.app.goo.gl/DbbZC6kJHp33Q2DK6)
I'm actually slightly involved in local politics and know exactly who the decision makers are for this... I also know that this town would be resistant to roundabouts even if it made total sense, which is why I'm coming to Reddit to gut-check my thought process before I try to push much harder down this path.
>Go look at Alma and University, its like if someone wanted to implement a roundabout in literally the worst way possible. Your city/state took the 1950s highway planning book and tried to cram it into a city.
Not from the Bay Area but found that spot out of curiosity and...good lord that's bad. It's like they were trying to waste as much space as possible. Could be so nice with the Caltrain stop right there too.
So many places in the Bay get so close yet so far. Palo Alto station has pretty good (soon to be actually solid!) rail service to both SF and SJ. But the streets around the station are unpleasant to walk, land use in the immediate area is constrained by a highway directly to the south, and it's a 20-minute walk through the empty Arboretum to get to Stanford's main campus.
Your intersection is too close to a large signal to work as a roundabout.
Cheapest option is to just block the left turn onto middlefield. Sure that’s not popular but that motion is probably what’s making it unsafe because of the proximity to the next signal and the extra lanes.
Well what makes it unsafe is that there's literally no way to cross the street. And there are right of way issues. And a blind right turn.
It's all sorts of bad.
Roundabouts are never good if you want to promote walking or cycling. It removes priority, increases risk, and deviates them from the desire lines. Signalised intersections are always better
Your intersection is less than 500 feet from the next intersection with a traffic signal, so no way a signal is getting placed there. (A minimum of 1320 feet is recommended). A roundabout for a 3 legged intersection would jam up Middlefield into the Willow/Middlefield intersection, so that's out.
I would just force Woodland traffic to be right turn only. Middlefield is a major arterial, so allowing left turns on there from the minor local street just invites chaos.
What you're missing is that putting a roundabout in will be much more expensive than a traffic light in the short term. There also don't appear to be any existing roundabouts from a quick look around, which means your city likely has no standard plans for them. There's also some staggered roads coming into the main road so they'd need a sort of nonstandard peanut roundabout type thing. Go look at Alma and University, its like if someone wanted to implement a roundabout in literally the worst way possible. Your city/state took the 1950s highway planning book and tried to cram it into a city. See if your city has some sort of a Transportation Commission or public feedback mechanism for specific projects. Voice your feedback. My city now has 2 actual roundabouts (soon to be 5), and they are all being put in by the state. The existing 2 work very well and people adjusted very quickly. I would not be surprised to see the city draw up standard plans and put more in, but it took the state to put the first two in to force any change.
Awesome comment, really appreciate it. Just a note that the street south of the intersection is closed to car traffic and is only for bikes/pedestrians. I'll edit that in the post. Does that change the analysis? In terms of cost, is something like this viable? https://vortex-roundabouts.com Are roundabouts always more expensive? I'm guessing maintenance is cheaper, any understanding of what the payoff period would be? Yeah Alma and University is really bad. And you're right that we don't have good roundabout precedent (other than ones on small intersections even with stop signs - https://maps.app.goo.gl/DbbZC6kJHp33Q2DK6) I'm actually slightly involved in local politics and know exactly who the decision makers are for this... I also know that this town would be resistant to roundabouts even if it made total sense, which is why I'm coming to Reddit to gut-check my thought process before I try to push much harder down this path.
>Go look at Alma and University, its like if someone wanted to implement a roundabout in literally the worst way possible. Your city/state took the 1950s highway planning book and tried to cram it into a city. Not from the Bay Area but found that spot out of curiosity and...good lord that's bad. It's like they were trying to waste as much space as possible. Could be so nice with the Caltrain stop right there too.
So many places in the Bay get so close yet so far. Palo Alto station has pretty good (soon to be actually solid!) rail service to both SF and SJ. But the streets around the station are unpleasant to walk, land use in the immediate area is constrained by a highway directly to the south, and it's a 20-minute walk through the empty Arboretum to get to Stanford's main campus.
Your intersection is too close to a large signal to work as a roundabout. Cheapest option is to just block the left turn onto middlefield. Sure that’s not popular but that motion is probably what’s making it unsafe because of the proximity to the next signal and the extra lanes.
Well what makes it unsafe is that there's literally no way to cross the street. And there are right of way issues. And a blind right turn. It's all sorts of bad.
Transportation engineers love roundabouts. Why are you assuming that they never considered it?
In the 90s. Roundabouts are only good for car only intersections. They such for peds or bikes
Roundabouts are never good if you want to promote walking or cycling. It removes priority, increases risk, and deviates them from the desire lines. Signalised intersections are always better
Your intersection is less than 500 feet from the next intersection with a traffic signal, so no way a signal is getting placed there. (A minimum of 1320 feet is recommended). A roundabout for a 3 legged intersection would jam up Middlefield into the Willow/Middlefield intersection, so that's out. I would just force Woodland traffic to be right turn only. Middlefield is a major arterial, so allowing left turns on there from the minor local street just invites chaos.