DOCSLIB.ORG

Existing Conditions Transportation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Existing Conditions Transportation FRAMINGHAM DOWNTOWN STUDY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ON EXISTING CONDITIONS TRANSPORTATION Prepared by: BETA Group, Inc. Prepared for: Town of Framingham March, 2008 FRAMINGHAM DOWNTOWN STUDY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ON EXISTING CONDITIONS TRANSPORTATION TABLE OF CONTENTS Project Overview ........................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1 Existing Conditions ....................................................................................................................... 3 Study Area Intersections ............................................................................................................. 3 Route 135 (Waverley Street) / Route 126 (Concord Street / Hollis Street)............................ 3 Route 126 (Concord Street) / Howard Street.......................................................................... 6 Route 126 (Hollis Street) / Irving Street................................................................................. 6 Route 126 (Concord Street) / Union Avenue.......................................................................... 7 Route 135 (Waverley Street) / Cedar Street ........................................................................... 7 Route 126 (Concord Street) / Lincoln Street .......................................................................... 8 Route 126 (Concord Street) / Everit Avenue / Dennison Avenue .......................................... 8 Bishop Street / Everit Avenue / Clarks Hill............................................................................ 9 Bishop Street / Howard Street ................................................................................................ 9 Route 135 (Waverley Street) / Bishop Street / Beaver Street............................................... 10 Beaver Street / Blandin Avenue............................................................................................ 10 Data Collection ......................................................................................................................... 11 Intersection Operations .............................................................................................................. 12 HCM Methodology................................................................................................................... 12 No Train Crossings ................................................................................................................... 15 Train Crossings ......................................................................................................................... 15 Typical Train Crossing ............................................................................................................. 16 Average Time Lost To Train Crossings.................................................................................... 19 Pedestrians ................................................................................................................................... 19 Origin / Destination Study .......................................................................................................... 25 Framingham Downtown Study Transportation BETA Group, Inc. Page ii Rail................................................................................................................................................ 25 Current Rail Operations ............................................................................................................ 31 CSX....................................................................................................................................... 31 MBTA................................................................................................................................... 35 Amtrak .................................................................................................................................. 35 Property Ownership .................................................................................................................. 35 Boston Line........................................................................................................................... 35 Yards and Secondary Tracks ................................................................................................ 35 Framingham Zoning Ordinance................................................................................................ 35 Grade Crossings........................................................................................................................ 36 The Concept of a Freight Village at the CSX Yard .................................................................. 39 Impacts of Relocation of North Yard Functions to CP Yard .................................................... 39 Relocation of CSX North Yard Functions For Public Access .................................................. 40 CSX/EOT/Harvard Negotiations .............................................................................................. 41 North Yard Enviromental Issues ............................................................................................... 41 Areas of Potential Environmental Concern............................................................................... 41 Applicable Environmental Regulations .................................................................................... 42 Regulatory Exemptions............................................................................................................. 43 Known Violations / Non-compliance ....................................................................................... 43 Environmental Database Search ............................................................................................... 43 Town Hall File Review............................................................................................................. 44 DEP File Review....................................................................................................................... 44 Wetlands and Habitats .............................................................................................................. 44 Urban Soil ................................................................................................................................. 45 Further Assessment / Field Sampling Program......................................................................... 45 Summary of North Yard Environmental Issues........................................................................ 45 References................................................................................................................................. 46 Framingham Downtown Study Transportation BETA Group, Inc. Page iii LIST OF TABLES 1 Level of Service Criteria ............................................................................................... 15 2 Existing (2007) Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Analysis Results (No Train Crossing).......................................................................................... 16 3 Existing (2007) Signalized Intersection Level of Service Analysis Results (No Train Crossing).......................................................................................... 17 4 Existing (2007) Signalized Intersection Level of Service Analysis Results (Typical Train Crossing)................................................................................... 18 5 Existing (2007) Signalized Intersection Level of Service Analysis Results (Average Time Lost To Train Crossing) .......................................................... 20 Framingham Downtown Study Transportation BETA Group, Inc. Page iv LIST OF FIGURES 1 Core Downtown Study Area .......................................................................................... 2 2 Existing Intersection Lane-Use & Signalization, and Average Daily Volumes.............. 4 3 Intersection Modifications Concord St @ Waverly St ................................................... 5 4 Existing AM Peak Hour Volumes ................................................................................ 13 5 Existing PM Peak Hour Volumes ................................................................................. 14 6 Level of Service Analysis Results Existing (2007) AM Peak Hour ............................. 21 7 Level of Service Analysis Results Existing (2007) AM Peak Hour ............................. 22 8 Level of Service Analysis Results Existing (2007) PM Peak Hour ............................. 23 9 Level of Service Analysis Results Existing (2007) PM Peak Hour ............................. 24 10 Percentage of Downtown Traffic on Major Roadways ................................................ 26 11 AM Peak Hour Traffic Patterns .................................................................................... 27 12 AM Peak Hour Traffic Patterns .................................................................................... 28 13 PM Peak Hour Traffic Patterns .................................................................................... 29 14 PM Peak Hour Traffic Patterns .................................................................................... 30 15 Existing Regional Railroad Network ...........................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Effect of Road Narrowings on Cyclists
    The effect of road narrowings on cyclists Prepared for Charging and Local Transport Division, Department for Transport A Gibbard, S Reid, J Mitchell, B Lawton, E Brown and H Harper TRL Report TRL621 First Published 2004 ISSN 0968-4107 Copyright TRL Limited 2004. This report has been produced by TRL Limited, under/as part of a contract placed by the Department for Transport. Any views expressed in it are not necessarily those of the Department. This report focuses on highway infrastructure as installed by a highway authority. Some illustrations may depict non- prescribed and unauthorised signing and road markings, which may be unlawful. Unless specifically referred to and explained in the report, the inclusion of non-standard signing in illustrations does not imply endorsement of its use by the Department for Transport. All prescribed signs are set out in Regulations (the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions and the Pedestrian Crossings Regulations) made under the provisions of the Road Traffic Regulation Act and published by the Stationery Office. TRL is committed to optimising energy efficiency, reducing waste and promoting recycling and re-use. In support of these environmental goals, this report has been printed on recycled paper, comprising 100% post-consumer waste, manufactured using a TCF (totally chlorine free) process. ii CONTENTS Page Executive Summary 1 1 Introduction 3 1.1 Study objectives 3 2 Current guidance 3 3 Consultation exercise 5 3.1 Consultation results 5 4 Questionnaire survey 7 4.1 Survey results 8 4.2
    [Show full text]
  • Town of Glastonbury Bid No. Gl-2020-07
    TOWN OF GLASTONBURY BID NO. GL-2020-07 MAIN STREET RAISED TRAFFIC ISLAND ADDENDUM NO. 1 SEPTEMBER 16, 2019 BID DUE DATE: SEPTEMBER 19, 2019 11:00 A.M. The attention of bidders submitting proposals for the above-referenced project is called to the following Addendum to the specifications. The items set forth herein, whether of omission, addition, substitution or other change, are all to be included in and form a part of the proposed Contract Documents for the work. Bidders shall acknowledge this Addendum in the Bid Proposal by inserting its number on Page BP-1. Make the following modifications to the Contract Documents: BID PROPOSAL FORM: The bid proposal form is hereby replaced with the attached. ALL BIDDERS MUST USE THE REVISED BID PROPOSAL FORM. CONSTRUCTION PLANS: Sheets 1 of the plan set titled “PLAN DEPICTING PROPOSED TRAFFIC ISLAND IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED AND MAIN STREET AND HEBRON AVENUE, GLASTONBURY CONNECTICUT” is hereby replaced with the attached plan. Changes shown on Sheet 1 include notes depicting removal and resetting of existing brick pavers in the vicinity of the existing town-owned locus tree which is to be completed as described in the special provision listed below. SPECIAL PROVISIONS: The following Special Provisions are hereby added to the contract: ITEM 0992093A REMOVE AND RESET BRICK PAVERS This Addendum Contains 6 Pages including the above text and 1 Plan Sheet. MAIN STREET RAISED TRAFFIC ISLAND ADDENDUM 1 BID PROPOSAL – REVISED BID #GL-2020-07 TOWN OF GLASTONBURY * 2155 MAIN STREET * GLASTONURY * CT BID / PROPOSAL NO: GL-2020-07 DATE DUE: September 19, 2019 DATE ADVERTISED: September 6, 2019 TIME DUE: 11:00 AM NAME OF PROJECT: Main Street Raised Traffic Island In compliance with this Invitation to Bid, the Bidder hereby proposes to provide goods and/or services as per this solicitation in strict accordance with the Bid Documents, within the time set forth therein, and at the prices submitted with their bid response.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report of the Performance and Asset Management Advisory Council Presented By
    Annual Report of the Performance and Asset Management Advisory Council presented by Performance and Asset Management Advisory Council Patricia Leavenworth, P.E., Chair November 2017 Annual Report of the Performance and Asset Management Advisory Council Executive Summary MassDOT’s progress in implementing asset management is keeping Massachusetts apace with Federal requirements. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) have implemented final transportation asset management (TAM) rules in 2017 that impact how MassDOT measures and communicates the condition of its assets. Transportation Asset Management Plans FHWA and FTA rules require the Highway Division, the MBTA, the Rail and Transit Division, and each RTA to complete a transportation asset management plan (TAMP for Highway, TAM Plan for transit). The status on these plans is as follows: Highway | Will be submitted to FHWA in April, 2018. MBTA | Will be submitted to FTA by October, 2018. Rail | A consultant has been retained for delivery of an asset management plan for rail by February, 2018. This plan is not required by any Federal rule, but MassDOT is pursuing it to improve asset management at the agency. Transit | MassDOT is making progress toward submitting the TAM Plan for MassDOT’s in-house transit assets and those of its Federal Aid sub-recipients to FTA by October, 2018. RTAs | Each RTA is at a different stage in the development of their asset management plans, due to the FTA by October, 2018. MassDOT is ready to assist if asked. Performance and Condition Key performance and asset management findings of this report are summarized below by asset type and division.
    [Show full text]
  • Presentation to 495/Metrowest Partnership
    Presentation to 495/Metrowest Partnership September 28, 2011; 8:30AM Agenda Introductions Study Purpose/Background Service Alternatives Pilot Program –Boston to Foxborough Central Massachusetts via Framingham Secondary Improved Providence Event Service Findings Discussion The I‐495/Southwest Region Population Growth 12% (1990–2000) 5% (2000–2010) Employment Growth 62% (1980‐2008) Roadway congestion results in long travel times MBTA commuter rail services approaching capacity today and projected to exceed by 2030 Seating Capacity: o Franklin Line: 79% ‐ 83% o Providence Line: 91% ‐ 98% Parking Utilization: o Franklin Line 96% o Exceeding capacity at Forge Park/I‐495, Walpole and Endicott Study Purpose Evaluate feasibility of expanding rail transit in southwest region of I‐495 corridor Utilize existing public transit services or infrastructure that may be underutilized in the region (i.e., MBTA trackage rights routes; stations) Consider lower cost options to test feasibility of service without making significant financial commitment (i.e., utilize existing rights‐of‐way; existing equipment; and parking) Recommend improvements that will also benefit existing rail services (i.e. freight operations, event services) I‐495/Southwest Study Area Existing Conditions Framingham Secondary 21.4 miles from Framingham (Worcester Line) to Mansfield (Northeast Corridor) CSX owns, maintains and dispatches; MBTA has trackage rights o 3 freight trains/day Framingham to Walpole o 2 freight trains/day Walpole to Foxborough o < 1 freight
    [Show full text]
  • Rural Expressway Intersection Synthesis of Practice and Crash Analysis
    RURAL EXPRESSWAY INTERSECTION SYNTHESIS OF PRACTICE AND CRASH ANALYSIS Sponsored by the Iowa Department of Transportation (CTRE Project 03-157) Final Report October 2004 Disclaimer Notice The opinions, fi ndings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Iowa Department of Transportation. The sponsor(s) assume no liability for the contents or use of the information contained in this document. This report does not constitute a standard, specifi cation, or regulation. The sponsor(s) do not endorse products or manufacturers. About CTRE/ISU The mission of the Center for Transportation Research and Education (CTRE) at Iowa State Uni- versity is to develop and implement innovative methods, materials, and technologies for improv- ing transportation effi ciency, safety, and reliability while improving the learning environment of students, faculty, and staff in transportation-related fi elds. Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. CTRE Project 03-157 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Rural Expressway Intersection Synthesis of Practice and Crash Analysis October 2004 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. T. H. Maze, Neal R. Hawkins, and Garrett Burchett 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Center for Transportation Research and Education Iowa State University 11. Contract or Grant No. 2901 South Loop Drive, Suite 3100 Ames, IA 50010-8634 12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Iowa Department of Transportation Final Report 800 Lincoln Way 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Ames, IA 50010 15.
    [Show full text]
  • Access Management Manual, September 5, 2019 TABLE of CONTENTS
    AccessAccess ManagementManagement ManualManual T E X A S Prepared by the City of Irving Public Works/Traffic and Transportation Department Adopted September 5, 2019 Access Management Manual, September 5, 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1 Introduction Page 1.0 Purpose 1 1.1 Scope 1 1.2 Definitions 3 1.3 Authority 10 Section 2 Principles of Access Management 2.1 Relationship between Access and Mobility 11 2.2 Integration of Land Use and Transportation 11 2.3 Relationship between Access and Roadway Efficiency 12 2.4 Relationship between Access and Traffic Safety 12 Section 3 Access Management Programs and Policies 3.1 Identifying Functional Hierarchy of Roadways 14 3.1.1 Sub-Classifications of Roadways 14 3.1.1.1 Revising the “Master Thoroughfare Plan” 15 3.1.2 Comprehensive Plan 15 3.1.3 Discretionary Treatment by the Director 15 3.2 Land Use 15 3.3 Unified Access Planning Policy 16 3.4 Granting Access 16 3.4.1 General Mutual Access 17 3.4.2 Expiration of Access Permission 17 3.4.3 “Grandfathered” Access and Non-Conforming Access 17 3.4.4 Illegal Access 19 3.4.4.1 Stealth Connection 19 3.4.5 Temporary Access 19 3.4.6 Emergency Access 19 3.4.7 Abandoned Access 20 3.4.8 Field Access 20 3.4.9 Provision for Special Case Access 20 3.4.10 Appeals, Variances and Administrative Remedies 20 3.5 Parking and Access Policy 20 3.6 Access vs Accessibility 21 3.7 Precedence of Access Rights Policy 21 3.8 Right to Access A Specific Roadway 22 3.9 Traffic Impact Analyses (TIA’s) 22 3.9.1 Level of Service (LOS) 22 3.9.2 Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Requirements
    [Show full text]
  • Massdot News Home > Information Center > Weekly Newsletters > Massdot News 06/19/2015
    Home | About Us | Employment | Contact Us | Site Policies The Official Website of The Massachusetts Department of Transportation MassDOT News Home > Information Center > Weekly Newsletters > MassDOT News 06/19/2015 June 19, 2015 MassDOT Completes Framingham Secondary Rail Line Acquisition MassDOT announced acquisition is complete of the Framingham Secondary Rail Line, a 21­mile segment of rail that connects Framingham and Mansfield. The line was purchased from CSX Corporation for $23 million. MassDOT June Purchase of the Framingham Secondary is a strategic investment Board Meeting that links the Framingham/Worcester, Needham, Franklin, and the Attleboro/Northeast Corridor commuter rail lines together. June 29 The Framingham Secondary Line is also a major rail corridor for Transportation Building the shipment of freight between several key points in eastern 10 Park Plaza Massachusetts, including Readville, Milford, Franklin, Fall River, Suite 3830 and New Bedford, as well as Worcester. The line is also used for Boston, MA 02150 passenger service to and from Patriots home games at Gillette Stadium in Foxborough. For the purposes of planning for long­term infrastructure needs, purchase of the line provides added rail Full Meeting Schedule capacity that allows for passenger service to travel on alternative routes in cases where capital On the MassDOT Blog projects may disrupt normal service. Secretary Pollack Honors "After careful consideration of the agreement to purchase the Framingham Secondary Rail Line from Toll Collectors' CSX, MassDOT concluded that acquiring this rail asset supports our goals of increasing use of freight Life­Saving Actions rail, which takes trucks off our highways and reduces greenhouse gases by consolidating the movement of freight," said MassDOT Secretary and CEO Stephanie Pollack.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3 - Intersections Publication 13M (DM-2) Change #1 – Revised 12/12 CHAPTER 3
    Chapter 3 - Intersections Publication 13M (DM-2) Change #1 – Revised 12/12 CHAPTER 3 INTERSECTIONS 3.0 INTRODUCTION By definition, an intersection is the general area where two or more highways join or cross including the roadway and roadside facilities for traffic movements within the area. The efficiency, safety, speed, cost of operation and capacity of an intersection depends upon its design. Since each intersection involves innumerable vehicle movements, these movements may be facilitated by various geometric design and traffic control depending on the type of intersection. The three general types of highway crossings are: (1) at-grade intersections, (2) grade separations without ramps and (3) interchanges. The most important design considerations for intersections fall into two major categories: (1) the geometric design including a capacity analysis and (2) the location and type of traffic control devices. For the most part, these considerations are applicable to both new and existing intersections, although on existing intersections in built-up areas, heavy development may make extensive design changes impractical. The design elements, capacity analysis and traffic control concepts presented in this Chapter apply to intersections and their appurtenant features. Additional sources of information and criteria to supplement the concepts presented in this Chapter are contained in the 2004 AASHTO Green Book, Chapter 9 and the MUTCD. 3.1 OBJECTIVES AND FACTORS FOR DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS The main objective of intersection design is to facilitate the convenience, ease and comfort of people traversing the intersection while enhancing the efficient movement of motor vehicles, buses, trucks, bicycles, and pedestrians. Refer to the section "General Design Considerations and Objectives" in the 2004 AASHTO Green Book, Chapter 9, for details about the five basic elements that should be considered in intersection design: human factors, traffic considerations, physical elements, economic factors, and functional intersection area.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 5 Safety
    5 Safety 5.1 Introduction 103 5.2 Conflicts 104 5.2.1 Vehicle conflicts 105 5.2.2 Pedestrian conflicts 108 5.2.3 Bicycle conflicts 110 5.3 Crash Statistics 111 5.3.1 Comparisons to previous intersection treatment 111 5.3.2 Collision types 113 5.3.3 Pedestrians 117 5.3.4 Bicyclists 120 5.4 Crash Prediction Models 122 5.5 References 125 Exhibit 5-1. Vehicle conflict points for “T” Intersections with single-lane approaches. 105 Exhibit 5-2. Vehicle conflict point comparison for intersections with single-lane approaches. 106 Exhibit 5-3. Improper lane-use conflicts in double-lane roundabouts. 107 Exhibit 5-4. Improper turn conflicts in double-lane roundabouts. 108 Exhibit 5-5. Vehicle-pedestrian conflicts at signalized intersections. 109 Exhibit 5-6. Vehicle-pedestrian conflicts at single-lane roundabouts. 109 Exhibit 5-7. Bicycle conflicts at conventional intersections (showing two left-turn options). 110 Exhibit 5-8. Bicycle conflicts at roundabouts. 111 Exhibit 5-9. Average annual crash frequencies at 11 U.S. intersections converted to roundabouts. 112 Exhibit 5-10. Mean crash reductions in various countries. 112 Exhibit 5-11. Reported proportions of major crash types at roundabouts. 113 Exhibit 5-12. Comparison of collision types at roundabouts. 114 Exhibit 5-13. Graphical depiction of collision types at roundabouts. 115 Exhibit 5-14. Crash percentage per type of user for urban roundabouts in 15 towns in western France. 116 Exhibit 5-15. British crash rates for pedestrians at roundabouts and signalized intersections. 117 Exhibit 5-16. Percentage reduction in the number of crashes by mode at 181 converted Dutch roundabouts.
    [Show full text]
  • California Transportation Plan 2050 - Comments
    December 20, 2018 Sent via email and FedEx (if applicable) California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Division of Transportation Planning California Transportation Plan Office of State Planning 1120 N Street, MS 32 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 654-2852 [email protected] Re: California Transportation Plan 2050 - Comments Dear California Transportation Plan 2050 Planners: These comments are submitted on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity (the “Center”) regarding the California Transportation Plan (CTP) 2050. The Center is encouraged by Caltrans’ commitment to increase safety and security on bridges, highways, and roads and create a low-carbon transportation system that protects human and environmental health. To achieve these goals, it is imperative that Caltrans integrate wildlife connectivity into the design and implementation of California’s transportation infrastructure. The Center urges Caltrans to improve driver safety and minimize the impact of roads and traffic on wildlife movement and habitat connectivity with the following actions: 1. Collect and analyze standardized roadkill and wildlife vehicle collision data. 2. Build climate-wise wildlife crossing infrastructure in high priority areas. 3. Prioritize wildlife movement and habitat connectivity on ALL transportation projects. 4. Designate an expert unit dedicated to address wildlife connectivity issues. This unit should form strategic collaborations and partnerships with other connectivity experts. 5. Evaluate the effectiveness of wildlife crossing infrastructure to inform future mitigation. 6. Upgrade existing culverts to facilitate wildlife connectivity as part of routine maintenance. 7. Provide up-to-date guidance for best practices for climate-wise connectivity. 8. Engage with volunteer and community scientists and platforms. 9. Improve multimodal transportation design.
    [Show full text]
  • Costing of Bicycle Infrastructure and Programs in Canada Project Team
    Costing of Bicycle Infrastructure and Programs in Canada Project Team Project Leads: Nancy Smith Lea, The Centre for Active Transportation, Clean Air Partnership Dr. Ray Tomalty, School of Urban Planning, McGill University Researchers: Jiya Benni, The Centre for Active Transportation, Clean Air Partnership Dr. Marvin Macaraig, The Centre for Active Transportation, Clean Air Partnership Julia Malmo-Laycock, School of Urban Planning, McGill University Report Design: Jiya Benni, The Centre for Active Transportation, Clean Air Partnership Cover Photo: Tour de l’ile, Go Bike Montreal Festival, Montreal by Maxime Juneau/APMJ Project Partner: Please cite as: Benni, J., Macaraig, M., Malmo-Laycock, J., Smith Lea, N. & Tomalty, R. (2019). Costing of Bicycle Infrastructure and Programs in Canada. Toronto: Clean Air Partnership. CONTENTS List of Figures 4 List of Tables 7 Executive Summary 8 1. Introduction 12 2. Costs of Bicycle Infrastructure Measures 13 Introduction 14 On-street facilities 16 Intersection & crossing treatments 26 Traffic calming treatments 32 Off-street facilities 39 Accessory & support features 43 3. Costs of Cycling Programs 51 Introduction 52 Training programs 54 Repair & maintenance 58 Events 60 Supports & programs 63 Conclusion 71 References 72 Costing of Bicycle Infrastructure and Programs in Canada 3 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Bollard protected cycle track on Bloor Street, Toronto, ON ..................................................... 16 Figure 2: Adjustable concrete barrier protected cycle track on Sherbrook St, Winnipeg, ON ............ 17 Figure 3: Concrete median protected cycle track on Pandora Ave in Victoria, BC ............................ 18 Figure 4: Pandora Avenue Protected Bicycle Lane Facility Map ............................................................ 19 Figure 5: Floating Bus Stop on Pandora Avenue ........................................................................................ 19 Figure 6: Raised pedestrian crossings on Pandora Avenue .....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • What Are the Advantages of Roundabouts?
    What is a roundabout? A roundabout is an intersection where traffic travels around a Circulatory central island in a counter- Truck Apron Roadway clockwise direction. Vehicles entering or exiting the roundabout must yield to vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Figure 1 presents the elements of a roundabout. Yield Line Splitter Island Figure 1: Elements of a Roundabout What are the advantages of roundabouts? • Less Traffic Conflict: Figure 2 compares the conflict points between a conventional intersection and a modern roundabout. The lower number of conflict points translates to less potential for accidents. • Greater safety(1): Primarily achieved by slower speeds and elimination of left turns. Design elements of the roundabouts cause drivers to reduce their speeds. • Efficient traffic flow: Up to 50% increase in traffic capacity • Reduced Pollution and fuel usage: Less stops, shorter queues and no left turn storage. • Money saved: No signal equipment to install or maintain, plus savings in electricity use. • Community benefits: Traffic calming and enhanced aesthetics by landscaping. (1) Statistics published by the U.S. Dept. of transportation, Federal Highway Administration shows roundabouts to have the following advantages over conventional intersections: • 90% reduction in fatalities • 76% reduction in injuries • 35% reduction in pedestrian accidents. Signalized Intersection Roundabout Figure 2: Conflict Point Comparison How to Use a Roundabout Driving a car • Slow down as you approach the intersection. • Yield to pedestrians and bicyclists crossing the roadway. • Watch for signs and pavement markings. • Enter the roundabout if gap in traffic is sufficient. • Drive in a counter-clockwise direction around the roundabout until you reach your exit. Do not stop or pass other vehicles.
    [Show full text]