Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
TRB Committee on Roundabouts ANB75 2015 Annual Meeting, Marquis Ballroom Salon 10 (M2) Wednesday, January 13, 2016, 2:30‐‐‐‐6:00pm
COMMITTEE SCOPE: The TRB Committee on Roundabouts is concerned with all factorsencompassing modern
roundabouts. The Committee provides focus within TRB on current issues andfuture research needs pertaining to
modern roundabouts. It serves as a forum for discussions aboutroundabout research, projects, and policy for all
interested stakeholders; identifies research needs anddevelops research problem statements to meet the needs; and
facilitates the exchange of knowledge byvarious media, meetings, and conferences.
Check out our website:
https://trbroundabouts.com
Part 1 Monitor; Co-Chair Gene Russell 1. Call to Order (Gene Russell, Brian Walsh Co-Chair)s(2:30m PM)
2. Self-Introductions (All present)(2:30-2:35) ( those signing pass around sheets listed below)
Ahmed Amer Hideki Nakamura Paula Fernandes
Alek Pochowski Hillary Isebrands Phil Demosthenes
Amy Burch Howard McColloch Phil Rust
Ana-TsuiMorens James Foster Rachel Price
Andrea Bill James Sullivan Randall Parker
Andrew McNair Janet Barlow, M Randy Johnson
Andrew Paul Janet Choi RanjitGodarathy
Andy Kaufman Jeremy Kashman Ray Derr
Anthony Lorenzetti Jerry Champa Rich Crossler-Laird
Bastian Shroeder Joe Bared Robert Rescot
Brian Walsh, Co-chair John Hourdos Ross Capon
Bryan Nemeth Joseph Glowitz Samuel Tigner
Charles Mingus Karen Giese Scott Zehngraff
Charles Proctor Katie Handel SepidehEshragh
Colin Ridding Kazunori Munehiro Seri Park
Craig Parks KeisnkeYoshioke Seth Stark
Daniel Morgan Keith Boddy SoheilSajjadi
Daniel Spann Kumiko Izawa Solomon Mengesha
Dave Stanek Lee Kim Stephen Yeung
David Johnson Lee Rodegerdts Steven Chan
Dennis Cannon Lukas Franck Steven Latoski
Dennis Eyler Marilo Martin Gasulla Tom Blust
Dona Sauerburger Mark Lenters, M Tom Buchholz
Elease McLaurin Mark T Johnson Tom Laird
EvangelosKaisar Melissa Anderson Vern Swing
Franklin Gbologah Michael Mastaglio Victor Salemann
Fred Hanscom, M Mike McBride Victoria Beale
Gene Russell, Co-chair Mike Reese Wade Odell
GordLovegrove Nan Kang Werner Brilon
Hardik Shah Nathan Belz Will Britnell
HediyaTuytesYaman Patrick Cawley Ye Zhao
Herman Bernal Melisa Anderson
For TRB Full Committee listing go to: https://www.mytrb.org/CommitteeDetails.aspx?CMTID=4015
3. Comments from the Chair(s) (Gene Russell/Brian Walsh)(2:35-2:40)
Contact information sent around for verification
Subcommittee sign-upsheet sent around for verification
4. Approval of Mid-Year and/or Previous Minutes (Gene Russell)(2:40-2:45)
Phil Demosthenes moved to approve the minutes
Brian Walsh Seconded the motion on the floor
VOTE: No Objections, All in Favor
Approved
5. TRB Report/Comments (Bernardo Kleiner when he arrives)(2:45-2:50)
2017 TRB Annual Meeting theme - "Transportation Innovation: Leading the Way in an Era of Rapid Change."
January 8–12, 2017
The meeting covered all transportation issues, with more than 5,000 presentations in more than 800 sessions. This year's
meeting attracted more than 12,000 transportation professionals from throughout the United States and 70 other
countries.
David Harkey, Section Chair (Sunday meeting summary)
- FAST Act budget cut to FHWA – A challenge
- How Can TRB save money? TRB is looking for input. They want to be transparent about the cuts and priorities
and efficiencies of TRB.
- Improve Diversity in our leadership pipeline
o Ethnicity and gender age and discipline diversity
- Performance measures are being developed for TRB committees
o Rail committee is going to demo/pilot performance measures
6. Awards (2:50-2:55)
a. Comments on Frank Blackmore Award, (Gene Russell) – Background and Details
There were no nominees this year. Gene went over the guidelines briefly. Details are on our web site. Please nominate
anyone you believe eligible. There was a suggestion to develop an award for retired government employees who
championed roundabouts (overcome opposition). Criteria would be developed by Gene and Brian.
b. ANB75 Best Paper Award (Gene Russell)
Paper: Benefit Measurement of Metering Signals at Roundabouts with Unbalanced-Flow Patterns in Spain
Authors: Marilo Martin Gasulla, Alfredo Garcia, Ana Moreno
Congratulations!
7. Update annual meeting activities and preliminary planning for 2017 Annual Meeting (2:55-3:15)
a. Paper review and 2016 Committee-sponsored sessions (Brian/Hillary/Gene)
26 Papers were submitted to our committee. There were other roundabout papers submitted to other TRB committees
that were presented at TRB in 2016. Our committee sponsored 3 sessions (2 podium sessions with 6 papers, 2 invited
presenters and 1 poster session with 9 papers).
Thank you to all of the paper authors and reviewers.
b. Report on 2017 International Conference progress ( Mark Lenters)
5th Annual International Roundabout Conference
May 8-10, 2017
KIA Center in Green Bay, WI
Abstract due January 31st, 2016. It was expressed that the deadline was too soon and it was determined that an
extension would likely be granted.UPDATE: DUE February 22, 2016
http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/172194.aspx
Fewer speakers per session, 3 instead of 4, 30 minutes per speaker.
There was discussion about the 2017 details of the requirement of a written paper for the Conference.
Only 20 people write papers historically but it is desired by the local planning committee to draw high quality
presentations and research reports. Some presenters will be invited.
When asked if the paper requirements were the same as for the TRB Annual meeting, Andi Bill, stated that a 4-20 page
paper would be required if you submit an Abstract that is accepted.
c. Sunday Workshop Ideas for 2017(?) (Janet Barlow/Fred Hanscom)
d. Human Factors workshop ½ day (Janet Barlow/Fred Hascom) - Ideas for 2017
The following were suggested as possible topics:
- NCHRP 3-78B workshop
- Ped Bike Accommodations and Alternative intersections
- Perception of Delay (signalized intersection vs roundabout s/delay 80s vs 50s)
Fred and Janet will consider these and other ideas for possible workshops for 2017.
It was suggested that any ½ day workshops considered for Annual meeting might also be considered for the International
conference in WI.
e. Video TheatreReport (Rachel Price)
- 25-30 videos were shown
- Idea to make “business cards” for the movie theatre
- 50+people attended (sign up sheet attached)
- Room is small; a bigger room should be considered
- Suggested the videos be posted on Committee website
f. Call for papers 2017 (Gene Russell)
We have never had a Call for Papers , but one is possible if we should want papers on a specific subject
g. Website (Abram VanElswyk)
It was suggested that the Subcommittee have access on the website to share information.
h. Other ideas for 2017 sessions/activities
None were presented but feel free to email ideas to gene or Brian
8. Presentation: “RoundaboutsAre Not Always the Solution”; Colin Ridding, Mott MacDonald 3:15 -3:35
See attached copy of slides in Appendix A
Highlights
Nairoi, Kenya – 2nd fastest growing city in Africa, 3 Million people growth 12 Million by 2030
- 47% of all people commuting are pedestrians
- Colin’s role is Traffic Engineering Capacity Building, Addressing congestion, etc
- Very congested, poor driver behavior, no enforcement, as many peds as vehicles
- Many roundabouts are poorly designed, no road markings, no signing
- Video
- Restrict movements to improve flow in congested roundabouts
- Roundabouts are being removed in Nairobi because of lack of enforcement, poor design and poor driver behavior
UK
- Most roundabouts are uncontrolled and work well
- converting some roundabouts to signals where capacity demands are very high
- Adjustments are being made to roundabouts for better bicyclists safety
- TRL test track
- Innovative roundabouts design with bicycle features
- Turbo roundabout with bike priority
- Look at on a case by case basis
- Roundabouts and signals do not always work together
- Magic roundabout works well
- Good safe record
9. BREAK 3:35-3:45
Part II Monitor; Co-chair Brian Walsh 10. Research (3:45-4:30) - Research in progress:status of known projects;NCHRP projects 03-110,17-70,3-78b;
Synthesis 46-02; FHWA TOPR 34; Other ( Lee/Alex/Bastian/ Other)( 5 min each; 3:45-4:15)
See attached PDF of slides in Appendix B
11. Research Coordinator Report 4:15-4:30 (Phil Demosthenes) a. Upcoming opportunity for synthesis proposals - early February 15, 2016 (4:20-4:25)
Jeff Shaw stated the Intersection Joint Subcommittee – using preliminary screening tools to look at intersection controls
(CAPx, spreadsheets, etc) - Identify, collect and who is using and when you are using them; KY Intersection Analysis
Spreadsheet; CAP-X
b. Research Needs Statements (RNS) database status(4:15-4:20)
This needs to be updated and Gene will use RNS subcommittee.
c. Discussionof potential NCHRP proposals(4:25-4:30)
Lee Rodegerdts will be coordinating a Problem Statement for the Roundabout Informational Guide, 3rd Edition
d. Other - none
12. Other Subcommittee/Task Reports Not covered elsewhere (4:30–4:50)
a. Communications Coordinator & Website (Brian/Gene)
ListServe (426 Members)
Suggested committee business should be sent from a different email than the ListServe (egMyTRB)
Is LinkedIn being used? There was a lack of response so it was assumed that it is not being used.
MyTRBis just for committee and friends
b. Roundabout Guide Update/Status (Lee Rodegerdts)
Update will include but not limited to
- HSM, HCM updates
- FHWA, TRB/NCHRP research, GDOT (lighting), Access Management, ICE, etc
- September 2016 submittal
c. Younger Member activities (Robert Rescot)
See attached report in Appendix C
d. Webinars - past and future (Gene Russell)
March 15, 2016 is the next deadline for Webinars.
March 24, 2016 Scalable Roundabouts, http://www.trb.org/Calendar/Blurbs/173758.aspx
April 19, 2016 Life Cycle Cost Analysis of Intersections (NCHRP 03-110)http://www.trb.org/Calendar/Blurbs/173933.aspx
In 2015, average attendance is 958 and average satisfaction is ~ 90%
In 2014, Average attendance 828 and average satisfaction is ~88%
e. Business Committee (Brian Walsh / Gene)
This committee will be meeting before the Midyear meeting.
f. Liaison (Bastian)
See Bastian’s 1/6/2016 email to full committee to update Liaisons ( Update : key part presented here whole email will be
sent again to all members along with the minutes, Please help Bastian get our liaisons straightened out)
Hello Roundabout Committee Members, and Happy New Year!
As many of us are gearing up for TRB, I wanted to remind those of you who volunteered as official roundabout
committee liaisons to reach out to your respective partnering committees (see first list on separate email). Also, with
many new members, we have a few partnering committee which are no longer represented, as well as some of you who
have not yet been assigned to a committee (see second list on separate email).
Your role as a committee liaison is quite easy. Here are your two tasks: 1. Attend the partnering committee meeting,
introduce yourself as liaison of the ANB75 Committee on Roundabouts, and note any shared interests between the two
committee. If you have questions on what those may be, feel free to reach out to myself or Gene or Brian. 2. Attend
our committee meeting and note any noteworthy developments, shared interests, and partnering opportunities with
the other committee.
g. New Developments; (Jeff Shaw) Auto.con.veh. (Joe Balskus); Freight (Mike Lynch); semi-Auto
Roundabout Inventory; (Ken Sides)
- Need extended list of friends,
- A Spring conference call will be arranged,
- Present tasks and identify new and emerging issues with roundabouts,
- Accessibility,
- Freight,
- V2V, V2I, autonomous vehicles, and
- SHRP2 data
g1. Semi-automatic inventory See attached information on the Semi-Automatic Roundabout inventory
from Ken Sidesin Appendix D
h. International Activities ( Colin Ridding- covered in 13 below)
i. Other (new)
Mark Lenters put forth a motionfor “The Roundabout Committee wishes to set-up a Public Relations Task Force to
advance nation-wide roundabout acceptance and driver education. This sub-committee would initially be to work on
proposal to gather agency funding to conduct a nationwide campaign”.
The motion was seconded and the committee voted unanimously to accept this exploration.
Discussion of the motion:
1. Why is this not an ITE thing?
- TRB State DOT
- ITE Local agencies only; new changes with ITE change in leadership; use as a partner
2.Would this be a pooled fund study?
3. How to reach the nation and create the tools.
4. Can this possibly be a Synthesis?
Interested members/friends –Mark Lenters (lead); volunteers at meeting- Hardik, Hillary, Mark, Phil, Nathan
13. International Reports, Coordinated by Colin Ridding(4:50-5:10)
a. Germany: Werner Brilon
Highlights below – See attached in Appendix E
- Roundabouts are the Favorite kind of intersection,
- Mini roundabouts in urban areas, are very attractive, safer than a single lane roundabout
- Turbo roundabouts – Guide for Turbo Roundabouts is available
- Number of roundabouts, more than 30,000
- HDS – German Highway Capacity Manual
- Roundabout safety study is available
o Cyclists issues still persist
- New Roundabout Guide is being worked on
- International Symposium on Increasing Highway Performance - June 2016, Berlin (Highway Capacity Committee
and Freeway Committee are attending)
- www.isehp2016.org
b. Australia: Andy O’Brien
No report
c. New Zealand: Duncan Campbell (email)
- Continued research on the way in which cyclists and pedestrians interact within roundabout (especially local,
collector and arterial roundabouts). Colleague Duncan Campbell continues to pursue possible further installations of
the C-roundabout – constrained geometric design which slows vehicle traffic with positive benefits for cyclists within
the circulating carriageway.
- Each of our roading authorities exploring ways in which the roundabout concept can be applied - be it larger/high
speed arterial junctions, motorway (your freeway) ramp terminals or lower speed residential street locations – even
to extent of just paint markings as a centre island.
- Roundabouts continue to be placed equally alongside signals and priority junction control forms as a standard and
typical junction form. We do not have a strict roundabouts first policy but looking at the best/optimum junction form
at each site.
- Use of midblock ‘roundabout’ as a speed control measure within local neighbourhood
- Interesting (and emerging) work with roundabouts for livable arterials and urban design treatments.
d. UK: Colin Ridding
Highlights below and see attached in Appendix F
- Roundabouts are popular
- Emphasis on bikes safety – implementation based on guidance
- Segregated cycle lanes included at roundabouts
e. Japan:Kazunori Munehiro
See attached in Appendix G
f. Netherlands: Bertus Fortuijn
None
g. Canada: Keith Boddy
Highlights below – See attached in Appendix H
- Canada’s lack of $$, Lack of construction
- 30-40 roundabout constructed in the last year
- 330 -380 roundabouts in Canada (TAC sponsoring effort to find)
- ArcGIS map of roundabouts in Canada available
- Mini roundabouts
o Trucks, wind turbines, 250ft trailers, 40ft wide
- Prince Edward Island –
o 13 roundabouts
o Roundabouts without curbing (except splitter island and center island)
- Brunswick
o 4 lane divided
o High speed
- TAC – Roundabout Design Guide is at 100% DRAFT (it is not final)
o Published in 2016
o British Design and US experience
h. Spain; Marilo Martin Gasulla
- 30,000 roundabouts in the last 30 years
- 3 turbo roundabouts in North of Spain
- Research is being used to look at capacity of roundabouts with signals
i. Any other in audience
None
14. Agency Liaison Reports (5:10-5:25)
a. NCUTCD (Lee/Brian)
- All regulation is on hold until new Notice of Proposed Amended
- Interim approvals will be likely used
- HCM Roundabout Task Force has identified
o limited skill set for some agencies
o Sensitivity analysis is not always used
b. ITE (Daniel Spann)
- 2016 Online webinars will be advertised
- Sessions were submitted for ITE Annual meeting on roundabouts
- Face to Face meeting will be held at the Annual Meeting
- Hardik is on the Board
c. AASHTO: SCOD (Jim Brewer); SCOTE (Brian)
- Progress on the update to the Green Book (Jim Brewer)
- July 2016 DRAFT update expected
- Bike Guide and Ped Guide are being updated
o Many issues being discussed
o Federal funding bill state agencies should consider NACTO design guide
o Competing criteria for practitioners
- SCOTE (Brian)
o Half the states have Operations that push the implementation and design of roundabouts and the other
half have Design function of the agency implement roundabouts.
d. FHWA (Jeff Shaw, Hillary Isebrands)
- FHWA Roundabout Website updated (resource, exhibits, TOPR 34, etc) more user friendly
- TOPR 34 completion – 7 independent reports and technical summaries
- Mini Roundabout comprehensive evaluations
o Before and after data collection
o Contact Wei Zhang, photos, data, etc
- NHI – 2 Day Roundabout Course
- Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR), Mini Roundabout project Phase I completed, Phase II being
considered
e. NCHRP (Ray Derr or others)
- Budget will potentially increase
- Transit – funded at $5M
- Freight –funding not favorable
f. ASCE/T&DI (Gene Russell)
- T&DI is beginning to have roundabout presentations at conferences
- Webinar was held November 2015 (Andy Paul, Massachusetts) with local chapter of ASCE
g. TAC/Canada (Keith Boddy)
- Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads Final DRAFT in 2017
h. US Access Board (Melissa Andersen)
- Proposed PROWAG
o Board has approved final language
- US Access Board Training, use what is in the guidelines as well as Equivalent Facilitation provision –
other research out there shows treatments that are effective and may be used with engineering
judgement
o Working on the assessment for Final approval (Presidential election may slow things down)
o Worked with USDOT and USDOJ throughout review process
15. Committee Liaisons as Available (coordinated by Bastian Schroeder) (5:25-5:40) (Gene update; Bastian has been doing a lot of
work to make this list more appropriate and usable. Please read and react to Bastian’s 1/6/2015 email sent separately after
these minutes ( A work in progress. See Bastians item 12f above 1/6/2016 email which I send again in separate email right
after sending the draft minutes out for review)
a. AFB10 Geometric Design (Marcus Brewer)
a. ANB25 Highway Safety Performance (Melissa Anderson)
b. AHB70 Access Management (Phil Demosthenes)
c. AHB50 Traffic Control Devices (Gene Hawkins/Gene Russell)
d. ATO55 Truck Size and Weight (Peter Lynch)
e. AHB55 Work Zone Traffic Control (Wade Odell/Bastian Schroeder)
f. AHB65 Operational Effects of Geometrics (Andrew Paul/Jeff Shaw)
g. AHB40 Highway Capacity (Lee Rodegerdts/Bastian Schroeder)
h. ANF10 Pedestrians (Alek Pochowski)
i. ANF20 Bicycle Committee (Alek Pochowski)
j. ABE60 Accessible Transportation and Mobility (Janet Barlow)
k. Intersection Joint Subcommittee (Jeff Shaw)
l. AHB60 Hwy-Rail Grade Crossings (Gene Russell)
m. ALO60 Eminent Domain and Land Use (Phil Demosthenes)
n. ALO70 Tort Liability and Risk Management (Gene Hawkins)
o. ANB10 Transportation Safety Management (?)
p. AND40 Visibility Committee (Wade Odell)
q. ANB23T Task Force on Highway Safety Workforce Development ( ?)
r. ANB20 Safety Data, Analysis and Evaluation, former parent committee (?)
s. AHB25 Traffic Signal Systems (?)
t. ANB30 Operator, Education and Regulation (?)
16. Old Business (5:40-5:45)
None See appendix I for 2016 Agenda
17. New Business (5:45-5:55)
a. Ideas and volunteers for added activities, new subcommittees ( None)
b. New Roundabout award(s) – See above
18. Discussion/Announcement of Summer Meeting (5:55-6:00)
The 2015 Midyear meeting only had 5 committee members attend however in a positive way, a number of potential TRB
attendees from the Southeast, notably Florida attended to augment the lack of Committee member attendance
A motion for a July 2016 webinar meeting was made, moved and seconded and voted on unanimously.(Update; gene and
Brian will work on finding a suitable date and time, probably in July or August)
Minutes by Hillary Isebrands, ANB75 Secretary
Edited by Gene Russell, ANB75 Co-Chair
2/22/2016
1
TRB ROUNDABOUT COMMITTEE
Roundabouts Are Not Always the Solution; Experiences in Nairobi, Kenya
Colin Ridding
Project Director
Mott MacDonald
Nairobi, Kenya
2/22/2016
2
Nairobi, Kenya
• Second fastest growing city in Africa
• Population of 3 million in Nairobi
• Population of 7.5 million in Metropolitan Area
• Expected to grow to 10 – 12 million by 2030
Nairobi, Kenya
• Approximately 1.5 million passengers travel to the CBD daily (50% of City’s Population)
• Approximately 47% of all commuters are pedestrians!
2/22/2016
3
Role in Kenya• November 2014 –June 2016
• EU funded Project
• Traffic Engineering Capacity Building
• Overseeing new Bus Rapid Transit System
• Establishing New Transport Authority
• Traffic Management Center
• Addressing Congestion Problems!
Congestion in Nairobi, Kenya
• All routes into and out of town suffer with serious congestion
• A 20 minute journey during off peak periods can be 2 hours plus during peak times
• 6 lanes of traffic on a 3 lane highway!
• Population rapidly increasing
2/22/2016
4
Congestion in Nairobi, Kenya
• Driver behavior and Police Traffic Enforcement are major issues
• Poor roads and lack of maintenance
Congestion in Nairobi, Kenya
Thousands of buses and matatus (minibuses), not very organized!!
2/22/2016
5
Congestion in Nairobi, Kenya
• Many intersections are priority controlled or ‘4 way stops’
• Minimal number of signalized intersections
• Several major roundabouts
General Principles of Roundabouts
• Principal objective is to minimize delay for vehicles and to maintain a safe passage through intersection
• Most efficient when traffic flows are balanced between the arms
• Roundabouts designed to match traffic forecast demand
ALY10
2/22/2016
6
Advantages
• Keep traffic moving with minimal delay
• Aesthetically pleasing
• Slower speeds
• Fewer conflict points
• Lower maintenance costs
Roundabouts in Nairobi
• Pressure from the media, drivers and previous studies to remove all roundabouts
• Too dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists
• Do not provide the expected capacity when compared to a signalized intersection
• Poor driver behavior
• Almost zero legal compliance
• Role of the traffic police
2/22/2016
7
Roundabouts in Nairobi
• Many roundabouts poorly designed
• No road markings
• No yield signs (not that anyone would yield!)
Roundabouts in Nairobi
• Higher speed road
• No deflection
• No Yield signs or markings
2/22/2016
8
Roundabouts in Nairobi
Untitled.mp4
Decongestion Taskforce Committee
• Ministry of Transport, other road authorities, Police and consultants
• Set up to identify ‘quick-win’ schemes to reduce congestion in Nairobi
2/22/2016
9
Trial ‘Quick‐Win’ Scheme
• At several roundabouts all right turning movements temporarily banned
• Worked well at isolated roundabouts
• Not so effective where other roundabouts in close proximity
• Nairobi County Government eliminates roundabouts
• Nairobi Major Roundabouts To Be Blocked From Next Week
• Nairobi County Government implements new traffic laws to eliminate roundabouts
• Nairobi County closes the 5 Roundabouts on Uhuru
Highway
Typical Headlines
2/22/2016
10
• Long diversions
• Increased congestion
Trial ‘Quick‐Win’ Scheme
Police Enforcement
Trial ‘Quick‐Win’ Scheme
2/22/2016
11
Trial ‘Quick‐Win’ Scheme
Trial ‘Quick‐Win’ Scheme
• Heavy Rain
• Serious Flooding
2/22/2016
12
Flooding
Flooding
2/22/2016
13
Flooding
• Banning of right turns was not successful
• Media and public pressure to remove the drums
• Currently operating as roundabouts
• Roundabouts will be removed and signalized intersections installed
Outcome of ‘Quick-Win’ Scheme
2/22/2016
14
Roundabouts in Nairobi
• Roundabouts not effective in Nairobi
• Mainly due to poor driver behavior
• Lack of Police enforcement
• Lack of clear markings and signing
Roundabouts in the UK
• Numerous existing roundabouts have been converted to signalized roundabouts
• Traffic signals can improve capacity at a roundabout
• Signals regulate traffic flows
2/22/2016
15
Roundabouts in the UK
• Can improve safety by managing high circulatory speeds
• Easier to accommodate pedestrians and vulnerable road users
Latest Innovation in the UK
• Separates cyclists from other traffic
• Segregated cycle lanes
• First in London
2/22/2016
16
Latest Innovation in the UK
• Cyclists have a poor safety record at roundabouts in the UK
• More emphasis on safety
• Many other cities implementing similar schemes
Latest Innovation in the UK
2/22/2016
17
Latest Innovation in the UK
Latest Innovation in the UK
• Dutch style turbo roundabouts
• Reduces speeds
• Single circulating lane
• Priority for cyclists at entry and exit lanes
2/22/2016
18
Summary
• Roundabouts very successful in the UK, US and many countries throughout the world
• Every intersection is different
• All solutions should be considered
Summary
• Consider the needs of vulnerable road users
• Roundabouts and signals do not always mix along the same corridor or within a congested urban area
2/22/2016
19
Summary
• Safety record to be considered
• Modeling should be undertaken
Good Safety Record
• Significant safety benefits demonstrated in the US
• Converting signalized intersections to roundabouts in the US have reduced the number of crashes and injuries
• A good safety record in the UK and elsewhere
1
TRB Committee on Roundabouts:Research Activities Update
Transportation Research Board
2016 Annual Meeting
January 13, 2016
Selected Research ActivitiesSelected Research Activities
FHWA TOPR 34: Accelerating Roundabout Implementation in the United States
NCHRP 03‐78b and 03‐78c: Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes to Assist Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities
NCHRP Project 03‐110: Estimating the Life‐Cycle Costs of Intersection Designs
NCHRP Synthesis 46‐02: Roundabout Practices
NCHRP Project 17‐70: Development of Roundabout Crash Prediction Models and Methods
2
FHWA TOPR 34: Accelerating Roundabout Implementation in the United States
Virginia Tech Transportation Institute
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. (Lee Rodegerdts, PI)
ITRE at North Carolina State University
January 2016
Seven TasksSeven Tasks
1. Assessment of Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) for accessibility at multilane roundabouts
2. Reassessment of capacity models for the Highway Capacity Manual
3. Assessing environmental characteristics of roundabouts compared to other intersections
4. Evaluation of fatal and severe injury crashes
5. Evaluation of geometric parameters that affect truck maneuvering and stability
6. Investigation of crosswalk design and driver behaviors
7. Human factors assessment of traffic control device treatments at multilane roundabouts
3
Evaluation of Geometric Parameters for Trucks (KAI/VT)Evaluation of Geometric Parameters for Trucks (KAI/VT)
Examination of crash records for crashes involving trucks
Simulation of truck dynamics over a range of geometric parameters to test hypotheses
Truck speed – most significant parameter
10 mph provided better stability than 15 mph
Education of truck drivers recommended
Evaluation of Geometric Parameters for Trucks (cont.)Evaluation of Geometric Parameters for Trucks (cont.)
Cross section – mixed findings
Crowned more stable in some cases (LT, TH); constant slope more stable in other cases (RT)
Higher rollover risk when encountering a modeled 3‐inch vertical face; other apron profiles not tested
Truck type and loads
WB‐67 trucks less stable than SU‐30 and B‐train at smaller, single‐lane roundabouts; similar stability at larger roundabouts
Empty trucks at higher risk of rollover in small roundabouts
Fully loaded trucks higher risk in two‐lane roundabouts due to higher center of gravity
4
Investigation of Crosswalk Design and Driver Behaviors (ITRE)Investigation of Crosswalk Design and Driver Behaviors (ITRE)
Goal of maximizing drivers’ propensity to yield
Field measurement of performance over a range of conditions:
Various crosswalk positions from circulatory roadway
Various alignments of crosswalks
Various alignments through splitter island
Two study types:
Yielding study (naturalistic study of staged crossings)
Eye tracker study (recorded participant eye movements when driving through roundabouts to evaluate fixation and gaze patterns)
Investigation of Crosswalk Design and Driver BehaviorsSummary of FindingsInvestigation of Crosswalk Design and Driver BehaviorsSummary of Findings
Yielding higher:
Entries more than exits
Single‐lane crosswalks more than two‐lane crosswalks
Pedestrians crossing from the splitter island than from the curb
Study did not find any meaningful change in driver yielding behavior based on the geometric design elements (location and alignment) of the crosswalk
5
Human Factors Assessment of Traffic Control Device Treatments at Multilane Roundabouts (ITRE)Human Factors Assessment of Traffic Control Device Treatments at Multilane Roundabouts (ITRE)
Goal is to gain insight on how TCD combinations (signs, pavement markings) affect driver behavior at multilane roundabouts
Major components of task:
Study of erratic maneuvers at multilane roundabouts
Eye‐tracker study of drivers’ attention to traffic control devices as they drive through the roundabout
Human Factors Assessment of TCDs at Multilane RbtsSummary of FindingsHuman Factors Assessment of TCDs at Multilane RbtsSummary of Findings
Some pavement marking applications appear to result in a greater likelihood of erratic maneuvers
Contributing factors appear to be:
Inconsistencies between lane use markings on the approach and those within the circulatory roadway
Insufficient channelization for drivers when being shifted from the inside lane to the outside lane to exit
Both appear to be associated with exclusive lanes (e.g., left turn only)
6
Human Factors Assessment of TCDs at Multilane RbtsSummary of Findings (cont.)Human Factors Assessment of TCDs at Multilane RbtsSummary of Findings (cont.)
Eye‐tracker study found that drivers are 2 to 3 times more likely to glance at pavement markings than at signs and for longer periods of time
Correct pavement markings appear to be the most beneficial in reducing erratic maneuvers
Care is needed when using exclusive lanes and channelization (spiraling) within the circulatory roadway
11
NCHRP 03‐78b and 03‐78c: Guidelines for the Application of Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes to Assist Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. (Bastian Schroeder, PI)
Accessible Design for the Blind
ITRE at North Carolina State University
January 2016
7
A Vision for the Final ProductA Vision for the Final Product
Guidelines for Selecting Accessibility Treatment Alternatives at Modern Roundabouts and Intersections with Channelized Turn Lanes
Readily implementable guidance
Feasible range of geometric and traffic operational conditions
Suitable in planning and preliminary design stage
Based on by empirical data and modeling
Useful to a broad audience
Decision‐support tool for practicing engineers
13
Project StatusProject Status
Draft Guidebook and Draft Final Report currently under panel review (submission Fall 2015)
Team waiting for formal feedback and revising deliverables in early spring 2016
Pending two‐year technology transfer effort (NCHRP 03‐78c) with webinars and FREE workshops across the U.S.
8
Guidebook PreviewGuidebook Preview
1. Introduction
2. Design Process
3. General Principles for Pedestrian Wayfinding & Crossing Tasks
4. Design Principles for Pedestrian Access to Roundabouts
5. Design Principles for Pedestrian Access to CTLs
6. Wayfinding Assessment
7. Crossing Assessment
8. References
9. Appendix A: Discussion of Audible Environment and Noise Effects
10. Appendix B: Summary of Crossing Treatments
15
UPDATED Roundabout Design ProcessUPDATED Roundabout Design Process
9
Sample Content – Wayfinding Principles and IssuesSample Content – Wayfinding Principles and Issues
Sample Content – Treatment InformationSample Content – Treatment Information
10
Sample Content – Design DetailsSample Content – Design Details
Sample Content – Crossing Sight DistanceSample Content – Crossing Sight Distance
11
NCHRP Project 03‐110: Estimating the Life‐Cycle Cost of Intersection Designs
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. (Lee Rodegerdts, PI)
EcoNorthwest
Write Rhetoric
January 2016
NCHRP Project 03‐110: Project ObjectiveNCHRP Project 03‐110: Project Objective
Develop spreadsheet‐based tool for comparing life‐cycle costs of alternative designs for new and existing intersections
Applicable to range of options:
Stop‐controlled
Traffic signal
Roundabout
Innovative designs
12
What the Life‐Cycle Cost Estimation Tool DoesWhat the Life‐Cycle Cost Estimation Tool Does
Converts units of various metrics into Net Present Value
Provide the user with national average values for various costs while allowing calibration
Provides summary in spreadsheet form
Evaluation FrameworkEvaluation Framework
Uses “cordon” concept
Allows maximum flexibility to analyze a range of conditions:
Single intersection
Complex intersection or interchange
Series of intersections
Subarea or area
Assumes that all significant differences among alternatives are captured within the cordon and can be estimated within the cordon
13
Tool InputsTool Inputs
Planning, construction, operations, and maintenance costs for single or recurring events
Traffic projections for key study years by mode(s) of interest (e.g., auto, truck, transit, bike, ped)
Operational and safety performance from outside tools (HCM methods, microsimulation, Highway Safety Manual, CMFs, etc.)
Options for other user‐specified metrics
Internal tool calculations for some values (e.g., annualized delay, emissions, travel time reliability)
Next StepsNext Steps
Project complete
Report and tool anticipated on TRB website by late January
Final report out in a few months
Webinar tentatively planned for April 2016
14
NCHRP Synthesis 46‐02: Roundabout Practices
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. (Alek Pochowski, Andy Paul, co‐PIs)
January 2016
DISCLAIMER:Report is approved for publication (expected late February, 2016), but information presented shall not be distributed or referenced until the report is published.
NCHRP Synthesis 46‐02: Roundabout PracticesNCHRP Synthesis 46‐02: Roundabout Practices
Document and summarize the current roundabout policies, guidance, and practices within State DOTs
Focus is on roundabout selection and design with a secondary focus on performance
Intended to be a useful reference to agencies that are creating or updating roundabout and intersection control policies
15
NCHRP Synthesis 46‐02: Roundabout PracticesStudy Approach StagesNCHRP Synthesis 46‐02: Roundabout PracticesStudy Approach Stages
Literature Review
Survey
Case Examples
NCHRP Project 17‐70: Development of Roundabout Crash Prediction Models and MethodsKittelson & Associates, Inc. (Erin Ferguson, PI)
Persaud & Lyon
Write Rhetoric
January 2016
16
Research ObjectiveResearch Objective
Develop SPFs and CMFs for all road users that can be used to estimate the severity and number of crashes likely to occur at roundabouts under a variety of rural and urban contexts for single‐lane and multilane roundabouts.
Specific Questions the Research Is to AddressSpecific Questions the Research Is to Address
How do geometric features – and combinations of features – influence the number and severity of crashes at the roundabout?
How do operational features – and combinations of features – influence the number and severity of crashes at the roundabout?
How do driver learning curves influence the number and severity of crashes at any age roundabout?
17
Work Plan Work Plan
Task 0 – Amplified Work Plan
Task 1 – Conduct Literature Review
Task 2 – Develop Data Collection Plan
Task 3 – Implement Data Collection Plan
Task 4 – Identify Appropriate Modeling Procedure/Approach
Task 5 – Preliminary Annotated Outline for HSM Text
Task 6 – Produce Phase 2 Work Plan
Task 7 – Test/Validate/Modify Modeling Procedure/Approach
Task 8 – Annotated Outline of Final Deliverables
Task 9 – Proposed HSM Text
Task 10 – Prepare Final Deliverables
Task 11 – Present Research to AASHTO Subcommittee
Schedule : Key MilestonesSchedule : Key Milestones
Data Collection Plan – Panel Review/Discussion – Dec 2014
Interim Report and Panel Meeting – July 2015
Data Collection Completed – December 2015
Draft Crash Prediction Models – Panel Review and Discussion – March/April 2016
HSM Annotated Outline – Panel Review – May 2016
Final Deliverables – Panel Review – Sept./Oct. 2016
18
Data Collection Data Collection
Recently Completed Data Collection and Database Assembly 369 Roundabouts
Focusing on two sets of intersection level crash prediction models to inform: (1) network screening, (2) design decisions
Obtained numerous data attributes
50 related to geometric characteristics (e.g., number of legs, entry width per leg, angle to next leg)
8 relate to speed (i.e., posted speed limit per leg and confidence in posted speed limit recorded per leg)
Multiple years of traffic volume data by leg
15 related to crash data (e.g., crash type, crash severity)
Include sites from:
New York, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Florida, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Kansas, Washington, California, and Ontario (Canada)
Questions?Questions?
503‐228‐5230
Bastian [email protected]
919‐345‐4412
Alek [email protected]
202‐642‐2916
Erin [email protected]
510‐433‐8066
2016 TRB Annual Meeting Younger Members Report to ANB75 Roundabout Committee
Robert A. Rescot, Ph.D.,P.E.
The TRB younger member program is targeted at professionals age 35 and under, and also may be
interest to those new to the field and/or TRB that are over 35. In 2011 an official Young Members
Council was formed under the Technical Activities Council (TAC). Highlights for the 2016 TRB annual
meeting include the following:
A transportation unconference, Transportation Camp was held on Saturday January 9. An
unconference is one in which participants self‐organize to create sessions of interest to each
other. The cost is very low ($25 or less, and discounts are typical for students with early
registration) There are a number of other upcoming transportation camps:
o Cambridge, Massachusetts: April 9
o Boulder, Colorado: May 15
o Kansas City, Missouri: June 4
o Houston, Texas: June 26 (to coincide with ASCE T&DI spring conference)
o See www.transportationcamp.org for more details
There are now six TRB younger member subcommittees
o Operations and Preservation
o Design and Construction
o Freight systems and marine
o Safety and system users
o Planning and environment
o Public transportation ‐ has strong ties to a Belgium based NGO non‐profit “Youth 4
Public Transport” http://www.y4pt.org/
Young professional reception on Sunday night
Several younger member specific research sessions tagged as “emerging”
Several general interest younger member sessions
o Workshop on navigating a successful career path
o The 6‐minute pitch Transportation start‐up challenges
TRB Outstanding Young Member award: nominations usually due in October before annual
meeting
Younger member website: https://sites.google.com/site/youngmemberscouncil/
Younger member groupsite: http://ymc.groupsite.com
TRB is on both Twitter and Facebook, and mobile apps are helping reduce size/weight of the
program
P a g e 1 of 7
APPENDIX D
Annual Report TRB Roundabout Committee
Sub-Committee on a Semi-Automated Roundabout Inventory
A review of the project might be in order.
I. Description of the concept
The idea of this project is to create and semi-automatically maintain a comprehensive inventory (database) of circular intersections in the United States that is publicly accessible and enhanced via the Internet.
Terms:
• Create means to acquire a set of geographic locations of circular intersections from a cooperating source, acquire a suitable computer database program, and load the locations into the program to establish the database.
o Cooperating source means one of the private firms in the business of collecting and selling geolocated roadway information to various customers, including to the corporations who sell GIS guidance software that is now ubiquitous on cell phones and dedicated GPS units, both handheld and installed in vehicles.
o Geolocation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolocation
o One firm in this business is HERE:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_(company)
o Nokia has since sold HERE. This March 10, 2016, article from The Atlantic Citylab
illustrates the extent of the circular intersection data available from vendors:
� http://www.citylab.com/commute/2016/03/america-traffic-roundabouts-
street-map/408598/?utm_source=SFTwitter
o Another example of such information is seen in the images below from Google Earth, where the satellite image depicts the "before" condition of a conventional intersection, yet the roadway overlay depicts a roundabout that is about to be constructed (and by now has been constructed). Whatever source Google gets its data from knows about the roundabout even before it is constructed. Because this information is extremely valuable and sellable, substantial resources are devoted to collecting and updating it. The idea that cars equipped with 360 degree rooftop cameras would be plying every street in the world would be much too much too believe only a short time ago, but is now a common, everyday utility because the images are placed in the commons, for all to access unfettered and for free.
o The cooperating source agrees to provide the initial comprehensive data set, and to provide updates on a regular basis such as quarterly.
• Inventorymeans a compilation of the geographic locations of the circular intersections where each intersection is a record.
• Geographic location means the X-Y coordinates of the intersections.
P a g e 2 of 7
o Geographic location would also include a URL (link) to each circular intersection location in Google Map.
• Comprehensive means virtually all USA circular intersections would be included in the inventory.
• Maintainmeans the inventory would be kept up to date, comprehensively, according to some schedule such as quarterly.
• Publicly accessible means the inventory would reside openly on the Internet. • Publicly enhanced means the public could add additional information, such as
attributes or comments, to individual intersection records. o Additional information means information besides the X-Y coordinates and
URL to Google Maps. Users would not normally be able to add or subtract records, unless provided for separately.
o Attributesmeans information such as traffic volume, dimensions, number of legs, number of circulating lanes, crash history, shape of the central island (round, elliptical, oval, etc.), presence of public art, funding source, classification (modern roundabout, traffic circle, rotary, mini-roundabout, etc.), and so forth.
o There could also be private fields accessible via password only to users so privileged, such as transportation officials or some sort of body of users such as members of the TRB Roundabout Committee or subscribers to the TRB Roundabout Listserv. Databases can be quite flexible these days, and can grow and morph in response to needs and other circumstances.
• Circular intersections means every intersection identified by the cooperating source as a roundabout, traffic circle or rotary.
o The private firms that collect and sell this geographic information typically have GIS "layers" or other means for tagging entities, and one or more of them have a layer designated for "roundabouts."
� This fact is demonstrated by the computer voice in the car GIS unit that tells the driver to "Take the second exit from the roundabout." Sometimes the voice says "traffic circle" instead and often the distinction would meet the approval of many modern roundabout practitioners.
� Either way, it seems the data vendors have faithfully identified the existence and location (X-Y coordinates) of all circular intersections everywhere. Any they somehow miss are eventually spotted by various means, such as the path the Google Streetview cars take or annual updates, including crowd-sourcing. Accurate, complete, current roadway geodata is a valuable, sellable product and that fact provides both the impetus and the funding.
o That some intersections emphatically are not modern roundabouts won't present a problem because eventually an interested user will flag those intersections through a process nowadays called crowd-sourcing which has been demonstrated to be very effective in scientific surveys for decades (bird counts, for example) and with the advent of universal mobile access to the Internet via smart phones communicating with the cellular telephone network, has taken on many novel and quite productive forms.
o As to which intersections that approximate modern roundabouts are "true" modern roundabouts, this is a question unsettled in the discipline so can hardly be expected to be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction by the cooperating source.
• Semi-automatically maintain means the periodic update of the inventory would take place with very little human time and effort. Downloading the complete Kittelson database of roundabouts takes a GIS practitioner only a few clicks and a few minutes, for example.
P a g e 3 of 7
o Intersection records would not be added or subtracted by individuals, such as volunteers, or by agencies.
o Consequently, the inventory will always contain some intersections of no interest to some users of the inventory, but that won’t present a problem because like any database the records can be easily and almost instantaneously filtered to show whatever intersection records are of interest at the moment.
Key to the concept are comprehensive, current, and semi-automatically maintained.
• If the inventory isn't comprehensive, would-be users searching for information will quickly be disappointed and soon lose interest in using it, let alone be motivated to enhance it with additional attribute information.
• The same applies if the inventory isn't maintained (kept current). • Semi-automatic maintenance is critical; this means a few mouse clicks and ten minutes
of effort 4 times per year by a GIS practitioner to download updates provided by the cooperating source. These updates will mostly consist of new geolocations (X-Y) coordinates for newly constructed (or discovered) circular intersections, each of which will go to create a new record in the inventory.
o Multiple efforts to date have demonstrated that an inventory that relies on volunteers to submit intersection information singly or in small numbers at a time cannot hope to be comprehensive, let alone current.
o Volunteer efforts are haphazard, sporadic, scattered, and incomplete, and volunteers typically have only enough time to devote to the task as it takes to send in material in whatever format they conveniently have it. This raises the requirement for someone to painstakingly filter, convert and enter the incoming information, an overwhelming, unprofitable, chore which will only get worse as the number of circular intersections increases (exponentially, according to one assessment).
o Volunteers can only submit intersections they know about, and of those will submit only the ones for which the volunteer has some motivation to submit. All this leaves gaping holes in the inventory which will only grow worse as the number of roundabouts increases (exponentially, by one assessment).
o Even if all fifty state DOT agencies were somehow to be staffed and funded on a permanent basis to create and maintain inventories of state, county and municipal roundabouts on web-hosted software made open to anyone, that situation would still fall far short of a single, comprehensive, consistent inventory because in order to search the 50 roundabout inventories researchers, roundabout practitioners and others would still have deal with 50 user interfaces and 50 internal database organization schemes on 50 websites.
From a practical standpoint, key also are that the cooperating source provide the initial intersection geolocations and updates for free or a very nominal amount; and that some willing entity create the GIS database and host the website with the inventory.
• Persuading the cooperating source to provide the set of X-Y coordinates for free may be easier if the hosting entity is a government agency or a non-profit organization, or if a government agency such as FHWA blesses the project as hosted by a non-profit organization.
• For a GIS practitioner, creating and semi-automatically updating the inventory is not a major effort, but still, someone motivated has to be found to actually do it.
P a g e 4 of 7
• For a GIS practitioner with the computer and software resources, hosting the inventory website is not a major effort, but still, someone motivated has to be found to actually do it.
• For an organization that is accustomed to supporting non-profit projects to benefit a greater community, sponsoring a hosted website is not a major effort, but still, such an motivated organization has to be found to actually do it.
II. Need for the inventory A partial list of reasons to create and maintain (keep current) an online accessible inventory of modern roundabouts:
• Modern roundabouts are the biggest traffic safety breakthrough since seat belts in the 1950's and therefore have the potential to be of considerable interest to traffic professionals, public safety officials, researchers and many others. Very early research by Richard Retting with availability of only sparse data found that modern roundabouts reduce fatalities by 90%, a figure trumpeted by the FHWA (seat belts by 45-55%, depending upon whether the wearer is in the front or back seat).
• Modern roundabouts are proliferating in the United States, but no one knows where they all are or even how many there are. Estimates of the current number range from 2,000 to 3,000 and higher. One assessment pegs the increase as exponential.
o Other, much smaller, countries have constructed thousands and tens of thousands of roundabouts in the past 10-15 years. Extrapolating by population from either France or Australia gives a equivalent number in the US of 145,000.
• Practitioners have to rely on volunteers who have time to subscribe to the TRB roundabout listserv to provide locations of roundabouts that meet whatever criteria they need for their purposes, a severely catch-as-catch-can means. But a searchable online GIS database would provide the locations of circular intersections that match search criteria in seconds.
o The existing Kittelson roundabout database and many other databases are examples of this ease of search by criteria. Google is an example of how easy and instantaneously fast it can be to search a truly vast collection of information: the Internet.
• It's important to understand that once the circular intersection geolocations (X-Y coordinates) are resident in a GIS database, they can easily be correlated to all sorts of other geolocated information which is freely available, such as nearby schools, RR tracks, evacuation routes, population demographics, etc.--this is what GIS practitioners do all day long, every day. They also produce maps, especially thematic maps that visually reveal relationships.
• Researchers presently have no good means of assembling a bias-free set of roundabouts to study.
• Like other such tools, this accessible inventory will likely be put to many uses not yet imagined. Who would have thought, for example, that virus outbreaks could be detected weeks ahead of the public health reporting system by Google merely writing a algorithm to track certain search terms that spike in the first and second day of presenting symptoms. Early detection is essential for containment, and containment is extremely important because every so often a virus wipes out a large proportion of the human population.
P a g e 5 of 7
III. Original concept The original idea was inspired by the fact that for years ordinary hand-held consumer-grade cameras have had the ability to detect several human faces in a frame, place boxes around them, and set the focus and exposure automatically for the benefit of the photographer. Inexpensive cameras can detect when everyone is smiling at the same time and snap the photo then, and even detect a frown or neutral expression and make it into a smile by turning the mouth upward--automatically. Now cell phone cameras can, too. It seemed software running on much more powerful PCs could easily detect circular intersections in aerial photographs and store their X-Y coordinates. But there were formidable obstacles, such as where to get free aerials and the detection software. Worse case, it seemed software could be written, perhaps as a computer science or GIS doctoral thesis, to sequentially access and analyze free Google Map images one after the other, marching across the country in bands. But planner Erin Gentle found a much better path to the solution. She had done some digging and discovered that the industry that collects and sells road map data to the firms that sell navigation gizmos for cars, also has a layer of information identifying circular intersections and their X-Y coordinates. In other words, in a sense the circular intersection inventory already exists as a subset of commercially available GIS information. This was a breakthrough discovery, because the rest is fairly straightforward, given relatively minor resources.
IV. Current status of the project The way forward has been stymied at several junctures:
1. A good entre' into the vendor(s) who sell the X-Y coordinates is needed. Two industry contacts have been identified, as well as one FHWA contact who has been working with one of the vendors on a project to locate RR crossings.
2. A GIS practitioner with the desire, skill and computer resources (including software) to create the roundabout inventory database, and put it into a web-based format, although it's not a big deal for any GIS practitioner who already does those kinds of projects.
3. A suitable entity with the desire and resources to host the roundabout inventory, although it's not a big deal for GIS practitioners who already do that. No government agency has yet stepped forward to offer resources (which may not exist in the first place, anyway).
IV. The way forward A local GIS professional of Ken Sides' acquaintance with the necessary skills and resources to create the circular intersection GIS database and hosting website, Gui De Almeida, has expressed an interest in the project. Further, Mr. De Almeida belongs to a non-profit organization, the Urban Charrette, that has already previously supported
P a g e 6 of 7
similar GIS undertakings to benefit the public and is supportive of his involvement in this project. The next step is to create a scope to establish and outline what the Urban Charrette’s role will be, and determine what can be provided within the constraints of the UC’s non-profit license for the GIS software. The Urban Charrette:
• http://cltampa.com/tampa/urban-charrette-architects-and-planners-have-designs-on-the-future-of-tampa/Content?oid=2033413#.Vum7pOIrJpg
• http://helmofthepublicrealm.com/tag/urban-charrette/
• http://www.83degreesmedia.com/features/Charrette030210.aspx
• http://www.aiatampabay.com/pdf/urbancharrette_welcomeletter_may_.pdf
• http://www.newnorthalliance.com/2014/08/29/tampas-urban-charrette-and-congress-for-the-new-urbanism-wil-host-open-mic-at-pj-dolans-irish-pub-grille/
Stay tuned! -Ken Ken Sides, PE, PTOE, CNU-a
P a g e 7 of 7
German country report on roundabouts Werner Brilon January 2016 ([email protected]) In Germany roundabouts are a favourite type of intersection. Here single‐lane and Mini‐roundabouts are still the most important types. Semi‐two‐lane types are used in rural environments if necessary due to capacity reasons. Turbo‐roundabouts are planned in single cases. Overall the number of roundabouts is estimated to be above 13000. Roundabouts are still en vogue among local politicians. This is not always positive since they have the tendency to decide before technical aspects have been evaluated. Thus, also less favourable solutions ‐ here in some cases in connection with turbo‐roundabouts ‐ had been planned and have also been built. Important events in 2015 / 2016:
publication of the FGSV‐guideline for turbo‐roundabouts in Feb. 2015
publication of the new German HCM (called HBS) with adjusted formulas for Roundabout capacity in chapter L5 (rural) and S5 (urban) in Oct. 2015
research report on roundabout safety, here especially under the aspect of cyclists, on behalf of the German assurance association by L. Bondzio: first version 2012 (see also paper 16‐0648), new results expected: Mid 2016
2016: start into the discussion about amendments and a new version of the 2006‐German guideline for roundabouts
TRB Roundabout Update for the United Kingdom 2016 Prepared by: Colin Ridding, Mott MacDonald 10th January 2015 Roundabouts continue to be very popular in the UK and have a good safety record when compared to other intersections. The big difference between the UK and US is that there are numerous signalized roundabouts. Since the early 1990s many roundabouts have been converted to signalized roundabouts. Signalized roundabouts can improve capacity by regulating traffic flows. It is also possible to provide safer crossing facilities for cyclists and pedestrians by providing controlled crossings. At the present time there is a big emphasis on the safety of cyclists at roundabouts. Cyclists have always had a poor safety record at roundabouts so considerable funding has been provided for highway authorities to address this issue. Segregated cycle lanes at roundabouts are now being provided to improve safety for cyclists. This is being achieved by providing signal control. The first turbo roundabout has now been installed. This roundabout has also given priority to pedestrians and cyclists. So drivers exiting the roundabout will need to yield if cyclists or pedestrians are trying to cross.
2016/2/22
1
Kazunori Munehiro, Dr.‐ing
Traffic Engineering Research Team,
CERI, PWRI, JAPAN
Roundabouts in Japan
Progress of Roundabout
FY2009 ‐ IATSS Roundabout Project (PL: Prof. Hideki Nakamura of Nagoya Univ.)
2
FY2010-FY2012 Social Experiment in real way(Iida City, Karuizawa Town of Nagano Pref., etal. by IATSS, MLIT)
At Towa-cho of Iida City in Nagano Pref.～ RAB was newly constructed in 2013.
RAB at Towa-cho of Iida City（Photo by Iida CATV）
Effects of Smoother Traffic and Reduce of Environmental Load
2016/2/22
2
Aug. 2014 : MLIT issued a manager notification ” “Desirable roundabout”
Jun. 2015 : “Commentary and Operation of Road Structure Ordinance” was revised with incorporating RAB by Japan Road Association.
Progress of Roundabout
Sep. 2014 : Japanese Government underwent the revised “ “Road Traffic Law”. Defines the traffic way of the “ “circular road prioritize the traffic" on RAB.
2016 Spring : “Manual of RAB in Japan” will be published by JSTE (Japan Society of Traffic Engineers).
(Chairman : Prof.Hideki Nakamura).
(Near Future)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Sep. 2014 Dec. 2014 Dec. 2015
Number
Number of Roundabout
At present 49 intersections have been operated as RAB in Japan.
2016/2/22
3
We have conducted a variety of tests on RAB.
Tests in Tomakomai Test Truck
Towa‐cho of Iida City
Examples of RAB in Japan
Azuma‐cho of Iida City
Sekikata of Yaizu City
In this way, it advanced the introduction of the RAB in Japan.
2016/2/22
4
Manual of RAB in Japan
- Japan is in initial stage of RAB.
Toward the spread of RAB
- New choice of intersection improvements.- However effectiveness of the RAB is not known enough.
- We have held RAB seminars for local government and consultant engineers.
Experience is insufficient.
2016/2/22
5
［Hiroshima］
RAB Seminars
［Sapporo］
Photos of RAB Seminar
2016/2/22
6
We have adopted a round‐table meeting method by experts.
Photos of RAB Seminar
Thank you very much !!!
Contact Address
Kazunori Munehiro, Dr.-ingTraffic Engineering Research Team,
CERI, PWRI, JAPANE-mail: [email protected]
TRB Roundabout Update for Canada 2016 Prepared by: Keith Boddy, P. Eng. Revised: 2016-01-06 Brief update on Canadian roundabout construction and ongoing efforts British Columbia currently has 33 roundabouts on BC MoTI jurisdiction roadways. 14 of these are at interchanges. Only one new roundabout was constructed this year. There are 9 roundabouts either being planned, designed or waiting to be constructed, 5 of these will be at interchanges. Calgary, Alberta has 89 roundabouts installed with 10 more in various planning/construction phases. They are very popular in new subdivisions. The Province of Alberta has another 11 roundabouts on their road system. 3 were installed this year. There are several roundabouts in the planning stages at this time, with one planned to be a mini roundabout. The Region of Waterloo in Ontario constructed four multi-lane roundabouts in 2015 and are planning to construct four more multi-lane roundabouts in 2016. For the future, the Region has approximately 30 roundabouts in various levels of the planning stages. Prince Edward Island has 13 roundabouts operating with 1 planned for 2016. One of the new Roundabouts has a central painted island as opposed to a raised mountable apron. The intersection exhibits a good rate of compliance; however, snow maintenance is limiting visibility of the inner painted island. The location has low traffic volumes, so it hasn't caused much of an issue. At another location PE DOT has opened what they are terming a Rural Roundabout, it has no curbs on the outer edges of the ICD, just sod. The centre island has curb as does the mountable apron. In the words of the DOT it works extremely well thus far. Nova Scotia is planning many roundabouts for future projects. There are now 28 roundabouts in the Province. One roundabout was constructed in 2015, it is only partially open and will be completed in 2016. New Brunswick has had one roundabout constructed by the City of Fredericton, it opened this fall. It was constructed on the former 100km/h Highway system, connecting two busy commercial corridors. The University of New Brunswick (UNB) Transportation group is monitoring driver behaviour. Preliminary results from the UNB work indicates that driver behavior has been continuously improving. The data from their work has been used to target public education efforts on common driver errors that have been observed. Another project will see a roundabout constructed on the provincial system near Shediac in 2016.
An ongoing count of Canadian roundabout installations is underway through the Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) Joint Roundabouts Sub-Committee. We have been using approximate numbers of 330-380 as our current estimated total installations. This project is volunteer led and will attempt to exploit the use of a GIS database.
The Canadian Roundabout Design Guide (CRDG) project, is now at the 100% draft stage, publication is tentatively set for later in 2016. This project combines the design domain concepts intrinsic to the Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads by incorporating ranges of acceptable values for various geometric parameters with additional application data and information from other sources like NCHRP 672 and other research. Ongoing design issues include: In British Columbia they have been trying to accommodate the heavy haul trucking industry on their major routes. The size of loads moving through the province keeps getting larger. The length and width of these extraordinary loads present challenges for designing a roundabout that they can drive through, while at the same time maintaining suitable geometry to control the speed of passenger cars and the typical truck design vehicle (WB-20). The largest roundabout on a major haul route has been designed to accommodate two configurations:
13 axle configuration made up of a tractor, jeep, trailer and booster o overall length = 50 m, trailer width = 3.05 m, load = 21 m long x 6 m wide
10-axle steerable dolly truck o overall length = 60 m, trailer width = 2.60 m, load = 51 m long x 5 m wide
Alberta has similar challenges associated with the cost of the roundabouts, especially when designing to accommodate oversized and overweight vehicles. On the topic of mini-roundabouts: Calgary has had some issues with their first mini. People driving over it when it’s covered in snow but that could be due to late implementation and driver familiarity. Alberta is considering the use of mini roundabouts to reduce costs. PEI has implemented a paint-only roundabout and is monitoring the operations as the seasons progress.
APPENDIX I AGENDA TRB Committee on Roundabouts ANB75 2015 Annual Meeting, Marquis Ballroom Salon 10 (M2) Wednesday, January 13, 2015, 2:30‐‐‐‐6:00pm COMMITTEE SCOPE: The TRB Committee on Roundabouts is concerned with all factorsencompassing modern
roundabouts. The Committee provides focus within TRB on current issues andfuture research needs pertaining to
modern roundabouts. It serves as a forum for discussions aboutroundabout research, projects, and policy for all
interested stakeholders; identifies research needs anddevelops research problem statements to meet the needs; and
facilitates the exchange of knowledge byvarious media, meetings, and conferences.
AGENDA:
Part 1 Monitor; Co-Chair Gene Russell 1. Call to Order (Gene Russell, Brian Walsh Co-Chair)s(2:30 PM)
2. Self-Introductions (All present)(2:30-2:35)
3. Comments from the Chair(s) (Gene Russell/Brian Walsh)(2:35-2:40)
4. Approval of Mid-Year and/or Previous Minutes (Hillary Isebrands, Secretary)(2:40-2:45)
5. TRB Report/Comments (Bernardo Kleiner when he arrives)(2:45-2:50)
6. Awards (2:50-2:55)
a. Comments on Frank Blackmore Award, (Gene Russell) – Background and Details
b. ANB75 Best Paper Award (Gene Russell)
7. Update annual meeting activities and preliminary planning for 2017 Annual Meeting (2:55-3:15)
a. Paper review and 2014 Committee-sponsored sessions (Brian/Hillary/Gene)
b. Report on 2017 International Conference progress ( Mark Lenters)
c. Sunday Workshop Ideas for 2016(?) (Gene /Brian)
d. Human Factors workshop (Janet Barlow Fred Hascom) - Ideas for 2016(?)
e. Video TheatreReport (Rachel Price)
f. Call for papers 2017 (?) (Gene Russell
g. Website (Abram VanElswyk)
h. Other ideas for 2017 sessions/activities (?)
8. Presentation: “RoundaboutsAre Not Always the Solution”; Colin Ridding, Mott MacDonald
3:15 -3:35
9. BREAK 3:35-3:45
Part II Monitor; Co-chair Brian Walsh 10. Research (3:45-4:30)
a. Research in progress:status of known projects;NCHRP projects 03-110,17-70,3-78b; Synthesis 46-02;
FHWA TOPR 34; Other ( Lee/Alex/Bastian/ Other)( 5 min each; 3:45-4:15)
11. Research Coordinator Report 4:15-4:30 (Phil Demosthenes)
b. Research Needs Statements (RNS) database status4:15-4:20(Phil )
c. Upcoming opportunity for synthesis proposals - early February4:20-4:25 (Phil )
d. Discussionof potential NCHRP proposals4:25-4:30( Phil )
e. Other
12. Other Subcommittee/Task Reports Not covered elsewhere (4:30–4:50)
a. Communications Coordinator & Website (Brian/Gene)
b. Roundabout Guide Update/Status (Lee Rodegerdts)
c. Younger Member activities (Robert Rescot)
d. Webinars - past and future (Gene Russell)
e. Business Committee (Brian Walsh/ Gene)
f. Liaison (Bastian)
g. New Developments; (Jeff Shaw) a.Auto.con.veh. (Joe Balskus) b. Freight (Mike Lynch); Auto Roundabout Inventory;
(Ken Sides); PR website (Mark Lenters)
h. International Activities ( Colin Ridding- covered in 13 below)
13. International Reports, Coordinated by Colin Ridding(4:50-5:10)
a. Germany: Werner Brilon
b. Australia: Andy O’Brien
c. UK: Colin Ridding
d. Japan:Kazunori Munehiro
e. Netherlands: Bertus Fortuijn
f. Canada: Keith Boddy
g. Spain; Marilo Martin Gasulla
h. Any other in audience
14. Agency Liaison Reports (5:10-5:25)
a. NCUTCD (Lee/Brian)
b. ITE (Daniel Spann)
c. AASHTO: SCOD (Jim Brewer); SCOTE (Brian)
d. FHWA (Jeff Shaw, Hillary and/or others)
e. NCHRP (Ray Derr or others)
f. ASCE/TD&I (Gene Russell)
g. TAC/Canada (Keith Boddy)
15. Committee Liaisons as Available (coordinated by BastianSchroeder) (5:25-5:40)
a. AFB10 Geometric Design (Marcus Brewer)
a. ANB25 Highway Safety Performance (Melissa Anderson)
b. AHB70 Access Management (Phil Demosthenes)
c. AHB50 Traffic Control Devices (Gene Hawkins/Gene Russell)
d. ATO55 Truck Size and Weight (Peter Lynch)
e. AHB55 Work Zone Traffic Control (Wade Odell/Bastian Schroeder)
f. AHB65 Operational Effects of Geometrics (Andrew Paul/Jeff Shaw)
g. AHB40 Highway Capacity (Lee Rodegerdts/Bastian Schroeder)
h. ANF10 Pedestrians (Alek Pochowski)
i. ANF20 Bicycle Committee (Alek Pochowski)
j. ABE60 Accessible Transportation and Mobility (Janet Barlow)
k. Intersection Joint Subcommittee (Jeff Shaw)
l. AHB60 Hwy-Rail Grade Crossings (Gene Russell)
m. ALO60 Eminent Domain and Land Use (Phil Demosthenes)
n. ALO70 Tort Liability and Risk Management (Gene Hawkins)
o. ANB10 Transportation Safety Management (?)
p. AND40 Visibility Committee (Wade Odell)
q. ANB23T Task Force on Highway Safety Workforce Development ( ?)
r. ANB20 Safety Data, Analysis and Evaluation, former parent committee (?)
s. AHB25 Traffic Signal Systems (?)
t. ANB30 Operator, Education and Regulation (?)
14. Old Business (5:40-5:45)
15. New Business (5:45-5:55)
a. Ideas and volunteers for added activities, new subcommittees
b. New Roundabout award(s) ?
16. Discussion/Announcement of Summer Meeting (5:55-6:00)
17. ADJOURN
