(06-25-2016 08:27 PM)indianasniff Wrote:  Here is a really good article that discusses roundabouts and explains the points well

http://www.mikeontraffic.com/why-build-roundabouts/

Yes, I notice those few comments at the end of the promotional (not scientific study) are the things you called "nonsense" earlier in the thread, "expert."


As I posted before, most of these articles as is this one are mostly promotional links. They promote the roundabouts without consideration of application/location and try to put people who would say "lets study this carefully," on the defensive by calling them "afraid of change." It's an extremely common tactic in the "literature."

I grew up and worked in areas with roundabouts. I have no fear, I quite enjoy the one connecting Cherry/Detroit.... a very difficult application with many "escape" routes in event of accident.

Roundabouts are great when properly applied. A disaster when not. Bancroft-Secor I don't believe is a good application, with or without the lane widening. Roundabouts are not in MY experience put into neighborhood locked areas. They are generally placed on blvds surrounded by businesses so that there are alternative routes when accidents do happen. Interchange accidents do not generally lock up the interchange. Roundabout accidents do. Neighborhood do not have convenient "escape routes." Blvds do.

Someone more concerned about proper application than $$$ would insist an independent with checks and balances study and traffic simulation including effects on accidents on traffic patterns.

So, back to honest argument.

Are you proposing ALL intersections be replaced by these panaceas or is application to be the driving decision maker? "Experts" consider the right tool for the right job. Promoting this without even attempting to counter practical arguments is blind foolery. Supporting that is loyalty, not thinking.

This unique location has to be accounted for with oversight, not promotional articles even more so when the decision is more likely being driven by money, not need. OH/Toledo has had decades to do this even when it was a more congested road and interchange. The need has only arisen because pork dollars showed up.

- It's a five way stop not a four-way.
- with already relatively SLOW ASSYMETRIC traffic.
- the location is at or below the minimum recommended size.
- there is much greater need in at least three locations around campus, none of which would put $$$ into OH, yet they chose this one?
- The population in the area and from that direction is shrinking, not growing, even more so if the 23-Dorr interchange happens..
- Campus population, particularly from the north is shrinking, not growing.
- it's neighborhood locked.
- two lanes is two lanes.
- there does not that I can find (or experienced in 20 years) seem to be a problem of accidents, let alone fatalities in need of fixing nor a study that shows this would indeed be a fix.

To the positive, it might be someone's clever way to get past the deer cull ban. They can herd them to Secor to get slaughtered by the higher speeds people will be driving because of the wider lanes.

Be an "expert" show that a UofToledo degree has value. Counter the arguments.

It's a money grab

WARNING. MAJOR ROAD GEEK STUFF BELOW. FEEL FREEE TO SKIP IF YA WANT

I have provided information for the board to digest. I could dig up 300 page studies on the topic but I figure most would not want that level of detail

Let me break it down as simple as possible. The most dangerous type of crash for injury and loss of life is the right angle crash where a car disregards the traffic control and hits the side of a car. A properly designed roundabout (not a rotary) brings everyone at the intersection at smaller angle that reduce injury and loss of life type accidents which is the primary charge of a planning agency in a metro area. That is the safety element

From a traffic control standpoint, while some queueing, or backup occurs at a roundabout the delay for each vehicle on average is less because gaps allow for vehicles from all directions enter the roundabout

Compare this to a signal. The simple way to explain a signal is to use a pie that you are going to share with your family. The whole pie is a traffic signal cycle. Portions of the pie are allocated to each phase based on number of vehicles in movement. Controllers for signals have 8 phases usually. One each for each direction and one phase for each left turn phase. (NB SB WB EB NBL SBL WBL EBL). Pairs usually operate together. The problem with Bancroft and Secor has Indian road which adds another phase. So if you want to make a particular movement, SBL for example, you need to wait your turn in the cycle. In a traditional cycle in Toledo (90 seconds is often used, sometimes more or less) this would leave the SBL between a minimum of 8 to maybe as much as 15 seconds. So if you show up to the intersection in between or if demand is more than the cycle can handle you are left to wait until the next cycle. This is where delay adds up quick in a signalized intersection. The Indian movement has a long wait because it cannot function with another phase. It also has a small volume so the overall impact is small. The other signal problem is time allocated for phases that is not used because of an opposing movement needing time

In the case of a roundabout when you approach the intersection you wait your turn to enter and finish your movement. While you may wait to enter the size of the roundabout allows for more gaps. And about that unbalanced traffic problem. Say SB through and left has a lot of demand, vehicles on the other phases can still enter and make their movement. Similar to a construction zone (Toledo can relate to that right now) where often times at a lane closure lanes take turns. Same thing. Because all movements have the ability to enter the roundabout the overall delay tends to be less. This is absolutely not a one size fits all solution but can be valuable tool in the shed

Now to touch on the money grab argument. MPO are required to allocate transportation dollars to high accident locations. This location is on that list. So an improvement needs to be considered here. To get the signal to operate at a better level of service an EB right turn and an additional SB left turn lane would be necessary. Left turn lanes need to have enough length to extend beyond the length of queue of the thru movement so that traffic can reach the left or right turn lane. This can be hundreds of feet in some cases. The result is that the roundabout often requires less overall right of way acquisition compared to a signal solution that obtains the same amount of delay. It is possible ( no facts since I did not do this analysis for the grant) that the roundabout results in less overall right of way acquisition and there for saving money. That is why these are chosen in many cases. Less cost

There is no pork in transposition projects anymore. If these federal dollars are not used here they will be used elsewhere in Toledo. And since Toledo does not use capital improvement money for capital improvements only (see Maggie blog post above) they use their local dollars with Federal matches for greater impact. And since there have been no new dedicated fed sources in decades there is very little waste anymore. Believe it or not. This might be the low cost solution to improve the road to minimum standards

Way too much info here for a Rocket Sports Board but....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(06-26-2016 01:30 PM)indianasniff Wrote:  WARNING. MAJOR ROAD GEEK STUFF BELOW. FEEL FREEE TO SKIP IF YA WANT

Better, but still not point by point and you still do not seem to want to consider relevance to this particular setting and application. You are not even acknowledging the concerns raised in your own link, let alone when I raised them you called them "nonsense."

I don't know about your courses but even in my FRESHMAN courses, we were told the value of devil's advocate. The educational, even the professional process can restrict thinking as architects go through check-lists that have worked before instead of thinking from scratch and challenging decisions. Checklist process and inhibiting challenge with diminutives as you attempted would be considered unprofessional, where I come from.


This is particularly important when designing civil projects that are often driven by politics and $$$ rather than need. If there were no promise of outside money, this project would not even be on the planning table as it hasn't since it was made four lanes. I'd like to see that designation of "high accident" for this route. I've never seen one in 20 years. Where are the right angle crash reports at this intersection? The side-swipes on the Secor section? We can compare them to the crashes that will occur if they attempt to implement a roundabout in that location.


Roundabout

You talk "merges" but this is two lanes in. They do not "merge," they "cross." I think you're presenting your argument off incomplete premise. During off-peak yeah, there will be on-average a 20% time savings, regardless it is well designed. Woo-hoo. During peak? uh-oh.

As your own link suggested, roundabouts are not a solution to commuter traffic. The only time this intersection bogs is during the commute and when events occur. MY bet, it WILL back-up that traffic and there WILL be more accidents due to the "crossing" (not merging) in a space that is barely minimal for a 4-way single lane interchange. This is a 5-way with four of the entrances two lanes. Again as your own link suggested. These are not commercial blvds, they are as you've acknowledge, too narrow residential lanes. Widening the lanes does not widen the roundabout. Only demolishing the structures at the four corners can do that.

If they try to feed two lanes into the roundabout, they need a two lane roundabout. They don't have the room for that crossing maneuver to be safely performed, probably not even at non-peak.

There will need be a cop (or a light) there, everyday during peak to keep the peace, to restrict who gets to enter the roundabout and who doesn't.

Betcha! I've been there and seen it before.

Paying this kind of public money for a minimal 20% time savings during non-commuter hours does not strike me as responsible. And then there's the highly likely complication added if the lanes are widened.

Lane Widening



Warning bells should be going off.

If you had the course I had, you may recall a traditional example given, a major new thoroughfare put in to relieve congestion on a by-pass (Columbus? Atlanta?) had exactly the opposite effect because they failed to consider human behavior patterns.


If they widen Secor, fairly predictable that people will speed up, more speeders through a residential (NOT COMMERCIAL)..... Also to be considered, because of the change, will more people then choose that path to destination, increasing noise and congestion instead of decreasing?

Questions and challenges should never be called "nonsense."


"There is no pork in transposition projects anymore. If these federal dollars are not used here [b]they will be used elsewhere in Toledo."[/b]

The money comes from OH's involvement, not "Toledo's." This according to OP.

Regardless, you've just stated, the money gets used whether needed or not. The very definition of "pork," but I'm fine with it, as long as it's used to fit a need. This is not a need. That OH must be part of it (OP's statement), means it is money grab, money we would not get if OH was not involved. Your statement is not adding up.

Here's one implementation of a five point.

Nearly 100 (minor) accident at five point roundabout

Valpo has a five point roundabout. Accidents increased. Minor as have accidents at Secor - Bancroft generally been minor. But still, 100 in a single calendar year. Accidents occurring at a rotary, shut it down as opposed to those at an interchange in which cars can move to the side. This rotary will have no "side." So, shut down at least on average a bit less than 1/3 of the days a year for at least part of a day, most likely the commuting hours.

Note the land area dedicated to the Valpo roundabout, considerably more than is available at Secor-Bancroft. Also note the driver sight-lines at the Valpo exchange. There are no buildings in the way and all are blvds. No plantings, no buildings, clear view of the merge lanes. More merge space, more crossing space better sight-lines and yet 100 tie ups in one year.

Secor-Bancroft would be a stand still at peak hours for something not even needed. If they build it, they will "fix" the problem by putting in "your turn" lights to indicate which lanes get to enter the roundabout and which are to wait, or they will post an officer during peak and event times, all for a problem that doesn't need fixing. I would expect accidents to decrease from the initial year as neighborhood users get used to it, but little change in peak behavior. The main point, there's no problem needing to be "fixed" here. Tie-ups are rarely of the more than two light wait and then only at peak times. Accidents? I'll wait for the report but personal experience has been that it's not an issue. You can get some beat the lighters north bound into the intersection as they go from blvd into residential but there are bunches of less expensive and less disruptive ways to deal.

Sounds like you should be voicing your concerns on the project to the email address in the article

I don't live there anymore

Sent from my KFTHWI using Tapatalk

Wow. No way I'm putting that much thought/research into any street configuration unless I'm getting paid for it. Get a hobby or something.

(06-27-2016 03:14 AM)gameman07 Wrote:  Wow. No way I'm putting that much thought/research into any street configuration unless I'm getting paid for it. Get a hobby or something.

All I know is construction just started at douglass and central, central and secor, airport and holland sylv, reynolds from airport past heatherdowns, Route 2 a mile west of Mccord, mccord is closed north of Airport, and the highway isn't finished... That is literally the only 20 square miles I travel and it's a nightmare... Most of it started very recently... Finish one project, then move on!

(06-26-2016 01:30 PM)indianasniff Wrote:  WARNING. MAJOR ROAD GEEK STUFF BELOW. FEEL FREEE TO SKIP IF YA WANT

Interesting info. Trying to imagine Secor and Bancroft upgraded to a traditional style intersection with a light and more lanes. Yuck. I don't believe there is that much traffic that generally comes from the west. Seems like a roundabout should work fine and some nice things could be done aesthetically with a roundabout.

(06-27-2016 10:15 AM)Toledo Football 1st Wrote:  Interesting info. Trying to imagine Secor and Bancroft upgraded to a traditional style intersection with a light and more lanes. Yuck. I don't believe there is that much traffic that generally comes from the west. Seems like a roundabout should work fine and some nice things could be done aesthetically with a roundabout.

Sure, it will work fine if you don't want to believe anything in that article I posted.

Secor and Bancroft already is a traditional style and they're not looking to increase the number of lanes (I think). They're widening. Not sure what you're saying with that? Correct, there's generally very little traffic from the West, which is why a roundabout isn't needed but they would still need to account for entrance and exit in those lanes.

The problem here, regardless someone prefers one type intersection or another, whether someone believes a change is needed or not, is space.

Aesthetically pleasing they can be, when maintained. Intersections don't tend to need the grass mowed. Smaller single lane r-bouts are "cute," put a little bandstand in the middle but they're not meant to handle the traffic this intersection gets.

If Bancroft and Secor remain two lanes and they engineer the right lane turn only and the left lane a merge onto a SINGLE lane roundabout, then they might have room enough in the intersection but I don't think it would be able to handle the peak traffic volume. Bancroft and Secor would back-up quite a bit, more than it does now. ROundabouts gain 20% but the move to single lane would lose 50% because there really isn't a lot of it making right turns except afternoon commute Bancroft to Secor.

Remembering that they are saying the Secor lanes are undersized, hence the intersection undersized, for them to insert a two-lane five way roundabout into that little space I believe they're either going to have to flaunt the minimums and put in entrance signals or knock down some buildings.

Not to belabor the over-labored, but looking at it again, Secor goes to three lanes at the interchange, there's more room than I thought. If they could get the NE property, they could probably fit a roundabout a bit above minimum, at least the size of the ones on Cherry. Still question the need of it.

(06-27-2016 04:34 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  Not to belabor the over-labored, but looking at it again, Secor goes to three lanes at the interchange, there's more room than I thought. If they could get the NE property, they could probably fit a roundabout a bit above minimum, at least the size of the ones on Cherry. Still question the need of it.

If nothing else u occupied a feed in the off season for awhile

Ask TMACOG for the grant application if u want more data on the whys


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reached out to City.

Project info posted on website that answers a lot of the questions here.

http://toledo.oh.gov/services/public-uti...to-hughes/

Comments to stephanie.bartlett@toledo.oh.gov

(06-30-2016 03:13 PM)indianasniff Wrote:  Reached out to City.

Project info posted on website that answers a lot of the questions here.

http://toledo.oh.gov/services/public-uti...to-hughes/

Comments to stephanie.bartlett@toledo.oh.gov

Looks great. Hope they implement it. Round about are 100x better than traffic lights and 4 way stops. People just need to know how to navigate them and not needlessly stop. When I went out to Boston for the UT-UMass game last year, driving through Boston they have a ton of roundabouts, and they are like 2-3 times as big as the ones in Toledo. No lane markings, like 4 lanes wide. A big free-for-all. THOSE are fun! And easy to navigate since they are bigger.

Wow this thing has over a 1000 views. Who would have thought roundabouts could be so entertaining? I still remember my first, ... upstate NY, the evening was cool, there was Italian in the air.... Eh, actually the air was frozen and I had to go around the thing three times before I figured how to make my exit.

I happened to drive through the intersection today, eastbound on Bancroft. Had to stop at the light and couldn't help thinking, "I wish the roundabout was already here."

You and the one other car that comes in that direction could have had a short conversation, wasted opportunity. You should have come eastbound on Dorr or Central and you would have had more time to think.

http://www.toledoblade.com/Featured-Edit...ption.html

Since a lot of folks on here discussed this, thought I would share. A public hearing set for 6 p.m. on Jan. 31 at Old Orchard Elementary School on Cheltenham Road, city and village officials will hear concerns to help them decide by fall how to move forward.

https://ottawahills.org/news/4954

The documents were prepared by DGL Consulting Engineers in conjunction with the Secor Road Safety Study and were presented at the Ottawa Hills Special Council Meeting on 12/15/16.

(01-18-2017 12:36 PM)indianasniff Wrote:  https://ottawahills.org/news/4954

The documents were prepared by DGL Consulting Engineers in conjunction with the Secor Road Safety Study and were presented at the Ottawa Hills Special Council Meeting on 12/15/16.

Too funny! The walking north on Secor video looks exactly the same for the past 50 years. And of course they aren't using the sidewalk on the Toledo side.

Do any of the Westgate area hotels run shuttles to and from UT for the FB games? Also for some of the larger crowds(around 30,000) have they ever done parking at Westgate/Franklin Park and provided trolley/shuttle service?