I am an Ultra-Conservative, Alpha-Male, True Authentic Leader, Type "C" Personality, who is very active in my community; whether it is donating time, clothes or money for Project Concern or going to Common Council meetings and voicing my opinions. As a blogger, I intend to provide a different viewpoint "The way I see it!" on various world, national and local issues with a few helpful tips & tidbits sprinkled in.
Director of Public Works
RE: Engineering Concerns Relative to the Construction of the Round-a-bout on
- Although the size of the round-a-about has increased to accommodate semis – it’s still a minimum size for traffic flow. It is my belief that
is constructing a round-a-bout philosophy that one size fits all. Like intersections, round-a-bouts have to be designed for their conditions. This one was designed to meet minimum DOT requirements so they don’t have to purchase additional right of way. Wisconsin
- This round-about is also “offset” from the center of the roadway. This requires more distance between conflict points to allow for the necessary driver perception reaction time. They have not factored that into the design.
- The round-a-bout is sandwiched between two signalized intersections. One to the east (
) and a proposed signal just east of the railroad crossing. Driver’s will tend to concentrate on the signal and will not be attentive to the round-about. I believe this will cause crashes in the round-about. In addition, the distance does not allow for the necessary driver perception/reaction time between the conflict points. Pennsylvania
- The round-about is within the influence area of the
signal. During peak periods when the signal is red in the east bound direction, the vehicles stopped at the intersection will back up into the round-about causing the round-about to fail. This could cause rear-end or right angle accidents depending how quickly one needs to react. Pennsylvania
These are a few of my concerns regarding the placement of the round-about at