CliffordK

One of my frequent left turns is now a mess with a new double sized roundabout that is in the works.

New Franklin Boulevard



I frequently hit the intersection initially heading west, then turning south. Or on the return trip, heading north and turning east. It is quite a mess now.

What is not shown in the map above is that the road crosses two, one-way bridges just to the east of the photo. The Eastbound bridge has a bike lane and narrow bikeable sidewalk. I'd almost suggest raising the bike lane/path to merge with the sidewalk to allow easier two-way bike and pedestrian traffic. The Westbound bridge is an old steel truss bridge that can support bikes on either side, but current access is problematic, and is too narrow for bike trailers, or safe passing of rare pedestrians at speed.

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.0446.../data=!3m1!1e3

Just further east of the bridge there are about 10 timed traffic lights that create strong pulses of the westward traffic flowing into the roundabout. The roundabout is at a T intersection with maybe 10% of the traffic heading north/south. The road shown on the map going down the center and under the bridge was rarely used.

The river curves westward just to the north of here, and there is a good bike path along the north side of the river. A dedicated bike bridge crosses the river about 2 miles west of here. I presume if a bike path was extended along the river, there would be increased circular bike traffic along the paths. As it is, I rarely take the through route through Glenwood as the bike path to the north is much nicer.

The second roundabout just seems odd, but I think has to do with local business access.

I'm a bit surprised about the statistics listed on the web page above.


I just find roundabouts terrifying.

One of the issues that I have is that to make my westbound to southbound turn, I'll either have to get off the bike and do about 3 street crosswalk crossings. Or, I'll have to peel off of the steel bridge in the left lane, and do 3/4 of the roundabout. The traffic pulses from the earlier lights makes the street crossing both easier and more difficult. It could make it even more complicated if the traffic gets backed up by the roundabout.

It also is not clear whether they have sidewalks or off-street bikepaths planned. Or, perhaps they forgot multi-use roads.

Oh, and avoiding this mess would add about 5 miles to completely bypass it, and about 2 or 3 miles to my ride (each way) if I crossed the north side and took the first through left hand turn.

I've already crashed into their construction fencing twice (snagged my trailer hub on irregular low fence bumpers). It is treacherous.

genec

I don't really see the need for the second roundabout... the one to the "west;" there are no crossing roads at that point. In fact it seems like it should be moved to intercept Brooklyn Street.

CliffordK

That is one of the things I was wondering.

Glenwood is kind of an odd mostly commercial/industrial community, although there is some low cost housing off the main drags, I think. It should have some nice river frontage property hidden away.

I believe there currently is a stop light at Brooklyn street, which I don't see on the new plan. I believe that is mainly access for a small gas station, but perhaps also some houses behind and a small grocery store.

I think having a light so close to a big roundabout would cause unnecessary interruptions in traffic flow, and thus the idea of the second roundabout. But, having the second roundabout where it is located still is very odd, and really only serves about 2 businesses, and not serving those well (Condemnation?). I wonder if there was a land swap with the tractor business and the nearby now closed rental business.

Actually, if I was putting in a second roundabout, it would be completely at the other end of town on Glenwood Blvd near the dump. Encourage drivers to make that half mile loop to cross the street as needed during peak traffic.

FBinNY 

I suspect that the smaller circle to the left is intended for U-turns for traffic coming from Eugene to reduce volume and crossing at the larger circle at the intersection. By the same token, if there's heavy volume some drivers from Springfield and wanting to turn onto McVay may opt to go to the far (left) circle then make a right onto McVay.

I wouldn't have problems with these since I ride on the streets and am very used to circles. However, I imagine that by smoothing flow through the junction and making it feel like a highway, speeds may be higher, and I feel sorry for bicyclists making lefts, and more sorry for pedestrians trying to cross on those painted crosswalks.

CliffordK

Roundabouts are supposed to be a "calming effect" on traffic. Whether that is true, I don't know. The existing lights seem to be about 90% straight through, and 10% turning. Especially the westbound lane that only stops for northbound traffic heading west which is minimal.

Thinking about it, the north/south traffic in the roundabout would naturally be heavily weighted to Springfield traffic (East side).
Eugene (west side) traffic headed south would tend to take other roads including I-5 or 30th Avenue.

As mentioned above, I could imagine Glenwood being mostly bracketed in 2 roundabouts at each end allowing a person to easily reverse directions, and generally do right hand turns to businesses in the commercial area. Whether that would be convenient, I don't know I've never seen cars stuck waiting to turn out of the center lane for an extended period of time.

As Franklin Blvd enters Eugene, it mostly has a grassy median strip down the middle. Perhaps that is their long-term plan, blocking left turn business access. And thus greater use of the roundabouts for traffic reversals. But to me, the increased stop & go through the double roundabout would seem to be more of a pain than a benefit.

CliffordK

I regret to admit that I actually had a minor rear-end bump at this intersection years ago. I was a young driver headed north, and making the turn into Springfield. Uncontrolled yield at that time. I was looking back at the merge, and felt I had room to go. The person in front of me felt there was inadequate room and stopped.

Since then the traffic lights were installed which seemed to me to be appropriate and safer, and the angled merge removed.

Now... the new plan seems to have the same shotgun merge we had 30 years ago for north to east traffic somewhere isolated from the roundabout (and off the map above). And there is no room for a decent merge lane with the bridge that is right there... unless the government decides to do a very expensive bridge replacement.

Oh, well, good that they're thinking about regressing back 30 years.

JonathanGennick 

My sympathies. Parsing that diagram gave me a headache. Simple roundabouts don't bother me. One lane. Four entrances. Go in a circle. I get it. Keep it simple, and I'm good. Your new double roundabout with the double lanes and the bus bypasses is the sort of complicated roundabout that I'm not terribly fond of encountering.

Cyclist0108

They need to put a railroad track through it like we have in Santa Crud, adjacent to a major tourist attraction. Neither the locals nor the touri can handle this.

CrankyOne

Properly designed roundabouts are much safer for people in cars than intersections and can be safer for people walking and riding bicycles on protected bikeways if designed properly. A major problem with this design is at-grade dual lane crossings which result in bypass hits (one car stops, cars in next lane do not). In Europe a dual lane system like this one or a single lane with high speeds (> 25 mph) or high volume would have underpasses for peds & bikes.

Here are a couple of articles and video’s on roundabouts and protected bikeways.

A view from the cycle path: The best roundabout design for cyclists. The safest Dutch design described and an explanation of why this is the most suitable for adoption elsewhere

https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2...dabout-abroad/

https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2...am-roundabout/

CliffordK

wgscott, fortunately there aren't any railroad tracks involved. There is a track just south of roundabout, but with an trestle. I thought the trestle was quite narrow at one time, but perhaps they widened it a bit sometime, or did something to improve access.

Yeah, I was thinking an underpass would be helpful. On the north side, a bike path could completely bypass the roundabout. Likewise, a bike path from the south headed east could bypass most of it.

There is a road that goes under the westbound bridge, but I don't think it goes under the eastbound bridge. But, it might be a natural place to put bike access across the east end of the roundabout.

So.... if one added a culvert bridge across the south side of the roundabout, the bikes could completely bypass the thing, at minimal expense. Although, I think part of the project was to also add a new waterline or sewer lateral to the area, so that might make adding a tunnel problematic. But, just getting safely south of the mess might be helpful. Although, at times I've gotten stuck waiting for safe crossing across that southern branch (1/2 block away).

Those half 2-lane, half 1-lane roundabouts don't worry me a lot, although it may depend a bit on how the straight through traffic flow respects the occasional people doing the loops. Of course, for the bike, it would depend on getting lined up in the right lane at the beginning.

Anyway, I'm still formulating my thoughts about this. I know it is late in the planing stage, but I'll try to send some comments into the local government working on the project shortly.

CliffordK

Ohhh... I found another one of their plans...

FIVE roundabouts in about a half mile.



Can we rename this to egg beater highway?

As I (we) had guessed, the center turn lane will pretty much be replaced by a median strip.

Most of the side-streets are pretty low traffic, with the exception of Glenwood Avenue on the west end and McVay HWY on the east end (I think that is a new name for formerly simply Franklin Blvd).

They seem to indicate the expectation of "protected" bike paths, but it just seems like a mess. There is already bicycle infrastructure on the North-East end past Glenwood Blvd.

CrankyOne

In the very first photo, what are the light grey bits that interrupt the bikeway? I hope not driveway entrances. That'd be nutty to have drives enter in roundabouts.

The CROW Design Manual For Bicycle Traffic is the gold standard for designing good bikeways. I suggest buying a copy (new one just came out so you might be able to find used copies of the prior one somewhat less expensively) and then using it to educate your local engineers and planners.

Keep in mind that the mantra for US traffic engineers has been 'whatever is necessary for the lowest delay (LOS) for motor traffic' which is what has resulted in the US having the most dangerous road system of all developed countries. Fortunately it's slowly changing but it's a tough slow change. The designs above are actually not bad for US engineers, though they would not be acceptable almost anywhere in Europe.

CliffordK

Hmmm... yes, probably driveways.

East side of big roundabout: Odd road that goes under bridge, but doesn't really lead anywhere. Perhaps defunct now. I sent a note suggesting that a bike path be put under both bridges to lead from north side to south side which would use part of that road.

North side of big roundabout: Now defunct equipment rental place. I believe the government took over that property, so any access road shouldn't really go anywhere. Perhaps some place for the city to park landscaping equipment???

North and south of small roundabout: I think these are local business access lanes.

South side between roundabouts: More business access?

I suppose the business access into a roundabout is a bit odd, but should be treated like any other stop/yield traffic. Hopefully other traffic is looking in the right direction.

I'm trying to think. Usually traffic flow along the road is light enough that there are quite a few "holes". But, the new loopy design may create more U-turn local traffic, and thus greater overall traffic on the roads and circles, and perhaps even out traffic flow to maintain a more steady traffic flow.

CrankyOne

If they are driveways then they should be treated like any other roundabout entrance/exit with proper deflection angles. Drivers in a roundabout are focusing on navigating the roundabout and don't have the mindshare to also look out for a vehicle entering at too slow of speed. Exiting is the most dangerous though and will result in rear-ends when a vehicle suddenly and unexpectedly slows to navigate an exit without proper deflection angles.

genec

It's almost as if they are trying to complicate things just to complicate them... all the possible uncontrolled driveway crossings are just a bad idea... yeah, they are low speed, but the are still conflict points non the less.

CliffordK

Ok, I got an e-mail back from the developers:


So, what were seen as "exits" in the second roundabout were actually intentional for a future street, which appears to go right through the middle of private property.

It is still a bit of a puzzle since the second roundabout isn't aligned with existing infrastructure.

I can imagine goals for rapid changes in the areas, but I wonder if lofty goals of gentrification in the neighborhood will progress very quickly.

There is a popular pizza restaurant that has been there for many years. And, I think the small tractor place is being cut up by the street plans. I wonder how long it will remain.

Part of the problem is that the area is isolated form Springfield by a river, and isolated from Eugene by a hill and freeway crossing. The community has good road access, but is more dominated by the road access. It has also attracted its own unique flavor of shops.

On the main drag:

Off the main drag:

Anyway, there seem to be a lot of businesses... but I'm not sure if they are the ones that would benefit from the gentrification project.

We'll see. It is rather close to a lot of vibrant areas including the college campus. I'm not sure many college students live in the area, but it would be a 5 to 10 minute bike ride to campus, with access already existing on the West end.

CliffordK

Oh, and a description of the safety of the roundabouts...



So, I would assume there is some risk of side-swipes and rear-end accidents, but apparently they essentially eliminate the T-Bone and Head-On accidents (unless there are wrong way drivers). I wonder if those risks are increased in European Magic Roundabouts... fortunately we don't have those here.

But, I don't think they are risk-free for cyclists. Nonetheless, traffic lights aren't risk free, especially if one has to cross 2 lanes of traffic to get into a left turn lane. As well as lights poorly timed for bicycles.

FBinNY 

Roundabouts are very trendy in road design these days. They're intended to reduce left cross collisions which tend to result in the most serious injuries.

Also, by bulging the road to the side, they make it necessary for drivers to slow as they go through.

BTW - I don't know about the west coast, but here in the east center turn lanes are very passe. They don't work as intended because drivers treat them as "chicken" lanes.

CliffordK

In Missouri, apparently it is illegal to turn from a side street into a center turn lane, but one can turn from the main street into the center lane to exit.

Here, one can use them to enter and exit. Perhaps it depends a bit on traffic flow, but I find they generally work well. Perhaps with the exception of rolling up on a left turn from too far away and getting a car that cuts in the middle from the opposite direction. But that is relatively rare, and one can always stop and sort it out.

There are a few places where the cities try to block off a left turn from a driveway which I find is more aggravating than helpful, although I realize there are times when it can be tough to do a left turn from driveways that are too close to an intersection.

Real islands can be nice for bicycle crossings, but there are places where I effectively use the left turn lane to hop across 2 lanes, then look back over my shoulder, then merge the rest of the way across. Unfortunately, I'm not as practiced at looking left as I am with looking right.

FBinNY 

I wasn't referring to that so much. The problem was that folks used them as passing lanes when traffic was heavy. Or two cars coming from opposite directions and making a left would pull into the lane early, then find themselves in each other's way before their respective left turns.

As I said, those center turn lanes were for chicken races, and eventually they started phasing them out in most places and replaced them with islands a d foolproof (fool resistant) turnouts that lined up with busy driveways, or as a left turn lane at the corner.

rydabent

Roundabouts work quite well if 2 two lane streets cross. But if there are multi lane streets crossing they become a nightmare. Our fine street engineers her in Lincoln tried that, and accidents went way up. They are now on their third redesign to try to make them work right.

B. Carfree

This design is typical of the Springtucky traffic planners/engineers. These are the folks who recently allowed ODOT to close a bike path that allowed for easy connection to east-bound Franklin from the river bike paths, relabeled a shoulder that is narrower than the state standards for bike lanes to a bike lane (really annoying in a mandatory-use state, especially on the main route to the waste transfer station where one would expect a few bike trailers), and put a bike lane to the right of a right-turn-only lane. They've got some serious windshield perspective over there, in spite of the fact that one of their staff actually rides a bike on occasion.