From odot_ae_consultant_info at listsmart.osl.state.or.us Wed Nov 12 09:22:58 2008 From: odot_ae_consultant_info at listsmart.osl.state.or.us (ODOT Info - A&E Consultants) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 09:22:58 -0800 Subject: Intersection Control Using Roundabouts Message-ID: <> > I want to share with all of you involved in project planning, scoping > and development some information about roundabouts and some related > efforts underway within the Department. If you have recently been > involved in requesting a new traffic signal on state highways you have > probably heard that I am asking everyone to give serious consideration > to intersection control alternatives beyond merely traffic signals. I > want to assure everyone, however, that we do not intend to hold up > projects that are on critical time lines or to create additional work > when traffic signals are the only realistic solution. > > In the past decade or more modern roundabouts have been showing up in > increasing numbers all over America. Our neighbor Washington has > about 120 roundabouts on the state highway system. They have even > replaced at least one traffic signal with a roundabout. At least one > of the Washington DOT regions has implemented a policy of not allowing > traffic signals on highways with speeds greater than 45 mph. Several > states (including Wisconsin, New York, Minnesota and others) have > adopted policies that require consideration of roundabouts before > considering traffic signals. Numerous rural high-speed roundabouts > are succeeding in states like Kansas and Virginia. In Oregon several > cities and counties have begun installing roundabouts and are > experiencing success and acceptance. > > And why are roundabouts growing in popularity and use? One of the > main reasons is safety. Roundabouts eliminate the most severe type of > angle crashes. When there are collisions at roundabouts they are at > lower speeds and significantly less severe than typical intersections, > signalized or not. The 32 conflict points at an intersection of two > two-lane roads are reduced to 8 in a roundabout. Studies have shown > (see NCHRP Report 572) that roundabouts reduce all crashes by over 35% > and, especially significant, reduce injuries by over 75% compared with > other types of intersection control. > > Other reasons for roundabouts include congestion management. They are > efficient in both peak and off-peak times and they typically have less > delay than signals. They operate just as effectively (and much safer > than signals) when power outages occur. Roundabouts reduce pollution > and fuel use because there are fewer stops and hard acceleration as > well as less idling time. They often complement other community > values, offering aesthetic advantages, serving as "gateways" (one of > the reasons Astoria wanted their roundabout), and offering quieter > operation than the acceleration and deceleration of signals. > > Roundabouts are not always the lower initial cost alternative, but are > usually the lower cost alternative when life cycle costs are > evaluated. The cost of a typical new traffic signal these days > exceeds $200,000. The cost of power and maintenance is between 5 and > 10 thousand dollars annually. The comprehensive cost of a single > fatality (National Safety Council, 2006) is 4 million dollars. When > a life-cycle cost evaluation is performed that considers the value of > improved safety as well as reduced maintenance costs, roundabouts in > the right situations will prove to be the most cost effective > solution. > > There are obviously places where roundabouts are not necessarily the > right solution. For example, in high traffic volume areas with > limited right-of-way, in areas with high pedestrian use and multi-lane > approaches, or at intersections on grades, roundabouts may not be the > best choice. There are also still concerns about whether multi-lane > approaches to roundabouts will be required by the U.S. Access Board to > have some form of signal control for pedestrian crossings. As a > result, we will need to proceed cautiously when considering multi-lane > roundabouts. But overall I believe that the benefits of roundabouts > are significant enough to give them strong consideration whenever we > are looking to improve safety and operations at intersections. > > We have recently organized a task force with members from the > disciplines of Traffic Operations, Traffic Safety, Roadway > Engineering, and Traffic Planning and Analysis. They will be looking > at existing policies, procedures, and guidance documents and making > recommendations for changes relative to what we now know about the > benefits and applications of roundabouts. I anticipate that there > will be changes in the Highway Design Manual, the Traffic Signal > Policy and Guidelines, and other documents that will provide a new > emphasis on considering roundabouts as well as other intersection > control alternatives in scoping project alternatives. Before > approving any future traffic signals on state highways I will ask > whether other alternatives have been evaluated. I hope that all of > you who are working with local agencies and scoping projects on state > highways will give strong consideration to roundabouts in place of > traffic signals. If you would like additional information on > Roundabouts please check out the following web site. > http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersections/roundabouts.htm > > If you have any questions about roundabouts or the roundabout task > force, give me a call. Thanks for your help. > > ---Ed > > Edward L. Fischer, P.E. > State Traffic Engineer > State Roadway Engineer > Oregon Department of Transportation > 355 Capitol St. NE, 5th Floor > Salem, OR 97301-3871 > 503-986-3606 > FAX: 503-986-4063 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: roundabout paper.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 91758 bytes Desc: roundabout paper.pdf URL: From odot_ae_consultant_info at listsmart.osl.state.or.us Thu Nov 13 09:03:19 2008 From: odot_ae_consultant_info at listsmart.osl.state.or.us (ODOT Info - A&E Consultants) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 09:03:19 -0800 Subject: ACEC/ODOT November Brown Bag - Access Management in Project Delivery Message-ID: Come join us for a presentation on Access Management in Project Delivery. This session will be focused on providing guidance for project managers and technical staff responsible for coordinating and completing access management activities/requirements during the project deliver process. The presentation will touch on several important rules, policies, and procedures the department has adopted that are referenced in a recently updated chapter of the Oregon Access Management Manual entitled Guidelines and Resources for Access Management in Project Delivery. Key topics discussed will include: Access management requirement in the project delivery process, Scheduling access management activities: Writing Access Management Strategies; Completing the Official Project Access List (OPAL); and Lessons from the Consultant's Perspective. ACEC/ODOT Brown Bag Lunch Presentation by Harold Lasley, Access Management Unit Manager, ODOT; Marty Jensvold, Region 1 Access Management Engineer, ODOT; and John Bosket, Senior Project Manager, DKS Associates. When: Thursday, November 20, 2008 12:00 Noon to 1:00 p.m. (or 1:30 p.m. allotted for questions) Where: ODOT Region 1, Conference Room A & B 123 NW Flanders Street, Portland, OR 97209 For more information contact Harold Lasley, Access Management Unit Manager, ODOT at harold.l.lasley at odot.state.or.us RSVP to: Tony Coleman, ODOT at anthony.t.coleman at odot.state.or.us -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: