Subject: Comparitive costs
As has been discussed on this list to the previously, we do not have a
really good data on economic comparisons of various intersection
traffic control devices, or even total agreement on what should be
considered in lifecycle cost analyses.
They website below gives a comprehensive review of the stop sign. Thing
of interest in the is the cost figure of $280 for two stop signs;
however, includes a series of motorists, operating costs per year with
a total of $210,061 per year per intersection. These are 1990 figures
split could be easily updated.
http://www.ci.troy.mi.us/trafficengineering/Multiway.htm
I believe we need an extensive, comprehensive research study comparing a
number of intersection traffic control devices at a number of common
scenarios.
Gene
Of Dona Sauerburger
"Real")
Howard, it is because roundabouts are so much safer than other intersections
that they should be made available not just to the strongest and most able
users, but also to our most vulnerable users -- children, people with visual
or cognitive disabilities, elderly, etc.
-- Dona
_________________________________________________
Dona Sauerburger, COMS
1606 Huntcliff Way, Gambrills, Maryland 21054
sauerburger@mindspring.com
301-858-0138
www.sauerburger.org/Dona
__________________________________________________
----- Original Message -----
Below are a few e-mails from the ITE listserve last week relating to this
same issue. For those that don't mind spending a few minutes reading it
might be worthwhile. Based on knowing that peds aren't likely to go 100'
out of their way to take a more dangerous crossing location why don't we
consider doing both - image attached...
so much for a nice, easy, no signalization at roundabouts discussion kind of
Friday... :-(
I would have to agree with Rick's viewpoint regarding the requirement of all
2 lane roundabouts to require signalization as being less than optimal for
all involved.
I would also have to agree with Jim that if there was an extremely high
probability of visually impaired pedestrians that some form of signalization
is warranted. I feel this way regardless of whether it is a single lane or
multi-lane roundabout.
The problem is that the proposal doesn't have any warrant besides being 2
lanes. At least 1 country that I know of, I'm pretty sure there may be a
few others as well, have warrants based on volume of peds and vehicles to
determine when signals are warranted at roundabouts. Hopefully the presence
of a visually impaired pedestrian generator trumps the volume warrants.
I have no problem with signalizing roundabout crossings if there is a need
or benefit. But, a requirement to signalize all 2 lane roundabout crossings
is not going to provide the best result. Rick brought up a valid concern
that 2 lane roundabouts will be less likely to make it through the design
approval process if they require the same additional cost to signalize the
crossings as the other likely considered intersection treatment (a signal)
costs overall.
Do people really think it will be easy to get a 2 lane roundabout approved
if we have 2 options:
1st - a signal costing $300K
2nd - a roundabout costing $800K - plus another $200 to $250K to signalize
it.
My fear is that this additional expense (signalization) will make quite a
few locations where 2 lane roundabouts could have provided substantial
safety benefits to so many users become cost prohibitive. I have heard
quite a few people respond with "well, if roundabouts are so much safer the
roundabout option will still be cheaper overall in a benefit-cost analysis."
I would agree with this in a perfect world - but especially with the
financial limitations today I think too many organizations will take the
"short-sighted" view of which one is cheaper today.
Now, regarding the hawk signal. If you go to the Tucson website
( http://www.dot.ci.tucson.az.us/traffic3/video/HAWK.wmv
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.