Gene,
The best way to avoid some of the pitfalls is to use peer review for all roundabout projects otherwise we get substandard designs.
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: Roundabout Research [mailto:ROUNDABOUTS@LISTSERV.KSU.EDU] On Behalf Of Gene Russell Sr
Sent: February 14, 2013 4:38 PM
To: ROUNDABOUTS@LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Subject: Re: Roundabout Being Removed in NJ
Another good example that we need a large national study - A Roundabout Safety Audit study - to seek out deficencies in less-than -well designed roundabouts. When one thinks about it, it is not hard to believe that when we had relatively few roundabouts maost, if not all, were designed by our "Pioneers" who were expert and experienced in roundabout design, or, if not, the project owner had one of the experts look it over. At one time, Kansas DOT had a contract with an experienced firm to do so. Now, I believe more and more are being designed by more local traffic engineering firms firms wether or not they have expertise or experience in roundabout design experience.
For some reason a story or two come to mind. (I think this is more prevalent as we get older) I will use two stories to stress my point at the end.
Years ago, when I used to fly places (as those who know me know now I drive everywhere if I can) we had a small airline here with generally small old planes and beginning or not too experienced pilots, most starting out their careers.
Believe it or not, just to give you qn idea of what the airline was like, one time, as the only passenger and in the co-pilot seat I had to hold the door shut from K.C. to Manhattan. I was told, "don't worry the safety catch works but if you don't like the noise of breeze you will have to hold in shut". Another time, I think into a strong headwind, we were following the path of I-70 and it was clear the vehicle on the highway were going quite faster the we were.
Now to two stories to illustrate my point in the first paragraph. One time I was in their "big" nine seater plane and the pilot was getting a lot of instruction from the co-pilot, clearly getting some training from a more experienced pilot or pilot/instructor. So we went down the runway with the pilot holding some manual or check sheet in one hane. Not too comforting to me. Story two; On their last flight out of K.C. late one night, there was two or three times as many waiting as usual for the last plane. Wewere told to not worry, they would get another plane in from somewhere. The did get their nine seaters and I happened to be in the co-pilot seat. I noticed the pilot was a guy who I had only seen on the desk and never piloting, but they needed some one to pilot this extra plane- but no co-pilot. We get down the end of the runway, and I swear (i remember it like it was last week) this pilot wipes his brow and clearly mutters to himself , "Let's see, what the hell do i do!
know". I suspect he was licenced but not experienced with that plane. Not very comforting to a nervous passenger- which i was in thise days.
Point (finally) I suspect we are getting more roundabouts designed by designers with some instructional guide in one hand (rather than experienced, or some intersection designer in a small firm, given his first roundabout project and wondering, "Let's se, what do I do now ?".
I hope this all generates some discussion.
Gene
Subject: Peer review and quality roundabout design
Dan - you have got it right about peer review, peer review has worked well =
for us in Georgia over the past 3 years.
The cost is relatively small compared to the cost of a poor performing roun=
dabout. Not all design engineers will appreciate the comments, but they ar=
e better made early and always better made before the roundabout is on the =
ground in the form of asphalt and concrete.
Peer review occurs twice during our design process. First during concept d=
evelopment, to verify that a roundabout is the best solution (or not) and t=
o establish a layout. Second prior to right-of-way acquisition, to ensure =
that plans are constructible and reflect "best practices" of design for the=
context and constraints of the intersection - Sections 8.2.3 and 8.3.1 of =
the GDOT Design Policy Manual<http://www.dot.ga.gov/doingbusiness/PoliciesM=
anuals/roads/OtherResources/GDOT_Roundabout_Checklist_Concept.pdf>.
Our consultant peer reviewers also provide "incremental peer review" which =
occurs as more finely spaced events through the design process. This helps =
to more rapidly increase design skills, improves design efficiency, and hel=
ps ensure that project schedules are met. Also, our internal GDOT Roundabo=
ut Team provides informal reviews upon request, and frequently meets with l=
ocal governments and engineers to help ensure the best decisions are made e=
arly in during the design process.
All put together, peer review is one of the vital elements of our roundabou=
t program.
Daniel G. Pass, P.E.
________________________________
Independent analysis consistently ranks Georgia's transportation system in =
the best condition of any State in the U.S., despite the fact that only one=
state spends less per capita on transportation infrastructure.
Visit us at http://www.dot.ga.gov; or follow us on http://www.facebook.com/=
GeorgiaDOT and http://twitter.com/gadeptoftrans
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 15:32:49 +0000
From: "Solomon, Dan (MTO)" <Dan.Solomon@ONTARIO.CA>
Subject: Re: Peer review and quality roundabout design
Daniel,
Our peer review is at 30% & 60% milestones. We still have issues with finalization of the design (conflicts between the reviewer & the main consultant), however, since MTO has just started to implement roundabouts we have a long way to go and use peer review for some time in the future. Also another issue is public education on roundabouts, this is a MUST due to the novelty of roundabouts in Ontario.
Dan
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 15:27:18 +0000
From: Ken Sides <Ken.Sides@MYCLEARWATER.COM>
Subject: Peer review and quality roundabout design
Another option for a firm or agency's first few roundabouts, or if they are rare, is to engage an experienced, expert roundabout design subconsultant to create the geometrics and review the plans at 30%, 60%, 90% and 100% milestones, plus site visits before design and after opening day.
I have found this approach to be an excellent and very cost-effective way to ensure I have all the advantage of deep roundabout expertise plus the advantage of a local prime to design all the rest of the roundabout project, produce the plans and construction docs, and provide continuing consulting services during construction.
So, why should a newbie roundabout designer struggle and make mistakes when s/he could instead be learning good roundabout design from a Master?
-Ken
Ken Sides, PE
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 12:28:10 -1000
From: Elizabeth Weatherford <elizweatherford@GMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: Peer review and quality roundabout design
Aloha all.
Is there a requirement/ provision for a thing called "Value Engineering" as
a condition of federal funding entitlement (at 80/20?)? Could that process
include Expert Review?
Mahalo if anyone has some information.
Elizabeth
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 18:16:57 -0700
From: Phil Demosthenes <pdemos@ECENTRAL.COM>
Subject: Re: Roundabout peer review and risk management
I consider peer review to be a form of risk management for
both agencies and firms. With limited experience in the US
and a limited pool of experienced designers and the
complexity of multi-lane design, the risk of design errors
is much higher. Since these are significant investments and
construction is a significant activity impacting safety,
adding construction congestion, putting workers are some
risk, the initial installation should be a success. If it
is not a success, the difficulties to achieve corrections
such as suing the engineering or construction firm for poor
performance are significant, politically undesirable and
time consuming. Public agencies should avoid high-risk
projects and investments of any type. Seeking peer review
lowers risk. It's cheaper than purchasing insurance. I also
recommend that any engineering firm get a peer review of
their work to lower their corporate risks.
Or in terms of Gene's story below, don't expect a green
designer with a reference book in one hand and the other
holding the door closed during take-off to produce a good
design. And hoping they don't crash and burn is simply
irrational and unnecessary risk taking.
Phil - 303-349-9497
phil@pdemos.com
To: ROUNDABOUTS@LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Subject: Re: Roundabout Being Removed in NJ
I haven't been able to convince my superiors of the value in
this. Their attitude seems to be if we did a proper job osf
consultant selection in the first place, this wouldn't be
necessary. WSDOT does have such a service that is free for
local agencies here, and we did avail ourselves of that on
our first design, even though at the time they had no
experience with multi-lane roundabouts either.
Rick Perez, P.E.
City Traffic Engineer
City of Federal Way
From: Elizabeth Weatherford <elizweatherford@GMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: Roundabout peer review and risk management
I am wishing right now that experienced designer review would be a
condition of getting $ when a project is eligible for high fed funding
levels, eg 80/20% or 100%, as a Safety project would be. If it were written
into HSIPs, eg, as a condition of entitlement, then the safety would be
more assured....
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 20:34:43 -0800
From: Rock <Rmiller49@SOCAL.RR.COM>
Subject: Re: Peer review and quality roundabout design
VE is a required step in many federally funded projects. VE reviewers have to be widely knowledgeable, but there is no guarantee that they would know details about roundabout design. A VE reviewer might suggest a roundabout instead of a signal, but probably would not catch a design problem in a RAB design. Their function is to insure life cycle costs are considered and to propose alternatives that might reduce costs from unneeded features.
Rock Miller
Orange CA
From: "Pass, Daniel" <dpass@DOT.GA.GOV>
Subject: Re: Roundabout peer review and risk management
To fulfill our federal-aid oversight requirements (and for the sake of professional integrity) GDOT has made the decision that a roundabout project WILL NOT move beyond concept development without a peer review, and a pubic meeting. As professionals we do not practice engineering outside our area of expertise, this goes for review as well. In most cases, local consultants do not have the level of expertise needed to ensure a good roundabout design, nor do we at GDOT. I realize that this kind of "sell' would not be understand or accepted by many outside the professional community.
A better message, as Phil rightly emphasizes is that peer review dramatically reduces risk - at a cost of only 1 to 2% of the total project cost. The risk without peer review is fairly certain, particularly in a state where there is little roundabout experience. I would estimate that without peer review of 115 roundabouts under design here in Georgia, 10 would fail, 20 would perform poorly, 50 would perform adequately, and 20 would perform exceptionally well. Even if we could assure that 75 would operate exceptionally well (a "pipe dream"), 25 poorly designed roundabout would wreck our program. Our senior management understands this; and that the total cost of all this peer review would less than the cost of one fatality.
It takes a great deal of education to win this battle. In Georgia's case, roundabout design classes were held by GDOT for six years before our program began to rapidly expand. There are no short cuts, the best ways include a great deal of education for internal staff, focused meetings with senior management, presentations to local professional societies, and a great many project meetings with design consultants, local governments, and project managers.
These are thought from Georgia.
Dan Pass
Georgia DOT
From: Elizabeth Weatherford <elizweatherford@GMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: Peer review and quality roundabout design
How will I know if VE is required in the project in my community? And how
will I know if it's properly done?
Lifecycle costs is surely DA BOMB to have if the consideration is between a
signal and a roundabout design. But in our community, the issue is between
a good rbt design and a poor one.
I know of no leverage we have, in an 80/20 project, to secure a good design.
Elizabeth
From: Phil Demosthenes <pdemos@ECENTRAL.COM>
Subject: Re: Roundabout peer review and risk management
Sounds like a great and well organized program proceeding with a minimum of risk. Or at least minimizing risk to the best of GDOT resources. The other aspect of standardizing peer review is the agency is not picking on certain consultants with less experience. All projects, all firms, must conform to a peer review process. It’s a level playing field. The incentive is not having your design torn apart in the review process, but better than having your company name associated with a poorly performing roundabout and making excuses for why is doesn't work.
Phil - 303-349-9497
phil@pdemos.com
From: Russ Wenham <rwenham@OMNIMEANS.COM>
Subject: Re: Roundabout peer review and risk management
Dan (GDOT),
You are right on with your approach and analysis.
In the 10+ years our firm has been doing roundabout modeling, planning and design, we placed a high value on PEER reviews (thank you MTJ Engineering!).
No entity (consultant, municipality, DOT, etc.) should be allowed to 'solo' on a roundabout project until they have significant demonstrated experience.
Russ Wenham, PE
Omni-Means
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 22:59:10 +1100
From: Andrew O'Brien <andrew@OBRIENTRAFFIC.COM>
Subject: Re: Peer review and quality roundabout design
--089e01493c983ce55704d5ea56a1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
My experience with VE has generally been that safety is the first thing to be compromised. If I recall, it was the reduced sfety outcome from VE that held up the 407 project in Toronto and brought about the introduction of road safety audit to Ontario.
I have found that road safety audit is a far better tool to getting good roundabout design (and consequently safety) outcomes than any other process
- including peer review.
*Andrew O=92Brien
**Chairman** & Director **
*[image: Andrew O=92Brien =96 Managing Director, O'Brien Traffic, Suite 2, =
22
Gillman Street, Hawthorn East VIC 3123, ph: +613 9811 3111, mobile: +61 419
334 404 (Aust), +64 21 059 1889 (NZ)]
-----Original Message-----
From: Roundabout Research [mailto:ROUNDABOUTS@LISTSERV.KSU.EDU] On Behalf Of Rock
Sent: Sunday, 17 February 2013 12:55 PM
To: ROUNDABOUTS@LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Subject: Re: Peer review and quality roundabout design
VE required if over $25 million (20 million for a bridge) or when required by USDOT. encouraged for other projects. The term roundabout does not appear in the FHWA policy document I found.
Rock Miller
Orange CA
From: "Solomon, Dan (MTO)" <Dan.Solomon@ONTARIO.CA>
Subject: Re: Roundabout Being Removed in NJ
Gene,
All our project on roundabouts in Ontario have a clause asking for peer review. This should be the norm not the exception.
Dan
Subject: Re: Roundabout peer review and risk management
Elizabeth,
I am in Canada and I am not familiar with the US federal policies. I just want to stress that from my experience, any agency should educate their staff first on roundabout design and also educate the public, without these two items fully engaged the implementation of roundabouts would be greatly reduced and impeded.
Sorry I cannot help you on that. I am sure that the US colleagues would have an answer for you.
VE is not the right process to review or check a roundabout design, only peer review by an experienced firm can do that.
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: Roundabout Research [mailto:ROUNDABOUTS@LISTSERV.KSU.EDU] On Behalf Of Elizabeth Weatherford
Sent: February 16, 2013 1:11 AM
To: ROUNDABOUTS@LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Subject: Re: Roundabout peer review and risk management
Thank you very much Dan.
Would you be able to elaborate on the "federal-aid oversight requirements"
you mention?
Or if you have a link....
Much obliged.
Elizabeth
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 20:07:52 +0000
From: Ken Sides <Ken.Sides@MYCLEARWATER.COM>
Subject: Roundabout Being Removed in NJ
I'm kind of with Rick's bosses, here (see his e-mail below). The point of peer review would be to prevent inexperienced engineers from creating poor designs that become bad roundabouts, which I'm all for. We all worry that with the explosion in new roundabouts there will be an influx of engineers with no experience, working in isolation, trying their hand at what might seem pretty easy on the face of it.
But you can achieve the same good effect, and highly cost-effectively so, by hiring an experienced roundabout designer to create the roundabout geometrics, signing & marking, etc, in the first place. The other 95% of the design effort can be performed in-house or by your regular consultants.
Why allow an inexperienced designer to create and become invested in her/his design, which then has to be forced to change against institutional inertia, when you can pay just once to have an excellent design in the first place? The inexperienced designer can enjoy a great learning experience in the process, instead of a painful process of being told how wrong she/he is.
And what if none on your agency's list of consultants is well experienced in roundabout design? No problem, just inform a suitable one of them that if they want the project, they will be hiring your choice of specialty sub to do the geometric and other specialty parts of the design and review their plans at 30,60,90 and 100% milestones. I've used this very cost-effective approach repeatedly. They hire survey and Geotech subs all the time; they're happy to hire s geometrics specialty sub, too, if that's what their client wants.
Peer review can only work if you are in a position to choose a qualified peer reviewer, or if you get lucky in this regard. Otherwise, you might get stuck with Rick's experience (see his e-mail below) of the peer reviewers not knowing anything about roundabouts, either. Is that who you want peering over your shoulder?
Also, relying on peer review is reactive engineering: fixing something after the fact. So much better to create good from the get-go: that's pro-active engineering.
-Ken
Ken Sides, PE
-----Original Message-----
From: Roundabout Research [mailto:ROUNDABOUTS@LISTSERV.KSU.EDU] On Behalf Of Rick Perez
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 6:17 PM
To: ROUNDABOUTS@LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Subject: Re: Roundabout Being Removed in NJ
I haven't been able to convince my superiors of the value in this. Their attitude seems to be if we did a proper job osf consultant selection in the first place, this wouldn't be necessary. WSDOT does have such a service that is free for local agencies here, and we did avail ourselves of that on our first design, even though at the time they had no experience with multi-lane roundabouts either.
Rick Perez, P.E.
City Traffic Engineer
City of Federal Way
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 13:58:21 -1000
From: Elizabeth Weatherford <elizweatherford@GMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: Roundabout peer review and risk management
Thank you Dan.
In our situation, indeed, 'the implementation of roundabouts [IS] greatly
reduced and impeded.' We do want Expert Review, and are looking for the
pathway there, so far without success.
Elizabeth
From: "Enders, Matthew" <EndersM@WSDOT.WA.GOV>
Subject: Re: Roundabout peer review and risk management
I guess I can only say that my opinion runs on a slightly different track than most of the recent comments I have seen on the listserv on this topic. As someone who helps to manage our state's HSIP program for local agencies (70% of our state's HSIP funds), I am pretty excited when I have a local agency propose a roundabout at all. Even with as many roundabouts as we already have in this state, it tends to be a rare thing. So I am quite happy when they are proposed, and even more happy when we are able to fund those projects.
Honestly, I'm not really all that concerned about whether the roundabout is getting peer-reviewed or not. That's not to say that a peer review couldn't improve the final product (what design of any type couldn't be improved with some peer review?). Rather, I am much more concerned with getting this proven & very forgiving safety device out there on the ground in the first place. I expect to get the majority of the crash reductions at that location (the ones I'm most concerned about - fatalities and serious injuries) even with a very mediocre design. That's because you can't "run" the roundabout, the way you can "run" a signal or a stop sign by simply ignoring the traffic control. So I get my safety benefits with that big circle in the middle of the road whether it's done perfectly or not.
Considering how few agencies propose roundabouts for HSIP funding, adding restrictions to that process is not something I am interested in doing. (I was quite happy that in our recently-announced safety program for 2013, we are funding 2 new roundabouts.)
Getting roundabouts peer reviewed: Good
Getting the best roundabout design built: Great Getting the roundabout selected & on the ground in the first place: Priceless
Matthew Enders, P.E.
Washington State DOT
(360) 705-6907
Matthew.Enders@wsdot.wa.gov
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:44 PM
To: ROUNDABOUTS@LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Subject: Re: Roundabout peer review and risk management
I am wishing right now that experienced designer review would be a condition of getting $ when a project is eligible for high fed funding levels, eg 80/20% or 100%, as a Safety project would be. If it were written into HSIPs, eg, as a condition of entitlement, then the safety would be more assured....
Elizabeth
From: TONY Redington <tonyrvt99@GMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: Roundabout peer review and risk management
Hi:
Value Engineering
Am a little late to this discussion. First, regarding "value engineering"--it is required, as I understand it, in major projects.
It is about saving dollars not engineering design review, though it might catch that accidentally. Unfortunately intersection projects mostly are exempt from environmental review where federal funds are involved with a "categorical exclusion." A Burlington, VT new roadway "value engineering" report recommended two roundabouts in place of signals as a cost savings measure--it was, of course, rejected out of hand by the local PWD leadership which to this day opposes roundabouts.
Peer Review
Agree, the more the better from the start of scoping (feasibility)--no amateurs in roundabouts should guide intersection studies without a roundabout individual/firm involved. Otherwise a continued stream of incompetence reigns. Fully agree, the costs are minor in the overall with the roundabout expert mostly for review guidance.
The problem remains that most engineering firms and public agency engineers share the propensity of all professionals--resistance to having anyone question their expertise. Setting review procedures as a policy makes the most sense, as some have commented here.
My latest comment--yesterday--on the MPO proposed workplan is to undertake a roundie convertibility study of all busy intersections in the region and that it involve an individual/firm with extensive roundabout development expertise--and that one can expect about 90-95 percent of existing intersections convertible.
Tony
All:
I'm the president of the local ITE chapter here in Lethbridge, Alberta.
The chapter has been asked by the City to do a review of their roundabout d=
esign standards and practices. We're not being paid for this work. Lethbr=
idge is around 75,000 people and there's about a dozen single lane modern r=
oundabouts here in residential areas. They include intersections from Stag=
e 1 arterial to collector, collector to collector, local to collector and l=
ocal to local.
The reason for the City's request for our review is as follows:
* They're concerned that a one-size-fits-all approach has been taken and=
that some are maybe bigger then they need to be.
* The size of roundabouts that the city has had designed and built have =
been large enough that there is concern from developers that they can't pro=
vide enough on-street parking for the homes closest to the roundabout.
* The fire department still seems to think they cause longer response ti=
mes.
* Is a WB-17 (WB-56) with a 1.0 m buffer really required as a design veh=
icle (this is what's likely leading to the oversized applications)?
* Do we really need all those signs?
This City has a two-page design standard (attached) wherein consultants are=
told to follow the Quebec guide. Consultants use it and likely a mix of o=
ther stuff here and there (NCHRP 672 among them). As part of the research e=
ffort I am also:
* reviewing the FHWA's mini-roundabout technical summary (none have been=
implemented here yet)
* reviewing NCHRP 672
* reviewing the City of Calgary's standards
* chatting with someone from the Carmel, Indiana engineering department
We've been asked to present our findings and discuss our thoughts along with the development industry and other municipal stakeholders in April.
Would anyone have experience they'd care to share offline or perhaps some papers that I might be pointed toward to enhance my research efforts in the areas noted above? I'd also be curious to hear anyone's thoughts on the contents City's two-page design standard as well as the images I've attached of the City's current roundabouts in our 2011 imagery.
Sincerely,
Chris Poirier, CET, BA
(403) 360-4983
chris.poirier@stantec.com
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.