Worthy of a read from Regulation Magazine, a CATO Institute publication: Traffic Control: An Exercise in Self-Defeat by Kenneth Todd. It is counter-intuitive, at first, to think of traffic control as a "bad thing." Your own personal anecdotes likely go both ways. I would like to hear them.
Todd's argument, although not presented in detail, is worth pondering. I will write more on this topic at some point in the future.
Comments
See what your friends and neighbors have to say about this.
Mr. T
January 4, 2005 at 9:11PM
I am wondering to what extent the author looked at Wash DC as an example of a US city with an abundance of roundabouts he finds so appealing. In my experience, the DC style roundabout works, part of the reason being that there are underground tunnels for pedestrians that are fairly accessible and in some cases actually very nice (escalators, elevators, indoor heating/cooling, even restaurants, etc.). The key is that they are quite frequent in DC so all the main arteries dont just lead to one clogged roundabout (see Bangkok…terrible).
I believe the roundabout is principally European in origin…which has carried over to architecture in many other nations (not the US with the exception of DC…wasnt it patterned after Paris or something?). Although the roundabouts I have encountered abroad are MUCH larger than those in DC…
Mr. Wilson
January 5, 2005 at 12:29AM
I’m sure he did look at DC. Roundabouts and traffic circles have improved since DC’s were built, however. There are more modern examples that provide better comparative data.
I should note there is a difference between roundabouts—like those along Sheridan Blvd. at 33rd and 40th Streets—and the huge traffic circles you’ll find in many European (and European-inspired) cities. I once thought that traffic circles were far superior to roundabouts. Now I’m not so sure.
One of the most substantial disadvantages of traffic circles is their size. They can be huge, and a tremendous waste of space. They are the urban equivalent of Interstate clover leafs. The inner portions can be made into pedestrian plazas or parks, of course, but those areas have an unavoidably urban, confined, and exhaust fume-filled quality.
Comments
See what your friends and neighbors have to say about this.
I am wondering to what extent the author looked at Wash DC as an example of a US city with an abundance of roundabouts he finds so appealing. In my experience, the DC style roundabout works, part of the reason being that there are underground tunnels for pedestrians that are fairly accessible and in some cases actually very nice (escalators, elevators, indoor heating/cooling, even restaurants, etc.). The key is that they are quite frequent in DC so all the main arteries dont just lead to one clogged roundabout (see Bangkok…terrible).
I believe the roundabout is principally European in origin…which has carried over to architecture in many other nations (not the US with the exception of DC…wasnt it patterned after Paris or something?). Although the roundabouts I have encountered abroad are MUCH larger than those in DC…
I’m sure he did look at DC. Roundabouts and traffic circles have improved since DC’s were built, however. There are more modern examples that provide better comparative data.
I should note there is a difference between roundabouts—like those along Sheridan Blvd. at 33rd and 40th Streets—and the huge traffic circles you’ll find in many European (and European-inspired) cities. I once thought that traffic circles were far superior to roundabouts. Now I’m not so sure.
One of the most substantial disadvantages of traffic circles is their size. They can be huge, and a tremendous waste of space. They are the urban equivalent of Interstate clover leafs. The inner portions can be made into pedestrian plazas or parks, of course, but those areas have an unavoidably urban, confined, and exhaust fume-filled quality.
Share your thoughts with the community.
Commenting is no longer permitted on this post.