Your blogposts on Amsterdam were posted at several local Spacing sites; I confess I blasted off a very angry retort at the Montréal one, then, reading your blog, of course saw that your analysis is usually erudite and nuanced. I wondered then if you were in a particularly foul mood due to dismal weather (it has been just as dismal this spring here in Montréal). Yes, Amsterdam has its problems, but it is paradise compared to Vancouver with its helmet law or Toronto with its antediluvian car-mad mayor. I think the major problem is that scooters and motorbikes should never have been allowed on the cyclepaths. I’m unsure about the history; perhaps this started with the justifiable exemption for motorised wheelchairs and disabled-person scooters.

But now, staying in Indischebuurt when in Amsterdam (you seem to be living either there or in a similar area) I mostly see teenaged boys and young men on those scooters, terrorizing pedestrians and cyclists alike.

Moreover, not only in Amsterdam but in other Dutch cities, authorities are taking action about almost unused bicycles clogging railway station racks, and those in other popular destinations. If folding bicycles could become more affordable, that would be a good solution to this problem.

I have certainly cycled in Amsterdam, and I’m considerably older than you, having reached “Freedom 55″ territory. Perhaps Amsterdam cyclists give me more leeway because I’ve let my hair go silver, so from the back they may thing I’m very old indeed!

I’ll read you information about Amsterdam’s relatively low public transport provision – with all the tramlines and the new metro system (which many people question), it doesn’t seem so to a lay observer, except for the fact that the trams do stop relatively early, even with respect to Montréal’s métro. I really like the new trams, which are much easier to board than the older ones were for people of limited mobility or travelling with small children.

Cheer up, spring is finally coming, and you’ll have some lovely rides.

Many engineers are either ignorant or don’t want to take the risk and blame of something goes wrong. Thus, it seems as if traffic lights are the universal solution for everything. They are not. For example a 4KM stretch of road with 8 light controlled intersections. The road is very busy and for this argument, many cars will stop at least 6 of the 8 lights. Each queue has about 20 cars per red-light cycle. The light takes 45 seconds to change back to green which basically mean will lead to around 45 seconds of idling.

Let’s do the math, where T=time in seconds:
– Tidle = 20 cars * 45 seconds * 6 traffic lights
– Tidle = 5400 seconds
= 90 minutes -OR- 1 hour and 30 minutes of idle time

Many municipalities prohibit idling when parked, and drivers may face penalties. This is a good start, but the majorities are coming from the lights especially during peak hours.

I am in no way against this idea, but it comes down to the way they present it to us by being ignorant and putting in more lights, which make it seem like as if they are a collection agency looking to profit off people.

Vancouver is always boasting to become “The Greenest City”. Roundabouts are one of the first steps towards that, not traffic lights. Roundabouts, from common sense, are greener than lights that suck up power, but the approach the city is taking, seems like they are contradicting themselves and hoping no one notices the big picture.

Sure they are encouraging public transportation and cycling, but our public transport is nowhere nearly as developed as New York or Hong Kong. In HK there are literally a big line-up of mini-busses, they take a few passengers (so there will be room for others to board at the next stop), and another will come. Translink’s monopoly will need to end, and people should compete against them. Our public transit is nowhere near that quality. This is a whole new topic so I’ll stop here.

Continuing on: Engineers have tried their best to synchronize the lights but that doesn’t always work perfectly, for example when a pedestrian wants to cross, pressing the cross-walk button will skew the timing algorithm.

Now the point that Greg is trying to argue, is that if people see the roundabout, they will like them and drive even more because of increased convenience. That is plausible to a certain extent, but there are still many other factors as to why we would want a roundabout as opposed to a conventional intersection, including increased safety, reduced power usage as a whole, as roundabouts do not require electricity to run.

And guess what happens when there is a power failure or PLC (Logic Controller) failure? That’s right: 4-Way Stop, and the nightmare that it causes especially on busy multi-lane roads.

Many commuters perhaps even half or larger-half of road users have a busy life. They need to go to work and back home, do some shopping etc… so a good portion of road-users can now spend less time stuck in traffic and idling, and spend more time with their family or their hobbies. That is enough to make a difference. They will have better MPG and spend less money on gas, especially with the rising prices these days.

At least for me, when I drive in the UK or Hong Kong, I don’t use the car any more than here, just because there are roundabouts there.

Reduction in pollution in the area near the roundabout will be a benefit to those people that are living in that area, plus the environmental benefits will definitely add up when we decrease our power consumption. Being “Power Smart” is a message that has been going around for many years. Government in some places have by-laws such as it is unlawful to operate air conditioning unless the temperature rises above X°c, now they should do something on their part by using less traffic lights. It is especially true for places that generate power off the burning of coal or fossil fuels. Think of the big picture!

Slowing down vehicles at the intersection is better than stopping them. An object in motion will tend to stay in motion until another force is acted upon it.

At a light you brake to stop 50KM/h —> 0KM/H and idle and then go 0KM/h —> 50KM/h
At a roundabout you slow down 50KM/h —> 25KM/h, yield, 25KM/h —> 50KM/h.

Certainly it takes more fuel to accelerate 0-50KM/h than 25-50KM/h, not to mention the wear and tear on your brakes. Then you will need pay to change your brake pads, and demand for brake pads will cause more manufacturing to take place, and use up more fresh water during the manufacturing process.

So at a roundabout, instead of stopping and waiting 20-40 seconds, we would be past that intersection in maybe 10 seconds, using less gas, less stress, high speeds and trying to “beat the red-light” thus lower risk of road-rage, and accidents, which leads to even more government spending in hospital costs and emergency services.

As for pedestrian and cyclist safety, I feel safer crossing at a roundabout than a conventional intersection. I would rather be struck at 20-30km/h than at higher speeds. It cannot be denied that the number of fatalities and casualties has been reduced.

As for right-of-way for pedestrians/cyclist safety, we need to think out of the box to innovate. Currently people are thinking it is Pedestrian / Cyclist Safety – OR – Benefits Motorized Vehicle. We need to shift our thinking and instead of using “OR” we need to use the word “AND” instead.

One solution out there is to add pedestrian signals to the roundabout, and the signal will ONLY change to red if and only if there is someone wanting to cross.

If the situation warrants it have an overpass for pedestrians and bikes. Eliminate the inconvenience by placing an elevator at both sides. An example of this is on Nathan Rd and Argyle St in Kowloon. The overpass has 2 elevators on each side, frequently used by elderly, disabled, and strollers.

People need to be educated about how to use a roundabout properly. Some people have never even heard of a roundabout in Vancouver. When I explained the concept they thought it was very chaotic and would lead to more accidents. I might be interested in doing a survey sometime regarding this topic, as the results would be interesting. Most people do not know of their choices, and we need to get people thinking out of the box, thinking “AND” instead of “OR”. We need to think the big picture and co-relate, even when the comparison to something else doesn’t seem to make sense at first, it does.

We need to present people with options, as most of us have never read through nor touched a traffic engineering manual before nor pay attention to how roads are engineered abroad.

It is just how the human brain works. If someone sees something that they have never seen before, the brain will try to understand and wiring different thoughts together, and re-enforcing what it wants to believe, not what is correct.

If roundabouts work elsewhere in the world like in the UK, it should work here, because I don’t believe people here are in any way less capable than those abroad. They won’t be building any more of them otherwise.

In fact in the US, a bill has been passed that mandates roundabouts to be considered first in the construction of any new roadways containing intersections.

Statistics have also shown that people that strongly oppose a roundabout, later change their minds and admit they were wrong, and instead embrace the new concept.

Take a look at the video on YouTube “Glen Falls Residents Love Roundabout”.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHnY8IGv1sY

Vancouver is a big city, and I don’t buy the fact that not a single arterial street would work with a roundabout. People will accept it when more gets built, but that needs to happen first.

What I mentioned above is just a nutshell in traffic engineering. There are numerous studies out there already; some are done right in BC addressing safety, pollution, quality of service. Take a look at the one done at UBC regarding the 16th Avenue roundabout. Another one has been released recently called “Automated Roundabout Safety Analysis” by UBC.

People are skeptical because it is something new. I remember people saying that they are scared to take the Skytrain when it first opened back during Expo Vancouver. They were worried about what would happen if the computer crashes, because there is no driver, and said “Let’s wait and see first, because I don’t want to be a lab rat.” It’s just human nature.

Know your facts, know your options, do your research, and consider giving this a chance.

Contrary to the article, I’ve noticed that most drivers do stop for crossing pedestrians and cyclists at the zebra crossings outside of the roundabouts, especially where splitter islands are in place. I find the average delay to be even shorter than the average wait for a full signal phase change at a regular intersection, especially one with advance left turn lights.

Also, UBC’s 16th Ave consultation report shows that the more consistent traffic flows from a set of two roundabouts on 16th avenue will allow it to be reduced to 2 lanes (1 per direction). I can’t imagine that being bad for pedestrian safety at the new mid-block crossing.

The report can be read here: http://transportation.ubc.ca/files/2012/07/Roundabout-consultation-report-6-Feb-06.pdf