Case Study: Roundabouts Jeremy Dillon

Published in: Engineering Ethics: Concepts and Cases. 5th ed. Elaine Englehardt, Charles E. Harris Jr., Michael S. Pritchard, and Michael J. Rabins. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, (January 2013). pg 275.

, , Roadway intersections represent a unique challenge for engineers, since they pose several distinct problems relevant to several distinctly engineering concerns. Consider, for instance, that in 2009, 20.8% of roadway fatalities in the United States occurred at intersections, or were in some way intersection related. 1 Signaled intersections are problematic for drivers, since it frequently requires a good deal of aFention and thought to traverse a busy intersection. Drivers must decide quickly when and how to proceed, especially when facing a changing light, or when navigating multiple trac lanes. Consider as well that stop-and-go trac, such as trac at a busy intersection, increases automobile emissions signicantly and results in trac congestion. Both of these issues raise interesting problems for engineers, since safety and eciency are primary engineering concerns. Roundabouts provide an elegant solution to these problems. A roundabout is a circular intersection design which allows cars to traverse in any direction, oMen without ever coming to a complete halt. Because the process of traversing a roundabout is very straightforward (drivers simply follow the one-way circular roadway to their chosen exit without having to worry about changing lights or multiple turning lanes, etc.), it requires much less concentration to successfully navigate the intersection. In addition, because cars must travel in a fairly tight circle, drivers are forced to reduce their speed. These two factors together make accidents, both between cars and between cars and pedestrians, in general less likely. The design of the roundabout also helps to prevent some of the most dangerous kinds of accidents, such as t-bone collisions, where a car passing through a standard intersection is struck by a car moving perpendicular to it. It is therefore unsurprising that a study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that replacing standard intersections mediated by stop signs or signals with roundabout intersections resulted in an a 37 percent overall reduction in intersection collisions, and a full 90 percent reduction in fatal collisions. 2

Intersection

Safety Benefits

Roundabout

 In addition to benets of safety, roundabout intersections are also more ecient. Unlike at standard intersections, cars are not required to decelerate and accelerate repeatedly, but can usually proceed without stopping. This enhances fuel economy, and also reduces trac delays associated with standard intersection designs. Roundabouts can also typically handle trac using fewer lanes than signaled intersections making them, in general, smaller. Whats more, roundabouts are nancially ecient. Because no signals are employed, all maintenance and electrical costs associated with signaled intersections are avoided. Given these benets, the roundabout looks like an engineers dream - a simple, low cost design which provides holistic improvements in safety and eciency. The story is complicated, however, by the needs of the visually impaired. , Navigating intersections is already a challenge for the blind and visually impaired, for obvious reasons. However, it is fairly easy to provide accessible crossing for the disabled at standard intersections. Many signaled intersections are equipped with crossing assistance systems which provide audible cues to help visually impaired individuals know when to cross. Even intersections mediated by stop signs can be eectively navigated by careful aFention to the sounds of oncoming vehicles. Roundabouts, however, are a much more trying aair for the visually impaired. Audible crossing assistance is untenable at roundabouts, since there is typically no trac signal with which to integrate such a system. Even worse, the fact that trac in a roundabout is constant means that auditory cues of oncoming trac are very easily lost in the din of vehicles moving around the circular roadway. These factors, in combination with the unusual geometry of roundabout crossings which make correctly orienting oneself to cross more dicult, make navigating a roundabout on foot much more dangerous for the visually impaired.3 A question which may enter the engineers mind when faced with these worries is this: Why should the concerns of the visually impaired be of any great signicance? AMer all, visually impaired individuals represent a small minority of the overall population. Surely the inconvenience of nding an alternative route for the disabled is a small price to pay for all the benets roundabouts provide in terms of general safety and eciency. One important, practical reason is that compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is required by law. The ADA mandates that all transportation facilities be equally accessible to both able-bodied and disabled citizens.

Pedestrian

Access to Modern Roundabouts: Design and Operation Issues for Pedestrians who

are Blind

Failure to comply with the ADA can land an engineer or engineering rm in very hot water, with legal damages between $55,000 and $110,000 being standard.4 , But, even without considering the ADA, there are concerns of personal and professional ethics which are relevant to these issues. To begin with, a commitment to safety is a ubiquitous feature of professional engineering codes of conduct. While the visually impaired are, indeed, a minority in the U.S., their safety is, nevertheless, threatened by standard roundabout design. Equality and accessibility are also strongly valued by American culture at large. Insofar as engineers are required to consider the values of the general public who utilize their designs, such strong values should not be treated lightly. , These conicting interests of safety, eciency, nancial risk, and equal access make roundabouts a tricky issue for engineers. Should we therefore abandon the idea, and rely only on standard sign and signal mediated intersections? Perhaps. One might also look at the issues surrounding access for the visually impaired as an opportunity for further innovation. And, indeed, work has been done in developing roundabouts which retain the benets described above while also providing easier access for the disabled. Many solutions have been explored, but two in particular serve to draw aFention to the interplay of conicting interests in this case. Solution #1: Pedestrian-actuated signals One potential solution to some of the issues discussed above is to introduce trac signals at standard roundabouts which are typically inactive, but which can be activated by the presence of a pedestrian. This kind of system would provide safer passage for the visually impaired, while minimizing the congestion eects incurred by more traditional signaling systems. However, introducing such a system also incurs an increase in expense not associated with standard roundabout designs. Solution #2: Raised crosswalks , A particularly elegant solution to the problems raised by the odd geometry of roundabout crosswalks is to raise the crosswalk and provide tactile cues (such as ridges) to help keep visually impaired pedestrians on the right path. Raised crosswalks are an inexpensive solution, and have the added benet of slowing trac, resulting in an overall safer intersection.

ADA

Enforcement

Questions for further thought 1. 2. What reasons other than legal and ethical concerns might motivate an engineer to aFend to the needs of the visually impaired? Studies indicate that drivers are much less likely to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks at intersections without trac signals.5 What does this mean for the second solution discussed above? Is this problem more or less problematic for engineers designing roundabout intersections, or those designing standard signal-less intersections? Should engineers be responsible for ensuring that their designs are accessible to individuals who are both visually and hearing impaired? Why or why not? Fuel-ecient electric and gas/electric hybrid vehicles produce very liFle sound at normal driving speeds, and are thus dicult for the visually impaired to detect. Does this raise a similar problem for engineers as the problem raised by roundabouts? In what ways is this problem similar? In what ways is it dierent?

3.

4.

Work Cited ADA Enforcement. The United States Department of Justice. U.S. Department of Justice (n.p.), December 8, 2011. Web. 6/21/2012. < hFp:// [Link]/[Link]> Intersection Safety. Federal Highway Administration. U.S. Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration (n.p.), n.d. Web. 6/21/2012. <hFp:// [Link]/ intersection/> Pedestrian Access to Modern Roundabouts: Design and Operation Issues for Pedestrians who are Blind. United States Access Board. U.S. Access Board (n.p.), n.d. Web. 6/21/2012. < hFp:// [Link]/research/roundabouts/ [Link]> Pedestrian Access to Roundabouts: Assessment to Motorists Yielding to Visually Impaired Pedestrians and Potential Treatments to Improve Access. Federal Highway

Pedestrian Access to Roundabouts: Assessment to Motorists Yielding to Visually Impaired Pedestrians and Potential Treatments to Improve Access
5

Administration. U.S. Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration (n.p.), May 2006. Web. 6/21/2012. <hFp://[Link]/ publications/research/safety/pedbike/05080/> Roundabout Benets. Washington State Department of Transportation. Washington State Department of Transportation (n.p.), n.d. Web. 6/21/2012. <hFp://[Link]/ Safety/ roundabouts/[Link]>