Roundabouts are “better for cyclists and pedestrians”. NOT!

I took objection to a little factoid on this article from the BBC which charted the rise in use of the British style roundabout in the US. The nugget stated the opinion of a British traffic engineer that roundabouts are “better for cyclists and pedestrians”.

My response to the BBC read:

“Sir,

I refer to the article:
“Is the British roundabout conquering the US?”
By Tom Geoghegan.

It is simply not true that roundabouts are better for pedestrians and questionable whether good for cyclists either. This is in contrast to a view that was quoted from Clive Sawers, British traffic engineer.

The crossing width for pedestrians is far wider in addition to the lack of signalised opportunity. There is particular risk from vehicles exiting the roundabout. The free flowing nature of traffic means that pedestrians have to dodge traffic and hurry to cross at a roundabout. In addition to this, roundabout layouts usually involve increased road margins, often with pleasant looking landscaping which, unfortunately, wastes premium space. This keeps buildings apart and makes urban areas even less walkable. Add to this the route deflection and, for cyclists, the added dangers of lane discipline when leading up to and negotiating a roundabout and the point is crystal clear.

Roundabouts are almost always inappropriate for urban areas.”

This image shows the area where a chunk of the traditional and historic ‘urban grain’ of Bristol City Centre was ripped out to make way for the now-defunct inner ring road including a large roundabout. On removal of the roundabout and reversal of the area back to an appropriate density, as is proposed for the future, pedestrians will no longer feel shunned. (Hat tip Google Earth)

If you are interested in my proposal for the site, please open the St. Mary Redcliffe, Planning and Design Quality Project.

I continue:

“Mr Sawers as a ‘traffic engineer’ does not seem to be qualified to comment on the effectiveness of roundabouts towards pedestrians and cyclists; he would not make such a claim. Please consider removing this comment, or at least clarifying it.

On a more general point, as a nation with perhaps the least walkable cities on the planet, the USA does not need our roundabouts sealing their unfortunate addiction to the private vehicle. Granted, there are safety benefits for interactions between motorised vehicles on roundabouts. These are undeniable, however, there are other ways of managing junctions that do not compromise the pedestrian; these alternatives should not fixate on making vehicular journeys as fast as possible.

The hinterlands of British cities often mimic the suburban ‘feeder road’ style of development that US cities take. Such development is now regarded in the UK as regrettable when contrasted to UK government guidance (Manual for Streets) or Scottish policy (Designing Streets). We certainly do not want to be sending out a message that lower density development of that sort can be improved for the vehicle, at the further detriment of the pedestrian.

Speeding up car journeys will only further cement the driving habit, which is the only viable option to the majority of US commuters. It takes unfathomable amounts of effort and broad thinking to encourage, enable and facilitate car users – globally – to use alternative modes of transport, therefore by donating a car-centric invention such as the roundabout stateside, we are only making the development of diverse transport solutions less appealing and a shift towards them more painful.”

Engineers are charged with weighing up the largest risks and considering the safety of road schemes. It is understandable that they must be risk-adverse. However, without an holistic, urban design approach to the problems that heavily used roads in our cities cause, there will always be undesirable, and I argue severely underestimated spin-offs. When will we begin to weigh up the less obvious risks – heart disease, social isolation, land wastage, environmental impact – to name a few, with the single aim of making traffic flow more efficiently?

This is where urban design as a profession can transcend the disciplines of planning, architecture, development and engineering and propose solutions that make our streets safer for and between motor vehicles and for pedestrians and cyclists.