Why settle for one roundabout about when you can have two (and one for bikes)?

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on RedditEmail this to someone

Why settle for one roundabout about when you can have two? Segregation people, bikes and other modes of transportation shouldn’t be the default, partially because non-vehicle transportation always seems to get the short end of funding and design consideration, but sometimes it makes sense. This design from the Netherlands wouldn’t fit very many places, but perhaps there’s a place or two around St. Louis that could benefit from the idea:

^ The intersection before the bike/ped ring offered standard crossings for bikes and pedestrians. This doesn’t work well at highspeed traffic circles. The design above is meant to move traffic, not calm it. The light-controlled traffic circle is designed primarily to serve vehicular throughput.


{Norway has built something similar}

Pin It
  • mc

    Can we please have this in St. Louis? Can St. Louisans please stop being closed minded on this issue of roundabouts?

    I lived in northern Europe for many years. They’re far advanced technologically than we are in the States no question about it. I adapted very quickly to their transportation methods and I believe St. Louis can do the same. We need to begin thinking bigger and more sustainably.

    • Chaifetz10

      I just moved back to STL with my girlfriend, who is from central IL. She absolutely hates roundabouts, but only because “they’re stupid.” She honestly dislikes having to drive through them and keeps telling me they’re a hazard to driving… but wont provide any reasons other than she doesn’t like merging. So I’m assuming that lots of people (if not the majority in STL) have the same ideas. Lack of rational or logical thought or not, some people don’t like having non traditional 4 way intersections. Are there resources for people to view to help them understand the reasoning behind roundabouts? I’m hoping that with more exposure, she’ll drop her preconceived notions…

      • Mike Pomatto

        The whole idea of merging is lost on most St. Louisans completely. Note the jackasses that stop on the merge lane waiting for the exit lane to give them room on interstate exchanges.

      • RyleyinSTL

        In my experience most Americans have absolutely no idea how to properly drive through a traffic circle. They don’t signal, they don’t understand anything about right of way, and should the circle contain 2 or more lanes the above two issues are compounded. Pilot yourself into and out of the circle in North City at Riverview and 367 for a first hand view of driver ineptitude.

  • Alex Ihnen

    The right site, enough space, maybe existing berms would help, but it seems this could have worked at Lindell/Skinker, maybe. Perhaps not enough space on the NW corner. Anywhere else in STL where this might make sense?

    • http://www.gatewaystreets.org/ Herbie Markwort

      A roundabout at Lindell/Skinker would likely fail miserably. Even if the roundabout could handle the capacity of traffic flowing down both Skinker and Lindell, it would fail due to queue backups from traffic lights at Forsyth and Forest Park Pkwy.

      Where would I like to see roundabouts? Cass & Stan Musial Bridge, Lindell & Union, Broadway/Jefferson & Chippewa, Landsdowne at Wabash and River des Peres, Pear Tree Dr at EB I-70 exit ramp and Airflight Dr (near airport), and many more.

      • Alex Ihnen

        Right. A traffic roundabout might not work, but a ped/bike circle above the intersection might be a nice addition. (meant FP/Skinker)

        • STLEnginerd

          At that intersection you can easily get to the other side by walking under the road through the metrolink station. Pedestrian bridges at the other corners might be warranted but the high traffic intersection are already linked under ground.

  • samizdat

    As an American with an open mind, it’s easy to imagine how indigenous peoples must feel when confronted by the presence of modern humans in their midst. I see the way in which most EU infrastructure is often decades ahead of the US, and I cringe, knowing that we are governed and populated by ignorant, narrow-minded, and frightened reprobates. A typical ‘Merkin would react to this much like the characters created for Saturday Night Live by Steve Martin and Dan Ackroyd (?):

    “What the HELL is that? What the hell IS that? What the hell is THAT?! WHAT. The hell. Is THAT?!” Good schtick.

  • JustFlushIt

    Seperate but equal infrastructure is wasteful. Bicycles already have full use of the road. This would be segregation.

    • samizdat

      Good schtick.

  • fulltimemonti

    If the South county connector happens, this would be a great solution at the connector and Big Bend. Good luck on STL county impementing such a thing.

    • guest

      If the South County Connector happens, we’re wasting over $100,000,000 on something that is unneeded, unwanted, while losing opportunities to do things that will actually help improve the quality of life for area communities.

      The South County Connector favors sprawl over preservation of existing communities, and is geared to assisting commuters who have left the core of the region at the expense of people remaining in the heart of the region. It’s backwards planning on so many levels.

      Putting in a cool roundabout for cyclists hardly mitigates all the downside.