Roundabouts Discussion

[Gronk!]

Makes it all the more apparent that they need a big roundabout there to replace that dog’s breakfast of an intersection.

Good idea!

 

[ChazYEG]

Makes it all the more apparent that they need a big roundabout there to replace that dog’s breakfast of an intersection.

You do love roundabouts

I could actually agree with this one, were it not for, at least, one problem: roundabouts with elevation changes are notoriously dangerous, due to visibility issues. Making it elevated would be the solution, but then that drips down to other issues, such as cost.

Also, this is not a change that would significantly improve traffic flow, and would be extremely disruptive for quite some time, in an area that has just recently been reopened (Groat bridge just underwent renovations, was closed for upwards of 3 years), so I don't see any reason to change it, other than aesthetics.

Making it an elevated roundabout would look cool, but would likely be prohibitively expensive and, as I said, roundabouts with elevation changes are notoriously dangerous, as they have way too many possible blindspots and depth perspective changes.

If you're invested in fight up for roundabouts, my first suggestion would be a redesign of the 118 ave/97st/101st/Princess Elizabeth Ave. That is a gong show. Next one would be 118ave/Groat road, which is another shitshow.

As for new ones, thee are several intersections in the city that could greatly benefit from having roundabouts, although none in particular comes to mind at the moment. Maybe Kingsway/111 Ave/109 st and/or Belgravia Rd/114 St, for example.

 

[_urbanite]

Makes it all the more apparent that they need a big roundabout there to replace that dog’s breakfast of an intersection.

I had the same thoughts as you when looking at @thommyjo's picture that overlooks it. The CoE had an opportunity to address this when they rebuilt the Groat Bridge.

 

[yeggator]

You do love roundabouts

I could actually agree with this one, were it not for, at least, one problem: roundabouts with elevation changes are notoriously dangerous, due to visibility issues. Making it elevated would be the solution, but then that drips down to other issues, such as cost.

Also, this is not a change that would significantly improve traffic flow, and would be extremely disruptive for quite some time, in an area that has just recently been reopened (Groat bridge just underwent renovations, was closed for upwards of 3 years), so I don't see any reason to change it, other than aesthetics.

Making it an elevated roundabout would look cool, but would likely be prohibitively expensive and, as I said, roundabouts with elevation changes are notoriously dangerous, as they have way too many possible blindspots and depth perspective changes.

If you're invested in fight up for roundabouts, my first suggestion would be a redesign of the 118 ave/97st/101st/Princess Elizabeth Ave. That is a gong show. Next one would be 118ave/Groat road, which is another shitshow.

As for new ones, thee are several intersections in the city that could greatly benefit from having roundabouts, although none in particular comes to mind at the moment. Maybe Kingsway/111 Ave/109 st and/or Belgravia Rd/114 St, for example.

Those last two examples are excellent candidates for rounabouts. I know Belgravia Rd/114 St especially would be good, because the main bottleneck there is people making left turns.

 

[Gronk!]

My first choices for new roundabouts are at both ends of the Low Level Bridge and at both ends of the High Level Bridge.

 

[ChazYEG]

My first choices for new roundabouts are at both ends of the Low Level Bridge and at both ends of the High Level Bridge.

I don't really see a point in doing it at the Low Level bridge. Argument being the simple fact that there's no traffic bottleneck to justify the expenditure of money. As annoyingly confusing as it might be, cities resources could be better spent somewhere else.

Now, for the High Level, if someone could make a roundabout work on both ends, but REALLY work, not just patch it for a little while, that person would deserve to have the bridge renamed after them. On the other hand, the best long-term solution for the High Level (a new bridge, preferably one that is parallel to the current bridge, instead of replacing it) would likely render the effort pointless.

 

[Seamusmuldrew]

Those last two examples are excellent candidates for rounabouts. I know Belgravia Rd/114 St especially would be good, because the main bottleneck there is people making left turns.

I’m not so sure about that one, 2-lane roundabouts can handle up to 50-60 thousand cars per day which works here, although is likely already near that upper limit. The real issue is 114th up to University Ave which is dependably gridlocked every single morning because of the Uni Av level crossing. If grade separation ever happens there and at 76 Av then it’d be great. I’ll add, the picture isn’t meant to show the ineffectiveness of the intersection, it’s backed up all the way from University Av and often down to Fox Drive. Was really smart to squeeze all of the SW to central traffic onto a few 4 lane roads

 

[Gronk!]

I don't really see a point in doing it at the Low Level bridge. Argument being the simple fact that there's no traffic bottleneck to justify the expenditure of money. As annoyingly confusing as it might be, cities resources could be better spent somewhere else.

Now, for the High Level, if someone could make a roundabout work on both ends, but REALLY work, not just patch it for a little while, that person would deserve to have the bridge renamed after them. On the other hand, the best long-term solution for the High Level (a new bridge, preferably one that is parallel to the current bridge, instead of replacing it) would likely render the effort pointless.

I'm advocating for these roundabouts to alleviate the annoying confusion, not because of any perceived traffic bottlenecks.

 

[ChazYEG]

I'm advocating for these roundabouts to alleviate the annoying confusion, not because of any perceived traffic bottlenecks.

The thing with that is the enormous cost of making these changes, the disruption during construction, for no real benefit other than a slightly simpler intersection. Resources are limited, so is the public's patience and tolerance for major traffic disruptions, and we should use these wisely.

 

[David A]

The thing with that is the enormous cost of making these changes, the disruption during construction, for no real benefit other than a slightly simpler intersection. Resources are limited, so is the public's patience and tolerance for major traffic disruptions, and we should use these wisely.

Its never been an intersection I have liked or felt comfortable going through and it is confusing. Fortunately, I haven't had any serious problems here, but I have usually gone here when it is not too busy.

The most ugly McDonalds there, IMO hasn't helped, but I don't think it made it much worse either. But, hey its Edmonton, we seem to like to put ugly or odd things in prominent locations.

 

[Gronk!]

Hey thanks for creating a separate thread for roundabouts, @westcoastjos !

My proposed roundabout solution for 98 Ave/Scona Rd/Connors Rd

@yeggator had similar solutions for both sides of the Low Level Bridge

109 St/63 Ave

High Level Bridge