Sunday, August 07, 2011

Sunny Side Down

I get twitchy when our dear Sunny agrees with me. In this week's edition, she credits me for my comments that traffic signals are the obvious choice over a roundabout at Copps Avenue/Broadway. She then goes on to play whack-a-Chad because Chad didn't fold his tent and go home, but is pushing for the city to take another look at the roundabout option and get more data.

Background: The city is going to upgrade the Copps/Broadway intersection because of the increased traffic that will result from the two new clinics, the Menards expansion, and the eventual Whitehorse property development. The city administration said we would have the improvement done by the time the clinics opened and Meriter's clinic will be opening this fall.

Alder Speight (pronounced like "eight" NOT eighth") is asking us to look more closely at the total costs for each option. The total costs include societal economic costs, such as crash costs (property damage and injuries), wasted fuel, added pollution, and lost productivity from sitting at the traffic signals. On every measure, the total cost of traffic signals is higher, often much higher than the cost of a roundabout.

As I noted at the last council meeting (the scary one when I had the gavel), looking at total costs is not some wacky goofball idea. There is bloc of people who roll their eyes and close their minds whenever Chad says anything (OK, I know that he does tend to go on a bit, but that's because he's passionate about our city). We use net benefit analysis at my day job to help evaluate where to spend safety funds. Net benefit analysis is a very common practice in traffic engineering. The FHWA has a web page with links to various net benefit/cost models.  

The rub here is that these are external costs to the city, i.e. they do not come out of the city's budget.  They would not be imposed only on our residents, but on all users of that intersection. It makes complete sense to consider the external costs when using federal funds since those monies come from all of us (more or less) and thus should be spent in a way that benefits all of us.

Chad's persistence has caused me to take a second look. He and I requested that the city obtain these total costs from Vierbicher and they are working on it (at no added cost to the city). We shall see what the numbers say, but I fully expect the roundabout will be cheaper from the total cost standpoint. The analysis has to be tweaked to account for Copps/Broadway being a three-legged intersection in ways that will favor traffic signals (fewer T-bone crashes than you would expect at a 4-legged intersection), but I don't think that will change the total cost numbers.

The question then becomes whether we take money out of our own Monona pockets - and only our pockets - to cover these larger social/economic costs or not.

***

Here is one more website that does nice job laying out the factors to be considered.

12 comments:

  1. Is it even possible to build a roundabout by the time the clinics open? It seems most constructions projects take at least 3 months to complete. Also, in the paper it said that Broadway is going to get ripped up next year anyway.

    I'm in favor of the roundabout, but if there is an option to put in lights for a year and do all the road work at the same time, this makes more sense to me.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Alder Spate missing a meeting?

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Alder Spate missing a meeting?" Yeah, so?

    ReplyDelete
  4. A traffic circle would cost more than stoplights. You mention that the money comes from federal funds, so does that mean some other project would have to be cut or would Monona have to chip in money?

    Don't we carry much more debt/person than the average municipality? If we have to incur more debt to do this, I vote for the signals.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The city of Monona has an excellent credit rating becuase of our fiscal policies over the last 8 years under Mayor Kahl and the city council. Concersn about the city's debt load are not a reason to be against a roundabout.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think that Anonymous posts a fair question which you didn't answer:

    "You mention that the money comes from federal funds, so does that mean some other project would have to be cut or would Monona have to chip in money?"

    So, will there be additional costs that taxpayers will be on the hook for?
    What is an estimate of these costs?

    ReplyDelete
  7. "You mention that the money comes from federal funds, so does that mean some other project would have to be cut or would Monona have to chip in money?"

    "So, will there be additional costs that taxpayers will be on the hook for?
    What is an estimate of these costs?"

    No, I did NOT say there would be federal funds. I said when we use federal safety funds in my day job that we use a net benefit analysis that includes the larger sociial/economic costs.

    There is no extra cost for getting the added info.

    ReplyDelete
  8. You certainly implied federal funds would be involved:
    "It makes complete sense to consider the external costs when using federal funds since those monies come from all of us (more or less) and thus should be spent in a way that benefits all of us."

    Anyway, the answer is now clearer. All the money for this is coming from Monona taxpayers. The additional costs of a roundabout will cost us more. Is that correct?

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm glad you're less confused.

    Yes, a roundabout would cost Monona taxpayers more than traffic signals. However, traffic signals will cost more for all users of the intersection, including Monona residents, due to higher crash costs, delay costs, and fuel costs.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'm not a big fan of figuring in the externalities when determining cost/benefit. Let's get a simple "cost/benefit" analysis for the city of Monona and make our decision based on that (including all electrical/upkeep costs going forward, with the time-value of money calculation on what we'd save with a traffic light upfront vs long-term gains on a roundabout).

    On a personal note, traffic circles never seem to be created with bicycles in mind. There may be a "bicycle-friendly traffic circle design", but I haven't seen it. The effort to keep traffic moving means that a cyclist leaving a roundabout is always having to cross through traffic that is entering from the right (often moving quickly).

    I mean, this is the NYSDOT's advice, and can you imagine trying to do this if you're not 100% certain of your cycling ability and combined with thousands of other cars?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIHjBSKov1E

    Furthermore, any of the places where there *are* bicycle-friendly roundabouts (namely Amsterdam), they are only bicycle friendly because cars stop for pedestrians / cyclists in the crosswalks. Since I'm pretty sure that WI drivers don't even *know* about that little law, I can't imagine that working here at all...

    ReplyDelete
  11. @Travis: Nicely put and smart to think about it from a bicycle perspective. While I do like them for cars, I've never seen one that is bicycle friendly.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Travis, you are correct to be concerned about pedestrian and bicycle safety on ANY and EVERY public intersection that is designed or altered. It is also true that, while vehicles and pedestrians are almost always safer in a roundabout compared to a traditional intersection, bicycle accidents are more common in roundabouts. Having driven, biked, and walked through the Thompson Street roundabouts, I understand this concern.

    The following is an excellent article exploring these concerns. http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/faqs/answer.cfm?id=3454

    I agree that we need to make sure that our streets accommodate ALL 3 modes of travel safely, and if we every build a roundabout, we need to design it so that cyclists are safely accommodated.

    ReplyDelete