ITE 2010 ANNUAL MEETING & EXHIBIT VANCOUVER, B.C., CANADA AUGUST 10, 2010 SAJJAD RASHEED, P.E., PTOE...

ITE 2010 ANNUAL MEETING & EXHIBIT

VANCOUVER, B.C., CANADAAUGUST 10, 2010

SAJJAD RASHEED, P.E., PTOESNC-LAVALIN

SURVEY OF CANADIAN ROUNDABOUTS


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

•Bruce Beames, Stantec•Leanna Belluz, Transport Canada•Lincoln MacDonald, MRC•Jose Pinto, McElhanny•Phil Weber, Ourston Roundabouts


SUMMARY

•BACKGROUND•METHODOLOGY•ISSUES•PRELIMINARY RESULTS•NEXT STEPS


BACKGROUND

•CITE’S Transportation Liaison Committee (TLC)•Other North American Studies

o“Synthesis of North American Roundabout Practice”, TAC, 2006o“Roundabouts in the United States”, NCHRP-572, TRB, 2007o“Roundabouts: An Informational Guide”, FHWA, 2000

•TLC Roundabout Committee


METHODOLOGY

•Define Study Objectives•Database of Canadian Roundabouts•Develop Questionnaire•Select Survey Format•Conduct Survey•Documentation


METHODOLOGY: Define Study Objectives

•Study Title: “Roundabouts in Canada: A Primer for Decision-Makers”•Table of Contents:

1. Executive Summary2. Background of Study3. Introduction to Roundabouts4. Perceived Issues with Roundabouts5. Roundabout Experience in Canada (Survey Results)6. Conclusion7. Selected Bibliography (Worldwide)


METHODOLOGY: Database of Canadian Roundabouts

ProvinceKittleson Database1

Responses Received So far

Not in Kittleson Database

Total Confirmed Roundabouts

Other Possible Roundabouts

Total Possible Roundabouts

AB 19 19 3 22

BC 30 17 14 44 2 46

MB 8 3 2 10 10

NB 3 3 3

NL 1 1

NS 3 1 3 3

NT

NU

ON 29 10 10 39 5 44

PE 1 1 1 1

QC 21 2 2 23 20+ 43+

SK 2 1 2 2

YK 2 2 2Total = 117 35 29 146 31+ 177+

1 http://roundabouts.kittelson.com/Roundabouts


METHODOLOGY: Develop Questionnaire


METHODOLOGY: Survey Format

•Survey Vendor•Zoomerang, etc.•Email Survey


PRELIMINARY RESULTS

1.GENERAL

Upgrade/New Reason for Roundabout

Upgrade 27 77% Operations & Safety 11 31%

New 8 23% Operations 6 17%

No Response 0 0% Geometry 4 11%

Safety 2 6%

Other 2 6%

Access 1 3%

No Response 8 23%


PRELIMINARY RESULTS2. DESIGN INPUTS

Highest Number of Circulatory Lanes Number of Legs 1-lane 20 57% 3-legs 4 11%2-lane 6 17% 4-legs 22 63%3-lane 2 6% 5-legs 2 6%No Response 7 20% No Response 7 20% Largest Design Vehicle Truck Apron B-Train 4 11% Yes 22 63%Bus: Standard (B-12) 4 11% No 7 20%Fire Truck 4 11% No Response 6 17%Tractor Trailer (WB-19) 1 3% Tractor Trailer (WB-20) 9 26% Right-turn Slip Lanes Trucks (SU) 1 3% 1-lane 3 9%No Response 9 26% 2-lane 1 3% No 24 69%Urban/Rural No Response 7 20%Urban 17 49% Rural 11 31% High Speed Approaches (>80 kmh) No Response 7 20% Yes 8 23% No 20 57% No Response 7 20%


PRELIMINARY RESULTS3. TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS

Software Used Operational Problems with Roundabout

aaSIDRA 2 6% Delays & Queues 5 14%

RODEL 2 6% High Speeds 4 11%

SYNCHRO 1 3% Truck Access 7 20%

VISSIM 2 6% Other 3 9%

No Response 26 74% N/A (new) 1 3%

No Response 15 43%

Design Changes after Installation

N/A (new) 5 14%

No 11 31%

Truck Access 3 9%

Other 3 9%

No Response 10 29%


PRELIMINARY RESULTS

4. PEDESTRIANS / CYCLISTS

High Pedestrian / Cyclist Location Pedestrian Accommodation

High Pedestrian Only 3 9% Curb cuts 4 11%

High Bike Only 0 0% Marked Crosswalks 18 51%

High for Both 6 17% Other 4 11%

None 17 49% No Response 9 26%

No Response 9 26%

Cyclists Accommodation Disabled Pedestrian Access None (Shared with Autos) 13 37% None 20 57%

Separate Pathway 10 29% N/A 1 3%

No Response 12 34% No Response 11 31%


PRELIMINARY RESULTS5. SAFETY

Illumination Safety Issues with Roundabout

Yes 25 71% N/A 3 9%

No 1 3% No 13 37%

No Response 9 26% Yes 5 14%

No Response 5 14%

6. MAINTENANCE 7. POLICY

Maintenance Issues Criteria for Installing Roundabouts

N/A 6 17% None 12 34%

None 8 23% Operations & Safety 8 23%

Snow Removal 6 17% Other 1 3%

Other 4 11% Policy 5 14%



PRELIMINARY RESULTS

8. PUBLIC ACCEPTANCEPublic Perception Before Installation Public Perception After InstallationN/A 1 3% N/A 2 6%N/A (new) 4 11% N/A (new) 5 14%Negative 6 17% Negative 0 0%Neutral 6 17% Neutral 3 9%Positive 6 17% Positive 12 34%No Response 12 34% No Response 13 37%

Specific Complaints or Complements Public Opinion Causing Policy ChangeN/A 8 23% N/A 7 20%Complaints 4 11% No 11 31%Complements 11 31% Yes 5 14%



PRELIMINARY RESULTS

9. OTHERLandscaping Incorporated in Design Boulevard Between SidewalksYes 21 60% N/A 6 17%No 6 17% No 2 6%No Response 8 23% Yes 18 51% No Response 9 26%


ISSUES

•Slow responses•Incomplete surveys•Misinterpreted questions


NEXT STEPS

•Follow up with jurisdictionsoNo responsesoIncomplete responsesoMisinterpreted questions

•Send Excel version of survey to jurisdictions as required•Send Excel version to any new jurisdiction•Complete survey by end of August 2010•Concurrently complete other tasks in the TOC•Final report by end of 2010 or early 2011


THE END

[email protected]

ITE 2010 ANNUAL MEETING & EXHIBIT VANCOUVER, B.C., CANADA AUGUST 10, 2010 SAJJAD RASHEED, P.E., PTOE...

Documents

Transcript of ITE 2010 ANNUAL MEETING & EXHIBIT VANCOUVER, B.C., CANADA AUGUST 10, 2010 SAJJAD RASHEED, P.E., PTOE...