Do Sheffield City Council Have Something Against Roundabouts ?

[FoxLady]

On 22/11/2023 at 22:41, Longcol said:

Foxy begging for attention again?

See?

Arrogant again. Full of his own import.

I don't want attention. I want an apology from you for calling me a liar.

 

 

[Chekhov]

On 21/11/2023 at 14:45, Bargepole23 said:

Based on what, your qualifications in armchair highway engineering?

Provide a link to any cost-benefit analysis you have carried out, or any other studies, or anything more than just casual observation.

Anyone who regularly drove across that junction (E to W) you would consider your comment trolling.

 

>>Based on what, your qualifications in armchair highway engineering?<<

 

It is very dangerous when people think we should only ever take the word of "experts" as the be all and end all. You seem to be saying they are never wrong, and even if they are we mere mortals should never question anything they decide. I seem to remember a few years ago the weak government we had at the time did that and shut down society (for the first time in human history....).

[Chekhov]

On 21/11/2023 at 15:49, Planner1 said:

They have realigned one leg of a crossroads, which suggests to me it was maybe a safety scheme, perhaps a problem which involved vehicles approaching from Wentworth Rd or perhaps they needed to separate out the turning movements on Stubbin Rd. Hard to tell without the background info. Looks like it was done 9 years ago.

 

Whatever it was, realigning one leg of a junction costs way less than installing a roundabout.

 

Other than schemes which address safety issues and very minor schemes, major transport schemes are generally funded through government funding programmes ( usually via the combined authority) which will have differing objectives and requirements. A scheme has to meet the requirements or it doesn’t get put into the funding bid ( the funding streams are usually competitive processes), never mind get built.

 

Recent government funding streams have tended to focus on measures to increase the numbers of people walking and cycling. A scheme purely to improve capacity of a junction would probably not qualify.

 

There are pluses and minuses for any type of junction configuration. Engineers follow an analytical approach. They establish and quantify the problem. Then identify all the ways in which they could address it. Then they go through a process of analysis which usually involves scoring each option against multiple criteria, ( based on critical success factors) to form firstly a long list of options then a short list and eventually a preferred option. All this gets put into a business case in which the promoter ( the local authority) follows a process set by Department for Transport and HM Treasury to set out the strategic fit of the scheme, quantify the benefits, set out how it will be procured, what it will cost and how they intend to deliver it ( The five cases - strategic, economic, commercial, financial, management).  Then people like me appraise the business case and make recommendations to decision makers ( ultimately councillors) on whether the business case is sound.

 

Its a lengthy and expensive process and all highway schemes of any size will go through it.

 

The nature of the solution is usually down to the best way to deal with the identified problem and how deliverable it is within the funding available. In my experience, no councils are biased against roundabouts. They just follow the process and select the best solution for the problem, based on the information available and the current design standards.

 

As I’ve mentioned before, roundabouts take up more land than normal junctions. That will be a factor in cost and risk. Land costs money and if the council don’t own the necessary land, acquiring it can be costly, difficult and take a long time. Therefore roundabouts are often a higher cost option than a normal junction and the risks associated with obtaining the land can affect deliverability. Government funding streams are often time limited, so you have to spend the money by a fixed date, which is often only a few short years away, which leads scheme promoters to take the quicker and less risky option.

You appear to be saying they did what they did because it was cheaper and not because it would have been better.

That is a rational argument, though, in this case, if it was done to increase the safety of that junction (almost certain) a roundabout would have increased it still further. I would expect a serious accident there sooner or later, every vehicle driving across that junction E to W involves a right turn, always a bad idea on a busy road. Technically it's "only" a 40 limit but many cars do more than that there as it's a main road out in the country.

[Planner1]

On 24/11/2023 at 10:49, Chekhov said:

You appear to be saying they did what they did because it was cheaper and not because it would have been better.

That is a rational argument, though, in this case, if it was done to increase the safety of that junction (almost certain) a roundabout would have increased it still further. I would expect a serious accident there sooner or later, every vehicle driving across that junction E to W involves a right turn, always a bad idea on a busy road. Technically it's "only" a 40 limit but many cars do more than that there as it's a main road out in the country.

Of course cost is going to be a factor in deciding what option to progress.

 

There isn’t an unlimited amount of money.

 

If you can achieve the objective with a cheaper option, you’ve more money left to treat other sites. There are always more sites to treat than money to do it.

[Chekhov]

On 25/11/2023 at 11:36, Planner1 said:

Of course cost is going to be a factor in deciding what option to progress.

 

There isn’t an unlimited amount of money.

 

If you can achieve the objective with a cheaper option, you’ve more money left to treat other sites. There are always more sites to treat than money to do it.

My point is they cannot achieve the objective with the cheaper option.

It'd be interesting to see what the diversion option cost as opposed to a roundabout.

I hate that junction, I dislike traffic lights but that junction is so awful (for E W travel) I'd almost like them to install lights there, though a roundabout would be a much better option.... 

[Bargepole23]

1 hour ago, Chekhov said:

My point is they cannot achieve the objective with the cheaper option.

It'd be interesting to see what the diversion option cost as opposed to a roundabout.

I hate that junction, I dislike traffic lights but that junction is so awful (for E W travel) I'd almost like them to install lights there, though a roundabout would be a much better option.... 

Exactly how much safer would a roundabout be?

How much resource would we sacrifice from other projects to achieve that?

Edited November 27, 2023 by Bargepole23

[Planner1]

1 hour ago, Chekhov said:

My point is they cannot achieve the objective with the cheaper option.

It'd be interesting to see what the diversion option cost as opposed to a roundabout.

I hate that junction, I dislike traffic lights but that junction is so awful (for E W travel) I'd almost like them to install lights there, though a roundabout would be a much better option.... 

How can you say that when you don’t know what the objective was?

 

We don’t know why they did the junction realignment. I’d guess safety, but I don’t know for certain what the problem was.
 

Realigning one leg of a junction would normally be considerably cheaper than installing a roundabout. To put in a roundabout they would have had to acquire land on all four corners of the junction in order to put in the splays (ie making the approaches angled). The realignment entailed using land one one side of one approach.

 

The scheme was done circa 8 years ago. If you are that interested, write to Rotherham council and ask why it was done and what options were considered. They should also be able to tell you whether the scheme achieved its objectives ( monitoring is usually reported at 1 and 5 years after scheme completion)
 

 

[Chekhov]

2 hours ago, Bargepole23 said:

Exactly how much safer would a roundabout be?

How much resource would we sacrifice from other projects to achieve that?

Significantly safer I'd say, I want it on record I think there will be a serious accident there at some point, if there hasn't already been.

As a very welcome side effect it would also increase decrease the queues at that junction.

 

>>How much resource would we sacrifice from other projects to achieve that?<<

 

Good point, but compared to the £400 Billion they spent during Covid it'd be a drop in the ocean.

And, if it saved only one life it'd probably still be cheaper per life saved (even more so per "life year" saved) than how much it cost to save every life during Covid....

 

 

[HeHasRisen]

Covid mentions, there. Just cant help himself.

[Chekhov]

59 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

How can you say that when you don’t know what the objective was?

Other than safety what other possible motivation could there be for realigning one of the roads onto a junction so it's no longer a crossroads ?

Don't get me wrong I am not complaining about the principal, it's just in that particular case a roundabout would have been much preferable.

 

The Crash Map indicates there had been 10 accidents at that junction in the last 8 years, one serious.

I am not convinced all accidents are on that site either because it reports "only" one fatality in the last 24 years on bend going N out of Oughtibridge and the locals swear there's been at least two.