In Our View, Jan. 8: Circular Logic

One of the quickest ways to ignite a colorful or even contentious conversation is to plumb the volatile depths of traffic regulation. Whether the issue is slow drivers in left lanes, merging traffic on freeway ramps or tailgaters, most folks have their minds made up on both the problems and the solutions, and they’re not bashful about speaking up.

So it is with the subject of roundabouts at traffic intersections. Several roundabouts have been constructed in Clark County in recent years, and a circular conversation has warmed up in Washougal in recent weeks. On Monday night, Washougal city councilors voted unanimously to eliminate a roundabout proposed for the intersection of E Street and Washougal River Road. Their motivation appears to be financial; about $2 million could be removed from the E Street renovation project’s $9.8 million cost if the roundabout is rejected and traffic lights are used instead. Rather than assessing the wisdom of the councilors’ decision, we’ll defer to the traffic experts. The councilors and Washougal city engineers will continue to study the project and determine if removing the roundabout would jeopardize funding from state and federal grants. Another decision by the council is expected in February.

But we’ll use this opportunity to express our opinion on roundabouts in general: It depends on the circumstances. Such a tepid stance allows for a flexibility rarely found in roundabout debates where participants are polarized and not so round-about in their praise or condemnation. But the simple truth is, roundabouts work well in some places but not in others — depending on the volume and nature of traffic — and that’s why the opinions of experts should influence key decisions.

Two months ago, Washougal Councilman Paul Greenlee said, “The reason that a roundabout makes sense is because it keeps traffic moving.” True, and the roundabout in Vancouver at Esther and Sixth streets proves his point. Two of the most dangerous traffic elements — stops (sign or lights) and left-turn lanes — have been eliminated at that roundabout. All motorists yield to circular traffic when they reach the intersection.

On the other hand, Councilman-to-be Dave Shoemaker said in November (he was sworn in this month): “I think (roundabouts are) a source of accidents based on confusion about right of way.” He, too, is correct. Many motorists are confused about how to drive in roundabouts, and that can lead to accidents.

In fact, many people don’t even know what a traffic roundabout is. For instance, those little roundabouts on Columbia Street in central Vancouver? They’re not roundabouts. They’re traffic “circles,” according to an Oct. 19 Columbian story by Scott Hewitt. Traffic circles slow down the primary traffic load (in this case, on Columbia Street) and force drivers on cross streets to stop.

And that roundabout on the west end of Officers Row? Technically, it’s not a roundabout, because approaching traffic comes to a stop. The true definition is manifested in Vancouver’s largest roundabout, the new one at Northeast 49th Street and 137th Avenue. There’s also a large roundabout between Ridgefield and Interstate 5, and state traffic planners are considering two more closer to — and on each side of— the freeway.

An excellent source of information about roundabouts is: http://www.cityofvancouver.us/streetprojects (click on “NE 49th Street and NE 137th Avenue Roundabout”). The more people learn about roundabouts, the more clear it becomes: Broad generalizations for or against such a traffic-control measure are not the best approach. Site-specific circumstances and expert advice should carry the most clout when determining the value of a roundabout.