Union Street roundabout

Turbo-style roundabouts – the

future?

Patrick Lingwood
Walking and Cycling Officer
Bedford Borough Council
 Presentation outline
• Local importance and problems we faced
• The evolution of the design
– Dutch Turbo-roundabout
– What it is and how it works
• Crisis and redesign
– Objections
– Redesign principles
• Picture gallery
• Did it work?
– Traffic capacity and queuing
– Traffic Speed
– Use of Zebras
• The importance of the design
 Union Street roundabout
A6 traffic Southbound

A6 traffic Northbound Cycling and local traffic to/from station

Union St Roundabout

Town Centre
Railway Station

Bus Station
Union St Roundabout

Railway station
 2010 Post code plots of children
cycling to Biddenham Upper School

Union St Roundabout

Biddenham Upper School

 Pedestrian and Traffic Flows
Busy multifunctional roundabout - flows per day
(7am -7pm)
– 25,000 motorised vehicles
• 1000 lorries
• 500 buses
• 150 PTWs
– 550 cyclists
• 350 on-road and 200 off-road
– 3000 pedestrians
• 400 children
 Clapham Rd
Roff Avenue

Tavistock Street
Union St roundabout
Names of roads Union Street
 Union St Roundabout

Railway station
 DfT cyclist safety grant
• 2002 and 2012 36 casualties (8 serious)
• 12 Cyclists:
• 8 (1 serious) involved cyclists circulating
• 1 serious a cyclist crossing at the arms
• 24 others
• 8 Pedestrians (3 serious) crossing at arms
• 5 PTWs: (1 serious)
• 13 Car drivers/passengers (2 serious)
• The 10 year cost of accidents £1,823,000
Bicycle flows and accidents
350 on road & 200 off road
Scale 1pt = 10
On-road Off-road
Evolution of design

DfT Cyclist Safety Bid

 3 Objectives
• Safety:
– Reduce all injury accidents
– especially to cyclists and pedestrians
• Sustainability:
– Encourage walking and cycling
• Traffic:
– no significant impact on capacity or
queuing
 Designs evaluated
Options Injuries Savings £ Savings Traffic
compared impact

10 years costs KSI Slight KSI Slight KSI Slight £0

1 Do Nothing 8 24 0 0 -1481 -342 -1,823 Base
2 Compact on 1 14 7 10 1,296 200 1,438 Yes
road
3 Compact off- 3 15 5 9 926 214 1,140 Yes
road
4 Circulatory 5 22 3 2 556 28 584 No
annular
5 Spiral annular 2 14 6 10 1,111 200 1,059 Yes
6 Signalised 2 14 6 10 1,111 200 1,311 Yes
7 Turbo- 2 14 6 10 1,111 200 1,311 No
roundabout
12m central
island radius 0m 10m 30m

44m ICD Roff Avenue/Tavistock Street/Clapham Road/Union Street Roundabout

Option submitted to DfT

Raised dividers
2 lane entries Compact style – entry,
circulating, exit deflection
2 circulating lanes
where needed

Raised dividers

Spiral lanes

Zebras and cycle

crossings
 Dutch findings:
Capacity and safety
• Capacity
– Higher capacity than single lane compact
roundabout
• Safety
– 40-70% safer than alternative junctions
and safer than equivalent 2 lane (Dutch)
concentric roundabouts
• spiral lanes with fewer conflict points
• slower speeds enforced by geometry
Crisis and Redesign
“Raised Dividers” Controversy
• Objections by MAG (Motorcycle Action
Group)
• Meetings with DfT and Sustrans
• Redesign
– Same principles
• speed reduction and spiral roundabout
• “raised dividers” replaced by “virtual dividers”
• opportunity to improve the design
 Raised dividers removed

Extended kerbs with

vertical posts

Build outs on central island

How the “virtual dividers” work

Following lane results in 3 similar

radii of curve

Straightlining results in tighter

radius of curve at extended kerbs
Picture Gallery
Did it work?
 Data collection
• Data was collected at the roundabout at 3 times (7am
– 7pm weekdays):
• 2007: (Compact)
– when the roundabout was operating as a single lane
compact roundabout because of extended road works on
gas mains
• 2012: (Before)
– when the roundabout was operating with typical unmarked
wide 2 lane circulating carriageway
• 2014 (After)
– when the roundabout had been changed to a turbo-style
roundabout with separated lanes and Zebra crossings on all
arms
 All day traffic capacity

2007 Car
Lgv
Ogv1
2012 Ogv2
Bus
Mc
2014 Pc

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000

 Peak time capacity
2007 PM

2012 PM Car
Lgv
2014 PM
Ogv1
Ogv2
Bus
2007 AM
Mc
2012 AM Pc

2014 AM

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

 AM Peak time Queuing
160
(Roff Avenue metres)

140
2007
120
2012
100 2014
80

60

40

20

0
07:00 07:10 07:20 07:30 07:40 07:50 08:00 08:10 08:20 08:30 08:40 08:50
 Speed surveys
(circulatory carriageway free flow mph)
25

Before 4mph
20
After A
8mph
15
B

10

5
6mph

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
-5
mph
Typical cycle speed
 Benefits of slower speeds
• More comfortable on-road cycling
– Small difference between cyclist and vehicle
speed
• Safer (cycling) Zebra crossing
– drivers more aware and willing to stop
• Easier to get on roundabout
– lower gap acceptance
 Crossing at the Zebras
2500

2000 Zebra/Pelican
Without help
1500

1000

500

0
2012 2012 2012 2014 2014 2014
Adults Children Cyclists Adults Children Cyclists
 Conclusion
• So far, it all looks hopeful
• Safety and capacity advantages of
Dutch turbo-roundabouts
• Virtual dividers make it easier to retrofit
• Potential design for other busy urban
roundabouts?
Union St Roundabout

Turbo-
style

Source Brilon 2008

“A scene of smooth tranquillity – it is
so much easier to cross the roads
with the pedestrian crossings and the
sense of intimidation has gone for
car and van drivers, too” – Graeme Hay BMF

Patrick Lingwood
Patrick.lingwood@bedford.gov.uk