OPINION: Let's save the roundabouts

Traffic circles are under attack in our city and they must be saved! These new intersections are an improvement to traffic flow, and city traffic officials should be applauded for them. If you see a petition for a ballot measure to eliminate circles, don't sign it unless you want less efficient, more dangerous streets.

In Colorado Springs, traffic circles are relatively new. They represent change, and change can be bad. Contemporary architecture, for example, is mostly bad.

It testifies to the superiority of traditional architectural practices and design which evolved from thousands of years of trial and error. Homes designed by architect Frank Lloyd Wright, for example, are often high maintenance, inefficient and impractical. They're fine to look at, but not so great to live in. Modern churches, with in-the-round seating, fail to inspire like the old cathedral-style structures designed to focus attention on art.

Traffic circles, by contrast, aren't some modern answer to traditional intersections that work. They're an old design that's tried, tested and true. French architect Eugene Henard designed them in 1877, and they've been common in Europe ever since. They make plain old common sense. Roundabouts or traffic circles (generally larger than roundabouts), are designed to move traffic rather than impede it. They're designed to eliminate the collision course created by crisscross intersections. They're designed to allow a driver to go any direction by making a right-hand turn, and never a left.

It's the standard American intersection, not the roundabout, that's a modern design failure. Unlike the traffic circle or roundabout, our perpendicular intersections bring cars that are going in four different directions together at one potential collision point. It's normal for things to go wrong. Collisions are avoided only when each driver obeys each and every signal or sign.

Standard intersections require the dreaded left-hand turn, each turn placing a car perpendicular to oncoming traffic. Each perpendicular intersection requires much of the traffic to stop and wait and waste fuel. When the intersection is regulated by four stop signs, functionality depends on each driver embracing a spirit of selfless cooperation.

Common sense tells us that intersections designed to keep traffic moving, and eliminate left turns and the four-way collision course, are superior. The circular intersection is an engineering marvel.

Some people, however, don't like change and will resist it no matter what. The new traffic circles have become a common gripe in the Springs. Wally Lucas, for example, told Gazette columnist Bill Vogrin about his desire to "outlaw" further construction of roundabouts.

"They create confusion and frustration," Lucas told Vogrin. "People get lost. They make poor decisions. That makes them dangerous."

Lucas also complains that roundabouts or traffic circles in Colorado Springs are too small, and therefore can't handle large volumes of traffic. He and some neighbors have considered petitioning for a ballot measure that would forbid future traffic circles and roundabouts.

Beyond common sense observations, it's an indisputable fact that roundabouts are safer than perpendicular, collision-course intersections. Dave Krauth, principal traffic engineer for Colorado Springs, says a roundabout results in 40 percent fewer collisions than its collision-course counterpart. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that roundabouts produce 76 percent fewer injury collisions and reduce traffic delays by up to 75 percent.

Traffic circles and roundabouts are superior intersections and drivers should quickly adjust. These intersections should be installed wherever possible in Colorado Springs. Any push to restrict them is a campaign for less efficient, more dangerous streets.