That signalised roundabouts LTN is very pro-full signalisation and very little else. Every other option seems to have “negative” summations.
I have not seen the CSS study and given that it is 13 years old, is it still applicable? Are there copies available? What assumptions did they make and are they reasonable ones?
Full time signalisation causes too much delay for road users outside of the peak periods and sticking rigidly to geometry requirements when there are roundabouts out there which work perfectly well without modern deflection is, in my opinion, is just another cop-out for lazy design. Every site is different and to say a blanket “no” to PT operation is… frustrating.
Does the sky fall in when a signalised roundabout fails? No. Because drivers can cope with it and treat it as a normal roundabout. Different geometry or not. In this respect is the DMRB too prescriptive in its standards – indeed, are these wonderful standards actually acheiving anything positive, other than giving contractors more things to build?
There is no need for signals to be operating 24hrs in every situation, particularly roundabouts, and I feel that we could quite easily adopt the continental flashing amber reversion and still incorporate pedestrian facilities in to that mode. I would also like to see the Irish flashing amber give way as again this would make some junctions so much more user friendly.