Consider a roundabout at McKenzie interchange

Letter writer: “crashes that result in serious injuries or death are reduced by 82 percent versus a two-way stop" in a roundabout

Much speculation is being voiced about the likely nature of the “interchange” proposed for McKenzie Avenue and Highway 1. The term “overpass” is bandied about. We also see the term flyover (See Letters, Sept. 9).

I write to make an earnest plea.

What is needed is simply a roundabout. It is a junction of two roads, nothing more. Yes, major roads, hence calling for a major roundabout with two lanes in the roundabout and the minimum island in the centre.

Cyclists and pedestrians are best accommodated by underpasses or bridges.

The design of roundabout we see locally is to be avoided at all costs. I draw your attention to the one at McKenzie and Finnerty (by the University of Victoria). It has seemingly been designed to obstruct traffic rather than to facilitate a steady flow.

I read in the Aug. 1 and 2 issue of “International New York Times” an article entitled “America catches on to the roundabout,” In  it, we read, “There are hundreds if not thousands more in the planning stages.”

We also learn that “crashes that result in serious injuries or death are reduced by 82 percent versus a two-way stop, and by 78 percent compared with an intersection with traffic lights.”

I sent this article to the mayor of nine of the largest municipalities in Greater Victoria a month ago. I have not received a word of reply from any of them.

Why do you think that is? Too busy, indifferent,  tied up in bureaucratic tape, no confidence in their traffic engineers, content to be a party to the needless death of many of their fellow citizens?

Jack Dixon

Saanich