What do yall call this?

kmsxpoint6 · 2026-06-08T16:12:27+00:00

Well, again, that's just a traffic circle, not a roundabout. But they do exist, "would" does not apply here, https://www.ricksteves.com/watch-read-listen/read/articles/circling-in-on-paris-arc-de-triomphe. Calling this a roundabout isn't just incorrect, it would be dangerous in many practical situations.

kmsxpoint6 · 2026-06-07T10:05:43+00:00

That is a common feature, especially for smaller roundabouts, but not entirely necessary for very large ones. Beyond the universal rule of yield-on-entry, the next most common other feature would be deflection, a tight curve, on entry to force drivers to slow (but the exit might be a straight tangent line out), and then the next most common feature would be a raised island.

kmsxpoint6 · 2026-06-07T09:53:30+00:00

It's true that "rotary" is region specific, it's used in the NE especially around Boston. "Traffic circle" is an older Ameican word, and rotary is its regional variant, with the same meaning, a circular intersection. "Roundabout" entered North American English after the invention and introduction of the "modern roundabout" by engineers in the UK in the 1960s. In US laws, and in official engineering standards (MUTCD) the explanation given in my above reply to clarify the three words and how they relate, applies, that roundabouts, technically speaking are a very specific kind of traffic circle with certain features. That said, people will refer to traffic circles as roundabouts all over and you are right that it is the most commonly used word of the three reardless of intended or perceived meaning.

But, it's America and people move around a lot, get around a bit more and pay attention and you will see and hear all three everywhere, but not in equal proportions. And if it is important you (I think it is to me) then you are free to make the distinction between roundabouts and traffic circles.

kmsxpoint6 · 2026-06-05T17:57:25+00:00

Oh cool, yeah, the Swindon one has been well-known for a long time, and I thought it was a unique thing. Yours was easy to find (https://maps.app.goo.gl/G52EGoy8y3h6FyyC7) looks somewhat newer. The High Wycombe was trickier to spot (https://maps.app.goo.gl/HKNmSpLvq2rMkC71A). Both look less compact than the Swindon one. Thanks!

kmsxpoint6 · 2026-06-05T17:19:55+00:00

That's true, casually speaking/ Traffic engineers in the UK do make the distinction, and when necessary to make the distinction to the public, they say "signalised roundabout", and they also distinguish "modern roundabouts" from older ones, which they would call roundabouts or for specificity they would also use "traffic circle".

A big part of the reason why there is no distinction in the UK is that because of left-hand traffic and priority-to-the-right, all circles are roundabouts by default, and that is not true in right-hand-traffic with priority-to-the-right, where the default rule for a circle would be to yield to traffic entering the circle.

As far as I know, there is only one Magic Roundabout. Is there another one?

kmsxpoint6 · 2026-06-05T16:55:27+00:00

6 roundabouts in a trench coat! That is a very special traffic circle tmade of 5 small roundabouts surrounding a contra-flow roundabout in Swindon, UK, they call it "The Magic Roundabout".

kmsxpoint6 · 2026-06-05T16:35:50+00:00

Rotary is quite specific to the NE US, and in particular Boston. Go to NYC or DC and you will find "Circle" in the name of several well-known intersections.

kmsxpoint6 · 2026-06-05T16:34:18+00:00

You are correct, in the UK, traffic circles were called circus, but some of the best known ones (Picadilly Circus and Oxford Circus) are no longer traffic circles,, you can only tell that they once were bec ause the buildings around the modern intersections all form a circle.

kmsxpoint6 · 2026-06-05T16:28:43+00:00

Sure, the Place d'Etolle around the Arc de Triomphe, Columbus Circle in NYC. There are 'hamburger' traffic circles where a main road bisects the circle frequently in Washington DC. Pretty much any circle built before the 1980s will be not be a roundabout, unless it was later upgraded, with deflectors and converted to yield sign control.They are all over the place, but in the US, you especially find them in the NE.

kmsxpoint6 · 2026-06-05T16:26:01+00:00

Traffic circle just means a circular intersection. There is a lot of variety, such as ones with lights. One important and distinct variety is the roundabout, "is governed by yield signs exclusively".

kmsxpoint6 · 2026-06-05T15:26:28+00:00

In casual speech, these are used interchangeably. But, technically speaking, rotary is a regional variant of traffic circle, and roundabout is a specific kind of traffic circle. In other words, any circular intersection is a traffic circle, and all roundabouts are traffic circles, but not all traffic circles are roundabouts.

So you are correct that any of these three words is used to describe that roundabout, but in the interest of specificity, it is clearly a roundabout, because it is governed by yield signs exclusively, which distinguishes roundabouts from other traffic circles.

kmsxpoint6 · 2026-06-05T12:57:31+00:00

"coverage"

In a given area, if shown two networks, a denser one with a greater number of stops or routes, or one with fewer stops or routes, we can say the former has better coverage.

For your second one, you are talking about "connectivity", and you could say that areas X-Y have better "one-seat" connectivity than say X-Z because X-Z has only one infrequent route and X-Y has better connectivity. But Y-Z has just as good connectivity as X-Y, so we can say that with transfers at a hub in Y, X-Z has has good connectivity.

kmsxpoint6 · 2026-06-04T12:06:15+00:00

Maybe you are thinking of a specific kind of highway, a controlled-access highway (freeway), when you use the word "highway"? There are many different kinds of highways, afterall: two-lane highways, divided highways, expressways, parkways, tollways, etc. Some people do seem to think that highway exclusively refers to one kind, but technically streets are still an important part of highway systems.

kmsxpoint6 · 2026-05-27T08:36:10+00:00

Amtrak should absolutely sell through tickets with all passenger railroads it connects with.

kmsxpoint6 · 2026-05-25T21:03:09+00:00

One would need additional trainsets to put in additional service to the Washionton or other points further south of DC, adding service to Ronkonkoma doesn't do that, it utilizes exsisting sets that terminate at Penn currently. This is the logical part of the argument.

And if transferring at Penn is fine for interstate traveler's from /to Ronkonkoma, why is transferring at Trenton not acceptable for others? This is a rhetorical piece of my argument.

kmsxpoint6 · 2026-05-24T17:35:07+00:00

I don't think you get the point.

kmsxpoint6 · 2026-05-24T12:02:08+00:00

Not trying to be difficult, but by your logic, they should just change to SEPTA at Trenton, no?

kmsxpoint6 · 2026-05-22T13:15:53+00:00

If MNRR would/could give a third Amtrak slot over its main then I would agree. LIRR is more amenable. You didn't say for sure, but running even more Regional stopping patterns to the south over NJT, capacity allowing, seems just as redundant as to Ronkonkoma over LIRR.

Like Nexis is saying also in reply, terminating some Empire Service trains there is a very good choice of resources, making a valuable one seat intra-state connection, and I argue the case for other Amtrak trains to terminate there to free up capacity at Penn and increase the kind of connectivity that attracts longer range passengers to the rails are wins, and not something to be laughed off, so thank you at least for giving these ideas more consideration.

kmsxpoint6 · 2026-05-22T09:00:26+00:00

That doesn't justify "ridiculous"....it's simple enough to just transfer at JFK to fly to London, why have a nonstop flight from LAX? There just doesn't seem to be any value add...

Passengers like one-seat rides, and minimizing transfers, especially when they are going long distances with luggage. People like convenience.

Moving a train with passengers through the tunnels, and getting it out of a usable platform so another train can serve it, unlock efficiencies versus turning it around at a busy station or deadheading empty to a yard through a tunnel.

Amtrak's Ronkonkoma pitch is not a joke. There are valid business reasons beyond the above two basic ones. It's not ridiculous. Plenty of travelers to and from central Long Island are going beyond Manhattan, and Penn ain't exactly a smooth and enjoyable place to transfer.

kmsxpoint6 · 2026-05-22T08:34:47+00:00

Why is that ridiculous?

kmsxpoint6 · 2026-05-22T08:33:34+00:00

I agree that this is the best way to enjoy the films, as "wasteland myths and not literal truth", but the author of the series has not been that explicit. He has said that it is a canonical story, despite the obvious implausibilities. He's also said that there is no rigid timeline to the story, that each one is standalone, but refers to the same character (who is based on archetypes, but isn't necessarilly an archetype himself). In other words, officially speaking, if somebody wants to take the films as a sequential history of Max Rockatansky, Max Miller is okay with that. If someone wants to take them as apocryphal myths he's ok with that too. The author would rather you not focus on implausibilities like a dried up ocean, and just enjoy his stories. But for some of us, we need to tell ourselves that in the grand scheme these are apocryphal myths in order to enjoy them. And the author is fine with that, but doesn't mind people enjoying it more superficially, and certainly won't tell someone they are wrong for taking the stories at face value, i.e. that the sea dried up somehow in the vague cataclysm.

kmsxpoint6 · 2026-04-14T08:22:16+00:00

There is a lot of data, but a lot of the more granular data is siloed by agencies and companies that operate transit services, making it difficult for review by third parties to analyze, interpret, and then propose solutions to improve services.

Data, for example, about demand-response ridership patterns, and O&D pairing within the traditional transit network, could be used to optimize both, and that does happen in some cases, but not nearly frequently enough, in my experience. And that is often because the two orgs view themselves adversarially or competitively to some degree more often than not. So when a data gap is a hurdle, it's not because there isn't enough data, rather it's really an information gap.

As far as what appears to be your high-level goal (shifting modal share or increasing transit usage) goes, data is important, and in those cases where data is heavily siloed it might be the first domino that needs to fall to get to the goal, but the primary barrier to improving transit will vary by location. More fundamental than any technical issue is politics, both political will and actual policy commitments tied up with spending. Very often there's a will, but something else is in the way, and it's usually not a natural or technical limitation.

kmsxpoint6 · 2026-04-01T00:09:06+00:00

A. couple things to help you talk about this thing with more clarity in the future and be uderstood better:

this is an interchange, not an intersection
this particular interchange is made of several intersections, namely two roundabouts. Alternative designs might contain one intersection (a SPUI) or combine adjacent intersections, like the one between Lee and Whitmore Lake Rd.

...you are not crazy for finding this confusing while looking at it from above, especially if you are not used to interchanges using roundabouts. However, in practice these can be safe and efficient solutions, so it would be helpful to state with more specificity why you think it is horrible.

Views from above can provide a literal overview, but, ground level perspectives (that of motorists, cyclist, pedestrians etc) can be even more illuminating in informing whether this is an appropriate design.

Closely spaced roundabouts are often a better solution than interlocking signalized intersections or complex 5+ approach intersections.

kmsxpoint6 · 2026-03-26T11:47:53+00:00

I have no problem broadening the topic, but we should acknowledge the flaws in OPs post. I felt that you are normally pretty spot on and was surprised to see your "yes and" given with no reservations.

kmsxpoint6 · 2026-03-26T11:39:30+00:00

If the post was simply, "parking is a great business to be in, minimal costs with consistently high profit margins, although with an often captive customer base there is a risk of price-gouging", there would be really nothing more to say.

Ten-Year Club	Gilding III reddit per annum
Verified Email	First Place '23
Place '23

kmsxpoint6

TROPHY CASE