History of the Project

With the widening of W. 36th Street residents were concerned about higher traffic speeds. Some residents wanted speed humps installed. At the time a signalized intersection at W. 36th and Romine was not justified on traffic counts. The roundabout was proposed by city traffic engineers, but was neither initially endorsed by neighborhood community nor considered by the project design engineers of Little Rock Public Works. There were two public meetings held, the first to discuss the nature of the improvements and right-of-way requirements for West 36th Street and the second focused on the intersection at W. 36th Street and Romine. An extensive presentation on roundabouts, with graphic support including a video, was given at the second public meeting. In a memorandum to the City Manager the Cityﾒs Traffic Engineering Manager stated the pros and cons of the options and the results of the poll of the second meetingﾒs participants. He recommended the roundabout as a solution to the concerns of the citizens about speeding on the improved W. 36th Street (speed humps were deemed inappropriate for an arterial). It was also seen as a method to avoid a future signalized intersection at W. 36th and Romine and its inherent safety issues.

Context-Sensitive Factors

There is a grade school and church (with day care) nearby on Romine and the need for traffic calming was indicated on W. 36th Street (an arterial without horizontal curves) in this residential area. Traffic calming features include two pairs of ﾑsidiansﾒ or chokers installed on the W. 36th Street south leg of the roundabout. The central raised island of the roundabout is planted and the mountable concrete circle and lane islands are simulated red brick. In this application the roundabout itself is considered a traffic-calming device. The manager of the adjacent apartment complex considers the roundabout to be a visual enhancement especially if it avoids a signalized intersection in the future.

Public Education and Involvement

Two public meetings were held on the W. 36th Street improvement project. The second public meeting that included 25 residents focused on the roundabout option. Traffic engineers from the public works department prepared posters showing existing roundabouts, a color informational pamphlet on roundabouts and incorporated a video, prepared by the Maryland DOT, on the functioning of a modern roundabout in their presentation of the option. The roundabout option had been mentioned in the first public meeting that dealt primarily with right-of-way issues. Prior to the second meeting several residents had signed a petition questioning the viability of a roundabout at the intersection. The second meeting was advertised as a briefing and discussion after which the attendees would be polled for their opinion.
At the meeting a few ﾑ very vocal participantsﾒ spoke against the roundabout option. However, a few participants indicated their understanding of the safety and traffic calming benefits of a roundabout and a willingness to have one in their neighborhood. Questions from the participants included:

• Is this already a ﾑdone dealﾒ?
• How would pedestrians cross?
• Who would maintain it?
• What signs would be necessary?
• How would the driving public be educated?

   Little Rock Roundabout - Arkansas PDF