Facts vs. Fiction: Unveiling the Truth Behind the Roundabout Sales Pitch

The proposed roundabout on Drakes Creek Road at the entrance to Durham Farms has been marketed with a glossy exterior—promises of traffic safety, reduced delays, and modern infrastructure improvements. But as with any sales pitch, what's beneath the surface tells a different story. This page exposes the critical facts that have been conveniently brushed aside to sell the community on a design that doesn’t fit our needs.

Key Facts - What the Sales Pitch Leaves Out:

  1. Misalignment with State and Federal Standards: The current roundabout design flies in the face of both TDOT and FHWA guidelines for context-sensitive solutions. These agencies recommend minimizing right-of-way acquisition and reducing environmental impact in floodplains. Instead, the proposed roundabout encroaches on private properties and piles on additional hardscape in a FEMA Zone AE flood zone—ignoring crucial measures to mitigate flood risks (TDOT Roadway Design Guidelines, Chapter 3, Section 3-450; TDOT Right-of-Way Manual, Section 6.3; TDOT Environmental Procedures Manual, Chapter 7).

  2. Oversized Design for a Low-Traffic Area: The proposed roundabout's dual entry lanes and massive splitter islands (approach lanes from 12-15 feet, splitter islands up to 19.5 feet wide) are typically found in areas with heavy traffic—certainly not in quiet residential neighborhoods like ours. With an average daily traffic count of just 8,896 vehicles, a smaller, single-lane roundabout would be more than enough to handle the flow. Instead, we’re being sold a massive 180-foot Inscribed Circle Diameter (ICD), a design fit for a freeway interchange, not a neighborhood (FHWA "Roundabouts: An Informational Guide," 2nd Edition).

  3. Flexibility Exists, But It's Being Ignored: TDOT’s own guidelines advocate for flexibility in roundabout design, allowing communities to tailor projects to local needs. Yet here, that flexibility is being ignored. Countryside Drive is a dead-end street serving just 24 homes, but the current plan suggests wide, dual-lane approaches and huge splitter islands. A more modest, single-lane design with narrow splitter islands would be more than adequate—and save land and cost (TDOT Traffic Design Manual, Chapter 2, Section 2.4).

  4. No Need for Dual Lanes on a Dead-End Street Why are dual 16-foot lanes necessary on a quiet, dead-end street? They aren’t. The approach on Countryside Drive could be a simple, single-lane entry—more practical, less costly, and less invasive. This over-engineering serves no purpose other than inflating the project’s scope and cost (AASHTO "Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities").

  5. Roundabouts Are Not Required by Law—It’s a Design Choice Contrary to the impression some may have, a roundabout is not required by any traffic control law. According to the MUTCD, roundabouts are classified as circular intersections, not traffic control devices, meaning their use is a design decision, not a legal mandate. So why is this specific, oversized roundabout being pushed so hard? (MUTCD 11th Edition, Section 2B.06, Page 75)

  6. No Warrant Study Proving a Roundabout Is Needed Before major traffic changes like a roundabout are approved, a warrant study is usually conducted to justify their necessity. As of now, no such study has been presented to the public. Without this, the need for a roundabout remains speculative at best, raising questions about whether this project is even necessary (MUTCD, Section 2B.07 - Warrants for Traffic Control Devices).

  7. The Gap Between Anderson Lane and Countryside Drive Doesn’t Justify the Current Design The large gap between Anderson Lane and Countryside Drive doesn’t demand an oversized roundabout with dual lanes and a huge ICD. A more compact, intelligently aligned design would meet the community's needs while minimizing the overall footprint—and the land it takes from residents (FHWA "Roundabout Design and Operations Guidance").

  8. Unnecessary Complexity and Cost: Why does a quiet neighborhood need dual lanes and oversized splitter islands? It doesn’t. The current design adds unnecessary complexity and costs when a more straightforward, more tailored solution would serve us better. Even though TDOT’s own guidelines emphasize cost-saving measures for low-traffic areas, this roundabout is the opposite (TDOT Right-of-Way Manual, Section 6.3).

  9. Floodplain Impact—No One’s Talking About This: The roundabout is being built in a FEMA Zone AE floodplain—an area that already has issues with flooding. Adding a large roundabout with even more hardscape will only worsen the situation. By reducing natural water absorption areas, this project risks increasing flooding and threatening nearby homes (TDOT Environmental Procedures Manual, Chapter 7).

Conclusion: We Need More Than Just a Sales Pitch

We’re not against improvements or even roundabouts in principle. What we oppose is this specific design—overbuilt, overly complex, and unfit for our community’s needs. This roundabout has been marketed as a fix-all, but the facts paint a different picture. We urge the city to reconsider this oversized design and take into account the real needs of our neighborhood before it’s too late.