It’s a race. Across Ontario, government agencies responsible for our road infrastructure are running pell-mell in a competition to claim that their jurisdiction is home to the most roundabouts in the province.

One comes across them in the strangest locations — on a recent business trip up to Georgian Bay, I chose to take rural roads to avoid traffic and, in the middle of nowhere, at the intersection of two country roads, with nary a car to be seen for miles, was a brand-new large, sleek and shiny roundabout.

My colleague shook her head and wryly commented from the passenger seat, “Our tax dollars hard at work managing farm tractor traffic.”

Could it be that this race to construct these traffic management wonders is significantly influenced by the fact that “sexy” (as defined by the provincial government) projects are most likely to generate infrastructure funding by the Ford government?

This might be a factor in the push to propose roundabouts in a plethora of locations … even shoehorned into places which are demonstrably unsuitable to take advantage of a roundabout’s strengths in managing traffic flows.

Let’s consider one of these cited “strengths”: In an intersection with balanced traffic flows (traffic volumes on the intersecting roads served by the roundabout are roughly equivalent), a roundabout will slow the speed of traffic through the intersection and thereby reduce most severe types of vehicular accidents, emissions and fuel consumption (the latter two caused by idling) while moving traffic most efficiently through the intersection.

For a moment, let’s accept this posit in its entirety. But, what happens when the traffic flows are not balanced?

Quite simply, the lowest volume interface to the roundabout suffers an access challenge and can (does) result in a significant vehicular back-up on the secondary roads.

This challenge is often seen here in NOTL at both the Concession 6-Niagara Stone Road roundabout by vehicles approaching the roundabout feature from the south on Concession 6, and the York Road-Glendale roundabout if approached from the east on York Road.

So, I must ask the question, if the vehicular back-ups on these two roundabouts result in multi-minute idling, does that really reduce emissions and fuel consumption through the intersection?

Now, let’s talk about the safety claim.

There is absolutely no question, based upon multiple international studies, that roundabout installations decrease severe vehicular accidents and fatalities resulting therefrom.

However, according to the Injury Lawyers of Ontario website, data gathered and published by the Region of Waterloo — which has the highest density of roundabouts in the province — shows a 35 per cent increase in traffic accidents at intersections where roundabouts replaced traffic lights.

A fact confirmed in the analysis of this data by Yue Zhao in the 2017 thesis presented to the University of Waterloo entitled “Evaluation of safety effects of roundabouts in the Region of Waterloo.”

And, as Jeff Outhit pointed out in his article published in the Waterloo Record in December 2014, “Roundabouts crashes, injuries double in five years in Waterloo Region,” it isn’t a case of drivers just getting familiar with using roundabouts, “But the rate of fender-benders in roundabouts is startlingly high. It’s getting worse — doubling in five years. Non-fatal injuries in roundabouts have also doubled in five years.”

Let’s skip across the pond to the United Kingdom where, according to an article published in The Guardian, titled “‘Traffic lights are so dictatorial’ … but are roundabouts on the way out?” and published in October 2015, the author, Ian Wylie, reports “The U.K. is quietly replacing roundabouts with traffic lights.”

In this article, Wylie quotes the head of transport investment for Newcastle City Council, Graham Grant, stating, “Roundabouts are brilliant at moving car traffic, but not a safe space for people who cycle or are crossing on foot.”

Later in the article, Grant goes on to say, “Our cities have been designed for middle-aged men driving cars, but of all the people who need consideration, they’re not top of the list.”

Furthermore, he points out that roundabouts cause significant tailbacks unless the traffic on each approach road is equal.

Going on to suggest that, “A roundabout doesn’t give us sufficient control of the network to control priority and demand.” And concluding with, “… sometimes you have to actually intervene. If gaining more control means replacing roundabouts, then that’s the way it has to be.”

It seems that transportation experts in the U.K. — given that the nation has the highest concentration of modern roundabouts per road mile in the world and more than seven decades of experience with them — have decided that roundabouts are not a panacea.

To be clear, no one is suggesting that roundabouts do not have a place in our road infrastructure, but rather, installed only in selected intersections which will take advantage of their strengths while not exposing motorists, cyclists and pedestrians to their weaknesses.

I submit that the centre of St. Davids is not one of these intersections.

Oh, and to the lord mayor’s assertion that “There is never a head-to-head collision” on a roundabout (as quoted from The Lake Report’s Nov. 7 article “Region seeks ideas from residents for St. Davids roundabout design“), I beg to differ.

Just this past August, a tourist — who was clearly unfamiliar with roundabouts — decided to turn the wrong way on the Niagara Stone Road-Concession 6 roundabout and met another vehicle going the other correct way.

Now, neither vehicle was going fast enough to cause any significant damage but their front bumpers did kiss.

Speaking of the lord mayor, in another of Richard Wright’s articles published in this newspaper last week (“Engineering reports used to approve zone change for Parliament Oak under scrutiny”), when speaking to concerns raised regarding the Parliament Oak engineering reports, he infamously declared, “I’m not interested in that.”

“We will get the questions answered, but we’ll be dealing with actively employed, qualified engineers that will be responsible for the municipality.”

Lord Mayor Gary Zalepa’s dismissive comments could be the result of simple ignorance, but I doubt it.

Both men are citizens and residents of Niagara-on-the-Lake. Both are “qualified” engineers and have the professional expertise to analyze and comment on this type of engineering report.

In fact, in Richard Connelly’s case, for about five decades he and his company actually provided engineering services related to infrastructure in jurisdictions across North America.

Who, I ask, could be better qualified?

Moreover, being in no one’s pay allows them a level of objectivity that cannot be bought.

Their bringing the issues in this report forward is purely reflective of the concern that town council has made a decision concerning the rezoning of Parliament Oak based on flawed information.

And, in doing so, has potentially exposed the town — more particularly the taxpayers of the town — to a significant infrastructure liability that could result in a whacking big bill.

I admire the fact that Kirsten McCauley, the town’s director of community and development services, “worked with our operations staff, and they reviewed the information and they provided their feedback and the recommendation back to us.”

However, she does not employ a qualified engineer on the operations staff professionally capable of properly analyzing the information contained within the engineering report submitted by the developer.

So, I am forced to ask what is their recommendation based upon, other than general opinion?

This is not a criticism of the operations staff, but simply a statement of their lack of professional engineering qualifications to make the type of educated recommendation that should have been required by town council prior to voting on the property’s rezoning.

But the lord mayor is “not interested in that” and director McCauley is not concerned.

I wonder … should it transpire that the infrastructure issues raised by the two qualified engineers who read this report turn out to be the case, will the proposed hotel development not be approved by director McCauley?

After all, the decision will be solely in McCauley’s hands, since town council has delegated the responsibility for site plan approvals to her position — a position not directly accountable to the residents of NOTL.

Brian Marshall is a NOTL realtor, author and expert consultant on architectural design, restoration and heritage.