Shower Drive-Hwy 130 traffic light

[Bob Orts]

Please understand, I'm not disagreeing with either of you, but I am saying that too much emphasis is being placed on roundabouts as the alternative while no alternatives based on best solution has been presented. If we are going to argue the pro's and con's of a light controlled intersection at this location, let's permit equal arguments for pro's and con's of a roundabouts. It may turn out that neither is the best solution.

So let's go back to the post everyone in favor of roundabouts are ignoring:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frankie Stapleton

Bob, I really respect your opinions and have come to the same conclusion as to the RAB there. Do you see any other possible alternative to a traffic light there?

---

After showing the reports to three traffic engineers (two who favor use of roundabouts) based on their quick glance, they didn't think a roundabout was appropriate and actually saw more negative issues with a roundabout than a light controlled intersection. They felt a "By-Pass with Elongated Turnarounds and Sweep Lanes from side streets" was probably a better solution. There are no lights or stops involved and there is no cross traffic, everything is merge and flow on straight (most basic concept) lanes.

[Rob Tucker]

I hear you Bob,

One thing we have been upset about is the refusal of HDOT to produce, as promised in 2008, a cost/benefit analysis of RBAs and signalized intersections. That is something I asked for in a public meeting and was told that they would do.

So lacking a credible review of options by HDOT we are left to press for bonafide information.

There are experts in the field who could have been brought in to examine the potentials as requested by the community. The response I personally received from HDOT's head of engineering was "it doesn't matter what a cost benefit analysis would say because I am not going to approve a RBA".

So Bob, where would you go facing that kind of consideration?

[Elizabeth Weatherford]

Regards to all,
Ed Sniffen, formerly Project manager on the shoulder lane conversion project, and now (as of June 1) Highways Division Head was the HDOT representative who came to the meeting at HPP on May 21. On the phone June 7, two Mondays ago, said that he would see to it that the cost of the Okamoto Contract and the Signal/Roundabout cost comparison analysis would be sent to me. I look forward to seeing the information, and will post what I learn. If you want to request same, his office is (808) 587-2220.

Elizabeth Weatherford

[Elizabeth Weatherford]

Correction to my post: Mr. Sniffen was one of the two representatives. The other, whose name I do not have, is now the project manager.

Elizabeth Weatherford

[Bob Orts]

They are not required to do a cost/benefit study for any option rejected for technical and engineering reasons. Just like they do not have to do a cost/benefit of cloverleaf’s because that option is rejected due to engineering. Since they are claiming the roundabout option was rejected because of engineering (130/Shower is a choke point and roundabouts at choke points are inappropriate) they only have to justify the rejection not justify all aspects of the option compared to other options. If that wasn't the case, every conceivable option would need to be studies and a cost/benefit study done.

So, options going forward?
Challenge the decision to reject roundabouts. Make them show why from an engineering standpoint it’s not viable. There is enough conflicting communications to cast doubt on the engineering. Since there was comments that they are not familiar or have no experience with multi lane roundabouts, is it an engineering rejection or laziness?

This is done in conjunction with (and you know best how this will sit) ego. So HDOT thinks they know it all. So HDOT may have the degrees. So HDOT wields authority. You have ego on your side. You need to find some politicians whose ego is just as big. Convince them that a real evaluation of options at 130/Shower is needed and let their ego take over. Odds are HDOT will kind of blow off the value of the request and that’s when the fur gets to fly. No politician wants to think some civil servant has no respect. It doesn’t matter that one is state and another county, it's all about ego and the one with the bigger ego will make the most waves.

You don't even need it to be your district person, any politician who thinks their ideas are being disrespected will do. They don’t even have to believe in a roundabout; they just have to make them look like the person calling for truth in evaluations. Regardless of which way it ends up going, they can claim victory! If you get a roundabout, victory for the people, no roundabout, victory for the people to get a fair evaluation.

[ScottRAB]

The 'bypass' solution sounds expensive and land use intensive. I'm not familiar with the terms being used either.

[Elizabeth Weatherford]

Here is a recent article from USA Today that explains the differences between rotaries or traffic circles--that people have so many problems with--and modern-design roundabouts.

Note especially the splitter islands and the fact that with roundabouts, entering traffic yields to those already in the roundabout. According to the 2000 FHA Roundabouts Informational Guide, roundabouts have 75% fewer vehicle conflict points than a conventional intersection (4-way, with stop sign or signal light controls).

http://www.governing.com/blogs/view/rotary-rundown.html

Another point on roundabouts. Here's something one might never think about: when you approach a stop light, you have to look AWAY from the road to look up at the light [supposed to keep your eyes on the road when you're driving, right?] You can miss seeing a vehicle that is about to run the light or is in the wrong place or miss seeing a pedestrian or cyclist. At a roundabout you keep your eyes on the road, and traffic is coming from one direction only--left.




Elizabeth Weatherford