Posts: 104
Threads: 36
Joined: Feb 2007
Anyone wanting to comment pro or con on the state's proposed traffic light on Hwy 130 at Shower Drive (where the morning rush hour 2nd lane starts) should attend the Dept. of Transportation public hearing Monday (tomorrow) between 6 and 9 p.m. at Keaau Community Center.
Despite years of public testimony to the contrary, the state has finalized its plan for that segment of the highway calling for installation of a traffic light there.
Here's the link to the state's final plan: http://hawaii.gov/health/environmental/oeqc/index.html
Go to the second paragraph and click on Island maps, get Hawaii Island, and then the Final Ea for this project is at the top bc it was just published 23rd April.
Name of it is FEA STP - 0130 (28), Kea'au-Pahoa Road Shoulder Lane Conversion Project. The Draft is about 3 down, in case you'd want to compare.
Posts: 8,467
Threads: 1,032
Joined: May 2003
Friends of Puna's Future (FoPF) has been tracking and commenting on the EA consultant's (Wilson Okamoto) work.
It has been interesting to watch the consultant cherry pick data, pull figures out of their ass, and have a weak grasp of math.
Regarding consideration of a roundabout at Shower Drive:
1. In the Draft EA the consultant stated that a roundabout of 200' diameter would take up too much land. FoPF responded that while the draft proposal would require eminent domain of 4.5 acres the inclusion of a roundabout would require 4.75 acres.... an increase of 1/4 acre. Not a impressive increase in land requirement (+5%).
2. So without explanation the consultant changed the diameter to 260' radius. An increase of 70%. They seem to have steered this number to their predetermined conclusion. FoPF then pointed out that roundabout design criteria for Florida, Texas, Colorado and New York show a 200' diameter circle to be proper for two lane traffic in each direction and design criteria specifically says to not exceed 230' diameter. This is where we feel the consultant is pulling figures out of their ass.
So the reluctance of the consultant to be pragmatic and offer us and the state facts is overwhelmed by their desire to bow to the construction industry and install the more dangerous (and expensive) solution. Traffic lights, with their history of red light running and left turn t-bone accidents cost over $1,000,000 each and require maintenance and electricity to operate. The federal government will pay 100% of the cost of a roundabout for a safety criteria.
If this continues Puna will become the beneficiary of old school highway design and we will receive a dinosaur of a highway strung with a long line of gas consuming and dangerous intersections. Just like Honolulu.
Assume the best and ask questions.
Punaweb moderator
Posts: 1,779
Threads: 73
Joined: Aug 2006
We have requested postponement of action on the intersection [STP Project 0130 (28), Kea'au-Pahoa Road, Shoulder Conversion], pending adequate analysis of alternatives along with full disclosure of the basis for any determination to take action.
In addition to our own analysis of the FEA, we are consulting with independent experts. There is consensus among these experts that the FEA does not adequately evaluate roundabouts as an alternative. Specifically, they do not believe the FEA fulfills the requirements of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA).
Federal case law supports the position that the FEA is in violation of NEPA because of inadequacies, including insufficient consideration of the alternative.
Below are examples of inadequacies in the FEA:
Current information not used
page 2-18
“Millenium Edition MUTCD” is cited as the source for determining the warrants for a signal at the Shower/Pohaku intersection. The “Millenium Edition” of this publication is out of print and has been superseded by more current information.
Incomplete and erroneous information used to arrive at key conclusions
page 4-2
The “major advantage” of a roundabout cited is found no where else in a growing body of literature documenting performance of roundabouts. Improved safety, improved road capacity, and reduced costs are consistently and widely cited as major advantages of a roundabout relative to a signal light.
The “proportion” of one-vehicle collisions and the “proportion” of collisions involving pedestrians are cited in a manner to make them appear to be a negative aspect of a roundabout.
The “proportion” among collisions is not most relevant – the total number is most relevant. Data consistently shows that roundabouts result in a decrease in the total number of collisions of all types, including those involving pedestrians, bicycles, and single vehicles. The proportion is greater for pedestrians, bicycles, and single vehicles because roundabouts eliminate so very many of the other types of crashes and that is a positive aspect of a roundabout.
page 4-3
The “comparison of costs” is not a genuine comparison of alternatives. It does not provide a direct, side-by-side cost comparison of the two alternatives.
In a genuine cost comparison, this question would be answered: “What are the installation cost and the operating cost for each of the two alternative intersection treatments -- a traffic signal and a roundabout -- at this site?”
page 4-3 to 4-4
The discussion of “right-of-way” does not provide a direct, side-by-side comparison of the location and amount of land required for the two alternatives, a traffic signal and a roundabout.
Rather than a direct, side-by-side comparison of the two alternatives for the intersection, incomplete information is provided regarding cost and regarding land area for right of way. This incomplete information is then used as the basis for comparing the two alternatives to support a decision.
page 4-4
The claim is made that “both side streets would have to be realigned to provide a 90 degree entry to the roundabout”. However, according to independent advice from an expert with technical knowledge of roundabout design, a 90 degree entry is not required for a roundabout.
Unsupported Assertion
page 4-5
An assertion is made regarding “unfamiliarity of motorists with roundabouts”. The claim is made that motorists on this road (i.e., Puna residents and visitors) are not familiar with roundabouts. No factual evidence is provided to support this statement.
Internal contradiction
Besides being incomplete (as discussed above), the information given in the “comparison of costs” is also inconsistent with other parts of the FEA. On page 4-3 “signing” and “pavement marking” are allocated as cost to roundabouts but not to signals, while on page 1-14 “signage” and “striping improvements” are indicated as a project task. Surely, “signage” and “striping improvement” tasks have associated cost.
Next, the FEA claims that Project 28 is “compatible” with STP Project 0130 (27).
page 1-3
The claim is made, “...project...compatible with Project...27...”
page 2-19
The claim is restated, “...project will be designed to be compatible with ... Project...27...”
page 4-1
The claim is made, “...project is ... integral part of the HDOT plan to widen KPR to four travel lanes.”
However, there are contradictions in the document that cast doubt on the compatibility of the two projects.
page 4-4
A counterpoint to a roundabout is said to be the need to “realign the intersection approaches” to Shower Drive and Pohaku Drive.
Project 27 is actively considering access management treatments on Keaau-Pahoa Road, including alignment of intersection approaches to Shower Drive and Pohaku Drive.
The work proposed by Project 28 on the mauka side of the Shower/Pohaku intersection (shown on 1.5-8 of the Project 28 FEA) would be demolished with the realignment in Project 27.
page 4-4 & 4-5
Another counterpoint to a roundabout is said to be the “one lane to two and two lane to one lane issue.” This issue would not exist if Project 28 was compatible with Project 27.
page 5-3
The statement is made that Project 28 “... responds to population growth that has already occurred...”
Project 27 is responding to projected population.
The planning bases for the two projects are not compatible.
“Significance criteria” are insufficiently addressed for the purpose of making a determination
page 5-2
Will this project “Substantially affect public health?”
The Hawaii State Department of Health has determined that the rate of fatal injuries among car occupants in Hawaii County in recent years was significantly higher than any other county.
It is the understanding of the Puna community that Keaau-Pahoa Road intersections are the most dangerous in the state.
Roundabouts are proven to reduce risk of death and injury in motor vehicle collisions at intersections.
The FEA does not adequately consider roundabouts as an alternative.
If the project were implemented as proposed, the public would be significantly impacted by unnecessary exposure to a known public health risk: exceptional likelihood of death and injury in motor vehicle collisions.
page 5-4
Will this project “detrimentally affect air quality?”
Roundabouts are proven to reduce emissions from motor vehicles and result in less negative impact on air quality as compared to signalized intersections.
The FEA does not adequately consider roundabouts as an alternative that could reduce negative impact on air quality.
The additional degradation of air quality over the life of the proposed project could be substantial.
page 5-6
Will this project “require substantial energy consumption?”
Roundabouts are proven to reduce fuel usage by motor vehicles.
The FEA does not adequately consider roundabouts as an alternative that could reduce the requirement for energy consumption.
The additional energy required over the life of the proposed project could be substantial.
James Weatherford, Ph.D.
15-1888 Hialoa
Hawaiian Paradise Park
Posts: 382
Threads: 13
Joined: Feb 2007
Do you seriously want a roundabout at that intersection?
Daniel R Diamond
Daniel R Diamond
Posts: 447
Threads: 27
Joined: Sep 2006
.
"Do you seriously want a roundabout at that intersection?"
My thoughts exactly.
Whaddya NUTZ?!
Roundabouts are lovely.
In Invercargill perhaps.
However! one of the busiest most-dangerous intersections in the Entire State of Hawai'i is no place for people (who are either flat-out-drunk /drugged-up/ perusing-a-map/ slapping-baby-#18-(or-is-it-19?)/ schloooping-to-almost-climax-their-boyfriend's-barely-etect-whactchamacallit/ taking-their-meds/ gobbling-their-Burger-King-Whopper/ putting-on-their-lipstick/ shaving-their-legs/adjusting-their-tongue-studs/ admiring-their-new-tattoos/ sexting-their-future-boyfriend/ blabbing-on-the-phone-to-their-sister-in-law/ trying-to-remember-what-side-of-the-roads-Americans-even-drive-on-left-or-right-fer-chrissakes!) to Practice/ Attempt/ Try-for-the-first-time/ Break-into-what-some-may-believe-to-be-the-answer-to-all-of-Puna's-traffic-woes!
Nice try folks.
I admire your stamina.
But give it up already, wouldja? It's a Killer.
Worse, by far, than the mess we've already got.
I will fight to the death, I'm afraid, for plain old traffic lights.
Try the damn roundabout-idea in a place like Kalapana...
...and (survive, along with your wives and kids to) have a great day.
---malolo
Posts: 8,467
Threads: 1,032
Joined: May 2003
I understand where you are coming from but by any an all measures roundabouts are safer and less deadly than signalized intersections. And the subject is extremely well documented. Interestingly they are even faster, in moving traffic, than signals.
I was not an early enthusiast for roundabouts. It has taken me a couple years to understand the technology. I know that traffic signals are familiar but we've all seen the accidents and broken glass being swept up at signal intersections. All the distractions you mention above happen at signals also. When they happen at a roundabout the result is less injury, damage and death.
As this subject developed and as a rational skeptic of roundabouts I publicly asked HDOT, in 2008, for a cost/benefit analysis (CBA) of roundabouts versus signalized intersections. I thought it appropriate to examine the facts. Six months later I called teh head engineer at HDOT to ask about the CBA. What he said really disturbed me. I was told that there was no point in doing the analysis because no matter what the facts were he had no intention of doing roundabouts.
So what I was confronted with was a lie, a broken promise and a lack of concern for the facts. All I wanted was the facts. If a CBA showed that signals were safer then that was okay by me. If a CBA showed RBAs were better then I wanted to understand why and how. I don't think a $56 million project on which lives are at stake should be denied the facts.
So what I see going on is a continual effort to avoid data and drive toward a predetermined conclusion.
RBAs are not the only issue of concern with Hwy 130. I have to be worried that if the consultant and chief engineer are consciously avoiding data on one key issue then what else is being haphazardly designed?
So my battle here is centered on the questions: What are the facts? What is fiction?
Assume the best and ask questions.
Punaweb moderator
Posts: 604
Threads: 50
Joined: Apr 2009
I sure hated roundabouts when placed in Berkeley area to slow through traffic. I hated one that was two lanes at highway speeds in Texas that we traveled through to Ft Worth from Dallas. Too scary, and now replaced. I love the roundabouts here on HWY 395 (local route north to Canada) in the town of Colville. We had nothing like it before, and people seem to "get it". Okay, they can be a little less than aggressive is pulling into it, but otherwise I have never seen any thing crazy. The best thing about it is that they have one at each end of the truck route, so you can bypass downtown. I wish I could compare numbers of vehicles. I know we don't have the commute traffic crunch here. But a lot of traffic passes on a daily basis. Traffic is funneled to one lane here for passage through it.
http://www.contextsensitivesolutions.org..._colville/
Life goes on, with you or without you.
Peace and long life
Posts: 5,640
Threads: 101
Joined: Dec 2008
They have roundabouts in plenty of third world countries so I'm sure the people of Puna can handle it.
Try something different for once.
Posts: 1,163
Threads: 32
Joined: Aug 2009
Put me in the anti-roundabout camp. We had lots of them back in DC and they were a nightmare - especially when tourists were added to the mix.
Posts: 468
Threads: 46
Joined: Jan 2009
I come from the east coast where they love their roundabouts. Single lane roundabouts on small roads work fine unless it is a busy road. Two lane roundabouts are a nightmare. Everyone has their own interpretation of how yielding is supposed to work. People in Puna don't even know what "merge" means, how are they expected to handle a roundabout? Let it go.
|
