| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

Gone Bad

Page history last edited by Frank Broen 11 years, 1 month ago

Date:    Mon, 25 Feb 2013 20:04:28 -1000

From:    Elizabeth Weatherford <elizweatherford@GMAIL.COM>

Subject: Re: Roundabout peer review and risk management

 

--bcaec554025a384fb304d69a6efd

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

 

Duly noted. "A roundabout" is better than "no roundabout". Unless it fails

to deliver? and then if it was 'the test case' then the case is lost?

 

The Hawaii island situation involves a public input process completed in

summer 2011 that was REQUIRED of DOT as a response to the district's

Environmental Justice complaint*. The complaint shows that the community

had long been intentionally discriminated against by state transportation

(to illustrate: from 2003 to 2010 all the State's declared 5% intersections

were on THAT one state road in the district, with crash rates hovering

around 2. When the complaint was lodged in 1993, this pattern was already

established).

 

The DOT could have improved the safety of these intersections anytime.

 

In the public process, 3 intersections were identified for roundabouts,

conceptual designs were done by a highly experienced designer**, and they

were part of a $125+ million project. We thought the DOT was going to carry

out the recommendations. The intersection at Kahakai Blvd. was to be done

first (possibly only it) because it was the only one that would still have

acceptable LOS in the design year 2038 (for a single lane rbt, because HDOT

policy, first stated 2008, does not allow multiple lane roundabouts).

 

Since the FEA was awarded, the DOT Hwys Div., without any community

consultation and within the year, apparently got HSIPs and 'improved' two

of the intersections. One is now signal-ready, with added lanes and tapers;

the other, intended for the roundabout, Kahakai, has new striping and

yellow and white plastic deflectors. They also had safety cones and flagmen

for the year, and now they're not on the reportable list; Kahakai had had a

2.4+ crash rate.

 

At the Jan 16 informational meeting held to fulfill Civil Rights and

Historical notification requirements, we found out that the design to be

implemented*** is new, paid for with an HSIP, and not the one in the FEA.

 The design engineer has ? roundabout experience (several people have

looked online and found nothing about the designer). The DOT presentation

gave zero information about that. The design drew so much opposition from

the community**** because the preferred intersection had been changed out

and no reasons offered, and especially because the substituted intersection

is extremely complex. These other features--such as the busy intersection

only 30m to the W, that in our estimation can fully be expected to disrupt

the rbt's capacity to function smoothly; and design speed that will reduce

safety benefits especially for peds--will not be considered, the community

was forcefully and categorically informed.

 

HSIPs have lower ADA and oversight requirements, thus the new design has

substandard ADA accommodation, very evident and part of the deficient

deflection of the NB lane***.

 

So. Should we be glad to have this roundabout, or not?

 

 

* at Puna Regional Circulation Plan_FINAL_REPORT_NOV_2005_3.pdf,  Appendix

A.

**'Appendix 1' attachment

***Jan 16 Roundabout attachment

****

http://hawaiitribune-herald.com/sections/news/local-news/experts-contend-roundabout-will-save-lives.html(the

officials were not 'contending'; one of the inaccuracies of this news

piece.)


 

 

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.