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.