Roundabouts Ruled Out in Initial Hawaii 130 Draft Environmental Assesment

Thanks to the Aaron over at The Kona Blog for emailing me a link to the Highway 130 Draft Environmental Assesment that was prepared and delivered to the State recently.

A quick scan of the 171 page document shows me that they have ruled out roundabouts at this point in time.  I may be missing something.

When I have more time, I will be examining this a bit closer.

5 Responses

  1. The intersection at Shower is scheduled for a signal — in this DRAFT Environmental Assessment (EA).
    So, that means this EA was done to determine what the impacts of a given project would be. That given project, as has been know up to now, is described regarding changing the lanes in 2.3 miles and putting in a signal at Shower — nothing new here.
    Note, this document, the EA, is not recommending signal, lanes, or any such like — the EA is responding to those items.

    That means there are comments to be received to this EA.

    For example:
    Did the native fauna survey include kolea (the migratory ‘plover’) which frequents the HPP area during its season in Hawaii? Probably not, since the survey was done during the time of year that the kolea is in Alaska.

    Also:
    Safety has been repeatedly identified as the number one priority and concern in the community. The HDOT justification for the proposal they are getting assessed does not address safety in any way.
    An EA must consider social and cultural impact as well as ecological impact. The social impact on this community of having the most deadly highway in the state is very real and the EA must point out that the HDOT needs to include this impact and critical need for safety in their project plans.

    …and there will be more comments.

    This is a DRAFT assessment asking for input.
    The FINAL is a long way off.

  2. I think people resist roundabouts because, frankly, they fear change.

    Once you’ve driven through a roundabout a few times, you really start to like the way they work. No more awkward stop, wait, You-Go-No-I-Go-No-You-Go. Just a smooth continuous “turn” whether it’s right, straight ahead, left, or U-turn. (Those days of waiting forever to turn left or trying to find a place that’ll actually allow U-turns are over.)

  3. OK. Deep breath.
    This is only about the section from Kea’au Bypass to Shower. RABs not ‘ruled out’ for the rest ( = most) of the KPAG corridor. However, that said, requests for the analysis that surely was done of all the possible intersection treatments for the Shower Dr. intersection have not yet been met as far as I know.
    Consider this, anyone. The highway is to remain as 55mph, despite wide public input for years for the speed limit to be reduced because of the danger to all the drivers trying to enter from feeder roads and private driveways. RABs are not favored by certain state engineers (thank you to the rest of you, and I hope your patient persistence will eventually succeed). ‘Not favored’ because ‘they are too slow’, despite ample and ever-growing documentation that they move traffic more quickly than signal lights. (On a comparison basis, they ARE NOT slower.)
    OK; roundabouts are too slow, so, instead we are going to have… a S-T-O-P light. A STOP light. Roundabouts are too slow, so instead we are going to stop. From 55 to a dead stop, and to 55 again; the rapid deceleration and acceleration is where the big air pollution comes from because it’s where we waste the most gas/petrol. And our money. And our planet. C’mon guys.

  4. “…at this point in time”! In research on RABs one finds that it is costlier to replace signals with RABS than to make the initial intersection treatment “improvement” a RAB. This is crazy. Sorry Gary, whoever you are, but what do you not like about 90% fewer deaths; less cost to the public for emergency service of police, ambulance, fire trucks, emergency rooms; less annual maintenance cost ($4,000 less at minimum); roundabouts always working = ZERO down time in power outages; less delay in movement of traffic, less loss of (every) driver’s time; less $ spent in gas; less pollution; less overall paving; less taking of land (no additional lanes needed). Where’s the problem with roundabouts, please?
    And this:
    What HDOT are not facing for whatever reason is the very real threat of litigation over AVOIDABLE deaths and disabling injury that WILL EVENTUATE from failing to use the best available engineering; there have already been lawsuits. Will somebody please explain?

  5. Yay! Roundabouts suck!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

I do this to keep the spammers away * Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.