20 Responses

WP_Blue_Mist
  • JT Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 8:54 pm

    I regret to have to make a negative comment on this project, but I’ve got more experience with round-abouts than Hawaii County. Yes, they are a great idea for low to moderate traffic intersections. However… that’s not what we’re talking about here. If this concept would work then why wasn’t it used at Kea’au?
    The problem stems from the fact that an excessive flow of traffic from one direction will totally stop traffic that wished to merge. Yes, if the concept of “one from direction A, then one from direction B, then back to A” works only with courteous folks that are not in a hurry. That is not the reality of every-day life!
    How is it that we have traffic lights at the Mamalahoa Hwy. — Kea’au-Pahoa Bypass Rd. and again at Hwy 130 – Hwy 132 but we can’t seem to figure out how to connect Pahoa to Kahakai Blvd? The very busiest traffic intersection in all of Puna seems to totally lack any rational thinking on the part of our highway planning (?) folks.
    People… this is not rocket science! Traffic through this intersection is less than 40% of what it is back at Kea’au and less than half at Hwy 132. Let’s not do something stupid that does nothing but slow traffic and create more road rage!
    direction A, then one from direction B, then back to A” works only with courteous folks that are not in a hurry.

  • Tiffany Edwards Hunt Says:
    January 2nd, 2013 at 9:25 pm

    I am generally supportive of the project, but I am concerned about the 12-month intersection closure. I think that could seriously hamper business in the village corridor.
    My husband is against the project altogether.
    He thinks it is a huge waste of funds and that the DOT should merely remove the fence currently blocking Pahoa Village Road.
    It seems to me like the island could somehow be incorporated as the roundabout.
    I don’t know.
    I am wondering how we can mitigate the 12-month closure and what exactly is the plan for the detour.
    Hopefully I can send a representative to the meeting.
    Thanks to DOT for hearing the public’s concern for the original meeting location in Kea’au and postponing the meeting to hold it in Pahoa.
    Unfortunately, I won’t be able to attend.

  • HH Says:
    January 3rd, 2013 at 6:29 am

    This design doesn’t look that good. Roundabout here should ne larger.

  • HH Says:
    January 3rd, 2013 at 6:29 am

    Should be larger

  • mark Says:
    January 3rd, 2013 at 8:38 am

    I am in full support of roundabouts, aka roundy rounds, at this interesection. It will greatly enhance the approach to Pahoa and will slow traffic down. I am glad to see DOT put an exit off 130 for Malama Market which will take considerable traffic off of the roundy round. I am from Carmel, IN, the roundabout capital of the US with over 100 varying in size from small intersections to very large ones. I was hoping that DOT would design it to accommodate the expansion of 130 to four lanes, this roundy is for two lanes, potential problems in that.

    I am also please to see sidewalk and bike trails, however I don’t see any on the mauka side that would connect Malama with the rest of the Village. Considering Brysons is developing a large shopping center at Kahakai and Village Road, pedestrian and bicycle pathways should be considered in this project in conjunction with County DPW.

  • seeb Says:
    January 3rd, 2013 at 9:41 am

    Half the accidents are at Kahakai, this does nothing for that.
    for the price of this you could put a Light there and Analoa and Makuu and Shower.
    I think saving lives would be more important than being some kind of social experiment

  • mark Says:
    January 3rd, 2013 at 10:21 am

    From what I understand, a roundabout for Kahakai is planned next. Perhaps if the residents and visitors to Beaches obey traffic laws and not cross over double lines to get to Kahakai, many accidents would be avoided in the mean time. The State DOT only has so much money and for now they are correcting the major problem, Malama interchange. Perhaps an HPD officer posted at Kahakai would send a warning to motorists not to cross double lines from the old KFC across to Beaches.

  • tehshiv Says:
    January 3rd, 2013 at 11:08 am

    As long as it has 2 lanes on the circular portion, it’ll work just fine. I used to be VERY skeptical of roundabouts until one was installed near my old workplace. The catch is that they MUST have 2 lanes, or you’ll get impatient drivers waiting to merge, and they’ll try to slip into the single lane versions and get sideswipped constantly.

  • Steve Says:
    January 3rd, 2013 at 1:20 pm

    12 month construction time is ridiculous. It should take 90 days. I used to work on road construction in oregon. The state told you how long you had and you geared upmand bid accordingly.

  • Richard Bidleman Says:
    January 3rd, 2013 at 6:37 pm

    What they are not talking about is the extension of Kahakai Boulevard into the Bryson development. Bryson is proposing a traffic light at the “T” intersection by Pahoa Autoparts. This “T” will become an “X” with traffic going into the development. This will affect the flow of traffic coming out of the Pahoa Marketplace and the traffic coming off of #130.

    Long term, Paho needs another road that comes into the backside of the Pahoa Marketplace and the new Bryson development, continuing onto the park and the dump road.

  • JT Says:
    January 3rd, 2013 at 9:57 pm

    If I can step in again… there seems to be two schools of thought; those who think round-abouts are good (especially if 2- lane) and those with other ideas. First, examining the graphic submitted, there is no provision for a 2-lane provision. Therefore, we are going to force the majority of the south-bound traffic to merge with the Pahoa and Pahoa Village north-bound traffic to merge for a minimum of 25% of the circle. The north0bound traffic will have to merge with Pahoa Village traffic for 50% of the circle. That’s only part of the problem.
    It is necessary to consider what the “real” traffic patterns are. Who are the people going past the Pahoa Village/Kahakai sector? Who is going where? My observations show that for South-bound, those headed home, about 30% of the total flow branch into the Pahoa Village/Pahoa area. Then, about 50% of the remaining head down to Hawaiian Beaches via Kahakai. The remaining traffic splits about 60% Nanawale/Kapahoa and 40% Leilani Estates/ Kanapala region.
    Looking at traffic for Northbound, people going someplace (like work or the store, or town) it becomes a bit more scattered. Wherever drivers are coming from, about 35% want to go to the Pahoa Village area. Those from south of Kahakai would go into downtown Pahoa from the Hwy. 130/132 intersection. The remainder head north and of that, 35% go to Pahoa Village. They choose this route to avoid downtown Pahoa and the Post Office congestion (thankfully). So, 42% of all traffic from south of Kahakai are headed north toward Kea’au.
    Continuing, I have observed about 30% of Kahakai traffic heading to Pahoa Village with the remainder headed north toward Kea’au. This then means that about 56% of all northbound traffic wants to pass the Pahoa Village area en route to their destinations as fast and safely as possible. o… the conclusion would be that 65% of all southbound traffic and 56% of all northbound traffic wish to get past the TWO intersections of question (Pahoa Village and Kahakai).
    My suggestion would be two traffic light controlled intersections with timed lights (something easily handled by an iPhone) to accommodate two ‘T’ intersections. The only other reasonable solution would be to re-grade the entire area into a single Cross Street signal controlled intersection. It’s done at Hwy 130/132 and Mamalahoa/130 currently with much success.
    In summation I’d like to state that attempting to make an idiot proof highway system only makes idiots out of the designers. We DO have people on the highways not qualified to operate a motor vehicle. Why do all of the rest of us have to suffer their ineptitude?
    Now, many will question my numbers. To that I say, step up with the real numbers. I have NEVER seen any traffic counting devices used on our Island. I have not even seen an individual with a click-counter producing numbers. Might this be part of the problem here? We have a traffic management system that doesn’t deal with FACT? Couple that with so many people that have such limited driving experience in other driving environments where it was MANDITORY that the best solutions be found?
    JT

  • Billy Says:
    January 7th, 2013 at 8:40 am

    I cannot imagine this not being a major mess. Especially with a single lane roundabout. Considering how poorly and inconsiderately too many people drive round here. The in and out connection for the Malama Market place looks like more of the same…2 roundabouts needed? And 98′ across??? The one I’ve seen in Hale`iwa on O`ahu must have at least an acre, maybe 2 in the center island. Oy veh!

  • Billy Says:
    January 7th, 2013 at 8:44 am

    P.S. Is there maybe a possibility of changing the entry to the Malama Mkt Place from the proposed Kahakai extension to serve the proposed Bryson shopping center? That would get rid of one problematical 2 way cross over.

  • ScottRAB Says:
    January 7th, 2013 at 10:18 am

    I hope everyone knows the difference between a traffic circle, rotary and modern roundabout.
    The FHWA has a video about modern roundabouts that is mostly accurate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhHzly_6lWM ).
    Modern roundabouts are the safest form of intersection in the world. Search http://www.iihs.org for FAQs and safety facts. The safety comes from the ‘slow and go’ operation instead of the ‘stop or go fast’ way a stop light works. The smaller size of the modern roundabout is what makes them safer and keeps speeds in the 20 mph range. This makes it much easier to avoid a crash or stop for pedestrians. It also means that if a crash happens the likelihood of injury is very low. Safety is the #1 reason there are over 2,400 modern roundabouts in the US today and many more on the way.
    Slow and go also means less delay than a stop light or stop sign, especially the other 20 hours a day people aren’t driving to or from work. Average daily delay at a signal is around 12 seconds per car. At a modern roundabout average delay is less than five seconds. Signals take an hour of demand and restrict it to a half hour, at best only half the traffic gets to go at any one time. At a modern roundabout four drivers entering from four directions can all enter at the same time. Don’t try that with a signalized intersection.

  • Rene Siracusa Says:
    January 17th, 2013 at 10:57 am

    I was at the meeting last night and left right after the DOT presentations because I was so disgusted with their attitude, namely, we are the professionals so we know better than you, don’t interrupt us with questions, we don’t need to take notes about community comments, etc. I support roundabouts, but the place we need it is at the top of Kahakai – which is planned. However this one will be too close to that one, for one thing. Also, this plan does not address some of the existing problems.

    They will take down the green wall and allow a sharp right turn into Malama Marketplace from the Kea’au direction, but will not allow a turning lane for it. So anyone wanting to turn in will have to slow waaaaaay down to do so, backing up highway traffic. When this was mentioned to Steven Yoshida his response poo-pooed this concern, saying something illogical about drivers speeding past in the wrong lane.

    Not addressed either was the exit from the marketplace. I mentioned that we should return to 2 lanes out, and move the stop line of the lane going into Pahoa a little further up, so that drivers can see oncoming traffic. Yoshida said, ‘or we can move the left turn lane further back, but then they would not be able to see oncoming traffic because the cars on the right would block it’ (not an exact quote). If you look at that configuration, you will see that his response makes no sense. He was just totally unwilling to entertain community ideas. The pompose attitude was, we are professionals and we’re going to do it the way we want, even though we don’t believe in roundabouts.

    The DOT guys also said that roundabouts work in urban areas where you are driving at 25 mph, but not on a high speed highway like 130. Totally overlooking the fact that Hwy 130 has ceased to be a high speed highway anyway (it functions more like a boulevard)and, at least in some places like the Pahoa area, should have a reduced speed, which would work well with a roundabout.

    They also insulted the intelligence of the community: Puna people don’t know how to drive in a roundabout, and so there will be accidents. They forget(or choose not to acknowledge the real demographics) about how many Puna people have moved from the mainland and are familiar with roundabouts, and how many Puna people have travelled to the mainland and other countries and driven roundabouts there. It is not rocket science.

    To make matters worse, DOT would not allow questions or comments during their presentations and limited them to the tables on the side afterward. This means, of course, that the attendees could not hear each others’ comments or the DOT responses. Not an open or transparent format at all.

    I couldn’t stand any more. The audience was getting angry – obviously they were having problems with the DOT attitude too. Do any of you who stayed late want to add to this?

    It was my impression that this will be a big boondoggle – because roundabouts are outside of their comfort zone and also outside of their competency, they are setting it up to fail, so that in the future when roundabouts are proposed anywhere in the state they can say: we tried it in Pahoa and it doesn’t work.

  • Rene Siracusa Says:
    January 17th, 2013 at 11:00 am

    kala mai the typo: not pompose, but pompous.

  • mark Says:
    January 17th, 2013 at 11:03 am

    Agreed Rene, their design has major flaws which will ultimately lead to fatalites for sure. We will discuss this at Tuesday’s SC meeting.

  • Rene Siracusa Says:
    January 18th, 2013 at 10:56 am

    Did you see the article by Colin Stewart in today’s (Fri.) HT-H? Very slanted toward DOT. He painted the attending community members as “angry”, “scoffing”, “loud interruptions”, etc. but did not really get into the problems inherent in the plan itself, like its failure to address some of the existing dangers.

  • Elizabeth Weatherford Says:
    January 26th, 2013 at 12:18 am

    @ Rene–

    Colin’s article left more markers in the positive than negative columns… However, there were a lot of errors in the article, and the claim in the title that Hwys Div chief Takashita promoted the roundabout is unwarranted.

    The quickly growing popularity of roundabouts, stateside and elsewhere, is based largely on their proven safety benefits, which depend on GOOD DESIGN, including adequate speed reduction, operational speeds of 15-20 mph, etc. If the bid-winning company, like AECOM, has no experience building them or if the DOT has no experience, as our DOT officials have publicly acknowledged, they can follow a common industry practice, namely, they can subcontract for the design to be reviewed by an experienced design company or engineer for about 10% of the design cost. That would save a lot of unforeseen costs and headaches later. As now! there are headaches already, because apparently the DOT will have to go back to the drawing board, not having consulted the community who know the traffic there, or roundabout design experts who would have the experience to see and address problems the inexperienced designer wouldn’t recognize/anticipate.

    The efficiency of roundabouts (= improving LOS [level of service] = reducing delay, IMO comes a close second as a reason for the growing appreciation of roundabouts. The plan brought to the community at the meeting scuttles the efficiency the roundabout would bring by ignoring or dealing ineffectively with the other nearby intersections, and public input and/or expert review would certainly have prevented this. …GOOD DESIGN, again.

    I reject the notion that Puna drivers cannot negotiate a roundabout. Think about it: when you come to a stop light, you have to look AWAY FROM the road to look at the light itself! And you have to look for traffic coming from three directions (and for pedestrians and cyclists), with much of that traffic going as fast as 45 mph. By the way, one in every five traffic fatalities in the USA is caused by red-light running; does that sound like people ‘knowing how to use’ a traffic signal? At a roundabout, you look for traffic coming from ONE direction only, and you just wait for a gap, which doesn’t have to be very big because the speeds are low. (You yield to pedestrians and cyclists before the entry line of the roundabout.) It has already been said at least 2x here: this is not rocket science, and I believe Puna can cope.
    Final point about roundabouts. We are looking only at the cost to BUILD a roundabout and comparing it to the cost to build/install a signal. But the life-cycle costs of intersection controls should be examined. Once construction is completed, the ‘operational life’ of the intersection controls begins, and will continue for 20 years for a signal and 30 years for a roundabout. In that time, a signal requires approximately $10k/year in maintenance costs, often replacement of electronic equipment, along with the small amount required for powering the light system (if the power goes out, the roundabout still works). After 20 years, the entire signal system has to be replaced, and the roundabout still has 10 years of service remaining, and then it only has to be resurfaced. Of far greater importance: most collisions at roundabouts leave the vehicles and drivers in such condition that they can walk/drive away from the crash, because all turns are right turns and no vehicle crosses the path of another vehicle (32 points of conflict in a 4-way intersection; 8 at a 4-legged roundabout). Not so with the head-on and T-bone crashes at a signal, and instead these crashes bring huge personal costs in life and health to the individuals in the crashes, and huge costs to the public in the frequent call-outs of emergency vehicles and personnel, and the demand for emergency medical services. A very superficial search brought up a California DMV study citing costs to society of a fatality in 1994 as $3.5m, with injury costs grading down from there according to severity. This is in 1994 costs. Just imagine the costs of crashes at that intersection in the last 10 years, when its crash rate has been the highest in the state all that time. (Well, we don’t have to imagine; almost everybody in Puna has crashed, nearly crashed, or knows someone who has crashed there!)

    The safe and efficient working of a roundabout in Pahoa as anywhere, will depend on the DESIGN. So back to Rene’s comment. No, Colin’s HTH article did not get into the problems inherent in the plan (DESIGN) itself, but how could he address them when–and this is our big problem–the DOT officials did not address the problems, or tolerate realistic recommendations for improvements to their plan (DESIGN!). What’s up with that?

  • Elizabeth Weatherford Says:
    January 26th, 2013 at 12:28 am

    I see something I should clarify… Some cyclists will ride in the circulatory roadway, and entering drivers yield to them just as they would to a vehicle. Less confident cyclists will walk their bikes, and they are treated as I wrote above.

    No problem with large vehicles, such as fire trucks, in a properly designed roundabout. A 104′ (to outside curb) roundabout accommodates WB50 vehicles.

Leave a Comment

Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.