hunterbishop.com

...and Australia, and New Zealand, and Papua New Guinea, and...

I hate when I read articles like the one in the Maui News that treats roundabouts and traffic circles as if they are the same when they are not. I also hate when the focus is only on moving cars and alleviating congestion with little concern for how pedestrians are going to safely cross intersections. It really irks me. Traffic circles do not have pedestrian refuge islands and thus they do not accomodate pedestrians safely. Roundabouts do have pedestrian refuge islands and thus they do a better job of accomodating pedestrians MAYBE. But if the cars don't stop to let the pedestrian cross, the pedestrian is stuck on the island. PLUS if the pedestrian is BLIND the BLIND pedestrian can't tell when to cross so roundabouts suck when it comes to blind people. So, bottomline is that all roundabout must have pedestrian signalization to make the cars stop so pedestrians can get across safely at busy intersections. Walking is a form of transportation and all roads need to accomodate all roads users safely.

Hunter,

This issue that you and James brought to light is going to generate more input than you can believe. ROUNDABOUTS in Hawaii YES. On highway #130 a much bigger YES. I hope that all of the people that agree with this concept will add their two cents. James has plenty of stats that will convince you of all the benefits of roundabouts. Doc. {KD} has plenty more links to the benefits of roundabouts. I will hold my comments to later. Hunter I believe that this may be your biggest post yet.

The lack

Good for you, Malama. In peoples eagerness to engineer a traffic solution, disabled folks often get kicked to the curb. Advocates for the blind have been complaining about the rush to roundabouts for a decade now. Usually, they are dismissed.

And while we are talking about it, why are we still buiding new traffic lighted intersections without the audible signals for the blind?

Interesting comment re pedestrian.

First, Malama, there is explanation in the Maui News article explicitly about how that roundabout intersection will accommodate pedestrians.
As for the sight-impaired pedestrian, I'll do some research and report back here. My first question, on course, is whether the roundabouts leave sight-impaired pedestrians "worse off" or if the fail to meet their needs just as much as the stop signs and signals they replaced.

Thanks for the research James. I have been curious what is the current thought on the disabled and/or blind folks. My own experience is about 5 years old, and I haven't heard anything since then.

I'll suggest that a standard that says "your no worse off" is neither progressive nor economical. We have made the commitment to remediate for the disabled already, both socially and legislatively. Not giving all our citizens equal, reasonable, access is just a lawsuit waiting to happen. Plus, my own research from years ago showed only about a 10% increase in cost (for the audible signals).

James,
First, I am not so sure about the planned roundabout in Maui. It all depends on how busy the intersection is and how the roundabout is designed to accomodate pedestrians and whether there will be instructions to drivers to yeild to pedestrians.
Second, if we pretended we were blind for the day, we would find that we have to rely heavily on our hearing. When cars stop, and there is no road noise made by tires, it is the signal for a blind person to cross. The continuous movement of traffic through an intersection which is common with roundabouts leaves the blind person confused and unable to make a safe decision. I believe that the latest info out on this problem does call for pedestrian signalization on roundabouts.
Chuck, good one about audible signals for the blind.

Mark Fentons talk the other weekend really got me concerned for pedestrians.

As the sages say, be careful what you wish for!

James,
Here is something kinda lengthy but relavent to pedestrian safety when dealing with roundabouts. Got this from Casey Yanagihara.

http://www.access-board.gov/research/roundabouts-signals/report.pdf

When it comes to the disabled and the handicapped I truly know and understand their plight. I have one of the handicapped in my home. My wife is 100% disabled, and believe me that we both appreciate all of the little extras that are mandatory like parking, ramps, bathrooms and so much more. We both thank everyone for their understanding.

When it comes to modern roundabouts on Highway # 130 I have to disagree with the posted options about the blind and disabled. This Highway is the most dangerous in our state and a fast track to remedy it is a must. I can’t think of any place that a blind person is safe crossing in that complete corridor. Come to think of it anywhere in the state. This should not keep us from going forward with the upmost speed. With the safety record and traffic calming device that a roundabout is, it should have first consideration. If it becomes a fact that a blind person may want to cross the intersection at or near a roundabout We may have to install an pedestrian overpass or underpass to accommodate them. To simply reject a roundabout because it may not be conducive to all lifestyles is sure nonsense.

People, we have a bomb that is just waiting to explode and kill nice folks. Be certain of this , it will happen, it’s just a matter of time. Even a blind person can see this coming. Here is the part that really baffles me, the fed’s have said that it is entirely possible that they will fund the modern turnabout 100% because of it’s need.

The DOT has had a plan to make Highway # 130 a four lane super highway with traffic lights at every intersection. This plan has been in effect for years now and they don’t seem to want to defer from that outdated thought process, no matter how much of our tax dollars it is going to cost. Another consideration that the DOT hasn’t taken into it’s master plan is that fact that many private houses are being built along highway # 130 and more to come with driveways entering onto the highway. This will make each home owner want to make a left turn on, or from the highway. This is going to cause many crashes, and possibly deaths along this high speed blood ally corridor.

I’m not trying to offend anyone especially the disabled, they need all the help that we can give them, but it is time to act now and not be handicapped because of the need of a few.

The Lack

I completely agree with your assessment Tom. It sounds eerily
like Queen Kaahumanu Highway here in Kona. The DOT is unwilling to consider alternatives like roundabouts or grade separation. They are far more willing to allow more stop lights to be built and add more lanes. It all adds up to Mr. Magoo like planning.

Tom Lackey's latest post gave me pause to think. Most folks talk about highway projects in terms of getting people from place to place, and then think about the effects on the immediate local residents as almost an afterthought. While admitting that roundabouts are not always easy for handicapped people, Mr. Lackey intelligently suggests overhead walkways, which would work in my opinion.

I guess I must be a convert, because I now think roundabouts are worth a try. I have changed my opinion based on the postings and links on this blog, and on the fact that we desperately need to start thinking outside the DOT box here in Puna. Roundabouts couldn't possibly be any worse than what we have now or are likely to get, and we can start with just one or two to appease the remaining skeptics.

If it were only possible to spare people the negative aspects of transport "improvements." When people in HPP don't want a highway through their community, they get told, "You should have anticipated this when you bought there. Buyer beware!" The people in HPP could just as easily say to the folks in Hawaiian Beaches, Shores, etc., "You knew there was only one way out of there when you bought there. Buyer beware!" Everybody's right and everybody's wrong. Time to think outside the box.

And then you have all these guys building homes on 130, which just amazes me. That highway is already crazy, and we all know the DOT is obsessed with four-laning it, don't we? Maybe they don't care about getting in and out of their homes. Maybe they are counting on it going commercial and selling out. That would be a seriously bad investment considering the result of the last attempt at commercial rezoning on 130. But they keep on building, and I have to callously say they will just have to deal with whatever the DOT dumps on them. They need to be praying that Tom Lackey gets his plan adopted, or they might be spending a lot of time trapped at home. Hell, they might still be stuck even if Mr. Lackey does get his way. It's getting crowded in that box.

There is nothing wrong with designing a roundabout to accomodate safe crossing for pedestrians and the blind. You want to demand as much of these safety features up front first because once its built, remodeling it later is almost impossible. The design is crucial AT THE BEGINNING. To fast track a roundabout that only takes care of car safety issues is extremely short sighted. In 20 years, those roadside properties at the roundabout might become high density urban neighborhoods with lots of walkers. Designing for their safe future should be done now.

Well said, Malama.

Tom and Wankine, your points seem to anticipate that advocating for proper disability design would cause a slow down or actually kill the project. I don't think we have that information.

Too often I here the disabled being blamed for the closure of some business or the killing of some project. Those things do occur, but by and large I can assure you that those are exceptional incidents, not the rule . As Malama says, failure to plan properly is probably the biggest obstacle to accessible design.

Of course none of this negates the very real and dire situation requiring these intersections be dealt with ASAP. But making hasty decisions based on the fear of unknown quantities has gotten us all in more than one pickle, of late.

What are we saying when we profess that we will provide equal access only if its not to much trouble and/or its too expensive? Who then, in the community, must take it in the shorts when resources run low? Do we want to live in a community that doesn't consider all it's citizens equal? Don't wheelchair bound folks also pay taxes? I would advocate proper design must include researching and/or asking about proper disabled access for roundabouts. Lets get the information about whether this is actually economically feasible before we start throwing in the towel. It may even be that, if the Feds are willing to pay, they have ADA ancillary funds available. Who knows?

Keola Downing asked me in an e-mail to post the following for him since he was having some kind of trouble getting onto the blog site. If anyone else is having trouble, please let me know. -HB

Aloha Malama,


I think that you bring up an issue that is important in developing a successful modern roundabout. I want to answer your concerns with data that the federal traffic agencies have on file, so give me a little bit of time to research the matter.

However, I can say for sure that a blind person is much better off, when we compare the current intersection at Kahakai Blvd for example, and what would be there if it were a modern roundabout.

Traffic on Highway 130 is moving at about 45mph if they are even using the speed limit as a guide, but if the intersection was a modern roundabout, that speed would be reduced within the roundabout to about 25mph. That's the start of safety, but it does not end there.

When a pedestrian enters the area of a modern roundabout, he or she will not have to cross several lanes in one move. Rather, each of the various legs of the modern roundabout has a safety island between opposing lanes of traffic. The pedestrian can wait at each safety island crosswalk until they see that there is no traffic coming, or in the case of a blind person, until they hear that there is no immediate traffic entering or exiting the roundabout at their location.

There is of course a learning curve for the drivers and the blind pedestrian as well. Good clear signs are also important to warn drivers to look out for, and yield to, pedestrians in the cross walks. The roundabout signs could also remind drivers that hearing and sight impaired pedestrians might not be able to know that your car is approaching. These reminders and the slow traffic speed would make the crossing of each of the traffic lanes more safe than what pedestrians face today. I could be wrong, but I don't think that there are any locations with audible warnings for the entire Kea`au to Pahoa corridor, so modern roundabouts would allow drivers to stop much more quickly than they could with the current configuration. That alone is an important improvement!

Of course safety considerations for all people, including use of the road way as a pedestrian as well as a driver must be included when developing a successful application of this very important safety improvement to our current highway configuration. Please remember that modern roundabouts have been shown to decrease fatal crashes by as much as 90%. (That number includes pedestrian deaths as
well.) Overall, all crashes are reduced by at least 40% so we are talking about a lot more safety overall for the intersections in question along Hwy 130. Most of the crashes in modern roundabouts do not involve death or debilitating injuries, due to the slower speed and an oblique angle of contact. (much less than the 90 degrees associated with regular stop sign and signalized intersections) There are also no left turns and far less contact points within the intersection itself.

I will try to research how other locations have dealt with this problem over the weekend and get back to this blog as soon as I can. I want to thank Malama for keeping an open mind to the question of modern roundabouts. We will all be learning a lot about traffic and the many possible improvements we have to consider before any decisions are made.

Mahalo, I'll be getting back to you soon. . .

Keola Downing

To respond to Keola Downings message. I am not opposed to roundabouts at intersections. Hopefully we are talking about single lane roundabouts? Because if we are talking about double lane roundabouts, then signalized crossings for pedestrians should be MANDATORY. I know that roundabouts are excellent traffic calming devices and pratically eliminate fatal crashes for cars. This is why I advocated for them (single lane) back in 1999/2000 (before the federal guidelines came out on roundabouts in 2001) for my road which will intersect the future Alii Highway But when it comes to pedestrians, then many other factors come into play. For instance, what would the traffic volume be like? What is driver behavior toward pedestrians? In Kona, many of our drivers tend to be very courteous and stop to allow other drivers to make left hand turns.Drivers even stop to allow pedestrians to jaywalk across the street up mauka in Kainaliu and they always seem to respect pedestrians in crosswalks. Pedestrians at a roundabout in Kona might be safe without pedestrian signalization. But I don't think that that would be the case at other locations around the island. Agressive driver behavior coupled with high volume traffic might still not be so good for a pedestrian at a roundabout designed intersection. This is why consideration should be made to provide pedestrian signalization where ever driver behavior is questionable. Cars will only have to stop when the signal is activated for the pedestrian and the pedestrian at least will be safer knowing that the car will stop due to signalization. Signalized crossings however involve a slight design change and aren't well accepted in the US YET. But considering all the pedestrians being plowed down on Oahu, I don't think signalized crossings at roundabouts in Keaau to Pahoa is a bad thing. Mahalo.

Very interesting,

I am sure no one here is trying to short the safety nor mobility of sight-impaired, or other pedestrians requiring special accommodation.
A signalized crosswalk at a roundabout at Orchidland Drive? why? There is no pedestrian crosswalk there now; and given that location, there appears to be little need to question or complicate the proposal for a roundabout and risk more people becoming disabled in crashes there. In high density areas like Kailua Village, Hilo Bayfront, etc., special accommodations are likely needed for pedestrians with impaired sight and mobility. However, not necessarily so where there is very little pedestrian traffic, especially crossing the street, (such as along the Keaau-Pahoa Highway).

I look forward to hearing what Keola finds out about this.

Aloha,

Keola Downing is still having problems submitting his posts. Here's his latest:

Aloha All,
I just received a response from Eric Worrell on Oahu who is my favorite Federal Highway Administration - Hawaii Division contact person. Here is his response to the issue of blind pedestrian accessability in modern roundabouts. Along with Malama's link of 30 pages, this is a lot to digest, but so it is with newer technology. It's enough to cause my "body hard drive" (brain) to crash. . .

Mahalo,
Keola Downing

---------------------
Response from Eric Worrell:

What can I say? We don't have statistical data specific to people
who are blind because there are not enough people who blind
represented in crash data. In fact I believe the number of
pedestrians killed at roundabouts in the U.S is zero - the number of
pedestrians who are blind, is also zero. Can't do much with that.

Recent studies show that driver yielding rates to people with canes
waiting to cross at a roundabout is less than that for stop signs or
red lights - no surprise. However everything that makes a roundabout
safer for the general populace also makes it safer for more "vulnerable
pedestrians"; people who are blind, elderly, children,
etc. Virtually nobody who is "educated" on the topic, including
visually impaired people, questions this. The issue for people who
are blind is "usability" not safety.

The blind person who believes traffic noises or signals make an
intersection safer has a serious misunderstanding. When pedestrians
are hurt or killed at intersections, almost always the pedestrian or
driver has violated the signal or stop signs. And in those cases, the driver
is usually going at relatively high speed. At 45mph there is an 85%
chance the pedestrian will die. At 15 mph, there is only a 15%
chance of a fatality. Roundabouts generally operate at between 15
and 20 mph (even when designed at 25 mph - that 25 mph driver is the
occasional driver, not the typical one). But more importantly, at 15
to 25 mph, a
driver "can" stop quickly if a pedestrian steps into the street. At
30 to 45 mph, traditional intersections, they can not.

Today's hybrid cars (7% of the U.S. market this year) do not make
enough noise to be audibly detected.

The U.S. Access Board has been studying and monitoring ongoing
research, and acknowledges that roundabouts are safer for pedestrians
with disabilities. Although they have stopped short of recommending
pedestrian activated signals at single lane roundabouts, they do feel
that blind pedestrians need some additional control for multilane
roundabouts. Audible features can be added and/or some sort of
pedestrian activated signal system can be added. They are NOT
recommending a traditional Red-Yellow-Green light, but rather
flashing warning lights or Yellow-Red-Flashing Red. This sounds like
a big deal - but really isn't. I agree with what the Access-Board
recommends, at
least to the point of requiring conduit be placed to the splitter
islands to facilitate signalization when traffic volumes warrant it.

Some consider this a conflict, because they would say the roundabout
is signal controlled, not yield controlled. But that's why there is
no Green phase - the yield line still controls the entry into the
circle. The signal would only force a brief stop at the crosswalk,
only for one or two cars for an occasional pedestrian. The light
goes from Red to Flashing Red relatively quickly - meaning "proceed
when clear". Traffic only stops on the side of splitter island the
pedestrian is on, and signing encourages able bodied adult
pedestrians not to activate the signal (just children and people with
disabilities). The Access-Board Recommendation below is not law yet,
but that's where it may be headed - but its not an issue - one post
mounted signal red/yellow or flashing warning light (okay with Access
Board) in each splitter island won't hurt the aesthetics too much.

The U.S. Access Boards proposed guidelines are at:

http://www.access-board.gov/prowac/draft.htm

Here's the excerpt on crossings at Roundabouts:
R305.6 Roundabout Intersections. Where pedestrian facilities are
provided at roundabout intersections, they shall comply with R305.6
and shall contain a pedestrian access route complying with R301.

R305.6.1 Separation. If walkways are curb-attached, there shall be a
continuous and detectable edge treatment along the street side of the
walkway wherever pedestrian crossing is not intended. Where chains,
fencing, or railings are used, they shall have a bottom element 38 cm
(15 in) maximum above the pedestrian access route.

Advisory R305.6.1 Separation. Because the pedestrian crossings are
located off to the side of the pedestrian route around the street or
highway and noise from continuously circulating traffic may mask useful
audible cues. Carefully delineated crosswalk approaches with
plantings, low enclosures, curbs, or other defined edges can be
effective in identifying the crossing location(s). European and
Australian roundabout intersections extend a 6- cm (24-inch) width of
tactile surface treatment from the centerline of the ramp or blended
transition across
the full width of the sidewalk to provide an underfoot cue. Several
manufacturers make a surface of raised bars for this use. The
detectable warning surface should not be used, since it indicates the
edge of a street or highway.

Schemes that remove cyclists from the circulating street or highway
by means of a ramp that angles from the curb lane to the sidewalk and
then provide re-entry by means of a similar ramp beyond the
pedestrian crossing may provide false cues about the location of a
crossing to pedestrians who are using the edge of the sidewalk for wayfinding.
Designers should consider ways to mitigate this hazard.

R305.6.2 Signals. At roundabouts with multi-lane crossings, a
pedestrian activated signal complying with R306 shall be provided for
each segment of each crosswalk, including the splitter island.
Signals shall clearly identify which crosswalk segment the signal serves.

Advisory R305.6.2 Signals. There are many suitable demand signals for
this application. Crossings at some roundabout intersections in
Australia and the United Kingdom incorporate such systems, in which
the driver first sees a flashing amber signal upon pedestrian
activation and then a solid red while the pedestrian crosses to the
splitter island (there is no green). These types of signals are also
used in some U.S. cities at pedestrian crossings of arterial street
or highways. The pedestrian pushbutton should be identifiable by a
locator tone, and an accessible pedestrian signal incorporated to
provide audible and
vibrotactile notice of the gap created by the red signal. If properly
signed, it need only be used occasionally by those who do not wish to
rely solely on visual gap selection.

Roundabout intersections with single-lane approach and exit legs are
not required to provide signals.

Eric Worrell, P.E
FHWA-Hawaii Division
808-541-2700 ext. 304

Thanks for Eric Worrel's response. I am glad that the Access Board is recommending pedestrian signalization at multi (more than one lane) roundabouts. This is very comforting to hear. Hopefully as time goes on, the Access Board will have gathered more information to maybe recommend pedestrian signalization at high volume single lane roundabouts as well.
My brief answer to James's comment is that if an intersection is made safer for pedestrians and if the roads meeting those intersections are made safer for pedestrians, then pedestrians will use them. The more people walk the less they will drive. The less they drive, the less they contribute to congestion. Before the humps were placed on my road, my road was so unsafe due to speeding cars and no paved shoulders that I didn't trust me walking my dogs and me on it. I used to drive my dogs to another safer neighborhood to walk them. Now, how stupid is that? Now that the humps and paved shoulders make it safer for me and others, we have more people walking themselves and their pets with even moms pushing their baby carriages. You probably don't see many people walking or crossing on Hwy 130 because chances of them getting hit by a car is great. But I am sure there are folks there who would want to walk if the roads were safer. Pedestrians should always be taken into consideration when designing ANY road facility regardless of whether it "complicates" things. This is what I learned from Mark Fenton.

Some comments about crosswalks. According to Mark Fenton, even if there are no marked crosswalks to connect the disconnected corners at an intersection, the unmarked pathway across the road, is still a legal crosswalk.The State as well as the County have a tendancy not to mark crosswalks so as to discourage pedestrians from crossing the road. So just because there are no crosswalks at the Orchidland Drive intersection doesn't mean that a legal crosswalk is not there.