On Wednesday evening April 21, 2004, The Kinderhook Town Planning Board, having requested meetings with the New York State DOT and having waited three years, was finally granted an audience, thanks to the Widewaters Group, in the form of Howard McCulloch’s roundabout presentation.

Mr. McCulloch’s presentation was designed to convince an audience that roundabouts are the newest gift from heaven and that we should be thankful for them. He worked like an evangelist selling the newest religion. And he was in Kinderhook to convert the Planning Board to the roundabout religion.

Howard McCulloch called himself a "roundabout expert." He is employed by NYS DOT but he appeared to be more of a salesman with a hard sell. He has one product to sell us, the roundabout. He said nothing to address Kinderhook’s unique geographical intersection or the US9/NY 9H corridor and what results a roundabout would have on it down the line.

"The whimsical definition of an expert is a guy from out of town. Let’s not neglect to hear what the guys in town have to say." -- The Plattsburg Press-Republican November 9, 2003

The vast majority of examples in McCulloch’s presentation were three or four-legged roundabouts with entrances at roughly equal angles. One of the two-lane five-legged roundabouts he showed as an example for Kinderhook’s unique situation was in Towson, Maryland. As noted below, it is failing with a "400% overall accident increase." When questioned, he said that it was about to be rebuilt. How many times do they expect to rebuild the Kinderhook experimental roundabout?

The other example was located in a vast wheat field somewhere in Indiana. There were no vehicles in sight. Neither of these examples came close to being similar to Kinderhook.

---

The almost perfect roundabout (below)

is NOT proposed for Kinderhook NY.

               

BUT the most IMPERFECT one IS.

---

DOT engineer, Howard McCulloch, knew that on the very afternoon at 5:10 PM (april 21, 2004), KNGG had submitted an evaluation of the Widewaters roundabout planned for Kinderhook, based upon the SDEIS (Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement), site plan sheets, layout sheet and the latest submissions from the Widewaters Group to the Planning Board dated March 17, 2004.

Many of the questions asked of McCulloch by the Planning Board were based upon KNGG’s evaluation. It was obvious that he was resentful of our evaluation. Rather than responding to a question and giving it an educated answer, he unprofessionally badmouthed the work of KNGG’s retained traffic engineer, Lawrence Murphy P.E. Mr. Lawrence Murphy, P.E. is project manager with the reputable firm of Camp, Dresser & McKee in Wethersfield, Connecticut. He comes to us highly recommended. Since he was not able to be in attendance at this meeting to defend his work, KNGG feels the necessary obligation to do so here.

Lawrence J. Murphy, P.E. opens his written evaluation with safety: The applicant states in the SDEIS that project traffic volumes indicate the need for a two-lane roundabout in the not too distant future. The applicant provided a proposed partial two-lane roundabout layout, dated March 17, 2004. In general, a multi-lane roundabout is less safe than a single lane roundabout and the nature of the proposed five-leg intersection would further confuse drivers.

The two-lane portion of the roundabout is located on its west side between the two merging lanes of US9 southbound and the entrance to NY 9H southbound. Southbound traffic from US9 to southbound NY 9H is meant to use the right lane. South bound traffic to US9 is meant to use the left lane and merge into a single lane at a point where the northbound traffic from NY 9H is entering the roundabout and then, very shortly, exit right on to US9 southbound. (US9 and NY 9H northbound merge almost together into the roundabout.)

Due to the south gate of the mall being an exit only, the ONLY way northbound traffic on NY 9H, and US9, and westbound traffic on State Farm Road can enter the mall is via the main (central) entrance. It's also the ONLY way northbound traffic can exit the mall because the southern exit is for southbound traffic only.

For northbound traffic to enter the mall, both traffic flows will be FORCED to cross one lane of the two-lane section of the roundabout, (left to right) which is a dangerous movement. A lot of cars (all that return to the same place they came from) will have to cross a lane either when they enter or exit the mall.

Northbound cars that continue northbound after their visit to the mall will have to cross a lane TWICE during their roundtrip (when entering, and again on exiting). Only cars that are southbound on their way into the mall and continue southbound on their way out can avoid crossing a lane in the roundabout. No matter how well marked the lanes are, it will be a more dangerous situation created only by the developer’s insistence on building a strip mall at a dangerous intersection. As Town Traffic Engineer Shelly Johnson pointed out at the April 21^st meeting, "This intersection (US9 and NY 9H) has one of the highest accident rates in the state."

CDM’s Murphy evaluates the multi-lane approach and geometry: The concern for the Town is that if a mu1ti-lane approach is required for other approaches the geometry of the roundabout may not function properly. For example, the northbound movement for Route 9 through the roundabout has high volumes and will likely necessitate a multi-lane approach in the future. If the roundabout requires a two-lane approach for Route 9 northbound, the roundabout would need to be shifted further to the west to avoid the need to acquire property.

Murphy points to the importance of angles between entry points: The ‘FHWA (Federal Highway Administration) Roundabouts: An Informational Guide’ states that it is desirable too equally space the angles between entry legs of a roundabout. Equal leg spacing is critical for optimal separation between successive entries and exits. The proposed roundabout approaches are not equally spaced, which will decrease safety and have a negative effect of the operation of the roundabout. In addition, the tight geometry of the proposed 5-leg roundabout would make it difficult to provide a multi-lane approach from Route 9 northbound while maintaining the movement to State Farm Road.

KNGG believes the angle issue to be a very important issue, which cannot be put down simply by McCulloch’s statement that it is "out of date and no longer applies." The law of gravity is old, but it still applies. As a matter of fact the FHWA’s 277 page guide, Roundabouts: An Informational Guide can be seen on the NYS DOT’s web site at http://www.dot.state.ny.us/roundabouts/files/00-067.pdf . Page 136 explains the angle of entry and gives the mathematical equation for it.

According to the Federal Highway Administration the safest roundabouts have their entrances at equal angles apart.As the angle between entries decreases, the frequency of crashes increases. For example, an approach with an angle of 60 degrees to the next leg of the roundabout increases crash frequency by approximately 35 percent over approaches at 90-degree angles. (FHWA-RD-00-067 4.2)

Therefore, the FHWA recommends to"maximize angles between entries" to improve safety. The closer the entries come to one another, the more possibility there is of collisions. The merging entrances to the proposed roundabout of US9 and NY 9H are a good example of how not to build a roundabout.

On August 8, 2003, the Independent reported:

Planning Board member Charles Shattenkirk, speaking at an informational meeting at North Pointe Cultural Center on Wednesday evening, August 6 (2003).Mr. Shattenkirk directed several comments to the state DOT engineer, Mr. Dillmann, saying that both Routes 9 and 9H are "on the federal network." Because of that, he said, the state would have to comply with federal highway standards on such features as raised traffic islands, curbing, and proper handicap accessibility.A federal regulation the DOT plan overlooks completely, Shattenkirk said requires roads intersecting a roundabout to "enter at equal angles." While the entrances for Routes 9 and 9H are almost immediately adjacent on the south side of the roundabout as drawn, the angle separating Route 9 to the north and the proposed shopping center entrance to the east is greater than 90 degrees.Mr. Dillmann acknowledged that federal regulations apply but did not directly address Mr. Shattenkirk's comments.

However in a direct contradiction at the April 21, 2004 Planning Board meeting referring to the Murphy’s report for KNGG, DOT’s McCulloch claimed the federal guidelines are old and do not apply. (The federal guidelines were published in the year 2000 in the publication Roundabouts: an Informational Guide.)

At the Planning Board meeting of April 21, 2004, Howard McCulloch explained that large trucks (and buses?) traveling south on US9 to enter the roundabout would bear left into the new left lane and yield just before entering. At his point, cars and other vehicles headed for the mall or NY 9H south would bear into the right lane. As the vehicles in both left and right lanes determine the coast is clear they would follow the stripes into their destined lanes.

It is here that McCulloch explained that the trailer truck in the left lane has the right of way because the truck cannot make it around the roundabout to US9 southbound without using both lanes. The apron which was designed to help larger vehicles navigate the circle has been removed to accommodate the new second lane.

Murphy reports that large trucks would have problems at turns: The proposed vehicle turning movements for the two-1ane roundabouts are a concern. The SDEIS states that the roundabout has been designed to accommodate a WB-67 tractor trailer. Use of a WB-67 design vehicle for a roundabout is appropriate However, to demonstrate the proper functioning of the roundabout the designer shou1d provide the Town with diagrams showing the proposed vehicle paths for passenger, bus, and WB-67 vehicles.

Murphy explains that multi-lane roundabouts are more accident-prone: Multi-lane roundabouts have more accidents than single lane roundabouts. A critical component in helping to reduce accidents is a driver’s education and information program. The Town may consider having the applicant develop a program to present roundabout driving techniques to the potential drivers in the area. The users of the roundabout come from a geographically diverse area and a significant effort would be required to advise and inform the people.

For example, most drivers would assume that if the stripes are painted to define the two parallel lanes, they should be able to travel safely within their chosen lane as they travel south to NY 9H. If they do, they won’t be seen by the truck driver due to his blind spots and they will collide with the truck and be pushed off the road as the truck swings over the stripe into the right lane. Once again a dangerous situation is caused by the two-lane roundabout for the developer’s purpose.

Murphy explains critical markings and signing: Multi-lane roundabout pavement markings and signing are critical for safe operation. The final design should include detailed information on the location of these.

Murphy states that RODEL is a must: The designer has a provided a unique configuration to provide for future capacity This configuration provides for a two lane roundabout for only one of the five approaches. Considering the closely balance volumes of the through movements at this intersection, there is skepticism that the proposed configuration is adequate. The Town should be provided with the RODEL output showing that the proposed layout is adequate for project and network peak volumes. The designer should provide the Town with information regarding the capacity analysis for this proposal to ensure the needs of all approaches are met.

The 30-year lifetime projected by Howard McCulloch is based on a 2% growth factor.
That number is nowhere near reality. And the effect of an error in the growth rate can be significant because we're talking about COMPOUNDED growth (like compound interest or inflation rates).

The most recent traffic counts were submitted to the Planning Board with the Dunkin’ Donuts’ application prepared by Transportation Concepts, LLP (Mark W.Gregory, PE) The report compared traffic counts of the US9/NY 9H intersection from March 2003 and February of 2004 . The actual change in traffic volume on US9 during the peak PM hour was + 17%. The actual change in traffic volume on NY 9H was + 4%, thus yielding an average growth of the two highways at approximately 10%.

Based on these figures for future growth, in all probability, US9 will fail in approximately five years and NY 9H will fail in approximately 10 years and not in 30 years as McCulloch claims having used the DOT’s 2% growth factor.

Meg Moran explained this in detail to the Planning Board at the site plan public hearing on March 4, 2004. As Vollmer Associates states, The traffic count data provided in the appendices (of the SDEIS) that was collected by New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) should not be considered a comprehensive data set. The proponent should collect new AM peak hour traffic data to perform the analysis.

And Murphy states here: This analysis should be analyzed under the peak traffic hours for a.m. and p. m.

This is not the first time KNGG has called for a morning peak hour count. A traffic evaluation dated September 15, 2004, prepared for KNGG based on Widewaters’ SDEIS traffic report by Vollmer Associates, Traffic Engineers stated,The Town should have assurances that the proposed mitigation will work in ALL PEAK conditions, not just those of the development. The AM peak hour frequently has a different directional distribution of traffic than the PM peak hour or Saturday peak hour. During the AM peak hour, it is more likely that the roundabout operation, if constrained, could impact school bus traffic. The traffic count data provided in the appendices that was collected by New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) should not be considered a comprehensive data set. The proponent should collect new AM peak hour traffic data to perform the analysis.

Murphy points out the American with Disabilities Act: The applicant should further discuss the impact of on-going studies pertaining to ADA requirements for roundabouts and how the proposed pedestrian signals would impact the capacity of the intersection. In addition, due to the possibility of an ADA requirement for providing pedestrian signalization for roundabouts, the Town may want to require an agreement for the developer to fund the installation in the future .

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires New and altered facilities constructed by, on behalf of, or for the use of state and local government entities be designed to be readily accessible to and usable by people with disabilities. (28 CFR 35.151).

The DOT’s McCulloch, at the April 21^st meeting, insisted that NY State is not "legally bound" to the ADA. Legally bound or not, NYS DOT needs to provide for our disabled and blind travelers.

There are those who believe that there are too few disabled and blind in Kinderhook for such "a fuss" to be made. KNGG believes that if this retail center is approved, it will begin a trend to suburbanize and populate the area. Therefore we must be prepared to protect these residents and visitors.

CDM’s Murphy continues:Studies have shown that multi-lane roundabouts are less safe than single lane roundabouts for pedestrians and bicycles. The applicant should discuss the need for a dedicated bike lane on the roundabout.

Pedestrian safety must be stressed here because the existing traffic signals are to be removed. Pedestrians would have to dodge through moving traffic to get across the five legs. Also remember that roundabouts present a special major challenges for elderly persons and persons with disabilities, especially the blind. Blind and handicapped pedestrians have difficulty locating crossings and determining crossing gaps. (See FHWA’s "Roundabouts: An Informational Guide.") Yet NO accommodations are planned at this intersection for the disabled. However, "The provisions on the ADA (American Disability Act) also apply to roundabouts in all respects, including the design of sidewalks, crosswalks and ramps" (FHWA-RD-00-067 2.4.5)

The Independent August 8, 2003 reporting on the August 6^th informational meeting said: The problem of pedestrian crossings has brought up several times (at public hearings by residents to the Planning Board). Tunnels are not a satisfactory solution, according to the (DOT) engineers, because people are afraid to use them; and overhead bridges would be impractical because of the ramp length required to make them handicap accessible.

Murphy points to lighting: The SDEIS correctly discusses the importance of providing illumination for a roundabout. Consideration should be made for maintenance and operational costs associated with this requirement in addition, illumination should be designed in accordance with local and state regulations. The planning agency may want to consider a requirement for aesthetic light fixtures.

Murphy points out NYS DOT maintenance approval for snow removal is needed: While the SDEIS discussed snow removal, the unusual configuration of the proposed roundabout in combination with the turning movement limitations previously discussed, will make maintenance operations difficu1t. The applicant should verify NYSDOT maintenance is satisfied with the multi-lane roundabout.

None of the proponents’ analysis recommending the roundabout has examined other intersections at close proximity in neither the corridor nor the impact the roundabout will have on them.

Howard McCulloch has not looked at anything beyond the immediate US9/NY 9H roundabout. He was not aware of the Keegan Road location, nor did he know that it's signalized.

Planning Board member Gerald Minot-Scheuerman told McCulloch that it is difficult today to make a left turn from Maple Lane South, Maple Lane North or Herrick Road on to US9 northbound due to heavy traffic. In most instances these vehicles must await for the signal to change at US9/9H to find a break in the traffic in order to make a left turn.

If the roundabout is built, it will be almost impossible to come out of the side streets and turn on to US9 because when the traffic signals are removed from the US9/NY 9H intersection, there will not be a break in the traffic as the roundabout, if it works as DOT expects, will keep traffic circulating and moving evenly up US9. Since there would be a similar situation at US9 and Main Street in Valatie, Scheuerman asked McCulloch how he planned to solve such problems.

McCulloch’s reply was simply,"I don’t know. My focus is on the roundabout." KNGG believes that this is DOT responsibility and that the answer was inappropriate. KNGG insists that it’s McCulloch’s responsibility to see that all legs of the roundabout will work and that studies should be done to prove to the Town that the intersection as redesigned would work. We believe that this answer proves that Widewaters and the DOT are trying to shoehorn this roundabout into an intersection where it does not fit. The slipper is too small for the five-legged foot.

The Independent on April 23, 2004 reported: Planner Mary Ellen Hern asked about the potential impact of a Dunkin’ Donuts proposed for the 9/9H intersection. "That's really intersection-independent," said Mr. McCulloch, referring to potential lines of customers waiting to get into the shop on 9H or exit onto 9.

The planning board has to consider more than just moving traffic through one intersection. The ramifications of this proposal need to be looked at on every leg and local street as far away as the results of it may be felt . It would be helpful to have a one-half-mile radius from the roundabout, said Ms. Johnston. We need to look at it more as a system, not just one intersection. (August 6, 2003.) An important and valid suggestion that has not been implemented.

Nothing requires Kinderhook to accept this misguided project. The Town Planning Board has the legal right to turn down the roundabout and strip mall based on its findings. KNGG has presented the board with many findings, which should be of help. KNGG has faith that the Kinderhook Town Planning Board will be guided by not only what we say here, but by commonsense.  We hope they will see through all the Widewaters' smoke screens, confusion, DOT propaganda and deny approval of this ill-advised project. This determination will be the most important one they have been asked to make. It will determine the future of our town and its appearance.

We bring down the curtain on the DOT Road Show with these words of wisdom:

*  *  *