+- Punaweb Forum (http://punaweb.org/forum)
+-- Forum: Punaweb Forums (http://punaweb.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Punatalk (http://punaweb.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: Rob Tucker's PMAR Proposal (/showthread.php?tid=5642)
RE: Rob Tucker's PMAR Proposal - Blakeyboy1 - 05-13-2009
I have lived all over and have seen this discussion play out so many times before in one form or another. Growth happens and NIMBYs always scream the loudest. I for one do not always agree that new and bigger roads are the best solution but try to have an open mind. I applaud the PMAR ideas I have seen that incorporate trails along railroad and anything that offers alternatives to the car. I am likely a future resident of HPP and hope whatever property I chose to purchase is not going to get a road through it but understand that may happen for the greater good of the area. I do get that something is needed and that Puna is growing and changing. I am sure the PMAR debate will still be raging when I move there. Anyway great discussion guys.
-Blake
http://www.theboysgreatescape.blogspot.com/
RE: Rob Tucker's PMAR Proposal - Bob Orts - 05-14-2009
Right now there are 5 proposals
1. Fukumoto
2. Townscape Inc "A"
3. Townscape Inc "B"
4. Tucker
5. Weatherford
So, what is everyone's feelings on these 5 route Proposals?
- What do you like and why?
- What do you dislike and why?
Does anyone have a better proposal?
Speak Up!
RE: Rob Tucker's PMAR Proposal - csgray - 05-14-2009
Where can we look at these 5 proposals?
Carol
RE: Rob Tucker's PMAR Proposal - JWFITZ - 05-14-2009
Do any of those proposals project what the cost of a gallon of gasoline might be in 2020 and hypothesize what the resulting impact on the local economy and traffic flow might be? I'd suggest such a projection is necessary to good planning in this case. One might discover better ways of spending money than building roads.
If not, why not? Can't be bothered?
RE: Rob Tucker's PMAR Proposal - mdd7000 - 05-14-2009
The price of a gallon of gasoline will not matter with any proposal. What matters is the current and projected population of the area, which is expected to continue to increase. (I will be adding 4 people, in late June to the area...)
RE: Rob Tucker's PMAR Proposal - JWFITZ - 05-14-2009
With roads population is not the issue, but rather how much of population drives, and how much they drive. This is a traffic issue at its core. Already the cost of fuel has impacted driver habits. We've forgotten pretty quickly that we were paying close to 5 dollars a gallon a year ago and driving on the island was way down. I've heard figures like 30 percent, but have no way to validate that. Perhaps someone else has better information.
Population is project to grow, by whom, and on what data?
Money spent on roads is not spent elsewhere. I don't have a problem with roads per se, but that's not my point in being the persistent fly in the ointment. My point is this: money comes from somewhere. It's not unlimited. There may be better places with more pressing need to use it than in road building. There may be more effective ways of ameliorating traffic issues than road building. There are real needs here locally, and I hate to see resources pissed away on poorly considered agendas. As I see it, the conversation isn't about if roads should be built, only when and where and that's a nothing short of a fallacious omission. Huge, huge questions are begged here. Lastly, because we live in a world where policy planners from the economy to the climate to road building have almost without exception screwed up and boxed their populations into a corner by refusing to look at real questions and real issues, and have basically comfortably assumed far too much. Who could have possibly foreseen the outcome of all this, they ask. Of course there's WMD's in Iraq, its a fact! GMAC bonds are AAA, of course! Don't worry about your pension. . .Who could have known?
Well, plenty: plenty did, and do. My main purpose is to document that yet again. No one needs to agree with my synopsis of where the future is headed if they've got better information and better ideas. If however, the basic and fundamental issues pertinent to the discussion are completely ignored, well, that's a wholly other issue. I don't have a problem with disagreement. Disagreement is constructive, assuming both parties to the disagreement are interested in resolution. Outright denial of important issues that face us--and good solutions to those real issues--is another matter.
We can resolve traffic by building more roads, but ultimately that isn't a sustainable plan, as roads beget more roads. We would save a lot of money by moving towards a less consumptive future with less driving. I personally would drive less, a LOT less, if there was real public transit, or bike lanes that one could ride without getting killed. Both are cheap solutions compared to 20 miles of road, and at least should be considered.
RE: Rob Tucker's PMAR Proposal - Guest - 05-14-2009
quote:
Originally posted by mdd7000
What matters is the current and projected population of the area, which is expected to continue to increase.
The growth patterns that many of these projects are based upon are more then 5 years old.
Alot has happened with the economy in the last 5 years.
After doing census canvassing for the last 6 weeks, I actually think our 2010 census will be very similar IF NOT LESS then the 2000 Census.
Where we lie in 20-30 years directly correlates with the economy.
RE: Rob Tucker's PMAR Proposal - JWFITZ - 05-14-2009
You want to fix the traffic problem in one fell swoop?
You want to solve the petty crime issue in one fell swoop?
You want to eliminate half the traffic fatalities on the island in one fell swoop?
Raise the minimum drivers license age to 21.
Of course you can. They can't vote.
RE: Rob Tucker's PMAR Proposal - Rob Tucker - 05-14-2009
Jay, to those of us who have worked on these subjects it comes down to this:
There are presently an existing number of legal empty lots. People who own them, like you, will move here to try to achieve a better life for themselves then they could from whence they came.
These empty lots are mostly, but not all, on one of the largest cul-de-sacs in the nation. This is in a seismically and volcanically active and hurricane active area. Whether these people walk, ride horses, drive goat carts, air cars, electric cars or gas hogs their need to move to and from the area will continue. Their need to move to and from the area in an emergency is currently doubtful.
Therefore
It has been determined by amateurs and professionals that an alternative route into and out of Puna has been needed for a number of years and will likely, by all rational projections, be more needed in coming years. Like you, people will move here. Simply because they can.
A higher price of gas might well move them here sooner. Might not. But we can rather easily multiply the number of legal house lots by the average occupancy and derive reasonable projections.
On this basis, here and virtually everywhere else since before Roman times, roads have been constructed to meets our common needs. Automobiles and the price of gas are rather recent developments. Mankind has had roads long before mankind had automobiles.
RE: Rob Tucker's PMAR Proposal - JWFITZ - 05-14-2009
Has that study work been credibly done, subject to review, or simply assumed?
I haven't worked on such policy crafting, but I'm an expert on having been subjected to it. Perhaps that colors my opinion about it. I again would testify I would drive much less if I had other options. I believe many would.
Honestly, at some level I more or less agree. In fact I'd say I think your proposal is the most level headed and well measured, and all in all it doesn't impact me personally one bit, in fact it assures that no work to screw up my neighborhood will occur inside of a decade, as all the funds will go elsewhere. My disagreement is far more conceptual than practical and I admit that. At some point we'll need to move into a more progressive mindset, but today obviously isn't that day.