Honk if you don't like the Shores speed bumps

[Greg]

That answers the first question, mahalo. The second?

[Whitey]

Regarding the second question -

I'm sure they would be. But speeding isn't yet the issue on CPP. The problem is the increased volume. Cars must take a circuitous route to end up on CPP so they are already going slower. But the amount of cars on CPP seems to have changed from 10 cars a day to well over 100! That is the issue, the owners on CPP didn't buy on thoroughfare but now live on one and had NO input on the change. (except for elections this last February and speed bumps were not even remotely discussed).

[Greg]

Don't you think a bump on Puna Coastal would decrease the volume?

Would petitioning the BOD for a speed bump on Puna coastal be a more effective and positive solution than accusations of corruption? ( I don't know these people, but the idea of them getting together and plotting against their neighbors on Puna Coastal just seems a bit far fetched).

A problem solving technique that involves accusation and provocation isn't really a problem solving technique at all.

Thanks for your input, now I'm really out of here![8D]

[Guest]

First off, if they had done a traffic study, I think they would find there was no problem on Papio to begin with.... CPP would require wider speed bumps and it would be near impossible to keep people from driving around them in the grass, just like what they are dealing with on Papio now..... I don't know why I bother entertaining any of these silly scenarios. The traffic has to go somewhere, this is exactly the problem, its like damming up a river. Most people look at this from the wrong perspective, no one can prove there was a problem to begin with.... There was absolutely no need for such drastic action, as I said before, trees by the road would look much better and would be more effective in slowing traffic.(not diverting it.)

Why would the solution be to spend thousands of dollars subjecting almost 100% non-problematic traffic to un-necessary speed bumps? Please for the love of god try and answer that question, anybody!! Their goal was to move the highway plain and simple, not because it was dangerous, but because they did not like the traffic. Please prove otherwise, anyone!

[candyman]

afwjam - here's hoping you bring and ask those questions of the Board Thursday evening. It will be interesting to hear what "the hat" has to offer other than your dismissal. [] Good luck to you in your quest!

[dmbwest]

Hey Greg,

Don't go yet. This thread needs your logical perspective !

aloha,
pog

[edmond]

Greg, this is not about speeders. A few people bought or built there house on the highway. They then decided to install speed bumps to route traffic off there road into the neighborhood. IT WAS NEVER ABOUT SPEEDERS. It is not about speed. It is not about speed. OPEN your eyes. THINK. You are defending selfish, nasty human beings.

[critterlover]

@afwjam, your position is supported by the data that is actually included in the PROPOSED policy NOW IN EFFECT in the Office for future speed hump implementation. Hope you trek into the office and ask for a copy to quote from at the upcoming meeting. While you are there, you may want to check out the video of Oct 8 Board meeting. In file 4 [10-08-11-004] at about 13 minutes and 30 seconds into that file the discussion of the PROPOSED policy begins.

Additionally, I love the idea of planting trees but that might pose a counter intuitive argument to the whole 'view' proposition. Dependent on how high the trees would grow impeding a view of the Ocean may be the first logical answer to why trees/natural traffic calming devices were not used. I have made the statement to many in person the leveling of the trees that were there gives the driver a psychological sense of openness which may have induced increase speeds.

I am not bound to please thee with my answer. -- William Shakespeare

[Greg]

Hana Hou!! (Mahalo pog)
_____________________________________________________________________

I'm not defending anyone. What I've been saying is that if the "traffic diversion" bumps work at steering nuisance traffic away from streets(which you honkers contend they do), employ them on your street.

Can't afford them? nonsense. They don't cost thousands; they cost in the low hundreds. Much less expensive than the toll that stress has on the human body.

The other thing I've been saying is if the volunteer BOD isn't representing you well, vote them out. I serve on my neighborhood board, and we've been accused of the same thing. It's usually by people who show up once a year at the annual meeting to vent. The elected volunteers meet monthly, and honestly do the best they can to meet the needs of a widely diverse population.

One year, some of the opposing personalities got themselves elected to the board. We were thrilled that others were stepping up to help do some of the work. They didn't last long. Too many dang meetings.

I wonder what percentage of property owners in your neighborhood actually participate in electing and managing your business. I'm guessing under 10%. The people who do the work are the ones that show up and do the work. Be irate at the ones who do nothing.

[Whitey]

Well said Greg. I applaud you for wearing the target in your community. It isn't easy and everything ends up being your fault.

The problem with the speed bumps is they must conform to a certain standard set by the board. The ones installed on Papio were $1500 each. There are 3 of them ($4500). The price for bumps on CPP are $2200 each (total $6600). We are not talking about a couple of hundred bucks. In the current economic climate it is hard to foresee the residents of CPP coming up with that kind of investment.