Posts: 798
Threads: 38
Joined: May 2005
quote:
Originally posted by HereOnThePrimalEdge
From the Pahoa roundabout to Ainaloa Blvd is about 4 miles.
At 55 MPH - 4 minutes 22 seconds
At 45 MPH - 5 minutes 20 seconds
https://www.timecalculator.net/speed-dis...calculator
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -James Madison, The Federalist Papers, 1787
It used to be 55 from the light in Pahoa to past the Humane Society so that's the change to calculate. Even if that difference is just a few minutes, that's only in ideal conditions without any slowdowns. Since the lower speed means more congestion, the negative impact is likely worse. In 10 years since I've been here it now takes about 10 minutes longer even with no traffic. With traffic it's 30 minutes longer and the rush hour and back up starts an hour earlier than it did 7 years ago. I can't imagine in another 10. A moratorium on new construction along 130 should have happened 20 years ago unless the properties could be accessed by other roads. As usual, no short or long term planning by the County or State and minimal improvements about 20 years late. Just wait until we have 4 more lights and/or roundabouts!
Posts: 1,858
Threads: 46
Joined: Apr 2015
That's one that still blows me away - not only do they still allow the existing residents to access 130 with a driveway, but new construction with new driveways happens all the time.
It's not a highway, it's an overworked country road. Welcome to Puna, Same-Same.
Posts: 358
Threads: 68
Joined: Nov 2011
I'm convinced that the 130 solution is a no-go in terms of a long term answer. Further work on it, widening it, making it safe, I think is just more opportunity for passive aggressive abuse against the people who commute to Puna. They "could" have made a go of it, but since IMO the project is already botched (they didn't make it wide enough or long enough) it's just better to look elsewhere.
I just did an amazing thing (joking). I opened Google Earth and took a look at the aerial view of Puna. Guess what I saw? Between the airport and HPP, along the coast, there'a whole lot-o nuttin. Yes, this is the "makai of the hi-way" solution. I really think it's the only feasible long-term solution. The only thing standing between us and a modern, high speed commute is political will.
Posts: 1,858
Threads: 46
Joined: Apr 2015
Don't hold your breath as the political will to stand up to Shipman is non-existent.
Posts: 4,196
Threads: 95
Joined: Mar 2014
Between the airport and HPP, along the coast, there'a whole lot-o nuttin. Yes, this is the "makai of the hi-way" solution. I really think it's the only feasible long-term solution. The only thing standing between us and a modern, high speed commute is political will.
--------
Agreed on the practical solution. The real problem is the couple of really big landholders that will say no.
Could you imagine how popular a coastal highway would be, running from near the airport all the way to HPP where it then ran along Railroad, all the way over to its end on 132, South of Nanawale?
Posts: 1,064
Threads: 10
Joined: Aug 2016
Anyone consider what this would do to the property values in the lower areas of HPP, etc.?
Posts: 4,196
Threads: 95
Joined: Mar 2014
Easier access to the highway vs driving 5 miles up a scary road = higher values I would guess.
Posts: 1,064
Threads: 10
Joined: Aug 2016
Alternate route would make drive time from lower HPP about 10 minutes, probably less than half what it is now on a good day. Ah, but this is a decades old discussion.
Posts: 10,973
Threads: 748
Joined: Sep 2012
Easier access to the highway vs driving 5 miles up a scary road = higher values
Not true. I bought near the ocean because of the limited access, the peace and quiet. Every neighbor I've spoken to over the years would not consider a major road in front of their home an improvement. If existing owners think it would make their property less desirable, it's likely home buyers would too. I moved near the ocean to hear the waves and the whales, not cars and trucks. It would also be unlikely that the state or county could turn Beach Road into a main thoroughfare as buying the right of way would be unaffordable. They would have to purchase 10 or 20 feet of property from each owner on both sides of the road.
It's also unlikely Shipman will allow the extension of Beach Road into their property. Not just because they don't want to, but because the shoreline from the current end of Beach Road heading north through Paki Bay and on toward Shipman Beach is filled with Hawaiian archaeological treasures. All of the things the protestors said about Mauna Kea, is actually true about the Paki Bay area. It was the largest Hawaiian village on Big Island for a time in the 1800's.
"I'm at that stage in life where I stay out of discussions. Even if you say 1+1=5, you're right - have fun." - Keanu Reeves
Posts: 3,208
Threads: 102
Joined: May 2009
Originally posted by Hunt Stoddard
I'm convinced that the 130 solution is a no-go in terms of a long term answer.
My interpretation is that Puna was largely setup as a subdivision tax-mine and they want to keep it that way. So instead of solving the problem (4 full speed lanes), county and state keep tapping local and federal tax dollars to re-work 130 (add limited-time shoulder lane, repave, widen the road (but not fully), repave again, re-stripe (but reduce speed limit), plan for traffic lights (but switch to roundabouts), etc).
It appears to be an exercise in how many times can you hand out money to your supporters for the same job without really solving the problem as enabling growth in Puna leads to more people demanding equal services (water, sewer, roads, etc) and having greater political representation. Despite all this, the demographic shifts will eventually force some changes, although likely at a plantation pace, and not enough to keep up with growth. However, it will keep those road construction dollars rollin in! (while "I can't get my car out of second gear" 
|
