KTA looking to place a new market at Auli`i Dr.

[KeaauRich]

It will be interesting to see if/when/how the KTA project, the fuel tax revenue issue, increased non-resident traffic through the subdivisions, 130 traffic logjams and other issues add up to create a tipping point that will result in some sort of resolution of the messes created decades ago when these substandard subdivisions were approved. Puna has gotten the short end of the stick for too long, but hopefully now that the population has increased and our representation will increase, maybe we'll start to get the attention we deserve. Up till now, it's been easy for power brokers to play "whack a mole" every time a Puna concern was raised.

[csgray]

Most people with jobs who live in Puna already drive to Hilo everyday and can (and do) shop where prices are cheapest and shopping is easiest. The people with jobs are the ones with income to spend. I live in HPP, and given the choice of turning left onto the highway to get to and from a new KTA, or continuing to shop in Hilo or Keaau on my way home, it is an easy choice to make.

I personally will not give my hard earned money to any business that makes that already dangerous highway any less safe.

Carol

[Carey]

Just to clear up a common misconception;
Residential is NOT taxed lower in Hawaii COunty
Residential is $9.10
Ag & Native Forest is $8.35
HOMEOWNER is $5.55
County link for the tax rate:
http://www.hawaiipropertytax.com/Forms/H...XRATES.htm

[Rob Tucker]

Thanks Carey,
I stand corrected. During the PCDP work Ag was higher. It has changed.

[DanielP]

Thanks taropatch for the link. What an eyeopener to read through some of the PCDP. It was dissappointing to read that the concept of the PMAR has been basically dismissed by the PCDP as an non-doable project. That, in my eyes, makes all the planning moot. Without a proper road system in place that creates traffic circulation and connectivity, planning is just doomed to be one major Custer*#^.

It is clear that a ton of work has gone into PCDP, but,

(from PCDP) "While the concept of a limited access parkway has merit, it would be very difficult to
acquire right-of-way for this through a large subdivision such as HPP in a timely and costeffective
manner. Therefore, a shorter route through HPP is a more practical and less disruptive
alternative to implement within the time-frame of this plan."

shoots PCDP in the foot. And that came along with the stated objective was to be:

(from PCDP)
a. Create alternative, redundant routes for existing Highways 11, 130 and 132 utilizing
existing routes wherever possible.

Operative words: redundant, circulation, connectivity.

How can you plan for Village centers or retail locations without a proper road system?

ed to add: It is one thing to be able to say where a particular project shouldn't be, but the need is to be able to say where it should be.
Dan

[Rob Tucker]

Perhaps James Weatherford can speak to the Transportation Working Group Report. He was a member.

[JerryCarr]

DanielP, PMAR is not dead. If we talk strictly in terms of being an attractive parkway, it may be dead due to cost factors, but a two-lane road across HPP is in the nascent stages of planning. A committee of the HPPOA is tracking (and hopefully influencing) this project as it passes through the planning process. Here is a link to a recent thread with some fairly comprehensive information on what we know to date:

http://www.punaweb.org/Forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=12047&SearchTerms=PMAR,,HPP

[james weatherford]

...PCDP Transportation.
Like more than a few other parts of the PCDP (e.g., Agriculture Working Group, of which I was the convenor), there is a difference between the Working Group Report and the final work that came out of the Steering Committee and, especially, the consultant.
It's been a while since I have reviewed the Transportation Working Group Report, but do believe that the difference will be notable.

As for the statement quoted by DanielP above ... I will do a separate post on that.

[james weatherford]

quote:

---

Originally posted by DanielP
(from PCDP) "While the concept of a limited access parkway has merit, it would be very difficult to acquire right-of-way for this through a large subdivision such as HPP in a timely and cost effective manner. Therefore, a shorter route through HPP is a more practical and less disruptive
alternative to implement within the time-frame of this plan."

---

This statement, is nonsensical.
"shorter route through HPP"?
what is that?
how is that different from "large subdivision such as HPP" that can't be done?

If the issue is the "limited access parkway", [as Rob Tucker and I each proposed in separate ways and both of these ideas are at the PCDP website], then the limited access is outside of HPP, that is, between Pahoa and HPP and between HPP and Hilo.

As I said on the previous post, look at the difference between the Working Group Report and the Final PCDP.

[DanielP]

My quotes came from the document: Puna Community Developement Plan
Which came from the Steering Committee. 2008

Under Roadway Network, Objectives is:
a. Create alternative, redundant routes for existing Highways 11, 130 and 132 utilizing existing routes wherever possible."

A 2 lane PMAR isn't exactly hwy 130 redundant. If right-of-ways were created it could in the future. As it is, there is no circulation with 130 being a very long cul-de-sac.

Many Mahalos to those who are working on these problems,

Dan