Posts: 1,955
Threads: 100
Joined: Aug 2005
Anyone that saw or was in the traffic jam this morning knows that there needs to be another way out of lower puna..
And in reality the Makai PMAR is a dead horse - Shipman has said no and trying to do an eminent domain case against 5000 plus (you have to cross the roads) people some of them foreign nationals to cross HPP is a way to bleed money for decades.
What would the candidates do to alleviate the problem?
Posts: 1,175
Threads: 12
Joined: Jun 2008
Exactly, Seeb. What do we do for our safety in event of a natural disaster?
We need to take a step back and look at the situation.
We may not have decades.
I will not die for NIMBY.
Posts: 180
Threads: 3
Joined: Oct 2006
HDOT has designed a roadway that will work for a population of up to 80,000 residents by primarily widening 130 and separating the traffic flows. Bids should now be called out for the first part of that. As to emergencies out of Puna - emergencies of note (tsunami, eruption, hurricane) are not historical issues more than one mile Hilo side of Pahoa. Needs to be some focus on that part of the roadway (Kalapana/Kapoho to Pahoa) and probably an emergency center in the area.
Posts: 1,175
Threads: 12
Joined: Jun 2008
Please further explain, and give timeline.
Thank you.
Posts: 180
Threads: 3
Joined: Oct 2006
My understanding is that the work is to be completed around 2016. Work on the initial widening should start soon - that is from KHS to Pahoa. To be followed by further widening and intersection fixes. Note that PMAR as currently pushed by some destroys hundreds of acres of our most productive agricultural lands between Pahoa and Hilo, is 120 feet wide and carries a price tag that starts around $200 million. There have to be better ways to solve problems than this (PMAR) proposal, for instance connecting mauka towards Volcano. We need to build Puna to stand on its own feet not to simply assume and encourage the traffic that causes Hilo to become more overgrown.
Posts: 8,474
Threads: 1,033
Joined: May 2003
Well, if the choise is an alernate route to somehwere versus an alternate route to nowhere..... I'd like to see an alternate route to somewhere.
Directing PMAR back to Hwy 11 would be kicking the can down the hill and someday, when Puna builds out further, Highway 11 will need widening. millions of dollars wasted just to accommodate Shipman Ltd. obstruction. Doesn't make good sense to me.
Assume the best and ask questions.
Punaweb moderator
Posts: 180
Threads: 3
Joined: Oct 2006
Hardly an accommodation to Shipman - this route is objected to by Hawaiian Homes, HPP, Shipman and Mauna Loa Macadamia. In other words everyone who would both be on and primarily use the road. Further the desire of the PCDP is to maintain as much agriculture as possible - removing several hundred acres of land from both Shipman and Mauna Loa macadamia and marginalizing several hundred adjacent acres (ag theft and illegal hunting out of control) hardly serves that purpose.
As one person used to say continuously "the traffic solutions for Puna continue to be tie us closer to Hilo and that makes no sense." It does make no sense! We need to build
infrastructure in Puna that encourages the careful placement of services and jobs in Puna so that we break our dependance on Hilo, on cars and oil to our detriment. In this regard there are many uses of the $200 million + that could serve Puna and Hilo far better.
A road towards Volcano would hardly be a road to nowhere unless one considers either Volcano or lower Puna to be "nowhere." Note the increasing need of upper Puna residents, also, for greater connectivity. As that need is not being taken care of (and won't be) by HDOT - that would be a far better place to put our $.
It is time for this community to move beyond the old plantation days of more roads to Hilo - which is when and where PMAR was conceived and for that purpose. Lets put the $ where they will actually help this community to grow (and in the process unburden Hilo - a win-win).
Posts: 1,779
Threads: 73
Joined: Aug 2006
There are two broad reasons that a PMAR is proposed:
1) for an emergency evacuation route in the event of a natural disaster in lower Puna; and
2) for regular travel between Puna and Hilo, so that Puna residents can access (public and commercial) services and opportunities for gainful employment in Hilo.
The Planning Department has explicitly said that an emergency evacuation route is not their objective. The current proposition from the Planning Department is a 120 feet wide ‘major rural collector’ from Nanawale to Hilo that would cost at least $150 million. Indeed, a highway 120 feet wide is much, much more than is needed for an emergency evacuation route.
As wax has indicated, the Hawaiian Homes communities in Hilo and Puna have informed the Mayor that they "oppose the suggested design and plan routing PMAR through Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL) homesteads" because it "would negatively impact the federally enacted and Hawaii State managed native Hawaiian beneficiary land trust."
It is my unconfirmed understanding that imminent domain cannot be used on Hawaiian Homelands property.
I am in agreement with wax that the need is to invest in services and gainful employment opportunities in Puna.
Invest in Puna!
As for an emergency route: An early and high priority of mine, as a Council member, will be to engage Hawaii County Civil Defense in discussions to identify what Puna makai needs in order to be as safe as possible in the case of any likely emergency, including, but not limited to, evacuation routes. Then, I will work to ensure those needs are met.
Posts: 8,474
Threads: 1,033
Joined: May 2003
James, I feel a bit funny explaining to you that PMAR and Investing in Puna are not mutually exclusive.
Wax, Shipman has benefited hugely by the states investment of millions of dollars in road improvements serving Shipman lands. PMAR won't be an exception to this. I see Shipman's objections being of the same caliber as DHHL... nicely crafted opening positions to negotiate higher prices for passage through their territories. DHHL never passes up an opportunity to squeeze a dollar from a situation. Shipman is a little more sophisticated than DHHL but both know where their long term interests are.... they just don't open up about it.
Assume the best and ask questions.
Punaweb moderator
Posts: 180
Threads: 3
Joined: Oct 2006
Rob, that is at best a cynical look at the situation and does not change the points being made. I have probed as deeply as I can and cannot confirm your statement that Shipman has benefitted greatly by the roads through their properties. As I am guessing you have no more information than I do, I must assume that indeed your statement is itself an assumption. As to DHHL, it is the residents - who do not themselves gain from greater revenue going to DHHL - who do not want the roads. That argument really does not hold water. I am concerned that the assumptions being made to justify the road and impugn the statements by those opposed particularly as to route - are just that, opinions.
In any case it does not change the basic issues of building infrastructure that helps Puna and disavowing infrastructure that will have devastating affect on hundreds of acres of current Puna productivity. A road - as you have often said - that primarily connects to Hilo is not a solution to the growth of Puna's services and needs. James has that correct.
As to emergency needs - again James' approach makes a lot of sense. Study where the actual needs are and then fill them. 40 years ago there was even less in Puna then there is now so Hilo had to pick up a bigger portion. Today, Keaau High School and Pahoa school facilities can take up more of that load.
