HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0609.068 2022-2024 P/cou-nci
1501 (0r
COUNTY -CL _FK COMM.CO9
COUNTY OF AVVA
Hello Council Members— 2024
g A 4
After listening to the Council Meeting discussion of Bill 107, and can summarize the opposition as
follows:
A) Why only Puna Makai?All of Puna should be considered. Won't this dump more traffic onto
already congested Hwy 11?
B) Pana'ewa DHHL lands—must PMAR use Railroad through Pana'ewa?
I also read the PMAR sections in the 2005 Puna Regional Circulation Plan,which defines 4 possible routes
and says more study needed to know the best choice; the 2016 Pana'ewa Regional Plan that rejects the
Railroad access;the 2035 Federal Aid plan,which assumes a "mid-level" PMAR route without defining
the route.
Representative Ilagan stated at the December council meeting,the exact route of PMAR is not decided,
hence the need for further study, as requested by the 2005 Regional Plan.This is what Bill 107 is about-
a study to finalize the where to build a PMAR route that will meet the needs of all Puna/Ka'u residents,
and be eligible for federal and state construction funding.
Regarding Objection A from the December council meeting (aka—why fund a narrow-focused study on
Puna Makai), I can make several points:
1. None of the suggested PMAR routes connect to Hwy 11, per the 2005 Regional Plan
At the December council meeting,there was a suggestion that the study should include all of
Puna since Highway 11 is already congested.The stated assumption was that a PMAR route
would dump more traffic onto Hwy 11,thereby impacting the Upper Puna route into Hilo.
All current PMAR suggestions connect to either Hilo Airport or Railroad Ave in Hilo—not
Highway 11.Therefore,the PMAR concept addresses all three Puna resident concerns:
i) Alternate access to Hilo for Lower Puna that limits traffic on Hwy 130 or Hwy 11;
ii) Reduced traffic congestion at the Hwy 130/Hwy 11 intersection and towards Hilo;
iii) Alternative emergency route to Hilo for both lower and upper Puna.
Each of these are wins for residents of Lower/Upper Puna and Ka'u who need access to Hilo.
Secondly, recognize an alternate route does not increase today's traffic—it disperses the existing
traffic. It also prepares for the predicted future growth in Puna when traffic may increase, unless
mass transit options continue to be improved.
Already today, no Lower Puna driver is happy to first sit in traffic on Hwy 130 at the dinky
Aina'loa roundabout,and then again waiting for the Shower Drive light—only to sit in more
traffic on Hwy 11 into Hilo. Similarly, I am certain no Upper Puna driver is happy to wait both
long before the congested Hwy 130 intersection and the ridiculous"temporary light"at Shipman
business park. Everyone will benefit from less drivers on Highway 11 if there is a PMAR route
into Hilo that bypasses Highway 11.
Comm. No I q.Ui 6
Ref. To: 'A1rfif CVl
Ref. Date c AN 2 4 2024
2. Given that Rep. Ilagan only has constituents along Hwy 130, it would be inappropriate for him to
request funding fora Puna Mauka Road.
With the$1M state funding, Representative Ilagan is responding to the requests of his Lower
Puna constituents who want an alternate route into Hilo—which obviously means makai of Hwy
130 because mauka of Hwy 130 would lead drivers away from Hilo.
Perhaps Council members representing districts 3 and 5,and Upper Puna residents, should
contact their Representative Chris Todd and ask him to appropriate state funding to create a Hilo
Mauka bypass to relieve congestion on Hwy 11.
In fact, I heard an excellent suggestion for a Puna Mauka route at one of the twelve townhall
meetings that Rep. Ilagan holds for his constituents each year in early December: create a road
from the Hwy 130/Hwy 11 intersection to Hwy 2000 that does not go through Hilo. I suggest
traffic could be further improved by requiring Shipman to move their Business Park entrance to
be at a new roundabout for the Hwy 130/Hwy 11/Hilo Mauka route.
This is not a new idea—the Pana'ewa 2016 plan also shows a Puna Mauka route from Hwy
11/130 to Hwy 2000 Hilo bypass route (see Fig 15).
Regarding concern B about a PMAR route traversing Pana'ewa DHHL lands:
1. A PMAR route may connect to the airport, not railroad. The 2005 Regional Plan acknowledges
that such a route would go through only 3 large landholders property, potentially making
agreement easier.
2. This study can explore the question whether a PMAR route along Railroad in Pana'ewa could
improve transportation options for Pana'ewa residents, as Rep Ilagan stated at the December
meeting. He also stated in his letter to the council:
"The PMAR study is not merely about selecting an alternate route but engaging with all
stakeholders, especially those directly affected, like the Pana'ewa Homestead beneficiaries."
Finally, if this$1M state funding is rejected by the County Council, Puna will have little hope of ever again
getting state funds to create alternate Puna routes. Rep. Ilagan worked hard for his constituents to get
this state funding—please do the right thing for ALL Puna residents and provide the necessary$5K
matching fund.
Thank you for your consideration, and your committed service to our County.
Marilyn Johnson
County District 4 resident