Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
COM 0066.035 2004-2006
Harry Kim AM)... January 24, 2006 County of Hawaii PLANNING DEPARTMENT Aupunl ('enter • 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 • Hilo. Haean 96720 Phone (808) 961-8298 • Fax (908)9(,1-8742 Honorable Stacy Higa, Council Chair and Members of the County Council Hawaii County Council 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Chair Higa and Members of the County Council: Christopher .1. Yuen Dlrr(io, Brad Kurokawa, ASIA. ILI,D'" Ar Urput) Doe, i... SUBJECT: FINAL REPORT - PUNA REGIONAL. CIRCULATION PLAN (PRCP) Attached is a Final Report for the Puna Regional Circulation Plan for your files. Name of Grant Program: Puna Regional Circulation Plan (PRCP) Federal or State Grantor: HDOT-SPR County Grantee Department or Agency: Planning Department Grant No. (IF KNOWN): 04097 Amount of Grant: $120,000.00 Amount of County Match: $30,000.00 County Revenue Account Number: 010-141-514155-115 Grant Period (Commencement & Completion): January 9, 2004 to November 25, 2005 Goals: Through a community-based planning process that builds consensus among the many stakeholders in the Puna District, to create a multi -modal transportation planning document with near term and long-range action proposals to address the existing and projected traffic congestion and transportation needs of the Puna District till the year 2030. Objectives: To improve traffic safety; provide for commuting efficiency and peak -hour travel demands; provide transportation improvements for off-peak travel needs; to//� Hawaii ('oung, is an equal opportumry, provider and employer_ Comm.pm. No. Wo. '55" (Note: The "Final Report Puna Regional Circulation Plan" is on Ref. To: Ci file in the Office of the County Clerk.) Ref, ( u Form FR 9W3 Honorable Stacy Higa, Council Chair and Members of the County Council Hawaii County Council Page 2 January 24, 2006 develop a multi -modal connectivity network based on origins and destinations; and to plan for transit -ready, pedestrian oriented, mixed-use development projects. Outcomes or Results: The Puna Regional Circulation Plan proposes projects that provide multi -modal choices, connectivity, equity, capacity, and safety. Needed roadway improvements include a two-lane Puna Makai Alternate Route (PMAR) from Hilo to Puna Makai, widening of Highway 130 between Kea'au and Pahoa, and widening of Highway 11 between Kea'au and Kurtistown. The plan also identifies connectivity for vehicles, bicycles, and/or pedestrians between isolated subdivision. The PRCP proposes a significant expansion of the Hele-On bus system with more routes and greater frequency of service, the construction of park and ride facilities, increased connectivity with other transportation modes, including supplementing with a paratransit system. Sincer ly, CHRISTOPHER J. Planning Director 'WEZ l -- EN LMB:cd:pak P \ W P W IN60\l any\Puna Regional Circulation Plan\PR(T Final Report doe Attachment Form FR 9/03 Final Report PUNA REGIONAL CIRCULATION PLAN For: County of Hawaii Planning Department 101 Pauahi Street, Ste. Hilo, HI 96720 Prepared By: Townscape, Inc. 900 Fort Street Mall Ste. 1160 Honolulu, HI 96813 NOVEMBER 2005 CONSULTANT TEAM: Townscape, Inc. 900 Fort Street Mall, Suite 1160 Honolulu, Hawai'i 96813 Overall coordination, community planning, compilation, author/editor Julian Ng, Incorporated P.O. Box 816 Kaneohe, HI 96744 Julian Ng Contributing author: Sections 6 and 11 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: County of Hawaii, Department of Public Works County of Hawai'i, Office of the Mayor County of Hawai'i, Mass Transit Agency (MTA) County of Hawai'i, Planning Department County of Hawai'i, Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) Hawaii County Council Hawai'i County Police Department Kamehameha Schools Kea'au Community Center Puna Traffic Safety Council Queen Liliu'okalani Children's Center State of Hawai'i, Department of Transportation Various Subdivision Community Associations W.H. Shipman, Ltd. Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report PUNA REGIONAL CIRCULATION PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................. 1-1 IA. Why a Regional Circulation Plan? .......... ................ ................... 1-1 1.2. Project Area... ... .................................................................... 1-3 1.3. Frequently Asked Questions ................ ................................ ..... 1-5 1.4. Community -Based Planning ..................................................... 1-7 1.5. Community Perspectives.......................................................... 1-8 1.6. Growth Projections................................................................. 1-8 1.7. Land Use Scenarios............................................................... 1-10 1.8. Alternative Circulation Concepts ............................................ 1 -1 1 1.9. Regional Circulation Plan ...................................................... 1-12 1.10. Funding............................................................................ 1-14 1A1. Action Plan....................................................................... 1-15 2. COMMUNITY-BASED PLANNING ................................... 2-1 2.1. Community Consultation Plan .................................................. 2-1 2.2. Title VI - Environmental Justice ................................................ 2-5 2.3. Community Survey • 2-7 2.4. Community Mapping Exercise ................................................. 2-8 2.5. Values and Guidelines.......................................................... 2-11 3. PROFILE OF THE PUNA REGION .................................... 3-1 3.1. Rural or Suburban? Puna is Something Else! .............................. 3-1 3.2. Physical Description............................................................... 3-4 3.3. Socioeconomic Characteristics.................................................3-8 3.4. Historic and Cultural Resources ..................................... .......... 3-9 4. GROWTH PROJECTIONS & INDICATORS ......................... 4-1 4.1. Past Trends ...................................... ...................................... 4-1 4.2. Increasing Growth Trends (2000 to present) ............................... 4-2 4.3. Using Growth Indicators ............ ........................... ................... 4-3 4.4. Population Projection - Year 2030 .......................................... 4-1 5 5. LAND USE SCENARIOS ................................................ 5-1 5.1. Land Use: Existing and Projected ................................... ........... 5-1 5.2. Land Use Scenarios. ......................... ................................... 5-14 5.3. Employment and lobs............................................................ 5-17 1 County of Hawai'i Planning Department 6. EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ............................ 6-1 6.1. Infrastructure ........................................................................ Expanded Bus Service............................................................. 6-1 6.2. Traffic Accidents and Safety ........................ ............................. 6-3 6.3. Existing Transportation Projects ................................................ 6-6 6.4. Transportation Related Plans....................................................6-8 9.4. 6.5. Origins and Destinations ....................................................... 6-12 7. ELEMENT: TRANSIT ..................................................... 7-1 7.1. The Problem....................................................................... Expanded Bus Service............................................................. 7-2 7.2. 9.2. Dedicated Bus Way for "Rapid Transit" ..................................... 7-2 7.3. 9-5 Rural Para -Transit ................................................................... 7-3 7.4. Community Pertipectives...................................................... Park and Ride Facilities...........................................................7-4 9.4. 7.5. Costs and Funding................................................................ ITS and TDM......................................................................... 7-7 7.6. Transit Master Plan............................................................... 7-10 7.7. 9.6. Community Perspectives........................................................ 7-10 8. ELEMENT: PMAR......................................................... 8-1 8.1. What Kind of Corridor?...........................................................8-2 8.2. Alternative Corridors and Alignments ........................................ 8-2 8.3. Community Perspectives........................................................ 8-10 8.4. Next Steps: Alignment Alternatives Study ................................. 8-10 9. ELEMENT: BIKEWAYS AND PEDESTRIAN PATHS ..9-1 9.1. The Problem....................................................................... Bike Plan Hawai'i...................................... ............................. 10.2. 9-2 9.2. 10.3. Safe Bike and Pedestrian Routes ............................................... 10-2 9-5 9.3. 10-3 Engineering Techniques .............................. ............................. Community Pertipectives...................................................... 9-8 9.4. Costs and Funding................................................................ 9-10 9.5. . Railroad Pathwav................................................................. 9-12 9.6. Old Volcano Trad................................................................. 9-13 9.7. PRCP Plan Alternatives.......................................................... 9-14 9.8. Community Perspectives........................................................ 9-15 9.9. Bike Way Cross Sections........................................................ 9-17 10. ELEMENT: CONNECTIVITY ........................................ 10-1 10.1. The Problem....................................................................... 10-1 10.2. What is Connectivity?.......................................................... 10-1 10.3. How Do We In( rease Connectivity? ...................................... 10-2 10.4. Identifying Connectivity Routes ............................................ 10-3 10.5. Community Pertipectives...................................................... 10-4 ff Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report 11. REGIONAL CIRCULATION PLAN ................................ 11-1 11.1. The Puna Regional Circulation Plan ...................................... 11-1 11.2. Plan Alternatives................................................................ 11-5 11.3. Implementing Village Centers..............................................11-13 1 1.4. Calculating Traffic Demands...............................................11 -13 12. FUNDING.............................................................. 12-1 12.1 . Surface Transportation Construction Programs ........................ 12-3 12.2. Other Funding Opportunities ................................................ 12-6 12.3. Estimating Future Transportation Funds .................................. 12-6 1 3. ACTION PLAN ........................................................ 13-1 13.1. "Easy Wins"- Short Term Projects .......................................... 13-1 13.2. Transit ............................................................................... 1 3 - 2 13.3. Connectivity...................................................................... 13-2 13.4. Bikeways and Multi -Purpose Paths ...... ................................ — 13-3 13.5. PMAR................................................................................ 13-3 13.6. Widening ....... ...... ........ — ... .............. ................................. 13-4 13.7. Administration................................................................... 13-4 13.8. Continued Community Participation ...................................... 13-4 13.9. Projects by Objective.......................................................... 1 3-5 APPENDICES APPENDIX A — Environmental Justice APPENDIX B — Community Consultation APPENDIX C — CAG Meeting Memos APPENDIX D — Subregion Meeting Memos APPENDIX E — Educational Resource APPENDIX F — STIP Amendment #9 iii Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Puna Regional Circulation Plan (PROP) addresses future automobile, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit corridors of the Puna District. The Plan was initiated to evaluate existing regional transportation systems and propose future transportation corridors in Puna till year 2030. The planning consultant developed the PRCP in close coordination with County officials, County staff, a PRCP Community Advisory Group (CAG), and other interested citizens. This transportation plan was a community-based process that encouraged participation. The Plan projected future population and developed land use scenarios in order to identify transportation demands and improvement projects. 1.1. Why a Regional Circulation Plan? The PRCP was needed to develop a balanced, equitable, well-connected, safe system that integrates not only vehicular travel, but also transit, biking, walking, and other transportation demand measures. The PRCP was needed to address five key problems that affect transportation and quality of life: 1. Redundancy and emergency bypass routes do not exist. The absence of route redundancy in Puna is especially problematic because of lava and tsunami hazard zones that could require evacuation. Limited route and mode choices further congest traffic. 2. The District has the hlyhest five -Year total motor vehicle fatality rate of all Hawai'i County districts. Risk factors include narrow or non-existent shoulders, limited sight distance, delays in discovery and extended EMS response times, and frequent/severe crashes on gravel roads or off-road. 3. The District is a ra idly ArowinQ area. Puna has over 55,000 subdivided lots with the potential to accommodate regional growth without rezoning. The region is not equipped with the infrastructure and public services needed to accommodate population growth. 4. Equal access to transportation is not provided. The Puna District is a low-income area where many resident, cannot afford the cost of owning a vehicle. Improvements in transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities are needed to address the youth, elderly, disabled, and low-income populations. S. Existing landus distance residents from jobs, services, and schools. This distance preserves an auto -dependent pattern, denies equity for low-income residents, and increases traffic con�,estion, County of Hawai'; Planning Department The traditional circulation element of planning addresses movement of people and goods within the region. This regional circulation plan moves beyond traditional traffic circulation elements and includes multiple methods of travel. Transportation values and guidelines, developed by the community, are addressed by comprehensive travel modes, demand management tools, and strong linkages to land -use policies. The Plan was developed to address several time horizons in(luding: 1) short-range, 1 to 5 years; 2) mid-range, 5 to W; 3) long-range 10 to 20, and 4) very long range, 20 years and beyond. The purpose of the Puna Regional Circulation Plan is to: Set the overall transportation direction and define the transportation future to plan towards; Provide a decision-making structure, incorporating a participatory public involvement process, to plan and prioritize improvements to the transportation system; • Build on existing knowledge, resources, and information to conduct technical analysis including evaluation of current and future conditions, forecasts, and trends; Balance multiple and competing stakeholder objectives and funding expectations; Identify and provide a long-range funding program; Provide a framework to prioritize expenditures based on community values and guidelines; Focus short-range investments on Ione term goals; and Provide accountability to citizens on future direction and actions to get there. There are five main objectives of the Regional Circulation Plan: 1 . Improve traffic safety. Strategies: Intersection improvements and safe routes to school, 2. Provide for commuting efficiency and peak -hour travel demands. Strategies: Widening of existing roads, alternate routes, transportation demand management, transit system expansion, bus rapid transit, park and ride lots, and bicycle path access to schools. i. Provide transportation improvements for off-peak travel. Strategies: Rural Para -transit, bike/pedestrian facilities, context -sensitive highway design. 4. Develop a connectivity network for vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, and transit based on origins and destinations. Strategies: Connectivity projects, emergency bypass, bike and pedestrian facilities, safe routes to school, park and ride lots. 5. Plan for transit -ready, pedestrian -oriented, mixed-use development projects. Strategies: Bike and pedestrian facilities, transit system expansion, corridor preservation, village land use development. ti "Rrq 1-2 1.2. Project Area The project area covers the Puna District which is located in the southeast portion of Hawai'i Island. The District encompasses 499.5 square miles or 319,680 acres. The study area includes communities near Pahoa, Kea'au, Kurtistown, Glenwood, Mountain View, and Volcano. In 2000, the entire district of Puna had a population of 31,335. Development in the project area includes residential, commercial centers, industrial parks, family-owned farms with dwellings, and commercial farms. Puna Regional Circulation Plan FIGURE 1.1: PROJECT AREA nal Report IEGEMD . in Yrow Par Pak ranarw Paroe .. frf` •K«a�ra ... Primary routes within the Puna District are the Volcano Road (Highway 11), which provides access to Hilo and serves the upper Puna region; the Puna Road (Highway 130), serving lower Puna from Kea'au to Kalapana-Kaimu; the Kapoho Road (Highway 132), from Pahoa to Kapoho; and the Puna Coast Road (Highway 137), linking Kapoho and Kalapana-Kaimu. The existing roadway system is often congested and unsafe, lacks redundancy and connectivity, and promotes single -occupant vehicles (SOV). Highway 130, Kea'au-Pahoa Highway The Hede-On Bus is administered by the County of Hawai'i Mass Transit Agency (MTA). The Hele-On Bus serves lower Puna with a Pahoa- Hilo route that includes five round trips a day. The Hele-On also has a Volcano -Hilo route operating once a day. The MTA currently utilizes an average of four buses in Pahoa-Hilo and Ka'u- Hilo (through Volcano) routes. Rider•,hip of the system could be significantly improved with convenient routes and schedules, marked stops or transit centers, and marketing progi ams. 1-3 County of Hawaii Planning Department Bicycle and pedestrian facilities are limited in the Puna District. There is an existing signed hikeway along the Kea'au Bypass. A popular unimproved bike route is the "Puna Triangle." This Plan supports previously identified projects and reiterates the need for implementation to provide mobility choice, interconnectivity, and recreation opportunities. The Plan recommends many hikeways in the Puna District. Multi-purpose paths serve a variety of user groups. Source: Dan Burden, www.pedbikeimages.org The PRCP was initiated by the County of Hawai'i, Planning Department and the Puna Community. Many County departments participated in the planning process participants included the Mayor and his staff, County Council members, the Planning Department, Mass Transit Agency, and the Department of Public Works (DPW). Non, trees, kava starts, pineapples, pa6ns, and rainbow hark bees al startup Kokopelli Farm in Hawaiian Paradise Park. The involvement of these participants provided various sources of knowledge to the planning team. The Planning Department (PD) provided information on existing conditions, land use plans, and residential development. They also assisted with community meetings and interviews. The Mass Transit Agency provided information on Hele-On bus routes and ridership. The DPW provided data on existing roads and infrastructure. The consultant team consisted of Townscape, Inc., community and environmental planning and Julian Ng, Incorporated, transportation engineering. Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report 1.3. frequently Asked Questions This section summarizes commonly asked questions about the Puna Regional Circulation Plan. The answers to questions provide explanations on the plan methodology, planning process, implementation, and reasoning. How was information gathered from the community? ANS: Our participation strategy included several methods of community consultation which aimed to reach community members with varying levels of interest, experience, and commitment These elements include: 1) establishment of a Community Advisor) Group (CAG) with regular semi-monthly meetings; Z) interviews with community leaders and outreach to residents; 3) subregional community meetings held in Pahoa, Volcano, Mountain View, and Kea'au; and 4) a final general public meeting for the region to review the Draft Report and Regional Circulation Master Plan. PUNA REGIONAL CIRCULATION PLAN 5UBREG/ON MEET/NGS_ i,t..x II MnN,w +ylM1,wtl4�:•iuN(i41Wnn ('la ^In�,.. P ,1„v .fir., ��.,.i l....+... i..�.. n vhP\NOA'r,w m.luLn� -a 114 f1.1,Xgn4l �mm,nlo lunµluv.¢ IA NR Atlrvu...... U ANO I, a,Xu,X.:�Xr. VUPrl WWKIGLeNW000/A/T. WW ILurt3a\ M,A I}'IxN y+,ym KEAAU/PAAAbBPAll AIN+tAA i �urodm. Mn 1], MI.a„ Subwp onat,Meeting Announcement • 1 never heard about this planning process, how were meetings publicized? ANS: Whenever possible, meetings and plan updates were publicized through radio, newspaper, (Puna News, Hawai'i Island journal, and Hawaii Tribune Herald), Community Association Newsletters, County of Hawai'i website and weekly email newsletters, email Correspondence, Postal "snail” mail, and Posted flyers (Verna's Drive In, Community Centers, Mailbox bulletin boards, etc.). Now did this planning process coordinate with the State Department of Transportation (DOT)? ANS: The PRCP was funded by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) through the State Department of Transportation (DOT). The planning process included regular consultation and briefings with DOT's Statewide Transportation Planning (STP) Office and Highways Division. There was also coordination and communication regarding existing DOT improvement projects in Puna. I-5 County of Hawai'i Planning Department • What is the "Hawai'i Long Range Transportation Plan (HLRTP)"? ANS: The Hawaii Long Range Transportation Plan (1998) guides the development of multimodal transportation systems throughout Hawai'i County according to a prioritization of transportation spending. This plan has a 20 -year planning horizon and is Federally and State mandated. The HLRTP includes roadway, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit project improvements. Efforts to revise this plan are underway. The State is currently working with consultants to develop a new transportation model before beginning the update. What is the STIP, and how do projects get placed on it? ANS: The Hawai'i Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) provides a multi-year listing of the State and County projects and identifies those projects slated for Federal funding. It is a multi -modal transportation improvement program that is developed utilizing existing transportation plans and policies, and current highway, transit, and transportation programming processes. The STIP delineates the funding categories and the Federal and local share required for each project. STIP projects must be consistent with the Hawai'i County General Plan and the Hawaii Long Range Transportation Plan. • How will the PRCP be implemented? ANS: This document includes an Action Plan that outlines next steps. The Plan may also be adopted by the County Council as a resolution or ordinance. The PRCP may also be helpful in the formulation of the Puna Community Development Plan that could begin as early as 2005-,'006. What is a trip? Is it every segment of travel after leaving an origin? ANS: A trip is any travel between destinations, i.e., from home, to store, to work totals :' trips. A "home-based trip" is travel exiting or entering the place of residence. • What kind of transportation data is available? ANS: Traffic counts were used from the State of Hawai'i Department of Transportation Highway Planning Branch, Traffic Summary — Island of Hawai'i. Twenty-four hour traffic counts are taken from multiple highway points in the region. These counts are conducted every two years. Sources of both bicycle and transit ridership data could also be helpful in future planning. rizssw Puna: Papaya trees and lava rock. Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report 1.4. Community -Based Planning This community-based planning process involved much more outreach than the standard "public informational meeting." The planning team consulted with community leaders, groups, landowners, and public agencies. This approach was integral to the development of a plan that addressed the needs of Puna. 1.4.1. Community Guidelines Community guidelines were summarized relating to transportation issues that distinguish the Puna District from other areas. The guidelines below provide a basis on which to evaluate this Plan. The goal is to develop and implement a transportation plan that improves transportation choice and mobility in this region. PUNA REGIONAL CIRCULATION PLAN COMMUNITY GUIDELINES 1. Provide choices in modes of transportation. 2. Promote travel by transit, walking, and biking as viable alternatives to automobiles. 3. Increase the availability of high-quality affordable public transportation. 4. Develop an equitable system of transportation for elderly, children, and low-income. 5. Protect adequate rights-of-way for future transit development. 6. Develop village centers throughout Puna that provide mixed land uses and services within neighborhoods. 7. Utilize context -sensitive highway design with landscaping and multi -modal amenities. 8. Accept a level of traffic congestion in order to shift modal choice (provided that choices are available). 9. Create redundancy, resiliency, and connectivity within road networks. 10. Ensure connectivity between pedestrian, bike, transit, and road facilities. 11. Improve transportation safety and emergency circulation. 12. Ensure that transportation solutions work effectively with the natural and built environment. 1-7 County of Hawat'i Planning Department 1.5. Community Perspectives Community participants attended CAG meetings, interviews, and subregion meetings. Major comments expressed include: • Puna needs more short-term transportation projects and "easy wins." • Emergency bypasses are needed along Highway 130 and 11. • Many are in favor of mixed land use with more services for Puna's growing population. • However, others are very opposed to any development in agricultural subdivision areas. • More expansion of bus systems, pedestrian infrastructure, and hikeways is needed and supported. A Puna Makai Alternate Route is needed especially as the population increases. However, many residents are opagsed to an altern_ ate route through Hawaiian Paradise Park. • Connectivity should be determined by each private subdivision. Copies of the Draft Plan were available by request. The Draft Plan was also made available for public review at the County of Hawai'i Planning Department and at the Kea'au, Mountain Vie", Pahoa, and Hilo Public Libraries. An electronic copy was also placed on the County of Hawaii website for those with internet access. Comments received were summarized and can be found at the end of each section under "Community Perspectives." A complete file of all draft report comments can be reviewed at the County Planning Department upon request. 1.6. Growth Projections Growth projections were used as a basis for transportation demand analysis. The Plan calculated population projections using past trends and an analysis of indicators. Growth indicators were used to measure existing conditions, inventory opportunities and constraints, identify issues, and determine future growth. Growth is occurring rapidly in the Puna District with the addition of over 1,000 persons each ye,rr (1980 to 2000). In year 2000, the U.S Census reported a population of 31 ,335. The Puna District population is projected to reac h 80,162 by year 2030. TABLE 1.1: POPULATION 1960-2000 Population 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Puna District 5,030 5,154 11,751 20,781 31,335 210.01 Lower 6,844 11,776 Ke.i'au 7,155 2 10. 02) Ke i`au- n/a n/a 7,235 10,962 Volcano 211.00 Pahoa- 4,696 6,702 8,597 Kafipana Snore: U.S. c cmu+. 1-8 Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report The County's General Plan (2005) developed three "series" of growth projections for year 2020. The PRCP indicator -based population projection (63,886) was only slightly higher than that of the County's General Plan, Series C (63,491). Puna has over 55,000 subdivided lots with the potential to accommodate regional growth without rezoning. TABLE 1.2: AVERAGE POPULATION GROWTH Census Tract Block 1990-2000 Group Growth Pns./Year Average Indicator Rate Projected Projected Growth 2004 Pns./Year Population Projected 2030 Po ulation 210.01 1 352 1.7 598 9,572 24,338 210.01 2 13 1.7 22 1,063 1,609 210.01 3 136 1.6 218 4,493 10,253 210.02 1 6 1.6 10 1,254 1,497 210.02 2 200 5,935 13,440 210.02 3 130 5 4,147 9,217 210.02 4 38 9 1,762 3,060 211 1 101 $1.4280 2 4,528 8,427 211 2 32 8 1,941 2,927 211 3 1 474 511 211 4 76 4 2,794 41883 TOTAL PUNA DISTRIC t 37,963 80,162 1-9 County of Hawai'i Planning Department 1.7. Land Use Scenarios The PRCP identified existing land uses and projected potential land use demands based on Population projections. The planning process illustrated three scenarios of land use that could potentially develop in Puna's future. The objective was to evaluate transportation needs and devise projects in the context of different land uses. Each land use scenario of the PRCP differs primarily in the distribution of commercial and industrial development. Based on population projections, land use demands were assigned to village centers, town centers, and/or the regional center in Hilo. TABLE 1.3: LAND USE SCENARIOS Distribution of Demand Scenario Village I Town Hilo A — Existing Continued 1 5% 20% B - Town Centers 1 5% C - Village Centers 25°%, FIGURE 1.2: LAND USE CONCEPTS EX/ST/A'G CG�\TA'UHD- -}w To %A CEATF.RS' REGIC/A'ALCEATFR st s r e 400% 25% 1'l1.UfiECEATF.RS' �,.o Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report 1.8. Alternative Circulation Concepts A total of six alternatives were considered in the Puna Regional Circulation Plan. Two variations of land use were applied to the alternatives: "past trends continued" and "village centers" A: "Limited Road Construction", road widening would be limited to committed projects; i.e., widening of Highway 130 between Kea'au and Pahoa. The community requested an alternative that assumed no new road construction or widening projects. If all available funds were used for alternate modes of travel, what might this look like? B: "Limited Multi -modal", represents more of a traditional approach to transportation planning. Generally, highway improvements were used to satisfy future travel demands. C "Existing Routes", first identified the maximum amount of trips that bikeways and transit could provide. In order to address remaining travel demands, this alternative proposes widening of existing routes. No new alternate routes are identified. D: "New Alternate Routes" is similar to Alternative C. A two-lane Puna Makai Alternate Route (PMAR) is proposed instead of widening of Highway #130 from Hilo to Ainaloa. E: "Realistic Change", also approaches demands using multi -modal projects first. However, this alternative considers that changes in land use patterns, human behavior and mode choice could take much longer than 25 years. If these conditions take time to occur how do we plan for year 2030? This alternative sets the proportion of trips in the bicycle/pedestrian at 1 percent and transit at 10 percent. TABLE 1.4: DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION "LIMITED ROAD CONSTRUCTION" A Multi -modal Emphasis "LIMITED MULTI -MODAL" B Vehicle Emphasis "EXISTING ROUTES" C Multi -modal & Vehicle Balanced "NEW ALTLRNATE ROUTES" D Multi -modal & Vehicle Balanced "REASONABLE CHANGE" E Multi -modal & Vehicle Balanced PRCP PLAN "PREFERRED PLAN" County of Hawai'i Planning Department TABLE 1.5: COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE ELEMENTS > i C L r C o oe T u o 3 ¢ u d 3 3= u E ,o 4 rs J y O u Y a a N c d y u q a� ° E A a Rm F 7 m m 3 3 Vv 3 A Village 7-36`% 2-11%, V� I V/ V/ $166 46 130 iii- P Past Trends 0-9°/ z �� r ; 1'% ° r1' ' t' �1 3 �: �3 V/ $173 L1 C Past 151% 2 V� V�� V� V� $187 Trends 38 130 ,.�i .. 411i•=: Past V/- 2%, j,"t i �z V� t F �'J t ' V� V� $222 Trends 38 (R ,(:' PMAR�% .. L Past 101% V� V�.. V/ V� V/ Ve/ V� $249 Trends 21 PMAR PLAN Village24% 2% V/ $233 PMAR e' 1.9. Regional Circulation Plan The Puna Regional Circulation Plan proposes projects that provide multi -modal choices, connectivity, equity, capa( ity, and safety. The PRCP assumes that implementation of Bike Plan Hawai'i projects would serve 2 percent of the peak -hour travel demand. Transit serves as much as 12 percent of the peak -hour travel demand. Needed roadway improvements include a two-lane Puna Makai Alternate Route (PMAR) from Hilo to Puna Makai, widening of Highway 130 between Kea'au and Pahoa, and widening of Highway 11 between Kea'au and Kurtistown. The plan also identifies connectivity for vehicles, bicycles, and/or pedestrians between isolated subdivisions. The interconnections help provide equity to various users and improve safety. Bus Onl) Lanes a< cuntmodated on l iwy. 1 30 or PMAR project. ` Project includes multi-purpose path Widening only till Aumkw HIM, 1-12 Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report FIGURE 1.3: PUNA REGIONAL CIRCULATION PLAN A U In 26 f Mw Legend T.M E,.. e' •MND -P.. Va, 124 Ouaa1 Rtulef b Ea JMmnnaO MEME eeewq - Prwriry I PN6RiEeLW ao wt - } �TWypCe 100aWa1 ® �PMAR Cmoep� W' LCUCN�bEe OeY,r,wiea �e Enwgrcy K¢sa - - - ER Ryz — MW $Ca n 'MiEFERRED PUN' MINA REGIONAL CIRCLJ ATION PA Fa Courcy d N .,, By Towaaepe I- The Puna Regional Circulation Plan proposes: 1. Bus Transit Expansion - addressing schedules, headways, and fleet providing more equity in transportation service for elderly, children, low-income. Overall, the Plan recommends significant expansion of the Hele-On bLP,ing system, routes, service, and programming. The Plan proposes expanded bus service, a bus -only lane, a rural para -transit system, seven park and ride facilities, development of a Transit Master Plan, and implementation of a Transportation Demand Management program. (For more detail on transit projects, see Section 7.0.) 2. Bike and Pedestrian Facilities - that are interconnected and integrated with other transportation modes (car, bus, et(.). The Plan proposes implementation of 24 Bike Plan Hawai'i projects. Development of any new road facilities should provide adequate rights-of-way for bike facilities. The Plan identifies two key projects, the Railroad Avenue Multi -Purpose Pathway and the Old Volcano frail. A Safe Routes to School (SR2S) program should also be implemented. (For more derails on hike paths and multipurpose paths, see Section 9.0.) u � \ 1-13 C o u n t y o f H i u a i' i Planning Department i. Connectivity - Meetings and coordination with area landowners, community associations, and road maintenance corporations will be needed to develop connectivity where it is appropriate. More importantly, does the immediate community (neighboring subdivisions) want or need the convenience or safety of a connection? The PROP identifies possible connections for vehicular, hicycle, transit, and/or pedestrian access within a one -mile grid. Of these alternatives, several were identified for implementation of emergency access routes. Proposed emergency access routes for upper Puna and Praia makai include: 1. PEAR 2. PEAR II 3. Railroad RO" Access 4. Kehau to Punawal 5. N. Peck Rd. to (hope Rd. 6. N. Kulani Rd. to Stainback Hwy. (For more information on connectivity and emergency access routes, see Section 10.) 4. An alternate route to Highway 130 - providing redundancy, emergency access, multi -modal choices, and capacity. The project could include infrastructure for bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit. The Plan identities several alternative alignments fiom Hilo to Hawaiian Paradise Park, Hawaiian Beaches, and/or Nanawale. This plan proposes implementation of an alternate route from Hilo to Shower Drive as soon as possible. (For more information on the Puna Makai Alternate Route (PMAR) alternatives, see Section 8.) 5. Widening — of Highway 130 from two to four lanes irom Kea'au to Pahoa. Widen Highway 11 from two to four lanes from Kea'au to Huina Street in Kurtistown. Shifts in mode choices and village center development will take time, so road expansion continues to be needed. 1.10. Funding Implementation of the Puna Regional Circulation Plan will require significant funding. The cost for these services should provide an overall economic and social benefit to the community. The cost of improvements is particularly controversial in lava haiard zones where volcanic destruction is a significant threat. The Safe, Ac countable, I lexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA- I_U) was enacted August 10, 2005, as Public Law '109-59. TEA -21 authorizes the Federal surface transportation programs for h ghways, highway safety, and trmsit for the 5 -year period 2005-2009. The estimates provided here are based the assumption that funding for the State of Hawai'i will continue without major ch,u1ge. Based on historical funding, the State of Hawai'i receives approximately $150 million per year. The County of Hawai'i generally receives $24 million of State tUndS. Over the 25-y'ar planning horizon, approximately $75 to $150 million may be 1-14 Nunn Regional Circulation Plan Final Report available for various 1111lti-modal capacity improvements. Table 1.6 provides a quick reference guide to projects and required actions of the Puna Regional Circulation Plan. This section offers steps towards Plan implementation. 1.11. Action Plan This action plan is a quick reterence guide to projects and required actions of the Puna Regional Circulation Plan. Figure 1.4 illustrates the action plan projects A. Widen Highway 130 in affordable increments: i. Permanently convert the shoulder lane from Shower to a travel lane. ii. Widen to 4 -lanes trom KOoaU to Pahoa. B. Widen Highway 11 to 4 lanes in affordable increments: i. Keaau to Paahana ii. Paahana to Huina C. Construct new makai alternate route: i. Alignment Alternatives Shirty ii. Planning (EIS) in. Design and Construction D. Transportation Demand stem Management: Transportation Demand Management techniques strive to reduco the nrimber of automobiles during peak periods. i. Kide-sharing Program ii. Rapid Accident Removal hogram E. Increase bus frequency and routes. I. Initiate a r irutit routing sy+tem. The initial roll -out of this system will provide bus service at 1 -hour ntervals throughout the day. if, Initiate fixed scheduled tender routes in the more built -out subdivisions. The feeder route system will he part of the paratransit system. F. Construct park/ride facilities. To expedite, the preference is to use existing lacilities (e.g., church, shopping ( enter). ('consultant hired to identify most strategic locations, site requirements, and estimated cost. G. Supplement bus transit with paratransit. The paratransit system would coorclinate underutilized resouires (e.g., school buses, social services vans, taxis) to service the feeder routes and to also provide on -demand, dour -to -door service coordinated through the Internet and GPS. H. Ensure safe routes to schools to encourage walking and biking by school children. The nonprofit group called PATH has planned and implementer) such programs at Kealakehe and other schools. The have access to DOH and other funding sources to leverage County funding. 1-15 County of H a w a i ' i Planning Department I. Improve the Old Volcano Road Trail. Besides its recreational function, this trail could serve as an off-highway pedestrian route to Mountain View Elementary School. J. Acquire and improve Railroad ROW. Although this ROW will be a pedestrian and bike path, the driving justifications to proceed immediately with this project is to provide an alternate pedestrian/bike route when the shoulder lane is converted and its interim value as an emergency bypass to Highway 130, K. Investigate Beach Road Improvements. At this point, the value of improving the Beach Road is to provide a recreational pedestrian/bicycle link to Kapoho. Since Ihere are no multi-purpose reasons, and the regional transportation value is low, and it is lou ated in the tsunami inundation and high lava hazard zones, the priority to allocate funds is low. L. Improve intersections along Highway 130. DOT has committed to do an in-house study to determine whether improvements are warranted at the intersections along Highway 130. (E.G.: Kaloli Drive, paradise Drive, Orchidland Drive, Maku'U Drive) M. Improve intersections along Highway 11. The intersection improvement at Huina has been completed. Construction funds have been committed to improve the Kulani interse, tion. N. Emergency Bypass/Connectivity Projects The to( us for this plan are those interconnections that have regional benefit in terms of providing alternate roads to major destinations, or providing emergency bypass or faster response times. FIGURE 1.4 ACTION PLAN tF�Ho '. 1 i +•1 , �, t __ - ACTION PLAN PUNA REGIONAL CIRCULATION PLAN N neREeNcr .,kcEsa For County of Hawaii o ®. f „°`.•,"'.. `•",. I \ ..% -P- By Townscape. Inc 1-16 Nal •r \ �' •x.r n..u. " Xp1}E T� p «nixx.fnn. ussi _— ic.I TRQ ♦ 70 X R /•WCOIeI]II ��� n... .Y s♦s.x ' 6 VACEN E,t ' MFABFCTW I ' M aE1CX RR M%iOYEMEMB �,♦ ♦~♦ vlx♦ �✓ rt♦ l JRAS PATH' ' `; l♦ N FIAERCEXLY - - / ♦ `• a `x .sy ✓ s RN 1 RN k �♦, % x.. X ®136 � r • • .• JR�^y,.�' BIEROENCY ACCE59 I 0,ovKf.JNOTR3.sj _ 111 uTUUYnWOh ,• ', i �i �•r. � .. I ,\ J It lljtl."JItJJ l'y7 A post : Mtn .- 0 1-16 Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report 2. COMMUNITY-BASED PLANNING This section describes the community consultation process and summarizes public comments and issues expressed during planning. The Puna District represents a diverse community. Transportation is an important aspect of this rapidly growing community. 2.1. Community Consultation Plan 2.1.1. Purpose and Objective The objective of community consultation was to gather information on values, issues, and experiences from those living in the region. The challenges of consultation were to encourage widespread participation, identify and record public ideas, and develop a plan with and for stakeholders that adequately represents the larger community. Several issues were considered in developing the community consultation process: • How do we identify stakeholders and conduct outreach? • Will meetings be public or private? • How large should meetings be? • Who is invited to participate in meetings? • When and where will meetings be held? • How will the public he notified? • Will there he other means and methods for community participation? 2.1.2. Participation Process The PRCP participation pro( ess featured: 1) establishment of a Community Advisory Group (CAG) with regular semi-monthly meetings; 2) interviews with community leaders and outreach to residents; 3) subregional (ommunity meetings held in Pahoa, Volcano, Mountain View, and Kea'au; and 4) a final general public meeting for the region to review the Draft Report and Regional Circulation Master Plan. Our participation strategy included several methods of community consultation which aimed to reach community members with varying levels of interest, experience, and commitment. These elements included: Fri County of Hawai'i Planning Department ® Community Advisory Group (CAG) The "CAG" is a core group of stakeholders and community members that worked together to address transportation issues at a more detailed level. The CAG met regularly throughout the plan development process. The CAG was originally formed by the County to participate in the selection of a planning consultant. CAG members were selected based on input and recommendations from interested citizens, community leaders, and the three County Council Members of the district Invitations were sent to all Puna community associations listed in Table 2.1. The CAG membership expanded through out the planning process. To facilitate trust in this planning process, CAG meetings were open to the public. All CAG members and public attendees abided by an agreed-upon set of ground rules. Personal Interviews Personal and small-f;roup interviews were conducted with community leaders, social services agencies, long-time residents, large landowners, key government agencies, and/or other interested citizens. These meetings provided one-on-one opportunities to get to know the community better, receive input, and build relationships. Subregional Group Recognizing that subregions within the vast district of Puna may have different issues, community meetings were conducted in sub areas of the Puna district. These meetings addressed transportation issues and ideas within each specific subregion. Meetings were scheduled and held at each community's convenience. Subregional meetings encouraged participation, information sharing, and receipt of nev ideas. Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report Subregions included: • Kea'au (i.e., Kea'au/Paradise Park/Orchidland/Ainaloa) • Mountain View (i.e., Kurtistown/Hawn. Acres/ Mountain `View/Fern Acres/Glenwood) • Pahoa (i.e., Pahoa/Hawaiian Beaches/Nanawale/Leilani Estates/Kapoho/Kalapana) • Volcano (i.e., Volcano Village/'Ohi'a Estates/Mauna Loa Estates/Royal Hawaiian Estates) Presentations were also available, upon the request of community associations, churches, schools, social services, non-profit organizations, and others. This created additional opportunities for diverse community participation and review. The PRCP process included two rounds of subregion public informational meetings that discussed the Plan. The draft Plan and report were presented and discussed in the second round of meetings. Copies of the Draft Plan were available by request. The Draft Plan was also made available for public review at the County of Hawai'i Planning Department and at the Kea'au, Mountain View, Pahoa, and Hilo Public Libraries. An electronic copy was also placed on the County of Hawai'i website for those with interne) access. Comments received were summarized and can be found at the end of each section under "Community Perspectives." 2.1.3. Meeting Publicity Public meetings were publicized through various methods in an effort to reach the broad and diverse community of Puna. Whenever possible, meetings and plan updates were publicized in the following ways: • Radio Newspapers - Puna News, Hawaii Island Journal, and Hawai'i Tribune Herald • Community Association Newsletters • County of Hawai'i - Website and weekly email newsletter • Email Correspondence to ongoing mailing list • Postal "snail" mail Posted flyers - Verna's Drive In, Community ( enters, Mailbox bulletin boards, etc. PUNA REGIONAL CIRCULATION PLAN '` SUBREG/ON MEET/NGS __- 1Mi.wn ma,i Me '�oi,iM�iv ultl myv`.a.il lM1uuicv. w �+nu K�i;�NaLuwvbw.n �I m• �.•�^;•+ QIP PANDA Fuwd.n. MP � 1, Iai, p o Ir rn aomwnle lnngixww� la&S�ANon dui:� $ vo�cANo e tmeJm. ain u. ]aw e. • ,n p m KVKtl$YOwN/G�[NwOOo/MT. VI[w ninnJn. Ms N.;M4s 6 p ni �0 Ymu SNnwl Id 1:15 �•+6m•0+� �# KCAnu/P/.NApT[P/,RK/MNwWA „roto- �.. .. ,. ...���.. - - — — _ Subreginnal Meering Announc'emenf. 2'.1 County of Hawai'i Planning Department 2.1.4. Identifying Stakeholders The planning team conducted an assessment of transportation issues in the community. Stakeholder groups were identified based on this analysis. As the understanding of transportation issues deepened throughout the development of the plan, additional stakeholders were identified and added. During the course of this study, the consultant held meetings with various members of the community. Participants from community associations, social services agencies, government, and other areas provided key insights on transportation. A summary of contacted stakeholders is listed in Table 2.1. TABLE 2.1: SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY CONSULTATION Subdivision Community Associations: Government: • Ainaloa Community Assn. • Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) • Community Dev. Fern Forest • Hawai'i Volcanoes National Park • Eden Roc Estates • Dept. of Transportation (DOT), State of Hawai'i • Fern Acres Community Assn. • Dept. of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL) • Fern Forest • Dept. of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) • Glenwood Residents Senator Russell Kokubun, State Senate Hawaiian Acres Community Assn. • Representative Helene Hale, State House Hawaiian Paradise Park Owners Assn. • Councilman Gary Safarik, HI County • Hawaiian Shores, Beaches, Parks Res. • Councilman Bob lacobson, HI County • Kaohe Homesteads Residents • Councilman James Arakaki, HI County • Kapoho Beach Lots Residents • HI County Department of Public Works (DPW) • Kea'au Residents • HE County 'Mass Transit Agency (MTA) • Kurtistown Residents HI County Civil Defense Leilani Estates Community Assn. • HI County Police Dept. (HPD) Mainstreet Pahoa Assn. Other Community Organizations: • Mauna Loa Estates Road Maint. Inc. • Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee Mountain View Residents Disabled Rights F-lawai'i Nanawale Community Assn. • Hawai'i Arthurium Industry Association • Orchid Isle Estates Residents • Hawai'i Speleological Survey • Orchidland Community Assn. • Queen Liliu'okalani Children's Center (QLCC) • Royal Hawaiian Est. Community Assn. Malama O Puna • Vacation Land Farm Lots Neighborhood Place of Puna Volcano Community Assn. (VCA) • Puna Traffic Safety Council Large Landowners: i Volcano Cymbidium Acre, Residents • Volcano Golf Course Residents Kamehameha Schools (KS) Wa'a Wa'a Residents _ • W.H. Shipman, Ltd. 2-4 Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report 2.2. Title VI - Environmental Justice Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 addresses environmental justice in minority populations and low-income populations. Title VI states that "No person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." Title VI prohibits intentional discrimination as well as disparate impact discrimination. In 1994, President Clinton signed the Environmental Justice Order (Executive Order 12898), This Order strengthens Title VI by providing that "each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations." Together, these statutes prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability, and age in programs or activities that receive Federal financial assistance. There are three fundamental Environmental Justice principles: 1. To avoid, minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects including social and economic effects, on minority populations and low-income populations. 2. To ensure the full and fair participation by all potentially affected communities in the transportation decision-making process. 3. To prevent the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of benefits by minority populations and low-income populations. Fquay in transportation should be provided to all. The U.S. Department of Transportation planning regulations (23 C.F.R. 450) require states to "seek out and consider the needs of those traditionally underserved by existing transportation systems, including, but not limited to, low-income and minority households." As required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and 23 U.S.C. 109(h), impacis on all communities including low-income communities must be routinely identified and addressed. 2-5 County of Hawai'i Planning Department 2.2.1. Environmental Justice and Transportation Planning Environmental justice is more than a set of legal and regulatory obligations. Properly implemented, environmental justice principles and procedures improve all levels of transportation decision making. According to Federal Highways Administration (FHWA), this approach will: Make better transportation decisions that meet the needs of all people. • Design transportation facilities that fit more harmoniously into communities. • Enhance the public- in volvernen t process, strengthen community-based partnerships, and provide minority and low-income populations with opportunities to learn about and improve the quality and usefulness of transportation in their lives. Improve data collection, monitoring, and analysis tools that assess the needs of, and analyze the potential impacts on minority and low-income populations. • Partner with other public and private programs to leverage transportation -agency resources to achieve a common vision for communities. • Avoid disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low-income population.,. • Minimize and/or mitigate unavoidable impacts by identifying concerns early in the planning phase and providing offsetting initiatives and enhancement measures to benefit affected communities and neighborhoods. 2.2.2. A Discrimination Complaint In 2000, a Sustainability Committee, comprised of citizens of Puna and Ka'u, filed a discrimination complaint against the State of Hawaii Department of Transportation (DOT) and the County of Hawaii (Appendix A). Thele' requested investigation and correction of discriminatory planning in the Hawai'i Long Range Transportation Plan (HLRTP). FHWA concluded that evidence supported the allegations of the discrimination complaint. The investigation found that the State had discriminated by failing to recognize actual land uses, economic development, and multi -modal needs of low-income communities. Plans that propose highway capacity improvements can serve high- or even middle-income populations that can afford to drive to work. However, highway improvements fail to provide equal treatment to low-income people, many of whom cannot afford a car. In a dispersed area like Puna, equal treatment and access can be provided by the development of transportation choices and neighborhood level jobs, services, recreation, and education. Many feel that the high cost of a suburhan auto-ba,ed lifestyle is prohibitive for low-income Puna residents. This factor is directly related to isolation, public health decline, accident rates, and land use development, and has been linked to poor transportation planning and Federal funding for the region. The Puna Regional Circulation Plan has considered these effects and has worked to develop land use scenarios and multi -modal projects that provide choices and access for all communities. 2-6 2.3. Community Survey Approximately 70 community members participated in a survey. The purpose of the survey was to collect information on resident values, transportation problems, and needs. The survey document is located in Appendix B. kesponses indicated that 21 percent of respondents live in Puna for its climate and environment. Another 20 percent selected Puna's rural lifestyle as the main reason they chose to If ✓e in the district. Puna's open space and affordability were also important incentives for respondents. Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report FIGURE 2.1: WHY DO YOU LIVE IN PUNA? too ■ Traffic Congestion ■ Rural lifestyle ■ Loss of open space ■ Housing choices 8% 2% p /0 El Housing prices subdivisions 6% ❑ Convenient to work 155%■ ■ n Tomuch development Climate & environ. ■ Near stores & services 7% 6% Ir—, 7% ■Liked neighborhood 4% ❑ Transit for eldedyl disabled ❑Strong sense of community 5%11 % ■ Open space 1% o ■ Friends/Family in area 21% ❑Other ■ N/A FIGURE 2.2: IMPORTANT TRANSPORTATION ISSUES 24% C Other responses included: 15 percent - Increased Hole -On" Bus service • 14 percent - Bikeways ,ind bike lanes • 12 percent- Pedestrian paths and trails • 11 percent - Car pool/Van pool programs • 10 percent - Construction of new roads The Puna District is a rapidly growing community with many residents new to the area. However, there are also many residents that have lived in the di'>trict for over ten years. Respondents were also asked to note importance of transportation issues. Twenty-four percent of participants selected the absence of public transportation, followed by traffic congestion with thirteen percent. Respondents were asked to select the most needed transportation projects. At least fifteen percent of those surveyed selected the need for increased Hele-On bus service. ■ Traffic Congestion ■ Loss of open space ❑ Cut through traffic o Connectivity between subdivisions 6% ■Public Safety ■ n Tomuch development 2% ■ Speeding 7% ❑ Dangerous roads ■ Enforcment of traffic laws 7% a Lack of Public transp. ❑ Transit for eldedyl disabled O other ■ N/A Other responses included: 15 percent - Increased Hole -On" Bus service • 14 percent - Bikeways ,ind bike lanes • 12 percent- Pedestrian paths and trails • 11 percent - Car pool/Van pool programs • 10 percent - Construction of new roads The Puna District is a rapidly growing community with many residents new to the area. However, there are also many residents that have lived in the di'>trict for over ten years. Respondents were also asked to note importance of transportation issues. Twenty-four percent of participants selected the absence of public transportation, followed by traffic congestion with thirteen percent. Respondents were asked to select the most needed transportation projects. At least fifteen percent of those surveyed selected the need for increased Hele-On bus service. County of Fla rvai'I Planning 1)eparYmcnt 2.4. Community Mapping Exercise Community mapping provides an inclusive and graphic framework for people to affirm and pool their experiences and knowledge about their home place. As a participatory tool, mapping relies on the active engagement of the community. Subregional meetings were held in four areas of the Puna District: Vanawale, Volcano, Mountain View, and Kea'au. Community mapping was conducted at meetings in order to get participants engaged in the process. Participants were each provided with three sticker "dots." Community members were asked to plac,, the dots on the map to help identify trip attractors, origins, and destinations. rhe red dot represented home locations. The green dot represented locations of employment or schooling. Finally, the blue dol was provided as a "wild card" for panic ipants to identify a treyuent destination that Could include family visits, shopping, doctor /dentist visits, errands, social visits, recreation, and other entertainment venues. figures 2.3 through 2.6 depict the community mapping and travel patterns of each subregion. The maps provided supplemental transportation data on uavel patterns. While the exercise illustrated that some residents do stay within the region for local services, work, and school, it also validated large numbers of residents who travel regularly to Hilo. 2-8 Ih t t HEPd4V tr CYACErd'ftpv l'Ias Mapping Trip Destinations PG, 'e Thr d,;, rm th,, nmp f„ +de„nJ- th" Red=1101ne OGreen = VVork or school Elute = "A'ildrard" destinolion An u,.imt Jr ut st,t k", handouts. Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report FIGURE 2.3: NANAWALE '� - N�►�!AWAI.E he "Ar 4d 0 y t Mrd e^ r' i• � `a0 •640 Jd 4e�e ! ♦� V A^ 7 \ ob 1 y� qty a 00 4 el FIGURE 2.4: VOLCANO � LEGF.ttll ro .,' y je kMA AO , ; G �• aas +Fype,,.fi• ��� a ` • ',jd ,j . a c F � e •o .dC J � "Nen Ae. O^ 4 fe• L 4 Qe 9� e0 tin ��KM�A� e.•yr � TN,WI IIY. 1 Y O a / �4 County of Hawaii Planning Department FIGURE 2.5: MOUNTAIN VIEW .a W -t- vIEW �i yd � fY�.d Ilomn (',�.rn Wrnxl$�hq ®d9P ``^�. �` • f // q 0.,4,4ff Rq FIGURE 2.6: KEA'AU VO • KEAAU LECAND �FlSM �lkmd •. � c�«•.' - w�scroa % Ad`e O 4 N.�n*• `Mina Q� �� \Q" 1 4�OaN t`. % it 'n f� u. � � Ia!^f.KaN�w►' Q ,O C^ 2']0 Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report 2.5. Values and Guidelines Values are what guide our decisions. The articulation of values and guidelines serve the greatest good when there are difficult decisions and choices to make. The guidelines help to steer the planning process and serve as evaluative tools of the plan. This list of guidelines was developed by listening to Puna residents and the Community Advisory Group (CAG) through interviews, public meetings, mapping, and surveys. "Rom the Ground Up" American Planning Association, 1999. 1. Provide choices in modes of transportation. 2. Promote travel by transit, walking, and biking as viable alternatives to automobiles. 3. Increase the availability of high quality affordable public transportation. 4. Develop an eguitablesystem of transportation for elderly, children, and low-income. 5. Protect adequate rights-of-way for future transit development. 6. Develop villa a centers throughout Puna that provide mixed land uses and services within neighborhoods. 7. Utilize context -sensitive highway design with landscaping and multi -modal amenities. 8. Accept a level of traffic congestion in order to shift modal choice (provided that choices are available). 9. Create redundancy, resiliency, and connectivity within road networks. 10. Ensure connectivity among pedestrian, bike, transit, and road facilities. 11. Improve transportation safety and emerQen� circulation. 12. Assure that transportation solutions work effectively with the natural and built environment. 2-11 County of Hawai'i Planning Department 2.5.1. Discussion of Community Values Community values relating to transportation issues were summarized in meetings. These community values distinguish the Puna District from other areas. The guidelines provide a basis on which to evaluate this plan. The goal is to develop and implement a transportation plan that improves transportation choice and mobility in this region. The community expressed the desire for an innovative plan that would question conventional assumptions of transportation planning. As a result, much of the methodology and analysis focused on new ways of planning transportation improvements. Improving traffic congestion is only a small part of an overall program to improve transportation choices and mobility in this region. The community recognizes that it will have to accept a degree of congestion in order to force modal shifts and lifestyle changes. However, congestion can only be endured if viable transportation choices are available. ( ommunity members meet to discuss the PRCP. Transportation infrastructure for walking and biking will help provide modal choices for the diverse Puna community. Development of an integrated network of bike lanes and pedestrian pathways could begin with a multi-purpose path along Railroad Avenue. The community was also interested in implementing safe routes to school. A majority of residents also focused on transit issues. The community attained consensus regarding the need for expansion and improvement of the Hele-on bus system. One meeting participant noted the shortfall of the existing system: "In Puna, you need a car to catch the bus!" Residents agreed that transit service seeks to provide equity and flexibility in choices rather than congestion relief. An expanded, reliable, and affordable bus system would provide equity by serving the entire community including children, elderly, low-income, and non -drivers. The community also expressed concern for the protection of future transportation rights-of-way. Preserving corridors for future transportation demands will provide increased transportation efficiency for the Puna region. Corridor preservation encompasses right-of-way preservation, advance acquisition, and access management techniques. Corridor management prevents Puna Reg iorral Circulation Plan nal Report development within a planned transportation right-of-way and allows for its acquisition in advance of construction need. This helps to ensure that transportation facilities will be adequate to serve existing circulation and planned growth. Residents recognize that the dynamics of the Puna region are quickly changing as development occurs. However, the diversity of residents is apparent in discussing land use and development issues. Many noted that the Puna District lacks adequate land uses for self sufficiency from Hilo. As a result, they advocated for changes in land uses and zoning to allow development of commercial activities in Puna. Such a change could create jobs and services within Puna neighborhoods. This development would affect transportation patterns and, as many believe, reduce the need for trips to Hilo. One participant noted "changes to land uses will alleviate congestion!" On the other hand, other residents discussed a rural -like, agriculturally based vision for Puna. These residents moved to Puna for its seclusion. Many feel that development of commercial areas would encroach on their w.ry of life and fear the "rush to build." The challenge in planning transportation improvements is in preserving the desired landscapes and lifestyles. Many community participants stated: "Keep Puna rural" or "I like my rural roads." Puna has many areas with special cultural and historical importance. The natural resources, cultural sites, and natural landscapes need protection. As traffic congestion increases and peak -travel hours lengthen, commuters most get up and leave their homes earlier and earlier. Increased traffic and travel times affect quality of life. Conversely, construction of more roads drastically changes the landscape of the region. These issues clearly present the transportation needs of Puna, which cannot be addressed by construction alone. The Community Advisory Group agreed that increasing connectivity for emergencies was a high priority action that could be focused on in the short-term. Construction and widening of new roads, without other actions (e.g., improved mass transit, increased connectivity), merely induce more traffic. Without action to increase connectivity, no amount of roadway improvement is enough to relieve the congestion. 2-13 County of Hawai'i Planning Departmc nt Connectivity could provide alternate routes to major trip attractors without having to solely rely on Highways 11 and 130. One resident discussed such an example. He and his family reside in Nanawale Estates. His daughter's best friend lives in neighboring Hawaiian Beaches. Although parts of the subdivisions are within a mile apart, children cannot play with each other without being driven on the highway. A simple interconnection between the subdivisions could allow pedestrian, bike, and even vehicular access, thus removing the need to use the highway. Connections would provide alternate routes during natural disasters, traffic accidents, water main breaks, or other emergency road blockages. Flip charts used to record community comments. Residents also requested that needed roadway improvements consider community character. Transportation enhancements including landscaped buffers, bikeways, paths, and lighting should be a part of comprehensive transportation projects. The various amenities help service diverse residents and also fulfill the goal of providing multi -modal choices in transportation. The community also recognized the importance of connecting various transportation modes so a bike rider may catch the bus or ;in automobile driver can park and catch a bus. F 2-14 Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report 3. PROFILE OF THE PUNA REGION This section presents an overview of the planning region including its community character, physical characteristics, natural hazards, and archaeological resources. Several elements of the region were selected as growth indicators and are discussed in more detail in Section 4, Growth Projections and Indicators. These elements include lava hazards, flooding, and infrastructure. 3.1. Rural or Suburban? Puna is Something Else! The Puna District is a unique place. Many describe it as a "rural" community for its agricultural activities, open space, and the absence of "urban" infrastructure. However the district is also considered "suburban" due to widespread residential development, the absence of local jobs and services, and commute patterns to Hilo. The Puna District can neither be characterized akin to rural areas of middle America nor classic suburb neighborhoods complete with sidewalks. Puna is something else! Rural means a land use, transportation, and economic pattern characterized by locally balanced land uses and largely self-sufficient small towns, surrounded by agricultural lands. In more self-sufficient rural communities, local jobs and services, along with homes and farms, mean that there is almost no commuting to distant employment centers. This is somewhat different from what Puna is. As a result, some have characterized Puna as "large -lot suburban" or "semi -rural." People who travel to Hilo only once every week and make their entire living within Puna are truly rural. Yet, most Puna residents commute daily, if not more, with two or more commuters per household. Nevertheless, most of the lots in Puna are at least one -acre with generous open space and vegetation that buffer homes. It is understandable that some residents oppose small local employment and service centers in an effort to protect the existing quality of life, whether it is called rural, semi -rural, or large -lot suburban. A resident's backyard in Orchidland Estates illustrates open +para and livestock not commonly found in suburbs. 3-1 County of Hawai'i Planning DepartinenI t `: Residents with this perspective feel very strongly about protecting their community and way of life. They enjoy Punas natural landscape, open space, rough inirastructure, distance from business activity, and quiet environment. Farms, livestock, and other rural activities, riot allowed in classic suburbs, are found throughout Puna. Many people move there precisely because of these qualities. Moreover, any kind of development, even at the village level, Noni trees at Paradise Farms in Hawaiian Paradise Park. can seem I Ike a very sl Ippery slope towards urban living. Many residents have fought hard to maintain the "agricultural" land use allocation as opposed to "rural." However interestingly, past surveys conducted by community associations found that the divide between those in favor of Puna as "wild" versus "more development" was evenly split 50/50. The absence of urban development can be desirable for those who know they can easily travel to the regional center of Hilo for work, goods, and services. The area's sense of place is "preserved" by distancing homes and farms from jobs and services. The difficulty is that this distance preserves an auto -dependent pattern, denies equity for low-income residents, and increases traffic congestion and environmental impacts. There are also residents of Puna who have a desire for village development that provides access to more local jobs, goods, and services. Implementation of village centers could create sustainable patterns that remove the need for regular commutes. A truly rural, locally balanced, land use pattern can lower transportation costs and provide economic and lifestyle improvements and choices for all types of residents. This group includes minorities such as the elderly, disabled, and youth. The "rural" approach or multiple smaller "villages" with low-density area,; in between offers multiple economic, ecological, social and cultural benefits. So what does this all mean for planning Puna's transportation systems for the next 25 years? If development of village centers does not occur, the increasing population will continue to commute to Hilo for jobs, goods, and services. Therefore, major increases in infrastructure will be needed, including highways. Transit, hikeways, and paths may provide some relief and equity for low-income residents. 3-2 On the other hand, if residents allow limited and planned mixed use development, better outcomes can occur. This development can take time, and roads and transit will continue to be needed. However, village centers can eventually shorten trips, decrease commutes, and facilitate the use and necessity of more bike and pathways. The community will have to decide if they can tolerate the long commutes, major highway development, and social inequity needed to preserve their distance from mixed uses. The option is to accept some neighborhood level development in exchange for decreased highway development, equal access, and overall environmental benefits. FICURE3.1: PROACTAREA Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report Residential development in the Hawaiian Shores subdivision. LEGEND u = iuu r cres ntain View awn Par Par Nanawale rood Pahoa BASE MAP Puna Regional Circulation Plan f For: County of Hawaii 7010 1 1100 ,woo By: Townscape, Inc. � 2005 F " 01 3-3 County of Hawai'i Planning Department 3.2. Physical Description 3.2.1. Location The Puna District encompasses 499.5 square miles or 319,680 acres. It is bound to the north by the Hilo District and to the west by the Ka'u District. Primary access to the district is from an east -west roadway (Volcano Road) that runs parallel to the northern boundary of the District. A main branch road at Kea'au runs south to access the southern and eastern portions of the District. 3.2.2. Terrain and Climate The majority of the terrain in Puna is characterized by broad and gentle slopes with no defined waterways. The Puna landscape is formed of porous volcanic rock and soils from Mauna Loa and Kilauea eruptions. An extensive network of subterranean lava tubes runs throughout much of the District and are accessible through collapsed openings. The climate is tropical with temperatures averaging 67 degrees Fahrenheit in Mountain View at the 1,530 -foot elevation and daily temperatures range between 10 and 20 degrees. August and September are the warmest months; January, February, and March are the coolest. Rainfall averages 100 inches per year; lune is usually the driest month; and December is the wettest. However, monthly and annual rainfalls are very unpredictable and rainfall in East Hawai'i can vary by a factor of three from year-to-year (60 to 180 inches a year). Rainfall averages are higher at upper elevations and range from 50 inches a year along the southwestern coast to 300 inches in the northern extent of the district. 3.2.3. Soils According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service Soils Report (1973), there are over 20 soil types found in the area. The three major soil associations are: Kekake-Ke'ei-Klloa — Described as very shallow, gently sloping to steep, well -drained organic soils over'A'a or pahoehoe lava; on uplands. Akaka-Honokaa-Kaiwiki — Deep gently sloping to steep, moderately well drained and well drained soils that have a moderately fine textured subsoil, high in organic matter, very porous and continuously wet; on uplands. Lava Flows - Gently sloping to steep, excessively drained, nearly barren lava flows; on uplands. There are no major development constraints caused by area soils. IRA " r!:=�j 3-4 Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report 3.2.4. Geology The region was formed as part of the shield volcano mountain -building process of Mauna Loa and Kilauea. Kilauea is currently active and lava has covered numerous acres of developed lands within the Puna District in the last thirty years. Recent eruptions have generally been limited to the National Park lands. The lava tubes and cave systems of the Puna area are an integral and common element of extrusive volcanic landscapes in shield volcanoes such as Kilauea and Mauna Loa. Although exact numbers cannot be determined, it is certain that thousands of lava tubes lie within the pahoehoe lava flows. According to the Hawai'i Speleollogy Survey (HSS), most of these caves are too small to be an important concern in land planning. Important sites include several narned lava tube caves, including Kazumura, Keala, and Lower U'ilani Caves. Kazamura Cave is internationally recognized as the world's largest lava tube cave. The Puna area is broadly considered to be the world's leading area for scientific study of lava tubes large enough to be caves. According to representatives of the HSS, distribution of specific data regarding caves requires approval of their board. The HSS can review requests for information on a project -by -project basis. Lava tube caves are valuable resources based on their geology, recreation quality, biology, and Hawaiian cultural significance. Transportation improvement projects have the potential to disturb lava tube caves, moreover, the caves are also a potential hazard to the projects. As noted, the HSS should be consulted in future planning and engineering to assure that negative impacts to important caves and transportation projects are avoided. 3.2.5. Topography The region gently slopes in a radial pattern from the high western mountains of Kilauea and Mauna Loa. The slope is predominately gentle but includes small hillocks, swales, and broken land resultant from the volc,mic geology and subsequent weathering. The area slopes from an elevation of 5,000 feet to sea level along the coastal boundary. No major development constraints are caused by topography. 3.2.6. Flora and Fauna Dominant vegetation types in the region range from rain forest to desert scrub and coastal strand. Under the Endangered Species Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is charged with designating critical habitats for threatened and endangered species whenever it is determined to be prudent and determinable. There are over 100,000 acres of land within the region which are designated as critical habitat areas. County of Hawai'i Planning Department Researchers have grouped the flora of the Puna region into nine ecosystem categories depending on rainfall, stage of succession from bare lava, elevation, and penetration of exotics into the native ecosystem. Area ecosystems include: • Lava • 'Ohi'a woodland • 'Ohi'a forest • Dry forest Dry scrub community • Dry grassland • Mixed lowland forest • Scrub Agricultural lands Some forests in the upper elevations are maintained as extensive ecosystems. However, lower elevation lands used as agricultural and residential areas have allowed the spread of exotics and "domestics" such as mango, coconut, bamboo, rose apple, eucalyptus, Christmasberry, kukui, and milo. Other species that have proliferated include myrica faya, ginger, tibouchina, strawberry guava, banana poka, palm grass, and yellow Himalayan raspberry. Rare, threatened, and endangered plant species reported in the Puna area include: • Alphitonia ponderosa var kauila • Adenopherous peiiens, (Fern, pendant kihi) Bidens skottsbergii var. conglutinate Clermontia hawaiiensis Clermontia peleana ('Oha wai) • Cyanea tritiomaniha • Cyrtandra ramosir,sima, Hedyotis hedyosmifolia var. magnifolia • Labordia baillonii Nathocestrum longifolium var. rufipilosum Peperomia lilifolia va. Obtusata ('ala'ala-wai-nui) • Phyllostegia brevidens var. heterodoxa • Sterogyne macrantha • Stenogyne scrophularioides • Tetrap)asnadra k.fvaiensis vac dipyrena Xylosma hawaiiensis var. hillebrandii Zanthoxylum dipetelaum var. gemenicarppum Zanthoxylum glandulosum 3-6 Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report Endangered animals that may be found in the Puna region include the following: • Buteo solitarius (I'o), Hawaiian Hawk, • Hemignathus wilsoni ('Akiapolaau) • Lasiurus cinereus semotus ('Ope'ape'a), Hawaiian Hoary Bat. Early identification of endangered species sites is helpful in planning projects. Specific improvement projects should address this to avoid costly changes to engineering plans. 3.2.7. Natural Hazards The Overall Hazard Assessment (OHA) identified in the Atlas of Natural Hazards in the Hawaiian Coastal Zone (2002) is ranked moderate -to -high to very high for the Puna region. The overall rating considers the weighted individual assessments of the following variables: tsunami, stream flooding, high waves, storms, erosion, sea level, and volcanic/seismic activity with consideration of the coastal slope. There are development constraints in coastal areas and lava hazard zones 1 and 2. For more information, ;ee Section 4. 3.2.8. Groundwater Parts of the following aquifer, are in the Puna District: Northeast Mauna Loa Sector, Southeast Mauna Loa Sector, and the Kilauea Sector. The estimated combined total yield within the District is 1 billion gallons per day. Puna's abundant rainfall and the absence of sediment load create high-quality groundwater. There are six hydrologic units identified in the region: Kea'au, 'Ola'a, Pahoa, Kalapana, Hilina, and Keiwa. According to the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) Commission on Water Resource Management, the aquifers have a combined sustainable groundwater yield of 1,154 million gallons per day (MGD). There are approximately 23 existing wells located in the area inc uding the Hawaiian Shores, Keonepoko, Kapoho, and Pahoa wells. There are no direct development constraints caused by Puna groundwater conditions. 3.2.9. Conservation Reserves There are four forest reserves in the Puna District including Nanawale, 'Ola'a, Keauohana, and Malama-ki. These reserves total over 13,000 acres. There are two natural area reserves in the region. PU'U Maka'ala contains 12,106 acres of montane wet 'ohi'a and koa forests. Kahauale'a Natural Area Reserve represents volcanic activity with fresh lava fields as a blank slate where plants and animals re -colonize cooled lava flows. The Reserve's 16,726 acres include wet 'ohi'a (Metrosideros polymorpha) forests. The natural area reserves include both endemic and endangered species. 3-7 County of Hawaii Planning Department Hawaii Volcanoes National Park was established in 1916. The Park encompasses 333,000 acres and ranges from sea level to the summit of the volcano, Mauna Loa, at 13,677 feet. Over half of the Park is designated wildeness and provides recreational opportunities. Conservation areas protect watersheds, endangered species, and open space. Transportation projects planned near or through forest reserves should carefully consider negative impacts. 3.3. Socioeconomic Characteristics 3.3.1. Demographics The Puna region is rural. According to the U.S. Census, the Puna population was 31,335 in year 2000. The project area grew by nearly 20,000 people from 1980 to 2000. This equates to growth of 1,000 people a year. Thee are over 13,000 households in Puna with an average household size of 2.79. TABLE 3.1: PUNA DISTRICT POPULATION 1960 TO 2000 Srn?a'- Counp of I kmai'i Genual Plan 2005. The ethnic composition of the District is similar to the County. About one-third of the District population is of Caucasian ancestry, slightly more than the County -wide percentage. Residents with Asian ancestry represent one-fifth of the District, also slightly lower than the County. The number of Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islanders is proportionately the same in Puna as in the County. These categories, however, inadequately address the ethnic makeup as perceived by Hawai'i residents, who distinguish among Native Hawaiians, Samoans, Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, and Filipinos. In addition, many births since 1970 have involved parents of different or mixed ethnic backgrounds. 3.3.2. Employment and Income The median household income of Puna residents is $30,821, about $10,000 below County -wide levels. The per capita income for the District is $14,000, compared to a County -wide income of $19,000 (U.S. Census, 2000). Generally, the unemployment rate in Puna is greater than the County rate. The 2000 Census reported a 12.2 percent rate for the Puna District compared to 8 percent for the County. The mean travel time to work exceeds the County average by about seven minutes and about five percent more Puna residents participate in carpooling than the County residents in general. Data illustrates a correlation between low to median household income residents and need for alternative modes of travel. This community can be assisted) by efficient, affordable, and convenient busing systems. ITI L",�9 u' 3-8 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Puna Drst. 5,030 5,154 11,751 20,781 31,335 Srn?a'- Counp of I kmai'i Genual Plan 2005. The ethnic composition of the District is similar to the County. About one-third of the District population is of Caucasian ancestry, slightly more than the County -wide percentage. Residents with Asian ancestry represent one-fifth of the District, also slightly lower than the County. The number of Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islanders is proportionately the same in Puna as in the County. These categories, however, inadequately address the ethnic makeup as perceived by Hawai'i residents, who distinguish among Native Hawaiians, Samoans, Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, and Filipinos. In addition, many births since 1970 have involved parents of different or mixed ethnic backgrounds. 3.3.2. Employment and Income The median household income of Puna residents is $30,821, about $10,000 below County -wide levels. The per capita income for the District is $14,000, compared to a County -wide income of $19,000 (U.S. Census, 2000). Generally, the unemployment rate in Puna is greater than the County rate. The 2000 Census reported a 12.2 percent rate for the Puna District compared to 8 percent for the County. The mean travel time to work exceeds the County average by about seven minutes and about five percent more Puna residents participate in carpooling than the County residents in general. Data illustrates a correlation between low to median household income residents and need for alternative modes of travel. This community can be assisted) by efficient, affordable, and convenient busing systems. ITI L",�9 u' 3-8 Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report TARI F 3.2. 1 AROR FORCE/TRAVEL CHARACTERISTICS. COUNTY AND DISTRICT - 2000* Census Tract % (percent) Mean Travel time to work (minutes) Public Unemployed Car-pools Transportation 210.01 11.4 25.8 0.9 30.4 210.02 8.6 22.1 0.5 31.1 211 16.7 24.6 0.4 31.5 Puna District 12.2 24.1 0.6 1 31.0 `Worker, 16 years and over. source: V.s. Census 20uu.wmmary rue s. 3.3.3. Economic Base The region's main economic base is agriculture. Crops include vegetables, fruits, macadamia nuts, ornamental flowers, and foliage. Flowers, primarily orchids and anthuriums, are grown throughout Puna. Tourism is a growth industry in the region as tourists visit Hawai'i Volcanoes National Park and seek accommodations at bed and breakfast establishments. The region has several parks, natural area reserves, and other places of interest. A significant portion of Puna residents work in home-based businesses and cottage industries. Many of these jobs are possible due to telecommuting. Tran portation choices and amenities could improve business and the economic diversity of Puna. Access by regular bus service and pathways such as the Railroad Path and the Old Volcano Trail, would provide increased options for tourists to travel throughout Puna. 3.4. Historic and Cultural Resources Puna meaning "spring" has many historic sites, including ancient trails, burial caves, habitation sites, fishponds, and heiau. The Puna District has rich cultural landscapes including the Mahina Akaaka Heiau, Nuikukahi Heiau, Kohelele o Pele, and Kuki'i Heiau. The Waha'ula Heiau was a significant archeological temple site located within the Puna area of Hawai'i Volcanoes National Park. Sites such as this heiau were destroyed by recent lava flows. 3.4.1. Archaeological Sites The majority of the archaeological sites located along the coast indicate a settlement pattern associated with ocean resources. Numerous agricultural features indicate extensive cultivation of taro, sweet potato, and other traditional crops. The easternmost region of Puna is the sacred site known as Kumukahi. This locality receives the first light of clawn and was a place of healing and power. The ancient landscape of Puna was covered with forest, brush, and vegetation prior to being transformed into ranchland and sugar cane fields. In between historic lava flows, Puna vegetation began with lichens ferns, and shrubs. William Ellis" described Puna in 1850 with thick verdant soils, grass, trees, and taro. Historically, the region supported wet and dry taro planting, hanana, sugar cane, sweet potato, coconut groves, and breadfruit trees. J Handy, E.S. Cmighlll, and Elizabeth Can on Handy, with Mary Kawena Pukoi. Nduve !Tante,, in Old Hawaii: TheirLife, Lore, and EmnnnmenL bishop Mu,vum Prrw, In`I. 3-9 County of Hawai'i Planning Department 3.4.2. Historic Sites Numerous historic sites are also located within the District. Table 3.3 lists these sites. TABLE 3.3: SITES LISTED ON STATE AND NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES Site Tax Map Key Ahull or Region Hawai'i Register National Register Johnson Summer Home/Hale'Ohia Cottages 1-1-05:19,42 Kea'au x Keonepoko Hale'Ohia Tract Historic District 1-1-05: 24-26; 29-33 Volcano x Kupahua Star of the Sea Catholic Church Kalapana Painted Church 1-2-06:81 Kaimu x x Ala Loa 1-2-09:3 Kehena x Kahauale'a Keauohana Ahu ua'a Archaeological District 1-2-09:3 Kehena x Kaueleau "O ihikao Evangelical Church Residence 1-3-04:18 'O Ihikao x King's Highway 1-3-07:26 Malama Ki x MacKenzie Petroglyphs 1-3-07:20 1-3-08:1 Malama Ki x Mountain View Theater 1-8-02:1 'Ola'a x 3.4.3. Ahupua'a An ahupua'a is a land division usually extending from the uplands to the sea. Ahupua'a within in the Puna District include: Kea'au Lae'apuki Makua Waikahekahe nui Panau iki 'Opihikao Waikahekahe iki Panau nui Ula Keonepoko Kealakomo Kapaahu Waiakahiula Kahue Kupahua Wa'a Wa'a 'Apua Kalapana Keahialaka Pulama Kaimu Kapoho Poapoa Kikala Kahauale'a Alaa Keokea Kamoamoa Halona Kaueleau Thorough investigation and early identification of archaeology is very important in planning new transportation infrastructure. A project's feasibility and route can be impacted by the existence of such sites. i='�NE21 Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report 4. GROWTH PROJECTIONS & INDICATORS This section presents Puna population trends and describes the use of indicators for projecting growth to year 2030. An indicator can be a positive or negative attribute of the area that affects future residential settlement, economic development, and resulting travel patterns. This section also compares PRCP growth projections to those of Hawai'i County, as presented in the General Plan, and the State of Hawai'i Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism (DBEDT). 4.1. Past Trends Population projections were developed for year 2030 as a basis for calculating transportation demands. The Federal Highways Administration (FWHA) requires planning horizons of at least 20 years. In 2000, the Puna District population was 31,335. Population growth trends for the Puna District from 1960 to 2000 are presented in Table 4.1. TABLE 4.1: POPULATION 1960-2000 Population 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Puna District 5,030 5,154 11,751 20,781 31,335 210.01 Lower 6,844 11,776 Kea'an 7,055 210.02 Kea'au- n/a n/a 7, 23 5 10,962 Volcano 211.00 pahoil - 4,696 6,702 8,597 Kalapaoi Source: U.S. (ensu,. MFIRRai 4-1 County of Hawaii Planning Department FIGURE 4.1: MAP OF CENSUS BLOCK GROUPS T / `}CENSUS BLOCK GROUPS PUNA REGIONAL CIRCULATION PLAN For: County of Hawaii By: Townscape, Inc. A_ 4.2. Increasing Growth Trends (2000 to present) Originally, U.S. Census population trends (1990 to 2000) were used as the foundation for PRCP growth projections. A projected 2020 population of 53,035 was based on the per person growth from 1990 to 2000. This figure was extremely low when considering the General Plan numbers, community input, and actual fieldwork. Census undercounting is an obvious problem in population courts of remote and inaccessible areas of Puna. According to if 2001 U.S. Census Study,' the State of Hawai'i has an estimated census undercount rate of 2.16 percent. The Puna District undercount is likely higher than that of the State. It is also clear that yearly growth trends from 2000 to 2004 surpass those before year 2000. Since 2000, growth has increased immensely due largely in part to low interest rates. Housing market values have increased and this affected development trends. Residents seek affordable housing that is readily available in Puna. Fieldwork visits to the region observed hundreds of lots in various stages of clearing and construction, thus confirming development trends. 5 U,S. Census 13ur( au and I )r- Fvgene Eric icon, "N males of Slave and Counly Undert ounv Rales," May 1, 2001. 4-2 Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report 4.3. Using Growth Indicators Growth indicators were used to measure existing conditions, inventory opportunities and constraints, identify issues, and determine future growth. Population projections of the PRCP consider past growth trends along with seven other growth indicators. These indicators vary for each area of Puna and affect growth trends. Growth indicators include: Existing development Water service Road condition Lava hazard Flooding Past growth trends Proximity to regional center Some subdivisions of Puna are growing faster than other; due to various opportunities and constraints. For example, land with high-quality roads or County water is generally more desirable for development than others. Each of the eleven Census block groups that exist for Puna were analyzed and scored based on these indicators. The scores determine the rate of future growth, 2.0 for population growth double that of 1990-2000, 1.5 for growth 150 percent of 1990 to 2000, 1.0 for growth equal to that of 1990 to 2000, and 0.5 for a 50 percent decrease in population from 1990 to 2000. TABLE 4.2: SUBDIVISIONS BY CENSUS BLOCK GROUP Census Block Subdivisions (Area) Tract Group 210.01 1 Hawaiian Paradise Park 210.01 2 Kea'au Town 21 o.ol 3 Or, hidland (part), Ainaloa, Tiki Gardens 210.02 1 Hilo Acres, Kurtistown _ Hawaiian Acres, Fern Acres, Kopua Farm Lots, Eden Roc, Orchidland (part), 210 02 2 Kea'au Ag Lots _ Glenwood, Volcano Village, Volcano Cv,mbidium Acres, Aloha Estates. 210'02 3 Orchid Isle Est, Pacific Paradise Manor, Pacific Paradise Gardens Fern forest, Hawn. Orchid land Estates, 'Ohi'a Est., Royal Hawn., Mauna Loa 210.02 q Estate~ Maku'u Farm Lots, Hawn. Beaches/ Shores/ Parks, Wa'a Wa'a, Pahoa Ag 211 1 Park, Ka oho PapaEa Farms _ 211 2 Nanawale Estates, Kapoho Beachlots, Vacationland 211 3 Paho,i Town Leilani Estates, Lanipuna Gardens, Kehona Beach, Kalapana Sea View Estates, 211 q Puna Beach Palisades County of Hawai'i Planning Department FIGURE 4.2: CENSUS BLOCK GROUPS AND SUBDIVISIONS Legend .,. CENSUS TRACT 021001 021002 P d 021100 � �: tit it a.1i� r - Hawalgaa i IIS^ til, t It 6 jtl rox.•o-.m I" I� y L - Beaches P 11 st Pacific Parodi G 141 ry @ u A L orchid late t M y ebi4J.}0.;;»i' a . I�lih ml RiMCh Y, en V i ..tea Y e RkW early ^" Pwi i states .. ter' PGm a isades E Keh- aM BLOCK GROUPS& S Io PUNA REGIONAL CIRCULATION PLAIN !' For, Coomyo/Nax g �F`- •• BY Townscape. Inc. t A(d to A 4.3.1. Existing Development The absence of affordable housing and increasing home prices have accelerated residential growth in Puna. Many residents enjoy a rural spacious environment, and few have neighbors directly adjacent to their homes. If all 55,000 lots in Puna were developed with homes, a much different environment and quality of life would exist. Puna's potentially buildable lots represent nearly half of available lots in the whole County. There are over 20 subdivisions with iot sizes ranging from 10,000 square feet to 5 acres. According to the County of Hawai'i Real Property Tax Office, there are a total of 12,297 dwelling units in Puna (Feb 2004). The majority of homes are single-family dwellings. The rate of single-family residential construction in Puna increased significantly in the 1970's and has maintained a rapid pace in the last two decades. The 2000 Census recorded 13,068 households in the Puna District and, according to a 1997 study, approximately 98 percent of all housing units are single-family dwellings. This is the highest percentage of all districts on the Bland (County of Hawai'i, General Plan, 2005). The 2000 Census determined that about 71 percent of the occupied housing units were owner -occupied compared to the County rate of about 65 percent. 4-4 Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report TABLE 4.3: GROWTH INDICATOR — EXISTING DEVELOPMENT CENSUS AREA DEVELOPMENT Census Tract 210.01 Block Group 1 No. of Parcels 8893 With Bldg. 2561 Percent Dev 28.8 Score 210.01 2 406 308 75.9 1.5 210.01 3 6833 1373 20.1 210.02 1 1087 495 45.5 210.02 2 8890 1829 20.6 1.5 210.02 3 6708 1332 19.9 1.5 210.02 4 6418 827 12.9 211 1 4697 1438 30.6 211 2 5296 836 15.8 1.5 211 3 316 158 50.0 1.5 211 4 8302 1187 14.3 Source: Hawai'I County, GIS Parcel & Real Property Dala. No. o/ parcel, with building value $100+. FIGURE 4.3: DEVELOPED PARCELS ---------- Lageod W hk Ti x <# e Lt PARCELS WITH EXISTING STRUCTURES PUNAREGIONAL CIRCULATION PLAN Foc County o/ Hawaii By Townscape, Inc. January 7065 4-5 County of Hawai'i Planning Department 4.3.2. Water Service There are four major water systems in the District: 'Ola'a-Mountain View, Pahoa, Kapoho, and Kalapana. The total average consumption of these systems is 1.2 million gallons per day (mgd). The 'Ola'a-Mountain View water system consists of eleven service areas and extends along the Volcano Road from the former Puna Sugar Company mill to the'Ola'a Reservation Lots and along the Kea'au-Pahoa Road to the vicinity of Kaloli Drive. Water for this system is supplied by three deep wells. The Pahoa water System, located in the geographic center of the lower Puna region, extends from Keonepoko Homesteads down along portions of the Kapoho and Pohoiki Roads to Kapoho. 4-6 The Kapoho water system presently services farm lots in the vicinity. The Kalapana Water System extends from the Keauohana Forest Reserve along Highway 13 to the Kaimu Beach intersection. The Hawaiian Beaches subdivision located in Waiakahiula is served by a privately owned water system constructed by the developer. The system may not meet the minimum requirements for incorporation into the County system. The remaining areas still depend on individual residential roof catchment systems. Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report TABLE 4.4: GROWTH INDICATOR — WATER SERVICE Source: Hawaii County GIS Water Service Layer. Parcels with DWS water, not catchment. Hawa,'i County, Puna Community Development Plan, 7994. Parcels with Private Water System, Subdivision Intormation. FIGURE 4.4: WATER SERVICE .. %.. ........' Legend . �/ —Mya SaeMs / E't Minor ttrwU I -1 WtlaF $aMCC „xx •'� Hewell Gooney Gap. Wb Suwp X ® Some Pnvin, 9y5.a f JJ \ vue WATER SERVICE BY PARCEL PUNA REGIONAL CIRCULATION PIAN F. County of Haven By. Towne ",Inc. January2005 County of Hawai'i Planning Department 4.3.3. Road Condition An extensive grid network of roads was constructed to form Puna subdivisions in the 1950's and 60's. The private roads are below present highway standards and are deficient in layout and construction. Road sections have inadequate drainage systems, sharp curves, and grades without adequate sight distance. There is also a historic network of private plantation roads throughout the District. These road deficiencies cause problems with safety and maintenance. Subdivision associations collect annual road maintenance fees currently ranging from $60 to $150 per year. The maintenance fees are mandatory for some associations and voluntary for others. The majority of subdivisions have transferred ownership of roads to lot owner associations or road maintenance corporations. Each association manages private subdivision roads independently with varying levels of maintenance, improvements, and fees. As a result, there is a wide range of infrastructure conditions that affect housing and subdivision characteristics. Gravel road In Fern Forest Subdivision. TABLE 4.5: GROWTH INDICATOR — ROAD CONDITION CENSUS AREA ROADS Census Tract Block Group Score 210.01 1 1.5 210.01 2_1!k' 210.01 3 1.5 210.02 1 1.5 210.02 2 210.02 3 1.5 210.02 4 1.5 211 1 1.5 211 2 211 211 3 4 Ali Source: Average marl ronrlition based on fieldwork, community interviews, andjurisdiown. 4-8 Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report FICURE4.5: GROWTH INDICATOR — ROAD CONDITION 1� ROAO JURISUMnON' PUNAREGIONAL CIRCULATION PLAN AFar: County of Hawaii . ..... ......... »,.,..,.,... ».,._... BY: Townscape. Im. . �rc il Wa Legend 4 mm l R < r 1 , 1� ROAO JURISUMnON' PUNAREGIONAL CIRCULATION PLAN AFar: County of Hawaii . ..... ......... »,.,..,.,... ».,._... BY: Townscape. Im. . �rc il Wa Legend 4 mm 1� ROAO JURISUMnON' PUNAREGIONAL CIRCULATION PLAN AFar: County of Hawaii . ..... ......... »,.,..,.,... ».,._... BY: Townscape. Im. . �rc il Wa Coutit v of Hawaii Planning Department 4.3.4. Lava Hazard The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has completed an extensive mapping program to determine the history and severity of the volcanic hazards on the Island of Hawai'i. The Lava Flow Hazard Zone Map divides the island into nine Zones based on occurrence probability of flows. Lava flow hazard Zones 1, 2, 3, and 5 are located within the Puna region. Lava flow risk areas are defined according to geology, seismic and volcanic activity history, and recent scientific predictions. Lava hazard Zone 1 includes the summits and rift zones of Kilauea and Mauna Loa where vents have been repeatedly active in historic time. More than 25 percent of this area was covered by lava since 1800. Zone 2 includes areas adjacent to and down slope from Zone 1. Lava has covered 15 to 25 percent of Zone 2 since 1800, and 25 to 75 percent was covered with lava in the last 750 years. Zone 3 areas are gradually less hazardous than Zone 2 because of the greater distance from recently active vents or because topography makes it less likely that flows will cover these areas -1 to 5 percent covered since 1800; 15 to 75 percent covered in the last 750 years. Property loss and economic devastation are the most frequent consequences. Based on the probability of lava flows in these Zones, there is concern for developing infrastructure in the region. The ranked zones also hamper residents ability to acquire or maintain homeowners insurance. Insurance companies are hesitant to grant or renew homeowners insurance in Zones with high risks. The volcanic activity of Kilauea's east rift zone constitutes the greatest hazard for the Puna region. The USGS lava flow hazard map indicates the highest hazard ranking along the east rift zone. Lava flows have covered or made inaccessible the residential areas of Royal Gardens, Kalapana Gardens, Kapa'ahu, Kalapana, and Kaimu. Figure 4.6 indicates lava inundation risk zones for Puna. 4-10 Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report TABLE 4.6: GROWTH INDICATOR - LAVA HAZARD ZONES CENSUS AREA LAVA HAZARD ZONES Census Tract Block Group Lava Zones Parcels in Zone 1 Percent in Zone I Score Parcels in Zone 2 Percent in Zone 2 Score 210.01 1 3 0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.5 210.01 2 3 0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.5 210.01 3 3 0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.5 210.021 1 1 1 01 0.0 1.5 1 0.0 0.0 1 1.5 210.02 2 3 0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 rI.5 210.02 3 3 0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 FI.5 210.02 4 3 0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.5 211 1 1, 2 111 2.4 1.5 4428 94.3 211 2 1, 2 851 16.1 4421 83.5 211 3 2 3 0.9 1.5 315 99.7 211 4 1, 2, 3 2545 30.7 5015 60.4 Source: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Lava Flow Hazard Zone Map. Parcels within 50 feet of Lava Zone I or 2. FIGURE 4.6: GROWTH INDICATOR- LAVA HAZARD i „+ 7 � LEGEND i`i' ✓"`� e�? �r�A� lv� \ an \1��� r y eee"'���///"` iA�' C 1 w �� r LAVA HAZARDS MAP Y�. PUNA REGIONAL CIRCULATION PLAN For CDUMy, DI , Im awaii BY, Tmy, 2005 ,Inc. 1 /� Jarwary, 20D5 County of Hawai'i Planning Department 4.3.5. Flooding The District is subject to heavy rainfall and has experienced severe flooding. Historically, flooding along the Volcano Highway and the Kea'au-Pahoa Highway have been the most prominent problems of the District. The Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) has identified the inland area as Zone X — outside of the 500 -year floodplain. Low-lying areas along the coast have been designated as Zone AE — where base elevations have been determined, and Zone VE — where base elevations have been determined and high velocity wave action may cause coastal flooding. Overall, there is very limited information regarding flooding in the Puna District. The Puna Community Development Plan (PCDP) process placed articles in the newspaper after two major rains and requested reports of major flooding areas. Several water diversions exist in the area including a 1/2 -mile wall from South Kulani Bridge to 2 road in Hawaiian Acres (built in 1938-52 by 'Ola'a Sugar). This wall diverts drainage flows from Mauna I_oa slopes. The community reported water flows traveling down diagonally from Upper Glenwood, crossing Highway 11 in 14 places between Mountain View and Glenwood. Flows then continue diagonally, crossing roads like South Kopua in several places until reaching Kilauea pahoehoe. Finally, it gets to South Kulani Bridge, the diversion wall which moves flows from the 'Olaa drainage system to the Waipahoehoe system. Flooding occurs in coastal areas. Currently, the lack of development and the extremely permeable soils have helped to minimize major flooding. However, as the amount of development increases within the District, flood problems are likely to increase. Highway improvements have helped alleviate some flooding on roadways. Along the Kea'au-Pahoa Road, the State Department of Transportation (DOT) has installed culverts to facilitate the movement of water in certain sections. 4-12 Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report TABLE 4.7: GROWTH INDICATOR FLOODING CENSUS AREA FLOODING Census Tract Block Group Parcels in Percentin Stream Designated Area"* 'Zone" Score 210.01 1 19.0 0.2 1.5 210.01 2 6.0 1.5 1.5 210.01 3 37.0 0.5 1.5 210.02 1 10 0.9 1.5 210.02 2 952 10.7 1.5 210.02 3 2556 35.1 210.02 4 131 2.0 1.5 211 1 0 0.0 1.5 211 2 0 0.0 1.5 211 3 0 0.0 1.5 21 I 4 0 0.0 1.5 SotjneUSQS, Digital Lint, Graphs, 1983. Panels within 1,500 feet nl %ntern ittent streams. FIGURE 4.7: GROWTH INDICATOR- FLOODING a ��3 I 1 ` .`o ✓ akti 4 s i 4A' "% }4 ' I ,y. STREAMS AND FLOODING PUNA REGIONAL CIRCULATION PIAN For: Cuanly of Hawaii By Toymacape, Inc kanuary 2005 County of Hawai'i Planning 0epartment 4.3.6. Past Demographic Trends The population in the area has grown over the past 40 years. Beginning in the 1960's, the region began to see growth and has been increasing steadily since. Population counts provided by the United States Census show the population of the area has grown from 1970 to 2000. TABLE 4.8: PUNA POPULATION Tract 1980 1990 2000 210.01 n/a 6,844 11,776 210.02 n/a 7,235 10,962 �--211 �Tutal n/a 11,775 6,702 20,781 8,597 31.335 Souce: U.S. Census, 2000. The population growth trend in Puna over the last thirty years has resulted in the addition of approximately 10,000 people every decade. The growth was caused primarily by the availability of inexpensive residential parcels in Puna. The housing demand generated from employment opportunities in Hilo has also impacted growth. In the mid -1980's, housing costs increased in other regions of Hawai'i Island and statewide, resulting in subdivision infill. The closure of the Puna Sugar Company and significant road Improvements also contributed to the evolution of Puna as a bedroom community for the urban center of Hilo. The County of Hawai'i General Plan (2005) projects that Puna will generally maintain its rate of population increase for the next fifteen years. By 2020, Puna is expected to surpass South Hilo as the most populous district. The General Plan year 2020 population estimate ranges from 57,105 to 63.491. TABLE 4.9: GROWTH INDICATOR — PAST GROWTH TRENDS CENSUS AREA POPULATION Census Tract Block Group 1990 to 2000 Percent Growth Growth Score 210.01 1 352 96.1 °r ; 210,01 2 13 15 ..8 210.01 3 136 59.9 1 ;);:' r� Ii' 21Q02 1 6 5A 210.02 2 200 70.9 210.02 3 130 63.0 210.02 4 38 11.8 1.5 211 1 101 35.4 1.5 211 2 32 21.6 s.. °aiiiiiii l 211 3 -24 -33.5 211 4 76 44.; 1.5 Sour, c: U 1 e ensu,, 2000 4-14 Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report 4.3.7. Proximity to Regional Center The airport, harbor, State and County offices, and the University of Hawai'i are all located within the town of Hilo. The travel pattern, especially during peak -hour traffic, occurs between Puna and Hilo as residents commute for shopping, entertainment, medical care, school, and jobs. Changes in Puna land use and development could change this pattern. However, if past land use trends are extended, proximity to the regional center of Hilo will continue to be desirable. For this reason, Puna Census blocks were considered as indicators of future growth patterns. Generally, areas in closer proximity to Hilo have experienced more growth. Table 4.10 outlines and ranks block groups based on relative distances to Hilo. TABLE 4.10: GROWTH INDICATOR - PROXIMITY TO REGIONAL CENTER CENSUS AREA PROXIMITY Census Tract Block Grou Miles to Regional Center Score 210.01 210.01 1 2 12-13 7-10 r 210.01 3 12-13 210.02 1 12-15 1.5 210.02 2 14-15 1.5 210.02 3 18-24 1.1- 210.02 4 22-27 211 1 19-21 1.5 211 2 22-27 111 3 17-19 1.5 11 4 23-27 1°� Som, e: USCS quad maps. Distanres based on PROP measurements. 4.4. Population Projection - Year 2030 Each growth indicator was considered in calculations. Indicators were selected based on development trends, opportunities and constraints, and available data sets. Development of more data on flooding and road condition would help to refine the population projections. The indicators were not weighted and were considered on an equal basis. The eight indicator scores were averaged to calculate the growth rate for each Census block group. These numbers most accurately represent growth trends for each Census block group of Puna. Table 4.11 illustrates that the highest growth areas are located in Censu< block group 210.01-1 that includes the Hawaiian Paradise Park subdivision, and 210.02-2, that includes Hawaiian Acres. The projected 2030 population of Puna totals 80,162, which is over two times the current estimated population. 4-15 County of Hawaii Planning Department TABLE 4.11: AVERAGE POPULATION GROWTH CENSUS AREA PROJECTED GROWTH Census Tract Block Group 1990-2000 Average Growth Indicator Pns./Year Rate Projected Growth Pns./Year Projected 2004 Population Projected 2030 Population 210.01 1 352 1.7 598 9,572 24,338 210.01 2 13 1.7 22 1,063 1,609 210.01 3 136 1.6 218 4,493 10,253 210.021 1 6 1.6 10 1,254 1,497 210.021 2 200 1.4 280 5,935 13,440 210.021 3 130 1.5 195 4,147 9,217 210.02 4 38 1.3 49 1,762 3,060 211 1 101 1.6 162 4,528 8,427 211 2 32 1.2 38 1,941 2,927 211 3 1 1.4 1 474 511 211 4 76 1.1 84 2,794 4,883 TOTAL PUNA DISTRIC 37,845 80,162 TABLE 4.12: 2020 POPULATION PROJECTIONS COMPARISON GENERAL PLAN PRCP Census Growth A B C Trends Indicators 57,105 1 58,246 63,491 1 53,035 63,886 Several other growth projections were developed by the County of Hawai'i and State DBEDT. Table 4.12 lists various populalion projections for year 2020 including the three "series" of growth from the County's General Plan, PRCP growth calculated by Census trends 1990 to 2000, and PRCP growth calculated by indicators. Ultimately, the indicator -based population projection was slightly higher than that of the County's General Plan, Series C. The State of Hawai'i, Department of Business Economic Development and Tourism (DBEDT) estimates the 2030 Hawai'i County population at 229,700 persons. Comparatively, the 2030 PRCP population projection for the Puna District represents 60.7 percent of this growth or 80,162 persons (Table 4.13). 4-16 Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report The Puna District's growth from 1980 to 1990 was 32 percent of the growth for the entire Hawai'i Island. From 1990 to 2000, this percent increased to 37 percent. Considering these factors and the continuing growth trends, the PRCP projection is reasonable. Growth can expect to continue as other growth areas of Hawai'i Island, such as North Kona, reach capacities. Puna has over 55,000 subdivided lots with the potential to accommodate regional growth without rezoning. This means that growth can occur within existing County General Plan land use and zoning designations. TARI F 4.13: HAWAII COUNTY AND PUNA GROWTH PROIECTION COMPARISON Projected Net Growth Population 2000 2030 2000-2030 Percent of Percent of Growth Growth 1980-1990 1990-2000 Percent of Growth 2000-2030 Hawai'i County 149,261* 229,700** 80,439** 100 100 100.0 Puna 31,335 80,162*** 1 48,827*** 32 37 60.7 Soua ec *Table LS, County oI Hawai'i, Research and Devlopmenh, **Table 1.24. State Data Book, Dept. of Business, Economic Development and Tourism (DBEDT); —*PRCP Growth Projections. 4-17 Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report 5. LAND USE SCENARIOS Transportation and land use are interrelated. This means, in part, that land use affects the level of transportation service that is needed. Projected employment and population growth can translate to growth in traffic volumes in specific areas. The development of village centers, as opposed to suburban sprawl, can reduce automobile travel, decrease needs for highway construction, lower consumption of land for urban uses, preserve agricultural land and natural resources, and foster more livable and socially interactive neighborhoods. On the other hand, the location of transportation infrastructure can also impact land use development. Transportation and land use elements need to be coordinated considering three relationships: 1) transportation as a service system to support activity patterns; 2) land use as a variable in transportation planning; and 3) transportation as a determinant of land use. Given the relationship between transportation and land use, decisions about needed transportation facilities and programs should take into account the demands of the local population and the economy. Transportation planning should provide for a circulation system that reflects existing and proposed land use patterns — for example, to provide efficient access within a commercial core for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit, cars, and trucks while also encouraging quiet access in a residential neighborhood. Investments in the transportation system should also be consistent with growth and/or redevelopment areas targeted by the County General Plan. This section identifies existing land uses and projected potential land use demands based on population projections. These calculations were conducted to year 2025. Significantly later in the planning process, the planning horizon was changed to year 2030. 5.1. Land Use: Existing and Projected Puna lands are generally zoned as agricultural, residential, open (conservation), industrial, or commercial. Actual land uses include residential subdivisions, agricultural farms, an industrial park, and several small commercial service centers. Tables 5 1 and 5.2 identify Puna land use and zoning acreages. TARr F s i • vt INA nKTRtCT I AMU) I ISE ACREAGE: 2003 Agricultural Conservation Rural Urban Total 175,077 138,535 140 6,421 320,173 Source: ( oun(y nl Hawai9 Udfa Hook, tuu[, upoareo rvuv. nni s. 5-1 County of Hawaii Planning Department TABLE 5.2: ZONING CLASSIFICATION, HAWAII COUNTY AND PUNA DISTRICT Zoning Classification Hawai'i County Puna District Total acres 2,577,805 320,173 Single-family residential 18,155 2,500 Multi -family residential 3,326 4 Resort 2,952 1 Commercial 2,015 80 Industrial 5,920 541 Agricultural 1,240,582 195,054 Open Residential -agricultural 345,165 5,080 3,113 620 Unplanned (incl. Ag) No zone' _ - - 956,578 116,293 joor,( County of Ha wai'i Dala Hook 2002. S.I.I. Large Landowners The State of Hawai'i owns the largest amount of land in the region, a total of over 200,000 acres. Other large landowners include the Federal government, James Campbell Estate, and W.H. Shipman, Limited. Table 5.3 lists Puna landowners that own over 3,000 acres in the region. The remaining acreage of the Punt District is subdivided into lots owned by private individuals. TABLE 5.3: LARGE LANDOWNERS Landowner Parcel(s) Acreage State of Hawai'i 453 203,195 U.S. Gmernment James Campbell Estate 12 3 36,353 27,786 W.H.Shipman 42 11,784 Kamehameha Schools 70 8,768 5,567 4,327 3,756 Count of Hawaii 162 Ka oho Land & Dev. 51 Dept. Hawn. Hume Lands 314 Henderson Timberlands 4 3,203 h Forest Reserve, Nalinnal Fark. rlt 5-2 Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report FIGURE 5.1: LARGE LANDOWNERS Lepana — MaQ Streets — Om« Shane J.. atonal Fen I>or &h ^-�.�,i ranwhvnaha 6?� Tele Gea.W — GE Rapp ft [. �„ Sqb of HI OWL �, fX Caanly o(NI Ctrew� dFr S.1.2. Agricultural Of the 320,000 acres that constitute the Puna District, approximately 175,000 acres are designated agricultural under the State Land Use System. In addition, to implement the policies of the County General Plan, the County has zoned about 195,000 acres for agriculture (2002 County of Hawai'i Data Book updated November 2003). A significant portion of the agriculturally zoned land is improved with lots and houses. These developments question the true land use of subdivision areas. Are these lands truly agricultural or rural? Is active farming CIL curring on these lands? LARGE LAND OVNNERS PUNA REGIONAL CIRCULATION PLAN For Cwnty of Nawvii By: Townscape. Inc January 2005 County of Hawai'i Planning Department The demand for a rural lifestyle is significant and has created development pressures on important agricultural lands. Agriculture remains an important component of the local economy, social character, and landscape of Puna. Agricultural lands serve as open space and buffers and offer local employment alternatives. Diversified agricultural enterprises have shown promise and employ significant numbers of residents. 5.1.3. Residential Most of the Puna subdivisions were created prior to adoption of the County Zoning Code in 1967 and are zoned agricultural, and commonly, orchard lands. Of the 320,000 total acres that comprise the Puna District, 2,677 acres were zoned for single-family residential use. Those parcels are predominately located within substandard, nonconforming subdivisions. There are at least 47 subdivisions in the Puna District. Over 57,555 subdivided parcels now exist in the Puna District. According to Hawai'i County Real Property Assessments, approximately 11,690 lots are developed with 12,297 homes (February 2004). Future residential units wen, calculated based on population projections and the average household size. Generally, the average household size ranges from 2.34 to 3.22 in the eleven Census block groups of Puna. Figures 5.3 and 5.4 were developed to illustrate the gross number of developed parcels based on existing and future populations. Based on these projections, between 26,000 and 28,000 homes could exist by 2030. These housing projections equate 40 percent of all available lots, based on existing land use and zoning regulations. Residential areas establish origins of transportation trips as people travel to school, work, and recreation areas. TABLE 5.4: PUNA AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE Tract 210.01 Tract 210.02 Tract 211 1 PUNA BG 1 BG 2 BG 3 BG 1 BG 2 BG 3 BG 4 BG 1 2 BG 3 BG 4 Average 2.9 3.22 3 2.97 2.72 2.66 2.34 3.06 2.75 2.82 2.38 2.80 Source: U.S. Census, 2000. Naw,,ale E,talee obdivislon In Puna Makai. n L r """ 5-4 Puna Reeinni/ Circulation Plan Final Report TABLE 5.5: PUNA SUBDIVISIONS NAME YEAR NO. LOTS LOT SIZE ACRES Ainaloa 1959 3,637 2-.5 ac 1,160 Aloha Estates 1961 1,846 .25-.3 ac. 59 t Black Sand Beach 1962 918 7,750 st 202 Eden Roc 1960 1,809 1 ac 2,000 Fern Acres 1958 2,021 2 ac. 4,000 Fern Forest 1958 1 2,579 3 ac 9,000 Glenwood 1962 152 .25-.3 ac. 53 Hawaii Island P.iwdise 1960 449 .20 ac. 100 Hawaiian Acres 1958 3,944 1.8-6 ac. 12,141 Hawaiian Bea( he,, Parks and Shores 1961 1 S22 2-.5 ac 1,416 Hawaiian I lohda , Estates 1959 94 3.89 ac. 366 Hawaiian Orchid Isle 1958 205 Sac +- 700 Hawaiian Paradise Park 1959 8,843 1 ac. +/- 9,469 1 io'onanea (?) N/A 52 .20 ac. 12 Hilo Acres N/A 48 N/A N/A Kala ana Sea View Estates 1971 693 <25 ac. 166 Kaniahiku Village t?I N/A 36 .5-3 ac. 28 Kaohe Homestead, (?) N/A 96 3 ac 1, 325 Ka oho Beach Loi, 1954 185 25-1.2ac. 50 Ka oho Pa )ava P arms N/A 40 3 + ac 130 Kea'au A' Lots N/A 331 N/A N/A Kehena Beach 1964 199 25-,3 ac. 52 Ko ua Farm Lot, N/A 115 N/A N/A Lani una Garden 1973 118 1 ac. I30 Leilaw Estates 1960 1 2 266 1 ac. 2-100 Maku'u Ag Lots N/A 51 N/A N/A Maku'u Farm Lot, N/A 130 N/A N/A Mauna Lam Lots (!) N/A 98 1 ac. 101 Maunaloa Estates 1960 893 -10,000 sf 550 Nanawkjte Estate, 1960 4.289 .25-4ac. 1,134 Nanawale Farm Ranch N/A 86 N/A N/A 'Ghia Estates 1960 756 25-.3 ac 280 'Ola'a Scenic Lands N/A 442 N/A N/A Orchid Isle Estate 1961 845 .25-,3 ac. -192 Orchid Isle Estate 2 1961 8'3 N/A N/A Orchid Land 1958 2,491 .5,1-3 ac. 5,670 Pacific Paradise I')evelo ment 1961 209 .20 ac. 49 Pacific Paradise Carden, 1973 423 .20 ac 95 Pacific Paradise Mtn. View Manor 1971 606 .25-3 ac. 145 Pahoa Agri[ultun Park N/A 63 N/A N/A Puna Beach Pal 1973 72 20,000 sf 36 Roval Hawaiian 1959 1,640 .25-.5 ar. 630 Tangerine Acres N/A 71 .5 m re 71 Tiki Gardens 1962 481 .2-25 a(. 120 Vacationland I Iawai'1 1963 489 .-)0- 1.2a(. 557 Volcano Villar 1968 1,064 N/A N/A Wa'a Wa'a 1958 177 .3-3.5 a(. 527 5-5 County of Haw ai'i Planning Department FIGURE 5.2: 2004 PARCELS WITH DWELLING UNITS C FIGURE 5.3: 2030 PARCELS WITH DWELLING UNITS 5-6 Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report 5.1.4. Commercial Commercial centers for the District are located in Kea`au and Pahoa. Small rural establishments are located in Kalapana, Orchidland Estates, Mountain View, Kurtistown, Glenwood, and Volcano. The commercial developments include shopping centers, grocery, retail, and public service establishments. The plan estimates commercial acreage demand based on population. The calculation represents the total acreage that the projected population would require in local vill.cge renters, town centers, and/or regional areas such as Hilo. Both retail and office commercial demands were calculated using standards of building square feet per person. A building to land area ratio of 1 to 6 was used based on community input and rural values of the Puna District. Kea'au Shopping Center. Table 5.6 presents existing commercial acreage in each census tract of the Puna region, which totals 81.5 acres. The table also lists commercial acreage demands for the 2004 population (A 81 acres) and the projected 2025 projection (347 acres). The location of commercial centers ultimately helps determine the types and lengths of travel that occur in communities. TABLE 5.6: TOTAL COMMERCIAL ACREAGE DEMAND Year Acres by Census Block Group Total Acres 210.01 210.02 211 Existing 40 18.5 23 81.5 2004 72 62 46 181 2025 156 116 75 347 Standaid: Ketals 70 0. OI hulldn)p perpe60O: UIU[e - 4.0 SJ. uW uuuoms Po Pr.ovii. 5-7 County of Hawai'i Planning Department 5.1.5. Industrial W. H. Shipman, Limited rezoned about 32 acres in K.ea'au from Agricultural to Industrial -Commercial Mixed Use designation. Project completion is anticipated in 2008 (County of Hawai'i General Plan 2005). Approximately 490 acres of industrial -zoned lands are in Puna. The 488 -acre W.H. Shipman Industrial Park near the Puna -South Hilo District boundary is being developed as an industrial center for East Hawai'i. There are various agricultural industrial activities including the Mauna Loa Macadamia Nut Corporation's processing facility, flower packaging, and papaya processing and packaging within the District. Other industrial activities in the area include cinder and rock quarrying and certain cottage industries. Industrial acreage demands were calculated based on a standard of 300 square feet per person. Table 5.7 presents existing industrial acreage in each Census tract of the Puna region, which totals 165 acres. The table also lists demands for the '004 population (261 acres) and the projected 2025 projection (501 acres). Industrial lands also can affect transportation trends as people travel for work and services. TABLE 5.7: TOTAL INDUSTRIAL ACREAGE DEMAND* Year Census Block Groups Total 210.01 210.02 211 Existing 27 138 0 165 2004 104 90 67 261 2025 225 167 108 S01 'standard: 300 0. land area per person. Mm"EFEW_, Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report 5.1.6. School facilities There are seven public schools and five public charter schools located in the Puna District. In the 2003 to 2004 school year, enrollment ranged from 38 at Kua o ka La Public Charter School (PCS) to over 1,000 students at Pahoa Intermediate and High School. Schools are located in Kea'au, Pahoa, Mountain View, and Volcano. There are three private schools in the region, the largest being Kamehameha Schools (KS). The school has generated significant traffic in the Kea'au area. Table 5.7 identifies Puna schools. The natural population growth and in -migration into the subdivisions in the area have increased demands on Puna education facilities. Overcrowding is experienced in some of the elementary schools. State of Hawai'i Department of Education (DOE) multipliers were applied to population projections in order to calculate demands for future schools. The DOE has established multipliers that vary by elementary, middle, and high school. According to these calculations, the Puna District will have a demand for a total of nine elementary schools, 3 middle schools, and 3 high schools. As a result, there could be a demand for many new schools; five elementary, two middle schools, and one high school. Figure 5.4 is a conceptual map of existing and future school facilities. Schools are a major catalyst of traffic congestion. The development and location of schools also have a major impact on transportation routes and trips. Keonepoko Elementary School. Bike and pedestrian trips to neighborhood schools could significantly ease congestion caused by school commute traffic to overly large schools. The goal and value of smaller, village -based schools are supported by many in the community and the Department of Education. County of Hawaii Planning Department FIGURE 5.4: EXISTING AND PROJECTED SCHOOLS r- EFS01 Er Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report TARI F S.R- PI INA SCHOOLS SCHOOLS GRADES ENROLLMENT School Type Kea'au Elementary School K-5 493 Kea'au Middle School 6-8 650 Kea'au High School 9-12 475 v - 2 9 m Mountain View Elementary School K-5 430 1 3 1800 1 1 1 3 High St hoots 0 Pahoa High School and Intermediate School 7-12 1002 Pahoa Hementan K-6 550 Keonepoko Elementary K-5 672 Kua o ka La 6-9 38 W Waters of Life K-12 131 VVolcano School of Arts and Sciences K-8 too V m Hawai'i Academy of Arts and Sciences 7-12 130 -- a. Ke Kula Nawahl Okalaniopu'u Iki Lab (PCS) K-6 69 Kamehameha Schools K-12 1,120 t- Malamalama Waldod School K-8 N/A Christian Liberty School PK -12 N/A TABLE 5.9: 2030 SCHOOL FACILITY PROJECTIONS* 2030 NEW FACILITIES NEEDED Elementary Schools 725 3 20 S I Middle Schools 1 300 0 1 1 2 High Schools 1800 0 1 1 0 1 'Standard: S1,,1v DOE multiplier: Elementary -0.279, Middle - 0 143, High -0.154, per household. Design Census Tract School Type Size 210.01 210.02 211 Total 2030 TOTAL FACILITY DEMAND Elementary Schools 725 4 3 2 9 Middle Schools 1300 1 1 1 3 1800 1 1 1 3 High St hoots 2030 NEW FACILITIES NEEDED Elementary Schools 725 3 20 S I Middle Schools 1 300 0 1 1 2 High Schools 1800 0 1 1 0 1 'Standard: S1,,1v DOE multiplier: Elementary -0.279, Middle - 0 143, High -0.154, per household. County of Hawai'i Planning Department 5.1.7. Parks Several parks are located in the Puna District. Generally, parks in the Puna District are inadequate to serve the population needs (County of Hawai'i General Plan 2005). County community parks are located at Hawaiian Beaches subdivision, Mountain View, and Kurtistown, and the Pahoa Neighborhood Center. School playgrounds are used at Kea'au, Mountain View, and Pahoa. Approximately 60,000 acres of the 229,176 -acre Hawai'i Volcanoes National Park is located within the Puna District. The facilities of the park for passive and active recreation are readily accessible. The County's 1.7 -acre Isaac Hale Beach Park offers picnicking, camping, fishing, surfing, and swimming. The County has plans to expand the park and has purchased 22 acres of land near the existing park. Additional parking areas, playgrounds, boat parking area, picnic facilities, and restrooms will be developed. Nearby, Ahalanui Park features a warm spring (Mauna Kea Pond) and grassed area. The County's Glenwood Park is located along the Volcano Highway. Ahalanul Park. Lava Tree State Park. MacKenzie State Recreation Area 03.1 acres) is an ocean and forest park located between Pohoiki and 'Opihikao at the edge of the Malama-ki Forest Reserve. The State's undeveloped Nanawale Park site consists of 78.3 acres, along the Puna Coastal Road between Kapoho and the Hawaiian Shores Subdivision. The Lava Tree State Monument features lava trees and large volcanic earth cracks near the Kapoho-Pohoiki junction. Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report Although park lands are not traditionally a large generator of trips during peak -hour travel, this land use was nevertheless considered. Parks and recreation areas also determine travel routes during non -peak hours. Children are especially affected by the location and access of these facilities. Park acreage demand was calculated based on the County of Hawai'i standard of 5 acres per 1,000 people. The rural nature of the Puna District is problematic in developing and maintaining park lands. The need for more park land can be partly achieved by acquiring bike and pedestrian paths as "linear parks." TABLE 5.10: TOTAL PARK ACREAGE DEMAND* Year Census Block Groups Tota ** 210.01 210.02 211 Existing 1.1 25 21.4 47.5 2004 76 65 49 190 2030 181 136 84 401 'Vandard..5 acres per 1,000 population. "Does not in(clude private or National Parks. Mffrr_dj� EFF ROSIN 5-13 County of Hawai'i Planning Department 5.2. Land Use Scenarios Scenario planning provides a framework for developing a shared vision for the future by analyzing various forces (e.g.. health, transportation, economic, environmental, land use, etc.) that affect growth. The planning process depicted three scenarios of land use that could potentially develop in Puna's future. The objective was to evaluate transportation needs and devise projects in the context of different land uses. Federal Highways Administration IFHWA). Each land use scenario of the PRCP differs primarily in the distribution of commercial and industrial development. Based on population projections, land use demands were assigned to village centers, town centers, and/or the regional center in Hilo. Table 5.11 outlines the different types of land use centers. Village centers describe neighborhood -level development that services a population of 5,000 tol0,000. Village centers typically occupy between one and ten acres and are often within walking distance. Comparatively, town centers serve between 25,000 and 50,000 people, and occupy 10 to W acres of land area. Finally, regional centers, serve a population between 100,000 and 150,000 and require longer routes of travel. Both Hilo and Kona are regional center locations that serve the entire island population at times. TABLE 5.11: LAND USE CENTERS Center Type Pop. Served Site (Ac.) Village Center (VC) 5,000 -10,000 1-10 Town Censer (TQ 25,000 - 50,000 10-30 Regional ( enter (Hilo) 100,000-150,000 10-60I Puna RcgioI)aI C1rcUlaliOn Plan Final Report TABLE 5.12: LAND USE SCENARIOS Scenario Distribution of Demand Village Town Hilo A- Existing c ontinueci 5%. 20'7, ,7S% B - Eown Centers 5,% -.55% 40°„ C -Village C1nters25 s.4"la %, 25°/, All of the acreage demands calculated in Section 5.1 were applied to varying land use scenarios. The locations of land use acreages have a direct impact on travel patterns and volumes. Each land use scenario places emphasis on a different "location." For example, Table 5.12 depicts Scenario A with an emphasis on a regional center. Therefore, at least 75 percent of land use demands are fulfilled in the regional cenlor of Hilo. Approximately 20 percent of demand is located in commercial service centers it Kea'au and Pahoa. Finally, eight small village locations at Kalapana, Nanawale, Orchidland, Hawaiian Paradise Park, Kurtistown, Mountain View, Glenwood, and Volcano provide servi<es for only 5 percent of demands. As a result, travel patterns continue to and from Hilo for employment, school, services, and recreation. Scenario B depicts more demand fulfilled in existing and expanded town centers. At least 55 percent of land acreage is provided in eight town centers at Kea'au, Orchidland, Kurtistown, Mountain View, Volcano, Pahoa, Hawaiian Beaches/Shoes/Parks, and Nanawale. The Hilo region still fulfills 40 percent of demands. Eleven small village centers through the region provide for 5 percent of demands. I his scenario focuses on shitting travel patterns to town centers within the Puna region. Finally, the Village Centers 5( enario C places an emphasis on small neighborhood -level areas. As much as 50 percent of demand is fulfilled through the development of 18 village centers. Three town centers and the Hilo region renter each provide 25 percent of population demands. Comparatively, this scenario should create more opportunities tot shorter neighborhood -level trips that can lie accommodated by walking and biking. County or Hawai'i Planning Departmeni Figure 5.5 illustrates commerc ial development as it varies by land use scenario for the Mountain View area. Each and use scenario impacts travel patterns and trip characteristics differently. While Scenario A generally extends the need for commuting, to Hilo, Scenario C results in more local non -highway trips. FIGURE S.S: MOUNTAIN VIEW COMMERICAL ACREAGE BY SCENARIO 5-16 Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report 5.3. Employment and Jobs Based on the U.S. Census, the male workforce of the District is primarily employed in agriculture and construction. The largest occupation for women is the educational, health, and social services profession. Retail trade, arts, entertainment, recreation, and accommodation and food services are important employment sectors for both men and women. This study also calculated future jobs as a measurement of future travel demands. The jobs in year 2030 were developed based on population projections and land use scenarios. The main question is: how many jobs can the Puna District create and support? Analysis of land use illustrated that regardless of the land use scenario considered, the job base would support a maximum of 35 percent of the labor force. ]he absence of a major job center requires that as many as 65 percent of workers would have to leave the Puna District for employment. More jobs need to be created within Puna. These calculations could be refined with data on the number of Puna residents employed in home-based businesses. An increase in farming and agricultural use of lands could also affect jobs. How many of the Hilo jobs that are filled by Puna residents can be re-created in the District? Finally, this analysis finds that only job creation on the scale of a "second city' would adequately provide jobs for Puna residents and therefore significantly reduce the need for travel to Hilo. TABLE 5.14: JOB PROJECTIONS BY LAND USE SCENARIO CENSUS TRACT Scenarios A Existing Continues B Town Centers C Village Centers 210.01 2,127 3,844 4,396 210.0_' 1,667 2,837 3,297 211 1,027 1,666 1,584 TOTAL 4,821 8,347 9,278 Includes ( innmemal retail office, Indo, tnal. and Schools. 5-17 Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report 6. EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM 6.1. Infrastructure 6.1.1. Road Network Primary routes within the Puna District are the Volcano Road (Highway 11), which provides access to Hilo and serves the upper Puna region; the Puna Road (Highway 130), serving lower Puna from Kea'au to Kalapana-Kaimu; the Kapoho Road (Highway 132), from Pahoa to Kapoho; and the Puna Coast Road (Highway 137), linking Kapoho and Kalapana-Kaimu. The two primary routes, Highway 130 and Highway 11, are congested by Hilo -bound commuters during the week. The Kea'au By -Pass Highway routes traffic around the town of Kea'au. Private roadways, owned by area residents, are maintained by community association road maintenance corporations, Subdivision associations r ollect annual road maintenance fees currently ranging from $60 to $150 per year. Some associations have mandatory fees while others are voluntary. Most residents in the area rely on private vehicles and car pools to reach their destinations. 6.1.2. Transit The Hele-On Bus is administered by the Hawai'i Mass transit Agency. Most residents rely on private vehicle and about 24 percent of the workforce carpools. The Hele-on Bus serves Puna makai with a Pahoa-Hilo route that includes five round trips a day. The Hele-On also has a Volcano -Hilo route operating once a day. Fares range from $0.75 to $2.25. 6.1.3. Bikeways There is an existing signed bikeway along the Kea'au Bypass. A popular unimproved bike route is the "Puna Triangle." This triangular route starts and ends in Pahoa and travels along area highways and roads. The State of Hawaii completed Bike Plan Hawai'i in 2003. The plan recommends many bikeways in the Puna District. The development of a bike path along Railroad Avenue, from its existing terminus in Panaewa to Kapoho, is a priority project that is supported by the County Council (Resolution No. 206-21K). The first phase of the project is under private ownership (W.H. Shipman). Shipman and the '01a'a Historical Society also have plans for a network of bike paths throughout Kea'au. ral County of Hawai'i Planning Department 6.1.4. Trails There are also many hiking trails in the Puna District. These trails include the Puna Coast Trail to Paki Bay, Haena Trail and Old Puna Road Trail. A section of the Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail is located along the coast in Puna. Due to the magnitude and sensitivity of the cultural and natural resources that exist along the trail, the trail is not open to the public as a National Historic Trail pending the completion of the Comprehensive Management Plan. Since at least the 19th century, the Old Volcano Trail from Hilo to the current Hawai'i Volcanoes National Park afforded traveler, a means to visit Kilauea (volcano) and points beyond 7. This trail was originally abandoned after completion of the 1894 "Carriage" Road, which is now Highway 11. The original route from Hilo town to the Kilauea summit was about 30 miles, leaving Hilo via Kilauea Avenue, toward Kea'au town, then along the fringes of the 'Ola'a forest and on to the summit. From Hilo, the trail rises 4,000 feet above sea level to the summit. For more detail on restoration of the trail, see Section 9.6. Kapono, Fri( M- and YWCA, Old Vol( dn,, Trail: Historical Background. January '004. 6-2 Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report 6.2. Traffic Accidents and Safety The Puna district noticeably has the highest five-year total motor vehicle fatality rate of all Hawai'i County districts. According to North Hawai'i Motor Vehicle Fatality Research Project, a district by district comparison of total rates indicated the difference was statistically significant. The difference between Puna and South Hilo was 161 versus 91. While Puna is less densely populated than Hilo, the 2000 U.S. Census results indicate that Puna is one of the fastest growing districts on Hawai'i Island. According to the Motor Vehicle Fatality Research Project, a number of risk factors are associated with increased fatality rates in rural areas such as Puna. They include: • Two-lane highways • Narrow or non-existent shoulders • Limited sight distance due to hills and curves • Higher posted speed limits • Lower rates of seat belt and child safety seat use • Delays in discovery and extended EMS response times • Lack of medical emergency and trauma care facilities • Excess commuting distances, especially by workers holding down two or more jobs • More frequent alcohol and/or drug use and higher levels of intoxication • Higher proportion of young male and elderly drivers, known high risk groups • More frequent and more severe crashes on gravel roads or off-road TABLE 6.1: MAJOR TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS IN PUNA, YEAR 1990 & 2000 Sour<'e: Nawar, County Yoh,e Department. 6-3 Number of Major Traffic Accidents Number of Number of Injury Property Persons Persons Roadway Fatal Only Damage Total Killed injured ana Y 1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 2000 Kahakai 1 0 - 12 8 7 16 M 1 0 11 14 Blvd. Pohoiki 0 0 ; 4 2 1 7 5 0 0 10 12 Rd. Hwy. 11 5 3 79 42 81 44 165 89 5 3 165 89 Hwy. 130 2 1 114 53 98 36 214 90 2 1 197 95 Hwy.132 1 0 17 13 12 4 30 17 1 0 30 23 Hwy. 137 0 0 3 5 0 7 3 0 0 5 6 Total 9 4 224 127 206 92 439 223 9 4 418 239 Sour<'e: Nawar, County Yoh,e Department. 6-3 County of Hawai'i Planning Department FIGURE 6.2: MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS & ALCOHOL Volcano 6eeau oe I ,1 . Kartixtown �r > ti views nwood Chain of Craters Rd 0 RAJ- Pahoa f� S' o ohoikto ofi- to CU (D (p 1 Puna, ( Source: Andn•w G. Ten have, M.D.. VIP.H., North Hawaii Motor Vehir le 1 alanty Nest arch Vro/er 1. October 2002. The North Hawai'i Motor Vehicle Fatality Research Project identified several key ways to increase traffic safety and prevent motor vehicle accidents. 1 . Provide public transportation. Many traffic -related fatalities in rural areas are due to increased exposure (more vehicle miles traveled per person). Increasing the availability of convenient forms of public transportation on the island, such as mini -buses and vans would help address this risk. 2. Increase safety a"areness. Increased awareness of traffic safety by beginning a regular public campaign could help prevent accidents. Crash and injury prevention relies several agencies including county and state health and transportation departments, law enforcement, communities, media, 6-4 Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report schools, employers, and healthcare providers. Raising the level of awareness within these organizations that motor vehicle injury is the 0' most deadly disease on Hawai'i Island is a prerequisite to crash and injury prevention. 3. Use data to help allocate road maintenance and improvement resources. An evidence -based or data driven process, such as the Haddon matrix approach, could be used by the County and DOT to make implementation decisions. The data would help government allocate and prioritize resources for road maintenance and transportation improvement projects. 4. Implement drunk driving prevention programs. There are a number of innovative approaches to the problem of driving while intoxicated. Other states have implemented solutions including the "scarlet letter" marking of license plates of convicted driving under the influence offenders, lowering of legal blood alcohol limits, mock drunk driving crash drills, mass comrnunication and advertising, designated driver programs, and vehicle confiscation. Traffic safety improvement can focus on three areas vehicles and equipment, roads or human factors. There are also three periods of opportunity for intervention: pre-crash, crash and post - crash. The Haddon matrix uoss-tabulates the three focus areas by the three time periods. This results nine possible options for addressing roadway safety. Table 6.2 is an example of this matrix. TABLE 6.2: "HADDON MATRIX" OF ROAD SAFETY ELEMENTS Haddon Matrix': FACTORS _ Human Factors Vehicle Road & Environment Basic road safety elements Pre-crash Alcohol and drug Roadworthiness Road design (crash prevention) intoxication; Public trans ort brakes, lights, etc) (divided highways) v Q Crash Seathelt and helmet Crashworthiness Protection (barriers, (injury prevention) use. (,drbags, frame)CL crosswalks) Post -crash Vulnerability to face or emergency Emergency (saving lives) _ hemorrhage; I.ess; first-aid skill acc fire risk. res system response p y " Haddon WH Jr, Suchmen CA, Klein D. Accident Research: Methods and iApprot bes. New York: Harper & Ro". 1964. County of Hawai'i Planning Department Circulation plans and engineering designs can help address the "Road and Environment" section of the Haddon matrix. Traffic safety improvements are achieved with new engineering designs and standards. Moreover, transportation amenities such as traffic calming and landscaping are proven to improve driving conditions and safety of pedestrians and bicyclists. Buffers and separation of cars and bicyclists and pedestrian can also be helpful. Community residents also note speeding as a major safety issue. The "Human Factor" of the matrix can also be addressed with increased enforcement of traffic speeds and education. Programming of police manpower and educational programs is an integral part of a healthy and holistic transportation system. 6.3. Existing Transportation Projects The island is faced with an in( easing demand for the development of new transportation facilities and systems. While many major transportation projects have been completed others are currently in the planning stage. Projects include expansion or improvement of existing facilities. A sizable portion of the new construction either planned or underway is an incremental part of a long-range program. Table 6.3 summarises some of the existing projects in the Puna region. There are several active planning, design, and construction projects in the Puna District which are being implemented by various agent -es. 6.3.1. State of Hawaii The State of Hawai'i, Department of Transportation (DOT) is working on intersection improvements on Highway 11 at Kulani Road, Huina Road, and Kipamana Road. These projects should help improve site distances and assist the overall safety and efficiency of the intersections. DOT has also committed to conducting an in-house study of intersection along Hwy. 130. This study will help determine which intersections warrant improvements such as signalization, restriping, left -turn pockets, or icceleration lanes. The State DOT is also in the process of designing the "formal" conversion of a third lane along Highway 130 from Shower Drive to the Kea'au Bypass. The shoulder is now used at peak hour periods to accommodate traffi< congestion. "chis widening "ill regrade and convert the shoulder for regular use. The project also includes intersection improvements at Paradise Drive and Kaloli Drive. Over $1.7 million was allocated to study widening of Highway 130. An Environmental Impact Assessment will be conducted as a part of this project. The outcome of this project has the potential to significantly affect travel patterns for Puna makai residents. Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report 6.3.2. County of Hawaii There are also several County of Hawai'i projects that affect transportation in the Puna District. The Mass Transit Agency (MTA) completed a Rural Paratransit Study that is explained in more detail in Section 7.0. In January of 2005, MTA also began implementation of a Kokua Zone, with fare -free transit between Pahoa and Hilo. Ridership has already significantly increased since the implementation of the program. Ridership has increased by over 120 percent. In February of 2005, ridership was 2,899 compared to that of 1,263 in February of 2004. The County has received a total of $188,084 for environmental studies and preliminary engineering of a Puna Makal Alternative Route (PMAR). This funding' is from the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA). A recent County hond also provided $7 million for improvements to existing county roadways in the Puna District. The County has worked with the communities of Ainaloa and Hawaiian Acres to create emergency access through the Puna Emergency Access Road (PEAR) project. Of the $7 million it is expected that $2-t million will be used to fund improvements to existing roadways of the PEAR. The County has secured ownership of the Ainaloa roadway section and an easement through Hawaiian Acres section1'. For more information on connectivity issues, see Section 10. The Department of Public Works (DPW) continues to work with subdivision associations to address access, "roads in limbo," and paper roads. Transportation projects 12-1 et in Table 6.2 are concepts that were identified in the County of Hawai'i General Plan and the Hawai'i Long Range Transportation Plan. The PRCP considered these concepts in identifying projects. Project No. TCSP-0100 (7()), FHWA r ransportallon, Community, and System Pre,ervation (TCSP). ot(Ice of Assistant Reg,,trar, Land ( ourt. Slate Bureau of Conveyances, Doc Nc. 33 W810, September 23, 2009. 6-7 County of Hawaii Planning De partine nt 6.4. Transportation Related Plans 6.4.1. Transportation Equity Act for the 21" Century The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA- LU) was enacted August 10, 2005, as Public Law 109-59. The Act authorizes the Federal surface transportation programs for highways, highway safety, and transit for the 5 -year period 2005-2009. Although SAFETEA-LU has beer passed and a certain amount of funds have been identified for the State of Hawaii it is still uncertain as to the nature of the funds and how they can be appropriated. The estimates provided here are based the assumption that funding of the State of Hawai'i will continue without major change. The SAFETLA-LU, which follows the Transportation Equity Art for the 21" Century (TEA -21) and the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), allows (but does not require) cities, counties, and states receiving federal transportation dollars to rethink. their choices about spending transportation money. The Act encourages comprehensive transportation planning in ways that enhance use of multi -modal options, integrate transportation services with land use patterns, and involve a wide array of stakeholders. The act also endorses better use of existing highways through car pools and HOV lanes, bus and rail transit, walking and biking, and other non -car travel options. 6.4.2. Hawai'i Long -Range Land Transportation Plan (HLRLTP) 1998 The Hawai'i Long Range Land Transportation Plan is a cooperative planning effort by the State Department of Transportation and the County of Hawai'i. The plan identifies the major transportation improvements needed to support growth of Hawai'i Island until 2020. This plan is also used in developing a statewide transportation plan that fulfills requirements of the SAFETEA-LU. Although the St,ite DOT has not indicated when they will begin revisions to the HLRLTP, projects in the current plan were considered in the tormulation of this plan. 6.4.3. County of Hawai'i Draft Revised General Plan (2005) The General Plan is a policy document for the long-range comprehensive development of the island of Hawaii. The General Plan serves as the legal basis for all zoning, subdivision and related ordinances. It also provides authority for the implementation of all public improvements and projects. The General Plan articulates goals, policies, and standards to address the demand for new transportation facilities. Specific policies and actions that relate to the Puna Regional Circulation Plan include: 6-8 Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report • Develop a comprehensive, island -wide multi -modal transportation plan that identifies the location and operation of automobile, mass transit, bicycle and pedestrian systems, in coordination with appropriate Federal and State agencies. • Explore the possibility of developing a mid-level roadway to be located makai of Highway 1 W, beginning at Hawaiian Beach Subdivision and extending through Hawaiian Paradise Park Subdivision with its eventual connection to Railroad Avenue in South Hilo. Consider establishing a bikeway along the same alignment. The General Plan (2005) also includes Facilities Maps tot each of the nine districts of Hawai'i County. There is no further information provided about the status or regulatory implication of the maps. The transportation facility maps illustrate future collector and arterial roads Island wide. The maps provide only conceptual locations of roadways and do not consider topography, TMK parcel lines, and other environmental data. Moreover, the transportation maps do not address multi -modal transportation for bikeways, pedestrian paths, or transit. 6.4.4. Puna Community Development Plan (1995) This community development plan outlines the landscape envisioned for the future of Puna. The plan identifies concerns, courses of action, implementation and financing on various land use, economic, transportation, and policy issues. The plan specifically identifies transportation needs including congestion relief transit -ready development; use of old railroads for bike and pedestrian paths, preservation of scenic roads, and mitigation for substandard private subdivision roads. Proposed actions for transportation include development of a Puna Roadway Master Plan, widening of Highway 13), and development of transportation routes via a makai mid-level parkway through Hawaiian Paradise Park and a mauka central subdivision corridor through Hawaiian Acres. The 1945 plan was never fully adopted by the County Council. The County Planning Department is beginning a new CDP process in 2006. 6.4.5. State Transportation Improvement Program/Capital Improvement Projects The Hawaii Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) provides a multi-year listing of State and County transportation projects and identifies those projects programmed for federal funding. It is a multi -modal transportation improvement program that is developed utilizing existing transportation plans and policies, and current highway, transit and transportation programming processes. Table 6.2 includes some projects that were listed on the STIP for 2004- 2006. e� `_- r r_ 6-9 County of Hawai'i Planning Departmen' 6-10 c• _ C a b L- xH v G% z z % a z_ 6 c � r 6-10 Fd � d E e � r 0 � V i`- �•II¢il�gst�l � Puna Regional Circulation Plan Fina! Report R4 9 A M� 0 z4[ 6-1l Count y of H a tt Ii'i Planning Department 6.5. Origins and Destinations Tiattic information on origins and destination is not available and would require large effort and cost to collect'. A preliminary list of major generators of origins and destinations (e.g. schools, other work ( enters) arc identitied in Table 6. 1. 6.5.1. Public Facilities (Fire, Police, Healthcare) County funded and staffed tire stations, with emergency medical service, are located in Pahoa and Kea'au. The Pahoa station sei,,es the Pahoa-Paradise Park and Kalapana-Kapoho areas. Hawaiian Beaches, Hawaiian Paradise Parks, Hawaiian Acres, Fern Acres, Fern Forest and Waa Waa subdivisions and Volcano Village have 24-11our volunteer facilities. The County will also assume responsibilities at the tire station located in Volcano at Kilauea Military Camp in 2005. The police station headquarter; for Puna is located in the Kea'au public office complex serving the entire district. A district substation is also located in Pahoa. Puna police stations otten experience a shortage of police manpower with only one or two officers on duty at a time for the entire region. There are no hospitals located in Puna. There is also a medical clinic located in Pahoa. IyIII, , /It , transportanun plannit It studios Hill u'llett uripinhlcobnatiun imonnnhon in order to nd,bctic mathematical mollel, that 'imulatr rJstury natbl .md would he need to Ibroc <nt tutow loo of dent.utd. Intotm "on would be , olle(t"d throu,Gh I mw'), IlaI el suncls w,',, m nl-out to e .ample oI n•sidonl, and ask that the} re, old the trip taken on a apc( uod date a mad.,hr sunny "ampbog rlmrn l a,mg a de.innated point, cmplmli, swv i, at 1))c murk plat e. etc) lu , mate top t.tblcs Onatncos .))...ting thr numbs, nl tuns rrom nanous origin zon" to carious drnGnation zones). 1 nom Iho trip tahles, bam, .olnnm, aro ,-ompJed .incl t"nnl"m / with (rank taunt deta to (.call• the Imnsportalron model An alternative method of r�Iim.itmry rulum Irina mhit h ode a od as pan o(thn stwlo ,%aluotrs Induct dolo and alq,lies j;rrnrlh !rood,. �w sct nun 11 4 I'll ntnrr info,mannn on balbt /Hop i 'um" 6-12 Puna Reeional Circulation Plan Final Report TABLE 6.3: ORIGIN/DESTINATION GENERATORS 6-13 Community Public Schools Business Centers Recreation Centers Facilities Kea'au Elementary Pahoa Town Shipman Park Ainaloa Police Station Longhouse Hawaiian Kea'au Intermediate Kea'au Shopping Center Isaac Hale Park Beaches Fire Station (Community Center) Kea'au High School Kea'iu Farmers Market Ahalanui Park Hui Hanalike Kea'au Transfer (HPPOA) Station Mountain ViewHawaiian Beaches Kea'au Pahoa Transfer Elementary Kurustown (Hara Store) park Community Station Center Mountain View Leilani Estates Kalapana Keonepoko Elementary Mt. View Gym Community Transfer Station Longhouse Wikl Wiki Mart at Lava Tree State Nanawale Keonepoko Pahoa Elementary Or( hidland Park Community Water Spigots Lon house Pahoa Bay Clinic Pahoa Pahoa Intermediate and Glenwood (Hirano Store) "Sand Hill" Neighborhood Family Health High School Facility Center Cooper Center State of Hawaii Kua o ka La (PCS) Volcano Village Kehena Beach (Volcano) Department of Health (Puna) Hilo — shopping/ Fern Acres Hui Ho'cla O Na Waders of Liie (PCS) Mak.i'u Fanners Market movies/ eu Association Nahulu O Hawai'i (HNP) Volcano School of Arts _ ShiIndustrialHawaii pman Park Volcanoes and Sciences (PCS) National Park Hawaii Academy of Arts Mauna Loa Macadamia and Sciences (PCS) Not Ke Kula Nawahi Milo Street (Kea'au) Okalaniopu'u Iki Lab (Autnfair/Greenhouse) (PCS) Kamehameha Schools (Priv.) _ Malamalama Waldorf Sr hool IPriv.l C hristian Liberty School (I'nvJ 6-13 County of Hawai'i Planning Department FIGURE 63: ORIGIN DESTINATION SITES ORIGINS AND DESTINATIONS I' v r L KEAAU PUNA REGIONAL CIRCULATION PLAN aau For: County of Hawaii By: Townscape, Inc. wn u \ ,l X Y 'ifI xt unto hYpilAll J ' P m apt ,Y/ rN' Nan Homesteads ? P enrdoktd � no <w V VOLCANO - egend PAHOA Y �+k', water spigot Kalapa6a ,%� ® Fire Station ter' Transfer Stetson w Q p0110E l School Park gig`:; ,$'NU 7 Commercial Area Com m eClal Buffer Zon- V 0q"1, Puna Reeional Circulation Plan nal Report 7. ELEMENT: TRANSIT The Puna Regional Circulation Plan has an emphasis on transit. Overall the plan recommends significant expansion of the Hele-On Bus system, routes, service, and programming. This section outlines transit goals, improvements projects, and further planning studies that are needed. Although the Puna District is still quite rural, this plan also identifies what it means to be "transit ready" for the future. In addition to community guidelines listed in Section 2, there are also more specific, transit -oriented goals and objectives for the Puna District (Table 7.1). "Transit -ready" development includes: • Mixed land uses and diversity of housing types. • Pedestrian friendly plan with generous transit stops. • Public and commercial facilities designed as transit targets and community focal points. • Marketing plans that take advantage of transit -supportive strategies. Bus priority lanes that increase the capacity of streets without widening. Reliable and affordable service. TABLE 7.1: TRANSIT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Goal Objectives Increase transit • Increase bus headways on routes with strong ridership demand. ridership • Install ITS and other passenger infrastructure at bus stops (i.e., shelter, lighting, seating, bus schedules, route connectivity maps, bike racks, etc.). • Maintain schedule adherence through operational improvements. Enhance local and • Develop major transfer stations where major transit corridors intersect, regional connectivity • Integrate transit routes and mode connections with service schedules to facilitate efficiency. • Encourage adoption of County ordinances that support Transit Oriented Development and pedestrian and bicycle enhancements. Implement transit • Provide a transportation system that is coordinated and consistent with plans improvements that of County agencies, its communities, and neighbors support land use goals • Support collaborative land use and planning efforts that ensure the community develops in an efficient and sustainable way. • Implement short-range small-s(ale transit projects that will be needed to Develop cost effective transit alternatives support larger long-range improvement projects in later years. • implement an "evolutionary process" that gradually builds up service for Buy Rapid Transit. Increase funding • Seek to move flex funds from highway projects to transit projects. opportunities for • Identify and pursue opportunities of joint development with private sector. Hawai'i County Mass • Determine favorability of various options for increasing local funds for Transit Agency (MTA) transit, including options for a sales tax to finance transportation im rovements. 7-1 County of Hawai'i Planning Department 7.1. Expanded Bus Service The County of Hawai'i, Mass Transit Agency (MTA) has already started expansion of the Pahoa to Hilo routes in Puna. The addition of new buses will also help expand schedules. The agency will be implementing a "Kokua Zone" in Puna that provides free bus transit. This program and data generated will provide useful information about the future of ridership. The Hele-On Bus. However, major expansion of busing systems will be required in order to switch residents from the vehicle mode of transportation. The MTA currently utilizes an average of four buses in Pahoa-Hilo and Ka'u-Hilo (through Volcano) routes. Depending on the Transportation alternative provided (A-E), the required bus fleet ranges from 11 to 36. Bus "headways" calculated range from 2 buses per hour (Sten. B) to 36 buser per hour (Seen. A). Existing bus routes service a few subdivisions including Hawaiian Beaches, Nanawale, and Volcano. Other subdivisions with paved roadways, such as Hawaiian Paradise Park and Ainaloa, might also be served with expanded or new routes. 7.2. Dedicated Bus Way for "Rapid Transit" In order to attain bus ridership at significant levels (above 1 percent), a dedicated busway will be required. Busways are special roadways designed for the exclusive use of buses. A busway can be totally separate roadway or operate within highway right-of-way separated from other traffic by barriers. Bus service within vehicle traffic will be adversely affected by increased traffic and long travel times. An analysis of travel times will be conducted as a part of this plan. Overall, bus travel time with a busway could be shorter or equal to that of vehicles in traffic. A busway with convenient and reliable transportation service would likely be a popular modal choice. [ON i 7-2 Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report Bus Rapid Transit involve, improvements in a transit system's infrastructure, equipment, operations, and technology that give preferential treatment to buses on roadways. Buses use exclusive busways or HOV lanes with other vehicles and operate more flexibly than Light Rail systems. Bus Rapid Transit can also respond to changes in employment, land -use, and community patterns by increasing or decreasing capacity. The systems differ from Light Rail systems in that they provide greater flexibility in how they can be implemented and operated. Finally, in constructing a Bus Rapid Transit system, it is possible to phase in improvements over time. It is not necessary to include all the final elements before beginning operations. According to the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), Bus Rapid Transit projects cost less on average to build than Light Rail projects, on a per mile basis. Federal support for Bus Rapid Transit projects may come from several different sources, including Federal Transit Authority's (FTA) New Starts and Bus Capital Grants, programs. 7.3. Rural Para -Transit The County of Hawai'i, Mass Transit Agency (MTA) is currently developing a Rural Para - Transit System. Mobility issues are essential to independent living, quality cif life, and are usually dependent upon access to transportation. The goal of the system is to provide transportation services for the elderly and disabled population and reduce duplication of efforts to ensure better services. The transportation system will fill critical needs by connecting rural residents and their community to healthcare, shopping, and economic well-being. An example of a 'para-transit' systern. The existing paratransit service in the County has been uncoordinated among the four major agencies: Mass Transit Agency (MTA), Hawaii County Economic Opportunity Council (HCEOG, Coordinated Services for Elderly (CSE), and the Center for Independent Living (CIL). The recent study "Rural Paratransit Study for Puna and Kona," propo,es a feeder service integrated with the existing Hele-On Bus routes. The study conducted an evaluation of Computer-assisted scheduling and dispatching software and recommended Trapeze NOVUS. Estimated costs are $218,000 ((apital) and $521,000 (operating and administrative). 7-3 County of Hawai'i Planning; Department Other key recommendations include: Feeder service consisting of four lift equipped vans, two serving Puna. Kea'au Community Center is selected as the transfer point for Puna. + The feeder service would operate from 6:00am till 7:00pm daily. Transfer from feeder services to Hele-On Bus is free. One centralized dispatch office will be established in Hilo to take reservations calls. • Establish a curb -to -curb policy for cost savings, except for those needing special assistance. Staff needed include: one paratransit service manage, one reservationist, one dispatcher, and eight part-time drivers (four for Puna). 7.4. Park and Ride Facilities Park-and-ride lots can be classified as intermodal transfer facilities. They provide a staging location for travelers to transfer between the vehicle mode and transit or between the single occupant vehicle (SOV) and other higher occupancy vehicle (HOV or carpools) modes. Park-and-ride lots can serve a much wider array of intermodal transfers, thereby increasing the activity at the park-and-ride facility, and better integrating it with the surrounding community. Other modes potentially supported by a park-and-ride tacility include: pedestrian, bicycle, paratransit, carpool and vanpool, and other modes, based on the location and opportunities available. The park-and-ride lot can encourage a shift from the single occupancy vehicle to higher occupancy modes, meeting the efficiency needs of future travel. 7.4.1. Park and Ride Lot Types A hierarchy of park-and-ride facilities can be developed for the Puna region based on the functional characteristics of the individual park-and-ride lot. Facilities include informal lots, joint use lots, and park and pool lots. The informal parkand-ride lot is often simply a transit stop to which motorists regularly drive their cars and leave them parked on -sweet or in an adjacent property. Opportunistic or joint use lots are characterized as sharing the facility with another activity such as a church, theater, shopping mall, or special events center. Park - and -pool lots are typically smaller lots, intended exclusively for the use of carpool and vanpool formation. 7-4 A park-and-ride lot with lighting and pavement. Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report There are several ways to provide park-and-ride facilities, including: • Promoting existing excess parking capacity using signage and map references, Providing incentives to private owners of parking to share capacity, Providing incentives for the private owners to increase capacity, and Construction of new parking facilities. • Marketing of park and ride lots is essential to help change driver habits. Publicize park-and-ride and related options for travel through programs o County of Hawai'i, Mass Transit Agency o Bicycle Associations o Major employers • Signage at the park and ride lots Public service announcements 7.4.2. Identifying Facilities for Puna The Puna Regional Circulation Plan estimates that 30 to 50 percent of transit riders will use a park and ride facility. Transit routes, headways, and location of stops are affected by the low density distribution of population in Puna. Even with an expansion of the transit system these conditions may require many riders to drive to transit stations. Depending on the transit ridership in each alternative, between two and twelve park and ride lots are needed. The preferred plan requires at least seven facilities each wilh 190 stalls. TABLE 7.2: PARK AND RIDE LOTS BY ALTERNATIVE Alternatives A Transit Peak Period Trips 5285 Park & Ride UsersRe wired Lots Allocated Lots 11 Cost (Mil) 30% 50% (1lot= IonStalls) 793 1321 8 13 ($450,000/lod $5.3 B 1069_ 160 267 2 0 $1.1 C 86 58 880 1467 9 15 12 $5.9 D 5868_ 880 1467 9 15 12 $5.9 E 31 30 495 825 5 8 7 $3.3 PLAN 3714 _ 1 557 1 929 6 9 7 $3.7 7.4.3. Feasibility Study and Site Selection Plan The location of a park and ride facility is very important to its success. Site selection criteria include: Transit System Availability - Potential sites for park-and-ride should be located along the existing or proposed transportation system route. • Site Accessibility - �\ site must be easily accessible and convenient to both commuters and transit vehicles when transit service is anticipated. ..•. •"` r r 7-5 County of Hawaii Planning Department • Site Visibility - Potential sites should be visible from their access roads. Visibility of park- and-ride facilities contributes to the recognition by passing motorists of their availability and also contributes to vehicle security. • Projected Demand - Demand provides a guideline for the number of potential spaces and estimated lot sizes that must be identified within each corridor. Development and Operating Cost - Park-and-ride lots generally do not collect fees, so sites which can be developed economically are desirable. Shared use of existing facilities can be a factor in development and operating costs. • Available User Benefits - Sites which provide users with time and cost savings are preferable to those that provide only a transfer opportunity. • Environmentally Sensitive Areas - Park lands, flood plains, and culturally sensitive areas can be problematic. This plan proposes a Feasibility Study and Site Selection Plan for park and ride facilities. The County of Hawai'i, Mass Transit Agency has already received some funding for developing park and ride facilities throughout Hawaii County. The proposed study would identify site locations, ownership, opportunities and constraints, and recommended improvements. Work elements of the study would address: Purpose and need for a park-and-ride system, travel needs to be served, and the size and general character of such a system (Site demand forecasts) • Determination of goals and objectives Establishment of an evaluation process framework (definition of a successful park and -ride facility) • Development of a "systemwide service network" (serving the proposed park-and-ride system by connecting it to major employment destinations) Development of intergovernmental agreements outlining general policies for facility acquisition, maintenam e, and service Site evaluation and ranking (site selection criteria, consideration of alternatives, etc.) • Environmental Assessment document (Site Location specific impacts) A public involvement and review process 7-6 Puna Regional Circulation Plan nal Report 7.5. ITS and TDM 7.5.1. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) applies advanced technologies including information processing, electronic, and communication, in combination with management strategies to improve overall transportation system operations. ITS applications include weather and road condition information for highway users, the use of automatic vehicle location and computer- aided dispatch systems for rural transit, automated collision notification, and improved travel information to improve safety and security for transportation users. 7.5.2. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Transportation Dernand Management consists of programs and facilities, which are developed in order to change demand on the transportation system. TDM measures reduce traffic congestion by changing user behavior. TDM programs include information and incentives to encourage employees to travel by mean; other than the single occupant vehicle during peak travel periods. Examples of TDM measures include flexible work hours, ridesharing, and preferential parking for those who rideshare. Examples of TDM facilities include carpool and vanpool staging areas, transit shelters, bicycle lockers and showers. Table 7.3 lists some strategies for reducing trips. Transportation demand management (TDM) has emerged its a response to growth management and traffic congestions problems. TDM programs and tools include: Rideshare and carpool matching • Park and ride lots • Designated High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) travel lanes for car/vanpoolers/transit • Employer -based incentives Coordination of TDM strategies, work and education sites, and educational events. A TDM Program is an institutional framework for implementing a set of TDM strategies. Such a pro,ram has stated goals, objectives, a budget, staff, and a clear relationship with stakeholders. It may be a division within a transportation or transit agency, an independent government agency, or a public/private partnership. 7-7 County of Hawai'i Planning Department Possible responsibilities of a TDM Program include: • Coordinates TDM Planning, Evaluation and Data Collection. • Implements marketing programs. • Responds to problems and complaints. • Provides Ride -matching, Shuttle Services, Pedestrian and Cycle Promotion, and Special Event Transportation Management services. • Provides Parking Management, Parking Pricing and parking brokerage services. • Coordinates arrangements for Shared Parking. • Supports Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements, Freight Transportation Management and Security Improvements that encourage use of alternative modes. • Coordinates activities with other organizations, such as Transportation Management Associations, Commute Trip Reduction Programs and Institutional Reforms. • Supports integrated transportation and land use planning to improve Accessibility and reduce vehicle travel (Access Management, Smart Growth and Location Efficient Planning). TDM Programs insure that specific strategies are complementary and coordinated, for maximum effectiveness. For example, Transit Improvements and Pedestrian Improvements can have far greater travel impacts and consumer benefits when implemented as a coordinated program. A general rule is that TDM Programs should include a balance of improved travel choice and incentives to reduce automobile travel. 7-8 Puna Rekional Circulation Plan Final Report TABLE 7.3: STRATEGIES FOR REDUCING TRAVEL DEMAND Traffic Engineering Strategies Parking Management Policies - preferential treatment for HO\'s - control of supply and location - traffic signal timing - pricing policies - on -street parking and maintenance - preferential allocation, location, and price for HOVs - corridor management and route guidance - intersection improvements Land Use Strategies Alternative Commute Modes - match land development to transportation capacity - restrict traffic intensive uses - transit - ridesharing - jobs/housing balance - bicycling - mixed use development - walking - on-site/near-site services - density increases/bonuses in areas served by transit - trip reduction ordinances Improvements in Transit Level of Service - express services Other Trip -Reduction Strategies - times transfers - telecommunications substitutes for travel - more direct routes - denser networks -reduced m c ess time - work -at-home options (telecommuting) - park-and-ride - flextime, compressed work week - increased frequency preferential treatment e.g. express lanes County or Hawaii Planning Department 7.6. Transit Master Plan The PRCP also recommends a Transit Master Plan for Hawaii County. A Transit Master Plan would provide an overall framework for transit improvements. The plan could recommend cost- effective transit projects for implementation throughout Hawaii County. It would also develop funding options that generate revenues to finance transit capital investments and operation and maintenance of new transit services. As a part of the master plan short, mid, and long range projects would be identified. Types of transit service improvement recommendations would likely include service frequency improvements, extension of existing bus routes, addition of new bus routes and passenger infrastructure. Examples of possible transit improvements: • Improved Headways Comprehensive Routes (what is appropriate for a "rural area" — 1.5 mile, 1 mile, 1/2 mile?) • Facility Improvements to passenger infrastructure and neighborhood transit centers • Capital Improvements Service Improvements operations and Capital Budgets 7.7. Community Perspectives The CAG identified transit expansion as the second most important project, after emergency connections. Residents asked for more frequent stops and expanded service areas, particularly into subdivisions and to the airport. Many expressed frustration with the existing "taxi block" that prevents bus service to the airport. Overall participants want comprehensive bus service island -wide with linkages to other transportation modes. Bike racks on buses provide connectivity between modes. Many participants noted the need for more Soune: Dan Burden, www.pedbikeimages.org education and publicity of bus schedules and stops. Furthermore, residents suggested bus shelters, bus stops, hike racks on buses, and park and ride facilities that are appropriate for a rural landscape. The communities expressed that improvements would increase visibility and convenience of the transit program and therefore increase ridership as well. rEms 7-10 Puna Region aI Circulation Plan Final Report 8. ELEMENT: PMAR The Puna Regional Circulation Plan proposes an alternate route from Hilo to Puna Makai. The alternate route concept was previously identified in several plans including the Hawai'i County General Plan (2005), the Hawai'i Long Range Transportation Plan (1998), the Puna Community Development Plan (1995), and an Environmental Impact Statement for Beach Road 0972). This Plan proposes implementation of the PMAR from Hilo to Shower Drive as soon as possible. The PRCP does not determine the exact alignment, scope, or implementation of a Puna Makai Alternate Route (PMAR) concept However, this plan identifies and discusses the various options for the alternative rights-of-way, multi -modal amenities, corridor locations, and street alignments. This section also identifies community viewpoints in favor and against the project. Environmental studies, preliminary engineering, and continued consultation with the community will determine whether a PMAR will be feasible in the future. That process will identify environmental and social impacts, costs, benefits, and implementation. The PRCP and the PMAR address community needs while respecting the diversity of residents in the district. Everyone agrees that the Puna District is a rapidly growing community. Growth has a major impact particularly because so many lots are available and infrastructure is limited. By year 2030, nearly 53,000 people are projected to live in Puna Makai. As a result, early identification of needs, careful planning, and context -sensitive design can help assure that a PMAR project fits properly into the community landscape. The PMAR has been considered for several reasons. Currently there is one way in and out of Puna via the Kea'au-Pahoa Highway (130). In the event of a traffic accident, the road is blocked and traffic is not allowed in or out of the community. A second route would provide redundancy and route choice. The area also needs emergency access for evacuation in the event of lava inundation, tsunami, or other hazards. Based on population growth and traffic projections increased transportation capacity will be needed by year 2030. The projections show that transportation capacity will be needed in addition to widening of Highway 130. A new transportation route could also include amenities for rapid bus transit, hike lane,, and multi-purpose paths. The proposed Puna Makai Access Route (PMAR) project could provide redundancy, connectivity, emergency access, and multi -modal choices. 8-] County of Hawaii Planning Department 8.1. What Kind of Corridor? Traffic demands and community needs should help to determine the "scope" of the PMAR. Who should the project service and how will these people travel? Are they driving, biking, walking, or riding the bus? How much space is needed for safe travel? The cross-section of any road can include some of the following elements: Travel way (the portion of the roadway provided for the movement of vehicles, exclusive of shoulders) Roadway (the portion of a highway, including shoulders, provided for vehicular use) Median area (the physical, landscaped, or painted separation provided on divided highways between two adjacent roadways) Bike lanes Multi-purpose path • Dedicated Bus Lane Utility and landscape areas Drainage channels, swales, and side slopes Some of these functions can fit within 60' or 100' right of way depending on the compromises the community is willing to accept. The required right-of-way width for the PMAR will depend on the number, type, and design of these elements. The roadway type and width could also vary depending on what is appropriate for each section. Specific details on the right of way will be addressed in an alignment alternatives study. 8.2. Alternative Corridors and Alignments Several corridors were investigated to provide emergency access, redundancy, and multi -modal capacity from Hilo to Puna Makai. Various routes from Hilo to Puna Makai were identified by past plans and community input: 1. Railroad Corridor 2. Beach Road Corridor 3. Mid-level Corridor 4. Multiple Corridors �5`' and 1 51h) M 0 IF '" 0 8-2 Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report 8.2.1. Railroad Corridor The old Railroad Right -of -Way alignment was considered as an alternate route. According to County Tax Map Key, the right-of-way ranges from 20 to 40 feet wide and is owned by several landowner. The complete "12 -mile right-ot-way has several land owners W.H. Shipman, Ltd. Hawaiian Electric Light Company (HE -CO) Hawaiian Paradise Part, Corporation State of Hawaii • County of Hawaii Kamehameha Schools Kapoho Land and Development Co. Ltd. This corridor is not acceptable for regular vehicular transportation. The railroad right-of-way is hest used as a pathway for non -motorized public use, with the exception of maintaining present access to area farmers and other lessees. The existing right-of-way cuts through farms. As a result, improvement to the corridor would significantly disrupt the agricultural ftmctions of the area. A Mayoral Advisory Committee on Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety has also worked with the community for many years towards implementation of a multi-pwpose pathway along the right-of- way. In 2000, the County Council also passed a Resolution (206-2K) supporting acquisition of the alignment for use as a pathway. Nevertheless, the rail road corridor could also be used ,is an interim emergency access route. Although high densities of traffic could not be a( commodated, the route would provide one alternative for residents in ,in emergency evacuation situakion. The route alignment trom Hilo to Shower Drive could serve os a feasible bypass. f or more information on the pathway, see Section 9. 8-3 County or Hawaii Via Inn ing Department FIGURE 8.1: PMAR RAILROAD CORRIDOR k 0 Mb PMAR RAILROAD CORRIDOR PUNA REGIONAL CIRCIJLATICN PLAN For Count' of Hawaii By Townscape, Inc 2005 Legend Radmaad Rlght-.t-Way --- "no, $tmEatS Malo, streets TIMKParceN Forest Reserves ® Volcano Hae Zone I Volcano Haz Zone2 � Tsunamilnuodoon Railroad Right -of -Way jj" Wx sxrw;x Lm -� n 1 YXCOX[W.X�V f awruµ Lro ��', �1Wr iMIIUVO Ihi ...'� W.M SNIIIVX Lid u IaXIYA rwcnam I' W X 6NVYW LTO. PMAR RAILROAD CORRIDOR PUNA REGIONAL CIRCIJLATICN PLAN For Count' of Hawaii By Townscape, Inc 2005 Legend Radmaad Rlght-.t-Way --- "no, $tmEatS Malo, streets TIMKParceN Forest Reserves ® Volcano Hae Zone I Volcano Haz Zone2 � Tsunamilnuodoon Railroad Right -of -Way jj" Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report 8.2.2. Beach Road Corridor Community members have also suggested the use of the Beach Road for alternate access. Many believe the coastal views would provide a scenic highway highly desirable for visitors. In 1972, an EIS was conducted evaluating an oceanfront scenic road. Major difficulties exist with this option because of hazard zones. Most of the Beach Road is within the tsunami inundation area and several parts are in the lata hazard zones. The location of the alignment through such areas would preclude Federal highway funding for the project. However, the Beach Road has the potential to qualify for designation as a Scenic Byway due to its historic quality. The route would nevertheles, fail to provide emergency access during high surf or flooding conditions. According to Hawaiian Paradise Park residents, several subdivision roads near the shore have been closed due to erosion under cliffs. They believe a PMAR route must be located above the elevation of 7"' A%enue. For these reasons, the Beach Road was also removed from consideration. FIGURE 8.2: PMAR BEACH ROAD CORRIDOR 8-5 County of Han'Wi Plannirig Department 8.2.3. Mid-level Corridor A new mid-level corridor would provide service to Puna Mokai residents. The design of a new transportation corridor halfway between Highway 130 and the coastline would provide access for a variety of residents. This corridor is also away from major hazard zones. The PMAR mid-level corridor can he broken up into four sections. The need for implementing each section will have to be considered. There are several alternative alignments for each section of a mid-level corridor. Mid-level alignments include: 1. Hilo to Hawaiian Paradise Park (HPP) IA. Hilo International Airport to Shower Dr. 1 B. Railroad Avenue to Shower Drive 1C. Shower Dr. I-xts,nsion 2. Through Hawaiian Paradise Park (Shower Dr. to Maku'u Dr.) 2A. In between 150' ,rnd 10x' Avenues (back of parcels) 3. Hawaiian Paradise Park to Hawaiian Beaches 3A. Maku'u Dr. to Kahakai Blvd. (Middle) 3B. Maku'u Dr. to K.ihakai Blvd. (Upper) 4. Hawaiian Beaches to Nanawale 4A. Kahakal Blvd. to Kehau St. There are several alternative; for the alignment of section one. Further study and consideration of each alternative is needed before one alignment can be selected for implementation. The first alternative alignment could begin in Hilo, potentially from Hilo International Airport (Section 1A). Fhis alignment would travll southeast through three properties owned by the State of Hawai'i, WatUmull Investment Co., and W.H. Shipman, Ltd. The route is preferred because only three large landowners are affected. Another alternative could begin at the terminus of Railroad Avenue in Panaewa (Section 1 B). This alternative is also advant,rgeous because the existing avenue has sufficient right-of-way for vehicular traffic. Howevei, this route travels through homesteads owned by the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHU. the Section 1 of the alternative could continue to Shower Drive, after traveling through W.H. Shipman property. Another suggested alternative is to extend Shower Drive makai to intersect with the PMAR. 8-6 FIGURE8.3: PMARMID-LEVEL CORRIDOR VMVYVLL �'� V6TYlYi�� �, pnm m uc 14 N xkCMOYCIMY6 [I r'• �l 6XIIYpY LiO "µY.X.SMIYM LTp FV u u,[Lr•Tox I j 4F LTu Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report A p V6 Mls - 1 ilio Airport to Kaloll L r. 1B - Ka'droad Ave. to Kaloh Dr. 2 - K.doh to Maku'u (botwccn 15ib/ 1("1 I c\ Maku'u to Kahakai (Middle) �3B - Maku'H to Kahakai (I Jo C -Shower Dr. ,MW 'W%eir / PMAR MID-LEVEL CORRIDOR PUNA REGIONAL CIRCULATION PLAN For County of Hawan By Townscape, Inc 2005 Legend _ Sec9an 1 -HOoto Shov rfKaloh ✓.`SoCw2 Kaloll to M M ou(H PP) �Sedon3 MYkuu(HPP)to Henn Bead e Sacl'on4 Hann aeaclxeta Nanavele Road lra"r'erarls Moro, Streets MYlor Streets TMH Parole Foreal Rewrves ® W lcano H aiZona 1 WrancHa= Lnne2 _ ,,=Yn.,111nYM1pn �4-Kahakaito Kehau If the PMAR is intended to primarily serve HPP, the route could connect to Kaloli Drive. Residents would use existing HPP roads to access the alternate route. Travelers would cross on all numbered streets without any one being preferred, thus distributing traffic. Additional improvements in pavement or road width may he needed on Kaloli Drive, Shower Drive, and/or a few of the numbered streets Sit( h as 5th Avenue and 25"' Avenue. The alignment at the back of parcels on 1510 and 10"' Avenues, previously discussed, would continue from Kaloli Drive to Maku'u Drive. Potentially, the alignment could travel across the back of lots, parallel to a numbered street like 15"' or 16°i Avenue. Approximately 63 landowners in the Hawaiian Paradise PaI4 subdivision could be affected by the connection to Kaloli Drive. According to County Real Property Data (August 2004), there vire 1.3 existing homes in this section. County of Hawai'i Planning Departin( tit HPP lots are 135 feet %vide by 322 feet long. Depending on the cross-section design, condemnation of M to So feet from the back of each parcel may be required. This would still have some impact on residents of the area. However, this new alignment would allow access management. Therefore, driveways and connections would not be permitted in an effort to preserve capacity and protc( t homes. If the PMAR should continue towards Hawaiian Beaches, a main route will be needed through Hawaiian Paradise Park trom Kaloli. Additional improvements in pavement or road width may he needed on Maku'u Drive. The backyards of approximately 181 parcels would he impacted from Kaloli Drive to Maku'u Drive According to County Real Property Data (August 2004), there ate 31 existing homes in this ,ection. Further investigation will be conducted to identify detailed locations of existing development. the PMAR would continue in Section 3 from Maku'u Drive to Kahakai Boulevard in Hawaiian Beaches. The alternate route could take a mid-level alignment into the middle of the subdivision (iA). This alignment would be most central to residents. However, it would travel through existing residential development. An alignment that instead extends up towards Keonepoko School also has the merit ot serving the trip generator (313). This alternative would serve the school and also provide options for future connections to Nanawale. Either alignment would travel through property owned by the State of Hawai'i. The alignment could conDnue to the Nanawale subdivision from Kahakai Boulevard to Kehau Street. This alignment would avoid the State Forest Reserve and would connect to an existing County street at Kehau. I its section would likely be a very long-term project in phasing plans. I he alignment would cross through property currently owned by Kamehameha Schools. Lel � Z"'' I'- o•,, Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report 8.2.4. Multiple Corridors Instead of developing a single PMAR corridor, this alternative considers development of several connections that would distribute traffic congestion more evenly. Two alignments could travel from Hilo to Hawaiian Paradise Park. A makai route from Hilo Airport could connect to the existing 5"' Avenue in HPP. Similarly, a mid-level route could connect the existing Railroad Avenue to 15"' Avenue in HPP. Shower Drive could be extended to meet this route. Only limited improvements to existing streets would be required. Condemnation of private property would be limited or unnecessary with this option. Each route could continue on to Kahakai Boulevard in Hawaiian Beaches. FIGURE 8.4: PMAR MULTIPLE CORRIDORS 8-9 C o u n! y o f Fla 14 a l, I Planning Departmcni 8.3. Community Perspectives Throughout the round~ 01 subregional community meetings, many residents stressed the importance of an alternate access route to Highway I W. However, other residents opposed development of new transportation corridors. These residents are concerned about the environmental, sor ial, and economic impacts of a PMAR route. The idea of a "high-speed freeway" development is ohJously distressing to Puna resident, who value their quiet, low- density, rural -like communities. This plan does not propose such a project. In addition to puhlic meetings, the PROP process took comments regarding the draft report. Community sentiment for Thr PMAR varies and seems to depend somewhat on where residents live. Residents along Highway 130 or beyond Ainaloa (Pahoa, Nanawale, Leilani Fstates, Kapoho, etc.) would really need alternate access if there is an emergency or road closure. Many of these residents favor an alternate ar cess route for this reason. Most of the opposition to the PMAR through HPP comes from HPP residents who feel such a route would significantly change the character of their neighborhood. Many Hawaiian Paradise Park residents in the vie inity of 1 1, and 10"' Avenue were concerned with takings of private property and impacts to their quality rt life and community. A group of residents opposed to the single route "Mid-level" PMAR alte+native provided a petition with over 50 signatures. However, there were also many HPP residents who believe alternate access is needed given the number of homes and developable lots in the arca. Other residents stressed that in alternate route is needed and noted that some would be unhappy no matter where the alignment is located. Many participants also advocated for a PMAR project With multi -modal amenities including bike lanes, pathways, transit corridors, as well as native greenscaped buffers, It is clear that this PROP planning process was NOT intended nor equipped to be a deciding factor in either the fast -tracked implementation or "killing" of a PMAR project. This plan summarizes various alternatives, their henefits and/or detriments, and community reactions. 8.4. Next Steps: Alignment Alternatives Study The County received $188,084 in I ederal funding for further investigation, community consultation, and study of a PMAR. There is also the povsihility of additional funds through other federal programs. The PR( -P provides details on how the funding might be used to identify more specific alignments, Condo( t environmental studies, and den.ormine feasibility. The PROP identifies broad alternative alignment basad on community input, W -foot contours, major environmental hazards, and existing de%clopment. 8-10 Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report This plan proposes that an alternate route from Hilo to Shower Drive should be pursued as soon as possible. Besides providing needed capacity, this alternate route would provide redundancy to Highway 130 in the event of highway closure. Other unresolved issues at this time include whether this road should be improved through HPP, and if so, the appropriate alignment and design standards. Because of the extent of the unresolved issues, an alignment alternatives study should be done to analyze the alternatives and recommend a definitive alignment. The scope of this study should include: 1) whether to connect to Railroad Avenue or to create a new corridor connecting to the Airport and I filo Harbor; 2) whether and how to traverse HPP; 3) major network connections such as the improvement of 40Th Avenue and Pohaku Drive; and 4) feasibility of the interim use of the Railroad ROW as an emergency bypass and bus -only route from Railroad Avenue to Shower Drive. More funding will then be needed for environmental studies, preliminary engineering, an EA or HIS, community consultation, and final design and construction. Environmental studies including flora, fauna, archaeology, culture, and speleology of the 12 -mile long and 500 -foot wide corridor could total at least $1 million. The identification of environmental constraints early in the process can avoid costly changes in design and construction. Throughout the process, continued contact with community stakeholders iti important. 8-11 Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report 9. ELEMENT: BIKEWAYS AND PEDESTRIAN PATHS Safety for bike riders and pedestrian is an important issue for Puna residents. The inclusion of bike facilities on highways, rural roads, and off-road multi-purpose paths help provide safe options for all different levels of bike riders. Many bikeways use the highway shoulder and require signage indicating bike use. Adequate right-of-way width and pavement are necessary for bikeways along shoulders. When possible, grade separation or buffers from the highway are also desirable ways of protecting bicyclists. Pedestrian friendly highways are also necessary in the rural environment of Puna. Safe usable crosswalks that include pedestrian refuges are useful. Improved lighting, signage, landscaping, and traffic signals are all ways to help protect pedestrians. Use of these amenities are essential in school zones. School areas, village centers, and other well -used areas should be identified as favorable area for implementing median crosswalks and roundabouts. In some situations, these tools can in fact improve both safety and capacity. There are several types of transportation facilities that serve bicyclists, these include: Shared Bike Routes -- Any streeUroad designated for shared use along (a) a widened curb lane in urban areas, (h) a paved shoulder in rural areas. Bike routes can also be designated with signs to provide continuity with the entire bike system. Signage also advises motorists of the presence of potential bicyclists. Bike lanes — A portion of roadway designated by striping, signing, and pavement markings for preferential or exclusive use of bikes. Typically bike lanes are 4-5 feet wide. Multi-purpose paths — A completely separated right-of-way designated for exclusive or semi -exclusive use of bikes separated from the roadway with open space and landscaping physical barriers. Typically bike paths are 10 feet wide and accomodates two-way travel. This facility does not repl ace roadside bicycle facilities. Sourrr: Dan Burdrn, www.pedbikeimages.orB 9-1 County of Hawaii Planning Department 9.1. Bike Plan Hawaii Bike Plan Hawai'i (2003) represents community consensus about bicycling policies and programs, and the development of future hike facilities. It is part of the overall Statewide Transportation Plan (STP), which provides a mechanism for generating, selecting, and implementing transportation improvement projects. Bike Plan Hawai'i guides the bicycle -related component of the STP and is needed to support requests for federal transportation funds. Proposed projects of the Bike Plan Hawai'i Draft Report are listed in Table 9.2. The projects listed are proposed as Priority I, II, or III. Priority I projects are proposed for implementation in less than 10 years. Priority II projects are proposed for implementation in less than 20 years and Priority III in less than 30 years. Project numbers are also listed in the table. The plan integrates bicycling into Hawai'i's transportation system and summarizes how communities can accommodate and promote bicycling. The plan also outlines different bikeway improvements for bicycle rider, of varying experience. They include: Group A: Advanced Bicyclists - Experienced riders who can operate under most traffic conditions. • Group B: Basic Bicyclists - Casual or new adult and teenage riders who are less confident of their ability to operate in traffic without special provisions for bicycles. • Group C: Children - Pre -teen riders whose roadway use is initially monitored by parents. A bicyclist rides on the shoulder o/ Highway I 1 into Hilo. 9-2 Puna RePion aI Circulation Plan Final Report TABLE 9.1: BIKE PLAN HAWAII PROJECTS Prgjecl COSI Length Cost Bike Plan No. Facility Location Type ]oris." Class.•" (mi.) Estimate Priority Railroad Avenue Bikeway 296 Kaaahi Rd. / RR Ave (end)- Hawn. Paradise Park Path C/P C 5.6 $2,160,000 I RR Avenue Bikeway connection 30a to Kea`au schools RR Ave Bikowo-Kea'au Bypass Path C C 0.5 $193,000 1 Kea`au-Pahoa Road 32 Kea'au Bypass Road -Shower Di ivc SSR S C 2.4 $781,000 1 Old Volcano Trail 35 Vol. Hwy -Glenwood Rd.-Kahlko ele-Puhala-Olaa Rd. Path S B 12.5 $3,220,(M I Railroad Avenue Bikeway 29C Hawn. Paradise Park -Hawn. Beaches Suhdivision Path C/P C 6.8 $2,623,000 11 Various local roads and off-road paths 10b Kca'au Town Path C/P C 2.0 $772,000 II _ Old Kea`au-Pahoa Road 11a Volcano Hw-Kea'au-Pahoa Be pass SSR S C 1.1 $358,000 II 31b Old Kea`au-Pahoa Road Remnant SSR C/S B 0.5 $25,000 II Shower Dr/PohakuDr/Olaa/41tth 33 Kaaahi Road -Volcano Hwy SSR P/C C 5A $1,758,000 11 Paradise Acres - 9 Rd / C Rd / Kulani Rd. 34 9 Road -Volcano Hwy near Mountain View SSR P/C C 5-6 $1,823,000 11 N. Puna Corridor--Makai along Paradise orMakuu DriNa 36a Hawaiian Paradise Park-Kea'au-Pahoa Rd SSR P/C C 4.2 $1,367,000 11 North Puna Corridor--Mauka 36h Kca'au-Pahoa Rd -II Rd SSR P/C C 3.7 $1,204,000 11 _ North Puna Corridor --D Rd/Rose Street 36, 9 Rd-Pikake St SSR P/C C 4.1 $1,335,000 11 S. Glenwood Rd. - Fern Forest lod Volcano Bay. -S. Glenwood Rd. -Old Volcano Trail Path P/C c 4.6 $260,000 11 Ala Bele O Puna (going north 1 37a Hawaiian Beaches Subdivision- Hawn. Paradise Park SSR C C 6.1 $1,985,(00 11 Ala Hele O Puna (going south) 376 Hawn. Beaches Subdivision -Jct. Pahoa-Kn oho Rd SSR C C 5.2 $1,693,(00 II Kahakai Blvd. (mauka-makai corridor) 38 Railroad Avenue-Pahoa school,_ complex SSR C C 4.0 $1,302.000 II Ag Road/Kehau Road Railroad Ave (W eiakahiula)-Nunawale Blvd 39 toPahoa-Ka ohoRd SSR (-_ C 3.8 $1,237M0 it _ Pahoa-Kapoho Road 40 Volcano Hw -Pahoa Coat SSR (' A 7.2 $26,000 II Lighthouse Road 41 Pahoa-Ku oho Rd-Kumukahi I ighthimsc SSR C C L6 $521,000 11 Kalapana-Kapoho Beach Road 44 Pahoa-Ka oho Rd-Kcu-au-Pahl a Rd SSR (- A 150 $55,000 11 45 _ Old Kala ana Hwy Remnants Path _ C7 C 4.5 $1.736,000 II 46 -Pa hoa-Kalapana Hwy SSR (' A 9.0 $33.000 II Ka oho -Kala ana Beach Rd -K, a'au-Pahoa Rd 47, Volcano HighwayLMamalahoa Hwy] SSR S A 23.2 $85.000 II Kca'au-Pahoa Bypass-Hawai'I 'Volcanoes Na11. Park Volcano Village Collector Roads, Shoulder 47h Improvements Wright Rd_ Ha inani Rd- SSR C B 1.6 $79,0(X) 11 Railroad Avenue Bikeway 29d Hawn. Beaches - Kapoho-1 x lana Beach Road Path C/P C 6.5 1 2 507,000 Ill Koac Access 37c Railroad Path/Kaaahi Rd -Ala I Icle O Pana Path (- C 0.8 $309,000 III _ Pahoa-Kapoho Powerline Trail _ 42 Pahoa-Ka oho Rd-Pahoa-Kala was Rd Path CA' C 2.8 $1,080,000 111 Kapoho-Kalapana Ridge Trail 43 1 Off Pahoa-Ka oho Rd-Kamoamoa I bmids Path C/P C 8.1 $3,125000 III SSR - Signed Shared Roadwav 9-3 County of Hawai'i Planning Department FIGURE 9.1: BIKE PLAN HAWAII MAP LEGEND t 30A t Priority 1 Protects 30B •F Mnfi-Purpose Path 28BC - RR MULTI -PV RPOSE PATH w Shared Bike Route Priority 2 -Protects 4 7 A s Shared Bike Route .v C 32 • Pnor'ly3-Protects Mutl,-Purpose Path Shared Bike Route 'r — OtherReaee �X� 34 A 'a 36A �+1� 37PB — Major Reads t �29D l 368 93 41 9 36C 140 Y 360 35- OLD VOLCANO TRAIL 1 47B ', � J 42 43 � _45_ 46 [44 li BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS A o 05 , a PUNA REGIONAL CIRCULATION PLAN raw: Fa'. Courcy T Hawaa By Towmcape, Inc l__ Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report 9.2. Safe Bike and Pedestrian Routes 9.2.1. Safe Routes to Schools ("SR2S") Developing Safe Routes to Schools (SR2S) is a goal of the Puna Regional Circulation Plan. SR2S efforts can increase the numbers of children who walk and bike safely to school. Walking and bicycling are healthy for children and decreased traffic congestion and pollution benefit communities. The goal of a SR2S program is also to measurably reduce crashes, injuries, and deaths involving child pedestrians or cyclists near schools. The challenges to increasing the number of children who walk or bike to school are associated with transportation facilities, motor vehicles, and school location. Good planning is critical to both prevent these problems and to help fix them where they exist. These issues can be addressed by a Safe Routes to School (SR2S) Improvement Plan using the foto Es: The key factors for a successful SR2S project include the "Four E's"": • Encouragement — Make walking and bicycling more attractive by planning special events to celebrate active travel, beautifying walkinglhicycling routes, and by sponsoring classroom activities and contests. • Education — Teach children, adults, pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists about traffic laws and safe and courteous behavior on the road; and about the health, environmental, and safety benefits of walking and bicycling. • Enforcement — Pass new laws or enforce existing ones to make it safe for children and adults to walk and bicycle. Engineering — Build a better environment for walking and bicycling. Plan compact neighborhoods and school sites; construct or maintain sidewalks and bike lanes; and install traffic signals or change the design of streets through traffic -calming structures such as bulb -outs. " Cenicr for Heahh Training, National Highway Troth( Safety Administration. Safc Routes to School: Practice and Promise. 2004. 0 re In County of Hawaii Planning Department A Safe Routes to School Improvement Plan" can be developed to address issues by mapping the routes to school and planning for a safe and attractive environment for pedestrians and bicyclists. Infrastructure improvements can reduce congestion around schools, slow vehicle speeds, and provide opportunities for safe crossings, bicycle facilities, and sidewalks. A Task Force can conduct an inventory of the areas around the school and map out the primary routes used by children. Task Force members can walk the neighborhoods, identifying significant problems, and record their findings using photos and maps. FIGURE 9.2: EXAMPLE OF SCHOOL ZONE MAP f, C7 (tinter University. iandbonk or 5unpht,ed Praclh e rentramc sruo:es. ,vovenmer zw�. Important questions to address include: Does school policy encourage bicycling to school? Are there trails and pathways that provide a direct link between the school site and the surrounding neighborhoods? Is there an old railroad bed or overgrown footpath that could be converted to a public trail? What are the traffic volumes and average speeds on heavily used walking routes? Are there opportunities for traffic calming to slow or discourage through traffic? Nal,onal Highway Trauic sanely Administration. Safe Routes to School Tool Kit. hitp://www.nhisa.dolgov/people injury/pedhimot/hike/Safe-Routes-2002/Index.html 9-6 Low Wo%" nwh an*Or Low o ft OaM1oown Apneolto al RN�Oennw ROaiCMW1 GOmTB,c101 SOace University. iandbonk or 5unpht,ed Praclh e rentramc sruo:es. ,vovenmer zw�. Important questions to address include: Does school policy encourage bicycling to school? Are there trails and pathways that provide a direct link between the school site and the surrounding neighborhoods? Is there an old railroad bed or overgrown footpath that could be converted to a public trail? What are the traffic volumes and average speeds on heavily used walking routes? Are there opportunities for traffic calming to slow or discourage through traffic? Nal,onal Highway Trauic sanely Administration. Safe Routes to School Tool Kit. hitp://www.nhisa.dolgov/people injury/pedhimot/hike/Safe-Routes-2002/Index.html 9-6 Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report • Are crossing points strategically located and well marked, including designated crosswalks at controlled intersections and mid -block crossings? Do the children have enough time to get across the street? • Is there clear visibility for drivers to see pedestrians throughout the area? Can they see pedestrians under five feet tall? • Is the school building easily accessible to pedestrians and cyclists? Are there parking lots and drop-off points blocking their paths? • Are there conflicts between buses, cars, bicycles and pedestrians on the school site? Are there opportunities to provide each mode with its own designated area for traveling? • Is there adequate and secure bicycle parking? • Is there hands-on, school-based program for bicycle riding skills/safety instruction? TABLE 9.2: KEY INDICATORS OF SR2S PROGRAMS Outcome Objectives Behavior of children . Increase numbers of children walking to and from school • Increase numbers of children bicycling to and from school • Improve skills for walking and bicycling safe) Behavior of drivers . Reduce the numbers of vehicles arriving and departing school at morning drop-off and evening pick-up times • Decease speed of vehicles in and around school area . Prevent .aggressive driving behavior (e.g., not yielding to pedestrians) • Decrease number of driving trips by parents and length of commute Community facilities • Improve the quality of walking environment: number and usefulness of sidewalks and bike lanes • Safely design intersections (lights, crosswalks, etc.) Crashes and Injuries • Reduce the number of traffic crashes involving children walking or biking to and from school • Decrease severity of injuries to children from traffic on their way to and from school • Reduce the number of conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians/bicyclists which would be likely to lead to crashes (i.e., "near misses") Community • Increase the diversity of people involved in SR2S efforts buy -in • Heighten the level of commitment and energy displayed by the SR2S collaborators • Develop parent enthusiasm about SR2S and allowing their children to walk or bike Environmental . Decrease level of air and noise pollution in school area quality • Reduce land devoted to parking and drop-off/pick-up areas Health, . Provide children with activity of daily living (ADL) which contributes to physical Responsibility and mental health. and Empowerment . Reduce public health concerns related to juvenile obesity. • Provide :)pportunity for empowerment of children taking a responsible and active role in iheir own transportation needs. . Provides children choice of flexible transportation schedule that accommodates after-school activities. W.1- , r rte_ M 9-7 County of Hawaii Planning Department 9.3. Engineering Techniques Traffic engineering can help change motorist behavior, reduce speeding and reckless driving near schools, and improve the pedestrian environment. 9.3.1. Traffic Calming According to the Institute of Transportation Engineers, "Traffic calming is the combination of mainly physical measures that reduce the negative effects of motor vehicle use, alter driver behavior and improve conditions for non -motorized street users." Many traffic -calming enhancements have the added benefit of providing attractive landscaping for the street, establishing a greater sense of place, which entices residents to spend more time outside enjoying their neighborhood. 9.3.2. Bumps, Humps, and Tables Speed humps are parabolic or trapezoidal in shape, are longer than speed bumps (generally 12 to 14 feet long), are not as noisy, and are easier on cars. Speed humps are a low-cost solution and tend to be the most effective in limiting speeds to 25 mph, when closely spaced along a roadway. Speed tables are flat -topper) speed humps that stretch across the road. They also can be used as raised crosswalks for pedestrian crossings. Speed tables bring the street up to sidewalk level making it pedestrian territory with slower traffic and better pedestrian visibility. Speed tables are more expensive than speed humps and may be too gentle to solve certain speeding problems. Other communities have chosen textured pavements—roadway surfaces paved with brick, concrete pavers, stamped asphalt, or other materials—that produce enough vibration to tell the motorists to slow down. These solutions tend to be loud and can be as hard on bicycles and pedestrians, especially those with disabilities, as they are on cars. At best, textured pavement can be used as a visual cue to slow down. 9.3.3. Barriers Traffic diverters, medians, islands, and other barriers can discourage or eliminate through traffic on certain streets in the neighborhoods surrounding schools. Selected streets, designated as safe routes, are designed to decrease traffic and give pedestrians and/or bicyclists safer passage. Other traffic -calming techniques narrow the roadways and use landscaping, and curb extensions, roundabouts, and traffic circles to create the effect of a narrow winding road. Traffic circles and roundabouts are often used instead of stop signs to slow traffic. Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report 9.3.4. Marked Crossings Marked crossings can identify the best places to cross the street. Clearly marked crosswalks, signage, special lighting, and raised crosswalks alert motorists to pedestrian activity and increase their willingness to yield. Typically, zebra -style or ladder -crossing designs are used for streets with higher traffic volumes while the simpler parallel lines are used for lower -volume streets. Some other techniques include reducing the distance through curb extensions and creating more visibility through raised crosswalks. 9.3.5. Bridges Grade separated pedestrian overpasses are installed when it is necessary to physically separate the crossing of a heavy volume of pedestrians from a roadway with steady motor vehicle traffic. While often considered prohibitively expensive, a little ingenuity can sometimes greatly reduce the cost. 9.3.6. Bike and Pedestrian Facilities People and children feel more secure when they have a place to walk separated from traffic. Obviously much of the Puna District lacks sidewalks. The higher speed of traffic and general absence of lighting in Puna snakes the need for pedestrian pathways even more imperative. Bicycle facilities also need to he developed in a comprehensive manner to provide continuous, uninterrupted access to all routes to school. Schools can encourage more bicycling by teaching bicycle safety, offering bicycle repair classes, and providing adequate bicycle parking facilities that shield bikes from inclement weather and that guard against theft. Communities commonly use trails and pathways in parks and other open spaces as both recreational facilities and travel corridors. Many older neighborhoods still have footpaths from the pre -automobile era, which can be reclaimed by clearing away the brush and weeds. Newer developments are incorporating, multi -use paths into their circulation systems. Abandoned railroad rights-of-way have become popular venues for conversion into multi -use pathways. These trails are an excellent way to provide separated paths for children to walk and bike to school, unimpeded by motorized traffic. Off-road trails require adequate connectors when schools are not directly on the path. The designation of specific routes that are less traveled by cars should be accompanied by easy -to -read signage and striping, where appropriate. Multi-purpose paths serve a variety of user groups. Sowce: Dan Burden, www.pedbikeimages.org 9-9 County of Hawai'i Planning Department 9.4. Costs and Funding Bike Plan Hawai'i calculated cost estimates using factors per mile according to classification. The PRCP used these factors in its cost estimates as well. Table 9.3 outlines the cost classifications. The majority of bikeway projects in Puna are Cost Classification B (Moderate Change) or C (Major Change). Capital funding is used to oevelop infrastructure. The government is always seeking grants for capital funding to build sidewalks, create bicycle lanes, develop multi -use pathways, and to complete other identified projects. It is important to note that generally the State and/or County must be the "applicant" fur any capital funding projects that relate to changing public infrastructure. Possible SOLw es of capital funding include: • Transportation Enhanc ements • Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds • State Funding Programs • Air Quality Management Programs • Local County - Sales Tax Program funding could also be required for hiring a coordinator, purchasing incentives, printing newsletters, or for managing community and school participation. In order to receive tax-deductible donations, which are important to charitable donors, a bike advocacy or safe routes to school group needs to be affiliated with a non-profit agency or school. Possible sources of program funding include private donations from businesses, foundations, individuals. Public events and partnership can also be planned with schools and Parent Teacher Associations (PTAs). Sources include: • School Funding o Maintenance Funds o Crossing Guard Funds o PTA or SAC Committee Fundraising efforts • County Public Works o Maintenance of sidewalks, crossings, etc. o Traffic Operations —Signs, signal ization, etc. o Utility Easements - for walking and bicycling • Hawai'i Police Department • State Transportation Enhancement Funds Private Business Donalions Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report TABLE 9.3: COST FACTOR PER MILE (BIKE PLAN HAWAII) Type Cost Classification A Cost Classification B Cost Classification C (Minor Change) (Moderate Change) (Major Change/New Facilit ) Signed Shared Bike Route $2,500 $33,968 $222,856 Bike Lane $8,004 $30,444 $860,154 Multi -Purpose Path $4,418 $176,368 $264,118 Notes: Routes and lanes assume construction on two sides of the roadway Path assumes single facility with two-way travel Facilities are designed to AASHTO minimum guidelines Neighbor island projects incur a 15 percent premium Engineering and design costs estimated at 12 percent of construction cot Contingency estimated at 15 percent of construction cost TABLE 9.4: TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES14 Measure Estimated Cost Traffic Education Campaign Varies Speed Display $250/da Neighborhood Sign $200/sign High Visibility Crosswalks $1 K -$5K Police Enforcement _ $75/hour Narrowing Lanes $1K -$3K Speed Limit Signing Stop Signs __$200/sign $200/sign Bike Lane $25K-$75K/mi1e Sidewalk $20-$30/foot Median Island $l OK -$75K _ Gateway $1 OK -$20K Curb Extension $IOK-$20K Choker $15K Speed Hum $5K Raised Crosswalk $5-$1 OK Raised Intersection_ $25K -$50K Traffic Circle $15-$25K Intersection ChannehLin $15-$20K Movement BarrierEn $5K ----§15-$20K trance Barrier _ $15-$20K 14 National Highway Traffic Safety Adminhtrndon. Sale Routes to School Tool Kit. hop://www.nht,,.(IoLgov/people/irqury/pedbiinot/bike/Safe-Routes-2002/in(iex.'vml County of Hawai'i Planning Department 9.5. Railroad Pathway The PRCP proposes implementation of many Bike Plan Hawai'i projects. A total of 24 Bike Plan Hawai'i projects, priorities 1 and 2, should be implemented as a part of the PRCP. The projects include Signed Shared Bike Routes and Multi -Purpose pathways that total $26.6 million. Implementation of bikeways should begin with the Railroad Pathway Project. A Mayoral Advisory Committee on Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety has worked uv ith community groups for over ten years towards implementation of this project. A Draft Federal Highway ,Administration (FHWA) "Transportation Enhancement" application form was completed by the Advisory Committee in 2001. The first phase of the proposed concept would develop six miles of the former Hilo to Kapoho railroad right-of-way as the Railroad Pathway: a multi -use pathway for non - motorized public use. The pathway would be suitable for a wide variety of user groups including bicyclists, joggers, walkers, and equestrians, Railroad Right -of -Way looking south towards HPP. The complete 12 -mile long right-of-way has several land owners: W.H. Shipman, Ltd. State of Hawai'i Hawaiian Electric Light Company • County of Hawai'i (HELCO) • Kamehameha Schools • Hawaiian Paradise Park Corporation • Kapoho Land and Development Co. Ltd. Implementation of this project provides many benefits which include: Provides emergency act ess between Puna Makai and Hilo. Provides options for travel and connectivity to other modal options. • Connects to State, Courty, and private subdivision roads. • Provides safe bicycling access away from highway traffic. Drives sustainable community economic development. Enhances recreational opportunities. 0 F W " 9-12 Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report Railroad Avenue would only be used as a bike route through Hawaiian Paradise Park (HPP) subdivision, thus continuing to provide complete access to motor vehicles. The portion through Shipman property from Hilo to HPP would also continue to allow motor vehicle access only for farmers and others with legal access. W.H. Shipman and HELCO are landowners in the first phase of the project and expressed concerns regarding development of the pathway. Their concerns included responsibilities for safety, liability, security, and maintenance. In 2000, the western regional director of Rails -To - Trails", participated in planning of the pathway. She noted that all of the landowner concerns in Puna had been encountered and successfully dealt with and/or mitigated in other Rails -to -Trails projects. There are low, medium, and high cost options to implementing the Railroad Pathway. The lowest cost option could include having the county or state acquire ownership or a long term lease of the existing Railroad right-of-way. Signage and minor access modifications at both ends would allow non -motorized public use and prevent motorized access. The route would then be suitable for mountain bike use immediately. This would legalize the present illegal use by bicycle trespassers and remove the burden of liahility from Shipman. 9.6. Old Volcano Trail The PRCP supports the restoration of the Old Volcano Trail as a multi-purpose path for various users. The trail remains a public right-of-way and is owned fee simple by the State of Hawai'i. In 1930, 14 miles of trail were surveyed and marked. A group of community volunteers originally formed the Kea'au Planning Group (KPG) to address health and recreational needs within the Kea'au to Volcano area. The group quickly identified that more recreational opportunities were needed in Puna. In 2003, the group received a grant from the Hawai'i Tourism Authority (HTA) Natural Environment Program for restoration efforts. The first phase of trail restoration involved identification of the location of the original 1930 markers. The volunteer group assisted in land clearing from November of 2003 till October of 2004. Ten miles of the original trail were surveyed with the assistance of R.M. Towill. The next phase of restoration is to conduct a "mauka survey" to identify a 30 -foot right-of-way that can be restored. The County of Hawai'i has received $100,000 from the U.S. Department of Transportation, Public Lands Discretionary Fund, to begin this survey. Difficulty in resolving responsibility for the future of the trail has delayed efforts. httpa/wwv raihrails.org 9-13 County of Hawai'i Planning Department There are several options currently being considered for future ownership and maintenance of the Old Volcano Trail: 1. designation as a Na Ala Hele trail under the State Department of Land and Natural Resources; 2. designation under the National Park Service (NPS) as part of the existing Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail or Hawai'i Volcanoes National Park; or 3. development as a County pathway project under the Department of Public Works (DPW) and/or Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR). Public meetings were held by the KPG and its consultant and the trail has received wide community support. The project is also included in the State Bike Plan Hawai'i (2003) as a tier one multi-purpose path project. The plan estimates construction costs at $3,220,000. Many in the community have advocated for maintaining the natural roughness of the trail. Costs would be significantly reduced without the addition of pavement. This restoration could include leveling and gravel resurfacing of a 4 -foot wide area and development of access, signage, and interpretation. 9.7. PRCP Plan Alternatives Each plan alternative proposes implementation of various bike and pedestrian facilities originally presented in Bike Plan Hawai'i Alternative A has a multi -modal focus and thus proposes implementation of 29 Bike Plan Hawai'i projects for a total of $33.7 million. Alternative B, comparatively includes more road projects and proposes implementation of five Bike Plan projects for $5.4 million. The Railroad multi-purpose path is not proposed in both Alternative B and D because a pathway is included in the PMAR project. Alternatives C, E, and the preferred plan all call for implementation of 24 projects according to the priorities of Bike Plan Hawai'i. Priority one projects include the Railroad pathway, the Old Volcano Tra I, and bikeway facilities along the Kea'au-Pahoa Highway (130) for a total of $6.4 million. The second phase of projects includes bikeways along major highways; Volcano, Pahoa-Kalapana, Kapoho, and Kalapana-Kapoho Beach Road. There are also several bikeway projects connecting various subdivisions from mauka to makai. Priority two projects total nearly $20.3 million. Z'•` �:-�� a--� 9-14 Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report 9.8. Community Perspectives The community is very supportive of bicycle projects. PRCP participants were often asked "how do you feel about the Bike Plan Hawai'i projects?" Generally community was in favor of projects. The exception relates to bike routes (No. 34 and 36c) proposed through Hawaiian Acres. Residents noted that the routes travel through private, rough, and often flooded roads. Furthermore, blind hills and narrow easements would compromise feasibility of these routes. Specifically, residents were concerned about bike safety and suggested bikeway design with grade separation, green buffers, or completely off roadways. Community members also called for bike racks on Hele-On buses and at park and ride facilities to create linkages between modes of travel. There were also some skeptical residents who asked "how realistic is it for the average person to ride their bike to Hilo." Many community members advocated strongly for the Railroad multi-purpose path regardless of the construction of a PMAR pathway. There is no certainty that a PMAR pathway along a roadside would serve bicy( lists as the Railroad project intends to. Most residents favored bike and pedestrian paths that link communities together. The community has worked very hard over the past decade towards the implementation of this project. There also many community members who support the restoration of the Old Volcano Trail. Implementation of both the Old Volcano Trail, serving upper Puna, and the Railroad Pathway, serving Puna Makai are important to the Puna community. 9-15 County o/ Hawaii Planning Department TABLE 9.5: PRCP BIKE PLAN PROJECTS BY PLAN ALTERNATIVE X - Pmfect include(1, (P) - No Railroad Palhwav due to PMAR molt -purpose path pn deet. * Project feasibility needs more stody 9-16 Bike ($MIL) Pro) Lacility Location Type Plan ---FFSCENARIO PRCP No. A B C D E Priorit PLAN Railroad Avenue Bikeway X (P) X (P) X X 29b Kaaahi Rd. / RR Ave (end)- HPP Path I RR Avenue Bikewav connection to Kea'au X X X X X X :30a schools RR Ave Bikeway-Kea'au-Pahoa Bypass Path I Kea`au-Pahoa Road X X X X X X 32 Kea'au By as's Road -Shower Dri_w SSR Old Volcano Trail X X X X X X 35 Kea'au Stream Trail-Pohaku' Path Railroad Avenue Bikeway Hawn. Paradise Park -Hawn. Beaches X (P) X (P) X X 29c Subdivision Path II Various local roads and off-road paths X X X X X X 30b Kea'au Town Path II _ Old Kea'au-Pahoa Road X X X X X X i l a Volcano Hwy-Kea'au-Pahoa Bypa,s SSR II Volcano Highway[ Nlamalahoa Hwy] X X X X X X 47a Kea'au-Palma B mss -Hawaii VulCanoes NP SSR II i 1 6 Old Kea'au-Pahoa Road Remnant SSR 11 X $5.4 X X X X Showcr Dr/PohakuDr/Olaa/40th X X X X X 33 Kaaahi Road -Volcano Hwy SSR I Paradise Acres - 9 Rd / C Rd / Kahan Rd. X X X X X 34* 9 Rod-Volcano)iwv near Mmnalaln VICw SSR II N. Puna Corridor--Makai along Paradise orMakuu Drive X X X X X 36a Hawaiian Paradise Park-Kea'au-Pahoa Rd SSR II _ X North Puna Corridor--Mauka X X X X 36b Kea'au-Pahoand-II Rd SSR II North Puna Corridor --D Rtl/Rose Street X X X X X 36c* 9 Rd-Pikake St SSR II Ala Hele O Puna (going north) _ X X X X X 17a Hawaiian Beaches Subdivision -HIT SSR II Ala Hele O Puna (going south) X X X X X 17b HB Subdivision -Jct. Pahoa Ka Cohn Rd SSR I Kahakai Blvd. (manka-makai corridor) X X X X X 38 Railroad Avenue-Pahoa schools complex SSR Ag Road/Kehau Rd -Railroad M Nanawale _ X X X X X 39 Blvdio Pahoa-Ka ohn Rd SSR It Pahoa-Kapoho Road X X X X X 40 Volcano Hwv-Pahoa Cont SSR II Lighthouse Road _ X X X X X 41 Pahoa Ku oho Rd-Kumukahi Li bthousc SSR II Kalapana-Kapoho Reach Road X X X X X 44 Pahoa Ka oho Rd-Kea'au Pahoa Rd SSR 11 45 Old Kala ana Hwy Remnants Path 11 X X X X X Pahoa-Kalapana Hwy X X X X X 46 Ka oho -Kala ana Beach Rd -Kea :m-Pahoa Rd SSR 11 Volcano Village Collector Roads, Shoulder _ X X X X X 47b Inttrovements Wrn hl Rd., Haum,ni Rd. SSR II Railroad Avenue Bikeway X $26.6 $21.8 $26.6 $26.6 29d Hawn_ Beaches - Kapolio Kalafajmi Bcach Road Path III North Puna Corridor--Kahikopele X 36d Street/Kcaau Stream Trail PA.,kc St Path III Koae Access _ X 37e Railroad Path/Kaaahi Rd -Na Itch 0 Puna Pmh III Pahoa-Kapoho Powerline Trail X 42 Pahoa-Kapoho Rd-Pahou�Kah�,i Rd Palh III Kapoho-Kalapana Ridge 'Grail X $33.7 43 Of(1'ah",r ,oho Rd-Kumoamoa Hmstds Path III X - Pmfect include(1, (P) - No Railroad Palhwav due to PMAR molt -purpose path pn deet. * Project feasibility needs more stody 9-16 Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report 9.9. Bike Way Cross Sections Variations of bike ways are depicted in Figures 9.3 — 9.9. The cross-sections illustrate shared road bike routes using shoulders and signage. They also show bike lanes that are separated from traffic with a paint stripe. Finally, Figure 9.9 shows a multi-purpose path that could be used for both bicyclists and pedestrians. Bikeway and pedestrian projects should be planned on highways, rural roads, and off-road pathways to provide facilities for a variety of users. FIGURE 9.3: SHARED ROADWAY .Slate Dept.. or Transportation, Bike Plan Hawaii, 2003. FIGURE 9.4: SHARED ROADWAY WITH PAVED SHOULDER State Dept. of Transportation, Bike Plan Hawai'i, 2003. 9-17 County of Hawai'i Manning Department FIGURE 9.5: SIGNED SHARED ROADWAY WITH WIDE CURB LANE State Dept. of Transportation, Bike Plan Hawai'i, 2003. FIGURE 9.6: SIGNED SHARED ROADWAY WITH PAVED SHOULDER State Dept. of Transportation, Bike Plan Hawai'i, 2003. 9-18 Puna Re2ion aI Circulation Plan Final Report FIGURE 9.7: BIKE LANE FIGURE 9.8: BIKE LANE WITH ON -STREET PARKING State Dept. of Transportation, Bike Plan Hdwai'i, 2003. 9-19 County of Hawai'i Planning Department FIGURE 9.9: MULTI-PURPOSE PATH State Dept. of Transportation, Bike Plan Hawai'i, 2003. 9-20 Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report 10. ELEMENT: CONNECTIVITY 10.1. The Problem When Puna subdivisions were developed in the 1960's, there were few regulations. Each subdivision was developed as its own "pod" without connections to adjacent areas. Generally, subdivisions have access, in and out, through Highway 11 or 130. As more homes are built and the population increases, so does the demand on road systems. The disconnected pattern of streets results in large intersections at major junctions, greater congestion along major arterial streets, and an environment that discourages pedestrian and bicycle travel. The absence of connectivity impedes local circulation and does not provide residents with an option to traveling on major highways. Good connectivity maximizes the efficiency of the transportation network, facilitating local and regional circulation. Overall, maximum connectivity is attained through limiting occurrences of cul-de-sacs; dead-end streets, isolated pod developments, and poorly connected subdivisions. When too many of these elements exist in a region, severe stress is placed on the few main arteries that hold them together. These arteries must then be widened to five or six lanes or larger to handle the heavy regional and local traffic demands placed onto them. The concentration of more daily vehicles onto each of these roadways invites continued strip development, which induces even more traffic. 10.2. What is Connectivity? "Connectivity" suggests a system of streets with multiple routes and connections serving origins and destinations. Connectivity relates to the number of intersections along a segment of streets and how the entire area is connected to the system. Connectivity between local streets and high-volume streets is a significant transportation issue. Interconnected streets ease traffic flow problems because they provide alternative routes, which help decrease the demand .m any single street. Connectivity allows greater access for fire, medical, and law enforcement. The interconnected streets and neighborhoods also make emergency access easier, which improves overall safety in the community. In addition, connectivity reduces out -of direction travel and vehicle miles traveled (VMT), enhances accessibility between various modes, and balances traffic levels between streets. Connectivity improvements to the street system include internal and adjacent site connections, which provide route choices for pedestrians, bicyclists, and automobiles. The benefits of connectivity fulfill values and guidelines established by this plan. 10-1 County of Hawai'i Planning Dep artmen� Many homes are tucked away because roads are disconnected and there is little through traffic. However, such a system is a "trade-off" because major traffic and congestion occur once residents leave their subdivision. The isolated "pods' of subdivisions are auto dependent and do not provide equal access for people without vehicles. Disconnection also increases costs for public transportation. Connectivity benefits include: • More direct routes to more places and with shorter trips. • More choices in paths mean congestion can be relieved. Direct routing encourages walking and biking. • Connected neighborhoods foster a greater sense of community. • School bus routes for c hildren are safer and shorter. • Emergency service response times are shorter. Facilitates roadway maintenance. There are some potential nef,ative impacts associated with connectivity, including diversion of traffic into residential neighborhoods and agricultural areas and the diminished capacity on major streets due to new intersections. These impacts can be mitigated. To protect existing neighborhoods from potential traffic impacts, connector roadways should incorporate traffic calming into their design and construction. All stub -out streets should have signs indicating the potential for future connectivity so the community is aware of these plans. 10.3. How Do We Increase Connectivity? The plan proposes to enhance connectivity with street connections and extensions throughout the Puna District. In addition to funding and constructing new connectors, other policy issues to pursue include emphasis on minimum network connections for new developments, support for traffic calming efforts designed to deter cut -through traffic in neighborhoods, and adoption of connectivity standards. Actions to increase connectivity include: Implement connecting roads for large-scale plans that were ignored. • Connect roads where connections were planned but never built. • Seek to connect adjacent roads where there was a lack of planning in prior decades. • Ensure that interconnected roads are designed to include adequate traffic calming devices. • Ensure that all new subdivision and development plans contribute to an interconnected transportation system. 10-2 Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report 10.3.1. Connectivity Standards New development that constructs new streets, or street extensions, should provide proposed street maps. Connectivity standards should be adopted to enforce requirements on vacant or re -developable parcels larger than five acres. Possible standards include: • Subdivision provides full street connections with spacing of no more than a half -mile between connections except where prevented by barriers. • Provides bike and pedestrian access ways in lieu of streets except where prevented by barriers. • Limits use of cul-de-sacs and other closed-end street systems to situations where barriers prevent full street connections. • Includes no close -end street longer than 220 feet or having no more than 25 dwelling units. • Consideration of traffic calming devices. 10.4. Identifying Connectivity Routes Existing streets were evaluated to identify where new connections could improve traffic circulation. Criteria were set to identify connection routes. Selection considered existing rights-of- way, street networks, parcels, and subdivision boundaries. A, one -mile grid overlay was also used to identify where connections were critically needed. Whenever possible, at least one connection per mile was identified. Every effort was made to provide interconnection of various subdivisions. The CAG helped locate dead -ends and cul-de-sacs that could be connected to neighboring streets. Connections were selected based on emergency bypass, circulation, and location of schools. Meetings and coordination with area landowners, community associations, and road maintenance corporations will be needed to develop connectivity where it is appropriate. In many cases, land acquisition is necessary to create connections. Parcel ownership or easements should be acquired now while land prices are still relatively affordable and development is still scattered. Each connection will require detailed analysis to resolve development issues. In some instances, it seems infeasible for the County to own and maintain small sections of roadway among private roads. Issues include: • Does the immediate conrnnunity (neighboring subdivi,,ions) want the convenience of a connection? • Should the connection be gated for emergency access only or remain open? • Should the connection be consistent with adjacent street design with respect to right-of-way width, pavement, gravel, and street amenities? • Who owns the connections? Neighboring subdivisions? Road maintenance corporations? The County? Collective ownership? • Who is liable for connections and who is responsible for maintenance? 10-3 County of Hawai'i Planning Department The PRCP identifies 34 alternative routes that could provide connections for vehicular, bicycle, transit, and/or pedestrian access within a one -mile grid. Of these alternatives, several were identified for emergency access routes. Figure 10.1 identifies proposed emergency access routes for upper Puna and Puna makai including: 1. PEAR 2. PEAR II 3. Railroad ROW Access 4. Kehau to Punawai S. N. Peck Rd. to (hope Rd. 6. N. Kulani Rd. to Stainback Hwy. 10.5. Community Perspectives Improvements and connections need to be developed with respect to community desires, especially because majority of the identified connections are in private subdivisions. Many residents enjoy the seclusion that undeveloped roads afford and are adamantly against connectivity. Several residents commented that construction of connector roads would result in further destruction of native habitat, introduction of invasive weeds, increased noise levels and associated increase in property then. Other residents commented that they might be receptive to connectivity if it was done all at once. Piecemeal implementation would not be supported because of the possibility that the individual route would be expanded in the future. The proposed connections should be undertaken comprehensively as an entire system. "Connectivity as a whole sounds best or not at all." There needs to be a mechanism (not verbal promises) that guarantees protection to residents. In this way communities may be more accepting of connections if others also experience similar improvements. The goal of onnectivity is to create alternative routes and improve circulation. If successful the "intrusion" caused by connectivity and through traffic can be diminished by resulting benefits. Specifically residents opposed • Al connecting 6°i Street to Uhuh Street in Mauna Loa Estates • B2 connecting Volcano and Aloha Estates — this connection establishes a corridor to expand Kaleponi Drive in Fern Forest. Many do NOT want this corridor as a future highway. This connection would "open the door" (even if gated emergency only); • F1, F2, F3 connecting Eden Rock and Fern Acres through Kopua Farmlots; and • GI, G2, G3 connecting Fern Acres and Hawaiian Acres. Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report TABLE 10.1: CONNECTIVITY ROUTE ANALYSIS Dar'A •w ` 4 :i 10-b putelA t Construction T.1 Parcel MAP NO Distance FT. cod Correction Parcel In Owners �'! Street 9ree[2 �0wherI Ovner2 1111 _ 5l0 OOU - th St S}. !Mauna LO Eat t - Rd Merrill Road - Ilrvn i _ F.-iJ Y R m. _—Utah 81 61 57W $1146000 �DLuI St Antilles Road (Other) Mane. Finance Company 1n 170 n0_ 11l lfi rJ I III. .Fn ITF 111-r` r .']❑I r u. _ e0 int u� 1 r I' F-l,FJL _ L 25 510250007 - I _ - _Ala ohlvSt-1LMuepele Rd - Road(other) 'Mans Finance Company -- �' 41 ruJ Ilii_ 1; t JYiln 1 r10� 11 IjIjI11 r 1 1 iii f I r I IF t`( _e _F_em Cl C1 $146 00i0 a_ h DO.. Klkkaa Rd IR-o-_a_tl 1 oaF ¢e Compang For_edC t_Y__ Assn Iw1 J I. !Fern Q Q 494 $SLAWOG - KilkaRdLoatl%1 -X halarRd. _- Forest Fern Forest Co muntYgssin '2ra_t I'W :/II JIIFq FF Fnli'L h11'ST'9tal u ill 1 11 ILL III 1 _J i- 1OMI1F1411 11 AF -I it 1T I II Di D1t_ 1]T �M1 H IL F.reat Community AssocState ofH r [e C.' _ _ IT _-I'Bel[RC. - -- - -- -m 44Wi SSW 000_ -Ha -i Belt RdmFOred CommuniNA¢¢oc State ofH „,,5111 _-_-P.1. --- -. S „--.�h,.•I ------toadD y - -- -__ -_ - UJ'. fill IJ Ilan eill 0.9 N 65 � 51 110000( - i wa Hal Belt Rd _ _ MSena1l IRtl. State or Hawaii Fern Forest Commumt�0.s _ �L hi r �I- 1 -- -D4 - ]600 01 Y15W 00 - - -` - -_ Hawdl Bad __yK Mkopele Si _ State otH - Hawaii Mouraa Me Dev. Cor _ -_ p_-. _ [ 9 l t r,1 CIS IDS x!'"000 - S. ORd sdr. IKahlkopele St. Road (Other) ) .Hll MountView Dev. Corp. ewe 1 91 S Peck Rd. jKahlkopNe St. Road(Other) Hawaii Mcu then View Dev. Corp. D] DT 150D_ $30C,l 1 - KaHkopele St - Puhala St Hewer Mountain View Day .Corp . (Fern Acres -DB 38W� ST" Road Hewas Belt Road Nishimura MlfsusM TR(HA) State of Hawdl m II'k I I tofti,l.- n _ r FII -_-1I fill, 1, 11 _ _159 _ D9 2500 5500,000 _ Road Havel Belt Road Nishimura Mltal TIFt State of Hawee - IJ I`Il -I - 01010 30W SB30000�14.0th Hai B It Road Hawul Development Inc State orR it d' I 131 1 T= f - — - _ 2100 542oDW�1, __ Leila- AM11Pve -- _ - - FernForod Assoc II Mo tR Vlew Des torp - v ��, L IL JI _ 1 _ - .n t 11 11 �' F _ - - Fa�- I'.� 11 n IF _ in 1 '1 1 - - E2 _ 1 - -AI W o % Ave Fern For ACommunity Assoc HawaiiMt VI Dev I.orp t _ 11 rJ 1H F n II Ft Fi - S2BD 000 _- _ _- _HM, Ave. Orch tlS[. _Havel Mountain Vlew_De_v C � F - Acro ICreseYH Acres) 6a cr] � lr - 11 I 11 I 11/ F1 ALT F1 ALT -- 332J 3854,000 - - i - _Ah Ave - - - on, SL_ - — - Hawaii MourAan Vlew Dev Corp Fern Acre (C sm[Acres) _ Inn - 4 IF LWF[ IYl dm - I I LIF - I 11� it ) TI F I 1_IPM Iif, FI Ill ,.� PWfj TI Y -�fiM Pl I jr, F2 F2 - -_ W 14 SZI[111 - - Punahele Ave. Gatl 1a St __ HawalM attain View Dev Corp _ __. Form Acres (Creeent Acres) . _-_ _ �-ItJ'ii 1 _ _ 11 11 11- .. Ill L -_ Ill _ I M, - II_IF if -'f H I FI -' - F2A ALT 3200 111600 _ - -Puna el Ave G tl aS. - HavelMountain View Dev Corp Fern Acres (Cr sent Acres_ - - rl 1111 I F �FF ee F IAIl. I I NI IFI — 0 4 �i -- r ��-rnF- � _ — — F3 W 5940000 rPunawal Ave Anduhum SL_ Hawaii Mounfirm ViewDev. Cop Fern Acre (C nt Acres) _0 _ L ii 1) l _I I,_ IIIi 'J "i I d - _- -- L L -_ _ i,1 I I II_ n � _ F Am L to reef - a:i ] JI 1 _ 1 __ _ nra -31_ir GI 1 SW 3111)0110_ Roae St - Pull. (Roatl i) Fern Acres (Creeent Acres)) Nishmor Mk M - _ qi I I I I _ I v _ 1, j1;lilFrF I G2 G2 550 $110000_ —111 SL Pueoo (Road 1) Form Acres (Creeent Al Nishimura, Mtt a hi_ - - _i - - - G3 5W f— $111J,0001 - _- _ _- -vtlema St. _ _ --- Po (Roatl i) - _ Fern Acres (GesmtAcvesf _ NisltimumMltsusM- --G3 ' t to Fl u G4 G4 160, OW 11. I - I a�r SL Las. (Road G) Fern Acres (Cresent Acres) Nishimura Mri H1 Hi � e]s E95 Fi k� r- 1 _ -- Le .. ;rthunum Aklaloa Rtl IRF.d 11 Pohaeu Dnve Ni minal. MdeI TR (HA) HI1. Lev Nopmentmc Ff2 H2 - 2800 5560000 Alkialoo Rtl. (Road 1140th Street NCMmu Mithausly TR (HA) Hilo (level ,mart Ir¢ u I r n l h• I - _ 11 11 1800k5360,DW - - Klass St. Road E) - 42nd Ave__ im Nlehu MdausM1i ,TR(HA) Hlo Dpm eveloent Jm 12 12 3330000 - Read Au11I Nishimura. MitsusM lR jHA HIIO Development irrc - _ I5- -15011 1 _. - -_--_ 13 ----- - 13 - ... 1200 - - 5240,0001 � - Roatl 10 42nd Ave. 1 .. - 1 I.II IF 1 Ja . Ji Ji -__--_ 3600 fT20 WOy - 1 _ - - _ 40th Ave. - _ -AI aBlvtl. - Hilo Dev p erRl In, AlnalwC m uN1t rAcsodatlon I 6 $120000 _ ~_ _ _-_L RoadlRoatl GlAn Drive _ NISH trussMit shi TR (KA) Alnaloa Commurn'tygssoc ation f - _ — _- - M, 5 600 - t2240000 - _ - Aanq SI - Naha _ Cour4y of Haws' IF! -I I d 1 I _0 C r i. I Y r l -.h - _ --_ - - -_ Dar'A •w ` 4 :i 10-b County of Hawai'i Planning Department 'i a i �1 b�e U9L4Y6 UWU6V6 UUOV46 U6Y LLG w6vV& UVWVG u VVG WI l uGr)rG uraor.r. U.a IG4 voGN.G vwrGG vcGs rc cr i C2 / m e � Q EL Lai Q O Z L r U ti (L m o N-4 Q q Y / / 9 rI. ^ 0 le �� 4 N pay. �,vr0 g . Pr.I - r 10 d - z Q w l�k' -roe �Al z V cin Y U a� r a I ---r— ..R7 009917 WE N r.. STI T 098091 099992 00mi 02191E OLLM m a 3 ccc Y y o � N � a : 7 Q> 91 d O 0 af N > O LN o :3O a -mo a- °' c' Ir' '> o o m N U 0) 6 a 7 Y Q MO L 0> C O) C L 0 j U = c. Z Z 2 w a Y U U O C) d E I O I ---r— ..R7 009917 WE N r.. STI T 098091 099992 00mi 02191E OLLM Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report 11. REGIONAL CIRCULATION PLAN 11.1. The Puna Regional Circulation Plan The Puna Regional Circulation Plan proposes projects that provide multi -modal choices, connectivity, equity, capacity, and safety. Implementation of Bike Plan Hawaii projects is assumed to serve two percent of the peak hour travel demand. Transit serves as much as 12 percent of the peak hour travel demand. Needed roadway improvements include a two-lane PMAR from Hilo to Puna Makai, widening of Highway 130 between Kea'au and Pahoa, and widening of Highway 11 between Kea'au and Kurtistown. The plan also identifies emergency connectivity routes. The Puna Regional Circulation Plan is based on several assumptions: • A level of congestion is acceptable to help switch transportation mode choices. As a result, the plan will NOT improve existing congestion levels. Village centers will develop within the planning horizon bringing jobs and services closer to residents. This change will reduce the trip demand. • Optimistic levels of transit and bike ridership are attainable with capital and programmatic improvements. The Puna Regional Circulation Plan proposes: 1. Bus Transit Expansion - addressing schedules, headwaysr and fleet providing more equity in transportation service tot elderly, children, low income. Projects include programming for marketing and education, seven park and ride facilities, and a transit master plan. The plan proposes the development of a bus only lane along the Puna Makai Alternate Route (PMAR) and expansion of the bus fleet to 24 with 15 -minute headways during peak -hour traffic. (For more detail on transit projects see Section 7.0). 2. Bike and Pedestrian Facilities - that are interconnected and integrated with other transportation modes (car, bus, elc.) The plan proposes implementation of Bike Plan Hawai'i Priority 1 and 2 projects. Development of ,iny new road facilities should provide adequate rights-of-way for bike fa( ilities. The plan identifies two key projects, the Railroad Avenue Multi-purpose Pathway and Old Volcano Trail. A Safe Routes to School (SR2S) program should also be implemented. (For more details on bike paths and multipurpose paths see Section 9.0). County of Hawai'i Planning Department 3. Connectivity - projects that interconnect subdivisions and create emergency connections. This would improve local circulation patterns and provide equal access. The plan proposes 6 emergency access routes. (For more details on methodology and projects see Section 10.0). 4. An alternate route to Highway #130 - An alternate route to Kea'au-Pahoa Highway providing redundancy, emergency access, multi -modal choices, and capacity. The project could include infrastructure for bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit. The plan identifies several alternative alignments from Hilo to Hawaiian Paradise Park, Hawaiian Beaches, and/or Nanawale. (For more information on the PMAR alternatives see Section 8). 5. Widening — of Highway 130 from two to four lanes from Kea'au to Pahoa. Widen Highway 11 from two to four lanes from Kea'au to Huina Street in Kurtistown. Shifts in mode choices and village center development will take time so road expansion continues to be needed. TABLE 11.1: THE PUNA REGIONAL CIRCULATION PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT PROJECTS TOTAL COST FORMULA yyi�p© Villa a Land Use Development Transit EXPANSION - MIN 12.5% 1 $16.6 ca dal Costs 24 busas $1201 Park &Ride FacBities 7 -1 acre sites with 100 stalls each $352 $500,OWAo7 New Dedicated' Bus Lane PMAR) $D 0 72 Mills' $4 m(MMIle Bikeway improvements -serve (2%) Priority 1 and 2 $26.6 &keRanHaw , [PIWW. 2 vehicle lanes & bus lane 1 $120.0112 Miles '$10 m7Mmlle Widening $63.0 Keaau KurtistOwn (Hwy_ 11) - 2 to 4lanes t2 5 rndes) 1$6 mrMmUe . to 4 lanes (n roles Keaau-Pahoa (Mvy 130)_ 546 0 6 Mdas ' $6 miUm+ie _ Connectivity Projects 112 projects E77 connecnan LF `$4WSF TOTAL' operations and Maintenance (annual) $7.5 Seeeus carculafrons Bus Trams t 57 5 'rransmastion Demand Management _ Vanes 11-2 Z! c m �2 � � ;0 7r[ ro- t CL 9 CD 0. CD CD £ OS S � \k CL � ( ! ( �R E a a _a) 2 2§ CD / (o9 \ ` \ \ 0 \ } { } D ( \ \ B Z! c m M* m P $ Z z z 0 0 0 Q1 01 ou 20 r cn V1 6 LLJ 0 w n r in co m E ui z F - z z 0 LU ui7� 21, - ; 'l, w LU Lu 1— uj tu z z UA 4z z 0 0 C) Z FV CL ii O Xe5 72 -1 a o 0 0- 0 & 0z QJ 0: C) 6 CL z > -- > z - z I IL 0 ul 11 7, 0 v tu '1 �? 2 � Z 0 X < Ix 0 'o x R - 2 �s E Lo x LU w CO, :3 0 a. 6 0 m P Z z z 0 0 0 Q1 01 20 cn V1 6 0 w n r in co m E ui z z 0 ui7� 21, - ; 'l, LU uj UA 4z z 0 0 FV Q j, 72 -1 0 0- 0 0z C) 1 > -- > 2 ul 0 v tu 2 Z 0 < Ix 0 0 2 �s E Lo x LU w :3 6 0 tC > r m L) m Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report 11.2. Plan Alternatives A total of six alternatives were considered in the Puna Regional Circulation Plan. Two variations of land use were applied to the alternatives: "past trends continued" and "village centers" (see Section S for more details). Alternatives B-E used the "past trends continued" land use scenario. Alternative A and the Preferred PRCP Plan applied the "village centers" land use scenario. This resulted in Kea'au-Hilo travel demands about 80 percent of that in the "past trends" scenario. With "village centers", travel demands for road segments farther from Hilo are slightly higher. This difference is the result of an increase in local trips. TABLE 11.3: DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION "LIMITED ROAD CONSTRUCTION" A Multi -modal Emphasis "LIMITED MULTI -MODAL" B Vehicle Emphasis "EXISTING ROUTES" Multi -modal & Vehicle Balanced "NEW ALTERNATE ROUTES" D Multi -modal & Vehicle Balanced "REASONABLE CHANGE" E Multi -modal & Vehicle Balanced PRCP PLAN "PREFERRED PLAN" Level of Service (LOS) is defined as a "qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream". LOS is one of several factors to consider when reviewing alternatives. Several factors help determine LOS including speed, delay, vehicle density, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, and driver comfort. LOS "A", "B", and "C" are considered satisfactory levels of service LOS "D" is generally considered a "desirable minimum" operating level of service. LOS "E" is an undesirable condition, and LOS "E" is an unacceptable condition. Table 11.4 presents criteria for Level of Service for signalized and unsignalized intersections. 11-5 County of Ha"ai'i Planning Department TABLE 11.4 - INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA 16 11.2.1. Description of Alternatives In Alternative A, "Limited Road Construction", road widening would be limited to committed projects; i.e., widening of Highway 130 between Kea'au and Pahoa. The community requested an alternative that assumed no new road construction or widening projects. If all available funds were used for alternate modes of travel, what might this look like? Improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities are estimated to divert up to 100 peak hour trips, up to a maximum of 10 percent of the total demand. The highway system is assumed to operate at or near capacity conditions, and the remaining travel demand is assumed to be served by transit, specifically express buses. A bus dedicated lane on Highway 130 would be required to increase transit travel times at least equal to vehicle travel. Time saving is necessary to attain high-level ridership. "Nm>rding to Highway ( apanty Manus( (H(M). Sp,< .4 report 209. Transportation Resean h Board. 11-6 Signalized Intersections Unsignalized Intersections LOS Description Description Description (secDelay) (sec/ A <_10 Few stops, little or no delay <10 Little or no delays B >10-20 Good progression, short cycle >10-15 Short delays len the C >20-35 Cycle failures begin to occur, i.e. >15-25 Average delays vehicles stop at more than one red hase D >35-55 Noticeable number of cycle >25-35 Long delays failures, unfavorable progression E >55-80 Frequent cycle failures, poor >35-50 Very long delays long delays F _--progression, >80 Over saturation, many cycle >50 Extreme delays failures, high delays 11.2.1. Description of Alternatives In Alternative A, "Limited Road Construction", road widening would be limited to committed projects; i.e., widening of Highway 130 between Kea'au and Pahoa. The community requested an alternative that assumed no new road construction or widening projects. If all available funds were used for alternate modes of travel, what might this look like? Improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities are estimated to divert up to 100 peak hour trips, up to a maximum of 10 percent of the total demand. The highway system is assumed to operate at or near capacity conditions, and the remaining travel demand is assumed to be served by transit, specifically express buses. A bus dedicated lane on Highway 130 would be required to increase transit travel times at least equal to vehicle travel. Time saving is necessary to attain high-level ridership. "Nm>rding to Highway ( apanty Manus( (H(M). Sp,< .4 report 209. Transportation Resean h Board. 11-6 Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report TABLE 11.5: ALTERNATIVE ELEMENTS In Alternative A, 36 percent of the travel demand between Kea'au and Hilo would be served by transit, requiring 36 bus trips during the peak hour. Highway 11 from Hilo to Mountain View would be congested with LOS E as well as Highway 130 from Kea'au to Ainaloa with LOS E -F. Benefits of this alternative include reduced roadway construction costs and environmental impacts, and creation of multi -modal choices. Projects under Alternative A help fulfill many of the community guidelines outlined in Section 2. However, estimated ridership for transit and bikeways represent extreme goals. The feasibility of this alternative could be compromised by such high and unreasonable ridership expectations. Alternative A has the lowest capital cost estimate at $166 million. `' his would be offset by sizahle operations, maintenance, and programmatic costs necessary to attempt highly optimistic ridership goals. Hos Only 1_anes i, (o mnodeted un Hw,. I Mor PMAR projrr I. Projer I inr 1 odes nud6-purpoae path. I lbidonnig only till Afnaloa HIM. ¢ 3 3 Z 3 a c ECL O .... C C m O Y C a N C a d y CL m m 3 3Y 3= U A Village 7..=36'% V/ 2-11%'V/ 3I k� V/ 1j1�i $166 46 dot{i,: B Past Trends 0.9`ylr 21 ka3 r _E ! ; , $173 i d 4r' V1 C Past Trends Trends 15,%0 2% ✓ V1 V1 $187 8 110 j A, Past Trends 150/1t 2% V/ V/ $222 ;g�11�z PMAR �I L Past 10% V"/o / _ / v V/ V/ $249 Trends 21 PMAR PLAN Village 2% ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ '�"`, $233 --2.50% 24 PMAR In Alternative A, 36 percent of the travel demand between Kea'au and Hilo would be served by transit, requiring 36 bus trips during the peak hour. Highway 11 from Hilo to Mountain View would be congested with LOS E as well as Highway 130 from Kea'au to Ainaloa with LOS E -F. Benefits of this alternative include reduced roadway construction costs and environmental impacts, and creation of multi -modal choices. Projects under Alternative A help fulfill many of the community guidelines outlined in Section 2. However, estimated ridership for transit and bikeways represent extreme goals. The feasibility of this alternative could be compromised by such high and unreasonable ridership expectations. Alternative A has the lowest capital cost estimate at $166 million. `' his would be offset by sizahle operations, maintenance, and programmatic costs necessary to attempt highly optimistic ridership goals. Hos Only 1_anes i, (o mnodeted un Hw,. I Mor PMAR projrr I. Projer I inr 1 odes nud6-purpoae path. I lbidonnig only till Afnaloa HIM. County of Hawaii Planning Department FIGURE 11.2: ALTERNATIVE A joyy &M FIGURE 11.3: ALTERNATIVE W Jo- IVEA UTED ROAD CONSTRUCTION' PUNA REGIONAL aRCULAnON PLAN Legend 4� Legend e. Ti ar�,,t F 12 . . . . . . . . . . . _b .......... P�11 L 01 'd �11. 11 4l IX" Jo- IVEA UTED ROAD CONSTRUCTION' PUNA REGIONAL aRCULAnON PLAN Legend 4� 'Oeo ALTERNA`DVE D %IMTED�n�ODAL* REGIONAL CIRCULAWN PIAN For C." pl Newer e. . . . . . . . . . . . 'Oeo ALTERNA`DVE D %IMTED�n�ODAL* REGIONAL CIRCULAWN PIAN For C." pl Newer Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report Alternative B, "Limited Multi -modal", represents more of a traditional approach to transportation planning. Generally, highway improvements were used to satisfy future travel demands. Road widening would include an additional lane in each direction on Highway 11 from Hilo to Kurtistown, and on Highway 130 from Kea'au to Ainaloa. In addition, a new two-lane Puna Makai Access Road (PMAR) would be constructed from Hilo to Pahoa. The PMAR project does include a multi-purpose path for bicyclists and pedestrians. This pathway and the restoration of the Old Volcano Trail will serve 1 percent of the total travel demand. Transit improvements would increase bus service to as much as six buses per hour. With this alternative, peak hour traffic congestion is expected between Hilo and Kea'au (IROS E) and between Kurtistown and Mountain View (LOS D). Alternative B does succeed in providing some multi -modal transportation choices by expanding busing and bikeway systems. However, the emphasis on vehicles is problematic due to high costs of roadway construction, environmental impacts, and little guarantee of such a system effectively managing future travel demands. This approach fulfilled demand with roadway projects, therefore leaving little opportunity to truly focus on busing systems. Community response also found that this more traditional approach was not suited to the Puna District and its community values. The total capital cost estimate for Alternative B is $173 million. Alternative C, "Existing Routes", first identified the maximum amount of trips that bikeways and transit could provide. Transit improvements serve 15 percent of the travel demand and pedestrian/bicycle improvements accommodate 2 percent of the travel demand. Nineteen bus trips between Kea'au and Hilo would be needed in the peak hour. A bus dedicated lane would be required to increase transit travel times and attain high-level ridership. In order to address remaining travel demands, this alternative proposes widening of existing routes. No new alternate routes are identified. Two additional lanes will be needed in each direction between Hilo and Kea'au, Kea'au and Kurtistown, and Kea'au and Ainaloa. With this alternative, peak hour traffic congestion (LOS H is expected between Ainaloa and Pahoa. This alternative is desirable for its balanced approach to meeting transportation goals including mobility choice, equity, and quality of life. Identification of projects and associated trips started first and foremost with transit and bikeways. Ridership percentage goals were set, assuming traffic congestion, as a means to push people to shift modes of transportation. Widening and new construction were considered only after maximum trips were placed on alternate transportation modes. Alternative C �olso lists substitutes to additional widening such as increased vehicle occupancy (1.15 to 1.3) Nevertheless, this approach does not include an alternate route for redundancy or emergen, ies. The total capital cost estimate for Alternative C is $187 million. County of Hawai'i Planning Departinelit FIGURE 11A ALTERNATIVE "C" ------- -- — r ...... I W J - "V V "N' "O'T J, uTERMMVE c TMS'nNG ROL S- F NA REGIONAL CUCUUMN PIAN FMI coomy or I sw FIGURE 113: ALTERNATIVE "D" Legend ,gond it oras i I yr U; NEW Ix mi 00" ALTERNATE ROUTES- FUNA REGIONAL CIRCULATON PIAN F., C"T . 41;100 Py T . ..... �I� W Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report Alternative D, "New Alternate Routes' is similar to Alternative C. A two-lane Puna Makai Alternate Route (PMAR) is proposed instead of widening of Highway #130 from Hilo to Ainaloa. Additional road widening would be needed between Hilo and Kurtistown. With this alternative, peak hour traffic congestion is expected between Ainaloa and Pahoa (LOS E), however the remaining roadways would have LOS D or better. The addition of the Puna Makai Alternate Route fulfills the guideline to provide redundancy and connectivity. As a result, Alternative D meets more community guidelines than Alternative C. Multi -modal facilities are provided through implementation of Bike Plan Hawai'i priority one and two projects. The PMAR also includes a multi-purpose path. The total capital cost estimate for Alternative D is $222 million. Alternative E. "Realistic Change", also approaches demands using multi -modal projects first. However, this alternative considers that changes in land use patterns, human behavior and mode choice could take much longer than 25 years. If these conditions take time to occur how do we plan for year 2030? This alternative sets the proportion of trips in the bicycle/pedestrian at 1 percent and transit at 10 percent. These ridership estimates are still considered optimistic and will require new facilities. These proportions are believed to be more realistic for the land use densities and other conditions in Puna. Required roadway improvements include a two-lane PMAR between Hilo and Pahoa and widening of Highway 11 between Hilo and Mountain View With this alternative, all roadways would operate at Level of Service E or better during the peak hours. Nevertheless, this alternative has the highest capital costs at $249 million. F16URE11.6: ALTERNATIVE "E" � { Legend y r I p ,t r6I II -Ir �, rj� S ♦i ��, 1 m ne -I. m. rn I - 1 1\ y 4 s , 1, 111tJ1171 .h ' :' -- ATERNTIVEE Tt SONA LE CNA P1NA REGIONAL CIRCULAnON PUN f F., CemTJMNewaG li �_. - :ae B/ lovnecepe. Ina 61 County of Hawai'i Planning Department 11.2.2. Comparing Plan Alternatives Some from a purely transportation planning perspective may argue that Alternative E is more desirable than the preferred plan. These land use development assumptions and ridership goals are reasonable within the planning horizon. The preferred plan does assert aggressive goals for multimodal ridership and transportation demand management. However, these optimistic goals are set precisely to address the community values of the district and promote shifts in modes. The Puna Regional Circulation Plan (when compared with Alternative E): LOS D or better (except for Hilo to Keaau) Has desirable village land use instead of existing pattern. Has 2% of peak hour travel using pedestrian/bicycle instead of 1%. Has up to 1/8 of the peak hour trips on transit instead of 1/10"'. Does not require widening of Highway 11 from Hilo to Kea'au. The Community Advisory Group (CAG), County, and community accept higher pedestrian, bike, and transit goals, knowing that these may be higher than `standardized" ridership goals. They recognize that efforts to achieve these goals will require a conceptual shift in the way transportation improvements are implemented. Existing funds would be used more for multi- modal projects and new sour(es of revenue will likely be needed. The Puna Regional Circulation Plan can improve both transportation choice and mobility and thus meet community values and guidelines. TABLE 11.6: LEVELS OF SERVICE WITH BUS -ONLY LANE CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVE A B C D E PLAN Hilo to Keaau E E C C E E Keaau to Kurtistown E D B C C C Kurtistown to Mountain View E E D D E E Mountain View to Volcano B B A A B B Keaau Bypass E C C C E C S. of Keaau to Ainaloa F C B C E C Ainaloa to N. of Pahoa B B E E E B Pahoa Bypass C C C C C D Pahoa to Leilani Blvd. B B A A B B Leilani Blvd. to kaimu A A A A A B KaMILI to end of road A A A A A A 11-12 Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report 11.3. Implementing Village Centers The Puna Regional Circulation Plan incorporates a "village land use" scenario. Developing "village centers" is key to the success of the plan because other land use patterns have higher transportation demands compared to village land use. The PRCP improvement projects specifically address the lower trip demands of village land use. The Puna community cannot depend on the County to implement this change. The County is responsible for zoning and planning but cannot be expected to play the role of "developer". In order to create real village centers, community organizations, government and business should collaborate through a community entity such as a Community Development Corporation (CDC). It is unlikely that village centers will be built if lands are simply rezoned. Private sector investment in village center commercial buildings and related facilities requires existing concentrations of people and dollars. Puna is still a relatively low density district, and cannot yet naturally support significant private business investment. A CDC comprised of private landowners, residents, and government, could help "incubate" new businesses and facilitate growth. For example, a CDC could purchase land, finance infrastructure, construct the first buildings in a village center, and lease space to businesses at below market rents. A CDC type of organization would be eligible for grants that government would not qualify for. Alternatively, tax credits could be granted to land owners in Puna who develop small businesses furthering the village center concept. Further research of the feasibility of using Federal Highway funds to subsidize village centers, as opposed to roadway improvements, should also occur. Ultimately, efforts to allow mixed land uses, develop commercial and village centers, and create more jobs through out Puna will require strong organization and mobilization. 11.4. Calculating Traffic Demands A system of bikeways, multi-purpose paths, and bus service will provide choices for travel. Such a system has the potential to promote use of alternative modes within and outside of Puna. These alternative modes can also help in meeting peak period travel demands, thereby minimizing the need to construct additional roadway facilities. The improvements to multi -modal facilities would be supplemented by roadway improvements to improve connectivity, redundan(y, emergency access, and traffic congestion. Roadway improvements could also support alternative modes; e.g., bus -only or high occupancy vehicle MOV) lanes, bike lanes, and sidewalks. Analyses were conducted to identify needed improvements. The analyses assumed congestion on existing and new roadways (peak hour volumes at capacities) and maximum use of alternative travel modes. =_1 P MM - a621 11-13 County of Hawai'i Planning Depart inert 11.4.1. Travel Demand Analyses Travel demand projections were made for year 2030 using population and land use estimates that were developed as part of growth projections and land use planning. Population data for the years 1990 and 2000 were used to develop a spreadsheet model that estimated traffic volumes on various segments of the major highways in Puna. Several factors in the model were calibrated to replicate the estimates of actual traffic on these roadway segments. The model was applied to population and employment forecasts for year 2030 and projected future travel demands on major corridors. Peak hour travel demands were estimated assuming that the time -of -day patterns in 1990 continue in the future. While the model was calibrated for traffic volumes, forecasts for future travel demand were made for person -trips, using an estimated occupancy of 1.15 persons per vehicle in 2000. Tables 11.5 and 11.6 compare the 1990 and 2000 traffic volumes and model estimates, and show forecasts for two future land use scenarios. One projection assumes that past land use trends will continue, while the other assumes a village land use scenario. Village land use shifts some travel destined to and from Hilo, to local trips within Puna. The demand calculations listed in Table 11.6 are based on several assumptions and variables. Travel demand is expressed in terms of person -trips in the peak direction during the peak hour. The "trips" represent actual person trips as opposed to vehicle trips. Calculations used existing vehicle trip data from State DOT because it is the only source available. This information was used as a basis to help project the total person trips. Trips in the "2000 Land Use" column were computed from 2002 average daily traffic (ADT) and "K" speak hour volume/daily volume) and "D" (directional) factors from State Highway Planning Section's Traffic Summary — Island of Hawai'i report. The highest peak hour volumes were used as the target capacities for the major roadways. There may be poor conditions during other hours if assumptions used for peak hours are not applicable (e.g., Saturday mid-morning when transit would not be expected to be the mode choice for very many travelers). Local circulation will be adequately served by the minimum local street system. The maximum demand served at capacity and various levels of service were developed using existing volumes, heavy vehicle percentages, and an estimated existing occupancy of 1.15 persons per vehicle. The estimated capacity per lane for undivided highways was estimated to be 90 percent of the per -lane capacity on a divided highway; Level of Service E range is 90 percent -100 percent of capacity for divided highways, 70 percent -100 percent of capacity for undivided highways. Figures 11.7 -11.11 illustrate traffic demands with line thickness and color. 11-14 Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report TABLE 11.5: COMPARISON OF PEAK HOUR DIRECTION TRIPS TABLE 11.6: TRANSPORTATION MODEL FORECASTS Road Corridor 1990 VPD ADT* modeled PEAK HOUR PERSON TRIPS PER HOUR (PTPH) CORRIDOR STREET SEGMENTS 2000* LAND USE EXISTING 2030 LAND USE PAST TRENDS CONTINUED 2030 LAND USE VILLAGE CONCEPT Route 11 Route 11 23,898 23,412 31,019 75,100 5,510 60,100 4,410 Hilo-to-Kea'au Kea'au-to-Kurtistown Hilo-to-Kea'au Hilo to Kea'au Bypass 2,530 5,510 4,410 Kea'au-to-Kurtistown Kea'au Bypass to Huina St. 860 1,880 1,730 Kurtistown to Mt. View Huina St. to S. Pszyk Rd. 600 1,230 1,330 Mt. View to Volcano S. Pszyk Rd, to Wright Rd. 260 490 520 Route 130 5,456 10,200 490 10,800 Around Kea'au Kea'au Bypass 1,350 3,980 3,200 S. of Kea'au to Ainaloa S. of Kea'au to Ainaloa Blvd. _ 1,170 3,290 2,700 Ainaloa to North of Pahoa Ainaloa Blvd. to Pahoa 630 1,340 1,510 Around Pahoa Pahoa Bypass _ 410 900 1,000 Pahoa to Leilani Blvd. Pahoa to Leilani Blvd. 160 450 570 Leilani Blvd. To Kaimu Leilani Blvd. to Kaimu _ 80 320 530 0 4 Keanu to end of road 70 170 290 Reference Figure: _ Fi pure 11.1 Figure 11.2 Figure 11.3 TABLE 11.6: TRANSPORTATION MODEL FORECASTS Road Corridor 1990 VPD ADT* modeled 2000 VPD 2030 Forecast VPD Past trends Village Land Use ADT* modeled PTPD PTPH I PTPD I PTPH Route 11 23,898 23,412 31,019 75,100 5,510 60,100 4,410 Hilo-to-Kea'au Kea'au-to-Kurtistown 9,248 9,557 -657 14,154 13,835 31,200 1,880 28,700 1,730 Kurtistown to ML View 7,268 7,463 -32--, 10,591 9,951 22,000 1,230 23,700 1,3311 MLVlewtoVol(ano 4,539 4,771 5,074 5,456 10,200 490 10,800 520 Route 130 Around Kca'au 3,200 8 14,460 17,'+55 47,900 3,980 38,500 S. of Kea'au to Ainafoa 0 16,1339 19, i44 50,900 3,290 41,800 2,700 Ainalo� a to North of Pahoa 3 T7,9888,230 10,545 11,'iO4 25,900 1,340 29,100 1,510 Around Pahoa f hoa to Leilani Blvd. LeilaniBlvdTo Kaimu ,,2 0 4 6,017 5,,,-52 3,443 2, 186 13,000 900 14,500 1,00(' 2,759 1,377 6,700 5,700 450 320 8,400 9,500 570 530 VPD = vehic les per day PTPD- person -!rips per day !'TPN = prak hour person -taps pehrnu, peak direction ' Sous e: Sla r or Hewai'I Depmtmenl of lranspunalion Highway Planning Branc h, DaKic Summary- Island of Hawaii. 11-15 County of Hawai'i Planning Department 11.4.2. Local Circulation and Street System Two-way traffic on local roads would be adequate, as most are within the following criteria. Each two-lane roadway (one lane in each direction) in a grid system can typically serve up to 500 occupied dwellings; however, if the roadway is the only one serving a number of lots, it should provide access to no more than 100 lots. A wider street (minor collector with one lane and shoulder in each direction and the ability to have two lane approaches at intersections) would be adequate for up to 1,000 occupied dwellings. Adequacy of local streets does not seem to be a concern for the low-density Puna area. If necessary, some of the existing local streets could be upgraded to collectors by increasing the right-of-way by 20 feet (10 feet each side). Road widening setbacks could be imposed to provide for this future widening. The selection of these streets should be such that a desirable roadway network e.g., collectors every mile, will be created. Local street intersections with the highway should be eliminated. Colleuor street intersections with the arterial streets (highway) should be considered for traffic signals when warranted. FIGURE 11.7: 2000 TRAFFIC DEMANDS — --- - R _ Legend ... X190 TRIPS _: _.: ..'.w. WD TRIPS M -AGO TRIPS 1390-900TRIPE - IWO- WO TRIP' 3190-2000TRIPS JSH- 9500 TRIPE 6000 TRIPS OTHER STREETS .A 1 :Ia 9 I ri I ..yy - 4 '1 it 1I Iii L 2000 TRAFFIC- EXISTING LAND USE - tSw PUNA REGIONAL CIRCULATION PLAN - Fur CcuMy of Hawall - By Townscape. Inc. ^ Janumry MOO ry Offla"arr- 1z MR., Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report FFIC pRO)ECTIONS—VILLAC.E LANZ) USE FIGURE 11-8: 2030 TRA Legend r069TRIPS OW TRIPS J999.14WIRIPS 3499- 2990 TRIPS e. 4999 - 3500 TRIPS SOWTRIPS OTHER STREETS % \w Y N 41, 2930 TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS' 41 LAND USE = VILLAGE CONCEPT PUNA REGIONAL CIRCULATION PLAN{� For CWMY Of H"81' January 2005 Legend ___ '8991RIPS W,2MOTRIPC z ?, i. 4999. 3909 TRIPS IM TRIPS OTHER STREETS S_ TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS' PUNA REGIONAL CIRCULATION PLAN For CouMY of Hawaii By TaWIIWC Inc 2005 e. MW 11-17 CL ti c v c CL V J y ZO 0 � W y ZW =5 w w a w w m U m Q¢ = m W O W m U U m U m Q Q 3 x jF O O y O uwi LL, 0: m �N o 00000 :500 — m = < N O aa 0 0 0 0 0 w Z r Of r J N 0 aae �0 Vim° ae aE o `*0000 ae 0 00 r r LL) O n o 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 LU O LU KO Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 J r o!S y F N r 0 0 0 0- .0. Z J Z a �?$$�a aeo 0 0 0 o a� 0 J O O O y N 0 0 0 0 QO O r as O o 0 0 oQ WO N O O O N M 0 0 0 0 w& J y Q o rc O O O O O V w 0 0 0 0 0 u r o�0 000 J oa o ae a a4 o oe eo aY Qa° 2 r a:0 .-io0o m�omrn M mmarnmmm v n orn o W ¢ Q = O Q W (7 y3 am a �r �o o��w F °o aEa4 H� ri N o o N O o 0 0 0 Q z O Z r a X w w u o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m F- r U Z J o o Q' F N M4 w a .R a Ro_o o ,�R M Jw 0 w e Y m a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y r O Y 2 1F g EE K M N O V M m M N w w 2 W M O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V% Q= O aeo aeo O 0 oea°aaeaeae i(l N C V l0 Ol Ot M fV LLJ rnrn 01 Ol mrn m M J o� 8z 5 x y C > p 0 c OE 2 E B Z rc 'm° M c > `�Qa N �m yS o O v -P = g w r YY'LN m�Zm JAN 5 Y F N Gz O U �_ S J C C d Y s M N A 'C O m E7 Y .- w o o A E 70 r O 0 YC o uj Q �Y d Y � yX_ w U OJ E r W Za W O W m U U m U m Q Q x jF m O O Ir M < N O aa 0 0 0 0 0 W Of r J N 0 aae ae aE ae ae ae 0 aeo Ir LL) O n o 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 O Q a o!S y N r 0 0 0 0- .0. Z Z LU 0 J r O o 0 0 oQ WO N O O O N M 0 0 0 0 J N o�0 000 CL r 2 W LU J a F °o aEa4 WUZ Z N o o N O o 0 0 0 W O a ca > y K m o o o o 0 0 0 0 m F- r Z ¢ Q' r w a .R a Ro_o o ,�R Jw 0 Q a e ro w Y f0 y EE K M N O V M m M N r 3 J of aeo aeo 0 oea°aaeaeae e O rnoNrn O l0 Ol Ot � i[l eo M LLJ rnrn 01 Ol mrn m M = x y Z y M M O N w r 5 Y F N Gz OU O 0(DC�C O pOj O O O O O w o O M r O 0 d N O .LD �o A L c2 UU11 0 J 0N Q O K Y Y d m Z m J 9 v C 3 0 0> m m$ 0 E 2 m R O U O S 7 0 C C N Y Y W m L 0 A E Y 0 Q d Y N Y In O , =g uuoa o0woaaa� O = u u C « a ' ee 3 C 1 1 O i O I 1 Ix K r< O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 f. I J c41, l J f �Q 000 O N000ZJO 4 Q.• e C C W a J ° _ � `T000 �m0000o � W > J 1 1 J 0 ;3 W U 3 4Z J L O m K j O n O N Q r M N N l co W W ~ J z f Z o 3 e � o-- - - - —— — w F- _R J Q N 1 _ Q OJ CO CO QN t0 C. c0N'-t• � Q N H J H R de 3e de 3e de 3e ee ae deo W N N N N N N N N N N N w p CL aE al W Y 10 a omino olonm H Q O e e e T T O` e s e =e O M M Qio ao eo m uwim mmm 0 x 0 2 ~ a N O N r i(l M �2 r Q Q- 0 0 N W r M CJ X W ~ N Q = J WYW 6 F N W DU Z 0 0 0 O O O Cp M O �p pl Q 0 0 0 0 F O 0 6 � S 6 n N C NN i4 �c2 E m q; �c_q m.TnE> �+Q Off. Amy o O N r 0 a O =° o 9m2 O U Q� C C @ Y N L � Y a N � E yp O p0 Y PL o A Y C O Q Y � .11 Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report 1 2. F U N D ING Implementation of the Puna Regional Circulation Plan will require significant funding. The cost for these services should provide an overall economic and social benefit to the community. The cost of improvements is particularly controversial in lava hazard zones where volcanic destruction is a significant threat. Federal programs are critical in supporting and funding highways and public transportation projects. Federal -aid Highway programs are administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) as grant-in-aid programs. Programs distribute funds to states based on formulas that take into account factors such as pollution, mileage, costs, needs, and the State's contribution to the Highway Trust Fund. States and Counties generally must provide 20 percent match to receive funds from FHWA programs. Other major sources of surface transportation funds are the programs administered by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). these funds come from the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund. The state distributes federal funds to eligible small urban, rural, and disabled and elderly programs based on formula. Transportation funding allocation is generally: FHWA 80 percent (through method of reimbursement) Local (County/State) 20 percent (Fair market value of donated labor, land, materials, and non-FHWA funds) The FHWA will not "reimburse" State and/or County unless the project is on the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Hawai'i Dept. of Transportation (DOT) Director decides which projects are on the STIP. Transportation improvement projects can only use State funds with legislature appropriation and Governor allotment. Similarly, using County funds requires County Council appropriation and Mayoral allotment. Federally funded transportation Programs and revenue sources .ire listed in Table 12.1. R 12-1 County of Hawaii Planning Department TART F 19 1 FFnFRAI. TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS AND REVENUE SOURCES Mode ` Major Federal Programs Federal Revenue Sources Highways Interstate Maintenance Highway Trust Fund with funds from the federal: National Highway System Motor fuel tax (15.44 cents/gallon of gasoline, varies for other fuel types) B�acement and Rehabilitation Truck and trailer tax Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Tire tax Surface Transportation Heavy vehicle use tax National Corridor Planning and Development and Coordinated Border Infrastructure High Priority (Demonstration) Projects Intelligent T ra ortation Systems Minimum Guarantee Public Transportation Ca ital (Se< tion 3009) p Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund: Urbanized Area Formula 9Section 3007) Motor fuel tax (Z cents/gallon) Other urbanized Area Formula (Section General Fund 3014) Surface Transportation Pro ram ( ortionl Interest Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) (in air quality non - _ attainment and maintenance areas) Formula Gr,mts for Special Needs of Elderly Individuals and Persons with Disabilities (Section 30 37) Clean Fuels Formula Grants (Section 3008) Bicycle Transportation Surface Transportation, including enhancements Highway Trust Fund National Highway System and Pedestrian Walkways Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Federal Lands _ Scenic Byways Recreational Trails Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report 12.1. Surface Transportation Construction Programs There are several different types of surface transportation construction programs. Each program has different requirements, funding levels, and flexibility. Program details are listed in Table 12.2. Hawai'i County is potentially eligible for programs marked with and asterisk *. • Interstate Maintenance (IM) • Surface Transportation Program (STP)* c Transportation Enhancement o Safety • National Highway System (NHS) • Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation* • Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ)* • Minimum Guarantee* There are 12 types of improvements that qualify as Transportation Enhancement (TE) projects: Provision of facilities for pedestrians and bicycles. • Provision of safety and educational activities for pedestrians and bicyclists. Acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or historic sites. • Scenic or historic highway programs Landscaping and other scenic beautification. • Historic preservation. • Rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation buildings. • Preservation of abandoned railway corridors (including conversion for bicycle and pedestrian trails). • Control and removal of outdoor advertising. • Archaeological planning and research. • Environmental mitigation to address water pollution due to highway runoff. • Establishment of transportation museurns. 12-3 Puna RePional Circulation Plan Final Report TABLE 12.3: PRINCIPAL FTA PROGRAMS Program Eligible Uses Distribution Mechanism Federal Share of Funded Projects Urbanized Areas Capital and operating Population and population 80%, 90% for (91.21%) expenditures density incremental costs of (Section 3007) vehicle -related equipment to comply with CAAA and ADA Other than Capital and operating Formula based on rural 80%, 900% for Urbanized Areas expenditure, in non -urbanized populations iri all stales incremental costs of (0.37`/„): areas (under 50,000) vehicle -related (Se(tion 3014) equipment to comply with CAAA and ADA Special Needs of Capital assistance to Fixed minimum for each 80%, 90% for the Elderly and organizations providing state and formula based on incremental costs of Inidivduals with specialized services for the population of elderly and vehicle -related Disabilities (2.4%): elderly and disabled disabled individuals equipment to comply (Section 3013) with CAAA and ADA Clean Fuels (set- Purchase, lease of clean fuel Nationwide among eligible 80% aside before buses and facilities; applications based on non- allo(ation to areas) improvements to existing attainment raring, number (Section 3008) facilities to accommodate of buses, and bus clean fuel vehicles passenger miles Rural Transportation Incremental capital and Nationwide among eligible 50% of costs related to Accessibility (set- training costs related to ADA applications based on ADA compliance aside before compliance for over the road identified need for service, allocation to areas bus service. Applies to local early acquisition of (Section 30 u3) fixed route, commuter, charter, equipment, financial tour service capacity, service impacts Capital investment New starts ur extensions to Discretionary 80%, 90% for Grants and Loans existing fixed guide way incremental costs of (Section 3009) systems (40'%,) vehicle -related equipment to comply Fixed guide way Formula distribution to modernization (40`90) urbanized areas in 7 tiers with CAAA and ADA Bus and related facilities (20%) Discretionary Job Access and Capital and operating costs of Discretionary based on: % 50 Reverse Commute job access transportation of population on welfare, Grants (Section services need for additional 3037) services, coordination with Promotion of special services and prograi is existing providers and welfare agent ies, use of innovative approaches, existence of regional plan and long-temi funding strategies County of Hawai'i Planning Department 12.2. Other Funding Opportunities The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) also funds mass transportation systems. Hawai'i County, Mass Transit Agency currently receive funds from FTA. Table 12.3 lists programs and eligible uses. There is an increasing need to seek funds from non-traditional sources. FHWA and FTA have funding mechanisms for innovative financing including "flexible match", credit assistance, and revolving funds. These tools can help states and local agencies ability to solicit funds for transportation projects. They are intended to accelerate schedules and attract private capital. 12.3. Estimating Future Transportation Funds The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA- LU) was enacted August 10, 2005, as Public Law 109-59. TEA -21 authorizes the Federal surface transportation program,, for highways, highway safety, and transit for the 5 -year period 2005-2009. Although SAFETEA-LU has been passed and a certain amount of funds have been identified for the State of Hawai'i it is still uncertain as to the nature of the funds and how they can be appropriated. The estimates provided here .ire based the assumption that funding of the State of Hawai'i will continue without major change. This summary is an only an estimate of future transportation funds. Based on historical funding the State of Hawai'i receives approximately $150 million per year. The County of Hawai'i generally receives $24 million of State funds. Of these funds, at least 20%, or 4.8 million/year is spent on bridge maintenance. Estimating that another 30%, $7.2 million, is spent on safety and maintenance, approximately $12 million a year remains for capacity improvements. If more is spent on maintaining existing infrastructure, less in available for new projects. Table 12.4 estimates possible funding for the Puna District. Transportation funding is actually allocated on a project by project basis. However the estimate assumes, that overall, Puna receives project funding close to its share of projected Hawai'i Island population growth (20-40 percent). Federal funding usually requires a local match of 20 percent from State and/or County agencies, Over the 25 year planning horizon approximately $75 — $150 million may be available for various multi -modal capacity impro%ements. Furthermore, there is also a recent trend towards direct Congressional involvement in funding of projects. These congressional "earmarks" are separate from the Federal Highway Administration budget. 12-6 Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report TABLE 12.4: ESTIMATED PUNA TRANSPORTATION FUNDING Based on Historical Funding: % Amount Entire State of Hawai'i: County of Hawai'i receives: $150 mil/ year $24 mil/year (More than population share.) Estimated Allotment of Funds , Total Funds/Year: Bridges (required)/Year: Maintenance &Safety/Year: 1001% 200% 300%17_2n) $24 mil/year $4.8 mil/year al/year $12 mil/year What is left for cawit ? Capacity Improvements/Year: 2005-2030 funds (25 yrs.): 50% 25 yrs $12 mil/year $300 mil Districts Com ete for Funding Each district must coin gete for furr!ImS on aproject-b - ro'ect basis. Estimate Puna District receives: 2005-2030 funds (25 yrs.): 20-400/c, * 25 yrs $2.4-$4.8 mil (haled on est. poponalion growth.) $60-120 mil Local Matching. Funds -- Local government (State/County) match funding 80/20 2005-2030 funds (25 yrs.): 200% * 25 yrs $0.6-1.2 mil $15-30 mil Total Puna Funding Estimate Federal + Local 2005-2030 funds: I $75-150 mil 1759 12-7 Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report 1 3. ACTION PLAN This section is a quick reference guide to projects and required actions of the Puna Regional Circulation Plan. This section offers steps towards plan implementation. For each project the following information is listed: • Objective • Project name • Project description Lead responsible Funding: (Planning, Design, Right-of-way Acquisition, Construction) • Estimated Year 13.1. "Easy Wins"- Short Term Projects Community participants consistently asked for "easy -wins" or other short-term projects that would improve transportation conditions now! A number of steps have to occur before major public infrastructure is built. After the need is identified, preliminary studies including archaeology, preliminary engineering, an environmental assessment/impact statement, and land use approvals are required. Thereafter, construction funds must also be sought. The entire process for new infrastructure can take as Ion') as 10 to 20 years. In the meantime there are "easy -win" projects that the State, County, and even community can help to implement including: Intersection Improvements Study Railroad Emergency Bypass and Multi -Purpose Pathway Puna Emergency Access Route N. Peck/Kulani/Stainback Emergency Access Route Rural Para -transit Hele-On Expansion - Increased bus frequency and routes Park and Ride Lots • Puna CDP —CAG Involvement 13-1 County of Hawai'i Planning Department 13.2. Transit The Puna Regional Circulation Plan proposes implementation of the Rural Para -transit System. The outcome of the ongoing study will lend more information about specific costs and actions required of a RPT system. The pilot project will help identify funding needs for capital equipment, operations, and staff training. The PRCP also recommends that the MTA develop a Transit Master Plan. This document will plan mass transportation improvements for a 20 -year planning horizon. The plan will identify needs for improved or new schedules, capital costs for buses or passenger infrastructure, and transportation demand management programs. The plan should also address transportation demand management programs such as rideshare, employee incentive, and marketing, The plan also outlines specific transit improvements such as increased bus headways and development of a bus - only lane. This lane will speed travel for bus riders and increase transit desirability. Park and Ride facilities are another TDM tool that the PROP proposes. Limited funding is already available for a Feasibility Study and Site Selection Plan for the first four lots. An Environmental Assessment (EA) would also be conducted as a part of this process. As funding becomes available a complete integrated "network" of park and ride lots should be implemented. 13.3. Connectivity Connectivity Projects interconnect subdivisions and create emergency access connections. Meetings and coordination with area landowners, community associations, and road maintenance corporations will be needed to develop connectivity where it is appropriate. More importantly, does the immediate community (neighboring subdivisions) want or need the convenience or safety of a connection? The PRCP identifies possible connections for vehicular, bicycle, transit, and/or pedestrian access within a one -mile grid. Of these alternatives, several were identified for implementation of emergency access routes. Proposed emergency access routes for upper Puna and Puna makai include: 1. PEAR 2. PEAR II 3. Railroad ROW Access 4. Kehau to Punawai 5. N. Peck Rd. to Ihope Rd. 6. N. Kulani Rd. to Stainback Hwy. The emergency access routes identified in Section County staff assignment to track coordination and associations and road maintenance corporations. 13-2 10 should be prioritized. Actions call for a negotiations with landowners, subdivision Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report 13.4. Bikeways and Multi -Purpose Paths The action plan calls for implementation of the Railroad bike/multipurpose pathway. The pathway is also considered a connectivity project because it will provide emergency access. To restart the implementation of the pathway the County should restate its commitment to the project (Resolution). Thereafter, continued coordination and facilitation with landowners such as W.H. Shipman Estate, will be required. The neighboring subdivision associations, community, and the Bike Advisory Committee should be involved throughout the process. As the project moves to garner funds it will be important to have interagency coordination and define roles and responsibilities for the pathways. This process should identify who builds or improves the path, who maintains it and who regulates it. A Memorandum of agreement (MOA) or Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) may be helpful in this process. Similarly, the Kea'au Planning Group (KPG) should continue to coordinate with the County of Hawai'i, State DLNR, and National Park Service (NPS) to resolve maintenance responsibilities for the Old Volcano Trail. Once .in agreement is reached survey work can continue. Funding and implementation follow. Following implementation of these pathway projects the State of Hawai'i and County should move forward with bike improvements phases 1 and 2 according to Bike Plan Hawai'i (2003). The plan outlines projects throughout the district to create a network of bikeways. The County's Bike Advisory Committee will need to advocate for bike projects and participate more intensely in the implementation of projects. 13.5. PMAR The action plan also outlines next steps for an Alignment Alternative Study to analyze the alternatives and recommend a definitive alignment. The County received $188,084 in Federal funding for further investigation, community consultation, and study of a PMAR. There is also the possihility of additional funds through other federal programs. This plan proposes that an alternate route from Hilo to Shower Drive should be pursued as soon as possible. Other unresolved issues at this time include whether this road should be improved through HPP, and if so, the appropriate alignment and design standards. The scope of this study should include: 1) whether to connect to Railroad Avenue or to create a new corridor connecting to the Airport and Hilo Harbor; 2) whether and how to traverse HPP; 3) major network connections such as the improvement of 40'x' Avenue and Pohaku Drive; and 4) feasibility of the interim use of the Railroad ROW as an emergency bypass and bus -only route from Railroad Avenue to Shower Drive. 13-3 County of Hawaii Planning Department 13.6. Widening The PRCP does find that some widening of highways is needed. According to transportation projections outlined in Section 7.0, widening of Highway 11 to Huina Road will be necessary. Moreover, widening of Kea'au-Pahoa Hwy. (130) will be required to accommodate vehicle travel. Actions for widening projects involve coordination with State DOT to ensure that projects are placed on future State Transportation Improvement Programs (STIP). Continued coordination with community will also be required. Once funding is secured planning, design, and right-of-way acquisition will commence. 13.7. Administration Organization, administration, and staffing of projects will have an impact on the implementation of the PRCP. The PRCP includes many projects that require follow-up, fieldwork, and continued consultation with agencies, landowners, and residents. This plan proposes that consolidation of the County's transportation functions may be more efficient under one department of division. This would consolidate the transportation functions of planning, engineering, construction, transit, traffic, and perhaps even highway maintenance. Such reorganization may provide the oversight, staffing, and commitment to transportation projects on the Hawai'i Island. Actions should also occur to update the County General Plan and Hawai'i Long Range Transportation Plan with PRCP projects. Briefings and meetings with key decision makers is also important to continued progress toward implementation of the plan. The PRCP focus on providing mode choice will likely require that flexible funding is used for implementation of multi-moda: projects (transit/bike/ped). Continued coordination with State DOT, FHWA and FTA will be required to oversee this change. Finally, to address the major funding needs, the County agencies should work with State DOT to apply for the discretionary funds that are available on a project by project basis. The State is potentially eligible for many of these programs should the right project be introduced. 13.8. Continued Community Participation The County of Hawai'i is expected to begin a new Puna Community Development Plan process in early 2006. PRCP participants, CAG members, and other stakeholders are encouraged to participate in this planning process. The Puna CDP will be able to address many issues that were limited in this Plan such as land use, public services and facilities, and other infrastructure needs. Planning processes should continue to inform community on how projects are funded and implemented. This will help community to better understand how and why major transportation projects take decades io implement and how sound planning can provide a foundation and evolve as things change. LEVI ti'r'e €� °°'1 13-4 Puna Regional Circulation Plan final Report 13.9. Projects by Objective LEGEND A. ' -jf Widen Hwy. 130 1. N- Old Volcano Trail B. ,t*W,! r Widen Hwy. 11 J. N- Railroad Multi -Path C. MakatAlternate Route K. iD> 0€' Beach Rd. Improvements D. Rideshare/ L. }> #130 Intersection Improvements Accident Removal` M. }� #11 Intersection Improvement E. ® Bus Improvements* N. Connectivity F. Park &Ride* ( Emergency Access Routes G. ...,.. � Paratransit System* Future Corridor. � Alignment Alts. Study H. Safe Routes To School (SR2S) Other Streets ( 0.00 - 0.25 mi. Major Streets 0.25 - 0.50 mi. 0.50 - 0.75 mi. *Note: Not all projects have a map location. A. Widen Highway 130 in affordable increments: i, Permanently convert the shoulder lane from Shower to a travel lane. This additional lane would provide 2 lanes in the Hilo direction from Shower Drive all the way to Hilo. To offset the negative impact on bicycle use by removing the shoulder, the improvement of Railroad right-of-way as a hicycle path needs to be timed in conjunction with this project. 1. Lead responsible: DOT 2. Funding: a. Design completed b. ROW: STIP 04-06, HS -12, $0.3M c. Constriction: STIP 04-06, HS -12, $6.OM iii. Widen to 4 -lanes from Keaau to Pahoa. Planning and design will be for the full stretch. Planning should include analysis of dedicated bus lane alternatives. Construction will be in increments. 1 . I cad responsible: D6f 2. Funding: a. Planning: STIP 02-04, $1.5M b. Design: Proposed STIP 06-08, $3.OM k . Construction: not programrned, earliest likely start 2009 B. Widen Highway 11 to 4 lanes in affordable increments: i. Keaau to Paahana Lead resp(msiblc DOT ?. Funding: ��ff 13-5 C o u n t y o f H a N d I' I Planning Department a. Planning/Design: completed b. ( OIIS ruction: STIP 04-00, $1.75M ii. Paahana to 1luina 1. Lead responsible: DOT 2. Funding: rl. Plannin);: not programmed c. Dosign: not programmed f. Conslrur tion: not programmed C. Construct new makai alternate route: Besides providing needed ( ipac ity, this alternate route would provide redundancy to Highway 130 in the event of highway closure. Unresolved issues at this time include whether this road should be improved through HPP, and if so the appropriate alignment and design standards. Because of the extent of the unresolved isues, an alignment alternatives study should be done to analyze the alternatives and rcc onvncnd a definitive alignment. The scope of this study should include: ) whether to connect to Railroad Avenue or to create a new corridor connecting to the Airport and Hilo Harbor; 2) whether and how to Ira%ui,e HPP; 0 major network tonne( tions such as the improvement of 40" Avenue incl Pohaku Drive .nnd 4) feasibility of the interim usl� of the Railroad ROW as an emergency bypass and bus -only route n -)m Railroad Avenue to Shower Drive. i. Alignment Altemativ('s Study 1 . I ead respou,ible: County Planning Dept 2. Funding: P,posed STIP 04-00 Amendment, $0.2M ii. Planning (EIS) 1. toad respon,iblc: County DPW 2. Funding: Pnhposed federal funds, $0.2M iii. Design: not programmed iv. Construction: not progrunmed D. Transportation Demand/System Management: Transportation Demand Management techniques strive to reduc e the number of automobiles during peak periods (e.g., imposing lolls during peak periods, flexing work times, ride -sharing programs). Transportation System Management techniques strive to make more efficient use of existing highway facilities (e.g., zipper lanes, HOV lanes, coordinated traffic signals, rapid accident removal). The strategy for [his Plan is to initiate programs that exist elsewhere, that are not costly, and are relatively effective. For these reasons, the Plan focuses on two techniques: a ride -sharing program that the State already has in plat e, and which the County Mass Transit Agemy is willing to coordinate and expand to this County; and a rapid ace dent removal program that may require improved coordination of existing resources and hopefully negtigihle additional expenses. i. Ride -sharing Program 1 . Lead respon,ible: County Mass Transit Agent N 2. Funding: Fxi,ting State DOT Program Fund? ii. Rapid Accident Remmal Pogram I. 1 ead respon,iblc County Police Department 2. Funding: to be determined 13-6 Puna Regional Circulation Plan Final Report Q. ", ._...n., ... E. Increase bus frequency and routes. i. Initiate a circuit routing system. This system has three circuit routes that intersect at Keaau: Volcano/Keaau, Pahoa/Keaau, Hilo/Keaau. The shopping center or community center in Keaau would serve as the huh. The initial roll-out of this system will provide bus service at 1 -hour intervals throughout the day. Commuter express service from Pahoa and possibly Volcano would supplement the regular service during peak commuting hours. 1. Lead responsible: County Mass Transit Agency 2. Funding: i. Bus acquisition: Approximately $500,000/bus ii. Initiate fixed scheduled feeder routes in the more built -out subdivisions. These feeder routes would enable residents in the interior of the subdivisions to get to the circuit routes along the main highways. The feeder route system will be part of the paratransit system. 1. Lead responsible: County Mass Transit Agency 2. Funding: Undetermined (MTA) F. Construct nark/ride facilities. To expedite, the preference is to use existing facilities (e.g., church, shopping center). Consultant hired to identify most strategic locations, site requirements, and estimated cost. i. Lead responsible: County Mass Transit Agency ii. Funding: Undetermined (MTA) G. Supplement bus transit with paratransit. The paratransit system would coordinate underutilized resources (e.g., school buses, social services vans, taxis) to service the feeder routes and to also provide on -demand, door-to-door service coordinated through the Internet and GPS. i. Lead responsible: County Mass Transit Agency ii. Funding: To be determined by Paia-Iransit Study H. Ensure safe routes to schools to encouraee walkine and biking by school children. The nonprofit group called PATH has planned and implemented such programs at Kealakehe and other schools. They have access to DOH and other funding sources to leverage County funding. i. Lead responsible: County Planning Department i. Funding: Undetermined Improve the Old Volcano Road Trail. Besides its recreational function, this trail could serve as an off-highway pedestrian route to Mountain View Elementary S(hool. I. Lead responsible:Kea'au Planning Group, NPS, Na Ala Hele (DLNR), County of Hawaii DER? I. Funding: Undetermined J. Acquire and improve Railroad ROW. Although this ROW will be a pedestrian and bike path, the driving justifications to proceed immediately with this project is to provide an alternate pedestrian/bike route when the shoulder lane is converted and its interim value as an emergency bypass to Highway 130. i. Lead responsible: Planning Department ii. Funding: Undetermined ® ® L 13-7 County of Hawai'i Planning Department K. InvestigateBeach Road Improvements. At this point, the value of improving the Beach Road is to provide a recreational pedestrian/bicycle link to Kapoho. Since there are no multi-purpose reasons, and the regional transportation value is low, and it is located in the tsunami inundation and high lava hazard zones, the priority to allocate funds is low. i. Lead responsible: Undetermined ii. Funding: Undetermined ....9 M111. L. Drove intersections along Highway 130. DOT has committed to do an in-house study to determine whether improvements are warranted at the intersections along Highway 130. This Plan recommends that DOT do this study before installing the traffic signal at Shower; the funds for that traffic signal may be better used at another intersection. (E.G.: Kaloh Drive, Paradise Drive, Orchidland Drive, Maku'u Drive) i. Lead responsible: DOT ii. Funding: 1. Planning: in-house 2, Design: not programmed 3. Construction: not programmed M. Improve intersections way 11. The intersection improvement at Huina has been completed. Construction funds have been committed to improve the Kulani intersection. i. Lead responsible: Df )T li. Funding: STIP 04-06, HS20, R/W ($500,000); Proposed STIP 06-08, CON ($2.8M) N. Emergency Bypass/Connectivity Projects Ideally, roads interconnecting subdivisions or providi , alternative access from the highways to the subdivisions should occur every 500'. However, many of the roads within the subdivisions are private. The focus for this plan are those interconnections that have regional benefit in terms of providing alternate roads to rnxor destinations, or providing emergency bypass or faster response times. Where necessary, the Countt may condemn private roads and assume control/liability to relieve owners of the private roads of the maintenance/liability responsibilities. for those roads that will serve as emergency bypass, improvemen6 such as bridge reinforcements may be necessary to accommodate truck or bus traffic. (EG. Shower 4 Pohaku -) 40r" Ave. 4 Hwy. 11). i. Lead responsible County DPW ii. Funding: Under( rmined p> t 13-8 'o ,r z mm CA m z 0 / � va4's: � N 0 „ 3 y m a cu e ' T 3: CD 0 0 0 o �r C7 t 0 o N o n;�yw z Z 4� g 6 en m @ n Paha-1■ um x x z N Ruw44AA Z S 0 3 F 7c �- m M1 # + 0 <YIwA �'C a g • AWV A MMayfi 03 m to m 3 n Da 44 a m z r a ✓i w R z mm CA m z 0 / � va4's: > i r S r�.vn p� rx r°rr uia-eS N r ry �ary m a^wJ � �� - � �n✓'H � 1 .� y v+nom t a�wa'j ',.'Lym I e 3 �% r w m " m r S - E Z O <k - A4 e +� m Y `• x 0 „ m v p m a m y m a •Ix e ' T 3: m m z 0 0 0 o �r C7 v 0 o N o a z Z m L g ui �• en m @ n '� 3KY x x z N Z S 0 3 F 7c �- m # + 0 03 m to m 3 n Da 44 a m z w a R g 3 a A W a tW E� �ni•yrn > i r S r�.vn p� rx r°rr uia-eS N r ry �ary m a^wJ � �� - � �n✓'H � 1 .� y v+nom t a�wa'j ',.'Lym I e 3 �% r w m " m r S - E Z O <k - A4 e +� m Y `• z or It m� CO) m z 0 { g� Iq N I m z 0 m= 0C = Zj v o0 N y m CO TO CD 5> Z z T 3: z or It m� CO) m z 0 { g� Iq N I m z 0 z or m A N m z 0 W 0 C n T IN o �c;oz 3^" C a V/ TO CD 5> Z z T 3: �✓ J n �r C7 Z C D z Z z or m A N m z 0 W 0 C n nDp z o �c;oz V/ TO CD 5> Z z T 3: D � N n C7 C D 0 Tz V r D z 4 v APPENDIX A: ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE PUNA REGIONAL CIRCULATION PLAN Equal Treatment Equal Civil Rights Complaint against the TreatmenT Hawaii Long Range Land Transportation Plan Planning for Sustainability Sonne Goodell, vokmo, Howoi i Page I of 11 Federal Investigative Report of this Complaint . Home . Feedback cmaplan(q,'jnterpac.net This page is contains a condensed history of the federal discrimination case and complaint made by the Sustainability Committee against the Hawaii Long Range Land Transportation Plan (HLRLTP). The Sustainabillity Committee is made up of Bonnie Goodell, planner and spokesperson; John Luchau and Roger Evans, Hawaiian Paradise Park; Jon Olson, Puna Community Council; Ron Reilly, David Skaife and Keith Wallis, Mayoral Advisory Committee Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety, and Peoples Advocacy for Trails Hawai'i; & Bev Byouk, Ocean View. The civil rights complaint questions the basic data and planning principles and practices underlying HLRLTP development. The formal civil rights complaint followed six years of informal and written complaints by Sustainability Committee members as individuals on the Citizens Advisory Committee for the HLRLTP. The Sustainability Committee asserts that • The land use and population data input to the TRANPLAN computer model in the HLRLTP is inaccurate, and the intent and result of that inaccurate data is to deprive low-income communities of services. • Specifically, the geographic land use data input to TRANPLAN was derived from the County of Hawaii General Plan, in which approximately 80,000 parcels (75% of the total parcels on Hawaii Island) are misrepresented as Extensive Agriculture and Orchards, while the actual use is residential, mixed use and intensive agriculture. • The use of inaccurate land use data is counter to standard planning practice, to the directions for the TRANPLAN computer model program, and to the federal requirements for planning under ISTEA. • The result is to deny transportation services, especially alternative modes, to all existing communities and especially to the low-income communities found in these mis-represented subdivisions. • The result also diverts federal transportation funding and projects to the upscale, auto - dependent, sprawl development planned for the future by large landowner/developers. • The resulting plan and the projects that flow from it are a violation of the civil rights of low- income residents of existing communities an d of the specific requirements of planning under http://www.bonniegoodell.com/equal.htni 3/23/2005 Equal Treatment ISTEA. Page 2 of I I Link to USDOT memo on Action to Implement Civil Rights and Environmental Justice The HLRLTP was produced and published by the Hawaii State Department of Transportation (HDOT) in cooperation with the County of Hawaii Department of Public Works and Planning Department, in order to meet the qualifications to receive federal (U SDOT) transportation funding under the Intermodal Surface TransportationEfficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991. The HLRLTP was prepared by Frederic R. Harris, Inc., in association with William L. Moore Planning and Julian Ng, Inc., paid with funds provided, "in part, through a grant from the U.S. Depatartment of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, under Subsection (f) of Section 104 of Title 23, U.S.Code. The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the U.S. Department of Transportation." Original Complaint Sustainability Committee P.O. Box 6 Volcano, Hawai'i 96785 May 19, 1998 Mr. Abraham Wong Federal Highway Administration P.O. Box 50206 Honolulu, Hawaii 96850 RE: Executive Order 12898 Complaint regarding Hawaii Long R.mge Land Transportation Plan (HLRLTP) Dear Mr. Wong, This letter is to request investigation and correction of discriminatory planning and environmental effects against the lowest income communities on Hawaii Island, in the Hawaii Long Range Transportation Plan, produced by the Hawaii Department of Transportation for the purpose of ISTEA compliance. The discriminatory characteristics of this HLRTP have been the subject of conflict between us, as members of the Citizens Advisory Committee, and the DOT staff and consultants since almost the beginning of the plan preparation process in 1994. Briefly, we assert that the Draft Final HRLTP discriminates by • Failure to recognize the actual land uses and current population, and the underprojeetion of future population growth in the 80,000+ lots making up the huge substandard subdivisions of the Big Island, which are, according to the State Department of Health, a) the most socio -economically at risk communities in the state, and b) the fastest growing concentration of native Hawaiians (by some DOH estimates 50% or more of subdivision population). • Failure to identify or apply any evaluation criteria to HLRTP development scenarios which address the needs http://www.bonniegoodell.com/equal.htm 3/23/2005 Equal Treatment of these communities. Page 3 of 1 1 • Failure to take into consideration the economic development and multi -modal transportation needs of these communities as low-income communities. • Failure to model any transportation alternatives designed to meet the economic and lteomic and We have further asserted that these failings have the result of denying multi -modal scenarios, evaluation criteria, and projects to all existing communities on Hawaii Island, in favor of enabling future auto -dependent sprawl development by politically and financially powerful landowners, thereby vastly increasing the environmental impacts on all existing communities, and especially on the lowest income communities. The Draft Final HRLTP not only illustrates but specifically acknowledges that this is so. The Draft Final HRLTP also asserts that this result is justified by following the County of Hawaii General Plan and population projections, however inaccurate, as required by the USDOT guidelines. A number of existing communities presented Community Development Plans and Master Plans specifically created, by or with the County of Hawaii, to meet the land use/transportation criteria and goals of sustainability developed by The President's Council on Sustainability, and Livability as defined by the USDOT. These plans were ignored, and the result is a Draft Final HRLTP which not only enables future sprawl, but sabotages livability in existing livable communities, and the plans for sustainability and livability in the low-income subdivisions (which have 65,000 vacant, buildable homesites), to provide a market advantage, as well as access, to future auto -dependent sprawl developments planned by powerful landowners. We submit that this Draft Final HRLTP is an clear illustration, by negative example, of the nexus between equal treatment and sustainability. We attach a background briefing on the history of the discriminatory environment of these substandard subdivisions to assist you in understanding the context of this complaint. We ask that no projects contained in this HRLTP be allowed to proceed until this civil rights violation is remedied. We will be happy to provide the particulars of land use, population data, and planning irregularities to assist in your investigation. Mahalo for your attention. Bonnie Goodell, planner and spokesperson; John Luchau and Roger Evans, Hawaiian Paradise Park; Jon Olson, Puna Community Council; Ron Reilly, David Skaife and Keith Wallis, Mayoral Advisory Committee Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety, and Peoples Advocacy for Trails Hawaii; Bev Byouk, Ocean View CC: Governor Ben Cayetano; Charles Toguchi, Governor's Office; Kazu Hayashida, Julia Tsumoto, Pericles Manthos, Doug Mellor, Department of Transportation; Stanley Tamura, District Engineer, DOT; Mike Medeiros, State Bicycle Coordinator; Virginia Goldstein, County Planning Director; Donna Kiyosaki, Chief Engineer, County of Hawaii; Hawaii County Council members; Hawaii Island State Legislative Delegation; Hawaii Congressional Delegation; Tom Brown, Hawaii County Transit Coordinator Environmental Justice Complaint —1998 Hawaii Long Range Land Transportation Plan presented by Bonnie Goodell for the Sustainability Committee, to Mr. Willie Harris, Senior Civil Rights Manager, Western Regional Resource Center, Federal Highways Administration February 14, 2000 for complaint made May 11, 1998 http://www.bonniegoodell.coin/equal.htrn 3/23/2005 Equal Treatment We will show Planning discrimination against low income residents of small -owner subdivisions; Decades -long pattern. Beneficiaries are large -landowner developers; and Page 4 of I I Also avoids all other modal options for all existing communities, in order to provide highway access for future auto -dependent sprawl developments. Affected population. 70,000 parcels in Puna, Kato and South Kona Districts. Map A. l south PAA (4).. North Kona(7) dna (6)'j Map A Discrimination in Transportation Planning Puna (1) District Name on Hawaii Island: North Koh a 5 j I) Eki�ms$"in Correlation Between 1998 Hawaii Long Ra e land Transportation ! Approved Project st, lour and 2600-2002 STIP shavng diseriminahon showing .;� , '< against existing, low -Income, smell -owner subdivisions . So+wH Goodall. yodaudmJ rc rycnNi48` apriaauffheW Prmia� l south PAA (4).. North Kona(7) dna (6)'j i-: = " Puna (1) District Name -hhnd Sa aeodonac Kau (2)n Rnk Rank, 1=Highest Rlsk, 8xowvst) Puna (1) oral 10 . Diamd Bdundades �tian'leir Location. Parcels & Ectlnated Households"..'.,-" of Existing Cow-Inoama SmatLavmer :•"I wb:5vlslans mot m HLRLTP) t= "- iocaton & Proposed Resedwilal Units of -Approved Protects' hem HLRTP f 2000,20 02 STI,' Pmpas. eaeeptlng ADA, ondyan rockrall and t000 corms 4m State of Hawaii Department of Health 1998 Primary Care Needs Assessment Data Book. Puna: $9,450 per capita income 49.8% of population below 200% of federal poverty level, 24% below 100%, of fpl. http://www.bonniegoodell.coin/equal.htm 3/23/2005 Equal Treatment • 24.7% receiving financial aid, 1997 • 56.4% receiving food stamps. • Puna most at -risk in the state, Ka'u second. Land use Discrimination • 70,000 existing residential parcels treated as agriculture At L:md Usc Misreprescmahonfor the Ptupose of Income and Racial Gis+.rlminauon on Hawaii [stand I ., Nlap I of 2 County General Plan Land Use Mall I 1 h PIUri � Urt k%Afitlll tXSS,04Fi u(IF12 �.lip0IK1rtY{S " rn lhasnedbornar Subdivis7orn on theHig Lilarrl P.. n hvgct [kin the.land of Oahu <) (IJUNl'Y GUNUM PLAN Puma LI.IPAG, hiap :teml Usr Pnitam AIkIca[n*u (7n irk/ ?Y1crlium�LcwL)rnnib Urinn ''`�'` Irlxvo Ftlnraion Arm IIMIetd.li ]n Imsivc A�ncul mm All �nlr<Y arzas ;�r¢th.: haNs F.alcYeeive,i.gncnitun t� or Cblscnalinn ]Souu u^ lirzruis+li GkYWrc�. lad http://www.bonnicgoodell.com/equal.litm Page 5 of 11 3/23/2005 Equal Treatment n; ypuna Laid i'se ?Misrepresentation for the P irposc of Income and Racial Discrimination oil fiawait Is aml Alap 2 of 2. PLUM Ptiisting rxvclgnncnt Rights: Hatising Pnwi as the Imition nK5.5.000oftb. KliUoNp 1, n the %Mail c w'sor s1144ieNNKI R I on Oe Nit h in I'd, — u�11111 l.11 .1— � =2 houws per acre :-L@ 2 houses per two acres 2 houses lx r three acres • Selective use of faulty data - corrected for actual use elsewhere (Le. warehouse category.) Page 6 of I 1 On page 8 is discussion of how the land use designations in the TRANPLAN model were relabeled to conform with actual use rather than County designations: "The Warehouse category was further broken down based on knowledge of the County and field inspection. Review of the permit file indicated many parcels where warehouse structures had been built. Knowledge of these parcels indicated some sites were actually occupied by retail and other establishments. It became apparent that many permits were obtained under a general `warehouse" label but the particular properly was under another type of use. Since these other uses are generally more trip -generation intensive than warehousing. it was important to further inspect the permit file and visit some site, (as needed) in order to establish the correct use.)" Unfortunately there was no such adherence to standard practice for the 80.000 parcels in the small -owner subdivisions, where homes are presumably more 'trip -generation intensive' than orchards. • Demand growth attributed to future "Approved Projects" by large land -owners: most not approved. According to William Moore, local consultant for the HLRLTP, County Planning staff provided Attachment D, http://www.boiiniegoodell.com/equaLhim 3/23/2005 Equal Treatment Page 7 of 1 I Approved Projects, showing 40,000 additional single family residential units, 14,000 multi -family units, 8,000 resort condos, 12,000 hotel rooms, as well as commercial and industrial development to predict growth in demand. Many of the projects have not in fact been approved and stand little chance of approval. (i.e.: Thirty- three of 87 "approved" projects were showed as approved under the Northwest Hawaii Development Plan, which was never presented to the Planning Commission. The Hawaiian Riviera Resort Projects were refused a land use District boundary amendment by the State.) Skewed Population Projections • HLRLTP 2020 population projections for small -owner subd'ns exceeded by 1995, except where adjacent to "Approved Projects" The 70,000 already -platted and sold, 40 -year-old lots in the small owner subdivisions were completely discounted as sources of growth. Those small -owner subdivisions have been doubling in population about every five years since 1980. Evidence of that growth rate was provided repeatedly during the HLRLTP process. Specifically, the HLRLTP 2020 population projection numbers for most small -owner subdivisions were documented as having been exceeded by 1995, having doubled since 1990. The only small -owner area shown in the Trip Generation 2020 Projected Data table (appendix B) where the 2020 projections had not been exceeded by 1995 was Orchid Land/Keaau. There the 2020 increase in households is presumably attributed to the future subdivision of large landowner W.H. Shipman, one of the 87 approved projects listed in Attachment D. (No application has been made for zoning or subdivision. However, W.H. Shipman's Application for Land Use District Boundary amendment was approved in 1994. W.H. Shipman has employed William Moore as their planning consultant continuously since 1992, for all their development plans and to represent them in all planning and permitting applications.) • Source of projects and population projections unknown - contradicts County projections. The Technical Reference Report for the Puna Community Development Plan, published by the County of Hawaii Planning Department in January, 1992 provides a complete table of the small -owner subdivisions in Puna, showing and aggregate of over 55,000 existing residential development rights in Puna alone. The HLRLTP nowhere acknowledges any of those development rights or the rapid rate of building or population growth documented in the Technical Reference Report. The Puna Community Development Plan, approved by the Planning Commission in mid-1995, shows population projections similar to the County General Plan, with the potential for a wide range of growth in the small -owner subdivisions. However, the population growth projections in the HLRLTP, Attachment E, bear little correlation to either County document. Although they credit the County of Hawaii Planning Department for their 2010 projections, the HLRLTP then shows the population of Puna dropping between 2010 and 2020. We have been unable to verify the source of population projections. According to Hawaii DOT officials and HDOT's Planner William Moore, the population projections were provided by the Hawaii County Planning Department. However, Planning Director Virginia Goldstein and Senior P'lanner Norman Hayashi report that they can find no record of having provided such projections. • Results - All 2000 STIP projects located to support "Approved Projects," none for small -owner areas. Map A 45 year history of "adverse effects" on small -owner subd'ns Long history of"Adverse effects... the totality of significant or cumulative human health or environmental effects, which may include but are not limited to: ... disruption or destruction of man-made or natural resources; http://www.bonniegoodell.com/equal.htm 3/23/2005 Equal Treatment Page 8 of 11 destruction or diminution of aesthetic values; destruction or disruption of community cohesion or a community's economic vitality; destruction of the availability of public and private facilities and services;....; adverse employment effects; displacement of persons, businesses, farms, or non-profit organizations; increased traffic congestion, isolation, exclusion, or separation of low-income individuals within a given community or from the broader community; and the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of, benefits of FHWA programs, policies or activities." -FHWA Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low -Income Populations. (6640.23, Dec. 2, 1998) • Initial "land reform" homestead intent reversed. The small -owner subdivisions were platted and sold between 1955 and 1972. They were partly land scam and partly intended as land reform — "a chance for the little -guy" — on a homesteading model. However, since that time, the avenues to improvement or self-improvement available to the rest of the public have been systematically withheld. • Level of Service: denied public and private facilities. Link to LOS study The pattern of -destruction of availability of all public and private facilities and services" is demonstrated in the charts on Population, Parcels, and Level of Service for Parks, Police and Firefighting. Note that these charts understate the case. • 700 miles of roads: dedication blocked, no access to taxes, no traffic enforcement, traffic deaths don't count. There are over 700 miles of privately -owned public roads in the small -owner subdivisions, amounting to approximately half of the total road miles on the island. In 1968 County road standards were changed, making the minimum ROW wider than the ROWS set aside in the subdivisions, specifically to prevent the subdivisions from being able to dedicate their roads. Now, approximately 20% of the vehicles weight taxes, miles driven, and traffic accidents occur on these lot -owner maintained roads, which have no access to any of the state or county gas taxes or fees generated on their roads. Traffic deaths do not count. Until very recently, it was impossible to get public traffic enforcement, so there was none (and still is none in most subdivisions). • Access denied to federal programs for rural improvement. National programs for financing infrastructure in rural and homestead areas, such as USDA Rural Water and Wastewater, are not available to these subdivisions because of the government structure. In order to qualify, an entity must be bondable by the ability to collect taxes or fees. Since Hawaii has no such thing as townships or independent improvement districts (such as water districts), application for these programs can only be done with the support of the County or the State, both of have so far refused assistance. • f$400m in property taxes spent elsewhere. Since 1955, these subdivisions have been depended upon to provide a tax windfall for other areas on Hawaii Island. Of the approximately $400m in property taxes contributed by the vacant lots in these subdivisions over the last 45 years, less than $1 in has been returned in improvements, mostly as materials for volunteer fire stations. Small -owners' official choices ignored. • 1992- Neotraditional rural towns connected by transit chosen by public process for Puna Community http://www.bonniegoodell.com/equal.litm 3/23/2005 Equal Treatment Page 9 of 11 Development Plan • Transit corridors chosen based on County General Plan alignments. • Transit -based rural towns lowest cost transportation option by far. • In this case, HLRLTP staff refused any consideration of County plan. In 1992, at the beginning of the HLRLTP process, the Puna community, for the Puna community Development Plan, was in the process of choosing from among three development scenarios, in which transportation scenarios were the major planning element. The process, the infrastructure cost calculations and community choices are detailed in the included packet on "Puna's Future." The community clearly chose a rural, neotraditional model based on a central transit corridor, to provide economic opportunity and preserve open space. That corridor is in the County General Plan. However, those responsible for the HLRLTP refused to consider that option, or that corridor, even though it was specifically requested at meetings of the Citizens Advisory Committee. Refusal to recognize low-income status • No recognition of low-income status. • No alternatives generated recognizing low-income status. • No consideration in evaluating alternatives. • Studies demonstrate that transportation improvements do not create regional economic growth but placement determines where growth will occur. (Iowa Study, etc.) Nowhere in the HLRLTP is the low-income status of this population acknowledged or considered as a factor in providing or evaluating transportation scenarios. It is well documented that transportation improvements within a region do not create economic development. However, the location of transportation improvements within a region do determine who benefits from regional economic development. (Iowa Highway Study, California Highway Expansion Study. etc.) The preparers of the HLRLTP refused to consider any transportation locations to improve economic opportunities with any of these low-income, small -owner communities. Who benefits? Large landowners, in two ways. • Land use analyses justify further subdivisions by denying existence of existing inventory of buildable parcels. • Planning based on false data, such as HLRLTP, denies services to potential small -owner market competitors and reserves all services for large landowner monopoly. Concentration of land ownership among a few politically powerful entities has been a feature of Hawaii since land was originally placed in private ownership in the mid-I800s. That is partly a result of the sugar plantation system and partly an artifact of the way land 'trusteeship' was distributed among Hawaiian ali'i (chiefs) before land was converted to fee simple title by the Hawaiian monarchy in the 1840s. The problem of land monopoly is regularly listed by economic analysts as a major, if not the major, barrier to economic democracy in Hawaii. The large -landowning entities have switched from growing sugarcane to growing subdivisions.' http://www.bonniegoodell.com/equal.htm 3/23/2005 Equal Treatment Page 10 of I I Price for new residential parcels is largely the result of supply and demand. There is a demand for new, fully -served residences where there are economic opportunities. In order to keep price up, large landowners maintain a monopoly on the supply. These small -owner subdivisions threaten that monopoly in two ways. 1. Planning at the State and County levels requires a demonstration of need for upzoning. In the land use analysis, the applicant or planning authority must justify need by a shortage of buildable inventory, in this case of residential parcels. At the State level this occurs in the State Land Use District Boundary Review, last carried out in 1992 by the Office of State Planning. In that document, additional urban area for W.H. Shipman in Puna, was justified by land use analyses in which almost 50,000 residential parcels in Puna were considered to be agriculture, even though almost 20,000 are parcels of 1/2 acre or less, an additional 13,000 are one -acre parcels, none are over 3 acres, and county -permitted development on all of them is almost entirely residential. The County planning process requires community development plans to include a "Land Zoning Bank" which performs somewhat the same function, an analysis of available inventory to determine how much upzoning will be needed in the next planning period. However, the County has not used or considered any such analyses on actual use, relying instead on the County General Plan and the zoning map. If actual use were analyzed, it would be almost impossible to justify new subdivisions. 2. New subdivisions planned by large landowners rely on monopolizing access to public and private improvements, provided by government in anticipation of their projects, in order to maintain price. By the same token they rely on preventing small -owner developments from access to those same services. The HLRLTP, in Map A, provides a graphic example of that process at work. Result: Service Provided ONLY to new auto -dependent sprawl Results: transportation planning which avoids consideration of all pedestrian, bicycle and transit options for all existing communities, in order to concentrate on providing highway access for future auto -dependent sprawl developments. • HLRLTP states that that is the case. From the HLRLTP, p. 12: "Most growth is planned to occur on the lands of targe land owners, such as Shipman, Nansay, Queen Liliuokalani Trust, and others." From the HLRLTP, p. 38 "Among other features, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 calls for transportation plans to consider travel modes other than solely the "Single Occupant Vehicle" (SOV). Goals and objectives consistent with this philosophy were developed for the long range planning effort. These goals were well -supported by members of the Citizens advisory Committee. " However, the Big Island presently offers a roadway system which is constrained by geography, a roadway system that is characterized by too few streets and roads. Given this, roadway improvements will, realistically, constitute the most significant modal component in the [HLRLTP], in terms of moving people and goods efficiently. This is not inconsistent with the ISTEA philosophy underlying plan development, and results essentially from two critical factors, namely: the magnitude and spatial distribution of expected new development; and the limited transportation capacity available today...." (italics added) These excerpts acknowledge that the focus on providing access for new, auto -dependent development by large land owners precludes consideration of alternative modes for existing communities. http://www.bonniegoodell.com/equal.htm 3/23/2005 Equal Treatment Page 11 of I 1 • Refusal to consider modal/land use alternatives even though they are the preferred, lowest -cost option for existing, un -served, low-income communities which comprise 60% of existing buildable parcels in planning area. Refusal to acknowledge the low-income, small -owner subdivisions required, additionally, refusal to consider central transit corridors as an alternative to SOV development. The physical layout, preferred vision, and loti- income character of these communities make them ideal for transit/bike/pedestrian modes. These are also the lowest cost options. These options also require, by far, the least condemnation of homes. The refusal to provide for realistic, affordable and attractive transportation development for these areas, or even to acknowledge their existence, is an attempt to design a self-fulfilling prophecy in which they are maintained as isolated rural ghettos which will continue to provide taxes which are available for use in more well-off communities. What do we want? • Stop funding of projects for "approved" sprawl development until completion of new long range planning process with: • Accurate analysis of actual existing permitted use. • Acknowledgement of low-income status. • Good faith consideration of modal/land use alternatives for ALI, existing communities. • Federal monitoring. Home Page for bonniegoodell.Coln Copyright 2000, by Bonnie Goodell, Permission to Use Information or Feedback cmaplan(cuintcrpac.net http://www.bonniegoodel1.com/equa1.htin 3/23/2005 Equal Treatment Equal Civil Rights Complaint against the TreatmenT Hawaii Long Range Land Transportation Plan A N _ Planning for Sustainability Bonnie C,00del, Volcano, Howai i Page i of 11 . Federal Investigative Report of this Complaint . Home . Feedback cmaplan(1r�inteipac.net This page is contains a condensed history of the federal discrimination case and complaint made by the Sustainability Committee against the Hawaii Long Range Land Transportation Plan (HLRLTP). The Sustainabillity Committee is made up of Bonnie Goodell, planner and spokesperson; John Luchau and Roger Evans, Hawaiian Paradise Park; Jon Olson, Puna Community Council; Ron Reilly, David Skaife and Keith Wallis, Mayoral Advisory Committee Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety, and Peoples Advocacy for Trails Hawai'i; & Bev Byouk, Ocean View. The civil rights complaint questions the basic data and planning principles and practices underlying HLRLTP development. The formal civil rights complaint followed six years of informal and written complaints by Sustainability Committee members as individuals on the Citizens Advisory Committee for the HLRLTP. The Sustainability Committee asserts that • The land use and population data input to the TRANPLAN computer model in the HLRLTP is inaccurate, and the intent and result of that inaccurate data is to deprive low-income communities of services. • Specifically, the geographic land use data input to TRANPLAN was derived from the County of Hawaii General Plan, in which approximately 80,000 parcels (75% of the total parcels on Hawaii Island) are misrepresented as Extensive Agriculture and Orchards, while the actual use is residential, mixed use and intensive agriculture. • The use of inaccurate land use data is counter to standard planning practice, to the directions for the TRANPLAN computer model program, and to the federal requirements for planning under ISTEA. • The result is to deny transportation services, especially alternative modes, to all existing communities and especially to the low-income communities found in these mis-represented subdivisions. • The result also diverts federal transportation funding and projects to the upscale, auto - dependent, sprawl development planned for the future by large landowner/developers. • The resulting plan and the projects that flow from it are a violation of the civil rights of low- income residents of existing communities an d of the specific requirements of planning under http://www.bonniegooclell.com/equal.htm 3/23/2005 Equal Treatment ISTEA. Page 2 of I I Link to USDOT memo on Action to Implement Civil Rights and Environmental Justice The HLRLTP was produced and published by the Hawaii State Department of Transportation (HDOT) in cooperation with the County of Hawaii Department of Public Works and Planning Department, in order to meet the qualifications to receive federal (USDOT) transportation funding under the Intermodal Surface TransportationEfficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991. The HLRLTP was prepared by Frederic R. Harris, Inc., in association with William L. Moore Planning and Julian Ng, Inc., paid with funds provided, "in part, through a grant from the U.S. Depatartment of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, under Subsection (1) of Section 104 of Title 23, U.S.Code. The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the U.S. Department of Transportation." Original Complaint Sustainability Committee P.O. Box 6 Volcano, Hawai'i 96785 May 19. 1998 Mr. Abraham Wong Federal Highway Administration P.O. Box 50206 Honolulu, Hawai'i 96850 RE: Executive Order 12898 Complaint regarding Hawaii Long Range Land Transportation Plan (HLRLTP) Dear Mr. Wong, This letter is to request investigation and correction of discriminatory planning and environmental effects against the lowest income communities on Hawaii Island, in the Hawaii Long Range Transportation Plan, produced by the Hawaii Department of Transportation for the purpose of ISTEA compliance. The discriminatory characteristics of this HLRTP have been the subject of conflict between us, as members of the Citizens Advisory Committee, and the DOT staff and consultants since almost the beginning of the plan preparation process in 1994. Briefly, we assert that the Draft Final HRLTP discriminates by • Failure to recognize the actual land uses and current population, and the underprojection of future population growth in the 80,000+ lots making up the huge substandard subdivisions of the Big Island, which are, according to the State Department of Health, a) the most socio -economically at risk communities in the state, and b) the fastest growing concentration of native Hawaiians (by some DOH estimates 50% or more of subdivision population). • Failure to identify or apply any evaluation criteria to HLRTP development scenarios which address the needs http://www.bonniegoodell.com/equal.htm 3/23/2005 Equal Treatment of these communities. Page 3ofII • Failure to take into consideration the economic development and multi -modal transportation needs of these communities as low-income communities. • Failure to model any transportation alternatives designed to meet the economic and Iteomic and We have further asserted that these Tailings have the result of denying multi -modal scenarios, evaluation criteria, and projects to all existing communities on Hawaii Island, in favor of enablingJitture auto -dependent sprawl development by politically and financially powerful landowners, thereby vastly increasing the environmental impacts on all existing communities, and especially on the lowest income communities. The Draft Final HRLTP not only illustrates but specifically acknowledges that this is so. The Draft Final HRLTP also asserts that this result is justified by following the County of Hawaii General Plan and population projections, however inaccurate, as required by the USDOT guidelines. A number of existing communities presented Community Development Plans and Master Plans specifically created, by or with the County of Hawaii, to meet the land use/transportation criteria and goals of sustainability developed by The President's Council on Sustainability, and Livability as defined by the USDOT. These plans were ignored, and the result is a Draft Final HRLTP which not only enables future sprawl, but sabotages livability in existing livable communities, and the plans for sustainability and livability in the low-income subdivisions (which have 65,000 vacant, buildable homesites), to provide a market advantage, as well as access, to future auto -dependent sprawl developments planned by powerful landowners. We submit that this Draft Final HRLTP is an clear illustration, by negative example, of the nexus between equal treatment and sustainability. We attach a background briefing on the history of the discriminatory environment of these substandard subdivisions to assist you in understanding the context of this complaint. We ask that no projects contained in this IIRLTP be allowed to proceed until this civil rights violation is remedied. We will be happy to provide the particulars of land use, population data, and planning irregularities to assist in your investigation. Mahalo for your attention. Bonnie Goodell, planner and spokesperson; John Luchau and Roger Evans, Hawaiian Paradise Park; Jon Olson, Puna Community Council; Ron Reilly, David Skaife and Keith Wallis, Mayoral Advisory Committee Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety, and Peoples Advocacy for Trails Hawai'i; Bev Byouk, Ocean View CC: Governor Ben Cayetano; Charles Toguchi, Governor's Office; Kazu Hayashida, Julia Tsumoto, Pericles Manthos, Doug Mellor, Department of Transportation; Stanley Tamura, District Engineer, DOT; Mike Medeiros, State Bicycle Coordinator; Virginia Goldstein, County Planning Director; Donna Kiyosaki, Chief Engineer, County of Hawaii; Hawaii County Council members; Hawaii Island State Legislative Delegation; Hawaii Congressional Delegation; Tom Brown, Hawaii County Transit Coordinator Environmental Justice Complaint — 1998 Hawaii Long Range Land Transportation Plan presented by Bonnie Goodell for the Sustainability Committee, to Mr. Willie Harris, Senior Civil Rights Manager, Western Regional Resource Center, Federal Highways Administration February 14, 2000 for complaint made May 11, 1998 http://www.bonniegoodell.com/equal.htm 3/23/2005 Equal Treatment We will show a Planning discrimination against low income residents of small -owner subdivisions; Decades -long pattern. a Beneficiaries are large -landowner developers; and Page 4 of 1 1 a Also avoids all other modal options for all existing communities, in order to provide highway access for future auto -dependent sprawl developments. Affected population. 711,000 parcels in Puna, Ka'u and South Kona Districts. Map A. Map A Discrimination in Transportation Planning on Hawaii Island: N0 Correlation Between 1998 Hawaii Lo Ra e �Ca s) i msiom Land Transportation Plan Approved aojectMt. �.. a�. � - - raaq and 2Qo0.2002 STIP shaving discrimination against existing, low -Income small -owner subdivisions an e" Goodall' Iggoa 2 rl arpec nal marynq eynher UuuE xghoul prrminmbi. 4m North Kona (7), South HN6 ` South I < ons (G) Puna (t) Dlsmot Name t4)nemJ? � Kau (2) mPune (1 ) nnH=Risk Rank I =Highest Risk, S=owesp Ol.ma 6amdanes ' LocaOon, Parcels &listanated HouuhoWs Of Ealeting Low -Income Small -Duma ( aC'; - Subdtnslona (own HLRLTP) Location & Proposed Resniendal Units of 'fig 'Apprwed Protects' from HLRTP ?000.7002 STIP PmtaG _ e,nn,fa g ADA tmnges rockpail and flood ooneW *4- - State of Hawaii Department of Health 1998 Primary Care Needs Assessment Data Book. Puna: a $9,450 per capita income a 49.8% of population below 200'% of federal poverty level, a 24% below 100% of fpl. http://www.bonniegoodell.com/egtial him 3/23/2005 Equal Treatment • 24.7% receiving financial aid, 1997 • 56.4% receiving food stamps. • Puna most at -risk in the state, Ka'u second. Land use Discrimination • 70,000 existing residential parcels treated as agriculture ,.,., I .and Use A9lsrepma nation forthe Pu pose of Ineome and Raul Disaimination on Ilawan Island Nlap I of '- County (9eneral Plan Land I Tse Map fn", Rum r% Ow kxalioh of 55,0(K) of d), 90,001) lmk"* in the S11MV own subiivisio. q on t he B i g Matt Poix a large Than the minnd ul Oahu 0 )I NI I" +EhTHCA] , PLAN C'rina LLIF'.AG Map tlanJ U� Panem Alk.-att<7a tiui.kr ` Ma1nm1.<w Ihnsih-Udnn t Wn $yamion Arca 110n,l iai Inm "'<Ayn'nitnro .All ntlre. anus are <hrharcls. E'tkn oeAgncWnuv l gern n[ Q}LLseBahun B..w(k'W..0 r3mbd 19W http://www.bonniegoodell.com/equal.litni Page 5 of I 1 3/23/2005 Equal Treatment land ilse btisrapresentadon for the f�tiipciw of Income and Racial fhselimination on I lawau Island i,lap 2 of 2: Pimm I-IJAng hevelgnnern Rights: }lousing F'u ea vs lM1c lounUou of 5S,QiK)ot Nc �SFfig 11bbd - - n the small o+v�cr snbdivrsn`s an dei?iF is6ud Pt ilia I. is larycr tYao IM1c 1;1 ad of 0, h, �11,,Uw t,� ""' a 1-22 houses per acre 1-2 hatses 1wr two acres. 2 horses pu three acres • Selective use of faulty data - corrected for actual use elsewhere (i.e. warehouse category.) Page 6 of I I On page 8 is discussion of how the land use designations in the TRANPLAN model were relabeled to conform with actual use rather than County designations: "fhe Warehouse category was further broken down based on knowledge of the County and field inspection. Review of the permit file indicated many parcels where warehouse structures had been built. Knowledge of these parcels indicated some sites were actually occupied by retail and other establishments. It became apparent that many permits were obtained under a general "warehouse" label but the particular property was under another type of use. Since these other uses are generally more trip -generation intensive than warehousing, it was important to further inspect the permit file and visit sonic sites (as needed) in order to establish the correct use.)" Unfortunately there was no such adherence to standard practice for the 80,000 parcels in the small -owner subdivisions, where homes are presumably more 'trip -generation intensive' than orchards. • Demand growth attributed to future "Approved Projects" by large land -owners: most not approved. According to William Moore, local consultant for the HLRLTP, County Planning staff provided Attachment D, http://www.bonniegoodell.eom/equal.htm 3/23/2005 Equal Treatment Page 7 of 1 1 Approved Projects, showing 40,000 additional single family residential units, 14,000 multi -family units, 8,000 resort condos, 12,000 hotel rooms, as well as commercial and industrial development to predict growth in demand. Many of the projects have not in fact been approved and stand little chance of approval. (i.e.: Thirty- three of 87 "approved" projects were showed as approved under the Northwest Hawaii Development Plan, which was never presented to the Planning Commission. The Hawaiian Riviera Resort Projects were refused a land use District boundary amendment by the State.) Skewed Population Projections • HLRLTP 2020 population projections for small -owner subd'ns exceeded by 1995, except where adjacent to "Approved Projects" The 70,000 already -platted and sold. 40 -year-old lots in the small owner subdivisions were completely discounted as sources of growth. Those small -owner subdivisions have been doubling in population about every five years since 1980. Evidence of that growth rate was provided repeatedly during the HLRLTP process. Specifically, the HLRLTP 2020 population projection numbers for most small -owner subdivisions were documented as having been exceeded by 1995, having doubled since 1990. The only small -owner area shown in the Trip Generation 2020 Projected Data table (appendix B) where the 2020 projections had not been exceeded by 1995 was Orchid Land/Keaau. There the 2020 increase in households is presumably attributed to the future subdivision of large landowner WA 1. Shipman, one of the 87 approved projects listed in Attachment D. (No application has been made for zoning or subdivision. However, W.H. Shipman's Application for Land Use District Boundary amendment was approved in 1994. W.H. Shipman has employed William Moore as their planning consultant continuously since 1992, for all their development plans and to represent them in all planting and permitting applications.) • Source of projects and population projections unknown - contradicts County projections. The Technical Reference Report for the Puna Community Development Plan, published by the County of Hawaii Planning Department in January, 1992 provides a complete table of the small -owner subdivisions in Puna, showing and aggregate of over 55,000 existing residential development rights in Puna alone. The HLRLTP nowhere acknowledges any of those development rights or the rapid rate of building or population growth documented in the Technical Reference Report. The Puna Community Development Plan, approved by the Planning Commission in mid-1995, shows population projections similar to the County General Plan, with the potential for a wide range of growth in the small -owner subdivisions. However, the population growth projections in the HLRLTP, Attachment E, bear little correlation to either County document. Although they credit the County of Hawaii Planning Department for their 2010 projections, the HLRLTP then shows the population of Puna dropping between 2010 and 2020. We have been unable to verify the source of population projections. According to Hawaii DOT officials and HDOT's Planner William Moore, the population projections were provided by the Hawaii County Planning Department. However. Planning Director Virginia Goldstein and Senior Planner Norman Hayashi report that they can find no record of having provided such projections. • Results - All 2000 STIP projects located to support "Approved Projects," none for small -owner areas. Map A 45 year history of "adverse effects" on small -owner subd'ns Long history of "Adverse effects. -the totality of significant or cumulative human health or environmental effects, which may include but are not limited to: ... disruption or destruction of man-made or natural resources; httn-//www.boilniegoodell.coni/'cqual.litni 3/23/2005 Equal Treatment Page 8 of 11 destruction or diminution of aesthetic values; destruction or disruption of community cohesion or a community's economic vitality; destruction of the availability of public and private facilities and services;...-; adverse employment effects; displacement of persons, businesses, farms, or non-profit organizations; increased traffic congestion, isolation, exclusion, or separation of low-income individuals within a given community or from the broader community; and the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of, benefits of FHWA programs, policies or activities." -FHWA Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low -Income Populations. (6640.23, Dec. 2, 1998) • Initial "land reform" homestead intent reversed. The small -owner subdivisions were platted and sold between 1955 and 1972. They were partly land scam and partly intended as land reform — "a chance for the little -guy" — on a homesteading model. However, since that time, the avenues to improvement or self-improvement available to the rest of the public have been systematically withheld. • Level of Service: denied public and private facilities. Link to LOS study The pattern of "destruction of availability of all public and private facilities and services" is demonstrated in the charts on Population, Parcels, and Level of Service for Parks, Police and Firefighting. Note that these charts understate the case. • 700 miles of roads: dedication blocked, no access to taxes, no traffic enforcement, traffic deaths don't count. There are over 700 miles of privately -owned public roads in the small -owner subdivisions, amounting to approximately half of the total road miles on the island. In 1968 County road standards were changed, making the minimum ROW wider than the ROWs set aside in the subdivisions, specifically to prevent the subdivisions from being able to dedicate their roads. Now, approximately 20% of the vehicles weight taxes, miles driven, and traffic accidents occur on these lot -owner maintained roads, which have no access to any of the state or county gas taxes or fees generated on their roads. Traffic deaths do not count. Until very recently, it was impossible to get public traffic enforcement, so there was none (and still is none in most subdivisions). • Access denied to federal programs for rural improvement. National programs for financing infrastructure in rural and homestead areas, such as USDA Rural Water and Wastewater, are not available to these subdivisions because of the government structure. In order to qualify, an entity must be bondable by the ability to collect taxes or fees. Since Hawaii has no such thing as townships or independent improvement districts (such as water districts), application for these programs can only be done with the support of the County or the State, both of have so far refused assistance. • t$400m in property taxes spent elsewhere. Since 1955, these subdivisions have been depended upon to provide a tax windfall for other areas on Hawaii Island. Of the approximately $400m in property taxes contributed by the vacant lots in these subdivisions over the last 45 years, less than $1 in has been returned in improvements, mostly as materials for volunteer fire stations. Small -owners' official choices ignored. • 1992- Neotraditional rural towns connected by transit chosen by public process for Puna Community http://www.bonniegoodell.com/equal.htin 3/23/2005 Equal Treatment Page 9 of I I Development Plan • Transit corridors chosen based on County General Plan alignments. • Transit -based rural towns lowest cost transportation option by far. • In this case, HLRLTP staff refused any consideration of County plan. In 1992, at the beginning of the HLRLTP process, the Puna community, for the Puna community Development Plan, was in the process of choosing from among three development scenarios, in which transportation scenarios were the major planning element. The process, the infrastructure cost calculations and community choices are detailed in the included packet on "Puna's Future." The community clearly chose a rural, neotraditional model based on a central transit corridor, to provide economic opportunity and preserve open space. That corridor is in the County General Plan. However, those responsible for the HLRLTP refused to consider that option, or that corridor, even though it was specifically requested at meetings of the Citizens Advisory Committee. Refusal to recognize low-income status • No recognition of low-income status. • No alternatives generated recognizing low-income status. • No consideration in evaluating alternatives. • Studies demonstrate that transportation improvements do not create regional economic growth but placement determines where growth will occur. (Iowa Study, etc.) Nowhere in the HLRLTP is the low-income status of this population acknowledged or considered as a factor in providing or evaluating transportation scenarios. It is well documented that transportation improvements within a region do not create economic development_ However, the location of transportation improvements within a region do determine who benefits from regional economic development. (Iowa Highway Study, California Highway Expansion Study, etc.) The preparers of the HLRLTP refused to consider any transportation locations to improve economic opportunities with any of these low-income, small -owner communities. Who benefits? Large landowners, in two ways. • Land use analyses justify further subdivisions by denying existence of existing inventory of buildable parcels. • Planning based on false data, such as HLRLTP, denies services to potential small -owner market competitors and reserves all services for large landowner monopoly. Concentration of land ownership among a few politically powerful entities has been a feature of Hawaii since land was originally placed in private ownership in the mid -1800s. That is partly a result of the sugar plantation system and partly an artifact of the way land 'trusteeship' was distributed among Hawaiian ah'i (chiefs) before land was converted to fee simple title by the Hawaiian monarchy in the 1840s. The problem of land monopoly is regularly listed by economic analysis as a major, if not the major. harrier to economic democracy in Hawaii. The large -landowning entities have sti itched from growing sugarcane to 'growing subdivisions.' http://www_bonniegoodel1.coin/equal.Iitm 3/23,2005 Equal Treatment Page 10 of I 1 1. Price for new residential parcels is largely the result of supply and demand. There is a demand for new, fully -served residences where there are economic opportunities. In order to keep price up, large landowners maintain a monopoly on the supply. These small -owner subdivisions threaten that monopoly in two ways. 1. Planning at the State and County levels requires a demonstration of need for upzoning. In the land use analysis, the applicant or planning authority must justify need by a shortage of buildable inventory, in this case of residential parcels. At the State level this occurs in the State Land Use District Boundary Review, last carried out in 1992 by the Office of State Planning. In that document, additional urban area for W.H. Shipman in Puna, was justified by land use analyses in which almost 50,000 residential parcels in Puna were considered to be agriculture, even though almost 20,000 are parcels of 1/2 acre or less, an additional 13,000 are one -acre parcels, none are over 3 acres, and county -permitted development on all of them is almost entirely residential. The County planning process requires community development plans to include a "Land Zoning Bank" which performs somewhat the same function, an analysis of available inventory to determine how much upzoning will be needed in the next planning period. However, the County has not used or considered any such analyses on actual use, relying instead on the County General Plan and the zoning map. If actual use were analyzed, it would be almost impossible to justify new subdivisions. 2. New subdivisions planned by large landowners rely on monopolizing access to public and priN ate improvements, provided by government in anticipation of their projects, in order to maintain price. By the same token they rely on preventing small -owner developments from access to those same services. The HLRLTP, in Map A, provides a graphic example of that process at work. Result: Service Provided ONLY to new auto -dependent sprawl Results: transportation planning which avoids consideration of all pedestrian, bicycle and transit options for all existing communities, in order to concentrate on providing highway access for future auto -dependent sprawl developments. • HLRLTP states that that is the case. From the HLRLTP, p. 12: "Most growth is planned to occur on the lands of large land owners, such as Shipman, Nansay, Queen Liliuokalani Trust, and others." From the HLRLTP, p. 38 "Among other features, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (1STEA) of 1991 calls for transportation plans to consider travel modes other than solely the "Single Occupant Vehicle" (SOV). Goals and objectives consistent with this philosophy were developed for the long range planning effort. These goals were well -supported by members of the Citizens advisory Committee. " However, the Big Island presently offers a roadway system which is constrained by geography, a roadway system that is characterized by too few streets and roads. Given this, roadway improvements will, realistically, constitute the most significant modal component in the [HLRLTP], in terms of moving people and goods efficiently. This is not inconsistent with the ISTEA philosophy underlying plan development, and results essentially from two critical factors, namely: the magnitude and spatial distribution ofexpected new development; and the limited transportation capacity available today...." (italics added) These excerpts acknowledge that the focus on providing access for new, auto -dependent development by large land owners precludes consideration of alternative modes for existing communities. http://www.bonniegoodell.coiii/equ,,ii.htjii 3/23/2005 Equal Treatment Page 11 of I 1 • Refusal to consider modal/land use alternatives even though they are the preferred, lowest -cost option for existing, un -served, low-income communities which comprise 60% of existing buildable parcels in planning area. Refusal to acknowledge the low-income, small -owner subdivisions required, additionally, refusal to consider central transit corridors as an alternative to SOV development. The physical layout, preferred vision, and low- income character of these communities make them ideal for transit/bike/pedestrian modes. These are also the lowest cost options. These options also require, by far, the least condemnation of homes. The refusal to provide for realistic, affordable and attractive transportation development for these areas, or even to acknowledge their existence, is an attempt to design a self-fulfilling prophecy in which they are maintained as isolated rural ghettos which will continue to provide taxes which are available for use in more well-off communities. What do we want? • Stop funding of projects for "approved" sprawl development until completion of new long range planning process with: • Accurate analysis of actual existing permitted use. • Acknowledgement of low-income status. • Good faith consideration of modal/land use alternatives for ALL existing communities. • Federal monitoring. Home Page for bonniegoodell.com Copyright 2000, by Bonnie Goodell, Permission to Use Information or Feedback cmaplan(ajnterpac.net http://www.bonniegoodell.com/equal.litm 3/23,2005 APPENDIX B: COMMUNITY CONSULTATION CONSULTATION PLAN SURVEY & RESULTS QUESTIONNAIRE PUNA REGIONAL CIRCULATION PLAN TOWNSCAPE, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL AND COMMUNITY PLANNING 900 Fort Street Mall, Suite 1160, Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone (808) 536-6999 Facsimile (808) 524-4998 email address: mail@townscapeinc.com PUNA REGIONAL CIRCULATION PLAN (PRCP) COMMUNITY CONSULTATION PROCESS PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES The objective of community consultation is to gather information on values, issues, and experiences from those living in the region. The challenge of consultation is to encourage widespread participation, identify and record public ideas, and develop a plan with and for stakeholders that adequately represents the larger community. Several issues considered in developing a community consultation process include: • How do we identify stakeholders and conduct outreach? • Will meetings be public or private? • How large should meetings be? • Who is invited to participate in meetings'? • When and where will meetings be held? How will the public be notified? • Will there be other means and methods for community participation? PRELIMINARY STRATEGY Our preliminary strategy includes four elements of community consultation that aim to reach community members with varying levels of interest, experience, and commitment. These elements will include: 1. Community Advisory Group (CAG) The "CAG" is a core group of stakeholders and community members that will work together to deal with transportation issues at a more detailed level. The CAG will meet regularly throughout the plan development process. To facilitate trust in this planning process. CAG meetings should be open to the public, however without the general public dominating or detracting from agenda business. Our suggested format is as follows: • First 1 'h to 2 hours conduct CAG business. • Last '/ hour of meeting open for public questions, comments, and discussion. All CAG members and public attendees should abide by an agreed upon set of ground rules. 2. Personal Interviews Personal and small group interviews will be conducted with community leaders, social services, Kupuna, elders, large landowners, key government agencies, and/or other interested citizens. These meetings will provide one-on-onc opportunities to get to know the community better, receive input, and build relationships. 3. Sub -regional Groups Recognizing that sub -regions within the vast district of Puna may have different issues, community meetings will be conducted in sub areas of the Puna district. These meetings will address transportation issues and ideas within each specific sub -region. Meetings will be scheduled and held at each community's convenience. Possibly two rounds of meetings will be held with each sub -region to encourage participation, share information and receive ideas. Puna Regional Circulation Plan Memorandum No. 02 Page 2 of 2 Proposed sub -regions include: • Keeau (Keeau/Paradise Park/Orchidland/Ainaloa) • Mountain View (Kurtistown/Hawaiian Acres/ Mountain View/Fern Acres/Glenwood) • Pahoa (Pahoa/Hawaiian Beaches/Nanawale/Leilani Estates/Kapoho/Kalapana) • Volcano (Volcano Village/Ghia Estates/Mauna Loa Estates/Royal Hawaiian Estates) Presentations can also be conducted, within reason, upon the request of community associations, churches, schools, social services, non-profit organizations, and others. This will create additional opportunities for diverse community participation and review. 4. General Public Informational Meetings The PRCP process will include two or three general public informational meetings. Preliminary concepts, draft plans, and reports will be presented and discussed at these regional meetings. STAKEHOLDER IDENTIFICATION The planning team will conduct a preliminary assessment of transportation issues in the community. Stakeholder groups will be identified based on this analysis. As our understanding of transportation issues deepens throughout the development of the plan, additional stakeholders will be identified and added. The planning team will determine methods for involving various stakeholders (personal interview, sub -regional meeting, etc.). Examples of issues and stakeholders may include: Multi -modal Transportation Traffic Congestion Emergency Routes Bicyclists School staff County Civil Defense Hikers State Dept. of Transportation Hawaii Police Dept. Bus riders County Dept. of Public Works Hawaii Fire Dept. Hawaii Police Dept. Community Associations Commuters PUBLICITY Meetings and plan updates will be publicized in the following ways • Radio • Newspapers c Puna News c Hawaii Island Journal c, Hawaii Tribune Herald • Community Association Newsletters • County of Hawaii o Website c Weekly Email Newsletter • Email Correspondence to PRCP mailing list • Postal "snail' mail • Posted flyers Planning updates and documents will be available on the County website and at public libraries and community centers. We welcome any additional methods of publicity you might suggest. TOWNSCAPE, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL AND COMMUNITY PLANNING 900 Fort Street Mall, Suite 1150, Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone (808) 536-6999 Facsimile (808) 524-4998 email address: mail@townscapeinc.com PUNA REGIONAL CIRCULATION PLAN (PRCP) COMMUNITY CONSULTATION QUESTIONS 1. Where do you live in Puna? 2. How many years have you lived in Puna'? In Hawaii? 3. What do you value about living in Puna? 4. Where do you work or go to school? 5. What is your daily transportation method and route? (Car, bike, bus) 6. Do ,you carpool? How many people travel with you? 7. How long does it take you to get to your destination? At what time of the day'? 9, How has Puna's transportation changed in the past 10 years, 20 years? 9. Overall how would you grade Puna's transportation system? (A -F) 10. What daily life changes have you experienced as a result of traffic'? 11. How has transportation affected you and your family> quality of life? (Increased commute, less time at home, road rage, bad moods, frustration, etc.) 12. Where is traffic particularly congested'? At what time (toes this occur? 13. Can you identify particular transportation routes that are dangerous or prone to accidents? 14. What do you think about traffic signal lights in Puna? 15. Do you have any particular suggestions for new routes (roads, transit, bikes, and pedestrians)? 16. Do you have any suggestions for effectively managing traffic (in addition to building new roads)? Puna Regional Circulation Plan Memorandum No. 03 Page 2 of 2 COUNCIL 1. Please identify transportation concerns you hear from constituents. 2. Are you aware of any development projects in Puna that would have impacts on transportation? STATE DOT I. Identify existing DOT projects in Puna? New or widening? Current status? 2. Who is the point of contact for these projects'? 3. Other STIP projects in Puna'? 4. What is the status ofrevisions to HLRTP? 5. When will traffic counts begin on Hawaii Island for 2004? 6. Available or anticipated funding for future? HAWAII POLICE DEPARTMENT I. Characterize transportation and crime in Puna in the past 10 years, 20 years? 2. Identify community issues you deal with in the Puna District. 3. What areas prone to accidents'' Vehicular, bicyclists. pedestrians? 4. Is there a strong correlation of traffic and crime in Puna? Road rage and violence? PUNA REGIONAL CIRCULATION PLAN Community Survey This survey is part of our community outreach effort to discover what transportation issues and concerns are important to you. 1. What neighborhood do you consider yourself a part of? Loss of open space Too much development Ainaloa Kalapana Orchidland Cut -through trafficSpeeding Fern Acres Keeau Pahoa Other (please specifvl Glenwood Kaoho Beachlots/Vacationland Paradise Park F Hawaiian Acres) Kurtistown Volcano Dangerous Roads Hawaiian Beaches Leilani Estates Waa Waa subdivisons ' Hawaiian Paradise Park F" Mountain View Other (please specify) Hawaiian Shores Nanawale 2. Why did you choose to live in this area? (Top THREE reasons) r Rural lifestyle f Housing choices Housing prices Convenient to work Climate and environment Near stores & services I— Liked the neighborhood _ f Strong sense of community Open space Friends/family in the area I-` Other (please specify) 3. Approximately how long have you lived in Puna? 2 Under 1 year 5 to 10 years 1 to 3 years More than bears 3 to 5 years 4. Where do you get information about your community? (check all that apply) I Neighborhood mtgs.r West Hawaii Today Internet r Puna NewsNeighborhood newsletter Neiohbors/friends Hawaii Island Journal Countkof Hawaii emaiis (%lease specify) Hawaii Tribune Herald f Radio/TV 5. Check the THREE most important transportation issues in Puna. Traffic congestion Public Safety Lack of public transportation Loss of open space Too much development Transit for elderly & disabled Cut -through trafficSpeeding Other (please specifvl F Connectivity between Dangerous Roads subdivisons ' Enforcement --of laws PUNA REGIONAL CIRCULATION PLAN COMMUNITY SURVEY 6. What is your primary mode of transportation to work? Drive alone Walk Hele-on Bus Work at home/telecom mute Carpool Page 2 Bike Do not work (Retired, stay-_ at-home parent, etc.) 7. How many miles do you regularly travel to work/school one-way? 1-5 miles 6-10 miles 11-15 miles 16-25 miles S. How long does it take you to get to work? 1 to 15 minutes 16 to 30 minutes 31 to 45 minutes 25-40 miles 40+ miles 46 to 60 minutes 61 to 90 minutes 91 minutes to 2 hours 10. If you would like to be on a contact list for future meeting please provide your email or postal mail address. �s s _ A Project of the County of Hawaii Planning Department Hmrni'i Cumriv is,m 6 -quad Oppnrnmin MwWermid Emplover For more information, contact the County's Consultant: Townscape, Inc. 900 Fort Street Mail, Suite 1160 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 (808) 536-6999, ext. 103 mail0townscaoeinc.com hltp-L//www. hawaiicounty.com /info/orojects.hi m ~\� { \ )` \}� \� !� \ i� ;� — - i Imp] . :\- 01 : -6- 0 5 } /\ C,E & 1coz APPENDIX C: COMMUNITY ADVISORY GROUP MEETING MEMOS PUNA REGIONAL CIRCULATION PLAN Planning Department County of Hawaii PUNA REGIONAL CIRCULATION PLAN COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 5:00 p.m. Tuesday, August 26, 2003 Keaau Community Center Keaau, Hawaii Attendees (see last panel Handouts Distributed Revised Meeting Agenda List of Invited Organizations SUMMARY MINUTES Proposed Project Description Proposed Meeting Rules 1) Open meeting a) Opening remarks by Councilmen Safarik and Jacobson b) Introduction ofparticipants (see Handout for list of organizations invited to participate) c) Group rules—To moderate group proceedings, the County proposed some rules of conduct to ensure that everyone has a chance to speak in a non -threatening environment (see Handout for list of proposed rules). The group agreed to the proposed rules. The County emphasized that the rules can evolve as the group deems necessary. d) Project overview --County explained the objectives of the project and role of the community advisory committee (see Handout for summary): i) Objectives (1) Mitigate existing deficiencies (2) Forecast future needs (3) I.D. multimodal corridors (vehicles, bicycles, transit and paratransit, pedestrian) in sufficient detail to coordinate w/ zoning and subdivision (4) Detailed plan of action for CIP, regulatory, and acquisition priorities ii) Role of Community Advisory Group (1) Solicit input from affected interest groups (2) Provide forum for brainstorming (3) Engender community support for plan (4) Ensure compliance w/ civil rights requirements 2) Consultant procurement a) Amendment to Procurement law. County explained that an amendment in the procurement laws this past legislative session changed the procedures to procure licensed professional consultants (architects, engineers, surveyors, landscape architects). Since this project involves engineers, the selection process needs to comply with the recent amendments. Generally, there are three methods of procurement: 1) professional services list; 2) request for proposals (RFP); and 3) bid. For licensed professionals, the new law only allows the professional services list method. b) Professional Services List procedure. The professional services list procedures are as follows: i) County advertises at least once a year for those interested to submit qualification statements in designated professional categories (e.g., civil engineer, architect, archaeologists, planner). ii) A review committee reviews the submittals to determine whether the consultant is qualified to be included on the category list. iii) A selection committee of at least three picks from the list and ranks at least the top three based on specified evaluation criteria. iv) The director or designee negotiates in the order of rank. c) Committee tasks. In light of the current procurement laws and procedures, the County requested the committee's input as follows: i) Selection of'a representative from the CAG to serve on the selection committee. The other two members of the selection committee will be a representative from the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works. Those present selected Bonnie Goodell as the CAG representative to the selection committee. ii) Evaluation criteria. The following criteria were derived from discussions as important to the CAG: (1) Past perforniance; consult with client of project when possible to verify performance; (2) Ability to communicate with the lay public (e.g., writing style); (3) Capacity (e.g., current workload, available staffing); (4) Innovation; and (5) Knowledge of state of the art concepts and complex issues (e.g., transportation and land use relationship; modal split dynamics). iii) Comments on proposals distributed. Of the three proposals received, the consensus was Wilson Okamoto. The CAG did not have a chance to review SSFM's proposal. The County agreed to distribute SSFM's proposal after the meeting for the group's information. The input from CAG will be channeled through CAG's representative on the selection committee. Based on the new procurement law, all those on the professional services list in the pertinent categories (traffic engineer and planning) will be considered by the selection committee. The proposals received will be considered supplemental information. 2 3) CAG role Discussion identified key areas that participants felt were important for community input and which the scope of work or project schedule should incorporate: a) Scope of work-- Allow CAG to review the scope of work before negotiating with the ranked consultants, and incorporate the following: i) Specify a minimum number of CAG meetings; ii) Emphasize importance to address the relationship between transportation and land use; iii) Specify demographic analysis and its relationship to transportation needs and implications for desired land use patterns. b) Project schedule—include milestones for the following: i) CAG review of scope of work; ii) CAG review of consultant's methodology (e.g., traffic counts, projection sources and methodology) before the consultant starts work (garbage in, garbage out); c) CAG review of resulting data before the consultant starts modeling or using the data. 4) Email network The County will follow-up and research two alternatives identified to enable communication among CAG members and with the County: a) Puna web forum --County will review advantages and disadvantages with Lon Brown, Mainstreet Pahoa Association, and the County's Department of Data Systems. b) Email. Discussion identified the following rules if this alternative is selected: i) When initiating discussion, send to all; no private discussions; should be as if in a meeting. ii) When replying. reply to all. iii) If have SPAM filters, may have to turn off since some reject email if the email was sent to more than a set number of addressees. iv) When sending attachments, send as PDF or RTF to ensure cross -platform and ability to open by older versions of programs. 5) Meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m. Next Meetine The next CAG meeting is anticipated for mid October 2603, pending selection of the consultant and their submittal of a work plan. Enclosures: CAG member email addresses Attendance Gary Safarik - Councilman for District 5 Bob Jacobson - Councilman for District 6 Roy Takemoto - Deputy Planning Director Susan Gagorik - Long Range Section Planner Larry Brown - Long Range Section Planner Milton Pavao - Manager, Department of Water Supply Pam Mizuno - Deputy Director, Department of Parks & Recreation Robert Almeida - Hawaii County Police Department Ron Reilly - Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee & PATH Jiro Sumada - W.H. Shipman, Ltd. Howard Haymore Liz Saifen- Nanawale Community Association Bonnie Goodell - Bonnie Goodell Planning Kenneth Honma - Cooper Center Lon Brown - Mainstreet Pahoa Association Jon Olson -Puna Traffic Safety Council Mary Ryan Dan Payne - Hawaiian Paradise Park Owner's Association Gerard Silva - Hawaiian Paradise Park Owner's Association Suzanne Mayhew - Hawaiian Paradise Park Owner's Association Jan Genz - Community Development Hui of Fern Forest & Hawaii Anthurium Industry Association Rene Siracusa - Malama O Puna Luke H. Yasaka - Bishop of Honolulu Chancery TOWNSCAPE, INC. Environmental and Community P 900 Fort Street Mall, Suite 1160, Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone (808) 536-6999 Facsimile (808) 524-4998 email address: mail@townscapeinc.com MEMORANDUM #01 Re: Puna Regional Circulation Plan To: Project Files From: Hilarie Keehne Date: October 23, 2003 NOTES FROM COMMUNITY ADVISORY GROUP (CAG) This memo summarizes the second CAG meeting, held Wednesday October 22 at 5 p.m. at the Keeau Community Center. Twenty-two people attended the meeting including community members and County of Hawaii staff (see attendance list below). HANDOUTS DISTRIBUTED BY EMAIL Email: Revised Meeting Agenda Proposed Scope of Work Outline At meeting: Revised Meeting Agenda Proposed Scope of Work Outline Educational Resources 1) INTRODUCTION The Deputy Planning Director started the meeting at 5p.m. Attendees present introduced themselves. Roy Takemoto introduced the consultants from Townscape, Inc., Bruce Tsuchida (President) and Hilarie Keehne (Staff Planner). 2) TOWNSCAPE, INC. BACKGROUND • Townscape reviewed several of their past projects to familiarize the community with their work. c Small town planning focus starting with New England town planning. o Project samples: Waianae Sustainable Communities Plan (community-based planning), Ala Wai Watershed Plan (environmental planning), Residential Communities Initiative Stakeholder Workshops (community design and development programming), Keahole to Honaunau Regional Circulation Plan (transportation planning), Pu'ala'a Hawaiian Cultural Center Plan (nonprofit and Hawaiian groups assistance), Ka'u to South Kona Water Master Plan (Regional Water Planning). • The project team also includes subconsultants; a traffic engineer (Julian Ng); and civil engineer (Nancy Burns) 3) DRAFT SCOPE OF WORK AND DISCUSSION • Objective Overall Methodology Puna Regional Circulation Plan Memorandum No. 01 Page 2 of 3 Planning Process o The study needs to analyze actual land use -- not just look at zoning designations. Ans: Agreed. We will look at actual land use and real numbers. We will also map General Plan and Zoning designations. Some of these designations may need to be changed. o Rural Paratransit (KPT): What's happening with the Para Transit Study? Ans: Still in the procurement process. A consultant will be selected in near future. County planners will coordinate with County Transit Office and have the Para Transit Consultant give a briefing to the CAG at an appropriate time. o GIS: Will the study use standardized mapping software? Can ArcView shape files be made available to CAG? Ans: Yes. We will use ARCVIEW GIS software, which is compatible with the County's system. The County will explore possible training for CAG on ArcExplorer. o Role of State DOT: Will there be buy -in from the State Dept. of Transportation? Ans: We will coordinate with State DOT's study of Highway 130. The County will also ask DOT to give a progress briefing on the project to the CAG. o How will land uses at "full build -out" be defined? Ans: The planners will draw up several alternative land use scenarios. CAG member Bonnie Goodell suggested that CAG members organize into several teams and have each team develop a land use scenario. o How can we make sure that as many people as possible are kept informed as this Plan is being developed? Ans: We will do public meetings. Can also post information on County website and in County's weekly email message. Also use newspapers, radio, posters, information hand-outs at grocery store check-out counters, etc. Also be sensitive that many people do not have internet access. o The CAG should be an on-going body: continue to work together beyond this study. Ans: Yes -- on-going citizen involvement and action is critical for implementing important elements of the Plan. o Representative from County Civil Defense should be included on the CAG. 4) NEXT MEETING • Should the CAG meet again in the near future to discuss methodology for traffic counts, or should the consultant first do some of the necessary analysis studies? Discussion: maybe best to let consultant do necessary analysis studies. Consultant could share progress findings with CAG members via email. In any case, consultant needs a contract before moving ahead with analysis work. Contract will take about a month to process. Next CAG meeting thus probably January. Next meeting will include review/discussion of proposed traffic count modeling and methodology. 5) EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES A handout with websites, transportation terns, and definitions was provided to the CAG. Can we do an educational workshop on various elements of transportation planning? Ans: ["or starters, the hand-out for tonight's meeting includes several pages of information on transportation planning websites, terminology, concepts. Puna Regional Circulation Plan Memorandum No. 01 Page 3 of 3 6) MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:45p.m. CAG Anendance 10/22/03 Darren Ah Chong Kamehameha Schools Stephanie Bath Larry Brown Planning Dept Steve De Rosa Hawaiian Acres Community Assoc. Terry Elston Orchidland Community Association Susan Gagorik Planning Dept Bonnie Howard Kenneth Goodell Bonnie Goodell Planning — Cooper Center Haymore Honma Jacobson Councilman Dist. 6 Alice Kawaha Planning Dept _ Hilarie Keehne Townscape, Inc. Suzanne Bruce_ Mayhew McClure Olson Hawn. Paradise Park Owners Assoc. Dept. of Public Works _ Jon Puna Traffic Safety Council _ Milton Pavao Dept. of Water Supply Dan Payne Hawn. Paradise Park Owners Assoc. Ron Gerard Reilly Silva Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee Hawn. Paradise Park Owners Assoc. Jiro Sumada W.H. Shipman Ltd. Roy Bruce Takemoto Planning Dept Tsuchida Townscape, Inc. __ TOWNSCAPE, INC. Environmental and Community Planning 900 Fort Street Mall, Suite 1160, Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone (808) 536-6999 Facsimile (808) 524-4998 email address: mail@townscapeine.com MEMORANDUM #02 Re: Puna Regional Circulation Plan To: Project Files From: Hilarie Keehne Date: April 8, 2004 COMMUNITY ADVISORY MEETING NO. 03, APRIL 6, 2004 This memo summarizes the third CAG meeting, held Thursday April 6 at 6 p.m. at the Keeau Community Center. Twenty-three people attended the meeting including community members and County of Hawaii staff (see attendance list below). HANDOUTS DISTRIBUTED Agenda - CAG Meeting No. 03 Work Plan and Schedule Memorandum No 02 - Community Consultation Plan • Memorandum No. 04 Study Methodology and Flow Chart • Memorandum No. 06 - Demographic Data and "Strawman" Projections Traffic Data • Transportation Projects Introduction 1.1. The Deputy Planning Director started the meeting at 6p.m. Attendees present introduced themselves. Roy Takemoto introduced the consultant from Townscape, Inc., Hilarie Kechne (Planner). 12. Overview of past meetings and purpose of this meeting 1.3. Review of handouts 2. Community Consultation Process (Memo. 02) 2.1. Objeetice--gather information and values from the community 2.2. Issues 2.3. Stakeholder identification 2.4. Who attends what meetings 2.5. Notification 2.6. Choice of participation modes 2.7. Alternative strategics 2.7.1. Citizens advisory group (CAG) • Role: core working group • Membership: invited representatives; open to the public, guests may speak at the end of the meeting 2.7.2. Sub -regional groups-- capture diversity of Puna; more convenient opportunity for input • Role: Identify special issues specific to geographic region; meetings in May; notice will publicize information. Membership: Public notice; whoever shows up: publicize by radio, newspaper, flyers, Puna News, association newsletters, HI.I, talk show on radio, sign at congestion places, and CAG members. Suggested vcnues. C' Kcaau (Keaau'Paradise Park/Ainaloa)—Ainaloa Longhouse" Olaa Community Center? Paradise Park Comm Ctr? c Mountain Vicw (Kurtistown/Hawn Acres/Mtn View/Fern Acres/Glenwood)- -Mtn Vicw School o Pahoa (Pahoa; Hawn Beaches/Nanawale/Leilani Estates): Waawaa/Hawn Beachcs; Kalapana to Kapoho--Nanawale offers meeting place 0 Volcano (Volcano/Ohia Est Mauna Loa/Royal Hawn Est) --Cooper Center Puna Regional Circulation Plan Memorandum No. 07 Page 2 of 3 • Outcome: identification of issues; suggested solutions (increase capacity and reduce demand); inform of projects on the books 2.7.3. General public meeting - at the end of the planning process to bring all sub -regions together 3. Study Methodology (Memo No. 04) 3.1. Data collection to profile community 3.2. Analyze trends and relate to existing and proposed capacity 3.3. Identify multimodal needs 3.4. Compare to current and planned projects 3.5. Develop project list and cost; analyze funding options 3.6. Prepare action plan 4. Existing Conditions & Projections: Demographics and `Strawman" Projections (see Memo No.06) 4.1. Population: census and projected (2020); accuracy of census? snowbirds (indicator=non-homeowners exemption?)? de facto (includes visitors)? 4.2. Household size -distinguish by census tract level? CDP? 4.3. Lots and housing units --firefighter's counts? tax assessor's vs. building permit data'? 4.4. Infrastructure - -roads, bus routes, bike routes, trails; roads in limbo (DPW compiling inventory)-- paper roads, roads in use'? 4.5. Traffic -10 tri ps/househoId/day as basis of projection; 2002 traffic data before Keaau schools opened? Kamehameha Schools? school days'? Transportation projects (see handout) 5.1. STIP 5.2. General Plan 5.3. Bike Plan 5.4. Ila"aii Long Range Land Transportation Plan 6. Next Steps 6.1. To do 6.1.1. Prepare fact sheet-- Project objective, issues (include highway safety) 6.1.2. GIS layer of proposed rezonings and subdivisions, other approvals 6.1 :3. Inventory accident and hazard spots; causes (e.g., flooding) 6.1.4. Inventory emergency bypass options 6.1.5. Analyze TAZ (Puna's TAZs too broad?) 6.1.6. Inventory destination hotspots (c.g., Akebono, Pahoa community center, schools) 6.1.x. Map pattern of occupied lots 6.1.8. Map and explain traffic data (e.g., explain increase at Ainaloa segment) 6.1.9. Map proposed transportation projects 6.1.10. Railroad avenue bike path & road research—see file at P&R; see Paradise Park Community Plan 6.2. Refine data presented in handouts; land use scenarios; traffic projections 63. Plan sub -regional meetings—set dates/time/place by 4/24 for Nanawale to publicize at their upcoming eA'ent 7. Announcement: 7.1. May 20 for transportation workshop by FHWA on highway design principles for non -engineers (County Aupuni Center Conference Rm, 4:00 - 7:OOpm) 7.2. County DPW will be scheduling meetings to discuss "roads in limbo" and "paper roads." MEETING ADJOURNED A 1 9:00 p.m. Puna Regional Circulation Plan Memorandum No. 07 Page 3 of 3 ('Ar; Anand„n,, 04/06/04 Organization Name Ainaloa Community Association Philip Brazier Bievele & Pedestrian Advisory Committee Ron Reilly Bonnie Goodell Planning Cooper Center Bonnie Goodell Kenneth Honma Hawaiian Acres Community Association Jack Brauher Hawaiian Paradise Park Owner's Assoc. Gerard Silva Hawaiian Paradise Park Kurtistown James Weatherford Mary Ryan _ Leilani Community Association Al Dettweiler Malama O Puna Rene Siracusa Nanawalc Community Association Liz Salfen _ Orchidland Community Association Bob Arthurs Kurtistown Puna Traffic Safetv Council Howard Haymorc Jon Olson Kcann Townscape. Inc. Stephanie Bath Hilaric R.K. Keehne Hawaii County Council - Dist. �� for Gary Safank Skip Bethea liawaii County Council - Dist.--')- Hawaii County - Planning Dept Hawaii County - Planning Dept. Hawaii County - Planning Dept. Bob Jacobson Roy Takemoto Susan Gagorik Larry Brown Hawaii County - DPW Hawaii County - Mass Transit Agency Bruce McClure Tom Brown TOWNSCAPE, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL AND COMMUNITY PLANNING 900 Fort Street Mall, Suite 1160, Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone (808) 536-6999 Facsimile (808) 524-4998 email address: mail@townscapeinc.com MEMORANDUM #03 Re: Puna Regional Circulation Plan To: Project Files From: Hilarie Keehne Date: June 29, 2004 COMMUNITY ADVISORY MEETING NO. 04, JUNE 23, 2004, This memo summarizes the fourth CAG meeting, held June 23 at 6 p.m. at the Keaau Community Center. Seventeen people attended the meeting including community members and County of Hawaii staff (see attendance list below). 1. Data collection 1.1. Apply and identify opportunities and constraints with data. 1.2. Include data on caves and lava tubes. 1.3. No digital flood data is available for the area. Work with County and review Puna Community Development Plan to address flooding. 1.4. Address constraints of lava tubes and floodways. 1.5. Will this study propose more TAZ areas, more equal to that of Hilo area? 1.6. How were population projections derived? Population growth is a S curve into the future? 2. Parks 2.1. What is level of service for parks? Show park needs for existing population also. 2.2. Compare current demand for parks with actual park lands? 2.3. What are factors used for calculating park demands? 3. Schools 3.1. Now can we account for home -schooled children`? Many students have district exemptions and attend school outside of Puna district. 3.2. The DOE is not projecting any growth even though community witnesses growth. 4. Housing 4.1. "Build out' is not likely because natural hazards and lack of infrastructure in Puna. 4.2. The community has been growing at a very fast pace. Look around at numerous sites being developed, homes being built. 4.3. What subdivisions have more potential for growth and higher densities than others. Is growth more likely in some Puna areas than others'? 5. Commercial & Industrial lands 5.1. Puna district lacks adequate commercial lands for existing population. 5.2. Old sugar plantation lands are still considered industrial lands. 6. Employment Puna Regional Circulation Plan Memorandum No. 08 Page 2 of 2 6.1. Many teachers and social service workers commute into Puna for work. 6.2. Use census to quantify Puna residents that work at home versus commute outside Puna. 7. Land Use Scenarios 7.1. Bottom line: Which scenario do residents of Puna want" 7.2. Its not an either or situation, land use is a combination of concepts (to Hilo, within District, within neighborhood area). 7.3. Do analysis of parcels by building permit year. 7.4. What about determining locations of other trip attractors? Doctors offices? Hospital? 7.5. We cannot get too caught up in the detail of siting individual facilities. This plan has to help identify traffic demands and plan projects, systems, and policies that address them. 8. Traffic 8.1. Define a trip. Is it every segment of travel from home to store to gas station, etc. Or is it exit and re-entry from the home? Ans. A trip is any (ravel between destinations, i.e. from home, to store, io work totals 2 trips. A "home-based trip" is travel exiting or entering the place of residence. 8.2. Traffic forecasts will consider the number of dwelling units, commercial/service and industrial centers, jobs, to estimate the number of daily trip ends. Trip ends will be estimated for productions (dwelling units) and for attractions (workplaces or schools). 9. Other 9.1. Emergency access roads — can the plan address short term projects that would assist with emergency evacuation ctc? 9.2. Next CAG meeting late July/early August. Attendnnee Honma Kenneth Volcano _ Goodell Bonnie Volcano Weatherford Elizabeth HPP Weatherford James HPP salfett Liz Nanawale _ _ _ Bath steihauie Hawaiian Acres Bethea ski for Gar Safarik, County of Hawaii _ _ grown McClure Tom Bruce Count Transit County -DPW _ Levin Andy Mavor's Office Brauher .lack Russell HACA _ Brown _ Lan- Count - PlanningDept. Barrozos Sika Gerard Boh HPPOA H7 Counly Council Jacobson Keel Hilarir Townsca e. lnc Tekemolo Nov County - PlanningDe�(. TOWNSCAPE, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL AND COMMUNITY PLANNING _ 900 Fort Street Mall, Suite 1160, Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone (808) 536-6999 Facsimile (808) 524-4998 email address: mail@townscapeinc.com MEMORANDUM #4 Re: Puna Regional Circulation Plan To: Project Files From: Hilarie Keehne Date: October 5, 2004 COMMUNITY ADVISORY MEETING NO. 05, SEPTEMBER 21, 2004 This memo summarizes the fifth CAG meeting, held September 21 at 4:30-9:30 p.m. at the Keaau Community Center. Eighteen people attended the meeting including community members and County of Hawaii staff (see attendance list below). EXPLANATION OF PROJECTIONS AND METHODOLOGY 1. Future travel demands are based on existing data. 2. The best existing data is for vehicles. 3. Analysis of population, travel patterns, vehicles per household, was conducted. 4. Analysis started with roads and traffic as reasonable estimates for future travel. 5. Existing data was used as a reference point for extrapolating future travel. COMMENTS ON PROJECTIONS AND PLANS 6. Why does the preliminary plan prescribe road improvements and additional laneage? 7. The plan assumptions are the problem with "status quo" additional lanes. 8. Too much emphasis is placed on the "solution" of widening. 9. How can this study use better assumptions in traffic projections and preliminary plans'? 10. Start analysis with non -motor vehicles and increase availability of other modes. 11. How many trips can be accommodated by existing infrastructure 12. What are ways to reduce motor vehicles? 13. Let traffic become Level of Service (LOS) F, then concentrate efforts on efficient transit and bikeway systems. 14. Assume congestion and minimal highway improvements/changes 15. Think different: don't perpetuate single mode driving. 16. Set cap on the motor vehicle demand? 17. How many vehicle trips ctm we eliminate? 18. Start with x number of motor vehicles 19. Question conventional assumptions of traffic projections. 20. Significant addition of laneage does not tit with Puna's landscape Puna Regional Circulation Plan Memorandum No. 08 Page 2 of 4 MULTIMODAL PROJECTIONS 21. Only the minimum is presented for multi -modal options. 22. Develop Safe bike/pedestrian ways 23. Summaries of transit and bike projections do not account for varying land use scenarios. 24. Identification of useful routes and connections is most important because bike infrastructure does not require consideration of multiple lanes as roads do. 25. How to achieve better LOS without changing roads? 26, TDM efficient use of existing infrastructure with out significant new construction. 27. Live within the constraints of infrastructure 28. Integrate other County planning effort regarding Para transit LAND USE 29. Identify occupations of existing Puna residents and link jobs to land use types. 30. What land uses are needed to support more jobs within Puna and reduce out of district jobs? 31. Review those on public assistance (found in State Primary Care Assessment book) 32. What does land use scenario look like to keep people in district`? 33. Concentrate on nodes of development as job centers. 34. Invest in water lines instead of roads to stimulate development of nodes. 35. Do not use the term "bedroom community" — that's not what Puna is anymore. 36. A majority of people do commute into Hilo for work? At what % should it be called mixed instead of bedroom? 37. Create opportunities for more local development in Puna. 38. Determine what should be allowed in rural landscape? 39. Think about a zoning "package" for transit oriented areas. 40. Quality of life is important; develop projects that fit into the landscape. EFFECTS OF INCREASING FUEL. PRICES 41. Can we factor price increases for fuel and increased travel times? 42. Need to show gas prices at $4, $8, $20 a gallon 43. Can projections factor gas price increases — not really, no existing data to use, very subjective. 44. Economic hard times can help lead to car pooling and bus systems TRANSPORTATION AND HUMAN BEHAVIOR 45. Education is part of the process to change behavior 46. Promote a behavioral and lifestyle change. 47. Identify what it takes to change human behavior to get people out of cars? 48. Identify who might oppose alternative approaches and determine how to reach out to them. Puna Regional Circulation Plan Memorandum No. 08 Page 3 of 4 FINANCING 49. The PRCP plan could be used to determine state highway projects. 50. Divert funding to get to LOS D or C, then use funds for transit and bike 51. Identify where funding is available for transportation projects and how they can be utilized. 52. What percentage of funding can go to alternative modes of transportation? 53. Are there options to use FHWA funding for other projects, like water? How do we change policies to allow multi -integrated projects? 54. Develop water (well) with FHWA funding — thinking about integrated mission related to land use and transportation vs. highway centric plans. 55. Develop action steps for funding ALTERNATE ROAD 56. Keaau-Pahoa highway expansion to 4 lanes is just about guaranteed. 57. An alternate road is needed. 58. COH and FHWA fund alternate road like Alii Highway 59. Process going down shoot for interconnectivity 60. Interconnections 61. Integrate communities and subdivisions 62. 15th and 16th Ave options for alternative roadway. 62.1. 16th not impacted as much because of some 20 ac. Parcels 63. Agree on options for connectivity CAG PARTICIPATION 64. Critical point for CAG participation 65. Establish sub -committees on: 65.1. Connectivity and destinations 65.2. Land use and zoning 65.3. Transit, bikes, and pedestrians 66. How do we avoid a "pie in the sky" unrealistic plan while also thinking "out of the box" NEXT STEPS 67. How to integrate CAC input and guidance 68. Calculate LOS magnitude of F. How long does it take to reach LOS F? 2 years? 10 years? 69. Develop a "No road improvements" alternative 70. CAG determine plan `guidelines' — e.g. 4lanes of road maximum 71. Research more flood history — obtain more details from County Highway Maintenance 72. Brainstorm list of alternative modes and what loads of traffic they can provide for. 73. Develop strategies to improve LOS 74. Develop scenarios for vehicle and non -vehicle travel Puna Regional Circulation Plan Memorandum No. 08 Page 4 of 4 s OTHER INFORMATION 75. Workshop 9/29 with Jaime Lerner of Brazil CAG Attendance 09/21/04 Ginny Aste Pahoa Stephanie Bath Hawaiian Acres Skip Bethea Legislative Auditors Office Larry Brown Planning Dept Bonnie Goodell Bonnie Goodell Planning Howard Haymore Kurtistown Marilyn Haymore Hawaiian Acres Julie Jacobson For Councilman Dist. 6 Sgt. Samuel Jelsma HI County Police Dept. Hilarie Keehne Townscape, Inc. Andy Levin Mayor's Office Bruce McClure Dept. of Public Works Ron Reilly Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee Liz Salfen Nanawale Community Association Gerard Silva Hawn. Paradise Park Owners Assoc. Jiro Sumada W.H. Shipman Ltd. Roy Takemoto Planning Dept James Weatherford HPP & Mi. View TOWNSCAPE, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL AND COMMUNITY PLANNING 900 Fort Street Mall, Suite 1160, Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone (808) 536-6999 Facsimile (808) 524-4998 email address: mail@townscapeinc.com MEMORANDUM #5 Re: Puna Regional Circulation Plan To: Project Files From: Hilarie Keelme Date: December 13, 2004 COMMUNITY ADVISORY MEETING NO. 06, DECEMBER 11, 2004 This memo summarizes the sixth CAG meeting, held December I I at 9:00am-3:30 p.m. at the Keaau Community Center. Fourteen people attended the meeting including community members and County of Hawaii staff (see attendance list below). 1. Community Values • Add mention of mixed land uses and/or village centers. • #8 is ok: congestion is acceptable. 2. Traffic Demands and Projections Vehicle occupancy of 1.15 is the best guess from surveys throughout the State of Hawaii • With village land use why do trips increase in Leilani/Kaimu areas. As services are located closer to localities, more trips will occur in the local area versus longer highway trips. However, all projections are still within the capacity of exiting roads. • What level of motor vehicle use would warrant upgrades from local streets to collector street status° • Important to note that overarching transportation network it still based on vehicle -based assumptions of typical travel patterns. Tributary roads "funnel' to arterial roads. Be aware of the constraints and risks that we face. • Guidelines addressed with distinction: o Peak hour versus non peak (typically only peak addressed) c Through traffic and local circulation e Make highway as efficient as possible versus other systems for local circulation. • Other considerations for improving local circulation: c. Rural Para -transit o Feeder buses o Connectivity of subdivisions I ialfic signal maintenance versus the cost of "roundabouts" and traffic calming devices Acknowledge reality — people increasingly spending on gas before giving up car • Table 2.2 - * Add other sites including Public Facilities and private schools. o Add future plans for facilities. o Possible to have it corresponding map to this table? • Clarify that the traffic data depicts PEOPLE trips not VEHICLES. 3. Scenarios A -D: Discussion Cost estimate: bus capital cell is listed at SO — correction needed. • Develop additional Scenario (Alternatives E) as defined by the CAG • Alternative "F presents projects under constrained conditions ($ and ridership) • Priorities and goals set but they are not necessarily in order of importance. Various projects can be completed concurrently by County. State, and community groups. 1. Connectivity - short and medium range projects to interconnect subdivisions and create emergency connections. This would improve local circulation patterns. Implementation of the Multi-purpose bike/ped path along Railroad Avenue from RR Ave. to Hawaiian Beaches was included under this heading as it could also be used for vehicles in emergencies. 2. Bus transit expansion in schedules, headways, and fleet providing more equity in transportation service for elderly, children, low income. 3. Bike and ped facilities that are interconnected and integrated with other transportation modes (car, bus, etc.) Any new road facilities provide adequate ROW for bike facilities 4. Puna Makai Alternate Route (PMAR) - An alternate route to Keaau-Pahoa Hwy providing redundancy, emergency access, and addressing congestion. Also include bike/ped/transit infrastructure. 5. Widening # 130 - if needed widen Keaau Pahoa Hwy only as needed (preliminary traffic analysis shows widening may only be needed from Keaau to Ainaloa). 4. Transit Details • Important to note improvements to schedules/headway are needed in addition to more buses. • Park and ride must be a part of the system. • The Puna transit system must include linkages to the island wide system. • Important to plan public transportation through neighborhoods. Improvements to roads needed for safe travel of buses. • Mass Transit improvements are the responsibility of Hawaii County o Taxis need to be deregulated to increase competition o Taxi block is problematic to further public transportation services. o How do you stop vehicles from using transit routes/roads? 5. Connectivity • Route identified through Hawaiian Acres and Orchidland via Olaa Road and Pohaku (route identified on map) • Mid-level corridor is needed especially for transit routes Many Hawaiian Acres residents do not want this `access' c Alternate route across Hawaiian Acres should not be at a vehicle "scale" Control ,tale of road development — develop conceptual sections of future route will look like. o Evacuation of PEAR good but not comprehensive (,safety) I Benefits reduced costs to businesses and families. • Connectivity routes through subdivisions: o The "back roads" route from Volcano to Pahoa is circuitous, inconvenient, and takes longer than going out to highway. o How to change connections and improve alternatives? 6. Bikeways & Pedestrian Paths • ROW dedicated for multi-purpose path • Who was responsibility for the project'? State DOT, COH DPW, COH P&R • County Council passed it Resolution supporting the pathway in 2000. Puna Makai Alternate Route (PMAR) • Alignment is preferable on 16 Avenue due to less homes and development. • Same issues of "encroachment" as alternate route through Hawaiian Acres o Residents do not want increased traffic through their subdivision near their homes. o Alternate routes are needed by "NIMBY" prevails. • Could Shower Drive connect to PMAR? A. Action Plan • Link various modes of transportation. • Issues of NIMBY and road infrastructure dividing community, upsetting existing balance versus providing choices and services to residents. CAG Attendance 12/11104 Bob Arthur Orchidland Community Association Stephanie Bath Hawaiian Acres Skip Bethea Council Chair's Office Shepherd Bliss Hawaiian Paradise Park Lary Brown Planning Dept David Fukumoto Olaa/Kurtistown Bonnie Goodell Bonnie Goodell Planning Hilarie Keehne Townscape, Inc. Andy Levin Mayor's Office Jon Olsen Puna Traf fic Safety Council Ron Reilly Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee Liz Salfen Nanacvale Community Association Roy Takemoto Planning Dept James Weatherford HPP & Mt. View APPENDIX D: SUBREGION MEETING MEMOS PUNA REGIONAL CIRCULATION PLAN PUNA REGIONAL CIRCULATION PLAN SUB -REGION MEET/NGS The County of Hawaii will hold sub -regional community information meetings on the Puna Regional Circulation Plan. The meetings will be held at several locations throughout the Puna District including: PAHOA Tuesday, May 11, 2004 at 6 p.m. Nanawale Longhouse, 14-855 Kehau Street ® VOLCANO Wednesday. May 12, 2004 at 5:30 p.m. Cooper Center, Wright Road ® KURTISTOWN/GLENWOOD/MT.. VIEW Thursday, May 13, 2004 at 6 p.m. Mt. View School, 18-1235 Volcano Hwy. KEAAU/PARADISE PARK/AINALOA Thursday, May 27, 2004 at 6 p.m. Keaau Community Center An "Open House" review of maps and planning materials will occur for the first 30 minutes. The informational meeting will begin shortly thereafter. The primary purpose of the meeting is to provide a general overview of the project to the community and receive community input on transportation issues. This transportation study will address future needs for automobile, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit corridors. The Puna Regional Circulation Plan was initiated to evaluate existing regional transportation systems and propose future transportation elements. This transportation plan is intended to be a community- based process that encourages participation and input at public meetings. For more information, contact the County's Consultant: -.,.•:_,, t Townscape, Inc. i; 900 Fort Street Mall, Suite 1160 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 A Project of the (808) 536-6999, ext. 103 County of Hawaii _m-ail@tow_nscapeinc.com Planning Department http:i/w4ry�y.hawaiicounty.curnlinfo1proiects.htm Haimi'i ('omni,v an F,gwd Oppo) nnut' Provider and htnplo,vo TOWNSCAPE, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL AND COMMUNITY PLANNING 900 Fort Street Mall, Suite 1160, Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone (808) 536-6999 Facsimile (808) 524-4998 email address: mail@townscapeinc.com MEMORANDUM #08 Re: Puna Regional Circulation Plan To: Project Files From: Hilarie Keehne Date: May 14, 2004 SUB -REGION MEETINGS, May 11-13,2004 This memo summarizes sub -region meetings, held Tuesday, May 1 I in Nanawale, Wednesday, May 12 in Volcano, and Thursday May 13 in Mt. View. Community members and County of Hawaii staff attended the meetings (see attendance lists) PAHOA - Nanawale Longhouse, May 11, 2004 I. Community Mapping exercise -. participants signed in and participating in mapping their trip destinations. 2. Introduction 2.1. Larry Brown of the County Planning Department started the meeting at 6:15p.m. • Welcome and overview of project and purpose of this meeting • Explanation of sub -regional meetings versus district -wide public meetings • Introduction of Hilarie Keehne, Townscape Project Manager 2.2. Townscape background 2.3. Introduction of attendees 3. Transportation Issues for Puna (slide show) 4. Identifying Transportation Planning Guidelines & Open Discussion 4.1. Safety Issues • Use landscaped medians on highways to reduce blinding effects of headlights of oncoming traffic • School crossing signs/signals on Pahoa-Kalapana Rd. near Pahoa School • Resurface Apa'a St. between transfer station and Pahoa Village Road • Eliminate orange street lights or standardize all orange or all white along hwy. • Eliminate low roadway elevations where standing water creates hydroplaning hazard • Use roundabouts at intersections • Left turn lane into Leilani Estates on Hwy 130 is needed • Police should provide higher level of enforcement of traffic laws • Remove rumble strips along recently widened portion of Hwy. 130 • Increase minimum speed on Hwy 130 4.2. Land Use • Change zoning to allow more commercial development in subdivisions • Encourage placement of satellite services in Puna to reduce need for trips to Hilo • Utilize transfer of development rights • Avoid spot zoning and adopt subdivision commercial centers • Council is currently pursuing an amendment to the General Plan to allow urban expansion at several locations: e 70 acres along Orchidland Drive e 50 acres on Orchidland side of Ainaloa Blvd. e 4 acres on each side of Makuu Drive Puna Regional Circulation Plan Memorandum No. 08 Page 2 of 9 • With commercial centers near highway will traffic lights be needed? Can frontage roads be developed? 4.3. Widening of Existing Roads • Eliminate bottleneck where Keaau By -Pass (4 lanes) meets Hwy. 130 (2 -lanes) • Underground electrical transmission line poles along Hwy. 130 4.4. New Roads and Alternate Routes Add new 2 -lane road along Railroad Avenue right-of-way (Hawaiian Shores to Panaewa) Implement Puna CDP suggestion to use 15`h Avenue alignment in HPP for Puna makai alternate road 4.5. Multi -modal Transportation • Provide a makai bike and pedestrian pathway between Hawaiian Beaches and HPP • Map and recognize equestrian trails in Puna • "In Puna, you need a car to catch the bus!" • Mass transit from Keaau to Hilo in median of Hwy I 1 • Expand public transportation to provide service within subdivisions (especially in lower Puna) • Create subsidies for low-income bus riders • Create park & ride facilities to facilitate more use of mass transit • Identify alternative transportation choices that reduce automobile dependency • Legislate against less desirable modes of private transportation or structure licensing to penalize their ownership and use • Personal responsibility of citizens to utilize existing public transportation. • Use of existing transit can foster improvements and expansion. 4.6. Other • Prioritize project wish list considering funding realities • Encourage development of home-grown fuel resource; suitable for use in transportation systems • Concern for the "build it and they will come" perspective— expansion will lead to more growth. • "I love the ruralness of Puna" • There are consequences for the "rush to build' - avoid the quick -fix syndrome • Create financial incentives for those with smaller vehicles 4.7. Prioritization of the suggestions • Expand and develop more public transportation (14 votes) • Build a new alternate road from South Puna to Hilo (1 I votes) • Amend land use designations to allow for more commercial uses in the subdivisions (10 votes) • Widen Hwy 130 to 4 lanes between Keaau and Pahoa (9 votes) Dr. James Weatherford informed the meeting about a Community Advisory Group (CAG) workshop being planned for soon after the May 27 sub -regional in Keaau and invited others to participate. Those interested can notify Hilarie or Lary. 6. Announcement: May 20 for transportation workshop by FHWA on highway design principles for non -engineers (County Aupuni Center Conference Room from 4:00- 7:OOpm) Puna Regional Circulation Plan Memorandum No. 08 Page 3 of 9 VOLCANO- Cooper Center, May 12,200 1. Community Mapping exercise - participants signed in and participating in mapping their trip destinations. 2. Introduction 2.1. Larry Brown of the County Planning Department started the meeting at 5:45p.m. • Welcome and overview of project and purpose of this meeting • Explanation of sub -regional meetings versus district -wide public meetings • Introduction of Hilarie Keehne, Townscape Project Manager 2.2. Townscape background 2.3. Introduction of attendees 3. Transportation Issues for Puna (slide show) Identifying Transportation Planning Guidelines & Open Discussion 4.1. Safety Issues • Lower speed limits to 35 MPH • More enforcement of traffic laws needed 4.2. Land Use • What does rural mean') Bedroom community, small towns, agricultural -based'? • Create commercial/service centers within Puna subdivisions. • Improved infrastructure will likely bring more development in subdivisions. • Zoning constraints — there is a limited inventory for commercial/industrial uses. • Limited commercial lands are too expensive for local -based businesses to afford. • Actual land use tends to follow road construction. • Determine desired land uses and then develop transportation system to create it and support it. • Affordable housing is needed in Hilo where the main job center is. • Many Puna residents would move to Hilo if affordable housing were available. • Improved infrastructure causes increase in property values rising housing costs. • Don't increase density in Puna. • The County General Plan already directs development, growth, and population in urban expansion areas (Kcaau and Pahoa). • Developable lots already exist in Puna where growth can and will occur. • Fundamental questions: Do we bring housing to where jobs are (in Hilo) or bring jobs to where housing is (in Puna)'? Why can't we do both? • Land use alone can not solve transportation problems. • Create livable communities at the least possible cost. • Keep in mind we are not only planning for our lifetimes but for future generations. Puna Regional Circulation Plan Memorandum No. 08 Page 4 of 9 4.3. Widening of Existing Roads • Develop less multi -lane highways and more rural two-lane roads. • Wider roads and more cars harm environment. • No new traffic lights —they slow down circulation. • Use of roundabouts where appropriate 4.4. New Roads and Alternative Routes • Shorter trips and more route choices desired. • Develop interconnections of existing subdivision roads • Questionable government investment in roads 4.5. Multi -modal (transit, bikeways, trails/paths) • Integrate guided busway systems • Bus service to airport • Set up park and ride lots • More bike racks on buses • Bus stop signage needed? What is appropriate in rural environment? • Improve bike safety • Pedestrian/Non-vehicular environment is not realistic for Puna densities. • Transportation design for those without cars (have-nots) 4.6. Others • More public education on transportation issues • Remember tourists when planning for Puna transportation • First, make the Big Island a good place to live, and then it will be a good place to visit. 4.7. Implementation The "window of opportunity" for funding will likely close up soon as gas prices increase. 5. Dr. James Weatherford informed the meeting about a CAG working group workshop being planned for soon after the May 27 sub -regional in Keaau and invited others to participate. 6. Announcement: May 20 for transportation workshop by FHWA on highway design principles for non -engineers (County Aupuni Center Conference Room from 4:00 -- 7:OOpm) MT. VIEW — Mt. View School May 13.2004 1. Community Mapping exercise — participants signed in and participated in mapping their trip destinations. 2. Introduction 2.1. Larry Brown of the County Planning Department started the meeting at 6:15p.m. • Welcome and overview of project and purpose of this meeting • Explanation of sub -regional meetings versus district -wide public meetings • Introduction of Hilarie Keehne, Townscape Project Manager 2.2. Townscape background 2.3. Introduction of attendees 3. Transportation Issues for Puna (slide show) Puna Regional Circulation Plan Memorandum No. oil Page 5 of 9 4. Identifying Transportation Planning Guidelines & Open Discussion 4.1. Traffic • Traffic lights cause traffic congestion and back ups from Keaau as far back as Glenwood. • Commuters have to leave home earlier and earlier to beat traffic • "Windows of time" travel to get through congestion o Get from home to Hwy 1 I o Get from Khali Rd. to Kurtistown (Hara Stores o Get past the Kamehameha Schools (KS) light at Paahana St. • Windows of travel close up and stop and go traffic starts 4.2. Safety Issues • S. Kulani and N. Kulani intersection with Hwy. I I - needs turn out lanes and widening • Kuali Rd. (8 Rd.) intersection with Hwy. 1 I is dangerous • Speed humps not bumps are needed • Use of shoulder lanes is illegal • Many impatient people hying to travel too quickly, speeding. and breaking laws. • Intersection with Kulani Rd. needs help right now. 4.3. Puna Emergency Access Road (PEAR) • "I like my road the way it is" - PEAR. • Concern for ]and acquisition required and COH road ownership • Do roads really mean progress? • PEAR Road not bigger than a "Kinoole St" is a scary thought! • Protection of trees in road improvements • Good to have access and new roads BUT what does it mean in the future 20-30 years from now'., • County needs to follow through with commitments on PEAR. 4.4. Flooding and lava hazards • Flooding effects — i Iver goes through Hawaiian Acres through a concrete culvert. Culvert is clogged with green debris. Next flood will prove harmful if blockages remain. • Sugar diversions arc still in place that bring water through Hawaiian acres. • Many roads that "go nowhere," — flooding and emergencies • Can significant improvements be made within lava hazard areas? Is this prudent spending of COH funds:! • After 2001 flood County used funds in repairing road, 8 and 9 in HA. These roads are private! 4.5. Land Use • Agriculture is being ignored. The rural lifestyle is linked to farming! • Where is the future hospital for Puna? Identify important future destinations to locate travel patterns. • KS impacts traffic greatly — not enough mitigation of this. • School traffic and work traffic both impact circulation • Video traff is patterns to understand 4.6. New Roads and Alternative Routes • Alternative access: Ainaloa Blvd. to G road, across along the forest reserve (parallel to Hwy. I I ) to Akinaka Rd. • Stamback Highway significant improvements needed but good route. • North Kulani Rd. to Olaa Flume Rd (Gated) to Saddle Road at 8mm near Kaornana City. 4.7. Multi -modal (transit, bikeways, trails/paths) • Gas prices will impact driving patterns and how "popular" transit options are. Puna Regional Circulation Plan Memorandum No. 08 Page 6 of 9 • Public transportation is used for school busing in other locales • Old Volcano trail has received funding for work 4.8. Others • Contact Hawaii Tribune Herald reporter Kent Warshaer for into on old roads. • Get meeting publicity on Hawaii Public radio • This is an important subject and more people should be aware of it. • No one "vision" for all of Puna -- different communities/subdivisions have different views and visions. • Limited access onto toads to protect efficiency • Road standards should recognize rural roads — greener, less ROW required. • Need for revised County road standards. County plans to revise them'? 4.9. Implementation • Funding Ior roads but not for their maintenance. HPD traffic enforcement, and transit! 5. Dr. James Weatherford informed the meeting about a CAG working group workshop being planned for soon after the May 27 sub -regional in Keaau and invited others to participate. 6. Announcement: May 20 for transportation workshop by FHWA on highway design principles for non -engineers (County Aupuni Center Conference Room from 4:00 -- 7:OOpm) KEAAU — Keaau Community Center, May 27,200 1. Community Mapping exercise — participants signed in and participating in mapping their trip destinations. 2. Introduction 2.1. Larry Brown of the County Planning Department started the meeting at 6:15p.m. • Welcome and overview of project and purpose of this meeting • Explanation of sub -regional meetings versus district -wide public meetings • Introduction of Hilatie Keehne, Townscape Project Manager 2.2. Townscape background 2.3. Introduction of attendees 3. Transportation Issues for Puna (slide show) 4. Identifying Transportation Planning Guidelines & Open Discussion 4.1. Safety Issues • Use landscaped medians on highways to reduce blinding effects of headlights of oncoming traffic • School crossing signs/signals on Pahoa-Kalapana Rd. near Pahoa School • Resurface Apa'a St. between transfer station and Pahoa Village Road • Improve Safety - Blind curves, safe community spirit, speed humps and bumps and road swales to prohibit speed • Enforce speed limits. • More shoulder area for bikers • Law enforcement on Highway #130 about 20,000 cars/day 4.2. Railroad Avenue • Railroad Avenue should not be developed as a street, only as a bike and pedestrian way. • Not enough visibility will cause "drag racing" on roads, drug trafficking and dumping. • Many vacant landowners Puna Regional Circulation Plan Memorandum No. 08 Page 7 of 9 • RR avenue cuts through parcels and farms • Concern for widening of Ave. - Taking of livihood and farms, change character • Existing people, homes, activities on RR not just vacant • County Coucil passed a resolution to support bike/ped way on RR ave. • RR Ave does not make a good road corridor - blind hill and curves Development • Change is inevitable - protect the good stuff. • Obvious we need another access route. Someone will be unhappy no matter what New Arterial? • HPP Master Plan - I5"' less homes then others at that time of MP • 15" Avenue is a through road cutting through Shipman property • We need a road for access - emergencies, accidents, floods • Highway would divide HPP community? • Determine what is causing traffic? Oceanfront scenic road • 1972 Beach Road EIS - corridor along beach within tsunami and lava zones. • Not feasible to build in this area due to hazards. • Needs to be mauka of 7"' Ave. • NPP has already cloyed the bottom road near shore due to erosion under cliffs. Roads • Keaau-Pahoa should be 4 lanes • Ainaloa road access is a must - Pahoa to Volcano access needed • I5ih Ave (or 15'/2 Ave) or 16" Ave • Middle level road needed regardless. As a concept good need to identify where. ATTENDANCE LIST PAH Name Neighborhood/Organization Ginn Pahoa Mainstreet _ Don Leilani Estates _ Dorothy Leilani Estates ODettweiler Shepherd Paradise Park Joan Vacation Land Farm Lots _ _ Brown Ma Leilani _ Al Leilani Comnwnit Associatio Dubczak Frances Nanawale _ Halc Helene State Representative _ _ Horton Henry Huluuan Diane 0. Nanawale Hmrwitz Dawn Hawaiian Shores Kubica Mike & Irene Wa'a Wa'a Subdivision Levin And_ Ma or's Office Maltby Russell G. Nanawale __ Puna Regional Circulation Plan Memorandum No. 08 Page 8 of 9 Martin Toddy Kapoho Beach Lots Mathieu Joseph A. Nanawale Mathieu Roberta Nanawale Watch Nagasawa S. Nanawale _ Newland Paradise Planet Puna O'Hora-Weir Eileen Wa'a Wa a Subdivision Olson Jon Puna Traffic Council Palmer Sherry Kelso Malama O Puna Salfen Liz CAG; Nanawale Cmty. Assn. Sararik Gary Puna Council Siracusa Rene Kaohe Hmstds/Malama o Puna Smith Dave Tribune -Herald _ Turco Linda Hawaiian Shores _ Weatherford James CAG; Paradise Park Weir William Hawaiian Shores VOLCANO- COOner Center, Mav 12, 2004 Name Nei hborhood/Or anization Ba sa J. Mountain View _ Brown Tom County Transit Frankel David Kimo Volcano _ Gagorik Susan Planning Goodell Bonnie Volcano _ Honma _ Ken _ Volcano Jacobson Bob Hawaii County Council McClure Bruce Public Works-- orks_Mizuno Mizuno Pam Parks and Recreation Pasco Lori Volcano Shar less K. D. Volcano _ Weatherford James Keaau Wentworth Boh �_��____ Wentworth Jeanne HPP MT. VIEW — Mt. View School May 13 2004 Name Neighborhood/Organization Bath Stephanie Hawaiian Acres Bostwick Barbara Mountain View Brauher Jack Russell HACA Brown Tom County Transit _ Cornell Dennis Mountain View Fre CindL\ Mountain View Hetfron Peter Best Practice Planning _ Jacobson _ Bob Hawaii County Council Kelly Bill Hawaiian Acres Miller Diana Acres Olson Jon __Hawaiian Puna Traffic Safety--- Plunkett Charles Mountain View -� S_ Paul �_��____ Weatherford _ J. & E. HPP Puna Regional Circulation Plan Memorandum No. 08 Page 9 of 9 iuF A AT T– IZnaan Community Center. May 27. 2004 Nbie HPP ert HCPD-Puna "Name n Mainstreet Pahoa HPP e h Keaau hanie Hawaiian Acres lie ea Ski for Ga,y Safarik. COH Bliss Shepherd HPP Canon Tont H_PP Dinsmore Dale Orchildland_ Duwall Lisa Volcano Hay Deborah HPP Heffron Peter Best Practice Hurt Steve —PI Keaau Ag Lots Jacobson Bob HI County Council Jordan Brian F. Hwn. Bchs. Ketford Chris HPP Ketford Keith HPP E. Hi. Comm. Children's Landry Sharon Council Levin Andy Mayor's Office Luchau John M. HPP Mayhew Suzanne HPP McAvoy Ed Orchidland Estates Radin Cornelia HPPOA Salter] Liz CAG Silva Gerard HPPOA Smith Clarence HPP Smith Dave HTH Smith Denise HPP Weatherford Elizabeth HPP Weatherfnrd .lames HPP Transportation in your community! PUNA REGIONAL CIRCULATION PLAN SUBREGIONMEETINGS ® PUNA/HILO COMMUTERS Tuesday, April 5th, 2005 at 1 p.m. Aupuni Center (Old Kaiko'o Mall Auto Center) ® PAHOA/NANAWALE/ HAWAIIAN BEACHES/LEILANI ESTATES Tuesday, April 5th, 2005 at 6 p.m. Nanawale Longhouse, 14-855 Kehau Street ® VOLCANO/GLENWOOD/MT. VIEW Wednesday, April 6th, 2005 at 6 p.m. Cooper Center, Wright Road ® KEAAU/HPP/KURTISTOWN/AINALOA Thursday, April 7th, 2005 at 6 p.m. Keaau Community Center The primary purpose of the meetings is to receive comments on the Draft Report. Topics of discussion will include community values, traffic congestion, Hele-On bus expansion. implementation of bikeway.~ and pedestrian paths, new roads, and connectivity and expansion of existing roads. We welcome your participation in this process and look forward to working together to develop transportation solutions for the Puna area. The Draft Report will be available for review after March 25th at the public libraries in Pahoa, Kea`au, Mountain View and Hilo. A limited number of hardcopies will be available and may be reserved on a first come -first served basis by contacting either Larry or Hilarie. The report will also be posted on the County's website at: http://www_hawaiicounty.com info roiects.htm A Project of the County of Hawaii Planning Department lkmai'i Cnwnt� is an hyi,al Opp... 11111111 Prouder and b,q)lover For more information, contact the County's Consultant: Townscape, Inc. Hilarie Keehne, Project Manager (808) 536-6999, ext. 103 mailLtown �apei.c com For special accommodations (sign language, foreign language translation, or accessible parking) contact with at least 3 days notice: Hawaii County, Planning Department Larry Brown, Project Coordinator 961-8288 brown(Pco.hawan.hi.us FINAL DRAFT PRESS RELEASE Puna Regional Circulation Plan County of Hawaii will hold its second round of community subregion meetings for the Puna Regional Circulation Plan. Several meetings will be held throughout the district including: • Tuesday, April 5, 2005,1 p.m. Aupuni Center (Hilo at the Old Kaiko`o Mall, Auto Center) • Tuesday, April 5, 2005, 6 p.m. Nanawale Longhouse, 14-855 Kehau Street • Wednesday, April 6, 2005, 6 p.m. Cooper Center (Volcano), Wright Road • Thursday, April 7, 2005, 6 p.m. Kea`au Community Center The primary purpose of the meetings is to receive comments on the Draft Report. Topics of discussion will include community values, traffic congestion, Hele-On bus expansion, implementation of bikeways and pedestrian paths, new roads, and connectivity and expansion of existing roads. We welcome your participation in this process and look forward to working together to develop transportation solutions for the Puna area. You may access the Draft Report from March 2.5`" on the Countv's website at: hyr//,A°w w.lt_iwaii_cuunty.cum/info/puna/rencirculan.btm The Puna Regional Circulation Plan was initiated to evaluate existing regional transportation systems and propose future transportation elements. This transportation plan is intended to be a community-based process that encourages participation and input at public meetings. If you have any questions please contact Larry Brown at 961-8288, Ibrown0co.hawaii.hi.us or Hilarie Keehne at (808) 536-6999, ext. 103, hilarickeehne(«tuwuscaoeinc.ann. POTENTIAL FLYER SITES? KEA'AU Keaau 76 Station Keaau Natural Foods Keaau Sure Save (Puna Fresh Foods) Keaau Public Library Verna's (Keaau) Keaau Community Center (County) VOLCANO Kilauea General Store Volcano Art Center Gallery Volcano Golf & Country Club Volcano Store Cooper Center PAHOA Pahoa Public Library Pahoa Cash & Carry Pahoa Natural Foods Seven Eleven Store Pahoa Town Community Bulletin Board Pahoa Town Resource Center Luquin's Pahoa Neighborhood Center (County) KURTISTOWN B.J.'s 76 Station J. Hara Store MOUNTAIN VIEW Mountain View Mini Mart Mountain View Public Library Verna's Too (Mt. View) Mountain View Gym (County) GLENWOOD Hirano Store HILO Hilo Public Library Hilo Bike Hub Puainako KTA Hawaii County Office Building (Bulletin Board) SUBDIVISION COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS (HELP IDENTIFY OTHER SITES FOR THESE AREAS) Ainaloa Community Assn.- Ainaloa Longhouse Community Dev. Fern Forest Eden Roc Estates Fern Acres Community Assn. • Glenwood Residents Hawaiian Acres Community Assn. Hawaiian Paradise Park Owners Assn. Hawaiian Shores, Beaches, Parks Res. Kaohe Homesteads Residents Kapoho Beach Lots Residents Leilani Estates Community Assn. Mainstreet Pahoa Assn. Makuu Hawaiian Homestead Assn. Mauna Loa Estates Road Maint. Inc. Nanawale Community Assn.- Nanawale Longhouse Orchid Isle Estates Residents Orchidland Community Assn. Royal Hawaiian Est. Community Assn. Vacation Land Farm Lots • Volcano Community Assn. (VCA) -Cooper Center • Volcano Cymbidium Acres Residents • Volcano Golf Course Residents • Waa Waa Residents TOWNSCAPE, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL AND COMMUNITY PLANNING 900 Fort Street Mall, Suite 1160, Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone (808) 536-6999 Facsimile (808) 524-4998 email address: mail@townscapeinc.com MEMORANDUM #23 Re: Puna Regional Circulation Plan To: Project Files From: Hilarie Keehne Date: April 14, 2005 SUB -REGION MEETINGS, April 6-8,2005 This memo summarizes sub -region meetings, held Tuesday, April 5 in Hilo and Nanawale, Wednesday, April 6 in Volcano, and Thursday April 7 in Keaau. Community members and County of Hawaii staff attended the meetings (see attendance lists). HILO — Aupuni Center, April 5, 2005 (29 signed in) 1. Introduction 1.1. Larry Brown of the County Planning Department started the meeting at 6:15p.m. 1. L I. Welcome and overview of project and purpose of this meeting 1.1.2. Explanation of Sub -regional meetings versus district -wide public meetings 1.1.3. Introduction of Hilarie Keehne. Townscape Project Manager 1.1.4. Comments on the Draft 1.1.5. Puna's air quality is important. 1.1.6. 1 have the freedom to continue to DRIVE! 1.1.7. Freedoms come with costs. I.I.R. Personal vehicles allow each private space, hard to get rid of that. 1.1.9. Subdivisions are in place , so roads are important. L 1.10. We need roads! 500 building permits in 6 months for Puna Makai. 1.1.1 1. More roads encourage development 1.1.12. Roads do not fix traffic. I. L 13. Basis of traftic is laid use 1. 1. No arterial in anyone's backyard. 1.2. More on alternatives to automobiles. 1.1.1. Convenience of transit. 1.12. Lessons learned from other places'? L 1.3. Subdivisions organize to plan roads and TDM programs. 1.1.4. History of planning' We need a library on all that's happened and all these projects 1.1.5. Follow the timeline of events and accurate records from government. 1. 1.6. Bike connectivity using Railroad good. 1.1.7. Shipman connection to Hilo. 1.1.8. Bike paths internal to Keeau also 1.1.9. Rest of Puna Makai needs access. What about Leilani Estates. 1.1.10. Green buffers'? We need to use native plants, `ohia. Puna Regional Circulation Plan Memorandum No. 23 Page 2 of 7 PAHOA - Nanawale 1 onghouse AVril 5 2005 (25 signed in) 1. Introduction I .l . Larry Brown of the County Planning Department started the meeting at 6:15p.m. 1.). I. Welcome and overview of project and purpose of this meeting 1.1.2. Explanation of sub -regional meetings versus district -wide public meetings 1.1.3. Introduction of lidarie Keehne, Townscape Project Manager 2. Community Comments 2.1. Busing 2. Ll. Transit equity - schedules, covered bus stops in rural areas 2.1.2. Busing to airport — change regulations. 2.1.3. Bus lane to Hilo? Need inter -city system as well. 2.1.4. Create transit system for the next 50 years that is adaptable. 2.1.5. Transit is for low income and regular folks too — there should not be a stigma! 2.1. Bikeways 2.1.1. Railroad Bikeway would be safe place for bicyclists. 2.1.2. Nanawale bikepath needed 2.1.3. Bike paths will need security for safety. 2.1.4. Bike and transit is good. 2.3. Alternate Route 221. ,Alternate route will increase traffic. 2.2.2. Trees should be kept. 2.2.3. Safety roads through communities. 2.2.4. Roads through community is problematic —residences are affected. 23.5. Route from Nanawale is needed. 2.2.6. Focus on connectivity of rural roads. 2.2.7. No new roads under any circumstances. 2.2.8. Alternate route is needed — 2 routes to choose fiom increases overall safety. 22.9. Hawaiian Paradise Park preference for alternate route is "multiple corridors" 2.2.10. Displacement and other consequences a result of land condemnation 1 2.2.11. Traffic problem with only one corridor 2.2.12. We do not want to have to "tolerate" construction impacts. 2.2.13. Puna as a place to LIVE! 2.2.14. Multiple corridors option distributes traffic more evenly with less impact. 22.15. Remove the single PMAR option from the plan. 23.16. Plan it right' Need another road 23. Enforcement 23. I. Speed limits Ainaloa to Shower should be reduced. 2.3.2. Need enforcement to avoid fatalities. 2.3.3. Illegal passing and 'road rage" make driving conditions scary. 2.3.4. Need to increase police force and enforcement 23.5. Senior citizens are sate drivers. 2.4. Widen highway;7130 with 116 driveways. 2.4. L Alternative B — land areas the size of Honolulu. 2.4.2. Progress is reality. 2.4.3. Lava hazard is real. 2.4.4. We need an integrated approach no California "style' Puna Regional Circulation Plan Memorandum No. 23 Page 3 of 7 2.5. Planning 2.5.1. Puna has an overall lack of infrastructure and public services — but many like it that way! 2.5.2. We need to examine land use patterns and village centers for closely. 2.5.3. Recognize we need long term planning 2.6. Safety 2.6.1. We need more short-term safety improvement projects. 2.6.2. Poor design of intersections new Pahoa School, Kahakai 2.6.3. We need an acceleration lane at Maku`u 2.6.4. We have an immediate need to deal with safety issuer, on Highway 130. 2.7. Other Issues 2.7.1. We need to lower single occupant vehicles (SOV). 2.7.2. Environmental justice focus is good. 2.7.3. Local solutions and meeting is logical process for this plan. 2.7.4. Change is evitable -- we cannot stop newcomers. 2.75. Quality of life in Puna is important — rural, quiet, agricultural 2.7.6. Needed: education. ridesharing, law enforcement (speeding), roundabouts (traffic calming), intersection improvements, guided busways, alternate route restricted to truck traffic. 2.7.7. Reference DOT ROW minimum standards. VOLCANO- Cooper Center April 6 2005 (21 sinned in) 1. Introduction 1.1. Larry Brown of the County Planning Department started the meeting at 5:45p.m. 1. I. I. Welcome and overview of project and purpose of this meeting 1.1.2. Explanation of sub -regional meetings versus district -wide public meetings 1.1.3. Introduction of Hilarie Keehne, Townscape Project Manager 1.2. Townscape background 1.3. Introduction of attendees 2. Community Comments 2.1. Transit 2.1.1. Mandatory school busing to help improve traffic'? 2.1.2. Safety and security on school buses is not adequate. 2.1.3. Enforcement needed. 2.1.4. Transit has to happen at the center of communities. 2.1.5. Bike racks on buses need to be addressed. 2.1.6. Rural paratransit - 1 -wheel drive vehicle, not easy to reach people in rural areas. 2.1.7. Centralized Dispatch office also 2.2. Planning 2.2.1. Explain more about this process, when does the community give input? Is this the only opportunity. 2.2.2. How does the plan get implemented? 22.3. Once this plan goes to the county then what? 2.2.4. What about the community who can't afford to drive'? Where are they'? 23. Alternate Road 2.3. L HPP residents don't want to be divided by a road. 23.2. Mauka- makai roads need to be developed. 23.3. Add more on pros and cons of each alternative to the report. Puna Regional Circulation Plan Memorandum No. 23 Page 4 of 7 2.4. Connectivity 2.4.1. Fern Acres G through Anthurium was closed because of problems. 2.4.2. Connectivity causes crime and traffic. 2.4.3. Close connectivity is trend! 2.4.4. Roads through neighborhoods are not good. 2.4.5. Opens land to impacts of business and outsiders. 2.4.6. Support connectivity only for transit, not roads. 2.4.7. Connectivity spread out traffic. 2.4.8. It eliminates and shortens trips 2.4.9. Each community should decide on connectivity themselves. 2.4.10. Connectivity and the access created puts the "foot in the door" for more highways. 2.4.11. Connectivity not needed, will not help emergency response as long as station is far away. 2.4.12. Develop existing areas town centers with EMS, more helpful. 2.4.13. We need many things besides ROADS. 2.5. Land Use 2.5.1. Village centers not desired by many in community. 2.5.2. Some exist already let's just build off of those. 2.5.3. Subdivisions are planned as they are — agriculture. 2.5.4. Community centers attract bad things. 2.5.5. Most who moved here did not plan for these changes. 2.5.6. No "retro -planning" 2.5.7. Many community surveys (HACA, Fern Forest) — all opposed to development. 2.5.8. Wa`o Kele O Puna — no easements through forest area 2.6. Other 2.6.1. What about Federal funds for Beach Road? Why not? 2.6.2. Map conservation lands 2.6.3. State reserve and green space important 2.6.4. When does Puna get more public services 2.6.5. More education forums needed KEAAU — Keaau Communith Center April 7 2005 (87 signed in) 1. Introduction 1.1. Larry Brown of the County Planning Department started the meeting at 6:15p.m. 1.1.1. Welcome and overview of project and purpose of this meeting 1.1.2. Introduction off lilarie Keehne, Townscape Project Manager 2. Community Comments 2.1. Bikeways 2.2. Transit 2.2.1. Bike racks on buses 2.2.2. Applaud mass transit for responsiveness. 2.2.3. Assist communities purchase/operate small buses 2.2.4. Bus lane — how does it work'' 2.2.5. After school transportation alternatives to encourage participation in activities. 2.2.6. Publicize bus routes/stops to increase ridership. 2.3. Alternate Routes 2.3.1. Consider alternative connection per D. Fukumoto to airport/harbors 2.3.2. Improved connection to UHH and HCC 2.33. PMAR — don't want highway splitting community, multiple routes favored. 2.3.4. PMAR residential scale road Puna Regional Circulation Plan Memorandum No. 23 Page 5 of 7 23.5. Explain need for PMAR relative to future growth in other areas of Puna 2.3.6. PMAR examine more closely impact of new toad through HPP and condemnation of alignment. 2.3.7. Evaluate the need lot connection to Hawaiian Beaches with traffic projections. 2.3.8. PMAR impact -evaluate impact in terms of dividing community. 2.3.9. Phase PMAR - first phase stop at HPP (Shower Drive). 2.3.10. Fukumoto proposal: 3 alternative routes (lower connection, upper Kulani, central Puna) 2.3.1 1. Address which roads to be dedicated in plan 2.3.12 Importance for county/state to deal directly with community associations because of private subdiv. 2.3.13. PMAR - use $400.0fI0 to do survey of opinions. 2.4. Short Term Projects 2.4.1. Need for short-term action projects 2.4.2. Priority for emergency response projects 2.4.3. Address traffic signals along Hwy. 130 slow traffic: decrease accidents. 2.5. Laud Use 2.5.1. Emphasise mixed use - bringing services to community to reduce commute. 2.5.2. Maintain mralness- minimize improvements; accept inconveniences and congestion. 2.6. Other 2.6.1. Paving encourages speeding - need to include traffic calming 2.6.2. Orchidland Drive signalization to accommodate commercial services 2.6.3. Public safety - understaffed police/fire; emergency access 2.6.4. Incentives to consolidate to reduce density. 26.5. Education to influence transportation choices 26.6. Need more efforts to reach out to local groups for solutions. 26.7. Synthesis/compilation of background Information available to public 26.8. Clarify timing of road construction - include highway dei+ign/construction process to show that likely road construction is at least 10 years away. 2.6.9. Still need for corridor preservation in the meantime -es en if road not needed yet. ATTENDANCE LIST HILO — Amnmi Center. April 5, 2005 Name Neigh borhood/Oranization -L 710 de Alton HPP/Hawn Beaches Brown__ Tom Count Transit Bobb Coo er W.H. Shipman Ltd. Sandy I _ Bonk Hawaii Island Bike System Advocates Grecory Fernandez HPP Stephanie Bath Hawaiian Acres Guy Ward Hilo McClure Bruce Public Works John Lurkstrom_ HPP Barbara Bostwick Mt. View John _ Schinnerer HPP - Preserve Par. Park Dave Smith Hawaii Tribune Herald Scotty Parva _ Hawaii County Fire Dept. Bobbie _ Alicen HPP - Preserve Par. Park Jenny Moller_ Count , Real Property Tax office Caroline Nrrmi -County. Real Property Tax office Carol Johnson Hawaiian Shores Jon Olsen Puna Traffic Council _ Donna Chalmers Louise Wisechild I HPP - Preserve Paradise Park Lisa Duwall National Park Service _ Aleta Knight National Park Service Wendy Martin LannyNakano Civil Defense DonMorris Sheldon _ Remrn ton Joyce Kalawe Taira Yosh=m um HPP Mar=1 n _Haymore Hawaiian Acres .___ Puna Regional Circulation Plan Memorandum No. 23 Page 6 of 7 PAHOA - Nanawale Lonehouse. ADHI 5. 2005 VOLCANO- COODer Center, Auril 6, 2005 Name Neigh borhood/Oranization Manny Mattos HPP Charles Greene Nanawale Bruce McClure DPW Bliss Shepherd Paradise Park Roxanne Laurin Nanawale Linnie O'Flana an HPP Erik Tveite Ko ua Farmlots Per Lac Public Works T. Hazel Nanawale Leslie Esetp Hawaiian Beaches/HPP David Zeissher Hawaiian Acres John Kekahuna Makuu Farmers Paula Kekahuna Makuu Farmers Ann Kobsa Koae Comm. Association Phil Barnes Kahane Beach Charlie Stanton Sierra Club/Leilani Estates John Brisky HPD Salfen Liz CAG; Nanawale Cmt . Assn. Jon Olsen Puna Traffic Council James Weatherford CAG; Paradise Park illegible Gagorik ille ible Skip Bethea For County Council, Gary Safarik Natasha Ke Hilo Daryl Ke. _ Hilo Diane Hurtman Nanawale VOLCANO- COODer Center, Auril 6, 2005 Name Neighborhood/Organization Penelope Blair Fern Forest Brown Tom County Transit Kim Tavares Fern Forest Ga orik Susan Planning Goodell Bonnie Volcano Betsy Mitchell VCA & Cooper Center Carol Martin Ko ua Farmlots McClure Bruce Public Works Jack Russell Brauher HACA Lori Pasco Volcano Ron Reilly VCA & CAG Kuulei Kiliona Mauna Loa Subdivision Don Baker Edward Clark Keaau Aq Lots Karl Ma racca Volcano Village Shemin Take HPD Puna Laura Brezinsky Ko ua Farin Lots, Fern Acres Julie Williams C mbidium Acres Milos _ Ha ek _ Leleiwi Ass. OI a Hajek Leleiwi Ass. _ Susan Gagorik I PlanningDept. Puna Regional Circulation Plan Memorandum No. 23 Paee 7 of 7 KEAAU — Keaau Community Center, April 7, 2005 Name Jim Albertini Bobbie _ Alicen Lloyds & Carmen Alton Jennifer _ Bach Joseph _ Barrozo Jr. Stephanie Bath Stephanie _ Bath Walter Bell _ Shepherd Bliss Shepherd Bliss Laura Brezinsk _ Paul Campbell Keri D. Clark Josl nn Dal ale Mary DeVincent Jim _ DiVicient Anthony"Hawke e" _ Dohanos Frances Durrant Jeff Edwards Leslie Estep RJ Falk Gregory Fernandez Daniel Fernandez William E. Ferreira Jr. David Fukumotc Kirstie Goin Te en Greene Peggy Hanshaw Alan Hann Howard Ha more Marilyn Haymore Toby_ Hazel Joe _ Hensel Susan Hicks Elizabeth Hultman-Salfen Nancy Jensen Barbara Kahn -Langer Jim_ Kamahele Jill _ Kamahele Mildred Kangas N. Ke D. Ke Wendall Kekumu Bob & Suzanne Kita Margaret Levy-Dohanos Linnea Lindley Tim Lloyd Annie Makuakare _ Yr McAlister Jean Mckeague RobbieAnn McLellan Ben Mead Gene Meseck Dianne Miller Walter Moe Mafia Naeole _ _ Peter _ Nelson Helen Nelson Linme O'Flanagan Rolande Paleka-Kennedy__ _ _ Maya Parker Noreen Parks Ray Parsons Ann Pauline, Mary Marvin Porter Diana _ Radich Lynn Regan Erhard Rick Jeannette Salter John Schinnerer Christopher Seymour Kimo Siemann Gerard Silva Daniel Skom Sean Stehura Judy Stenger Jiro Sumada Darrell Takesato Scott temple Ingrid Tillman Jeanne Alexa _ Turner von Alemann Warrentin James Weatherford [Ja William Vicki Weatherford Williams Louise Wisechild APPENDIX E: EDUCATIONAL RESOURCE PUNA REGIONAL CIRCULATION PLAN TOWNSCAPE, INC. Environmental and Community P 900 Fort Street Mall, Suite 1160, Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone (808) 536-6999 Facsimile (808) 524-4998 email address: mail@townscapeinc.com PUNA REGIONAL CIRCULATION PLAN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES WEBSITES huL/hveyw bts. ov/programs/btsprod/ta indcx.hunl U.S. Dept. of Transportation. A comprehensive searchable inventory of transportation acronyms and their referents. hupWial_btsgovlindex clin National Transportation Library httP; /i��u w,ciStiniadoLni lyirc/ni,g n/cmlinc ren�als/p 1000jir ) f Approaching the "Smart Growth" Issue: A Look at Best Practices Used by Transportation Planning Organizations http_/lm_Ih}y a.dot.em /Ibr\.awch,htm FHWA websites hujL/Mw".Ihwa.doi.eiiv/teu21/inde _lin Transportation Fruity Act for the 21 st Century (TEA -21) hll ?]Itw, y,,py, jlwyg,ilnL�ic, S Federal Highways Administration l7ttR',((��ww.tl}q ;� d_ot�a is lh��lndcx trot} FHWA Planning. Environment, and Realty hULO/k now ledgc.Ihwa.Jut.gm) coLl{'HWAKnuwEyt.nst/inuo FHWA Knowledge Communities fit {g//hi� wjLvexpenise.11i%va_dot_='or/F,1,=Main.tist/Main )penaecnt Resource Center and Expertise Locator hap,//yww uans�orl iugnl.olb/tashlpncw/ American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials hltp,;//w ww, plarnnnc of Oresnui ces _1Jac routms.hpn, American Planning Association - Planning Acronyms and Abbreviations hail) //ww_w_Ms-iory RTS - Bureau of Transportation Statistics. An arm of the US -DOT created pursuant to ISTEA in 1992. ISO - International Organization of Standards http.//k\ \k 2.na�.cdu/trhLap1 NCHRP - National Cooperative Highway Research Program. An initiative of TRB to sponsor highway research in conjunction with AASHTO and FHWA. htfL/i rx2sw.nhtsa.dut,es7� / NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, US -DOT. httj2l/ww w_na,.cdu/Irhi TRB Transportation Research Board, part of National Research Council/Nasional Academy of Sciences PUNA REGIONAL CIRCULATION PLAN (PROP) Townscape, Inc. 2of7 USDoT US Department of Transportation- which includes among its operating administrations BTS, FAA. FHWA. NHTSA. otttp: /wu_w.rnilh_aih.o� The Rails -to -Trails Conservancy GLOSSARY OF TRANSPORTATION TERMS Access Management Access management is the process that provides for and manages access to land and land developments adjacent to a road system, while simultaneously preserving the flow of traffic on the road system in terms of safety, capacity, and speed. Control of access spacing and design, roadway functional classification, and preservation of roadway capacity are used to develop an access -management system that provides for an acceptable balance of access and mobility. Arterial An arterial is one of the functional classes in a functional classification scheme j used to characterize roads and streets in a roadway network. Highways classified as arterials in rural areas provide intercounty, statewide, and interstate routes, generally linking cities, larger towns, and other major traffic generators. In urban areas, arterials generally serve the major centers of activity and link collector roads. In both rural and urban areas, arterials have a high level of traffic mobility and a low level of access to land. Average Annual Daily The total traffic for a year divided by 365. Traffic (AADT) Average Daily Traffic The total traffic volume during a given period (from 1 to 364 days) divided by the umber of days in that period. Current AD T volumes can be determined by continuous traffic counts or periodic counts. Where only periodic traffic counts are taken, ADT volume can be established by applying correction factors such as for season or day of week. For roadways having traffic in two directions, the ADT includes traffic in both directions unless specified otherwise. Average Weekday 7 The total traffic for an average weekday. An average weekday is a representative Daily Traffic (AWDT) weekday computed as the mathematical average of several typical weekdays selected at random throughout the year. A typical weekday has no anomaly such as heavy traffic due to a special public event or light traffic due to inclement weather. Average Saturday and Sunday data, including holiday service, are determined the same way. _ Benefit/Cost (B/C) B/C is used to compare the benefit versus the cost of proposed alternatives. For ratio highway projects, benefits may include reduced fuel consumption, travel time, and r pollution; costs may include construction, right of way, and maintenance. Bottleneck Highway sections that experience operational problems such as congestion. Bottlenecks may result from factors other than reduced roadway width. For example, the close spacing of exit and entrance ramps can cause weaving patterns that result in congestion. A less obvious example is a steep freeway grade that can slow trucks and cause a localized "bottleneck." Capacity Capacity refers to a rate of vehicular or person flow that can be expected to traverse a point or uniform section of a lane or roadway during a specific period, which is most often a peak 15 -minute period, and which is not the maximum volume that can be accommodated during an hour, under prevailing roadway, traffic, and control conditions. Capacity and Level of Service (LOS) are analyzed separately and are not simply related to each other; both must be fully considered to evaluate the overall operation of a facility Capacity analysis may be used in the computation of Volume -to -Capacity (VIC) ratios. In some cases, the VIC ratio Is used to define LOS. PUNA REGIONAL. CIRCULATION PLAN (PROP) Townscape, Inc. _ Page 3 of 7 Collector A collector is one of the functional classes in a functional classification scheme used to characterize roads and streets in a roadway network. Highways classified as collectors in rural areas serve primarily intracounty or regional, rather than statewide travel and consist of routes on which route distances are generally shorter than on arterial routes. In both urban and rural areas, collectors provide a medium level of traffic mobility and medium level of access to land. Corridor A corridor is a broad geographic area, defined by logical, existing and forecasted travel patterns served by various modal transportation systems that provide important connections within and between regions of the state for people, goods, and services. Travel within the corridor may include vehicular, rail, transit, water, air, or non -motorized. Corridor Plan Corridor Planning A corridor plan is a long-range plan that defines a comprehensive package of recommendations for managing and improving transportation facilities and services within and along a transportation corridor using a 20 -year planning horizon. l Corridor planning is a collaborative process involving the state, local governments, and citizens whereby transportation facilities and services within a corridor are examined, analyzed, and evaluated, and long-term management and improvement policies, goals, and strategies are established. Environmental A document that assesses an action that is not a categorical exclusion and does Assessment (EA) not clearly require the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS), or where the Federal Highway Administration believes an environmental assessment would assist in determining the need for an EIS. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) An environmental document that is required when an action that will significantly 1 affect the environment. J Federal Highway The federal agency responsible for the administration of federal highway funds. Administration FHWA does not have a direct role or responsibilities in the development of urban (FHWA) transportation plans or their development. However, their role is administration of federal funds and in the issuance of policy and procedure timetables for implementation of federal legislative directives is immense. _ eral Transit FTA was formerly as the Urban Mass Transportation Administration. It [Administration(FTA) The operates under the authority of the Federal Transit Act. The FTA was established as a component of the US Department of Transportation. _ Frontage road An arterial type roadway that parallels a major transportation facility such as a freeway. It serves to collect and distribute traffic along the major facility without impeding flow along the freeway. Frontage roads are also referred to by the public as "access," "feeder," and "service" roads. Grade High Occupancy The slope (ratio of change in elevation to change in distance) of a roadway typically given in percent. For example, a 2% grade represents 2 -feet of elevation changeover a 100 -foot distance. more than one occupant. Examples include carpools, vanpools, =andbuses. Transportation systems may encourage HOV use by Vehicle (HOV) d HOV lanes. High Occupancy High Occupancy Vehicle Lane. Exclusive road or traffic lane limited to buses, Vehicle (HOV) Lane vanpools, carpools, emergency vehicles, and in some cases, single occupant motorcycles. HOV lanes typically have higher operating speeds and lower traffic volumes than adjacent general purpose lanes. HOV lanes have proven to be successful in major metropolitan areas across the US; however, their full effectiveness is usually not realized until about one to two years after implementation. Hourl . Volume The volume of traffic (given in units of vehicle per hour) that traverses across a HV) ) segment of a roadway in one hour. The HV may be determined from traffic counts PUNA REGIONAL CIRCULATION PLAN (PROP) Townscape, Inc. Page 4 of 7 or may be a projected calculation. Refer to Design Hour Volume. Incident An incident may be any of the following: traffic accident, stalled vehicle, load spillage, or other action that affects one or more lanes of traffic. An "accident" typically involves a collision of a moving vehicle with another vehicle, person, or object. Intelligent ITS replaces the term Intelligent Vehicle Highway System. ITS is a surveillance Transportation system designed to monitor traffic flows on major freeways and to inform System (ITS) motorists or problem areas. Some ITS technology includes changeable message signs, cameras, and video detectors. ITS applications include: the integration of traffic control and transportation management systems; traffic signals which adapt to traffic and change control each cycle; highway advisory radio systems; changeable message signs (CMS); vehicle detectors; closed-circuit television; Global Positioning Systems and route guidance (Currently used in some trucks, buses, and rental cars). An ITS may enable drivers to operate their vehicles more safely and with greater knowledge about existing traffic conditions. Intermodal Surface A Transportation Bill passed by Congress in 1991 that provides six year Transportation authorizations for development of a National Intermodal Transportation System Efficiency Act (ISTEA) which consists of all forms of transportation in a unified, interconnected manner. It increased the percentage of federal match funding available for the majority of Texas transportation projects. ISTEA was designed to move goods and people more efficiently by developing an integrated transportation infrastructure system for the United States. ISTEA is this country's first serious effort to promote intermodalism, the idea that all systems and structures for moving people and goods must function as an integrated and cohesive transportation network which includes rail and mass transit as well as highways. Under ISTEA, the statewide planning process must incorporate some new goals: to reduce congestion and improve air quality; to consider national and international commerce; to consider energy conservation; to create an integrated system of several modes; and to concentrate on the most efficient way to move goods and people, not just people. The three major components of ISTEA are the National Highway System, the Surface Transportation Program, and the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program. Intermodal Transportation of persons and goods that involves the interchange between Transportation transportation modes such as surface routes, airways, and waterways. Intermodal transportation for surface transportation of people and goods includes the interchange between modes such as automobiles, mass transit such as buses, railway including commuter rail and can include Park And Ride lots or other mode interchange facilities. Intermodal transportation enables people and goods to be consolidated into larger groups that can be transported at lower costs. In addition to reducing costs, it enables greater logistic flexibility than can also reduce congestion and travel time. Intermodalism A holistic view of transportation in which individual modes work together or within their own niches to provide the user with the best choices of service, and in which the consequences on all modes of policies for a single mode are considered. This view has been called balanced, integrated, or comprehensive transportation. Intermodalism includes the provision of connections between different modes, such as highways to bus feeder services to rail transit. Level Of Service A qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream and (LOS) motorists' perceptions of those conditions. For example, LOS A represents free flow, almost complete freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream. LOS F represents forced flow, more vehicles are attempting to use the freeway than can be served resulting in stop and go traffic. Light Rail Transit A railway with a "light volume" traffic capacity compared to "heavy rail." Light rail (LRT) or Light Rail may use shared or exclusive rights of way, high or low platform loading, and PUNA REGIONAL CIRCULATION PLAN (PROP) Townscape, Inc. Page 5 of 7 multi -car trains or single cars traveling on fixed rails. LRT uses lightweight, streetcar type passenger vehicles operated on city streets that is not separated from other traffic for much of the way. LRT also known as light rail, streetcar, trolley car, and tramway. Measures Of MOE include: average vehicle speed, vehicle stops, delays, vehicle -hours of Effectiveness (MOE) travel, vehicle -miles of travel, fuel consumption and pollutant emissions. MOE provide insight into the effects on the traffic stream of the applied improvement strategy. National Highway The NHS is one of the three major components of the 1991 Intermodal Surface System (NHS) Transportation Efficiency Act. A major new Federal -aid system was established in the NHS. It includes the Interstate System, other routes identified as having strategic defense characteristics, routes providing access to major ports, airports, public transportation and intermodal transportation facilities and, of particular significance to local governments, and many principal urban and rural arterials which provide regional service. National An intermodal system consisting of all forms of transportation in a unified, Transportation interconnected manner to reduce energy consumptions and air pollution while System (NTS) promoting economic development and supporting the Nation's preeminent position in international commerce. The NTS includes the National Highway System, public transportation and access to ports and airports. Park and Pool (PP) similar to Park and Ride, except motorists leave their individual vehicles and complete their trip in a car pool or HOV other than a mass transit vehicle Park and Ride (PR) PR lots are designed to intercept automobiles at outlying locations along transitway corridors (e.g., bus routes). Peak Hour Factor The PHF is a ratio of the total hourly traffic volume to the maximum 15 -minute (PHF) traffic rate within the hour. PHF represents the flow variation within an hour. Observations consistently show the flow rate found in the peak 15 -minute period within an hour is not sustained throughout the entire hour. PHFs for multilane highways range from 0.76 to 0.99. Peak Hour Traffic Higher traffic volumes occur in the evening and in the morning because of work- (PHT) related trips. The evening peak is typically the highest since non -work related trips are also made in this period. The percentage of Average Daily Traffic (ADT) which occurs in the evening peak hour commonly ranges between 7% and 12%. Person Trip A trip by one or more persons in any mode of transportation. Each person is considered as making one person trip. For example, four persons traveling together in one auto make four person trips. Program JA list of specific actions to be implemented within an identified time period. Right Of Way (ROW) The land (usually a strip) acquired for or devoted to transportation purposes. For example, highway ROW and railroad ROW. Single-OccupantA vehicle having only one occupant (usually the vehicle operator!). Vehicle (SOV) Speed Design speed is the maximum safe speed that can be maintained over a specified section of highway when conditions are so favorable that the design features of the highway govern. The design speed of a roadway dictates which geometric design standards are used such as stopping sight distance, radius of curves, and banking (superelevation) of road surfaces. Operating speed is the speed at which drivers are observed operating their vehicles. Posted speed is the maximum speed limit posted on a section of roadway using a regulatory sign. TxDOT's Procedure for Establishing Speed Zones states that the posted speed "should be based primarily upon the 85th percentile speed when adequate speed samples can be secured." This method has also been the PUNA REGIONAL CIRCULATION PLAN (PROP) Townscape, Inc. 6of7 standard practice nationwide. Speed limits can not be posted in excess of legislatively mandated speed limits. "85th percentile speed" is the speed at7or 7] below which 85 percent of drivers are operating their vehicles. Statewide A staged, multi-year, statewide, intermodal program of transportation projects Transportation which is consistent with the Statewide Transportation Plan (STP) and planning Improvement Program processes and metropolitan plans, TIPs and processes. The STP is to be (STIP) implemented within each 3 -year period after adoption of the program, and it includes a financial plan that demonstrates how the program can be implemented. Requirement for the STP was established by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991. Statewide The official statewide, intermodal transportation plan that is developed through the Transportation Plan statewide planning process. (STP) Surface A new block grant type program established as one of the three major Transportation components of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act to Program (STP) supplement the National Highway System (NHS). The STP may be used by states and localities for any roads, including NHS, that are not functionally classified as local or rural minor collectors. These roads are now collectively referred to as Federal -aid roads. Transportation Corridor analysis is a detailed analysis of a roadway performed for the purpose of Analysis obtaining the most accurate projected traffic volumes. The analysis takes into account existing traffic volumes, projected growth, and major traffic generating locations. A corridor analysis will yield projected traffic volumes for every movement allowed on a facility including main lane, ramp, frontage road, and turning volumes. Design analysis is an analysis is used to determine the number of lanes required to deliver a specific LOS based on a forecast demand volume and given geometric design standards. Operational analysis is an analytic evaluation of operations on an existing highway segment. The same type of analysis may be applied to evaluate probable operating conditions on a future facility. All traffic and roadway conditions must be specified, as well as traffic volumes. The typical situations which can be resolved through this type of analysis include the comparison of flow conditions for different volume levels and number of lanes. This type of analysis might also be used to establish the impacts of a change in the numberof access points along a given section of multilane highway. Another typical application of an operational analysis, might be to develop several alternative packages which would be used to improve the level of service or travel speed along a mult4ane highway. Planning analysis is similar to Design analysis in that the number of lanes needed for a LOS is determined. However, the Planning Analysis requires much less input of detail, and it uses a very rough estimate for directional design hourly volume and using the design procedures. Transportation TDM includes actions or programs which encourage people to travel at alternative Demand Management times, or with fewer vehicles to reduce congestion, TDM reduces traffic volumes (TDM) through methods including: ridesharing, park-and-ride operations, staggered work hours, and transit improvements. Transportation The TIP is a staged, three- to five-year prioritized program of transportation Improvement Program projects covering a metropolitan planning area which is consistent with the (TIP) metropolitan transportation plan. The projects are recommended from those in the transportation systems management element and the long-range element of the planning process. This program is required for a locality to receive federal transit and highway grants. The selected projects need to be consistent with the transportation plan. The TIP also contains an annual or biennial element which lists all transportation project activities that will receive federal funding for a given 1 or 2 year period. Regulations require the Metropolitan Planning Organization PUNA REGIONAL CIRCULATION PLAN (PROP) Townscape. Inc. 7of7 (MPO) and state and transit operators to cooperatively develop the TIP and make project selections within expected funding levels. Transportation An urbanized area with a population over 200,000 (as determined by the latest Management Area decennial census) or other area when TMA designation is requested by the (TMA) Governor and the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), and officially designated by the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration. The TMA designation applies to the entire metropolitan planning area served by an MPO within which the TMA is located. Transportation A general approach to solving a transportation problem. Examples of Strategy transportation strategies for roadways include: "do nothing" or "no -build," add a travel lane, convert a travel lane to an HOV lane, reconstruct or widen a roadway, or implement Transportation Demand Management and Transportation Systems Management Transportation Actions or construction that control or improve the movement of cars and trucks System Management on the highway system and buses on the transit system. TSM also includes the (TSM) coordination of the available transportation systems for more efficient operation. Transportation Some TSM concepts represent over 80 years of experience and practice by Systems Management transportation engineers and planners. A typical TSM activity is a low-cost, short - (TSM) term, high -impact transportation -related improvement. A TSM action is not the construction of a new freeway, but it may be the use of a freeway shoulder as an added traffic lane during peak traffic flow conditions. TSM examples include using traffic signals at freeway on -ramps to meter traffic, improving existing signal timings, and using changeable message signs (ahead traffic condition information), lane control signs, and changeable speed signs. TSM involves making implementable improvements, or additions, to existing transportation facilities. Vehicle Mile of Travel A unit to measure vehicle travel made by a private vehicle, such as an (VMT) automobile, van, pickup truck, or motorcycle. Each mile traveled is counted as one vehicle mile regardless of the number of persons in the vehicle. Vehicles Per Day This is a measure of traffic volume and is used as the unit for Average Annual (VPD) Daily Traffic. _ Vehicles Per HourA ratio used in defining the hourly volume. (VPH) Volume -to -Capacity The ratio of flow rate to capacity. The V/C may be the actual or projected rate of ratio (V/C) flow on a designated lane group during a peak 15 -minute interval divided by the capacity of the lane group. The V/C ratio is a measure of capacity sufficiency, that is, whether or not the physical geometry provides sufficient capacity for the subject movement. Low V/C ratios depict relatively free flow conditions. High V/C ratios depict more congested conditions. Actual V/C ratios are calculated from vehicle count data (defining volume) and the geometrics of a roadway (determining capacity). V/C ratios are used to broadly define problem areas on a freeway and to make preliminary operational decisions concerning the freeway (e.g., ramp metering rates). In some cases, the V/C ratio is used to define Level of Service. APPENDIX F: STATEWIDE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (STIP) AMENDMENT #9 PUNA REGIONAL CIRCULATION PLAN ca 00 0 ° ! _\/ \■E z : : /■� ! ,(# \�E ! ©` - \(\ !- E/{ � r�»� |§¢ \■» § § !§{ }■( } # }§{ WRIN 11 00 /\00- \ () \) -- v : �• • ; \ �\ Egg - \) � (j\ ( z ! } ! - )$�\©_§ `!\ 4)!,: : 45: - - - rc ¢° arc rc rc rc E a v ¢ i u QU 6U u d¢ m 4 �ryry Byyi Bi Q 2 F w o¢¢ KQ K¢ K ¢¢ 2 K K K Z 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z z z¢ Z 2 ¢ 2 Z 2 Z Z Z Z w m J J 2 Z Z a O O 0 0 O O e 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O m O m O O O m m [) O O O O 2 O Z Z o li w ss 2 2 of 0` 2 a c w�w�� w w w -.w�� W w W w w �% W ,� w w w x ~ ~~ 55 O W O O i E — i m K K¢ K rt 2 K K K K K K u¢ j w w¢ R W u u O U U U Q 2 W 7 Q p v_� v_i _ to U U N N U U N N U N U U N N U U N N U U U U U U U � 1 U Y O O p O O p 5 O N O N O p p N N f i N N p p J J ° p O � g IJIJJ o O N o J % Nee 8�8 08� 8 O eW N m < LL ' 0 V F % Qa gi n0� =o« QQ Q LL L 0 rr LLON F N 00� o J % N Q O GM gi u�i Q 3i R 3+ q mo w n u � W N Q Z O j O VI wo Z C 2 O 0 N O w Z N p 2 p N Z O o N Z W O 3 W 0 2 Z 0 0 Z Z 0 0 N W N W O Z O Z O Z O Z O 6 U V °' p U U U p U O LL U U U U 0 O O ¢ U U U U b _ 2 E .7 Z E Q 8 c JO E N Y m m 3 d ec m z E p p c Ea epi i d W a E� 3 - Y E O E t E 6 a E p E� Y i w 5 3 w 9° A � m w `° I q i Y x 2 x= `° °` °` `a `° (((!\\\§\\§§.����..�\ §- -- -- |\L9 -4 -- -- -- - !|§ (\\(\\\\[{; A : ! r ! ( «§k !` i- � { ) - ID !\: \ >t> ) ( [1§[I 0 u u u to �)E ; 1=;= I {�} M c6 \\\\\\ § ) \\})\ }\}\} \ : \ .§( If = Egg I ` � .�■ � ■�! !■! �:<;> / } �!§\0 0 \\\ ------------------ _ ! \■/ - - �)! #�f _ !3E ! ® - __ �§§ iff �§( 7§( ƒ�! [({ !(\ �(\ 01 )§ ()k\!/t _ \ !\}}/};j/\\})\{\\\ � 1,m���������_�.�1����