HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0508.005 1996-1998 ~iW ~~~~~~~.Y'IIIJ~~~7°~-~}'ai rp ~7~i'!'i i'~'.. r :C r
r ~
~ ~ i
b
Thi f x a
t
s a
goes o Cotint~ _ ~~lncl~
' ;.FRO.Ii: Bonnie Goodell COIIIII:'~1'S:
` TO.aLL C'OL\CIL \IEJIBF,RS
C0IIPANT: CALF, Inc. FOR1'OL:R I\FOR\L-~TIO\ - ' ~
. ~ ~ i
DATE: ~ \ton, Feb 23. 1998 ~r" « ~
C"' ,
TIl'~IE: 3:12 PA I
FADES (\OT I\'CL COVER): 7
oB.oS
ru. x..
a,e. xoi -
~r. n.+s FEB 2 4 ~ssa
P1ondav. February 23.1998 3:12:51 PM ($081 967-895
Sustainabilit•,~ Committee
P.O. £o;: c.
~~olcano. Hatt~ai'i 9b?85 ~ i ~ , t~- ; ~ t; ~
Feb.23. 1998
TO: H.~R'.~II DEP.-~RT~IEtiT OF TIZ.~:~SPORT.aTiO~". LOV'G R-~~~G~Pf;.1\\IV'~G -
Comments on Hart aii Long Range Transportation Plan, Draft Final Report
t.~-e members of the Catununit} Adrison Committee for the Lone Range Transportation Plan. bzmg Roser b: aus,
John Luchau (Hawaiian Paradise Park). Kristine Kubat (Clear F:uiu~ngs) Jon Olson (Puna Convnuttit} Couuctl):
Ron Reill}' (~Iapor s Btke Pedestrian .~dc[sop Corruruttee. Peoplz s .=.J~ ocac} for Trails Ha« a(i). Day id Ta} for
(President of Puna Community Council and Puna Traffic Safzt}) I~zidr allu (E \fau \a .zla Hzlz. ~.~'aunea Trails
and Greem~'a}'s): Day id SkarEe (\Ia}'or's Bike'Ped .adaisor} Conmvttzz) Botuue Goodell (plamrzr): Eev B_couk
(Ocean ten) submit the followine commen[s on the Draft Anal Rzpon
Thank ~'ou for agreeing to an extension of time throw;^_]i tcxla',. ~~~e recognize that the HLRTP is
tea}' overdue for completion. that some causes for the delay «'ere beyond the control of HDOT.
and that resources to redo an)~ portions are not a~ ailabl~~. ~~"e support the basic goals listed at the
beginning of the HLRTP and consider them to be genes all ~ a reflection of communiq~ sentiment.
Hon~e~~er. tt~e find that the rest of the plan in no rca~' rellecis the goals. either iu the design of the
alternatit es. their et aluation, or the conclusions drag n.
In addition. x'e observe that the failure to reflect the coals anc( indeed all that tollo[t's is an ettrerr
~ iolation of the public interest, springing from an unstated but obvious bias against existing lot~'-
incomecommunities and a n'illingness to sacrifice these communities, [chich make up the bulk o'
the islands settlement areas, to support planned future deg elopments of large landotaners- a°hich
n'ill benefit both b;' receiving public infrastructure to support their developments and the
prevention of market competition from the 60.000 or more vacant lots in existing lon'-income
communities. ACe assert that this amounts to a violation of the basic principles of environmental
justice. as tveli as the most basic directives of comprehensive planning for sustainability.
~o simple changes of wording in the plan can suffice u:' correct this problem because it is
s}~stemic. The goals of the communit}~ and of ISTE.-, csnnot be achie~~ed while supporting these
future developments because the sustainable planning ~'rhuiples of concurrences,, compactness.
multi modal access. and basic economic infrastructure ° upport for existing disadvantaged
communities (as opposed to premature subdivision. snrn~'1 aura-dependence. and planned
ghettoization) would preclude support for the future f~~n~jCrrs of these politicall}' and financial]}
powerful landoteners. ~Ce kno[c that }'ou have heard ~ :I this Iron us before. From ; ou. tce have
heard matt;' verbal assurances that these things twill be ~<~!~tecred later. that the Count}' General
Plan is the correct forum in tahich to seek redress, that I unrre plans twill take multi modalism into
account. l"ada } ada ;'ada.
hlondav, februarv 23, 1998 3:12,51 Pt~4 (808) 967-8~~7
j
i
Sustau7abilrn Corrum[tzz Commznts for DOT re Draft Final HLRTP ? 2398 p 2
k
~~1 ~,'etdon't~«~ish to beat a dead horse. If i,tis reap}~ dead. t nfornmatel}~, the hording of this ~
DRAFT FI~~.aL does not acknoin~ledge these problems except to defend against them. and b}' its ~i,
language. to marginalize the "inditiduals'' reho brought them up. This continued failure to
recognize the problems clean}, in the plan, demonstrates a principle danger of this plan. and
confirms an intention to perpetuate biased data, unethical practices. and the profound injustice th<
follotrs from it, b} tirtue of continued official reuse.
~~'e "inditiduals ~ represent notjust the majorit}~ of non official. non-large-landotener membershi
of the C.a,C, rte include long experience in local platinin~ and detelopment issues. often hate
better data than the consultants. and represent large grass-roots constituencies. ~Ce came ttith
communit}~ supported local specific plans and projects '~'or improting all modes of transportation.
for land use transportation relationships and improte~( internal netttorks to support local econom:
detelopment. to enable independence for those ttithout cars, to loner the per capita trip numbers
and trip lengths and lessen long term hightta} needs in existing. rapidl}-grotting communities.
These inputs here not anti-car: the}~ here specific local responses to the charge to
Impro~ e comnrutuq design ro contain spraa; l better expand trmart options and make effictznt use of land nlvn a
contnturui5- to locate homes for people of all incomes- places of ot'x schools businesses shops. and transu m
close proxtrruh and m harmony ~~ath a~ rc spaces (Transportation and Sustainable De': elopmznt. p ~4.
Sustamablz .-~menca \z~~, Consensus. b~' Thr President s Co~mctl on Sustamabiltq )
~T"e appreciate that. at this point. }'ou cannot redo THIS document n~ith completel}~ different
population data and projections. complete redesign of improt ement alternatites to include credib
multi-modal land use transpa~tation scenarios. recasriu ~ of performance aiteria to match the goal
and a tthole nett list of projects based on the real results of these changes. Hotcecer. the test and
tables do contain ample documentation of the conflict Lettt~een the sustainable planning principle
required under the federal mandate and the sprart9 and Irate-the taxpa;~ers holding-bill patterns
that }ou etidentl} hate felt compelled to justif}'. «-r a,h that jou make the follotting additions
and changes to short that ton recognize the conflicts. n here the} come from. and that updating tl
plan using sound planning practices Mill correct them.: ~,II should be placed in bold t}'pe or in
bordered boxes.
p. 1.. under T:',SK 1 and p.6 .Note: The Counm land use ciesiy~nntions are not representarire of
detelopmentpatrer'ns, because the land use designanaru do not acknox~led,ge the appracinratelr
90,000 pm~cels in huge sul~srmidard subdivisions x~hicl ruc;ke up the bulk of the irn~entoi_t n1
alread~~-permitted detelnpable land on Kax~aii. This p?ca~ conlornts tv the land use designations
rather than actual deve(opmenr patterns.
~i,~il~~l~ 'Ii~~il!' ~ III' ~ ~~o .,,i,;~,~ao-~rv ~i
Mondav Februarv23. 1998 3:12.51 PM (8081967-82J5
n
d
{ Sustarnabrhh Corrumttzz Corrunznts for DOT rz Draft Yrnal HL}:i F' 3 23 95 P_3 it
p. 3 under T:3SK p. 28; and all charts. or tables re~tardinT population projections. Note: ~ ~ I,'
Becmtse the substmtdard subdirisians, which make :m the hulz: of e.risting det elopabla land on
Hmraii, m~e not recognised in Counn~ land use desigrarrous~ ritese areas ~.rere trot r'ecogni~ed by
d~ris plan as °e.~~isrr~,g comnnnaities." ii°hile firnn~e pr'oie~ rr, n~irinr of trhich hate ;;ot ~~er rerei~~ed
boundm'p change approt'al br the stare, andror rrp~oni~rk ar subdirisiat y?' the corntn~, are n~earec
for the purposes of population projections, as already e~ isrin,e. The correction of this fauln~
premise (in which "a biret in the bush is u~orTh nvo in t1~e hand °1 tt'orrld significarrrh after the
population projections to the near ?0?0. Since these tutrecngrri~ed comn~urnities are grotrir~,g
rapidh~ and m~e among the most socio-economicalh disadvantaged m~eas in the sane, this
correction muse be made in order to comply x~ith ISTF_~ 1 requirements for consideration of the
economic infrasn~ucrure needs of lair-income and dis~~~frnntaQed comnx,niries.
p. 2. T.aSK ~3s a result of conn'adictiats disi used fn~e~iously, benceen Iand designations and
actual use, a number of projects found in plans for subtiandard subdirision areas including the
Central subdirision Corridor in the County' Genera( PG~a, and sei~eral secondn~~~ arterials and n~
motori<ed and/or n'ansit routes designed to serre these areas. foiuuf in the Puna Commmiin~
Derelopnaent Plan and loca(plmu. such as the Hatrar~m Paradise Park Camnurnin~ ;l-/aster Plar
the Ocean Vier ATaster Plan, and the Polcarro Piston :'r~~C~ Pion, lhiled to be included in the
projects analr~ed. In addition, furnrre corridors Char girl h,za~rne critical as these lurti?e
subdi~~isions build out were nor identified. number o~~~~orarrrialh~ significaru alternative and
nv.riri-modnl projects t~.~ere nor considered in the denrvr n; scenarios, inchrdi,rg rereral Scenic
Brwm~s, four major non-ntotori;ed routes, and porenric:l puhlic n~ansit corridors to serre e.cisting
lox~•incame communities. It is recognised that the se/e~'tion of projects for analysis, arisin_q as it
does from fau(n~ land use and socioeconomic dnta, nn?~~ ~~infate die regurirements of enriranmenta
justice and consideration of the needs of disadrantagerl ccnnnuuuities contained in ISTE~1.
p. 6. EYISTI\G COItDITIO\S. ~;ctual house count rimo pro~~ided b~~ C,~C rnemrbers calls into
question the re(iabilin~ of population data and projecrious based nn permit records, especially in
low income neighborhoods that are the huge substi?rrdr,rri subdivisions, x~hzre house counts far
exceed Planning Department data, indicating much t~zs+er arm^tYr than projected here.
p. 16 TRIP GE\ER~.TIO~. A noted pret-iously, the h,~ce sr!hstandard subdirisians are not
correcth represented to land utse designations or popuation j~rojecrions. .-ls a result, land uses
and n'ip generation, as x~e11 as n ip generatiau mrd nip Ica eth data ,and F~iZ idennficarion does
take into accowur the potential for derelopment of rh,~sc r:r~°s. oar possible frrnrre inipr'oren~evtts u
their acn.ral use patterns that x~ould make their circui~?r-r,n more internal lid;c N~Ia's arrd !ess
corrtnturer•driren_ kecagnirion of these areas and rhe;e u~~n~errtial changes would h~n~e significant
Mondav~Februarv23,~1998 3:12:S1PM (8081967-3295
Sustamabilrh Corrumttzz Commzn(s for DOT re Draft final EILR 11~ 3 ?3 93 p.4
-f , „ _ _ , _
effects on all project choices, modal splits, and capacin calculations.
p. 37 Impros~ement Scenarios:.ydd after paragraph ~r1 Recvgni~ing that 'rhe n,agnirude and
spatial disa~ibution of expected neiv development" is ~~ne of '"rtieo critical jacrors" determining th
"rondticm~ imprnrentents trill, renlisrically, constitrne rhe most significant modal comprinertt in tl
(LRTPJ", rhe other being "the vets•'linlited n'ansporauion capacin arnilable todm~• ' it follotiss t{
the political decision to focus improvement projects on dtis plcatned nex~ development, instead of
e_sisting disndi~aruaged and underserved communities, is rhe major bm~rier to nurlri•mndalism.
Since, as previously noted, the dominance of these Ji!rurE e'ei~eloprrents in rhe hind use and
socioeconomic projections results from n choice to ni-rl,e rhis,nlan according to counn land use
designations rather than actual development patterns i.. ~;te corrnmmiries r:irh the cast majorirl~ o
e.z~isting barildable inrentnrr, it can be reasonable poser'art°d drat signifirnnr multi-rnodalismt u•ou
be feasible in models tiehich acctn~arele represented e ci_r;t~; det~eloprnettt patterns. Since these
communities that m~e not represented are among the ni%~~r ;ocio-ecottomica(le disadrarna~ed in t.
state, and therefore tyould derive the most benefit from land trse, public transit and non-rnotorize~
alternatives to auto dependence, environmental justice and ISTF~1 directives require that these
improvement scenarios be redesigned and re-evaArat~~d l~~r mntlri-modal scenarios under more
accurate, and more just, projections.
atone of these invpr-ovement scenarios was designed Jbr p~~r(ormance an any of rhe following
criteria:
Pollution mitigation, including airborne and tsater bnr,te pollutants, noise arzd riems.
Risk mitigation, including flood, tsunami, subsidence. eartitquake• and lm~a /7ov .
Relative numbers of homes and businesses that tro~dd be signii~canth~ affected hr condenutarion,
both in monet costs and in social costs.
Would the project encourage sprmrl, n~tore SOV convnntittt, and a "Los ,~rt,geles"
TransportarioniLand Ctse pattern or tir~ould it encr.~+rn;;5,:~ ~~urd4~r enable c "1it~able ennmaunitie
and multi-modal pattet'n as described in the feder,;~l DOT program of that name arut in the
'Trmtsportation and Sustainable Development" sec%ieF o~ustainable America: Nett
Consensus, be The Presideru's Coarncil on Sustairia'~i(in: "Improve cona~rnrnin desi,ga to
contain sprmrl better, expand transit options, and nial:e e,!fieient use of land tti~ithin a
comnxrnim to locate homes for people of all incomes, places of work, schools, businesses,
shops, and n~nnsit in close proa~imin and in hm~mnn nith civic spaces.''
Reservation of
firnrre needed corridors to petforrn an,~ ~ l~the chore.
An immediate update is needed to evaluate scenm~ios d,°signea.' rn perfa'm a ell ore these criteria f
all existing communities.
Pl~~~ ~P'9', LEI ~I~~M'Ii~ ~ I, ~
lAondav, February 23, 1998 3:12:51 PM (8081 967-8295
Sustamabilrn Comnuttee Comments for DOT re Draft final HLFTP 23393 pS
`
p. 71 Remoee the reference to 12' pa~~er~ent in 15 minimum RO~t~.
~ p. 7~ at the end of \O:~-`.IOTORIZED RO.aD~C~,~'S .,`;D BICI'CLE F.;CIL[TIES.
NOTE: As noted earlier, huge undo°rserred mews xirh :nncn and mixed trse de~ elopmenr are not
accurateh~ represented in counn~ land rase designcvirn?s. 7"1?ese include n number of m~eas in Pmt.
Ocean l'ieic and South Kona tirhich, if accurately repr,~~rnted, would each merit as detailed a
non-momri~ed road~wa~~ plan as Kona, IVaintea and Hilo. An additional island•itiide project of
PATH, for a ntid-level round-the-island dedicated non•ntornri~ed roadr:a~', the Ka~apuni O
Hawaii, x~ould incorporate Raih~oad Ai~em.re from the F'nno'Fliin Boundary ro Opihikao. An
additional project brou,ghr trp br CAC members is the (old Puna Road, n 10' r ide ROIV from Hilo
Airport to Beach Road in Pm~adise Park, extending t;~rnua;h :l (aku 1r to Kairaiicut Beaches and
be~~ond, as part of the also proposed "Kapoho Beach Rood: Red Road" Scenic Brwar.
SCENIC BYiVAYS: Scenic Bi~tiv~ars rti~ere not considered in this plan.
E,4.1EkGE>.tCYACCESS AND Jq/TIGATlON OF RISfi: This plan did not consider projects
related to, nor erahtate tor, mitigation of risk from nen~ral hazards, although tl~tat is a rna,jor
consideration on Hax°aii, tiehich is subject to subsideru earthquakes, tsunami, and lara flour,
all of which hati~e in the past made roadx°m~s unrrsabh,. This is pm~tindm~ly a problem in the Lm~c
Flow Ha~nrd Zones ]and Z, as designated 1,I~ the Un~tc d Srntes Geological Survey, and in the
Tsunami hurndation Zones identified by the Counn~ m!c- ;ii,r State of Harcaii. Transportation's
role in mitigation of risk fi~omt hazards takes n+'o forms, ri;ich, unless carefulh~ thought out, cart
become contradicton~. These m~e: prorision of sererul alrerncuire escape routes to (rarer the
likelihood of all escape being cut off; and to not increase capncitr tirhererer it ~~ci(l encotu~age
increased densin~ of derelopntenr.
It is the role of the Counh to use regulatory consn~air!n on funn~e derelopntent, and tirhere
possiHle, io~om' ab~and~~-apfn~o~~nd densrn~. Tha role of ~r conrpruherzsira n-misportatiore plan, said
as the HLRTP, is ro identtfi' projects ~.ti~hich will impror<° emer,~enc~~ escape options, while not
ina~easing capacin which encourages nex~ dei~e(opnients. An e~antple is dedicated bike routes
which can be made to accontmodare one-wm auto traf/rc itt i-n entergenc~~. Another is to provide
additional nro-lame roads ar another location rather t{i~!n adding Imtes to art existing road~ra~'.
Sereral of these n per of projects x~ere proposed by C.~~-~ ni~~mbers, but the project choices and
the TRAA'PLANe~~nlttarion criteria tirere designed ro nra~~iaii~e SOPcapacin~~ so performance of
escape and rnitigntion did not enter into choices. These sly%uld be catsidered in updating the
HLRTP.
Mondav. Februarv23.1998 3:12:51 PM ("8081967-895
Sustauiabilin Comnitttee Cohrunents for DOT re Draft Final F{I_R"!'[' ~?3~93 p 6
.-also: La~~a Flo~~~ Hazard Zones 1 and 2 must be desi~nared on all maps. ~
p. 73-77. E~. ALi ATI0~1 CRITERIA. Thee follox~ing criteria tirere not considered and should be
considered in an immediate rrpdare of this plan:
Polhrtion mitigation for .eater borne pollutants, noise and vie~.rs.
Risk mitigation, including flood, tsarnami,subsidence, earthquake, and lava f1o~...
Relative numbers of homes and businesses that wo~dd be sign;ficanth~ affected b~. condemnation,
both in monei costs and in social costs.
IVould the project encourage spratiel, more SOI'comunuting, and a "Los Angeles"
Transportarinn;Lond G'se pattern or tivotrld it enceu~~rrre andror enable a `livable canmarnitie
and nthrlri•n~todn! pattern as described in the,federcl DOT j~ro,erant of that name and in the
'Transpor'tation and Sustainable Develaprnenr" s.'c ier osSustainable Anherica: A Near
Consensus b~~ The President's Council on Susrainahilirl~ "/n~q~rove commurun design to
contain spratirl better, e.zpand n~ansit options, and r+~cic~ er%icient use of (~znd xithin a
communih~ to locate homes jot people of all incomes places of ~~rork, schools, businesses,
shops, and n~ansit in close pros~imin and in hm~mnn~~ h:ith cii~ic spaces."
p, 77 E`. ALL~ATIO:~ OF.~LTER\ATI\'E P.aCIi-~:~ES.
/n Puna, specific projects titi~ere reguesred, including rho cenn~al shrbdivisiah corridor as shotirn in
the Counn~ General Ptan, nro lane roads at fifteenth mhd around 40th, and dedicated norh-
nvotori~ed routes at Railroad and Puna Coast Road. (n all these cases, the intent x~as specificalh
to facilitate the development of i~iable, rural-sn~le nro•lane m renal neneorks puncttu7red Uv "ma
sn'eets," to support imernal economic dee~elopntertr in t°tisriny; comnwnities~ as opposed to
highway-pod commuting ro Hi(o. Among the ahernan~z~s e~nluated. some of them included some
of these nex~ nti~o-lane rtensork alternatives (although n~~ne included the ke~~ central corridor).
Since there do not appear ro be pmvichdarl~ signih'cant d;±~°erences amatg the that ahernarire
schemes in Puna, the population projections are in doirhr because of the faihn~e to account for
acnral del°elopnhenr patterns, and the scenarios x~ere nr iriher designed nor eraleared fa' inhportar
criteria of susrainabilin~, risk mitigation, reservation qi /::r:n~c needed corridors, and cwhdernnati~
impacts, each of hrhich are partiarlar'l~~ important in , hr e ~ isrin,q comnutniries of this area,
scenarios should be redrmrn and reevaluated for these criteria
e~'el'~' map, llst and table: The designated and nau~h;d,tn~oposed routes are mereli~ place
holders, indicating expected deficiencies Specific choices : ~i11 not be made mail there is a
comprehensive evaluation of ail mailable alternatires~;~ior ro selectioth of n speafic project.
F
Mondav. February 23.1998 ?:12:51 PM 18081 967-895
Sustamabilrn Comrruttee Comments for DOT re Dratt Final HL,h" P 2~Z3~93 p_-
Thank j ou for pour attention to this. y'<'e hope jrou understand n hj' use cannot sit bj' ~~•hile this
plan, as is, becomes an official document. N't'e beg j~ou to begin the update process immediatel}~,
and r~ e offer our help to deaelop impro~~ement scenarios hich trul;• support the gohls of the
cotnmunitj. sustainabiliq, and ISTEA, bj illuminating the differences ben~een sustainable
` deaelopment of compact ti illages in existing communities. connected bj a "fiscall} constrained"
network of m•o-lane roads and multi'-modal wa}~s, and large-landowner. speculati~ e, costly .Los
.a.ngeles-style spra~~~l. rt•ith auto-dependent commutins and congestion on multi-lane high«aj~s.
.-~s }•ou kno« these are the real choices and ISTEA's uuent is for j ou and us to compare them.
working together. Let us get on «•ith it.
r~ 1
I'v Y VLI~ ~~4N
cc: Benjamin J. Cayetano. Goy error F_epresentai~~e Jerre Chang
Kazu Hajashida. Director F:epresentati~~e Eric Hamaka+t~a
Senator.andretir~ Le~~in Repre~entati~~e Robert Herkes
Senator R"aj•ne tiietcalf Representati~~e D~~•ight Takamine
Senator ~ ialama Solomon F_epresentatis~e Day id Tarnas
Planning Director's irginia Goldstein Fepresentati~ e Paul «"halm
Members of the Hawaii Count}' Council