Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bridge Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges two‑lane replacement of Honouliuli Bridge; committee approves resolution with amendments
Summary
A resident testified that Honouliuli Valley’s single‑lane bridge restricts emergency access and heavy equipment and that DLNR has not maintained the span for decades; the House Transportation Committee passed HCR 63/HR 57 with amendments asking agencies to clarify jurisdiction and consider structural upgrades.
Ralph Young, a long‑time Honouliuli Valley resident, told the House Committee on Transportation that the community has relied on a single‑lane steel bridge since a 1994 emergency replacement and that the structure’s 5‑ton design prevents fire engines, concrete trucks and equipment from reaching about 32 dwellings.
"The bridge weight limit denies valley owners fire protection, heavy truck loads like concrete, road base materials, and water delivery trucks," Young said, adding that residents have been denied permits that would require heavier equipment. He said landowners still pay property taxes but lack reliable emergency access.
The committee heard Department of Transportation Highways Administrator Larry Dill confirm that ownership records list the bridge on land administered by the Department of Land and Natural Resources and that DOT has worked with DLNR land agents; he said research is ongoing to determine whether county jurisdiction applies in this case.
The resolution, HCR 63/HR 57, directs the Department of Land and Natural Resources and the Department of Transportation to determine and clearly define jurisdictional responsibility for Honouliuli Bridge and to take coordinated action to address safety, wildfire risk, and emergency access concerns. During decision‑making, the committee adopted an HD1 amendment clarifying that DLNR engineers had advised a potential increase in load capacity to 13 tons with speed restrictions and that DOT noted the bridge was designed for substantially lighter 5‑ton loads, below modern fire apparatus weights.
Committee members pressed DOT for a timeline and for clarity about which agency would perform inspections and pay for repairs if the bridge is state‑owned but county maintenance is appropriate. DOT committed to follow up with agency records and to include the department’s testimony in the committee report to inform next steps.
The committee passed the amendment and adopted the resolution; the committee report will include DOT comments and the HD1 language that frames potential interim load increases, speed limitations, and the agencies’ engineering findings.
Next steps: The committee report will forward HCR 63/HR 57 with the adopted HD1 for the next legislative stage and request agency follow‑up on jurisdictional research and maintenance planning.
