Hawaii Liberty Chronicles

City and State governments are cutting back in these hard economic times.  The bureaucratically minded are in a terrible bind for a new department to start up to stimulate the economy.  Everyone knows by now that nothing stimulates economies like government expansion and increased spending from taxpayer dollars!  The timing for a new Honolulu County department couldn’t be better with the crumbling fantasy of elevated steel on steel rail.

Honolulu desperately needs the DSW or Department of Silly Walks (following England’s Ministry of Silly Walks).  Our visionary Honolulu Mayor could lead the way… We Will Silly Walk!

Finer Points Must Be Addressed for Hawaii’s Future Freedom

By Daniel Brackins and Dan Douglass

On Monday Governor Lingle issued her State of the State address. Politically she came across well and sensible. To her credit she connected with the public much more-so than last April when her address to the Hawaii Economic Association sparked our initial Economic Reality Check for Governor Lingle. Some things we agree with and others we don’t. Finer points must be addressed.

In her speech there were a few surprises. She called for energy independence (not a surprise) and food self-sufficiency (surprise). This is an admirable goal since the premium cost of food is an unnecessary burden for Hawaii’s people. Yet she failed to mention that Hawaii’s high cost of food is caused by two primary factors: the shipping monopoly (resulting from no Hawaii exemption from the Jones Act) and food tax. Food is an item that the consumer has no choice but to buy. Food is a necessity for life, and yet the state taxes this. The Governor must concert efforts, based on the understanding that under our current economic conditions many could use the additional 4% in their pockets.

Urging various state departments to buy local produce seems a well start, but skirts the basic problem of how the once booming agricultural industry has been incrementally destroyed in our state by the shipping monopoly. The consequence of state departments paying premium costs for local goods will increase the cost of the various departments (unless the departments are downsized) that ultimately all the taxpayers of Hawaii pay for.

The basic flaw is common in the bureaucratic mindset from county to federal. It is the false assumption that consumption/consumerism is the answer; this mantra of economic stimulus through liquidity. But where does the flow come from? It’s taken from the productive sector that generates voluntarily growing stimulus (through the free exchange of goods and services) that must be left alone as much as possible. To punish the productive sector by urging consumption on the state departmental level is utter nonsense that in effect continues to “kick the can down the road” for the longer term.

Lingle also called for a reduction in government services and pay cuts for government employees (surprise). We agree that this is a necessary step. There is a huge amount of overlap and duplication of government services. We recommend that the governor create a special task force (at no taxpayer cost) to eliminate overlap, improve efficiency, and reduce waste. We feel that this alone would eliminate the state’s projected $1.8 billion deficit.

Ultimately lasting wealth will come from entrepreneurial determination. This is something creative that almost always dies once government’s sticky fingers or iron fists get in on the action. Thus it takes courageous leadership to outsource, streamline and sunset governing agencies out of the productive sector’s way as much as possible.

Thus we stand firmly opposed to the Governor’s proposal to delay, curtail, or eliminate tax credits, exemptions or deductions. Tax cuts will allow the additional money in the consumers’ and investors’ pockets to help stimulate the economy through additional purchasing power. Moreover every proposal for tax reform should be evaluated apart from the typically exaggerated claims. How to think about any given tax reform? Here are four rules:

• 1) If a bill reduces taxes through lower rates or increased deductions, it should be supported;
• 2) If a bill increases taxes through raising rates or repealing deductions, it should be opposed;
• 3) If a bill includes tax increases as well as tax reductions, it’s intellectually incoherent and therefore probably a trick;
• 4) If a bill promises to reduce taxes and increase revenue, it should be rejected out of hand.

While we agree that a deferral of the transit tax on Oahu should be an option, it does not go far enough. The transit tax should be eliminated for similar reason stated above. Transit tax collections have already dropped by 16% since last year, a total of $2.6 million. This is in opposition to what the planners had anticipated when they claimed revenue would continue to rise each year. This makes funding the rail system without raising taxes unrealistic. We believe that the whole rail project itself should be scrapped. In the current state of economic crisis on all bureaucratic levels, Hawaii productive taxpayer base (the real golden goose) cannot finance the Honolulu Rail Cartel’s monstrosity.

Once again we must reiterate that she reconsider her own five-point economic plan. Our own plan to stimulate Hawaii’s economy would include the following:

• Offer large tax incentives to business- this would include eliminating the corporate income tax or, at the very least, largely reducing it. This would include all industries, leaving none out. Incentives for small business development must also be explored.

• Lowering the tax burden- a reduction of taxes across the board including the GE tax. Taxes magnify the cost of doing business in Hawaii.

• Personalization of services- by eliminating wasteful state run services, such as the Department of Human Services (as an example), and outsourcing to non-profits, government spending can be largely reduced. This will also help with the previous point of tax reduction.

• State exemption from the Jones Act- this would effectively terminate the shipping monopoly and lower the cost of goods substantially.

• Free trade zones- by allowing tax free, tariff free, and duty free goods to be exchanged in Hawaii, the state could become a trading hub in the center of the Pacific connecting many areas of the world.

• Marketing to outside business- with large incentives for business, the state should market on the mainland and in other countries in order to bring business to Hawaii.

Both Hawaii Republican and Democratic Party politicians must shun the temptation of enriching friends, families and allies at the expense of the families and businesses on the brink of moving to economically freer states or nations. Our Hawaii’s future freedom demands these bold measures from all our leadership that generates incentive for success and eliminates corruption.

… and deferring the transit tax for a year or more to provide relief to Hawaii tax payers. Everything is on the table for debate and discussion.

~ Colleen Hanabusa, from Senate President speech (01/21/09)

By George L. Berish

Perhaps Hawaii Transit Tax to Plummet [12/30] will force economic rationality on Hawaii’s office holders whose only response to all problems is “more debt”. In good times to leverage good intentions: In bad times to “fix” the economy.

It may also cause voters to back out of the trees — the choices itemized in Honolulu Rail Enters Defining Year [1/3/09] – so they can see the forest – Hawaii can’t afford Rail.

Why? For starters, during the Administration’s “vibrant” economy, Hawaii added a couple billions to general obligation debt, and from 2000 to June 2007 it added $5 Billion to the Government Retirement System’s underfunding (certainly several Billions higher today).

And bond raters have already “taken notice” by recommending “investors … bet against debt issued by … Hawai’i” [Business Briefs12/11/08], so a bond rating cut looms.

Just add up the Mayor’s facts:  Rail’s cost is $5.2 Billion;  A federal bureaucrat “hopes” Hawaii will get $1.2 Billion from the federal government (that just spent multiple Trillions it doesn’t have?);  Rail’s ticket sales will pay less than half of its operating costs;  Rails useful life is about 15 years, so repaying the $4 Billion net cost in that time at 4% will cost about $30 million per month – more with a bond rating cut;  But the transit tax that only produced $16 Million per month in “vibrant” 2007 and  has since plummeted to $13 Million.

So before the trees (details) distract us from the real question: Mayor Hannemann, who pays, and how, for $14 - $17 Million per month debt repayment shortfall, and the more millions of ticket sale shortfall?

Thanks to Dale Evans for this Toll Roads News article describing a proposed bridge in Norfolk, Virginia.

By Panos Prevedouros

This second part provides excerpts from the last 12 commentators and our brief conclusions.

12. Ed Wytkind, President, Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO
“Transit investment will relieve road congestion and offer environmentally sound transportation alternatives to increase economic efficiency and global competitiveness.” Sad to see that unions simply copy-paste boilerplate half truths.

13. Steve Van Beek, President & CEO, Eno Transportation Foundation
“Input straight-line assumptions about behavior today and out will come results which suggest public transportation will play a marginal role in the future. (Such an analysis when the Model T was invented would have led to a future replete with horses and buggies and with underbuilt road networks.)” Unfortunately Mr. Van Beek not looked into Bureau of Transportation Statistics showing that public transit share of trips is very small and diminishing, and that the increasing share of telecommuting begins to dwarf rail transit.

14. John D. Porcari, Secretary, Maryland Department of Transportation
“We have to start by leveling the playing field. While we get highway funds by formula, states and metro areas fight for transit monies primarily through earmarks, and the race to the bottom known as the New Starts program. End the false dichotomy between highway and transit funding by making system preservation needs the first call on federal dollars (whether highways and bridges, transit, aviation or port needs) and then using local, regional and state land use plans to drive new capacity (transit or highway) investment decisions with the remaining unified federal formula dollars.” Highways, bridges, airports and harbors generate their own revenues from user fees and are rarely subsidized by taxpayers. Electricity, telephone, water and sewer services break even and can be profitable. Where is the revenue stream for rail and bus? It is remarkable that people who charge one dollar for a trip that costs over ten dollars are in leading and expert prositions.

15. Greg Cohen, President and CEO, American Highway Users Alliance
“The current funding arrangements are set up so that federal highway user fees subsidize transit expenses — thus creating the unfortunate reality that transit does compete for funding at the expense of highway programs. It is important for policy makers and the public to recognize that (excluding air travel) between 98 and 99% of all passenger miles and vehicles miles of travel occur of our nation’s aging roads. Both private auto use and efficient public transit use in most areas is largely dependent on a good network of safe and efficient roads.”

16. Robert L. Crandall, Retired Chairman and CEO, AMR and American Airlines
“In the furor over finding ways to increase and sustain employment, and the understandable desire to use infrasturcture investment to attach that problem, we need to remember that money invested in the wrong tools is the equivalent of money wasted. Bob Poole’s thoughts on how to use buses and rapid transit lanes strike me as worth very careful thought.”

17. Bob Poole, Director of Transportation Studies, Reason Foundation
“For the 22 Metropolitan Planning Organizations whose long-range plans were reviewed, transit spending averages 41% of the total, while transit’s projected mode share is just 5.5%. Something is wrong with this picture. First, MPOs project only modest increases in transit’s mode share by 2030, despite devoting more than 40% (on average) of all transportation dollars to transit. Second, they project that traffic congestion in 2030 will be significantly worse than it is today. There is a direct connection between under-funding the highway infrastructure that buses, car-poolers, and individual motorists depend on and continued increases in congestion. The key is to use congestion pricing for these express lanes. More than a decade of experience with HOT lane projects in half a dozen states has demonstrated the power of congestion pricing to provide reliable, high-speed, uncongested traffic flow on such lanes. Transit agencies would love to have exclusive busways, but a congestion-priced lane is, in fact, the virtual equivalent of an exclusive bus lane. The pricing simply allows enough paying automobiles to share the use of the lane, without degrading its uncongested performance.”

18. Geoff Anderson, Co-chair of the Transportation for America Campaign, President and CEO of Smart Growth America
“There is an undeniable linkage between our broken economy, our broken energy/climate policy, and our broken transportation system. Investing in a 21st Century transportation system with an emphasis on mass transit solutions – while creating safe streets for walking and biking to with them — is a three for one deal: it kick starts our economy and generates jobs, gives hungry Americans transportation options, and begins to solve our climate crisis.” Pure “smart growth” nonsense. There is no significant link between broken economy, walkable streets, bikeways and the ozone layer. You can, however, wordsmith good looking paragraphs and drive up the deficits in the absence of cost-effectiveness and accountability.

19. Deron Lovaas , Federal Transportation Policy Director, Natural Resources Defense Council
“The short answer is that yes, the time is ripe for making a larger commitment to public transportation than has been the case in the last 50 years.” Why? Spending 20% of the transportation budget in the last 20 years on transit systems that carry 5% of the public has not been bad enough?

20. Paul M. Weyrich, Chairman and CEO, Free Congress Foundation
“I have my doubts about the effectiveness of stimulus bills, but since it is clear President elect Obama is intent on advocating one,I certainly hope the Congress will include $8 billion of American Public Transportation Association short-term transit projects in whatever bill they come up with.” This is $8 billion nationwide. Relatively tiny Honolulu would like to build a $5 billion rail … pretty please Mr. Obama.

21.Robert Puentes, Senior Fellow and Director, Metropolitan Infrastructure Initiative
“Although almost all of our buses serve the top 100 metro areas but half are concentrated in just 10 large metros. Heavy rail (subways) exist in only 11 metros like Philly and San Francisco. Commuter rail is in only 14 metropolitan areas – primarily in the Northeast and California. And light rail can be found in only 26 – like Minneapolis, San Diego, and Denver. Based on the admittedly simple inventory of transit infrastructure available, 54 of the 100 largest metros do not have any rail transit service and also have relatively weak bus systems. As employment has dispersed through metro areas, lower income workers are finding themselves increasingly isolated and therefore need to spend higher proportions of their income to reach their jobs.” So how can a single rail line with 20 stations help them? Did I mention that it costs $5 billion?

22. Rich Sarles, Executive Director, NJ TRANSIT
“At NJ TRANSIT, we have experienced five consecutive years of record-high ridership with nearly one million trips taken on the system each weekday. Ridership continues to be strong, despite lower gasoline prices, especially on rail service on our busiest lines serving Manhattan. In the next 25 years, we expect ridership on these lines to more than double, creating new challenges to acquire the infrastructure (station capacity, track, rail yards, etc.), rolling stock (rail cars and locomotives) and resources needed to support this demand.” This is really where the nation should be spending its transit monies.

23. Pete Ruane, President and CEO, American Road & Transportation Builders Association
“According to the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT), there is $20 billion annual shortfall at the federal level between current highway investment levels and what is necessary just to maintain road conditions. For public transit at the federal level, the shortfall is about $4 billion annually.” It is too obvious that priority one is maintenance and restoration of what we have, and cautious investment in new priced roadway capacity including exclusive busways and exclusive truckways.

To answer the original question in the subject line: All cases of rail transit in the U.S. excluding Chicago, New York City, and a few other legacy systems have been hyper expensive dinosaur resuscitations at taxpayer expense.

It would be a remarkably poor and expensive choice of President Obama to sink taxpayer dollars in rail transit New Starts. We can barely afford to keep the CTA, MARTA, BART and other metro rail systems alive. Let’s please leave all future dinosaur resuscitations to the movies.

By Panos Prevedouros

The title is paraphrasing a 1983 paper title by Dr. Joseph Schofer, Associate Dean, College of Engineering, Northwestern University. I think it is a more appropriate title than the biased question “Has Mass Transit Finally Arrived?” posed in the NationalJournal.com’s transportation expert panel discussion.

Of course the majority of the 23 commentators answer that the time for transit has come (as it did in all previous oil/global economy crises.) We know that the results were poor from most of those deployments. But learning from history is not a priority in modern society.

If you have about an hour, do read the original text which includes a handful of well thought out positions and concerns.
If not, here are some highlights from each commentator. This part provides excerpts from the first 11 commentators.

1. Eric Britton, Managing Director, New Mobility Partnerships
“Before rushing out to pour many billions of dollars into mass transit, we will do well to recognize that as a phrase, it is a relic of another day, another way of thinking about cities. And indeed another way of thinking about people (mass?).

Here is what we can counsel with confidence to the incoming Obama team about “mass transit” and its appropriate role for the critical 2009-2012 period.

If you have it already in place, your main challenge is to get a lot better at using what you have in a cost-effective manner.

If you do not have it, forget about using scarce taxpayer dollars to build yourself a new one from scratch, because there are far better ways of getting the job done.”

2. Nancy LeaMond, AARP’s executive vice president of social impact
“To leave their cars behind, boomers will require the same level of convenience as they have had in their car-centered world.

A coordinated strategy of public transportation, paratransit, coordinated human services transportation, transit-oriented development, and “complete streets” sidewalk networks accessible to transit, can yield a multitude of benefits for people of all ages.

…making stops and vehicles more accessible and user friendly, helping newcomers understand how and where to access schedules and their closest transit with easy to use information, training drivers to understand and pleasantly accommodate the limitations of aging and in some areas offering neighborhood circulators or door-to-door service to grocery stores or shopping malls.”

3. Robin Chase, CEO, GoLoco, Meadow Networks
“If we think back to Katrina, the lack of alternatives for people without cars to evacuate the New Orleans proved disastrous. Some policy experts claimed that the solution was to make sure the poor and carless had access to cars. A few weeks later, another hurricane demanded that Houston evacuate. The highways were backed up and people sat motionless in their cars for hours. Today, as I write this note, a huge snow storm is bearing down on Boston. Planes are canceled and roads will be dangerous. My homeward-bound college age son is stuck in Washington DC.

My point is not that we should build trains and transit to accommodate one-day freak storms, just as I do not advocate building parking lots to accommodate Black Friday shopping demand. But real diversity and redundancy in transportation systems is mandatory. This nation needs to accommodate the transportation needs of people of all incomes, of all ages, of all development densities. The last 50 years of supporting one mode — cars — to exclusion of others, has not served us well. It is time to right the balance.”

Somebody needs to tell her that a few days after hurricane Ike hit Houston, all systems were up and running except for its rail that took two and a half weeks.

4. Michael A. Replogle, Transportation Director, Environmental Defense Fund
“Established rail systems need to be revitalized. But pouring money into poorly conceived transit projects will not make transit a viable alternative for the majority of Americans living in auto-dependent suburban areas.

The most cost-effective way to expand high performance mass rapid transit is Bus Rapid Transit, or BRT. … And BRT can be used like rail to anchor transit-oriented development. … A big advantage of BRT is that the bus can go anywhere. The same bus can operate in mixed traffic where there is no congestion, enter a busway in a congested area, and then leave the busway again.

Performance-based transportation investment plans should be required as a condition for funding, including operational plans for both highways and public transportation.”

5. Bill Graves, President and CEO, American Trucking Association
“Although mass transit performs many important uses, particularly for certain niche communities in large urban areas, it cannot replace our nation’s need for good highways. While mass transit effectively moves people, infrastructure investment is critical to the safe and efficient movement of freight.”

6. Judith Bergquist, Associate Director of Rural Programs in the Denver office of the Colorado Center for Community Development
“Sometimes we look past some simple and very viable alternatives to multi – modal transit for bigger glitzy solutions: We should look at road and bus systems that could effectively be started today and get buses to run every 10 minutes from suburb to suburb and suburb to work centers and downtowns. We need the buses to run often with lots of quick stops to increase this ridership before other transit is even in place. We will lose the cars because there will be ease of access.”

7. Paul Yarossi, President, HNTB Holdings Ltd.
“Public transit supporters definitely have the clout to influence the next transportation bill. In no way will this effort to fund more public transit projects replace the much needed investment in maintaining and expanding our national highway system.”

Solid advice for worsening the already huge budget deficits (to the benefit of mega contractors.)

8. Christopher B. Leinberger, Real estate developer, Visiting Fellow at the Brookings Institution, Professor and Director of the University of Michigan graduate real estate program
“Why rail transit? Middle class Americans like it far better than bus transit. In addition, real estate developers and investors have increased confidence in it since rail transit implies permanence; it is easy to change a bus route but not so with fixed rail. The combination of middle class preference and the permanence of rail transit have resulted in far more real estate development being sparked around rail stations than bus stops.”

Great paragraph but there is little proof that any of this is true. Most US cities developed quite well in the complete absence of rail.

9. Emil H. Frankel, Director of Transportation Policy, Bipartisan Policy Center
“How can transportation best serve national goals and purposes like economic growth, environmental and energy sustainability, national connectivity, metropolitan accessibility, and safety?

Before we allocate funding - whether to give transit or highways more money - let’s ensure that we have a performance-based approach that can help us identify and prioritize programs that achieve national goals.”

10. Frank Busalacchi, Secretary, Wisconsin Department of Transportation
“The current transit programs send much of the funding to mass transit systems in our largest metropolitan areas. Our metropolitan areas rely on mass transit to provide a needed mobility option for those who don’t want to use their cars or don’t have cars to use. However, in many parts of the country bus fleets are old, far beyond the time frame in which they should have been replaced.”

11. Tim Kaine, Governor, Commonwealth of Virginia
“Transit and rail investments are expensive up front and even more so when operation and maintenance costs are factored in over time. These long term financial commitments only make sense if there are different land use patterns to take advantage of the transit and rail investments.

Increased funding should not come at the expense of other modes, particularly given the dire need to repair and replace our existing bridges across the country.”

==========

A few common themes emerge from these diverse opinions:

* Need to maintain what infrastructure we have and expand it.
* Look into buses, BRT and other affordable solutions first.
* Performance-based decision making and accountability for infrastructure projects.

The latter means that a systematic way is used to look at urban transportation problems and address the issues in a cost-effective away.

This is the opposite of what occurred in Honolulu where a politician was elected in 2004 and made rail the number one priority: Total top-down dictum. The lack of accountability is obvious in that there is no accounting of $107 million spent on rail studies and the shameless use of taxpayer money to defame those opposing the system and produce an avalanche of TV, radio, newspaper and home-mailed ads and fliers.

By Panos Prevedouros

As you know, I strongly oppose the proposed rail for Oahu. The proposed city charter amendment for rail that obtained 50.6% of the yes vote is a recommendation not a demand upon elected officials. It was obtained after a multimillion dollar misinformation campaign at taxpayer expense. The rail project exemplifies the most wasteful and irresponsible use of taxpayer monies.It is very important to send a letter to the City for the rail Draft EIS. The letters must be post marked February 6, 2009.

No matter how brief, they will need to read and respond to it. And we need to make them aware of our concerns. Let your friends know about this.

Some guidance is here: “Read the Rail Study and Comment so City Can Design the Best System”

Your letter does not have to be negative. You can declare support if you support rail but ask for clarifications and raise concerns. If you know journalists here or on the mainland, let them know of your concerns too.

Of course too many things are going on during the holidays. (They count on it!) Please don’t drop this ball

Aloha and Best Wishes for the Holidays!

By Romy Cachola

Funding for the city’s 20-mile minimum operable segment of rail has always been a major concern for me.

The half-percent GET collection for rail for the first 20 months was $246 million. If averaged out over the 15 years of collection, the total GET would be about $2.2 billion, which falls short of the overly optimistic $4.1 billion in GET surcharge revenues estimated in the draft environmental impact statement.

The following are other reasons for concern:

• With GET levels down, there may not be enough funds collected to build the eight-mile first segment from East Kapolei to Waipahu, which I suspect may cost around $1 billion.

• The airport alignment, if selected instead of Salt Lake Boulevard, would add $220 million more to the total price tag, plus an additional $75 million to double-deck the platform and guideway at the Lagoon Drive station, according to the draft EIS.

• According to the president’s budget for fiscal year 2007, as stated in the Annual Report on New Starts Proposed Allocation of Funds for Fiscal Year 2007, there are 21 other transportation projects ahead of Honolulu’s rail project that have applied for full funding grant agreements.

I stated early on that we can expect one or more of the following proposals if our construction cost estimates are off:

• Extend the half-percent GET collection beyond 2022, the final year of tax collection.

• Increase the GET to 1 percent.

• Borrow money by floating bonds.

• Increase property taxes.

It seems that the administration’s plan to fast-track the first segment of the project using collected GET funds is coupled with the notion that once construction begins there will be no stopping. This may explain why the administration is hinting at floating bonds sooner rather than later to make up for the shortage. If we are forced to borrow money, as I suspect we will be, the debt service will be an added strain on taxpayers.

Instead, I strongly suggest, if at all possible, that the city fast-track its application to secure a FFGA with the Federal Transit Administration before starting construction.

The benefits of an FFGA are that it:

• Defines the project scope.

• Establishes a firm date for project completion.

• Provides a mechanism for designating funds for future years.

• Leads to the development of accurate cost estimates.

• Permits the use of state and local funding for early project activities without jeopardizing future federal funding for those activities.

An FFGA will result in better predictability and transparency and hopefully prevent cost overruns and delays of the project. Also, an FFGA will give our taxpayers peace of mind and comfort in knowing that they won’t be saddled with the burden of repaying long-term debt through borrowing. We would further save taxpayers’ money if the more affordable Salt Lake Boulevard alignment, which has a solid ridership base, is selected.

The City Council and administration need to keep taxpayers’ best interests in mind for this multi-billion-dollar project. A successful project is one that will not only encourage commuters to leave their cars at home but also won’t bankrupt our taxpayers’ pocketbooks.

Contact Romy M. Cachola, Councilmember for District VII at 768-5007 .

By Bobbie Slater

First, thank you to everyone who helped the initiative effort. Being on the ballot gave us good visibility with the press, and made 140,000 people aware of the fact that they don’t want rail transit. What a huge success!

A month had passed since the election, and there is much happening on the rail transit front.

Several important local organizations are making their voices heard loud and clear:

·         Na Leo Pohai, the public policy affiliate of The Outdoor Circle has done excellent research on the DEIS and the “concerns” they have raised should have everyone up in arms.

* Hawaii’s 1,000 Friends is equally upset, and has written a very forceful critique of the project.
* The Hawaii chapter of the American Institute of Architects is in opposition to the elevated structure downtown and has done an eloquent and well thought out paper on their concerns
* The League of women Voters has voiced their opposition to this project from the start.

All of these organizations are in favor of public transportation, but given this particular rail transit project, with its huge cost and unparalleled environmental blight, have felt compelled to speak out.

Honolulutraffic.com, which has always been the research arm of the stop rail initiative will continue to be the “mother ship” of the movement with the aim of continually educating the public on the most important public works issue in our history, and what the real solutions are.

Currently, we are working on a detailed response to the Federal Transit Administration on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. It is very important that you all prepare statements to them as well.

This is truly a grassroots effort of real people, as we saw in yesterday’s morning Advertiser. Go Rail Go and the other pro rail groups all received their money from big developers including Infraconsult and Parsons Brinkerhoff. The donations to stoprailnow were all from individuals – concerned citizens like you.

We want to reach out to all of the 140,000 new supporters who voted against rail in the election in any way possible.

Starting within our group, ask everyone you know that voted against rail to do two things.

1.      Make sure that you and everyone you know who is opposed to rail are members of honolulutraffic.com. It’s easy. Just go to honolulutraffic.com, click on “who we are” and add your name to the many that are there. It is important as we go forward that we represent thousands of Honolulu citizens who realize that this boondoggle will unalterably ruin our Honolulu. All stoprailnow people should also be honolulutraffic.com members.

2.      Ask people to respond to the DEIS. They do NOT have to be versed in the document itself.

Merely ask people to write to the Federal Transit Administration and express whatever concerns they have. The huge issues of course are the elevated rail downtown and the visual blight that will result, and the environmental justice issue of the most regressive tax in the country used to fund the project.

These letters should be emailed or postmarked on or before January 7th and addressed to:

Mr. Wayne Y. Yoshioka

Department of Transportation Services

City and County of Honolulu

650 South King Street, 3rd Floor

Honolulu, HI 96813

808-768-8303

Email: wyoshioka@honolulu.gov

Mr. Ted Matley

FTA Region IX

201 Mission Street, Suite 1650

San Francisco, CA 94105

415-744-3133
Email: ted.matley@fta.dot.gov.

In addition, it would be most helpful if copies were sent to:

Governor Linda Lingle

Executive Chambers

Hawaii State Capitol

Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

Email: Governor.Lingle@hawaii.gov

City Council members:

http://www.co.honolulu.hi.us/council/ccl.htm

These letters don’t need to take much time. Ask people to speak from the heart. As always, we are available to answer questions any time.

Our very best wishes to everyone for this Holiday Season. We hope the New Year brings to you, and to our Honolulu, only the best.

By Panos Prevedouros

The architects’ society, AIA Honolulu, drafted comments on the rail DEIS. Basically they are in favor of the rail concept but they do not want elevated rail. To quote their December 4, 2008 draft letter to the City: “In comparison with elevated systems, at grade systems would require less taxpayer funding and offer greater flexibility and affordability in planning for future extensions.”

On Oahu, at grade rail will be cheaper in terms of guideway costs, and it will have a much lower aesthetic impact, but its requirements for condemnation and roadway congestion will both skyrocket. Condemnation would be extensive (and very expensive) because at grade space must be found for the wide turns that trains make and for 20+ stations. Roadway lanes will be lost to light rail; not only one lane per direction, but also adjacent lanes to install stations. For example, an at-grade light rail installation between downtown and the UH will practically take all of Beretania Street and maybe allow for one lane left for local access and deliveries. Lane-taking in Honolulu, one of the most lane starved cities in the nation, is not rational. Overall AIA’s recommendation for at grade rail is not a practical one.

Would a light version of the Japanese roof-mounted monorail make better sense?

This is the Ofuna Enoshima monorail. The guideway and posts of this system can be made slimmer by designing them for smaller and lighter trains, so the visual impact when a train is absent is small. But of course its stations would still be big and obtrusive. Such a system was not presented or evaluated in the DEIS.

Another fixed guideway option is the PPT, or personal public transit, but all of them are experimental or drawing board concepts. There are several concepts but the SkyTran concept for personalized magnetic levitation (Maglev) rapid transit (http://www.unimodal.com/) is exciting and All American. Its light structure makes it much more suitable for beautiful Honolulu.

If Honolulu were to develop 12 miles of HOT lanes now to solve its leeward Oahu congestion issues, in 20 years some of the PPT could be market ready and they have the potential to be fast, quiet, convenient and inexpensive. With HOT lanes, underpasses, smart traffic lights and PPT, Honolulu in 2030 would be an international transportation technology capital. This would be accomplished at a locally affordable cost and with minimal impact to aesthetics, cultural and historical sites.

Panos Prevedouros is an engineering professor and former candidate for the C & C of Honolulu.  See his blog, Fix Oahu!

The city will have its first public hearing on the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) for Honolulu rail on Dec. 6 from 9-11 am at Kapolei Hale, 1000 Uluohia St.

Here are the other meeting dates, times and locations are:

Wendell Cox

By Wendell Cox and Ronald D. Utt, Ph.D.

Many environmental groups, business trade associations, and state and local governments anticipate that new Democratic leadership in Washington next year will lead to major changes in federal surface transportation policy. With the current highway authorization law (SAFETEA-LU) set to expire in September 2009, many of these organizations are recommending a substantial increase in federal transportation spending and expect that it will be funded by an equally substantial increase in the federal fuel tax (now set at 18.3 cents per gallon of gasoline).

At the same time, many environmental groups, labor unions, consultants, and construction companies are urging the federal government to redirect federal transportation policy toward 19th century transportation options by shifting federal resources from highways and autos to transit and trains, as well as hiking and biking, in the belief that these latter modes–while slower and more costly–are more fuel efficient and environmentally friendly. With an opportunity to receive greater subsidies, the transit and train lobbies have moved aggressively to influence Congress and the media, and many in Congress are already promising to push for these changes.[1]

But as the facts reveal, such a shift would cost vast sums of money, yield little or no transportation benefits, and undermine our economic well being by limiting mobility and raising the cost of travel.

Money in Transit

Despite claims of underfunding, the share of federal spending on transit vastly exceeds its passenger market share. Whereas about 20 percent of federal surface transportation spending is devoted to transit,[2] only 1.9 percent of all urban passenger travel[3] and 4.9 percent of all commuters use transit.[4]

Despite many years of massive government spending on transit–a total of $1 trillion (inflation adjusted) since 1970[5]–transit has experienced serious market share losses. In 1970, 8.5 percent of commuters used transit, but 4.9 percent did in 2007.[6]

Although carpooling receives very little government financial support, in 2007 more commuters carpooled (10.4 percent) than used transit (4.9 percent). Where modest government investments have been made in carpooling, the results have been impressive: In the Washington, D.C., suburb of Prince William County, Virginia, where a dedicated HOV lane is supported by remote commuter parking lots and a well-organized driver/rider system, 17.6 percent of commuters carpool, compared to the 4.7 percent that use transit.[7]

The share of “commuters” who work at home–an employment option that also receives little federal encouragement–reached 4.1 percent in 2007 compared to 4.9 percent for transit. At current trends, the share of the job market that works at home will exceed that of transit by 2012.

Jumping the Rails

U.S. transit ridership is concentrated in just a few metropolitan areas. In 2007, 74 percent of U.S. transit ridership took place in just seven metropolitan areas: New York; Philadelphia; Washington, D.C.; Boston; Chicago; San Francisco; and Los Angeles. In the Portland, Oregon, metropolitan area, which has made massive investments in a light rail system and transit-oriented development, only 5.5 percent of commuters in the area used transit in 2007,[8] well below the pre-light-rail (1980) share of 8.4 percent.

Despite exaggerated claims that Americans are turning to transit, more than half of the much-heralded increase in transit ridership is concentrated in a single metropolitan area: Of the 10.8 percent increase in nationwide transit ridership that occurred between 2005 and 2007, 60 percent of that increase occurred in the New York City urbanized area.

Transit advocates recently claimed that high gas prices have encouraged motorists to abandon their cars in favor of transit, but a detailed analysis of recent trends reveals that only 3 percent of the reduction in auto use shifted to transit by early 2008. The other 97 percent of the reduction in vehicle miles traveled in automobiles was absorbed by carpools, working at home, less auto use, walking, and more efficient auto use (combining trips, for example).[9] This estimate closely tracks recent polling results on changing travel patterns, which found that 4 percent of commuters used transit instead of driving, 9 percent shifted to carpools, and 66 percent combined multiple trips into a single trip.

Is Amtrak Underfunded?

Passenger rail advocates have made similar claims (and complaints) for Amtrak, but the record does not support them. Despite claims of rising ridership, Amtrak still serves less than 1 percent of the intercity travel market. A 15 percent increase of a miniscule share of the market is still a miniscule share of the market. Indeed, despite ridership gains, so far this year Amtrak trains are only 51.6 percent full, compared to more than 80 percent for commercial airlines.[10]

Amtrak’s complaints of being underfunded are also exaggerated. Although it accounts for only about one-half of 1 percent of the intercity passenger market, it will receive 2.5 percent of the federal surface transportation spending in FY 2008, nearly five times its market share.[11] Of all of the modes of travel, Amtrak riders receive far and away the highest per passenger federal subsidy. According to a 2004 U.S. Department of Transportation study, Amtrak passengers received a federal subsidy of $210.31 per passenger per thousand miles, compared to $4.66 for intercity buses and $6.18 for commercial airlines.[12] Automobiles earn a “profit” for the federal government since only about 63 percent of the federal fuel taxes paid by motorists are spent on roads; most of the rest is spent on transit.

Claims that Amtrak subsidies are justified because trains save on energy are also not supported by the facts. According to an earlier U.S. Department of Energy analysis of per passenger per mile BTU use by alternative travel modes, intercity buses are nearly three times more fuel efficient than passenger rail (Amtrak).[13] In effect, America could achieve significant savings in energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions if it shut down Amtrak and transferred all passengers to buses.

Laying the Groundwork

Congress may soon be embarking upon a massive spending program that is without precedent. And while the purposes of such a package will be both to stimulate the economy and “lay the groundwork for long-term economic growth,” as President-elect Obama promised, the facts presented above suggest that money devoted to technologically obsolete transportation schemes that the public does not use will undermine both of these goals, and America will be a poorer place because of it.

Wendell Cox is a Visiting Fellow and Ronald D. Utt, Ph.D., is Herbert and Joyce Morgan Senior Research Fellow in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

[1] Lindsay Peterson, “Rep. Mica Urges Area To Queue Up For Public Transit Cash,” The Tampa Tribune, November 25, 2008, at http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/nov/25/ rep-mica-urges-area-queue-public-transit-funding/ (December 2, 2008).

[2] Ronald D. Utt, “Congress Undermines America’s Infrastructure by Looting the Highway Trust Fund,” Heritage WebMemo No. 2046, September 3, 2008, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/SmartGrowth/wm2046.cfm.

[3] See “Estimated Diversion of Roadway Traffic to Transit: 2008: Quarter 2,” Demographia.com, at http://www.demographia.com/db-hwytr2008q2.pdf (December 2, 2008).

[4] U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder, “United States, Selected Economic Characteristics: 2007

[5] See Urban Transport Fact Book, “U.S. Public Transport Expenditures, Subsidies and Passenger Usage from the 1960s,” at http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-ussby.htm (December 2, 2008).

[6] The figure bottomed out at 4.6 percent in 2000, before the substantial increase in gasoline costs.

[7] U.S Census Bureau, American FactFinder, “United States, Selected Economic Characteristics: 2007.”

[8] Ibid.

[9] “Estimated Diversion of Roadway Traffic to Transit: 2008: Quarter 2,” Demographia.com

[10] “Amtrak Monthly Performance Report for August 2008,” Summary Metrics, p. A-2.2, October 6, 2008, at http://www.amtrak.com/pdf/0808monthly.pdf (December 2, 2008).

[11] U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2009 (Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 2008), p. 100.

[12] U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, “Federal Subsidies to Passenger Transportation,” December 2004, Table 3.

[13] Ronald D. Utt, “Congress Should Link Amtrak’s Generous Subsidy to Improved Performance,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2072, September 20, 2007, Table 3, p. 12, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/bg2072.cfm

By Romy Cachola

By early December, the City Council will have decided whether to re-route the transit line to the airport, or keep it on Salt Lake Boulevard.

We find ourselves at this point as the result of a meeting between the mayor and leaders in the Salt Lake community in February of last year. At that meeting, the mayor committed himself to support the transit line along Salt Lake Boulevard. He offered the route to the community. As the councilmember of the district, I was there to facilitate the discussion.

If this commitment is not followed through, consider it another in a line of broken promises to the Salt Lake community. Earlier, the administration deleted $30 million earmarked to complete the widening of Salt Lake Boulevard but promised that the work would be done concurrently with the construction of the transit line on Salt Lake Boulevard.

In the November election, many Salt Lake residents voted ‘yes’ for the rail project, believing that it would be routed through their neighborhood. Yet, barely a day after the election, an announcement was made to re-route the line to the airport. Tell me—is this fair?

Promises notwithstanding, it would seem that rerouting the transit line to the airport is the logical choice at first blush. But if you take a closer look at the issue, the Salt Lake route makes a strong case as the optimal route.

The first issue is cost. The Salt Lake route is $220 million less to build than the airport. Then there is the cost to operate and maintain the system. Currently, taxpayers subsidize the cost of the Bus at $120 million per year.

We can expect even higher taxpayer subsidy for rail, especially when the initial segment will be built from East Kapolei to Waipahu. Who will ride on his “train to no where?” Worse yet, this first segment will do little to relieve traffic since gridlock begins where H-1 and H-2 merge.

A second key argument is ridership. The City’s ridership projections are provided for the Year 2030. When the rail line is built in 2017, ridership levels for the airport won’t be realized for 13 more years! In comparison, Salt Lake offers a solid ridership base in a densely-populated community and as a result, the potential for higher farebox revenues. Even with downturns in the economy, ridership for the Salt Lake route would be less affected.

I question the 95,000 passengers a day for the airport route, particularly when considering that there are approximately 12,500 civilian employees at Hickam and Pearl Harbor who already have free parking on base. There are also approximately 3,500 state and private sector employees at the airport, which also has over 7,000 parking stalls, including the new 1,800 stall parking structure.

As for our visitors, 71 percent of the total 7 million who come to Hawaii each year land at Honolulu International Airport. Two million of our visitors are Japanese, the majority of whom arrive on tour packages with pre-arranged transportation.

The remaining option for other visitors is to take the taxi or City bus. Not many choose to ride the City bus, due to the inconvenience and lack of space for their luggage.

In much the same way, visitors may find the rail to be inconvenient, especially since the station is located too far away from the passenger terminal and with the lack of a direct link into Waikiki.

The fact of the matter is that promises were made to Salt Lake residents. To renege on these promises is simply bad karma. If there was ever a community that knows what a broken promise feels like, it is the residents of the Leeward Coast who have struggled for years with a landfill in their backyard. Their trust in government has been repeatedly violated with unkept promises to close the landfill.

While the airport route may appear to have public support, I believe that the rail issue is not a popularity contest, but rather a serious pocketbook issue with billions of dollars at stake. The Salt Lake community has worked hard to justify why the alignment for rail should go through their community.

The reason is simply that it costs fewer dollars and makes the most sense.

By Panos Prevedouros

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) of the City’s proposed rail system is the document that should provide answers to all reasonable impacts. It is available at all public libraries. It is also available at the city’s website honolulutransit.com along with a lot of the rail propaganda that your tax dollars paid for.

Below I list 20 simple but important questions. Does the DEIS answer them clearly?

1. The bus routes will change. What happens to your route? What happens to express buses?
2. Lanes will be taken away, some temporarily for construction and some permanently. Where are those lane closures and what is their duration? Are there traffic rerouting plans?
3. Will there be bike racks on the train and where will they be located? Will bikes be allowed on the train? Will there be a place for surfboards? What about luggage? What about construction workers’ tools? Will there be a place for people to put large items they purchase at a big box retailer? What’s the size limitation?
4. Will there be washrooms at the stations? How about convenience stores, vending machines? Will the platforms have seats? How many?
5. Under land use, Aloun farms needs to relocate. Is that possible? Where will they go?
6. A relatively simple job of sewer upgrades in Kailua and Kapiolani lead to the loss of businesses and jobs. Are details provided about similar effects during the construction of the rail?
7. Is there a detailed plan for the effect of rail construction on water, sewer, gas and electric utilities? Will there be disruptions of service? Who pays for all these?
8. About $107 million will be spent on the soft costs of this project. This “paperwork” cost is rather exorbitant for a single 20 mile rail line. How did $107 million get spent?
9. The DEIS list of preparers for technical content shows that it was done almost exclusively with out-of-Hawaii engineers, planners and specialists. (See this document under Consultants: http://www.honolulutransit.org/library/files/end.pdf.) H-3 freeway was designed mostly with Hawaii based engineers. If Hawaii engineers are not able to design rail, who will supervise and build this unfamiliar-to-Oahu infrastructure?
10. Rail construction involves unique skills and certifications that Hawaii construction workers do not have. How will this be addressed?
11. The city has declared that in many cases only a portion of a parcel needs to be condemned and taken away. Can the business survive with the remaining portion? Are they forced to mandatory downsizing and some loss of employment?
12. There are 16 schools that are adjacent to the alignment. Will the overhead structure, the continuous high current exposure and the intermittent noise and vibration affect the learning environment? Is it prudent to relocate the schools?
13. Does rail fit our Hawaiian Sense of Place? How was the impact to tourism and local quality of life by a large elevated structure through town been assessed?
14. Does the DEIS address the impacted vistas and scenery? Are the aesthetics of the structure and each station explained and presented adequately?
15. What will happen in the event of a hurricane? Will the train operate? The train in Houston was shut down for 10 days due to hurricane Ike.
16. BART in the Bay Area uses rail cars made of aluminum to combat corrosion. Is the city’s position that corrosion is not an issue?
17. It appears that General Excise Tax surcharge proceeds for rail will be much lower than expected for at least four years in a row. How is this deficit going to be made up?
18. If ridership turns out to be lower than forecast, then what? If the city is forced to provide free train rides like in Puerto Rico, how is the shortfall going to be covered?
19. I heard that the Ala Moana station will now be at a lower elevation, at the west end of Kona Street and not above Nordstrom’s. What is the exact plan for the Ala Moana Center station and how is the train going to Waikiki and UH afterwards?
20. Starting construction in Kapolei makes little sense. It may be expeditious and convenient but it is not smart. Why can’t a temporary rail yard be established near the airport or Aloha Stadium and build rail east into the city and west out to Kapolei simultaneously?

The billion dollar question that no DEIS could address is this: With President Obama at the helm and Senator Inouye chairing the Senate Appropriations Committee can we get four billion for rail? How about splitting the bill 50-50 with the feds? Other cities got a 50% or better federal match. Why does Honolulu get less than 25%?

These and many more questions require simple and clear answers.

In addition to the 429 page DEIS, the following files contain information and visuals. The City distributes them on a DVD.

• Historic Resources.pdf
• Land Use.pdf
• Transportation Tech Report.pdf
• Street Trees.pdf
• Electric and Magnetic Fields Technical Report.pdf
• Visual and Aesthetic Technical Report.pdf
• Historic Appendix B.pdf
• Cultural Resources.pdf
• Economics.pdf
• Geology, soils, farmlands, and natural hazardsTech Report.pdf
• Haz Waste and Mat Tech Report Appendix A.pdf
• Natural Resources.pdf
• Noise&Vibration.pdf
• Haz Waste and Mat Tech Report.pdf
• tEISTravelForecasting ENTIRE.pdf
• Community Impacts.pdf
• Archaeological Resources.pdf
• Water Resources.pdf
• AQ&Energy.pdf

The City released this huge document just before the November 4 elections and in a period that includes the most holidays and days off. (The deadline for comment is January 7, 2009.) The hearings on the adequacy of the Alternatives Analysis were also conducted and concluded in the late November to late December 2006 period to make it as hard as possible for citizens to participate. (If it looks like a Banana Republic and acts like a Banana Republic …)

Honorable Linda Lingle

Governor, State of Hawaii

Subject: Oahu Regional Transportation Plan 2030

Refs:     a) Oahu Regional Transportation Plan 2030 (ORTP 2030)

http://oahumpo.org/ortp/index.html.b) Tampa Elevated reversible -

http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/172c) Managed Lane Study “Transportation Alternatives Analysis for Mitigating Traffic congestion between Leeward Oahu and Honolulu. The full report is available at

www.eng.hawaii.edu/~panos/UHCS.pdf.d) DEIS Honolulu High-Capacity transit Corridor Project Nov 2008

Dear Governor Lingle,

President elect Obama is meeting with State Governors today to encourage the Governors to submit public works projects to create 2.5 million jobs and to stimulate the economy. Below are two highway projects that are very much needed to eliminate the severe Central Oahu traffic congestion on H-1 at the H-1/H-2 merge and at the Middle Street Merge.

The Oahu Regional Transportation Plan (ORTP) 2030, reference (a), lists State Project No. 52 , Nimitz Flyover (2.2 mile, Estimated cost - $250 million) will substantially remove the Middle Street bottleneck. However, to increase traffic capacity while reducing the cost of this project, it is strongly suggested that the Nimitz Flyover structure be built similar to the Tampa Elevated three-lane Reversible HOV as described on reference (b). The actual 2005 cost for the 10 mile Tampa Reversible is $420 million or $42 Million per highway mile. Using a geographic and escalation factor of 100 percent, the 2.2 mile Nimitz Flyover at $80 million per mile would cost $175 million for three HOV reversible lanes.

Reference (c) recommends the Tampa Reversible type highway over this Nimitz segment and provides the downtown terminal connections from the Nimitz HOV Flyover via an elevated busway from Iwilei to Hotel Street and a single lane underpass to both Alakea St/Halekauwila Streets. Note that one of the three lanes would exit the Flyover at Waikamilo Rd. to provide access to job centers in Kalihi, resulting in the Flyover having only two lanes entering downtown.

The planned ORTP 2030 Project No. 45, Interstate Route H-1, “Widen the Interstate Route H-1 by one lane in the eastbound direction, from the Waiawa Interchange to the Halawa Interchange (cost estimate $251 million)”. A better highway project would be to build a three-lane reversible HOV “Kamehameha Flyover” which has three times higher traffic capacity for a slightly higher cost. The solution is to build a 4 mile, elevated, three-lane reversible HOV “Kamehameha Flyover” over the median of Kamehameha Hwy from the H-1/H-2 merge to the H-1 Viaduct east of Aloha Stadium. Again, the three-lane “Kamehameha Flyover” structure should be similar to the Tampa three-lane reversible, reference (b), which should cost about $80 Million per mile for a total cost of $320 million. Reference (c) provides the highway connections between the “Kamehameha Flyover” and H-1, H-2, Farrington Highway and Kamehameha Highway at the Waiawa Interchange.

The DEIS, reference (d), shows the rail route over Kamehameha Highway between Pearl City and Aloha Stadium which could conflict with the proposed three-lane “Kamehameha Flyover” route outlined above. If the rail is built, it is suggested that both the Kamehameha Highway “Flyover” and the Rail be built within the elevated Kamehameha Highway corridor. In this case, only a two-lane “Kamehameha Flyover” is needed ( instead of three-lanes) to be built alongside and parallel to the Rail transit. The rail with a capacity of 6,000 commuters per hour and the two-lane “Kamehameha Flyover”, with a capacity of 4,000 vehicles per hour, should be adequate to substantially reduce the bottleneck at the H-1/H-2 merge.

You will note that a three-lane HOV Flyovers on Kamehameha Highway and on Nimitz Highway will not need Rail to eliminate the two bottlenecks at Pearl City and at Middle Street merge.

I strongly urge you to appeal to President elect Obama to provide federal funds for these two Sate highway bypasses around the  H-1 bottlenecks to eliminate the Central Oahu traffic congestion and to support Oahu’s slumping economy

Sincerely,

Ben Ramelb P.E.

Honolulu

By Dan Douglass

Permaculture is a dual combination of the words permanent and agriculture as well as permanent and culture.  It was coined in the 1970s and has since been most promoted by Bill Mollison.  To find out more about Bill and his work visit his site.

Urban Permaculture in Chicago, Illinois.

Farms in unused plots of land is a concept I was introduced to by a Salt Lake neighbor here in Honolulu.  In his profession he analyzes trends in non-profits.  He expressed his deep concern for food supply in Hawaii.  The food banks experienced significant decrease in consumables donated while a significant increase in need.  He recommended unused land be put to wise use through community farms where the governing jurisdiction lease land for low or no cost to the willing and able public to grow fresh produce.

Urban Permaculture in Brooklyn, NY.

The following videos demonstrate that Urban Permaculture is not only possible, but that it has been successful in a variety of municipalities in the U.S. and world.  Why not here in Honolulu and the rest of Hawaii?  Many of our schools are adjacent to City or State parks where even as little as five thousand square feet of land allocated to permaculture could yield year round produce and instruction opportunities to our children.  The City could offer property tax incentives to associations that implement urban permaculture.  And forget the politically and economically bankrupt ‘Transit Oriented Developments’ that destroy Honolulu’s beauty, Hawaii as a whole needs ‘Agriculturally Sustainable Development.’ With our ideal tropical conditions and nutrient rich soils permaculture can be a reality here to the benefit of our environment, economic and consumable needs, cultural enrichment and the next generation.

Parts 1-4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qpyocn1Vc5U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCyDN9nAnVQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmW4nIgjkb4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYhCtpJY1NI

By Panos Prevedouros, Ph.D.

Fossil fuel energy dependency and “carbon footprint” (a 21st century moniker for air pollution and green house gasses) are major concerns of many citizens which, combined with the wrong belief that rail systems are energy efficient (because they are “electric”) lead to wrong conclusions and decisions.

Rail systems can indeed be efficient if they are heavily utilized. Alas, only in cities with several million of densely distributed population the utilization of rail is high enough throughout the day. Those systems experience crash loads in the peak hours and heavy loads during most of the off peak hours. As a result energy per passenger mile is low and efficiency is high. Many of them in Canada, France, Japan, Taiwan or the United Kingdom are powered by electricity from nuclear or hydroelectric plants, so their carbon footprint is minimal.

However, in small population cities like Honolulu, a rail system may see some heavy utilization for two to four hours per day and the rest of the time it runs with a light load of passengers (and sometimes nearly empty) which leads to a very poor overall energy efficiency. Worse yet, its electricity come from diesel and coal, so the carbon footprint is very large.

The same could be said about buses, but buses do not have stations with lights, elevators, escalators, ticket machines, etc. and the security and other required attendants. Buses can be propelled by clean energy, e.g., fuel cells. There are several such buses in demonstration service and of course there are many hybrid buses on the streets of Honolulu already. Most buses in the city of Tacoma are LNG, or liquefied natural gas which burns much cleaner than liquid fossil fuels and is relatively abundant.

However, the comparison of rail to buses is baseless. Buses do fine without rail, as TheBus in Honolulu demonstrates. But rail is useless without buses. Honolulu’s proposed system has 20 stations and that’s it. Honolulu has thousands of activity points and hundreds of thousands or residences. Its proposed rail has twenty stations. The disconnect is obvious and only buses and cars can bridge the huge gaps between where the rail goes and where the people go. (That’s one of several reasons why rail does not reduce traffic congestion.)

Except for nuclear, there are no clean energy power plants producing power for rail systems and this is unlikely to change any time soon since existing power plants have very long useful lives. So the present and long term (~20 year) conclusion is that rail systems in smaller cities (~2 million or less)

• have a large carbon footprint,
• are heavily dependent on fossil fuels for their electricity, and
• consume a lot of energy per passenger.

For brevity, I am only giving you part of the story here. The energy consumption and carbon footprint for rail systems is huge not only because of the heavy construction and equipment involved to build and operate them, but also because of their dependency on cars and buses to take people from stations to their final destinations.

What’s the outlook for cars? Fortunately we do not have to make any guesses. The outlook for the U.S. car fleet is already present in Asia and Europe.

Compared to the oil crises of the 20th century which propelled the Japanese auto industry to international prominence, this time there is better news because U.S. auto manufacturers won’t be left out. On the contrary, their EU and Asia divisions are manufacturing remarkable cars. (Note that all the discussion herein is for vehicles being sold out of dealer showrooms, not for concept cars.)

Ford Fiesta and Mazda 2 are jointly developed small cars of the size of a BMW Mini, a popular small vehicle on Oahu. The 1.6 liter diesel engine of the Fiesta is capable of taking it to a top speed of 120 mph and provides an average fuel efficiency of 56 mpg, almost twice of today’s 1.6 liter gasoline powered Mini. The similar Mazda 2 was chosen the 2008 World Car of the Year.

Ford also offers the C-Max a 5 or 7 passenger car in the compact category with a 58 cubic feet cargo ability with the rear seats folded. Both gas and diesel engines are available. The gas engine delivers an average of 32 mpg whereas the diesel engine delivers 41 mpg.

Ford Kuga is a stylish crossover vehicle which is sold with only one engine option: A two liter diesel which delivers an average of 37 mpg and needs refueling every 550 miles. Ford plans to bring this vehicle in the U.S., but apparently the average U.S. Ford customer is not as sensitive to fuel price and pollution as their EU counterpart: A 2.5 liter gasoline engine is planned for it. Or perhaps a 2 liter hybrid version. The latter may come close to the efficiency of the EU version (but with a more complex and expensive power plant combination.)

GM will introduce the Opel Corsa to the U.S., a car slightly smaller than the VW Rabbit. The Corsa has been sold in Europe and elsewhere for over 10 years and there are eight different motors for it, depending on version and market. Of great interest is the version presented at the 2007 Frankfurt Auto Show which combined a 1.3 turbo diesel engine with a hybrid motor to deliver a 63 mpg fuel efficiency and good performance.

Then of course there are competing offerings from Toyota (the 3-cylinder iQ gets 56 mpg), or the fully-electric Mitsubishi MiEV (costs about $25,000 and has an 80 mile range.)

Honda already imports the Fit to the U.S. The 2009 version delivers 27 mpg in the city for under $15,000. In various automotive magazine tests, the Fit delivered a frugal 35 mpg overall. The 2009 Toyota Prius is still formidable at 48 mpg in the city. Honda’s answer to that is the 40 mpg in the city Civic hybrid.

Speaking of hybrids, statistics of the U.S. Department of Energy show that their sales took off in 2005. Sales started at 9,000 units in 2000 and grew quickly to 84,000 by 2004. But in the last three years their sales have exploded: 210,000 units in 2005, 253,000 in 2006 and 352,000 in 2007. It is likely that a half million units per year sold in the U.S. will be reached by 2010 despite softening fuel prices and weak overall economy.

In conclusion, if people are concerned about carbon footprint and dependency to fossil fuels, then looking to return to 19th century commuting in trains is not the answer. Been there done that. Too limited, too crowded, too inconvenient.Modern society evolved out of it.

Technology is providing the solutions to the problems. This is the same technology that in one person’s life time took us from the 1920 Ford Model T with its top speed of 35 mph and a fuel economy of 20 mpg to, say, the 2009 Ford Escape Hybrid with its top speed of over 100 mph and fuel economy of 34 mpg in the city.

In the next 20 years there will be an abundant selection of vehicles that are two or three times more efficient than today’s average offerings. This reduces fossil fuel dependency substantially. Combined with less travel, more telecommuting and wider use of renewable energy and natural gas, dependency on oil can be reduced dramatically.

In the next 20 years, scientific knowledge may overcome unfounded fears and allow us to replace oil fueled power plants with nuclear ones, for the benefit of our planet. This is a win-win-win proposition for the U.S.: Less dependency on oil imports, green house gas free electricity generation, domestic high-technology infrastructure development boosts the local and national economy.

If that occurs, then fully electric and truly non-polluting vehicles are possible. There are several fully electric cars available, the Tesla Roadster being the most spectacular U.S. electric vehicle in small production. Affordable and clean electricity is needed for mass production of electric vehicles and convenient fueling at Electron Stations which today we call Gas Stations. Or at park-and-plug parking stalls: It is not hard to imagine a parking meter with an electric outlet, isn’t it?

Better Place offers a concept of an all-electric car future. Hawaii’s Governor Lingle has been briefed. California signed up last week.

Editor’s note:  The following analysis is of high importance because a growing population base is what the rail cartel depends on to fund the basis for this redevelopment project (20,000-30,000 homes with more vehicles in the Ewa Plain) through General Excise Tax.

By Dale Evans

How realistic is the rail project’s projection of 26% Honolulu’s population growth by 2030, according to the ORTP 2030?

In 2007, Honolulu realized a net drop in population.

The U.S. Census Bureau did a special report in which Hawaii shows the highest domestic out-migration rates between 1995-2000, of all states.

-69.8 negative net migration of “young, single and college education”

-65.4 negative net migration of “population aged 5 and over”

The District of Columbia was the only place higher, with -81.7 negative net out-migration. As the census report indicates:

“The relative influence of this small population is far greater than its size would suggest.  Immigration of young people, whether single or married, carries the potential of population growth through future childbearing. When the young people moving into an area are also college educated, they provide a measure of economic opportunity in the area, while simultaneously serving to raise the area’s stock of ‘human capital.’  This increase, in turn, fosters future economic growth in sectors in which education plays a key role.”

- U.S. Census report “Migration of the Young, Single and College Educated: 1995-2000” [i]

Hawaii is the only state in the nation with a declining public school enrollment. [ii]

Educated workers are critical to future economic development.  A 2-year survey for the Hawaii P-20 Initiative made this very alarming finding: “Too many of Hawaii’s students are not making it through the educational pipeline. They leak out before gaining the skills needed for a highly skilled workforce.”  Without improvement, “88 percent will fail to make it through the system and out of college in a timely manner.” [iii]

Over 100,000 former Hawaii residents moved to Las Vegas alone.  What are the numbers in other areas throughout the country?

Honolulu’s negative net migration between 2000 and 2004 and 2005 further point to the trend of kamaaina ohana departing Hawaii.  [iv]

Between 2000 and 2005, Honolulu was #56 at -3.37% domestic migration.

Between 2000 and 2004, Honolulu was at -2.83% domestic migration.

Honolulu is considered an “Ephemeral City” because it caters to transient-type yuppies, empty-nesters, second home buyers and foreign ownership.

[i] http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/censr-12.pdf

[ii] Superintendent’s 10th Annual Report 1999 http://arch.k12.hi.us/pdf/suptreport/1999/Presentation.pdf

[iii] http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060307/NEWS07/603070356

[iv] http://www.demographia.com/db-2005migdom.pdf

http://www.demographia.com/db-metmigra20002004.pdf

By George Berish, F.S.A.

As an actuarial Fellow, I know State ERS loses 8.5% [11/1] misses the big story.  From 6/30/00 to 6/30/07, the System’s unfunded liability increased from $0 to $5 Billion, and FY 04-07 government contributions grew explosively: $290, $390, $480, $600 (000,000’s).

It’s the cost of Rail.  It’s $5,000 per infant, child, adolescent and adult.  It all occurred during Hawaii’s “vibrant and expanding” economy.  And the yet-to-be-released 6/30/08 report is certain to add another $2 Billion.

Taxpayers need a public hearing, because the claim that System assets only protect member benefits is false.  Benefits are backed by the taxpayers’ “full faith and credit”.  E.g. even if the Trustees lost all System assets:

– No government retiree would lose 1 penny of current benefits or of promised future COLAs.

– No government worker would lose 1 penny of already earned benefits or earn 1 penny less per year in the future.

– Taxpayers would replace 100% of the loss, and continue paying for benefits earned in the future.

Trustees who claim no obligation to consider taxpayer interests when setting their investment policy’s risk level should think again.  Fiduciary Duty is always, and only, owed to people whose interests are at stake – we taxpayers.

By Jay McWilliams

Traffic congestion relief is one of the main reasons the average citizen — who had no expectation of personal financial gain — voted either for or against the $5 billion rail system.

The pro-rail ads that ran relentlessly the last couple of months assured voters that a “yes” to the train meant a reduction in traffic.

The city’s hired consultant, Parsons Brinkerhoff, found first in the alternatives analysis and then in the draft environmental impact study released 2 days before the election that rail will reduce traffic congestion — in 2030. (The study found that traffic will be 57 percent worse in 2030 than it is today, but that with a rail project, it will be 23 percent less worse than without it.)

So if traffic congestion is so important to the people on this island, why would any politician want to do nothing right now to ease the problem? Why is building a $5+ billion rail project mutually exclusive to coming up with other solutions to deal with the problem today? Why can’t our lawmakers make sure that traffic congestion is really reduced, not just less worse, in 2030?

It’s not that lawmakers aren’t aware of ideas that would actually reduce traffic congestion in the near future. It’s just that there is so much more to gain politically by making sure that campaign contributors, which include those who stand to make a lot of money from the rail project, are appeased.

The rail project has taken 30 plus years to pass and what finally helped accomplish that goal, besides putting out millions of dollars worth of pro-rail propaganda, was doing little during that timeframe to relieve congestion. Many people who voted for rail reached their decision because of all the time they are stuck in traffic. They heard the promises of our mayor and others pushing the project and decided “Well, at least building the train is doing something.”

There is absolutely no reason that our leaders can’t do something right now to reduce traffic congestion. And thanks to the passage of their “quiet” steel wheel on steel rail train project, politicians no longer have to pretend that it is the only congestion solution available to us.

All citizens, no matter what side of the rail issue they are on, can contact their representatives and insist that they take action immediately. It’s the end of the line for doing nothing to fix traffic now. On this, voters for and against the rail project can agree.

To reach members of the Honolulu City Council, go to: http://www.co.honolulu.hi.us/Council/ccl.htm

To reach Mayor Mufi Hannemann, call him at 808-523-4141, fax him at 808-527-5552, write him at Honolulu Hale, 530 S. King St., Honolulu, HI 96813 or email him at: mayor@honolulu.gov

Dr. Mike Uechi, co-chair of Stop Rail Now wrote:

$10,000,000,000 cost for 34 mile rail to get 26,000 rail riders equals $400,000 cost per rider.  One Lamborghini per rider!  And the mayor called HOT lane advocates Lexus drivers.

Cliff Slater wrote:

You may remember that the City accused Stop Rail Now of lying about traffic congestion as follows

SRN: “The city admits future traffic congestion will be worse with rail than it is today.”

City: This is a cleverly crafted statement that knowingly uses only part of the information available. The Alternatives Analysis shows that a fixed guideway will reduce future traffic congestion between Kapolei and Honolulu by 11 percent.

SRN: This is pure spin. He is not denying that traffic congestion will be worse than today only that rail will reduce congestion by 11 percent from what it would be without rail.

The latest is that the City admitted in the KHVH debate on Monday, November 3, that we were right as follows from the first part of a four minute clip now up on the secret website.

Cliff Slater:

Mike, are you saying that while traffic congestion with rail in the future will be worse than it is today, it will be less worse than it would be if we didn’t have the rail line.

Mike Schneider:

Of course, that is exactly what I am saying.

By Dan Douglass

Here’s Andrew Pereira’s KHON2.com coverage on the latest developments on the rail route.  Re-routing rail transit back to the initial airport route is now a priority with several City Council-members.

I don’t agree with Council-member Romy Cachola on the rail issue, but I do have a lot of respect for him as someone from humble beginnings who has been through the political fire and as an elected official still listens to his constituents.

One specific note I want to highlight in Cachola’s statement is the incomplete Salt Lake Blvd. widening project that began in the early 1970s.  What makes the Mayor and the rail cartel believe rail’s first phase can be up in a decade when the City can’t complete a two mile widening project in three and a half decades?

Government Integrity Compromised Once Again

By Romy Cachola

* About a year ago, Salt Lake residents were given assurances by the mayor and the Honolulu City Council that the Salt Lake Boulevard alignment would be included as part of the Minimum Operable Segment (MOS).

* I attended a meeting in February 2007 with the mayor, several members of the Salt Lake Neighborhood Board and community leaders. At that meeting, the mayor made a commitment that he would support Salt Lake Boulevard. To seal the agreement, he shook hands with board members Grant Tanimoto, Howard Shima, Tom Strout, Len Pepper and Mark Taylor.

* That same year, the Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization (OMPO) had appropriated $30 million for the widening of Salt Lake Boulevard. The administration took away the $30 million with the promise that the long-awaited widening project would occur concurrently with the fixed rail project, which would be built along Salt Lake Boulevard.

* In addition to myself, there were 4 councilmembers who made a commitment to support the Salt Lake Boulevard alignment. These included Nestor Garcia, Todd Apo, Rod Tam and Gary Okino.

* If the SLB alignment is done away with, this would mean that the Salt Lake community was left with broken promises on three separate occasions—first, is the promise to widen SLB—a project that first started in the early 1970s.

* Second, is the promise that the rail line would run along SLB.

* Third are the thousands of Salt Lake residents, their relatives and workers outside of the community who voted in favor of rail in the recent election. The difference between victory and defeat in rail was a slim margin of about 15,000 votes.

* I am confident that the support of Salt Lake residents helped rail to win. These very same residents voted for rail believing that it would run along Salt Lake Boulevard. Now, the administration and the Council are reneging on their promise.

* The dust has barely settled from the election and already, these voters in Salt Lake are finding out that they may have been deceived by the administration and the Council. Not only were their actions deceptive but also may have compromised the integrity of the entire election process. Worse, the integrity of the Council as an institution has been compromised.

* We have all heard from Stop Rail Now that they will continue their fight by either circulating another petition to place rail on the ballot for the 2010 election, or file legal action in court.

* Therefore, I would not be at all surprised with the Stop Rail Now group does so, particularly since we did not uphold our end of the bargain.

* In summary, Stop Rail Now has several reasons to call for another vote on rail in the 2010. How can we expect for Stop Rail Now to abide by the vote, when we ourselves have not.

* Consider also these reasons:

1. The integrity of the election was compromised.
2. Construction may not be able to proceed on schedule, especially if Stop Rail Now files legal action to delay the process.
3. Funding from the federal government won’t be available until 2011.
4. I attended a Railvolution Conference in San Francisco. There I learned that approval for the EIS, including comments, responses and review by the federal government will take between 2-4 years.

* With Stop Rail Now moving to continue their fight, I believe that there’s a good possibility of another charter amendment vote for 2010.

* This attempt to switch the MOS alignment is by no means a done deal because the administration and the Council have reneged on their commitments.

* That’s why I said earlier that the switch is a bad move.

Contact Romy M. Cachola, Councilmember for District VII at 768-5007 .

Randy O’Toole congratulated President-elect Obama on his site, The Antiplanner.

Dear President-Elect Obama,

Congratulations on your historic victory, and my condolences for the economic mess left you by your predecessors. Here are a few ideas that may help. They boil down to two words: user fees.

Many people have suggested that one way out of our current economic crisis is for Congress to pass a stimulus package focused on infrastructure. If you let it be known that you support this idea, everybody and his sister will try to make their pet projects look like “infrastructure.” They will come to you with all kinds of multipliers showing how their infrastructure projects will do all sorts of wonders for the economy. It will all be very persuasive and it will all be a lot of hooey.

The Chicago Skyway is infrastructure. So is a bridge to nowhere. How do you sort out the projects that are worthwhile from the ones that are not? The answer is user fees.

We can charge user fees for virtually all of the infrastructure in the country: highways, water lines, sewer systems, and so forth. User fees are fair since they make sure the people using a piece of infrastructure are the ones paying the cost. User fees don’t require new taxes. User fees practically eliminate the tendency to pork barrel and earmarking. Finally, user fees provide a valuable test: if people aren’t willing to pay for certain infrastructure, then building it will not provide much of an economic stimulus.

Instead of increasing taxes or borrowing more against America’s future, your job should be to make sure that agency managers can charge the user fees needed to build and rebuild our infrastructure. Concerns about fairness can easily be resolved by giving low-income families vouchers, like food stamps, for their use of infrastructure. This will make sure that government subsidies go to the people who need it instead of to the bureaucracies and powerful special interest groups.

User fees won’t be enough to solve all of our problems and pay off the deficit. To help save money, you made a campaign promise to “go through the federal budget line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work.” That’s nice rhetoric, but you know it won’t happen.

First, with a total budget of more than $3 trillion and a discretionary budget of nearly $1 trillion, it would take many lifetimes to adequately analyze all the line items in the federal budget. Second, every single line item in the federal budget has a special interest group that watchdogs that line item. Any efforts to cut any line items will be met with furious political opposition.

Al Gore’s National Performance Review was supposed to make government “work better and cost less.” After putting hundreds of people to work studying federal programs for two years, Gore abandoned the “works better” part and simply ordered agencies to reduce their personnel by an arbitrary 12 percent. The agencies complied, but quietly refilled those positions a few years later, thus saving nothing in the long run.

You can do better by focusing on the “works better” part. Instead of cutting line items or ordering personnel cuts, you need to give agencies incentives to save money. As one of your illustrious predecessors observed, “If you tell a commander, ‘Ike says he’ll get an extra star if he cuts his budget,’ there’ll be such a rush to cut costs you’ll have to get out of the way.” Creating better incentives for agency managers may not seem to save much money right away, but in the long run it will make a huge difference in how well our government works and how much it costs.

They won’t work in every department, but user fees can be a big part of giving many agencies incentives to work better. Most if not all programs in the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Interior, Transportation, and the Corps of Engineers can and should be put on a user-fee basis. This will save $80 billion a year in appropriations.

Selected programs in many other departments could also be on a user-fee basis. Many of these programs might even earn a profit for the government. The Forest Service, for example, once earned a profit; now it costs taxpayers $4 billion a year.

For user fees to work, keep the following in mind:

1. Agencies should be allowed to charge fees for the full range of their services. If they can charge only for some, they will focus on those and neglect the others.

2. Agencies should be allowed to keep the same share of fees they collect from all their services. If they can keep some fees but not others, they will focus on the programs that return them the most money.

3. Agencies funded out of user fees should not get appropriations out of tax dollars, at least not for the same programs. Giving them such appropriations only encourages them to turn money-making programs into money-losing ones.

4. To repeat, support for low-income people can best be provided through vouchers. This will insure that federal programs are targeted to the people who need them and do not turn into reverse-Robin Hood programs that take from the poor and give to the rich.

5. Finally, consider using the legal structure known as a fiduciary trust. This differs from traditional government agencies in several significant ways. Turning federal programs into fiduciary trusts funded out of their own receipts will make them more responsive to public needs.

In short, the best way to change government, provide an economic stimulus, build and rebuild infrastructure, and save taxpayers’ money is through user fees. Following these guidelines won’t solve all of the problems you face, but they will reduce the number of problems you have to deal with on a day-to-day basis.

Best wishes,

The Antiplanner

By Dan Douglass

One of Mayor Mufi Hannemann’s hired guns (he’s actually senior adviser in the city Department of Information Technology), Keith Rollman, went after Panos Prevedouros on the Hawaii Reporter skewing Prevedouros’ statements from an article released this morning.

I responded in highlighting a twisted version of democracy that Rollman must be thankful for.

I didn’t address it in what was published on the Hawaii Reporter, but it’s so sad that Rollman makes race an issue in his attack on Prevedouros.  Rollman has previously been connected in a recent internet scandal.

By Panos Prevedouros

Official results for Oahu can be found from the state office of elections:

http://hawaii.gov/elections/results/2008/general/files/cch.pdf

One can see that all state and county questions passed or failed by a clear margin, except for the rail question for which the votes and percentages were:

YES 155,880 (50.6%)
NO 140,623 (45.6%)
Blank Votes 11,441 (3.7%)

If one accounts for the disproportional promotion, support from several special interest groups, and powerful “old boy” backing, then the result is not only surprising but it is embarrassing to the pro-rail cause.

Proponents of rail had a $110 million engineering and marketing team and flooded airwaves, TV screens and print media. In comparison, opponents had peanuts; they did no TV promotion and only minimal print media promotion.

I understand and support elections of officials with a 0.6% or even a 0.01% margin. The elected person will stay in office for a limited and prescribed amount of time.

However, moving ahead with a multibillion dollar infrastructure project with a life cycle of over 100 years on a 0.6% “advantage” is an entirely different choice. Clearly 49.4% of the population did not say yes to the project.

We can boot a crooked or ineffective official or re-write a bad law. But we cannot undo a multi-billion piece of infrastructure which will cost us roughly three times the annual City budget. A two thirds majority would have been appropriate for this choice.

Of course, in the short term the railroading process is likely to proceed unabated, but in the longer term a permanent derailment is likely.

By Ann Kobayashi

I am very concerned about the impact of Honolulu Mayor Mufi Hannemann’s proposed rail transit system.

Throughout the last two years, I have expressed concerns about the effect rail would have on small businesses. We need to protect them as we know these businesses are the backbone of our economy.

This Environmental Impact Statement released by Hannemann’s administration on Sunday outlined over 58 schools, 93 churches, 7 historic, 21 hospitals, 84% retail, 16% residential that would be directly or indirectly affected by Hannemann’s proposed rail transit system.

This report once again demonstrates the misinformation and mis-truths provided by the Hannemann Administration on the impact to the community, homes and local businesses.

There are many issues that need to be clear to the public before they vote away their children’s and grandchildren’s future on Hannemann’s Train:

- Hannemann and his surrogates have always referred to the steel-on-steel rail as “light rail”. Under no circumstances does it qualify as light rail. Steel-on-steel elevated rail is the definition of HEAVY rail. This deliberate misrepresentation has been most egregious.

- Through the promotion of the rail, Hannemann has given the impression, if not said directly, that the UH Manoa was part of the deal. According to the DEIS, the study of “the Project” as the rail is called, is from Kapolei to Ala Moana, and does not include UH Manoa, Waikiki or West Kapolei.

- More than $2.6 million was spent as of June 2008 of city taxpayer money promoting rail. The 8 page glossy insert that appeared at the Food and New Product Show, in the full run of the Honolulu Advertiser’s Sunday edition and the full run of MidWeek is not included in this amount. On the back of the 8 page insert, Hanneman’s administration stated that the FTA required the advertising. The Senior Public Relations Officer for the FTA said there was “no such policy.” This is document in a thread of emails published on Hawaii Reporter.

- At the primary debate, Hannemann said that there would be no condemnations. The DEIS which was posted on the city website indicates that hundreds of properties will be all or partially affected (read: condemned) including 53 schools (Radford High School is one), the Banana Patch, the entire downtown to ocean view corridor and popular restaurants including Boulevard Saimin.

- Hannemann was quoted on tv about reaching amicable agreements with; however attorneys said that it behooves the city to offer the lowest price possible in order to protect the taxpayer. Those whose properties are condemned are unlikely to get what their property would be worth on the open market.

- Hannemann says the funding is there even though Hawaii is not on the New Starts list for 2010. According the government experts, the funding is in no way guaranteed and even after the Draft EIS becomes a final EIS it takes a minimum of two to four years for any funding to come through. Hannemann has been talking about $900 million in FTA funds. The DEIS says the Salt Lake Alternative would need $1.2 Billion and the Airport Alternative $1.4 billion, further saying that the FTA said it would “consider” $1.2 billion but it has not been approached about whether it would “consider” $1.4 billion, according to the DEIS

- The project costs have all along been represented in 2006 dollars, and have never included the finance charges that would be part of the Project. Finance charges are stated on a separate line as if they were not significant, but the addition of $387,000,000 in finance charges raises the cost of the Project from $3.9 billion to $4.3 Billion.

- The idea that the general public let alone experts who understand all of the terms, drawings and maps could read and make sense of a several hundred page document in two days before the election is an insult. Moreover, the close to 60,000 voters who have already cast their votes were not privvy to any of this information. It is hardly an open-to-the-public document.

- On Sunday (Nov 2) the Mayor said that his office did everything humanly possible to post the DEIS before releasing it formally and before the election. According to the FTA as soon as they “sign off” on the DEIS, it should be made public record. Putting the document online in the internet age seems much more efficient and less costly than printing the 500 four color copies that the city has ordered from the printer. This does not even take into consideration that the DEIS was originally due in December of 2006, and later the due date was moved to April 2007. It was never moved again, so technically speaking the city was seven months late in distributing it.

- The Alternatives Analysis (AA) and DEIS together cost the taxpayer $96 million, or more than $181,000 per page.

Ann Kobayashi is a candidate for mayor of Honolulu. See more at http://www.annlistens.com

Hawaii Reporter’s Malia Zimmerman interviews Wainanae resident Jinny Reyes on the possible condemnation of Boulevard Saimin in Kalihi.

Mahalo to William Harris for putting this together and posting it on Annlistens.com.

Find more videos like this on Ann Listens!

The rail line will pose an enormous financial burden on Hawaii. It will take few cars off the road and do little about congestion. Other alternatives that planners refused to consider in the DEIS should be able to do far more at a far lower cost. The DEIS is deceptive when it claims the rail line will reduce air pollution when it doesn’t calculate the pollution produced to power the rail line. And the rail line will be a blight on the Oahu landscape. Let’s hope Honolulu residents are smart enough to vote it down today.

~ Randy O’Toole, The Antiplanner

By Panos Prevedouros

Since 2006 I have been saying that the proposed rail on Oahu is nothing short of a joke. The just-released 2008 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) proves this. Table 3-13 shows that transit share will increase from 6% to 7%. Auto based trips change from 82% to 80%, and walk-and-bike trips are 12%.

No administrator in his or her right mind would advocate the expenditure of five billion dollars for an 1% gain in the share of transit trips. The correct priorities would be to fix the sidewalks and build traffic and bike lanes. Not in Honolulu where administrators are proud to provide TheBoat at a taxpayer subsidy of $42 per trip!

Here is the breakdown of daily trips on weekdays as in DEIS page 3-18:

• 2007 No Rail = 184,000 total transit trips (on bus)
• 2030 No Rail = 226,000 total transit trips (on bus)
• 2030 With Rail = 249,200 total transit trips (on bus and rail)

Notice the tiny benefit of rail. And to put it in perspective, that’s out of more than four (4) million daily trips on Oahu!

This result evokes the paraphrasing of Churchill… Never before so many paid so much, to benefit so few and by so little.

Figure 3-1 shows that from 1984 to 2008, transit speed decreased by 1.5 mph. So in the last 22 years the average speed of the TheBus fell by 1.5 miles per hour. This is such a calamity that according to the Go-Rail-Go luminous spokespersons requires a five billion dollar rail to fix it!

The Notice of Intent or NOI is violated. This is the 2006 agreement between the Federal Transit Administration and the City and County of Honolulu. The NOI explicitly mentions a fixed guideway from Kapolei to the UH. The DEIS guideway starts well outside Kapolei and ends at Ala Moana Shopping Center. The 34 miles have become 19, but the alleged traffic benefits have more than doubled from the 2006 Alternatives Analysis!

It should be obvious that this DEIS will provide a lot of entertainment in the coming weeks. By law, comments are requested by January 7, 2009. But thanks to the careful planning of the Mufi administration, Oahu’s public had the Sunday and Monday before the elections to read and understand 400 plus pages prior to making an educated choice at the polls.