A heated local debate has brewed for several years in our City and County of Honolulu most loudly in our Windward neighborhoods.
The issue; Bed & Breakfasts. Small lodging establishments that offer overnight accommodation and breakfast, but usually do not offer other meals. Typically, bed and breakfasts are private homes with fewer than 10 bedrooms available for commercial use.
Concerns of property value, public safety, property rights and business revenue have fueled both sides of the fence.
Larry Bartley, a Windward neighborhood board member, will represent opposition to B & Bs. Jim Henshaw, former state senatorial candidate, will represent the side in favor of B & Bs.
Professor Ken Schoolland will moderate with question and answers to follow. $5 per guest for drinks and pupus.
On February 8, 2009 Rubellite Kawena Kinney Johnson addressed Hawaiian Sovereignty and the implications of the Akaka Bill.
Ruby Johnson is a native Hawaiian scholar who established the Hawaiian Studies program at the University of Hawaii. She was named a “Living Treasure of Hawaii” for her work in translating early Hawaiian-language documents.
The streets grew quieter as Jonathan trudged down yet another row of drab houses. He noticed a group of poorly dressed people gathered in front of three tall buildings labeled BLOCK A, BLOCK B, and BLOCK C. BLOCK A was vacant and in appalling condition—the masonry crumbling, the windows broken, and any remaining panes filthy with grime. Next door at BLOCK B, people huddled on the front steps. Jonathan heard loud voices coming from inside and the sounds of lively activity from all three floors. Laundry hung untidily from sticks that protruded from every available window and balcony. It literally burst at the seams with tenants.
Across the street, stood BLOCK C, immaculately maintained and, like BLOCK A, empty of people. Its scrubbed windows sparkled in the sunlight, stucco walls smooth and clean.
As he gazed at the three buildings, Jonathan felt a light tap on his shoulder. Turning, he faced a young girl with long sandy brown hair. Her light gray clothes fitted her poorly and she wasn’t especially pretty, but Jonathan thought she looked alert and kind.
“Do you know of any apartments for rent?” she asked in a soft, pleasant voice.
“I’m sorry,” said Jonathan. “I’m not from around here. But why don’t you check on those two vacant buildings?”
“It’s no use,” she responded softly.
“But,” said Jonathan, “they look empty to me.”
“They are. My family used to live over there in BLOCK A before rent control.”
“What’s rent control?” asked Jonathan.
“It’s a law to stop landlords from raising rents.”
“Why?” probed Jonathan.
“Oh, it’s a silly story,” she said. “Back when the Dream Machine came through our neighborhood, my dad and other tenants complained about landlords raising rents. Sure, costs were up and more people were renting, but my dad said that was no reason for us to pay more. So the tenants—or former tenants, I should say—demanded that the Council of Lords prohibit the raising of rents. The Council did just that and hired a slew of administrators, inspectors, judges, and guards to enforce the new rules.”
“Were the tenants pleased?”
“At first, sure. My dad felt secure about the cost of a roof over our heads. But then the landlords stopped building new apartments and stopped fixing the old ones.”
“What happened?”
“Costs kept going up—repairmen, security guards, managers, utilities, taxes, and the like—but the landlords couldn’t raise the rents to pay for it all. So they figured ‘Why build and fix just to lose money?’”
“Taxes went up, too?” asked Jonathan.
“Sure—to pay for enforcing rent control. Budgets and staff had to grow,” said the girl. “The Council passed rent control, but never tax control. Well, when repairs and upkeep stopped, everyone started to hate the landlords.”
“They weren’t always hated?”
“Nah, before rent control, we had lots of apartments to choose from. Landlords had to be nice to get us to move in and stay. Most landlords acted friendly and made things attractive. If there were any nasty landlords, word got around fast and people avoided them like the rats they were. Nice landlords attracted steady tenants while nasty ones suffered a plague of vacancies.”
“What changed?”
“After rent control everyone got nasty,” she said with a look of despair. “The worst prospered the most.” She sat down on the curb to scratch Mices behind the ears. Mices rolled over and began to purr. Jonathan watched her, feeling slightly envious of the cat. Here was someone who spoke sensibly and clearly about the way things operated.
Aware of Jonathan’s stare, she continued confidently, “Costs went up, but not the rents. Even the nicest landlords had to cut back on repairs. When buildings became uncomfortable or dangerous, tenants got mad and complained to the inspectors. The inspectors slapped fines on the landlords. Of course, some landlords bribed inspectors to look the other way. Finally, the owner of BLOCK A, a decent man, couldn’t afford the losses or bribes anymore so he just up and left.”
“Abandoned his own building?” sputtered Jonathan.
“Yeah. It happens a lot,” she sighed. “Imagine walking away from something that took a lifetime to build? Well, fewer and fewer apartments were available but the number of tenants kept growing. People had to squeeze into whatever was left. Even mean landlords, like the one who holds BLOCK B, never had a vacancy again. Rumor has it that he takes payoffs under the table just to move applicants higher up the wait list. Those with enough cash get by okay. And that nasty owner makes out like a bandit.”
“What about BLOCK B?” said Jonathan, wanting to be helpful. “Can you get in?”
“The waiting line is awful. When Dame Whitmore passed away you should have seen the brawl out front—everyone scratching and yelling at each other for position in line. Lady Tweed’s son finally got that apartment—even though nobody remembers seeing him in line that day. My family once tried to share an apartment in BLOCK B, but the building code prohibits sharing.”
“What’s a building code?” asked Jonathan.
The girl frowned. “It started as a set of rules for safety. But the Lords now use it to determine lifestyle. You know, things like the right number of sinks, stoves, and toilets; the right number and kind of people; the right amount of space.” With a tinge of sarcasm she added, “So we ended up in the street where nothing meets the code—no sinks, stoves, or toilets, no privacy, and far too much space.”
Jonathan grew depressed thinking about her plight. Then he remembered the third building—brand new and vacant. It was the obvious solution to her problems. “Why don’t you move into BLOCK C, right there across the street?”
She laughed bitterly. “That would be a violation of the zoning rules.”
“Zoning rules?” he repeated. Leaning back on the sidewalk where he sat, Jonathan shook his head, incredulous.
“Those are rules about location. Zoning works like this,” she said picking up a stick to sketch a little map in the dirt. “The Council draws lines on a map of the town. People are allowed to sleep on one side of the line at night, but they must work on the other side during the day. BLOCK B is on the sleep side of the line and BLOCK C is on the work side. Usually work buildings are located across town from sleep buildings so that everyone needs to travel a lot every morning and evening. They say the long distances are good for physical exercise and carriage sales.”
Jonathan stared in bewilderment. A packed apartment building standing between two empty buildings and a street full of indigents. Sympathetically he asked, “What are you going to do?”
“We take one day at a time. My dad wants me to go with him to the gala ‘Thumbs Up Party’ that Lady Tweed is putting on for the homeless tomorrow. She promises to lift our spirits with games and a free lunch.”
“How generous,” remarked Jonathan drily, recalling his conversation with Lady Tweed. “Maybe she’d let you live in her house until you find something of your own.”
“Dad actually had the nerve to ask her that once, especially since Tweed led the Council in putting through rent controls. Lady Tweed declared, ‘But that would be charity! Charity is demeaning!’ She explained to him that it is far more respectable to require taxpayers give us housing. She told him to be patient and that she’d make arrangements with the Council.”
Then young woman smiled at Jonathan and asked, “By the way, they call me Alisa. Do you want to join us at Tweed’s free lunch tomorrow afternoon?”
Jonathan blushed. Maybe he could learn to enjoy this island. “Sure, I’d love to come along. By the way, I’m Jonathan.”
Alisa jumped up, smiling, “Then, Jonathan, we meet here tomorrow—same time. Bring your cat.”
The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.
HONOLULU, HAWAII — The Grassroot Institute of Hawaii (GRIH) has released a new study from the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University.
The Economic Impact of the Akaka Bill: Unintended Consequences for Hawaii estimates that the Akaka bill could cost the state up to $690 million per year in lost revenue.
The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2007 (S.310 and H.R.505) in the 110th Congress, also known as the Akaka Bill after sponsor Senator Daniel Akaka, proposes to create a sovereign Native Hawaiian Governing Entity (NHGE) within the state of Hawaii. This is the first study on the economic impacts of the proposed bill, which is expected to be re-introduced in the new session of Congress.
The Economic Impact of the Akaka Bill: Unintended Consequences for Hawaii is a straightforward look at how passage of the bill would hurt Hawaii business while pitting neighbor against neighbor,” said Grassroot Institute President Jamie Story. “Regardless of one’s feelings about the Akaka Bill and its benefits or shortcomings, it is vital to examine the economic impact of the bill on Hawaii’s people. This study demonstrates the irreversible economic damage the Akaka Bill would do to Hawaii, and we hope Washington DC officials will take this into consideration.”
Among the study’s findings:
• The bill could exempt Native Hawaiians living or shopping on land ceded from the state from paying state income and sales taxes.
• There may be a transfer of state-owned lands to persons designated as native Hawaiians to the detriment of non-Native Hawaiian taxpayers and, correspondingly, to the state economy. The resulting tax increases would have large, negative impacts on the state’s economy leading to a possible reduction of 20,793 private sector jobs, a loss of $417.2 million in investment and a loss of $1,461 in real per-capita disposable personal income annually.
“We’ve looked at the bill, as introduced in the last session of Congress, from many different angles and have provided an objective in-depth analysis of what the economic impacts might be on Hawaii and its citizens,” said Dr. David Tuerck, Executive Director of the Beacon Hill Institute and co-author of the study. “In The Economic Impact of the Akaka Bill: Unintended Consequences for Hawaii we’ve identified the most likely effects of the Akaka Bill on the Hawaiian economy. By almost any plausible interpretation of the bill, those effects are uniformly negative,” adds Paul Bachman, Director of Research at Beacon Hill.
The new The Economic Impact of the Akaka Bill: Unintended Consequences for Hawaii study is available free of charge at the Grassroot Institute web site. Please visit: http://www.grassrootinstitute.org/studies for more information.
Tom McAuliffe is the communications director for the GRIH. The mission of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii is to promote individual liberty, free market economic principles and limited, more accountable government.
The Beacon Hill Institute engages in rigorous economic research producing readable analyses of current public policy issues for voters, taxpayers, opinion leaders and policy makers. Please also visit: http://www.beaconhill.org for more information on that organization.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 .
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.
If a man has the right to self-ownership, to the control of his life, then in the real world he must also have the right to sustain his life by grappling with and transforming resources; he must be able to own the ground and the resources on which he stands and which he must use. In short, to sustain his “human right”—or his property rights in his own person—he must also have the property right in the material world, in the objects which he produces.
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:
Dec. 8, from 6 to 8 pm at Neal Blaisdell Center, Hawai’i Suites, 777 Ward Ave.
Dec. 9, from 6 to 8 pm at Salt Lake District Park, 1159 Ala Lilikoi Place.
Dec. 10, from 6 to 8 pm at Filipino Community Center, 94-428 Mokuola St., Waipahu.
Dec. 11, from 6 to 8 pm at Bishop Museum, 1525 Bernice St.
Residents and others concerned about the city’s planned rail system have until January 7 to provide comments about the project’s environmental effects.
January 7 is when the 45-day public comment period for the DEIS will end. The 400-plus-page document is available at www.honolulutransit.org.
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?
The bus routes will change. What happens to your route? What happens to express buses?
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?
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?
Will there be washrooms at the stations? How about convenience stores, vending machines? Will the platforms have seats? How many?
Under land use, Aloun farms needs to relocate. Is that possible? Where will they go?
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?
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?
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?
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?
Rail construction involves unique skills and certifications that Hawaii construction workers do not have. How will this be addressed?
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?
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?
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?
Does the DEIS address the impacted vistas and scenery? Are the aesthetics of the structure and each station explained and presented adequately?
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.
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?
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?
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?
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?
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 …)
Feast and football. That’s what many of us think about at Thanksgiving. Most people identify the origin of the holiday with the Pilgrims’ first bountiful harvest. But few understand how the Pilgrims actually solved their chronic food shortages.
Many people believe that after suffering through a severe winter, the Pilgrims’ food shortages were resolved the following spring when the Native Americans taught them to plant corn and a Thanksgiving celebration resulted. In fact, the pilgrims continued to face chronic food shortages for three years until the harvest of 1623. Bad weather or lack of farming knowledge did not cause the pilgrims’ shortages. Bad economic incentives did.
In 1620 Plymouth Plantation was founded with a system of communal property rights. Food and supplies were held in common and then distributed based on equality and need as determined by Plantation officials. People received the same rations whether or not they contributed to producing the food, and residents were forbidden from producing their own food. Governor William Bradford, in his 1647 history, Of Plymouth Plantation, wrote that this system was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. The problem was that young men, that were most able and fit for labour, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense. Because of the poor incentives, little food was produced.
Faced with potential starvation in the spring of 1623, the colony decided to implement a new economic system. Every family was assigned a private parcel of land. They could then keep all they grew for themselves, but now they alone were responsible for feeding themselves. While not a complete private property system, the move away from communal ownership had dramatic results.
This change, Bradford wrote, had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been. Giving people economic incentives changed their behavior. Once the new system of property rights was in place, the women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability.
Once the Pilgrims in the Plymouth Plantation abandoned their communal economic system and adopted one with greater individual property rights, they never again faced the starvation and food shortages of the first three years. It was only after allowing greater property rights that they could feast without worrying that famine was just around the corner.
We are direct beneficiaries of the economics lesson the pilgrims learned in 1623. Today we have a much better developed and well-defined set of property rights. Our economic system offers incentives for us—in the form of prices and profits—to coordinate our individual behavior for the mutual benefit of all; even those we may not personally know.
It is customary in many families to give thanks to the hands that prepared this feast during the Thanksgiving dinner blessing. Perhaps we should also be thankful for the millions of other hands that helped get the dinner to the table: the grocer who sold us the turkey, the truck driver who delivered it to the store, and the farmer who raised it all contributed to our Thanksgiving dinner because our economic system rewards them. That’s the real lesson of Thanksgiving. The economic incentives provided by private competitive markets where people are left free to make their own choices make bountiful feasts possible.
Benjamin Powell is Research Fellow at The Independent Institute, assistant professor of economics at Suffolk University and a Senior Economist with the Beacon Hill Institute. Dr. Powell received his Ph.D. in economics from George Mason University. He has been assistant professor of economics at San Jose State University, a fellow with the Mercatus Center’s Global Prosperity Initiative, and a visiting research fellow with the American Institute for Economic Research.
California became the first state to ban smoking in bars a decade ago. Since then, smoking bans in bars, restaurants, bowling alleys, universities, you name it, have flourished.
But there was a time when Americans would have been outraged at the idea of politicians telling business owners how to run their own bars. Today, most gladly allow nanny state cops to snuff out smoking in bars, cars, beaches, stage plays—almost anywhere. Years ago comedian Dennis Leary quipped, “What’s the law now, you can only smoke in your apartment, under a blanket with all the lights out?”
It seems like plenty of politicians would love to ban that too, but they could never ban smoking in private homes…or could they?
Recently, the Bay Area city of Belmont passed a law that targets people who smoke in their own homes. “I’m pretty sure I still live in America,” says smoker and Belmont resident David Scott.
But if Scott lights up once the new law takes effect in January, he might just get a visit from a police officer. The mayor who championed the new law declares, “It is our responsibility to take care of everyone!’ and a pro-ban councilmember who worries about smoke wafting into neighboring units compares smoking in an apartment to shooting a gun through the wall.
Smoking is one of the worst things you can do to your body, but how dangerous is second-hand smoke? Are banners saving lives or battering science? Are they progressive champions or plunderers of property rights?
Citing the proliferation of privately enforced bans, reason.tv host Nick Gillespie says, “I actually like smoking bans; I just don’t like it when the government does the banning.”
Indeed, smoking bans have already set the stage for all sorts of other nanny state policies to save us from ourselves. The nannies have already barged through our front doors. Just how much farther will the banners go?
