Audit: Norfolk officials knew of light-rail overruns, kept silent. Cost overruns of 45% were hidden very much like Honolulu Transit Division hides from inquiries submitted by city council members and refused to cooperate with Governor Linda Lingle consultant investigating the proposed rail's finances.
Here's the story at Norfolk, Virginia: "City officials knew costs skyrocketed since 2007 but failed to reveal information to City Council. State inspector general indicated that HRT officials intentionally misled federal, state and some city officials about the amount of the overruns, to the point of maintaining a second set of books."
Norfolk is building a 7.4-mile light-rail line, the biggest public works project in Norfolk’s history. Originally $232M, now ballooned to $338 million, paid for with federal, state and city funds.
This excerpt also makes painfully clear the difference between heavy and light rail. Light rail in Norfolk is costing them $46 million per mile including the 45% cost overruns. Honolulu's heavy rail will cost $265 million per mile plus overruns. This is yet another version of Peter Carlisle's definition of "fiscally responsible."
If you recall, the other one is that rail will cost us about one million dollars for every car it will allegedly remove.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Monday, December 20, 2010
Chromium-6 In Honolulu's Tap Water
Original post below. Please read the endnote.
===================================
In 1996 the cancer-stricken residents of Hinkley, CA won a $333 million settlement from PG&E for contaminating their tap water with hexavalent chromium, which is commonly abbreviated as chromium-6. This was the basis of the 2000 movie Erin Brockovich starring Julia Roberts.
Fast forward to 2010: Tap water from 31 of 35 U.S. cities tested contains chromium-6 according to laboratory tests commissioned by Environmental Working Group (EWG). [Click for a summary of the EWG report.] The highest levels were detected in Norman, Okla.; Honolulu, Hawaii; and Riverside, California, as the table below shows.
City ------------------------ Population ----- Chromium-6 in Tap Water
Norman, Oklahoma ---------- 89,952 --------------- 12.9 ppb
Honolulu, Hawaii ----------- 661,004 --------------- 2.00 ppb
Riverside, California ------- 280,832 --------------- 1.69 ppb
Madison, Wisconsin -------- 200,814 --------------- 1.58 ppb
San Jose, California -------- 979,000 --------------- 1.34 ppb
The EPA has not yet set a limit for chromium-6 in water despite mounting evidence of the contaminant’s toxic effects, including an EPA draft toxicological review that classifies it as “likely to be carcinogenic to humans” when consumed in drinking water.
According to EWG, the National Toxicology Program has found that chromium-6 in drinking water shows clear evidence of carcinogenic activity in laboratory animals, increasing the risk of otherwise rare gastrointestinal tumors.
California officials last year proposed setting a public health goal for chromium-6 in drinking water of 0.06 parts per billion (ppb). The level of chromium-6 in Honolulu's tap water is 33 times over this proposed limit.
===================================
Note added on December 29, 2010: This article suggests that the Chromium-6 reported amount in tap water is of no consequence to human health.
===================================
In 1996 the cancer-stricken residents of Hinkley, CA won a $333 million settlement from PG&E for contaminating their tap water with hexavalent chromium, which is commonly abbreviated as chromium-6. This was the basis of the 2000 movie Erin Brockovich starring Julia Roberts.
Fast forward to 2010: Tap water from 31 of 35 U.S. cities tested contains chromium-6 according to laboratory tests commissioned by Environmental Working Group (EWG). [Click for a summary of the EWG report.] The highest levels were detected in Norman, Okla.; Honolulu, Hawaii; and Riverside, California, as the table below shows.
City ------------------------ Population ----- Chromium-6 in Tap Water
Norman, Oklahoma ---------- 89,952 --------------- 12.9 ppb
Honolulu, Hawaii ----------- 661,004 --------------- 2.00 ppb
Riverside, California ------- 280,832 --------------- 1.69 ppb
Madison, Wisconsin -------- 200,814 --------------- 1.58 ppb
San Jose, California -------- 979,000 --------------- 1.34 ppb
The EPA has not yet set a limit for chromium-6 in water despite mounting evidence of the contaminant’s toxic effects, including an EPA draft toxicological review that classifies it as “likely to be carcinogenic to humans” when consumed in drinking water.
According to EWG, the National Toxicology Program has found that chromium-6 in drinking water shows clear evidence of carcinogenic activity in laboratory animals, increasing the risk of otherwise rare gastrointestinal tumors.
California officials last year proposed setting a public health goal for chromium-6 in drinking water of 0.06 parts per billion (ppb). The level of chromium-6 in Honolulu's tap water is 33 times over this proposed limit.
===================================
Note added on December 29, 2010: This article suggests that the Chromium-6 reported amount in tap water is of no consequence to human health.
Monday, December 13, 2010
Cradle to Grave -- The Holistic View for Sustainability
I am from Waipahu High School. May I ask you a question about hydropower for my science project? In your opinion, will hydropower energy be a successful alternative energy in the future? Will it prevent global warming?
Donnalynn Agpaoa
Donnalynn's question is important and almost universal. Its generic version is: Will Technological Option X be a successful alternative? I'll get to the generic form later, but first, here is my answer to her.
Hydro-power can be very powerful. Its electricity generation is clean, and reliable for 100+ years, if designed properly. Kauai has a small but successful hydro-power generator.
Now lets take account of the negatives.
Hydro-power can destroy ecosystems, and in some cases villages, cities and regional cultures may disappear, as they become submerged in the reservoir (lake) behind the dam.
The dam itself may be viewed as an eyesore. Also it is somewhat risky. If it fails, there will be catastrophe downstream.
One important consideration in the total picture is the amount of steel and concrete that's needed to build the dam. The amount is massive and the manufacture of the necessary steel and concrete will create a lot of pollution. Similarly, the machinery that will build the dam will pollute as it works to build the dam, and the machinery itself created pollution when it was built.
So, say, a Caterpillar front-loader has a life of 30 years and will work at the dam site for 1.5 years. Therefore 5% of the resources and pollution that went to manufacture the front-loader need to be "billed" to the dam project.
We have to take into consideration all these cradle-to-grave sustainability impacts in order to correctly derive the total impact of the proposed hydro-power infrastructure.
As for your hydro-power question, the correct answer is that it can be green but not necessarily. We need to evaluate each and every proposed project, add all its pluses and minuses, and then decide if it is a good project.
=====
In general now, in several cases what appears "green" or "good" is the opposite when all its impacts are accounted for. For example, electricity produced by coal or oil is neither clean nor green.
That's one of the reasons that I oppose the city's elevated heavy rail plan. The promoters call it green, the engineering calls it dark black!
And that's one of the reasons environmentalists dislike the new EPA ratings for electric cars. For example, the Nissan Leaf gets 106 mpge (or MPG-equivalent). Quoting the LA Times:
"Things got hairy with the Leaf. The EPA worked out a formula in which an electric car using 33.7 kilowatt-hours of electricity was considered equivalent to a standard vehicle using a gallon of gasoline.
[On the other hand, a better] process would consider all the greenhouse gases released from the time the electricity is first generated until it is sent through transmission lines to charging units. Based on such measurements, the Leaf would rack up more than 250 grams of CO2 and other emissions every mile, according to data from the Energy Department's Argonne National Lab. Gasoline-fueled cars on average release 450 grams a mile.
The fact that the emissions came from a coal plant producing electricity in Utah is just as bad as if they came out of the tailpipe."
Sustainability is often misused for marketing purposes but in the right hands it provides a mindset and tools to get a holistic view of the impacts of a technological option as small as a solar panel or a household appliance, and as large as a hydro-power dam or a transportation system.
Donnalynn Agpaoa
Donnalynn's question is important and almost universal. Its generic version is: Will Technological Option X be a successful alternative? I'll get to the generic form later, but first, here is my answer to her.
Hydro-power can be very powerful. Its electricity generation is clean, and reliable for 100+ years, if designed properly. Kauai has a small but successful hydro-power generator.
Now lets take account of the negatives.
Hydro-power can destroy ecosystems, and in some cases villages, cities and regional cultures may disappear, as they become submerged in the reservoir (lake) behind the dam.
The dam itself may be viewed as an eyesore. Also it is somewhat risky. If it fails, there will be catastrophe downstream.
One important consideration in the total picture is the amount of steel and concrete that's needed to build the dam. The amount is massive and the manufacture of the necessary steel and concrete will create a lot of pollution. Similarly, the machinery that will build the dam will pollute as it works to build the dam, and the machinery itself created pollution when it was built.
So, say, a Caterpillar front-loader has a life of 30 years and will work at the dam site for 1.5 years. Therefore 5% of the resources and pollution that went to manufacture the front-loader need to be "billed" to the dam project.
We have to take into consideration all these cradle-to-grave sustainability impacts in order to correctly derive the total impact of the proposed hydro-power infrastructure.
As for your hydro-power question, the correct answer is that it can be green but not necessarily. We need to evaluate each and every proposed project, add all its pluses and minuses, and then decide if it is a good project.
=====
In general now, in several cases what appears "green" or "good" is the opposite when all its impacts are accounted for. For example, electricity produced by coal or oil is neither clean nor green.
That's one of the reasons that I oppose the city's elevated heavy rail plan. The promoters call it green, the engineering calls it dark black!
And that's one of the reasons environmentalists dislike the new EPA ratings for electric cars. For example, the Nissan Leaf gets 106 mpge (or MPG-equivalent). Quoting the LA Times:
"Things got hairy with the Leaf. The EPA worked out a formula in which an electric car using 33.7 kilowatt-hours of electricity was considered equivalent to a standard vehicle using a gallon of gasoline.
[On the other hand, a better] process would consider all the greenhouse gases released from the time the electricity is first generated until it is sent through transmission lines to charging units. Based on such measurements, the Leaf would rack up more than 250 grams of CO2 and other emissions every mile, according to data from the Energy Department's Argonne National Lab. Gasoline-fueled cars on average release 450 grams a mile.
The fact that the emissions came from a coal plant producing electricity in Utah is just as bad as if they came out of the tailpipe."
Sustainability is often misused for marketing purposes but in the right hands it provides a mindset and tools to get a holistic view of the impacts of a technological option as small as a solar panel or a household appliance, and as large as a hydro-power dam or a transportation system.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Taxes Poison Growth. Hawaii Politicians Love Taxes. Stagnation!
In the text below, I copy the analysis done by the Illinois Policy Institute titled Do Higher Taxes Chase Away People, Wealth, and Jobs?
I changed one word: Illinois to Hawaii. It all makes perfect sense for Hawaii. With one difference: Illinois charges moderate-to-high taxes. Hawaii charges very high taxes. So the call to reduce taxation is much more urgent for Hawaii than it is for Illinois.
Nationwide data from the last ten years show states that limit their tax burdens economically outperform those that don’t. High taxation drives people, wealth, and jobs out. Lawmakers should emulate the low-tax, business-friendly policies of high-growth states.
The table below makes it clear: Nationwide data indicate that high tax burdens hurt economic growth. From 1998 to 2008, the ten lowest-taxed states economically outperformed the ten highest-taxed states on many key measures.
The lowest-taxed states (2008 state and local taxes as a percentage of personal income) include Oklahoma, Texas, South Carolina, Colorado, Missouri, Oregon, Alabama, Tennessee, New Hampshire, and South Dakota.
The highest-taxed states include Alaska, New York, Wyoming, North Dakota, Hawaii, Maine, Vermont, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Connecticut.
The economic "winners circle" is clear. Hawaii is nowhere near it. Government spending reduction and tax reduction are necessary. The alternative is what we've got: Prolonged economic stagnation and prayer that the tourists will come. And for those who did not get to the bottom of it yet, the proposed rail is permanent heavy taxation, the results of which are described in the table above.
I changed one word: Illinois to Hawaii. It all makes perfect sense for Hawaii. With one difference: Illinois charges moderate-to-high taxes. Hawaii charges very high taxes. So the call to reduce taxation is much more urgent for Hawaii than it is for Illinois.
Nationwide data from the last ten years show states that limit their tax burdens economically outperform those that don’t. High taxation drives people, wealth, and jobs out. Lawmakers should emulate the low-tax, business-friendly policies of high-growth states.
The table below makes it clear: Nationwide data indicate that high tax burdens hurt economic growth. From 1998 to 2008, the ten lowest-taxed states economically outperformed the ten highest-taxed states on many key measures.
The lowest-taxed states (2008 state and local taxes as a percentage of personal income) include Oklahoma, Texas, South Carolina, Colorado, Missouri, Oregon, Alabama, Tennessee, New Hampshire, and South Dakota.
The highest-taxed states include Alaska, New York, Wyoming, North Dakota, Hawaii, Maine, Vermont, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Connecticut.
The economic "winners circle" is clear. Hawaii is nowhere near it. Government spending reduction and tax reduction are necessary. The alternative is what we've got: Prolonged economic stagnation and prayer that the tourists will come. And for those who did not get to the bottom of it yet, the proposed rail is permanent heavy taxation, the results of which are described in the table above.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
