
Use this link to load or print a PDF version of this announcement.
Civil Engineering Professor Panos D. Prevedouros, PhD discusses his opinions on infrastructure issues with emphasis on the City and County of Honolulu.
Why is the US not at the same position as Greece? The reasons are many and they include US' vastly larger economy, vast ability to innovate, vast natural resources compared to most EU countries, vast dependency of many countries on the US consumer to buy the things they make, vast military capability, and having the US dollar as the world's main reserve currency.
This reserve currency is also US' main tool for controlling a quick financial collapse. The devaluation of the dollar would slash the debt owned to foreign interests. At the same time globalization will come back and bite the US consumer since all imports will become 30% more expensive if the greenback is devalued by 30%, resulting in internal hyperinflation and market instability. Messy!
At the same time, this devaluation will cause substantial losses to US' global partners. For example, BMWs will be 30% more expensive in the US and Chryslers will be 30% less expensive in Italy, causing compounded losses in the demand of consumer products in the EU. Messy!
What caused all this mess? Policies and actions focused on the negative side of Capitalism and the negative side of Socialism. Capitalism focused on price and profit, not on sustainable production. Socialism focused on ever increasing and unsupportable entitlements instead of basic and sustainable security.
The path to the abyss is clear.
Greece is there but the US is near.
Do politicians hear?
The next four issues show a solid disagreement between Economist and Hawaii respondents.
Lesson 1: Factors that help keep areas like Honolulu inhospitable to new investment—namely steep tax rates and the high cost of government.
Lesson 2: Rail systems are planned as reasons to spur development. They do not. Quite the opposite they produce blight which cost even more money to reverse.
Lesson 3: Yet another rail line where projected rail ridership was a myth ( a lie.)
Lesson 4: Clueless politicians (i.e., Hannemann, Carlisle, Calwell) and appointed boards (HART) are “ill-suited to select the right projects and often instead gave money to favored insiders” (Mr. Malanga refers to pay-to-play politics which are prominent in Hawaii.)
The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee put California's high-speed rail plan on trial last week, asking rail experts and local officials some questions that the project's planners and state lawmakers apparently failed to consider. Like how the state will finance its 500-mile bullet train from Anaheim to San Francisco.
California voters approved a $10 billion bond initiative to fund the project in 2008. At the time, the state's high-speed rail authority, which is responsible for planning the project, estimated that the train would cost only $33 billion and be financed primarily by the federal government and private sector. The authority also promised that the train wouldn't require a subsidy. However, a few months ago the authority released a revised business plan that estimates the rail will cost between $98 billion and $116 billion. The authority expects the federal government to put up $73 billion and the private sector to invest $10 billion. Jerry Brown, the state's Democratic governor, praised the new plan as more "honest."
Investors have refused to finance the bullet train without a subsidy, and Congress isn't appropriating any more money for high-speed rail. Of the $11 billion that Congress has already appropriated, the Obama administration has authorized $3.9 billion for the California project on the condition that the state build the first segment in the Central Valley, presumably because there's less resistance to the train in rural areas than big cities. That may be true, but the train's a losing proposition everywhere. According to a new Field poll, two-thirds of Californians want a referendum on the project. And by a 2-to-1 margin, they'd vote to kill it.
Greg Gatzka, director of the King County Community Development Agency, testified at the hearing that the train would result in "approximately 7,100 acres of severed and/or disrupted" farmland and cost the dairy industry $50 million. It would also interfere with a $67 million broadband infrastructure project. Kings County has sued the rail authority because of the numerous disturbances, as have the cities of Palo Alto and Palmdale.
Even if the rail authority were to settle these legal challenges, a high-speed train wouldn't be operable until the state comes up with an additional $25 billion to complete the segment and electrify the tracks. In the meantime, the authority plans to run Amtrak trains on the tracks, though there may be problems with that plan, too. Elizabeth Alexis, cofounder of the group Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design, testified that it's uncertain whether diesel trains could safely run on tracks built for electric trains.
In any event, Federal Railroad Administrator Joseph Szabo insisted that $100 billion is a small price to pay for a modern transportation system and that "adding and maintaining transportation capacity in California, while vital, is expensive." For instance, repairing the Bay Bridge will cost roughly $6 billion; a 10-mile expansion of the 405 freeway will run around $1 billion; and the ongoing modernization of Los Angeles's biggest airport is pegged at $4.1 billion.
So why is a state that is already struggling to finance basic infrastructure initiating an exorbitant project that most taxpayers don't want? None of the witnesses had a good answer.
-- Allysia Finley