Honolulu needs rail transit to “reduce our carbon footprint, save energy and get us off the maddening addiction to cars” NOT!

Railigious Argument: Honolulu needs rail transit to “reduce our carbon footprint, save energy and get us off the maddening addiction to cars.” And, “the environmental community in Honolulu is strongly behind rail.”

AntiPlanner 1: My former colleagues in the environmental movement have become so innumerate that they would support a turkey like the Honolulu elevated rail plan. The final environmental impact statement for that project is now available. Let’s see what it says about saving energy, carbon, and driving.

... Table 4-21 of the FEIS says the project will save 144,540 million BTUs per year. Page 4-206 says project construction will produce 7.48 trillion BTUs. That means it will take 52 years of savings to pay back the energy cost. Long before 52 years are up, huge energy investments will be needed to replace rail cars, worn out track, and other infrastructure.

AntiPlanner 2: The [rail] bootleggers, of course, are the crony capitalists who will make tens or hundreds of millions in profits building this unsightly monstrosity. I hope in the future more environmentalists will open their eyes and support things that are truly good for the environment, not just feel-good projects that cost a lot of money.

Read it all here: http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=3350

Honolulu's Sewage Treatment -- A Very Costly Problem

I have held several "Talk Story with Panos" this year and I am astounded of how little people know about our sewers. Of course sewers is not a routine matter for a city's residents but nothing about Honolulu sewers is routine.

For starters, our sewer system is quite old, frail and undersized. As a result we have sewage main failures, sewer line failures, and sewage plant failures. This is the good news. They are normal, but we have too many of them. The Sierra Club made a career out of successfully suing the city for these spills. These spills are terrible for our coastal environment which is enjoyed by residents and tourists alike.

Yet our old sewers issue is still the good news because the City has this problem under partial control. The bad news is that Honolulu is the only metropolitan area of its size that does not have secondary sewage treatment. We basically filter the solids and discharge all the rest of the sewage 1.5 miles out in the ocean. Just like the sewage from Waikiki was discharged into the Ala Wai.

The difference is that we discharge almost 10 times the quantity of the Waikiki sewage every day! EPA did not agree with Honolulu's practice. We lost the suit and the appeal against the EPA. What does this mean? A $1.2 Billion liability for the city is a reality. (Yet another reason for Mayor Hannemann to get of the mayor's train.) See this 2009 report in the Star Bulletin: http://www.starbulletin.com/news/20090107_EPA_ruling_could_cost_city_1B.html#fullstory

Now Andrew Pereira of KHON News reports that the City has settled with the EPA.(http://www.khon2.com/news/local/story/City-close-to-settling-wastewater-lawsuit/DTER-Iz07EK6I-wNRa_ShQ.cspx) I am sure that the Hannemann administration is working hard to spin this in a pleasant way. But there is no doubt that Senator Inouye was correct in 2008 when he said that this $1.2 Billion liability "can break the back of the city."

How so? If EPA gives us till 2020 to come into compliance, then that's only 10 years to build a $1.2 Billion secondary treatment infrastructure. So the cost with interest comes to roughly $150 million per year. That's about the same cost of TheBus to operate for one year. So, for example, if we have no other funds, then TheBus has to shut down for 10 years in order to afford this commitment.

This analogy frames the cost of a $1.2 Billion project for Oahu. Rail is five times that. I'll leave it to the reader to frame that cost for Oahu.

The Sneaky Business of Transit Oriented Development -- Part 2: TOD Mean More Taxes, and Less Appeal to the Citizen

Honolulu Council Member Donovan Dela Cruz’s TOD angle about rail is a tired and by U.S. conditions largely false argument. First he needs to be reminded of Tom Berg’s excellent 2009 article in the Honolulu Star Bulletin “Fruitless in Fruitvale”:

See http://archives.starbulletin.com/2007/12/09/editorial/commentary4.html.

Ironically, the city's monthly propaganda on rail, paid by Honolulu taxpayers, May 2010 issue, pictures Oakland's Fruitvale Village TOD as a success. If success is noise and abandonment, then it is a success. This video proves it.

Many TOD as "automobile hate zones," their mobility is abysmally low and no small or large business can survive there unless it has its own (costly) parking.

Then there are these three fundamental points for the City Administration's and Dela Cruz’s enlightenment.

• TOD is Taxes Offered to Developers in multiple ways, (1) Upfront incentives which means taxes handed out to them as incentives, and (2) Reduced or waived property taxes for a number of years. Our city is in bad fiscal shape and in bad repair. Yet the typical politician proposes more taxes to benefit special interests but, as politicians do, they window dress taxes as a benefit for the "little guy."

• In January, 2009, The Urban Land Institute’s local chapter (ULI-Hawaii) commissioned a survey of housing attitudes among the public. The phone survey was of 600 Oahu residents. They are huge proponents of transit and smart growth, yet, among the conclusions is this: “there is relatively much less support for the smart growth idea of higher-density use of existing urban areas – perhaps in part because people here generally still would rather live in suburban/rural settings themselves.

• Portland, Oregon is the “poster child” of Light Rail advocacy and TODs. Research by Bruce Podobnik of the Department of Sociology at the Lewis and Clark College in Portland, Oregon dated July 15, 2009 concludes as follows:

“This study examines the extent to which specific social and environmental objectives have been achieved in the new urbanist community of Orenco Station (Portland, Oregon). House-level surveys were conducted in Orenco Station, as well as a traditional suburb and two long established urban neighborhoods.

“The analysis also reveals a higher level of walking, and an increase in the occasional use of mass transit, in the new urbanist community. However, the majority of residents in all four neighborhoods (including the new urbanist neighborhood) rely on single occupancy vehicles for their regular commute.”

So when it comes to rail-based Land Use for TODs and Smart Growth, the argument that these work is all political hot air. Buses and roadways can do much much better at a fraction of the cost to the public.

A great example of this is the total remake on Kapiolani Boulevard between McMully and South Street with the Convention Center, the doubling of Ala Moana Center, the Nauru Towers complex, multiple other residential towers, the large, elegant dealerships, etc.

What's the Kapiolani Boulevard lesson? Huge investment for development and redevelopment and much increased densities took place in the absence of rail. However, if Mayor Fasi’s rail was built along Kapiolani Boulevard in the early 1990s, then rail proponents would have credited all this billion dollar investment to rail.

The Sneaky Business of Transit Oriented Development -- Part 1: Additional Land Controls that Distort Real Estate and Destroy Agriculture

We are being deceived, tricked, conned, and trapped.
Dr. Kioni Duddley
========================
Full credit goes to Dr. Kioni Dudley for getting the scoop (in time) before this monstrosity takes a hold. Please read Dr. Dudley’s assessment below.

I read through the TOD proposal last night. Thank God I did. We are being duped in to voting support for zoning of Ho'opili that forbids agricultural uses!! Two of the three stations are on Ho'opili land. By voting support for the "East Kapolei Neighborhood TOD Plan April 2010," the Board is being suckered into voting for zoning for Ho'opili that would mandate dwellings, cabarets, markets, schools, hospitals, consulates, retail establishments, manufacturing, and heliports for Ho'opili land, but would forbid "all agricultural uses" and "farm dwellings."

This is the way the rail boys do it -- They send us a 117 page CD that they know we are too busy to go through. It is perfectly titled: "East Kapolei Neighborhood TOD Plan Public Review Draft April 2010." No one can ever question what it was about. No one can ever question that the Plan has undergone public review. Buried fifty pages inside, amid boring minutiae is the secret they really want us to vote for, a whole new zoning category called the "TOD Special District," a new category of mandatory zoning which unquestionably has been clearly tied to Ho'opili land.

They get a member of the Sierra Club to come and support their concept in order to give it credibility. (She, of course, likes higher density rather than urban sprawl, and that's all she speaks about.) Then they get the Board to vote support for the "East Kapolei Neighborhood TOD Plan Public Review Draft April 2010.

In future months, they will use our vote to convince the Land Use Commission, and then the city Planning Commission and the City Council that after two public review meetings with our Board, where they explained the whole concept, we voted to support zoning that would mandate houses and commercial operations on Ho'opili, and would forbid farming on Ho'opili. No one will have the chance to say we didn't know we were voting for zoning at all, that zoning was buried in the document on pages 50 and 51, and that it was never mentioned at the meetings.

We are being deceived, tricked, conned, and trapped.

We need to be clear that this is not Transit Oriented Development. It is Developer Oriented Transit. Everything is being done for the developer.

Three polls by KHON and the Advertiser show that 78%, 87%, and 87% of the people want that land kept in farming. Our door-to-door campaign bears out these high numbers.

The document can be found at the link below. Brief excerpts from pages 49, 50, and 51 are copied below. http://honoluludpp.org/planning/TOD/NBPlans/EastKapoleiTOD/W3/EastKapoleiPubRevDraft041510.pdf

TOD SPECIAL DISTRICT

The TOD special district is intended to ensure the community vision for the station areas through zoning standards that enable and promote transit-oriented development.

Special district regulations are mandatory, not optional. The proposed TOD Special District regulations may supplement or modify the underlying zoning district regulations. If any TOD Special District regulation conflicts with any provision contained in Article 3 of the LUO (Establishment of Zoning Districts and Zoning District Regulations), the more restrictive regulation takes precedence. A property owner must follow the provisions of the TOD Special District in order to develop property. In doing so, the property may be subject to different permitted and conditional uses, modified densities and building heights, modified yards and modified parking requirements. To take advantage of such increased entitlements, additional design-related criteria may be required. All applications are subject to design review.

The recommended Special District boundaries around each transit station take into account distance from the transit station, natural topographic barriers, extent of market interest in development, planned land uses and the overall benefits of transit including the potential to increase transit ridership.

The TOD, or transit-oriented development, precincts are generally within 1/4 mile of the stations, or in areas with greater development potential. The areas will likely be developed sooner and should include larger building forms and higher-intensity mixed-use, employment and residential options.

The TIZ,or transit-influenced zone, precincts are located beyond the TOD core, between 1/4 mile to 1/2 mile from the stations and should be less intense by nature. Properties within the TIZ precincts will most likely redevelop over a longer time frame and should include smaller buildings that “step down” to meet surrounding lower density neighborhoods.

Permitted in both TOD & TIZ precincts
• Dwellings, multifamily
• Group living facilities
• Cabarets
• Office buildings
• Universities, colleges
• Commercial parking lots & garages
• etc.

Permitted in TIZ precincts
• Self-storage facilities
• Dwellings, detached, one-family
• Dwellings, detached, two-family
• etc.

Prohibited Land Uses
• All “agricultural” uses
• All “animal” uses
• Farm dwellings
• Vacations cabins
27 more prohibitions

Rail Final Environmental Impact Statement -- What is the Rail Going to Do about Traffic Congestion?

The residents and commuters of Leeward Oahu expect traffic relief from rail. Congestion reduction is an important goal and many taxpayers are willing to pay for congestion relief. So what is the conclusion of the FEIS regarding congestion?

1. Traffic congestion in 2030 will be far worse than it is now (basis is year 2005).
2. Traffic congestion in 2030 will be the same with or without rail.

The remainder of this post provides some pertinent explanations using direct numbers from the FEIS. City statements proclaim that the planned rail will remove 40,000 cars from the traffic. This sounds good. Is it?

Let’s look at the FEIS. (That’s the Final Environmental Impact Statement.) Is this number correct? Sort of. It’s not 40,000 cars, but 40,000 car trips. The FEIS says that rail will reduce 40,000 car trips from the total number of trips made in a typical weekday on Oahu in 2030. The FEIS also says that the total number of daily trips on Oahu in 2030 will be 3,989,300. That’s four million trips and rail will reduce those by 1%. That's a $5.5 Billion expenditure for a 1% reduction!

Various other statements by pro-rail politicians and city administration representatives proclaim a substantial reduction in traffic congestion. The answer is in the traffic analysis, and their own FEIS Tables 3-9 and 3-10 show that rails produces no traffic relief. Let me back track a bit to explain this. The U.S. standard description for quality of traffic flow (accounts for speed, wasted time, etc.) is called Level of Service or LOS. It is a simple rating from A to F. A is great, B is good, C is acceptable, D is bad but tolerable in large urban areas, E is very bad and F is unacceptable.

To give you an idea of what congestion relief means, in the early to mid-1990s, the town-side of Likelike Hwy. operated in LOS E. Once the H-3 Freeway opened up in 1998, the LOS for Likelike Hwy. improved to C. There was a clear and substantial improvement in traffic conditions. H-3 Freeway after 12 years in operation still operates in LOS A or B. That is a win-win outcome for two major roads. Something similar was realized when Kal. Hwy. from Kahala to Hawaii Kai was widened from 4 to 6 lanes. I remember nightmarish Saturday visits to Hanauma Bay taking about an hour. Now under 20 minutes is the norm. From level of service F to B. That’s what adding 50% capacity in lanes does!

So what’s in the future of Leeward Oahu’s residents in Kapolei, Makakilo and Ewa who commute to and from Honolulu? Will the rail change their E and F level traffic into a C or D? What change in traffic quality does the FEIS predict without and with the rail? The answer is summarized in the table below or it can be worded as follows: NONE!



Instead of rail, a city, state and private partnership can deliver express lanes and real congestion relief: Level of service B on the express lanes and LOS D or better on the existing roads. No modern rail has ever succeeded in congestion relief.

In contrast, no modern express lanes have failed to provide major congestion relief. There are many more express lane projects planned in the nation’s congested cities as there are rail systems.

Mid-June 2010 Update of the Honolulu Rail NEPA Process

City administration representatives mislead you that the feds have accepted the FEIS. The FTA allowed the city to release the FEIS in mid-June 2010. This is a step, but not a major milestone in the environmental process.

The FEIS is not an FEIS until the Governor signs it. Only then the FTA signs it and publishes that fact in the Federal Register.

At that point, the public comment period begins, and if there are significant remaining concerns then a Supplementary EIS may be required. An SDEIS had to be done for Mayor Harris' Bus Rapid Transit system in 2002.

The Programmatic Agreement (PA, or section 106 compliance) needs to be completed. As of mid-June 20101 it is incomplete. Upon PA completion, the FTA can issue a Record on Decision that completes the environmental (NEPA) process.

After that the city can complete Final Design. After Final Design is complete, the city can negotiate the actual funding level. That leads to the FFGA, or Full Funding Grant Agreement, that defines how much federal subsidy the city will receive.

This is a long way to go. You may safely ignore the pro-rail politician propaganda that rail is a done deal and that construction is about to start.

Honolulu's Top Eco-city Ranking Threatened by City Management

On May 30, 2010 the Honolulu Star Bulletin (now Star Advertiser) reported that Mercer generated eco-city rankings rating the livability quotient of major world cities, and “Honolulu came in second at 145.1 points, right behind Calgary” in Canada.

Eco-City Ranking 2010 includes the following criteria: Water availability, water potability, waste removal, sewage, air pollution and traffic congestion.

Water availability and potability are provided by the aina and have little to do with city administration actions. In fact, archaic water proportioning has forced the Board of Water Supply to manage about one quarter of Oahu's total water capacity.

Thanks to this biased apportioning of potable water resources Oahu may be forced to install desalination plants if its population exceeds one million people, while Oahu's aquifers can provide enough water for about four million people!

In addition Oahu's aging water distribution system experiences many failures as evidenced by the frequent water main breaks. According to BWS, there were an average of 364 breaks between 2005 and 2009, or one water main break per day!

Water main breaks affect water supply and quality, cause congestion, destroy roads and in some cases flood businesses and residences.

Honolulu is undeniably top ranked in air quality thanks to our location and wind patterns. Suspiciously however we spend 4 times as much money to buy hybrid buses instead of regular ones to gain no measurable pollution advantage or any bottom line savings.

Traffic congestion is bad but the average commute on Oahu is under 30 minutes, making it a fairly short one compared to large cities.

As for waste removal and sewage, a lack of investigation by Mercer and perhaps misleading reporting by the county has painted a rosy picture whereas the real condition is substandard.

Bottom line, nature blesses Honolulu with a stellar eco-city ranking and festering issues of trash, sewage, water management and traffic management are clear threats to its long term lead in eco-city ranking.

Costly Transit or Efficient HOT Lanes?

Dr. Steve Polzin is a fellow civil engineer with whom I share identical paths in graduate school. He is also earned Master's and Ph.D. degrees from Northwestern University, a leading institution in transportation studies.

Steve is the director of mobility policy research at the Center for Urban Transportation Research at the University of South Florida and is on the editorial board of the Journal of Public Transportation and serves on several Transportation Research Board and American Public Transit Association (APTA) Committees. He knows what works and what doesn't in public transit. In 2006 I nominated him to be the City Council's coordinator of the Transit Task Force, but everybody else ganged up on me and hired the pre-selected person.

His June 4, 2010 article on "The Cost of Slow Travel" is eye-opening about the pitfalls of mass transit. (Some of the pitfalls can be effectively corrected by running express buses on HOT lanes.) Here is an excerpt from his assessment:

"Transit’s slower average travel speeds result in approximately 3 billion hours annually of additional travel time. If valued at the TTI time value of $15.47 per hour, this equates to approximately $44 billion annually in lost productivity due to travelers having or choosing to use transit. Thus, the few percent of persons who use transit (approximately 2% of total person trips are on transit {5% of work trips} and approximately 1% of person miles of travel) incur 70% as much lost time relative to driving as is incurred by the total of auto travelers due to congestion, $44 billion for transit users versus $64 billion for driving in congestion."

His conclusion is the inescapable truth that speed leads to effective transportation of people and goods, which in turn generates a strong and competitive economy. In his words:

"One of the reasons the country and individuals have become more productive and the country has had growing gross domestic product over the past several decades is that we have been highly mobile and travel has gotten faster until recent years. Part of the reason for faster travel has been the shifting from slow to faster modes and facilities. There are lots of good reasons to enable and encourage use of alternative modes but analysis of the consequences should strive to be objective about the travel time and productivity consequences."

The correct alternative in the case of Oahu is HOT lanes between the H-1/H-2 merge and downtown which:

• provide the choice to pay for express travel
• combine with free vanpools which reduce the amount of solo driver cars by encouraging the successful VanPool Hawaii! that the Feds support
  
• facilitate point-to-point express buses; example Waikele to downtown in under 15 minutes; Mililani to Waikiki in under 30 minutes (these sample commute times are for the middle of morning rush hour)
  
• serve as a resilience and recovery transportation corridor in case of major storm, severe congestion on parallel freeways or other emergency.
  

Saddle Road: From 15 to 55 miles per hour for $100 million

It is rare to see a major road project in Hawaii -- unless you are on Maui where the transportation committee chairs for both House and Senate come from.

The re-alignment and upgrade of the Saddle Road is a major project. For me this is a bittersweet experience. As a holder of a (now expired) car racing license, the challenge that was the Saddle Road in the 1990s is no more. The twists, turns and elevation changes made it a challenge even at 25 miles per hour! But having fun with a challenging drive is not an excuse for maintaining a road in a primitive condition.

When the project is completed, the benefit to the Big Island commuters between the Hilo and Kona sides will be grand. Major savings in travel time and in safety. Here's a March 2010 photo of the construction.



The comparison of Saddle Road on Big Island with Kaukonahua Road on Oahu is an interesting example of facts and choices. Kaukonahua Road near the North Shore of Oahu is a short, winding stretch of rural highway that is vital to the Wailua and Haleiwa communities.

This fun one mile of road (which is not scary or unsafe compared, for example, to the Road to Hana or Oahu's Tantalus Round Top Drive) manages to be the locus of about one dead motorist per year. So on one hand we have one mile of winding road that kills roughly 20 people every 20 years (see end note) and on the other hand we have over 22 miles of winding road that kills one or two persons every 20 years. And we choose to spend over $100 million to straighten the second one!

Other than that, the new Saddle Road is a phenomenal improvement in roadway alignment.

From this...



To this...


I could not get a complete picture of the phases and costs of the Saddle Road project. I found two milestones dated May 2007 and March 2009. Here is the respective information and the website for the project.

May 2007 -- The Federal Highway Administration-Central Federal Lands Highway Division (CFLHD), in cooperation with the Hawaii Department of Transportation and the Department of the Army awarded a $59 million contract to Goodfellow Brothers, Inc. of Waikoloa, Hawaii for construction of the first 16 miles of the new Saddle Road. The plans and specifications for the project were developed by Okahara & Associates, Inc. of Hilo, Hawaii.

March 2009 -- A $34.6 million construction contract to Goodfellow Brothers, Inc of Waikoloa, Hawaii for grading and paving of a new section of Saddle Road from mile marker 35 to 41.5. The contract was awarded on October 24, 2008; construction officially began on November 19 and is expected to be completed by late summer, 2009. Upon completion, 22-miles of the 48-mile long Saddle Road route will have been upgraded to modern standards and opened to public traffic. http://www.saddleroad.com/archived/index.html

Endnote: Recent Kaukonahua Road crashes

• May 1, 2010 -- Crash on Kaukonahua Road kills one woman, injures another
• Oct 12, 2009 -- Fatal motorcycle crash on Kaukonahua Road
• Apr 12, 2009 -- Elderly Man Killed on Kaukonahua Road

Chronology of Mufi's Rail

2004: Rail will cost $2.7 Billion and 1% GET charge is needed.

2005: OK fine, 0.5% tax will do it – we’ll get $450 Million from the FTA.

2006: Rats! The Alternatives Analysis had to spoil it. Rail will cost $4.6 Billion.

2006: Rats! Cliff Slater noticed that the 2000 Bus Rapid Transit also planned by Parsons Brinkerhoff for the Harris administration had higher projected ridership than rail. So... with rail we pay 3 times more to get less.

2006: City will have Feds give it as much as Los Angeles and New York City: $750 Million.

2007: This state is run as a banana republic. As such, it starts collecting people's taxes to build a system that has no environmental approvals.

2007: Smoke and mirror events begin in earnest paid by taxpayers. Neither Leeward Community College nor UH-Manoa get any stations.

2008: Hannemann gives a helicopter ride to Oberstar who then says that Feds will give $900 Million. Hannemann declares that “the train has left the station.”

2008: Senator Inouye says that if we lose the EPA lawsuit for sewage treatment the $1.2 Billion bill “will break the back of the city.”

2008: Council support is shaky. Back room deal-making results in a route via Salt Lake.

2008: DEIS comes just two (2) days before the General Election and referendum or rail promising a ridership of 97,000 in the opening year! (No modern light rail in the US, even in cities 5 times bigger than Honolulu, carries more than 38,000.)

There is no time to review the DEIS but Inouye advises that people only need to read the summary. Fed share is now claimed to be $1.2 Billion.

2008: Public is deluged with city, union and Hannemann campaign “Light Rail” commercials, emails and letters, and a 50.6% “victory” is obtained.

2008: More political maneuvering and the route goes back via the airport. Warnings that it violates Federal Aviation Administration rules are ignored.

2009: Construction will start at the end of the year. (Isn’t it still 2009?)

2009: Rail is insolvent – Inouye joins the rail party. Feds are now claimed to pay $1.55 Billion.

2009: We lost the EPA lawsuit and appeal. We are now $1.2 Billion in the hole. But ignorance is bliss.

2009: Desperate for good news. Hannemann: “Rail creates 10,000 jobs!”

2009: UH Economic Research Unit: Rail might create up to 2,000 jobs in its peak year. (Given that all rail technology and materials need to be imported, I estimate that Local Jobs will be no more than 1,000 per year.)

2009: In November Hannemann declares that he is willing to wait a month or two to iron out some details; 6 months later his iron is not working.

2010: City steals $300 Million from future TheBus capital investment to balance TheRail budget.

2010: Four years after the Alternatives Analysis and three years after the start of tax collection this proposal has no environmental clearance, no cultural resources clearance and no robust budget.

2010: The cost is up to $5.4 Billion not counting the expensive Airport Runway avoidance. Hannemann really needs to get off this train.

Reason Foundation's Dr. Samuel Staley Agrees with UHCS Recommendations

We are pleased that our hard work for real solutions for Oahu's pervasive traffic congestion problems have been recognized in several international conferences, including a distinguished award by the Institute of Transportation Engineerns (Van Wagoner awards in 2006) and now by the Reason Foundation which said in part:

Practical solutions exist to reducing congestion, however, and they are detailed in an excellent study by University of Hawai'i traffic engineer Panos Prevedouros. In a report titled "Transportation Alternatives Analysis for Mitigating Traffic Congestion" released in June 2008, Dr. Prevedouros provides a detailed analysis of core infrastructure projects that would dramatically improve travel times and create free-flow travel across the city.

Sustainability: Key Measures and Comparisons

Sustainability is important. But how do we measure it? How can we tell if an island is sustainable or not? There are no easy answers but there are some indicators, and the higher the ranking the better the sustainability level. Basically all islands are net importers, which means that they depend on external sources, so they are less sustainable compared with a self-sufficient continent.

Read the full article on page 6 of the Filipino Chronicle. For improved clarity, the printed table is included below in color.

Manoa Flooding: Lessons Not Learned

A major flood occurred on October 30, 2004 that caused several million dollars worth of damage to UH-Manoa (including the loss of some precious library resources), serious damage to some homes and vehicles, minor damage to Noelani Elementary School, and extensive stream and neighborhood cleanup efforts.


In 2006 the Army Corps of Engineers finished an analysis and issued a report. Although debris was an issue causing additional clogging, the Corps investigation reveals a significant lack in stream capacity for a 10-year event. Yet nothing has happened to address the situation and debris has been accumulating.

Here is their main conclusion: "Results indicate that Manoa Stream, between Kahaloa Drive and Woodlawn Drive has insufficient capacity to contain the flood waters caused by the October 30, 2004 storm. Flood damage was increased by debris blockage of the East Manoa Road and Woodlawn Drive bridges. Frequency analysis determined the October 30, 2004 flood event to be about a 4% chance or 25-year flood event.


"An analysis of bridge and channel capacities determined that Manoa Stream can safely carry about 4,500 to 5,000 cfs [cubic feet per second] within the banks, but the East Manoa Road and Woodlawn Drive Bridges can only safely pass flows in the range of 2,800 to 3,900 cfs without bridge blockages. [In other words, the bridges severely limit the capacity of the stream.] Flows in this range have a magnitude less than the 10% chance or 10-year flood."

Conclusion: Unless one of the alternatives proposed is constructed, a repeat flooding of lower Manoa and UH is quite likely.

Great Traffic Lights ... in Quincy, MA

This article in The Boston Globe is fantastic because it makes the operation of traffic lights understood. The technology and operational settings are complex. And the benefits can be tremendous, as the excerpt below indicates.

Not every community’s traffic lights operate as well as Quincy’s. Some communities lack the technology, even though the city’s is more than 20 years old. Others lack the personnel. But for those that prioritize traffic signal management, the benefits are numerous, Gillon said.

By platooning groups of cars, fewer vehicles get stopped at red lights, reducing idling emissions by as much as 20 percent, Gillon said. Extending green lights to allow 18-wheelers to pass through intersections — which Quincy does by use of surveillance cameras — likewise helps the environment.

Fewer cars stopped at intersections also can mean fewer rear-end accidents, as drivers’ attention tends to drift when sitting at red lights, Gillon said.

In the future, Gillon hopes to adjust his system to hold green lights for MBTA buses that are running behind schedule.

Best of all, with efficient traffic lights, everyone can get where they’re going faster.

“You’ve probably got 35,000 or 45,000 cars coming through here a day,’’ said Gillon, stopped at an intersection near the end of our journey. “If you’re saving even six seconds for all of them, that’s a lot, right?’’

Well, let's answer his question. Is it a lot?

About three million trips are made on a typical day on Oahu and we can extrapolate that there should be at least 60 million stoppages of vehicles in a day. Optimized traffic lights can reduce at least five (5) seconds for each stoppage, on the average.

These five seconds accumulate to 83,000 of vehicle hours of idling engines per day. This is like having 8,300 vehicles idle for 10 hours every day. So?

An average vehicle will consume about one third of a gallon per hour of idling, or one (1) gallon if it's a truck or bus. Let's stick to 0.33 gallons per hour of idle and 250 typical days a year. The rest of the year we assume no savings.

This comes out to nearly seven million gallons of saved fuel per year!

Further if you assume that the typical Oahu car is driven for 10,000 miles and has an average fuel consumption of 20 mpg, then it needs 500 gallons of fuel per year. Divide the 7,000,000 gallons of fuel saved by 500 and this 5 seconds of savings from traffic lights becomes equal to the permanent removal of 14,000 cars for one year.

That's more that any rail on Oahu will ever do. And you just thought that traffic lights were just three boring colors.

(A side point: On your regular commute you know the "long lights." You will save fuel and engine wear if you turn your engine off at those lights when you are caught at the beginning of a red signal. Hybrids do this regularly and get a big jump in their city MPG rating.)

Honolulu's Mismanagement

Contrary to rhetoric that Honolulu is doing well under the current administration, the facts paint a different picture. Let’s look at just four examples.

First, Honolulu has the fifth highest debt per capita of America’s larger cities (See list below). Note that this debt does not include our inevitable shortfall in rail taxes, the $1.2 billion liability for secondary sewage treatment (the city lost both the suit and the appeal to EPA) or the funds needed for our roads which are some of the worst in the nation and will require billions for restoration (as opposed to the wasteful two inch overlays currently done in a hurry in order to “buy votes”).

Here’s Business Insider’s list of “America's Most Bankrupt Cities.” Honolulu is 5th worst in the nation.

1. Harrisburg PA Mayor Linda Thompson – per capita debt $1500
2. Detroit Mayor Dave Bing – per capita debt $780
3. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom – per capita debt $600
4. NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg – per capita debt $590
5. Honolulu Mayor Mufi Hannemann – per capita debt $370
6. Yonkers Mayor Phil Amicone – per capita debt $300
7. Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake – per capita debt $190
8. Chicago Mayor Richard Daily – per capita debt $180
8. Reno Mayor Bob Cashell – per capita debt $180
8. Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa – per capita debt $180
11. Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon – per capita debt $150
12. Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman – per capita debt $140
13. San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed – per capita debt $120
14. Norfolk Mayor Paul Fraim – per capita debt $110
15. San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders – per capita debt $20

Second is the mismanagement of the rail project. For starters, the City and its multimillion dollar consultants failed to design a system that provides the required distance from the airport runway. After public humiliation they hastily came up with a rerouting which involves much more expensive condemnation. (Note that the added cost of the rerouting has not been mentioned yet.) This will likely further delay the issuance of the EIS.

The rail appears to be the top priority of the Hannemann/Caldwell Administration and yet they have failed to meet their promises. Look at this September 2009 pompous article by Caldwell and the highlighted milestones for the rail project, none of which were met!

Third are the incessant exaggerations about the magical abilities of their rail.

(1) How can they claim job gains when they tax Oahu taxpayers over $3 billion for this "job creation"? The fact is that rail, if started, might create 1,000 local jobs and will likely eliminate 4,000 local jobs through excessive taxation. Each local rail job will cost approximately $2.6 million!

(2) How can federal funds for rail be of any benefit to Oahu when the purchase of rail materials and technology costs more than the federal funds that are expected? The fact is that the federal money will be spent on items from outside our State so none of the federal funds will ever create local jobs or benefit Oahu.

(3) Honolulu remains at the very bottom of cities in the nation for road quality and at the top for highest cost of car ownership. Congestion and high costs are degrading our quality of life and killing our economy. The Hannemann/Caldwell solution is a 19th century technology electric train, powered with oil and toxic garbage-burning electricity, which might carry 2% of the daily trips on Oahu.

(4) The City's own study says that today The Bus caries 5.6% of the trips made on Oahu. After rail is built, express buses are eliminated and most bus routes are chopped to a feeder status, the trips by bus and rail are projected increase to 6.6%. Where is the traffic relief?

(5) Voters favored rail in 2008 with a razor thin margin: 50.6% of the people checked YES to rail. True, but what did they favor? They favored light rail costing less than five billion and going through Salt Lake. The city is proposing an elevated heavy rail, costing more than five billion and going through the airport. How's that the same?

Note that Hannemann and Caldwell quote that rail was favored by 53% of the voters. Here is the official result:

Honolulu: Dept. of Transportation Services
Transit 212 of 212
YES 156,051 50.6%
NO 140,818 45.7%
Blank Votes: 11,456
Over Votes: 118 0.0%

It is both amusing and pathetic that the number of people who voted yes for rail in 2008 represent only 17% of Oahu’s population!

Fourth is the May 6, 2010 complaint by former Governor Cayetano that the City has grossly and repeatedly violated state procurement law and applied favoritism in contractor selection.

There is abundant evidence of mismanagement and lack of transparency and accountability.

In summary, the debts and obligations are mounting, yet Hannemann and Caldwell appear to be oblivious to reality and are engaged in legacy politicking, self preservation and servitude to the special interests that have bankrolled them.

Isn’t it time for honest, rational and fiscally responsible governance?

HOT Lanes Are Very Popular in the US

There is no question that except for the frequent inspections and re-timing of traffic signals, the other major solution to traffic congestion is HOT lanes, or High Occupancy and Toll lanes. They present a quadruple win situation.

Win number 1: They are an efficient transit-way for buses and vanpools. Any vehicle with five or more people in it goes free at all times. This can be our new HI-5 expressway. Our HI-5 HOT lanes make bus public transit competitive to driving. Thanks to HOT lanes as designed in the University of Hawaii Congestion Study, congestion between the H-1 and H-2 merge on the west side, and Waikiki on the east side can be reduced by over 25% in the morning commute.

Win number 2: Toll is not a penalty or tax. It is a congestion insurance fee that low occupancy motorists have the option to purchase. The HOT lanes cannot fill up with buses and vanpools. They have plenty of room for other traffic. But a variable toll is established so that the lanes are not a free-for-all which would make them congested. The gradual toll is there to provide the guarantee that those who choose to pay it, they will travel at over 50 miles per hour. That's a trip from Waikele to downtown in under 15 minutes in the middle of rush hour! That is worth a few bucks, right?

Win number 3 is the relief of congestion on H-1. Since buses, vanpools and several paying motorists switch to the HOT lanes, there is less traffic on the H-1 and those who stay on it realize a modest reduction in travel time for free. As a result, both HOT and H-1 traffic conbined realize large reductions in both travel time and fuel consumption. That's better quality of life and lesser dependency to fossil fuels. And an overall boost in the economy because, for example, a plumber can save 30 minutes at the AM and PM peaks and that allows for another house call and added income! (Try deal with business calls, freight deliveries and emergency services with the rails...)

Win number 4 is the revenue collection. HOT lanes is a road that actually collects some money. That makes it a bankable project. You can borrow in order to develop it or you can take private companies as partners and share the risk and the revenues. HOT lanes are well established PPP projects or Public-Private Partnerships.

Of course except for a few people, all the above is a "secret" in Honolulu who is still planning to address its acute traffic congestion problems with 19th century rails. San Fransisco plans for over 750 lane-miles of HOT lanes and Oahu's transportation plans do not even include the words HOT lanes.

As the table below shows, 45 (!) HOT lane projects are open or in various stages of getting done in the United States, including most cities with rail and the nation's capital. Of those 45 projects, 24 are at stages that are more advanced than Honolulu's rail, which is still in paperwork with no environmental, state and federal approvals. (As I mentioned in my March 1, 2010 post, there is plenty of time to do the right thing for Oahu.)

George Carlin - Saving the Planet

The late George Carlin and his reality-based views on sustainability ... from bike lanes to plastic bags ... seven minutes well spent (some vulgarity.)

Wai’anae Coast disaster preparedness plan

"House and Senate negotiators today in conference committee advanced a bill that would require the state and county civil defense agencies to prepare a disaster preparedness plan for the Wai’anae Coast of Oahu and submit it to the 2011 Legislature."

I applaud Representative Karen Awana for introducing this bill. At least it exposes a critical vulnerability.

Both in my 2008 and current campaigns for mayor "2nd access to Waianae" has been one of my top-10 priorities.

Unfortunately the call for a Civil Defense plan won't do much when Farrington Highway is blocked or washes away by Kahe point.

We do not have enough airlift capacity and we no longer have a couple of SuperFerries and a dock suitable for them in order to provide some rapid relief. We don't have a basic plan that includes the stationing of dump trucks and front loaders to begin the cleanup in the community. We don't have medical care of sufficient capacity. Also water supply will be an issue if there is a prolonged power outage. But unlike other neighborhoods, water trucks may not be able to get to the Waianae coast.

A simple example to show you how unprepared we are is a plain look of Farrington Highway. It is a continuous length of untrimmed trees and utility poles that will render it unusable for weeks after a basic category 1 hurricane. At the same time, boulders and other debris can render the Kolekole Pass impassable for days or weeks. Did we learn anything from Iniki?

An independent second access is essential. To economize, it can be built as a low-standard emergency-only road designed to be resilient to flooding and debris. It should be able to evacuate 4,000 vehicles (approximately 6,000 people per hour) and provide aid and supplies for many-many more.

It is sad that the 0.05 tack-on to the excise tax on Oahu cannot be used for real solutions in transportation relief. I still wonder for how long our Legislature will maintain its delusions about rail service.

A natural disaster hitting Oahu will be calamitous for the Wai'anae coast and will expose our poor priorities for projects and expenditures as currently applied.

The Delusion and Deception in Rail Forecasts

Professor Flybjerg of Oxford University has made a career in proving the fallacies involved in the planning and management of megaprojects, and in providing ways to avoid major pitfalls and deliver projects with transparency and accountability. Of course his advice is ignored by Honolulu city administration and its consultants who follow the traditional "Community Railroading Handbook" where smoke-and-mirror shows and media commercials provide grossly inflated views of project benefits and hardly mention any of the disadvantages.

Proponents of megaprojects are both deluded and deceptive. Delusion and deception are two fundamental reasons why things go wrong with large projects. Every forecast contains an amount of delusion and deception. It comes with the territory because of bias and future uncertainties.

We are all familiar with weather forecasts. Only a small amount of delusion and deception is involved there, as shown in the figure below. Meteorologists have no desire to deceive anyone about the weather; but sometimes they use words that brighten the picture or accentuate the risk. Meteorologists are not deluded because they consult with a comprehensive weather model; but the weather model has some built-in inaccuracies which lead to some wrong predictions. In Flybjerg's analysis, the weather forecast is a best case scientific prediction when it comes to deception and delusion. What are the worst? Top worst are unique projects like the Sydney Opera House and our infamous all-steel Aloha Stadium. A close second worst is rail projects as seen below. Who would have thought that good ol’ steel wheel on steel rail projects would be so rife with delusion and deception. But data from dozens of actual projects show just that. The promoters of rail projects are deluded about ridership and cost forecasts. And the same promoters deceive the public about ridership and cost forecasts.

One thing we can say for Honolulu's administration and its consultants when it comes to the proposed rail is that they are consistent with past experience elsewhere. Their forecasts are full of delusion and deception. Here is some evidence.

Denver, a city with substantial rail construction expertise and a more balanced political climate ran a large deficit for its FastTracks rail --planned to cost $6.6 billion, now it needs an extra $2.4 billion to get it completed as planned. On the other hand, Honolulu insists that its planned cost of $5.4 billion will hold. That’s without completing the environmental process and without the recent airport rerouting to clear the airport runway. Many cities two to five times larger than Honolulu cannot get more than 40,000 daily riders on their light rail systems after several years in operation. But Honolulu insists that on opening day its rail will carry 97,000 riders and some years later this will balloon to over 130,000. That's simply nuts.

How about Tren Urbano of San Juan, Puerto Rico? This is a good comparison with Oahu because Tren Urbano is heavy rail, it is on an island, it is planned by the same consultant, it had the same Federal Transit Administration oversight, and it is only five years old.

The consultant forecast a cost of $1.25 billion. FTA approved it. The actual cost was $2.25 billion. Nearly double!

The consultant forecast 80,000 riders. FTA approved it. The actual ridership was under 25,000 and for months they had to run the trains for free. Now after five years it carries 38,700 daily riders. Not even half of the original forecast!

So what did the Tren Urbano delusion and deception accomplish? It cheated the system itself. The project proponents cooked the numbers so that FTA's required cost/benefit value of no more than $25 per new transit rider is met. This is a critical estimate. If the cost projection is under $25, then a transit project is eligible for federal funding.

Let's say that the Tren Urbano just made the FTA cut by having a cost ratio of $24.8. Once the system was built, all delusion and deception went away and San Juan suffered the results of a poorly planned project. The actual ratio came out to $92.3 or 270% higher than the approved ratio! With accurate forecasts, this system would never have a chance of receiving federal funding.

Like Tren Urbano, TheRail forecasts are full of delusion and deception. It's a good thing that “the train hasn’t left the station” and it ain’t leaving any time soon.

Sustainability: What It Is and What It Means For Hawaii

Please look for this article in the April 17, 2010 issue of the Filipino Chronicle.

Proposed Rail Creates 1,000 Local Jobs and Destroys 4,000 Jobs

Here is my analysis of jobs due to Honolulu's proposed rail system. The rail has not cleared any important environmental hurdles, so it is over a year away from construction. However, the City propaganda on rail jobs must be challenged.

RAIL JOBS

The City claims that rail will create 4,500 construction jobs and 10,000 total jobs. Take a look at this Internet video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZPJ0n5AvKM.

UH economists estimate that first year rail construction job count will be about 360 jobs and only in peak years the construction job estimate will reach about 2,000 jobs. But most of them will be unsuitable for carpenters that are suffering the brunt of construction sector unemployment now. Also almost all of the rail construction materials and technology comes from off-island sources, so at best 1,000 of these jobs are local. The City estimates for rail jobs are false. They are advocacy estimates.

The other half of the story is that rail jobs are paid by tax dollars, mostly local. Taxes reduce people’s incomes and shrink the economy. Read below why the rail tax destroys at least 4,000 jobs.

TAX and SPEND?

The "multiplier effect" like 4,500 construction jobs and 10,000 total jobs is fantasy. It’s rooted in depression era economic theory. If this was true, then Honolulu should build a rail system that costs ten times more and yields 45,000 construction jobs and 100,000 total jobs!

Unfortunately tax and spend does not work. Look at Greece and California now; both are broke. Oahu will be in 2020. California Legislative Analyst’s non-partisan office said that "the scale of the deficits is so vast that we know of no way that the Legislature, the Governor, and voters can avoid making additional, very difficult choices about state priorities." This means deep cuts, severe hardship for low income people, and higher unemployment.

Spending public money on the wrong project leads to huge loses. Here is a good example. Spain spent $19 billion to create so called green jobs; 6,825 direct jobs and 8,175 related jobs were created at a cost of $1.4 million per job. For every "green job" developed by government money (taxes), 2.2 jobs were lost from the general economy. The proposed Honolulu rail will be far less productive than green technologies, so many more that 2.2 jobs will be lost for every 1 rail job.

From TAX to UNEMPLOYMENT

Taxation prolongs the downturn. Here is an analytical example. Washington State contemplates a 1% increase in state sales tax to fund its ambitious transportation program. The economic impact of a 1% increase tax can be summarized as follows.

Private employment would drop by 19,400 jobs, and public sector employment would increase by 8,100 jobs. The net effect would be a loss of 11,290 jobs. The job losses, combined with the increase in the cost of goods, would lead to a fall in real disposable income by $1.85 billion. So their overall state economy will suffer more if the tax is added.

What does this mean for Oahu's 905,000 population and 0.5% general excise tax surcharge for rail? Every man, woman and child on Oahu pays about $500 per year for the rail which based on the Washington State model and proportioned for Oahu destroys a net of 4,000 jobs for every year that the GET surcharge is levied. So rail will create a maximum of 2,000 jobs and regularly destroys 4,000 jobs.

To build rail we need trains, rails, escalators, elevators, electric lines, switches, computers, ticket machines, air conditioners, rebar and concrete, and heavy rail maintenance equipment. All the fed contribution and much of our local taxes for rail will go out of state to purchase the rail stuff. And to pay for mainland rail experts and technicians like those who design it now. So less than half of the 2,000 rail jobs will be island jobs.

CAN WE AFFORD IT?

(February 1, 2010) Denver’s $6.6 Billion FastTracks rail can't be completed within budget. It needs an extra $2.4 billion. Similarly, Honolulu cost estimates are not credible. They are advocacy estimates. City said $2.7 billion in 2006, $4.6 billion in 2008 and $5.3 billion in 2009. The real cost will be at least $6.4 billion for the first 20 miles.

Do you doubt that the City, its consultant and the Federal Transit Administration are wrong? Let’s look at a recent rail project on an island. San Juan in Puerto Rico had the same consultant as Honolulu and the same FTA oversight. The forecasts and real outcomes are as follows.

The consultant predicted a cost of $1.25 billion. FTA approved it. San Juan’s actual cost was $2.25 billion. The consultant predicted 80,000 riders. FTA approved it. San Juan’s rail carries fewer than 40,000 riders after several years in operation.
How about this reality vs. fantasy: San Juan has a population of 2,509,000 and Honolulu has 905,000. San Juan’s rail carries 38,700 daily riders. For Honolulu, the hired “experts” forecast 97,000 riders on opening day and 130,000 riders in 2030.

Let me also clarify what it means for Honolulu to enter a Full Funding Grant Agreement with the FTA. It means that FTA will give Honolulu X amount of dollars and Honolulu is mandated to complete the agreed upon system. Honolulu can't stop short if the money runs out. It must collect more local taxes and finish the job. Like Denver and all the others. The average cost overrun for FTA projects is 40%.

Worse yet, Honolulu already is deep in the hole. “U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is requiring the city to upgrade its two major waste-water treatment plants, which could cost up to $1.2 billion.” City lost both the lawsuit and the appeal. So on top of degraded water, sewer and road systems, Honolulu has a current $1.2 billion budget liability for developing secondary sewage treatment.

If ever-increasing property taxes, sewer fees, and other taxes or fees become politically unsustainable, the State will have to bail the City out. Ever higher City taxes drive out businesses and shrink State revenues. A bankrupt City (with roughly 80% of the state’s population) diminishes both City and State ability to issue bonds and get projects done. Are you not seeing a tax black hole?

BOTTOM LINE

Was any of this information available in the 2008 elections and the taxpayer funded rail commercials? In 2008, a slim majority voted in favor of a fake "light rail" that cost under $5 billion and went through Salt Lake. The bases of 2008 are false in the 2010 proposed rail. Is the 2008 vote valid now? No. Instead we have heavy rail, fake ridership, fake costs, and fake jobs gains. Only the future economic calamity due to the rail is certain. Each local rail job will cost $2.6 million in local taxes!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SAMPLE SOURCES

Washington State Model
http://www.insideronline.org/summary.cfm?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Insider%2BOnline&id=12108

Green Jobs in Spain
http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/24/AR2009062403012.html

University of Hawaii Economic Research Organization, Hawaii Construction Forecast Update: Global Downturn Hammers Construction, UHERO, March 6, 2009

Are Urban Rail Systems Good for the Society?

You'll have to agree that this is a great question.

The good thing is that two of the nation's top economists evaluated urban rail systems and have an answer.

In their 2006 study, economists Winston of the Brookings Institution and Maheshri of the University of California at Berkeley concluded as follows:

"We find that with the exception of BART in the San Francisco Bay area, every system actually reduces welfare and is unable to become socially desirable even with optimal pricing or physical restructuring of its network. We conclude rail’s social cost is unlikely to abate because it enjoys powerful political support from planners, civic boosters, and policymakers."

What does their conclusion mean in plain words?

• Urban rail systems have a negative value for the society, even if a rail system selects the best route and the best fare price.
• The only reason city rail systems get built is because politicians and special interests are promoting them forcefully. They make a (short term) profit at the expense of society.

Romy Cachola’s Scoops on the Rail

Councilmember Romy Cachola has provided a useful summary of findings after meeting with the Federal Transit Administration on March 9, 2010 along with Councilpersons Apo, Anderson and Kobayashi.

The partial summary of Cachola's findings from this fact finding mission in Washington, DC are copied below and his entire report is available at the city's docushare (see link at bottom.) Of course Cachola’s report, without saying it, makes a case for rerouting the rail route through Salt Lake Boulevard. Unfortunately, this is one of many omissions in the Draft EIS, and several months of study are needed to assess those impacts, plus time for public review and comment.

Rather foolishly the FTA approved that the City enter Preliminary Engineering, so now we are spending money engineering a rail route that is impractical. This is but a small piece of evidence why rail proposals are “gravy trains” for architects, planners and engineers … the more the mistakes, the more the taxpayer financed fees to professionals to fix those mistakes.

Note that these significant objections do not even address the multitude of problems between the airport and Waikiki (Dillingham Boulevard, Chinatown, downtown, Ala Moana.)

My conclusion has been that even if Hannemann serves his entire term as mayor, there will still be no rail on the ground by 2012, or ever, if a recent survey by Hawaii News Now is to be believed.



Cachola's summary points:

• The FTA won’t give special treatment to any jurisdiction that applies for federal funds for transit. Everyone will be treated the same way. Thus, the airport route, until resolved, is unlikely to receive special treatment as hoped for by the administration.
• The governor has every right to review the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) based not only on federal guidelines but also state laws governing environmental review. The FTA stressed to council members that without the governor’s approval, the project cannot proceed.
• A main sticking point on the Final EIS is that the transit alignment is encroaching too close to the runway protection zone. FTA officials also stressed that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) will not sign off on the Final EIS until the airport issue is resolved.
• To resolve the encroachment on the runway protection zone, the FTA stated the following alternatives:

1. Move the alignment to the mauka side of the viaduct.
2. Move the alignment onto the median of the viaduct.
3. Extend the affected runway(s) to the opposite direction (makai) so that it would no longer encroach on the runway protection zone.

• Based on the FTA’s statements, the following may need to be done:

-- Amending the alignment may require a supplemental EIS to determine the impacts and other considerations.
-- Since Honolulu International Airport is under the state’s control, any extension of the runway needs state approval. The state may not agree to any extension until an EIS is completed and approved by HDOT. Without the State’s approval, the City will be forced to look at other alternatives.

Link to Romy Cachola’s report

Better Pavements for Safety and Low Noise

On a recent trip in a driving rainstorm on Interstate 80 and I-680 (California), there were a variety of pavement types. Some seemed to collect a thin layer of water that was tossed into the air by cars and trucks, creating a blinding fog, which made for near-zero visibility. However, on some blacktop sections with equally heavy rain, there was no layer of water and no wall of spray coming off other vehicles. The visibility there was excellent. Why the difference?

The latter is open-graded asphalt, which Caltrans (the California Department of Transportation) now uses on most paving projects, and it is wonderful. It allows water to drain off the surface and into a top permeable layer — almost eliminating the spray kicked up on older pavement.

This asphalt uses pieces of gravel 3/8 of an inch thick. Underneath are 2 inches of rubberized asphalt, flexible material that withstands the wear and tear of heavy big rigs twice as long as conventional asphalt.

The uniform pieces of gravel on top do not bind as tightly as varied sizes used in other paving, so water seeps through the first few inches of pavement and drains off.

When open-graded asphalt was used on a curvy stretch of Highway 17 a few years ago, crashes dropped 41% in the first three months. On I-880, where a 26-mile repaving job ended in 2002, crashes fell 15%, from 3,172 in 2000 to 2,696 in 2004.

When you saw water being kicked up by traffic, you probably ran into an older section of I-80 that will get the better pavement this spring.

(Source: http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_14779911?nclick_check=1)

Unfortunately neither open-graded asphalt or rubberized asphalt are common practice on Oahu.

There is an additional advantage of open-graded asphalt that Caltrans did not mention: Noise reduction.

Environmentally, open-graded asphalt reduces road noise for drivers, passengers and those who work, live or play near a busy highway. Studies have found that open-graded asphalt pavements, when compared to traditional dense-graded asphalt pavements, reduce road noise by 3 to 7 decibels (dBA) which make them a viable alternative to noise walls for areas with moderate noise problems.

Source: Asphalt Intitute, http://www.asphaltinstitute.org/public/engineering/PDFs/Construction/Open_Graded_Asphalt_Surfaces_Offer_.pdf)

Island Sustainability Primer: Trends on Income, Energy, Tourism*

The goal of this on-going research project is to collect and summarize rich data sets and data sources for world’s islands. Fifty islands for which complete data could be collected are currently in the database. Islands may be part of a country or a country. Islands with population of less than 50,000 people were excluded.

Nine major variables were used for each island: Population , Area (km2), Density (citizens/km2), Political Status (independent country or part of a country), Gross Domestic Product or GDP (million U.S. dollars in 2008), Annual Electricity Consumption (Terra Watt hours), Carbon Dioxide or CO2 Emissions (million metric tons), Annual Tourist Arrivals, and Combined Road and Rail length (km per 1000 people). Some of the early results are highlighted below.

For developed islands the incremental cost and needs to serve large numbers of tourists are relatively small, thus tourism can be quite cost effective. But for small and less developed islands the cost to provide for tourism is high in terms of energy and pollution.

In general, the higher the GDP per capita is the higher the electricity consumption. For electricity consumption higher than 6,000 kWh per person, the relationship curve flattens. Also, electricity consumption per person is proportional to CO2 emissions per person.

When electricity consumption is in the range of 6,000 to 11,000 kWh per person the CO2 emissions appear to be low for a group of islands (9 to 11 metric tons per person) and higher for another group (16 to 19 metric tons per person). The islands in the low group of carbon emissions have approximately equal GDP with the islands in the high group of carbon emissions. The high group of islands consists of the Hawaiian Islands (Oahu, Maui, Big Island), Bahamas and Australia whereas the low group consists of European islands (Ireland, Iceland, UK, Cyprus) as well as Japan and New Zealand. Availability of hydro and nuclear power is likely what makes this large difference in carbon footprint.

Japan, with the highest population of all islands, has the 9th highest GDP per capita; however, it is 44th in tourists per capita, 12th in infrastructure per capita 10th in electricity consumption and 13th in CO2 emissions.

New Zealand is 16th in GDP per capita, 30th in tourists per capita, 4th in infrastructure per capita, 8th in electricity consumption and 16th in CO2 emissions per capita. As shown below, Oahu has woefully inadequate infrastructure when compared with Japan and New Zealand.

Similar to both New Zealand and Japan, our extremely large Pacific Ocean “neighbor,” Australia, is the largest island in the list, is in 7th place in GDP per capita, 37th in tourists per capita, 3rd in infrastructure per capita, 4th in electricity consumption and 5th in CO2 emissions per capita.

Table 1 summarizes the Hawaiian Islands rankings out of 50 islands with population over 50,000 people. Oahu, Maui and Big Island make the population cut, but Kauai does not.



In terms of GDP, Oahu ranks very high at 5th highest, with Maui and Big Inland in 17th and 18th position, respectively. In terms of income, Hawaiian Inland residents fare much better than average compared to other island populations. The Hawaiian Islands are major international tourism destinations: Tourists per capita shows that Maui is in the top spot, followed by Big Island on 5th and Oahu on 8th.

When it comes to road and rail infrastructure to accommodate residents and tourists, the Hawaiian Islands fall far short of their island counterparts. Only the Big Island makes it to the top 10 in the 7th place, Maui is another seven spots down at 14th and Oahu is near the bottom at 41st having too little land transportation infrastructure for its population. The result is its abundant congestion that threatens its long term quality of life and tourist attractiveness, which, in turn, degrade its sustainability.

The advanced quality of life in the Hawaiian Islands and the fact that they host over six million tourists per year results in a large consumption of electric power. Both Maui (3rd highest) and Oahu (9th highest) make it in the top 10 and Big Island is close to them at 13th. Hawaiian island dependence on oil is worrisome and the presence of fairly large population of residents and tourists does not bode well for low productivity sources like solar and wind energy. The latter has some potential but its visual impact is usually too large for Hawaii’s scenic landscapes.

Wave and tidal energy is difficult to harness and requires large shore structures, which again render then unappealing although some deployments may be feasible. This leaves nuclear as a major sustainability choice, either with small power plants (like the seven to twelve 110 megawatt nuclear units in large Navy submarines stationed in Pearl Harbor on any given day) or a largely invisible large floating platform 10 to 12 miles offshore.

As expected, an advanced life style and energy generation from coal and oil translate into a high environmental impact in terms of carbon dioxide emissions. All three Hawaiian Islands examined are in the top ten among this set of 50 islands. However, due to the vastness of the Pacific Ocean and the strong prevailing winds, local air pollution is not a problem in the Hawaiian Islands.

Two future changes can dramatically reduce CO2 emissions in Hawaii: Electric vehicles charged overnight by large scale wind farms or smaller neighborhood wind turbines, and nuclear power for the bulk of daytime power needs.

(*) Based on Research by Lambros Mitropoulos, Panos Prevedouros, and Michelle Coskey at University of Hawaii, Civil Engineering, Traffic and Transportation Laboratory

You Did Not See this Image in The News

In the immediately preceding post I mentioned this from California:

California's Legislative Analyst non-partisan office said "the scale of the deficits is so vast that we know of no way that the Legislature, the Governor, and voters can avoid making additional, very difficult choices about state priorities."

One of the painful large cuts will be to their flagship University of California campuses. Liberal thinking may be a fine pursuit but liberal spending isn't, no matter how good the socialist justification may be for it because in the long term society winds up being worse off.