2008 Honolulu Mayoral Debate

[salmoned]

Re: 2008 Honolulu Mayoral Debate

It's not very efficient to spend 2 to 4 dollars off-island for every dollar spent here for workers. As well, WE will be PAYING for that 'economic incentive' program, even those of us who lose their jobs due to the economic slowdown, because it's financed by that general excise tax (and those 'missing' tourists will not be paying the share we expected, either). If paying for rail was a big worry before, it is now looking like a disaster (after having already cut the planned rail system from what was considered 'optimal' to a 'bare bones' 20 mile route due to limited financial resources). In addition, how much support can we expect from a federal government feeling the pinch? It'd be better to excise the excise tax increase and forget about rail, then everyone will benefit in the hard times around the corner, Geebz.

As an aside, a rail system doesn't 'support' infrastructure, it creates new infrastructure that will have to BE supported by increased taxes. Supporting infrastructure is repairing/upgrading what we already have (and I'm all for it!).

[Geebz]

Re: 2008 Honolulu Mayoral Debate

As an aside, a rail system doesn't 'support' infrastructure, it creates new infrastructure that will have to BE supported by increased taxes. Supporting infrastructure is repairing/upgrading what we already have (and I'm all for it!).

Yes, I stand corrected on my verbiage about support vs. creating. And yes, I too am for rail if it keeps a stimulated economy should the tourism take a spill and slow recovery.

[joshuatree]

Re: 2008 Honolulu Mayoral Debate

So it's better to spend taxpayer's money on unemployment and welfare benefits rather than keep them employed by creating jobs? Even if there is a percentage of rail construction jobs going to outsiders, this isn't a work commuting gig, they will need to stay on the island for some time and you have a trickle down effect.

[salmoned]

Re: 2008 Honolulu Mayoral Debate

Yup, it's way better, by a factor of 10 or more. It's not just many high paying jobs that will be outsourced, it's the materials, energy, equipment and technology. $100,000/year wages will not produce near the same local economic boost that ten $10,000/year welfare/unemployment benefits will produce, nor will that $100,000/year position help as many (or any) in need. My intention is not to promote welfare/unemployment, but I also don't care to enrich the wealthy (or middle class) at the expense of the poor by building a rail system we simply can't afford using general excise tax funding.

[TuNnL]

Re: 2008 Honolulu Mayoral Debate

I think a helicopter service might make just as much sense.

Anything that gets more helicopters in to our state is a good thing, now that so many are gone to Iraq and Afghanistan. As it stands now, our emergency services are woeful, particularly on the outer islands where several deaths have been attributed to the fact that the victim or patient couldn’t be med-evac’d to O‘ahu fast enough. My uncle is one of those people. He's dead. God rest his soul.

Why don't we just hire a fleet of stretch limos to pick up 6 to 8 commuters each? It would be cheaper than the boat and more convenient for the riders

Mainly because it still is another car on the road. IMHO, any solution that involves vehicles on the roadway is a non-solution. The goal is to get people off the road during peak travel times.

[Geebz]

Re: 2008 Honolulu Mayoral Debate

Mainly because it still is another car on the road. IMHO, any solution that involves vehicles on the roadway is a non-solution. The goal is to get people off the road during peak travel times.

This is a video I did on 7/10/08 that I think is a NOW solution for de-stressing some traffic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1QI7OXDD2M

I know that some have said it's been tried before, but now is are tuffer times than before. And to amend what I said in this video, I'm talking about private busses that have free wifi and onboard in-seat local tv.

[tutusue]

Re: 2008 Honolulu Mayoral Debate

Why don't we just hire a fleet of stretch limos to pick up 6 to 8 commuters each?

[...]Mainly because it still is another car on the road. IMHO, any solution that involves vehicles on the roadway is a non-solution. The goal is to get people off the road during peak travel times.

We currently have a similar scenario called VanPool. Suppose each van, while in use, actually carries 7 passengers (per the web page). Wouldn't the math dictate that 6 cars are no longer on the road during these week-day commutes? And, isn't that a good thing? Or, am I missing something? And, yes, I understand some VanPool customers may not have owned cars to begin with; possibly many were bus riders.

[joshuatree]

Re: 2008 Honolulu Mayoral Debate

Yup, it's way better, by a factor of 10 or more. It's not just many high paying jobs that will be outsourced, it's the materials, energy, equipment and technology. $100,000/year wages will not produce near the same local economic boost that ten $10,000/year welfare/unemployment benefits will produce, nor will that $100,000/year position help as many (or any) in need. My intention is not to promote welfare/unemployment, but I also don't care to enrich the wealthy (or middle class) at the expense of the poor by building a rail system we simply can't afford using general excise tax funding.

This is where I disagree with you. By your argument, the Hoover Dam should have never been built because it was a government attempting to keep the population employed with public works during one of the worst economic times for this country, the Great Depression. The Southwest today thrives in part due to the Hoover Dam providing power and water resources.

I see spending money to keep people employed as constructive rather than welfare. Welfare is supposed to be temporary but it has created a class that is consistently reliant on a hand out. As for high paying jobs being outsourced, that is a reflection of how poorly this society, this state treats it's intellectuals, thus the year round brain drain. It's time to stop chasing away local talent.

We currently have a similar scenario called VanPool. Suppose each van, while in use, actually carries 7 passengers (per the web page). Wouldn't the math dictate that 6 cars are no longer on the road during these week-day commutes? And, isn't that a good thing? Or, am I missing something? And, yes, I understand some VanPool customers may not have owned cars to begin with; possibly many were bus riders.

Vanpool is good but how many people actually do it? If getting two people to coordinate their schedules just for carpool is hard enough, it's X times harder for 7 people. Sure, some will do it. But will it reach critical mass? Doubtful.

[tutusue]

Re: 2008 Honolulu Mayoral Debate

[...]
Vanpool is good but how many people actually do it? If getting two people to coordinate their schedules just for carpool is hard enough, it's X times harder for 7 people. Sure, some will do it. But will it reach critical mass? Doubtful.

Exactly! The limo scenario would probably be the same. Still, for each VanPool van on the road, cars are eliminated proportionately. And, that's a good thing. People who ride TheBus have to coordinate their schedules to TheBus' schedules. However, there are many, many more buses than VanPool vans!

People will continue to need their cars, in spite of buses, vans, limos or rail!

[salmoned]

Re: 2008 Honolulu Mayoral Debate

This is where I disagree with you. By your argument, the Hoover Dam should have never been built because it was a government attempting to keep the population employed with public works during one of the worst economic times for this country, the Great Depression. The Southwest today thrives in part due to the Hoover Dam providing power and water resources.

I see spending money to keep people employed as constructive rather than welfare. Welfare is supposed to be temporary but it has created a class that is consistently reliant on a hand out. As for high paying jobs being outsourced, that is a reflection of how poorly this society, this state treats it's intellectuals, thus the year round brain drain. It's time to stop chasing away local talent.

Your extension doesn't hold water. If the project were a solar or wind energy project that would lessen our dependence on fossil fuels and the materials/technology were home-grown, I'd say it was a great idea. However, we're not discussing THAT project. We're discussing building a commuter rail transit system that will NOT solve our traffic problems (even by the rosy projections Mufi cites, traffic will be worse than today), or any other problems [other than a potential nation-wide construction worker and world-wide rail construction company employment problem].

During the Great Depression, unemployment insurance and welfare were unavailable, so the federal government created work programs. The workers were not paid the exorbitant wages of today (they were paid reasonable wages) and worked long hours and were housed in marginal accommodations. Foreign workers weren't hired for the project, foreign companies didn't supervise it or build the equipment. Hoover Dam didn't disrupt a city during construction - people's homes and businesses weren't condemned, etc. In short, the analogy is rotten. Why don't you compare Oahu rail transit to other similar existing U.S. rail transit systems? If only you looked at the results before us, you would be quick to abandon the idea.

[lavagal]

Re: 2008 Honolulu Mayoral Debate

Exactly! The limo scenario would probably be the same. Still, for each VanPool van on the road, cars are eliminated proportionately. And, that's a good thing. People who ride TheBus have to coordinate their schedules to TheBus' schedules. However, there are many, many more buses than VanPool vans!

People will continue to need their cars, in spite of buses, vans, limos or rail!

I looked into VanPool. It's $70 a month. TheBus pass is $40 a month. It was a no brainer for me. Just look out for the riders with B.O.

[joshuatree]

Re: 2008 Honolulu Mayoral Debate

Your extension doesn't hold water. If the project were a solar or wind energy project that would lessen our dependence on fossil fuels and the materials/technology were home-grown, I'd say it was a great idea. However, we're not discussing THAT project. We're discussing building a commuter rail transit system that will NOT solve our traffic problems (even by the rosy projections Mufi cites, traffic will be worse than today), or any other problems [other than a potential nation-wide construction worker and world-wide rail construction company employment problem].

During the Great Depression, unemployment insurance and welfare were unavailable, so the federal government created work programs. The workers were not paid the exorbitant wages of today (they were paid reasonable wages) and worked long hours and were housed in marginal accommodations. Foreign workers weren't hired for the project, foreign companies didn't supervise it or build the equipment. Hoover Dam didn't disrupt a city during construction - people's homes and businesses weren't condemned, etc. In short, the analogy is rotten. Why don't you compare Oahu rail transit to other similar existing U.S. rail transit systems? If only you looked at the results before us, you would be quick to abandon the idea.

Again, it's all a matter of your opinion. Rail can lessen our dependence on fossil fuels. For every car that's not on the road, is less fossil fuel consumed. And if any of those wind farm plans come to fruition on Lanai and/or Molokai, the power sold to Oahu and whatever portion that is consumed by the rail is yet less dependence on fossil fuels.

You seem to conveniently ignore that the report continues to state all other options fare even worse. Do nothing? That had the worst numbers. Now if you're going to tell me the report is biased, then you shouldn't be referring to it at all.

In short, this project is a public works project much like a dam. At the end of day, there is a scarcity of jobs. You can give out handouts which does nothing to generate jobs or you can put people to work. At the very least, it stimulates the economy.

Comparing to other rail? I have and the more I compare, the more sense it makes to build rail here. When you factor in geography, population density, urban landscape, this is the right place for rail. Los Angeles may have many X times the amount of people vs Oahu but just take a look at the skyline of LA vs Honolulu/Oahu. Aside from a core downtown and a few spots, LA is flat and sprawled out. We're more like Hong Kong. Come November and we'll see what the majority believes in.

[TuNnL]

Re: 2008 Honolulu Mayoral Debate

It's my belief that if rail wasn't an issue that the other two candidates would not have run. However, Panos is also bringing up two other important issues....trash and sewage.

IMHO, this is an insult to Mufi and Ann who are the only candidates who have lifted a finger to address trash and sewage. Panos’ plans, on most fronts, are just some pie-in-the-sky theories spun in the ivory towers of academia, that have not been tested for their viability in Hawai‘i’s unique island environment. Trash, sewage and mass transit are hardly new issues, and considering Panos has lived here for nearly two decades, if he seriously thought his expertise could address these challenges, he would have run for office or took a city position a long time ago.

[salmoned]

Re: 2008 Honolulu Mayoral Debate

Joshuatree, where's rail going to get it's power from? Yup, you guessed it - that same old fossil fuel. If rail cars ran full to nearly full all the time, they might be more energy efficient than cars today (though maybe not in 20 years), but that usage rate doesn't exist in the U.S. That is not a matter of opinion. Using less fossil fuel doesn't reduce dependency (it only reduces usage), just as going on a diet doesn't reduce dependency on food.

I haven't ignored the alternatives examined in the Alternative Analysis, but only two options were studied that didn't include building new systems of transport. That built-in bias for building a new rail system over making do with what we already have permeates the entire 'study'. Despite that bias, rail is only slightly better than doing nothing and certainly the expense of rail isn't justified by the rosy estimate of 11% fewer cars on the road during rush hour (the assumption is based on people switching from cars to rail in greater numbers than has been observed anywhere else in the U.S.). I refer to the study because it's the fundamental rationale rail supporters uses to justify their stance. To ignore it would prove as misguided as you ignoring that rail is no less dependent on fossil fuels than cars are.

As for being 'more like Hong Kong', you couldn't be farther from the truth. It's not the skyline that matters, it's the existing infrastructure. We have more cars than eligible drivers, Hong Kong doesn't and never has. All those cars have fixed expenses that become cheaper per mile when driven more miles - people know that. So unless you are suggesting that many people will be selling their cars and turning to mass transit, they will continue to optimize the money spent on those cars by driving them as much as can be justified.

Population density means nothing without a population of adequate SIZE - and we don't have one.

Arguing that you're right because the majority shares your belief is tantamount to conceding defeat - it's just another type of fallacy.

Giving handouts stimulates the economy MORE and MORE EFFICIENTLY (not only do more needy people receive benefits, but the money is virtually all spent here on Oahu) than public works which draw so heavily on off-island resources. Economic stimulus is a poor reason to support the rail project.

TuNnL, Mufi and Ann have had years to solve Honolulu's problems and, from my perspective, haven't done very well. Anyone happy with the results they've produced so far should vote for one of them. Anyone wanting a change, wanting to try something different, should vote for Panos. You seem to ignore the fundamental difference Panos represents - he is not a career politician. To believe that that means he has less or nothing to offer is rather narrow-minded, because he obviously has an entirely different perspective to offer. He is not beholden to any of the usual 'interest groups' which block the interests of the community as a whole while promoting their own special interests. Sure, he may not currently know as much as Mufi & Ann about the problems, but he will be able to provide a fresh look at them - which I believe is exactly what is needed.

[Composite 2992]

Re: 2008 Honolulu Mayoral Debate

According to AAA it costs an average of 52.2 cents per mile to operate a car in the US if it's driven about 15,000 miles annually. Here in Hawaii people probably drive about 11,000 and the price of gas is slightly higher than in the Mainland.

But taking that established fact of 52.2 cents, assume you're living in Ewa or Kapolei and have to commute to downtown every day. That's about a 35-mile round trip. That's $18.27 a day. Five days a week: $91.35. Assuming you get three weeks of vacation, that's 49 weeks of commuting: $4476.15 annually.

Add parking for $150 to $300 per month and that adds up to anywhere from $6300 to $8076 per car. If you have two commuters and they don't car pool, it could be as much as $16,000 a year spent just to get to work.

A monthly bus pass is $40. Let's say a rail pass is $50. That would be $600 a year. It could save a commuter about $7500 a year.

That's rail. It gives people a choice. The typical downtown commuter could take the rail into work and save a LOT of money. Certainly taxes would go up, but it's not going to cost the average individual anywhere near what it currently costs to drive to work each day.