This comment regarding mayoral candidate Kirk Caldwell was recently left on an entry from several months ago.
At a recent neighborhood meeting at Aikahi Elem School, there seemed to be agreement between the two mayoral candidates that needed repairs to water and sewer lines will cost $5-6 B each. An elderly lady asked Caldwell how we are going to pay for those if we spend so much on the rail system, and she stated that retired people such as her self, on fixed incomes, won’t be able to afford the necessary tax increase and will have to move away. As several other oldsters nodded their heads in agreement, Caldwell said: “What’s wrong with that?”
He also stated, when asked about his wife’s involvement with Kaneohe Ranch, that “she works very hard for the Ranch.” A cynic might suggest that, as she “earns” $700-800K a year from Bank of Hawaii, reportedly “without portfolio,” she can afford to work hard for the Ranch, which is viewed as the villain by many in the Kailua community, as they are trying to turn Kailua into a tourist destination.
This seems to reflect the split in Kailua between those who view it as the place they live, and those for whom it is where they do business.
Earlier this month, an email regarding Caldwell and Kailua was making the rounds, purportedly from a group called “Kailuans for Kirk.”
Subject: Scary message from Caldwell – vote against him if you want to live here too, not just profit here
The email was a long, over-the-top appeal on behalf of Caldwell, labeled “the friend of Windward business.”
Was it a campaign “dirty trick” by one of Caldwell’s opponents?
That’s the conclusion reached by the person who first forwarded a copy to me.
Have tried to reach this site w/o success. The person who forwarded the “Support” letter to my daughter now suggests that she may have bitten on a political dirty trick.
She does say that she was inclined to believe it because Caldwell supposedly restrained DPP from cracking down on vacation rentals/B&Bs while managing director/acting mayor and understood his wife had Kaneohe Ranch ties. Hind sight regret.
Kailuans are ready to believe along these lines because of the uproar over lack of zoning restrictions around rail line terminals in legislation….
So two issues here. One the reaction against Caldwell’s commitments and connections, as well as those of his obviously talented wife, Donna Tanoue. They can be seen as negatives from a cynical or somewhat conspiratorial view, or as positives that show both abilities and community ties. But then there’s the second issue of packaging elements of this debate into a bogus email to be distributed anonymously.
It’s a tough situation to evaluate. Some legitimate political criticisms distributed in a questionable way.
What do you think?
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Kailua = global NIMBY headquarters. i used to live there and would love to move back, but not around wealthy neighbors who are constantly looking for any form of “change” to gripe about. there’s some kind of permanent resentment against the rest of the world swimming around Kailua’s swamps. Some in Kailua want to build a wall around the entire town, but they can’t. a TV news headline 10 years from now will be “Kailua residents angrily oppose (fill in the blank)”
It is unfair to suggest only “wealthy” residents in Kailua want to preserve its character. Why would you say such a thing? I grew up in Kailua and, though I live in town, would LOVE to be able to move back there, even if one of my biggest complaints is, ironically, the number of wealthy and semi-wealthy people who have moved into the community.
If you don’t think working-class and middle-class Kailua residents are also opposed to a lot of the changes, you know nothing about Kailua.
kailua and haleiwa. two older distinct towns with a lot of character. both have large land owners who control a lot of the commercial development. both have residents that want to have some say in how these areas are reshaped for the future. yet kailua residents get vilified as NIMBY assholes while north shore residents get to “keep the country, country.” there is an obvious, and irrational, hatred and double standard of people that live in kailua, that is blown up from these caricatured stereotypes of what “type” of person lives in kailua. it’s pretty ridiculous, and easily exposed otherwise normal seeming individuals for the prejudiced assholes they really are. do you ever hear someone say “i hate pearl city!”? every wonder why?
Bart:
“It is unfair to suggest only “wealthy” residents in Kailua want to preserve its character. Why would you say such a thing? ”
Since I did not “suggest” this, your emotional question has no answer and is unrelated to my comments. Try reading my statement again. That’s about all the time I’m wasting on this.
Actually… you did. :-O
And he’s right. I’m not even close to the poverty line (far below it) and I feel that Kaneohe Ranch is poisoning Kailua to the point where it’s unpleasant to go anywhere other than the back yard of my rental.
Those who have lots of money may squawk the loudest (and they do) but us ‘little people’ feel like there is no use in fighting Goliath, so you don’t see many of us joining in the chorus. But we’re there in spirit.
Most Kailuans just want ‘reasonable’ change – not blatant ‘Californication’ change. Our once relatively-quite town has become Kailuafornia and it rather sucks.
uh, actually, no. i have much less of a problem when an economically challenged person has gripes in life. But when a wealthy crybaby starts whining about Kailua yet again, i feel far less sympathy for them! i’m probably just wasting even more time explaining this to you, aikea. your hide-in-my-backyard attitude is really weird. i was in Kailua recently and some parts have changed from when i lived there 20 years ago. for some reason, i didn’t freak out and have a heart attack. sleep safe!
I’m having a hard time digesting the email issue – perhaps it’s too early in the day to be reading, idk. Anyway, it sounds to me like a bit of sarcasm, but not necessarily ‘dirty tricks.’ To a Caldwell supporter perhaps it does, but it pales in comparison to all the negative, over-the-top ads by PRP against Cayetano,
For the third time in that last 12 years, I’ve argued to the Keep it Kailua supporters to set up a petition to secede from the City & County of Honolulu, the State of Hawai`i, and the United State of America and then set up the Republic of Kailua. The first two times I was sort of joking, but after their electing individuals in 2010 & 2012 who support their anti-economic development activities through banning commercial activities which focus on visitors – defined as anyone not living in the 96734 Zipcode – such as restaurants, specialty retail businesses, water sports, rental cars & tour buses, I now urge them to move forward with this action. One of the KIK co-fpunders said that they cannot afford to be a stand-alone political entity (police, fire, potable water, sewers, etc) plus its most active members are too old and in not very good physical condition to fight in a 21st Century Civil War. Thus, they are using political & economic weapons to drive their opponents away.
The same KIK co-founder told me that their political & economic goals are to return Kailua to the early 1960s when it was a sleepy suburb in which people got into their cars and drove into dowotown Honolulu to go to work.
There was a move back in the ’50’s led by a Heco exec to incorporate Kailua as a separate municipality but it didn’t get far. However, the b&b and their merchant allies today have sprung for a well-paid lobbyist to advance their cause. She wrote an op ed piece suggesting that tourists were more advantageous tenants than locals who would only come with kids and over-crowd our schools! [ This at a time when schools were being considered for consolidation due to low enrollments.] Her aim: Kailua as “Carmel-by-the-Sea.” You’ve seen how Councilman Anderson has done an about face on commercialization issues. Kailuans are fed up.
Its a regular event each election cycle to know who Ian dislikes. Last time Mufi this time Kirk. I would love to play poker with you as your hand is always clear. Moderation is not the policy when your hurdling your sheep. I enjoy reading your ti leafs even if their painted green.
Once again, I can’t speak for anyone else but I’m very impressed by Ian’s continued ability to hurdle sheep at his age.
😆
I know, bad joke, but seriously… I don’t always agree with him but one thing I have never doubted is that Ian’s opinions are informed and well stated, and that his readers/commenters are intelligent enough to make up their own minds. Dismissing what goes on here as sheep hurdling is kind of silly.
I heart Kailua. That’s where my beach is (Kane’ohe doesn’t have one), and my weekly ACBL duplicate bridge game is (Kane’ohe doesn’t have one), and the absurdly yuppie Whole Foods (Kane’ohe doesn’t have one), and someday perhaps they’ll actually put up Target (pronounced in the French manner Tarzhay) where Holiday Mart (then Daiei) used to be (Kane’ohe doesn’t have one). I live in Kane’ohe with MY kind of folks — plebeian 99%ers living low off the hog, likely to vote for fellow man-of-the-people Ben (humble beginnings eloquently described in his autobiography), who sometimes go Kailua to see how the patrician limousine liberals live (sort of like going Kahala but less high-priced gas needed to get to Kailua).
So Ken, are you predicting Ben will get a higher percentage of the votes in Kaneohe than Kailua? If so, I am curious of the logic. I think Ben will be getting lots of votes from Hawaii Kai and Kahala. Not sure how that fits with your “plebian” characterization of Ben’s base.
Isn’t it fair to question the “connections and commitments” of political players and their families? If we have learned anything in the last 30 years or so, hasn’t it been that politico-personalities flock with and reward those who cater to them?
Nothing “cynical or conspiratorial” in asking the questions, in my opinion. Incidentally, is there a concern or negative connotation in keeping a lookout for something that might be “conspiratorial.”? I get tired of people trying to infer that an idea of conspiracy or a possibility thereof is something as crazy as the planet zing ding. It simply is not.
The United States Code has dozens of criminal conspiracy statutes. They were not put there by schizoid people who are afraid of freemasons and wear tinfoil hats. Also, those statutes are used daily across the country. It is not unusual for people to engage in criminal conspiracies – it is very common, the jails are full of convicted persons – a healthy percentage also being state and local politicians. Go to the US DOJ website and search under criminal conspiracies – you will get back pages and pages of news of convictions and indictments and get tired of counting. People are not to be criticized as thought they are thinking negatively or conspiracy theorists because the ask the questions.
I believe that denigrating a healthy and skeptical mind based on some perjorative take on the meaning of a phrase “cynical and conspiratorial” to characterize a political figures commitments and connections is just a way of telling people to shut up. Even journalists do it.
Without some kind of proof or reliable source, I don’t believe Kirk Caldwell (or any other politician) would be stupid enough to say, “What’s wrong with that?” in the situation described here. But some people will believe anything, because they want to, and because they don’t want to exercise critical thinking.
It just sounds like the usual pre-election mud-flinging. How I hate campaign season!
Virtually all political action is a “conspiracy” if by conspiracy you mean concerted action by one or more individuals to achieve an agreed upon end. And rarely are there coincidences in politics.
Kailua’s already been turned into Newport Beach West. Can’t even walk across the street anymore cuz of all the fat haoles in monster SUVs. All they’re lacking is a Republican Embassy.
Ian – sorry – I cant let this ridiculously racist comment slip past us. Im actually surprised you allowed it to be posted.
A.Nonymous:
Kailua is home to kids who are born and raised here in their community, many of whom are just trying to raise their kids now in the town they love.
We are children of this land, too. And so are our children.
Come look me in the eye and call me a f’n haole (because, really, you wrote ‘fat’ – but I know what you wanted to write, right?), and I assure you that I will gladly help adjust your understanding of haoles and how to be respectful of all humans.
And, just so I am extra clear on this: There are many, many hard core Democrats here in Kailua. My family and I have all worked our okoles off and made contributions for many D-candidates in office. You?
I have a child, and even though shes Hawaiian, its my business – its all of our business – to stand up to such hatred, such as your racist comment, to ensure a Hawaii that does not discriminate against any of its children.
Thank you. Well said.
This hard core Democrat and f’in haole (but alas, I drive a Prius) in Kailua thanks you.
On a lighter but very relevant note, I point you all to a recent South Park episode that touches on the very specific topic of haoles who feel entitled to Hawaii: http://southpark-zone.blogspot.com/2012/10/s16-going-native.html
It’s a rather scathing picture, and hilarious to boot.
i could not stop laughing. thank you for sharing! whoever wrote the episode must have known about the doomed concept of “Superferry” between the islands here.
This particular episode would be brilliant for the next Waikiki Sunset on the Beach, which means it will never, ever get shown there. oh well, maybe someday South Park will do a similar Hawaii episode on that controversial new invention known as “rail”.
Among these comments, local Democratic Party insiders complain that anyone in the suburbs who resist further sprawl and tourist industry and corporate development are selfish, wealthy conservatives.
Is this meant in irony?
On the mainland, it is Republicans who make the exact same accusations, only about “rich liberals” like Robert Redford.
This isn’t the first time the “Kailuans for Kirk” have tried to “help” him. It should be noted that the Chairman of Cayetano’s negative campaign “Defend Ben” (now Defend Truth) lives in Kailua, and has numerous nasty projects popping up to smear Kirk. They are fighting a ten point deficit and will do anything at this point.
Yup, This is a smear from an over enthusiastic Cayetano supporter.
Speaking of “dirty tricks,” reading the mayoral poll results from Sunday’s SA leaves me wanting another poll – one that asks people how much of a difference in traffic they believe rail will make. It would be nice to have an updated idea of how large a segment of the public understands that rail is projected to slow the rate at which traffic worsens versus those that have been led to incorrectly believe that rail will make traffic better than it is now.
Last night I did a search on the name of an opponent of rail who often posts online in order to hear more of what he has to say on a particular aspect of the rail project. One of the first results was a Facebook page from June in which this rail opponent had apparently engaged in a bit of a debate on rail. I would guess this to be the case from the responses on the page addressing him. For some reason the rail opponents comments were not visible on this Facebook page. The only comments I could see were those of rail supporters. The page appears to be controlled by I mua rail.
Here is the url:
http://www.facebook.com/IMuaRail/posts/341627179249400?comment_id=51519549&offset=0&total_comments=18
And below is part of a comment that appears near the top of the page.
“At least the rail will be in specific locations & in future expanded locations & will blend in with natural landscaping, as well as beautifying with further landscaping & planters, even wall art. Most importantly, helping to alleviate today’s crazy traffic on the freeways & highways, especially getting in/out of Honolulu. Let’s Go!!!
July 24 at 12:11pm”
Here we are in 2012 and people engaged deeply enough in the rail debate to be commenting on pro-rail web pages still believe that rail is going to make traffic better than it is now.
And here is someone quoted in Sunday’s SA story on their mayoral poll. Unfortunately the story is behind their paywall.
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/20121028_if_the_election_for_mayor_of_the_City_and_County_of_Honolulu_were_held_today_who_would_you_vote_for.html?id=176160431
“Jason Kim, a cellphone sales representative from Moanalua, said he is supporting Caldwell because he supports the rail project…. ‘I think the rail in itself is going to help traffic,’ said Kim, 37… My major issue is the traffic right now.'”
You have to wonder, just how many thousands of people are still walking around under the impression that traffic is going to better than it is now after rail is built. Millions of taxpayer dollars spent on “outreach” for the rail project — and this is the result.
Moving on to a different “dirty trick,” another question I would like to see asked in a poll is, which do you believe is capable of doing more to help traffic: building rail or increasing road capacity?
Numerous statements that have been repeated for years in all manner of media have left the public with the impression that a new and improved mass transit system is the most powerful tool available to either reduce traffic, or, to the better informed, slow our traffic’s growth rate. The question in the mind of many Oahu residents is, what kind of new transit system would help traffic most? Rail? Bus Rapid Transit?
Unfortunately, the concept of focusing on roadway improvements to help traffic has largely been dismissed from the public’s consciousness and consideration by repeated claims that every reasonable roadway improvement short of double-decking the H-1 either does not measure up to rail or has already been tried . Remember the “Move Oahu Forward” commercials from before the primary? If I recall correctly, part of it went sort of like “we already tried more buses and contraflow lanes and everything else now we need to build rail.”
Here is an example of another such statement that may leave listeners believing that more lane miles of roadway would not be as helpful to drivers as rail.
This link is to a story that describes the event but does not include the question and answer quoted below. If there is a question as to whether Kirk Caldwell actually said what is quoted below I can provide our host Ian Lind with an audio recording. The quote shouldn’t be too hard to believe since similar statements are made frequently and openly in public discussion.
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/19898209/kids-question-honolulu-mayoral-candidates?clienttype=printable (Again, url is only to reference event at which the following exchange took place)
On Oct. 23, 2012 Mayoral candidates Kirk Caldwell and Ben Cayetano participated in a debate hosted by the Rotary Club of Honolulu with questions asked by students of St. Andrews Priory.
St. Andrews Priory student: “How do you plan to address Honolulu’s issue of traffic?”
*Ben Cayetano promotes his FAST plan*
Kirk Caldwell: “Ben has been Governor and Lt. Governor for a whole bunch of years And the solution for traffic congestion was adding more cars, building more roads and adding more buses. Traffic better today? Anyone here say ‘yeah, traffic has gotten better?’ It’s gotten worse.”
Similar statements suggesting that increasing road capacity is a relatively inferior way to address traffic problems have been made by others on television and on the radio and in print and on many internet websites including the Star-Advertiser and Civil Beat forums. So it is no surprise that many if not most people believe the claim that taxpayer money spent on rail will help traffic more than taxpayer money spent on increasing road capacity. But is this really true?
Warning: My comment begins to get confusing here. I’ve done the best I could with the time available. If one so chooses, one is free to examine the two main excerpts from the June 2012 and April 2011 rail financial plans and ignore my explanations. Hopefully, what I’m talking about will be readily apparent.
The text below is taken from the June 2012, Honolulu Rail Transit Project: Final Financial Plan for Full Funding Grant Agreement, page 1-4 (The financial plans discussed in this comment are available for download from the rail project’s website at honolulutransit.org):
“Travelers on O‘ahu’s roadways experienced 71,800 vehicle hours of delay, a measure of how much time is lost daily by travelers in traffic, on a typical weekday in FY2007. This is expected to increase to 104,700 hours by FY2030, assuming all planned improvements in the O‘ahu Regional Transportation Plan (ORTP) are implemented (excluding a fixed guideway system). With the implementation of the Project, the vehicle hours of delay would be reduced to 85,800 vehicle hours.”
So by rail project planners’ estimates, in 2030, Honolulu drivers will experience 104,700 vehicle hours of delay on a typical weekday if rail is not built, but only 85,800 vehicle hours of delay if rail is built. A difference of 18,900 fewer vehicle hours of delay achieved by rail in 2030 compared with traffic without rail.
However, before we proceed, please take note that the 85,800 vehicle hours of delay is only achieved if “all planned improvements in the O‘ahu Regional Transportation Plan (ORTP) are implemented.”
Let us now focus on three claims made by rail project planners:
1. Travelers on Oahu’s roadway experienced 71,800 vehicle hours of delay in “2007.”
2.If planned roadway improvements are implemented but rail is NOT built, vehicle hours of delay will be 104,700 in 2030.
3. If rail is built AND the planned (but, I believe, mostly unfunded) roadway improvements are implemented, vehicle hours of delay will be 85,800 in 2030.
But there is a question left unanswered.
What happens to vehicle hours of delay if rail is NOT built AND planned roadway improvements are NOT implemented? This information would reveal how much help with traffic the planned roadway improvements would provide.
From what the June 2012 Final Financial Plan for rail tells us above, we know that, according to rail planners, rail will make a difference of 18,900 fewer daily vehicle hours of delay in the year 2030. This can be calculated by subtracting hours of delay if rail is built from hours of delay if rail is not built. But the info from the above plan does not allow us to perform this calculation to find out how much roadway improvement projects will help with traffic because the number of vehicle hours of delay that are projected to occur in 2030 if the planned roadway improvement projects are NOT implemented is not provided in the 2012 final financial plan. At least, not in the areas I’ve examined, which is where, I believe, one would expect such information to appear.
So is there a way to figure out how much traffic help roadway improvements alone would, without rail, give us? This would allow us to compare what roadway improvements would give us with what rail would give us, at least according to rail project planners in their communications with the FTA.
Before attempting to answer that question, a repeat look at Kirk Caldwell’s Oct. 23, 2012 answer to the St. Andrew’s Priory student’s question “How do you plan to address Honolulu’s issue of traffic?”
Kirk Caldwell: “Ben has been Governor and Lt. Governor for a whole bunch of years And the solution for traffic congestion was adding more cars, building more roads and adding more buses. Traffic better today? Anyone here say ‘yeah, traffic has gotten better?’ It’s gotten worse.”
Kirk Caldwell’s reply above gives me the impression that he does not think very highly of the idea of “building more roads” to address traffic problems. He seems to be disparaging or even attacking the idea of building more roads to help traffic. Well, he would know, I suppose. He was the city managing director and even the mayor for a while.
But rather than take Kirk Caldwell’s word for it, why don’t we check for ourselves? Just to be on the safe side.
In order to get a better idea of how much or how little “building more roads” would do for traffic as measured by daily vehicle hours of delay, let us turn our attention to an earlier draft of the rail financial plan from April 2011.
April 2011, Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project: Draft Financial Plan for Entry into Final Design:
Page 1-3
“Travelers on O‘ahu’s roadways currently experience 51,000 vehicle hours of delay, a measure of how much time is lost daily by travelers in traffic, on a typical weekday. This is expected to increase to 71,000 hours by 2030, assuming all planned improvements in the O‘ahu Regional Transportation Plan (ORTP) are implemented (excluding a fixed guideway system). Without the improvements, the vehicle hours of delay could reach as high as 326,000 vehicle hours.”
Here are some claims from the April 2011 financial plan to key in on:
1. Travelers on Oahu’s roadways experienced 51,000 vehicle hours of delay in “2011” (The authors of this April 2011 financial plan actually used the word “currently” but because this financial plan was released in 2011, I believe 2011 to be the year the word “currently” represents. In contrast, the “final” financial plan from June 2012 chose to use the Oahu vehicle hours of delay figure from “2007” which was 71,800. So the newer 2012 financial plan uses older numbers than the 2011 plan)
2. If planned roadway improvements are implemented but rail is not built, vehicle hours of delay are projected to be 71,000 vehicle hours in 2030. That is, if you build the roads but don’t build rail the result is 71,000 vehicle hours of delay in 2030. In the newer Final 2012 plan this figure that represents what will happen if you build roads but not rail has increased to 104,700. (Perhaps due to approval of Hoopili and Koa Ridge?)
3. There is no explicit equivalent to claim three listed above from the 2012 Final Financial Plan (at least not in section quoted above, it may appear elsewhere).
4. There is a bit of data in the April 2011 draft financial plan quoted above that does not appear in the higher above quoted section of the June 2012 Final Financial Plan (Having not studied the entire document, I’m unsure whether or not this data appears elsewhere in the 2012 final financial plan). In the 2011 draft financial plan, rail planners claim that, in the year 2030, if planned roadway improvements and, presumedly, the rail project were not implemented, traffic congestion as measured by vehicle hours of delay “could reach as high as 326,000 vehicle hours.”
If you’ll recall, the 326,000 vehicle hours of delay that is projected to result in 2030 if the planned roadway improvements are NOT implemented is the figure we’ve been searching for that was, I’m sure, inadvertently, left out of the 2012 Final Financial Plan (or at least left out of the place one would expect to find it since it was there in the 2011 draft).
This figure will allow us to calculate how much of a traffic benefit the planned roadway improvements would provide:
The 326,000 daily vehicle hours of delay projected to occur in 2030 if planned roadway improvements are NOT implemented MINUS the 71,000 daily vehicle hours of delay projected in 2030 if the planned roadway improvements ARE implemented comes to 255,000 fewer daily vehicle hours of delay thanks to “building more roads.”
That’s 255,000 hours saved through “building more roads” versus 18,900 hours saved through building rail.
Here’s something else from the data that illustrates how powerful a tool against traffic congestion road building can be in comparison with rail.
Please look at what I’ve listed higher up in this comment as claim (1) from each year’s financial plan (I’m using my own wording in these claims. One can refer to the financial plan excerpts above for the actual wording).
From the June 2012 final financial plan:
1. Travelers on Oahu’s roadways experienced “71,800” vehicle hours of delay in 2007.
From the April 2011 draft financial plan:
1. Travelers on Oahu’s roadways experienced “51,000” vehicle hours of delay in 2011.
“71,800” minus “51,000” comes to a 20,800 reduction in hours of delay on Oahu roads that occurred between 2007 and 2011.
To take a step backward for a moment, as covered earlier, rail is projected to slow the growth rate of traffic so that, in the year 2030, although traffic will be worse than it is today, roadway users would experience 18,900 fewer vehicle hours of delay than they otherwise would have experienced without rail.
So that is what the approximately 5 billion dollars to be spent on rail, assuming there are no cost overruns, is buying Oahu drivers and passengers in terms of slowing the growth rate of traffic congestion: 18,900 fewer daily vehicle hours of delay in the year 2030 for 5 billion dollars.
History, however, as calculated above with information from the financial plans that were primarily intended for the FTA’s consumption, tells us that vehicle hours of delay on Oahu fell by 20,800 hours between 2007 and 2011. This is a bigger savings in time (20,800 versus 18,900) than the rail is projected to provide in 2030 more than 10 years after its start of service if it is completed on schedule.
The slowed economy and other factors may have played a part in the 2011 reduction in traffic from what drivers and their passengers were experiencing back in 2007, but it seems likely that roadway improvements in the Ewa and Kapolei areas were responsible for most of the reduction in traffic. And, while I don’t have the information at hand, I don’t believe these road projects cost anywhere near what rail is projected to cost if rail manages to be completed on budget. Yet, these relatively inexpensive roadway improvement projects with completion dates that fall between 2007 and 2011 were able to accomplish more to address traffic than rail is projected to accomplish.
And please keep in mind that the 2007 to 2011 reduction in vehicle hours of delay is an actual reduction in traffic congestion, as in less traffic congestion afterward than existed beforehand.
Yet rail proponent and candidate for mayor Kirk Caldwell is these days telling teenagers who are concerned about the daunting island traffic problems they will soon inherit —
Kirk Caldwell: “Ben has been Governor and Lt. Governor for a whole bunch of years And the solution for traffic congestion was adding more cars, building more roads and adding more buses. Traffic better today? Anyone here say ‘yeah, traffic has gotten better?’ It’s gotten worse.”
In light of what the draft and final rail financial plans have to say, if you look hard enough, about the building of roads and Oahu’s traffic past and traffic future, something seems very wrong with Kirk Caldwell’s reply to those St. Andrews Priory students concerned about traffic. Wrong and troublesome, and dishonest.
I’m not sure what happened to my whale length comment. I’ve got paragraphs where I composed it before copy-pasting
Well, I might as well add that as long as we are planning to do them at some point anyway, and since the rail financial plans say they are going to do better than twelve times more to help traffic than rail would, and since traffic congestion is the main concern of so many more people than the number of people projected to ride the rail, I hope a way can be found to start the process of getting the most beneficial of these roadway improvement projects underway as soon as possible.
This would likely make for a long process under the best of circumstances (pm zipper lane excluded), but will, unfortunately, likely take years longer as long as most of our resources are focused on the rail project.
Remember, on Oahu — roads beat rail — the rail plans say so.
Here is a somewhat condensed version of my really long post for anyone interested but who isn’t about to read through all that.
The point I’m trying to make is that, contrary to what many claim, roadway improvements will do much more to slow the growth rate of traffic congestion on Oahu than rail will. The information that supports this assertion comes from two versions of the rail project’s financial plans.
The text below is taken from the June 2012, Honolulu Rail Transit Project: Final Financial Plan for Full Funding Grant Agreement, page 1-4 (The financial plans discussed in this comment are available for download from the rail project’s website at honolulutransit.org):
“Travelers on O‘ahu’s roadways experienced 71,800 vehicle hours of delay, a measure of how much time is lost daily by travelers in traffic, on a typical weekday in FY2007. This is expected to increase to 104,700 hours by FY2030, assuming all planned improvements in the O‘ahu Regional Transportation Plan (ORTP) are implemented (excluding a fixed guideway system). With the implementation of the Project, the vehicle hours of delay would be reduced to 85,800 vehicle hours.”
So by rail project planners’ estimates, in 2030, Honolulu drivers will experience 104,700 vehicle hours of delay on a typical weekday if rail is not built, but only 85,800 vehicle hours of delay if rail is built. A difference of 18,900 fewer vehicle hours of delay achieved by rail in 2030 compared with traffic without rail.
In order to get a better idea of how much or how little “building more roads” would do for traffic as measured by daily vehicle hours of delay, let us turn our attention to an earlier draft of the rail financial plan from April 2011.
April 2011, Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project: Draft Financial Plan for Entry into Final Design:
Page 1-3
“Travelers on O‘ahu’s roadways currently experience 51,000 vehicle hours of delay, a measure of how much time is lost daily by travelers in traffic, on a typical weekday. This is expected to increase to 71,000 hours by 2030, assuming all planned improvements in the O‘ahu Regional Transportation Plan (ORTP) are implemented (excluding a fixed guideway system). Without the improvements, the vehicle hours of delay could reach as high as 326,000 vehicle hours.”
The 326,000 daily vehicle hours of delay projected to occur in 2030 if planned roadway improvements are NOT implemented MINUS the 71,000 daily vehicle hours of delay projected in 2030 if the planned roadway improvements ARE implemented comes to 255,000 fewer daily vehicle hours of delay thanks to “building more roads.”
That’s 255,000 hours saved through “building more roads” versus 18,900 hours saved through building rail.
Here’s something else from the data that illustrates how powerful a tool against traffic congestion road building can be in comparison with rail.
I’m using my own wording below. One can refer to the financial plan excerpts above for the actual wording.
From the June 2012 final financial plan:
1. Travelers on Oahu’s roadways experienced “71,800” vehicle hours of delay in 2007.
From the April 2011 draft financial plan:
1. Travelers on Oahu’s roadways experienced “51,000” vehicle hours of delay in 2011.
“71,800” minus “51,000” comes to a 20,800 reduction in hours of delay on Oahu roads that occurred between 2007 and 2011.
To take a step backward for a moment, as covered earlier, rail is projected to slow the growth rate of traffic so that, in the year 2030, although traffic will be worse than it is today, roadway users would experience 18,900 fewer vehicle hours of delay than they otherwise would have experienced without rail.
So that is what the approximately 5 billion dollars to be spent on rail, assuming there are no cost overruns, is buying Oahu drivers and passengers in terms of slowing the growth rate of traffic congestion: 18,900 fewer daily vehicle hours of delay in the year 2030 for 5 billion dollars.
History, however, as calculated above with information from the financial plans that were primarily intended for the FTA’s consumption, tells us that vehicle hours of delay on Oahu fell by 20,800 hours between 2007 and 2011. This is a bigger time savings (20,800 hours versus 18,900 hours) than the rail is projected to provide in 2030 more than 10 years after its start of service if it is completed on schedule.
The slowed economy and other factors may have played a part in the 2011 reduction in traffic from what drivers and their passengers were experiencing back in 2007, but it seems likely that roadway improvements in the Ewa and Kapolei areas were responsible for most of the reduction in traffic. And, while I don’t have the information at hand, I don’t believe these road projects cost anywhere near what rail is projected to cost if rail manages to be completed on budget. Yet, these relatively inexpensive roadway improvement projects with completion dates that fall between 2007 and 2011 were able to accomplish more to address traffic than rail is projected to accomplish by 2030.
And please keep in mind that the 2007 to 2011 reduction in vehicle hours of delay is an actual reduction in traffic congestion, as in less traffic congestion afterward than existed beforehand.
Remember, on Oahu — roads beat rail — the rail plans say so.
After all the controversy and passion expended on the rail issue, it won’t be elected leaders on the City Council or the Mayor’s post who kill it. Even if all the politicians at the local level were against, it, it has been set up to be independent of the political system. So democracy is irrelevant here.
The GET being collected to subsidize the rail project belongs to the State, and the State is now girding itself of economic calamity, and State politicians are now reminding everyone that those GET funds ultimately belong to the State and can be redirected at the State’s will.
Also, federal funding has become uncertain in a way that would have been unthinkable just ten years ago. In Hawaii, we have come to think of federal largess almost as a a constant, like the law of gravity. That’s an illusion.
“…federal funding has become uncertain in a way that would have been unthinkable just ten years ago.”
Totally agree w/Dion.
And this (to me) is why the effort to keep transportation dollars for roads and not for transit is so fierce.
Ian, I saw your tweet (actually it was a retweet) about the $100,000.00 to SaveOurHonolulu.com from the CEO of Roberts Hawaii before any other media reported it.
And that made me remember the Civil Beat series about Hawaii’s runaway school bus costs and the increases that Roberts Hawaii gained from being the only bidder on bus routes.
“Roberts Hawaii is by far the biggest of the companies that provides school bus service. Civil Beat’s analysis shows that of the 840 routes the Hawaii Department of Education solicited bids for over the last 12 years, Roberts won more than 50 percent. The next-biggest contractor, Gomes School Bus Service, won only 11 percent of the routes put out for bid.”
http://www.civilbeat.com/articles/2011/10/31/13410-taken-for-a-ride-hawaiis-runaway-school-bus-costs/
“The company let all 10 of its regular education route contracts from 2005 expire this year, and when it rebid offered roughly the same increase — 80 percent more than its last bid six years ago. None of the other 11 existing contractors competed, so Roberts Hawaii will receive $5.8 million for those contracts over the next year.”
http://www.civilbeat.com/articles/2011/08/16/12497-prices-soar-when-firms-rebid-for-school-bus-routes-they-already-serve/
I think this one may qualify as not only a dirty trick, but a dangerous one too.
It has been widely reported that the Hawaii Supreme Court ruling delaying rail construction will cost the rail project about $7 to $10 million per month until a full archaeological inventory survey or AIS can be completed.
In addition to that, however, assertions made by the city in a December 27, 2011 request to the FTA seeking to obtain a Letter of No Prejudice (LONP) that would allow the city to begin limited construction activities before the FTA commits to a funding agreement for rail suggest that the construction delay may have other undesirable impacts.
In the request for permission to start construction ahead of receiving a funding agreement the city warns the FTA of what would happen if a letter of no prejudice was not granted to Honolulu’s rail project :
http://www.slideshare.net/civilbeat/hart-requests-fta-lonp
“Optimal construction sequencing is also important to HART in order to minimize traffic impacts to the public. Should this LONP 2 request not be approved, the work would require overlapping construction along major highways and arterials creating additional major traffic disruptions and putting public safety at risk along the already congested corridor.” — Honolulu Authority For Rapid Transportation
The FTA did agree to allow the city to start construction early, which in turn presumably allowed the city to avoid “creating major traffic disruptions and putting public safety at risk.” At least for a time.
But while the city was able to convince the FTA to go along with its effort to attempt to mitigate a past administration’s mistake of signing rail contracts too early, they were not able to do the same with the Hawaii Supreme Court.
Although the project is months ahead of where it would have been if the FTA had refused to let the rail project start construction work ahead of receiving a funding agreement, the rail project is obviously still at a very early stage of construction.
So does the substance of the city’s warnings to the FTA remain in effect? Have HART and its Executive Director Dan Grabauskas neglected to inform the public that if and when rail construction is resumed “the work would require overlapping construction along major highways and arterials creating major traffic disruptions and PUTTING PUBLIC SAFETY AT RISK along the already congested corridor.”? (emphasis mine)
I wrote about this once before a while back, yet when I read the above LONP request quote from HART I find that it still startles me that putting public safety at risk for the sake of this rail project was ever an option.
And now it might be worse than that.