I think Dave Shapiro, writing in today’s Star-Advertiser, focuses appropriate attention on the appointment of the chair of the city’s Authority for Rapid Transportation as an attorney for First Hawaiian Bank.
Civil Beat noted the appointment of Carrie Okinaga, a partner at the law firm of McCorriston Miller Mukai MacKinnon before being named city’s top attorney by Mayor Hannemann in 2005 and again in 2009, and serving most recently as chair of the agency in charge of Honolulu’s proposed rail system.
The problem has nothing to do with Okinaga’s obvious professional and political skills.
Shapiro wrote:
One of Okinaga’s main connections to First Hawaiian Bank is its chairman, Don Horner, who is her fellow board member on the city transit authority and a major power there as head of the finance committee.
How cozy.
Okinaga, a former city corporation counsel, admitted to Honolulu Civil Beat that Horner encouraged her to apply for a job at his bank, but said she waited to start until after Jan. 1, when Horner dropped the CEO title he held in addition to chairman. As if that makes all the difference.
Shapiro traces more details of the links between FHB and the rail system, including the financial ties between the bank’s parent company and the Italian conglomerate that won the $1.4 billion core contract for the system.
He concludes:
These incestuous ties too often seen in the Oahu rail project erode public confidence that the most expensive public works job in Hawaii’s history will be carried out in an honest and cost-conscious manner with the public interest foremost in mind.
I would likely agree that there’s no direct conflict of interest, in legal terms, as a result of Okinaga’s new position as an executive of First Hawaiian.
The whole situation, however, illustrates the tight circle of political and financial powers intent on pushing this system forward with only a very expensive illusion of public choice and input.
An architect once complained to me that a city workshop held to ostensibly get “input” from the architectural community actually solicited suggestions on very limited aspects, such as the color schemes in stations, rather than any more substantive design decisions that had already been made in back rooms.
The McCorriston law firm, where Okinaga was formerly a partner, got the contract to defend the contract awarded to Ansaldo, to keep the small-world theme going. However, Okinaga does not have any residual financial interest in the firm, according to the public financial disclosure she filed as Honolulu Corporation Counsel.
Okinaga’s husband, Scott W.H. Seu, is vice-president, energy resources, for Hawaiian Electric, another key part of the Hawaii’s current power elite.
In response to a question on the form filled out by prospective appointees about ownership or stock interests in companies doing business with the city, Okinaga noted her husband’s position at Hawaiian Electric, then continued: “I am personally not aware of holdings in other firms contracting with the City.”
A good lawyerly answer, I suppose.
By the way, this is the first time I’ve noticed that certain financial disclosures filed with the City Clerk are publicly available online at Can-Do.Honolulu.gov. There are currently only a limited number of documents available, but items like the financial disclosures have not previously been available to the public through the city’s Docushare system.
And if you missed it, check out yesterday’s New York Times story on Honolulu rail.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Did you mean “does NOT” in this sentence:
However, Okinaga does have any residual financial interest in the firm, according to the public financial disclosure she filed as Honolulu Corporation Counsel.
Absolutely! Thank you.
IMHO, City Hall became so blatant in thumping its nose at taxpayers during the Mufi Hannemann years. Attorneys run the gamut and all they care about was it fits into the legal frame. It’s ok if it stinks as long as it appears legal.
But they digress in many ways due to arrogance and incompetence.
I just read the New York Times article and I’ve got a question about the assertion that the majority of the island now supports rail. My question is, what rail are we talking about? The one in the fantasy the city was telling the public before the 2008 rail vote? Or the real one? To me, the city is still avoiding talking about the real one, so the people who are not getting rich and who support rail because of what they think it will do for traffic, those people must be supporting the fantasy.
What fantasy? Remember, there were only 15,000 something more “yes” votes than “no” votes cast to that ballot question. Also remember, the train is not going to make traffic better for West Oahu residents than it is today, yet rail backers keep saying that it is going to alleviate traffic.
Two points:
1) The city is using a multimodal message tactic to promoting rail. They have one message for the internet where word has spread that rail is not going to make traffic better than it is now, and they have a different message for the popular news media in which they rarely or never directly mention the dispute over whether they have been honest about what rail will do for rush hour traffic. If you follow this debate online, things like the following are said, “of course traffic is going to get worse as the population grows, everyone of normal intelligence would realize that” (paraphrased). Besides the fact that the truth of this assertion is very debatable, when do they ever make that point that way in the mainstream news? Right now, I don’t think most residents who don’t follow the internet debate closely are aware that traffic is not going to get better after rail is built.
Okay, the point I’m drifting away from is that back in 2008 there was only one main message, i.e., rail will make traffic better period. Yes, the truth had occasionally been let out, but the little sips of truth that inadvertently slipped out to the public thanks to certain reporters and specific circumstances have been overwhelmed by an ocean of what could at best be called “misleading” statements.
Which leads to another observation, what does “future” traffic refer to? The context of the city’s message leads one to think that when they say that “future” traffic will be eased by rail they simply mean that because the project won’t be completed until years in the “future” we won’t get the benefits of better traffic than today’s until that “future” time rolls around.
What else are you supposed to think when, for example, you’ve got Maeda Timpson sitting next to Carlisle in a morning news interview emotionally stating that traffic is “hooorrible” for people from West Oahu after which Carlisle says we’ve got to build rail, period, and does not bother to mention that with rail traffic will continue to get even more “horrible” and that the relief he is mentioning applies only to rail users?
Why even refer to rail’s effect on traffic by saying that rail will alleviate, reduce, ease, etc., it? There are lots of examples I can and will provide later of our government officials using “alleviate” to describe road improvements which, upon completion, will make traffic flow faster than it did before. Improvements being made in Kapolei and Ewa for example. Over there, alleviate means make better than today, not worse but better than it otherwise would have been.
When Mufi was talking about this rail project way back in 2005, he said it would slow the growth of traffic, which is a much more accurate way to describe what rail is projected to do. Its also hard to confuse that phrase with making traffic better than it is now. But later, he stopped using that phrase and switched to saying it would “alleviate future traffic.” Why the change?
Okay, I’m running out of time although I’ve got a lot more to say on the subject, but I’ll leave anyone reading with this. A description of what the rail we were told we would be getting would do for traffic, from a November 3, 2008 Star-Bulletin story titled “Rail to alter landscape”:
http://archives.starbulletin.com/content/20081103_rail_to_alter_landscape
Begin Quote***
The long-awaited report, a so-called Draft Environmental Impact Statement totaling more than 500 pages, also details cost estimates that put the system’s construction cost closer to $5 billion, a figure that includes inflation, interest and, local officials hope, federal funding.
The report, conducted by the city team overseeing the project and several consulting firms, confirmed many benefits that rail proponents have boasted of in recent weeks—including reduced traffic congestion, an estimated 11,000 new jobs and minimal additional noise and air pollution.
The reduced congestion estimated for the year 2030 ranges from about 21 to 23 percent, which Mayor Mufi Hannemann compared to traffic when school is not in session.
***End Quote
And from further down in the story:
“Hannemann scrambled to release the report over the weekend in time for tomorrow’s general election, which includes a ballot question on rail, amid pressure and claims that he was withholding information from voters.”
A rail that would bring future traffic in 2030 down to 2008 “school is not in session” levels I would support. This rail we are actually getting, I don’t know, because I still don’t know for sure exactly what it is projected to do for drive times.
In case anyone hadn’t noticed, the new tactic is to insist that traffic without rail would be, if I’m remembering correctly, “a catastrophe,” while being very careful to never quantify exactly what that means in terms of travel times by car to and from West Oahu during rush hours. I’m still waiting for the answer to that question.
I forgot to add, I know some will deny it, but if we are honest with ourselves, does anyone really believe that the 21 to 23% less traffic/ like school not in session lie didn’t make a difference of more than enough votes to swing the 2008 vote?
The person boarding the train at the UH West Oahu station and arriving 40 minutes later at Ala Moana Shopping Center will probably not agree with your contention that his traffic congestion problem has not been resolved, not to mention the beneficial impact on family finances of not having to operate an auto to make the trip.
“The person boarding the train at the UH West Oahu station and arriving 40 minutes later at Ala Moana Shopping Center will probably not agree with your contention that his traffic congestion problem has not been resolved”
Does this person you are talking about live at UH West and work at the mall, or live at the mall and work at UH West? Because if not, then you are intentionally ignoring some important details.
Did you know that “a person” can fly from Oahu to Kauai in 20 minutes? So, what time do you leave your house if you have to be in Kapa’a at 4pm? (Assume you travel by bus to and from the airport)
According to Table 3-12 from Chapter 3 of the FEIS, if rail is built, public transportation’s (basically the train and the bus combined) share of daily trips made on Oahu in 2030 will be 7.4 percent; privately owned automobile’s share would be 80.1 percent and the remaining share of trips would be distributed between individuals biking and walking to their destinations.
Now, my understanding is that these projected share percentages from the FEIS are for trips made on Oahu island wide in a full day. Rail may be projected to have a larger share of trips made to and from West Oahu during peak traffic hours than 7.4 percent, but even during peak traffic hours, far more West Oahu residents will be traveling to work by car than by rail.
Before the 2008 vote, the city said users of rail would be able to get from the East Kapolei Station to the Ala Moana Station in 42 minutes not counting short waits between trains and the length of time it takes to get from home to the train station platform.
But the city also said something else. They also said that rail would reduce traffic encountered by cars by about 20% from 2008 levels so that traveling by car would be like it is when school is not in session.
You seem to feel it’s enough for the city to fulfill its promise to only one group–future users of rail. But shouldn’t the people from the other group get to decide for themselves whether they are okay with being cheated out of their votes in 2008? Where do you draw the line when it comes to deception by the city? If the city had told the people the train was going to be free because the FTA had agreed to pay for whole thing, would winning the vote with that lie have been okay too?
Undecided – for whom do you work? An automobile/bus manufacturer? The coal industry? The oil/petroleum industry? The gas industry? The fracking industry? People who oppose mass transit support fossil fuels for transportation becaause they have a financial interest in keeping the rest of us financially tied up.
The residents of Hawai`i export $7 BILLION dollars a year on fossil fuels for both energy/power and vehicles. Eliminate airplane usages, we still send over $4 BILLION outside the state of which about $2.5 BILLION is spent on transportation fossil fuels.
Why are people like you so upset over the cost of a mass transit system – $5+BILLION – when you remain silent about our sending over $20 BILLION overseas during the next eight years of the construction phase for ground transportation fossil fuels.
BTW – I have absolutely no financial interests in either renewable energy companies or mass transit systems. I am not a private or public sector union member nor an employee of a civil engineering or construction firm.
I am simply willing to put up with a less-than-perfect mass transit system which will help reduce our population’s use of fossil fuels and their impacts on climate change and rising sea levels.
Mass transit is not the only answer to reducing our fossil fuel dependency, but it is an important start.
The rail as planned will run on electricity derived 90% from oil, 10% from coal.
I don’t work in any of the above mentioned industries.
This wouldn’t happen to be an attack the messenger tactic, would it?
I don’t have time right now to provide a complete reply to your comment, and if I do have some time available this evening there are some other things rail I will want to address first. But I intend to get to your comment when time permits. The environment and energy self-reliance certainly sound like worthy topics to me.
What I will say right now though, is that no matter the outcome of our discussion it won’t change the fact that the city lied to the public before the 2008 vote when they told the public that rail would reduce traffic by around 20%. It’s the prerogative of the voters to vote according to their own priorities. If it is the will of the voters that a potential benefit rail might provide should be passed up in favor of a different benefit, be it wastewater system upgrades, the elimination of public employee furloughs in order to restore government services, the pursuit of other clean energy goals, or what have you, then the will of the voters should prevail and rail should not be built.
The problem is that the city cheated the public out of that right by falsely claiming that rail would deliver a benefit that it won’t, specifically — a reduction in traffic to a level about 20% below that which existed in 2008.
cwd: I would think that big oil, big coal, and big… fracking would be supporting this rail project wholeheartedly. There are fortunes to made (and are being made) with this project. Nobody is getting rich being against it. For example, did you know that the City of Honolulu pays (PAYS!) PR firms to pretend to be concerned citizens commenting online on blogs like this, in an effort to bolster rail’s support? I was shocked too.
With the Hannemann/Carlisle rail as it is planned, Oahu will be burning more fossil fuel than ever before. For the first decade will we have new air-conditioned rail offices and heavy construction equipment belching out black smoke and enormous oil powered container ships bringing tons and tons of concrete from Portland, Steel from Pittsburgh and trains from Italy.
Then, when the train is finished, Oahu will burn more oil than ever before as D R Horton builds it’s new suburban neighborhoods over ag land and the train burns OIL night and day clattering between “Ali’i Acres” or whatever the developers decide to call it and the Ala Moana Mall.
Do you know of a single person who plans to get of their car because there will be a bus to a standing room only train to a bus between work and home?
Oahu will burn more fossil fuel than ever before if this train gets built.
please provide detailed evidence, numbers and reliable sources for your assertions here, kalaheo. thank you.
and good luck.
Unless you are interested in holding “cwd” (and the City of Honolulu) to the same standards of detailed evidence, numbers and reliable sources, then I’m not interested in playing if you are going to give them a complete pass and then ask me to chase my tail. No thank you.
“cwd”‘s assertions aside, the City of Honolulu’s FEIS for rail makes sweeping statements about rail being energy efficient and gives energy usage data it contains no evidence that it has done anything other than make up numbers. Its only reference is to the “Air Quality and Energy Use Technical Memorandum” but that doesn’t seem to provide sources either. (paraphrased)
http://www.honolulutraffic.com/HNL_rail_energy_use.pdf
oh please. you love to be “playing” or you wouldn’t be making reactive posts like this: “For example, did you know that the City of Honolulu pays (PAYS!) PR firms to pretend to be concerned citizens commenting online on blogs like this, in an effort to bolster rail’s support? I was shocked too.”
methinks you’re already chasing your tail.
Oh that! That’s an easy one.
The City of Honolulu, and now HART has employed numerous PR firms to promote rail to the taxpayers.
For example, if you follow Ian’s blog, The Civil Beat, and The Star Advertiser you’d see the postings of Doug Carlson, concerned citizen, who also happens to be contracted by the city to convince us rubes that the current rail project is the best idea ever.
He hasn’t been seen much around here since being caught at it and called on it. Is that what you mean by my being “reactive?”
well, let’s see, Doug Carlson, concerned citizen, posted a couple times about rail recently.
yes, your comments are “reactive.” and not very strong.
keep posting them, if you like!
“Nobody is getting rich being against it. ”
The taxi and tour bus companies and auto dealers are doing just fine without the rail and have a vested interest in opposing it, so they do so, along with a few elitist toll-road lovers and rich tax-haters and gated-community types.
“Do you know of a single person who plans to get of their car because there will be a bus to a standing room only train to a bus between work and home?”
Not everyone owns a car, not everyone wants to, not everyone can afford to, not everyone should, and not everyone will.
Brevity, not ad nasuem please: “The taxi and tour bus companies and auto dealers are doing just fine without the rail and have a vested interest in opposing it, so they do so, along with a few elitist toll-road lovers and rich tax-haters and gated-community types.”
I’m afraid you’ve lost me. Do you think people in Ewa and Kapolei take taxi’s to and from work??? Does the train go to the Dole Plantation or the Polynesian Cultural center??
And what’s wrong with asking the people who are using the resource to pay for it. Why do you think it’s okay for taxpayers to support the train and still charge users fare, but charging drivers toll is somehow unfair? Don’t get me wrong, I hate hate toll roads too, but I don’t understand your distinction.
As for everyone not needing or wanting a car, I agree with you there too. But I am skeptical about all wild claims about how many cars this train is supposed to take off the road.
“I’m afraid you’ve lost me. Do you think people in Ewa and Kapolei take taxi’s to and from work???”
No, and I never suggested that in any way whatsoever. But what’s that got to do with anything? You’ve lost me. The point is, many (but not all) of those actively opposing rail could care less how people from Ewa and Kapolei get to work. They’re satisfied making money off those who do take taxis and tour buses or drive privately owned cars (which includes quite a few people in Ewa and Kapolei and most everywhere else). These interests don’t intend to personally take the train, and they don’t want to lose market share from others who will. That’s the point.
“Why do you think it’s okay for taxpayers to support the train and still charge users fare, but charging drivers toll is somehow unfair?”
Just who do you think pays for road construction and maintenance? I’m not saying that charging drivers a toll is somehow unfair, I’m saying toll roads are elitist and best serve those who choose to drive, have the financial means to own and operate cars, and can pay even more to access what amounts to a gated community. And I’m saying it’s unfair, short-sighted and wrong to obstruct and deny alternatives.
Brevity, not ad nasuem please: “No, and I never suggested [that people in Ewa and Kapolei take taxi cabs to and from work] in any way whatsoever.
You really have lost me, but I’m trying hard to give you the benefit of the doubt.
You said “The taxi and tour bus companies and auto dealers … have a vested interest in opposing.” Then to clarify it, you say “These interests … don’t want to lose market share from others who will.”
So my question, again is, how does a train from the mall to the edge of Kapolei compete with taxi cabs and tour buses? No one is going to fly to Oahu to take a train to see D R Horton’s newest “suburban sprawl of tomorrow” instead of the Polynesian Cultural Center and Dole Plantation; and you’ve clarified that you don’t think that the home in Kapolei to work Honolulu commute twice a day by taxi cab is a real thing either.
In fact, if the City of Honolulu and HART’s projections were considered factual, you would think that the taxi cab and the tour bus companies would be rail’s biggest supporters, because while they don’t compete for passengers, they would profit considerable by faster travel times… like Mufi Hanneman’s promise of traffic like when school is out of session.
Yet you maintain that taxi cab and tour bus companies must be the ones opposing rail. It’s almost like you don’t believe The City of Honolulu and Mufi Hanneman’s promises either.
kalaheo, it’s very tedious to respond to false dichotomies and misstated arguments, so this will be my final observation here.
“So my question, again is, how does a train from the mall to the edge of Kapolei compete with taxi cabs and tour buses?”
It’s like this: The rail will serve the airport, where taxi and bus companies have a virtual monopoly on transportation for many, many people, and make lots of money from it. They also want continued public spending on infrastructure that supports their industries, without serious competition from other transportation modes. Limiting your arguments to Kapolei etc. and repeatedly omitting any mention of auto dealers and related industries is just a fallacy or a smokescreen.
“you’ve clarified that you don’t think that the home in Kapolei to work Honolulu commute twice a day by taxi cab is a real thing either.”
Correct, because nobody but you is entertaining that red herring, so let’s just dispose of it.
“Yet you maintain that taxi cab and tour bus companies must be the ones opposing rail. ”
Well, that’s because they ARE among those opposing rail (but are not the only ones, which no one has alleged), and it’s not even a secret. They’re a driving force behind the Slater bunch, where they’re proudly listed among the “business and organization” members. They’re probably among those bankrolling the lawsuit instigated by Slater and co., but that’s not clear because the funding sources for that endeavor ARE being kept a secret, deliberately. But don’t take my word for it, just look at the list of allies that Slater acknowledges at “honolulutraffic.com” a constant spewer of dubious anti-rail propaganda that is easily debunked by anyone of average intelligence who takes a serious look:
Business & Organizations
Andy’s Pool Service Corp.
Charley’s Taxi & Tours
E.N. Kemp & Associates, Inc.
Elite Limousine
Grassroot Institute
Hawaii Activities andTours
Association (HAATA)
Hawaii Transportation Association
HonCab
Kahala Kai Taxi
Maui Divers of Hawaii, Ltd.
Moana Taxi
Pacific Business Appraisers, LLC
Pacific Business Valuation, LLC
Paradise Cruise, Ltd.
Pegge Hopper Gallery
Polynesian Hospitality
RobertsHawaii
Robert’s Taxi
Small BusinessHawaii (SBH)
Star Taxi
Superstar Hawaii Transit
Talk Story Magazine, Inc.
The Cab
Waikiki Residents Association
Waikiki Taxi
They can’t kill (at least permanently) the rail — they can just delay it and make it more expensive.
Yet they try… they haven’t got heart, and we don’t have HART – just yet another attempt at mass transit.
If you live on eastern Oahu or windward side, well you got your H3, and Kal Hwy improvements. Max rush hour maybe an hour long (without calamities).
Meanwhile, central and leeward Oahu both have 2 rush periods each workday, each about 4 hours in duration… and mass transit would provide an alternative and some relief, as no one plans another freeway or Pearl Harbor access channel tunnel/ bridge to bypass and thereby provide some relief.
Yeah, if we don’t build mass transit now, when and at what cost?
Just the way people facing this kind of congestion have stubbornly refused to move to areas with less congestion, they will likewise stubbornly refuse to use a rail system. They want their neighbors to use it. People who insist on living in houses will insist on sticking to their cars, no matter how bad traffic gets.
wow! you so good at reading minds: “People who insist on living in houses will insist on sticking to their cars, no matter how bad traffic gets.”
please, enlighten us on everything that people think. you could make all 7 billion humans rich and healthy by tomorrow!!!
not.
i’d rather have some common sense: many people who live in Kapolei to reduce their costs are MORE likely to use rail, not expensive cars with expensive costs.
“Do you know of a single person who plans to get of their car because there will be a bus to a standing room only train to a bus between work and home?”
People who live in DHHL’s East Kapolei project will be able to walk to the Kroc Center station, get on an empty train and get off within walking distance of office buildings down town.
Others living near UH West Oahu will be able to drive to the park and ride at the UH West Oahu station, get on a train with only those riders that got on at the first station, so they probably mostly get seats.
And, I am confused because I thought your argument was that nobody was going to ride the train so why is it so crowded they have to stand?
Oh, and I do know one person who lives in the Villages of Kapolei who does intend to ride the train to work instead of taking a car to town.
And do you know anybody who drives from the West side and gets regularly stuck in traffic who is not going to think twice about continuing that pattern when they see the train speeding by at 40 mph?
Lopaka43: “And, I am confused because I thought your argument was that nobody was going to ride the train so why is it so crowded they have to stand?”
It only takes 36 people to take all the seats on the thing. That’s not crowded, but it is standing room only.
“Nobody goes there anymore because it’s too crowded.”
gosh, that sounds familiar, kalaheo………..
Note that in the NYT article Carlisle says that this is a jobs program more than a trans solution.
Peter Carlisle threw the taxpyers under the bus the second he became mayor of Honolulu. I hope Ben Cayetano will kick Peter and Mufi Hannemann cronies out of City Hall.
I don’t think this is about traffic solution or jobs program. I think this is about Transit Orient Development. They are now quietly “holding public information” on this. This TOD will allow private international investors to
control Oahu.
Clue: Peter Carlisle and Stanley Chang went to Taiwan, China and Korea to ask for investors.
But transit oriented development can really be a win-win. Development and redevelopment near transit can concentrate population growth along this corridor, drawing more people onto the transit system, reducing growth pressure in other areas, providing a variety of types of housing, etc. When you look at mainland cities with good mass transit, one of the first questions about housing is whether it’s convenient to transit. I’m in favor of this part of the transit equation, and in favor of rail in general. What I’m opposed to and angry about is the city’s insistence on sticking with a 40-year old plan from Frank Fasi’s era and refusing to consider the technology options that have been developed in the subsequent decades and are now relied on in most parts of the country
Ian, does this mean that you will be moving into an apartment in Kalihi?
There is a lot of talk about TOD, but in general people live in Hawaii because they want to get away from high-density urbanization. This is especially true of people on the west side of Oahu, who could avoid the traffic if they moved into an apartment in town.
yes, all they have to do is sell their home and become an apartment renter, as if they were in college again!!!
parents in a state with high real estate prices would LOVE to do that and basically give up their home? right.
If TOD is the ‘real’ goal of the train, wouldn’t it make more sense to have at-grade rail through town, facilitating more stops and thus more TOD?
I would agree that it would make much more sense.
As far as I know, there are no real plans whatsoever for Transit Oriented Development.
Regarding rail transit:
There is no doubt that thousands of people need to commute to the urban core every day.
The question is: how do you move thousands of people, without using cars, and independently of road traffic?
For those who think buses are the answer, they need to ride one in rush hour traffic for a year to truly appreciate how much time it consumes.
How much does it cost to operate and park a car in Honolulu? IRS says 50 cents per mile. Parking: At least $300 a month in downtown Honolulu. Can people living just above minimum wage afford that? Don’t those people deserve to be able to get to and from their jobs in a reasonable amount of time, or is a 3-hour round-trip (or more) of anyone’s day not worth much?
And as a society, how much are we spending on fuel to operate cars? According to state data, it’s at least $1 billion annually.
Add the cost of traffic accidents, lost productivity and more.
A rail transit system is expensive. But compared to what? The total social cost of cars and expanding highways?
Rail will not solve our traffic problems. With a population this size, its doubtful it will ever disappear. But it will provide thousands of fellow citizens an option for much-needed, time-efficient mode of transportation that can eventually can operate on something other than fossil fuels.
In the long run, it certainly begins to make a lot more sense.
The real option is moving. The rail will burn oil.
buy me a house in town and you’ve got yourself a deal, pal.
The energy to run the train will be provided by HECO who is looking at a wide variety of renewable energy resources. Within a decade, there;ll be windpower, photovoltaic, more waste-3-energy, etc.
Furthermore, the number of internal combustion vehicles taken off the road will be far more than the energy to run the train day & night.
As a Windward resident who works in downtown Honolulu and in the University area, I don’t expect to use the train a lot, but I do want to have it available for the expected increase in population.
BTW – I have testified and provided academic and legal research in opposition to Ho`opili and Koa Ridge Makai as well as other major developments here on O`ahu which are not directly impacted by the mass transit system.
Being in favor of the latter does not mean being in support of the former.
The automobile manufacturers in the US and Japan are switching 100% to producing electric vehicles.
The problem is not cars but commuting, and mass transportation from suburban areas is a high-energy system that will drain resources. Commuting is a dinosaur. Rich people are moving into apartments in the city (there is now more poverty in the suburbs than in the city in the US) and suburbs themselves are becoming self-sufficient with core businesses. Advocating for mass transit for the suburbs is Old Thinking.
Is waste-3-energy the next generation of waste to energy? 🙂
One thing we learned from Black Tuesday is that Leeward traffic affects the entire island. Those who work downtown would benefit from reduced traffic there, regardless of where they live, if fewer commuters from the Leeward side drove to work.
I’m a regular citizen who’s not on anyone’s payroll but my own and I think rail is a great idea. I disagee with ian’s opposition to an elevated rail system, but i respect his opinion.
And i love t reading the nutty rail conspiracy theories in the comments section. As outlandish as an x-files rerun, with a dash of the über paranoia of showtime’s homeland!
This is a flip response to what has actually turned into a productive discussion. I should have cheked myself before touching the “submit comment” button.
Mass transit, rail or bus, will reduce traffic only when our lawmakers also create serious disincentives for one-person cars to be on the road. Whether that’s by restricting the number of registered vehicles overall or congestion pricing or more stringent rules about what actually constitutes a car pool, one or more of these steps in combination with a viable mass transit system are the only means to the end of less traffic congestion. Of course, these disincentives will never happen so don’t expect mass transit, including rail, to improve traffic.