Former governor Ben Cayetano would wipe out his rivals if Honolulu’s mayoral election were held today, according to new poll results published by Civil Beat.
Even if you’re not a regular CB reader, you should check this out.
Fifty-three percent of likely voters in Honolulu said that if the election were held today, they would support Cayetano, 15 points more than the total for his two opponents combined. Mayor Peter Carlisle has 21 percent support and former Acting Mayor Kirk Caldwell has 17 percent. Nine percent were unsure.
Honolulu’s $5.2 billion rail project will be “very important” for 70 percent of the voters in deciding whom to support for mayor, the poll found. Eighteen percent said it was “somewhat important.” Just 9 percent of the voters said it wasn’t important, with 4 percent unsure.
Cayetano, a Democrat, ran strongly among Republicans and those opposed to President Obama.
The poll found opposition to Honolulu’s rail project at the center of Cayetano’s appeal to voters.
You’ve got to wonder whether this kind of public sentiment will come back to bite Mufi Hannemann, whose made the decision to dump the previous plan for bus rapid transit in favor of fast-tracking Frank Fasi’s 40-year old rail plan.
There’s a lot of meat on these poll results.
Check them out. Then return here to share your comments.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Wow, it sucks to be Carlisle and Caldwell. The Cayetano support looks to be both broad (leading in the rail corridor and out of the rail corridor, leading across all educational levels) and deep (ain’t none of the rail opponents gonna change their mind, and they’ll knock on doors).
The gap is so big right now that this has to impact campaign contribution decisions. Outside of people directly tied to rail, how many people are going to decide that Carlisle or Caldwell are better places to put dollars and hours than a candidate in a tight race elsewhere?
Anti-railers have the state goons to fight against too.
Dela Cruz appears to be the water boy for Transit developments – http://www.civilbeat.com/posts/2012/03/08/15121-open-government-lock-down/ They are asking for exemptions to develop around the whole island.
I’m sure Toru and Mr. Carlson can’t wait for this media week to end.
THE most important tidbit to be revealed yet, by far, is this one:
– Of those who support rail, 76 percent say (incorrectly) that rail will improve congestion versus current levels, versus 10 percent who say (correctly) that traffic will be worse in the future, even with rail. Fourteen percent are unsure.
– Of those who oppose rail, 88 percent understand that congestion will be worse in the future versus only 3 percent who mistakenly think rail will improve traffic from today’s levels and 9 percent who are unsure.
http://honolulu.politics.government.blogs.civilbeat.com/post/18918815122/rail-supporters-misunderstand-traffic-impacts
Whoever is doing the City’s PR spin should get an award, as it appears they are very effective mixing up the kool-aid. Perhaps they can start selling tours to a unicorn ranch for HTA.
So many folks won’t openly express a negative opinion on the rail project even though they do not support it. At least that has been my personal findings (yeah, I know anecdotes ain’t data). It’s a bit surprising to me because my circle is primarily seniors who you would think would use rail. But the cost scare them and so many think we are being hoodwinked by slick City consultants and inside players. Thing is, seniors vote so I’d guess the Cayetano surge is for real and if the momentum keeps up in the face of huge PR spending by the City on rail, could augur a major change to the fate of the rail project.
I would imagine at least some seniors would be concerned about paying for a system they won’t get to use, or perhaps would not use because by the time rail is built, they wouldn’t want to stand for the entire trip.
I’m a rail supporter. For me it’s a matter of looking ahead and providing efficient transportation options to a growing population.
Rail is a means of transporting thousands of people, without cars and possibly without fossil fuels, independently of traffic.
What I found interesting is the Sierra Club supports rail. You have to ask why an organization that’s all about being green would endorse something that a lot of people say will be noisy and ugly?
No matter what we do, traffic will get worse. It’s unavoidable even with rail. But unless there are significant changes in cars, commuting with them might not be sustainable for many in the foreseeable future due to cost of operation.
The cost of driving will rise along with the price of gas. It’s guaranteed to get well above $5 a gallon. In Guam it’s already $6. The average cost per mile to drive a car is $0.50. That makes a 30-mile round trip $15. 50 work weeks of driving is $3750, not including parking.
The rail system is expensive, but that cost needs to be put into perspective. While it might cost $6 billion to build, Hawaii drivers spend about $1.3 billion every year for gas, according to state data. What we burn in gas in less than 5 years is what it would cost to build the rail system.
Each Hawaii taxpayer would have to put up $60 a month for the next 10 years to pay for it if no federal funds are applied toward the construction. And if it’s not built, what’s the cost? What’s everyone’s time worth?
What will the average commuter be able to turn to when it becomes unaffordable to drive, and the price of parking in downtown Honolulu goes up?
Little choice right now except to ride the bus that’s stuck on the increasingly congested roadways.
An elevated rail system provides a transportation option that costs less than driving a car and gets thousands of commuters out of the traffic flow.
Rail could mean fewer buses on downtown streets.
Removing commuters from traffic also reduces their exposure to the risk of auto accidents. Those accidents often result in injuries which put a demand on our health care system. Injuries also incur a loss of productivity. Both are social costs.
As for the visual blight of an elevated rail system, it’s too late. H1, the airport viaduct and the clutter of high rises have already blocked the mauka-makai view plane.
How will the average commuter get around 50 years from now? It’s not an outlandish question. It’s a reality that my grandkids will be facing well before they retire.
There is another option for commuters that could also reduce our dependence of fossil fuels and provide a significant cost savings. Electric cars.
While they won’t solve the traffic problem, it allows the flexibility of cars without the cost of gas. Representative K.Mark Takai recently purchased a Nissan Leaf and also installed solar panels to power his home.
The cost of fuel to drive? Virtually zero. The power comes from the sun.
“. . . the Sierra Club supports rail.” Where did you get this from? Have they come out publicly with a statement in support?
found this in 2 seconds with Google:
http://www.hi.sierraclub.org/oahu/nonPermanent/transit/position.html
“The Sierra Club O`ahu Group supports the Fixed Guideway (rail) alternative. The Fixed Guideway alternative provides what O`ahu needs most: an alternative to the automobile. O`ahu residents have become overly dependent on private automobiles, and this dependence has devastating effects: reliance on fossil fuels, pollution and global warming, traffic congestion and the resulting loss of productivity, consumption of more land for roadways and parking, and negative impacts on public health and community life. The O`ahu Group believes these are urgent problems that require a major shift in our transportation habits, and therefore supports the development of a rail system on O`ahu.”
Natalie – Nationally the Sierra Club is a strong proponent of mass transit. They usually go up against the conservative “think tanks” funded by petroleum interests on this issue the same special interests they fight on climate change. The anti-rail group showed their hand by bringing the mainland “experts” though town last week. They all work for conservative “think tanks.” There’s no way any environmental group should be fooled by these people if they spend 15 minutes on the Internet to look them up. Start with the Koch brothers (oil billionaires) links to Reason, Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute and Cascade.
I’m a member of the Sierra Club and if they support specifically this capricious Honolulu Rail System, I will quit my membership.
There was this article on Civil Beat about the shibai strategies at the Hawaii Capitol http://www.civilbeat.com/posts/2012/03/08/15121-open-government-lock-down/
SB2927 is not just about projects along the rail (and note that they took out the proposed station at Hoopili in SD2 as it is not in the urban boundary).
This particular bill would allow fast-tracked development in such places as the Hawaii Kai transit station, even though most of the undeveloped land surrounding it is zoned preservation.
Thank you, Keith. I was aware of the national support. I note that the link to the Sierra Club’s comments appears to be from several years ago, and the reason I had asked the question is that I was told that the local group did not support it. (I know one prominent member who initially supported it and has totally reversed his position.)
It is my understanding development interests are engaged in negotiations with the State chapter of the Sierra Club right now, trying to entice them into making a formal endorsement of the Train proposal. The Sierra Club is unwilling to endorse the current plan unless the developers “sweeten the pot,” by giving the Club concessions on other non-Train matters.
If the Club agrees to endorse the Train under these conditions, they are putting at risk their VERY GOOD reputation. And frankly, it would benefit development interests if Sierra Club comes out of this with a sullied reputation, as the SC is one of the most effective opponents of wide-spread over-development.
I like the Sierra Club leaders. But in my opinion, they are being tempted by Satan into thinking they are capable of making hard-nosed, “back room deals.” That they are “players.” They are only “players” because of their integrity. If they trade their integrity on this issue in exchange for PROMISES on other developments or appointments to boards or commissions, they are the ones being played.
So let’s watch closely. If Sierra Club comes out in favor of the Train in the near future as part of a last ditch effort to salvage the project, ask questions about the quid pro quos the group, or individuals, may have received in exchange.
If the Club sincerely supports THIS mass transit proposal, they should say say based upon its merits alone and NOT as the result of any broader deal.
It seems that the developers in Hawaii have created a new paradigm with Hoopili for pushing for suburban development in the new context of having no more land to build. That involves a kind of public relations pincer movement where the developers:
1) create new low-rise suburban development for people who will commute with their cars, and then claim that this is mixed-use and rail-oriented with a little bit of agriculture; and
2) bribing opposing third parties (the Sou brothers of Aloun Farms, the Sierra Club) to sanction the development.
” . . . 2) bribing opposing third parties (the Sou brothers of Aloun Farms, the Sierra Club) to sanction the development.” On what basis do you include Sierra Club in this statement? It does appear that Aloun Farms was bought out, for lack of better terms at this moment, but it seems pretty clear that the Sierra Club opposes Hoopili.
Support for rail in general is not the same as support for the rail project being driven by Carlisle and HART.
It’s not clear to me that the Sierra Club supports the specific rail project of HART, as opposed to the general concept of rail.
IMO, there are also many individuals who support rail in concept, but do not support the HART project, or have serious concerns about it.
Sierra Club’s comments on the “Honolulu High Capacity Transit Corridor Project”:
“Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sierra Club Oahu Group is in general favor of the proposed transit project, but offers the following questions and comments that we feel would strengthen the EIS and, ultimately, provide a better project for Oahu’s citizens…….”
http://www.hi.sierraclub.org/oahu/nonPermanent/transit/position.html
zzzzzz,
Count me in the category of people who support rail as a CONCEPT while opposing the current Rail proposal as too expensive, overbuilt and unsightly.
The state organization of the Sierra Club is divided over this proposal and HAVE NOT endorsed it. The quotes provided are from the Oahu chapter, not the state organization.
you are correct, sir. the Sierra Club Oahu Group is actually talking about a rail development on their own island. go figure. i wonder what Philadelphia’s Sierra Club has to say about all this.
this Sierra Club quote appears to drive some people a little loopy. hence, i am posting it once again:
“Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sierra Club Oahu Group is in general favor of the proposed transit project, but offers the following questions and comments that we feel would strengthen the EIS and, ultimately, provide a better project for Oahu’s citizens…….”
The Hawaii State Sierra Club chapter is scarcely Philadelphia. As I understand it, the state organization’s leadership is divided over whether the Train is worth endorsing. I think that is a pretty good reflection of sentiment among environmentalists in general. And if you look at the qualifiers attached to the Oahu chapter’s statement, it is not clear the Train satisfies their standards.
They were, at the time, in favor of the GENERAL idea of as steel on steel train. As were many of us.
Imua Ben! That is great news!
Bless him for coming out of retirement for this race.
Now the property tax payers of Honolulu support The Bus with over $130 million to run it. The Bus is not self sufficient. Neither will be the Rail.
Bottom line, the taxpayers cannot be expected to continue to fork over hundreds of millions of dollars each year to subsidize inefficient mass transit systems. People constantly point our the rail and bus systems in Japan, but they don’t know that all those efficiently run and clean mass transit systems are PRIVATELY OWNED!
When I tell people that, the Bus and Rail supporters change the subject and point to the systems on the mainland. Well most run at a loss and cost the taxpayers of those jurisdictions a hefty price tag every year.
No options are ever given the people of Hawaii, it is the Rail or The Bus or the Highway. I am old enough to remember when jeepneys and shuttles ran from different points on Oahu to give people options to the bus or car. Give small business people some leeway to provide a needed service and make some money. Personally, I think that the thought that the bus drivers make more money that teachers is appalling, especially since taxpayers are picking up both tabs.
Also, if The Bus is sold to a private company, the $130 million each year could go to the building of the rail system or its alternative. Once built, the taxpayers should be taken out of the picture and a private company should take ownership of the system for a price.
This idea of a shift to privately run mass transit might be more credible than most of us might think.
If you want a snapshot of trends of the future, you look at what the hippest, most educated young people are doing.
These kids are moving into the cities and staying put. They also seem to be moving into the more gritty parts of the city, not the ritzy areas or the “leafy suburbs” associated with the yuppies of the 1980s.
http://www.marketwatch.com/video/asset/the-hot-spot-for-the-young-techie-and-rich-2012-03-15/621989BE-48FA-4764-B56A-25804C78E4AB
But this is due largely to the “shuttle effect”. High tech corporations in Silicon Valley have their own shuttle buses that pick up workers. The hip young tech workers don’t want to own their own cars, but they don’t want to use public transit either. They will use the private mass transit provided by their employers.
This could be a vision of the future. Will this really trickle down to the rest of society? Also, if this is true, how long will it take to become a reality out in the mid-sized cities of the provinces? Decades from now? But the main point is that it might not involve cars, buses or trains. It will involve:
1) People moving into town.
2) Not owning a car.
3) Using mass transit that is small scale and private.
In fact, one could argue that in most places, this is already how many senior citizens live. They might in fact be on the cutting edge.
It could be that public mass transit has had its day, and that the future lies with private mass transit. One of the benefits of that is that so much of current mass transit (buses, trains) operates all day long but only has patrons during peak hours. In that respect, shuttles might be more efficient, only working certain hours or finding ways to remain busy in off-peak hours.
It could be that this rail debate may not make us more aware of the need for mass transit, but might educate us on the sudden obsolescence of certain of its forms. Both cars and buses may be more obsolete than we imagine. There might have been a time when a bus system was a vital service. That time might be over.
The same might be true of suburbs, and of land development in general. In an earlier stage of development, growth centered around building suburbs. Societies like California built upon this foundation, creating a film industry and high tech industries. But woe to the society that confuses economic development with land development, and likewise conflates land development with creating more suburban sprawl.
Mass transit in concept makes great sense, and I have no doubt that a system could be found that would work within Honolulu’s geographical, budgetary, and aesthetic (i.e. via tourism we live off our looks) constraints. But the dismal state of Hawaii politics will not allow such a system to come to fruition, and we are better off with nothing than the mess with which we are about to be afflicted. The lack of enough seats in the railcars is the dead canary in the coal mine revealing the utter failure of imagination which has led us to this collapse.
I support Rail Done Right ™, not this horribly expensive developer/banker pseudo traffic-solver, screechy ugly Rail; that Mufi started. I’m voting for Big Ben. Carlisle, et al, can go fly a kite.
A couple of the Sierra Club goals for a fixed guideway:
“-Design a system that enhances, rather than detracts from, the scenic beauty along the route
-Establish strictly-enforced urban growth boundaries to protect the remaining agricultural and conservation lands on Oahu”
Trains in the Sky from Ho’opili will make these goals a challenge.
i note the word “goals” not “mandatory requirements”
I’m unable to post to the Star-Advertiser but would like to comment on an issue raised in this morning’s letters to the editor. If anyone reading this should happen to feel inclined toward posting the comment below on the SA letters section, you’ll get no complaint from me.
•••
I’d much prefer it if Governor Cayetano would hold off on completely getting behind a traffic improvement alternative at this time. Discussing possibilities is fine. But having a mayor lock his sights on a particular system before conducting thorough comparison studies is how we ended up spending so much time and money on an elevated steel-on-steel rail system that, according to recent polls, won’t do enough to justify its extraordinarily high cost to island residents. The fact is that good enough for a mayor and his politician buddies over at the Federal Transit Administration is not necessarily good enough for the hard-working people of Oahu.
If Governor Cayetano becomes mayor, he should push to expend the money necessary to redo the alternatives analysis without favoritism. All potential ways of addressing our traffic problems should be allowed to compete fairly. Competing ideas should not be excluded or hobbled to ensure victory for one particular alternative — even if that particular alternative is, for whatever reason, favored by a sitting mayor.
Governor Cayetano, please consider waiting until sufficient city resources have been expended and experts representing all options have been consulted before selecting a means to make island traffic flow as well as possible. Please aim to perform the Alternatives Analysis, not just well enough to perhaps meet the legal minimum, but well enough to satisfy the needs of the people of Oahu. Let’s get it right this time.
Well said!
(I will now add other letters to this, as my initial, two word response, was too short to be accepted by the software filter).
If Cayetano does this, which I agree is an excellent idea, I hope he goes beyond just looking at alternative means of transporting folks, and gets to the root of why people need to get from point A to point B.
For example, it’s well known that traffic is much worse when UH is in session. So it would be logical to investigate ways to reduce the UH traffic. Some ways might be to build UH-West O’ahu, increase online offerings, and make UHM lectures available at its other campuses.
The C&C has already been taking some obvious steps in this direction as well, with Satellite City Halls and online motor vehicle registration.
*Note: This comment is subject to censorship as it may potentially offend someone’s delicate sensibilities*
Could it be that Ol’ “Gentle Ben” wants to establish his legacy… He ran the state as Gov for 8 years, but it was during hard times and all he’s got to brag ’bout is losing the governorship to mean ol’ selfish ‘LL, and building a crummy convention center!
Note to “no spam”: Yes, your posts are subject to editing. Although I allow anonymous comments, it’s not a venue for unfettered anonymous personal or political attacks. Register under your name and I’ll at least check with you before editing. If you just want to vent, go back to the S-A.
I got no comment on “No Spam’s” behavior, but thanks for moderating the comments posted on your blog. I think it helps keep things surprisingly civil and the discussions at a higher level than most other sites in the Hawaii blogosphere.
(DePledge does a good job as well, also producing a pretty good discussion. But his work schedule only permits him to moderate posts a couple of times during the day, which leads to delays.
One could argue that the rail project is a direct consequence of the convention center.
There is an argument that by bailing out Chrysler, the US government simply prolonged the mediocrity of Detroit’s automobile industry, which until 2009 displayed a stunning degree of complacency and arrogance. If Chrysler had been allowed to fail, it would have hit the city of Detroit economically like a hammer, and would have sent shock waves throughout the US auto industry. On the one hand, thankfully, that did not happen. On the other hand, the recent near collapse of Detroit, both the city and the auto industry, might be considered a direct result of that bailout. In the long run, the bailout made things worse.
Likewise, this is also true of the savings and loan bust of the 1990s. The savings and loan industry was deregulated in the 1980s, and this led to naive investments and criminal activity. The industry was bailed out by Bush I to the tune of $150 billion, a bailout which contributed to a recession. Now, if the federal government had not intervened with the bailout and let the industry simply fail, the recession would have been worse. But by bailing out the industry, this made possible the excessive risk taking on Wall Street a decade later because financiers correctly perceived that their reckless investments would be ultimately insured by a government that would bail them out (“Heads I win, tails you lose”). In fact, the recent bailouts of Wall Street, according to the economist Paul Volker, mean that this crisis will happen again within ten years, only worse.
Policy makers have to keep a balance between political expediency and a sound project. But when a good project is proposed but it continuously gets watered down by political necessity, it reaches the point where it is no longer that good. In fact, it sucks.
If you toss a frog in a pot of boiling water, he will jump out; but if you place him in warm water and heat it up slowly, he will boil to death.
So the proposal of a centrally located convention center built with private funds morphs over time into … a project on the fringes that is built with private funds. But a lot of people don’t know that, that’s what is so embarrassing about the convention center. In a society without an educated middle class, the public does not come to eventually realize that the project turned out to be a failure. They assume that it is successful — “All we need to do now is put a casino in there!”
Eventually, that society moves on to even bigger projects. There is a saying, that “Every developer dies poor.” Successful developers go on to ever bigger projects until they are out of their depths, then they lose everything.
But in an uneducated society, these new projects, even in their conception, are nonsensical. Later, in execution, they get even worse. Instead of a good idea that gets compromised, one ends up with a terrible idea that gets compromised. And half the population never figure that out.
and yet somehow we are regularly sold on reports of how much people love life here compared with other cities and states.
my conclusion: things might be relatively fine in Hawaii for now, but wait and see what things are really going to be like here in 10-20 years if this is how our state fails to deal with tough issues. we are going to slide right down that list, falling behind — LA? Miami? Atlanta? yuck.
i agree that education is a major root of the problem in Hawaii. but i’ll take the blame even further and pin it on those ultimately responsible for educating their kids (ethically and morally, NOT legally): the parents, and the parents who raised those parents.
IAN,
I love reading the comments to your blog.
Some anger me, others make me scratch my head, then are some which put a big smile on my face.
Have you ever considered adding a “thumbs up or down” or “like or dislike” feature for comments?
Most times I’m too busy or tired to submit a written comment.
A button allowing me to express my feelings would do the trick.
It seems that the DR Horton has in Hoopili created a new public relations paradigm. That involves a kind of public relations pincer movement where the developers:
1) create what is essentially a new low-rise suburban development on ag lands for home buyers who will commute with their cars, and then claim that this is mixed-use and rail-oriented with a little bit of agriculture; and
2) convincing key members of the opposition (e.g., the Sou brothers of Aloun Farms, the Sierra Club) to sanction the development.
This public relations strategy is a form of greenwashing, obviously. But whoever came up with this is obviously and impressively hardworking. It’s a full-court press.
Is it unethical? Is it economically dysfunctional? I don’t know but it is very novel in Hawaii, where it has always been business as usual in real estate. This might reflect a new desperation. This desperation in turn might reflect that there is just no more land to build on. Why didn’t they figure this out earlier?
If i may I’d like to comment on an article in today’s civil beat http://www.civilbeat.com/articles/2012/03/09/15111-are-honolulu-rail-backers-new-radio-ads-accurate/
First below is the transcript of a pro-rail radio ad currently being run, followed by a part of the article discussing the radio spot.
First, the transcript of the pro-rail radio ad:
And now a piece of the article discussing the pro-rail radio ad:
Imagine someone testifying in a trial being caught in a lie after having sworn to “tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” defending himself to a judge by claiming, “I meant next week.”
I mean, why stop there? If taken to an extreme, the reasoning used to justify the wording of the pro-rail radio ad could be used to justify the same ad even if traffic in the future with rail was projected to be worse than if rail wasn’t built. The justification could be “we meant traffic levels would be reduced compared to what they would be if a giant sea monster rose up from the ocean, stepped over the rail guideway, and crushed the freeway, but 30 seconds was too short to explain that so we decided to settle for the overall context.”
If the sea monster example doesn’t work for you because you feel that it is an extra step removed from reality than an ad that, at a minimum, leaves the door open to having people wrongly assume that traffic will be reduced from current levels, look at it this way instead. By the reasoning they are using they could run the same reduced traffic ad and leave out that they are only talking about a short strip of feeder or arterial road somewhere as opposed to the H-1. After all, they didn’t say where traffic would be reduced. Maybe it will be reduced on the mainland as more people decide to move here. Aren’t the people doing these ads supposed to be professional communicators? Couldn’t they anticipate the confusion?
And bear in mind, the whole “reduced traffic in the future” thing is a forecast, like the weather people on tv make. Information has recently become public that a company overseeing the Honolulu rail project for the FTA warned that the lack of seating could result in reduced ridership. Combine that with the additional traffic from thousands of potential Transit-Oriented Development units that would not be built in the absence of rail. Many may be drawn to these TOD units for reasons such as affordability rather than because they intend to use rail. Or they may try rail only to discover that they prefer travel by automobile even with traffic. Or they may change jobs. Added together it may turn out that traffic in the future will eventually be worse with rail than without. I acknowledge that this is debatable but the rail ad transcript above does not.
Remember, any reductions in traffic would come as a result of people choosing rail over driving or carpooling. As ridership goes down, traffic goes up. And many rail transit projects have failed to meet ridership projections. Will Honolulu be one of the systems with below forecast ridership? Which raises another question: Assuming population growth projections are accurate, and rail is built, at what point would ridership shortfalls result in entirely erased traffic benefits in the future as compared to the future without rail? Would having 15,000 expected riders fail to make the switch to rail result in more traffic with rail than without? At what points do traffic congestion outcomes turn negative?
Also, major development projects are using the rail to help justify the construction of thousands of units of housing in West and Central Oahu. If these developments gain acceptance as a result of “misunderstood” reduced traffic claims made in rail commercials, rail will have effectively made traffic worse in the future.
Are people who would otherwise be fighting against these developments, if they understood that their creation would result in traffic worse than today’s, being tricked into inaction by “misunderstood” traffic reduction claims in rail promos?
Of course, if the proposed developments do narrowly win approval, it may be difficult afterward to determine which of two possible scenarios took place.
1. Will it turn out that reasons other than rail tipped deliberations in development’s favor and would have done so even without the assistance of “misunderstood” rail promises?
2. Or, will it turn out that an essential element of winning approval for new development was confusion among people who “mistakenly” inferred that assurances of reduced traffic made in pro-rail ads referred to traffic reduced below the current levels that reportedly cause our Senior U.S. Senator to “curse himself” whenever he visits West Oahu?
The bottomline: If Hoopili and Koa Ridge and development at the old Kam Drive-in etc. are approved, and you can’t determine beyond a reasonable doubt whether or not rail was an essential factor in gaining approval, then you can’t logically conclude that rail reduced traffic in the future.
Mention of a possible Sierra Club rail endorsement reminds me of something I’ve been meaning to bring up because I haven’t seen it discussed anywhere before.
I would like to point out that in supporting the city’s current elevated rail plan one is also supporting the construction of Transit-Oriented Developments (TOD) around rail stations. The rail system is a “package” deal; if you buy the one, you are getting the other. Waipahu is one of the towns whose populations would swell by thousands of TOD apartments if rail is built.
One of the negative effects of rail/TOD in Waipahu that I believe most residents have so far not been informed of is that Waipahu’s current source of water is incapable of accommodating the increased population density rail and transit-oriented development would bring. In fact, now as I reread the passage I quote below, I realize that it speaks of a larger “regional issue” not restricted to Waipahu alone.
Perhaps it should be mentioned that the word “alternatives” as used in the quote below refers to different Transit-Oriented Development design alternatives. I’m taking “increased density” to mean more people per acre (or other unit of area measurement). Please allow me to first tell you what I’m about to show you with the quote below to make it easier to understand for those in a hurry: A little publicized problem exists. The drinking water for the areas of Waipahu that would be redeveloped if Transit-Oriented Development is implemented currently comes from the Pearl Harbor Aquifer, which according to this report, will not be able to accommodate the increased population density. As a result, area residents will likely be forced to depend on water from a desalinization plant if rail is built.
Right now, existing residents of Waipahu and nearby areas have enough water from natural sources to meet their needs. That will likely not continue to be the case if Transit-Oriented Development and other over-development cause the area population to swell. How will tens of thousands of existing residents and newcomers manage if the desalination plant should experience mechanical failure for an extended period of time? What would living conditions be like if such an event were to occur. Would residents be unable to launder their clothing or shower until replacement parts are shipped/flown in? Would toilets flush?
Also, my understanding is that desalination is extremely expensive. Who will pay for the difference in cost? No matter what is said or promised to advance rail and TOD today, years from now will the rest of the state see this as a problem of Waipahu/West Oahu’s own creation for accepting development that exceeds sustainable levels? Will existing residents be left with the problems while developers walk away with the profits?
I further understand the desalination process to be extremely unfriendly to the environment and a huge consumer of energy. Yet the Sierra Club is considering supporting this? What, exactly, would they be receiving in exchange for selling out Waipahu’s water sustainability from beneath the feet of families that have lived in the area for generations?