14 thoughts on “Mayor seems to say counties failed to make key argument during police arbitration”

1. duh! July 13, 2013 at 9:00 am

   Caldwell is a lawyer. He should know better. (How many other of the mayors are lawyers?)

   But this raises an interesting question: To what extent is Caldwell playing both sides on this and other issues, posturing like a fiscal conservative after the fact while caving in to increased expenditures and low taxes? So he is either inept at negotiating an arbitration, or he’s sneaky, blaming arbitrators for not listening to him, when, in fact, he might not want to go up against the police union overtly. (Likewise, he lambasted City Council for not raising gasoline taxes).

   This was his pattern when he ran for mayor. He pushed for a rail project while criticizing the current rail project. This triangulation puts him in a sweet spot, getting sympathy from disaffected voters while avoiding any challenge to the status quo. It helped get him to where he is today.

   Reply ↓
   1. Taxpayers July 13, 2013 at 11:54 pm

      “DUH” may be the license plate of the convertible Mayor Kirk Caldwell was in at the Kailua Fourth of July parade.

      You cannot trust Kirk Caldwell and what he says.

      He panders to the media and spins whatever he wants.

      Reply ↓
2. Natalie July 13, 2013 at 9:41 am

   How much of the arbitration proceedings are public record? Couldn’t someone request those documents and see what was actually put forth by the mayors?

   Reply ↓
3. rlb_hawaii July 13, 2013 at 10:41 am

   Arbitration team, you got some suplainin to do…

   Reply ↓
4. Laurie July 13, 2013 at 11:00 am

   If we look at this mess as an opportunity, one optimal outcome could be our communities re-prioritizing our needs and expectations of HPD.

   It could happen.

   Reply ↓
5. Hugh Clark July 13, 2013 at 1:48 pm

   Keep in mind each of four counties has just one vote in approving union settlements. State holds five.

   And, no, Honolulu mayor is not only one with a law degree, though not sure that matters much.

   Reply ↓
   1. rlb_hawaii July 13, 2013 at 1:56 pm

      Surprising to learn the state government has five votes in negotiations for the county police forces. Is that because the Sheriff’s Division is included in SHOPO?

      Reply ↓
      1. Natalie July 13, 2013 at 2:07 pm

         As I understand it, the five to one vote issue relates to all government union negotiations. It seems to me that should be reviewed and possibly changed.

         Reply ↓
6. Larry July 13, 2013 at 5:12 pm

   As David Shapiro pointed out, the City was fully prepared for a 4% pay increase. The arbitration resulted in an increase of 4.2%, only .2% more. That tiny amount will not break the City budget.

   From the Star-Advertiser:

   The city’s $2.16 billion budget for fiscal 2014 included $40 million for police pay raises on the mayor’s and Council’s belief that officers would get 4 percent a year — the same amount won by the Hawaii Government Employees Association and United Public Workers.

   The award of 4.2 percent was a bit more than expected, but do Caldwell and the Council expect us to believe that after absorbing 4 percent for the much larger HGEA and UPW, a 0.2 percent surprise for a smaller union creates a tax-raising emergency?

   This isn’t about paying police, but about creating an excuse for more taxes to pay for big looming expenses like the $5.26 billion rail project and rebuilding Oahu’s substandard roads and sewers.

   [Star-Advertiser p. A2, Brouhaha over police raises just a pretext to raise taxes, 7/10/2013]

   As to expecting the police to enforce anything better, good luck.

   Finally, I’ve often wondered why a reasonable pay increase or a living wage is questioned so much in Hawaii. Our wages are low and the cost of living is high, yet when someone or some group is paid a fair or typical wage, we throw a fit in the media.

   Reply ↓
   1. Taxpayers July 13, 2013 at 11:59 pm

      Mayor Kirk Caldwell thought the negotiation outcome was “unexpected”.

      Wait till the “unexpected” costs of the Honolulu Gravy Train hit us taxpayers.

      He has asked for gasoline tax increases and property tax increases. He’ll come asking for more increases. Just you wait.

      Reply ↓
7. Claire July 14, 2013 at 11:24 am

   Agree with “… I’ve often wondered why a reasonable pay increase or a living wage is questioned so much in Hawaii. Our wages are low and the cost of living is high, yet when someone or some group is paid a fair or typical wage, we throw a fit in the media.”

   The arbitration award reinforces the point that wages go up over time for just about everybody.

   @Taxpayer: Until there is an alternative to elevated rail transit that involves less labor, I say build the darn train.

   Reply ↓
   1. Taxpayers July 14, 2013 at 8:03 pm

      Build the darn train to uglify Oahu and push taxpayers into deeper debt hole. Right!

      Reply ↓
8. plentynothing July 14, 2013 at 7:38 pm

   An alternative to rail that would cost taxpayers less to operate and maintain?

   My belief is that a reversible tunnel beneath Pearl Harbor connecting West Oahu to town that would operate town-bound in the morning and west-bound in the afternoon would cost less to operate and maintain than an elevated, 21 station, 80 rail car heavy rail system.

   Additionally, and for the sake of misled West Oahu residents who constitute much of the support for rail, most importantly, such a tunnel would do more to reduce the growth rate of traffic than this rail system currently before us.

   I’m not certain of this, but considering the vehicle carrying capacity a multi-lane Pearl Harbor tunnel could have, it may even be able to reduce, not merely the GROWTH RATE of traffic between West Oahu and Downtown Honolulu–it may even be able to reduce traffic between those two areas, period.

   It wouldn’t necessarily hold back traffic forever. Over time, the continued practice of dumping most of the state’s population growth burden on politically disengaged victims living in Leeward Oahu would eventually overwhelm even the tunnel.

   But at a minimum, a Pearl Harbor tunnel would come closer to fulfilling the rail project’s promise of traffic reduction for West Oahu residents than the rail itself would.

   Reply ↓
   1. compare and decide July 20, 2013 at 12:21 am

      Ultimately, there is little that can be done about traffic congestion in the suburbs.

      This is due to the ‘rebound effect’, also known as the ‘Jevon’s paradox’.

      In the 19th century, engineer James Watt improved efficiency of the Newcomen steam engine by 500%. It was widely asserted by economists at the time that coal consumption would plummet. The economist William Stanley Jevons pointed out that more coal that ever was being mined. The dramatic increase in efficiency of steam engines meant a dramatic decrease in the cost of operating factories, which led to the purchase of new engines and greater industrial output and consumption.

      This rebound effect also is at work in transportation.

      http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm64.htm

      Rebound effects refer to increased consumption that often occurs when efficiency improvements reduce user costs. Transportation rebound effects include generated traffic that results from urban roadway capacity expansion, induced vehicle mileage that results from increased fuel efficiency, and increased risk taking that occurs when drivers feel safer. These rebound effects often change the nature of benefits from congestion reduction, fuel efficiency, and traffic safety programs. It is important to consider these impacts in transportation project evaluation.

      In fact, the rebound effect is all over the place.

      A Rebound Effect (also called a Takeback Effect or Offsetting Behavior) refers to increased consumption that results from actions that increase efficiency and reduce consumer costs (Alexander 1997; Herring 1998; Gorham 2009; UKERC 2007). For example, a home insulation program that reduces heat losses by 50% does not usually result in a full 50% reduction in energy consumption, because residents of insulated homes find that they can afford to keep their homes warmer. As a result, they reinvest a portion of potential energy savings on comfort. The difference between the 50% potential energy savings and the actual savings is the Rebound Effect.

      The Rebound Effect is an extension of the “Law of Demand”, a basic principle of economics, which states that if prices (costs perceived by consumers) decline, consumption usually increases. A program or technology that reduces consumers’ costs tends to increase consumption. These effects are not limited to financial costs, they may involve reductions in time costs, risk or discomfort. For example, strategies that increase fuel efficiency or reduce traffic congestion, and therefore reduce the per-mile cost of driving, tend to increase total vehicle mileage. Similarly, strategies that make driving seem safer tend to encourage somewhat more “intensive” driving (i.e., faster, closer spacing between vehicles, more distractions) than what would occur if vehicle use appears riskier to drivers.

      To be sure, the rebound effect is not total.

      This is not to suggest that Rebound Effects eliminates the benefits of efficiency gains. There is usually a net congestion reduction or energy savings after the Rebound Effect occurs. In addition, consumers benefit directly from increased vehicle travel or higher vehicle speeds. However, the Rebound Effect can significantly change the nature of the benefits that result from a particular policy or project. It is important to account for rebound effects to accurately evaluate a policy or project.

      Generated traffic tends to reduce the predicted congestion reduction benefits of increased road capacity.

      Induced travel increases external costs, including downstream congestion, parking costs, crashes, pollution, and other environmental impacts. These external costs can be quite significant, often exceeding the magnitude of congestion reduction benefits.

      The additional travel that is generated provides relatively modest user benefits, since it consists of marginal value trips (travel that consumers are most willing to forego).

      Increased road capacity often leads to more automobile oriented land use patterns and more automobile dependent transport systems, resulting in additional increases in vehicle travel and reduced transportation choice over the long term.

      Ignoring Generated Traffic effects tends to overstate the benefits of roadway capacity expansion, and undervalues alternative modes and Transportation Demand Management alternatives. Models that fail to consider generated traffic can overvalue roadway capacity expansion benefits by 50% or more (Williams and Yamashita 1992). The FHWA “Spreadsheet Model for Induced Travel Estimation” (SMITE) is specifically developed to predict the amount of vehicle traffic induced by a highway improvement, and its effects on consumer welfare and vehicle emissions (FHWA 1999). It is a relatively easy way to incorporate generated traffic impacts into highway project assessments.

      In transportation, expanded road capacity means more travel.

      Generated Traffic is the additional vehicle travel that occurs when a roadway improvement increases traffic speeds or reduces vehicle operating costs (SACTRA 1994; Litman 2001; FHWA 2000). Increasing urban roadway capacity tends to generate additional peak-period trips that would otherwise not occur. This consists of a combination of diverted vehicle trips (trips shifted in time, route and destination), and induced vehicle travel (shifts from other modes, longer trips and new vehicle trips). Over the long run, Generated Traffic often fills a significant portion (50-90%) of added urban roadway capacity (Hansen and Huang 1997; Noland 2001).

      In other words, urban traffic congestion tends to maintain a self-limiting equilibrium: vehicle traffic volumes increase to fill available capacity until congestion limits further growth. Travel that would not occur if roads are congested, but will occur if roads become less congested, is called latent travel demand. Increasing road capacity, or reducing vehicle use by a small group, creates additional road space that is filled with latent demand. Any time a consumer makes a travel decision based on congestion (“Should I run that errand now? No, I’ll wait until later when traffic will be lighter”) they contribute to this self-limiting equilibrium.

      But the rebound effect in transportation applies not just to new road construction and expansion. Even telecommuting does not relieve congestion.

      Some TDM strategies can also have Rebound Effects. On congested urban roadways, flextime or telework programs by themselves may do little to reduce long-term congestion, because each space created by an avoided peak-period vehicle trip is filled with latent demand (potential vehicle trips that are constrained by congestion).

      Interestingly, the rebound effect is also at work in telecommunications. As more capacity is added to, say, a university campus’ broadband capacity, the more the system is monopolized by students to download movies, music, etc., leading to gridlock again.

      This is related to another issue in communications, the law of diminishing returns. The golden age of the World Wide Web was in the mid-1990s, when the WWW first emerged and was used almost exclusively by scientists to exchange information. As the WWW expanded and more people used it, there was a shift to entertainment. So as the Internet continues to expand, the actual percentage of useful information on it continues to shrink in relation to fluff. But this also seems to be implicit in what is said above about the rebound effect in transportation: Increasing the supply of space on the highway through either expansion or otherwise making the highway more efficient (taking drivers off the road) leads to more road trips by those who are still using the road – and they probably use the road in increasingly less necessary ways.

      So ultimate, the problem is not traffic or cars, but the commuter nature of suburbs. New commuting solutions are largely an illusion.

      Moreover, rail systems in particular are not suited for low-density neighborhoods in the suburbs. It might be quite unrealistic to expect suburbanites who live in a sprawled out region and who are largely not headed to a concentrated destination served by rail to use a rail system. Someone earlier on this blog kvetched in their comment that it is not financially sound to spend billions of dollars to transport daily by rail what the City projects to be a mere 2% of Oahu’s population. The greater point, however, is that those City projections might be overly optimistic. Rail is not optimal for suburban commuting.

      Actually, what rail seems to be good for is helping to minimize commuting. By fostering high-density growth in the urban core, people ideally live in apartments, ditch their cars and rely more on walking, biking, taking a taxi or a bus, and sometimes use the rail. The model for this would be Manhattan, which has the lowest per capita energy consumption in the US, and where 75% of households do not own a car. (New York City incidentally has the longest commuting time in the US, at 39 minutes.)

      In terms of addressing the rebound effect in transportation, imposing fees on transportation is the way to go. One model is New Zealand. Private road building is illegal in New Zealand, but all transportation projects in New Zealand are paid for by either a Road User Charge or by fuel fees; there are no taxes imposed in New Zealand for transportation.

      What are the attitudes in New Zealand to this across the political spectrum? The following is from a blog run by David Farrar, an advisor to the libertarian National Party. Here he notes that Auckland Council supports the $760 million extension of the Northern Motorway, part of which – the very controversial 34 km. Puhoi to Wellsford stretch – has been dubbed the ‘holiday highway’ supposedly because the road is only seriously congested two weeks of the year, during travel season (read the comments in this light). However, Farrar notes that support for the proposed road expansion is “Excellent news for those living and working north of Auckland.”

      http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2013/06/auckland_council_supports_northern_motorway_extension.html

      I am guessing that a libertarian like Farrar could support a large, controversial public works program such as this precisely because it is not funded by taxes, but rather by fees. Interestingly, perhaps any ideology could accept this policy of paying for all transport policies with fees. But not imposing fuel and road fees in the US is not primarily about ideology. It’s about pandering to voters who want a lot of things but don’t want to pay for them. But fees are the only thing that works to limit congestion and promote density.

      Reply ↓

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.