Yesterday, in response to the Antiplanner’s post about crony capitalism, Scrappy commented that Honolulu needs rail transit to “reduce our carbon footprint, save energy and get us off the maddening addiction to cars.” He added that, “the environmental community in Honolulu is strongly behind rail.”
I appreciate Scrappy’s comment and don’t want to discourage him from participating in this forum, but I find it sad that my former colleagues in the environmental movement have become so innumerate that they would support a turkey like the Honolulu elevated rail plan. The final environmental impact statement for that project is now available. Let’s see what it says about saving energy, carbon, and driving.
Start with energy. Table 4-21 of the FEIS says the project will save 396 million British thermal units (BTUs) of energy each day, or 144,540 million BTUs per year. Sounds great, except that page 4-206 says project construction will cost 7.48 trillion BTUs. That means it will take 52 years of savings to pay back the energy cost. Long before 52 years are up, huge energy investments will be needed to replace rail cars, worn out track, and other infrastructure. So there is likely no net energy savings.
How about reducing our carbon footprint? According to page 68 of the Department of Energy’s State Energy Guide, more than 90 percent of Hawaii’s energy comes from burning fossil fuels. Scrappy points out that “the local power utility is making a big push to use renewables in its fuel mix,” but good intentions are not enough. Even if it can find some renewable sources of energy, it would be better to use that electricity to offset some of the electricity now being used by Oahu residents, not to create a new source of energy demand.
If you are facing any relationship issues then just talk sample viagra pills to your partner it might give you unpleasant gastrointestinal side effects. It is http://pharma-bi.com/2011/02/ commander levitra an amino acid that enhances the flow of energy. This Kamagra is cheap in all super generic cialis respect. Though many erectile dysfunction medicines have introduced for male erection disorders. it 1998, when the drug was firstly introduced in form of brand viagras. Page 4-113 of the FEIS predicts that the project will save all of 171 tons of carbon dioxide emissions per day, or about 62,415 tons per year. Page 6-2 says construction will cost nearly $4.3 billion, which amortized out at a generous 4 percent works out to $245 million per year. Add the anticipated $72 million in operating costs (p. 6-8) and divide by the tons of CO2 saved and you get a cost of just over $5,000 per ton. Since the going rate for carbon credits right now is less than $20 per ton, and McKinsey says we can meet carbon reduction targets if we spend no more than $50 per ton, anything that costs $5,000 per ton should absolutely be rejected by people who care about our carbon footprint.
Note that the FEIS did not estimate the tons of CO2 that will be released during construction, which will offset much if not all of the projected savings.
Will the project help “get us off the maddening addiction to cars”? The Antiplanner isn’t even sure that this should be considered a benefit, since cars are less expensive, more convenient, and really have no greater environmental impact than transit. Even so, the FEIS predicts that the project will reduce the number of regional auto trips per day by 51,200 out of 3,003,400 trips under the no-build alternative. That is a 1.7 percent reduction. That means Honolulu would only need to build 59 more rail lines, at a cost of more than a quarter of a trillion dollars (roughly the cost of the entire Interstate Highway System), to eliminate the city’s addiction to autos.
Of course, all of the FEIS’s estimates of energy, carbon, and other savings depend on its projection that the 20-mile rail line will carry 116,300 riders per day (page 3-5). That’s more than San Diego’s 51-mile light-rail system, almost twice as many as Miami’s 28-mile elevated rail, and more than twice as many as St. Louis’ 48-mile elevated light-rail system. So there are reasons to be skeptical of the Honolulu projections.
Scrappy did not say anything about congestion, but he mentioned that the region’s voters supported the rail plan (by a tiny margin). One reason they did so is that rail supporters emphasized that the project would “ease traffic congestion.” Of course, they lied when they said this, as page 3-51 of the FEIS says that traffic delays will be worse at every intersection with the project than without it. “Mitigation,” meaning widening roads and improving traffic signals, will help at a few intersections, but then why can’t they just do the mitigation and not the rail project?
The environmentalists who support this wasteful project are the Baptists of a Baptists and bootleggers coalition that is promoting rail transit throughout the country. The bootleggers, of course, are the crony capitalists who will make tens or hundreds of millions in profits building this unsightly monstrosity. I hope in the future more environmentalists will open their eyes and support things that are truly good for the environment, not just feel-good projects that cost a lot of money.
The Autoplanner: I appreciate Scrappy’s comment and don’t want to discourage him from participating in this forum, but I find it sad that my former colleagues in the environmental movement have become so innumerate that they would support a turkey like the Honolulu elevated rail plan.
THWM: Light rail would be better than the light metro that is being planned, though let’s also keep in mind that in the Honolulu area there are also just over 20 miles of elevated highways too.
Antiplanner: “Of course, all of the FEIS’s estimates of energy, carbon, and other savings depend on its projection that the 20-mile rail line will carry 116,300 riders per day (page 3-5). That’s more than San Diego’s 51-mile light-rail system, almost twice as many as Miami’s 28-mile elevated rail, and more than twice as many as St. Louis’ 48-mile elevated light-rail system. So there are reasons to be skeptical of the Honolulu projections.
Now that this has passed, our consolation prize will be watching these projections disintegrate, and the transit agencies who made them lose all credibility, this time from afar. Here in Seattle, we’re still waiting for daily boardings to hit 105,000 as promised for 2010 in the 1996 voting package. So far we’re at 21,000 in a good month, but I have a feeling it’ll happen any day now.
I think this topic is the most valuable work of the Antiplanner right now. It seems like the public assumes that public transit is a vast decrease in energy use and carbon emissions over automobile transit. It is just assumed in public debate. The Antiplanner’s analysis or publicity of others’ analysis would be a valuable addition to public debate.
“Of course, they lied when they said this, as page 3-51 of the FEIS says that traffic delays will be worse at every intersection with the project than without it.”
How much worse? The impact of a typical at-grade does not have any more of an impact to traffic than a signalized intersection.
Oh wait, this thing is going to be elevated?
“Sounds great, except that page 4-206 says project construction will cost 7.48 trillion BTUs. That means it will take 52 years of savings to pay back the energy cost.”
Depends on what the choice is.
Light rail or do nothing? 7.48 trillion BTUs is certainly something to think about.
Light rail or a new freeway? You’d consider the difference between the two projects.
I’m not saying Honolulu’s light rail plan is good or bad. When I think of Hawaii I don’t think light rail.
Oh, never mind. They are talking about increased traffic around the park and ride facilities.
“Of course, they lied when they said this, as page 3-51 of the FEIS says that traffic delays will be worse at every intersection with the project than without it.”
Okay, I read the FEIR and it says that six of the 25 intersections they studied would have increased delay during AM/PM peak hours. However, I didn’t know the personal automobile was so sacrosanct that it cannot be inconvenienced for bus riders, rail riders, cyclists or pedestrians.
I would have probably looked at BRT for Honolulu though. It’s population density in the Honolulu CDP is around 3,500. Doesn’t scream light rail success to me.
Honolulu is not dense enough & there will not be near enough riders to justify this project, even at 1/2 the cost & double the efficiency as projected.
Why? Cost/rider-mile is way too high.
Not much advantage in riding this rail.
Not enough in relieving other transportation.
Too much space taken & interference.
Additionally, I just commented on yesterday’s, post, before I read this.
I’ll be bold, that I made some great points, & offered educational links.
It appears that this Crappy is similar to Dan, in not attempting to logically counter or else admitting wrong ideas & just avoiding. Although it’s good that this Crappy is not using all sorts of fallacies, as Dan often does.
BTW, Dan, GHGs are not basic physics. And just the fact that CO2 is a GHG does not mean that if will get warmer soon.
CO2 has diminishing returns, in warming; it’s saturated.
Most of the warming power in CO2 is within the 1st 100ppm.
It’s at 388ppm now, up about 100ppm in a century.
Previously (over 400,000 yrs) CO2 varied from 180ppm to 280ppm, while temps varied by 22F. Do the math!!! If CO2 was as powerful as claimed, it would have been getting a lot warmer.
Don’t forget, that during that 400,000 years, CO2 increased AFTER, the temps did, on avg by 800 years, because oceans hold less CO2 in warmer temps.
Highwayman, that looked suspiciously like a sensible and illuminating comment. Who are you and what have you done with Highwayman?
Another slam dunk from Antiplanner. Rail fails on every last dimension.
Scott,
Is it possible for you to make an argument and engage in a discussion without being a prick?
“Is it possible for you to make an argument and engage in a discussion without being a prick?”
He’s the Dan of anti-rail. They are the same type of person, just different ideologies!
In the past he has said that he posts like that because Dan does, but his doppelganger has not even posted here yet.
I don’t mind as much when people pile on the usual suspects. But here we have a new commenter who has posted 1 comment, which was respectful, and they are already being called names. Many people had already pointed out the problems with rail and environmental benefits in a rebuttal to scrappy, and did so without resorting to name calling.
Let’s at least let the commenter throw out something to warrant name calling before we start to be a jerk. That’s all I’m sayin’.
Bennut, Spook,
You don’t have to get upset & falsely accuse me of stuff just because I showed the mistakes for rail & the exaggeration in AGW.
Prick, jerk? How so?
Please highlight any statement or sentence that–, unclear (?) is off-topic or whatever.
You lefties cannot look at content & when your points are lost, get personal.
Are you girls getting overly sensitive?
Grab a frikin tissue & discuss issues dog dammit.
You gals must be unfamiliar with razzing or busting balls.
I feel sorry for you. You have just admitted to your loserdom & introversion, lack of social interaction.
–Snotty
Scott,
Spokker, Dan, Highway and I can take it. I think your calling the new commenter “crappy” a bit too soon. I can tell you think your play on words is funny, I’m just saying you should wait until scrappy engages you in the same way we have before you start calling him/her names.
There were about three of your ideological pals who had already discussed your issues and did so without name calling. By the time you started piling it on, your point had already been made by people who weren’t rude about it.
Also:
“Prick, jerk? How so?… you girls getting overly sensitive…” You answered your own question.
bennet,
Omitting a letter is rude? OMG!
Addressing a person by a nickname is not calling a name.
You sir, bonehead, are usually full of crap.
Happy now?
Your supposed example for jerkiness is after the fact.
Do you call 911 to report crimes not committed? Then go cause it?
Why do continue avoiding issues?
If you cannot offer any valid arguments for huge wasteful gov expenses to benefit a few at the expense of many, it would be prudent to admit it, rather than avoid & try to change the subject.
You are welcome to move to Europe or Cuba to try to impose your state will on others, in regards to immoral redistribution.
Scott, please read the conditions desired for comment submissions, posted by the Antiplanner above:
“Please feel free to submit comments. Constructive debate is welcome. Ad hominem attacks and name-calling will reveal the shallowness of the author. Foul language may be deleted.”
Please debate the ideas and topics presented and avoid comments regarding any assumed personality characteristics or beliefs of other commenters.
“That’s Scott. He’s a dick.” -South Park
rob,
I’m glad you reminded others about that, thank you.
Why are you upset when you cannot offer valid arguments for big gov?
Please try to pay attention.
Go back to my original post.
It’s all about valid content on discussion of the issue.
The omission of one letter in addressing a fabricated moniker does not constitute whatever you are crying about.
In defense of false accusations against me, I had to go off-topic.
I wish people could stay on the issues.
You are confused & mixed up about trying to prove a point by attacking a person, VERSUS analyzing a person’s inaccurate reasoning, VERSUS addressing a person in a jestful or an undignified manner VERSUS just blatantly insulting a person. The latter, I did not do. Nor did I try to make any points about rail by insulting, as you are implying.
BTW, I thought that “scrappy” was selected on purpose, to be somewhat self-deprecating; and the poster could have put of those “supposed rail benefits” as weak strawmen, especially in using “maddening cars.”
Would you care to add anything constructive, for or against new rail or big gov projects?
Why do lefties often sideline an issue & go on irrelevancies when they cannot validly discuss any points?
You are using elements of Rules for Radicals, plus other fallaciousness, to try to avoid the issue & to try to discredit free-market principles.
Do you got to TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party events & pose as one, while exhibiting bad behavior in trying to discredit them?
Remember, the topic is rail.
It’s a shame that many poster cannot stick to that.
None of the responses to my 1st post were on its content about the flaws in rail. Cannot even attempt to counter the huge rail drawbacks, huh?
mattb02 said: Another slam dunk from Autoplanner. Rail fails on every last dimension.
THWM: Since even O’Toole admits that roads are there regarless of economic conditions.
That means rail has failed politically, not economically.
Spokker said:
“Of course, they lied when they said this, as page 3-51 of the FEIS says that traffic delays will be worse at every intersection with the project than without it.â€
Okay, I read the FEIR and it says that six of the 25 intersections they studied would have increased delay during AM/PM peak hours. However, I didn’t know the personal automobile was so sacrosanct that it cannot be inconvenienced for bus riders, rail riders, cyclists or pedestrians.
I would have probably looked at BRT for Honolulu though. It’s population density in the Honolulu CDP is around 3,500. Doesn’t scream light rail success to me.
THWM: We all know rail is viable, though it would have been nice if the government didn’t trash the Oahu Railway after WWII and Honolulu still had suburban trains.
Scott said:
rob,
I’m glad you reminded others about that, thank you.
Why are you upset when you cannot offer valid arguments for big gov?
Please try to pay attention.
Go back to my original post.
It’s all about valid content on discussion of the issue.
The omission of one letter in addressing a fabricated moniker does not constitute whatever you are crying about.
In defense of false accusations against me, I had to go off-topic.
I wish people could stay on the issues.
You are confused & mixed up about trying to prove a point by attacking a person, VERSUS analyzing a person’s inaccurate reasoning, VERSUS addressing a person in a jestful or an undignified manner VERSUS just blatantly insulting a person. The latter, I did not do. Nor did I try to make any points about rail by insulting, as you are implying.
BTW, I thought that “scrappy†was selected on purpose, to be somewhat self-deprecating; and the poster could have put of those “supposed rail benefits†as weak strawmen, especially in using “maddening cars.â€
Would you care to add anything constructive, for or against new rail or big gov projects?
Why do lefties often sideline an issue & go on irrelevancies when they cannot validly discuss any points?
You are using elements of Rules for Radicals, plus other fallaciousness, to try to avoid the issue & to try to discredit free-market principles.
Do you got to TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party events & pose as one, while exhibiting bad behavior in trying to discredit them?
Remember, the topic is rail.
It’s a shame that many poster cannot stick to that.
None of the responses to my 1st post were on its content about the flaws in rail. Cannot even attempt to counter the huge rail drawbacks, huh?
THWM: Teabaggers are hypocrites, far right wingers will favor socialism where it benefits them like with roads & military spending.
“We all know rail is viable, though it would have been nice if the government didn’t trash the Oahu Railway after WWII and Honolulu still had suburban trains.” – Highwayman
The ORL was trashed by the government? Is that the pet name you gave the tsnunami that trashed it?
According to some, any type of government is socialism.
WTF? So it’s anarchy or socialism? Kinda changing definitions.
Whatever you call it, limited gov at ~25% of GDP will allow for much more prosperity than the current gov at 42% of GDP.
Social schools, social police, social fire, social infrastructure, social courts, social parks, social retirement.
The worst is social redistribution, social medicine, & gov favors for certain businesses & special interests.
There are 2 huge problems in big gov socialism:
1.motivation, in being rewarded for productivity w/money,
& 2.information, mostly via the price mechanism.
So, the argument is that the because government’s huge role is in protection, & that it produces a road network, the gov should therefore do everything? Sure, makes perfect nonsense.
prk166 said:
“We all know rail is viable, though it would have been nice if the government didn’t trash the Oahu Railway after WWII and Honolulu still had suburban trains.†– Highwayman
The ORL was trashed by the government? Is that the pet name you gave the tsnunami that trashed it?
THWM: The line was rebuilt after the tsnunami, then it was later trashed by government poicy.
Government policy later trashed them? They shut down in 1947. What was the government policy enacted in 1947 that “trashed” the ORL?
Why spend $5.5 billion for a line that does not reduce jams, from key places jams begin?
Why spend 5 times the $$$$$ for a line that does not reach Nanakuli, Heart of Kapolei, Ko Olina, Ewa, West Loch, nor in front of Plant on Leeward Coast, from where MANY jammed cars come?
‘Cut Costs Combine:’
OR&L line + Light Rail + Bike Plan = 1/5 of $5.5 Billion
Using existing resources, we can have ‘LIGHT Rail’(as we VOTED for). See my website, and click the tab ‘Cut Costs Combine.’ Thank you.
http://rocogop.blogspot.com/
John Roco
What I find so disappointing is that the APA, ULI and other planning organizations support rail. And sadly, momentum is growing as the trifecta of EPA, DOT and HUD gets behind mass transit as a purported way to achieve housing affordability.
It’s frustrating to see how rail has polarized public opinion here in Hawaii, choking healthy discussion and problem solving efforts.