1 / 32

Cost-Disbenefit Analysis of Honolulu Rail Project

Serving Hawaii's taxpayers since 1985, this article analyzes the Honolulu rail project, highlighting its $5.2 billion cost, impact on city budget, and lack of energy savings. It also presents alternative solutions and discusses the environmental concerns associated with the project.

syolanda
Download Presentation

Cost-Disbenefit Analysis of Honolulu Rail Project

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Serving Hawaii’s taxpayers since 1985 A cost-disbenefit analysis of the Honolulu rail project

  2. $5.2 billion to build $5,700 per adult & child $464,000 per new commuter 10% increase in city budget

  3. 20 miles and 21 stations — population 915,000

  4. FIRST 4 MILES: ALOUN FARMS

  5. ENVIRONMENT:

  6. “The biggest threat to Oahu’s landscape in the past 100 years.” Hawaii’s Outdoor Circle

  7. ENVIRONMENT:

  8. Rail has united the Left and the Right in opposition.

  9. DOWNTOWN STATION: a Hawaiian sense of place

  10. NO ENERGY SAVINGS:

  11. “Traffic congestion will be worse in the future with rail than what it is today.” Final EIS. Source: Final EIS

  12. Traffic congestion during the years of construction:

  13. Summary of disbenefits • Unaffordable for Honolulu • Destroys view planes; kills waterfront • Uses more energy than buses or cars • Does nothing about traffic congestion • Appalling congestion during construction

  14. Action Plan • Develop Opposition: • Huge capital & operating costs • Visual & Noise blight will destroy City • Promote an alternative: • BRT on HOT lanes, or • BRT on existing Zipper lanes

  15. For heavy rail option: The Planning Company (PB) Federal officials State officials City officials Construction companies Construction unions Media Most big businesses Chambers of Commerce For BRT/zipper option: Small businesses Individuals Beautification groups Land use groups Concerned citizen groups

  16. Politicians Establishing Rail Programs (PERPs)

  17. Our volunteers:

  18. Their volunteers:

  19. ACTIONS: There’s no spontaneous outpouring of enthusiastic supporters; people organize it. Organizing protests Testifying at City Council Lobbying legislators Presentations to organizations Rotary Clubs Lions Clubs Condo directors Business groups Neighborhood Boards Creating coalitions Responding to blog postings Responding to newspapers Emailing supporters Dealing with the media Write letters to the editor Organizing sound trucks Mock up supporting pillars Make signs Organizing sign waving Organizing T-shirts Writing op/eds Organizing petition drives Corresponding with FTA EIS comments Fundraising letters Fundraising events Dialing for dollars Write for and run the website Email blasts Press releases

  20. Tampa Expressway

  21. Sound truck simulating train noise makes voters aware of it:

  22. Honolulu Mayor’s race 2008 & 2010 2012

  23. Ben Cayetano TV campaign spot:

  24. 8/21/2011

  25. The lawsuit option: • These three statutes are likely the only legal tools you can use: • 1. National Environmental Policy Act • To promote the enhancement of the environment. Requires EISs on the impacts of proposed federally funded actions. • 2. National Historic Preservation Act • To preserve U.S. historical and archaeological sites. It mandates a review process for all federally funded projects to minimize harm to sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places. • 3. Section 4(f) of the Transportation Act. • The US DOT may not approve the use of publicly owned land of a public park, recreation area, wildlife refuge or historic site unless it determines there is no feasible (can it be built?) and prudent (meet the need?) avoidance alternative. It may then only approve the alternative that causes the least overall harm.

  26. Complaints: • 1. Improper defining of the “purpose and need” statement. • Too narrow a definition as “rapid transit” precludes consideration of all other reasonable alternatives. • 2. Failed to consider all reasonable alternatives • Failed to consider BRT, Managed Lanes, light rail & others. • 3. Failed to analyze the environmental effects of alternatives • Failed to consider destruction of views, effects on the waterfront, and impacts on Native Hawaiian burial sites.

  27. Standing: A plaintiff must show that some personal legal interest has been invaded by the defendant; they must have a personal stake in the outcome of the lawsuit. Legal process: 65 filings 3 hearings Administrative Record of 155,000 pages. 1 appeal $1.4 million legal billings. We await an appeals ruling from the Ninth Circuit

  28. $700 million spent so far

  29. Thanks for listening! Find this at: www.honolulutraffic.com/ADC.pdf

More Related