It's your ConCon. What do you want to do with it? Learn - Discuss - Decide

Fixing Hawaii's Traffic Crisis

I have two thoughts in this area:
A) We should cap the total number of cars on each island. Our islands have a finite capacity for large gas guzzling vehicles. Its time to recognize this and set limits. We don't have the luxury of allowing every teenager in the family to have an SUV.
B) We should require every company with over 100 employees to provide the option of telecommuting to 25% or more of its workforce (with appropriate exceptions - this obviously doesn't work for doctors or construction crews.) This solution costs tax payers nothing and would have an immediate significant impact on traffic. Companies could offer this as an incentive for top performers. In my experience, top performers are generally equally productive when working from home.

Tags: telecommuting, traffic, traffic reduction

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Peter Kay on May 8, 2008 at 7:38pm: Are you proposing these as constitutional amendments? Have a look through the Constitution and see where you might consider changes.

Responding to (A): I'd be interested in an considering the long-term effects if this was even possible. What would happen if there was a cap on cars? Think it through several iterations. Public transportation makes up for about 2% of the total road miles traveled and about 16% of total riders. What would legislation like this do to the 84% of the citizens?

On B: While I'm a "beyond firm" believer in telecommuting, legislating those kinds of regulations really concerns me. Because like you said, exceptions need to be made. Who determines those exceptions? What become the specific conditions? How would they be challenged?

Permalink Reply by Daniel Leuck on May 8, 2008 at 8:53pm: Are you proposing these as constitutional amendments?

These suggestions are too specific to warrant inclusion in a constitutional amendment. I believe a mandate regarding removal of all fossil fuel from the state should be an amendment. These are a few of the mechanisms by which such a goal could be accomplished.

Responding to (A): I'd be interested in an considering the long-term effects if this was even possible. What would happen if there was a cap on cars?

Some islands already do this, so we don't have to guess. Catalina off the coast of California is one example. Its in between Lanai and Molokai in size (just under 4000 people.) The results have been an increased use of bicycles, an increased use of small electric vehicles, an increased use of public transportation and very few multi-car families. For larger islands the logistics are a bit more complicated, but the same principles apply. Growth in the total number of cars on Oahu is simply out of control. It needs to be checked.

On B: While I'm a "beyond firm" believer in telecommuting, legislating those kinds of regulations really concerns me. Because like you said, exceptions need to be made.

It does sound a bit radical, but if you think about the effects it would have on traffic, the environment, and quality of life it becomes very compelling. A huge percentage of people in our state work for the government or large companies. For many of the information worker type positions there is absolutely no need for them to drag themselves from Ewa to town. It will require new management skills and a new type of work culture, but it could be done.

Neither of these solutions would be easy or comfortable, but solutions to hard problems rarely are.

Who determines those exceptions?

An initial set of obvious exemptions would be set out in the law. Applications for exemptions would be handled by the department of labor and tested against a set of criteria set out in the law.

Permalink Reply by Daniel Leuck on May 10, 2008 at 3:22am: Hi Jimmy,

I have a problem with restricting choices. Mandating how we should live our lives.

Note that the law I am proposing would require the government and large corporations with information workers to provide the option of telecommuting to 25% or more of its workforce. I expect they would have a lot of takers, but no one is being required to give up chats around the water cooler.

In terms of the car cap, I believe its no different than water usage restrictions in places with limited water. Sometimes scarcity (in our case space) necessitates limiting certain choices. In this case, the result of limiting the number of large gas guzzling cars would also have a positive environmental impact and move us closer to energy independence.

Would moving towards nuclear power generation of electricity and electric or hydrogen vehicles be a better alternative?

We definitely need a multi-pronged solution including reducing our current consumption (as suggested above) and bringing in alternative energy sources. Luckily in Hawaii we have a lot of options!

Permalink Reply by Mel on May 11, 2008 at 2:15pm: One of the goals I think of a concon is to enact amendments that will require less government mandates and have the state be open to more free market incentives.

Telecommuting and alternative fuels are a good idea. However we cannot just simply abandon fossil fuels just because environmentalists and others are saying its a good idea. The consequences of that kind of action needs to be studied, because for example, if we went to an all ethanol based fuel source, that would (as it is now) drive up the cost of food and present shortages of food. I would rather use food to eat vs. burning it in our vehicles.

I am also not for a cap on vehicles. That kind of mandate should never be in the constitution.

Permalink Reply by Daniel Leuck on May 11, 2008 at 9:35pm: Hi Mel,

One of the goals I think of a concon is to enact amendments that will require less government mandates and have the state be open to more free market incentives.

In general, I agree. I'm a small business owner very much in favor of fewer government mandates and free markets. That being said, I think islands have special requirements that sometimes require mandates due to scarcity (water, land, etc.)

Telecommuting and alternative fuels are a good idea. However we cannot just simply abandon fossil fuels just because environmentalists and others are saying its a good idea.

I can think of a few other good reasons including oil hitting $126/barrel last Friday :-) Energy independence is another motivating factor of particular importance for us.

My first suggestion, as the title suggests, is largely to address traffic issues. The fact it is also green and could improve the quality of life for a lot of people are added incentives.

The consequences of that kind of action needs to be studied

True. Both of my suggestions would require study. The telecommuting piece probably requires less study than the car cap.

because for example, if we went to an all ethanol based fuel source, that would (as it is now) drive up the cost of food and present shortages of food.

I agree. Using food for fuel is almost always a bad idea. I've never advocated the use of corn or sugar ethanol. Algae appears to be a promising option. We have a lot of alternative energy options in Hawaii. Because of this, we have a unique opportunity to lead the country in terms of weaning ourselves off of fossil fuel. As Jimmy rightly pointed out, this won't be immediate and we will be burning fossil fuels in aircraft for a long time.

Permalink Reply by Della Au Belatti on May 12, 2008 at 3:09pm: I'm glad that you acknowledge that these recommendations are too specific to be included as constitutional amendments. I really can see how car caps and incentives to encourage telecommuting could be the subjects of specific laws - the tricky part is getting these laws enacted with all the special interests and, yes, even large pockets of the general driving public pushing back against these ideas.

Mandating the removal of all fossil fuels as an amendment - now that is intriguing but I have to agree with Mel that abandoning all fossil fuels may not just be realsitic? But what about an amendment that states a goal of reducing our reliance on fossil fuels (this would be more of an aspirational amendment and not a mandate to remove all use of fossil fuel)?

Permalink Reply by Daniel Leuck on May 12, 2008 at 3:33pm: the tricky part is getting these laws enacted with all the special interests and, yes, even large pockets of the general driving public pushing back against these ideas.

That is why we elect bold politicians such as yourself :-)

Mandating the removal of all fossil fuels as an amendment - now that is intriguing but I have to agree with Mel that abandoning all fossil fuels may not just be realsitic?

I believe its possible over a fifteen year period (excluding aircraft), and I am in good company.

Permalink Reply by Della Au Belatti on May 12, 2008 at 3:46pm: You addressed one of my main concerns - aircraft. If there could be an exception for that, then I might be persuaded to your point of view. But then what happens to rail transit if, as it appears to be the case, we have rail that is dependent on fossil fuels?

Permalink Reply by Daniel Leuck on May 12, 2008 at 4:20pm: But then what happens to rail transit if, as it appears to be the case, we have rail that is dependent on fossil fuels?

I believe the rail should absolutely be electric because we have so many ways of generating electricity in Hawaii without using fossil fuels. It seems very short sighted to build a mass transit system that doesn't allow us to leverage our unique ability to generate electricity from so many sources. Failing this, I suppose we could exempt it as well. I'm a pragmatist interested in getting things done.

Permalink Reply by Peter Kay on May 12, 2008 at 9:10pm: Dan, I commend you for putting forth "radical" or "difficult" ideas. I respectfully disagree with a fundamental premise on which you build your case:

Scarcity requires government mandates.

I think that model has been tried before and has never succeeded. I believe it's called Socialism or Marxism: Government attempts to control supply & demand, so far with a 100% abysmal track record.

The free market does an infinitely more efficient and effective job of managing scarcity.

In fact, that's exactly what free markets do. Because essentially nearly everything has a scarcity component. Everything is subject to laws of supply and demand.

You mandate car restrictions and you artificially drive up the price of cars (at best) and at worse create a black market for autos, when the problem is not that we have too few cars, it's that we have too few roads.

You mandate removal of fossil fuels, and, well, geez, we can go back to the stone age while we wait for 20 years for alternative fuels to catch up. Unless you go nuclear and I'm totally OK w/ that.

You mandate telecommuting options, and that brings in more special interests that protect their turf. A free market guy like me would instead propose we study why it is that businesses don't already encourage more telecommuting and if government regulations (e.g. labor/employment laws) are the problem, we remove them and let the natural economic benefit of telecommuting take over.

I like what you're doing here, though. It's important to have diverse ideas. I really believe it's even better when the ideas represent opposing fundamental beliefs and they can be presented in a respectful manner. Excellent!

Permalink Reply by Daniel Leuck on May 12, 2008 at 10:33pm: I didn't expect these ideas to be popular. I have the luxury of putting them forward because I'm not running for anything.

I think that model has been tried before and has never succeeded. I believe it's called Socialism or Marxism.

You are applying highly charged words relating to a broad political philosophy to specific suggestions relating to a problem unique (or at least most acute) on small islands. When areas suffering from drought in California or Texas impose water usage restrictions, do you accuse them of being Marxists? Would you say they "never succeed"?

Of course socialist and Marxist governments are failed experiments. Most of us agree free markets are highly efficient and lead to healthy economies, but nothing exists in a vacuum. Free markets don't always protect things like the environment and people's health or quality of life. If they did we wouldn't have to rely on any rules other than property law.

As you know, I'm a small business man and a "free market guy" in most areas, but I am also a pragmatist. We have to accept the fact we live on a small and relatively fragile island chain.

Permalink Reply by Daniel Leuck on May 13, 2008 at 10:26am: Hey folks,

Dan L (the other Dan L) came up with a better proposal for B) in the same thread under my blog post. My new proposal:

The mandate should apply only to government. For private business we take a point off their GE taxes if they have 10% of the workforce telecommuting and another point at 30%.