Fixing Hawaii's Traffic Crisis

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Peter Kay on May 13, 2008 at 8:19pm

Didn't mean to highly charge the situation. I don't know what other words to use for government control of market supply and demand forces.

There's a couple of areas I believe are misunderstood. First, we don't have a traffic "crisis". That too is a highly charged word. Our traffic congestion is certainly unacceptable, but there are other areas in the US which have far worse congestion. Honolulu is by no means in the top 10 or so in congestion.

Which brings me to the 2nd point: the fact that we're an island has essentially nothing to do with the fact that we have a traffic congestion problem to solve. "Correlation does not mean causality".

So while the example of water usage restrictions is a good example of government control, it's an extreme example of drought where there are lives at stake.

I don't think the congestion problem is anywhere near that.

There are better ways to deal with traffic that aren't so draconian, like expanding network capacity, for one.

But overall, I do agree: it is fun to come up with new ideas especially when one is not running for anything!

Permalink Reply by Daniel Leuck on May 13, 2008 at 8:57pm

First, we don't have a traffic "crisis". That too is a highly charged word.

Fair enough. I should have said "problem"

Honolulu is by no means in the top 10 or so in congestion.

Yes, but its getting worse faster than most of those.


Which brings me to the 2nd point: the fact that we're an island has essentially nothing to do with the fact that we have a traffic congestion problem to solve. "Correlation does not mean causality".

Not to be pedantic, but in this case it is causal. Small Space + Highly Desirable Location =causes= Congestion.

I imagine you will find my modified proposal based on feedback from the other Dan L more palatable (see below.)

Permalink Reply by Peter Kay on May 14, 2008 at 11:28pm

I think you're picking up how to play politics (in a positive sense) pretty good! :)

Now that you're applying this only to government, get ready to work with labor leaders.

Finally, your causal description is correct, but not specific to islands. I totally agree with the formula. It's the solution we differ on. Mine is to increase capacity.

Permalink Reply by Daniel Leuck on May 15, 2008 at 8:54am

I think you're picking up how to play politics (in a positive sense) pretty good! :)

First I'm a Marxist and now I'm a politician. I thought we were friends ;-)

Now that you're applying this only to government, get ready to work with labor leaders.

Not likely. I think labor unions have become far too powerful in Hawaii. Note that the new proposal still applies to large businesses, its just reframed as a tax incentive.

Permalink Reply by Peter Kay on May 17, 2008 at 10:17am

My point is that if you apply this to government and it affects workers, you will deal with the unions. Here's some testimony related to the issue of removing the parking lot subsidies to encourage more public transportation.

Can I call you a union buster now too, Buddy? hehe good fun.

Permalink Reply by Richard on May 22, 2008 at 1:30pm

My goodness, where do we accept the premise that fossil fuels are bad? Where do we accept the premise that alternate energy options are better - note the unintended consequences of Ethanol. Government mandates are the reason we are in our present situation with the cost of energy. Now, because of the false assumption that consensus science is more right than scientific fact, we look for more ways to defy gravity?
If nuclear power was not prohibited by our constitution, we could be discussing a proven and tested source of cheaper power right now.
My goodness, we don't need more government mandates but should remove most of those already in place. I believe in the American spirit and the ability of mankind to meet our challenges with leadership, ingenuity and good old fashion fortitude. We didn't emerge from the stone age because we ran out of rocks.

Permalink Reply by Daniel Leuck on May 22, 2008 at 5:10pm

My goodness, where do we accept the premise that fossil fuels are bad?

Its hard to work with a statement as vague as "fossil fuels are bad". The facts are that they are not renewable, they are getting more expensive, and they cause a 10.65 billion tonne increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide per year. Are you disputing any of these assertions? If not, then I think we can agree they are...eh...suboptimal.

My goodness, we don't need more government mandates

The proposal as it currently stands (see thread posting below) mandates that government organizations with information workers offer telecommuting as an option, and offers tax incentives to businesses for doing the same. This reduces traffic and fossil fuel consumption at no cost to tax payers. What is the basis for your opposition?

I didn't say anything about being against nuclear energy. What does nuclear energy have to do with traffic or telecommuting?

Permalink Reply by Richard on May 23, 2008 at 10:54am

As I understand it, putting controls on transportation has to do, in part, with our "large gas guzzling vehicles" and your proposal to impose various limitations to curb this behavior. It is the stated policy of some government agencies and a planning guideline - Smart Growth - that if government doesn't increase infrastructure or roads it will alter behavior and change the way people will have to deal with transportation as well as other issues.
The underlying reason to limiting large gas guzzling vehilcles has to do with the political agenda of man made pollution - carbon emissions - which has not been scientifically proven. So, it is thought that we all need to drive Yugos and live in cluster housing.
And yes, I do chellange the opinion that we are running out of fossil fuels. Currently, all actions by government prohibit obtaining oil and natural gas from vast known quantities and further prohibits testing or exploring for energy sources where science indicates vast quantaties exist. So, if we don't know what is out there, how do we know we're running out?
As for Nuclear energy, if we were to produce electricity from Nuclear energy we would not need to import the vast amounts of bunker fuel for oil fired electrical energy. This should leave more oil to produce gas for our "guzzlers". More importantly, it will allow energy producers to select the proper energy sources for our energy requirements.
I do not accept that more government is the answer to out transportation problems. Left to market forces, we should have better solutions to our transportation needs.
Hitler solved the problem Germany had of efficiently moving people and commerce in a small country with the autobahn. President Eisenhower borrowed Hitler's idea and started out Interstate highway system. I fail to see where more regulation instead of solutions to our transportation problems is the answer.

Permalink Reply by Daniel Leuck on May 23, 2008 at 11:41am

The underlying reason to limiting large gas guzzling vehilcles has to do with the political agenda of man made pollution - carbon emissions - which has not been scientifically proven.

I invite you to spend some time on the Scientists and Engineers for America website. Real science over politically inspired pseudoscience is this organization's raison d'etre. Then take a look at the body of academic work on the subject. You are squarely on the opposite side of the scientific community.

Your arguments here are so full of non sequiturs, ad hominem attacks and other logical fallacies I scarcely know where to begin. Do you think bringing Hilter into the conversation will contribute to objective discourse?

Did I ever argue against nuclear power or building new infrastructure? You are arguing with phantoms.

▶ Reply to This

• 1
• 2