Our most recent post here at Yes2Rail suggested that citizens still undecided on Honolulu’s rail question might consider three “Y” words – mobility, reliability and renewability. Today we look at the last of the three, the one that should appeal to anyone with environmental concerns.
Hawaii depends on imported fossil fuel for more than 90 percent of its energy requirements, more than any other state. According to a story two days ago in the Honolulu Advertiser, 78 percent of the electricity generated here is produced by burning oil.
Our need to transition to renewable energy sources therefore is greater, too. We know all too well what real or perceived interruptions to oil supplies can do to our gas and electricity prices.
Electricity vs. Gasoline
At the heart of the rail debate is whether commuters will use electricity or gasoline to travel between the ewa side and Honolulu – whether there will be an “electric train” option to automobiles and buses.
Every new wind, solar photovoltaic, biofuel and ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) project that comes online on Oahu displaces oil and coal to generate electricity. (Our graphic today is an artist’s conception of a floating OTEC plant, which we’ve promoted frequently at our Hawaii Energy Options blog.)
The faster the transition, the less dependent we’ll be on imported oil. Honolulu’s “electric train” undoubtedly will be powered by green energy by the time the system is completed.
If running the train with solar energy stored in our tropical ocean appeals to you, so should rail. Read up on OTEC as Hawaii’s energy game-changer and future energizer of Honolulu’s fixed guideway project.
2 comments:
The anti-rail movement seems to avoid or miss the single biggest question regarding a rail system: How to move a lot of people without cars?
Anti-rail is stuck on the concept of getting more cars into downtown Honolulu and elsewhere. The problem is once the cars get there, where do you put them for a 8-hour workday? And with downtown gridlock as bad as it is, how to get these cars to an improved freeway system?
As for the argument that rail isn't going to solve the traffic problem, it's sometimes pointed out that more than 40 percent of those polled won't use the rail system.
However, when the article about these polls are read carefully, there's a more complete picture:
A poll in the Star-Bulletin reported 15 percent of respondents are currently riding the bus. 81 percent drove alone.
http://starbulletin.com/2008/07/28/news/story02.html
A recent Advertiser poll reports 47 percent were unlikely to use rail. That's just part of the story, but it's the part that makes the headline.
However, 16 percent said they would use it and another 24 percent said they were somewhat likely. That's already an increase over the number currently using the Bus.
If poll respondents lived close to the line, 23 percent said they're likely to use it and another 23 percent said they were somewhat likely to use it. Add up the two and that's 46 percent. That's a much higher number in either case than currently riding the bus.
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080728/NEWS09/807280345/1001
Gas prices is the main reason most said they would ride the rail system. So it might be expected the numbers would increase along with the increasing cost of owning and operating a car.
8 percent said they'd use it to avoid traffic, so traffic might not be the greatest incentive although I suspect it would become so if traffic were bad enough. People in Ewa, for example, would love to avoid the mess on Ft. Weaver Rd.
A mere 5 percent said they wouldn't use the rail because they were opposed to it. If that is any indication of how many people are against the rail, the rest of us are facing a battle against a vocal minority. Something that would greatly benefit this community over the long run could be vetoed by a few who just aren't looking very far ahead.
Thanks for your long and informed comment, "anonymous." The small rock-ribbed anti-rail segment of the population (and that's all it seems to be) loves to prop up a straw man about rail supposedly "solving" traffic, then knocks it down. The rest of the population seems to get it: Rail will be an alternative to traffic, as well as the high cost of driving and parking one's private car. And as we say in this post, rail will run exclusively on renewable energy someday. That's a compelling pro-rail argument.
Post a Comment