Hawaii Superferry faces waves in court

I suppose that would have happened if the plane you took to HNL continued on to the mainland. In that case, all baggage being loaded on that plane (and all carry-ons) would likely go through ag inspection in Kona. Then, when you went through HNL you would have to go through ag inspection again. And if your bags weren't checked through to the mainland at KOA, they would need to be inspected again.

But if the plane is solely interisland, there is no ag inspection. At KOA certain gates are not used for mainland flights because those gates don't have ag screening.

No doubt traffic on Kauai is pretty bad. It certainly was when I lived there, but we had bypass roads that you could use to bypass the worst of the traffic in Kapaa. As I understand it, a lot of the highway has been widened in Kapaa .. a project that started when I still lived there, and the state recently approved some more funds to complete that widening.

But the SF expects on normal trips to travel with around 100 vehicles. Not all those vehicles will go the same way when the SF lands.

I really don't think that the SF is going to contribute all that much to additional traffic on the islands, as long as the departing vehicles aren't unleashed on the roads all at once. They certainly won't contribute any worse than one more plane landing at the airport. And when one ferry lands, unleashing some more vehicles on the island, some vehicles will leave the island when the ferry departs.

I find it hard to imagine that homeless people that might live on the beach will pay to take the superferry over to Kauai so they can relocate. That's the same argument they use about drugs and criminals. Imagine that a criminal or low-life wakes up one morning on Ohahu and decides that Kauai would be a better target for their activities and decides to take a 3 hour $50 ride over to Kauai (without their vehicle) to ply their wares and trade on another island. That's just ridiculous, IMHO. People used the same argument to fight the light rail system in Santa Clara County, CA also, and I'm sure they use it in other places. It was just as ridiculous there.

There are some legitimate concerns about people coming over from Ohahu to fish in the streams, or take rocks from other islands, but that can be mitigated by prohibiting nets, etc. The rock incident on Maui was certainly interesting, but it was also illegal and it seems like the people (or at least their trucks) were caught in time. For $5 (the temporary introductory fare for people and normal sized non-commercial vehicles), maybe they were willing to take a chance, but at the regular price of over $200 in each direction for a vehicle, it's hard to imagine that people are going to take the SF over to get rocks and things like that, which they won't be able to return with.

-David

Hawaii Superferry postpones Kauai route

Citing safety concerns, Hawaii Superferry last night said it would postpone its planned service to Kaua'i indefinitely.

"A temporary delay serves the community best," Superferry officials said in a news release, one day after Gov. Linda Lingle faced a boisterous Kaua'i crowd of more than 1,100 people who were mostly opposed to the ferry.

"Hawaii Superferry has made the decision that in consideration for the safety of the community, our passengers and our dedicated employees, the resumption of service to Kaua'i will be delayed to an unspecified future date."

...

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070922/NEWS01/709220344

Ferry-borne pest risk 'negligible'



WAILUKU, Maui — The manager of the state Plant Quarantine Branch yesterday testified the Hawaii Superferry is "a new but negligible pathway" for the spread of fire ants, coqui frogs and other pests.

Carol Okada said the interisland ferry will transport a relatively small volume of passengers, vehicles and cargo compared to other maritime carriers. Combined with customers' ready compliance with screening procedures during its first voyages, that makes the vessel a "very low risk" for spreading invasive species, she said.

...

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070922/NEWS01/709220343

Hawaii ferry ruling expected on Monday

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071006/NEWS01/710060349

Cordoza has indicated that he will hand down his ruling on Monday after hearing closing arguments in the 4 week long trial.

Personally, I would expect either or both sides to appeal his ruling.

-David

Hawaii Superferry ruling delayed until tomorrow

WAILUKU, Maui — The fate of the Hawaii Superferry will remain in limbo for at least one more day.

After listening to attorneys' closing arguments this morning, Maui Circuit Judge Joseph Cardoza said he needed more time to consider the arguments and review additional memorandums filed this morning by the lawyers.

He said he will announce his decision at 10 a.m. tomorrow.

...

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2007/Oct/08/br/br1267098534.html

-David

The suspense, I'm on the edge of my seat.

I hope they do the right thing for Hawaii.


.

Courts said:

The suspense, I'm on the edge of my seat.

I hope they do the right thing for Hawaii.


.

Click to expand...

I know .. todays news was underwhelming, but I was wondering how he was going to render a decision today right after hearing closing arguments unless he had already made up his mind. So a days delay makes sense, or at least appears to make sense.

I'm not sure what the right thing is anymore. This is a very polarizing issue here. And no matter which side wins, the other side or both sides are sure to appeal. I think in the end, the legislature may have to step in, which will create more polarization, since their involvement will allow the SF to continue to operate while the EA/EIS is being done.

-David

Judge rules against Hawaii Superferry

WAILUKU, Maui — The future of the Hawaii Superferry was thrown into doubt today when a Maui judge ruled the ferry will not be allowed to operate while the state prepares an environmental assessment of its impact.

An environmental assessment could take several months to complete. Hawaii Superferry President and CEO John Garibaldi has said such a ruling would essentially kill the company's plans for doing business in Hawai'i.

The survival of the Superferry in Hawai'i could now rest with the governor and Legislature.

...

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2007/Oct/09/br/br2735804196.html

-David

Lingle, legislators to meet on special session for ferry

Gov. Linda Lingle, state Senate President Colleen Hanabusa and state House Speaker Calvin Say have scheduled a meeting for this afternoon to discuss a possible special session to help Superferry.

...

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071009/NEWS01/710090357/1001/NEWS01

Icarus said:

Lingle, legislators to meet on special session for ferry

Gov. Linda Lingle, state Senate President Colleen Hanabusa and state House Speaker Calvin Say have scheduled a meeting for this afternoon to discuss a possible special session to help Superferry.

...

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071009/NEWS01/710090357/1001/NEWS01

Click to expand...

No offense, but this whole business sounds like how things work in my local township. After an election, a new regime takes office and starts filing law suits against other office holders in the township.

One case in particular, a new board of supervisors took office and the Water and Sewer department was run by the opposition party whose terms would continue and could not be replaced according to the "township code". The supervisors started a law suit on some vague charges. The only people who suffer are the taxpayers.

I guess just too many lawyers, although I'm not in a position to know much about the Hawaii situation.

I just hope the taxpayers are not losing too much.

.

Hawaii is horribly anti-business. Just look at the decaying infrastructure. It's no wonder that the very minor 4.0 earthquake on the big Island late last year caused a complete outage across the entire state.

There are no right or wrong answers, only consequences for each action taken. By demonstrating their anti-business stance, this will prevent other entrepreneurial efforts from coming to the islands. Why bother? The investors in the SuperFerry are going to lose their shirts. It looks like they are ready to throw in the towel.

Hawaii just relegated itself to a tourist economy for the rich with no chance of getting any other industries to relocate here. It's already losing agriculture. Government can't grow forever. And, construction can only take you so far as well. Aspirations as a high tech center? ZERO chance of that happening. All they need to do is travel to places like Singapore where the government is pro-business and the differences in attitude are readily apparant. I guess Hawaiians are happy with minimum wage jobs at resorts, living 10 people in a house and having their best and brightest leaving the islands forever to find a better life. Maybe that's what the locals want. If so, then all is good.

How much has the state government put in this venture so far?

It's sounding more and more like the super ferry fiasco that happened in British Columbia.

Courts said:

No offense, but this whole business sounds like how things work in my local township. After an election, a new regime takes office and starts filing law suits against other office holders in the township.

Click to expand...

I don't see any similarity here. The State government was effectively the party being sued by the Sierra Club and other ad-hoc organizations. The plaintiffs successfully challenged the State DOT ruling that allowed the harbor improvements to be installed without going through the EA/EIS process.

This most recent hearing was only to determine if the SF could operate while the EA/EIS was being done. The purpose of a special legislature session would be to pass a law to permit the SF to operate while the EA/EIS is being done.

The state spent $40m on the harbor improvements, but there is an agreement in place that will ensure a revenue stream to pay for those improvements from SF revenues.

The federal Maritime Administration guaranteed the $140m loan to the SF for the ferry. The SF is a private company.

If the SF ends up leaving Hawaii to operate elsewhere, the State DOT will need to find a new revenue stream to pay for the harbor improvements.

-David

BocaBum99 said:

It's no wonder that the very minor 4.0 earthquake on the big Island late last year caused a complete outage across the entire state.

Click to expand...

I guess you are talking about the 6.7 magnitude EQ on Oct 16, 2006?

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/eqinthenews/2006/ustwbh/

Compare that to the damage done by the magnitude 6.7 Northridge EQ in the Los Angeles area in 1994.

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/states/events/1994_01_17.php

60 people died in the Northridge EQ, 7,000 people were injured, 20,000 people were left homeless. Still think 6.7 is a minor EQ?

The 1989 Loma Prieta (San Francisco/Oakland ) EQ was "only" magnitude 6.9.

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/states/events/1989_10_18.php

Technically, each of these events were different types of EQs, and they aren't directly comparable, but nonetheless, 6.7 is by no means a minor event.

Many people lost power in the state. Many people had their power restored relatively quickly. Some people were without power for most of the day. Hawaii was relatively lucky with the Oct 2006 EQ.

Sorry, but the rest of your reply makes as much sense as the EQ statement w.r.t. the SF. The government is the entity pushing and supporting the SF. Environmentalists and ad-hoc community based organizations (mostly locals, both native and Kamaaina, from Kauai and Maui) are the ones fighting it.

-David

Boca,

I apoligize for my harsh reply. Apparently you aren't the only linking the decision to Hawaii's business climate.



Hawaii's image affected by decision



The impact of the Maui court's ruling may extend well beyond the operation of one company, business leaders said.

The problems suffered by the Hawaii Superferry reinforce the state's image of having a poor business climate, the executives said. Even more importantly, this case may offer a glimpse of future community conflict as the state deals with larger issues involving rail transit, renewable energy and other big projects.

...

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071010/NEWS01/710100416

-David

There's a lot of links to other good HSF stories and a pdf version of Cordoza's ruling at the top of this article ...

Special session Hawaii Superferry's only hope

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071010/NEWS01/710100420

-David

Icarus said:

I guess you are talking about the 6.7 magnitude EQ on Oct 16, 2006?

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/eqinthenews/2006/ustwbh/

Compare that to the damage done by the magnitude 6.7 Northridge EQ in the Los Angeles area in 1994.

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/states/events/1994_01_17.php

60 people died in the Northridge EQ, 7,000 people were injured, 20,000 people were left homeless. Still think 6.7 is a minor EQ?

The 1989 Loma Prieta (San Francisco/Oakland ) EQ was "only" magnitude 6.9.

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/states/events/1989_10_18.php

Technically, each of these events were different types of EQs, and they aren't directly comparable, but nonetheless, 6.7 is by no means a minor event.

Many people lost power in the state. Many people had their power restored relatively quickly. Some people were without power for most of the day. Hawaii was relatively lucky with the Oct 2006 EQ.

Sorry, but the rest of your reply makes as much sense as the EQ statement w.r.t. the SF. The government is the entity pushing and supporting the SF. Environmentalists and ad-hoc community based organizations (mostly locals, both native and Kamaaina, from Kauai and Maui) are the ones fighting it.

-David

Click to expand...

David,

It's fun debating with you. You are a really smart and fact based debater. I really respect that. Here's my come back.

Yes, that's the one. It was indeed a 6.7 earthquake whose epicenter was near the Big Island. But, what you failed to state in your comparison to the Northridge and World Series earthquakes is the distance of the damage to the epicenter. So, your comparison's are actually misleading.

Let me explain. Where I live on Oahu is about 170 miles from the epicenter of the Oct 2006 earthquake. That is quite far away as far as earthquake damage zones go. The damage zone for an earthquake of 6.0-7.0 earthquake is about 100 miles or less from the epicenter.

From Wikipedia: Wikipedia Richter Scale tutorial

Strong 6.0-6.9 Can be destructive in areas up to about 100 miles across in populated areas. 120 per year

Click to expand...

The Northridge earthquake had an epicenter about 30 miles from Downtown Los Angeles. The World Series earthquake was about 60 miles from San Francisco. So, both of those earthquakes were in striking distance of major metropolitan areas and higher in magnitude. If we were talking about the Big Island of Hawaii only, I would say that that earthquake was a significant there. For the island of Oahu, it was minor and yet the entire island ground to a halt for most of the day. There were very few radio stations operating to brief citizens and even emergency generators failed in hotels. What if there was a tsunami? Did the warning sirens even work? I don't even know. We just headed for high ground in our car listening to the radio just in case.

When I say it was a 4.0 earthquake, what I should have said is that the earthquake felt like a 4.0 earthquake on Oahu where I experienced it. I was too loose with my facts on that number. I grew up in California, so I have experienced more than my fair share of earthquakes. I know what a 4.0 earthquake feels like and that was what that earthquake felt like on Oahu. After looking at the definitions on Wikipedia, they would call it more like a 3.0.

Oahu is where the major metropolitan area is. I believe it has more than 70% of the population. Oahu was out of power for 17 hours. If every area in California that experienced an equivalent 4.0 earthquake had a 17 hour power outage, then California would be in the dark most of the time.

If you don't believe that Hawaii is anti-business, take a look at the infrastructure. When water mains break, raw sewage gets spewed everywhere. Locals get upset for a while until they patch it and then as soon as they can't smell the sewage anymore, they ignore the problem and don't fix it until it happens again.

How about that earthquake? What has the government done after all the hoopla immediately following the earthquake? Not much. Out of sight, out of mind. Like I said, you want to see a pro-business city, then go to Singapore and compare the infrastructure to Hawaii's. One city is a modern wonder. The other is stuck in the dark ages.

Why isn't there a mass transit system in Honolulu? Why isn't there development on the North Shore of Hawaii? What will happen when Hawaii can no longer afford petrolum products. We already have the highest gas prices in the country. Whose going to allow a nuclear power plant or windmill in their back yard? The answer is simple. None of these things will happen because Hawaii is anti-business.

Hawaii has for decades tried to diversify its economy away from its services, goverment, tourism and trade base. It made a leap into High Tech by creating the High Tech Development Corp. I recently visited them and was astounded at the lack of progress they've made in this area after 20 years of trying. One company I worked with relocated to Maui only to leave about a year after getting here. Biggest issue. No access to talent. When Hawaii's best and brightest graduate as National Merit scholars and go to Ivy League schools, how many come back? Where are the high paying jobs? If it is this difficult to get something as simple as a Super Ferry approved and operating in Hawaii, just think how hard it would be to start a high tech container port to compete with Hong Kong and Singapore.

How about competing in finance like Grand Cayman does? Hawaii doesn't even have ONE national bank in the whole state. Try looking for a Bank of America, Citibank, Washington Mutual or Wells Fargo. You won't find one. So, Hawaii citizens actually pay for banking services that everyone else in the country gets for free. Why aren't there national banks here? It's simple. Hawaii doesn't want to change and keep up with the rest of the world. As a result, it will continue to fall further and further behind. Heck, I can go to communist china and withdraw money from a Citibank ATM: Citibank announces ATM by Great Wall of China. But, I can't in Hawaii.

So, this SuperFerry debacle is just indicative to me as to why it will be impossible for Hawaii to change into a more diversified economy. It will just remain an island for the rich to visit and to retire. Anyone with a creative idea for doing things better here will get clobbered by the locals who want to keep things the way they always were. That's not necessarily a bad thing. It's just the way it is. There are many who will argue that keeping Hawaii as Hawaii is better anyway. That could be.

All very good points. I did say that the EQs weren't directly comparable, and especially the Northridge Quake was a thrust fault quake that did a lot more damage than other EQs of the same magnitude might have done.

The only thing I disagree with is why the major banks don't have a presence here. It seems like that's more their decision than anybody else's, and I have a free checking account here .. at American Savings Bank, and Hawaii USA FCU is a pretty good CU. Personally, I try to avoid doing business with the major banks.

I also didn't realize you lived on Oahu. I thought you lived in Boca Raton. Why did you pick Oahu?

-David

Icarus said:

All very good points. I did say that the EQs weren't directly comparable, and especially the Northridge Quake was a thrust fault quake that did a lot more damage than other EQs of the same magnitude might have done.

The only thing I disagree with is why the major banks don't have a presence here. It seems like that's more their decision than anybody else's, and I have a free checking account here .. at American Savings Bank, and Hawaii USA FCU is a pretty good CU. Personally, I try to avoid doing business with the major banks.

I also didn't realize you lived on Oahu. I thought you lived in Boca Raton. Why did you pick Oahu?

-David

Click to expand...

I actually don't know why the national banks don't come here. When I tried to get a bank account, I had to go with First Hawaiian Bank since there are no WAMU, BofA, Wells Fargo or Citibank branches. I just figured that the reason for it was regulatory. Why wouldn't they want to be here? They are everywhere else.

I am a Florida resident. I just spend a lot of time in Hawaii since my wife is from here and she wanted to spend more time with her family. My oldest son goes to Iolani. Personally, I would rather live on Maui. I really wanted the SuperFerry to work so that I could timeshare in Maui more with my own car. I get the feeling that that idea isn't going to happen.

My business is in headquartered in Florida and I travel about 26 weeks a year. It's 100% online. So, it doesn't matter where I physically reside.

I've wanted to live in Hawaii for 20 years. I could never find a high tech job here since that is the industry from which I came. So, instead of finding a job, I created one. I work Wall Street hours. My customers are all on the East Coast, so I wake up around 3am to be on East Coast time.

BocaBum99 said:

David,

It's fun debating with you. You are a really smart and fact based debater. I really respect that. Here's my come back.

Yes, that's the one. It was indeed a 6.7 earthquake whose epicenter was near the Big Island. But, what you failed to state in your comparison to the Northridge and World Series earthquakes is the distance of the damage to the epicenter. So, your comparison's are actually misleading.

Click to expand...

That's grossly oversimplified to the point where it is inaccurate and misleading.

First off all, magnitude is really irrelevant. Intensity is what causes damage, not magnitude. Magnitude is a measure of the energy released; intensity is the ground motion at a given location. Intensity is what causes damage.

Intensity is a function of three key elements: magnitude, distance to epicenter, and geologic setting. Of those three, until a certain distance is reached from the epicenter, geologic setting is the principal factor that determines intensity.

Examples: during the 1906 earthquake the degree of ground shaking (and damage) was greater in Stockton than it was on Twin Peaks in San Francisco, even through Twin Peaks was vastly closer to the rupture zone.

A similar pattern was occurred in the Loma Prieta quake. During the Loma Prieta quake I personally witnessed three foot high seismic waves passing through the ground in the Emeryville area. Much closer to the epicenter in San Jose and Mountain View, there wasn't nearly the same degree of ground motion. What caused the elevated freeway to collapse was not distance to the epicenter - if that were the case the Dumbarton and San Mateo bridges would have collapsed as well. The damage occurred where it did because of geologic setting.

Intensity is also greatly affected by the depth at which an earthquake occurs. With two identical magnitudes, a shallow quake will tend to produce higher intensities, but with more localized impacts. Deep centered earthquakes yield lower peak intensities, but the effects are felt over a wider area. One reason why the Northridge quake was damaging over a wide area is because it's epicenter was significantly deeper than most quakes that have been recorded in the LA Basin. In fact, the Northridge quake revealed the presence of some previously unknown or understudied deep thrust faults in the LA basin. The increased awareness of those deep thrust faults has caused a reassessment of the seismic hazards of southern California. Turns out that the the seismic hazards in LA have been significantly understated.

****

So with all of that you can't simply draw any kind of meaningful conclusions about extent of damage based on magnitude and distance to epicenter. It simply cannot be done.

The statement that a 6.7 quake can be destructive to 100 miles merely indicates the zone within which typically damage might occur. It does not mean that damage will occur within that zone; that is where the role of local geologic setting comes into play.

****

The geologic setting that is the most conducive to earthquake damage is loose sedimentary soils and fill. The effects are amplified in areas with shallow groundwater. Areas such as the flatlands around San Francisco (or the San Joaquin Delta where Stockton is located) are prime examples. Many area in the LA basin have similar settings. One of the reasons that California earthquakes are destructive is because so much development has occurred in settings that are the most susceptible to damage during an earthquake.

Hawai'i has relatively few shallow sedimentary soils. Wa'ikiki and the entire waterfront area from Diamond Head through Pearl Harber, though, does have a lot of shallow sedimentary and fill soils with shallow groundwater. Hawai'i does have many loosely consolidated rock formations on hillsides. When quakes hit in Hawai'i, the most significant damages usually comes from landslides and debris avalanches triggered by the quake, and not directly from ground shaking

David,

By the way, what I didn't say is that I love Hawaii. I love the people. I love the weather. I love the food. I love the Ocean and the Mountains. And most of all, I love being connected with nature. Nothing beats hearing the birds singing in the morning and the cool trade winds blowing through your hair (well, what's left of my hair. lol). The fact that Hawaii isn't pro business doesn't really impact me since my business is on the mainland. I just wish it had a bit more balance between modernization and preservation. I believe you can do both.

T_R_Oglodyte said:

That's grossly oversimplified to the point where it is inaccurate and misleading.

First off all, magnitude is really irrelevant. Intensity is what causes damage, not magnitude. Magnitude is a measure of the energy released; intensity is the ground motion at a given location. Intensity is what causes damage.

Intensity is a function of three key elements: magnitude, distance to epicenter, and geologic setting. Of those three, until a certain distance is reached from the epicenter, geologic setting is the principal factor that determines intensity.

Examples: during the 1906 earthquake the degree of ground shaking (and damage) was greater in Stockton than it was on Twin Peaks in San Francisco, even through Twin Peaks was vastly closer to the rupture zone.

A similar pattern was occurred in the Loma Prieta quake. During the Loma Prieta quake I personally witnessed three foot high seismic waves passing through the ground in the Emeryville area. Much closer to the epicenter in San Jose and Mountain View, there wasn't nearly the same degree of ground motion. What caused the elevated freeway to collapse was not distance to the epicenter - if that were the case the Dumbarton and San Mateo bridges would have collapsed as well. The damage occurred where it did because of geologic setting.

Intensity is also greatly affected by the depth at which an earthquake occurs. With two identical magnitudes, a shallow quake will tend to produce higher intensities, but with more localized impacts. Deep centered earthquakes yield lower peak intensities, but the effects are felt over a wider area. One reason why the Northridge quake was damaging over a wide area is because it's epicenter was significantly deeper than most quakes that have been recorded in the LA Basin. In fact, the Northridge quake revealed the presence of some previously unknown or understudied deep thrust faults in the LA basin. The increased awareness of those deep thrust faults has caused a reassessment of the seismic hazards of southern California. Turns out that the the seismic hazards in LA have been significantly understated.

****

So with all of that you can't simply draw any kind of meaningful conclusions about extent of damage based on magnitude and distance to epicenter. It simply cannot be done.

The statement that a 6.7 quake can be destructive to 100 miles merely indicates the zone within which typically damage might occur. It does not mean that damage will occur within that zone; that is where the role of local geologic setting comes into play.

****

The geologic setting that is the most conducive to earthquake damage is loose sedimentary soils and fill. The effects are amplified in areas with shallow groundwater. Areas such as the flatlands around San Francisco (or the San Joaquin Delta where Stockton is located) are prime examples. Many area in the LA basin have similar settings. One of the reasons that California earthquakes are destructive is because so much development has occurred in settings that are the most susceptible to damage during an earthquake.

Hawai'i has relatively few shallow sedimentary soils. Wa'ikiki and the entire waterfront area from Diamond Head through Pearl Harber, though, does have a lot of shallow sedimentary and fill soils with shallow groundwater. Hawai'i does have many loosely consolidated rock formations on hillsides. When quakes hit in Hawai'i, the most significant damages usually comes from landslides and debris avalanches triggered by the quake, and not directly from ground shaking

Click to expand...

Steve,

You are probably right. My 1/2 hour research into earthquakes was flawed. But, you've got to admit, it sounded pretty good. lol. I've got to believe that the further away you are from the epicenter of an earthquake, the more the energy dissipates and the lighter the potential damage.

In any event, I believe my main points still hold which is that the earthquake near the Big Island and the Northridge and San Francisco are not directly comparable even though the magnitudes were similar. I'll just need for you to describe the science for why that is.

The bottom line is that I was in the earthquake and the amount of shaking was so minimal that it shouldn't have paralyzed the entire state for as long as it did.

BocaBum99 said:

Steve,

You are probably right. My 1/2 hour research into earthquakes was flawed. But, you've got to admit, it sounded pretty good. lol. I've got to believe that the further away you are from the epicenter of an earthquake, the more the energy dissipates and the lighter the potential damage.

Click to expand...

That's true after a distance, but utterly untrue inside the primary shaking area.

In a locale such as San Francisco Bay, you simply can't do better than being on bedrock. The difference in ground motion between say, Twin Peaks and North Beach or the Marina District is at least one-thousand fold.

You can be a quarter mile from the rupture zone, but if you're on bedrock you won't get nearly as much damage as someone 40 miles but who happens to be located on an alluvial marsh.

***

I'll give you the scientiific explanation and it's pretty easy to understand.

The earthquake wave is nothing but a wave of energy traveling through the ground. As that pulse travels through the ground, the ground needs to move in response to the pulse.

The ground acts like a spring. As the wave arrives, the ground compresses to absorb the energy, then it expands to release the energy.

Now imagine that energy hitting solid rock. It takes a lot of energy to compress solid rock only a tiny amount, because all of the mass in the rock is bound together in a solid block. That's like hitting the springs in the suspension of a car.

Now imagine that same pulse hits a loose deposit of sand. The sand crystals can move around, and pack closer together. Compared with a mass of solid rock, sand is pretty easy to move and deflect. So think of sand as being like a common household spring.

Imagine that you are hitting a spring with a hammer; that's an energy pulse and the spring deflects in response. How much the spring deflects depends on how stiff the spring is. If the spring is an auto suspension spring (like the bedrock in my analogy) the suspension spring will absorb the impact of the hammer with little movement. The household spring, having a lower spring constant, will deflect a long way after receiving the same hammer strike.

Distance really doesn't begin to matter until you are so far away from the epicenter that the wave has attenuated sufficiently so that the differences in souls are no longer significant.

The Latest...

Hawaii Superferry Cannot Sail During Environmental Assessment

HONOLULU, Hawaii, October 9, 2007 (ENS) - A Maui judge today ruled that the brand new the $85 million Hawaii Superferry cannot operate while the state prepares an environmental assessment.

The state waived an environmental assessment back in 2005 at the request of the Superferry management, who feared that their funding might evaporate if they had to wait for a study of changes made to Kahului Harbor on Maui to accommodate the big catamaran.

The U.S. Department of Transportation's Maritime Administration approved $140 million in loan guarantees for the Superferry in January 2005 on the condition that the state give all governmental and environmental clearances, including confirmation that there was no need for an environment assessment.

Maui Circuit Judge Joseph Cardoza's decision will keep the Superferry tied up in Honolulu while the required environmental work is completed, which could take at least a few months and as long as a year.

Superferry president and CEO John Garibaldi said, "Obviously, we are disappointed. While the ruling is a loss for Hawaii Superferry and our employees, it is a greater loss for the state of Hawaii."

Garibaldi said the company has been absorbing weekly costs of $650,000 and cannot afford to keep its 350-foot, high-speed ferry sitting idle while the state conducts the assessment. He has said that the Superferry might be pulled out of the state if it was not allowed to operate.

State legislators and Governor Linda Lingle said today that a special session of the Legislature to address the Superferry issue is likely now in view of the judge's ruling.

In his ruling, Judge Cardoza also determined that the Hawaii Department of Transportation's 22 year operating agreement with the Superferry is invalid. That could mean that the vessel cannot use port facilities in the state.

At the end of August, just days before the Superferry was set to launch its inter-island service, a state Supreme Court judge granted environmentalists their wish - an environmental impact assessment. The ruling reversed the July 2005 judgment of a lower court that no such assessment was necessary.

In response to the argument the Superferry is no different from barges, cruise ships or airplanes that do not have to conduct environmental assessments before being permitted, Judge Cardoza said the ferry is a new technology and a new chapter in transportation in Hawaii.

The decision capped a month-long hearing on a request to halt ferry service brought by the Sierra Club, Maui Tomorrow and the Kahului Harbor Coalition.

Increased traffic around ports, the potential spread of invasive species and collisions with humpback whales top the groups' list of concerns, in addition to the fear that increasing numbers of visitors to the outer islands will change their laid-back, relaxed lifestyle. Some also fear the rip-off of natural resources by an increasing stream of visitors.

The Superferry has operated for only two days in August. Dozens of protesters swam and rode surfboards into its path and prevented the big catamaran from docking at Nawiliwili Harbor on Kauai.

Although the U.S. Coast Guard established a designated protest area to allow the Superferry to enter the harbor, management decided to postpone Kauai trips.

In federal court last week, attorney Lanny Sinkin from Hawaii Island lost a challenge to the Coast Guard's security zone on the grounds that it prohibits free speech. Sinkin has appealed that ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Hawaii Superferry and the state have not said whether they will appeal Judge Cardoza's ruling to the Intermediate Court of Appeals.

The state Transportation Department last week selected the firm Belt Collins to conduct a $1 million environmental assessment of Superferry operations.