Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Growth is an interesting concept on Oahu. For several years, including 2013 - Honolulu is experiencing a net loss in population due to migration - and its population growth is due to more births than deaths.
Is this conclusion based on both domestic and international migration or just domestic migration?
The reason it seems like there is so much more traffic and people is: Record tourism - 2012 shattered all the records and 2013 will shatter that record for tourism - the tourist drive cars. And, people migrating to West Oahu for cheaper housing and not fully understanding the drive time implications to get downtown from Kapolei - Kapolei is trying hard to be its own urban center - but with mixed results.
Don't forget about the relationship between road/construction projects and traffic. Plenty of folks on Oʻahu have spent hours in sitting in traffic because of detours and road closures due to construction. Fortunately, the Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation (which is in charge of the "Honolulu Rail Transit" project) has been kind enough to post "traffic updates" for motorists... Rail Construction Traffic Updates - Honolulu Rail Transit Project
Quote:
Originally Posted by whtviper1
Here is a net migration loss chart for 2013 - snapped on my pc as it is an over 100 page pdf. if I remember correctly - Oahu has had a net migration loss of people per year for over 10 years. It seems like a lot more people - but it isn't from people moving here.
Can you provide a link to that 100-page PDF? Anyone that has basic knowledge on how to use a spreadsheet can create tons of "pretty charts" based on faulty assumptions and inaccurate data.
Can you provide a link to that 100-page PDF? Anyone that has basic knowledge on how to use a spreadsheet can create tons of "pretty charts" based on faulty assumptions and inaccurate data.
The PDF that you linked to only has 100 pages, not 104. I wonder why someone at PWC or the Urban Land Institute didn't catch the typo on the back cover? Their "no-nonsense, expert insigh" (sic) makes me wonder about the accuracy of their "pretty charts."
The PDF has pages i, ii, iii, iv and pages 1-100 = 104
But, if one subtracts the four pages that are completely blank (pages 63, 85, 96, and 97) and gives credit for page 99 (a blank page that's a nice shade of light blue), the actual page count is still just 100, which matches the "page count" that my PDF viewer indicates.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
