BRT and Undergrounding for Speedy, Upgraded and Prettier Honolulu

Several people sent me the same article from the NY Times today. The article is extolling the virtues of Bus Rapid Transit. Here is a sample send from a friend.

Buses May Aid Climate Battle in Poor Cities, Elizabeth Rosenthal, NYTimes, 7.09.09 [ http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/10/world/americas/10degrees.html?_r=1&em ]

Bogota removed 7000 small private buses to reduce bus fuel by more than 59 percent. Government owned TransMilenio opened first line in 2001 and now averages 1.6 million trips daily. Versions of BRT concept to be copied by Mexico City, Cape Town, Jakarta and Ahmedabad. TransMilenio BRT system is the only large transportation project approved by UN to generate and sell carbon credits of $100- to $300-million.

Another friend sent me this commentary:

"This seems like a sensible, low cost solution. I find it odd that we lack the political will to commandeer two lanes of Kam Hwy, Farrington, Kalanianaole, Nimitz, Vineyard, Kapiolani, King, Beretania, Kalakaua, and other major arteries.

But that Hizzoner is more than willing to tax us into the dark ages to pay for a heavy rail system that: is not affordable, does not decrease traffic congestion, will ruin Oahu's sight lines, create horrible noise and other impacts, etc.

This is not to mention the no/low-cost mitigation that should be implemented right now such as: shifting operating hours of UH to off peak (10am-8pm), better traffic signal coordination, intelligent flow design, afternoon zipper lane heading west, etc.

But do we do these things? Of course not! Because that would alleviate traffic and the false sense of urgency for the heavy rail system that no one wants. Why look at alternatives like at grade light rail or BRT when the Mayor wants a multi-billion dollar legacy project."

To which I replied with this:

The King-Beretania BRT is really a no brainer and can be installed in less than two years for a speedy connection of UH, Manoa and Moiliili with downtown Honolulu and Chinatown. This link dates back to 2002: http://www.eng.hawaii.edu/~panos/pdp_brt.pdf

Taking two traffic lanes away from other streets would be more problematic... and let's not forget transit stations. It is hard to develop ADA stations on surface given Honolulu's density and property values.

I'd prefer double decking the corridor you describe but underground. Not with tunnels but with cut and cover trenches. This plan can provide speedy mass transit and solve Honolulu's rotting utility problem in one shot. The lower deck will be for light rail or electric buses, water, sewer, gas and electric in neatly arranged and accessible lengthwise compartments.

Then a 100 year slab on top will be used for the surface road and provides the opportunity to develop a modern arterial street with smart sensors and traffic signals. An added bonus is that all overhead wires can be neatly undergrounded. This is not only a permanent improvement in aesthetics but improves infrastructure resilience in case of a hurricane or major storm along the corridor.

In this way, we can bring a whole corridor of Honolulu to 21st century standard in one shot. I believe that this is a worthwhile expenditure of $10 to 15 billion over 20 years, instead of spending the same amount for piecemeal, ineffective, less durable and ugly components.

2nd International Symposium on Freeway and Tollway Operations

The 2nd ISFO brought together freeway and tollway operators, practitioners and researchers specializing in freeway operations, highway toll operations and corridor management to:

• Capture the state of the practice in freeway and tollway operations including current programs and planned initiatives for active traffic management.
• Assess costs and benefits of active traffic management.
• Discuss Intelligent Transportation Systems, managed lanes, and active traffic management.
• Explore the potential benefits of using managed lanes, tolling, pricing, and other strategies to improve traffic operations on congested freeways.
• Present methods and challenges for infrastructure financing and development.

The symposium included a graduate student competition, the results of which can be found here: http://2isfo.eng.hawaii.edu/student.html

Nearly 250 participants had the opportunity to attend 150 presentations in 35 sessions. A number of articles are being prepared to summarize the state-of-the-art in traffic management and lessors learned from the 2nd ISFO. Meanwhile, the links below presents some of the flavors from the intense three days on June 2009:

Freeway Symposium Comes to Honolulu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MBu-DgX6ek&eurl=http%3A%2F%2F

Lieutenant Governor Duke Aiona Opens 2nd ISFO
http://www.hawaii247.org/2009/07/01/finding-solutions-to-transportation-challenges/

Hawaii Highway Users Alliance Luncheon during the 2nd ISFO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es94aw9x86M&eurl=http%3A%2F%2F

Honolulu's Congestion Level Makes Weak Case for Rail

The just published Transportation Statistics Annual Report 2008 indicates that Honolulu's congestion is low among 85 metropolitan areas in the U.S. -- Honolulu is ranked 52nd.

The average delay due to road traffic congestion for travelers in Honolulu is 24 hours per year. This is a large number of wasted hours but it pales in comparison to Los Angeles metropolitan area where the annual loss per traveler is 72 hours. Atlanta, San Francisco and Washington DC tie at 60 hours per year.

These statistics were just released by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, a unit of the U.S. Department of Transportation. The full report can be found here: http://www.bts.gov/publications/transportation_statistics_annual_report/2008/pdf/entire.pdf

Honolulu's traffic delay peers are Omaha, NE, Sarasota and Pensacola, FL, El Paso, TX, Grand Rapids, MI, and Cape Coral, FL none of which have any form or rail.

Metropolitan areas are classified as very large, large, medium and small. Honolulu is classified as a medium metropolitan area and has 30 peers. Even among its peers, Honolulu ranks lower in delay having 24 hours of annual delay per traveler whereas the average for 30 medium areas was 28 in 2005. See table below.

Very few cities in this group have any form of rail. For example Charlotte has a small new at grade light rail system and its congestion level at 45 hours per year is nearly twice that of Honolulu's. Charlotte's light rail cost was in the order of one billion dollars for a population of over three million people and Honolulu's light rail cost is in the order of five billion dollars for 900,000 (and dropping) population.

These numbers provide a strong indication that on a national priority list for funding "new starts" rail systems, Honolulu's proposal should receive a very low priority for federal funding.

	Average Hours of Annual Delay per Traveler
Medium Urban Area	1982	1995	2004	2005
Akron, OH	2	9	11	10
Albany-Schenectady, NY	3	8	16	16
Albuquerque, NM	11	30	30	33
Allentown-Bethlehem, PA-NJ	9	21	22	22
Austin, TX	12	32	44	49
Birmingham, AL	8	21	33	33
Bridgeport-Stamford, CT-NY	9	28	31
Charlotte, NC-SC	12	23	47	45
Dayton, OH	10	22	19	17
El Paso, TX-NM	3	10	22	24
Fresno, CA	12	17	19	20
Grand Rapids, MI	6	19	24	24
Hartford, CT	4	13	19	19
Honolulu, HI	14	26	22	24
Jacksonville, FL	16	40	41	39
Louisville, KY-IN	18	34	44	42
Memphis, TN-MS-AR	6	23	29	30
Nashville-Davidson, TN	20	35	40	40
New Haven, CT	5	13	18	19
Omaha, NE-IA	5	19	26	25
Oxnard-Ventura, CA	4	21	35	39
Raleigh-Durham, NC	8	26	35	35
Richmond, VA	6	22	20	20
Rochester, NY	3	7	10	10
Salt Lake City, UT	8	32	29	27
Sarasota-Bradenton, FL	15	19	26	25
Springfield, MA-CT	7	10	10	11
Toledo, OH-MI	2	12	17	15
Tucson, AZ	24	23	39	42
Tulsa, OK	8	14	19	19
Medium Area Average	9	21	27	28

Car Technology Works to Protect Us and the Planet

I would like to provide a couple of examples to demonstrate how technology works in beneficial ways, and how vehicle functionality, safety and economy can improve over time. The examples below are the result of natural evolution in the absence of a major energy crisis. These vehicles were finalized in design between 2005 and 2007, well before the 2008 oil pricing crisis and the current recession were in effect. In other words, the improvements highlighted by these four sample vehicles can be realized in 10 instead of 20 to 25 years in response to strong pressures for fuel efficiency dictated by market prices or regulations.

First we look at the evolution of Honda gas misers, the very economic 1985 Honda CRX HF and the advanced hybrid 2009 Honda Insight which also have comparable pricing in terms of purchasing parity with the 2009 Insight priced at about $20,000 now and the CRX priced at $6,500 almost 25 years ago.

	Units	1985 Honda CRX HF	2009 Honda Insight	Change
Seats	number	2	5	150%
Footprint	sq.ft.	64.2	79.8	24%
Cargo	sq.ft.	13.0	15.9	22%
Weight	lbs	1713	2723	59%
Transmission	type	5-speed manual	CVT	Easier
Fuel	octane	91	87	-7%
EPA City	mpg	38	40	-5%
Safety	estimate	Basic	Very Good	Much Better

The 2009 Honda has much more room for people, it is 24% larger, and 59% heavier. Part of the latter has a lot to do with safety features which make a 2009 Insight a very safe car to be in a collision, whereas the consequences from a rear angle (T-bone) accident in a compact 1985 vehicle are rather dire even at moderate speeds. Despite all the increases in size and functionality, the 2009 Honda delivers a 5% improvement in fuel consumption and it runs on a less expensive fuel. Also the Insight has a convenient Continuously Variable Transmission or CVT, which is a state-of-the-art "infinite gear" automatic gearbox.

Then we take a look at relatively popular performance vehicles made by BMW: the notoriously square best seller 1989 325i, and its modern re-incarnation the 2009 128i, both with similar six cylinder inline engines and manual gearboxes. In terms of pricing the 128i at about $30,000 is a relative bargain now compared to the $25,000 sticker price of the 325i about 20 years ago.

	Units	1989 325i	2008 128i	Change
Seats	number	4	4	0%
Footprint	sq.ft.	76.6	83.3	9%
Weight	lbs	2811	3252	16%
0-60 mph	sec	8.5	6.1	-28%
EPA City	mpg	16	18	-13%
Safety	estimate	Good	Very Good	Better

The above comparisons show that the 2009 car is 9% larger and 16% heavier, but 28% faster and 13% more fuel efficient!

As I concluded in my previous post, the outlook on future vehicle technologies is bright and many improvements will come from developments that do not even exist today. The two examples above show that progress is constant and in the right direction.

This progress is not possible or probable; it is certain. The worldwide auto industry is a giant part of technological, industrial and economic significance. For example, vehicle production during 2008 was 66,000,000 units. Here is a breakdown of vehicle production from some non-U.S. brands which also depicts the significance of these industries to regional economies and countries, and indeed the wrold as a whole. (Worldwide data do not include production from China and India, both of which have booming car markets.) The table below represents about 50% of world production:

Manufacturer	Country	2008 production
BMW	Germany	1.4 million
Opel	Germany	1.5
Mercedes	Germany	1.9
FIAT	Italy	2.2
Peugeot + Citroen	France	3.3
Honda	Japan	3.8
Hundai + Kia	Korea	4.2
VW	Germany	6.2
Toyota	Japan	9.0

(Base country shown but all manufacturers have plants in multiple countries.)

Technological Solutions for Improving Fuel Efficiency Now

There are several technologies that improve light duty vehicle miles per gallon (mpg) and in piecemeal fashion all of them are applied in today's cars and minivans, and some SUVs and light trucks.

They include lower rolling restistantance tires, cylinder deactivation (must have at least 6 cylinders), a start-stop system that kills the engine during idle times, electric power steering so that idt does not load the engine via a hydraulic pump, 6 speed automatic gearbox which can be found in some affordable cars such as the 2009 Chevy Malibu, smaller engine with a supercharger and direct gasoline injection inot the cylinders, in the same way that diesel engines work for nearly 100 years now.

Here is a table that summarizes all these and provides a listing on the basis of bang for the buck.

		U.S. $ Cost/Car	MPG Reduction (%)	Bang / Buck
1	Low rolling resistance tires	6	1	167
2	Cylinder deactivation	225	4.5	20
3	6 speed auto transmission	260	5	19
4	Electric power assist steering	180	1.5	8
5	Smaller engine with turbocharger	750	5	7
6	Start-stop system (kill engine at idle)	1900	5	3
7	Direct gasoline injection (like diesel engines)	400	1	3
		3721	18

Some interesting observations are as follows: All these technologies are affordable and even if all are combined together the total cost addition to a $25,000 vehicle is relatively small. For example, applying all solutions from 1 to 7 except for 5 yield a total estimate of about $3,000 and an MPG gain of 18%.

However, some of them are not necessarily compatible with each other. For example, changing from a 3 liter V6 to a 2 liter turbocharged engine no longer enables cylinder deactivation.

So if we take a 2009 Ford Fusion that delivers 23 mpg overall, an 18% improvement in fuel efficiency yields 28 mpg. If its user clocks 12,000 per year, he or she will realize a savings of roughly 470 galons of gasoline or $1,400 for a price per gallon of $3.00

The lesson here appears to be that a paradigm shift is necessary to make light duty vehicles both affordable and energy efficient. This paradigm shift includes two major components:
(1) massive reduction in vehicle mass (what we popularly call weight) which will likely bring a reduction in size as well and as an added benefit, there will be normal use for parking stalls labelled "compact."
(2) replacement of high displacement gasoline motors with diesel motors, electric drives or both.

A combination of (1) and (2) can result in susbtantial energy economy at an affodable price. Toyota Prius and Honda Insight are the current and largely convincing proof of this, but the future is bright and promissing.