Concerned citizens should demand a list of specific action items from their next mayor. Here is my list.
Disaster Resilience ... Where's the plan to organize and distribute machinery to handle poles, trees, power and debris? How can we provide help to neighborhoods when vital streets are blocked with fallen trees and poles? Why are key streets not fitted with underground utilities and low height trees?
Second Access for Waianae ... Farrington Hwy. alone is a death trap for this large community. What's the evacuation plan for a 20-30 minute arrive time of tsunami from Big Island?
Trash Management ... This is a huge issue. At a minimum we need better sorting, more reuse and more exportation since containers go to mainland mostly empty.
Crime and Safety ... We need to focus on hard drugs, and the protection of our young.
Highway Accident Investigation ... We need to train police to open lanes in under 60 min.
Parks and the Homeless ... Use old and decommissioned TheBus as TheShelter at some parks. Park upkeep and modernization is long overdue.
Planning and Permitting ... DPP has a poor reputation. It needs to become fast and friendly.
Water "Scam" ... Oahu has enough water for about five million people but old laws allow for its (ab)use.
Energy ... Our best bets are with wind, Navy nuclear submarines, and an offshore nuclear plant.
Sustainability ... We need to focus on fishing, agriculture, and ocean transportation for long term survival of one million people in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.
Traffic and Transit ... Build the recommendations of the UH Congestion Study.
Sewers ... We pay heavy fees but progress is slow. An immediate audit is essential, followed by a plan to get all updates completed within 10 years.
Roads ... Hasty repaving to collect votes is a waste of money. We need a plan for pavement rehabilitation to take us from 3rd worst in nation to top third in 10 years.
What is the bottom line of this list? Many new, good and local jobs. Important projects get done. Quality of life improves. Tourist appeal improves. Economy thrives!
Friday, March 12, 2010
Monday, March 8, 2010
Oahu Railway and Land (OR&L)
The Oahu Railway and Land (OR&L) provides a nearly continuous 40 ft. wide corridor for rail transportation between Nanakuli and the west side of the Honolulu International Airport (HIA). Dr. Kioni Dudley of Makakilo, among others on Oahu have been questioning why such an obvious path for rail was largely ignored from any serious analysis and environmental assessment.
Thanks to the Star Bulletin some of the points and counterpoints are beginning to emerge.
Even if the counterpoints are significant, the City did fail to take a careful look at OR&L. As member of the 2006 Transit Advisory Task Force that examined the city's Alternatives Analysis, I can attest that OR&L was not the subject of analysis.
As one can see in the map below, the rail path of OR&L is extensive and it reaches to within a few miles of downtown. It provides a platform for light rail development. Light rail service can occur at a small fraction of the proposed fully elevated multibillion dollar system, with similar or better results in ridership. Its speed may be lower compared to a fully elevated system but it can be designed with fewer stations and larger parking lots.
Between the east end of HIA and downtown, the new passenger OR&L can operate on the sides of the Nimitz Viaduct which is a proposed project for a narrow reversible elevated highway connecting H-1 Fwy. at Keehi Interchange to downtown. This project passed environmental reviews in the late 1990s and was mothballed by Governor Lingle at the beginning of her first term. However, the Nimitz Viaduct re-emerged in 2008 as a desirable project in the Highway Modernization Program of the state DOT.
Thanks to the Star Bulletin some of the points and counterpoints are beginning to emerge.
- Rail route, agenda scrutinized (Feb 15, 2010)
- Using old OR&L path for rail not practical (Feb 25, 2010)
- Old OR&L route defended for rail transit (Mar 07, 2010)
Even if the counterpoints are significant, the City did fail to take a careful look at OR&L. As member of the 2006 Transit Advisory Task Force that examined the city's Alternatives Analysis, I can attest that OR&L was not the subject of analysis.
As one can see in the map below, the rail path of OR&L is extensive and it reaches to within a few miles of downtown. It provides a platform for light rail development. Light rail service can occur at a small fraction of the proposed fully elevated multibillion dollar system, with similar or better results in ridership. Its speed may be lower compared to a fully elevated system but it can be designed with fewer stations and larger parking lots.
Between the east end of HIA and downtown, the new passenger OR&L can operate on the sides of the Nimitz Viaduct which is a proposed project for a narrow reversible elevated highway connecting H-1 Fwy. at Keehi Interchange to downtown. This project passed environmental reviews in the late 1990s and was mothballed by Governor Lingle at the beginning of her first term. However, the Nimitz Viaduct re-emerged in 2008 as a desirable project in the Highway Modernization Program of the state DOT.
Friday, March 5, 2010
The Nasty Pothole Has a New Suitor: The Smart Phone
Vehicles of all sizes and their passengers and cargo suffer daily from potholes. Particularly in Honolulu which is bottom ranked for quality of roads. Just take a look on Ward Avenue between Kinau and King Streets.
The Nasty Pothole was the focus of a popular TV and radio commercial spot by a major auto insurance company.
Honolulu has a pothole hotline, so the regular phone was a long time suitor of the pothole. Now camera and GPS loaded smart phones present a formidable new suitor.
See Click Fix Dot Com provides the means to instantly notify authorities and other motorists about nasty potholes with a picture and exact geo-location.
Yet another driver distraction, but if we were top ranked for road quality, like most cities in Florida, which has a similar hot, humid and wet environment, we wouldn't have to use a smart phone app for potholes.
The Nasty Pothole was the focus of a popular TV and radio commercial spot by a major auto insurance company.
Honolulu has a pothole hotline, so the regular phone was a long time suitor of the pothole. Now camera and GPS loaded smart phones present a formidable new suitor.
See Click Fix Dot Com provides the means to instantly notify authorities and other motorists about nasty potholes with a picture and exact geo-location.
Yet another driver distraction, but if we were top ranked for road quality, like most cities in Florida, which has a similar hot, humid and wet environment, we wouldn't have to use a smart phone app for potholes.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
FTA has withdrawn $70 million in federal stimulus funds from BART
Why? Due to the lack of Equity Analysis which is a civil rights violation.
These $70 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) stimulus funds to BART were allocated to fill a gap in its proposed half-billion dollar, 3.2 mile connection to the Oakland International Airport.
"The complaint alleged that the lack of stops and the high fare excluded low-income riders and riders of color from the benefits of the project, and that this exclusion violated not only Title VI, but also U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Environmental Justice Order." Planetizen's article titled Transportation Victory for Social Equity includes this telling section:
FTA Investigates and Requires Corrective Action
FTA accepted the complaint and conducted an on-site investigation, both of the Airport Connector project and of BART's wider Title VI compliance. In a January 15 letter to BART and MTC, Administrator Peter Rogoff concluded that the complaint’s allegations were true. He put BART and MTC on notice that FTA would withhold the $70 million in ARRA funds unless BART could quickly provide an adequate plan to FTA to correct multiple deficiencies, including the missing equity analysis. BART submitted two drafts of its plan, and Public Advocates submitted lengthy comments on each to FTA, noting numerous deficiencies.
Administrator Rogoff's February 12 follow-up letter to BART and MTC stated "I am required to reject your plan. Given the fact that the initial Title VI complaint against BART was well founded, I am not in a position to award the ARRA funds to BART while the agency remains out of compliance." Rogoff further wrote "It is imperative that BART, as a recipient of FTA funds, come fully into compliance with Title VI as soon as possible."
Where is Honolulu rail's Equity Analysis? Recall that the main plan for Honolulu rail is to terminate all express buses and other parallel bus lines and replace them by rail. This will reduce accessibility for many and particularly for the poor dramatically. The grounds for another lawsuit are quite substantial.
If you doubt this, then hear Gary Okino talk about buses, as recently as February 18, 2010 on PBS-Hawaii Insights where he proudly announced that buses will be deleted in the direction parallel to the rail and will be added as feeders in the direction perpendicular to the rail.
With this plan, overall accessibility suffers, large amounts of time are spent on inconvenient transfers and labor costs pile up for operating and maintaining two systems, one of which, the rail, is really targeted for white collar professionals who like to do wi-fi in train while the poor lose the valuable accessibility of the bus service.
Let's also recall that HOT Lanes is the biggest friend to express bus operations. Express buses that collect commuters from Makakilo, Ewa, Ewa Beach, Kapolei, Waipahu, Waipio and Mililani can be provided access to freeway shoulder lanes to avoid the mainline bumper-to-bumper traffic until the H-1/H-2 merge then hop onto the HOT lanes and arrive at Airport, Kalihi, Iwilei and downtown withing 8 to 12 minutes. No train can beat this performance and no train can beat the 1/4 cost of 10 miles of HOT Lanes.
These $70 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) stimulus funds to BART were allocated to fill a gap in its proposed half-billion dollar, 3.2 mile connection to the Oakland International Airport.
"The complaint alleged that the lack of stops and the high fare excluded low-income riders and riders of color from the benefits of the project, and that this exclusion violated not only Title VI, but also U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Environmental Justice Order." Planetizen's article titled Transportation Victory for Social Equity includes this telling section:
FTA Investigates and Requires Corrective Action
FTA accepted the complaint and conducted an on-site investigation, both of the Airport Connector project and of BART's wider Title VI compliance. In a January 15 letter to BART and MTC, Administrator Peter Rogoff concluded that the complaint’s allegations were true. He put BART and MTC on notice that FTA would withhold the $70 million in ARRA funds unless BART could quickly provide an adequate plan to FTA to correct multiple deficiencies, including the missing equity analysis. BART submitted two drafts of its plan, and Public Advocates submitted lengthy comments on each to FTA, noting numerous deficiencies.
Administrator Rogoff's February 12 follow-up letter to BART and MTC stated "I am required to reject your plan. Given the fact that the initial Title VI complaint against BART was well founded, I am not in a position to award the ARRA funds to BART while the agency remains out of compliance." Rogoff further wrote "It is imperative that BART, as a recipient of FTA funds, come fully into compliance with Title VI as soon as possible."
Where is Honolulu rail's Equity Analysis? Recall that the main plan for Honolulu rail is to terminate all express buses and other parallel bus lines and replace them by rail. This will reduce accessibility for many and particularly for the poor dramatically. The grounds for another lawsuit are quite substantial.
If you doubt this, then hear Gary Okino talk about buses, as recently as February 18, 2010 on PBS-Hawaii Insights where he proudly announced that buses will be deleted in the direction parallel to the rail and will be added as feeders in the direction perpendicular to the rail.
With this plan, overall accessibility suffers, large amounts of time are spent on inconvenient transfers and labor costs pile up for operating and maintaining two systems, one of which, the rail, is really targeted for white collar professionals who like to do wi-fi in train while the poor lose the valuable accessibility of the bus service.
Let's also recall that HOT Lanes is the biggest friend to express bus operations. Express buses that collect commuters from Makakilo, Ewa, Ewa Beach, Kapolei, Waipahu, Waipio and Mililani can be provided access to freeway shoulder lanes to avoid the mainline bumper-to-bumper traffic until the H-1/H-2 merge then hop onto the HOT lanes and arrive at Airport, Kalihi, Iwilei and downtown withing 8 to 12 minutes. No train can beat this performance and no train can beat the 1/4 cost of 10 miles of HOT Lanes.
Monday, March 1, 2010
HOT Lanes Receive Standardized Highway Signs. Purple!
The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices is one of the least boring and most understandable manuals for the application of engineering in the real world. It standardizes all signs and lane striping used on U.S. roadways, from local streets to multi-lane freeways. Most countries have adopted the MUTCD as the basis for their highways standard.
It is the MUTCD that dictates that all signs giving directions are green with white letters, signs for historical and cultural sites and National Parks are brown with white letters, etc. In its most recent edition the MUTCD introduced a brand new color, purple for the exclusive use of controlled express lanes such as High Occupancy Toll lanes and lanes with electronic tolls.
There is a funny side to this purple color designation for express and HOT lanes. Agenda-controlling Kapolei Neighborhood Board Chair and unsuccessful Hawaii Legislature candidate Maeda Timson is a very vocal pro-rail advocate; she is the current president of Go Rail Go. Her signature color is purple. It is all but impossible for Maeda to appear in public with not at least one purple article of clothing.
Ironically, purple HOT or Express lanes is the only real traffic congestion solution for Kapolei. Maeda can paint the train purple but, as the city has published widely, in 2030, congestion for Kapolei commuters will far worse with a purple train, than it is now without it. Given that the train is stuck in environmental and fiscal problems, there is plenty of time for the Go-Rail-Go president to switch to the correct transportation solution with her most preferred color coming standard and not as special order.
It is the MUTCD that dictates that all signs giving directions are green with white letters, signs for historical and cultural sites and National Parks are brown with white letters, etc. In its most recent edition the MUTCD introduced a brand new color, purple for the exclusive use of controlled express lanes such as High Occupancy Toll lanes and lanes with electronic tolls.
There is a funny side to this purple color designation for express and HOT lanes. Agenda-controlling Kapolei Neighborhood Board Chair and unsuccessful Hawaii Legislature candidate Maeda Timson is a very vocal pro-rail advocate; she is the current president of Go Rail Go. Her signature color is purple. It is all but impossible for Maeda to appear in public with not at least one purple article of clothing.Ironically, purple HOT or Express lanes is the only real traffic congestion solution for Kapolei. Maeda can paint the train purple but, as the city has published widely, in 2030, congestion for Kapolei commuters will far worse with a purple train, than it is now without it. Given that the train is stuck in environmental and fiscal problems, there is plenty of time for the Go-Rail-Go president to switch to the correct transportation solution with her most preferred color coming standard and not as special order.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Trains, HOT Lanes, Ferries and Tunnels: Honolulu Has Many Alternatives and Very Few Billions
I was very pleased to accept an invitation to speak at one of the nation's best public colleges, the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA.) My presentation to their prestigious School of Public Affairs was on Trains, HOT Lanes, Ferries and Tunnels: Honolulu Has Many Alternatives and Very Few Billions.
The hour-long presentation was well received and the audience was surprised that such a disproportionally large and expensive system is planned for our city. They were disappointed that a huge amount of public funds are being spent for a project with low benefits. They were rather astounded by the apathy of the public in accepting such a megaproject for our small island.
The audience of professors and students in urban planning and public policy were generally in favor of transit, but transit needs to be selected and sized properly. The proposed transit for Honolulu fails any proportionality comparison. Projects like Honolulu's and San Juan's (heavy rail in island communities) give transit projects a bad name.
It is no coincidence that the same consultant (Parsons Brinkerhoff), for the same city (Honolulu) with a difference of six years (2000 versus 2006) concluded that a Bus Rapid Transit system will be far cheaper and will generate a higher transit ridership than rail. To avoid this comparison, BRT was not included in the 2006 Alternatives Analysis where rail was proclaimed the Locally Preferred Alternative.
The same analysis dismissed Light Rail and the Pearl Harbor Tunnel withing a few introductory paragraphs with no analysis whatsoever. HOT lanes were designed as a silly pipeline with no on- and off-ramps. Worse yet, they added 2 lanes and they took away the zipper lane, for a net gain of one lane. That one lane alone was only a hair inferior to the rail that was selected as the "winner."
HOT lanes is natural partner for BRT and Express Buses. Reversible HOT Lanes like Tampa's should be priority number one for our Waianae/Kapolei/Ewa/Mililani traffic to/from town. It is only about 10-miles from the H-1 and H-2 merge to downtown. Recall that in 2007 Tampa completed 10 miles of 3-lane reversible elevated road for a total of $320 million. Mufi Hannemann will spend over $300 million for rail paperwork and promotion alone. About $50 million from the feds. All the rest from our pockets. For paperwork, and smoke-and-mirrors shows and commercials.
======================================================
The hour-long presentation was well received and the audience was surprised that such a disproportionally large and expensive system is planned for our city. They were disappointed that a huge amount of public funds are being spent for a project with low benefits. They were rather astounded by the apathy of the public in accepting such a megaproject for our small island.
The audience of professors and students in urban planning and public policy were generally in favor of transit, but transit needs to be selected and sized properly. The proposed transit for Honolulu fails any proportionality comparison. Projects like Honolulu's and San Juan's (heavy rail in island communities) give transit projects a bad name.It is no coincidence that the same consultant (Parsons Brinkerhoff), for the same city (Honolulu) with a difference of six years (2000 versus 2006) concluded that a Bus Rapid Transit system will be far cheaper and will generate a higher transit ridership than rail. To avoid this comparison, BRT was not included in the 2006 Alternatives Analysis where rail was proclaimed the Locally Preferred Alternative.
The same analysis dismissed Light Rail and the Pearl Harbor Tunnel withing a few introductory paragraphs with no analysis whatsoever. HOT lanes were designed as a silly pipeline with no on- and off-ramps. Worse yet, they added 2 lanes and they took away the zipper lane, for a net gain of one lane. That one lane alone was only a hair inferior to the rail that was selected as the "winner."
HOT lanes is natural partner for BRT and Express Buses. Reversible HOT Lanes like Tampa's should be priority number one for our Waianae/Kapolei/Ewa/Mililani traffic to/from town. It is only about 10-miles from the H-1 and H-2 merge to downtown. Recall that in 2007 Tampa completed 10 miles of 3-lane reversible elevated road for a total of $320 million. Mufi Hannemann will spend over $300 million for rail paperwork and promotion alone. About $50 million from the feds. All the rest from our pockets. For paperwork, and smoke-and-mirrors shows and commercials.
======================================================
- I only spent 24 hours in LA but it was a treat to cross paths and shake hands with past Massachusetts governor, presidential candidate, UH lecturer and now UCLA professor Michael Dukakis.
- Air traffic shows that the economy has not recovered. LAX was rather uncrowded, inside the airport and outside on the roads. My return flight to Honolulu was less than two thirds full.
- Traffic lights work very well in Los Angeles thanks to their advanced management center (ATSAC) and smart allocation of lanes for left and right turns. All major boulevards were flowing uncongested in the middle of the pau hana rush hour!
Friday, February 19, 2010
Who is Dependent on Cars? Mass Transit!
Ed Braddy of New Geography provides some clear explanations that without cars mass transit goes broke!
The quote below provides a quick summary, but the full article is very informative.
Yet in pursuing this transit-friendly future political leaders rarely confront this inescapable reality: public transportation is fiscally unsustainable and utterly dependent on the very car-drivers transit boosters so often excoriate. For example, a major source of funding for transit comes from taxes paid by motorists, which include principally fuel taxes but also sales taxes, registration fees and transportation grants. The amount of tax diversion varies from place to place, but whether the metro region is small or large the subsidies are significant.
Read it here: Who is Dependent on Cars? Mass Transit!
The passage below is a reality comparison between roads and transit--what is fiscally sustainable and what is not:
Many policy makers fail to focus on developing a fiscally sustainable plan for public transit. They miss the fundamental problem that anything heavily subsidized –particularly in a period of budget cuts– is unsustainable. Roads are subsidized at about a half-penny per passenger mile; transit subsidies are 100 times higher.
The quote below provides a quick summary, but the full article is very informative.
Yet in pursuing this transit-friendly future political leaders rarely confront this inescapable reality: public transportation is fiscally unsustainable and utterly dependent on the very car-drivers transit boosters so often excoriate. For example, a major source of funding for transit comes from taxes paid by motorists, which include principally fuel taxes but also sales taxes, registration fees and transportation grants. The amount of tax diversion varies from place to place, but whether the metro region is small or large the subsidies are significant.
Read it here: Who is Dependent on Cars? Mass Transit!
The passage below is a reality comparison between roads and transit--what is fiscally sustainable and what is not:
Many policy makers fail to focus on developing a fiscally sustainable plan for public transit. They miss the fundamental problem that anything heavily subsidized –particularly in a period of budget cuts– is unsustainable. Roads are subsidized at about a half-penny per passenger mile; transit subsidies are 100 times higher.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Panos Prevedouros on the Rick Hamada Program
For nearly three years now and on 40 or so Mondays per year I join political columnist and radio host Richard Hamada, III on KHVH 830 AM The Rick Hamada Program for a humorous, interesting and if I may say so, insightful, discussion on Honolulu city's issues and challenges relating to traffic and infrastructure, as well as on cost-effective ideas to mitigate these problems.
Here is a sample of the first four shows in 2010. Visit HonoluluTownPodcast.Com for more, including the "dark side", that is, Mayor Mufi's rail propaganda on the Mike Buck Show on KHVH.
Here is a sample of the first four shows in 2010. Visit HonoluluTownPodcast.Com for more, including the "dark side", that is, Mayor Mufi's rail propaganda on the Mike Buck Show on KHVH.
- January 18, 2010
- January 25, 2010
- February 1, 2010(with Steve Boleyn)
- February 8, 2010
They lied about the ridership, they lied about the costs, so why wouldn’t they lie about the jobs?
Randall O'Toole's blog provides this sobering insight in Rail Jobs Overestimated.
Randall also predicted Honolulu's likely predicament with rail by analyzing the extension of a heavy rail line in Washington, D.C. in $6 Billion Down the Drain
The interesting thing is that the motivation and conclusion are the same for Washington and Honolulu! So taxpayers are on the hook for spending at least $5.2 billion — more likely $6 billion or more — for a rail line designed solely to benefit a few property owners and developers. But, as it turns out, even they won’t benefit from it.
Because rail is the 5% solution... 5% will use it, the remainder 95% will be stuck in horrendous congestion. And with more potholes and lane closures from water main breaks because the city's budget will be broke.
Is that a legacy worth leaving to our children?
Randall also predicted Honolulu's likely predicament with rail by analyzing the extension of a heavy rail line in Washington, D.C. in $6 Billion Down the Drain
The interesting thing is that the motivation and conclusion are the same for Washington and Honolulu! So taxpayers are on the hook for spending at least $5.2 billion — more likely $6 billion or more — for a rail line designed solely to benefit a few property owners and developers. But, as it turns out, even they won’t benefit from it.
Because rail is the 5% solution... 5% will use it, the remainder 95% will be stuck in horrendous congestion. And with more potholes and lane closures from water main breaks because the city's budget will be broke.
Is that a legacy worth leaving to our children?
Monday, February 15, 2010
Honolulu Rail's Cost, Route and Ridership Opinions
President's Day 2010 brought a lot of interesting perspectives on the table for Honolulu's $5.3 billion proposed elevated rail line. None of them favorable.
Dr. Kioni Dudley of Makakilo offers his perspective about the proposed rail in the Honolulu Star Bulletin. These sentences from his article are particularly insightful:
The article is great, but why should anyone read past its opening paragraph? Stop the insanity! should be the response. The fourth most expensive system in the US, proposed for an island paradise in the middle of the Pacific, with less than one million people. The governor should stop this grave error and refuse any approvals for it.
Finally Shawn Hao of the Honolulu Advertiser uses soft language but reveals other parts of the insanity in yet another well-researched article.
For the record, I see the numbers and Aikea.
Dr. Kioni Dudley of Makakilo offers his perspective about the proposed rail in the Honolulu Star Bulletin. These sentences from his article are particularly insightful:
- This rail is not being built to solve current traffic problems. It actually is not even for us. It is being built to benefit developers.
- The traffic problems it will solve are future problems, yet to be caused by people yet to move into homes yet to be built.
The article is great, but why should anyone read past its opening paragraph? Stop the insanity! should be the response. The fourth most expensive system in the US, proposed for an island paradise in the middle of the Pacific, with less than one million people. The governor should stop this grave error and refuse any approvals for it.
Finally Shawn Hao of the Honolulu Advertiser uses soft language but reveals other parts of the insanity in yet another well-researched article.
- The benefit of the proposed rail: "Honolulu's planned rail line from East Kapolei to Ala Moana is expected to boost public transit use by about 1 percentage point by offering faster, more reliable service than buses." [Would you pay five billion to receive a 1% reduction? Follow Mufi and you will.]
- The dropping ridership of TheBus. [I have plotted the statistics that Hao quotes from the Hawaii Data Book below. Transit ridership is on a steady downhill. But we keep buying more buses...]
- The City's attitude: "We don't care what the Mainland is doing," Honolulu Transportation Director Wayne Yoshioka said.
For the record, I see the numbers and Aikea.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
FTA Will Pay for Honolulu's Rail... Maybe 25% of Cost ... in 2011
FTA commits $1.55 billion to pay for Honolulu rail system says today's breaking news (http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20100202/BREAKING01/100202030/F).
That sounds like such good news for Hannemann but it is not. The article says that IF all environmental reviews complete successfully, then FTA may be able to release construction money on or after September 30, 2011.
Note that there is no word on possible lawsuits against the FTA and the delays that they will cause. HonoluluTraffic.com sued the FTA in 2002 and achieved the impossible: FTA pulled the plug by rescinding the Record on Decision for Mayor Harris' Bus Rapid Transit proposal.
Also if you try to read between the lines, you will discover these two gems of truth:
The guestimate I made yesterday that this project may start on 12/12/12 stands!
And in case you did not notice, the FTA subsidy will cover roughly only 25% of the budgeted cost, but with minor cost overruns the cost to the local taxpayer will be $4.5 billion, or $4,500 million. Furthermore, the imported rail equipment will cost more than the FTA contribution. So all of the FTA money will go to mainland, Canada, German or Korean suppliers. No FTA money will reach Oahu.
That sounds like such good news for Hannemann but it is not. The article says that IF all environmental reviews complete successfully, then FTA may be able to release construction money on or after September 30, 2011.
Note that there is no word on possible lawsuits against the FTA and the delays that they will cause. HonoluluTraffic.com sued the FTA in 2002 and achieved the impossible: FTA pulled the plug by rescinding the Record on Decision for Mayor Harris' Bus Rapid Transit proposal.
Also if you try to read between the lines, you will discover these two gems of truth:
- "But please know that the FTA also takes an independent look at the finances of this project and we will do so again when they submit a financial plan to get into final design."
- Groundbreaking on the elevated commuter rail was supposed to take place in December, but has been indefinitely delayed by an ongoing federal review...
The guestimate I made yesterday that this project may start on 12/12/12 stands!
And in case you did not notice, the FTA subsidy will cover roughly only 25% of the budgeted cost, but with minor cost overruns the cost to the local taxpayer will be $4.5 billion, or $4,500 million. Furthermore, the imported rail equipment will cost more than the FTA contribution. So all of the FTA money will go to mainland, Canada, German or Korean suppliers. No FTA money will reach Oahu.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Rail Jobs? Apply Now for 12/12/12
Let's talk about the much touted "rail jobs."
Although public project construction jobs are only a small part of Oahu's economy, politicians and some union heads are literally shouting that we need the rail for the jobs that it provides to save Oahu from its economic slump.
First, much more than half of the planning and design work for the rail is done by outside professionals. Local engineers do not know how to do rail. Second, Kiewit Corporation of Omaha, Nebraska was selected to build the first segment (if and when construction can start legally.) Third, a lot of the technical work for rail requires expertise that our local laborers do not have. Fourth, a big part of the rail is the imported technology which will be shipped in and then assembled by outside experts. For these and other reasons the local jobs number will be much smaller than what politicians announce for popular consumption.
The next question is timing. Mufi and rail advocates are (again) shouting that jobs are needed now and rail should start now. Can rail construction start now? The answer is No. Here is why.
The Programmatic Agreement (PA) under Section 106 that addresses cultural and historical impacts has not been signed by all parties.
Regarding the PA process I heard this: "Faith Miyamoto representing the city has been picky as to which party to involve and has told affected parties that they are not participants in the PA." Actions like this endanger the conclusion of the PA process.
The Final EIS cannot be released before the PA concludes satisfactorily.
The judges of the federal court along Halekauwila Street do not want trains going by their building, yet no realignment has been proposed.
The Federal Aviation Administration is concerned that the transit corridor is too close to active runways that process millions of passengers every year. An alternative alignment would be required to satisfy their concerns but the city has not provided a realignment.
Let's now make a big assumption that concerns like the above, plus concerns about the budget are sorted out within months. Then these are the steps that city needs to complete:
1) Issue a Final EIS (with acceptable solutions to all major concerns)
2) Final review by the affected State Departments
3) Approval by the Governor
4) Review by the FTA and approval
5) FTA issuance of a Record on Decision
6) FTA issuance of a Letter of No Prejudice
7) FTA provides first installment of federal funds (Full Funding Grant Agreement)
The above process requires one full year to conclude (assuming that Governor Lingle will eventually approve the FEIS) and over two years to receive construction funds from the federal government. Of course a reckless mayor can start construction with no agreement with the FTA and realize later that FTA can deliver much less than what's in the budget.
The lesson here is that if you like rail, for the sake of your finances and of the generations to come, do not elect a mayor who does not promise that rail work will start after the full funding grant agreement has been signed by the feds. Hannemann wants to start with no federal funds.
Hannemann is wrong on at least four counts:
(1) He proposes rail as a traffic solution. Wrong.
(2) He proposes to build rail in a very expensive way. All-elevated heavy rail. Wrong.
(3) He plans to start rail in the middle of prime agricultural land. Wrong.
(4) He plans to start construction without federal funds. Wrong.
Meanwhile, as of January 2010, President Obama has frozen the spending of all departments due to the immense federal deficit. At the same time, there is no budget allocation anywhere for Honolulu's transit. Actually finding big money for it will be much harder than the local political rhetoric indicates.
The above schedule does not take into account delays from lawsuits. At least one lawsuit has been promised. Other federal departments may object to FTA's approval, thus more delays and injunctions are possible.
It does not matter what Hannemann or any politician or city representative says. Without completing the steps required by federal law, there will be no approval and no construction or on-the-ground preparation for construction.
I have a guestimate of a start date for those who remain optimistic about Mufi's rail actually going into construction: 12/12/12. That's less than three years away and about normal for projects of this nature and size.
How can we summarize the original question about jobs and rail? Too little too late.
Although public project construction jobs are only a small part of Oahu's economy, politicians and some union heads are literally shouting that we need the rail for the jobs that it provides to save Oahu from its economic slump.
First, much more than half of the planning and design work for the rail is done by outside professionals. Local engineers do not know how to do rail. Second, Kiewit Corporation of Omaha, Nebraska was selected to build the first segment (if and when construction can start legally.) Third, a lot of the technical work for rail requires expertise that our local laborers do not have. Fourth, a big part of the rail is the imported technology which will be shipped in and then assembled by outside experts. For these and other reasons the local jobs number will be much smaller than what politicians announce for popular consumption.
The next question is timing. Mufi and rail advocates are (again) shouting that jobs are needed now and rail should start now. Can rail construction start now? The answer is No. Here is why.
The Programmatic Agreement (PA) under Section 106 that addresses cultural and historical impacts has not been signed by all parties.
Regarding the PA process I heard this: "Faith Miyamoto representing the city has been picky as to which party to involve and has told affected parties that they are not participants in the PA." Actions like this endanger the conclusion of the PA process.
The Final EIS cannot be released before the PA concludes satisfactorily.
The judges of the federal court along Halekauwila Street do not want trains going by their building, yet no realignment has been proposed.
The Federal Aviation Administration is concerned that the transit corridor is too close to active runways that process millions of passengers every year. An alternative alignment would be required to satisfy their concerns but the city has not provided a realignment.
Let's now make a big assumption that concerns like the above, plus concerns about the budget are sorted out within months. Then these are the steps that city needs to complete:
1) Issue a Final EIS (with acceptable solutions to all major concerns)
2) Final review by the affected State Departments
3) Approval by the Governor
4) Review by the FTA and approval
5) FTA issuance of a Record on Decision
6) FTA issuance of a Letter of No Prejudice
7) FTA provides first installment of federal funds (Full Funding Grant Agreement)
The above process requires one full year to conclude (assuming that Governor Lingle will eventually approve the FEIS) and over two years to receive construction funds from the federal government. Of course a reckless mayor can start construction with no agreement with the FTA and realize later that FTA can deliver much less than what's in the budget.
The lesson here is that if you like rail, for the sake of your finances and of the generations to come, do not elect a mayor who does not promise that rail work will start after the full funding grant agreement has been signed by the feds. Hannemann wants to start with no federal funds.
Hannemann is wrong on at least four counts:
(1) He proposes rail as a traffic solution. Wrong.
(2) He proposes to build rail in a very expensive way. All-elevated heavy rail. Wrong.
(3) He plans to start rail in the middle of prime agricultural land. Wrong.
(4) He plans to start construction without federal funds. Wrong.
Meanwhile, as of January 2010, President Obama has frozen the spending of all departments due to the immense federal deficit. At the same time, there is no budget allocation anywhere for Honolulu's transit. Actually finding big money for it will be much harder than the local political rhetoric indicates.
The above schedule does not take into account delays from lawsuits. At least one lawsuit has been promised. Other federal departments may object to FTA's approval, thus more delays and injunctions are possible.
It does not matter what Hannemann or any politician or city representative says. Without completing the steps required by federal law, there will be no approval and no construction or on-the-ground preparation for construction.
I have a guestimate of a start date for those who remain optimistic about Mufi's rail actually going into construction: 12/12/12. That's less than three years away and about normal for projects of this nature and size.
How can we summarize the original question about jobs and rail? Too little too late.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Panos for Mayor... subject to incumbent's departure
Today, on the Rick Hamada show, I announced my intent to become a candidate for mayor of the City and County of Honolulu when the office becomes vacant.As you know, the regular election for mayor is not until 2012 but Mufi Hannemann has declared an interest in the race for Governor. However, unlike U.S. Representative Neil Abercrombie who declared his intent to resign, Mayor Hannemann has not declared any such intent, thus today I am simply saying that if he resigns then I will run for mayor.
Our campaign’s committee of advisors has remained active since the 2008 elections and so did our website and campaign filings with the office of elections. Our new website is FixOahuNow.com and our campaign phone number is 63-PANOS. However, the phone line won’t be live until a formal campaign starts. On the other hand, the “contribute” button of the website is open for business!
I have lived on Oahu for 20 years and the condition of the public infrastructure has deteriorated to the point that we are ranked among the worst in the nation in traffic congestion and road quality. The city lost its lawsuit against the EPA so we now have a billion dollar obligation for secondary sewer treatment. None of it is being done.
Instead of addressing the trash problem, the city extended the life of the landfill and sued the company that can export our trash. Water main breaks are almost a daily occurrence with paralysis in Waikiki and Nanakuli recently.
There is little planning for resilience. What happens when a hurricane or a tsunami hits? What’s the plan for residents and for 100,000 frantic tourists?
There is a slate of four pro-rail candidates for mayor and a few more may join. However, I am more certain than ever that the proposed elevated rail is unsightly, unaffordable and unnecessary. In the 2008 vote, millions of dollars of false advertising were spent to deceive Oahu voters that the city was planning an affordable light rail system. However, all along the city was planning for an expensive, fully elevated heavy rail system.
When Bishop Estate and the architects of Hawaii voiced strong support for a partial light rail system, the city admitted that light rail was dismissed early in the process without much analysis. Also the Oahu Railway which is largely intact from Waianae to the airport was ignored. The inescapable conclusion is that the proposed rail is not about transit service. It’s about land development and expensive construction.
In a letter to the editor, mayor Hannemann promised a $3 billion rail system and fiscal restraints. (Read it at http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2006/Aug/19/op/FP608190324.html).
Despite his wishful thinking, no private monies were realized and the rail’s budget ballooned from under $3 billion to over $5 billion. Based on past experience, the actual cost will be over $6 billion. And it does not serve UH or Waikiki. And tax collections are low.
So the city plans to steal over $300 million from TheBus capital budget to balance the rail financial plan! We simply do not have the money for this system. If it’s built, then it will undermine our ability to issue bonds in order to pay for vital road, water, sewer and maintenance projects, as well as for bus operations and maintenance.
We need to focus on the economy, jobs and taxes. The only way the city can help is by focusing on its infrastructure and services. As mayor I will scrap the rail and replace it with real solutions and necessary maintenance. It is not acceptable that beautiful Oahu is a prime example of congestion, dilapidation and substandard infrastructure.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Reality vs Livability
Which new word Mufi will bring us from Washington, DC? LIVABILITY.
This time it is not Mufi's fault. It's President Obama's through the mouth of his transportation secretary (and past pork meister) Ray LaHood.
Obama promised that large projects won't be done based on political whim and strong arming. He promised transparency, accountability and (indirectly) cost-effectiveness. In other words, only good, necessary and justifiable projects with strong local support and big bang for the buck will be done. Now he does exactly the opposite when it comes to urban rail systems.
All rail systems are money losers in the U.S. Before Obama there was a formulaic determination at Federal Transit Administration so that the taxpayer won't be taken on a wild ride by spending hundreds of millions of dollars on projects that are grossly ineffective. Honolulu's systems is grossly ineffective because it costs over three times more that the next most expensive system in the nation, and about 20 times more the typical light rail system in the nation in terms of money taken away from city residents to built it.
This long standing FTA safety valve was thrown out. It was replaced with Livability.
Problem is there is no definition of Livability. Car haters may define it as taking cars out of the street. One can hate cars all he wants, but inside them there are human beings. Take cars away and the corresponding activity is largely taken away. Simple math. Greater automobility equals greater prosperity and a better life style.
With "livability" instead of building affordable roads or adding lanes in proportion to population (these lanes will be occupied by low to no emissions vehicles in 20 years) we proposed to build rigid, expensive neighborhood dividers such as elevated rail.
Livability is very similar to Beauty. As in "beauty is in the eye of the beholder. " Some Honolulu residents view the elevated rail as a necessary alternative and a technological asset. Most view it as unnecessary, ugly and largely useless.
Rail systems do little for "livability" and similar vague "smart growth" metrics. What rail systems do is waste money and serve far fewer people that they were planned for. Latest example, is the Sounder light rail in Seattle. Emory Bundy estimates that "as of 2008, $1,430,000,000 capital cost for Sounder, 2.22 times the price proffered in 1996 ($647,000,000 YOE$), a cost overrun of $783 million, 122%."
But that's the good news. The actual ridership story is fantasy versus reality: Numbers out of mouths of politicians ans their hired "experts" versus the number of people actually using the rail systems. Let's follow their history from fantasy to reality. Note that their system took 13 years to materialize so the 1996 local politicians are now at a law firm, Congress or prison, fully unaccountable for this boondoggle.
The 1996 Sound Move Plan promised at least 105,000 Central Link light rail daily (one-way) trips in 2010.
By late 2001, with light rail trimmed-back to Airport/Initial Segment, the target was lowered to 45,000 daily boardings by 2020.
In 2008, with Airport Link nearing completion, Sound Transit's 2010 target was lowered to 32,600.
In 2009, as opening day for Airport/Initial Segment approached, the target for 2010 was reduced again, to 26,000.
In 2009 roughly 15,000 daily trips are being recorded.
So in 2010 the expectation is that actual daily riders would be less than half those promised in late 2001 and less than a quarter those promised in 1996.
Evidence like this does not phase Hannemann, Caldwell, Apo, Carlisle and the (mostly paid in cash, in jobs or in kind) Go-Rail-Go rail advocates.
Good thing Governor Lingle promises to take a hard look into the Final EIS and the numbers and proposed mitigation plans in it. By all accounts the public is on her side. Here is a sample from Pacific Business News: 64% believe that the governor is asking important questions.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Mufi's Rail: Scrap the Whole Thing
A couple of local TV stations posted online polls after covering the presentation by the Hawaii Chapter of the American Institute of Architects at the Capitol hosted by Governor Lingle on January 18, 2010.
A fairly comprehensive and neutrally worded poll was developed by the FOX affiliate KHON as part of their well-watched Channel 2 News. The poll asked "How should the City and State proceed with the rail transit project?" and gave four options [my comments in brackets]
(1) Elevated as planned [this is the city's proposal or Mufi's Rail]
(2) At ground level [this is the vaguely described option supported by the Hawaii Chapter of the American Planning Association]
(3) Mix of above and at ground level [a specific design has been presented by rail expert Phil Craig funded by Bishop Estate and supported by American Institute of Architects-Hawaii]
(4) Scrap the whole thing [this is the Panos and Stop Rail Now preferred option]
Conclusion? Basically two thirds opined that the whole thing should be scrapped!
Below I show a snapshot of the poll at 10:30 AM the next day with numbers only slightly changed from those reported by Joe Moore at the 10 PM news. [Polls unpopular to the establishment tend to disappear quickly.]
There is wisdom into not rushing mega-projects but contemplating them carefully. It took about four years but the public now gets it: The proposed rail is a boondoggle that we don't need and we can't afford. Will elected officials get it soon enough?
A fairly comprehensive and neutrally worded poll was developed by the FOX affiliate KHON as part of their well-watched Channel 2 News. The poll asked "How should the City and State proceed with the rail transit project?" and gave four options [my comments in brackets]
(1) Elevated as planned [this is the city's proposal or Mufi's Rail]
(2) At ground level [this is the vaguely described option supported by the Hawaii Chapter of the American Planning Association]
(3) Mix of above and at ground level [a specific design has been presented by rail expert Phil Craig funded by Bishop Estate and supported by American Institute of Architects-Hawaii]
(4) Scrap the whole thing [this is the Panos and Stop Rail Now preferred option]
Conclusion? Basically two thirds opined that the whole thing should be scrapped!
Below I show a snapshot of the poll at 10:30 AM the next day with numbers only slightly changed from those reported by Joe Moore at the 10 PM news. [Polls unpopular to the establishment tend to disappear quickly.]
There is wisdom into not rushing mega-projects but contemplating them carefully. It took about four years but the public now gets it: The proposed rail is a boondoggle that we don't need and we can't afford. Will elected officials get it soon enough?
Monday, January 18, 2010
State of the Rail? Stuck!
The panel presentations of the Hawaii Chapter of the American Institute of Architects hosted by Hawaii governor Linda Lingle on January 18, 2010 revealed many of the weaknesses of the city's proposed rail plan. Here is a sample:
The governor's panel was a good example of open process as apposed to Mufi Hannemann's lectures and the Parsons Brinkerhoff's smoke and mirrors shows.
There were several references to the Alternatives Analysis, so I spent a little time reviewing this November 2006 document for which two past Hawaii Department of Transportation directors voted in approval (Hirata and Hayashida).
On page 5-2 the Alternatives Analysis says that the East Kapolei to Ala Moana cost would be 3.6 billion dollars, and the full project from West Kapolei to UH and Waikiki would be 5.5 billion dollars. In late 2009 Mufi Hannemann gloated that construction costs have dropped and that Honolulu will get a bargain for building the proposed rail. Really? Why is today's cost for the East Kapolei to Ala Moana system 5.3 billion or 47% higher than the cost estimated in 2006?
Table 5-9 of the Alternatives Analysis projected that in 2009 249 million dollars would have been spent for rail construction. Yet no construction has taken place and this has nothing to do with rail lawsuits or state administration approvals. Simply the city promises big and delivers small.
The governor is correct is pointing out that 2010 is not 2006. Money is a huge issue now at all levels. (It is not an exaggeration to say that now the U.S. builds projects by borrowing money from Asia.)
The proposed rail that is on the table now is dangerously unaffordable and it will undermine the overall ability of the state to deliver other vital projects. This is clearly shown by a desperation act of the city in the latest version of the rail budget. In order to balance the proposed rail budget, it stole $330 million from TheBus budget. This is before any real construction cost overruns have taken place.
Honolulu must not forget San Juan's experience where costs projected by the same consultant actually doubled.
AIA-Hawaii panelists insisted that for this transit project to succeed it must serve the UH-Manoa campus and Waikiki. In this case, the cost of the project is about 8 billion dollars, and, if San Juan experience is repeated, the actual cost could be 16 billion dollars. At this rate, no other project can be built in Hawaii for 20 years. No sewers, no water lines, no roads, no new schools, airport buildings or harbor piers.
The elevated rail system proposal is economic suicide for current residents and their children.
Now some think that solving the congestion problem is worth this risk. Unfortunately nowhere has a rail line solved any traffic congestion problem. The city's numbers clearly show this. At the present time TheBus carries 7 out of 100 trips on Oahu. With TheBus and TheRail combined in 2030 this will explode to ... 8 out of 100 trips. Sorry, over 90% of the trips will be stuck in traffic!
Unfortunately the news is even worse for those who hope that TheRail will reduce road congestion. Both San Juan and Seattle recently opened rail lines and their ridership is only one third of the hoped for level. What does this mean for Honolulu? After paying well over five billion dollars, transit trips will increase from 7 percent to 7.3 percent. More taxes, no relief.
- The city is stuck with its environmental compliance and cannot issue a final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS.)
- The city's EIS is too deficient to withstand scrutiny at courts.
- The city's EIS failed to study a true light rail system. (Note that the voters in 2008 were told that the city was proposing a light rail system.)
- Even if the governor wanted to sign an environmental approval, there is no document for her to sign.
- There is no federal environmental approval.
- There is no federal approval of any funding in any amount.
The governor's panel was a good example of open process as apposed to Mufi Hannemann's lectures and the Parsons Brinkerhoff's smoke and mirrors shows.
There were several references to the Alternatives Analysis, so I spent a little time reviewing this November 2006 document for which two past Hawaii Department of Transportation directors voted in approval (Hirata and Hayashida).
On page 5-2 the Alternatives Analysis says that the East Kapolei to Ala Moana cost would be 3.6 billion dollars, and the full project from West Kapolei to UH and Waikiki would be 5.5 billion dollars. In late 2009 Mufi Hannemann gloated that construction costs have dropped and that Honolulu will get a bargain for building the proposed rail. Really? Why is today's cost for the East Kapolei to Ala Moana system 5.3 billion or 47% higher than the cost estimated in 2006?
Table 5-9 of the Alternatives Analysis projected that in 2009 249 million dollars would have been spent for rail construction. Yet no construction has taken place and this has nothing to do with rail lawsuits or state administration approvals. Simply the city promises big and delivers small.
The governor is correct is pointing out that 2010 is not 2006. Money is a huge issue now at all levels. (It is not an exaggeration to say that now the U.S. builds projects by borrowing money from Asia.)
The proposed rail that is on the table now is dangerously unaffordable and it will undermine the overall ability of the state to deliver other vital projects. This is clearly shown by a desperation act of the city in the latest version of the rail budget. In order to balance the proposed rail budget, it stole $330 million from TheBus budget. This is before any real construction cost overruns have taken place.
Honolulu must not forget San Juan's experience where costs projected by the same consultant actually doubled.
AIA-Hawaii panelists insisted that for this transit project to succeed it must serve the UH-Manoa campus and Waikiki. In this case, the cost of the project is about 8 billion dollars, and, if San Juan experience is repeated, the actual cost could be 16 billion dollars. At this rate, no other project can be built in Hawaii for 20 years. No sewers, no water lines, no roads, no new schools, airport buildings or harbor piers.
The elevated rail system proposal is economic suicide for current residents and their children.
Now some think that solving the congestion problem is worth this risk. Unfortunately nowhere has a rail line solved any traffic congestion problem. The city's numbers clearly show this. At the present time TheBus carries 7 out of 100 trips on Oahu. With TheBus and TheRail combined in 2030 this will explode to ... 8 out of 100 trips. Sorry, over 90% of the trips will be stuck in traffic!
Unfortunately the news is even worse for those who hope that TheRail will reduce road congestion. Both San Juan and Seattle recently opened rail lines and their ridership is only one third of the hoped for level. What does this mean for Honolulu? After paying well over five billion dollars, transit trips will increase from 7 percent to 7.3 percent. More taxes, no relief.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
The Washington Metro
Today Sunday January 10 is my second day in a five day day visit in Washington, D.C. where I attend the 89th annual meeting of the Transportation Research Board, a unit of the National Academy of Engineering.
I decided to introduce Metro to Katie and 15 month old Endie so they can visit the Capital Mall, the Smithsonian and other fine museums while I am at the conference.
You will not believe the state of disrepair of this well-over 10-billion dollar public investment. Our station is more than four stories deep into the ground but the ADA-mandated elevators do not work. People who cannot ride the 3 minute long steep escalator have to wait for buses to take them to other stations.
None of the elevators in the platform of our station were working. They were closed with long messages about "pardon our appearance" followed by specific messages of when the improvements will be completed. Yet there were stickers on the original dates extending the delivery of the fix to February 2010.
On the way back from Metro Center, half of the Red line is single tracked for "scheduled maintenance". Those who go to near destinations have trains every five minutes. Those who go to far destinations have trains every 15 minutes.
It is 28F today in DC and the stations are very cold. Waiting a few minutes with a baby in the cold is very uncomfortable. Waiting at the Kapolei and other leeward stations in the summer will be similarly uncomfortable. And if you pile up the walk, elevator, escalator, ticketing and wait times, plus transfers to buses, the door to door travel time by mass transit is twice the travel time by car. That's what the U.S. Census reports for 2000.
The condition of the Metro is only a small and sad indication that the nation is broke and its transportation is in distress. Having the Metro in such disrepair and at the same time handing out billions to Honolulu for its ridiculous 20 mile train to suburbia is very bad public policy.
In most U.S. urban areas metro rail is too inconvenient, too expensive and too unproductive. The sunny and touristy city of Miami's rail system is an example of all these negative outcomes combined. The single rail line in the 2.2 million population San Juan in Puerto Rico is another example of negative outcomes. Honolulu hopefully won't become the next victim of misguided planning and political ambition.
I decided to introduce Metro to Katie and 15 month old Endie so they can visit the Capital Mall, the Smithsonian and other fine museums while I am at the conference.
You will not believe the state of disrepair of this well-over 10-billion dollar public investment. Our station is more than four stories deep into the ground but the ADA-mandated elevators do not work. People who cannot ride the 3 minute long steep escalator have to wait for buses to take them to other stations.
None of the elevators in the platform of our station were working. They were closed with long messages about "pardon our appearance" followed by specific messages of when the improvements will be completed. Yet there were stickers on the original dates extending the delivery of the fix to February 2010.
On the way back from Metro Center, half of the Red line is single tracked for "scheduled maintenance". Those who go to near destinations have trains every five minutes. Those who go to far destinations have trains every 15 minutes.
It is 28F today in DC and the stations are very cold. Waiting a few minutes with a baby in the cold is very uncomfortable. Waiting at the Kapolei and other leeward stations in the summer will be similarly uncomfortable. And if you pile up the walk, elevator, escalator, ticketing and wait times, plus transfers to buses, the door to door travel time by mass transit is twice the travel time by car. That's what the U.S. Census reports for 2000.
The condition of the Metro is only a small and sad indication that the nation is broke and its transportation is in distress. Having the Metro in such disrepair and at the same time handing out billions to Honolulu for its ridiculous 20 mile train to suburbia is very bad public policy.
In most U.S. urban areas metro rail is too inconvenient, too expensive and too unproductive. The sunny and touristy city of Miami's rail system is an example of all these negative outcomes combined. The single rail line in the 2.2 million population San Juan in Puerto Rico is another example of negative outcomes. Honolulu hopefully won't become the next victim of misguided planning and political ambition.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Revitalize Honolulu with BRT
The news from Cleveland is that in October 2008, construction finally ended along one of major avenues. "The crumbling Euclid Avenue corridor had become a sparkling link between downtown and University Circle. The sleek buses, the slick stations and the smooth road offered a potential path to urban renewal." (1)
What spurred this renewal? A bus rapid transit, or BRT system. The same can be applied for a connection between the UH-Manoa and Honolulu's downtown. We proposed this back in 2002 (2), but the city's planners preferred to take lanes away from Kapiolani Boulevard, at a loss of two lanes along the contraflow peak direction. That BRT proposal ended when the FTA revoked its initial approval of the Harris administration proposal.
Note that King Street and Beretania Streets have the most schools, doctors offices, markets, and other small businesses per mile of arterial street in Honolulu. A BRT system will be vastly more useful (and affordable) than any rail system with mile apart stations.
If Honolulu was not drowning in its multi-billion rail system then it would be applying for these ready-to-use Federal Transit Administration special funds for BRT:
U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood today announced that FTA will publish a solicitation for grant applications for streetcar and bus circulators and bus facilities. The $280M in grants will be awarded in conjunction with the DOT-HUD-EPA Livability Initiative. For the urban circulator projects, a maximum amount of $25M per project will be made available. (3)
This is one of many indications that change in City Hall is the only hope for refocusing Honolulu projects on cost-effective congestion solutions and essential infrastructure fixes.
(1) http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2009/11/clevelands_euclid_corridor_pro.html
(2) http://www.eng.hawaii.edu/~panos/pdp_brt.pdf
(3) http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2009/dot18509.htm
What spurred this renewal? A bus rapid transit, or BRT system. The same can be applied for a connection between the UH-Manoa and Honolulu's downtown. We proposed this back in 2002 (2), but the city's planners preferred to take lanes away from Kapiolani Boulevard, at a loss of two lanes along the contraflow peak direction. That BRT proposal ended when the FTA revoked its initial approval of the Harris administration proposal.
Note that King Street and Beretania Streets have the most schools, doctors offices, markets, and other small businesses per mile of arterial street in Honolulu. A BRT system will be vastly more useful (and affordable) than any rail system with mile apart stations.
If Honolulu was not drowning in its multi-billion rail system then it would be applying for these ready-to-use Federal Transit Administration special funds for BRT:
U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood today announced that FTA will publish a solicitation for grant applications for streetcar and bus circulators and bus facilities. The $280M in grants will be awarded in conjunction with the DOT-HUD-EPA Livability Initiative. For the urban circulator projects, a maximum amount of $25M per project will be made available. (3)
This is one of many indications that change in City Hall is the only hope for refocusing Honolulu projects on cost-effective congestion solutions and essential infrastructure fixes.
(1) http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2009/11/clevelands_euclid_corridor_pro.html
(2) http://www.eng.hawaii.edu/~panos/pdp_brt.pdf
(3) http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2009/dot18509.htm
Monday, November 23, 2009
Global Warming: Fact or Fraud?
Climate Change has been the less alarmist moniker for Global Warming. Of course since the beginning days of Earth, climate have been, is and will be in constant change. Global Warming on the other hand has been a direct accusation that anthropogenic (man made) green house gas emissions have altered Earth's climate.
I have been a skeptic of Global Warming since U.S. Vice President Al Gore received the Nobel Prize and evidence of fraudulent statements in his movie and writings were revealed. Then I read "Blue Planet in Green Shackles" by Czech Republic's President Vaclav Klaus whom Al Gore has never agreed to debate. When I bring the subject of anthropogenic global warming subject up on the radio I get polite reminders from some of my university colleagues about my misunderstandings.
Today's announcement by the Global Warming Policy Foundation signals the beginning of the end of one of science's biggest errors. Error or not, Global Warming has been a tremendous source for political and business profit based almost entirely on hot air, real or manipulated.
The Global Warming Policy Foundation is an all-party and non-party think tank and a registered educational charity. Their data, interpretations and positions have effected British, European and international policy on climate change through the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC findings are broadly disputed by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).
On November 23, 2009 Lord Lawson, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Global Warming Policy Foundation called for a rigorous and independent inquiry into leaked revelations of fraud. I quote from the Global Warming Policy Foundation website (see source below):
"Astonishingly, what appears, at least at first blush, to have emerged is that
(a) the scientists have been manipulating the raw temperature figures to show a relentlessly rising global warming trend;
(b) they have consistently refused outsiders access to the raw data;
(c) the scientists have been trying to avoid freedom of information requests; and
(d) they have been discussing ways to prevent papers by dissenting scientists being published in learned journals."
It is not a coincidence that issues (a) through (d) are exactly what NIPCC scientists have been pointing out all along. The authors of the NIPCC report "cite thousands of peer-reviewed research papers and books that were ignored by the IPCC." The NIPCC finding can be summed up as follows: The warming of the twentieth century was moderate and not unprecedented, that its impact on human health and wildlife was positive, and that carbon dioxide probably is not the driving factor behind climate change.
Lord Lawson's announcement also includes a passage that is highly critical of scientific honesty. It is highly unlikely that he would have included the sentence ... the reputation of British science has been seriously tarnished... in the absence of mounting evidence of fraud. "There may be a perfectly innocent explanation. But what is clear is that the integrity of the scientific evidence on which not merely the British Government, but other countries, too, through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), claim to base far-reaching and hugely expensive policy decisions, has been called into question. And the reputation of British science has been seriously tarnished. A high-level independent inquiry must be set up without delay."
The media have made Global Warming a household issue, although in most surveys generally a minority is interested or concerned about the subject. However, many real and fake green (or blue if you are in Europe) initiatives have been started to help "avert global warming." None were successful enough since Hollywood in the recently released 2012 movie proclaimed that the end is near: Both the Kyoto Protocol and the U.S. Congress' proposed Cap and Trade legislation were too little too late.
Quite likely 2010 will be the year to leave Global Warming behind us and tackle real issues such as the supply of adequate food, water, energy, mobility and health-care for an ever increasing population and an ever improving standard of living on Earth.
SOURCE: Lord Lawson Calls For Public Inquiry Into CRU Data Affair
I have been a skeptic of Global Warming since U.S. Vice President Al Gore received the Nobel Prize and evidence of fraudulent statements in his movie and writings were revealed. Then I read "Blue Planet in Green Shackles" by Czech Republic's President Vaclav Klaus whom Al Gore has never agreed to debate. When I bring the subject of anthropogenic global warming subject up on the radio I get polite reminders from some of my university colleagues about my misunderstandings.
Today's announcement by the Global Warming Policy Foundation signals the beginning of the end of one of science's biggest errors. Error or not, Global Warming has been a tremendous source for political and business profit based almost entirely on hot air, real or manipulated.
The Global Warming Policy Foundation is an all-party and non-party think tank and a registered educational charity. Their data, interpretations and positions have effected British, European and international policy on climate change through the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC findings are broadly disputed by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).
On November 23, 2009 Lord Lawson, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Global Warming Policy Foundation called for a rigorous and independent inquiry into leaked revelations of fraud. I quote from the Global Warming Policy Foundation website (see source below):
"Astonishingly, what appears, at least at first blush, to have emerged is that
(a) the scientists have been manipulating the raw temperature figures to show a relentlessly rising global warming trend;
(b) they have consistently refused outsiders access to the raw data;
(c) the scientists have been trying to avoid freedom of information requests; and
(d) they have been discussing ways to prevent papers by dissenting scientists being published in learned journals."
It is not a coincidence that issues (a) through (d) are exactly what NIPCC scientists have been pointing out all along. The authors of the NIPCC report "cite thousands of peer-reviewed research papers and books that were ignored by the IPCC." The NIPCC finding can be summed up as follows: The warming of the twentieth century was moderate and not unprecedented, that its impact on human health and wildlife was positive, and that carbon dioxide probably is not the driving factor behind climate change.
Lord Lawson's announcement also includes a passage that is highly critical of scientific honesty. It is highly unlikely that he would have included the sentence ... the reputation of British science has been seriously tarnished... in the absence of mounting evidence of fraud. "There may be a perfectly innocent explanation. But what is clear is that the integrity of the scientific evidence on which not merely the British Government, but other countries, too, through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), claim to base far-reaching and hugely expensive policy decisions, has been called into question. And the reputation of British science has been seriously tarnished. A high-level independent inquiry must be set up without delay."
The media have made Global Warming a household issue, although in most surveys generally a minority is interested or concerned about the subject. However, many real and fake green (or blue if you are in Europe) initiatives have been started to help "avert global warming." None were successful enough since Hollywood in the recently released 2012 movie proclaimed that the end is near: Both the Kyoto Protocol and the U.S. Congress' proposed Cap and Trade legislation were too little too late.
Quite likely 2010 will be the year to leave Global Warming behind us and tackle real issues such as the supply of adequate food, water, energy, mobility and health-care for an ever increasing population and an ever improving standard of living on Earth.
SOURCE: Lord Lawson Calls For Public Inquiry Into CRU Data Affair
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Is There a Plan to Solve Traffic Congestion of Oahu?
Unlike most other urban areas, where congestion decreased slightly from two years ago, the latest Urban Mobility Report from the Texas Transportation Institute shows that congestion has gotten worse in Honolulu:
Of course it is not new to residents that Honolulu is a congested city. Honolulu is one of the nation’s most lane deficient cities. It has a traffic congestion problem; not a transit ridership problem. A traffic problem cannot be solved with transit solutions.
Some say that Honolulu has such severe congestion because its car ownership is very high. Some politicians even claim that Honolulu is number one in car ownership. This is totally wrong. Honolulu’s car ownership ranks 64th in the nation, much lower than its rank in population!
So are we going to see an improvement in congestion? The rail proposal clearly says that:
(1) TheBus carries 6% of the trips on Oahu now, and
(2) TheBus and TheRail together will carry 7% of the trips 20 years from now.
What’s the end result? Much worse traffic congestion.
I had a brief “exit interview” with 2nd ISFO speaker and presidential advisor on transportation Robert Poole. He noted that:
“Listening to the city and state transportation planners at the conference, I was struck by how passive they were in the face of Honolulu’s serious, ever-worsening traffic congestion.”
“Highly cost-effective techniques that have long been routine in mainland cities—such as ramp meters on freeway on-ramps and synchronized traffic signal timing—still sound like new and controversial ideas in Honolulu.
“Brand new billion-dollar-scale high occupancy vehicle and toll (HOT) lane projects are under way in a dozen cities. Yet HOT lanes are barely a subject for study in Honolulu.
“Has reducing congestion—i.e., targeting a congestion level lower than today’s – even been suggested as a transportation goal in Honolulu?”
I also had the opportunity to talk at length with the 2nd ISFO keynote speaker, renowned transportation historian and congressional transportation policy analyst Alan Pisarski, author of the series Commuting in America. Here are his summary comments:
“The fragility of Oahu’s transportation system is staggering. It is a system sharply constrained by geography – both water and mountains. Just one strategically placed fender-bender can disrupt a large area for hours.
“Every tool in the traffic operations toolbox should be examined for application to the island’s daily needs. Any opportunity to upgrade and modernize the system around the freeways and their corridors must be seriously considered.
“A special events planning team integrated with the operations function is a critical step.”
Oahu is lacking in both event planning and hands-on 24x7 traffic management. The result is regional chaos with parade closures, accidents and special events at UH-Manoa campus and Aloha Stadium.
Pisarski added that “it should go without saying that traffic on the island must accommodate the two major industries of national defense and tourism. Any assessment of needs and goals must recognize that there are at least three major layers of transportation needs on Oahu: Daily life of its residents, Tourism, and National Defense.
Pisarski said that a simple question provides the fundamental guide for directing transportation resources: “What share of our resources are we spending on what share of our problem?” Oahu now plans to spend over 40% of its transportation resources on a mass transit system that will serve 7% of its trips, at best.
One of the basic duties that local transportation government has not done is take a fundamental look of transportation needs and allocations. This deficiency is pointing the finger at the Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization, but OMPO, thanks to its Policy Advisory Committee, operates as a political arm of the executive and legislative bodies, and not as an impartial regional transportation agency.
Persistent congestion, insane road closures from accidents or parades, communities like Waianae depending on a single road, roads full of potholes, the smelly and clunky Wiki-Wiki, the dirty and late buses are all outcomes of wrong priorities. The people in charge are not asking the right questions, and they are not working on real solutions.
Pisarksi conluded that: “Given all of its constraints and challenges Hawaii should be a national leader in understanding and addressing mobility needs for Defense, Tourism and Residents.
“It should be pretty obvious that a flexible, highway based system is at the core of the solution to provide needed mobility for defense, deliveries and tourism, with express toll lanes added in the plan for express buses and carpools to serve school trips and peak period commuters.”
Does Oahu do this? No! The priority of its disconnected government is “smart growth”, rail transit and Transit Oriented Development or TOD. Not surprisingly, the recent Urban Land Institute survey on Oahu shows that this is not what the residents want. Here’s an excerpt from their website:
In January, 2009, ULI Hawaii commissioned a survey of housing attitudes among the public. The phone survey was of 600 Oahu residents.
… there is relatively much less support for the “smart growth” idea of higher-density use of existing urban areas – perhaps in part because people here generally still would rather live in suburban/rural settings themselves. [Source: http://hawaii.uli.org/Activities/Housing.aspx]
- The number of hours per person spent stuck in traffic increased from 24 hours to 26.
- The travel-time index increased from 1.22 to 1.24, so it takes 24% longer to make a trip at rush hour than at other times, on the average.
- The annual cost of wasted time and fuel ballooned from $166 million to $199 million.
- Honolulu is the 28th most congested urban area in the United States.
Of course it is not new to residents that Honolulu is a congested city. Honolulu is one of the nation’s most lane deficient cities. It has a traffic congestion problem; not a transit ridership problem. A traffic problem cannot be solved with transit solutions.
Some say that Honolulu has such severe congestion because its car ownership is very high. Some politicians even claim that Honolulu is number one in car ownership. This is totally wrong. Honolulu’s car ownership ranks 64th in the nation, much lower than its rank in population!
So are we going to see an improvement in congestion? The rail proposal clearly says that:
(1) TheBus carries 6% of the trips on Oahu now, and
(2) TheBus and TheRail together will carry 7% of the trips 20 years from now.
What’s the end result? Much worse traffic congestion.
I had a brief “exit interview” with 2nd ISFO speaker and presidential advisor on transportation Robert Poole. He noted that:
“Listening to the city and state transportation planners at the conference, I was struck by how passive they were in the face of Honolulu’s serious, ever-worsening traffic congestion.”
“Highly cost-effective techniques that have long been routine in mainland cities—such as ramp meters on freeway on-ramps and synchronized traffic signal timing—still sound like new and controversial ideas in Honolulu.
“Brand new billion-dollar-scale high occupancy vehicle and toll (HOT) lane projects are under way in a dozen cities. Yet HOT lanes are barely a subject for study in Honolulu.
“Has reducing congestion—i.e., targeting a congestion level lower than today’s – even been suggested as a transportation goal in Honolulu?”
I also had the opportunity to talk at length with the 2nd ISFO keynote speaker, renowned transportation historian and congressional transportation policy analyst Alan Pisarski, author of the series Commuting in America. Here are his summary comments:
“The fragility of Oahu’s transportation system is staggering. It is a system sharply constrained by geography – both water and mountains. Just one strategically placed fender-bender can disrupt a large area for hours.
“Every tool in the traffic operations toolbox should be examined for application to the island’s daily needs. Any opportunity to upgrade and modernize the system around the freeways and their corridors must be seriously considered.
“A special events planning team integrated with the operations function is a critical step.”
Oahu is lacking in both event planning and hands-on 24x7 traffic management. The result is regional chaos with parade closures, accidents and special events at UH-Manoa campus and Aloha Stadium.
Pisarski added that “it should go without saying that traffic on the island must accommodate the two major industries of national defense and tourism. Any assessment of needs and goals must recognize that there are at least three major layers of transportation needs on Oahu: Daily life of its residents, Tourism, and National Defense.
Pisarski said that a simple question provides the fundamental guide for directing transportation resources: “What share of our resources are we spending on what share of our problem?” Oahu now plans to spend over 40% of its transportation resources on a mass transit system that will serve 7% of its trips, at best.
One of the basic duties that local transportation government has not done is take a fundamental look of transportation needs and allocations. This deficiency is pointing the finger at the Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization, but OMPO, thanks to its Policy Advisory Committee, operates as a political arm of the executive and legislative bodies, and not as an impartial regional transportation agency.
Persistent congestion, insane road closures from accidents or parades, communities like Waianae depending on a single road, roads full of potholes, the smelly and clunky Wiki-Wiki, the dirty and late buses are all outcomes of wrong priorities. The people in charge are not asking the right questions, and they are not working on real solutions.
Pisarksi conluded that: “Given all of its constraints and challenges Hawaii should be a national leader in understanding and addressing mobility needs for Defense, Tourism and Residents.
“It should be pretty obvious that a flexible, highway based system is at the core of the solution to provide needed mobility for defense, deliveries and tourism, with express toll lanes added in the plan for express buses and carpools to serve school trips and peak period commuters.”
Does Oahu do this? No! The priority of its disconnected government is “smart growth”, rail transit and Transit Oriented Development or TOD. Not surprisingly, the recent Urban Land Institute survey on Oahu shows that this is not what the residents want. Here’s an excerpt from their website:
In January, 2009, ULI Hawaii commissioned a survey of housing attitudes among the public. The phone survey was of 600 Oahu residents.
… there is relatively much less support for the “smart growth” idea of higher-density use of existing urban areas – perhaps in part because people here generally still would rather live in suburban/rural settings themselves. [Source: http://hawaii.uli.org/Activities/Housing.aspx]
Friday, November 13, 2009
Lessons for Hawaii from International Conference Held In Honolulu
The 2nd International Symposium in Freeway and Tollway Operations was held in Honolulu, Hawaii from June 21-24, 2009. More than 200 experts specializing in freeway and tollway operations gathered from around the world to share their research knowledge and experiences. These series of articles summarize some of the major presentations with useful lessons for Hawaii. Our thanks to Hawaii Reporter for publishing these articles.
1. Challenges of Hawaii’s Private Transportation Companies, James K. Tokishi, 10/20/2009, LINK
2. Maintaining and Increasing the Benefits of Managed Lanes, Alireza Abrishamkar, 10/21/2009, LINK
3. Experiences with Managed Lanes in the United States, Lambros K. Mitropoulos, 10/22/2009, LINK
4. Public Private Partnerships for Highway Projects, Laxman KC, 10/29/2009, LINK
5. Intelligence for Smarter Roadways, Alyx (Xin) Yu, 10/31/2009, LINK
6. Intelligent Highway Systems for Rural Roads, Natasha Soriano, 11/10/2009,
LINK
7. Green Travel for Highways, Lambros K. Mitropoulos, 11/3/2009, LINK
8. Sensing the Future of Traffic Detection, Alyx (Xin) Yu, 11/4/2009, LINK
9. Lane Control with Active Traffic Management for Congestion Reduction, Laxman KC, 11/12/2009, LINK
1. Challenges of Hawaii’s Private Transportation Companies, James K. Tokishi, 10/20/2009, LINK
2. Maintaining and Increasing the Benefits of Managed Lanes, Alireza Abrishamkar, 10/21/2009, LINK
3. Experiences with Managed Lanes in the United States, Lambros K. Mitropoulos, 10/22/2009, LINK
4. Public Private Partnerships for Highway Projects, Laxman KC, 10/29/2009, LINK
5. Intelligence for Smarter Roadways, Alyx (Xin) Yu, 10/31/2009, LINK
6. Intelligent Highway Systems for Rural Roads, Natasha Soriano, 11/10/2009,
LINK
7. Green Travel for Highways, Lambros K. Mitropoulos, 11/3/2009, LINK
8. Sensing the Future of Traffic Detection, Alyx (Xin) Yu, 11/4/2009, LINK
9. Lane Control with Active Traffic Management for Congestion Reduction, Laxman KC, 11/12/2009, LINK
Monday, November 2, 2009
The Irrelevance of Transit—A Brief Translation from Portland to Oahu
Randall O’Toole is one of the most knowledgeable people when it comes to government subsidized transportation and transit systems in particular. He is an analyst at CATO Institute in Oregon and he dubs himself the AntiPlanner who is “an active cyclist and avid rail fan who nonetheless recognizes that the automobile is the greatest invention of the last 200 years.”
His recent article is titled “The Importance of Cars; The Irrelevance of Transit” A which summarizes a new study published by the Cascade Policy Institute authored by Randall Pozdena, one Oregon’s most respected economists. The study is titled Driving the Economy: Automotive Travel, Economic Growth and the Risks of Global Warming Regulations.
The study’s primary findings may be actually summarized on one line only: People in wealthy economies drive more; people who drive more live in wealthier economies. In other words, in any way you wish to look at it, the auto is the key to prosperity.
In the same article I also found a paragraph about Portland’s transit agency, the TriMet, and I could not help myself from translating into the Oahuan Rail Language because it precisely paints the picture of Oahu with rail in 2030.
Here is the Portland version:
Even as it loses hundreds of thousands of dollars a month on this Toonerville trolley, TriMet is cutting bus service — again. “The purposeful degradation of downtown-centered bus service in favor of goofball streetcars and trains to nowhere marks a real decline in mass transit in
Here is the Oahu Rail version:
Even as it will be losing hundreds of thousands of dollars a month on the heavy rail, Oahu Rail is cutting TheBus — again. “The purposeful degradation of downtown-centered bus service in favor of goofball rail cars to nowhere marks a real decline in mass transit in Honolulu. How the people responsible for this — people like [Senator] Espero Earl of Ewa and [Rail Plan Manager] Barracuda Toru Hamayasu — pass themselves off as champions of transit is beyond me. Champions of pork and condos is what they are.”
In all seriousness, time and again rail transit outside megalopolis is irrelevant. When Hannemann, Caldwell and Apo talk about Transit Oriented Developments or TOD they literally talk about Taxes Offered to Developers. Who is really behind Mufi’s train? Developers, contractors, banks and construction unions.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Is Modern Oahu Like Ancient Greece?
As appeared in the Honolulu Star Bulletin and the Hawaii Reporter
Full of tyrants and myths? At least when it comes to rail, yes!
Only a tyrant would tax people for a rail project years before the proposal has been found to be environmentally acceptable and federally funded.
Only a tyrant would award contracts unlawfully for a project that has neither state nor federal environmental and other approvals.
Only a tyrant would manipulate the process in order to ignore superior and lower cost alternatives such as bus rapid transit and true light rail.
It is a myth that heavy rail is useful, green, can be built with current taxes or will ease congestion.
Fact is that this train will be least useful to families with kids, schoolchildren, the elderly, and the handicapped. It will serve less than 3% of the trips conducted daily on Oahu.
If New York City's rail network is excluded, because it alone carries 60% of all rail passengers in the nation, then the remainder of the U.S. rail systems are worse green house gas generators than cars. Much worse than hybrid cars.
There are fewer than five miles of elevated freeways in urban Oahu. The rail will be a 36 mile continuously elevated superstructure. And it will destroy what’s left of prime agricultural land.
Zeus would be proud of Oahu's tyrants and their myths. Fact is that Zeus never existed. This train should not exist either.
Panos D. Prevedouros, PhD
Professor of Civil Engineering
Full of tyrants and myths? At least when it comes to rail, yes!
Only a tyrant would tax people for a rail project years before the proposal has been found to be environmentally acceptable and federally funded.
Only a tyrant would award contracts unlawfully for a project that has neither state nor federal environmental and other approvals.
Only a tyrant would manipulate the process in order to ignore superior and lower cost alternatives such as bus rapid transit and true light rail.
It is a myth that heavy rail is useful, green, can be built with current taxes or will ease congestion.
Fact is that this train will be least useful to families with kids, schoolchildren, the elderly, and the handicapped. It will serve less than 3% of the trips conducted daily on Oahu.
If New York City's rail network is excluded, because it alone carries 60% of all rail passengers in the nation, then the remainder of the U.S. rail systems are worse green house gas generators than cars. Much worse than hybrid cars.
There are fewer than five miles of elevated freeways in urban Oahu. The rail will be a 36 mile continuously elevated superstructure. And it will destroy what’s left of prime agricultural land.
Zeus would be proud of Oahu's tyrants and their myths. Fact is that Zeus never existed. This train should not exist either.
Panos D. Prevedouros, PhD
Professor of Civil Engineering
Thursday, October 22, 2009
TOD Do not Benefit Congestion and Commuting
Transit Oriented Developments (TOD) are advocated as an integrated mass transit and housing solution that lessens the dependency on private vehicles, thus they may also reduce congestion, fuel consumption and pollution.
TODs are a major reason why Oahu's large developers and bankers are behind the heavy rail proposal. It presents a massive opportunity to build and finance real estate.
Unfortunately TOD's practical goals for car dependency reduction fail to materialize. Here is a prime example from Portland, the "poster child" of Light Rail advocacy and TODs.
I quote the abstract of research reported by Bruce Podobnik of the Department of Sociology at the Lewis and Clark College in Portland, Oregon dated July 15, 2009. No further comment is necessary in regard to the traffic congestion potential of TODs:
"This study examines the extent to which specific social and environmental objectives have been achieved in the new urbanist community of Orenco Station (Portland, Oregon). House-level surveys were conducted in Orenco Station, as well as a traditional suburb and two long established urban neighborhoods. Survey data reveal high levels of social interaction in the new urbanist community, as compared to the comparison neighborhoods.
"The analysis also reveals a higher level of walking, and an increase in the occasional use of mass transit, in the new urbanist community. However, the majority of residents in all four neighborhoods (including the new urbanist neighborhood) rely on single occupancy vehicles for their regular commute.
"In sum, this study shows that Orenco Station is very effective in achieving its social objectives, modestly effective in encouraging walking and the occasional use of mass transit–but not very effective in increasing primary reliance on mass transit for commuting."
TODs are a major reason why Oahu's large developers and bankers are behind the heavy rail proposal. It presents a massive opportunity to build and finance real estate.
Unfortunately TOD's practical goals for car dependency reduction fail to materialize. Here is a prime example from Portland, the "poster child" of Light Rail advocacy and TODs.
I quote the abstract of research reported by Bruce Podobnik of the Department of Sociology at the Lewis and Clark College in Portland, Oregon dated July 15, 2009. No further comment is necessary in regard to the traffic congestion potential of TODs:
"This study examines the extent to which specific social and environmental objectives have been achieved in the new urbanist community of Orenco Station (Portland, Oregon). House-level surveys were conducted in Orenco Station, as well as a traditional suburb and two long established urban neighborhoods. Survey data reveal high levels of social interaction in the new urbanist community, as compared to the comparison neighborhoods.
"The analysis also reveals a higher level of walking, and an increase in the occasional use of mass transit, in the new urbanist community. However, the majority of residents in all four neighborhoods (including the new urbanist neighborhood) rely on single occupancy vehicles for their regular commute.
"In sum, this study shows that Orenco Station is very effective in achieving its social objectives, modestly effective in encouraging walking and the occasional use of mass transit–but not very effective in increasing primary reliance on mass transit for commuting."
Friday, October 16, 2009
Oahu Needs Change (We Can Believe In), or Congestion is Here to Stay
There is no better proof that traffic congestion will worsen in the future than the regional transportation plan being prepared for OMPO. OMPO is the Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization. It's a federally mandated agency that coordinates city and state transportation improvements on Oahu.
OMPO is governed by its decision making Policy Committee consisted by directors of transportation and elected officials. It is a true oddity that elected officials from other counties sit on Oahu's Metropolitan Planning Organization. (Why can't they sit in California MPOs and stop toll roads there instead?) That's a subject for a separate investigation.
OMPO is preparing the 2035 Plan for Oahu. Read their Vision, Goal and Objective excerpted below. For Oahu's people, the number one transportation issue is traffic congestion. It is completely absent from the stated vision, goals and objectives. The conclusion is inescapable: Congestion on Oahu exists and gets increasingly worse due to deliberate planning and decision making. Of course such an overt bias of metropolitan planning should come as no surprise to those informed about the "rail transit" and "smart growth" agendas for political gain and profiteering from developments of the rail project.
OAHU REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN Updated to 2035
To be completed by early 2011 by PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF [A major city consultant for the rail]
VISION
In 2035, Oahu will be a place where we will have efficient, well-maintained, safe, secure, convenient, appropriate, and economical choices in getting from place to place. Our transportation system will move us and the goods we use in a manner that supports the island's high quality of life, natural beauty, economic vitality, and land use policies by supporting appropriate density development and avoiding urban sprawl. This system will promote energy conservation and economic sustainability as well as the protection of our ports of entry, preparation for emergency situations and changes in global climate patterns.
GOAL
Provide an inclusive, multi-modal transport system whose connectedness provides efficient means for users desiring to move about this island by bicycle, freight carrier, pedestrian facility, road, transit service, and intermodal connectors.
OBJECTIVES
1. Develop, operate, and maintain alternative transportation facilities, including bikeways, walkways, and other accessible pedestrian, bicycle, and environmentally-friendly elements
2. Enhance the integration and connectivity of the regional transportation system.
3. Provide efficient, convenient, and cost-effective transit service to Oahu’s citizens.
4. Promote the intermodal efficiency of harbor terminal facilities, airport terminal facilities, and land transportation systems.
5. Provide rehabilitation, renewal, and modernization of facilities in sufficient magnitude to ensure system preservation and continued, effective operation.
http://www.oahumpo.org/ortp_docs/ORTP2035GoalsObjectives20090610.pdf
OMPO is governed by its decision making Policy Committee consisted by directors of transportation and elected officials. It is a true oddity that elected officials from other counties sit on Oahu's Metropolitan Planning Organization. (Why can't they sit in California MPOs and stop toll roads there instead?) That's a subject for a separate investigation.
OMPO is preparing the 2035 Plan for Oahu. Read their Vision, Goal and Objective excerpted below. For Oahu's people, the number one transportation issue is traffic congestion. It is completely absent from the stated vision, goals and objectives. The conclusion is inescapable: Congestion on Oahu exists and gets increasingly worse due to deliberate planning and decision making. Of course such an overt bias of metropolitan planning should come as no surprise to those informed about the "rail transit" and "smart growth" agendas for political gain and profiteering from developments of the rail project.
OAHU REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN Updated to 2035
To be completed by early 2011 by PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF [A major city consultant for the rail]
VISION
In 2035, Oahu will be a place where we will have efficient, well-maintained, safe, secure, convenient, appropriate, and economical choices in getting from place to place. Our transportation system will move us and the goods we use in a manner that supports the island's high quality of life, natural beauty, economic vitality, and land use policies by supporting appropriate density development and avoiding urban sprawl. This system will promote energy conservation and economic sustainability as well as the protection of our ports of entry, preparation for emergency situations and changes in global climate patterns.
GOAL
Provide an inclusive, multi-modal transport system whose connectedness provides efficient means for users desiring to move about this island by bicycle, freight carrier, pedestrian facility, road, transit service, and intermodal connectors.
OBJECTIVES
1. Develop, operate, and maintain alternative transportation facilities, including bikeways, walkways, and other accessible pedestrian, bicycle, and environmentally-friendly elements
2. Enhance the integration and connectivity of the regional transportation system.
3. Provide efficient, convenient, and cost-effective transit service to Oahu’s citizens.
4. Promote the intermodal efficiency of harbor terminal facilities, airport terminal facilities, and land transportation systems.
5. Provide rehabilitation, renewal, and modernization of facilities in sufficient magnitude to ensure system preservation and continued, effective operation.
http://www.oahumpo.org/ortp_docs/ORTP2035GoalsObjectives20090610.pdf
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
The warmest year recorded globally was ... 1998!
Although I am mindful of the climate change issue I have not purchased any stock in the Global Warming company which is a mother lode of "environmentalist" scare tactics and problematic scientific scenarios of future earth disasters.
Now BBC headlines this: WHAT HAPPENED TO GLOBAL WARMING?
"This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might the fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.
Now BBC headlines this: WHAT HAPPENED TO GLOBAL WARMING?
"This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might the fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.
But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.
And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.
So what on Earth is going on?"
Read on here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
I suggest that you draw no conclusions either way now, and make no hasty decisions now. Carbon taxation and sequestration can wait. If Congress wants to help, they should start with corn ethanol, the king of fake green fuels and one of many scores of counter-productive environmentalism.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
"Gary Okino" versus "Cliff Slater" -- Vancouver SkyTrain Edition
"Gary"
This is just garbage. Sure when, and it is very rare when SkyTrain has a problem, they need to go back to manual operations which compared to the automated operation is very slow. But the reality is that SkyTrain operates more efficiently than any other system. There has never been an accident with SkyTrain on automatic control. Never a loss of life accident like in Washington. The trains are so close you can see the one in front some times. Try 5 – 10 minutes apart in other systems. Even Canada Line will be 7 min. apart.
I have read this blog for a while and it is clear the author has a beef about SkyTrain, but it is unfounded. His facts are many times not correct, like one post states TransLink subsidizes SkyTrain to the tune of $200,000,000 well the total cost to run SkyTrain is more like under $100,000,000 and passenger fares cover 105% of the operation of SkyTrain. It is the bus company not SkyTrain getting a huge subsidy.
Who can trust anything from a source so lacking in reality.
"Cliff"
It is you sir, that lacks reality.
FACT: The 1991 GVRD study, “The cost of Transporting People in the Lower Mainland”, put the annual SkyTrain subsidy at $157.6 million; by 2001, with the opening of the Millennium Line, the annual subsidy paid to SkyTrain was over $200 million.
FACT: TransLink does not apportion fares between buses and SkyTrain, thus can’t claim any statistic that shows that SkyTrain recovers passenger fares. 80% of SkyTrain’s passengers first take a bus to the metro.
FACT: According to Gerald Fox’s “A Comparison Between Light Rail and Automated Transit Systems”, found SkyTrain (and all automatic transit systems) less reliable than light rail.
FACT: SkyTrain has an annual death rate of 5 to 10 people annually. True SkyTrain has never had a collision in revenue service, but the Washington Metro also operates under Automatic Train Control and it appears that one train was in automatic operation and the second train was being driven manually. SkyTrain are also driven manually if need be.
FACT: SkyTrain is having ongoing signaling problems and delays are so bad that they are being reported on the radio on a weekly basis.
FACT: Light Rail can operate safely at 30 second headways and does in daily service in cities around the world.
FACT: The provincial government has never divulged the real cost to date of SkyTrain, yet in the USA, the public are told of the total cost, including debt servicing, of a transit project.
FACT: Just the Expo Line cost 60% more to operate than the entire Calgary C-Train (LRT) and Calgary’s LRT carries more passengers.
Source: http://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/2009/07/09/the-aging-skytrain-pitfalls-of-a-gadgetbahnen/
Conclusion: Facts always trump railigion.
This is just garbage. Sure when, and it is very rare when SkyTrain has a problem, they need to go back to manual operations which compared to the automated operation is very slow. But the reality is that SkyTrain operates more efficiently than any other system. There has never been an accident with SkyTrain on automatic control. Never a loss of life accident like in Washington. The trains are so close you can see the one in front some times. Try 5 – 10 minutes apart in other systems. Even Canada Line will be 7 min. apart.
I have read this blog for a while and it is clear the author has a beef about SkyTrain, but it is unfounded. His facts are many times not correct, like one post states TransLink subsidizes SkyTrain to the tune of $200,000,000 well the total cost to run SkyTrain is more like under $100,000,000 and passenger fares cover 105% of the operation of SkyTrain. It is the bus company not SkyTrain getting a huge subsidy.
Who can trust anything from a source so lacking in reality.
"Cliff"
It is you sir, that lacks reality.
FACT: The 1991 GVRD study, “The cost of Transporting People in the Lower Mainland”, put the annual SkyTrain subsidy at $157.6 million; by 2001, with the opening of the Millennium Line, the annual subsidy paid to SkyTrain was over $200 million.
FACT: TransLink does not apportion fares between buses and SkyTrain, thus can’t claim any statistic that shows that SkyTrain recovers passenger fares. 80% of SkyTrain’s passengers first take a bus to the metro.
FACT: According to Gerald Fox’s “A Comparison Between Light Rail and Automated Transit Systems”, found SkyTrain (and all automatic transit systems) less reliable than light rail.
FACT: SkyTrain has an annual death rate of 5 to 10 people annually. True SkyTrain has never had a collision in revenue service, but the Washington Metro also operates under Automatic Train Control and it appears that one train was in automatic operation and the second train was being driven manually. SkyTrain are also driven manually if need be.
FACT: SkyTrain is having ongoing signaling problems and delays are so bad that they are being reported on the radio on a weekly basis.
FACT: Light Rail can operate safely at 30 second headways and does in daily service in cities around the world.
FACT: The provincial government has never divulged the real cost to date of SkyTrain, yet in the USA, the public are told of the total cost, including debt servicing, of a transit project.
FACT: Just the Expo Line cost 60% more to operate than the entire Calgary C-Train (LRT) and Calgary’s LRT carries more passengers.
Source: http://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/2009/07/09/the-aging-skytrain-pitfalls-of-a-gadgetbahnen/
Conclusion: Facts always trump railigion.
Monday, October 5, 2009
3 Success Stories of HOT Lanes -- Oahu Is Missing out on Real Congestion Relief
1. FLORIDA: (Miami Herald) The Florida Department of Transportation has claimed victory against chronic traffic congestion on Interstate 95 northbound thanks to the new toll express lanes.
Motorists who use the two variable-toll express lanes now travel at an average speed of 56 mph during rush hour -- 36 mph faster than before the lanes opened. Even drivers who use the four free lanes are traveling faster at peak times, the report said -- 42 mph instead of 20 mph.
Congestion reducing results like this are typical for HOT lane deployments in the nation. However, client-focused Parsons Brinkerhoff managed to model HOT lanes in the Honolulu Alternatives Analysis in a way that HOT lanes performed far worse than existing conditions. A first in the nation. I strongly objected to their methods and findings but the Alternatives Analysis panel voted 6-1 in approving PB's analysis that killed HOT lanes for Honolulu in November 2006.
Back to Florida, the average weekday toll is 90 cents, with an average rush-hour toll of $1.85 and an average off-peak toll of 47 cents. (Remember that during the 2008 elections Hannemann said that tolls are 10 dollars?)
Southbound express lanes, now under construction, are expected to open later this year or in early 2010.
SOURCE: http://www.miamiherald.com/486/story/1250690.html
2. MINNESOTA: U.S. DOT Secretary LaHood inaugurated the second HOT lane project in the twin cities. The HOT Lanes on Interstate 35W project is one of the first nationwide to make use of all lanes, including the shoulder, during peak travel periods to provide drivers the option of taking a less-congested path, according to FHWA.
While the interstate previously had High Occupancy Vehicle lanes open to carpools and buses, this project converted them into High Occupancy Toll lanes with pricing based on demand. The Minnesota DOT also converted shoulders into Priced Dynamic Shoulder Lanes, which allow buses and carpools to use them at no charge while also permitting access during peak times to low-occupancy vehicles willing to pay a toll.
The U.S. DOT provided $133 million for this project with Federal Highway Administration funding lane conversions and tolling technology, the Federal Transit Administration paying for Bus Rapid Transit facilities and Park & Ride lots, and the Research and Innovative Technology Administration offering grants for the operational test period of the new tolling equipment.
This is Minnesota's second highway with HOT lanes. The I-394 express lanes opened in 2005. Prices range from 25 cents per trip when traffic is light to as much as $8 during heavy peak-period traffic. MnDOT's goal is to keep traffic in the express lanes moving at a minimum of 50 mph.
Note that few motorists pay the maximum toll. When maximum toll is displayed, it actually has the purpose of discouraging more vehicles from entering the HOT lanes so that free flow conditions can be maintained.
SOURCE: http://www.aashtojournal.org/Pages/100209minnesota.aspx
3. NATIONAL: Quantified Advantages of HOT Lanes
In the September 2009 issue of the Journal of the Institute of Transportation Engineers senior planner Decorla-Souza and senior engineer Halkias of the U.S. DOT quantify the advantage of turning shoulders of 6 lane freeways (3 lanes per direction) into HOT lanes. Their example fits the H-1 freeway like a glove because their case is for a chronically congested 6-lane freeway.
In the base case (or existing conditions) the peak direction carries 6,930 vehicles per hour. With the managed shoulder open, the freeway would carry 7,200 vehicles per hour, or a 4% gain.
The huge difference is in the average speeds which improve from 29 mph in the base case (much lower for H-1 fwy.) to 33 mph for the general lanes and 55 mph for the HOT lane for a grand average of 38 mph or 31% improvement in speed.
In comparison, the proposed rail for Honolulu won't provide any such congestion relief.
Using a cost of gasoline at (only) $2.50 per gallon and a value of time at $14.60 the combined savings in time and fuel due to the addition of a single HOT lane comes to $16 million per year. In addition, the modified freeway with one HOT lane (for an assumed length of 10 miles) will decrease greenhouse gases by 7%.
In comparison, the proposed rail for Honolulu won't provide any such pollution reduction.
Motorists who use the two variable-toll express lanes now travel at an average speed of 56 mph during rush hour -- 36 mph faster than before the lanes opened. Even drivers who use the four free lanes are traveling faster at peak times, the report said -- 42 mph instead of 20 mph.
Congestion reducing results like this are typical for HOT lane deployments in the nation. However, client-focused Parsons Brinkerhoff managed to model HOT lanes in the Honolulu Alternatives Analysis in a way that HOT lanes performed far worse than existing conditions. A first in the nation. I strongly objected to their methods and findings but the Alternatives Analysis panel voted 6-1 in approving PB's analysis that killed HOT lanes for Honolulu in November 2006.
Back to Florida, the average weekday toll is 90 cents, with an average rush-hour toll of $1.85 and an average off-peak toll of 47 cents. (Remember that during the 2008 elections Hannemann said that tolls are 10 dollars?)
Southbound express lanes, now under construction, are expected to open later this year or in early 2010.
SOURCE: http://www.miamiherald.com/486/story/1250690.html
2. MINNESOTA: U.S. DOT Secretary LaHood inaugurated the second HOT lane project in the twin cities. The HOT Lanes on Interstate 35W project is one of the first nationwide to make use of all lanes, including the shoulder, during peak travel periods to provide drivers the option of taking a less-congested path, according to FHWA.
While the interstate previously had High Occupancy Vehicle lanes open to carpools and buses, this project converted them into High Occupancy Toll lanes with pricing based on demand. The Minnesota DOT also converted shoulders into Priced Dynamic Shoulder Lanes, which allow buses and carpools to use them at no charge while also permitting access during peak times to low-occupancy vehicles willing to pay a toll.
The U.S. DOT provided $133 million for this project with Federal Highway Administration funding lane conversions and tolling technology, the Federal Transit Administration paying for Bus Rapid Transit facilities and Park & Ride lots, and the Research and Innovative Technology Administration offering grants for the operational test period of the new tolling equipment.
This is Minnesota's second highway with HOT lanes. The I-394 express lanes opened in 2005. Prices range from 25 cents per trip when traffic is light to as much as $8 during heavy peak-period traffic. MnDOT's goal is to keep traffic in the express lanes moving at a minimum of 50 mph.
Note that few motorists pay the maximum toll. When maximum toll is displayed, it actually has the purpose of discouraging more vehicles from entering the HOT lanes so that free flow conditions can be maintained.
SOURCE: http://www.aashtojournal.org/Pages/100209minnesota.aspx
3. NATIONAL: Quantified Advantages of HOT Lanes
In the September 2009 issue of the Journal of the Institute of Transportation Engineers senior planner Decorla-Souza and senior engineer Halkias of the U.S. DOT quantify the advantage of turning shoulders of 6 lane freeways (3 lanes per direction) into HOT lanes. Their example fits the H-1 freeway like a glove because their case is for a chronically congested 6-lane freeway.
In the base case (or existing conditions) the peak direction carries 6,930 vehicles per hour. With the managed shoulder open, the freeway would carry 7,200 vehicles per hour, or a 4% gain.
The huge difference is in the average speeds which improve from 29 mph in the base case (much lower for H-1 fwy.) to 33 mph for the general lanes and 55 mph for the HOT lane for a grand average of 38 mph or 31% improvement in speed.
In comparison, the proposed rail for Honolulu won't provide any such congestion relief.
Using a cost of gasoline at (only) $2.50 per gallon and a value of time at $14.60 the combined savings in time and fuel due to the addition of a single HOT lane comes to $16 million per year. In addition, the modified freeway with one HOT lane (for an assumed length of 10 miles) will decrease greenhouse gases by 7%.
In comparison, the proposed rail for Honolulu won't provide any such pollution reduction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
