Problems with Oahu's Rail EIS

As attempts to push ahead with a rail-only environmental impact statement (EIS) move forward, I would like to draw attention to these comments made by the Army Corps of Engineers to the city’s alternatives analysis, dated April 10, 2007.

(1) “Existing and modeled traffic data from the 2006 Alternatives Analysis Report suggest the implementation of the locally preferred alternative (LPA) will not improve the level of service (LOS) on most segments of the Interstate H-1 Freeway, including the high-occupancy vehicle and Zipper lanes, within the corridor study area [therefore] … the stated goal to “improve” existing conditions, or LOS, is somewhat misleading …”

My interpretation of this is that the City is set on selecting a solution and transportation alternative that is not likely to be of benefit to the people of Oahu.

(2) “… the inclusion of the verbiage “...to provide high-capacity transit...” is appropriate, but again, caution the use of language that is unduly restrictive.”

My interpretation of this is that the City is working with restrictions that are likely to be challenged successfully in court. The fixation on a fixed guideway violates both common sense and fair play, and is forcing the implementation of high-cost options that are detrimental to both taxpayers and commuters.

(3) “The Council on Environmental Quality regulations require an EIS objectively and rigorously examine all reasonable alternatives to the proposal. Towards this end, the range of alternatives should include reasonable alternatives that are not within the jurisdiction of FTA and/or DTS, if they exist.”

My interpretation of this is that the EIS should include a wide gamut of feasible alternatives, even those that are not under Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Departmation of Transportation Services (DTS) jurisdictions. The Council's fixation on fixed guideways and FTA New Starts funds is not an excuse for improperly designing and analyzing alternatives in the EIS.

Bottom line: the EIS must include regional bus rapid transit (bus only based alternative with many express buses) and a mixed use transitway (Managed lanes/HOT lanes alternative with many express buses) in its detailed environmental assessment. The specifications of the alternatives should be subject to extensive public and expert comment before any results are produced. The Council must put the brakes on the city administration’s railroading of the project. It follows the path of the DC Metro Dulles extension for which FTA withdrew $900 million of funding.

This environmental process is biased and rushed. Please remember that there are no federal New Starts funds for this project before 2011 at the earliest.



I am also glad to see that Mr. Henry Curtis over at Transforming Hawaii has published a well-written and comprehensive post on the concerns with the rail-focused EIS. He leads of with:

There are rumors that the Honolulu Mass transit proposal has eliminated all alternatives except the preferred solution. This can't be so, as it would invalidate the EIS.

At a minimum, the Draft EIS must cover at grade and elevated rail, elevated toll road, expanded bus service, alternative technology and alternative routes and spurs.

and it just gets better from there.

UH Congestion Study

Most of the students of the original team have graduated and I am happy that practically all of them have good jobs. This monumental effort at the undergraduate level was concluded in mid-spring 2008, except for a section of a large survey that was completed and coded in early June 2008. The abstract copied below includes the final, final results of the UHCS study.

============

Transportation Alternatives Analysis for Mitigating Traffic Congestion between Leeward Oahu and Honolulu

A Detailed Microsimulation Study Directed by Professor Panos D. Prevedouros with the Participation of Undergraduate and Graduate StudentsSpecializing in Transportation Studies

Honolulu, Hawaii – June 30, 2008 – Version 5 – Final Public Release

============

ABSTRACT

The rail system currently under consideration for the Honolulu Fixed Guideway project will cost over $5 billion, reducing total travel time by an average of 6% and delivering worse traffic congestion than today’s H-1 freeway after completion. Is this the most cost effective solution for Oahu’s traffic congestion problem?

A comprehensive study: To address this question, Dr. Panos D. Prevedouros at the University of Hawaii’s Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering together with 16 students prepared Hawaii’s largest-ever simulation study of five different congestion relief alternatives. Over 100 pages of research and gigabytes of data summarize the following key findings:

Rail transit (Cost: $5 Billion): Using data from the city-generated Alternatives Analysis and simulating a commute from the H1/H2 merge to Aloha tower, a rail transit line would reduce H-1 congestion approximately 3%, reducing drive times from 34 to 33 minutes. A rail commuter would make the same trip in approximately 41 minutes. Note that rail takes longer than driving.

HOT lanes (Cost: $1 Billion): The proposed HOT lanes facility is a reversible two- or three-lane highway on which buses and vehicles with 5 passengers or more travel for free at an average speed of 60mph (vs. rail’s average 25mph). Unused capacity on HOT lanes is made available to private vehicles via an electronically computed toll which adjusts the price to keep lanes full but free flowing. Average toll price during peak commute times is estimated to be $3.50 per vehicle. HOT lanes need less or no tax subsidy; similar systems across the nation are privately funded.

HOT lanes would reduce H-1 congestion by 35%, reducing drive times from 34 to 22 minutes. An express bus commuter would make the same trip in 12.7 minutes. The greatest benefit of HOT lanes would accrue to those who never use them; they would pay no added taxes or tolls yet would experience dramatically reduced congestion.

Pearl Harbor Tunnel (Cost: $3-5 billion): A reversible 2-lane tunnel under the entrance of Pearl Harbor would connect to the Nimitz Viaduct. Drive times from Ewa to downtown would be reduced from 65 to 11 minutes and the load reduction on Ft. Weaver Road and H-1 Fwy. would bring those commuter times down from 65 to 40 minutes. The toll would have to be at least three times higher than for the HOT lanes to pay for the large cost of this option.

Four underpasses throughout urban Honolulu (Cost: $50M): One of the most cost-effective projects: introducing free-flowing underpasses in four of Honolulu’s busiest intersections delivers a substantial reduction in urban traffic congestion. Overall impact on travel times are nearly equal to rail’s performance, at a 99% cost savings.

Rail is the worst global warmer. Excluding New York City, transit averages 310 grams of carbon emissions per passenger mile, compared with 307 for the average 2006 model car and 147 grams from a Toyota Prius. Fuel efficiency trends clearly indicate that vehicles in 2030 will be largely non-polluting, whereas rail will still be drawing its power from today’s fossil-fueled power plants.

Bleak outlook. Rail’s immense construction costs and operating losses will preclude the use of funding for other transportation solutions. This combined with rail’s dismal performance will perpetuate Oahu’s unacceptable levels of traffic congestion for residents and visitors alike. Last but not least, people do not want rail. In a March-May random mail survey conducted as part of an independent research project: on highway noise attitudes people were asked about their attitudes on rail: 44.6% responded that Honolulu does not need rail versus 36.5% who responded that it does. The remainder had no opinion. More telling was that 66.1% reported that they would not use rail for school or work, whereas 16% reported that they would.

============

Disclaimer: This report is a product of faculty and students of the University of Hawaii at Manoa, but it makes no representation that it reflects the positions of the University of Hawaii at Manoa or any of its units. It also makes no representation that it reflects the positions of the Associated Students of the University of Hawaii (ASUH.)