Honolulu Economic Development Plan: An Integrated Vision of Infrastructure, Tourism, Energy, and Sustainability

Our four point plan to secure a bright economic future for Honolulu may be summarized as follows:

1. Bring our infrastructure to world-class standards. A city in the current state of disrepair like ours simply cannot have a serious discussion about economic growth until our sewage is properly contained and treated, out water is clean and stays in the pipes, our roads provide a reasonably speedy service and are free of bumps and potholes, our trash is recycled, re-used and controlled; and our taxes are reduced so that business stay in business and low income folks are not forced into homelessness.

2. Develop sustainable energy supplies to secure a low-cost expansion that is largely free of fossil fuels. Hawaii is blessed with abundant solar, wind, geothermal, and wave energy that can free us from the shackles of imported oil and coal. We had a tradition of sugarcane agriculture; sugarcane is the preferred source for making ethanol. Where is the wisdom in importing ethanol from Iowa?

3. Reposition our tourism to serve established and emerging niche markets. For example, specialize in hosting professional and specialty conferences that bring in millions of high-value visitors from around the world. Many conferences can showcase Honolulu as the city of the future, a city that is ethnically integrated like no other, a city that is clean and in good repair, a city that is cooled and powered with green energy. We can lead the world in true eco-tourism by demonstrating what real sustainability looks like.

4. Reverse the brain drain through the knowledge gained by giving this city the infrastructure and energy alternatives it deserves. Our university graduates will study, work in, and export sustainable technology to cities around the world, cities that will come to Honolulu to model what we have created in:

Renewable energy, trash and recycling factories, point to point fuel cell buses on high occupancy reversible expressways, intelligent transportation systems, green buildings, telecommuting and the integration of culture and the arts into technology and infrastructure.

Indeed trash factories and reversible lanes can be designed with beauty and cultural sensitivity in mind. See for example what the Figg Bridge company has done in Indian reservations and national parks.

We have solutions which combine form, function, efficiency, results, and state of the art technology. It’s worth staying home and making this beautiful place truly great.

Homelessness on Oahu

Earlier today, I testified before the Hawaii Housing Authority on the issue of homelessness in our city. The following is an expanded version of what I stated at that meeting.

As an 18+ year resident on Oahu and a candidate for mayor, I am alarmed by the homelessness issue and its impact on our people, our tourists, our parks and our beaches.

The Kapiolani "tent park" is only the beginning. A shrinking economy, reduced tourism and large anticipated cuts in both public and private budgets have the potential to make this an explosive issue which will stress service providers at all levels.

There are many causes to homelessness, including cost of living, low pay, unemployment, housing affordability, mental health, drugs, and, for a few, a life style choice of permanent camping.

There are several services and solutions, including priority housing for single parents, cubicles, camps or areas with facilities for sleeping in a car, other temporary accommodations, physical and mental health treatment, affordable housing and other public housing.

There are many agencies involved and service providers such as:

• Hawaii Housing Authority
• Partners in Care
• HUD such as Community Development Block Grant
• other Federal assistance
• City Council and Mayor
• State Department of Health
• Police Department
• Aloha United Way and Foodbank Hawaii
• Churches and several other advocates

Therefore, a County Unit on Homelessness is necessary to coordinate and consolidate all these activities and offerings.

Homelessness is a multi-issue, multi-solution and multi-fragmented challenge. Some of the issues and positive directions include the following:

• City cooperation with state is lacking; and city is going out of the affordable housing service at the worse possible time.
• The city has not cooperated by providing warning of evictions thus putting responding agencies and volunteers in sudden crises.
• Last year a bill proposed a 20 million allocation for a downtown homeless center but city administration never showed up to support it.
• Public private partnerships for affordable housing development and management work. We should do more of them and apply proper controls.
• The state should take a serious look on sustainable lease. It will likely work well for low income families. (A sustainable lease is a leasehold arrangement that maintains property in an affordable price range.)
• There are complaints that several people residing in public housing own new vehicles that are worth well over $40,000 dollars. Why are their owners in subsidized public housing ?
• There are concerns that the development of public housing and free sleeping quarters sometimes act as incentives for local and in-migrating homelessness. So you are balancing on a tight rope.

A major crisis is looming with the downturn in economy, the closure of homeless centers such as the recent one in Waihiawa, and the Next Step 151-cubicle unit provided by the state will close this year. Although it may sound counterintuitive at first, it is essential to increase the budget and coordinate the response to the homeless issue so that it remains at a manageable level.

To this end, for the interim, the city, in cooperation with the state should:

• identify vacant lots and specific areas in some public parks and
• develop a homeless camping permit much like the regular camping permit.

The advantages of a homeless permit are that:

• It designates specific places and periods.
• Assisting agencies will know where each individual is located.
• If the police are called, the homeless campers can show their permit.
• Maintenance on parks will be easier due to a manageable number of people at each site.
• The permit will have an expiration date which can be renewed.

This permit process would be a proactive approach to homelessness making it measurable, tractable and manageable.

PM Zipper Lane: One More Step Towards Traffic Relief

For many years now, I have been working with traffic analysis and making recommendations in order to reduce the acute traffic congestion that plagues our city every morning and afternoon. Some of these have already been completed, while others, like the Middle Street merge fix, are still in limbo. I was pleased with today's Honolulu Advertiser front page article, where I see that another one of my recommendations is going forward: The implementation of a PM Zipper lane.

Some other recommendations:

• Fix the existing H-1 bottlenecks, such as the ones listed in this Honolulu Star Bulletin article.
• Implementing contraflow lanes along Dillingham Boulevard.
• Improving traffic signal timing and coordination, as mentioned in a previous post.
• Implementing or encouraging flextime or 4x10 work weeks - something which the State is now beginning to explore.
• Have the UH begin classes later, so that the earliest classes do not coincide with the peak of rush hour.

Implement the Waiau widening project, adding a lane from the H-2 to the Waikele/Waipahu off-ramp.

And in the longer term:

• Build one-lane-per-direction underpasses at existing maxed-out intersections that cannot be widenend.
• Build the reversible HOT lanes from the H-1/H-2 merge to Iwilei.

High Occupancy and Toll (HOT) Lanes Benefit Everyone

Congestion pricing often draws the criticism that it disproportionately burdens lower-income drivers. But a new report by California researchers contends that these "pay-as-you-go" transportation options might actually be more fair to all income levels than paying for highway or transit improvements through sales taxes.

The study examines the High Occupancy/Toll lanes on California 91 in Orange County. The 91 Express Lanes – two lanes in each direction in the center of the highway – cover a 10-mile stretch of frequently congested freeway. Users must have an electronic toll tag in their vehicle and pay a varying price depending on how much traffic is clogging the main lanes. Tolls are set to keep traffic in the express lanes free-flowing and range from $1.25 to $10 in a metropolitan area of over 15 million people. In Denver of about six million people, the HOT lanes charge ranges between 50 cents and $3.25.

The study compared how tolls and sales taxes affect Orange County's lower-income residents. It found that political opposition to congestion pricing on equity grounds is flawed.

The 91 Express Lanes are used by middle- and upper-middle-income households. Researchers then examined how people of different income levels would be affected had the four lanes been funded by a sales tax increase instead of congestion tolls. Orange County already has a local-option transportation sales tax that generates about $240 million annually.

Had the sales tax been increased to pay for the extra lanes (like Hawaii’s 0.5% tack onto the standard 4% general excise tax for the Hannemann rail proposal) the poorest county residents would have paid more than $3 million more in taxes than they actually did under the current tolling system. Unlike a sales tax, paying to use the HOT lanes is voluntary.

"Using sales taxes to fund roadways creates substantial savings to drivers by shifting some of the costs of driving from drivers to consumers at large, and in the process disproportionately favors the more affluent at the expense of the impoverished," according to report authors Professor Brian Taylor, director of the UCLA Institute of Transportation Studies, and Lisa Schweitzer, assistant professor at USC's School of Policy, Planning, and Development. (Dr. Taylor spent a year long sabbatical at the UH-Manoa department of civil engineering in 2007.)

U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary Peters, a proponent of charging drivers for the use of infrastructure, said the study provides more proof that tolls do not unfairly burden lower- and middle-class drivers.

"Congestion pricing and tolling have the power to reduce commute times and make our metropolitan transportation networks far more efficient and environmentally friendly," Peters wrote on her blog "Fast Lane."

The proposed cost of using some HOT lanes is raising eyebrows, however, and is certain to continue the debate over the best methods for financing transportation improvements.

The private builders of new HOT lanes on the Capital Beltway in Virginia are betting enough drivers in the Washington region will be willing to pay tolls. Construction began last month on 14 miles of Interstate 495 HOT lanes between Springfield and the Dulles Toll Road. Transurban, the Australian company that will operate the lanes when they open in 2013, does not expect drivers to use the lanes every day but only when the value of time and certainty outweighs the price of access.

Traffic Signal Synchronization

Many of the traffic lights on our roadways seem to be almost random. Sometimes they allow us to travel for several blocks before encountering a red light, but much more often they stop us at almost every intersection. The worst case is when a traffic light turns red shortly before a big platoon of cars nears its stop line. This should not be the case! To a traffic engineer, these occurrences are a red flag and demand a solution. Not only because random red lights are artificial bottlenecks, but also because they encourage red-light-running and other unsafe motorist behaviors which, in turn, may lead to crashes.

The easiest and most cost-effective way to deal with this issue is to synchronize the traffic lights, allowing cars to travel at least five blocks along main arteries without having to stop. As reported by the federal Department of Transportation, synchronization of traffic signals can and does yield tremendous benefits. A couple of examples, cited in the link above include: Texas, with a benefit-cost ratio of 62:1 (i.e.: for ever dollar spent, $62 was saved) and California, with a benefit-cost ratio of 19:1.

In summer 2008, the Institute of Transportation Engineers reported that Baltimore, Maryland spent about $750,000 to optimize and synchronize 800 traffic lights. Actual travel time runs were made with the old and the new traffic light timings. The improvements were huge and the cost-benefit ratio was 43 to 1.

An example of what synchronization would look like using King, University and Beretania streets in Honolulu is shown below.



The scenario above is similar to what exists today. The traffic signals are all uncoordinated, and, while some cars are able to make it through one or two intersections before being stopped again, the entire system operates almost randomly.

If the signals are properly timed, however...


As you can see, traffic travels from one end of the area to the other, almost without no stops, and much more smoothly than in the unsynchronized case.

The table below shows that the result of synchronization is a significant reduction in lost time, a significant reduction is the number of times vehicles had to stop. In turn, this results in a drop in the amount of emissions and fuel use.



Throughout urban Honolulu, with its over 500 traffic lights, the proper timing of intersection traffic lights can save over 50 gallons of fuel for the average car over a year. And ten times as much for taxis, buses and delivery trucks that are in traffic all the time. Fuel cost, fuel efficiency, congestion reduction and reduction of long idling times at traffic lights are critical elements in the operation of fleets. One of the largest fleets on Oahu is the TheBus with over 550 vehicles.

Carbonization of Waste is a UH-based Trash Management Option

Technology developed by University of Hawaii researcher Michael J. Antal Jr. to produce charcoal from green waste can reduce the burden on the Waimanalo Gulch landfill.

Dr. Antal's flash carbonization process uses heat and pressure to turn scrap tires, corn cobs, macadamia nut shells and green waste into a high-quality, clean alternative to wood or coal.

Flash Carbonization™ of raw sewage sludge produced in Honolulu's Ewa treatment plant was converted into charcoal. Charcoal yields of about 30% (dry basis) were produced from the sewage sludge.

Charcoal is the sustainable fuel replacement for coal. Coal combustion is the most important contributor to climate change. On the other hand, the combustion of charcoal - sustainably produced from renewable biomass - adds no CO2 to the atmosphere! Thus, the replacement of coal by charcoal is among the most important steps we can take to ameliorate climate change.

Combustion of charcoal does not add to the CO2 burden of the atmosphere because charcoal is produced from renewable biomass that would otherwise decompose (i.e. rot) in a landfill or in the ground and become CO2. Thus the combustion of charcoal is a small part of nature's carbon cycle upon which life depends.

We burn coal to generate a good portion of the electrical power in Hawaii. Oahu has a 180 MW coal fired power plant. The highest priority for knowledgeable people who care about the environment is the replacement of coal by cleaner, renewable fuels.

The Sand Island sewage treatment plant converts its sewage sludge to dry pellets which can be used to enrich the soil. However, the other sewage plants continue to send their sludge to the landfill. Installing a carbon diversion system at all the other plants could not only reduce the burden on our landfill but cut down on the import and use of coal to generate electricity.

The replacement of coal by charcoal has other benefits. Coal is laden with mercury and sulfur. Mercury is a deadly toxin. Coal is also laden with sulfur and the combustion of coal leads to the release of sulfur oxides into the atmosphere. Sulfur oxides are a principal cause of acid rain. In contrast, charcoal contains no mercury and virtually no sulfur. In fact, our drug stores sell charcoal tablets to eat as an aid for digestion! Moreover, on a pound per pound basis, charcoal contains much more energy than most coals.

Just this year, in July and August, thousands of discarded old tires were found in Kapolei. At least two recycling companies apparently have had problems with old tires. They can serve as feedstock for a carbon diversion system and produce tons of charcoal in the process. My personal preference, however, is to use old, used and discarded tires in the asphalt pavement mix, which offers a cheaper re-use path and an improved final product, i.e., more durable asphalt pavements.

Oahu has thousands of acres devoted to growing seed corn for the mainland. The system can process corn cobs into miniature charcoal corn cobs which could probably be sold at a premium. It takes only a half acre to install a carbon diversion system which can process up to four tons of waste material per hour.

For more information see: http://www.carbondiversion.com

Can we get 80% federal funding for HOT lanes?

The Federal Highway Administration provides 80% of the funds for all highways designed as a part of the NHS, the National Highway System. The feds paid 80% of the H-1, H-2 and H-3 freeways. I am 99% sure that the feds also paid 80% of the Kalanianaole widening from 4 to 6 lanes from Aina Haina to Hawaii Kai. The Pali and Likelike highways are also part of the NHS.

The new reversible HOT lanes can indeed be part of the NHS and play a significant role as an emergency backbone in a disaster. They can receive the standard 80% FHWA funding, if approved by the FHWA. Both the transit and highways branches approve projects on a competitive basis and there are more projects than funds, but with a rolling horizon of 10 to 20 years, most projects get funding.

Why did Tampa do its reversible express lanes (REL) alone with state and county funds? Because this enabled them to finish the project in under 7 years from concept to open-for-traffic. It would have taken over 11 years if the Tampa-Hillsborough County Expressway Authority that developed the REL had decided to seek federal funding. The federal oversight and bureaucracy adds several years to project delivery, for both road and transit projects.

In July 2008, US DOT secretary Peters released 15 billion dollars in guarantees for private financiers to develop public-private partnerships (PPP) for the explicit purpose of building HOT lanes to decongest the main cities of the nation. The first project to successfully apply and receive funding from this extra source was the Capital Beltway in Washington DC, where the Virginia DOT is building 14 miles of HOT lanes, 2 lanes per direction.

Smart Growth Does not Reduce Greenhouse Gases

For today's post I would like to quote the nationally renowned transportation policy expert, and multiple time presidential adviser, Robert Poole of the Reason Foundation:

The premise [that smart growth reduces green house gases] goes something like this. Transportation is a major source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and personal vehicles are a significant fraction of transportation. The more people drive, the more GHGs their vehicles emit. If their job, school, shopping, etc. are close to where they live, they won’t drive as much (since they could walk or use transit). Therefore, government should force all new development to be high-density and transit-friendly, as a powerful tool for GHG reduction.

By the time you get to the end of this “logic” chain, you are actually looking at minuscule reductions in GHGs, as many different analyses have pointed out.

First, while transportation represents about 28% of GHG emissions in the United States today (according to the EPA), passenger cars are only 34% of that, or 9.5% of the total.

Second, over the next several decades, GHG emissions per mile driven will likely drop significantly, thanks to federal and state (e.g., California) measures to require increased fuel economy and encourage alternative propulsion sources (such as plug-in hybrids).

Third, densifying development applies almost entirely to new development, leaving the vast majority of the already built environment unchanged.

Fourth, just because transit is nearby does not mean it takes you where you need to go. Since most commuting is suburb-to-suburb while transit works best on radial routes to a central business district, it’s unlikely to capture much additional commute mode share. And since most people don'’t want to walk to a corner store and pay high prices, they will still drive their cars to Target or Costco to load up on good values.

Parsons Brinckerhoff Get's It Right, Worldwide, except for Honolulu

You've got to love it when one of the nation's largest engineering firms, Parsons Brinckerhoff , with a tradition in rail systems (and in large project cost overruns as of late) actually disseminates the right mass transit propaganda worldwide.

For the last 20 years Parsons Brinckerhoff have done all rail studies in Honolulu. This time around Parsons Brinckerhoff helps Hannemann misrepresent the system by calling it "Light Rail" when in reality they are designing a fully elevated Heavy Rail system. Another correct term for it is Rapid Transit. Light Rail is a modern tramway that operates at grade or on street lanes. None of this is true for the Hannemann rail.

To their credit, Parsons Brinckerhoff did propose a bus rapid transit (BRT) system for Honolulu during the Harris administration and the Regional BRT would have made a lot of good for Leeward Oahu commutes. Alas, once again politicians overrode engineers, and instead of the regional BRT, they put the cart in front of the horse and started with a disastrous In-town BRT deployment with narrow lanes on Kuhio Avenue, and permanent lane takings from Kapiolani and Ala Moana Boulevards.

HonoluluTraffic.com and I were much in favor of the Regional BRT but opposed to the Harris' version of the In-town BRT, and thankfully, that traffic nightmare was permanently defeated when the Federal Transit Administration revoked its Record on Decision and all possible funding for the project.

The reader should note that Cheryl Soon, director of the city's Department of Transportation Services during the Harris administration said the following in 2000 based on Parsons Brinckerhoff study recommendations on the same corridor that Hannemann proposes rail today:

The light rail transit alternative was dropped because subsequent analyses revealed that Bus Rapid Transit could accomplish virtually all of the objectives of light rail transit at substantially less cost.

And now a quote from Parsons Brinckerhoff literature: Bus Rapid Transit—The Next Generation of Public Transportation

Around the world, transit owners are turning to bus rapid transit (BRT) toprovide communities with efficient, flexible, affordable transportation.

From Boston to Beijing to Brisbane, Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) is supporting transit providers with a full range of planning, design and construction management services.

Whether in congested urban areas or suburban travel corridors, BRT is attracting new riders by combining the high-performance characteristics of rail with the flexibility and economy of buses. Transit providers are discovering that BRT achieves the excellent quality of service that customers associate with rail—but at significantly reduced cost.

On BRT projects worldwide, system owners have chosen PB to help tailor BRT technology to local needs. To the riding public, BRT looks, feels and performs like rapid transit.

Service is frequent, speedy and comfortable. To the owner, BRT is an innovative alternative that can be built faster and with less expense than comparable rail systems.

Source: http://www.pbworld.com/news_events/publications/brochures/pdf/BRT.pdf

A Good Way to Spend Five Billion in Honolulu

Someone asked me this: If you save Oahu the five plus billion dollars that rail would cost in local taxes, how would you spend it? Here is my response.

Five Billion Dollars is a mighty sum and lots of good things can be done with it. Recall that five billion is 5,000 million. Also recall that Charlotte, North Carolina built its light rail with 450 million dollars. Less than $100 million of the rail system's cost burdened the city’s taxpayers; the rest was contibuted from state and federal resources.

Honolulu plans to do the same for a cost of over 6,400 million dollars for 30 miles of rail, with five billion dollars of tax burden for Oahu’s 400,000 taxpayers. The city recently announced at a City Council session that there will be budget shortfalls for both construction and maintenance. They said that budget shortfalls will be covered by increased property taxes.

I estimate that property taxes need to increase by at least 40% to cover construction and operation shortfalls as soon as the GET 4.5% sunsets to 4.0% in 2022.

I do not plan to increase any taxes in four years. My budget plan for investing five billion dollars of local taxes on local infrastructure is as follows:

1. Assuming that the already expended $0.5 billion has been spent on good and necessary work, then $1.0 billion to bring our sewers to a B+ state.
2. About $1 billion for two trash factories that will allow us to close Waimanalo Gulch landfill and generate valuable recyclables with only 2% if trash being actual waste. We can actually afford to ship this little residual waste to mainland landfills. This billion also includes monies to convert the WG landfill into a methane and photovoltaic energy producing unit.
3. About $1.5 billion to bring city pavements to a C+ condition. Right now we are at a solid F, since Honolulu ranks 3rd bottom out of 67 cities with a population of 500,000 or more in road quality.
4. About $0.5 billion for traffic operations quick (but effective) fixes such as traffic light synchrolization, underpasses, spot lane additions and other localized bottleneck fixes.
5. About $0.5 billion on general community welfare including fixes to parks, beaches, athletic complexes, libraries, pools, and playgrounds.
6. And $0.5 billion matched by a federal and private partnership to form a $1.0 billion financing block to build 10-12 miles of reversible high occupancy express lanes from the H-1 and H-2 freeway merge to Airport, Kalihi and Iwilei which will solve the supermajority of the congestion issues on the Leeward corridor.
   

For more details and interesting movies and posts about my ideas and 21st century solutions, please visit my main campaign site at panosforprogress.com and its HQ (digital headquarters) section.

International Road Federation Award

I am very happy to be associated with the developers and operators of one of the best expressways on the planet. Attica Tollway is longer than H-1, H-2 and H-3 freeways combined. It was built between 1998 and mid-2004 in Athens, Greece as part of the infrastructure for the 2004 Olympic Games.

In 2006 the 6-lane wide Attica Tollway won the award as the safest expressway. And now it won the award as the most environment friendly expressway by the International Road Federation!

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

Dear Panos,

Thank you very much for your outstanding help with the application of Attica Tollway to the International Road Federation. As you can see from the attached, IRF has awarded to our Organization the Global Road Achievement Award on Environmental Mitigation.

This is a great honor for us and on behalf of our Board of Directors and the 1200 people of Attica Tollway I want to thank you very much for your help and support. Much of this credit belongs to you and we appreciate very much the good effort.

All the best and much more,

Sincerely yours,

Bill Halkias

--------------------------------------------
Bill M. Halkias, PE
Chief Executive Officer
Attica Tollway Operations Authority
Attikes Diadromes SA
41.9 Km of Attiki Odos
Peania 19 002 - Greece
tel: + 30.210.6682000
fax: + 30.210.6635578
e-mail : bhalkias@attikesdiadromes.gr

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

The text of the award letter can be seen below.

(Click thumbnail for full document)

City Propaganda on Rail -- Hanneman's Fake Facts 7 to 10 out of 10

Myth 7: Operating costs for rail are lower than for managed lanes.

Fact: Even if trains are automated, rail requires many more people than managed or HOT lanes behind the scenes: security, transit police, inspectors, custodial staff, and a huge array of maintenance workers for rail cars, propulsion and brake systems, escalators, elevators, systems computers, ticket machines, lighting systems and the rail yard.

The maintenance of the managed lanes roadbed is minuscule compared to the wear and tear of the thousands of mechanical and electronic components of the rail. All rail technology is foreign to Hawaii and expensive specialized labor will be necessary.

Managed lanes will not require more drivers of new express bus routes because the same express buses will be able to offer two instead of one trip per hour given that in the congested direction, the bus will be traveling at 55 instead of 25 miles per hour.

The bottom line is that 10 to 12 miles of a high occupancy highway (HOT lanes with express buses) has incomparably lower operational costs than a rail system with 20 to 30 stations.

Myth 8: There is no more space for buses on the road.

Fact: Only a few streets, such as Hotel Street and Kapiolani Boulevard have conditions that may come close to being the “river of buses” for a few minutes like Hanneman's pro-rail ads claim to be warning against. These ads actually are proof of mismanagement rather than a built-in problem with bus operations in general. For even more evidence against this myth, please see this short video.

The vast majority of streets only see a single bus every five or so minutes during the peak times, and in cases were the current number of buses are insufficient to handle the peak load, the number of buses on a route can be increased or the standard buses could be replaced by articulated buses.

My proposed HOT lanes alternative to rail would also strongly support increased bus ridership, as express buses would be able to travel from the H-1/H-2 merge to downtown Honolulu at free-flow (55mph) speeds, as well as serving the door-to-door needs that only buses are capable of. For example, there will be direct express buses from Makakilo, Kapolei, Ewa, Waipahu, Waikele and Mililani to downtown, Ala Moana, Waikiki and the UH every 10 to 20 minutes depending on the level of demand.

This makes another advantage of buses obvious: Buses can be added or reduced depending on how demand (passenger loads) change over time. Buses can do that. In 1990 Kapolei to town demand was zero, now it is X, in 2020 may be 3X. We can simply add three times as many buses, but rail is fixed and not scalable. There will be no third track for express or additional trains. In the way the Hanneman rail is being designed, its maximum capacity is fixed from day 1 to decades into the future.

Myth 9: HOT lanes would only create more traffic by putting more cars on the road.

Fact: Unless there are people who go driving for fun during rush hour, all the HOT lanes will do is take the same people to their same destination, where they would park in the same parking stall, but in a fraction of the time that it takes for the same trip now. In order for there to be more cars on the road, there would need to be more jobs created in downtown Honolulu and more people commuting to those jobs. There is no plan to add jobs to downtown Honolulu.

Myth 10: There is no more space to park in downtown Honolulu.

Fact: First, as seen in the response to Myth 9, the high occupancy highway does not require additional parking downtown unless the number of jobs there also increases. However, there are lots both in and around downtown right now that have hundreds of empty stalls. Some of these lots could even be developed into larger parking structures to provide more parking and mixed use development, if needed.

Furthermore, a couple of these lots may be developed underground and a mini-tunnel can connect them to the end of the HOT lanes, so several hundred vehicles will go to park there directly and in fact "disappear" from the surface streets of Honolulu.

The picture below shows large parking lots east of Punchbowl Street. As of this writing in August 2008, one of the parking lots shown is used by a Honda dealer to store several hundred cars.

City Propaganda on Rail -- Hanneman's Fake Facts 4 to 6 out of 10

Myth 4: Rail is green.

Unlike cars or buses which become more efficient and green every year, a rail system would use the same increasingly inefficient technology (oil or coal to electricity) for the next 30 years. Cars like the 2009 Toyota Prius are beginning to move even further ahead, with solar panels being installed to recharge the car’s battery when not in use. Honda is offering a fuel cell vehicle in California; its emissions are water vapors. Cars are environmentally neutral as soon as they are turned off, unlike a rail system which runs nonstop for 20 hours a day, regardless of the number of people riding it. Typical passenger loads for metro rail outside two to four peak hours per day are very light. But the escalators, lights, ticket machines, etc. are all on, and station attendants and security are on-duty making it a very low productivity, low efficiency and high energy impact system.

Another startling observation is that in midday one can look at a stretch of a five billion dollar guideway. A train with 20 to 30 people passes by and then nothing happens for about 10 minutes. Now compare this to the hassle and bustle of a 6-lane freeway which in 10 minutes moves over 6,000 cars, over 10,000 people, several hundred tons of freight, and perhaps a couple of emergency vehicles. One can visualize the utter uselessness of a metro rail line as a transportation investment and the huge environmental impact of building it in the first place.

New York City's rail system carries about two thirds of all urban rail trips done in a typical work day in the entire United States. Based on national statistics, if New York City is excluded, for all other cities with rail combined, rail is far less green that today’s relatively inefficient vehicle fleet.

Myth 5: Rail can move the equivalent of 6 lanes of freeway traffic

Fact: According to city’s website honolulutransit.com [Note: Between the time this post was drafted and the time it was posted, the city changed the information presented on honolulutransit.com. The text of what was there originally can be found at http://www.gorailgo.org/benefits-of-mass-transit.html], each train can carry 300 people, and during the peak times, there is expected to be one train every 3 minutes, for a total of 6,000 people per hour on the peak direction. It is important to note that 4,000 of these 6,000 passengers will be standees.

Managed freeway lanes, such as HOT lanes, are designed to carry 2000 vehicles per hour per lane at free flow speeds, and since they carry express busses and high occupancy vehicles, the average occupancy would be well over 3 people per vehicle, for a total of 6,000 people per hour per lane. (All of them seated.)

So rail has the capacity of about one HOT lane. If Honolulu builds three reversible managed lanes (as can be seen here: http://www.eng.hawaii.edu/~panos/UHCS_ES5.pdf) the capacity advantage of the managed lanes is obvious.

Recall that in the 2006 Alternatives Analysis the city's consultant built a 2-lane managed lanes system and simultaneously removed the morning zipper lane for a net gain of one lane. This one 10 mile HOT lane performed only a little worse than 20 miles of rail line.

Myth 6: Rail is more convenient than driving or catching the bus.

Fact: For most prospective rail passengers, this is not the case. Under Hanneman’s plan, once the rail system is implemented, express bus routes will disappear, and existing bus routes will be reconfigured into feeder systems, where buses will pick people up from the neighborhoods, drop them off at the rail station, where they would then take a train to their destination station, then catch another bus to their final destination. That's two transfers per direction.

Transfers and the inconvenience of exiting and re-entering vehicles, waiting for them, going up and down escalators and through turn styles etc., and then repeating this for the trip home are an impractical routine at this day and age; a routine that was tried and progressively rejected through the times. This routine is practical only for 19th century breadwinners that only made a routine home-work-home trip. For this reason, the 2000 Census shows that only 2.09% of all urban trips in the U.S. are made in rail systems.

The Federal Transit Administration is strongly in favor of Bus Rapid Transit systems, particularly for cities under two million in population. The most recent publication cited below makes a strong case for BRT and the concept presented ties beautifully with my idea of an integrated HOT + BRT system presented in the UH Congestion Study linked above.

Advanced Network Planning for Bus Rapid Transit: The “Quickway” Model as a Modal Alternative to “Light Rail Lite”, Federal Transit Administration, February 2008,
http://www.nbrti.org/docs/pdf/BRT%20Network%20Planning%20Study%20-%20Final%20Report.pdf

City Propaganda on Rail -- Hanneman's Fake Facts 1 to 3 out of 10

Myth 1: Honolulu will get $900 million from the federal government to help pay for the cost of rail.

Fact: The New Starts program, which would be funding the rail project has its funds allocated until 2010. The rail is nowhere on its list, meaning that we would have to wait until 2011, at the earliest to receive even a chance of getting federal funding.

The $900 is just a figure that the mayor made up and had some politicians or paid consultants repeat it. In constant 2006 dollars we will not get much over $750 million. Note that the New Starts program of the Federal Transit Administration is funded at a level of $1.8 billion for the whole country! Meanwhile, the Highway Trust Fund is broke, so past 2010 it is likely that there will be minimal federal funds for transportation infrastructure.

While the rail project is intended to be funded by the 0.5% increase that was added to the 4% general excise tax (GET) as well as an assumed $900 million from the federal government, if we limited the project to those funds, we would be deep in the red. As of April 2008, 16 months into the tax increase’s fifteen-year lifespan, a total of $211 million was collected, of which the state takes 10% for administrative costs. The city, therefore, after taking out the 10%, is receiving approximately $140 million annually, for a total of $2.1 billion over the life of the increase. That is just over a third of the cost of the $6.4 billion rail project without the federal money, and just under two-thirds of the cost if Honolulu receives all of the funds it would be asking for.

Therefore, a major increase in the property taxes is necessary to complete the 34 mile route to UH and Waikiki. That does not even account for the substantial downturn in U.S. economy and Hawaii tourism which is just getting started.

Another important point here is the cost of rails, trains and other electromechanical systems. All these will be bought from a foreign country or the mainland at a cost of over one billion dollars. So, even if Oahu receives $900 million in federal aid, all of it will be spend on the mainland and in foreign suppliers. No federal funds will ever reach Oahu.

Myth 2: Rail will reduce traffic congestion.

Fact: The congestion on the roads will be far worse with rail than it is today. According to the city’s Alternatives analysis, the H-1 freeway, currently carries almost 11,000 vehicles during the peak hour. In 2030 with rail, the same lanes are predicted to be carrying over 17,000 vehicles in the peak hour – an increase of over 50%. We know that the freeway is at capacity already and cannot carry additional traffic. Any additional traffic will simply have to wait in line for increasingly longer times before being able to go through. What does this mean for 2030?

These 17,000 vehicles carry well over 25,000 people in one hour. The rail has a maximum capacity per hour of 9,000 (and 6,000 of them will be standees.) In 2030, the rail is predicted to run nearly full. So these 25,000 people per hour cannot go on the rail and have to use their cars. Their commute will be over two hours long. Do you see how useless the expenditure of $6.4 billion for rail is?

It is also pure fantasy to point to the rail as a savior when there is an incident on the freeway. Nobody can leave their car on the freeway and jump on the rail line. A reversible set of managed lanes can be easily configured to address an major road closure and these lanes will be a life saver for critical emergencies. Rail will be of no use during and after a hurricane.

I feel for the Waianae coast residents that have to endure nearly a two hour commute every day. Rail will make it much longer regardless of whether they drive or catch the rail. I shiver with the thought of someone having a health emergency in Waianae in rush hour. There is simply no roadway capacity either now or in 2030 to take him or her to a major hospital in a reasonable time for survival. Rail simply takes current conditions and makes them twice as bad in 2030. The story is similar for Ewa Beach, Wahiawa and Mililani. Only reversible lanes can provide the needed capacity for tolerable commuting times and timely emergency responses.

Myth 3: Rail is fast.

Fact: The rail line is expected to average only about 25 miles per hour, and is predicted to be slower than travel by car between Aiea (Pearlridge) and Downtown. 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.

If managed lanes and bus rapid transit (BRT), or rail, were available today, a trip from Kapolei to the UH at Manoa would take 50 minutes by bus and 42 minutes by car on the managed lanes and BRT system. The same trip on rail transit would take 75 minutes. Like TheBoat, TheRail will not provide time competitive service and our figures do not include additional travel times for connections and transfers on rail.

City Transportation Priorities: Phoenix versus Honolulu

The American Association of State and Highway Officials reports this week that Arizona finished the freeway network in Phoenix area that was authorized by voters 23 years ago.

The Arizona Department of Transportation completed a 137-mile regional freeway network in July 2008. The $195 million project to finish the final 4.8-mile stretch of Loop 202 opened three months ahead of schedule. Its completion marks the end of a Phoenix regional freeway enhancement plan, known as Proposition 300, that Maricopa County voters approved in 1985. The proposition authorized a half-cent sales tax dedicated to freeway construction.

“The project represents the culmination of a 20-year partnership between the public, the Arizona Department of Transportation, local cities and tribal governments, and the Maricopa Association of Governments,” ADOT Director Victor Mendez said in a news release announcing Loop 202’s completion Sunday. “It is the final segment of Arizona’s largest-ever public-works project. On a national scale, our progress is unprecedented.”

ADOT is now working on a subsequent transportation plan known as Proposition 400. The blueprint, endorsed by voters in 2004, includes additional freeway, street, and transit construction. As can be seen in the Proposition 400 report the transportation revenue is allocated as follows: 56.2% on freeways, 10.5% on arterial streets and 33.3% on the public transportation fund which includes regional bus services, special transportation services (like Hawaii’s HnadiVan), and high capacity transit services such as light rail, bus rapid transit and express buses.

It is depressing to realize that if the proposed rail goes ahead on Oahu, about 70% of the entire transportation budget on Oahu will go to fund public transportation that will serve about 10% of the trips. This is why both rail and the current mayor must be stopped.

The same progressive city, Phoenix, in which people are flocking in (as opposed to oppressed and overtaxed Honolulu which is actually losing population) did a careful cost analysis of rail, HOT lanes and other major transportation infrastructure. The cost per passenger mile was reported as follows:

HOT lane = 1.2 to 2.7 ¢
General purpose lane = 1.9 to 4.2 ¢
HOV and bus lane = 2.6 to 5.7 ¢
Exclusive bus lane = 6.6 to 14.7 ¢
Light rail line = 16.1 to 35.8 ¢

Notably, for Phoenix, HOT lanes are roughly ten times cheaper per passenger mile than light rail. Furthermore, comparing these costs to the over 1,000 cents per passenger mile of Honolulu’s fully elevated heavy rail proposal, makes it clear that a $6 billion rail project is entirely inappropriate for Honolulu

Parsons Brinkerhoff: HOT Lanes “benefit everyone”

The above was just one of the findings of the Congestion Relief Analysis, a report conducted by the Washington State Department of Transportation, with much assistance from many consulting firms, among which was Parsons Brinkerhoff. The report’s purpose was to answer two questions: “What would it take to significantly reduce expected future traffic delay due to congestion in the State’s major urban areas?” and “What are the associated costs and impacts?”, questions which are also being asked by many here in Honolulu.

Instead of looking for and finding solutions to Honolulu’s congestion problems, the Hannemann administration has chosen to pursue, from the beginning, an elevated heavy rail system, which every analysis has shown to do little or nothing to reduce traffic congestion.

The Washington DOT report, in a section titled “Why is Congestion Growing in the State”, two points are made which also exemplify the source of Honolulu’s congestion woes:

[1] Capacity expansion has not kept up with the pace of population and travel demand growth, resulting in an imbalance between demand and capacity.

[2] Most travelers are auto dependent due to lack of population and employment density, which is essential to make alternative travel options more viable.

Several alternatives were studied in the Washington DOT report. Each one was analyzed with the goal of maximum congestion relief in mind. One of the alternatives was transit, which included busses and rail as the only means of reducing congestion – exactly as proposed by Hanneman. The study found that (bolding added for emphasis):

“Major transit expansion in the adjacent urban areas [Seattle, Tacoma, Spokane and Vancouver] would provide an alternative to single occupancy vehicles for people traveling congested corridors during peak periods. However, according to the computer modeling, transit expansion alone is not shown to be effective in reducing total delay at the system level. The lack of supportive land use densities and the difficulty in serving non-commute travel limits the ability of transit to serve trips that are now customarily made by auto.”

High occupancy toll (HOT) lanes, with value pricing (tolls which vary depending on congestion levels), similar to what I propose, were, however, deemed effective solutions:

“Region-wide value pricing is indicated to be very effective in reducing total delay. Roadway tolling helps to dampen travel demand, shorten trips, shift travel to non-peak periods, and encourage use of other travel options (transit, carpooling, biking and walking) that are not subject to toll charges.

Value pricing in the form of High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes is found to reduce corridor delay and make the corridor operate more efficiently. HOT lanes make corridor travel time more reliable, which benefits everyone, including occasional users.”

Honolulutraffic.com also has a commentary and link to the Washington State DOT report.

The main lessons for Honolulu are that (1) fixed mass transit is an inferior solution, and (2) An express transitway for high-occupancy (HO) buses, vanpools and carpools, and toll-paying (T) low occupancy vehicles is an effective solution to congestion and mobility. HOT lanes combined with Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is an affordable, effective and sustainable solution for Oahu.

Not only is the Bay Area developing a network of HOT lanes, but an extensive application of HOT lanes is also getting done in Washington, D.C. (Capital Beltway HOT Lanes: http://www.virginiahotlanes.com/) On the other hand, also in 2008, an expansion to the D.C. Metro was not funded.

Potholes... Hawaii 2nd worst in the nation!

Why do we have so many potholes here on Oahu? Why are our roads among the worst in the nation? These are questions many of us ask when our cars hit yet another pothole.

There are two common types of pavements: asphalt and concrete. Concrete pavements are strong and durable. They are expensive to build. They are used mostly for freeways and for bus lanes. City streets are almost always asphalt pavements.

Pavements are structures. Like buildings carry people and furniture, pavements carry traffic. The weight of traffic makes the pavements flex. After millions of flexes, the pavement cracks. If it is not maintained before or as soon as it cracks, potholes appear.

A pot hole is a complete failure of the pavement. The more potholes there are, the more we conclude that proper pavement maintenance is not done. How does a crack become a pothole? With the help of water and traffic.

Water gets in the crack, traffic passes over it, the pavement flexes downward and that pushes the water upward which loosens and carries pavement material through the crack. Soon enough, a quarter-inch wide crack is a one-inch-wide crack and with enough rain and traffic, a large pothole can appear in just a few days.

What’s a good way to maintain pavements? There are many ways:

1: Crack filling, where crews have a system to patrol roads and fix them.

2: Chip sealing, where a special thin layer is added every 4 or 5 years while the pavement is in excellent or very good condition. This can keep a pavement excellent practically forever if it is done on schedule.

3: Pavement management system where each mile of roadway is in a database along with its condition and annual traffic load. Then, pavement repair and replacement jobs can be prioritized and done regularly and on schedule.

A good thing about asphalt pavements is recycling. The top layer of pavement can be recycled forever, which cuts down on the amount of stones we need to quarry. In addition, used tires can be added to the mix. This is very useful, because tire rubber is among the least biodegradable products.

When chipped and used in asphalt mixes, tires become 100% recyclable and they make pavements cheaper and quieter.

How bad are our pavements? The Honolulu Advertiser pointed out in March 2008 “Honolulu roads rated 2nd-worst in nation”.

The City and County of Honolulu is many years behind modern pavement practice. They use very old methods to patch potholes. This is a waste of labor and the results are poor.

They deploy very expensive ½-inch overlays on damaged pavement. This basically makes a road “look good” for a year or so. Like these two:

They do not have a pavement management system. They do not know how heavy traffic is on every road.

They do not use chip sealing and they do not do crack filling.

Basically, they are fighting a losing battle by using expensive band-aids on or very sick roads.

Honolulu’s pavements need a complete overhaul. More than one billion dollars is required to bring city road pavements to a near-excellent condition.

How good can it get if traffic lights are optimized?

I summarize for you the results published in the most recent issue of the Journal of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (June 2008.)

After decades of neglect, the city of Balimore, Maryland decided to replace 1,300 old controllers and then optimize the traffic lights in the central business district and arterials that lead to and from it. The focus of detailed data collection and optimization was 425 intersections with traffic lights, of which 250 were in downtown and the rest on gateway arteries. Ten gateway arteries were identified numbering 175 traffic lights along their 30.5 miles of total length.

There are interesting similarities between Baltimore's past experience and Honolulu's current experience. I have been complaining that all traffic lights along Vineyard Boulevard run a very long 165 second cycle. That is exactly the old cycle in some of Baltimore's arterials.

What did this cost for the city of Baltimore? $762,500. How much did it save in delays, stops, fuel consumption, carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides? $32,666,123. For a cost-benefit ratio of 43 to 1.

Delays (an engineering term for wasted time) dropped from 11,351 hours to 7,952 hours per day resulting in a value of time savings of $26,132,499. A drop of 30% means that a 20 minute trip on Honolulu arterials could be reduced to less than 15 minutes.

The article concludes as follows: "the benefits derived from this project proved that signal timings should not be compromised in the field, and an effort like this to perform city-wide signal timing optimization is well worth the money. The benefits outweighed the costs in less than three months and exceeded the expectations of city and public officials."

If the people vote in favor of rail and you win the election, how do you handle this?

John H. sent me this question. Here is my answer:

I will not support Hannemann's six-plus billion dollar 34 mile fully elevated heavy rail.

But I will respond directly to people's vote by redesigning for a true light rail system (planners and architects prefer at-grade stations), developing other alternatives, doing an honest alternatives analysis with full disclosure of costs, and letting people decide which alternative to build. It will take about 10 months to have honest estimates of benefits and costs. Then in one year we can start with the option that people choose based on quality information.

At the present time, the community cannot decide on rail with the information that Hannemann has put forth. What we have been given is a sales brochure with a promotion campaign. We need at least a "Consumers Report" level of analysis in order to decide.

If this leads to light rail, then I will support light rail as long as the majority of the public also supports the extra taxes that will be needed for its development and operation.

Rail Failures, Maintenance and Overhauls

Mufi Hannemann’s proposed rail system has an exorbitant construction cost. We will talk about this in the future. Today I want to address an overlooked cost: maintenance and overhaul. Rail cars run 20 or 24 hours per day, full or empty. Unlike a car or bus that it can simply be replaced (and a large part of the old one recycled,) rail systems need complete rehabilitation. As a result, after 35 years in operation the Bay Area BART needs no less than $11.6 billion for overhaul. I will keep this short by providing you with telling excerpts from the New York City subway and the Washington, D.C. Metro.

Note that I include heavy rail or rapid transit systems in this post because this is what Hannemann is proposing. “Light rail” is a verbal spin that is used only locally. Nowhere in Honolulu's official documents does the "light rail" word appear. Ask Hannemann to point you to at least one city that has built a 30 mile fully elevated "light rail" system.

A Transit System That Feels Its Age

By Lena H. Sun
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, June 14, 2008; Page A01

Four major Metro disruptions in 10 days underscore the strains facing the region's largest transit agency as the system ages. Its infrastructure is old and needs to be replaced. It is the nation's only major transit system without a significant source of dedicated funding. And its two-track design, comparable to a two-lane road instead of multi-lane superhighway, gives transit officials little flexibility when trains and other systems break down, as they are doing with greater frequency.

Two track fires yesterday in the heart of downtown Washington, on Metro's highest-ridership Red Line, and blackouts at several key downtown stations from a Pepco power failure ended a difficult week for Metro. The fires and blackouts yesterday followed a derailment and a heat-related track problem that caused disruptions and delays earlier in the week.

In the first passage she tells us that the Metro’s 2-track design is a problem. No express trains and no way to get around a broken down train. Hannemann is proposing the same 2-track design.

Fires, smoke, blackouts and derailments. Also add suicides, homelessness and drug trafficking. If you wish to read more of this Washington Post article please follow this link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/13/AR2008061303730.html We’ll talk about crime and other problems along rail lines in a future post.

$1 Billion Later, New York’s Subway Elevators Still Fail
New York Times, 5/19/08
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/19/nyregion/19elevators.html

New York City Transit has spent close to $1 billion to install more than 200 new elevators and escalators in the subway system since the early 1990s, and it plans to spend almost that much again for dozens more machines through the end of the next decade. It is an investment of historic dimensions, aimed at better serving millions of riders and opening more of the subway to the disabled.

These are the results:

One of every six elevators and escalators in the subway system was out of service for more than a month last year, according to the transit agency’s data.

The 169 escalators in the subway averaged 68 breakdowns or repair calls each last year, with the worst machines logging more than double that number. And some of the least reliable escalators in the system are also some of the newest, accumulating thousands of hours out of service for what officials described as a litany of mechanical flaws.

Two-thirds of the subway elevators — many of which travel all of 15 feet — had at least one breakdown last year in which passengers were trapped inside.

A conservative estimate is that the proposed rail will require over $4,000 per resident in taxes and a 40% increase in property taxes in order to be built, and generous subsidies for routine maintenance.

At the end of a 30 year period, the system will require a multibillion dollar overhaul.
This is a guaranteed tax black hole.

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.)