Feels Good to Be 8 Days Ahead of the Wall Street Journal!

WSJ, March 20, 2009 (excerpt)

Budget Woes Hit Mass Transit as Tax Revenue Falls

By SUZANNE SATALINE

Just as mass-transit ridership has reached a historic high, tax revenues that fund rail and bus service have dropped, leaving transit agencies nationwide with huge budget deficits and the prospect of boosting fares.

In the New York City region, state lawmakers are locked in a dispute over how best to close a $1.2 billion mass-transit budget gap. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which runs public transportation in greater New York, says that without an emergency cash infusion it will be forced to boost fares 23%, and severely cut service to meet its $11 billion annual budget.

Divided state lawmakers and government officials in Albany have been pitching various plans that might pull in more cash -- including bridge tolls and new payroll taxes -- but no plan has attracted a majority of legislators and the governor.

Transit agencies in Washington, D.C., Chicago and San Francisco are facing similar situations.

... [sorry, no link... subscription required]

Transit Ridership Baloney and the Kapolei Choo Choo

"Nationally, Americans made 10.7 billion trips on public transit in 2008, a 4% increase over 2007, according to data released yesterday by the American Public Transportation Association." Then, APTA suggested that America's transit usage reached a new 50 year high.

This is in the same class of misinformation like the Hannemann administration’s propaganda for the "benefits" of the proposed rail from Kapolei to Aiea. Aiea is right because it will take a miracle to reach downtown and Ala Moana Center. Basically no one east of Aloha Stadium is in favor of elevated rail, even if they are in favor of rail transit. It is too expensive, too noisy and too ugly for the communities to allow it to go through.

Headlines also showed up in the local press about the booming transit ridership. But what do these numbers really mean?

Remember that public transit in America serves only a tiny portion of people and most of them are served by buses. So, these numbers mean that in 1956 the average American took 0.26 trips per work day in a public transit system. In 2008, the average American took 0.14 trips per work day in a public transit system. Note that the average American takes more than three trips per day, and basically all of them are done on a road system paid with gas taxes and other user taxes, but not by general taxes.

Although the gas prices and the beginning of a recession boosted public transit ridership from 2007 to 2008, these statements are true:
(1) Most transit agencies expect a decline in 2009, largely due to general workforce reductions (larger unemployment), and transit service reductions due to budget cuts.
(2) Americans used public transit way less in 2008 than in 1956. The rate of usage is about half and the overall tend is declining. Similar decline applies to TheBus.
(3) Rail transit carries a tiny proportion of commuters in the nation. Something in the order of 2% commute by rail, counting all streetcar systems too.
(4) The nation has a huge backlog of maintenance of existing rail systems and cannot afford any "New Starts." In the last few months the U.S. taxpayers were saddled with an extra two trillion in spending, which is roughly an extra $4,000 taken from every American worker.
(5) Now more than ever Oahu cannot afford a multibillion dollar tax bill with phantom benefits for our general economy.

As you know, the excise tax went up and property taxes will go up, zoo entry fee and other fees will go up. Not to improve city services or to get more lions or to fix our terrible roads or to pay for the billion dollar EPA sewage treatment requirement. But to pay for the proposed Kapolei Choo Choo! Lucky we live Hawaii? For how much longer?

Rail Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Technical Comments

My comments on the City and Count of Honolulu's Rail Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) were reorganized into two posts. The previous post covered general concerns, and this post covers my technical concerns of the report.

My review was based upon the DEIS section 4F dated November 2008 and particularly of chapter three on transportation impacts. Many of my comments refer to the supplementary report “Transportation Technical Report, Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project, Prepared for: City and County of Honolulu, 417 pp, August 15, 2008” which includes much more detail and explanations on the traffic and transportation analyses that were the foundation of the results presented in the DEIS.

• Traffic Analysis Methodology

The traffic analysis method used is not suitable for saturated conditions, and is not suitable for corridor and regional studies. HCM mentions these limitations. Almost all traffic elements along this corridor are oversaturated, thus HCM methodologies do not apply (unless the wrong data are used and degrees of saturation are low.) Either way the output is wrong or misleading.

The table below, in which all black cells are the reviewer’s corrections, shows that general purpose traffic was estimated to be 31% above capacity (estimate of 1.31) but by their numbers, the correct estimate is 62.5% over capacity (estimate of 1.625.) Capacities are not revealed everywhere in the DEIS, so the reviewer cannot check the same calculations in the DEIS.

• Forecasts

Neither the DBEDT (provider of some of the base forecasts), nor the City nor their consultants understand that most growth phenomena in a metropolitan area concerning city expansion and their traffic follow an S-curve depicted by many years of existence as a village, transitioning to a city, several years of growth into a metropolitan area followed by a very long period of maturity with small growth (and decrease) periods. This study erroneously assumes a large future growth for west Oahu and nightmare traffic scenarios whereas Oahu's population, development and tourist attraction have ended their sharp growth and have entered their mature level with a lot of negative bumps along the way. For example, DBEDT Data Book Table 1.06, Honolulu population in 2006 was 906,715 and it dropped to 905,601 in 2007 which was before the sharp economic downturn of late 2008 which is expected to last till 2011.

As shown above, if S-shape forecasts were used, then the unrealistic demand levels shown in the Alternatives Analysis (AA) would never had appeared. However, something inexplicable happened between AA and DEIS: Screenline demands have been reduced by 28% without any explanation. As shown in the table on page 3, demands in the 2008 DEIS are lower by 28% for year 2030 compared to what they were in the 2006 Alternatives Analysis.

Such a discrepancy (28%) in demand produced by the OMPO forecasting model is highly suspect. Qualified alternatives such as TSM and Managed Lanes were dismissed based on high demand figures in the AA which were subsequently modified in the DEIS. A supplemental DEIS is needed to evaluate qualified alternatives with the reduced demand forecasts.

• Were ORTP 2030 Congestion Relief Projects Modeled Correctly?
  

Page 3-16: "Even with $3 billion in roadway improvements under the No Build Alternative, traffic delay in 2030 would increase by 44%".

If one was to correctly model all the committed congestion relief projects in ORTP 2030 (Table 2-3) and combine them with a the fact that Oahu population has been stagnant or falling (and bound to further fall due to poor economy and housing unaffordability), the highway congestion in 2030 could be improve by at least 15%.

For example, the PM zipper alone will carry about 1,500 vph through the Kalauao screenline with 3 or more people in them resulting in a person capacity of 4,500 going west. These are people removed from the existing network thus providing a substantial relief.

The westbound utilization of the rail will be optimistically 6,000 people through the Kalauao screenline of whom at most half will be drivers and ex-carpoolers or 3,000 people.

The PM zipper combined with a Nimitz flyover practically guarantee a continuous trip at 55 mph from Iwilei to Waikele to Kapolei. This commute is half as long in duration as that by rail.

Therefore, the PM zipper alone that carries more persons than rail can be more beneficial that rail. However, the DEIS tries to convince us that major traffic congestion relief projects will yield “peanuts” whereas the rail with its inferior speed and 15+ stops to Kapolei will yield superior travel time savings and traffic congestion improvements.

Part of the reason is likely that planning models are insensitive to bottlenecks and only provide rough estimates based on some assumed values of capacity. Until this author sees proof of use of a regional microsimulation traffic model assessing the impacts without and with correctly modeled ORTP 2030 projects, he asserts that the analysis method was inappropriate and largely incapable in assessing the benefit of the projects in Table 2-3 of the DEIS.

• DEIS Base Travel Times Are Inaccurate

Having resided in Kapolei for a short period if 2007, I know from personal experience that the morning peak period travel time from Kapolei to downtown is always under 75 minutes in the absence of rain or any lane closure. I was startled that the DEIS uses a time of 89 minutes.

I took the opportunity to ask people listening to a radio program that I participate to make some measurements of travel time from the H-1 freeway on-ramp to Alakea Street in downtown if they depart Kapolei between 6 AM and 7 AM. So far I received six qualified measurements of 49, 62, 75, 50, 62 and 59 minutes averaging at about 60 minutes. Therefore, roughly speaking the DEIS uses a 50% overestimate of the travel time which leads to false benefits of travel times by rail.

The DEIS fails to demonstrate the root causes of traffic congestion. The same travelers reported these airport-to-Alakea travel times: 18, 16, 41, 11, 30 and 25 minutes for an average of 23.5 minutes (DEIS uses 25 minutes). The real issue therefore is the traffic flow condition on Nimitz Hwy. which vary widely as these travel times show: 11, 16 or 18 minutes with good conditions, 25, 30 or 41 minutes with poor conditions. This makes it clear that a roughly two mile long Nimitz Viaduct will provide a consistent travel time from airport-to-Alakea of about 6 minutes, reducing the peak hour trip from Kapolei to downtown from about 60 minutes to about 40 minutes. A relatively modest investment solves a huge part of the morning commute congestion.

Note that rail will be providing airport-to-Alakea transit travel time of about 50 minutes (It is 50 to 54 minutes depending on the route selected. The airport route provides the longest travel time for this origin-destination pair.)

• TheBoat as a Threat to the Rail

TheBoat vessel inventory in page 3-31 is wrong. It should also be mentioned that its schedule reliability is poor due to frequent mechanical failures and high seas.

Since we spend the significant amount of $6 million a year on TheBoat, why didn't the DEIS estimate the productivity and congestion reduction of this alternative transportation mode? Will TheBoat reduce rail's ridership?

• Forecasts from the OMPO model

There is a long list of limitations of the OMPO model used to develop the all-important rail forecasts. Here are a few:

1. The model was developed in 1994 by Parsons Brinkerhoff. It is very old in terms of both architecture and data validity. It is also of interest that the same person who developed it as a Parsons Brinkerhoff forecaster now is an Federal Transit Agent who inspects the forecasts.
2. The model has parameters for dead attractions such as the Kodac Hula Show and the Dole Cannery, but has not parameters for Superferry, Ko Olina, Water Adventures Park, North Shore and Haleiwa.
3. The OMPO model is hardly a modern activity-based microsimulation platform. It is an old, aggregate platform with highly compartmentalized trip definitions.
4. The OMPO model depends on many assumed static capacities for various facilities. This makes it susceptible to range errors and easy manipulations. Note that the transit factor table depends on congested times. It would make sense that more people would choose transit from Kapolei to downtown if a time of 90 minutes is used instead of the correct time of 60 minutes. And that was done.

Same concern applies to arterial and freeway capacity which can be arbitrarily set too high or too low to satisfy the objective of the analysis such as “promote rail and undercut HOT lanes.”L

Rail Draft Environmental Impact Statement: General Comments

My comments on the City and County of Honolulu's Rail Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) were reorganized into two posts. This post covers general concerns, and the second covers technical concerns.

My review was based upon the DEIS section 4F dated November 2008 and particularly of chapter three on transportation impacts. Many of my comments refer to the supplementary report “Transportation Technical Report, Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project, Prepared for: City and County of Honolulu, 417 pp, August 15, 2008” which includes much more detail and explanations on the traffic and transportation analyses that were the foundation of the results presented in the DEIS.

• DEIS Does not Assess the Impacts of the Project as Defined to the Public

As described in the Draft EIS, the Locally Preferred Alternative, called the “Full Project,” is an approximate 30-mile corridor from Kapolei to the University of Hawaii at Manoa with a connection to Waikiki. However, currently available funding sources are not sufficient to fund the Full Project. Therefore, the focus of the Draft EIS is on the “First Project,” a fundable approximately 20-mile section between East Kapolei and Ala Moana Center. The First Project is identified as “the Project” for the purpose of the Draft EIS.

This is a hugely critical simplification and it must be rectified with a Supplemental DEIS. The DEIS should have included both the full project and the 20 mile minimum operating segment or fundable project or whatever the City wishes to call it. The people’s understanding is that the rail system is Kapolei to UH with service to Waikiki. The routes beyond the Ala Moana Center are necessary to be assessed in the DEIS. We do not ask the city to assess its mayor’s obfuscations of future rail service from Hawaii Kai to Waianae, but the proposal always has been Kapolei to UH.

A Supplemental DEIS is required to assess the impacts for the whole corridor. It is not possible to begin the system, finish it to Ala Moana Center, and when it comes time to expand it, the expansion impacts are such that preclude any expansion.

• Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Potential Was Not Assessed

A final observation is that people may not realize the unintended consequences around some stations, particularly if they buy property in one of the city's Transit Oriented Development plans. For example, in the Pearl Highlands station, according to the DEIS estimates, over 1,700 vehicles in a day will come to park and take the rail, 300 vehicles will drop off passengers and over 300 buses will drop off and pick up over 8,000 transfer passengers. That's a lot of traffic, and that's station-only related traffic concentrate of the rush hours and this traffic will be on top of all the (heavy) regular traffic in the area.

The question then is... What's the impact of station generated traffic, noise and pollution to TOD potential and TOD plans? Where is the discussion and assessment?

• Over the H-1 Freeway at University Avenue?

This author clearly recalls incumbent mayor Hanneman’s beating of political opponent Ann Kobayashi for her complaining about the rail guideway going over the H-1 freeway on its way to the UH-Manoa campus. Both City and Hannemann vigorously and rudely disclaimed this in the September to November 2008 time frame but then the City presents this image on the official website as of February 4, 2009. the proposed rail clearly overflies the freeway!

• Two Stations at Ala Moana Center?

The Ala Moana Center station arrangement is a mystery. In the 20 mile plan, the station is approximately at the 3rd floor level. In the 30 mile plan the station is approximately at the 6th floor level. What is the exact plan for the Ala Moana Station and how can the guideway expand past the Ala Moana Center given the density, and height of buildings along Kona Street and Atkinson Drive?

This author suspects that roughly half a billion dollars would need to be expended to reconfigure (that is, to demolish and reconstruct) the guideway alignment between Pensacola Street and Atkinson Drive, including the demolition of the 3rd floor station and the creation of a 6th floor station, if rail has any hope in reaching UH-Manoa or Waikiki via Kona Street.

• Why the Double Track by Aloha Stadium?

There is no explanation for this particularly wide double tracking by Aloha Stadium. What’s the purpose, why has it not presented in detail and what is the cost of it?

• OMPO Never Rejected Pearl Harbor Tunnel as Claimed in Table 2-2

The DEIS is wrong in claiming that the Oahu Metropolitan Organization rejected the Pearl Harbor Tunnel. The UH Congestion Study found that this alternative has substantial traffic benefits at a cost comparable to rail’s. There has been no substantiation to the tunnels alleged costs between seven and 11 billion dollars. Viable projects should not be excluded through unprofessional conduct such as out of thin air costing and improper project qualification.

• Federal Funding

The Project’s cash flow analysis, which is presented in Section 6.4, anticipates the use of Local funds for the first construction phase and a combination of Local and Federal funds for the remaining phases.

The project must not start until the full extent of the federal funding is known in writing as part of the next Transportation Act of Congress, and the project should not start until a substantial portion of the federal funding (e.g., a portion that covers half of the cost of the first construction phase) has been actually released for the project. Anything else is simply reckless public policy.

To refresh our collective memory, the Federal Transit Administration retracted their record on decision (ROD) for Honolulu's 2003 BRT plan because construction along Kuhio and Auahi Streets was started prior to completing the necessary Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA). Here the stakes are much higher for the local economy and ground must not been broken until the project gets real federal cash (as opposed to political announcements by Abercrombie, Hannemann and Oberstar.)

• How Will the Rail Cars Go to the Rail Yard?

The rail yard is located several miles inland with no direct access to the harbors. Yet the DEIS is silent as to how rail cars and rail equipment will be transported there since rail cars do not fit on regular flatbed trucks and even if they can be accommodated by length and by weight on custom flatbeds, they do not fit by height due to the existence of several overpasses along the freeway. What are the logistics and costs of this significant part of the construction?

• Travel Times by Rail for Political Commercials and for NEPA Documents—Why the Double Standard?

The DEIS clearly specifies that Kapolei-to-downtown travel time by rail is 50 to 54 minutes. This travel time estimate was clearly known in August 2008. Yet in September 2008 the City mailed all residents (using taxpayer funds) a large eight page brochure, the centerfold of which states that Kapolei to Ala Moana Center by rail will be 40 minutes! (For those unfamiliar with the alignment, the Ala Moana Center is five stations after Downtown.)

• TheBus Inventory

In reference to Table 3-12: 2007 Vehicle Inventory, why is this inventory taken from "National Transit Database, 2007" and not directly from TheBusTheBus or the City's Department of Transportation Services transit division that oversees OTS? Why is the total passenger capacity not listed in the table?

At any given time, what percentage of these buses are service ready as opposed to being in repairs or waiting for repairs or parts, or damaged and beyond repair awaiting replacement?

It is my understanding that a lot of buses (about 20%) sit at depots during peak periods and express bus “crush loads” are artificial due to limited scheduling of buses. A case in point is the picture shown above. It was taken at about 6:30 AM on a normal weekday in 2004. The freeway is bumper-to-bumper in the town-bound direction, yet at least 53 buses sit at the depot, many of them articulated (which are typically assigned to the express routes.) How can TheBus “burst at the seams” as a pro-rail commercial claimed in late 2008 when many of the buses sit empty at the depot?

• Unrealistic Fares

To maintain consistency with the travel demand analysis, the actual 2007 average fare of $0.77 per linked trip was assumed to grow with inflation throughout the forecast period.

So the DEIS assumed that fares are the same as TheBus, which given the cost to build and operate the rail, this means that trips are essentially free to users and the general public pays for it. How can this possibly be reconciled with the Council’s desire to cover 30% out of the fare box?

What kind of administrator, engineer and planner does it take to build a five billion dollar transit service and then charge a dollar per ride? I must have this answered so we are able to teach our students this “new math.”

• Ho’opili

The EIS for the Ho’opili project analysis for permit application was done by a consultant other than Parsons Brinkerhoff. It shows projected 2030 freeway traffic conditions with and without rail transit. There's no difference; both are level of service F. It is clear that rail or not, traffic conditions along the subject corridor will be terrible. So the City clearly violated the intent of the NEPA process to clearly inform Oahu’s citizens that rail is no solution to traffic congestion. We all know that the City used taxpayer money to do promote rail as a solution to congestion.

Two Dozen Questions for the City’s Rail Propaganda, Strike That, DEIS

A person in a local government position sent me a list of concerns and questions that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement of the City and County of Honolulu (which simplistically and conveniently narrowed our choices down to steel-on-steel rail and do nothing) should answer but it mostly does not. Any reader of the DEIS will notice that it is big on discussion and small on specific answers and mitigation plans. The owner of this blog did not provide input or alter any information on the following list of 24 items.

1. Building costs are understated, future increases in construction, labor, and material costs are not reported nor mentioned. Also, some of the City's plans for the terminals/terminus are incomplete, missing substructures, rails, handi-access, etc. Was this to artificially deflate the reportable costs? If so the City's entire plan is flawed, and fraudulent.

2. No mention is made of a turn-around or depot. There will undoubtedly be a maintenance yard or some related facility to take the tram down for repairs. This is not mentioned.

3. The Administration has made repeated assurances that the project will be done with minimal impact to neighboring areas, residents, businesses. This cannot be the case. Building and construction guidelines are very specific, requiring x amount of relief space, and will require shutdown of adjoining lots, properties, streets and roads.

4. Many of the people who realized their properties will be (eventually) condemned via eminent domain are under the absolutely mistaken impression that they will be receiving the (at future time) full market value (fmv) of their properties. This is not the case. Research into the City's sojourns into exercising eminent domain muscle reveals that they set aside a lump sum amount, to be paid to defendants served with the Order Putting Plaintiff in Possession (i.e. City). Wording is usually like this: "The sum of $xx,xxx deposited with the Chief Clerk of this Court by the Plaintiff as estimated just compensation..." Usually the award is a few pennies on the dollar of the actual value of the condemned and claimed property. The defendant usually has no recourse. Waianae residents were notified last July that they were losing portions of their property, after construction had already begun for the emergency access road.

5. Regarding property, it is likely the rail system will negatively affect property values. Cities have trended that property values drop near an existing commuter or rail line. The noise negates, for most people, the benefit of proximity to a transit line. Many cities found that rail ridership decreased, in favor of buses, bicycles, and scooters.

6. I personally believe most people would favor a scooter over inconvenience of driving to a depot yard and park their car with thousands of others, to catch a rail to work.

7. The lifespan of a typical rail system is about 30 years. Thereafter, it must be 100% wholly replaced at full value at that future time. It's simply a matter of infrastructure breakdown.

8. The lifespan of a typical tram system (light rail) is about 15 years. Thereafter, it must be 100% wholly replaced, or else repaired to the point where it's economically unfeasible.

9. The mathematics of the City's plan to take 50,000 drivers off the road is not practical nor possible. Let's assume the City is extremely aggressive and forward-thinking in their planning. Let's say they build two rail systems, one that begins in point A (Kapolei area) and the other begins in point B (Downtown). Let's say there are 12 cars to a train (no longer considered light rail), each holding 200 passengers, which is 2,400 passengers total capacity per train, going a single way, or 4,800 passengers for the entire system. Let's say the trains will cross each other in the middle, so there is always a train going and coming in both directions. In order to meet the Administration's goal to take an approximate 50,000 drivers off the road at that future time, the trains will have to travel about 77 miles per hour, nonstop, in order to make the approximate 10 round trips each train will have to make, in an hours' time. This oversimplified math problem underlies the fatal flaw in the plan. The City's plan for light rail does not have the capacity for 4,800 total passengers at any given time. This would be rush hour in the morning, from 5:30AM to 8:30AM, and 3:30PM to 6:30PM. It is not mathematically possible to do it with the above configuration, nor with the City's proposed version, which is much smaller passenger capacity. This may be decried by the Administration as "Mickey Mouse Math" but the figures cannot be doubted. The rail will not accomplish what it is envisioned to.

10. The City's proposed 6,000+ jobs to directly or indirectly support the rail system, operations, maintenance, support services, administration, and vendor services, is not economically sustainable. The vendors have the best bet, at least people will stop on the way to buy coffee, pastries, morning paper, etc. But wait, they can't because the system has to run without stops to make its rush hour quotas.

11. The City's Transportation Department has in effect given their current employees a potential for higher-paying and more executive jobs, "fresh" and new. The current employees are capped where they are at, but the Rapid Transit Division (the most expensive and largest Division by staff and dollars) is a way for them to move up. See their presentation here: http://www.honolulu.gov/dts/dts+fy2008+operating+budget+request.pdf If you scroll down to page 7, you will see "Rapid Transit Division", 35 proposed executive and administrative support positions, costing a whopping $2,338,644 in staff costs, dwarfing their next largest Division by over $500,000, but has only 1 position more. This indicates that, given civil service positions and current pay scales, these are much higher and more executive positions, possibly (POSSIBLY) created this way by the Transportation Department to give their currently “ceilinged” staff someplace to go, and retire happily with a healthy retirement pay.

12. No amount of ridership fees could make up the construction, maintenance, and daily operations costs of the entire rail system. Notwithstanding the payroll costs. The majority of the costs will become personnel-related, such as 41+% fringe rate, immediate salaries plus vacation payouts and other benefits. Throw in maintenance? That's also a personnel cost, with OT attached, at City & County rates. You know, 12 maintenance workers scheduled to perform upkeep, each files OT requests, however only 1 or 2 actually do majority of the work. A recent audit found many road crews operate in this fashion. However the audit was for City internal use only.

13. No amount of taxes can make up the total cost plus ongoing upkeep. The burden on the taxpayers of the state would be astronomical, it could not possibly be estimated.

14. People who voted "YES" did not realize, they were not really indebting themselves, but their progeny, to a lifetime of debt service to this system. It cannot possibly be completed before, say, 2025 or 2030, when most of those who voted will be at or nearing retirement, and it will no longer make a difference for them. Many people simply jumped on the bandwagon without really thinking things through.

15. A raised rail system lumbering many stories above buildings and 1-2 storey homes and apartments in the proposed areas would ruin not just the overall landscape, but many people's enjoyment of the view looking out not to the ocean, but the SKY.

16. The Administration's claim is that if they get this project going now, they can jumpstart the state's economy and provide much-needed jobs through construction. This is short-term a truth, however if there exists no money to begin with, and the Council on Revenue's forecast shows a current year deficit, with factors of debt in the out-years, where is the funding going to come from? It reminds me of a very ambitious building project in Downtown that sat for many years until another investor came by. Only the Federal Gov't can deficit spend. How can you ambitiously plan alternate and future routes (as the Council is debating now) without having any up-front direct revenues, investor venture capital, bond interest, or other form of monies on hand to even "break ground"?

17. Construction costs are years away, when materials, labor, and rates will be much higher. Final completion costs can be many times the $5 Billion thrown in front of the hapless public. And, once construction begins, final completion can be upwards of 20 years away, including the various legal battles and hurdles the City will no doubt face, in battling hundreds of home and landowners, businesses, and action groups. It will be unprecedented in our State's history, and will likely bring embarrassment to us nationally.

18. Speaking of attention, it is likely that people will prefer (as they do now) places such as Tahiti, Fiji, Thailand, and New Zealand, over Oahu anyway. Many tourists surveyed by the HTA recently said they'd never come back if the beaches eroded. What happens if (i.e. by the year 2030) the beach in Waikiki is a memory, hotels are literally flooded, AND there is a lumbering, leviathan, hulking, clackety, metallic silver worm snaking its way through Downtown? Realistically, do you think any tourists would come to Honolulu, except to use it as a springboard from the Mainland USA to their exotic destination in the far Pacific or Asia?

19. Other states that the Administration quoted as having successful rail systems have something that Hawaii will never have, regardless of how much development we want to create - land space. If anything, Hawaii - due to current erosion - can do nothing but lose land space, at least in Honolulu County. In order for the rail to be plopped down, people who are already there have to make way. As our proud and defiant mayor has proclaimed in various ways, "...anyone opposing this will have to just get out of the way..." The first time he said it on TV, we passed it off to his frustration and lack of self-control. Thereafter, it is a clear indication of absolute superciliousness, self-love, and hubris which I do not ever recall seeing in any of our recent mayors of my memory. The sign of a bad publican is to - even modestly - threaten to shove it down the peoples' collective throats when his way is challenged, and his personal progress slowed.

20. The Administration does not inform the public of the following: Chicago Mass Transit (Chicago Transit Authority), one of the original models for an earlier proposed transit system, is bankrupt. If not yet, pretty darn near. The cost of doing business has long overrun the intake due to ridership, which has decreased over the last 30 years. Even their bus ridership is down, largely due to increased crime in poverty-stricken areas near the center of town. Unfortunately for us, Pearl City & Mililani are becoming what Kalihi and Liliha have long been - our native slum.

21. Sound is a pressure wave that emanates radially outward from its source, decreasing as the inverse square of that distance the listener is from it. The City's contention that erecting short walls, combined with the raised platform, will decrease noise to a minimal level, is preposterous beyond laughable. Any system, even a rolling wheeled vehicle, creates a significant amount of noise, and particularly at night. Anyone who lives near the University or along the H-1 between McCully through Pearl City knows this. Even if it is no louder than a small grass whip, it will be noticed, and people will be driven out. I used to live in a small apartment on Thurston Avenue in Makiki, and the simple act of the bus rolling at 11 at night was enough to jolt this young child - at that time - awake from a light sleep.

22. Due to Homeland Security regulations involving public transportation, the City & County would have to establish, and integrate into the Honolulu Police Department, a separate Honolulu Rapid Transit Police force, or else divert current - or future - officers to that duty. Security screens may be necessary at depots as well, adding to delays (but wait, they can't stop right?)

23. The Administration claims that the economy will be stimulated, looking at (i.e.) Denver, Portland, and San Jose light rail development, don't realize that those systems were supported by large tax or other subsidies, something dramatically lacking in Hawaii's economy. Even the current tax collected for transit is far short of proposed levels they would have to be at for the system to be a reality.

24. Finally, no mention is made as to whether this light rail system can accommodate passengers (i.e. from the airport) with large luggage, or whether stowage space is or can be provided for safety, comfort, and security of others?

Bill Tasking DBEDT with Developing Permitting Requirements for Nuclear Power Plants

Hawaii's State Legislature House Bill 1 proposes to task the state Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism with creating a framework for permitting nuclear power plant installations in Hawaii. By State Constitution, nuclear power plants are prohibited in Hawaii --although there are at least a handful of nuclear powered U.S. Navy vessels in Pearl Harbor at any time.(**) A two thirds vote by the Legislature can amend the Constitution. The following text is my testimony in favor of this bill.


The scarcity and cost of fossil fuels makes the development of expensive nuclear energy a cost-effective if not essential proposition. France and Japan are leading examples of reliance on nuclear power with minimal ill effects. At the first oil crisis in 1973, only 1% of Japan’s electricity was produced by nuclear energy. By the second oil crisis of 1979, 4% was from nuclear; in 2000 the ratio was up to 12% and the 2010 goal is 15%. As of 2005, Japan had 52 operating nuclear plants, 3 in construction and 8 in planning and design. France is even more ahead: Its 59 nuclear plants produce 88% of the country’s electric power. There are about 440 nuclear power plants on the globe. France, Japan and the U.S. combined produce over 55% of the nuclear power energy on the globe.

The advantage of nuclear power is that it produces large amounts of dependable and easily controlled electric power like hydroelectric, coal-fired or oil-fired power plants. Solar, wind and wave energy have huge limitations in terms of capacity and reliability; practically all deployments are still experimental and heavily subsidized. No question that solar, wind and wave energy will be partners for the long-term energy sustainability in Hawaii, but they are unlikely to be the providers of the majority of the needed power.

They too have their environmental downsides such as requirements of very large areas for deployment, major susceptibility to hurricanes and/or tsunamis, large construction costs and all the noxious shortcomings of building, maintaining and disposing of expansive and expensive arrays of batteries which have a rather short life span.

One advantage of compact power plants is that since they are largely self sufficient (i.e., they do not need a tanker to anchor by regularly to refuel the plant) they can be placed off shore in what ocean engineers call “large floating structures.” Thus, a nuclear power plant can be 20 miles away into the ocean (still easily accessible) and provide electricity to Oahu with a cable. There are undersea power plant transmission lines in excess of 40 miles.

However, this bill is not about building nuclear power plants. This bill simply provides a way for us to take the blindfolds off and begin to address the real issues of Hawaii sustainability, twenty or more years into the future. This bill will allow us to begin assessing the potential and work towards answers to questions, issues and challenges of nuclear energy in Hawaii.

(**) I received some interesting feedback since this opinion was published in Hawaii Reporter.

Firstly, there are 15 nuclear submarines stationed at Pearl Harbor and at any time roughly about half are in port:

1. USS Los Angeles (SSN 688), Pearl Harbor, HI
2. USS Bremerton (SSN 698), Pearl Harbor, HI
3. USS La Jolla (SSN 701), Pearl Harbor, HI
4. USS Olympia (SSN 717), Pearl Harbor, HI
5. USS Chicago (SSN 721), Pearl Harbor, HI
6. USS Key West (SSN 722), Pearl Harbor, HI
7. USS Louisville (SSN 724), Pearl Harbor, HI
8. USS Pasadena (SSN 752), Pearl Harbor, HI
9. USS Columbus (SSN 762), Pearl Harbor, HI
10. USS Santa Fe (SSN 763), Pearl Harbor, HI
11. USS Charlotte (SSN 766), Pearl Harbor, HI
12. USS Tucson (SSN 770), Pearl Harbor, HI
13. USS Columbia (SSN 771), Pearl Harbor, HI
14. USS Greeneville (SSN 772), Pearl Harbor, HI
15. USS Cheyenne (SSN 773), Pearl Harbor, HI

Secondly, each one of them is outfitted with a powerful nuclear reactor generating between 148 MW and 165 MW. For contrast, the new biodiesel power plant of HECO is rated at 110 MW. If memory serves, total electric power capacity on Oahu is under 1,000 MW. But Pearl Harbor submarines (half of the assigned fleet) have a potential output of 1,100 MW!

Hawaii DOT Follows Through: Research Pays Off!

Governor Lingle's release of $140 million for two projects for freeway relief is significant, not only because these project are expected to provide major relief from traffic congestion but also because these projects started as university research projects.

These real solutions to Oahu's traffic problems were the products of collaborative research among the Department of Civil Engineering that UH-Manoa, the Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration, as follows:

INVESTIGATION OF THE H-1 FREEWAY, Volume 2: EAST BOUND ANALYSES. Final Report prepared for HDOT and FHWA, Honolulu, January 2003.

SIMULATION OF WESTBOUND INTERSTATE H-1 FREEWAY BETWEEN AIRPORT AND WAIKELE DURING THE AFTERNOON PEAK. Draft Report prepared for the Hawaii DOT and the FHWA, Honolulu, October 2006.

Doug Meller of the Planning Section of HDOT was the project manager on both these projects, for which this author was the principal investigator assisted by 10 graduate and undergraduate students including Jerry Ji (Ph.D.), Honglong Li (PhD), James Watson (MSCE), Yuhao Wang (MSCE), Lani Andam, Brian Babb, A.K. Colburn, George Lau, Lizi Olson, and Jennifer Arinaga.

This funding announcement is a great example of research payoff. It is proof that detailed traffic simulation studies are needed in order to evaluate and quantify the advantages and pitfalls of various potential solutions; and choose the best feasible alternative for implementation.

Then it takes political acumen (Governor) and technical knowledge to follow through with the engineering design and costing (HDOT and engineering contractors) to bring research concepts to implementation for actual relief. Kudos to Governor Lingle and Director Morioka.

Source: MAJOR TRAFFIC CONGESTION-RELIEF PROJECTS PLANNED FOR OAHU MOTORISTS (January 12, 2009)

Highlights and Lessons for Hawaii from "Global Trends 2025"

The Global Trends 2025 report is a must-read for all policy makers, company executives, regional planners, long-term strategists and concerned global citizens. Some of the expectations expressed in the report are quite relevant to Hawaii as they present likely challenges or opportunities. Here is a list of my highlights:

INTERNATIONAL POLITICS

The United States will remain the single most powerful country but will be less dominant.

Growth projections for Brazil, Russia, India, and China (the BRICs) indicate they will collectively match the original G-7’s share of global GDP by 2040 to 2050.

A global multipolar system is emerging with the rise of BRIC. Indonesia, Iran, and Turkey are likely to be large regional players.

Shift in relative wealth and economic power is occurring from West to East.

Global markets are expected to recede.

Regionalism may solidify in three blocks: North America, Europe and East Asia. This, among other things, may undermine the goals of World Trade Organization (WTO) or international agreements (Kyoto protocol.) Regionalism may lead to regional product standards for information technology, biotechnology, nanotechnology, intellectual property rights, and other aspects of the “new economy”.

Resource issues will gain prominence on the international agenda. Strategic resources, energy, food, water. This gives rise to local, regional, national and global sustainability.

SUSTAINABILITY

1.2 billion more people by 2025 will put pressure on energy, food, and water resources.

Climate change likely occurs but the locations and severity of its impacts are highly uncertain. Largest near term threat is drought or limited water supply in some regions.

Demography (low birth rate and fewer young paying the pensions of many old people) are major challenges for Europe and Japan. Will they have a sufficient number of workers to support robust economies?

Increase in oil and commodity prices have generated windfall profits for the Gulf states and Russia, but it is hard to predict the long term outlook of fossil energy use and pricing because…

…. energy transition away from oil is occurring rapidly to national gas, coal and solar, and more slowly in other areas such as improved energy storage, biofuels, hydrogen, clean coal and other alternatives. New energy technologies probably will not be commercially viable and widespread by 2025.

All current technologies are inadequate for replacing the traditional energy architecture on the scale needed.

Photovoltaic and wind energy, and improvements in battery technology are the most likely platforms for quick and inexpensive energy transitions.

Large scale solutions may come from individual projects enabling many small economic entities to develop their own energy transformation projects, such as fuel cells powering homes and office.

An energy transition is inevitable; the only questions are when and how abruptly or smoothly such a transition occurs.

New technologies provide solutions to overcome food and water constrains.

Lack of access to stable supplies of water is reaching critical proportions in some areas. The problem will worsen because of rapid urbanization. China is a prime example.

LESSONS FOR HAWAII

• Brazil, Russia, India, and China are new and largely untapped markets for Hawaii, for tourism and other alliances. Initiatives to these markets are necessary to counter Japan’s likely shrinking economy.

• Climate change maybe less of a threat to Hawaii as its primary short term effect, drought, is not a likely issue for Hawaii. Sea level change, if confirmed in magnitudes of a few feet above high tide, has the potential to devastate Hawaii’s beaches, shorelines, areas such as Kakaako and Mapunapuna, and some critical highways.

• Hawaii is a near perfect test bed for solar and wind energy research and development, in addition to ocean and geothermal. Through the Hawaii Natural Energy Institute and other efforts, Hawaii has a rich knowledge base and experience on biofuels, clean carbon and other renewable alternatives. (By the way, there is wide agreement among experts that ethanol from corn is a counterproductive endeavor. It is time to repeal the state law that forces Hawaii to import corn ethanol from the mainland.)

• Production of adequate food supply for our local demand is a long lost battle in Hawaii, so sustainable transpacific transportation of foods, staples and industrial products is a priority in order to sustain life for 1.3 million residents and roughly 100,000 tourists (per day.)

Rail Transit: Are we Creating New Life or Resuscitating a Dinosaur? (part 2 of 2)

This second part provides excerpts from the last 12 commentators and our brief conclusions.

12. Ed Wytkind, President, Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO
"Transit investment will relieve road congestion and offer environmentally sound transportation alternatives to increase economic efficiency and global competitiveness." Sad to see that unions simply copy-paste boilerplate half truths.

13. Steve Van Beek, President & CEO, Eno Transportation Foundation
"Input straight-line assumptions about behavior today and out will come results which suggest public transportation will play a marginal role in the future. (Such an analysis when the Model T was invented would have led to a future replete with horses and buggies and with underbuilt road networks.)" Unfortunately Mr. Van Beek not looked into Bureau of Transportation Statistics showing that public transit share of trips is very small and diminishing, and that the increasing share of telecommuting begins to dwarf rail transit.

14. John D. Porcari, Secretary, Maryland Department of Transportation
"We have to start by leveling the playing field. While we get highway funds by formula, states and metro areas fight for transit monies primarily through earmarks, and the race to the bottom known as the New Starts program. End the false dichotomy between highway and transit funding by making system preservation needs the first call on federal dollars (whether highways and bridges, transit, aviation or port needs) and then using local, regional and state land use plans to drive new capacity (transit or highway) investment decisions with the remaining unified federal formula dollars." Highways, bridges, airports and harbors generate their own revenues from user fees and are rarely subsidized by taxpayers. Electricity, telephone, water and sewer services break even and can be profitable. Where is the revenue stream for rail and bus? It is remarkable that people who charge one dollar for a trip that costs over ten dollars are in leading and expert prositions.

15. Greg Cohen, President and CEO, American Highway Users Alliance
"The current funding arrangements are set up so that federal highway user fees subsidize transit expenses -- thus creating the unfortunate reality that transit does compete for funding at the expense of highway programs. It is important for policy makers and the public to recognize that (excluding air travel) between 98 and 99% of all passenger miles and vehicles miles of travel occur of our nation's aging roads. Both private auto use and efficient public transit use in most areas is largely dependent on a good network of safe and efficient roads."

16. Robert L. Crandall, Retired Chairman and CEO, AMR and American Airlines
"In the furor over finding ways to increase and sustain employment, and the understandable desire to use infrasturcture investment to attach that problem, we need to remember that money invested in the wrong tools is the equivalent of money wasted. Bob Poole's thoughts on how to use buses and rapid transit lanes strike me as worth very careful thought."

17. Bob Poole, Director of Transportation Studies, Reason Foundation
"For the 22 Metropolitan Planning Organizations whose long-range plans were reviewed, transit spending averages 41% of the total, while transit’s projected mode share is just 5.5%. Something is wrong with this picture. First, MPOs project only modest increases in transit’s mode share by 2030, despite devoting more than 40% (on average) of all transportation dollars to transit. Second, they project that traffic congestion in 2030 will be significantly worse than it is today. There is a direct connection between under-funding the highway infrastructure that buses, car-poolers, and individual motorists depend on and continued increases in congestion. The key is to use congestion pricing for these express lanes. More than a decade of experience with HOT lane projects in half a dozen states has demonstrated the power of congestion pricing to provide reliable, high-speed, uncongested traffic flow on such lanes. Transit agencies would love to have exclusive busways, but a congestion-priced lane is, in fact, the virtual equivalent of an exclusive bus lane. The pricing simply allows enough paying automobiles to share the use of the lane, without degrading its uncongested performance."

18. Geoff Anderson, Co-chair of the Transportation for America Campaign, President and CEO of Smart Growth America
"There is an undeniable linkage between our broken economy, our broken energy/climate policy, and our broken transportation system. Investing in a 21st Century transportation system with an emphasis on mass transit solutions – while creating safe streets for walking and biking to with them -- is a three for one deal: it kick starts our economy and generates jobs, gives hungry Americans transportation options, and begins to solve our climate crisis." Pure "smart growth" nonsense. There is no significant link between broken economy, walkable streets, bikeways and the ozone layer. You can, however, wordsmith good looking paragraphs and drive up the deficits in the absence of cost-effectiveness and accountability.

19. Deron Lovaas , Federal Transportation Policy Director, Natural Resources Defense Council
"The short answer is that yes, the time is ripe for making a larger commitment to public transportation than has been the case in the last 50 years." Why? Spending 20% of the transportation budget in the last 20 years on transit systems that carry 5% of the public has not been bad enough?

20. Paul M. Weyrich, Chairman and CEO, Free Congress Foundation
"I have my doubts about the effectiveness of stimulus bills, but since it is clear President elect Obama is intent on advocating one,I certainly hope the Congress will include $8 billion of American Public Transportation Association short-term transit projects in whatever bill they come up with." This is $8 billion nationwide. Relatively tiny Honolulu would like to build a $5 billion rail ... pretty please Mr. Obama.

21.Robert Puentes, Senior Fellow and Director, Metropolitan Infrastructure Initiative
"Although almost all of our buses serve the top 100 metro areas but half are concentrated in just 10 large metros. Heavy rail (subways) exist in only 11 metros like Philly and San Francisco. Commuter rail is in only 14 metropolitan areas – primarily in the Northeast and California. And light rail can be found in only 26 – like Minneapolis, San Diego, and Denver. Based on the admittedly simple inventory of transit infrastructure available, 54 of the 100 largest metros do not have any rail transit service and also have relatively weak bus systems. As employment has dispersed through metro areas, lower income workers are finding themselves increasingly isolated and therefore need to spend higher proportions of their income to reach their jobs." So how can a single rail line with 20 stations help them? Did I mention that it costs $5 billion?

22. Rich Sarles, Executive Director, NJ TRANSIT
"At NJ TRANSIT, we have experienced five consecutive years of record-high ridership with nearly one million trips taken on the system each weekday. Ridership continues to be strong, despite lower gasoline prices, especially on rail service on our busiest lines serving Manhattan. In the next 25 years, we expect ridership on these lines to more than double, creating new challenges to acquire the infrastructure (station capacity, track, rail yards, etc.), rolling stock (rail cars and locomotives) and resources needed to support this demand." This is really where the nation should be spending its transit monies.

23. Pete Ruane, President and CEO, American Road & Transportation Builders Association
"According to the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT), there is $20 billion annual shortfall at the federal level between current highway investment levels and what is necessary just to maintain road conditions. For public transit at the federal level, the shortfall is about $4 billion annually." It is too obvious that priority one is maintenance and restoration of what we have, and cautious investment in new priced roadway capacity including exclusive busways and exclusive truckways.

To answer the original question in the subject line: All cases of rail transit in the U.S. excluding Chicago, New York City, and a few other legacy systems have been hyper expensive dinosaur resuscitations at taxpayer expense.

It would be a remarkably poor and expensive choice of President Obama to sink taxpayer dollars in rail transit New Starts. We can barely afford to keep the CTA, MARTA, BART and other metro rail systems alive. Let's please leave all future dinosaur resuscitations to the movies.

Rail Transit: Are we Creating New Life or Resuscitating a Dinosaur? (part 1 of 2)

The title is paraphrasing a 1983 paper title by Dr. Joseph Schofer, Associate Dean, College of Engineering, Northwestern University. I think it is a more appropriate title than the biased question "Has Mass Transit Finally Arrived?" posed in the NationalJournal.com's transportation expert panel discussion.

Of course the majority of the 23 commentators answer that the time for transit has come (as it did in all previous oil/global economy crises.) We know that the results were poor from most of those deployments. But learning from history is not a priority in modern society.

If you have about an hour, do read the original text which includes a handful of well thought out positions and concerns.
If not, here are some highlights from each commentator. This part provides excerpts from the first 11 commentators.

1. Eric Britton, Managing Director, New Mobility Partnerships
"Before rushing out to pour many billions of dollars into mass transit, we will do well to recognize that as a phrase, it is a relic of another day, another way of thinking about cities. And indeed another way of thinking about people (mass?).

Here is what we can counsel with confidence to the incoming Obama team about "mass transit" and its appropriate role for the critical 2009-2012 period.

If you have it already in place, your main challenge is to get a lot better at using what you have in a cost-effective manner.

If you do not have it, forget about using scarce taxpayer dollars to build yourself a new one from scratch, because there are far better ways of getting the job done."

2. Nancy LeaMond, AARP's executive vice president of social impact
"To leave their cars behind, boomers will require the same level of convenience as they have had in their car-centered world.

A coordinated strategy of public transportation, paratransit, coordinated human services transportation, transit-oriented development, and “complete streets” sidewalk networks accessible to transit, can yield a multitude of benefits for people of all ages.

...making stops and vehicles more accessible and user friendly, helping newcomers understand how and where to access schedules and their closest transit with easy to use information, training drivers to understand and pleasantly accommodate the limitations of aging and in some areas offering neighborhood circulators or door-to-door service to grocery stores or shopping malls."

3. Robin Chase, CEO, GoLoco, Meadow Networks
"If we think back to Katrina, the lack of alternatives for people without cars to evacuate the New Orleans proved disastrous. Some policy experts claimed that the solution was to make sure the poor and carless had access to cars. A few weeks later, another hurricane demanded that Houston evacuate. The highways were backed up and people sat motionless in their cars for hours. Today, as I write this note, a huge snow storm is bearing down on Boston. Planes are canceled and roads will be dangerous. My homeward-bound college age son is stuck in Washington DC.

My point is not that we should build trains and transit to accommodate one-day freak storms, just as I do not advocate building parking lots to accommodate Black Friday shopping demand. But real diversity and redundancy in transportation systems is mandatory. This nation needs to accommodate the transportation needs of people of all incomes, of all ages, of all development densities. The last 50 years of supporting one mode -- cars -- to exclusion of others, has not served us well. It is time to right the balance."

Somebody needs to tell her that a few days after hurricane Ike hit Houston, all systems were up and running except for its rail that took two and a half weeks.

4. Michael A. Replogle, Transportation Director, Environmental Defense Fund
"Established rail systems need to be revitalized. But pouring money into poorly conceived transit projects will not make transit a viable alternative for the majority of Americans living in auto-dependent suburban areas.

The most cost-effective way to expand high performance mass rapid transit is Bus Rapid Transit, or BRT. ... And BRT can be used like rail to anchor transit-oriented development. ... A big advantage of BRT is that the bus can go anywhere. The same bus can operate in mixed traffic where there is no congestion, enter a busway in a congested area, and then leave the busway again.

Performance-based transportation investment plans should be required as a condition for funding, including operational plans for both highways and public transportation."

5. Bill Graves, President and CEO, American Trucking Association
"Although mass transit performs many important uses, particularly for certain niche communities in large urban areas, it cannot replace our nation’s need for good highways. While mass transit effectively moves people, infrastructure investment is critical to the safe and efficient movement of freight."

6. Judith Bergquist, Associate Director of Rural Programs in the Denver office of the Colorado Center for Community Development
"Sometimes we look past some simple and very viable alternatives to multi – modal transit for bigger glitzy solutions: We should look at road and bus systems that could effectively be started today and get buses to run every 10 minutes from suburb to suburb and suburb to work centers and downtowns. We need the buses to run often with lots of quick stops to increase this ridership before other transit is even in place. We will lose the cars because there will be ease of access."

7. Paul Yarossi, President, HNTB Holdings Ltd.
"Public transit supporters definitely have the clout to influence the next transportation bill. In no way will this effort to fund more public transit projects replace the much needed investment in maintaining and expanding our national highway system."

Solid advice for worsening the already huge budget deficits (to the benefit of mega contractors.)

8. Christopher B. Leinberger, Real estate developer, Visiting Fellow at the Brookings Institution, Professor and Director of the University of Michigan graduate real estate program
"Why rail transit? Middle class Americans like it far better than bus transit. In addition, real estate developers and investors have increased confidence in it since rail transit implies permanence; it is easy to change a bus route but not so with fixed rail. The combination of middle class preference and the permanence of rail transit have resulted in far more real estate development being sparked around rail stations than bus stops."

Great paragraph but there is little proof that any of this is true. Most US cities developed quite well in the complete absence of rail.

9. Emil H. Frankel, Director of Transportation Policy, Bipartisan Policy Center
"How can transportation best serve national goals and purposes like economic growth, environmental and energy sustainability, national connectivity, metropolitan accessibility, and safety?

Before we allocate funding - whether to give transit or highways more money - let’s ensure that we have a performance-based approach that can help us identify and prioritize programs that achieve national goals."

10. Frank Busalacchi, Secretary, Wisconsin Department of Transportation
"The current transit programs send much of the funding to mass transit systems in our largest metropolitan areas. Our metropolitan areas rely on mass transit to provide a needed mobility option for those who don’t want to use their cars or don’t have cars to use. However, in many parts of the country bus fleets are old, far beyond the time frame in which they should have been replaced."

11. Tim Kaine, Governor, Commonwealth of Virginia
"Transit and rail investments are expensive up front and even more so when operation and maintenance costs are factored in over time. These long term financial commitments only make sense if there are different land use patterns to take advantage of the transit and rail investments.

Increased funding should not come at the expense of other modes, particularly given the dire need to repair and replace our existing bridges across the country."

==========

A few common themes emerge from these diverse opinions:

• Need to maintain what infrastructure we have and expand it.
• Look into buses, BRT and other affordable solutions first.
• Performance-based decision making and accountability for infrastructure projects.

The latter means that a systematic way is used to look at urban transportation problems and address the issues in a cost-effective away.

This is the opposite of what occurred in Honolulu where a politician was elected in 2004 and made rail the number one priority: Total top-down dictum. The lack of accountability is obvious in that there is no accounting of $107 million spent on rail studies and the shameless use of taxpayer money to defame those opposing the system and produce an avalanche of TV, radio, newspaper and home-mailed ads and fliers.

Stay tuned for the second half and the conclusion.

Operationalizing Sustainability

In a practical sense, sustainability may be defined as a process that supports a standard of living or quality or life forever given the known availability of natural resources and population trends. Wikipedia has a comprehensive definition.

As chair of the Freeway Operations Simulation Committee of the Transportation Research Board I intend to steer national discussion in this direction. Sustainability is the overarching principle that is engulfing most types of engineering and operations practice and research.

Congestion and energy consumption reductions are large components of sustainability. These, in turn, are affected by freeway and traffic operations. Our committee is embarking on an effort to establish sustainability parameters and requirements for freeway and traffic simulation models including vehicle fleet parameters, fuel consumption parameters, and modules capturing real time pricing and demand shifts in response to fuel, toll and congestion levels.

So far, my understanding of the status quo is roughly as follows:

• Green mobility policies and incentives: HOT lanes, tax credits for electric vehicles, light rail lite, etc.
• Green management options: Signal coordination, corridor-wide ramp metering, variable speed limits, peak hour shoulder lanes, etc.
• Green travel choices: hybrid car, parking cash out, locate close to work or school, etc.
• Green trip decisions: carpooling, 4X10 work schedule, telecommuting, etc.
• Green parameters for traffic simulation: __________________________?

In other words, there is a lot of room in improving simulation models to explicitly account for green options.

The Upside of High Oil Prices: Part 2, Long-term Effects

The U.S. and several other countries are in an economic recession which was caused in part by the extraordinary increase of crude oil prices from $16 in 1999 and several years afterward, to $147 in July, 2008. This 1,000% spike was followed by a precipitous fall of crude oil prices to about $55 in November 2008 and still falling.


High oil prices despite their obvious high cost disadvantages have several benefits and long term advantages. Some effects are realized almost immediately and others take several years to develop. This part covers the longer term effects, the majority of which are likely to be observed after five years of high crude oil prices.

GLOBALIZATION REVERSAL: High oil costs take a toll on unit production, distribution and delivery cost. Therefore some local industries may be better off near large cities in the developed nations instead of relocating at a region or country with a low labor cost. This is good news for local economies at developed nations but it reduces employment opportunities at developing and underdeveloped countries. Some see the slowing down of globalization as a good thing (e.g., less exploitation of cheap labor, lesser loss of local jobs.)

NUCLEAR ENERGY: The scarcity or cost of fossil fuels makes the development of expensive nuclear energy a more cost-effective proposition. High electric bills for residences, businesses and industry may decrease the emotional opposition to nuclear power plants. France and Japan are leading examples of reliance on nuclear power with no or minimal safety concerns. At the first oil crisis in 1973, only 1% of Japan’s electricity was produced by nuclear energy. By the second oil crisis of 1979, 4% was from nuclear; in 2000 the ratio was up to 12% and the 2010 goal is 15%. As of 2005, Japan had 52 operating nuclear plants, 3 in construction and 8 in planning and design. France is even more ahead: Its 59 nuclear plants produce 88% of the country’s electric power. There are about 440 nuclear power plants on the globe. France, Japan and the U.S. combined produce over 55% of the nuclear power energy on the globe.

AGRICULTURE: A lot of low-priced agriculture products are less affordable when processing, transportation and distribution costs are high. This improves the chances of local agriculture for profitability and long term survival. On the other hand, the benefits for third world from exporting agricultural products are reduced.

UNAFFORDABLE LIFE IN THE SUBURBS: The high cost of energy makes the low density living in the suburbs and its corresponding demand for long trips less attractive and less affordable particularly for young couples with children and retired seniors. As a result, central city apartments become attractive and office and apartment development in central city follows the market demand. In the same vein, office and retail development in the suburbs softens the impact of long, expensive commutes.

BIOTECHONOLOGY: High energy prices are also a strong incentive to develop alternative fuels as well as processes to convert trash, biomass, used oils and other lubricants into combustible fuels or other forms of fuel that can be converted into electricity.

RECYCLING AND REMANUFACTURE: The expensive production, transportation and distribution of goods makes the effort of recycling and remanufacture more worthwhile. Remanufacture is the developing industry of creating useful products out of wastes. Economies of size are important. For example, one or more used-aluminum processing factories can be profitable in the greater Los Angeles area, but none can break even in Honolulu. However, remanufacture of oils, refrigerants, other chemicals and plastic products can be profitable in small markets.

CHEMISTRY AND MATERIAL SCIENCE: The development of ultra light and low friction materials so that machinery does more work with less energy is an advancing field. Nanotechnology also contributes in this arena. High fossil fuel prices make research and development in such specialized sciences more urgent and better funded.

BLUE PLANET SENSITIVITY: Over time, the high cost of energy make people re-think of their decisions in home, work and school locations, local and long distance travel, and consumption of goods and services. They look for ways to downsize, optimize and economize. All these have a large aggregate reduction in resource consumption and pollution on Earth.

The Upside of High Oil Prices: Part 1, Short-term Effects

The U.S. and several other countries are in an economic recession which was caused in part by the extraordinary increase of crude oil prices from $16 in 1999 and several years afterward, to $147 in July, 2008. This 1,000% spike was followed by a precipitous fall of crude oil prices to about $55 in November 2008 and still falling. India’s growth, hurricanes in the Gulf, refinery shut downs for repairs and most importantly China’s hyper development in preparation for the 2008 Olympic Games contributed substantially to an unprecedented spike in oil prices, which in turn were manifest as high prices at the pump, shipping surcharges, and high electric bills and airfares.


High oil prices put oil producing counties in a significant advantage, oil consuming countries in a significant disadvantage and they are indifferent to countries who have achieved substantial fossil fuel independence (e.g., Brazil via sugar cane ethanol and France via nuclear power.) The discussion below is focused less on politics and more on energy, economy, technology, transportation and personal effects of high oil prices. High oil prices despite their obvious high cost disadvantages have several benefits and long term advantages. Some effects are realized almost immediately and others take several years to develop. This part covers the short term effects; the majority of which are likely to be observed within five years.

OIL EXPLORATION: There are forms and deposits of crude oil that when the price per barrel is low they are financially unprofitable to explore and exploit. But many of them break even and become profitable at a per barrel cost of over $50.00. Others require even higher prices.

INVESTMENT: The large swings in oil prices have the potential for quick fortunes to be made (and lost) through investment in futures and energy funds by investors and large retirement funds. The Sacramento Bee reports that “CalPERS [California Public Employees' Retirement System] has racked up a 68 percent return playing the commodities market in the past 12 months.”

RENEWABLE ENERGY: Most forms of renewable energy such as solar (photovoltaic), wind energy, geothermal, deep ocean upwelling and wave energy are expensive ways of converting natural forces or energy to electricity. High crude oil prices make several of these profitable.

TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES: High energy prices are a strong incentive for carpooling, bicycling, telecommuting, condensed work weeks (4x10) and switch to mass transit.

AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGY: Obviously, high prices at the pump make large cars with large engines much less affordable to operate. The market for them shrinks, and this becomes a strong incentive for manufacturers to develop lighter, smaller vehicles with more efficient engines. It also provides strong incentives for both government and private R&D to work on less conventional car power plants such as direct gas injection, diesel, electric, compressed natural gas (CNG,) alone or in hybrid combinations.

INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS: Redoubles efforts for freeway and arterial management, incident management, traffic light coordination, fleet management and optimum routing of vehicles through congested networks. Some private fleet operators work with very low profit margins, so congestion and high fuel prices can quickly turn a profitable operation to a money losing one.

High oil prices can have a large positive effect on the sustainability of modern societies. Alas, reduced demand has caused a precipitous reduction in crude oil prices. Now is the right time for the U.S. Congress to take the following actions:

• The fuel tax at the pump should be adjusted to reflect the nation’s highway infrastructure funding needs. This may cause the 38 cent tax to triple, but it is a necessary action.
• After this is done, a simple inflation adjustment formula should be legislated so that the “infrastructure purchasing power” of the gasoline tax retains its strength over time.
• In the longer term, more thought should be given about the nation’s highway needs, the impacts of congestion, the critical contribution of freight and the effects of non-taxable fuels used in hybrid, electric and fuel cell vehicles. The highway funding mechanism should provide tax collections that are proportional to the vehicle miles traveled on the nation’s highways.
• Finally, a small “renewable energy surcharge” such as two to five cents per gallon should be added to generate funds for much needed research and development. The proposed National Cooperative Renewable and Alternative Energy for Transportation Program can be administered by the Transportation Research Board which administers similar programs.

The EZWay Transportation Plan for Oahu

The basic goals of this plan are to provide (a) substantial congestion relief largely caused at the H-1/H-2 and H-1/Moanalua freeway merges by adding critical high occupancy capacity, and (b) express bus mass transit primarily in the west Oahu to downtown corridor. In addition, the plan addresses other major congestion spots in Honolulu and provides express transit connections to the University of Hawaii at Manoa. The basic ingredients of the plan are:

• the EZWay which consists of three elevated reversible zipper lanes from the H-1/H-2 merge to Iwilei,
• express buses having exclusive use of freeway shoulders in order to travel at near free flow speeds from/to the EZWay,
• a downtown underpass for efficient in-town traffic distribution, and
• a priority BRT from downtown to the UH and a new transit center for west Oahu bus passenger distribution in downtown, Kakaako, Ala Moana and Waikiki.

The elements of the EZWay transportation plan are briefly described below.

(1) Kapolei and Ewa Beach Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) connectors to Waipahu: Hybrid or fuel cell buses will be allowed to use shoulders on on-ramps and a number of elevated passages or priority lanes at intersections (queue jumpers) which allow them to get by chronically congested spots. Includes a Waipahu (Farrington Hwy.) on-ramp to/from the EZWay.

(2) Express buses from Waianae and Makakilo may use upgraded H-1 freeway shoulders to get to the EZWay quicker. The same priority treatment applies to express buses from Mililani and Waihiawa.

(3) The EZWay structure is a fully managed expressway facility that can be described as three reversible elevated zipper lanes starting at the H-1/H-2 merge and terminating at Pier 16 with off-ramps at Aloha Stadium/Pearl Harbor, Lagoon Drive and Waiakamilo Street. The right lane is an exclusive bus lane throughout the length of the facility. At Iwilei, one elevated lane goes to Hotel St. to connect with King/Beretania BRT (University spur BRT).

EZWay will open with a minimum occupancy requirement of three people per vehicle. This requirement may be increased in the future to avoid congestion. No tolls will be collected. Automated steep fines applied to low occupancy violators. No trucks allowed at any time. Open to all emergency vehicles at all times. Open to green vehicles with greater than 35 mpg EPA highway fuel consumption. This threshold is also subject to change in order to maintain at least 50 mph speeds in peak periods.

(4) Ala Moana Blvd. Downtown Underpass (mini-tunnel) starting east of River Street and ending both at Alakea Street and Halekauwila Street. Same tunnel reverses in the PM period from Halekauwila Street and Bishop Street to Nimitz Hwy. contraflow lane onto the elevated zipper lanes. The underpass may continue to large new parking lot(s) east of Punchbowl Street. As a result, a large portion of vehicular traffic may actually "disappear" from downtown by going from the EZWay, through the mini-tunnel directly into a parking structure.

(5) New Ward Centers bus terminal on Auahi Street. Express buses that arrive from the EZWay stop at this terminal and either return to origin, or continue as regular bus to Ala Moana Center. Contracted tour buses may be deployed at this terminal for direct worker distribution to Waikiki hotels.

(6) University BRT runs on priority lanes and with priority signaling along King Street and Beretania Street.

(7) Other elements include traffic signal optimization, other underpasses, several freeway bottleneck fixes, upgrades to TheBus and TheHandiVan scheduling and routing with advanced technologies, contracted express bus and special passenger service, deployment and incentives for 4x10 work hours, and encouragement to UH-Manoa to change start time for students, faculty and administration staff to 9 AM.

Features and Advantages

• Elevated zipper lanes with no tolls -- Bus lane running at 50+ mph: Waipahu to downtown in 12 minutes -- Express point-to-point buses every 5 to 10 minutes
• Same or better travel time than rail – Much fewer transfers. No transfers for major origins and destinations, e.g., Waipahu-Pearl Harbor and Airport, Waipahu-Kalihi, Waipahu-Downtown, Waipahu-Waikiki
• Congestion relief on H-1 freeway (remove high occupancy and green vehicles) -- Congestion relief downtown
• The plan works with buses which are adaptable to non-fossil fuel propulsion technology such as fuel cells and electric drives
• Twice the service reach (length) compared with the 20 mile rail at about one half the cost
• Reliable travel times between Ewa and Kapolei in Leeward, and Kakakao and UH in town
• Flexible, expandable, adaptable with familiar technology; no specialized labor to install or maintain vehicles or structures of the plan
• FTA New Starts fundable exclusive bus lanes and BRT
• Nimitz Hwy. flyover has approved EIS.
• Key parts of the plan can begin construction or operation in late 2009
• Removes all buses and vanpools from zipper lane and allows HDOT to convert it to a HOT lane