This is hot off the press from the federal Department of Transportation:
Economics: Pricing, Demand, and Economic Efficiency
The 24 page report can be found here: http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop08041/fhwahop08041.pdf
In their words:
The application of tolling and road pricing provides the opportunity to solve transportation problems without Federal or state funding. It could mean that further gas tax, sales tax, or motor vehicle registration fee increases are not necessary now or in the future. Congestion pricing is not a complete plan of action. It has to be coordinated with other policy measures to maximize success.
This volume describes the underlying economic rationale for congestion pricing and how it can be used to promote economic efficiency. It lays out the basic theory of travel demand and traffic flow and shows how inefficient pricing of the road network helps create an economic loss to society, as well as the means by which this can be alleviated through pricing. The impact of congestion pricing on highway infrastructure investment and the revenue implications of congestion pricing will be discussed in a separate volume in this primer series.
Justification as to why road pricing should not be a strange concept since it's already applied in many other areas:
By charging higher rates during high demand periods, proprietors are able to better allocate demand to optimize the utilization of the available capacity.
Examples of such common practices include higher rates for lodging and other amenities in tourist areas during the “high season,” discounts for afternoon showings at movie theaters, and evening and weekend discounts for telephone use. More recently, other industries have moved in this direction, including professional sports teams (which have begun charging more for tickets to more desirable games, reflecting long-standing practices in the aftermarket for tickets) and electric utilities (in which advanced electronic meters now allow usage at different times of day to be recorded).
What are HOT Lanes and why are they "win-win"?
HOT lanes are a special case of tolled express lanes, in which high-occupancy vehicles (HOV; including carpools, vanpools, and transit vehicles) are allowed to use the special lanes for free, whereas low-occupancy vehicles are required to pay a toll to use the lanes.
Because most toll-paying users of the HOT lanes are likely to shift from the other lanes, congestion on these lanes will be reduced and travel times will be improved, whereas existing HOV users will see no reduction in the quality of the service they receive. The result is a pure gain to highway users.
It is important to note that the value of time savings reflects to the total value of all passengers in a vehicle, not just the driver. Thus, some of the highest value trips are likely to be those in buses or other transit vehicles.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Monday, July 27, 2009
The Jacobs Report for Honolulu’s Proposed Rail
Here are three views for the Jacobs Spot Report of partial risk analysis conducted for Honolulu's proposed rail project as an advisory piece for the Federal Transit Administration.
Hannemann said "There will still be some give and take on the numbers. It may shift here and there, but the big picture is there's no way this project is way over budget. No way."
Okino said "This thing confirms that we're on a firm financial basis for this project. It verifies everything that we've been saying.”
The Jacobs report says … given your willingness to buy your little city a five billion dollar 20-mile train with, and I quote the report, “automated short heavy rail vehicles,” then the past paperwork is in good shape and you can proceed to the next stage in the paperwork.
The Jacobs report was prepared for the FTA as a risk analysis supplement. An explicit approval by the FTA is not necessary. The FTA uses this risk analysis to avoid exorbitant cost and schedule overruns. Despite such risk analyses done for other projects, about one third of urban rail projects in the U.S. do have exorbitant cost and/or schedule overruns.
The report does not take a position on whether rail for Honolulu is good or bad.
The report does not take a position on whether the route and its length are good or bad.
The report does not take a position on whether steel on steel technology is good on bad.
The report says that given all of these choices made by the locals, Jacobs reviewed the paperwork vis-à-vis FTA requirements and rules and what has been prepared so far for Honolulu’s proposed rail allows the project to enter preliminary engineering (PE) so that, and I quote from the conclusion, “estimates undergo significant refinement once the project advances into the PE stage”.
The report does include dozens of alarming sentences such as:
Jacobs cannot provide a detailed opinion on the constructability of the project since the plans are at a conceptual level of detail.
The City did not include enough detail for utility related activities such as utility agreements, utility coordination and planning, underground utility exploration, relocations, abandonment and installation.
At the present stage of pre-Preliminary Engineering, one can be 90% confident that the proposed project will cost between 5.2 and 10.2 billion dollars (Figure 1-1, page 1-10 of Jacobs report.) Once PE is done and the project enters Final Design, then its price tag is expected to narrow: The project will have a 90% chance of being built for a budget ranging between 4.8 and 8.1 billion dollars. For those who understand risk analysis, this means that there is a 5% probability that the project will cost more than 8.1 billion dollars, and an equal probability that it will cost less than 4.8 billion dollars.
If the rail project entered Preliminary Engineering in summer 2009 and PE takes well over six months, followed by well over six months for Final Design which is necessary for construction, how can construction possibly start in December 2009 as Hannemann says?
For popular consumption this question is not answered based on reality. Rail will be proclaimed to “start” as necessary to provide a major photo op for Hannemann who immediately afterward will leave the ”bag” for someone else to hold. I hope that someone will be there to take the bag to the conveniently located Waimanalo Gulch landfill nearby!
Hannemann said "There will still be some give and take on the numbers. It may shift here and there, but the big picture is there's no way this project is way over budget. No way."
Okino said "This thing confirms that we're on a firm financial basis for this project. It verifies everything that we've been saying.”
The Jacobs report says … given your willingness to buy your little city a five billion dollar 20-mile train with, and I quote the report, “automated short heavy rail vehicles,” then the past paperwork is in good shape and you can proceed to the next stage in the paperwork.
The Jacobs report was prepared for the FTA as a risk analysis supplement. An explicit approval by the FTA is not necessary. The FTA uses this risk analysis to avoid exorbitant cost and schedule overruns. Despite such risk analyses done for other projects, about one third of urban rail projects in the U.S. do have exorbitant cost and/or schedule overruns.
The report does not take a position on whether rail for Honolulu is good or bad.
The report does not take a position on whether the route and its length are good or bad.
The report does not take a position on whether steel on steel technology is good on bad.
The report says that given all of these choices made by the locals, Jacobs reviewed the paperwork vis-à-vis FTA requirements and rules and what has been prepared so far for Honolulu’s proposed rail allows the project to enter preliminary engineering (PE) so that, and I quote from the conclusion, “estimates undergo significant refinement once the project advances into the PE stage”.
The report does include dozens of alarming sentences such as:
Jacobs cannot provide a detailed opinion on the constructability of the project since the plans are at a conceptual level of detail.
The City did not include enough detail for utility related activities such as utility agreements, utility coordination and planning, underground utility exploration, relocations, abandonment and installation.
At the present stage of pre-Preliminary Engineering, one can be 90% confident that the proposed project will cost between 5.2 and 10.2 billion dollars (Figure 1-1, page 1-10 of Jacobs report.) Once PE is done and the project enters Final Design, then its price tag is expected to narrow: The project will have a 90% chance of being built for a budget ranging between 4.8 and 8.1 billion dollars. For those who understand risk analysis, this means that there is a 5% probability that the project will cost more than 8.1 billion dollars, and an equal probability that it will cost less than 4.8 billion dollars.
If the rail project entered Preliminary Engineering in summer 2009 and PE takes well over six months, followed by well over six months for Final Design which is necessary for construction, how can construction possibly start in December 2009 as Hannemann says?
For popular consumption this question is not answered based on reality. Rail will be proclaimed to “start” as necessary to provide a major photo op for Hannemann who immediately afterward will leave the ”bag” for someone else to hold. I hope that someone will be there to take the bag to the conveniently located Waimanalo Gulch landfill nearby!
Thursday, July 16, 2009
2008 to 2013 Costs of Proposed Rail
The Fiscal Year 2008-2011 Transportation Improvement Plan or TIP includes detailed costs for the Honolulu High Capacity Transit Corridor Project, which is the full description for Mayor Hanneman’s proposed rail project. The TIP tables also include FY 2012 and FY 2013 information.
The tables show costs for planning, design, right-of-way, construction, equipment, etc. The costs add up to $4,420,859,000 for FY 2008 to 2013 only. The charts do not show how far the project will go after spending the shown funds. The City could start one mile east of Kapolei, spend 4.4 billion dollars, and still not make it to Ala Moana Center.
Of course the amount of money by itself is staggering given Oahu’s 400,000 taxpayers. Two other things are particularly startling: (a) the excessive amounts for planning and design, and (b) the tiny federal contribution.
Excessive Planning and Design Cost
Planning and design costs are shown for FY 2008, 2009 and 2010. They add up to $320.3 million of which the Federal contribution is only 12%; all the rest all local taxes. This does not include all planning and promotion monies spent between 2004 and 2007 when Mayor Hannemann made this project from nothing to priority one. It would be safe to say that planning, promotion and design will cost at least $350 million.
To put this in perspective, I provide costs for two recent large roadway projects for comparison:
1) Tampa’s 10 miles of 3-lane reversible elevated express lanes were completed in summer 2006 at a total cost of $320 million including planning and design.
2) California State Highway 210, a 6-lane freeway facility with a length of 7.25 miles with several interchanges was delivered in summer 2007 at a total cost of $233 million.
This is a startling comparison: These two freeway projects cost roughly $30 million per mile designed, constructed and delivered to their communities for use, and Oahu’s rail project is costing $17 million per mile for the paperwork alone.
Tiny Federal Contribution
As mentioned above, the Feds provide 12% of the planning and design costs. How about the construction costs? Mayor Hannemann talks about one billion dollars. Yet the TIP includes only $600 million for the first $4.4 billion of the project. Of course $0.6 million is much less than the “proclaimed” $1.0 billion. This results in a tiny share of 13.5% by the Federal Transit Administration.
If there are more federal monies to come, then this means that the project will cost well over five billion dollars for the first 20 miles.
Cannot Afford It
It’s worth remembering that in his 2004 campaign, Hannemann’s moto was that for a project to get the green light it must pass muster: Do We Need It? Can We Afford It? Can We Maintain It?
Honolulu has a traffic congestion problem. Rail is not a solution to traffic congestion. Thus we do not need it.
The above numbers clearly indicate that the costs for rail are enormous and out of proportion to Oahu's tax base. Thus we cannot afford it.
But if we are crazy enough to build it, then can we maintain it? But of course: Like the sewers, water mains, roads and city parks.
The tables show costs for planning, design, right-of-way, construction, equipment, etc. The costs add up to $4,420,859,000 for FY 2008 to 2013 only. The charts do not show how far the project will go after spending the shown funds. The City could start one mile east of Kapolei, spend 4.4 billion dollars, and still not make it to Ala Moana Center.
Of course the amount of money by itself is staggering given Oahu’s 400,000 taxpayers. Two other things are particularly startling: (a) the excessive amounts for planning and design, and (b) the tiny federal contribution.
Excessive Planning and Design Cost
Planning and design costs are shown for FY 2008, 2009 and 2010. They add up to $320.3 million of which the Federal contribution is only 12%; all the rest all local taxes. This does not include all planning and promotion monies spent between 2004 and 2007 when Mayor Hannemann made this project from nothing to priority one. It would be safe to say that planning, promotion and design will cost at least $350 million.
To put this in perspective, I provide costs for two recent large roadway projects for comparison:
1) Tampa’s 10 miles of 3-lane reversible elevated express lanes were completed in summer 2006 at a total cost of $320 million including planning and design.
2) California State Highway 210, a 6-lane freeway facility with a length of 7.25 miles with several interchanges was delivered in summer 2007 at a total cost of $233 million.
This is a startling comparison: These two freeway projects cost roughly $30 million per mile designed, constructed and delivered to their communities for use, and Oahu’s rail project is costing $17 million per mile for the paperwork alone.
Tiny Federal Contribution
As mentioned above, the Feds provide 12% of the planning and design costs. How about the construction costs? Mayor Hannemann talks about one billion dollars. Yet the TIP includes only $600 million for the first $4.4 billion of the project. Of course $0.6 million is much less than the “proclaimed” $1.0 billion. This results in a tiny share of 13.5% by the Federal Transit Administration.
If there are more federal monies to come, then this means that the project will cost well over five billion dollars for the first 20 miles.
Cannot Afford It
It’s worth remembering that in his 2004 campaign, Hannemann’s moto was that for a project to get the green light it must pass muster: Do We Need It? Can We Afford It? Can We Maintain It?
Honolulu has a traffic congestion problem. Rail is not a solution to traffic congestion. Thus we do not need it.
The above numbers clearly indicate that the costs for rail are enormous and out of proportion to Oahu's tax base. Thus we cannot afford it.
But if we are crazy enough to build it, then can we maintain it? But of course: Like the sewers, water mains, roads and city parks.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Bicycling at Night? Make Your Own Lane!
Friday Bonus: Not a completed product but not a Photoshop creation either. To be effective, the biker must be a steady one. More info here: http://www.altitudeinc.com/downloads/021609_bikelane_Boston.pdf
BRT and Undergrounding for Speedy, Upgraded and Prettier Honolulu
Several people sent me the same article from the NY Times today. The article is extolling the virtues of Bus Rapid Transit. Here is a sample send from a friend.
Buses May Aid Climate Battle in Poor Cities, Elizabeth Rosenthal, NYTimes, 7.09.09 [ http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/10/world/americas/10degrees.html?_r=1&em ]
Bogota removed 7000 small private buses to reduce bus fuel by more than 59 percent. Government owned TransMilenio opened first line in 2001 and now averages 1.6 million trips daily. Versions of BRT concept to be copied by Mexico City, Cape Town, Jakarta and Ahmedabad. TransMilenio BRT system is the only large transportation project approved by UN to generate and sell carbon credits of $100- to $300-million.
Another friend sent me this commentary:
"This seems like a sensible, low cost solution. I find it odd that we lack the political will to commandeer two lanes of Kam Hwy, Farrington, Kalanianaole, Nimitz, Vineyard, Kapiolani, King, Beretania, Kalakaua, and other major arteries.
But that Hizzoner is more than willing to tax us into the dark ages to pay for a heavy rail system that: is not affordable, does not decrease traffic congestion, will ruin Oahu's sight lines, create horrible noise and other impacts, etc.
This is not to mention the no/low-cost mitigation that should be implemented right now such as: shifting operating hours of UH to off peak (10am-8pm), better traffic signal coordination, intelligent flow design, afternoon zipper lane heading west, etc.
But do we do these things? Of course not! Because that would alleviate traffic and the false sense of urgency for the heavy rail system that no one wants. Why look at alternatives like at grade light rail or BRT when the Mayor wants a multi-billion dollar legacy project."
To which I replied with this:
The King-Beretania BRT is really a no brainer and can be installed in less than two years for a speedy connection of UH, Manoa and Moiliili with downtown Honolulu and Chinatown. This link dates back to 2002: http://www.eng.hawaii.edu/~panos/pdp_brt.pdf
Taking two traffic lanes away from other streets would be more problematic... and let's not forget transit stations. It is hard to develop ADA stations on surface given Honolulu's density and property values.
I'd prefer double decking the corridor you describe but underground. Not with tunnels but with cut and cover trenches. This plan can provide speedy mass transit and solve Honolulu's rotting utility problem in one shot. The lower deck will be for light rail or electric buses, water, sewer, gas and electric in neatly arranged and accessible lengthwise compartments.
Then a 100 year slab on top will be used for the surface road and provides the opportunity to develop a modern arterial street with smart sensors and traffic signals. An added bonus is that all overhead wires can be neatly undergrounded. This is not only a permanent improvement in aesthetics but improves infrastructure resilience in case of a hurricane or major storm along the corridor.
In this way, we can bring a whole corridor of Honolulu to 21st century standard in one shot. I believe that this is a worthwhile expenditure of $10 to 15 billion over 20 years, instead of spending the same amount for piecemeal, ineffective, less durable and ugly components.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
2nd International Symposium on Freeway and Tollway Operations
The 2nd ISFO brought together freeway and tollway operators, practitioners and researchers specializing in freeway operations, highway toll operations and corridor management to:
- Capture the state of the practice in freeway and tollway operations including current programs and planned initiatives for active traffic management.
- Assess costs and benefits of active traffic management.
- Discuss Intelligent Transportation Systems, managed lanes, and active traffic management.
- Explore the potential benefits of using managed lanes, tolling, pricing, and other strategies to improve traffic operations on congested freeways.
- Present methods and challenges for infrastructure financing and development.
Nearly 250 participants had the opportunity to attend 150 presentations in 35 sessions. A number of articles are being prepared to summarize the state-of-the-art in traffic management and lessors learned from the 2nd ISFO. Meanwhile, the links below presents some of the flavors from the intense three days on June 2009:
Freeway Symposium Comes to Honolulu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MBu-DgX6ek&eurl=http%3A%2F%2F
Lieutenant Governor Duke Aiona Opens 2nd ISFO
http://www.hawaii247.org/2009/07/01/finding-solutions-to-transportation-challenges/
Hawaii Highway Users Alliance Luncheon during the 2nd ISFO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es94aw9x86M&eurl=http%3A%2F%2F
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Honolulu's Congestion Level Makes Weak Case for Rail
The just published Transportation Statistics Annual Report 2008 indicates that Honolulu's congestion is low among 85 metropolitan areas in the U.S. -- Honolulu is ranked 52nd.
The average delay due to road traffic congestion for travelers in Honolulu is 24 hours per year. This is a large number of wasted hours but it pales in comparison to Los Angeles metropolitan area where the annual loss per traveler is 72 hours. Atlanta, San Francisco and Washington DC tie at 60 hours per year.
These statistics were just released by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, a unit of the U.S. Department of Transportation. The full report can be found here: http://www.bts.gov/publications/transportation_statistics_annual_report/2008/pdf/entire.pdf
Honolulu's traffic delay peers are Omaha, NE, Sarasota and Pensacola, FL, El Paso, TX, Grand Rapids, MI, and Cape Coral, FL none of which have any form or rail.
Metropolitan areas are classified as very large, large, medium and small. Honolulu is classified as a medium metropolitan area and has 30 peers. Even among its peers, Honolulu ranks lower in delay having 24 hours of annual delay per traveler whereas the average for 30 medium areas was 28 in 2005. See table below.
Very few cities in this group have any form of rail. For example Charlotte has a small new at grade light rail system and its congestion level at 45 hours per year is nearly twice that of Honolulu's. Charlotte's light rail cost was in the order of one billion dollars for a population of over three million people and Honolulu's light rail cost is in the order of five billion dollars for 900,000 (and dropping) population.
These numbers provide a strong indication that on a national priority list for funding "new starts" rail systems, Honolulu's proposal should receive a very low priority for federal funding.
The average delay due to road traffic congestion for travelers in Honolulu is 24 hours per year. This is a large number of wasted hours but it pales in comparison to Los Angeles metropolitan area where the annual loss per traveler is 72 hours. Atlanta, San Francisco and Washington DC tie at 60 hours per year.
These statistics were just released by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, a unit of the U.S. Department of Transportation. The full report can be found here: http://www.bts.gov/publications/transportation_statistics_annual_report/2008/pdf/entire.pdf
Honolulu's traffic delay peers are Omaha, NE, Sarasota and Pensacola, FL, El Paso, TX, Grand Rapids, MI, and Cape Coral, FL none of which have any form or rail.
Metropolitan areas are classified as very large, large, medium and small. Honolulu is classified as a medium metropolitan area and has 30 peers. Even among its peers, Honolulu ranks lower in delay having 24 hours of annual delay per traveler whereas the average for 30 medium areas was 28 in 2005. See table below.
Very few cities in this group have any form of rail. For example Charlotte has a small new at grade light rail system and its congestion level at 45 hours per year is nearly twice that of Honolulu's. Charlotte's light rail cost was in the order of one billion dollars for a population of over three million people and Honolulu's light rail cost is in the order of five billion dollars for 900,000 (and dropping) population.
These numbers provide a strong indication that on a national priority list for funding "new starts" rail systems, Honolulu's proposal should receive a very low priority for federal funding.
| Average Hours of Annual Delay per Traveler | ||||
| Medium Urban Area | 1982 | 1995 | 2004 | 2005 |
| Akron, OH | 2 | 9 | 11 | 10 |
| Albany-Schenectady, NY | 3 | 8 | 16 | 16 |
| Albuquerque, NM | 11 | 30 | 30 | 33 |
| Allentown-Bethlehem, PA-NJ | 9 | 21 | 22 | 22 |
| Austin, TX | 12 | 32 | 44 | 49 |
| Birmingham, AL | 8 | 21 | 33 | 33 |
| Bridgeport-Stamford, CT-NY | 9 | 28 | 31 | |
| Charlotte, NC-SC | 12 | 23 | 47 | 45 |
| Dayton, OH | 10 | 22 | 19 | 17 |
| El Paso, TX-NM | 3 | 10 | 22 | 24 |
| Fresno, CA | 12 | 17 | 19 | 20 |
| Grand Rapids, MI | 6 | 19 | 24 | 24 |
| Hartford, CT | 4 | 13 | 19 | 19 |
| Honolulu, HI | 14 | 26 | 22 | 24 |
| Jacksonville, FL | 16 | 40 | 41 | 39 |
| Louisville, KY-IN | 18 | 34 | 44 | 42 |
| Memphis, TN-MS-AR | 6 | 23 | 29 | 30 |
| Nashville-Davidson, TN | 20 | 35 | 40 | 40 |
| New Haven, CT | 5 | 13 | 18 | 19 |
| Omaha, NE-IA | 5 | 19 | 26 | 25 |
| Oxnard-Ventura, CA | 4 | 21 | 35 | 39 |
| Raleigh-Durham, NC | 8 | 26 | 35 | 35 |
| Richmond, VA | 6 | 22 | 20 | 20 |
| Rochester, NY | 3 | 7 | 10 | 10 |
| Salt Lake City, UT | 8 | 32 | 29 | 27 |
| Sarasota-Bradenton, FL | 15 | 19 | 26 | 25 |
| Springfield, MA-CT | 7 | 10 | 10 | 11 |
| Toledo, OH-MI | 2 | 12 | 17 | 15 |
| Tucson, AZ | 24 | 23 | 39 | 42 |
| Tulsa, OK | 8 | 14 | 19 | 19 |
| Medium Area Average | 9 | 21 | 27 | 28 |
Monday, June 15, 2009
Car Technology Works to Protect Us and the Planet
I would like to provide a couple of examples to demonstrate how technology works in beneficial ways, and how vehicle functionality, safety and economy can improve over time. The examples below are the result of natural evolution in the absence of a major energy crisis. These vehicles were finalized in design between 2005 and 2007, well before the 2008 oil pricing crisis and the current recession were in effect. In other words, the improvements highlighted by these four sample vehicles can be realized in 10 instead of 20 to 25 years in response to strong pressures for fuel efficiency dictated by market prices or regulations.
First we look at the evolution of Honda gas misers, the very economic 1985 Honda CRX HF and the advanced hybrid 2009 Honda Insight which also have comparable pricing in terms of purchasing parity with the 2009 Insight priced at about $20,000 now and the CRX priced at $6,500 almost 25 years ago.
The 2009 Honda has much more room for people, it is 24% larger, and 59% heavier. Part of the latter has a lot to do with safety features which make a 2009 Insight a very safe car to be in a collision, whereas the consequences from a rear angle (T-bone) accident in a compact 1985 vehicle are rather dire even at moderate speeds. Despite all the increases in size and functionality, the 2009 Honda delivers a 5% improvement in fuel consumption and it runs on a less expensive fuel. Also the Insight has a convenient Continuously Variable Transmission or CVT, which is a state-of-the-art "infinite gear" automatic gearbox.
Then we take a look at relatively popular performance vehicles made by BMW: the notoriously square best seller 1989 325i, and its modern re-incarnation the 2009 128i, both with similar six cylinder inline engines and manual gearboxes. In terms of pricing the 128i at about $30,000 is a relative bargain now compared to the $25,000 sticker price of the 325i about 20 years ago.
The above comparisons show that the 2009 car is 9% larger and 16% heavier, but 28% faster and 13% more fuel efficient!
As I concluded in my previous post, the outlook on future vehicle technologies is bright and many improvements will come from developments that do not even exist today. The two examples above show that progress is constant and in the right direction.
This progress is not possible or probable; it is certain. The worldwide auto industry is a giant part of technological, industrial and economic significance. For example, vehicle production during 2008 was 66,000,000 units. Here is a breakdown of vehicle production from some non-U.S. brands which also depicts the significance of these industries to regional economies and countries, and indeed the wrold as a whole. (Worldwide data do not include production from China and India, both of which have booming car markets.) The table below represents about 50% of world production:
(Base country shown but all manufacturers have plants in multiple countries.)
First we look at the evolution of Honda gas misers, the very economic 1985 Honda CRX HF and the advanced hybrid 2009 Honda Insight which also have comparable pricing in terms of purchasing parity with the 2009 Insight priced at about $20,000 now and the CRX priced at $6,500 almost 25 years ago.
| Units | 1985 Honda CRX HF | 2009 Honda Insight | Change | |
| Seats | number | 2 | 5 | 150% |
| Footprint | sq.ft. | 64.2 | 79.8 | 24% |
| Cargo | sq.ft. | 13.0 | 15.9 | 22% |
| Weight | lbs | 1713 | 2723 | 59% |
| Transmission | type | 5-speed manual | CVT | Easier |
| Fuel | octane | 91 | 87 | -7% |
| EPA City | mpg | 38 | 40 | -5% |
| Safety | estimate | Basic | Very Good | Much Better |
The 2009 Honda has much more room for people, it is 24% larger, and 59% heavier. Part of the latter has a lot to do with safety features which make a 2009 Insight a very safe car to be in a collision, whereas the consequences from a rear angle (T-bone) accident in a compact 1985 vehicle are rather dire even at moderate speeds. Despite all the increases in size and functionality, the 2009 Honda delivers a 5% improvement in fuel consumption and it runs on a less expensive fuel. Also the Insight has a convenient Continuously Variable Transmission or CVT, which is a state-of-the-art "infinite gear" automatic gearbox.
Then we take a look at relatively popular performance vehicles made by BMW: the notoriously square best seller 1989 325i, and its modern re-incarnation the 2009 128i, both with similar six cylinder inline engines and manual gearboxes. In terms of pricing the 128i at about $30,000 is a relative bargain now compared to the $25,000 sticker price of the 325i about 20 years ago.
| Units | 1989 325i | 2008 128i | Change | |
| Seats | number | 4 | 4 | 0% |
| Footprint | sq.ft. | 76.6 | 83.3 | 9% |
| Weight | lbs | 2811 | 3252 | 16% |
| 0-60 mph | sec | 8.5 | 6.1 | -28% |
| EPA City | mpg | 16 | 18 | -13% |
| Safety | estimate | Good | Very Good | Better |
The above comparisons show that the 2009 car is 9% larger and 16% heavier, but 28% faster and 13% more fuel efficient!
As I concluded in my previous post, the outlook on future vehicle technologies is bright and many improvements will come from developments that do not even exist today. The two examples above show that progress is constant and in the right direction.
This progress is not possible or probable; it is certain. The worldwide auto industry is a giant part of technological, industrial and economic significance. For example, vehicle production during 2008 was 66,000,000 units. Here is a breakdown of vehicle production from some non-U.S. brands which also depicts the significance of these industries to regional economies and countries, and indeed the wrold as a whole. (Worldwide data do not include production from China and India, both of which have booming car markets.) The table below represents about 50% of world production:
| Manufacturer | Country | 2008 production |
| BMW | Germany | 1.4 million |
| Opel | Germany | 1.5 |
| Mercedes | Germany | 1.9 |
| FIAT | Italy | 2.2 |
| Peugeot + Citroen | France | 3.3 |
| Honda | Japan | 3.8 |
| Hundai + Kia | Korea | 4.2 |
| VW | Germany | 6.2 |
| Toyota | Japan | 9.0 |
(Base country shown but all manufacturers have plants in multiple countries.)
Friday, June 12, 2009
Technological Solutions for Improving Fuel Efficiency Now
There are several technologies that improve light duty vehicle miles per gallon (mpg) and in piecemeal fashion all of them are applied in today's cars and minivans, and some SUVs and light trucks.
They include lower rolling restistantance tires, cylinder deactivation (must have at least 6 cylinders), a start-stop system that kills the engine during idle times, electric power steering so that idt does not load the engine via a hydraulic pump, 6 speed automatic gearbox which can be found in some affordable cars such as the 2009 Chevy Malibu, smaller engine with a supercharger and direct gasoline injection inot the cylinders, in the same way that diesel engines work for nearly 100 years now.
Here is a table that summarizes all these and provides a listing on the basis of bang for the buck.
Some interesting observations are as follows: All these technologies are affordable and even if all are combined together the total cost addition to a $25,000 vehicle is relatively small. For example, applying all solutions from 1 to 7 except for 5 yield a total estimate of about $3,000 and an MPG gain of 18%.
However, some of them are not necessarily compatible with each other. For example, changing from a 3 liter V6 to a 2 liter turbocharged engine no longer enables cylinder deactivation.
So if we take a 2009 Ford Fusion that delivers 23 mpg overall, an 18% improvement in fuel efficiency yields 28 mpg. If its user clocks 12,000 per year, he or she will realize a savings of roughly 470 galons of gasoline or $1,400 for a price per gallon of $3.00
The lesson here appears to be that a paradigm shift is necessary to make light duty vehicles both affordable and energy efficient. This paradigm shift includes two major components:
(1) massive reduction in vehicle mass (what we popularly call weight) which will likely bring a reduction in size as well and as an added benefit, there will be normal use for parking stalls labelled "compact."
(2) replacement of high displacement gasoline motors with diesel motors, electric drives or both.
A combination of (1) and (2) can result in susbtantial energy economy at an affodable price. Toyota Prius and Honda Insight are the current and largely convincing proof of this, but the future is bright and promissing.
They include lower rolling restistantance tires, cylinder deactivation (must have at least 6 cylinders), a start-stop system that kills the engine during idle times, electric power steering so that idt does not load the engine via a hydraulic pump, 6 speed automatic gearbox which can be found in some affordable cars such as the 2009 Chevy Malibu, smaller engine with a supercharger and direct gasoline injection inot the cylinders, in the same way that diesel engines work for nearly 100 years now.
Here is a table that summarizes all these and provides a listing on the basis of bang for the buck.
| U.S. $ Cost/Car | MPG Reduction (%) | Bang / Buck | ||
| 1 | Low rolling resistance tires | 6 | 1 | 167 |
| 2 | Cylinder deactivation | 225 | 4.5 | 20 |
| 3 | 6 speed auto transmission | 260 | 5 | 19 |
| 4 | Electric power assist steering | 180 | 1.5 | 8 |
| 5 | Smaller engine with turbocharger | 750 | 5 | 7 |
| 6 | Start-stop system (kill engine at idle) | 1900 | 5 | 3 |
| 7 | Direct gasoline injection (like diesel engines) | 400 | 1 | 3 |
| 3721 | 18 |
Some interesting observations are as follows: All these technologies are affordable and even if all are combined together the total cost addition to a $25,000 vehicle is relatively small. For example, applying all solutions from 1 to 7 except for 5 yield a total estimate of about $3,000 and an MPG gain of 18%.
However, some of them are not necessarily compatible with each other. For example, changing from a 3 liter V6 to a 2 liter turbocharged engine no longer enables cylinder deactivation.
So if we take a 2009 Ford Fusion that delivers 23 mpg overall, an 18% improvement in fuel efficiency yields 28 mpg. If its user clocks 12,000 per year, he or she will realize a savings of roughly 470 galons of gasoline or $1,400 for a price per gallon of $3.00
The lesson here appears to be that a paradigm shift is necessary to make light duty vehicles both affordable and energy efficient. This paradigm shift includes two major components:
(1) massive reduction in vehicle mass (what we popularly call weight) which will likely bring a reduction in size as well and as an added benefit, there will be normal use for parking stalls labelled "compact."
(2) replacement of high displacement gasoline motors with diesel motors, electric drives or both.
A combination of (1) and (2) can result in susbtantial energy economy at an affodable price. Toyota Prius and Honda Insight are the current and largely convincing proof of this, but the future is bright and promissing.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Concerns About Honolulu's Rail Project Process Are Mounting
Four important organizations in Hawaii with a long and proud legacy on both environmental and traffic management concerns, The Outdoor Circle, the League of Women Voters, HonoluluTraffic.com and Hawaii's 1,000 Friends are discussing the many and significant flaws in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed rail system for Oahu. See it here: http://www.hvca.org/video.aspx?video=rail.wmv
Meanwhile I am gravely concerned about the Honolulu City Council's haste and lack of desire to insert accountability controls in the budget that includes hundreds of millions of dollars for this project, as described in this article printed in Honolulu Star Bulletin (http://www.starbulletin.com/editorials/20090609_Council_poised_to_go_off_the_rail.html). Full text below:
Honolulu’s Council that represents almost 900,000 people on Oahu is about to make a major fiscal and political error. They are about to grant the authority to the city administration to start rail without environmental approvals and without federal monies. Council also plans to approve to start the project about a mile outside Kapolei, and develop a six mile elevated rail to Waipahu. Worse yet, they plan to approve the float of eleven hundred million dollars in bonds for rail with no stipulations or accountability controls. This $1,100 million obligation must be paid back by the Oahu taxpayer, plus interest.
These actions demonstrate a lack of responsibility, due diligence and common sense. Here is a partial list of what is lacking in this process.
Lack of uncertainty analysis in costs and ridership. The city and its consultants follow the bankrupt Everything Goes According to Plan principle. They have a cost contingency plan but it’ll evaporate by this prolonged recession. Most economists do not predict much growth for at least five years into the future. The city’s solution to insufficient funds will be more taxes, but the feds cannot approve a financial plan that is not ground on current reality.
How about the ridership? This project was justified by the assumption that by 2030 there will be many more residents in leeward Oahu and many more jobs all over Oahu that 738,000 more daily trips would occur in 2030 than in 2005, and 401,000 of these new trips would develop between Aiea, Mililani and Kapolei. Is there anyone that believes that this assumption is correct? The cost-effectiveness criteria for this project are now much lower than calculated in 2006. Updated estimates could disqualify it for federal funds.
Lack of sufficient investigation of technologies more suitable to Oahu’s environment such as underground segments and at-grade segments. True light rail, in full or in part, was never studied.
Lack of sound decision making which would have chosen an initial operating segment between Ala Moana Center and Aloha Stadium.
Lack of sound decision making in proceeding with construction without a completed and specific funding agreement with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA.) Actually this count alone qualifies Council actions as reckless and contrary to the best interests of the Oahu citizenry that they represent.
The U.S. is broke and the FTA faces several hundred billion dollars of necessary maintenance of existing transit systems including rail and bus fleets, thus billion dollar allocations to new systems are unlikely.
How much taxation escalation and irresponsible decision making is enough before a tipping point is reached and Oahu begins to lose population at an accelerated rate? (Thus making rail even more irrelevant.) Oahu lost a few thousand people from 2006 to the present time. More taxes, less services and rail to nowhere add to the existing misery and are strong incentives for a mass exodus.
Meanwhile I am gravely concerned about the Honolulu City Council's haste and lack of desire to insert accountability controls in the budget that includes hundreds of millions of dollars for this project, as described in this article printed in Honolulu Star Bulletin (http://www.starbulletin.com/editorials/20090609_Council_poised_to_go_off_the_rail.html). Full text below:
Honolulu’s Council that represents almost 900,000 people on Oahu is about to make a major fiscal and political error. They are about to grant the authority to the city administration to start rail without environmental approvals and without federal monies. Council also plans to approve to start the project about a mile outside Kapolei, and develop a six mile elevated rail to Waipahu. Worse yet, they plan to approve the float of eleven hundred million dollars in bonds for rail with no stipulations or accountability controls. This $1,100 million obligation must be paid back by the Oahu taxpayer, plus interest.
These actions demonstrate a lack of responsibility, due diligence and common sense. Here is a partial list of what is lacking in this process.
Lack of uncertainty analysis in costs and ridership. The city and its consultants follow the bankrupt Everything Goes According to Plan principle. They have a cost contingency plan but it’ll evaporate by this prolonged recession. Most economists do not predict much growth for at least five years into the future. The city’s solution to insufficient funds will be more taxes, but the feds cannot approve a financial plan that is not ground on current reality.
How about the ridership? This project was justified by the assumption that by 2030 there will be many more residents in leeward Oahu and many more jobs all over Oahu that 738,000 more daily trips would occur in 2030 than in 2005, and 401,000 of these new trips would develop between Aiea, Mililani and Kapolei. Is there anyone that believes that this assumption is correct? The cost-effectiveness criteria for this project are now much lower than calculated in 2006. Updated estimates could disqualify it for federal funds.
Lack of sufficient investigation of technologies more suitable to Oahu’s environment such as underground segments and at-grade segments. True light rail, in full or in part, was never studied.
Lack of sound decision making which would have chosen an initial operating segment between Ala Moana Center and Aloha Stadium.
Lack of sound decision making in proceeding with construction without a completed and specific funding agreement with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA.) Actually this count alone qualifies Council actions as reckless and contrary to the best interests of the Oahu citizenry that they represent.
The U.S. is broke and the FTA faces several hundred billion dollars of necessary maintenance of existing transit systems including rail and bus fleets, thus billion dollar allocations to new systems are unlikely.
How much taxation escalation and irresponsible decision making is enough before a tipping point is reached and Oahu begins to lose population at an accelerated rate? (Thus making rail even more irrelevant.) Oahu lost a few thousand people from 2006 to the present time. More taxes, less services and rail to nowhere add to the existing misery and are strong incentives for a mass exodus.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Hawaii Highway Modernization ...
... or (unfortunately,) the failure of enacting it.
A fairly ambitious bill was submitted to the Hawaii State Legislature this year but it died in committee. The Bill would have raised gasoline and weight taxes to collect about three billion dollars and along with one billion in federal funds was planning to do a large number of shovel-ready projects to improve congestion bottlenecks, retrofit or replace old bridges, mitigate rockfall sites, improve pavements, etc. Highlights and the list of projects can be found here: Hawaii Highway Modernization. The bill may be taken up again at the 2010 legislative session.
A TV program was developed to discuss this lost opportunity. It is available in four parts on YouTube, as follows.
State Representative Cynthia Thielen Discusses Transportation with Professor Panos D. Prevedouros
Part 1 -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhRRadWez0w
Part 2 -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wfYAW-XihY
Part 3 -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ytn2DoIiYw
Part 4 -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiDf53G204Y
A fairly ambitious bill was submitted to the Hawaii State Legislature this year but it died in committee. The Bill would have raised gasoline and weight taxes to collect about three billion dollars and along with one billion in federal funds was planning to do a large number of shovel-ready projects to improve congestion bottlenecks, retrofit or replace old bridges, mitigate rockfall sites, improve pavements, etc. Highlights and the list of projects can be found here: Hawaii Highway Modernization. The bill may be taken up again at the 2010 legislative session.
A TV program was developed to discuss this lost opportunity. It is available in four parts on YouTube, as follows.
State Representative Cynthia Thielen Discusses Transportation with Professor Panos D. Prevedouros
Part 1 -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhRRadWez0w
Part 2 -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wfYAW-XihY
Part 3 -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ytn2DoIiYw
Part 4 -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiDf53G204Y
International Symposium on Freeway and Tollway Operations in Honolulu
The 2nd International Symposium on Freeway and Tollway Operations has Active Traffic Management of expressway facilities as its core theme. The 2nd ISFO is designed to bring together freeway and tollway operators, practitioners and researchers specializing in freeway operations, highway toll operations and expressway infrastructure development. Over 150 presentations are scheduled in 35 sessions between June 21 and 24, 2009 at the Hyatt Regency Waikiki in Honolulu.
Presentations at the Symposium will:
The Symposium is conducted under the aegis of the Transportation Research Board, a unit of the National Academy of Engineering, and with sponsorship by the Federal Highway Administration and the Hawaii State Department of Transportation.
The Monday plenary program includes remarks from Lieutenant Governor James Duke Aiona, the Director of the Hawaii State DOT Dr. Brennon Morioka, Robert Poole of the Reason foundation, Dr. Joris Al from the Dutch Ministry of Transportation, and a keynote address by the internationally renowned transportation analyst and historian Alan Pisarski. Executives from Canada, China and Greece will provide regional state of the art reports for North America, Asia and Europe, respectively.
Active Traffic Management means being on top of corridor-wide traffic conditions 24x7 year-round and proactively adjusting controls to avoid or minimize jams. The Monday afternoon program also includes six presentations on active traffic management, and other modern methods in traffic operations. Most of these methods are highly effective, modestly expensive, necessary and applicable to Hawaii but largely absent from Hawaii at the present time.
For more information and registration visit the Symposium’s website at http://2isfo.eng.hawaii.edu and contact the Symposium coordinator Pacific Rim Concepts LLC at prc@hawaiibiz.rr.com. For technical information please contact Dr. Panos Prevedouros at pdp@hawaii.edu, chair of the symposium’s steering and organizing committees.
Hawaii Legislators, Council members and all State and City officials are cordially invited to the opening of the 2nd ISFO on Monday, June 22 from 7:30 AM to 11:30 AM. Registration is required for attending the luncheon and the subsequent program.
Presentations at the Symposium will:
- Capture the state of the practice in freeway and tollway operations including current programs and planned initiatives for Active Traffic Management.
- Discuss Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) and managed lanes.
- Explore the potential benefits of using managed lanes, tolling, pricing, and other strategies to improve traffic operations on congested freeways.
- Present methods and challenges for infrastructure financing and development.
The Symposium is conducted under the aegis of the Transportation Research Board, a unit of the National Academy of Engineering, and with sponsorship by the Federal Highway Administration and the Hawaii State Department of Transportation.
The Monday plenary program includes remarks from Lieutenant Governor James Duke Aiona, the Director of the Hawaii State DOT Dr. Brennon Morioka, Robert Poole of the Reason foundation, Dr. Joris Al from the Dutch Ministry of Transportation, and a keynote address by the internationally renowned transportation analyst and historian Alan Pisarski. Executives from Canada, China and Greece will provide regional state of the art reports for North America, Asia and Europe, respectively.
Active Traffic Management means being on top of corridor-wide traffic conditions 24x7 year-round and proactively adjusting controls to avoid or minimize jams. The Monday afternoon program also includes six presentations on active traffic management, and other modern methods in traffic operations. Most of these methods are highly effective, modestly expensive, necessary and applicable to Hawaii but largely absent from Hawaii at the present time.
For more information and registration visit the Symposium’s website at http://2isfo.eng.hawaii.edu and contact the Symposium coordinator Pacific Rim Concepts LLC at prc@hawaiibiz.rr.com. For technical information please contact Dr. Panos Prevedouros at pdp@hawaii.edu, chair of the symposium’s steering and organizing committees.
Hawaii Legislators, Council members and all State and City officials are cordially invited to the opening of the 2nd ISFO on Monday, June 22 from 7:30 AM to 11:30 AM. Registration is required for attending the luncheon and the subsequent program.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Conversation with a Rail Proponent from Texas
From time to time I receive thoughtful arguments about my posts. Craig, a senior attorney in Texas and I started conversing about the impacts of transportation on climate change. He remains a transit proponent (for now) and I remain a proponent of independence and automobility. Here is is our most recent exchange. Craig's part is first, and my response follows.
=====================================================
Craig,
As an engineer I must provide remedies based on the full set of realities in front of me and not on any behavioral or theoretical schemes for the future.
Indeed SF, Chicago and NYC are special cases of transit and as you pointed out, the reason is the real limitations in automobility, primarily the lack of space and/pricing of parking.
Once you move out of this "10%" you need to confront the remainder "90%" of America which is sprawl. Trains and buses are massively expensive and massively inconvenient in spread out places. I had no part in spreading out American cities but the same is true for suburban Paris, London, Athens or even Tokyo.
I stayed for a while at Saitama University. Saitama cannot be differentiated from Tokyo but you need one or two buses to get to any rail stations that take you to fun or important places in Tokyo. What a production and waste of time, but road capacity in Tokyo make this transportation arrangement necessary. But there is no parallel of this to Houston, LA, Atlanta, Honolulu or what I called above the 90% of America.
The worst part of mass transit is that outside of 4-5 hours of peak travel, buses and trains run near empty, and unions mandate double shifts, overtime, and on and on. We are talking about excessive human labor and energy waste. In contrast, an 100 mpg Prius descendant in 2025 is highly likely (the current Prius is far more efficient than any light rail) and any Prius like car is totally benign outside the 60-100 minutes of average daily use.
This comment of yours is both fundamental and spot on: There are three reasons why mass transit does not work - it is not available/reliable, or it is not safe, or it is not comfortable.
Here is my comment on these fundamentals of mass transit:
(1) Rail is not available, bus is not reliable. Except for a few multimillion population cities and Manhattan, rail stations are too far apart for most residents in most cities. Buses are caught in road jams so they are not reliable. Few cities are smart enough to develop HOT lanes with priority for buses along jammed segments.
(2) It is not safe. Indeed bus and rail stops are shelters for homeless and retail points for frugs and other contraband. Also rail systems provide quick getaways, so robberies around stations are many more than other parts of the same city (see Vancouver and Portland statistics.)
(3) Not comfortable. Problems abound from overcrowding, pushing, groping, bad smells, loud music, intimidating and unstable people and inability to carry American sized groceries and other shopping. There is reason why 95% of Americans abandoned buses and trains. And they are not going back.
Society seems to have progressed along technology paths and personal independence. Cultural and social revolutions have fallen flat on their face. History seems to repeat itself, so the future will form along paths of technology and independence, some of which we cannot even imagine today. After all, the car is only 100 years old, and roughly only 50 years old as an affordable transportation appliance. The computer and cellphone are roughly 20 years old. Who knows what it is is store of us 20 and 50 years forth. But buses are rails are not likely to determine anything essential in our lives.
All best,
Panos
First of all, thank you so much for your reply. I have commented briefly below on your assertions.
I am really glad to hear from you. I have written to several other knowledgeable folks, but they are evidently very important and busy. In any case, I have read extensively in this venue, and have more than a few serious concerns. I would like to work them out, since more than one source predicts disaster. [He refers to global warming and its effects.]
If you would provide some clear evidence to guide me, I would be happy to change my mind about the future. I have a great deal of experience in travel, both in the US and in Europe, and in many American cities as well as cities in Europe. San Francisco, for instance, has the BART, which is used extensively and is dependable, safe and reasonably comfortable. Its major problem is crowding. They also have bus service that runs 24-7, at reasonable times. I was able to go anywhere in San Francisco during the middle of the day in about 10 minutes to 15 minutes, using mass transit. The same trip by car, because of parking problems, would take much longer, and cost much more.
Perhaps you have a problem with the cost of this sort of service. I do not. I know that taxes are a bit higher to cover the cost of transit. However, in San Francisco I did not need an automobile, and there was, believe me, a high net gain on the transaction. How is individual automobile travel going to overcome the problems that portend in the near and mid future, much less the longer range?
It just depends on your framing and viewpoint, I suppose. I have never viewed the automobile as anything more than a way to go from one place to another. It has no status value to me; I dislike the expense of purchasing it, the fact that I must transport 3000 pounds of vehicle to move 190 pounds of me, or that it creates pollution and is expensive to insure, service and fuel. I could live very well without an automobile. There are three reasons why mass transit does not work - it is not available/reliable, or it is not safe, or it is not comfortable.
Right now, I am not convinced that automobiles have much of a future. Please talk me down.
With great appreciation and interest,
Craig _________
=====================================================
Craig,
As an engineer I must provide remedies based on the full set of realities in front of me and not on any behavioral or theoretical schemes for the future.
Indeed SF, Chicago and NYC are special cases of transit and as you pointed out, the reason is the real limitations in automobility, primarily the lack of space and/pricing of parking.
Once you move out of this "10%" you need to confront the remainder "90%" of America which is sprawl. Trains and buses are massively expensive and massively inconvenient in spread out places. I had no part in spreading out American cities but the same is true for suburban Paris, London, Athens or even Tokyo.
I stayed for a while at Saitama University. Saitama cannot be differentiated from Tokyo but you need one or two buses to get to any rail stations that take you to fun or important places in Tokyo. What a production and waste of time, but road capacity in Tokyo make this transportation arrangement necessary. But there is no parallel of this to Houston, LA, Atlanta, Honolulu or what I called above the 90% of America.
The worst part of mass transit is that outside of 4-5 hours of peak travel, buses and trains run near empty, and unions mandate double shifts, overtime, and on and on. We are talking about excessive human labor and energy waste. In contrast, an 100 mpg Prius descendant in 2025 is highly likely (the current Prius is far more efficient than any light rail) and any Prius like car is totally benign outside the 60-100 minutes of average daily use.
This comment of yours is both fundamental and spot on: There are three reasons why mass transit does not work - it is not available/reliable, or it is not safe, or it is not comfortable.
Here is my comment on these fundamentals of mass transit:
(1) Rail is not available, bus is not reliable. Except for a few multimillion population cities and Manhattan, rail stations are too far apart for most residents in most cities. Buses are caught in road jams so they are not reliable. Few cities are smart enough to develop HOT lanes with priority for buses along jammed segments.
(2) It is not safe. Indeed bus and rail stops are shelters for homeless and retail points for frugs and other contraband. Also rail systems provide quick getaways, so robberies around stations are many more than other parts of the same city (see Vancouver and Portland statistics.)
(3) Not comfortable. Problems abound from overcrowding, pushing, groping, bad smells, loud music, intimidating and unstable people and inability to carry American sized groceries and other shopping. There is reason why 95% of Americans abandoned buses and trains. And they are not going back.
Society seems to have progressed along technology paths and personal independence. Cultural and social revolutions have fallen flat on their face. History seems to repeat itself, so the future will form along paths of technology and independence, some of which we cannot even imagine today. After all, the car is only 100 years old, and roughly only 50 years old as an affordable transportation appliance. The computer and cellphone are roughly 20 years old. Who knows what it is is store of us 20 and 50 years forth. But buses are rails are not likely to determine anything essential in our lives.
All best,
Panos
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Greek Traffic Rules (humor)
ΚΑΝΟΝΕΣ ΟΔΗΓΗΣΗΣ ΕΛΛΗΝΩΝ – GREEK TRAFFIC RULES
Τα φλας προδίδουν την επόμενη κίνηση σου. Ο γνήσιος Έλληνας οδηγός δεν τα χρησιμοποιεί ποτέ.
Turn signals indicate your next move. Do not reveal it to them.
Σε καμία περίπτωση δεν πρέπει να κρατάτε απόσταση ασφαλείας από το προπορευόμενο όχημα διότι στο κενό που αφήσατε μπορεί να «χωθεί» κάποιο άλλο όχημα φέρνοντας σας σε ακόμα πιο δύσκολη θέση.
Never keep a safe distance from the vehicle ahead. Some other vehicle will squeeze in there and make your position even more unsafe.
Όσο πιο γρήγορα διασχίσετε ένα κόκκινο φανάρι, τόσο μειώνονται οι πιθανότητες να συγκρουσθείτε με άλλο όχημα.
The faster you run a red light the lesser the chance that you will collide with another vehicle.
Ποτέ μα ποτέ μην ακινητοποιήσετε το όχημα σας σε πινακίδα 'STOP'. Τα οχήματα που σας ακολουθούν δεν θα περιμένουν αυτή την αντίδραση σας, με αποτέλεσμα να καρφωθούν» πάνω σας.
Never come to a complete stop at a STOP sign because nobody expects you to do such a thing, and so you will find them in your trunk.
Το φρενάρισμα πρέπει να γίνετε όσο πιο αργά μπορείτε για να σιγουρέψετε την καλή λειτουργία του ABS , το οποίο με τη σειρά του θα σας ανταμείψει με ένα χαλαρωτικό μασάζ του ποδιού σας.
Use the brakes as late as possible so you can get the benefit of a foot massage from the ABS.
Τα όρια ταχύτητας είναι αυθαίρετοι αριθμοί που δίνονται μόνο ως πρόταση και δεν είναι προφανώς εκτελέσιμα στην Ελλάδα.
Speed limits are random advisory numbers that are obviously not binding for drivers.
Μάθετε να αλλάζετε λωρίδες με γρήγορους χειρισμούς. Χάρις στον υπουργό συγκοινωνιών, η Ελλάδα έχει μετατραπεί σε μια απέραντη πίστα με τρύπες-κλειδιά οι οποίες έχουν τοποθετηθεί σε καίρια σημεία για να ελέγξουν τα αντανακλαστικά σας.
Learn to change lanes on a dime. Thanks to the Ministry of Transport, Greece is full of potholes placed for testing your reflexes.
Είναι παράδοση στην Ελλάδα να κορνάρεις μόλις ανάψει το πράσινο φανάρι ακόμα και αν είστε πρώτος σ' αυτό.
Do not forget the Greek tradition to honk as soon as the light turns green, even if you are first in line.
Πάντα θα υπάρχει ένας πολύ καλός λόγος για τον οποίο εσείς θα βιάζεστε. Αντιθέτως όλοι οι υπόλοιποι οδηγοί των οχημάτων που θα συναντήσετε στον δρόμο σας δεν έχουν ιδέα γιατί πήραν τους δρόμους σήμερα.
There is always a good reason for you to be in a rush, whereas all other drivers have no idea why they are in traffic today.
Το προστατευτικό κράνος φοριέται στον αγκώνα. Σας συμβουλεύουμε να ακολουθήσετε και εσείς τη μόδα.
Motocycle helmets are to be fashionably carried as a hand bag. Please follow this rule.
Το στερεοφωνικό του οχήματος σας πρέπει να παίζει στο φουλ. Με αυτό τον τρόπο διασκεδάζετε τους πεζούς που περιμένουν υπομονετικά πότε θα τους δώσει κάποιος προτεραιότητα να διασχίσουν την διάβαση.
You car's sound system should be used at full blast in town. In this way the pedestrians can be entertained while hopelessly waiting for someone to yield.
Οι πεζοί είναι οι κυριότεροι εχθροί των οδηγών, διότι καταλαμβάνουν χώρο στα πεζοδρόμια με αποτέλεσμα να μην μπορούν να σταθμεύσουν αυτοκίνητα.
Pedestrians are the enemy of drivers, chiefly because they occupy the sidewalks which provide a fine place for double parking.
Τα φλας προδίδουν την επόμενη κίνηση σου. Ο γνήσιος Έλληνας οδηγός δεν τα χρησιμοποιεί ποτέ.
Turn signals indicate your next move. Do not reveal it to them.
Σε καμία περίπτωση δεν πρέπει να κρατάτε απόσταση ασφαλείας από το προπορευόμενο όχημα διότι στο κενό που αφήσατε μπορεί να «χωθεί» κάποιο άλλο όχημα φέρνοντας σας σε ακόμα πιο δύσκολη θέση.
Never keep a safe distance from the vehicle ahead. Some other vehicle will squeeze in there and make your position even more unsafe.
Όσο πιο γρήγορα διασχίσετε ένα κόκκινο φανάρι, τόσο μειώνονται οι πιθανότητες να συγκρουσθείτε με άλλο όχημα.
The faster you run a red light the lesser the chance that you will collide with another vehicle.
Ποτέ μα ποτέ μην ακινητοποιήσετε το όχημα σας σε πινακίδα 'STOP'. Τα οχήματα που σας ακολουθούν δεν θα περιμένουν αυτή την αντίδραση σας, με αποτέλεσμα να καρφωθούν» πάνω σας.
Never come to a complete stop at a STOP sign because nobody expects you to do such a thing, and so you will find them in your trunk.
Το φρενάρισμα πρέπει να γίνετε όσο πιο αργά μπορείτε για να σιγουρέψετε την καλή λειτουργία του ABS , το οποίο με τη σειρά του θα σας ανταμείψει με ένα χαλαρωτικό μασάζ του ποδιού σας.
Use the brakes as late as possible so you can get the benefit of a foot massage from the ABS.
Τα όρια ταχύτητας είναι αυθαίρετοι αριθμοί που δίνονται μόνο ως πρόταση και δεν είναι προφανώς εκτελέσιμα στην Ελλάδα.
Speed limits are random advisory numbers that are obviously not binding for drivers.
Μάθετε να αλλάζετε λωρίδες με γρήγορους χειρισμούς. Χάρις στον υπουργό συγκοινωνιών, η Ελλάδα έχει μετατραπεί σε μια απέραντη πίστα με τρύπες-κλειδιά οι οποίες έχουν τοποθετηθεί σε καίρια σημεία για να ελέγξουν τα αντανακλαστικά σας.
Learn to change lanes on a dime. Thanks to the Ministry of Transport, Greece is full of potholes placed for testing your reflexes.
Είναι παράδοση στην Ελλάδα να κορνάρεις μόλις ανάψει το πράσινο φανάρι ακόμα και αν είστε πρώτος σ' αυτό.
Do not forget the Greek tradition to honk as soon as the light turns green, even if you are first in line.
Πάντα θα υπάρχει ένας πολύ καλός λόγος για τον οποίο εσείς θα βιάζεστε. Αντιθέτως όλοι οι υπόλοιποι οδηγοί των οχημάτων που θα συναντήσετε στον δρόμο σας δεν έχουν ιδέα γιατί πήραν τους δρόμους σήμερα.
There is always a good reason for you to be in a rush, whereas all other drivers have no idea why they are in traffic today.
Το προστατευτικό κράνος φοριέται στον αγκώνα. Σας συμβουλεύουμε να ακολουθήσετε και εσείς τη μόδα.
Motocycle helmets are to be fashionably carried as a hand bag. Please follow this rule.
Το στερεοφωνικό του οχήματος σας πρέπει να παίζει στο φουλ. Με αυτό τον τρόπο διασκεδάζετε τους πεζούς που περιμένουν υπομονετικά πότε θα τους δώσει κάποιος προτεραιότητα να διασχίσουν την διάβαση.
You car's sound system should be used at full blast in town. In this way the pedestrians can be entertained while hopelessly waiting for someone to yield.
Οι πεζοί είναι οι κυριότεροι εχθροί των οδηγών, διότι καταλαμβάνουν χώρο στα πεζοδρόμια με αποτέλεσμα να μην μπορούν να σταθμεύσουν αυτοκίνητα.
Pedestrians are the enemy of drivers, chiefly because they occupy the sidewalks which provide a fine place for double parking.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Things Wrong with Honolulu Roads -- May 2009 Update
At least three things are wrong in the picture below:
(1) The wind has blown one traffic signal open.
(2) The sign is vandalized with stickers.
(3) Traffic has the right of way but the pedestrian is crossing against the light and outside the crosswalk.
At the same intersection, more things are wrong. Motorists can barely see the yellow light when it's on,
and the red light is totally hidden by the overgrown tree branches. This increases accident risk and creates substantial liability for the city.
Historically there have been a lot of complaints about uncoordinated road construction projects. Here is an example: The new pavement shown below was constructed seven months ago and should have an expected life of good service of about 15 years. In a well-managed city that is. By Honolulu standard it'll be pothole patched for an additional 15 years.
This smooth pavement is about to be cut open for an underground installation.
These pictures were taken in one half hour period between Diamond Head and the UH-Manoa campus. No attempt was made to photograph the ruts and potholes along 22nd Avenue in Kaimuki. Although a massive pavement job was done on Kilauea Avenue from KCC to Kahala, busy 22nd Ave. (a bus route too) was ignored. The roughness index on 22nd Ave should be below 30, with 100 being the best and 75 being the point at which the road is entered into a repaving schedule so that it can be repaved before its roughness reaches 50.
The problem is that many neighborhood roads are much worse than 22nd Avenue, e.g., several low volume roads in Manoa and Kailua that I have seen. We still have no preventative maintenance and our catch up is too slow to catch up because of wrong priorities and budget allocations. Reduced tax collections will only make matters worse in the next bienium.
---- Update ----
Pleased to be 48 hours ahead of AASHTO, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials that on Friday, May 8 issued a report Rough Roads Ahead: Fix Them Now or Pay for It Later. Here's an interesting piece of information that affects us directly in the pocketbook:
Driving on rough roads costs the average American motorist approximately $400 a year in extra vehicle operating costs. Drivers living in urban areas with populations over 250,000 are paying upwards of $750 more annually because of accelerated vehicle deterioration, increased maintenance, additional fuel consumption, and tire wear caused by poor road conditions.
(1) The wind has blown one traffic signal open.
(2) The sign is vandalized with stickers.
(3) Traffic has the right of way but the pedestrian is crossing against the light and outside the crosswalk.
At the same intersection, more things are wrong. Motorists can barely see the yellow light when it's on,
and the red light is totally hidden by the overgrown tree branches. This increases accident risk and creates substantial liability for the city.Historically there have been a lot of complaints about uncoordinated road construction projects. Here is an example: The new pavement shown below was constructed seven months ago and should have an expected life of good service of about 15 years. In a well-managed city that is. By Honolulu standard it'll be pothole patched for an additional 15 years.
This smooth pavement is about to be cut open for an underground installation.
These pictures were taken in one half hour period between Diamond Head and the UH-Manoa campus. No attempt was made to photograph the ruts and potholes along 22nd Avenue in Kaimuki. Although a massive pavement job was done on Kilauea Avenue from KCC to Kahala, busy 22nd Ave. (a bus route too) was ignored. The roughness index on 22nd Ave should be below 30, with 100 being the best and 75 being the point at which the road is entered into a repaving schedule so that it can be repaved before its roughness reaches 50.
The problem is that many neighborhood roads are much worse than 22nd Avenue, e.g., several low volume roads in Manoa and Kailua that I have seen. We still have no preventative maintenance and our catch up is too slow to catch up because of wrong priorities and budget allocations. Reduced tax collections will only make matters worse in the next bienium.
---- Update ----
Pleased to be 48 hours ahead of AASHTO, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials that on Friday, May 8 issued a report Rough Roads Ahead: Fix Them Now or Pay for It Later. Here's an interesting piece of information that affects us directly in the pocketbook:
Driving on rough roads costs the average American motorist approximately $400 a year in extra vehicle operating costs. Drivers living in urban areas with populations over 250,000 are paying upwards of $750 more annually because of accelerated vehicle deterioration, increased maintenance, additional fuel consumption, and tire wear caused by poor road conditions.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Sustainability Q&A
Recently I gave a presentation on sustainability to the Graduate Seminar course in civil engineering (CEE 691). Along with it I was given a list of questions and asked to answer them in brief. The presentation can be found h e r e. The Q+A is shown below.
1. What is sustainable development?
Sustainability is still not uniquely and comprehensively defined – sustainable development may be an oxymoron: For example, if Oahu is not sustainable as is, any additional development is a move in the wrong direction. Sustainable “anything” likely means minimized impact to Earth.
2. Give specific ideas on how civil engineers can contribute to sustainable development.
Recycle demolition materials, tires, pavements and all used materials that can be reused. Build only highly cost effective and necessary infrastructure and structures. Develop synthetic substitutes from waste. Treat and reuse water. Find low impact substitute for Portland Cement Concrete.
3. What does “sustainability” mean for the state of Hawaii?
Minimize energy dependence. Manage population growth and suburban sprawl. Make recycling and intelligent technologies a top priority. Produce methanol from biomass. Widespread usage of solar roofs. Facilitate electric vehicles.
4. What new policies of President Obama are related to sustainable development? Which of his ideas will benefit civil engineering specifically?
He seems to be putting too much emphasis on renewables and some of them are terribly cost ineffective. For the needs of this county, only nuclear energy is a clean substitute. I have yet to see any major policies that lead to sustainable engineering and development. On the contrary, his intercity high speed rail initiative is a mistake. (See previous blog poist, part 3.)
5. What new policies of Governor Lingle are related to sustainable development?
The agreement with Better Place for enabling electric vehicles is a major one. Better Place works like a gas station. It's an electric vehicle battery station. You buy the car, they supply the batteries. The more you drive, the more frequently you need charged batteries, the more you visit them to exchange spent batteries with charged ones. It's like buying gas with frequent user discounts similar to cell phone minutes. Better Place will install battery swap stations at selected gas stations. A battery swap will take only a few minutes; similar or shorter than a gas fill-up. The concept takes the fear out of running out of batteries, having to reach home for a charge, and having to replace expensive battery arrays.
6. Were communities 1000 years ago more sustainable than modern society is?
The pre-medieval hunger, disease and murder put strong pressures on population, and low population is one way to keep resource consumption low, but we are way past those times. Besides, the open fires of that age created much more pollution (per capita) than the current industrialization.
7. When we look at the human history, each individual has become more specialized and different countries also become more dependent on each other through trade and “globalization”. Is this a good trend? Shall we reverse it?
From the ancient times, trade among tribes was widespread. We now see the modern evolution of it. The globalization of trade is accelerating with more people, companies and countries involved in it every day. It is a natural flow impeded only by artificial protectionist policies. What many people resent is the globalization of culture. This is a less desirable byproduct of a rapidly interconnecting human race. It is up to individual regions to keep traditions of their cultures alive.
8. Some in America consider our dependence on foreign oil as a national security issue. Please explain the reasons behind their thinking. Do you agree with them?
For most any county, national energy production and consumption characteristics and the national energy policy are key inputs its nation's sustainability and by integration, to international sustainability. Energy supply from abroad is a vulnerability (e.g., U.S. dependency on Saudi Arabia for oil, EU dependency on natural gas from Russia, etc.) It is a major political and economic challenge but it is debatable whether it rises to the level of national security. On the other hand, France and Japan seem to think so since the former is 80% and the latter aims to 50% of nuclear energy, which makes them much less dependent on fossil fuel supply and pricing.
9. Some countries in the world do not produce their own food, cars or airplanes. Their main resources are oil. They sell oil and then import all other goods that they need. Is their dependence on other countries’ food, cars and airplanes also a national security issue for them? What are your thoughts?
The oil cartel is an established oligopoly with major power and a corresponding ability to destabilize international markets. The provision of cars, food and other consumables is neither an oligopoly nor a cartel. They can be obtained from several competing sources. Thus, oil producing nations are (currently) at a major advantage.
1. What is sustainable development?
Sustainability is still not uniquely and comprehensively defined – sustainable development may be an oxymoron: For example, if Oahu is not sustainable as is, any additional development is a move in the wrong direction. Sustainable “anything” likely means minimized impact to Earth.
2. Give specific ideas on how civil engineers can contribute to sustainable development.
Recycle demolition materials, tires, pavements and all used materials that can be reused. Build only highly cost effective and necessary infrastructure and structures. Develop synthetic substitutes from waste. Treat and reuse water. Find low impact substitute for Portland Cement Concrete.
3. What does “sustainability” mean for the state of Hawaii?
Minimize energy dependence. Manage population growth and suburban sprawl. Make recycling and intelligent technologies a top priority. Produce methanol from biomass. Widespread usage of solar roofs. Facilitate electric vehicles.
4. What new policies of President Obama are related to sustainable development? Which of his ideas will benefit civil engineering specifically?
He seems to be putting too much emphasis on renewables and some of them are terribly cost ineffective. For the needs of this county, only nuclear energy is a clean substitute. I have yet to see any major policies that lead to sustainable engineering and development. On the contrary, his intercity high speed rail initiative is a mistake. (See previous blog poist, part 3.)
5. What new policies of Governor Lingle are related to sustainable development?
The agreement with Better Place for enabling electric vehicles is a major one. Better Place works like a gas station. It's an electric vehicle battery station. You buy the car, they supply the batteries. The more you drive, the more frequently you need charged batteries, the more you visit them to exchange spent batteries with charged ones. It's like buying gas with frequent user discounts similar to cell phone minutes. Better Place will install battery swap stations at selected gas stations. A battery swap will take only a few minutes; similar or shorter than a gas fill-up. The concept takes the fear out of running out of batteries, having to reach home for a charge, and having to replace expensive battery arrays.
6. Were communities 1000 years ago more sustainable than modern society is?
The pre-medieval hunger, disease and murder put strong pressures on population, and low population is one way to keep resource consumption low, but we are way past those times. Besides, the open fires of that age created much more pollution (per capita) than the current industrialization.
7. When we look at the human history, each individual has become more specialized and different countries also become more dependent on each other through trade and “globalization”. Is this a good trend? Shall we reverse it?
From the ancient times, trade among tribes was widespread. We now see the modern evolution of it. The globalization of trade is accelerating with more people, companies and countries involved in it every day. It is a natural flow impeded only by artificial protectionist policies. What many people resent is the globalization of culture. This is a less desirable byproduct of a rapidly interconnecting human race. It is up to individual regions to keep traditions of their cultures alive.
8. Some in America consider our dependence on foreign oil as a national security issue. Please explain the reasons behind their thinking. Do you agree with them?
For most any county, national energy production and consumption characteristics and the national energy policy are key inputs its nation's sustainability and by integration, to international sustainability. Energy supply from abroad is a vulnerability (e.g., U.S. dependency on Saudi Arabia for oil, EU dependency on natural gas from Russia, etc.) It is a major political and economic challenge but it is debatable whether it rises to the level of national security. On the other hand, France and Japan seem to think so since the former is 80% and the latter aims to 50% of nuclear energy, which makes them much less dependent on fossil fuel supply and pricing.
9. Some countries in the world do not produce their own food, cars or airplanes. Their main resources are oil. They sell oil and then import all other goods that they need. Is their dependence on other countries’ food, cars and airplanes also a national security issue for them? What are your thoughts?
The oil cartel is an established oligopoly with major power and a corresponding ability to destabilize international markets. The provision of cars, food and other consumables is neither an oligopoly nor a cartel. They can be obtained from several competing sources. Thus, oil producing nations are (currently) at a major advantage.
Friday, March 27, 2009
March 2009 Transportation News of Significance to Hawaii
The transportation news excerpted below come from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) weekly newsletter dated March 27, 2009:
(1) Mississippi Bans Red-Light Cameras but Hawaii Plans a Red Light Law
“Gov. Haley Barbour signed legislation last Friday prohibiting Mississippi localities from using traffic cameras to photograph and ticket motorists who run red lights. The state Legislature passed the bill earlier this month amid public outrage that governments are going overboard with the surveillance and using the cameras to generate more revenue. Many legislators said they were bombarded with requests from constituents to prohibit local governments from using the cameras to fine red-light violators.
Camera supporters unsuccessfully argued that the devices deter people from running red lights, reducing auto accidents and saving lives. At least six states have now banned the use of red-light cameras, according to a report by the National Conference of State Legislatures.”
My comments: By looking at the root causes of most accidents in Hawaii, a qualified observer will notice that the following factors dominate and are responsible for over two thirds of fatalities and serious injuries: (1) pedestrians crossing roads outside crosswalks and inattentively, (2) driver intoxication or other substance-induced impairment, (3) excessive speed compared to surrounding traffic or speed limit, or speed that makes vehicle control difficult, i.e., around bends, (4) motorcycle and scooter riders without helmets, and (5) driver involvement with personal electronic devices.
A red-right running law is similar to speeding tickets given to parents and grandparents in minivans doing 10 mph over the limit; it’s a lawful penalty and contribution to the G-fund. With a red-right running law, the Legislature adds words to the statutes and enables contracts for special interests. Such tickets and such laws have little real improvement to safety and quality of life due to the disconnect between accident causality on one hand, and law, enforcement and penalties on the other.
(2) Federal Highway Administration Approves Express Toll Lanes for Dallas-Area Highways but Hawaii State Has no Authority to Provide New Toll Lanes
“The Federal Highway Administration said Monday that it has approved a request from Texas to build express toll lanes on four freeways in and around Dallas and Fort Worth. The two projects are the first given a green light under FHWA’s Express Lanes Demonstration Program, which permits tolling of new lanes being constructed to relieve congestion. Toll prices on the new Texas lanes will vary according to time of day or the level of traffic and will be collected electronically.
Toll lanes will be added to 28 miles of Interstate 635 in the Dallas region and 36 miles of Interstate 35W, Interstate 820, and Texas 183 in the Fort Worth region. The lanes will give drivers the choice to pay for the benefit of a faster and more-reliable travel time, according to FHWA. Texas previously received federal approval under a different program to add High Occupancy Toll [HOT] lanes to Interstate 10 and U.S. 290 in the Houston metropolitan area.”
My comments: Most cities with traffic congestion problems are being outfitted with road capacity for traffic relief provided by managed HOT lanes. The City rejected managed lanes as a competitor to the much more expensive rail system. The issue in Hawaii remains that the state does not have tolling authority and rumors have it that this is due to objections rooted in State Senate.
Whatever the source, Hawaii loses a major opportunity to deploy HOT lanes on Oahu and bypass toll roads in the neighboring islands. Let me remind the reader that one of the largest current deployments of HOT lanes is in the nation’s capital beltway: http://virginiahotlanes.com.
(3) Honolulu's Administration Can’t Wait to Start Rail but Amtrak Ridership Plummets
“Just as the nation’s attention to the subject of high-speed passenger rail increases thanks to the inclusion of $8 billion in the federal economic recovery bill approved last month, the number of Americans riding the country’s fastest train service is nosediving.
Amtrak reported this week that ridership fell 17% last month on its Acela Express service between Boston and Washington compared to the prior February. Amtrak blames the economic recession, which has eroded business travel, Bloomberg reported.
Ridership on slower regional trains in the Northeast Corridor also fell significantly in February, by 14%. On the flip side, Amtrak experienced a 9.2% increase in riders on long-distance trains outside of the Northeast in February. [ed: But those trains carry a relatively tiny number of people.]
Amtrak’s passenger counts for the Northeast are falling slightly more than those recorded by the nation’s airlines. Across the country, the number of airline passengers fell 12% in February, the Air Transport Association reported last week.”
My comments: I do hope that President Obama pulls back quickly from his plan to outfit the U.S. with (half speed) High Speed Rail. True high speed rail like TGV in France and Shinkansen in Japan is massively expensive even for compact countries suitable for it. Those trains travel at well over 200 mph whereas Acela tops out at 120 mph. U.S. metro areas are too far apart (compared to Europe and Japan), U.S. has no exclusive track that is required for 200 mph trains, and the U.S. already has a comparatively massive airport infrastructure. Hopefully the $8 billion allocated for half-speed high speed rail in the Recovery Act will be the last to be wasted in this endeavor.
The lesson for Hawaii is that mistakes and wrong priorities occur both in D.C. and in Honolulu. One big difference is that D.C. can print money to cover for massive failures (for how much longer?) whereas Honolulu’s taxpayer will be saddled with a useless multibillion dollar rail built largely with heavy local taxes (most of them are in the horizon.)
- Mississippi State Joins Other States that Ban Red-Light Cameras
- FHWA Approves Express Toll Lanes for Dallas-Area Highways
- AMTRAK High Speed Rail Ridership Plummets
(1) Mississippi Bans Red-Light Cameras but Hawaii Plans a Red Light Law
“Gov. Haley Barbour signed legislation last Friday prohibiting Mississippi localities from using traffic cameras to photograph and ticket motorists who run red lights. The state Legislature passed the bill earlier this month amid public outrage that governments are going overboard with the surveillance and using the cameras to generate more revenue. Many legislators said they were bombarded with requests from constituents to prohibit local governments from using the cameras to fine red-light violators.
Camera supporters unsuccessfully argued that the devices deter people from running red lights, reducing auto accidents and saving lives. At least six states have now banned the use of red-light cameras, according to a report by the National Conference of State Legislatures.”
My comments: By looking at the root causes of most accidents in Hawaii, a qualified observer will notice that the following factors dominate and are responsible for over two thirds of fatalities and serious injuries: (1) pedestrians crossing roads outside crosswalks and inattentively, (2) driver intoxication or other substance-induced impairment, (3) excessive speed compared to surrounding traffic or speed limit, or speed that makes vehicle control difficult, i.e., around bends, (4) motorcycle and scooter riders without helmets, and (5) driver involvement with personal electronic devices.
A red-right running law is similar to speeding tickets given to parents and grandparents in minivans doing 10 mph over the limit; it’s a lawful penalty and contribution to the G-fund. With a red-right running law, the Legislature adds words to the statutes and enables contracts for special interests. Such tickets and such laws have little real improvement to safety and quality of life due to the disconnect between accident causality on one hand, and law, enforcement and penalties on the other.
(2) Federal Highway Administration Approves Express Toll Lanes for Dallas-Area Highways but Hawaii State Has no Authority to Provide New Toll Lanes
“The Federal Highway Administration said Monday that it has approved a request from Texas to build express toll lanes on four freeways in and around Dallas and Fort Worth. The two projects are the first given a green light under FHWA’s Express Lanes Demonstration Program, which permits tolling of new lanes being constructed to relieve congestion. Toll prices on the new Texas lanes will vary according to time of day or the level of traffic and will be collected electronically.
Toll lanes will be added to 28 miles of Interstate 635 in the Dallas region and 36 miles of Interstate 35W, Interstate 820, and Texas 183 in the Fort Worth region. The lanes will give drivers the choice to pay for the benefit of a faster and more-reliable travel time, according to FHWA. Texas previously received federal approval under a different program to add High Occupancy Toll [HOT] lanes to Interstate 10 and U.S. 290 in the Houston metropolitan area.”
My comments: Most cities with traffic congestion problems are being outfitted with road capacity for traffic relief provided by managed HOT lanes. The City rejected managed lanes as a competitor to the much more expensive rail system. The issue in Hawaii remains that the state does not have tolling authority and rumors have it that this is due to objections rooted in State Senate.
Whatever the source, Hawaii loses a major opportunity to deploy HOT lanes on Oahu and bypass toll roads in the neighboring islands. Let me remind the reader that one of the largest current deployments of HOT lanes is in the nation’s capital beltway: http://virginiahotlanes.com.
(3) Honolulu's Administration Can’t Wait to Start Rail but Amtrak Ridership Plummets
“Just as the nation’s attention to the subject of high-speed passenger rail increases thanks to the inclusion of $8 billion in the federal economic recovery bill approved last month, the number of Americans riding the country’s fastest train service is nosediving.
Amtrak reported this week that ridership fell 17% last month on its Acela Express service between Boston and Washington compared to the prior February. Amtrak blames the economic recession, which has eroded business travel, Bloomberg reported.
Ridership on slower regional trains in the Northeast Corridor also fell significantly in February, by 14%. On the flip side, Amtrak experienced a 9.2% increase in riders on long-distance trains outside of the Northeast in February. [ed: But those trains carry a relatively tiny number of people.]
Amtrak’s passenger counts for the Northeast are falling slightly more than those recorded by the nation’s airlines. Across the country, the number of airline passengers fell 12% in February, the Air Transport Association reported last week.”
My comments: I do hope that President Obama pulls back quickly from his plan to outfit the U.S. with (half speed) High Speed Rail. True high speed rail like TGV in France and Shinkansen in Japan is massively expensive even for compact countries suitable for it. Those trains travel at well over 200 mph whereas Acela tops out at 120 mph. U.S. metro areas are too far apart (compared to Europe and Japan), U.S. has no exclusive track that is required for 200 mph trains, and the U.S. already has a comparatively massive airport infrastructure. Hopefully the $8 billion allocated for half-speed high speed rail in the Recovery Act will be the last to be wasted in this endeavor.
The lesson for Hawaii is that mistakes and wrong priorities occur both in D.C. and in Honolulu. One big difference is that D.C. can print money to cover for massive failures (for how much longer?) whereas Honolulu’s taxpayer will be saddled with a useless multibillion dollar rail built largely with heavy local taxes (most of them are in the horizon.)
Saturday, March 21, 2009
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 SATALINEJust 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]
Thursday, March 12, 2009
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?
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?
Sunday, February 15, 2009
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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?
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 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
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?
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
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
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
- 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.
- 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.
- The OMPO model is hardly a modern activity-based microsimulation platform. It is an old, aggregate platform with highly compartmentalized trip definitions.
- 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
