Although it does not take a genius to realize that investment in public transportation in the U.S. is a counterproductive exercise, the pace of that investment continues unabated and the U.S. is determined to keep throwing good money after bad money in the futile effort that the trend will reverse itself.
What trend you ask? The trend of the share of trips done using public transit, or the market share of public transit. In 1910 it stood at 93.8% meaning that 94 out of 100 trips were made on public transportation. Forty years later, 1950, it dropped to 18.3%. Another 40 years later, 1990, it dropped to 1.9% and presently is somewhere around 1.6%. For every 1,000 trips, only 16 of those trips in the nation are done using public transit. The detailed trend can be found here: http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-usptshare45.pdf
The companion story is public subsidy. How much were the local, state and federal taxes that in addition to fares helped public transit break even? There was good news, once upon a time. Until the late 1950s these systems were profitable and owned and operated by private companies. But after WWII their profits diminished and then the public took over (or created subsidized competing systems and drove the private operators out of business. )
This was the beginning of a large black hole of taxation. In 1970, the taxpayer subsidy to move one person one mile on public transit was 27 cents, so for a 10 mile trip the public paid $2.7 for each passenger who made that trip. That was the good news too because by the turn of the millennium, the public’s taxes paid about one dollar per passenger mile so the average 10 mile trip required $10 in taxes in order to sustain public transit. These are inflation adjusted costs. The trend of subsidy can be found here: http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-ussby.pdf
An additional highly worrisome trend is the state of serviceability and safety of large existing rail and bus systems in the nation. Several hundred billion dollars are required for deferred maintenance, component replacements and technology upgrades of existing large systems in New York City, Washington DC, Boston, Atlanta, Chicago and San Francisco.
Ignorance of these trends creates a major mismatch in the allocation of funds for urban transportation. Hawaii mirrors this well. For example, between 1998 and 2008, Hawaii received $1.8 billion in federal funds for road, highway and bridge improvements, and $475 million for public transit. Even if Hawaii’s public transit share is three times as high as the national average, say 5% (this is a generous approximation), then public transit should have received 5% or so of the federal funds. Not so. It received 21%!
Another way to look at this is that we spend 21% on transit that serves 5% of the trips we make, and we spend 79% on roads that serve 95% of the trips.
The result of this funding mismatch is a decent bus system on Oahu that relatively few use, and terrible roads on Oahu that are counterproductive for our economy, and present an unsafe and unkempt condition for residents and tourists alike. Tiny sums have been allocated to effective alternatives such as bikeways and telecommuting. Or a ferry across Pearl Harbor.
If the proposed rail goes into construction and operation, then the share of funding for public transit will grow to about 40%. What would this accomplish? Nothing for the neighboring islands. On Oahu, public transit market share will grow 1%, from 6% to 7% over 20 years, if you believe the city's sales numbers for the proposed rail.
Nationally billions of dollars are likely to be spent in the next few years on public transit. Their net effect would be to increase market share by a tiny proportion. This is one of the worst tax black holes one can develop and a terrible transportation investment policy for the nation.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Sunday, August 23, 2009
The National Debate on High Speed Rail Reveals Pitfalls of Old Steel-on-Steel Rail Technology
The International Maglev Board has published an series of short and informative articles of the advantages of magnetically levitated train and questions USA’s inertia and conservatism in thinking about steel-on-steel medium speed rail. They begin by asking: Why is America embarking on a high-speed rail initiative that is so prejudiced against maglev and so weighted in favor of 45-year-old “proven” technology? With minor edits I include below several important highlights of their positions that point to the direction that America is poised to make a bad choice. My own comments are in [brackets].
For the record, maglev is not traditional train technology. It is basically a long electric motor when accelerating and cruising, and a generator when decelerating. The 267 mph system in Shanghai has been running for over five years with 99.97% on time reliability.
Traditional high speed rail has very high annual operating and maintenance costs associated with a system subjected to repeated pounding and vibrations. [Expensive maintenance is required of all steel-on-steel systems to avoid excessive noise and derailments, particularly for systems like the one proposed in Honolulu which includes sharp turns that apply large lateral forces on rails and ties.] The yearly maintenance costs of the proposed DesertXpress would be 3 to 4 times higher than a maglev system and make economic sustainability problematic; e.g., desert sands sticking to oil-lubricated moving train parts, windblown sand damaging steel rails in.
“Steel wheel on steel rail” means wet and slick steel tracks. This is why trains typically do not travel on grades much more than 2%. [This is why Honolulu’s proposed steel on steel rail cannot go to Mililani.] To build a rail line between Las Vegas and Los Angeles through the mountains would require extensive tunneling and/or extensive use of switchbacks for a train to climb through mountainous terrain. Maglev is capable of climbing 10% grades regardless of how slick the surface conditions.
Why build a slow, noisy, polluting, and expensive to maintain train – a throwback to the 19th century – when we can build a sustainable high-tech bridge to the 22nd century? [Why indeed do so in Honolulu when a 10-mile HOT lane reversible expressway combined with an extensive Bus Rapid Transit system can offer much shorter travel times to many more people, reach twice as many riders and cost roughly half of the 20 mile steel-on-steel elevated rail?]
America is still trying to figure out what high-speed rail really means. For the record, the internationally recognized standard for high-speed rail is a cruising speed above 150 mph. [The current proposals for U.S. consider speeds around 100 mph.]
The CJR’s Tokaido Shinkansen or “bullet train” that runs between Tokyo and Osaka is not only the world’s oldest high speed rail line, but also the busiest, carrying over 150 million passengers per year. In operation since 1964, the 317-mile Tokaido line now operates 309 trains per day with sustained cruising speeds of 168 mph.
Shinkansen’s stellar safety record is not a happy accident, but the result of excellent civil, electrical and mechanical engineering, painstakingly thorough and dedicated maintenance. [It’s worth repeating that stellar infrastructure performance requires excellent engineering and consistent maintenance. Honolulu’s engineers pass muster, but "consistent maintenance" in not in the local government’s vocabulary.]
In 1987, CJR purchased its fixed facilities from the Japanese government for $38 billion, which netted the government a tidy profit from the 1964 construction costs of about $1 billion. CJR, which is one of six rail operators in Japan, refutes American conventional wisdom that no passenger railroad in the world makes a profit. Each year CJR has a ~10% rate of return. [This is all good but it takes 150 million passengers a year and a steep ticket price to reach this level of financial performance.]
The latest technology CJR will use on their newest Shinkansen line from Tokyo to Nagoya is the MLX01 superconducting magnetic levitation train. Tokyo and Nagoya are approximately the same distance as New York City and Washington, DC. The MLX01 will make the trip in only 40 minutes. CJR is funding this entire line without Japanese government participation. [The Boston to Philadelphia corridor is probably the only place where the U.S. should invest in true high speed rail. The population is so high, the airports are so crowded,and the competition from Amstrak's Acela is so minor that a public-private partnership is also likely.]
Could it be that America’s transportation “experts” are not really experts in HSR or maglev, and are themselves “unproven” in deploying such systems? [Case in point is the transit technology expert panel of Honolulu in which 4 of the 5 members were experts in steel-on-steel technology and the technology vote was 4-1 in favor of steel-on-steel technology!]
Source: http://magnetbahnforum.de/index.php?current-editorial
UPDATE: On August 24, Robert Samuelson of the Washington Post wrote A Rail Boondoggle, Moving at High Speed, in which he quotes Harvard University economics professor Edward Glaeser's analyses (Is High-Speed Rail a Good Public Investment?) and CATO Institute analysis (A High-Speed Rail Mirage). Also of great interest is the summary of The Guardian of analysis done by Booz Allen about high speed rail proposals for the UK. The conclusion is the article's title: "High-speed rail strategy not so green, report says." When construction energy impacts are factored in, high speed rail proposals become boondoggles.
For the record, maglev is not traditional train technology. It is basically a long electric motor when accelerating and cruising, and a generator when decelerating. The 267 mph system in Shanghai has been running for over five years with 99.97% on time reliability.
Traditional high speed rail has very high annual operating and maintenance costs associated with a system subjected to repeated pounding and vibrations. [Expensive maintenance is required of all steel-on-steel systems to avoid excessive noise and derailments, particularly for systems like the one proposed in Honolulu which includes sharp turns that apply large lateral forces on rails and ties.] The yearly maintenance costs of the proposed DesertXpress would be 3 to 4 times higher than a maglev system and make economic sustainability problematic; e.g., desert sands sticking to oil-lubricated moving train parts, windblown sand damaging steel rails in.
“Steel wheel on steel rail” means wet and slick steel tracks. This is why trains typically do not travel on grades much more than 2%. [This is why Honolulu’s proposed steel on steel rail cannot go to Mililani.] To build a rail line between Las Vegas and Los Angeles through the mountains would require extensive tunneling and/or extensive use of switchbacks for a train to climb through mountainous terrain. Maglev is capable of climbing 10% grades regardless of how slick the surface conditions.
Why build a slow, noisy, polluting, and expensive to maintain train – a throwback to the 19th century – when we can build a sustainable high-tech bridge to the 22nd century? [Why indeed do so in Honolulu when a 10-mile HOT lane reversible expressway combined with an extensive Bus Rapid Transit system can offer much shorter travel times to many more people, reach twice as many riders and cost roughly half of the 20 mile steel-on-steel elevated rail?]
America is still trying to figure out what high-speed rail really means. For the record, the internationally recognized standard for high-speed rail is a cruising speed above 150 mph. [The current proposals for U.S. consider speeds around 100 mph.]
The CJR’s Tokaido Shinkansen or “bullet train” that runs between Tokyo and Osaka is not only the world’s oldest high speed rail line, but also the busiest, carrying over 150 million passengers per year. In operation since 1964, the 317-mile Tokaido line now operates 309 trains per day with sustained cruising speeds of 168 mph.
Shinkansen’s stellar safety record is not a happy accident, but the result of excellent civil, electrical and mechanical engineering, painstakingly thorough and dedicated maintenance. [It’s worth repeating that stellar infrastructure performance requires excellent engineering and consistent maintenance. Honolulu’s engineers pass muster, but "consistent maintenance" in not in the local government’s vocabulary.]
In 1987, CJR purchased its fixed facilities from the Japanese government for $38 billion, which netted the government a tidy profit from the 1964 construction costs of about $1 billion. CJR, which is one of six rail operators in Japan, refutes American conventional wisdom that no passenger railroad in the world makes a profit. Each year CJR has a ~10% rate of return. [This is all good but it takes 150 million passengers a year and a steep ticket price to reach this level of financial performance.]
The latest technology CJR will use on their newest Shinkansen line from Tokyo to Nagoya is the MLX01 superconducting magnetic levitation train. Tokyo and Nagoya are approximately the same distance as New York City and Washington, DC. The MLX01 will make the trip in only 40 minutes. CJR is funding this entire line without Japanese government participation. [The Boston to Philadelphia corridor is probably the only place where the U.S. should invest in true high speed rail. The population is so high, the airports are so crowded,and the competition from Amstrak's Acela is so minor that a public-private partnership is also likely.]
Could it be that America’s transportation “experts” are not really experts in HSR or maglev, and are themselves “unproven” in deploying such systems? [Case in point is the transit technology expert panel of Honolulu in which 4 of the 5 members were experts in steel-on-steel technology and the technology vote was 4-1 in favor of steel-on-steel technology!]
Source: http://magnetbahnforum.de/index.php?current-editorial
UPDATE: On August 24, Robert Samuelson of the Washington Post wrote A Rail Boondoggle, Moving at High Speed, in which he quotes Harvard University economics professor Edward Glaeser's analyses (Is High-Speed Rail a Good Public Investment?) and CATO Institute analysis (A High-Speed Rail Mirage). Also of great interest is the summary of The Guardian of analysis done by Booz Allen about high speed rail proposals for the UK. The conclusion is the article's title: "High-speed rail strategy not so green, report says." When construction energy impacts are factored in, high speed rail proposals become boondoggles.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Light Rail v. Prius OR Denver Post v. Honolulu Advertiser
This article from one of the members of the editorial board of The Denver Post is a breath of journalistic fresh air: http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_13059445
In the article it is made clear that light rail is more polluting that regular sedans and far more polluting than hybrid cars. In fact, that article is titled: Prius effect: Energy-efficient cars undercut the appeal of light rail.
Note that Denver produces electricity from coal and natural gas. Honolulu produces electricity from coal and diesel. Honolulu's electricity is dirtier than Denver's. Worse yet, Honolulu is proposing a massive heavy rail system that will be far more energy demanding than a light rail. Not only because the trains are larger, but because of the elevators, escalators and lighting of the elevated structure and stations. Add to that the huge energy draw for the construction of the massive project and compare it to laying rail on a street.
The article concludes as follows: "The Prius Effect means that unless Xcel weans itself dramatically from coal and natural gas, further expanding rail in metro Denver would be an outrage."
Now compare this Denver Post editorial opinion with the Honolulu Advertiser editorial opinions about rail. At best, the Advertiser opinions have been advertisements for elevated rail. Advertising elevated heavy rail for a Hawaiian island; for an island full of tourists who go mostly where the rail does not go; for Honolulu which is five times smaller than Denver; for Honolulu where a lot of people have multiple jobs and need a private mode to go from job to job; for Honolulu where students are driven to schools; for Honolulu's overtaxed population who is now asked to pay an extra $4,000 per head for rail.
I look forward to the Honolulu Advertiser editorial board, and other local media to catch up to the evidence presented by Sean Hao, Cliff Slater, myself and others as to what the rail proposed by Mufi Hannemann really is: Not pretty, not useful, not green, not practical, and a monumental waste of our money; now in order to build it and forever in order to subsidize it.
In the article it is made clear that light rail is more polluting that regular sedans and far more polluting than hybrid cars. In fact, that article is titled: Prius effect: Energy-efficient cars undercut the appeal of light rail.
Note that Denver produces electricity from coal and natural gas. Honolulu produces electricity from coal and diesel. Honolulu's electricity is dirtier than Denver's. Worse yet, Honolulu is proposing a massive heavy rail system that will be far more energy demanding than a light rail. Not only because the trains are larger, but because of the elevators, escalators and lighting of the elevated structure and stations. Add to that the huge energy draw for the construction of the massive project and compare it to laying rail on a street.
The article concludes as follows: "The Prius Effect means that unless Xcel weans itself dramatically from coal and natural gas, further expanding rail in metro Denver would be an outrage."
Now compare this Denver Post editorial opinion with the Honolulu Advertiser editorial opinions about rail. At best, the Advertiser opinions have been advertisements for elevated rail. Advertising elevated heavy rail for a Hawaiian island; for an island full of tourists who go mostly where the rail does not go; for Honolulu which is five times smaller than Denver; for Honolulu where a lot of people have multiple jobs and need a private mode to go from job to job; for Honolulu where students are driven to schools; for Honolulu's overtaxed population who is now asked to pay an extra $4,000 per head for rail.
I look forward to the Honolulu Advertiser editorial board, and other local media to catch up to the evidence presented by Sean Hao, Cliff Slater, myself and others as to what the rail proposed by Mufi Hannemann really is: Not pretty, not useful, not green, not practical, and a monumental waste of our money; now in order to build it and forever in order to subsidize it.
Friday, August 14, 2009
230 miles per gallon
We seem to have set the bar quite low with our expectations for advanced compact vehicles delivering anywhere between 50 and 80 miles per gallon (mpg). Popular hybrids such as the Honda Insight and Toyota Prius deliver about 50 mpg in mixed traffic. Some European and Asian diesels reach 80 mpg. But 230 mpg?
That's the news for General Motors and its anticipated (late) 2010 Chevrolet Volt which has an all-electric range of 40 miles. Then its on-board gasoline generator needs one gallon to provide enough electricity to propel it for another 10 miles. Unlike regular hybrids that have a sizable internal combustion engine and a small electric motor, the Volt is more like a GE diesel-electric freight train locomotive that uses a small engine to generate electricity for the electric motor that exclusively propels the car.
And propels it does, as early accounts of pre-production samples show that a Volt pulls of the line with four adults in it stronger than a well-tuned V6 car. See a video here. Volt's electric motor is powered by batteries which are charged at home overnight with cheaper off-peak electricity.
As seen in the link above, a large Internet community has spawned around the Volt and some commuters in the U.S. (the all important "early adopters") are ready for an all-electric vehicle. The news of a 230 mpg all American vehicle made national headlines. Here is a sample from the New York Times.
Does a Volt make sense in Hawaii? Let's analyze this by using HECO prices and regular gas prices on Oahu for the past 12 months. The table below sums up the calculations. Three scenarios are shown for the Volt: (1) Use it for up top 40 miles per day in which case it is operated in "all electric" mode and needs no gasoline, (2) Use it for up to 50 miles per day in which case it uses battery power for the first 40 miles and then the generator consumes gasoline to provide electricity for another 10 miles, and (3) Use it for 80 miles per day, so battery and gas usage have a 50-50 share. The results show that the most economy is achieved at the "all electric" mode even at Hawaii's very high cost per KWh.
So does a Volt make sense in Hawaii? One positive aspect is that the limited range of electric vehicles is much less of an issue on a small island, although even nationally, almost 8 out of 10 commuters use their vehicle for no more than 40 miles per day. On the other hand, Hawaii's electricity is all dirty (coal and oil) so green benefits will be rather minimal. A Volt would make a difference in greenhouse gas production in cities which receive hydroelectric or nuclear power.
A Volt would make good economic sense for someone who drives a large, heavy but fairly efficient SUV which in Oahu's sluggish traffic outputs about 16 miles to the gallon. But if the choice is between a $40,000 Volt or a $28,000 loaded Prius III, then the answer does not favor the Volt. (A Volt without its battery pack will be priced at around $25,000.)
However, energy prices fluctuate and in the long term fossil fuel prices have only one way to go: up. So if in a few years from now gas is at $5 per gallon and you live in the mainland where a KWh costs 10 to 15 cents (as opposed to 20 to 30 on Oahu), then over five years the Volt has a $8,000 advantage over an SUV and a slim advantage over a hybrid.
Plug-in electric vehicles are economical to maintain by having minimal maintenance requirements, basically limited to tires and brake pads. However, Volt's roughly $10,000 battery pack may need replacement sometime between year 6 and year 10 of the car's life.
Overall it is interesting to see where transportation technology is going. Only in 2009 car buyers had the choice of two fully competent hybrid cars, the Honda Insight and the Toyota Prius. These two are joined by a number of lower-end hybrids which offer smaller improvements to the fuel efficiency.
Come 2011 there will be two competent full-electric vehicles: The Chevy Volt and the Nissan Leaf. And there are many more electrics and other alternative energy vehicles in the works, such as fuel cell and biodiesel powered vehicles.
Green transport is here and on balance its features and limitations make it suitable for a large number of households.
[Revised August 15, 2009]
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Honolulu's Pavements Among Nation's Worst
It is no secret that the roads on Honolulu are generally in mediocre to poor condition. A 2009 report of the American Association of State and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) makes this negative distinction official: Honolulu is 4th worst in the nation.
As a consequence of this, the average vehicle in Honolulu suffers about $700 in annual road damage in tires, suspension, etc. The analysis of this report does not include the cost of additional accidents and crashes that roads in poor condition cause.
The report states that when a road is good, the investment of $1 to keep it in good condition averts the expenditure of $6 to $14 in payments necessary to bring it from a poor condition to good condition. Unfortunately for Honolulu, the habitual raiding of the Highway Fund by the Legislature and the habitual neglect of the roads for 10+years of the Harris and Hannemann administrations could not have come at a worse time, since now we are in a belt tightening mode.
However, I need to remind our reader that on Oahu, it is not a priority to fix our roads or to reduce congestion on our roads or to provide work for projects our laborers can do (fix and build roads.) The priority (for now) remains to waste five-plus billion dollars on a rail system with 20 stops, for which specialized imported labor will be necessary.
A summary of the report and the report itself can be found here: http://roughroads.transportation.org. The pavement quality table is shown below.
As a consequence of this, the average vehicle in Honolulu suffers about $700 in annual road damage in tires, suspension, etc. The analysis of this report does not include the cost of additional accidents and crashes that roads in poor condition cause.
The report states that when a road is good, the investment of $1 to keep it in good condition averts the expenditure of $6 to $14 in payments necessary to bring it from a poor condition to good condition. Unfortunately for Honolulu, the habitual raiding of the Highway Fund by the Legislature and the habitual neglect of the roads for 10+years of the Harris and Hannemann administrations could not have come at a worse time, since now we are in a belt tightening mode.
However, I need to remind our reader that on Oahu, it is not a priority to fix our roads or to reduce congestion on our roads or to provide work for projects our laborers can do (fix and build roads.) The priority (for now) remains to waste five-plus billion dollars on a rail system with 20 stops, for which specialized imported labor will be necessary.
A summary of the report and the report itself can be found here: http://roughroads.transportation.org. The pavement quality table is shown below.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
U.S. DOT Guidance for Road Pricing to Benefit Highway and Transit Users
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
