How Much Did Cash-For-Clunkers Improve Fuel Efficiency? Quite A Lot!

The University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute conducted research supported by Sustainable Worldwide Transportation to estimate the vehicle fuel economy improvement from the 2009 vehicle scrappage program, CARS, popularly known as “Cash-for-Clunkers” program. (http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/64025/1/102323.pdf)

About 690,000 vehicles were purchased (and traded in) under the CARS program and this was part of the total of about 2,260,000 vehicles sold in July and August 2009. (http://www.cars.gov) "Generally, the trade-in vehicles must have had fuel economy of 18 mpg or less and be less than 25 years old. The rebate was either $3,500 or $4,500, depending on the difference between the fuel economy of the new and the trade-in vehicles."

They found that the program improved the average fuel economy of all vehicles purchased by 0.6 mpg in July 2009 and 0.7 mpg in August 2009. The program's outcome is plotted below:

The government's conclusion is similar and is posted at the end. Basic statistics of the CARS program are copied below.

Top 10 New Vehicles Purchased
1. Toyota Corolla
2. Honda Civic
3. Toyota Camry
4. Ford Focus FWD
5. Hyundai Elantra
6. Nissan Versa
7. Toyota Prius
8. Honda Accord
9. Honda Fit
10. Ford Escape FWD

New Vehicles Manufacturers
Toyota 19.4%
General Motors 17.6%
Ford 14.4%
Honda 13.0%
Nissan 8.7%
Hyundai 7.2%
Chrysler 6.6%
Kia 4.3%
Subaru 2.5%
Mazda 2.4%
Volkswagen 2.0%
Suzuki 0.6%
Mitsubishi 0.5%
MINI 0.4%
Smart 0.2%
Volvo 0.1%
All Other <0.1%

Top 10 Traded-in Vehicles
1.Ford Explorer 4WD
2.Ford F150 Pickup 2WD
3.Jeep Grand Cherokee 4WD
4.Ford Explorer 2WD
5.Dodge Caravan/Grand Caravan 2WD
6.Jeep Cherokee 4WD
7.Chevrolet Blazer 4WD
8.Chevrolet C1500 Pickup 2WD
9.Ford F150 Pickup 4WD
10.Ford Windstar FWD Van

Average Fuel Economy
New vehicles Mileage: 24.9 MPG
Trade-in Mileage: 15.8 MPG
Overall increase: 9.2 MPG

84% of trade-ins under the program are trucks, and 59% of new vehicles purchased are cars. The fuel efficiency improved by 58% for 690,000 in the U.S fleet of private cars.

Frankford Elevated Line -- A Worrisome Connection to Honolulu

Readers of this blog and of HonoluluTraffic.com are akamai about the maintenance nightmare that elevated heavy rail is. The weight and vibrations of trains are severe for concrete compared to the much lighter and rubber tired vehicles on elevated roadways.

Here is a quote from the September 18, 2009 issue of The Philadelphia Inquirer: "The Frankford elevated line, which was completely rebuilt in the 1980s and 1990s to last for 75 years, needs significant repairs because of a basic flaw in its reconstruction design. To prevent pieces of concrete from falling onto cars or pedestrians, SEPTA crews have installed 8,000 metal mesh belts on the underbelly of the El and plan to install 2,000 more, beginning Monday."
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/front_page/20090918_Frankford_El_with_potential_to_crumble_needs_repairs.html

What is one lesson from this paragraph? Just like BART in San Francisco and all urban rail systems, they have to be largely rebuilt every 30 years. What's worse in this case is that the rebuilt needs to be rebuilt. Poor Philadelphia you say and you move on.

But then you read this in the same article: "SEPTA last month filed suit against the two companies, Parsons Brinckerhoff and Sverdrup (now part of Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.), for the repair costs."

What's the connection? Parsons Brinckerhoff is the main consultant working on Honolulu's Rail Project, and Jacobs Engineering is the Project Management Oversight Consultant to Region 9 FTA responsible for Honolulu's Rail Project.

Are you in good hands?

Five Hurdles Hannemann Administration Must Jump to Get Proposed Honolulu Rail Project Built

The brief but precise analysis done by HonoluluTraffic.com on the procedural steps for the proposed rail system of Honolulu to move forward is available at Hawaii Reporter:
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?274effb2-d6f8-4b05-8939-6c124dbf324a

2009 Commuter Pain report: Lessons for Oahu

The 2009 Commuter Pain report, an annual study conducted by IBM was released before Labor Day. It is based on surveys of 4,400 commuters in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Dallas-Forth Worth, Los Angeles, Miami-Ft. Lauderdale, Minneapolis-St. Paul, New York, San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, and Washington, DC. Here are some of the study findings [http://www-03.ibm.com/press/attachments/28320.pdf]. As you read along you may agree that we're not much different than those big metro areas in the U.S.

Frustration levels are rising: 45% identify start-stop traffic as the most frustrating part of the commute (up from 37% last year), and 32% identify aggressive/rude drivers (up from 24% last year).

If commuting time could be reduced, 52% would spend it with family/friends – nine points higher than 2008; 37% (6 points higher than 2008) would exercise more.

With gas prices down more than $1.00 from 2008, 23% of respondents have changed their commuting habits in favor of driving versus relying on public transportation or carpooling: 19% carpool less, 19% take public transportation less, and 17% work from home less. The lesson here is that sensitivity to gas prices will be less when most SUVs are replaced with efficient 4-cylinder and hybrid vehicles (let alone full electrics in the near horizon.)

44% of respondents now say they can work from home one or more days a week (up two points from 2008). The lesson here is that telecommuting is an inexpensive alternative that reduces traffic on roads and crowding in mass transit.

For trips other than to work or school, 90% of the potential drivers in this study say that driving is their main mode of transportation (91% last year). To this, The San Francisco Examiner adds that Bay Area commuters are still overwhelmingly likely to drive to work. Some 57 percent of workers in the region drive alone to get to their place of work, a total that far exceeds the next closest mode of transportation — the bus — which is used by a mere 6.7 percent of workers, according to the study. Question: Where is the multibillion dollar BART? The lesson here is that heavy rail provides tiny congestion relief and is a marginal transportation mode.

The typical commute for survey respondents is 16.7 miles or 31 minutes. Surprisingly the average statics for Oahu are similar because of the spread out residences and the concentration of jobs between airport and Waikiki.

The value of time consumed commuting is enormous. Like last year, 75% of respondents say that every 15 minutes stuck in traffic is worth $10-20 or more -- that’s a minimum of $40/hour. The 10 area average is at least $70.80/hour (versus $73.22/hour in 2008). Washington, DC, and Los Angeles are highest with $76.80 and 76.00/hour, respectively. There is a huge lesson here: A $5 toll on a road with reliable travel times that shortens commutes by 20 minutes is a sweet option to many.

The nation’s transportation problems did not occur overnight and it will take time -- along with targeted, state-by-state solutions -- to fix them. Investments in smart transportation solutions, coupled with intelligent fleet management principles such as better route planning, off-peak freight movement, alternative fuel vehicles, and hybrid vehicles, are among the many strategies that can help.

To alleviate the congestion crisis, the answer is a compendium of solutions – a comprehensive portfolio of traditional methods coupled with new innovations and political will. Commuters are eager for change. Now is the time to invest in the future of smart transportation.

I could not agree more. But who, in his or her right mind, would call a five billion steel on steel rail system for an island paradise "smart transportation"?

What are smart solutions you ask? Active traffic management, intelligent signals, urban underpasses, priority bus rapid transit (e.g. on freeway shoulder lanes), high occupancy/toll lanes (HOT lanes for carpools, vanpools and buses), telework centers and telecommuting incentives. And bikeways where they can be safely provided.

Summary of Scoops on Honolulu's Elevated Heavy Rail: From Bad to Worse

Honolulu's per person cost for rail will be $4,300. No other community has paid such a heavy tax. Phoenix recently opened its light rail service at a cost of under $180 per person! Normally, rationally this cost per person would be a show-stopper. That is, at ten times the cost of rail in other cities, Honolulu's proposal is insane. Insane proposals should not proceed. But with "strong leaders" and many special interests lined up to make billions, this boondoggle is still alive.

The $4,300 per person is based on numbers from the project's promoters, Mayor Hannemann and his well paid consultants. The fact is that the project will cost much more because utility relocations, stoppages for iwi (ancient burial grounds) and delays from lawsuits are not included in the costs. Not enough taxes are being collected due to the prolonged slow economy, so property taxes will have to be raised to cover the escalating costs. Honolulutraffic.com FOIA documents shed critical light into this.

If Honolulu builds rail it will face two predictably bad situations: Low ridership and high cost to run the system. Here are two examples for 2009:

(1) New Seattle light rail has low ridership. It is empty outside the peak. Only during football games it is packed. "Link trains make about 248 one-way trips a day, about 48 in the peak direction during peak hours, and there are 148 seats per 2-car train." They carry just under 15,000 people per day, much less on Sundays. So it would seem that on the average weekday, each rail car carries 30 people and the average train load is 20.4%.

That's the definition of "near empty" but it is an over-estimate because it assumes that these passengers traveled the entire length of the line. In reality, many passengers do short trips. If the average trip is one half of the rail line length, then the average number of people per rail car drops to 15 and the train load to 10.2%. That is a poor level of performance and it is typical of rail systems outside New York City. At least light rail cost Seattle residents a bearable cost in taxes (still a waste of money.) There are two Seattle Link lines. One cost Seattle $335 per person and the other $579 per person.

(2) Phoenix light rail underestimated their operating expenses. "Metro is so alarmed at the pace that power bills are climbing, and by other unforeseen costs, it has begun a top-to-bottom review of operations." (What a surprise!)

B. R. Horton's Ho'opili development with 13,000 proposed new homes next to a gridlocked freeway is a non-starter. The Land Use Commission is not likely to re-zone prime agricultural land into urban land. So the proposed rail will drive piles through prime ag land and two stations will be available for the exclusive use of tomatoes and watermelons. Ewa and Kapolei residents are not as lucky as produce. They won't get any station.

Bishop Estate, Architects and Planners are mounting a fight in favor of light rail. Ian Lind has many important scoops including the strong-arming tactics by the Hannemann administration. Some mayoral candidates are likely to jump on the light rail bandwagon. Unfortunately for them, there is no light rail design anywhere in the city's federally mandated NEPA process, so if light rail is chosen by the next mayor, then transit plans have to start from square one. The heavy rail "choice" was a trap created by specific politicians and willing professionals.

Here is a letter by Mayor Hannemann with his 2006 promises (please scroll to the bottom of the link.) Observe that the price of rail has nearly doubled in three years from 3 billion to well over 5 billion dollars. And we have not started building anything yet! He also promised partnerships with the private sector to pay for rail. (Private funding for rail is zero dollars.)

Do you remember those pro-rail radio and TV ads "paid by city taxpayers" during the 2008 elections? Were they designed to dupe the voter? Yes! This has been a classic bait and switch: This is Not What 50.6% Voted Yes For.

Investment in Expanding Public Transit is a Tax Black Hole

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

The symposium included a graduate student competition, the results of which can be found here: http://2isfo.eng.hawaii.edu/student.html

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

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.

	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

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.

	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.)

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.

		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.

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.

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