2009 Ridership Source
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
FTA Will Pay for Honolulu's Rail... Maybe 25% of Cost ... in 2011
FTA commits $1.55 billion to pay for Honolulu rail system says today's breaking news (http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20100202/BREAKING01/100202030/F).
That sounds like such good news for Hannemann but it is not. The article says that IF all environmental reviews complete successfully, then FTA may be able to release construction money on or after September 30, 2011.
Note that there is no word on possible lawsuits against the FTA and the delays that they will cause. HonoluluTraffic.com sued the FTA in 2002 and achieved the impossible: FTA pulled the plug by rescinding the Record on Decision for Mayor Harris' Bus Rapid Transit proposal.
Also if you try to read between the lines, you will discover these two gems of truth:
The guestimate I made yesterday that this project may start on 12/12/12 stands!
And in case you did not notice, the FTA subsidy will cover roughly only 25% of the budgeted cost, but with minor cost overruns the cost to the local taxpayer will be $4.5 billion, or $4,500 million. Furthermore, the imported rail equipment will cost more than the FTA contribution. So all of the FTA money will go to mainland, Canada, German or Korean suppliers. No FTA money will reach Oahu.
That sounds like such good news for Hannemann but it is not. The article says that IF all environmental reviews complete successfully, then FTA may be able to release construction money on or after September 30, 2011.
Note that there is no word on possible lawsuits against the FTA and the delays that they will cause. HonoluluTraffic.com sued the FTA in 2002 and achieved the impossible: FTA pulled the plug by rescinding the Record on Decision for Mayor Harris' Bus Rapid Transit proposal.
Also if you try to read between the lines, you will discover these two gems of truth:
- "But please know that the FTA also takes an independent look at the finances of this project and we will do so again when they submit a financial plan to get into final design."
- Groundbreaking on the elevated commuter rail was supposed to take place in December, but has been indefinitely delayed by an ongoing federal review...
The guestimate I made yesterday that this project may start on 12/12/12 stands!
And in case you did not notice, the FTA subsidy will cover roughly only 25% of the budgeted cost, but with minor cost overruns the cost to the local taxpayer will be $4.5 billion, or $4,500 million. Furthermore, the imported rail equipment will cost more than the FTA contribution. So all of the FTA money will go to mainland, Canada, German or Korean suppliers. No FTA money will reach Oahu.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Rail Jobs? Apply Now for 12/12/12
Let's talk about the much touted "rail jobs."
Although public project construction jobs are only a small part of Oahu's economy, politicians and some union heads are literally shouting that we need the rail for the jobs that it provides to save Oahu from its economic slump.
First, much more than half of the planning and design work for the rail is done by outside professionals. Local engineers do not know how to do rail. Second, Kiewit Corporation of Omaha, Nebraska was selected to build the first segment (if and when construction can start legally.) Third, a lot of the technical work for rail requires expertise that our local laborers do not have. Fourth, a big part of the rail is the imported technology which will be shipped in and then assembled by outside experts. For these and other reasons the local jobs number will be much smaller than what politicians announce for popular consumption.
The next question is timing. Mufi and rail advocates are (again) shouting that jobs are needed now and rail should start now. Can rail construction start now? The answer is No. Here is why.
The Programmatic Agreement (PA) under Section 106 that addresses cultural and historical impacts has not been signed by all parties.
Regarding the PA process I heard this: "Faith Miyamoto representing the city has been picky as to which party to involve and has told affected parties that they are not participants in the PA." Actions like this endanger the conclusion of the PA process.
The Final EIS cannot be released before the PA concludes satisfactorily.
The judges of the federal court along Halekauwila Street do not want trains going by their building, yet no realignment has been proposed.
The Federal Aviation Administration is concerned that the transit corridor is too close to active runways that process millions of passengers every year. An alternative alignment would be required to satisfy their concerns but the city has not provided a realignment.
Let's now make a big assumption that concerns like the above, plus concerns about the budget are sorted out within months. Then these are the steps that city needs to complete:
1) Issue a Final EIS (with acceptable solutions to all major concerns)
2) Final review by the affected State Departments
3) Approval by the Governor
4) Review by the FTA and approval
5) FTA issuance of a Record on Decision
6) FTA issuance of a Letter of No Prejudice
7) FTA provides first installment of federal funds (Full Funding Grant Agreement)
The above process requires one full year to conclude (assuming that Governor Lingle will eventually approve the FEIS) and over two years to receive construction funds from the federal government. Of course a reckless mayor can start construction with no agreement with the FTA and realize later that FTA can deliver much less than what's in the budget.
The lesson here is that if you like rail, for the sake of your finances and of the generations to come, do not elect a mayor who does not promise that rail work will start after the full funding grant agreement has been signed by the feds. Hannemann wants to start with no federal funds.
Hannemann is wrong on at least four counts:
(1) He proposes rail as a traffic solution. Wrong.
(2) He proposes to build rail in a very expensive way. All-elevated heavy rail. Wrong.
(3) He plans to start rail in the middle of prime agricultural land. Wrong.
(4) He plans to start construction without federal funds. Wrong.
Meanwhile, as of January 2010, President Obama has frozen the spending of all departments due to the immense federal deficit. At the same time, there is no budget allocation anywhere for Honolulu's transit. Actually finding big money for it will be much harder than the local political rhetoric indicates.
The above schedule does not take into account delays from lawsuits. At least one lawsuit has been promised. Other federal departments may object to FTA's approval, thus more delays and injunctions are possible.
It does not matter what Hannemann or any politician or city representative says. Without completing the steps required by federal law, there will be no approval and no construction or on-the-ground preparation for construction.
I have a guestimate of a start date for those who remain optimistic about Mufi's rail actually going into construction: 12/12/12. That's less than three years away and about normal for projects of this nature and size.
How can we summarize the original question about jobs and rail? Too little too late.
Although public project construction jobs are only a small part of Oahu's economy, politicians and some union heads are literally shouting that we need the rail for the jobs that it provides to save Oahu from its economic slump.
First, much more than half of the planning and design work for the rail is done by outside professionals. Local engineers do not know how to do rail. Second, Kiewit Corporation of Omaha, Nebraska was selected to build the first segment (if and when construction can start legally.) Third, a lot of the technical work for rail requires expertise that our local laborers do not have. Fourth, a big part of the rail is the imported technology which will be shipped in and then assembled by outside experts. For these and other reasons the local jobs number will be much smaller than what politicians announce for popular consumption.
The next question is timing. Mufi and rail advocates are (again) shouting that jobs are needed now and rail should start now. Can rail construction start now? The answer is No. Here is why.
The Programmatic Agreement (PA) under Section 106 that addresses cultural and historical impacts has not been signed by all parties.
Regarding the PA process I heard this: "Faith Miyamoto representing the city has been picky as to which party to involve and has told affected parties that they are not participants in the PA." Actions like this endanger the conclusion of the PA process.
The Final EIS cannot be released before the PA concludes satisfactorily.
The judges of the federal court along Halekauwila Street do not want trains going by their building, yet no realignment has been proposed.
The Federal Aviation Administration is concerned that the transit corridor is too close to active runways that process millions of passengers every year. An alternative alignment would be required to satisfy their concerns but the city has not provided a realignment.
Let's now make a big assumption that concerns like the above, plus concerns about the budget are sorted out within months. Then these are the steps that city needs to complete:
1) Issue a Final EIS (with acceptable solutions to all major concerns)
2) Final review by the affected State Departments
3) Approval by the Governor
4) Review by the FTA and approval
5) FTA issuance of a Record on Decision
6) FTA issuance of a Letter of No Prejudice
7) FTA provides first installment of federal funds (Full Funding Grant Agreement)
The above process requires one full year to conclude (assuming that Governor Lingle will eventually approve the FEIS) and over two years to receive construction funds from the federal government. Of course a reckless mayor can start construction with no agreement with the FTA and realize later that FTA can deliver much less than what's in the budget.
The lesson here is that if you like rail, for the sake of your finances and of the generations to come, do not elect a mayor who does not promise that rail work will start after the full funding grant agreement has been signed by the feds. Hannemann wants to start with no federal funds.
Hannemann is wrong on at least four counts:
(1) He proposes rail as a traffic solution. Wrong.
(2) He proposes to build rail in a very expensive way. All-elevated heavy rail. Wrong.
(3) He plans to start rail in the middle of prime agricultural land. Wrong.
(4) He plans to start construction without federal funds. Wrong.
Meanwhile, as of January 2010, President Obama has frozen the spending of all departments due to the immense federal deficit. At the same time, there is no budget allocation anywhere for Honolulu's transit. Actually finding big money for it will be much harder than the local political rhetoric indicates.
The above schedule does not take into account delays from lawsuits. At least one lawsuit has been promised. Other federal departments may object to FTA's approval, thus more delays and injunctions are possible.
It does not matter what Hannemann or any politician or city representative says. Without completing the steps required by federal law, there will be no approval and no construction or on-the-ground preparation for construction.
I have a guestimate of a start date for those who remain optimistic about Mufi's rail actually going into construction: 12/12/12. That's less than three years away and about normal for projects of this nature and size.
How can we summarize the original question about jobs and rail? Too little too late.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Panos for Mayor... subject to incumbent's departure
Today, on the Rick Hamada show, I announced my intent to become a candidate for mayor of the City and County of Honolulu when the office becomes vacant.As you know, the regular election for mayor is not until 2012 but Mufi Hannemann has declared an interest in the race for Governor. However, unlike U.S. Representative Neil Abercrombie who declared his intent to resign, Mayor Hannemann has not declared any such intent, thus today I am simply saying that if he resigns then I will run for mayor.
Our campaign’s committee of advisors has remained active since the 2008 elections and so did our website and campaign filings with the office of elections. Our new website is FixOahuNow.com and our campaign phone number is 63-PANOS. However, the phone line won’t be live until a formal campaign starts. On the other hand, the “contribute” button of the website is open for business!
I have lived on Oahu for 20 years and the condition of the public infrastructure has deteriorated to the point that we are ranked among the worst in the nation in traffic congestion and road quality. The city lost its lawsuit against the EPA so we now have a billion dollar obligation for secondary sewer treatment. None of it is being done.
Instead of addressing the trash problem, the city extended the life of the landfill and sued the company that can export our trash. Water main breaks are almost a daily occurrence with paralysis in Waikiki and Nanakuli recently.
There is little planning for resilience. What happens when a hurricane or a tsunami hits? What’s the plan for residents and for 100,000 frantic tourists?
There is a slate of four pro-rail candidates for mayor and a few more may join. However, I am more certain than ever that the proposed elevated rail is unsightly, unaffordable and unnecessary. In the 2008 vote, millions of dollars of false advertising were spent to deceive Oahu voters that the city was planning an affordable light rail system. However, all along the city was planning for an expensive, fully elevated heavy rail system.
When Bishop Estate and the architects of Hawaii voiced strong support for a partial light rail system, the city admitted that light rail was dismissed early in the process without much analysis. Also the Oahu Railway which is largely intact from Waianae to the airport was ignored. The inescapable conclusion is that the proposed rail is not about transit service. It’s about land development and expensive construction.
In a letter to the editor, mayor Hannemann promised a $3 billion rail system and fiscal restraints. (Read it at http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2006/Aug/19/op/FP608190324.html).
Despite his wishful thinking, no private monies were realized and the rail’s budget ballooned from under $3 billion to over $5 billion. Based on past experience, the actual cost will be over $6 billion. And it does not serve UH or Waikiki. And tax collections are low.
So the city plans to steal over $300 million from TheBus capital budget to balance the rail financial plan! We simply do not have the money for this system. If it’s built, then it will undermine our ability to issue bonds in order to pay for vital road, water, sewer and maintenance projects, as well as for bus operations and maintenance.
We need to focus on the economy, jobs and taxes. The only way the city can help is by focusing on its infrastructure and services. As mayor I will scrap the rail and replace it with real solutions and necessary maintenance. It is not acceptable that beautiful Oahu is a prime example of congestion, dilapidation and substandard infrastructure.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Reality vs Livability
Which new word Mufi will bring us from Washington, DC? LIVABILITY.
This time it is not Mufi's fault. It's President Obama's through the mouth of his transportation secretary (and past pork meister) Ray LaHood.
Obama promised that large projects won't be done based on political whim and strong arming. He promised transparency, accountability and (indirectly) cost-effectiveness. In other words, only good, necessary and justifiable projects with strong local support and big bang for the buck will be done. Now he does exactly the opposite when it comes to urban rail systems.
All rail systems are money losers in the U.S. Before Obama there was a formulaic determination at Federal Transit Administration so that the taxpayer won't be taken on a wild ride by spending hundreds of millions of dollars on projects that are grossly ineffective. Honolulu's systems is grossly ineffective because it costs over three times more that the next most expensive system in the nation, and about 20 times more the typical light rail system in the nation in terms of money taken away from city residents to built it.
This long standing FTA safety valve was thrown out. It was replaced with Livability.
Problem is there is no definition of Livability. Car haters may define it as taking cars out of the street. One can hate cars all he wants, but inside them there are human beings. Take cars away and the corresponding activity is largely taken away. Simple math. Greater automobility equals greater prosperity and a better life style.
With "livability" instead of building affordable roads or adding lanes in proportion to population (these lanes will be occupied by low to no emissions vehicles in 20 years) we proposed to build rigid, expensive neighborhood dividers such as elevated rail.
Livability is very similar to Beauty. As in "beauty is in the eye of the beholder. " Some Honolulu residents view the elevated rail as a necessary alternative and a technological asset. Most view it as unnecessary, ugly and largely useless.
Rail systems do little for "livability" and similar vague "smart growth" metrics. What rail systems do is waste money and serve far fewer people that they were planned for. Latest example, is the Sounder light rail in Seattle. Emory Bundy estimates that "as of 2008, $1,430,000,000 capital cost for Sounder, 2.22 times the price proffered in 1996 ($647,000,000 YOE$), a cost overrun of $783 million, 122%."
But that's the good news. The actual ridership story is fantasy versus reality: Numbers out of mouths of politicians ans their hired "experts" versus the number of people actually using the rail systems. Let's follow their history from fantasy to reality. Note that their system took 13 years to materialize so the 1996 local politicians are now at a law firm, Congress or prison, fully unaccountable for this boondoggle.
The 1996 Sound Move Plan promised at least 105,000 Central Link light rail daily (one-way) trips in 2010.
By late 2001, with light rail trimmed-back to Airport/Initial Segment, the target was lowered to 45,000 daily boardings by 2020.
In 2008, with Airport Link nearing completion, Sound Transit's 2010 target was lowered to 32,600.
In 2009, as opening day for Airport/Initial Segment approached, the target for 2010 was reduced again, to 26,000.
In 2009 roughly 15,000 daily trips are being recorded.
So in 2010 the expectation is that actual daily riders would be less than half those promised in late 2001 and less than a quarter those promised in 1996.
Evidence like this does not phase Hannemann, Caldwell, Apo, Carlisle and the (mostly paid in cash, in jobs or in kind) Go-Rail-Go rail advocates.
Good thing Governor Lingle promises to take a hard look into the Final EIS and the numbers and proposed mitigation plans in it. By all accounts the public is on her side. Here is a sample from Pacific Business News: 64% believe that the governor is asking important questions.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Mufi's Rail: Scrap the Whole Thing
A couple of local TV stations posted online polls after covering the presentation by the Hawaii Chapter of the American Institute of Architects at the Capitol hosted by Governor Lingle on January 18, 2010.
A fairly comprehensive and neutrally worded poll was developed by the FOX affiliate KHON as part of their well-watched Channel 2 News. The poll asked "How should the City and State proceed with the rail transit project?" and gave four options [my comments in brackets]
(1) Elevated as planned [this is the city's proposal or Mufi's Rail]
(2) At ground level [this is the vaguely described option supported by the Hawaii Chapter of the American Planning Association]
(3) Mix of above and at ground level [a specific design has been presented by rail expert Phil Craig funded by Bishop Estate and supported by American Institute of Architects-Hawaii]
(4) Scrap the whole thing [this is the Panos and Stop Rail Now preferred option]
Conclusion? Basically two thirds opined that the whole thing should be scrapped!
Below I show a snapshot of the poll at 10:30 AM the next day with numbers only slightly changed from those reported by Joe Moore at the 10 PM news. [Polls unpopular to the establishment tend to disappear quickly.]
There is wisdom into not rushing mega-projects but contemplating them carefully. It took about four years but the public now gets it: The proposed rail is a boondoggle that we don't need and we can't afford. Will elected officials get it soon enough?
A fairly comprehensive and neutrally worded poll was developed by the FOX affiliate KHON as part of their well-watched Channel 2 News. The poll asked "How should the City and State proceed with the rail transit project?" and gave four options [my comments in brackets]
(1) Elevated as planned [this is the city's proposal or Mufi's Rail]
(2) At ground level [this is the vaguely described option supported by the Hawaii Chapter of the American Planning Association]
(3) Mix of above and at ground level [a specific design has been presented by rail expert Phil Craig funded by Bishop Estate and supported by American Institute of Architects-Hawaii]
(4) Scrap the whole thing [this is the Panos and Stop Rail Now preferred option]
Conclusion? Basically two thirds opined that the whole thing should be scrapped!
Below I show a snapshot of the poll at 10:30 AM the next day with numbers only slightly changed from those reported by Joe Moore at the 10 PM news. [Polls unpopular to the establishment tend to disappear quickly.]
There is wisdom into not rushing mega-projects but contemplating them carefully. It took about four years but the public now gets it: The proposed rail is a boondoggle that we don't need and we can't afford. Will elected officials get it soon enough?
Monday, January 18, 2010
State of the Rail? Stuck!
The panel presentations of the Hawaii Chapter of the American Institute of Architects hosted by Hawaii governor Linda Lingle on January 18, 2010 revealed many of the weaknesses of the city's proposed rail plan. Here is a sample:
The governor's panel was a good example of open process as apposed to Mufi Hannemann's lectures and the Parsons Brinkerhoff's smoke and mirrors shows.
There were several references to the Alternatives Analysis, so I spent a little time reviewing this November 2006 document for which two past Hawaii Department of Transportation directors voted in approval (Hirata and Hayashida).
On page 5-2 the Alternatives Analysis says that the East Kapolei to Ala Moana cost would be 3.6 billion dollars, and the full project from West Kapolei to UH and Waikiki would be 5.5 billion dollars. In late 2009 Mufi Hannemann gloated that construction costs have dropped and that Honolulu will get a bargain for building the proposed rail. Really? Why is today's cost for the East Kapolei to Ala Moana system 5.3 billion or 47% higher than the cost estimated in 2006?
Table 5-9 of the Alternatives Analysis projected that in 2009 249 million dollars would have been spent for rail construction. Yet no construction has taken place and this has nothing to do with rail lawsuits or state administration approvals. Simply the city promises big and delivers small.
The governor is correct is pointing out that 2010 is not 2006. Money is a huge issue now at all levels. (It is not an exaggeration to say that now the U.S. builds projects by borrowing money from Asia.)
The proposed rail that is on the table now is dangerously unaffordable and it will undermine the overall ability of the state to deliver other vital projects. This is clearly shown by a desperation act of the city in the latest version of the rail budget. In order to balance the proposed rail budget, it stole $330 million from TheBus budget. This is before any real construction cost overruns have taken place.
Honolulu must not forget San Juan's experience where costs projected by the same consultant actually doubled.
AIA-Hawaii panelists insisted that for this transit project to succeed it must serve the UH-Manoa campus and Waikiki. In this case, the cost of the project is about 8 billion dollars, and, if San Juan experience is repeated, the actual cost could be 16 billion dollars. At this rate, no other project can be built in Hawaii for 20 years. No sewers, no water lines, no roads, no new schools, airport buildings or harbor piers.
The elevated rail system proposal is economic suicide for current residents and their children.
Now some think that solving the congestion problem is worth this risk. Unfortunately nowhere has a rail line solved any traffic congestion problem. The city's numbers clearly show this. At the present time TheBus carries 7 out of 100 trips on Oahu. With TheBus and TheRail combined in 2030 this will explode to ... 8 out of 100 trips. Sorry, over 90% of the trips will be stuck in traffic!
Unfortunately the news is even worse for those who hope that TheRail will reduce road congestion. Both San Juan and Seattle recently opened rail lines and their ridership is only one third of the hoped for level. What does this mean for Honolulu? After paying well over five billion dollars, transit trips will increase from 7 percent to 7.3 percent. More taxes, no relief.
- The city is stuck with its environmental compliance and cannot issue a final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS.)
- The city's EIS is too deficient to withstand scrutiny at courts.
- The city's EIS failed to study a true light rail system. (Note that the voters in 2008 were told that the city was proposing a light rail system.)
- Even if the governor wanted to sign an environmental approval, there is no document for her to sign.
- There is no federal environmental approval.
- There is no federal approval of any funding in any amount.
The governor's panel was a good example of open process as apposed to Mufi Hannemann's lectures and the Parsons Brinkerhoff's smoke and mirrors shows.
There were several references to the Alternatives Analysis, so I spent a little time reviewing this November 2006 document for which two past Hawaii Department of Transportation directors voted in approval (Hirata and Hayashida).
On page 5-2 the Alternatives Analysis says that the East Kapolei to Ala Moana cost would be 3.6 billion dollars, and the full project from West Kapolei to UH and Waikiki would be 5.5 billion dollars. In late 2009 Mufi Hannemann gloated that construction costs have dropped and that Honolulu will get a bargain for building the proposed rail. Really? Why is today's cost for the East Kapolei to Ala Moana system 5.3 billion or 47% higher than the cost estimated in 2006?
Table 5-9 of the Alternatives Analysis projected that in 2009 249 million dollars would have been spent for rail construction. Yet no construction has taken place and this has nothing to do with rail lawsuits or state administration approvals. Simply the city promises big and delivers small.
The governor is correct is pointing out that 2010 is not 2006. Money is a huge issue now at all levels. (It is not an exaggeration to say that now the U.S. builds projects by borrowing money from Asia.)
The proposed rail that is on the table now is dangerously unaffordable and it will undermine the overall ability of the state to deliver other vital projects. This is clearly shown by a desperation act of the city in the latest version of the rail budget. In order to balance the proposed rail budget, it stole $330 million from TheBus budget. This is before any real construction cost overruns have taken place.
Honolulu must not forget San Juan's experience where costs projected by the same consultant actually doubled.
AIA-Hawaii panelists insisted that for this transit project to succeed it must serve the UH-Manoa campus and Waikiki. In this case, the cost of the project is about 8 billion dollars, and, if San Juan experience is repeated, the actual cost could be 16 billion dollars. At this rate, no other project can be built in Hawaii for 20 years. No sewers, no water lines, no roads, no new schools, airport buildings or harbor piers.
The elevated rail system proposal is economic suicide for current residents and their children.
Now some think that solving the congestion problem is worth this risk. Unfortunately nowhere has a rail line solved any traffic congestion problem. The city's numbers clearly show this. At the present time TheBus carries 7 out of 100 trips on Oahu. With TheBus and TheRail combined in 2030 this will explode to ... 8 out of 100 trips. Sorry, over 90% of the trips will be stuck in traffic!
Unfortunately the news is even worse for those who hope that TheRail will reduce road congestion. Both San Juan and Seattle recently opened rail lines and their ridership is only one third of the hoped for level. What does this mean for Honolulu? After paying well over five billion dollars, transit trips will increase from 7 percent to 7.3 percent. More taxes, no relief.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
The Washington Metro
Today Sunday January 10 is my second day in a five day day visit in Washington, D.C. where I attend the 89th annual meeting of the Transportation Research Board, a unit of the National Academy of Engineering.
I decided to introduce Metro to Katie and 15 month old Endie so they can visit the Capital Mall, the Smithsonian and other fine museums while I am at the conference.
You will not believe the state of disrepair of this well-over 10-billion dollar public investment. Our station is more than four stories deep into the ground but the ADA-mandated elevators do not work. People who cannot ride the 3 minute long steep escalator have to wait for buses to take them to other stations.
None of the elevators in the platform of our station were working. They were closed with long messages about "pardon our appearance" followed by specific messages of when the improvements will be completed. Yet there were stickers on the original dates extending the delivery of the fix to February 2010.
On the way back from Metro Center, half of the Red line is single tracked for "scheduled maintenance". Those who go to near destinations have trains every five minutes. Those who go to far destinations have trains every 15 minutes.
It is 28F today in DC and the stations are very cold. Waiting a few minutes with a baby in the cold is very uncomfortable. Waiting at the Kapolei and other leeward stations in the summer will be similarly uncomfortable. And if you pile up the walk, elevator, escalator, ticketing and wait times, plus transfers to buses, the door to door travel time by mass transit is twice the travel time by car. That's what the U.S. Census reports for 2000.
The condition of the Metro is only a small and sad indication that the nation is broke and its transportation is in distress. Having the Metro in such disrepair and at the same time handing out billions to Honolulu for its ridiculous 20 mile train to suburbia is very bad public policy.
In most U.S. urban areas metro rail is too inconvenient, too expensive and too unproductive. The sunny and touristy city of Miami's rail system is an example of all these negative outcomes combined. The single rail line in the 2.2 million population San Juan in Puerto Rico is another example of negative outcomes. Honolulu hopefully won't become the next victim of misguided planning and political ambition.
I decided to introduce Metro to Katie and 15 month old Endie so they can visit the Capital Mall, the Smithsonian and other fine museums while I am at the conference.
You will not believe the state of disrepair of this well-over 10-billion dollar public investment. Our station is more than four stories deep into the ground but the ADA-mandated elevators do not work. People who cannot ride the 3 minute long steep escalator have to wait for buses to take them to other stations.
None of the elevators in the platform of our station were working. They were closed with long messages about "pardon our appearance" followed by specific messages of when the improvements will be completed. Yet there were stickers on the original dates extending the delivery of the fix to February 2010.
On the way back from Metro Center, half of the Red line is single tracked for "scheduled maintenance". Those who go to near destinations have trains every five minutes. Those who go to far destinations have trains every 15 minutes.
It is 28F today in DC and the stations are very cold. Waiting a few minutes with a baby in the cold is very uncomfortable. Waiting at the Kapolei and other leeward stations in the summer will be similarly uncomfortable. And if you pile up the walk, elevator, escalator, ticketing and wait times, plus transfers to buses, the door to door travel time by mass transit is twice the travel time by car. That's what the U.S. Census reports for 2000.
The condition of the Metro is only a small and sad indication that the nation is broke and its transportation is in distress. Having the Metro in such disrepair and at the same time handing out billions to Honolulu for its ridiculous 20 mile train to suburbia is very bad public policy.
In most U.S. urban areas metro rail is too inconvenient, too expensive and too unproductive. The sunny and touristy city of Miami's rail system is an example of all these negative outcomes combined. The single rail line in the 2.2 million population San Juan in Puerto Rico is another example of negative outcomes. Honolulu hopefully won't become the next victim of misguided planning and political ambition.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Revitalize Honolulu with BRT
The news from Cleveland is that in October 2008, construction finally ended along one of major avenues. "The crumbling Euclid Avenue corridor had become a sparkling link between downtown and University Circle. The sleek buses, the slick stations and the smooth road offered a potential path to urban renewal." (1)
What spurred this renewal? A bus rapid transit, or BRT system. The same can be applied for a connection between the UH-Manoa and Honolulu's downtown. We proposed this back in 2002 (2), but the city's planners preferred to take lanes away from Kapiolani Boulevard, at a loss of two lanes along the contraflow peak direction. That BRT proposal ended when the FTA revoked its initial approval of the Harris administration proposal.
Note that King Street and Beretania Streets have the most schools, doctors offices, markets, and other small businesses per mile of arterial street in Honolulu. A BRT system will be vastly more useful (and affordable) than any rail system with mile apart stations.
If Honolulu was not drowning in its multi-billion rail system then it would be applying for these ready-to-use Federal Transit Administration special funds for BRT:
U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood today announced that FTA will publish a solicitation for grant applications for streetcar and bus circulators and bus facilities. The $280M in grants will be awarded in conjunction with the DOT-HUD-EPA Livability Initiative. For the urban circulator projects, a maximum amount of $25M per project will be made available. (3)
This is one of many indications that change in City Hall is the only hope for refocusing Honolulu projects on cost-effective congestion solutions and essential infrastructure fixes.
(1) http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2009/11/clevelands_euclid_corridor_pro.html
(2) http://www.eng.hawaii.edu/~panos/pdp_brt.pdf
(3) http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2009/dot18509.htm
What spurred this renewal? A bus rapid transit, or BRT system. The same can be applied for a connection between the UH-Manoa and Honolulu's downtown. We proposed this back in 2002 (2), but the city's planners preferred to take lanes away from Kapiolani Boulevard, at a loss of two lanes along the contraflow peak direction. That BRT proposal ended when the FTA revoked its initial approval of the Harris administration proposal.
Note that King Street and Beretania Streets have the most schools, doctors offices, markets, and other small businesses per mile of arterial street in Honolulu. A BRT system will be vastly more useful (and affordable) than any rail system with mile apart stations.
If Honolulu was not drowning in its multi-billion rail system then it would be applying for these ready-to-use Federal Transit Administration special funds for BRT:
U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood today announced that FTA will publish a solicitation for grant applications for streetcar and bus circulators and bus facilities. The $280M in grants will be awarded in conjunction with the DOT-HUD-EPA Livability Initiative. For the urban circulator projects, a maximum amount of $25M per project will be made available. (3)
This is one of many indications that change in City Hall is the only hope for refocusing Honolulu projects on cost-effective congestion solutions and essential infrastructure fixes.
(1) http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2009/11/clevelands_euclid_corridor_pro.html
(2) http://www.eng.hawaii.edu/~panos/pdp_brt.pdf
(3) http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2009/dot18509.htm
Monday, November 23, 2009
Global Warming: Fact or Fraud?
Climate Change has been the less alarmist moniker for Global Warming. Of course since the beginning days of Earth, climate have been, is and will be in constant change. Global Warming on the other hand has been a direct accusation that anthropogenic (man made) green house gas emissions have altered Earth's climate.
I have been a skeptic of Global Warming since U.S. Vice President Al Gore received the Nobel Prize and evidence of fraudulent statements in his movie and writings were revealed. Then I read "Blue Planet in Green Shackles" by Czech Republic's President Vaclav Klaus whom Al Gore has never agreed to debate. When I bring the subject of anthropogenic global warming subject up on the radio I get polite reminders from some of my university colleagues about my misunderstandings.
Today's announcement by the Global Warming Policy Foundation signals the beginning of the end of one of science's biggest errors. Error or not, Global Warming has been a tremendous source for political and business profit based almost entirely on hot air, real or manipulated.
The Global Warming Policy Foundation is an all-party and non-party think tank and a registered educational charity. Their data, interpretations and positions have effected British, European and international policy on climate change through the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC findings are broadly disputed by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).
On November 23, 2009 Lord Lawson, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Global Warming Policy Foundation called for a rigorous and independent inquiry into leaked revelations of fraud. I quote from the Global Warming Policy Foundation website (see source below):
"Astonishingly, what appears, at least at first blush, to have emerged is that
(a) the scientists have been manipulating the raw temperature figures to show a relentlessly rising global warming trend;
(b) they have consistently refused outsiders access to the raw data;
(c) the scientists have been trying to avoid freedom of information requests; and
(d) they have been discussing ways to prevent papers by dissenting scientists being published in learned journals."
It is not a coincidence that issues (a) through (d) are exactly what NIPCC scientists have been pointing out all along. The authors of the NIPCC report "cite thousands of peer-reviewed research papers and books that were ignored by the IPCC." The NIPCC finding can be summed up as follows: The warming of the twentieth century was moderate and not unprecedented, that its impact on human health and wildlife was positive, and that carbon dioxide probably is not the driving factor behind climate change.
Lord Lawson's announcement also includes a passage that is highly critical of scientific honesty. It is highly unlikely that he would have included the sentence ... the reputation of British science has been seriously tarnished... in the absence of mounting evidence of fraud. "There may be a perfectly innocent explanation. But what is clear is that the integrity of the scientific evidence on which not merely the British Government, but other countries, too, through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), claim to base far-reaching and hugely expensive policy decisions, has been called into question. And the reputation of British science has been seriously tarnished. A high-level independent inquiry must be set up without delay."
The media have made Global Warming a household issue, although in most surveys generally a minority is interested or concerned about the subject. However, many real and fake green (or blue if you are in Europe) initiatives have been started to help "avert global warming." None were successful enough since Hollywood in the recently released 2012 movie proclaimed that the end is near: Both the Kyoto Protocol and the U.S. Congress' proposed Cap and Trade legislation were too little too late.
Quite likely 2010 will be the year to leave Global Warming behind us and tackle real issues such as the supply of adequate food, water, energy, mobility and health-care for an ever increasing population and an ever improving standard of living on Earth.
SOURCE: Lord Lawson Calls For Public Inquiry Into CRU Data Affair
I have been a skeptic of Global Warming since U.S. Vice President Al Gore received the Nobel Prize and evidence of fraudulent statements in his movie and writings were revealed. Then I read "Blue Planet in Green Shackles" by Czech Republic's President Vaclav Klaus whom Al Gore has never agreed to debate. When I bring the subject of anthropogenic global warming subject up on the radio I get polite reminders from some of my university colleagues about my misunderstandings.
Today's announcement by the Global Warming Policy Foundation signals the beginning of the end of one of science's biggest errors. Error or not, Global Warming has been a tremendous source for political and business profit based almost entirely on hot air, real or manipulated.
The Global Warming Policy Foundation is an all-party and non-party think tank and a registered educational charity. Their data, interpretations and positions have effected British, European and international policy on climate change through the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC findings are broadly disputed by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).
On November 23, 2009 Lord Lawson, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Global Warming Policy Foundation called for a rigorous and independent inquiry into leaked revelations of fraud. I quote from the Global Warming Policy Foundation website (see source below):
"Astonishingly, what appears, at least at first blush, to have emerged is that
(a) the scientists have been manipulating the raw temperature figures to show a relentlessly rising global warming trend;
(b) they have consistently refused outsiders access to the raw data;
(c) the scientists have been trying to avoid freedom of information requests; and
(d) they have been discussing ways to prevent papers by dissenting scientists being published in learned journals."
It is not a coincidence that issues (a) through (d) are exactly what NIPCC scientists have been pointing out all along. The authors of the NIPCC report "cite thousands of peer-reviewed research papers and books that were ignored by the IPCC." The NIPCC finding can be summed up as follows: The warming of the twentieth century was moderate and not unprecedented, that its impact on human health and wildlife was positive, and that carbon dioxide probably is not the driving factor behind climate change.
Lord Lawson's announcement also includes a passage that is highly critical of scientific honesty. It is highly unlikely that he would have included the sentence ... the reputation of British science has been seriously tarnished... in the absence of mounting evidence of fraud. "There may be a perfectly innocent explanation. But what is clear is that the integrity of the scientific evidence on which not merely the British Government, but other countries, too, through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), claim to base far-reaching and hugely expensive policy decisions, has been called into question. And the reputation of British science has been seriously tarnished. A high-level independent inquiry must be set up without delay."
The media have made Global Warming a household issue, although in most surveys generally a minority is interested or concerned about the subject. However, many real and fake green (or blue if you are in Europe) initiatives have been started to help "avert global warming." None were successful enough since Hollywood in the recently released 2012 movie proclaimed that the end is near: Both the Kyoto Protocol and the U.S. Congress' proposed Cap and Trade legislation were too little too late.
Quite likely 2010 will be the year to leave Global Warming behind us and tackle real issues such as the supply of adequate food, water, energy, mobility and health-care for an ever increasing population and an ever improving standard of living on Earth.
SOURCE: Lord Lawson Calls For Public Inquiry Into CRU Data Affair
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Is There a Plan to Solve Traffic Congestion of Oahu?
Unlike most other urban areas, where congestion decreased slightly from two years ago, the latest Urban Mobility Report from the Texas Transportation Institute shows that congestion has gotten worse in Honolulu:
Of course it is not new to residents that Honolulu is a congested city. Honolulu is one of the nation’s most lane deficient cities. It has a traffic congestion problem; not a transit ridership problem. A traffic problem cannot be solved with transit solutions.
Some say that Honolulu has such severe congestion because its car ownership is very high. Some politicians even claim that Honolulu is number one in car ownership. This is totally wrong. Honolulu’s car ownership ranks 64th in the nation, much lower than its rank in population!
So are we going to see an improvement in congestion? The rail proposal clearly says that:
(1) TheBus carries 6% of the trips on Oahu now, and
(2) TheBus and TheRail together will carry 7% of the trips 20 years from now.
What’s the end result? Much worse traffic congestion.
I had a brief “exit interview” with 2nd ISFO speaker and presidential advisor on transportation Robert Poole. He noted that:
“Listening to the city and state transportation planners at the conference, I was struck by how passive they were in the face of Honolulu’s serious, ever-worsening traffic congestion.”
“Highly cost-effective techniques that have long been routine in mainland cities—such as ramp meters on freeway on-ramps and synchronized traffic signal timing—still sound like new and controversial ideas in Honolulu.
“Brand new billion-dollar-scale high occupancy vehicle and toll (HOT) lane projects are under way in a dozen cities. Yet HOT lanes are barely a subject for study in Honolulu.
“Has reducing congestion—i.e., targeting a congestion level lower than today’s – even been suggested as a transportation goal in Honolulu?”
I also had the opportunity to talk at length with the 2nd ISFO keynote speaker, renowned transportation historian and congressional transportation policy analyst Alan Pisarski, author of the series Commuting in America. Here are his summary comments:
“The fragility of Oahu’s transportation system is staggering. It is a system sharply constrained by geography – both water and mountains. Just one strategically placed fender-bender can disrupt a large area for hours.
“Every tool in the traffic operations toolbox should be examined for application to the island’s daily needs. Any opportunity to upgrade and modernize the system around the freeways and their corridors must be seriously considered.
“A special events planning team integrated with the operations function is a critical step.”
Oahu is lacking in both event planning and hands-on 24x7 traffic management. The result is regional chaos with parade closures, accidents and special events at UH-Manoa campus and Aloha Stadium.
Pisarski added that “it should go without saying that traffic on the island must accommodate the two major industries of national defense and tourism. Any assessment of needs and goals must recognize that there are at least three major layers of transportation needs on Oahu: Daily life of its residents, Tourism, and National Defense.
Pisarski said that a simple question provides the fundamental guide for directing transportation resources: “What share of our resources are we spending on what share of our problem?” Oahu now plans to spend over 40% of its transportation resources on a mass transit system that will serve 7% of its trips, at best.
One of the basic duties that local transportation government has not done is take a fundamental look of transportation needs and allocations. This deficiency is pointing the finger at the Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization, but OMPO, thanks to its Policy Advisory Committee, operates as a political arm of the executive and legislative bodies, and not as an impartial regional transportation agency.
Persistent congestion, insane road closures from accidents or parades, communities like Waianae depending on a single road, roads full of potholes, the smelly and clunky Wiki-Wiki, the dirty and late buses are all outcomes of wrong priorities. The people in charge are not asking the right questions, and they are not working on real solutions.
Pisarksi conluded that: “Given all of its constraints and challenges Hawaii should be a national leader in understanding and addressing mobility needs for Defense, Tourism and Residents.
“It should be pretty obvious that a flexible, highway based system is at the core of the solution to provide needed mobility for defense, deliveries and tourism, with express toll lanes added in the plan for express buses and carpools to serve school trips and peak period commuters.”
Does Oahu do this? No! The priority of its disconnected government is “smart growth”, rail transit and Transit Oriented Development or TOD. Not surprisingly, the recent Urban Land Institute survey on Oahu shows that this is not what the residents want. Here’s an excerpt from their website:
In January, 2009, ULI Hawaii commissioned a survey of housing attitudes among the public. The phone survey was of 600 Oahu residents.
… there is relatively much less support for the “smart growth” idea of higher-density use of existing urban areas – perhaps in part because people here generally still would rather live in suburban/rural settings themselves. [Source: http://hawaii.uli.org/Activities/Housing.aspx]
- The number of hours per person spent stuck in traffic increased from 24 hours to 26.
- The travel-time index increased from 1.22 to 1.24, so it takes 24% longer to make a trip at rush hour than at other times, on the average.
- The annual cost of wasted time and fuel ballooned from $166 million to $199 million.
- Honolulu is the 28th most congested urban area in the United States.
Of course it is not new to residents that Honolulu is a congested city. Honolulu is one of the nation’s most lane deficient cities. It has a traffic congestion problem; not a transit ridership problem. A traffic problem cannot be solved with transit solutions.
Some say that Honolulu has such severe congestion because its car ownership is very high. Some politicians even claim that Honolulu is number one in car ownership. This is totally wrong. Honolulu’s car ownership ranks 64th in the nation, much lower than its rank in population!
So are we going to see an improvement in congestion? The rail proposal clearly says that:
(1) TheBus carries 6% of the trips on Oahu now, and
(2) TheBus and TheRail together will carry 7% of the trips 20 years from now.
What’s the end result? Much worse traffic congestion.
I had a brief “exit interview” with 2nd ISFO speaker and presidential advisor on transportation Robert Poole. He noted that:
“Listening to the city and state transportation planners at the conference, I was struck by how passive they were in the face of Honolulu’s serious, ever-worsening traffic congestion.”
“Highly cost-effective techniques that have long been routine in mainland cities—such as ramp meters on freeway on-ramps and synchronized traffic signal timing—still sound like new and controversial ideas in Honolulu.
“Brand new billion-dollar-scale high occupancy vehicle and toll (HOT) lane projects are under way in a dozen cities. Yet HOT lanes are barely a subject for study in Honolulu.
“Has reducing congestion—i.e., targeting a congestion level lower than today’s – even been suggested as a transportation goal in Honolulu?”
I also had the opportunity to talk at length with the 2nd ISFO keynote speaker, renowned transportation historian and congressional transportation policy analyst Alan Pisarski, author of the series Commuting in America. Here are his summary comments:
“The fragility of Oahu’s transportation system is staggering. It is a system sharply constrained by geography – both water and mountains. Just one strategically placed fender-bender can disrupt a large area for hours.
“Every tool in the traffic operations toolbox should be examined for application to the island’s daily needs. Any opportunity to upgrade and modernize the system around the freeways and their corridors must be seriously considered.
“A special events planning team integrated with the operations function is a critical step.”
Oahu is lacking in both event planning and hands-on 24x7 traffic management. The result is regional chaos with parade closures, accidents and special events at UH-Manoa campus and Aloha Stadium.
Pisarski added that “it should go without saying that traffic on the island must accommodate the two major industries of national defense and tourism. Any assessment of needs and goals must recognize that there are at least three major layers of transportation needs on Oahu: Daily life of its residents, Tourism, and National Defense.
Pisarski said that a simple question provides the fundamental guide for directing transportation resources: “What share of our resources are we spending on what share of our problem?” Oahu now plans to spend over 40% of its transportation resources on a mass transit system that will serve 7% of its trips, at best.
One of the basic duties that local transportation government has not done is take a fundamental look of transportation needs and allocations. This deficiency is pointing the finger at the Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization, but OMPO, thanks to its Policy Advisory Committee, operates as a political arm of the executive and legislative bodies, and not as an impartial regional transportation agency.
Persistent congestion, insane road closures from accidents or parades, communities like Waianae depending on a single road, roads full of potholes, the smelly and clunky Wiki-Wiki, the dirty and late buses are all outcomes of wrong priorities. The people in charge are not asking the right questions, and they are not working on real solutions.
Pisarksi conluded that: “Given all of its constraints and challenges Hawaii should be a national leader in understanding and addressing mobility needs for Defense, Tourism and Residents.
“It should be pretty obvious that a flexible, highway based system is at the core of the solution to provide needed mobility for defense, deliveries and tourism, with express toll lanes added in the plan for express buses and carpools to serve school trips and peak period commuters.”
Does Oahu do this? No! The priority of its disconnected government is “smart growth”, rail transit and Transit Oriented Development or TOD. Not surprisingly, the recent Urban Land Institute survey on Oahu shows that this is not what the residents want. Here’s an excerpt from their website:
In January, 2009, ULI Hawaii commissioned a survey of housing attitudes among the public. The phone survey was of 600 Oahu residents.
… there is relatively much less support for the “smart growth” idea of higher-density use of existing urban areas – perhaps in part because people here generally still would rather live in suburban/rural settings themselves. [Source: http://hawaii.uli.org/Activities/Housing.aspx]
Friday, November 13, 2009
Lessons for Hawaii from International Conference Held In Honolulu
The 2nd International Symposium in Freeway and Tollway Operations was held in Honolulu, Hawaii from June 21-24, 2009. More than 200 experts specializing in freeway and tollway operations gathered from around the world to share their research knowledge and experiences. These series of articles summarize some of the major presentations with useful lessons for Hawaii. Our thanks to Hawaii Reporter for publishing these articles.
1. Challenges of Hawaii’s Private Transportation Companies, James K. Tokishi, 10/20/2009, LINK
2. Maintaining and Increasing the Benefits of Managed Lanes, Alireza Abrishamkar, 10/21/2009, LINK
3. Experiences with Managed Lanes in the United States, Lambros K. Mitropoulos, 10/22/2009, LINK
4. Public Private Partnerships for Highway Projects, Laxman KC, 10/29/2009, LINK
5. Intelligence for Smarter Roadways, Alyx (Xin) Yu, 10/31/2009, LINK
6. Intelligent Highway Systems for Rural Roads, Natasha Soriano, 11/10/2009,
LINK
7. Green Travel for Highways, Lambros K. Mitropoulos, 11/3/2009, LINK
8. Sensing the Future of Traffic Detection, Alyx (Xin) Yu, 11/4/2009, LINK
9. Lane Control with Active Traffic Management for Congestion Reduction, Laxman KC, 11/12/2009, LINK
1. Challenges of Hawaii’s Private Transportation Companies, James K. Tokishi, 10/20/2009, LINK
2. Maintaining and Increasing the Benefits of Managed Lanes, Alireza Abrishamkar, 10/21/2009, LINK
3. Experiences with Managed Lanes in the United States, Lambros K. Mitropoulos, 10/22/2009, LINK
4. Public Private Partnerships for Highway Projects, Laxman KC, 10/29/2009, LINK
5. Intelligence for Smarter Roadways, Alyx (Xin) Yu, 10/31/2009, LINK
6. Intelligent Highway Systems for Rural Roads, Natasha Soriano, 11/10/2009,
LINK
7. Green Travel for Highways, Lambros K. Mitropoulos, 11/3/2009, LINK
8. Sensing the Future of Traffic Detection, Alyx (Xin) Yu, 11/4/2009, LINK
9. Lane Control with Active Traffic Management for Congestion Reduction, Laxman KC, 11/12/2009, LINK
Monday, November 2, 2009
The Irrelevance of Transit—A Brief Translation from Portland to Oahu
Randall O’Toole is one of the most knowledgeable people when it comes to government subsidized transportation and transit systems in particular. He is an analyst at CATO Institute in Oregon and he dubs himself the AntiPlanner who is “an active cyclist and avid rail fan who nonetheless recognizes that the automobile is the greatest invention of the last 200 years.”
His recent article is titled “The Importance of Cars; The Irrelevance of Transit” A which summarizes a new study published by the Cascade Policy Institute authored by Randall Pozdena, one Oregon’s most respected economists. The study is titled Driving the Economy: Automotive Travel, Economic Growth and the Risks of Global Warming Regulations.
The study’s primary findings may be actually summarized on one line only: People in wealthy economies drive more; people who drive more live in wealthier economies. In other words, in any way you wish to look at it, the auto is the key to prosperity.
In the same article I also found a paragraph about Portland’s transit agency, the TriMet, and I could not help myself from translating into the Oahuan Rail Language because it precisely paints the picture of Oahu with rail in 2030.
Here is the Portland version:
Even as it loses hundreds of thousands of dollars a month on this Toonerville trolley, TriMet is cutting bus service — again. “The purposeful degradation of downtown-centered bus service in favor of goofball streetcars and trains to nowhere marks a real decline in mass transit in
Here is the Oahu Rail version:
Even as it will be losing hundreds of thousands of dollars a month on the heavy rail, Oahu Rail is cutting TheBus — again. “The purposeful degradation of downtown-centered bus service in favor of goofball rail cars to nowhere marks a real decline in mass transit in Honolulu. How the people responsible for this — people like [Senator] Espero Earl of Ewa and [Rail Plan Manager] Barracuda Toru Hamayasu — pass themselves off as champions of transit is beyond me. Champions of pork and condos is what they are.”
In all seriousness, time and again rail transit outside megalopolis is irrelevant. When Hannemann, Caldwell and Apo talk about Transit Oriented Developments or TOD they literally talk about Taxes Offered to Developers. Who is really behind Mufi’s train? Developers, contractors, banks and construction unions.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Is Modern Oahu Like Ancient Greece?
As appeared in the Honolulu Star Bulletin and the Hawaii Reporter
Full of tyrants and myths? At least when it comes to rail, yes!
Only a tyrant would tax people for a rail project years before the proposal has been found to be environmentally acceptable and federally funded.
Only a tyrant would award contracts unlawfully for a project that has neither state nor federal environmental and other approvals.
Only a tyrant would manipulate the process in order to ignore superior and lower cost alternatives such as bus rapid transit and true light rail.
It is a myth that heavy rail is useful, green, can be built with current taxes or will ease congestion.
Fact is that this train will be least useful to families with kids, schoolchildren, the elderly, and the handicapped. It will serve less than 3% of the trips conducted daily on Oahu.
If New York City's rail network is excluded, because it alone carries 60% of all rail passengers in the nation, then the remainder of the U.S. rail systems are worse green house gas generators than cars. Much worse than hybrid cars.
There are fewer than five miles of elevated freeways in urban Oahu. The rail will be a 36 mile continuously elevated superstructure. And it will destroy what’s left of prime agricultural land.
Zeus would be proud of Oahu's tyrants and their myths. Fact is that Zeus never existed. This train should not exist either.
Panos D. Prevedouros, PhD
Professor of Civil Engineering
Full of tyrants and myths? At least when it comes to rail, yes!
Only a tyrant would tax people for a rail project years before the proposal has been found to be environmentally acceptable and federally funded.
Only a tyrant would award contracts unlawfully for a project that has neither state nor federal environmental and other approvals.
Only a tyrant would manipulate the process in order to ignore superior and lower cost alternatives such as bus rapid transit and true light rail.
It is a myth that heavy rail is useful, green, can be built with current taxes or will ease congestion.
Fact is that this train will be least useful to families with kids, schoolchildren, the elderly, and the handicapped. It will serve less than 3% of the trips conducted daily on Oahu.
If New York City's rail network is excluded, because it alone carries 60% of all rail passengers in the nation, then the remainder of the U.S. rail systems are worse green house gas generators than cars. Much worse than hybrid cars.
There are fewer than five miles of elevated freeways in urban Oahu. The rail will be a 36 mile continuously elevated superstructure. And it will destroy what’s left of prime agricultural land.
Zeus would be proud of Oahu's tyrants and their myths. Fact is that Zeus never existed. This train should not exist either.
Panos D. Prevedouros, PhD
Professor of Civil Engineering
Thursday, October 22, 2009
TOD Do not Benefit Congestion and Commuting
Transit Oriented Developments (TOD) are advocated as an integrated mass transit and housing solution that lessens the dependency on private vehicles, thus they may also reduce congestion, fuel consumption and pollution.
TODs are a major reason why Oahu's large developers and bankers are behind the heavy rail proposal. It presents a massive opportunity to build and finance real estate.
Unfortunately TOD's practical goals for car dependency reduction fail to materialize. Here is a prime example from Portland, the "poster child" of Light Rail advocacy and TODs.
I quote the abstract of research reported by Bruce Podobnik of the Department of Sociology at the Lewis and Clark College in Portland, Oregon dated July 15, 2009. No further comment is necessary in regard to the traffic congestion potential of TODs:
"This study examines the extent to which specific social and environmental objectives have been achieved in the new urbanist community of Orenco Station (Portland, Oregon). House-level surveys were conducted in Orenco Station, as well as a traditional suburb and two long established urban neighborhoods. Survey data reveal high levels of social interaction in the new urbanist community, as compared to the comparison neighborhoods.
"The analysis also reveals a higher level of walking, and an increase in the occasional use of mass transit, in the new urbanist community. However, the majority of residents in all four neighborhoods (including the new urbanist neighborhood) rely on single occupancy vehicles for their regular commute.
"In sum, this study shows that Orenco Station is very effective in achieving its social objectives, modestly effective in encouraging walking and the occasional use of mass transit–but not very effective in increasing primary reliance on mass transit for commuting."
TODs are a major reason why Oahu's large developers and bankers are behind the heavy rail proposal. It presents a massive opportunity to build and finance real estate.
Unfortunately TOD's practical goals for car dependency reduction fail to materialize. Here is a prime example from Portland, the "poster child" of Light Rail advocacy and TODs.
I quote the abstract of research reported by Bruce Podobnik of the Department of Sociology at the Lewis and Clark College in Portland, Oregon dated July 15, 2009. No further comment is necessary in regard to the traffic congestion potential of TODs:
"This study examines the extent to which specific social and environmental objectives have been achieved in the new urbanist community of Orenco Station (Portland, Oregon). House-level surveys were conducted in Orenco Station, as well as a traditional suburb and two long established urban neighborhoods. Survey data reveal high levels of social interaction in the new urbanist community, as compared to the comparison neighborhoods.
"The analysis also reveals a higher level of walking, and an increase in the occasional use of mass transit, in the new urbanist community. However, the majority of residents in all four neighborhoods (including the new urbanist neighborhood) rely on single occupancy vehicles for their regular commute.
"In sum, this study shows that Orenco Station is very effective in achieving its social objectives, modestly effective in encouraging walking and the occasional use of mass transit–but not very effective in increasing primary reliance on mass transit for commuting."
Friday, October 16, 2009
Oahu Needs Change (We Can Believe In), or Congestion is Here to Stay
There is no better proof that traffic congestion will worsen in the future than the regional transportation plan being prepared for OMPO. OMPO is the Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization. It's a federally mandated agency that coordinates city and state transportation improvements on Oahu.
OMPO is governed by its decision making Policy Committee consisted by directors of transportation and elected officials. It is a true oddity that elected officials from other counties sit on Oahu's Metropolitan Planning Organization. (Why can't they sit in California MPOs and stop toll roads there instead?) That's a subject for a separate investigation.
OMPO is preparing the 2035 Plan for Oahu. Read their Vision, Goal and Objective excerpted below. For Oahu's people, the number one transportation issue is traffic congestion. It is completely absent from the stated vision, goals and objectives. The conclusion is inescapable: Congestion on Oahu exists and gets increasingly worse due to deliberate planning and decision making. Of course such an overt bias of metropolitan planning should come as no surprise to those informed about the "rail transit" and "smart growth" agendas for political gain and profiteering from developments of the rail project.
OAHU REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN Updated to 2035
To be completed by early 2011 by PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF [A major city consultant for the rail]
VISION
In 2035, Oahu will be a place where we will have efficient, well-maintained, safe, secure, convenient, appropriate, and economical choices in getting from place to place. Our transportation system will move us and the goods we use in a manner that supports the island's high quality of life, natural beauty, economic vitality, and land use policies by supporting appropriate density development and avoiding urban sprawl. This system will promote energy conservation and economic sustainability as well as the protection of our ports of entry, preparation for emergency situations and changes in global climate patterns.
GOAL
Provide an inclusive, multi-modal transport system whose connectedness provides efficient means for users desiring to move about this island by bicycle, freight carrier, pedestrian facility, road, transit service, and intermodal connectors.
OBJECTIVES
1. Develop, operate, and maintain alternative transportation facilities, including bikeways, walkways, and other accessible pedestrian, bicycle, and environmentally-friendly elements
2. Enhance the integration and connectivity of the regional transportation system.
3. Provide efficient, convenient, and cost-effective transit service to Oahu’s citizens.
4. Promote the intermodal efficiency of harbor terminal facilities, airport terminal facilities, and land transportation systems.
5. Provide rehabilitation, renewal, and modernization of facilities in sufficient magnitude to ensure system preservation and continued, effective operation.
http://www.oahumpo.org/ortp_docs/ORTP2035GoalsObjectives20090610.pdf
OMPO is governed by its decision making Policy Committee consisted by directors of transportation and elected officials. It is a true oddity that elected officials from other counties sit on Oahu's Metropolitan Planning Organization. (Why can't they sit in California MPOs and stop toll roads there instead?) That's a subject for a separate investigation.
OMPO is preparing the 2035 Plan for Oahu. Read their Vision, Goal and Objective excerpted below. For Oahu's people, the number one transportation issue is traffic congestion. It is completely absent from the stated vision, goals and objectives. The conclusion is inescapable: Congestion on Oahu exists and gets increasingly worse due to deliberate planning and decision making. Of course such an overt bias of metropolitan planning should come as no surprise to those informed about the "rail transit" and "smart growth" agendas for political gain and profiteering from developments of the rail project.
OAHU REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN Updated to 2035
To be completed by early 2011 by PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF [A major city consultant for the rail]
VISION
In 2035, Oahu will be a place where we will have efficient, well-maintained, safe, secure, convenient, appropriate, and economical choices in getting from place to place. Our transportation system will move us and the goods we use in a manner that supports the island's high quality of life, natural beauty, economic vitality, and land use policies by supporting appropriate density development and avoiding urban sprawl. This system will promote energy conservation and economic sustainability as well as the protection of our ports of entry, preparation for emergency situations and changes in global climate patterns.
GOAL
Provide an inclusive, multi-modal transport system whose connectedness provides efficient means for users desiring to move about this island by bicycle, freight carrier, pedestrian facility, road, transit service, and intermodal connectors.
OBJECTIVES
1. Develop, operate, and maintain alternative transportation facilities, including bikeways, walkways, and other accessible pedestrian, bicycle, and environmentally-friendly elements
2. Enhance the integration and connectivity of the regional transportation system.
3. Provide efficient, convenient, and cost-effective transit service to Oahu’s citizens.
4. Promote the intermodal efficiency of harbor terminal facilities, airport terminal facilities, and land transportation systems.
5. Provide rehabilitation, renewal, and modernization of facilities in sufficient magnitude to ensure system preservation and continued, effective operation.
http://www.oahumpo.org/ortp_docs/ORTP2035GoalsObjectives20090610.pdf
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
The warmest year recorded globally was ... 1998!
Although I am mindful of the climate change issue I have not purchased any stock in the Global Warming company which is a mother lode of "environmentalist" scare tactics and problematic scientific scenarios of future earth disasters.
Now BBC headlines this: WHAT HAPPENED TO GLOBAL WARMING?
"This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might the fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.
Now BBC headlines this: WHAT HAPPENED TO GLOBAL WARMING?
"This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might the fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.
But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.
And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.
So what on Earth is going on?"
Read on here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
I suggest that you draw no conclusions either way now, and make no hasty decisions now. Carbon taxation and sequestration can wait. If Congress wants to help, they should start with corn ethanol, the king of fake green fuels and one of many scores of counter-productive environmentalism.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
"Gary Okino" versus "Cliff Slater" -- Vancouver SkyTrain Edition
"Gary"
This is just garbage. Sure when, and it is very rare when SkyTrain has a problem, they need to go back to manual operations which compared to the automated operation is very slow. But the reality is that SkyTrain operates more efficiently than any other system. There has never been an accident with SkyTrain on automatic control. Never a loss of life accident like in Washington. The trains are so close you can see the one in front some times. Try 5 – 10 minutes apart in other systems. Even Canada Line will be 7 min. apart.
I have read this blog for a while and it is clear the author has a beef about SkyTrain, but it is unfounded. His facts are many times not correct, like one post states TransLink subsidizes SkyTrain to the tune of $200,000,000 well the total cost to run SkyTrain is more like under $100,000,000 and passenger fares cover 105% of the operation of SkyTrain. It is the bus company not SkyTrain getting a huge subsidy.
Who can trust anything from a source so lacking in reality.
"Cliff"
It is you sir, that lacks reality.
FACT: The 1991 GVRD study, “The cost of Transporting People in the Lower Mainland”, put the annual SkyTrain subsidy at $157.6 million; by 2001, with the opening of the Millennium Line, the annual subsidy paid to SkyTrain was over $200 million.
FACT: TransLink does not apportion fares between buses and SkyTrain, thus can’t claim any statistic that shows that SkyTrain recovers passenger fares. 80% of SkyTrain’s passengers first take a bus to the metro.
FACT: According to Gerald Fox’s “A Comparison Between Light Rail and Automated Transit Systems”, found SkyTrain (and all automatic transit systems) less reliable than light rail.
FACT: SkyTrain has an annual death rate of 5 to 10 people annually. True SkyTrain has never had a collision in revenue service, but the Washington Metro also operates under Automatic Train Control and it appears that one train was in automatic operation and the second train was being driven manually. SkyTrain are also driven manually if need be.
FACT: SkyTrain is having ongoing signaling problems and delays are so bad that they are being reported on the radio on a weekly basis.
FACT: Light Rail can operate safely at 30 second headways and does in daily service in cities around the world.
FACT: The provincial government has never divulged the real cost to date of SkyTrain, yet in the USA, the public are told of the total cost, including debt servicing, of a transit project.
FACT: Just the Expo Line cost 60% more to operate than the entire Calgary C-Train (LRT) and Calgary’s LRT carries more passengers.
Source: http://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/2009/07/09/the-aging-skytrain-pitfalls-of-a-gadgetbahnen/
Conclusion: Facts always trump railigion.
This is just garbage. Sure when, and it is very rare when SkyTrain has a problem, they need to go back to manual operations which compared to the automated operation is very slow. But the reality is that SkyTrain operates more efficiently than any other system. There has never been an accident with SkyTrain on automatic control. Never a loss of life accident like in Washington. The trains are so close you can see the one in front some times. Try 5 – 10 minutes apart in other systems. Even Canada Line will be 7 min. apart.
I have read this blog for a while and it is clear the author has a beef about SkyTrain, but it is unfounded. His facts are many times not correct, like one post states TransLink subsidizes SkyTrain to the tune of $200,000,000 well the total cost to run SkyTrain is more like under $100,000,000 and passenger fares cover 105% of the operation of SkyTrain. It is the bus company not SkyTrain getting a huge subsidy.
Who can trust anything from a source so lacking in reality.
"Cliff"
It is you sir, that lacks reality.
FACT: The 1991 GVRD study, “The cost of Transporting People in the Lower Mainland”, put the annual SkyTrain subsidy at $157.6 million; by 2001, with the opening of the Millennium Line, the annual subsidy paid to SkyTrain was over $200 million.
FACT: TransLink does not apportion fares between buses and SkyTrain, thus can’t claim any statistic that shows that SkyTrain recovers passenger fares. 80% of SkyTrain’s passengers first take a bus to the metro.
FACT: According to Gerald Fox’s “A Comparison Between Light Rail and Automated Transit Systems”, found SkyTrain (and all automatic transit systems) less reliable than light rail.
FACT: SkyTrain has an annual death rate of 5 to 10 people annually. True SkyTrain has never had a collision in revenue service, but the Washington Metro also operates under Automatic Train Control and it appears that one train was in automatic operation and the second train was being driven manually. SkyTrain are also driven manually if need be.
FACT: SkyTrain is having ongoing signaling problems and delays are so bad that they are being reported on the radio on a weekly basis.
FACT: Light Rail can operate safely at 30 second headways and does in daily service in cities around the world.
FACT: The provincial government has never divulged the real cost to date of SkyTrain, yet in the USA, the public are told of the total cost, including debt servicing, of a transit project.
FACT: Just the Expo Line cost 60% more to operate than the entire Calgary C-Train (LRT) and Calgary’s LRT carries more passengers.
Source: http://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/2009/07/09/the-aging-skytrain-pitfalls-of-a-gadgetbahnen/
Conclusion: Facts always trump railigion.
Monday, October 5, 2009
3 Success Stories of HOT Lanes -- Oahu Is Missing out on Real Congestion Relief
1. FLORIDA: (Miami Herald) The Florida Department of Transportation has claimed victory against chronic traffic congestion on Interstate 95 northbound thanks to the new toll express lanes.
Motorists who use the two variable-toll express lanes now travel at an average speed of 56 mph during rush hour -- 36 mph faster than before the lanes opened. Even drivers who use the four free lanes are traveling faster at peak times, the report said -- 42 mph instead of 20 mph.
Congestion reducing results like this are typical for HOT lane deployments in the nation. However, client-focused Parsons Brinkerhoff managed to model HOT lanes in the Honolulu Alternatives Analysis in a way that HOT lanes performed far worse than existing conditions. A first in the nation. I strongly objected to their methods and findings but the Alternatives Analysis panel voted 6-1 in approving PB's analysis that killed HOT lanes for Honolulu in November 2006.
Back to Florida, the average weekday toll is 90 cents, with an average rush-hour toll of $1.85 and an average off-peak toll of 47 cents. (Remember that during the 2008 elections Hannemann said that tolls are 10 dollars?)
Southbound express lanes, now under construction, are expected to open later this year or in early 2010.
SOURCE: http://www.miamiherald.com/486/story/1250690.html
2. MINNESOTA: U.S. DOT Secretary LaHood inaugurated the second HOT lane project in the twin cities. The HOT Lanes on Interstate 35W project is one of the first nationwide to make use of all lanes, including the shoulder, during peak travel periods to provide drivers the option of taking a less-congested path, according to FHWA.
While the interstate previously had High Occupancy Vehicle lanes open to carpools and buses, this project converted them into High Occupancy Toll lanes with pricing based on demand. The Minnesota DOT also converted shoulders into Priced Dynamic Shoulder Lanes, which allow buses and carpools to use them at no charge while also permitting access during peak times to low-occupancy vehicles willing to pay a toll.
The U.S. DOT provided $133 million for this project with Federal Highway Administration funding lane conversions and tolling technology, the Federal Transit Administration paying for Bus Rapid Transit facilities and Park & Ride lots, and the Research and Innovative Technology Administration offering grants for the operational test period of the new tolling equipment.
This is Minnesota's second highway with HOT lanes. The I-394 express lanes opened in 2005. Prices range from 25 cents per trip when traffic is light to as much as $8 during heavy peak-period traffic. MnDOT's goal is to keep traffic in the express lanes moving at a minimum of 50 mph.
Note that few motorists pay the maximum toll. When maximum toll is displayed, it actually has the purpose of discouraging more vehicles from entering the HOT lanes so that free flow conditions can be maintained.
SOURCE: http://www.aashtojournal.org/Pages/100209minnesota.aspx
3. NATIONAL: Quantified Advantages of HOT Lanes
In the September 2009 issue of the Journal of the Institute of Transportation Engineers senior planner Decorla-Souza and senior engineer Halkias of the U.S. DOT quantify the advantage of turning shoulders of 6 lane freeways (3 lanes per direction) into HOT lanes. Their example fits the H-1 freeway like a glove because their case is for a chronically congested 6-lane freeway.
In the base case (or existing conditions) the peak direction carries 6,930 vehicles per hour. With the managed shoulder open, the freeway would carry 7,200 vehicles per hour, or a 4% gain.
The huge difference is in the average speeds which improve from 29 mph in the base case (much lower for H-1 fwy.) to 33 mph for the general lanes and 55 mph for the HOT lane for a grand average of 38 mph or 31% improvement in speed.
In comparison, the proposed rail for Honolulu won't provide any such congestion relief.
Using a cost of gasoline at (only) $2.50 per gallon and a value of time at $14.60 the combined savings in time and fuel due to the addition of a single HOT lane comes to $16 million per year. In addition, the modified freeway with one HOT lane (for an assumed length of 10 miles) will decrease greenhouse gases by 7%.
In comparison, the proposed rail for Honolulu won't provide any such pollution reduction.
Motorists who use the two variable-toll express lanes now travel at an average speed of 56 mph during rush hour -- 36 mph faster than before the lanes opened. Even drivers who use the four free lanes are traveling faster at peak times, the report said -- 42 mph instead of 20 mph.
Congestion reducing results like this are typical for HOT lane deployments in the nation. However, client-focused Parsons Brinkerhoff managed to model HOT lanes in the Honolulu Alternatives Analysis in a way that HOT lanes performed far worse than existing conditions. A first in the nation. I strongly objected to their methods and findings but the Alternatives Analysis panel voted 6-1 in approving PB's analysis that killed HOT lanes for Honolulu in November 2006.
Back to Florida, the average weekday toll is 90 cents, with an average rush-hour toll of $1.85 and an average off-peak toll of 47 cents. (Remember that during the 2008 elections Hannemann said that tolls are 10 dollars?)
Southbound express lanes, now under construction, are expected to open later this year or in early 2010.
SOURCE: http://www.miamiherald.com/486/story/1250690.html
2. MINNESOTA: U.S. DOT Secretary LaHood inaugurated the second HOT lane project in the twin cities. The HOT Lanes on Interstate 35W project is one of the first nationwide to make use of all lanes, including the shoulder, during peak travel periods to provide drivers the option of taking a less-congested path, according to FHWA.
While the interstate previously had High Occupancy Vehicle lanes open to carpools and buses, this project converted them into High Occupancy Toll lanes with pricing based on demand. The Minnesota DOT also converted shoulders into Priced Dynamic Shoulder Lanes, which allow buses and carpools to use them at no charge while also permitting access during peak times to low-occupancy vehicles willing to pay a toll.
The U.S. DOT provided $133 million for this project with Federal Highway Administration funding lane conversions and tolling technology, the Federal Transit Administration paying for Bus Rapid Transit facilities and Park & Ride lots, and the Research and Innovative Technology Administration offering grants for the operational test period of the new tolling equipment.
This is Minnesota's second highway with HOT lanes. The I-394 express lanes opened in 2005. Prices range from 25 cents per trip when traffic is light to as much as $8 during heavy peak-period traffic. MnDOT's goal is to keep traffic in the express lanes moving at a minimum of 50 mph.
Note that few motorists pay the maximum toll. When maximum toll is displayed, it actually has the purpose of discouraging more vehicles from entering the HOT lanes so that free flow conditions can be maintained.
SOURCE: http://www.aashtojournal.org/Pages/100209minnesota.aspx
3. NATIONAL: Quantified Advantages of HOT Lanes
In the September 2009 issue of the Journal of the Institute of Transportation Engineers senior planner Decorla-Souza and senior engineer Halkias of the U.S. DOT quantify the advantage of turning shoulders of 6 lane freeways (3 lanes per direction) into HOT lanes. Their example fits the H-1 freeway like a glove because their case is for a chronically congested 6-lane freeway.
In the base case (or existing conditions) the peak direction carries 6,930 vehicles per hour. With the managed shoulder open, the freeway would carry 7,200 vehicles per hour, or a 4% gain.
The huge difference is in the average speeds which improve from 29 mph in the base case (much lower for H-1 fwy.) to 33 mph for the general lanes and 55 mph for the HOT lane for a grand average of 38 mph or 31% improvement in speed.
In comparison, the proposed rail for Honolulu won't provide any such congestion relief.
Using a cost of gasoline at (only) $2.50 per gallon and a value of time at $14.60 the combined savings in time and fuel due to the addition of a single HOT lane comes to $16 million per year. In addition, the modified freeway with one HOT lane (for an assumed length of 10 miles) will decrease greenhouse gases by 7%.
In comparison, the proposed rail for Honolulu won't provide any such pollution reduction.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Olympic Airways RIP (1957-2009)
Developed into an international airline by shipping tycoon Aristotle Onassis, bought by the Greek government and operated by pro-socialist unions; successfully run into the ground.
Olympic Airlines declared bankruptcy on 29 September and ceased all operations. Olympic Airlines last flight from Vienna. Flight 160, Boeing 737-400. Low pass over runway 03R and landing at runway 03R in Athens, Greece, September 28th, 2009: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRpd2RimtOE
"The company has faced serious financial trouble since the 1980s, mostly because of management problems." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_Airlines) Although articles conveniently point the finger to past governments (some of their leaders are deceased), a big share of the problems of Olympic Airways was its leftist unions. Inflexible, greedy and providing a poor level of service. To get a feel of operational disruptions by its unions Google: Olympic Airways + labor strikes.
Olympic Airways was a sizable airline: Traffic for Olympic in 2007 reached a total of 5,977,104 passengers (3,115,521 in domestic and 2,681,583 in international flights) compared to approximately 5,500,000 passengers in 2006. It is estimated that Olympic Airways earned approximately 780 million euro in 2007 (about 1.1 billion US dollars.)
Olympic was Greece's airline. My heart would skip a beat when I would see an Olympic Airways airplane in the air or at a gate in any of the many airports were I have passed over the years. It's like seeing a piece of Greece right there, in the middle of Asia or Australia.
However the last two decades Greeks themselves renamed it from "Olympiaki Aeroporia" to "Olympiaki Taleporia" (it rhymes in Greek) or roughly translated, from Olympic Airways to Olympic Troubleways. Might as well RIP.
Olympic Airlines declared bankruptcy on 29 September and ceased all operations. Olympic Airlines last flight from Vienna. Flight 160, Boeing 737-400. Low pass over runway 03R and landing at runway 03R in Athens, Greece, September 28th, 2009: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRpd2RimtOE
"The company has faced serious financial trouble since the 1980s, mostly because of management problems." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_Airlines) Although articles conveniently point the finger to past governments (some of their leaders are deceased), a big share of the problems of Olympic Airways was its leftist unions. Inflexible, greedy and providing a poor level of service. To get a feel of operational disruptions by its unions Google: Olympic Airways + labor strikes.
Olympic Airways was a sizable airline: Traffic for Olympic in 2007 reached a total of 5,977,104 passengers (3,115,521 in domestic and 2,681,583 in international flights) compared to approximately 5,500,000 passengers in 2006. It is estimated that Olympic Airways earned approximately 780 million euro in 2007 (about 1.1 billion US dollars.)
Olympic was Greece's airline. My heart would skip a beat when I would see an Olympic Airways airplane in the air or at a gate in any of the many airports were I have passed over the years. It's like seeing a piece of Greece right there, in the middle of Asia or Australia.
However the last two decades Greeks themselves renamed it from "Olympiaki Aeroporia" to "Olympiaki Taleporia" (it rhymes in Greek) or roughly translated, from Olympic Airways to Olympic Troubleways. Might as well RIP.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
4 x 10 Workweek Does Wonders for Utah
I quote from TIME magazine:
Given Hawaii's oversized government and the underutilized potential of telecommuting for some of Hawaii's private sector (i.e., telecommute for one day per week for a large portion of white collar labor), traffic congestion can be drastically reduced with compressed work week and telecommuting while realizing huge energy savings. Tight budgets and high energy prices (or fossil fuel dependency reductions) lead smart governments to effective solutions.
But that's Utah. In Hawaii real solutions are brushed off. Here most politicians are prepared to sink $5.3 billion on a useless rail system instead.
- Utah state was the first in the U.S. to mandate a four-day workweek for most state employees, closing offices on Fridays in an effort to reduce energy costs.
- Not a furlough. Salaries were not cut; nor was the total amount of time employees work... (5 x 8 = 4 x 10)
- The compressed workweek resulted in a 13% reduction in energy use.
- Employees saved as much as $6 million in gasoline costs.
- Fears that working 10-hour days would lead to burnout turned out to be unfounded — workers took fewer sick days and reported exercising more on Fridays.
- 82% of state workers say they want to keep the new schedule.
- Unexpected benefits for people who aren't state employees: Utah's government offices have become accessible to people who in the past had to miss work to get there in time. With the new 4-10 policy, lines at the department of motor vehicles actually got shorter.
Given Hawaii's oversized government and the underutilized potential of telecommuting for some of Hawaii's private sector (i.e., telecommute for one day per week for a large portion of white collar labor), traffic congestion can be drastically reduced with compressed work week and telecommuting while realizing huge energy savings. Tight budgets and high energy prices (or fossil fuel dependency reductions) lead smart governments to effective solutions.
But that's Utah. In Hawaii real solutions are brushed off. Here most politicians are prepared to sink $5.3 billion on a useless rail system instead.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Road Work Symposium: Fixing Roads or Buying Votes?
HONOLULU ROAD WORK SYMPOSIUM
Tuesday, Sep. 29, 2009, 10:30 a.m to 3:00 p.m.
Neal S. Blaisdel Center
"The Symposium will outline the City and County of Honolulu’s Road Work project schedules and opportunities totaling over $100M of work." Another colorful flier from the City touting a forthcoming infrastructure achievement. How about a reality check?
Oahu has 1628 miles of roads and only 88 centerline miles of it are its freeways. Then there are other major highways and a few arterials that are state's jurisdiction (e.g., Pali, Likelike, Kal and Kam Highways.) It leaves the city with about 1,400 miles of roadways.
Good paving jobs average about $250,000 per lane mile in Hawaii. Reconstruction could cost twice as much, and several road segments on Oahu do need reconstruction.
Let's make some basic assumptions to get a handle on Oahu's road repair liability. Let's assume that only half of the roads need fixing, and that the average road is 4 lanes wide. We have long avenues that are 5, 6 or more lanes wide and those are the ones that are in critical need for repair. The majority of the county roads are two lanes mostly comprised of neighborhood access and collector streets.
So here is a rough total for road repair costs (not for bridges, just for pavements):
1400 x 0.5 x 4 x $250,000 = $700 Million
Given that some city arteries need reconstruction, we come up with a rough total of one billion dollar budget for pavement repairs. This estimate means that about $100 million per year in today's worth is needed for the next 10 years to fix half of Oahu roads and by then the other half of the roads would fixing.
Indeed road maintenance is a perpetual job. This is the reason why cities and states which have their act together have firmly established Pavement Management Systems. We don't.
After five years in office mayor Mufi Hannemann comes up with a one time $100M announcement. Way too late and too little to improve Honolulu roads from being third worst in the nation, but a well timed expenditure of taxpayer money for political gain.
Tuesday, Sep. 29, 2009, 10:30 a.m to 3:00 p.m.
Neal S. Blaisdel Center
"The Symposium will outline the City and County of Honolulu’s Road Work project schedules and opportunities totaling over $100M of work." Another colorful flier from the City touting a forthcoming infrastructure achievement. How about a reality check?
Oahu has 1628 miles of roads and only 88 centerline miles of it are its freeways. Then there are other major highways and a few arterials that are state's jurisdiction (e.g., Pali, Likelike, Kal and Kam Highways.) It leaves the city with about 1,400 miles of roadways.
Good paving jobs average about $250,000 per lane mile in Hawaii. Reconstruction could cost twice as much, and several road segments on Oahu do need reconstruction.
Let's make some basic assumptions to get a handle on Oahu's road repair liability. Let's assume that only half of the roads need fixing, and that the average road is 4 lanes wide. We have long avenues that are 5, 6 or more lanes wide and those are the ones that are in critical need for repair. The majority of the county roads are two lanes mostly comprised of neighborhood access and collector streets.
So here is a rough total for road repair costs (not for bridges, just for pavements):
1400 x 0.5 x 4 x $250,000 = $700 Million
Given that some city arteries need reconstruction, we come up with a rough total of one billion dollar budget for pavement repairs. This estimate means that about $100 million per year in today's worth is needed for the next 10 years to fix half of Oahu roads and by then the other half of the roads would fixing.
Indeed road maintenance is a perpetual job. This is the reason why cities and states which have their act together have firmly established Pavement Management Systems. We don't.
After five years in office mayor Mufi Hannemann comes up with a one time $100M announcement. Way too late and too little to improve Honolulu roads from being third worst in the nation, but a well timed expenditure of taxpayer money for political gain.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Federal Deficit Made Easy
There is no subject more important than the cumulative federal budget deficit. It is one thing to say that Washington has lost touch with America, and quite another when the deficit is brought down to understandable levels and the crisis hits home. The three visualizations below show what a $56 trillion in unfunded obligations really means.
One Trillion Dollars Made Easy
How much is one trillion dollars in $100 bills?
http://www.pagetutor.com/trillion/index.html
Obama Administration Deficit Made Easy
This is a comparison with past presidents since 1900. This smart animation represents U.S. deficits in miles per hour. The highest spending speed before President Obama was 64 miles per hour by his predecessor. Now Obama Administration rakes in deficits at a pace of 174 miles per hour.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5yxFtTwDcc
Your Personal Payment for the Deficit Made Easy
This one is the most depressing of them all. Basically every American owes a mortgage for a $483,000 house that he or she has no title to.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203585004574392620693542630.html#printMode
One Trillion Dollars Made Easy
How much is one trillion dollars in $100 bills?
http://www.pagetutor.com/trillion/index.html
Obama Administration Deficit Made Easy
This is a comparison with past presidents since 1900. This smart animation represents U.S. deficits in miles per hour. The highest spending speed before President Obama was 64 miles per hour by his predecessor. Now Obama Administration rakes in deficits at a pace of 174 miles per hour.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5yxFtTwDcc
Your Personal Payment for the Deficit Made Easy
This one is the most depressing of them all. Basically every American owes a mortgage for a $483,000 house that he or she has no title to.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203585004574392620693542630.html#printMode
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
LaHood:Trains Are the Ticket [He is Stuck in Reverse]
U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has been quite vocal with the bankrupt idea that (pseudo) high speed and other trains will be beneficial to the nation. Far from it. They will bankrupt the nation and harm the environment, while highway congestion rages unabated and the economy suffers.
Today LaHood said this in Ohio: Trains might never shuttle Ohioans to ballgames, musical shows and other events throughout the state as quickly as cars, but rail will attract riders who value convenience over speed, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said yesterday.
Sadly this is another political appointee selling (expensive) hot air. Here is a number of counter-punches from experts.
Four days ago the Wall Street Journal interviewed Dr. Joseph Coughlin and Dr. Bryan Reimer. They are, respectively, the director and associate director of the New England University Transportation Center and also at AgeLab, a think tank at the MIT dedicated to improving older adults' quality of life. Here is what they said. [My comments in brackets.]
Washington State obtained a FONSI (finding of no significant impact) in its environmental justice analysis for the installation of toll roadways. What is very important in that body of work is the analysis for the usefulness of transit to the poor. Politicians often mention that rail will help the poor.
The summary result is as follows:
Transit is not a viable alternative for the poor and the jobless. More specifically transit is not considered a viable alternative as 51% or responders said that would not use transit to avoid the toll, 53% of them said that the service is too infrequent and 56% they live or work too far from transit stations. Many low-income users were found to be car-dependent and support congestion pricing.
Source: Jamie Strausz-Clark, PRR, Seattle, WA
9/24 update: "Taiwan’s struggling high speed rail line, the only fully private and commercial high speed rail system in the world, will be taken over by the government his week. The line has been plagued by disappointing ridership levels totaling approximately one-third projected levels. The cost of the system was approximately $15 billion."
Source: newgeography.com
Secretary LaHood needs to get in touch with transportation reality in the U.S. and stop pedling support for taxpayer financed transportation losers defined as overly expensive transportation systems that survive only with continuous tax subsidy, provide marginal improvements to productivity, harm the environment and deplete funds for real solutions to productivity, congestion and environmental impacts.
Today LaHood said this in Ohio: Trains might never shuttle Ohioans to ballgames, musical shows and other events throughout the state as quickly as cars, but rail will attract riders who value convenience over speed, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said yesterday.
Sadly this is another political appointee selling (expensive) hot air. Here is a number of counter-punches from experts.
Four days ago the Wall Street Journal interviewed Dr. Joseph Coughlin and Dr. Bryan Reimer. They are, respectively, the director and associate director of the New England University Transportation Center and also at AgeLab, a think tank at the MIT dedicated to improving older adults' quality of life. Here is what they said. [My comments in brackets.]
- The boomers are working more and are far more engaged in daily activities than their parents were at a comparable age. Their expectations are far greater for products that facilitate their independence and mobility as they age. [Trains are the most inflexible mode for urban transportation, thus they are the least suitable "product" for the baby boomers and their families.]
- Some 70% of Americans over the age of 50 live in suburban or rural areas where public transit either doesn't exist or provides poor service. But more fundamentally: This is a generation that has moved around in automobiles its entire life. You don't wake up one day at age 65 or 70 and say, "I think I'll take the bus." [think that many boomers grew up in one-car families, whereas their children grew up in two and three car families. How many will sell their car and ride trains?]
- The car is no longer just a transportation system. It is a platform for living. When we enter the car, many of us pick up the phone and call a spouse or friend or finish the day's business. We turn on the satellite radio. It may be one of the only parts of the day that truly provides some private, quality time. If it was only about transportation, any mode would do. But this is a way of living—not just a way of moving.
Washington State obtained a FONSI (finding of no significant impact) in its environmental justice analysis for the installation of toll roadways. What is very important in that body of work is the analysis for the usefulness of transit to the poor. Politicians often mention that rail will help the poor.
The summary result is as follows:
Transit is not a viable alternative for the poor and the jobless. More specifically transit is not considered a viable alternative as 51% or responders said that would not use transit to avoid the toll, 53% of them said that the service is too infrequent and 56% they live or work too far from transit stations. Many low-income users were found to be car-dependent and support congestion pricing.
Source: Jamie Strausz-Clark, PRR, Seattle, WA
9/24 update: "Taiwan’s struggling high speed rail line, the only fully private and commercial high speed rail system in the world, will be taken over by the government his week. The line has been plagued by disappointing ridership levels totaling approximately one-third projected levels. The cost of the system was approximately $15 billion."
Source: newgeography.com
Secretary LaHood needs to get in touch with transportation reality in the U.S. and stop pedling support for taxpayer financed transportation losers defined as overly expensive transportation systems that survive only with continuous tax subsidy, provide marginal improvements to productivity, harm the environment and deplete funds for real solutions to productivity, congestion and environmental impacts.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, September 21, 2009
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?
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?
Monday, September 14, 2009
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
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
