The Delusion and Deception in Rail Forecasts

Professor Flybjerg of Oxford University has made a career in proving the fallacies involved in the planning and management of megaprojects, and in providing ways to avoid major pitfalls and deliver projects with transparency and accountability. Of course his advice is ignored by Honolulu city administration and its consultants who follow the traditional "Community Railroading Handbook" where smoke-and-mirror shows and media commercials provide grossly inflated views of project benefits and hardly mention any of the disadvantages.

Proponents of megaprojects are both deluded and deceptive. Delusion and deception are two fundamental reasons why things go wrong with large projects. Every forecast contains an amount of delusion and deception. It comes with the territory because of bias and future uncertainties.

We are all familiar with weather forecasts. Only a small amount of delusion and deception is involved there, as shown in the figure below. Meteorologists have no desire to deceive anyone about the weather; but sometimes they use words that brighten the picture or accentuate the risk. Meteorologists are not deluded because they consult with a comprehensive weather model; but the weather model has some built-in inaccuracies which lead to some wrong predictions. In Flybjerg's analysis, the weather forecast is a best case scientific prediction when it comes to deception and delusion. What are the worst? Top worst are unique projects like the Sydney Opera House and our infamous all-steel Aloha Stadium. A close second worst is rail projects as seen below. Who would have thought that good ol’ steel wheel on steel rail projects would be so rife with delusion and deception. But data from dozens of actual projects show just that. The promoters of rail projects are deluded about ridership and cost forecasts. And the same promoters deceive the public about ridership and cost forecasts.

One thing we can say for Honolulu's administration and its consultants when it comes to the proposed rail is that they are consistent with past experience elsewhere. Their forecasts are full of delusion and deception. Here is some evidence.

Denver, a city with substantial rail construction expertise and a more balanced political climate ran a large deficit for its FastTracks rail --planned to cost $6.6 billion, now it needs an extra $2.4 billion to get it completed as planned. On the other hand, Honolulu insists that its planned cost of $5.4 billion will hold. That’s without completing the environmental process and without the recent airport rerouting to clear the airport runway. Many cities two to five times larger than Honolulu cannot get more than 40,000 daily riders on their light rail systems after several years in operation. But Honolulu insists that on opening day its rail will carry 97,000 riders and some years later this will balloon to over 130,000. That's simply nuts.

How about Tren Urbano of San Juan, Puerto Rico? This is a good comparison with Oahu because Tren Urbano is heavy rail, it is on an island, it is planned by the same consultant, it had the same Federal Transit Administration oversight, and it is only five years old.

The consultant forecast a cost of $1.25 billion. FTA approved it. The actual cost was $2.25 billion. Nearly double!

The consultant forecast 80,000 riders. FTA approved it. The actual ridership was under 25,000 and for months they had to run the trains for free. Now after five years it carries 38,700 daily riders. Not even half of the original forecast!

So what did the Tren Urbano delusion and deception accomplish? It cheated the system itself. The project proponents cooked the numbers so that FTA's required cost/benefit value of no more than $25 per new transit rider is met. This is a critical estimate. If the cost projection is under $25, then a transit project is eligible for federal funding.

Let's say that the Tren Urbano just made the FTA cut by having a cost ratio of $24.8. Once the system was built, all delusion and deception went away and San Juan suffered the results of a poorly planned project. The actual ratio came out to $92.3 or 270% higher than the approved ratio! With accurate forecasts, this system would never have a chance of receiving federal funding.

Like Tren Urbano, TheRail forecasts are full of delusion and deception. It's a good thing that “the train hasn’t left the station” and it ain’t leaving any time soon.

Sustainability: What It Is and What It Means For Hawaii

Please look for this article in the April 17, 2010 issue of the Filipino Chronicle.

Proposed Rail Creates 1,000 Local Jobs and Destroys 4,000 Jobs

Here is my analysis of jobs due to Honolulu's proposed rail system. The rail has not cleared any important environmental hurdles, so it is over a year away from construction. However, the City propaganda on rail jobs must be challenged.

RAIL JOBS

The City claims that rail will create 4,500 construction jobs and 10,000 total jobs. Take a look at this Internet video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZPJ0n5AvKM.

UH economists estimate that first year rail construction job count will be about 360 jobs and only in peak years the construction job estimate will reach about 2,000 jobs. But most of them will be unsuitable for carpenters that are suffering the brunt of construction sector unemployment now. Also almost all of the rail construction materials and technology comes from off-island sources, so at best 1,000 of these jobs are local. The City estimates for rail jobs are false. They are advocacy estimates.

The other half of the story is that rail jobs are paid by tax dollars, mostly local. Taxes reduce people’s incomes and shrink the economy. Read below why the rail tax destroys at least 4,000 jobs.

TAX and SPEND?

The "multiplier effect" like 4,500 construction jobs and 10,000 total jobs is fantasy. It’s rooted in depression era economic theory. If this was true, then Honolulu should build a rail system that costs ten times more and yields 45,000 construction jobs and 100,000 total jobs!

Unfortunately tax and spend does not work. Look at Greece and California now; both are broke. Oahu will be in 2020. California Legislative Analyst’s non-partisan office said that "the scale of the deficits is so vast that we know of no way that the Legislature, the Governor, and voters can avoid making additional, very difficult choices about state priorities." This means deep cuts, severe hardship for low income people, and higher unemployment.

Spending public money on the wrong project leads to huge loses. Here is a good example. Spain spent $19 billion to create so called green jobs; 6,825 direct jobs and 8,175 related jobs were created at a cost of $1.4 million per job. For every "green job" developed by government money (taxes), 2.2 jobs were lost from the general economy. The proposed Honolulu rail will be far less productive than green technologies, so many more that 2.2 jobs will be lost for every 1 rail job.

From TAX to UNEMPLOYMENT

Taxation prolongs the downturn. Here is an analytical example. Washington State contemplates a 1% increase in state sales tax to fund its ambitious transportation program. The economic impact of a 1% increase tax can be summarized as follows.

Private employment would drop by 19,400 jobs, and public sector employment would increase by 8,100 jobs. The net effect would be a loss of 11,290 jobs. The job losses, combined with the increase in the cost of goods, would lead to a fall in real disposable income by $1.85 billion. So their overall state economy will suffer more if the tax is added.

What does this mean for Oahu's 905,000 population and 0.5% general excise tax surcharge for rail? Every man, woman and child on Oahu pays about $500 per year for the rail which based on the Washington State model and proportioned for Oahu destroys a net of 4,000 jobs for every year that the GET surcharge is levied. So rail will create a maximum of 2,000 jobs and regularly destroys 4,000 jobs.

To build rail we need trains, rails, escalators, elevators, electric lines, switches, computers, ticket machines, air conditioners, rebar and concrete, and heavy rail maintenance equipment. All the fed contribution and much of our local taxes for rail will go out of state to purchase the rail stuff. And to pay for mainland rail experts and technicians like those who design it now. So less than half of the 2,000 rail jobs will be island jobs.

CAN WE AFFORD IT?

(February 1, 2010) Denver’s $6.6 Billion FastTracks rail can't be completed within budget. It needs an extra $2.4 billion. Similarly, Honolulu cost estimates are not credible. They are advocacy estimates. City said $2.7 billion in 2006, $4.6 billion in 2008 and $5.3 billion in 2009. The real cost will be at least $6.4 billion for the first 20 miles.

Do you doubt that the City, its consultant and the Federal Transit Administration are wrong? Let’s look at a recent rail project on an island. San Juan in Puerto Rico had the same consultant as Honolulu and the same FTA oversight. The forecasts and real outcomes are as follows.

The consultant predicted a cost of $1.25 billion. FTA approved it. San Juan’s actual cost was $2.25 billion. The consultant predicted 80,000 riders. FTA approved it. San Juan’s rail carries fewer than 40,000 riders after several years in operation.
How about this reality vs. fantasy: San Juan has a population of 2,509,000 and Honolulu has 905,000. San Juan’s rail carries 38,700 daily riders. For Honolulu, the hired “experts” forecast 97,000 riders on opening day and 130,000 riders in 2030.

Let me also clarify what it means for Honolulu to enter a Full Funding Grant Agreement with the FTA. It means that FTA will give Honolulu X amount of dollars and Honolulu is mandated to complete the agreed upon system. Honolulu can't stop short if the money runs out. It must collect more local taxes and finish the job. Like Denver and all the others. The average cost overrun for FTA projects is 40%.

Worse yet, Honolulu already is deep in the hole. “U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is requiring the city to upgrade its two major waste-water treatment plants, which could cost up to $1.2 billion.” City lost both the lawsuit and the appeal. So on top of degraded water, sewer and road systems, Honolulu has a current $1.2 billion budget liability for developing secondary sewage treatment.

If ever-increasing property taxes, sewer fees, and other taxes or fees become politically unsustainable, the State will have to bail the City out. Ever higher City taxes drive out businesses and shrink State revenues. A bankrupt City (with roughly 80% of the state’s population) diminishes both City and State ability to issue bonds and get projects done. Are you not seeing a tax black hole?

BOTTOM LINE

Was any of this information available in the 2008 elections and the taxpayer funded rail commercials? In 2008, a slim majority voted in favor of a fake "light rail" that cost under $5 billion and went through Salt Lake. The bases of 2008 are false in the 2010 proposed rail. Is the 2008 vote valid now? No. Instead we have heavy rail, fake ridership, fake costs, and fake jobs gains. Only the future economic calamity due to the rail is certain. Each local rail job will cost $2.6 million in local taxes!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SAMPLE SOURCES

Washington State Model
http://www.insideronline.org/summary.cfm?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Insider%2BOnline&id=12108

Green Jobs in Spain
http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/24/AR2009062403012.html

University of Hawaii Economic Research Organization, Hawaii Construction Forecast Update: Global Downturn Hammers Construction, UHERO, March 6, 2009

Are Urban Rail Systems Good for the Society?

You'll have to agree that this is a great question.

The good thing is that two of the nation's top economists evaluated urban rail systems and have an answer.

In their 2006 study, economists Winston of the Brookings Institution and Maheshri of the University of California at Berkeley concluded as follows:

"We find that with the exception of BART in the San Francisco Bay area, every system actually reduces welfare and is unable to become socially desirable even with optimal pricing or physical restructuring of its network. We conclude rail’s social cost is unlikely to abate because it enjoys powerful political support from planners, civic boosters, and policymakers."

What does their conclusion mean in plain words?

• Urban rail systems have a negative value for the society, even if a rail system selects the best route and the best fare price.
• The only reason city rail systems get built is because politicians and special interests are promoting them forcefully. They make a (short term) profit at the expense of society.

Romy Cachola’s Scoops on the Rail

Councilmember Romy Cachola has provided a useful summary of findings after meeting with the Federal Transit Administration on March 9, 2010 along with Councilpersons Apo, Anderson and Kobayashi.

The partial summary of Cachola's findings from this fact finding mission in Washington, DC are copied below and his entire report is available at the city's docushare (see link at bottom.) Of course Cachola’s report, without saying it, makes a case for rerouting the rail route through Salt Lake Boulevard. Unfortunately, this is one of many omissions in the Draft EIS, and several months of study are needed to assess those impacts, plus time for public review and comment.

Rather foolishly the FTA approved that the City enter Preliminary Engineering, so now we are spending money engineering a rail route that is impractical. This is but a small piece of evidence why rail proposals are “gravy trains” for architects, planners and engineers … the more the mistakes, the more the taxpayer financed fees to professionals to fix those mistakes.

Note that these significant objections do not even address the multitude of problems between the airport and Waikiki (Dillingham Boulevard, Chinatown, downtown, Ala Moana.)

My conclusion has been that even if Hannemann serves his entire term as mayor, there will still be no rail on the ground by 2012, or ever, if a recent survey by Hawaii News Now is to be believed.



Cachola's summary points:

• The FTA won’t give special treatment to any jurisdiction that applies for federal funds for transit. Everyone will be treated the same way. Thus, the airport route, until resolved, is unlikely to receive special treatment as hoped for by the administration.
• The governor has every right to review the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) based not only on federal guidelines but also state laws governing environmental review. The FTA stressed to council members that without the governor’s approval, the project cannot proceed.
• A main sticking point on the Final EIS is that the transit alignment is encroaching too close to the runway protection zone. FTA officials also stressed that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) will not sign off on the Final EIS until the airport issue is resolved.
• To resolve the encroachment on the runway protection zone, the FTA stated the following alternatives:

1. Move the alignment to the mauka side of the viaduct.
2. Move the alignment onto the median of the viaduct.
3. Extend the affected runway(s) to the opposite direction (makai) so that it would no longer encroach on the runway protection zone.

• Based on the FTA’s statements, the following may need to be done:

-- Amending the alignment may require a supplemental EIS to determine the impacts and other considerations.
-- Since Honolulu International Airport is under the state’s control, any extension of the runway needs state approval. The state may not agree to any extension until an EIS is completed and approved by HDOT. Without the State’s approval, the City will be forced to look at other alternatives.

Link to Romy Cachola’s report

Better Pavements for Safety and Low Noise

On a recent trip in a driving rainstorm on Interstate 80 and I-680 (California), there were a variety of pavement types. Some seemed to collect a thin layer of water that was tossed into the air by cars and trucks, creating a blinding fog, which made for near-zero visibility. However, on some blacktop sections with equally heavy rain, there was no layer of water and no wall of spray coming off other vehicles. The visibility there was excellent. Why the difference?

The latter is open-graded asphalt, which Caltrans (the California Department of Transportation) now uses on most paving projects, and it is wonderful. It allows water to drain off the surface and into a top permeable layer — almost eliminating the spray kicked up on older pavement.

This asphalt uses pieces of gravel 3/8 of an inch thick. Underneath are 2 inches of rubberized asphalt, flexible material that withstands the wear and tear of heavy big rigs twice as long as conventional asphalt.

The uniform pieces of gravel on top do not bind as tightly as varied sizes used in other paving, so water seeps through the first few inches of pavement and drains off.

When open-graded asphalt was used on a curvy stretch of Highway 17 a few years ago, crashes dropped 41% in the first three months. On I-880, where a 26-mile repaving job ended in 2002, crashes fell 15%, from 3,172 in 2000 to 2,696 in 2004.

When you saw water being kicked up by traffic, you probably ran into an older section of I-80 that will get the better pavement this spring.

(Source: http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_14779911?nclick_check=1)

Unfortunately neither open-graded asphalt or rubberized asphalt are common practice on Oahu.

There is an additional advantage of open-graded asphalt that Caltrans did not mention: Noise reduction.

Environmentally, open-graded asphalt reduces road noise for drivers, passengers and those who work, live or play near a busy highway. Studies have found that open-graded asphalt pavements, when compared to traditional dense-graded asphalt pavements, reduce road noise by 3 to 7 decibels (dBA) which make them a viable alternative to noise walls for areas with moderate noise problems.

Source: Asphalt Intitute, http://www.asphaltinstitute.org/public/engineering/PDFs/Construction/Open_Graded_Asphalt_Surfaces_Offer_.pdf)

Island Sustainability Primer: Trends on Income, Energy, Tourism*

The goal of this on-going research project is to collect and summarize rich data sets and data sources for world’s islands. Fifty islands for which complete data could be collected are currently in the database. Islands may be part of a country or a country. Islands with population of less than 50,000 people were excluded.

Nine major variables were used for each island: Population , Area (km2), Density (citizens/km2), Political Status (independent country or part of a country), Gross Domestic Product or GDP (million U.S. dollars in 2008), Annual Electricity Consumption (Terra Watt hours), Carbon Dioxide or CO2 Emissions (million metric tons), Annual Tourist Arrivals, and Combined Road and Rail length (km per 1000 people). Some of the early results are highlighted below.

For developed islands the incremental cost and needs to serve large numbers of tourists are relatively small, thus tourism can be quite cost effective. But for small and less developed islands the cost to provide for tourism is high in terms of energy and pollution.

In general, the higher the GDP per capita is the higher the electricity consumption. For electricity consumption higher than 6,000 kWh per person, the relationship curve flattens. Also, electricity consumption per person is proportional to CO2 emissions per person.

When electricity consumption is in the range of 6,000 to 11,000 kWh per person the CO2 emissions appear to be low for a group of islands (9 to 11 metric tons per person) and higher for another group (16 to 19 metric tons per person). The islands in the low group of carbon emissions have approximately equal GDP with the islands in the high group of carbon emissions. The high group of islands consists of the Hawaiian Islands (Oahu, Maui, Big Island), Bahamas and Australia whereas the low group consists of European islands (Ireland, Iceland, UK, Cyprus) as well as Japan and New Zealand. Availability of hydro and nuclear power is likely what makes this large difference in carbon footprint.

Japan, with the highest population of all islands, has the 9th highest GDP per capita; however, it is 44th in tourists per capita, 12th in infrastructure per capita 10th in electricity consumption and 13th in CO2 emissions.

New Zealand is 16th in GDP per capita, 30th in tourists per capita, 4th in infrastructure per capita, 8th in electricity consumption and 16th in CO2 emissions per capita. As shown below, Oahu has woefully inadequate infrastructure when compared with Japan and New Zealand.

Similar to both New Zealand and Japan, our extremely large Pacific Ocean “neighbor,” Australia, is the largest island in the list, is in 7th place in GDP per capita, 37th in tourists per capita, 3rd in infrastructure per capita, 4th in electricity consumption and 5th in CO2 emissions per capita.

Table 1 summarizes the Hawaiian Islands rankings out of 50 islands with population over 50,000 people. Oahu, Maui and Big Island make the population cut, but Kauai does not.



In terms of GDP, Oahu ranks very high at 5th highest, with Maui and Big Inland in 17th and 18th position, respectively. In terms of income, Hawaiian Inland residents fare much better than average compared to other island populations. The Hawaiian Islands are major international tourism destinations: Tourists per capita shows that Maui is in the top spot, followed by Big Island on 5th and Oahu on 8th.

When it comes to road and rail infrastructure to accommodate residents and tourists, the Hawaiian Islands fall far short of their island counterparts. Only the Big Island makes it to the top 10 in the 7th place, Maui is another seven spots down at 14th and Oahu is near the bottom at 41st having too little land transportation infrastructure for its population. The result is its abundant congestion that threatens its long term quality of life and tourist attractiveness, which, in turn, degrade its sustainability.

The advanced quality of life in the Hawaiian Islands and the fact that they host over six million tourists per year results in a large consumption of electric power. Both Maui (3rd highest) and Oahu (9th highest) make it in the top 10 and Big Island is close to them at 13th. Hawaiian island dependence on oil is worrisome and the presence of fairly large population of residents and tourists does not bode well for low productivity sources like solar and wind energy. The latter has some potential but its visual impact is usually too large for Hawaii’s scenic landscapes.

Wave and tidal energy is difficult to harness and requires large shore structures, which again render then unappealing although some deployments may be feasible. This leaves nuclear as a major sustainability choice, either with small power plants (like the seven to twelve 110 megawatt nuclear units in large Navy submarines stationed in Pearl Harbor on any given day) or a largely invisible large floating platform 10 to 12 miles offshore.

As expected, an advanced life style and energy generation from coal and oil translate into a high environmental impact in terms of carbon dioxide emissions. All three Hawaiian Islands examined are in the top ten among this set of 50 islands. However, due to the vastness of the Pacific Ocean and the strong prevailing winds, local air pollution is not a problem in the Hawaiian Islands.

Two future changes can dramatically reduce CO2 emissions in Hawaii: Electric vehicles charged overnight by large scale wind farms or smaller neighborhood wind turbines, and nuclear power for the bulk of daytime power needs.

(*) Based on Research by Lambros Mitropoulos, Panos Prevedouros, and Michelle Coskey at University of Hawaii, Civil Engineering, Traffic and Transportation Laboratory

You Did Not See this Image in The News

In the immediately preceding post I mentioned this from California:

California's Legislative Analyst non-partisan office said "the scale of the deficits is so vast that we know of no way that the Legislature, the Governor, and voters can avoid making additional, very difficult choices about state priorities."

One of the painful large cuts will be to their flagship University of California campuses. Liberal thinking may be a fine pursuit but liberal spending isn't, no matter how good the socialist justification may be for it because in the long term society winds up being worse off.

Stimulus, National Budget, California and Honolulu

Abraham Lincoln once asked an audience how many legs a dog has, if you called the tail a leg? When the audience said "five," Lincoln corrected them, saying that the answer was four. "The fact that you call a tail a leg does not make it a leg."

That same principle applies today. The fact that politicians call something a "stimulus" does not make it a stimulus. The fact that they call something a "jobs bill" does not mean there will be more jobs.

So starts Thomas Sowell's recent opinion titled A stimulus or a sedative? He is the Rose and Milton Friedman senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.

His conclusion is that stimulus jobs are fake and counter-productive. And very costly. As a result the forecast from the General Accounting Office (GAO) for the U.S. budget is both pessimistic and alarming. And this is before the Trillion Dollar health care "reform" has been accounted for.

I quote two paragraphs from GAO's The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2010 to 2020.

• Accumulating deficits are pushing federal debt to significantly higher levels. CBO projects that total debt will reach $8.8 trillion by the end of 2010. At 60 percent of GDP, that would be the highest level since 1952. Under current laws and policies, CBO’s projections show that level climbing to 67% by 2020. As a result, interest payments on the debt are poised to skyrocket; the government’s spending on net interest will triple between 2010 and 2020, increasing from $207 billion to $723 billion.
• Beyond the 10-year projection period, growth of spending for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will speed up from its already rapid rate. To keep federal deficits and debt from reaching levels that would substantially harm the economy, lawmakers would have to significantly increase revenues, decrease projected spending, or enact some combination of the two.

Of course "significantly increase revenues" means "heavy new taxes."

The future is already "here" for California. In November 2009 California's Legislative Analyst non-partisan office said "the scale of the deficits is so vast that we know of no way that the Legislature, the Governor, and voters can avoid making additional, very difficult choices about state priorities."

In light of all these, Honolulu is doing the worst thing possible to prepare for this storm of deficits. It plans to sink several billion dollars on an unproductive rail investment. Since the City administration has lost its marbles about this, it is imperative that fiscally responsible people are elected at both City and State. I look forward to this responsibility at the City level.

Jobs, Priorities and Solutions for Oahu

Concerned citizens should demand a list of specific action items from their next mayor. Here is my list.

Disaster Resilience ... Where's the plan to organize and distribute machinery to handle poles, trees, power and debris? How can we provide help to neighborhoods when vital streets are blocked with fallen trees and poles? Why are key streets not fitted with underground utilities and low height trees?

Second Access for Waianae ... Farrington Hwy. alone is a death trap for this large community. What's the evacuation plan for a 20-30 minute arrive time of tsunami from Big Island?

Trash Management ... This is a huge issue. At a minimum we need better sorting, more reuse and more exportation since containers go to mainland mostly empty.

Crime and Safety ... We need to focus on hard drugs, and the protection of our young.

Highway Accident Investigation ... We need to train police to open lanes in under 60 min.

Parks and the Homeless ... Use old and decommissioned TheBus as TheShelter at some parks. Park upkeep and modernization is long overdue.

Planning and Permitting ... DPP has a poor reputation. It needs to become fast and friendly.

Water "Scam" ... Oahu has enough water for about five million people but old laws allow for its (ab)use.

Energy ... Our best bets are with wind, Navy nuclear submarines, and an offshore nuclear plant.

Sustainability ... We need to focus on fishing, agriculture, and ocean transportation for long term survival of one million people in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.

Traffic and Transit ... Build the recommendations of the UH Congestion Study.

Sewers ... We pay heavy fees but progress is slow. An immediate audit is essential, followed by a plan to get all updates completed within 10 years.

Roads ... Hasty repaving to collect votes is a waste of money. We need a plan for pavement rehabilitation to take us from 3rd worst in nation to top third in 10 years.

What is the bottom line of this list? Many new, good and local jobs. Important projects get done. Quality of life improves. Tourist appeal improves. Economy thrives!

Oahu Railway and Land (OR&L)

The Oahu Railway and Land (OR&L) provides a nearly continuous 40 ft. wide corridor for rail transportation between Nanakuli and the west side of the Honolulu International Airport (HIA). Dr. Kioni Dudley of Makakilo, among others on Oahu have been questioning why such an obvious path for rail was largely ignored from any serious analysis and environmental assessment.

Thanks to the Star Bulletin some of the points and counterpoints are beginning to emerge.

• Rail route, agenda scrutinized (Feb 15, 2010)
• Using old OR&L path for rail not practical (Feb 25, 2010)
• Old OR&L route defended for rail transit (Mar 07, 2010)

Even if the counterpoints are significant, the City did fail to take a careful look at OR&L. As member of the 2006 Transit Advisory Task Force that examined the city's Alternatives Analysis, I can attest that OR&L was not the subject of analysis.

As one can see in the map below, the rail path of OR&L is extensive and it reaches to within a few miles of downtown. It provides a platform for light rail development. Light rail service can occur at a small fraction of the proposed fully elevated multibillion dollar system, with similar or better results in ridership. Its speed may be lower compared to a fully elevated system but it can be designed with fewer stations and larger parking lots.


Between the east end of HIA and downtown, the new passenger OR&L can operate on the sides of the Nimitz Viaduct which is a proposed project for a narrow reversible elevated highway connecting H-1 Fwy. at Keehi Interchange to downtown. This project passed environmental reviews in the late 1990s and was mothballed by Governor Lingle at the beginning of her first term. However, the Nimitz Viaduct re-emerged in 2008 as a desirable project in the Highway Modernization Program of the state DOT.

The Nasty Pothole Has a New Suitor: The Smart Phone

Vehicles of all sizes and their passengers and cargo suffer daily from potholes. Particularly in Honolulu which is bottom ranked for quality of roads. Just take a look on Ward Avenue between Kinau and King Streets.

The Nasty Pothole was the focus of a popular TV and radio commercial spot by a major auto insurance company.

Honolulu has a pothole hotline, so the regular phone was a long time suitor of the pothole. Now camera and GPS loaded smart phones present a formidable new suitor.

See Click Fix Dot Com provides the means to instantly notify authorities and other motorists about nasty potholes with a picture and exact geo-location.

Yet another driver distraction, but if we were top ranked for road quality, like most cities in Florida, which has a similar hot, humid and wet environment, we wouldn't have to use a smart phone app for potholes.

FTA has withdrawn $70 million in federal stimulus funds from BART

Why? Due to the lack of Equity Analysis which is a civil rights violation.

These $70 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) stimulus funds to BART were allocated to fill a gap in its proposed half-billion dollar, 3.2 mile connection to the Oakland International Airport.

"The complaint alleged that the lack of stops and the high fare excluded low-income riders and riders of color from the benefits of the project, and that this exclusion violated not only Title VI, but also U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Environmental Justice Order." Planetizen's article titled Transportation Victory for Social Equity includes this telling section:

FTA Investigates and Requires Corrective Action

FTA accepted the complaint and conducted an on-site investigation, both of the Airport Connector project and of BART's wider Title VI compliance. In a January 15 letter to BART and MTC, Administrator Peter Rogoff concluded that the complaint’s allegations were true. He put BART and MTC on notice that FTA would withhold the $70 million in ARRA funds unless BART could quickly provide an adequate plan to FTA to correct multiple deficiencies, including the missing equity analysis. BART submitted two drafts of its plan, and Public Advocates submitted lengthy comments on each to FTA, noting numerous deficiencies.

Administrator Rogoff's February 12 follow-up letter to BART and MTC stated "I am required to reject your plan. Given the fact that the initial Title VI complaint against BART was well founded, I am not in a position to award the ARRA funds to BART while the agency remains out of compliance." Rogoff further wrote "It is imperative that BART, as a recipient of FTA funds, come fully into compliance with Title VI as soon as possible."

Where is Honolulu rail's Equity Analysis? Recall that the main plan for Honolulu rail is to terminate all express buses and other parallel bus lines and replace them by rail. This will reduce accessibility for many and particularly for the poor dramatically. The grounds for another lawsuit are quite substantial.

If you doubt this, then hear Gary Okino talk about buses, as recently as February 18, 2010 on PBS-Hawaii Insights where he proudly announced that buses will be deleted in the direction parallel to the rail and will be added as feeders in the direction perpendicular to the rail.

With this plan, overall accessibility suffers, large amounts of time are spent on inconvenient transfers and labor costs pile up for operating and maintaining two systems, one of which, the rail, is really targeted for white collar professionals who like to do wi-fi in train while the poor lose the valuable accessibility of the bus service.

Let's also recall that HOT Lanes is the biggest friend to express bus operations. Express buses that collect commuters from Makakilo, Ewa, Ewa Beach, Kapolei, Waipahu, Waipio and Mililani can be provided access to freeway shoulder lanes to avoid the mainline bumper-to-bumper traffic until the H-1/H-2 merge then hop onto the HOT lanes and arrive at Airport, Kalihi, Iwilei and downtown withing 8 to 12 minutes. No train can beat this performance and no train can beat the 1/4 cost of 10 miles of HOT Lanes.

HOT Lanes Receive Standardized Highway Signs. Purple!

The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices is one of the least boring and most understandable manuals for the application of engineering in the real world. It standardizes all signs and lane striping used on U.S. roadways, from local streets to multi-lane freeways. Most countries have adopted the MUTCD as the basis for their highways standard.

It is the MUTCD that dictates that all signs giving directions are green with white letters, signs for historical and cultural sites and National Parks are brown with white letters, etc. In its most recent edition the MUTCD introduced a brand new color, purple for the exclusive use of controlled express lanes such as High Occupancy Toll lanes and lanes with electronic tolls.

There is a funny side to this purple color designation for express and HOT lanes. Agenda-controlling Kapolei Neighborhood Board Chair and unsuccessful Hawaii Legislature candidate Maeda Timson is a very vocal pro-rail advocate; she is the current president of Go Rail Go. Her signature color is purple. It is all but impossible for Maeda to appear in public with not at least one purple article of clothing.

Ironically, purple HOT or Express lanes is the only real traffic congestion solution for Kapolei. Maeda can paint the train purple but, as the city has published widely, in 2030, congestion for Kapolei commuters will far worse with a purple train, than it is now without it. Given that the train is stuck in environmental and fiscal problems, there is plenty of time for the Go-Rail-Go president to switch to the correct transportation solution with her most preferred color coming standard and not as special order.

Trains, HOT Lanes, Ferries and Tunnels: Honolulu Has Many Alternatives and Very Few Billions

I was very pleased to accept an invitation to speak at one of the nation's best public colleges, the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA.) My presentation to their prestigious School of Public Affairs was on Trains, HOT Lanes, Ferries and Tunnels: Honolulu Has Many Alternatives and Very Few Billions.

The hour-long presentation was well received and the audience was surprised that such a disproportionally large and expensive system is planned for our city. They were disappointed that a huge amount of public funds are being spent for a project with low benefits. They were rather astounded by the apathy of the public in accepting such a megaproject for our small island.

The audience of professors and students in urban planning and public policy were generally in favor of transit, but transit needs to be selected and sized properly. The proposed transit for Honolulu fails any proportionality comparison. Projects like Honolulu's and San Juan's (heavy rail in island communities) give transit projects a bad name.

It is no coincidence that the same consultant (Parsons Brinkerhoff), for the same city (Honolulu) with a difference of six years (2000 versus 2006) concluded that a Bus Rapid Transit system will be far cheaper and will generate a higher transit ridership than rail. To avoid this comparison, BRT was not included in the 2006 Alternatives Analysis where rail was proclaimed the Locally Preferred Alternative.

The same analysis dismissed Light Rail and the Pearl Harbor Tunnel withing a few introductory paragraphs with no analysis whatsoever. HOT lanes were designed as a silly pipeline with no on- and off-ramps. Worse yet, they added 2 lanes and they took away the zipper lane, for a net gain of one lane. That one lane alone was only a hair inferior to the rail that was selected as the "winner."

HOT lanes is natural partner for BRT and Express Buses. Reversible HOT Lanes like Tampa's should be priority number one for our Waianae/Kapolei/Ewa/Mililani traffic to/from town. It is only about 10-miles from the H-1 and H-2 merge to downtown. Recall that in 2007 Tampa completed 10 miles of 3-lane reversible elevated road for a total of $320 million. Mufi Hannemann will spend over $300 million for rail paperwork and promotion alone. About $50 million from the feds. All the rest from our pockets. For paperwork, and smoke-and-mirrors shows and commercials.

======================================================

• I only spent 24 hours in LA but it was a treat to cross paths and shake hands with past Massachusetts governor, presidential candidate, UH lecturer and now UCLA professor Michael Dukakis.
• Air traffic shows that the economy has not recovered. LAX was rather uncrowded, inside the airport and outside on the roads. My return flight to Honolulu was less than two thirds full.
• Traffic lights work very well in Los Angeles thanks to their advanced management center (ATSAC) and smart allocation of lanes for left and right turns. All major boulevards were flowing uncongested in the middle of the pau hana rush hour!
  

Who is Dependent on Cars? Mass Transit!

Ed Braddy of New Geography provides some clear explanations that without cars mass transit goes broke!

The quote below provides a quick summary, but the full article is very informative.

Yet in pursuing this transit-friendly future political leaders rarely confront this inescapable reality: public transportation is fiscally unsustainable and utterly dependent on the very car-drivers transit boosters so often excoriate. For example, a major source of funding for transit comes from taxes paid by motorists, which include principally fuel taxes but also sales taxes, registration fees and transportation grants. The amount of tax diversion varies from place to place, but whether the metro region is small or large the subsidies are significant.

Read it here: Who is Dependent on Cars? Mass Transit!

The passage below is a reality comparison between roads and transit--what is fiscally sustainable and what is not:

Many policy makers fail to focus on developing a fiscally sustainable plan for public transit. They miss the fundamental problem that anything heavily subsidized –particularly in a period of budget cuts– is unsustainable. Roads are subsidized at about a half-penny per passenger mile; transit subsidies are 100 times higher.

Panos Prevedouros on the Rick Hamada Program

For nearly three years now and on 40 or so Mondays per year I join political columnist and radio host Richard Hamada, III on KHVH 830 AM The Rick Hamada Program for a humorous, interesting and if I may say so, insightful, discussion on Honolulu city's issues and challenges relating to traffic and infrastructure, as well as on cost-effective ideas to mitigate these problems.

Here is a sample of the first four shows in 2010. Visit HonoluluTownPodcast.Com for more, including the "dark side", that is, Mayor Mufi's rail propaganda on the Mike Buck Show on KHVH.

• January 18, 2010
• January 25, 2010
• February 1, 2010(with Steve Boleyn)
• February 8, 2010

They lied about the ridership, they lied about the costs, so why wouldn’t they lie about the jobs?

Randall O'Toole's blog provides this sobering insight in Rail Jobs Overestimated.

Randall also predicted Honolulu's likely predicament with rail by analyzing the extension of a heavy rail line in Washington, D.C. in $6 Billion Down the Drain

The interesting thing is that the motivation and conclusion are the same for Washington and Honolulu! So taxpayers are on the hook for spending at least $5.2 billion — more likely $6 billion or more — for a rail line designed solely to benefit a few property owners and developers. But, as it turns out, even they won’t benefit from it.

Because rail is the 5% solution... 5% will use it, the remainder 95% will be stuck in horrendous congestion. And with more potholes and lane closures from water main breaks because the city's budget will be broke.

Is that a legacy worth leaving to our children?

Honolulu Rail's Cost, Route and Ridership Opinions

President's Day 2010 brought a lot of interesting perspectives on the table for Honolulu's $5.3 billion proposed elevated rail line. None of them favorable.

Dr. Kioni Dudley of Makakilo offers his perspective about the proposed rail in the Honolulu Star Bulletin. These sentences from his article are particularly insightful:

• This rail is not being built to solve current traffic problems. It actually is not even for us. It is being built to benefit developers.
• The traffic problems it will solve are future problems, yet to be caused by people yet to move into homes yet to be built.

Cliff Slater of HonoluluTRaffic.com covers the costs of the proposed rail in his article published in the Honolulu Advertiser. "The city's rail project is not merely the largest public works project in Hawai'i. It will be the fourth most expensive of any post-1950 metro area rail system in the nation, exceeded only by Washington, San Francisco and Los Angeles."

The article is great, but why should anyone read past its opening paragraph? Stop the insanity! should be the response. The fourth most expensive system in the US, proposed for an island paradise in the middle of the Pacific, with less than one million people. The governor should stop this grave error and refuse any approvals for it.

Finally Shawn Hao of the Honolulu Advertiser uses soft language but reveals other parts of the insanity in yet another well-researched article.

• The benefit of the proposed rail: "Honolulu's planned rail line from East Kapolei to Ala Moana is expected to boost public transit use by about 1 percentage point by offering faster, more reliable service than buses." [Would you pay five billion to receive a 1% reduction? Follow Mufi and you will.]

• The dropping ridership of TheBus. [I have plotted the statistics that Hao quotes from the Hawaii Data Book below. Transit ridership is on a steady downhill. But we keep buying more buses...]

• The City's attitude: "We don't care what the Mainland is doing," Honolulu Transportation Director Wayne Yoshioka said.

Ainokea is right Mr. Yioshioka.

For the record, I see the numbers and Aikea.

Rail for Honolulu is Pure Fiction at a Huge Cost

The numbers in the table tell the story...



2009 Ridership Source

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:

• "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...

Now this "good news" came out today from the President's budget which will be taken apart by Congress in the coming months, much like his health care bill. The funding for Mufi's rail may survive, or may not. This is a "make work" bridge-to-nowhere project and the fiscal outlook for it is bleak.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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:

1. The city is stuck with its environmental compliance and cannot issue a final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS.)
2. The city's EIS is too deficient to withstand scrutiny at courts.
3. 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.)
4. Even if the governor wanted to sign an environmental approval, there is no document for her to sign.
5. There is no federal environmental approval.
6. 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.

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.

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