InfraConsult Goes Ballistic about the EZWay

InfraConsult is a private company hired by the Mufi administration to manage the rail project. Mike Scheider of InfraConsult recently wrote a review of the Kobayashi and Prevedouros plan of the EZWay plan which provides real traffic congestion solutions. It is modular, efficient, affordable and based on solid local expertise for design and construction. All these of course are major threats to the overseas design, engineering, equipment and operation expertise required for trains.

Below is a point to point response.

InfraConsult: A 3-lane wide, 15-mile long elevated highway for “guided buses,” unguided buses, carpools, and single-occupant high-MPG cars will cost more to construct than an elevated rail guideway. A 3-lane highway is more than twice as wide as a guideway for electric trains, and will require considerably more structural reinforcement. Furthermore, anyone who believes that this highway in the sky can be built without a full environmental impact analysis is in serious denial of environmental reality and has little knowledge of state and federal requirements. In fact, work could not begin on such a facility for many years after the first phase of the train is already under construction.

EZWay: The EZWay is a simple elevated structure that cost only $30 million per mile to construct in Tampa, Florida. The EZWay is complete at 15 miles. It has no requirement for guided buses. The rail has a 20 mile starter element that is used in local promotions to deceive the public that it is a four instead of a six billion dollar system. The whole rail system is 30 to 38 miles depending on which politician or land developer you try to please. Although the rail may have a narrower guideway, 20 to 30 massive stations will more that make up the amount of concrete “saved” on the guideway. The EZWay will need an environmental review but the 2.5 mile Nimitz Flyover of it already has a full EIS and was about to go to bid in 2004. It can be built much sooner than rail.

The environmental requirements of having express buses use freeway shoulders are minimal. Some critical stretches can be operational before rail even breaks ground.

InfraConsult: The proposed elevated highway is clearly ineligible for Federal funding from either the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) or the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Section 5309 of the Federal code is unambiguous: No facility that permits single-occupant cars qualifies for New Starts funding from FTA, and no project that is unspecified in the O’ahu Metropolitan Planning Organization (OMPO) long-range plan can receive FHWA funding. Thus, the EZ plan’s major cost elements will have to be borne locally – more than $3 billion for the elevated highway and tunnels, plus the costs of bus facilities, numerous interchanges and grade separations, and over $400 million for new buses – a major cost item which was nowhere to be found in Kobayashi’s plan.

EZWay: One third of the EZWay is a bus-only facility and is fully fundable by the FTA. The rest is a high occupancy facility and can be funded by the Federal Highway Administration which also funded H-1, H-2, H-3 and other key roads throughout Hawaii. InfraConsult and the rail proponents have fixated their mind in the tiny FTA New Starts fund and ignore other relatively huge federal sources. Also, modular plans like the EZWay are far more flexible and eligible for earmarks, of which Senator Daniel Inouye knows a thing or two.

The EZWay does not encourage solo vehicle ridership. On the contrary, it provides a strong travel time savings incentive to carpool. The EZWay will be the first express facility in the nation to explicitly provide an incentive for green and highly efficient vehicles. EZWay allows Honolulu to be an international innovator. Of course, innovation is the last thing in the mind of rail supporters.

InfraConsult: It is unlikely that the transit-related General Excise Tax (GET) supplement will be permitted to fund Kobayashi’s plan, owing to language in the state statute that disallows these monies to be spent building new highway lanes.

EZWay: Fewer than 10 words need to change in the Act to strike out the discriminatory GET surcharge for Oahu. And if rail gets a NO in the ballot, the Act simply has to change and allow for the funding of real solutions.

InfraConsult: There are far too few access points along the proposed elevated highway to permit entry/exit for carpools and buses, causing significantly more driving for local residents and circulator buses to find and enter the elevated highway.

EZWay: This is by design because the plan addresses the huge mobility crisis between leeward and central Oahu on one hand and the primary urban center (PUC). It is not designed as a typical full access freeway between Waipahu and Honolulu. The ramps are designed to maximize quality of flow while serving very large traffic generators like Aloha Stadium, Pearl Harbor, Airport, Mapunapuna, Kalihi, downtown and Kakaako. This is more economical and entirely sufficient for providing substantial relief from congestion.

InfraConsult: Hotel Street simply cannot accommodate more buses without creating further transit gridlock. To assert otherwise defies logic.

EZWay: Only up to 20 express buses per hour destined to Moiliili and the UH may have to go through Hotel Street to connect to the University BRT. Hotel Street can do this. The current occasional peak hour mess on Hotel Street is a testament of mismanagement, not of overloading. TheBus is completely devoid of any tools of advanced fleet management. To give an analogy, many now use third generation cell phones, yet TheBus is run with Hawaii 5-0 style “Motorolas.”

InfraConsult: The operating costs of an all-bus system are 30%-50% higher than for a rail/bus system, which could result in an all-bus program requiring higher taxes for Honolulu residents. In addition, buses are typically replaced every 12-15 years, and rail vehicles every 30-40 years. The math is simple and straightforward.

EZWay: False. Rail alone is a largely useless mode given the densities along the route and the fact that very few people will walk more than a quarter mile to/from a station. Rail requires an extensive bus system. Only in very large cities of well over five million people does rail get sufficient midday and two directional use to make it worth some savings over bus. (But even in New York City buses carry more people than rail.) The proposed rail on Oahu is such a loser because it only offers some useful service for two hours per day per direction, so roughly it is only 10% efficient. Then account that almost half of the year the UH system is not is session and rail’s efficiency drops to 5%.

InfraConsult: Existing lanes for automobiles would need to be removed in and around Downtown to allow buses to operate in bus-only lanes, making traffic congestion in town considerably worse than with an exclusive rail alignment.

EZWay: False, because InfraConsult makes things up. The reason we opposed the Harris BRT was the lane-taking in town. The EZWay proposal has BRT on King and Beretania Streets and uses priority lanes only when parking is prohibited (during peak periods only.) This, along with signal priority provides a fast service to the UH-Manoa with no ill effects to the King and Beretania Street traffic. The EZWay avoids the disastrous Harris BRT plan to permanently take two lanes away from both Kapiolani and Ala Moana Boulevards. The EZWay plan includes no permanent lane taking.

InfraConsult: Regardless of “spin,” it’s clear to all serious-minded people that electric trains are more environmentally friendly than increases in auto and bus usage. Aside from costing commuters far less than driving, a modern rail transit system will aid in our long-range national goal of reducing dependency on foreign oil.

EZWay: The EZWay plan is an engineering blueprint and not a TV commercial made up with distorted statistics targeting the uneducated public and unaware environmentalists.

A significant fact that goes a long way in support of the EZWay is that the 2003 BRT study for Honolulu shows that despite using a lower population and much cheaper cost of gas, the total mass transit ridership with BRT is substantially higher that of the proposed rail and at one fifth the cost.

The EZWay is a substantial upgrade to the 2003 BRT system. The EZWay plan provides for a 15 mile exclusive bus lane which the Regional BRT did not have. So it will have at least 10% more transit riders than Rail at a much lower cost. Its FTA ranking will be far superior to Rail.

The 2003 BRT was part of the Oahu Regional Transportation Plan and EZWay can also become part of the ORTP once the required analysis is complete.

But then the likes of InfraConsult and the Honolulu Advertiser ask: Where is your bureaucratic paperwork, and where are your federal funding guarantees?

It is preposterous for engineering firms with over one hundred million dollar contracts (of our taxes) to require of those opposing rail and offering detailed alternatives to have similar analyses done and have their alternatives included in bureaucratic lists and rankings. It is also sad that in the current state of politics and journalism on Oahu, many politicians and many of the mainstream media instead of questioning the contracted consultants, they too demand detailed analysis and federal guarantees from opposing citizens and engineers!

The Power of Performance-Driven Criteria

Performance Driven Contracting is one of several techniques and technologies in contracting and construction that enable faster and less costly infrastructure project development and completion.

The following post is an abbreviated version of an article written by Pete Rahn who is president of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and executive director of the Missouri Department of Transportation (Missouri DOT). He serves on the executive committee of the Transportation Research Board (TRB,) as well as its task force on accelerating innovation in the highway industry. He can be contacted at pete.rahn@modot.mo.gov.

Accountability is a critical component to earning public trust and gaining additional resources. One approach that is working well for some departments of transportation is incorporating stringent performance-driven specifications into design-build projects.
Bloger’s Note: Hawaii has laws that enable Design-Build (DB) projects and the design and construction of the H-3 Freeway was a DB project. DB is a basic form of public-private partnership (PPP.)

The innovative approach of Performance Driven Contracting (versus the traditional methods-and-means specifications) is driving down costs, speeding timetables and helping agencies to be more responsive to citizens.

The key to performance-based specifications is not to tell the proposing teams how to deliver the project. Rather than providing detailed plans and expecting design-build teams to submit design details with costs and completion dates, the Department sets the dollar amount and delivery deadline and asks the team to supply the scope within these parameters. So teams compete on how much project they can deliver. As a result, they are responding with proposals of innovative financing, innovative design and innovative program delivery.

Texas, Utah and Florida use this new dimension of design-build. Missouri DOT incorporated performance-driven specifications into three of its design-build projects:

• Reconstruction of Interstate 64 in St. Louis
• kcICON, a major interchange and bridge construction project in downtown Kansas City
• Safe and Sound Bridge Improvement Program, which involves rebuilding 802 bridges throughout Missouri.

Under the best circumstances, the Missouri DOT estimated the high-profile I-64 reconstruction project would be a six- to eight-year endeavor, costing $750 million.

The performance criteria, however, stated that the 10-mile project would need to be completed in three and half years and within the department’s budget of $535 million. The results have exceeded expectations: The team delivered 95% of the department’s wish list items in less time than stipulated in the contract.

The reconstruction was predicted by some to have an extremely negative impact on the region because it required the interstate be closed for two years—five miles per year—while work was completed. Word of the shutdown provoked “doom and gloom” speculations from citizens and news media. But those speculations never materialized. Instead, the project has transformed Missouri DOT’s image in St. Louis. And, the department has public accolades to prove it.

The I-64 triumph is due not only to performance-driven criteria but also unprecedented collaboration. All design, construction, department and federal highway representatives work in the same building and are empowered to make decisions on the spot.

The use of performance-driven criteria will become more commonplace as agencies discover how flexible and valuable these specifications can be in helping them promise and deliver transportation projects.

How Little We Know about Mufi's Rail

Of course it is my strong recommendation that Honolulu registered voters vote NO in the city charter amendment asking for the establishment of a steel wheel on steel rails fully elevated heavy rail system.

Linda, a person who voted for me in the 2008 primary election (who I do not know in person) sent me a very interesting email listing a litany of important questions. My answer to most of her question is: I do not know.

Because all these important questions remain unaswered and because the rail's Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was not provided with sufficient time for public review and comment prior to the election, the public Must Vote NO on the Rail question.

Linda's e-mail is reproduced below with her permission, in its entirety and with no changes. If you have answers to the majority of her questions please send them over.

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

What is the real reason that Hannemann is pushing for the rail by 2009 even though we do not have any guarantee on federal monies? It must be that the unions, etc. were promised to get him elected as mayor, then next as governor.

Also, even though we receive federal monies, won't we still as taxpayers have to dish out the balance, which no one seems to know what the actual amount will be. Is the real reason to develop the rail to bring in money and create jobs for the next 10-15 years? I'm all for job creation, but in the end, we'll all be paying more taxes and only those connected with the rail will be taking in any money. What is the true cost of adjusting bus routes, building car lots, providing security (hopefully), training or bringing in mainland staff?

Have issues such as safety and security and maintaining the rail been addressed? I am very, very concerned about that. It seems that even the Bus has difficulty with upkeep. The seats and floors are not cleaned, and torn. How long will it take to fix anything on the train since we obviously have to bring it in? Even traffic lights, etc. take months and months to be brought to Hawaii. My daughter stopped taking the city bus because of the lack of security and this is on a bus in which the bus driver can see and hear the riders. What happens on a train that will not have any security person on it? It seems like the perfect situation for muggings and even worse crimes. How about the car lots - any guarantee on security for our cars? Or will our cars be open game?

Who will actually work for the train system? How many regular workers, including maintenance and repair people and at what cost? Will it be run by union workers? What happens if there's a strike? What is the actual daily labor/running cost that will be involved?

What actual bus routes will connect to the train? How long is the actual time for the person to get to the bus station, ride the bus, then ride the train, then maybe have to walk or take another bus? I think people are just thinking about the train riding time, not all of the logistics just to get on the train and get to where they have to go. If they take their cars, again the safety issue and how many car lots?

I think demonstrating the actual noise decibel was a great idea. Just telling people it's so many decibels, people don't understand what that means in comparison to freeway noise, noise from an ambulance, etc. I would not want to be near constant steel-on-steel noise especially if you live in a residential area. I lived in Japan, so you can hear the train noise late at night (among all the other city noises). They have noise decibel machines to help people be aware of the noise pollution - do we want to have to do that here? I'm not sure if they have some kind of law about what the decibel limits are.

I would be more open to a system in Waikiki up to the airport area, University - probably not steel-on-steel, if all of the above questions were answered clearly!

As for a system from Kapolei - no. I think the city should keep its promise made to the Kapolei residents 20 or more years ago, before they bought their homes. Create the 2nd City - so they don't even have to come into town. They can have free time to spend with their families - quality of life! Isn't that what was promised - to build offices out that side so they wouldn't have to come into town. More time, less traffic, better for our environment, better quality of life. All the money they plan to spend on rail - spend it on building the 2nd City for the sake of all of us.

Mahalo.

Mufi Misrepresentation about BRT

In a Honolulu Advertiser-sponsored debate on October 15, 2008 at the Plaza Club, Honolulu Mayor Mufi Hannemann explicitly mentioned that FTA funds very few BRT projects... maybe four or five in the last several years.

Here is a 2005 FTA list. I count 22, so the lie factor is over 400%.

Specific BRT projects authorized or funded under SAFETEA-LU include:

• Studies authorized for FY 2006 and FY 2007:

Lane County, Oregon Phase BRT Phase II corridor ($500,000);
Proven-Orem, Utah BRT ($500,000);
Sevier County, Tennessee BRT ($500,000)

• Final design and construction under existing full funding grant agreements:

Cleveland Euclid Corridor Transportation Project ($24.8 million for FY 2005 and $24,774,513 for FY 2006)

• Final design and construction authorized for FY 2005 through FY 2009:

Boston, Massachusetts Silver line BRT Phase III;
Kansas City, Missouri Southtown BRT

• Preliminary engineering for FY 2005 through FY 2009:

Baton Rouge, Louisiana BRT;
Boston, Masssachusetts Urban Ring BRT;
Chicago, Illinois Cermack Road BRT;
Jacksonville, Florida East-Southwest BRT and North-Southeast BRT;
King County, Washington I-405 Corridor BRT;
Lakeville, Minnesota Cedar Avenue Corridor BRT;
Las Vegas, Nevada Boulder Highway MAX BRT;
New York City, New York BRT;
Provo-Orem, Utah BRT;
Oakland, California Telegraph Avenue/International Boulevard/East 14th Street BRT;
Salt Lake City, Utah West Valley City 3500 South BRT;
San Antonio, Texas BRT;
San Diego, California First BRT;
San Francisco, California Geary Boulevard BRT;
Tampa, Florida BRT Improvements;
Virginia Beach, Virginia BRT

6 Questions for the EZWay

A past governor of the State of Hawaii sent me a half dozen questions about the EZWay Transportation Solution that I developed in collaboration with mayoral candidate Ann Kobayashi and her advisors as well as a number of local and overseas advisors. My personal responses are listed below:

(1) How will you respond to the criticism that federal funding will not be available?

The project is fully eligible for both FTA and FHWA funds. A busway fully qualifies as a "fixed guideway" by FTA definition and high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes are on priority funding for both FTA and FHWA.

The Federal Transit Administration is a strong proponent of Bus Transit and BRT in most cases is a better substitute for light rail.

(2) Does the legislature have to amend the law empowering the city to impose the 1/2% increase in the general excise tax to fund EZ-Way?

The key here is the "rail vote" on the November 4 ballot.

If the rail vote comes in favor of rail, then both candidates will likely embark on some rail route.

If the "rail vote" comes against rail, then the EZWay plan is ready for deployment or EIS. The Act calls for the "fixed guideway" and exclusive elevated bus-only lanes is a fixed guideway.

(3) Compared to Mufi's rail transit construction costs how accurate are the estimated costs for EZ-Way?

The Plan's costs are accurate. In addition to estimates I have, today I received the spreadsheet analysis from a local heavy construction estimation expert. His estimation includes a 50 ft. wide deck, railings, all drainage and lighting. The estimate for 15 miles of EZWay 3-lane guideway is $818,634,000 in 2008 dollars.

The EZWay project is 1/2 the length of rail and we maintain 1/2 of their contingency funds to cover uncertainties. This is conservative because EZWay does not have the techical complexity of rail or the total unfamiliarity of the local workforce in putting together a rail line.

(4) How do the estimated operating and maintenance costs compare for the two systems?

Throughout the nation buses in cities with rail systems carry over twice the load of passengers and cost less than half the per pax-mile cost of rail. Of course in places like LA, the contribution of light rail to total transit trips is minimal. Oahu knows how to run buses and has no clue about rail. The development of a Transit Authority will be a new and large government entity with large permanent costs in salaries, benefits and facilities. None of this is necessary for the EZWay plan.

Rail may save a few "drivers" but adds large numbers of personnel for security, rail station attendants, rail ticket inspectors, parking attendants, guideway and station maintenance crews, and a crew for the complex maintenance and storage rail yard.

Today a transit bus and its driver are stuck for 45 minutes on H-1 inbound in the morning. With EZWay, the same bus will go from Waipahu to downtown in 15 minutes, thus the same bus can do basically two or more trips instead of one. The existing TheBus fleet would be adequate if we were to deploy the system today.

5) What is the estimated cost of the so-called mini-tunnel?

If no utilities are there and require relocation and if and no iwi is found, it can be built for $50M to $75M depending on its exact configuration. If issues arise, the cost can reach the $100M to $125M range, but the Alakea and Halekauwila underpasses (collectively referred to as the downtowen mini-tunnel) would still remain a cost-effective project.

6) What is the point from which construction will begin?

Unlike the train to nowhere that will start in Kapolei and in three years it might reach Aloha Stadium (that's over two billion dollars and three years of pure waste of time and money,) the EZWay plan will reduce congestion by over 10% within three years. Basically in three years the EZWay plan will provide more congestion relief on Oahu than rail will ever do regardless of its length (10, 20 or 34 miles.)

The EZWay Plan is deployed in two phases, as follows:

For immediate traffic relief the Plan deploys the Nimitz Flyover from the Keehi junction to Pier 16. This can be built in 10 months or less and this project has an approved 1996 EIS. At the same time Phase 1 deploys the King/Beretania line of the University BRT.

The downtown underpasses need to get environmental assessment and preliminary engineering, so these two along with a few more potential underpasses are part of Phase 1. These are small localized projects costing between $15M and $50M each, so study, design and approvals can be obtained in 15 to 18 months.

Phase 2 is the "main course" which includes:

• Elevated reversible EZWay from the H-1/H-2 merge to Keehi interchange
• H-1 freeway shoulder improvements from Kapolei to the H-1/H-2 merge
• Selected "queue jumpers" to get express buses over long lines of traffic at congested traffic lights.
  

Honolulu Pavements ala Mufi

Hannemann just dropped his latest propaganda piece. In it he claims that while in office he:

- Filled more than 244,323 potholes
- Resurfaced 566 lane miles
- Spent $124 million on road rehabilitation

My take on these "accomplishments" is as follows:

(1) That's nearly a quarter million ways of patching pavements the wrong way and at a huge labor and material cost. And with a poor visual, safety and ride-quality result.

(2) This includes fixes on 2, 4 and 6 lanes roads. Using a 4-lane road as an average and three years in the office, yields a tiny resurfacing record of 47 road miles per year. The city will never catch up with its $1.8 billion pavement repair backlog. Worse yet, most of the lane miles claimed are likely to be long patches and superficial half inch jobs which begin to deteriorate immediately and last but a few years. (A properly rehabilitated or resurfaced road will last a minimum of 10 and up to 25 years.)

(3) Only in the 2009 budget Hannemann allocated $77 million on rehabilitation and that's too low. Having spent $124 M in three years shows that he does not have a clue when it comes to priorities. And given his traditional thuthiness with the facts, this item may also include the cost of doing the potholes and resurfacing!