The brief but precise analysis done by HonoluluTraffic.com on the procedural steps for the proposed rail system of Honolulu to move forward is available at Hawaii Reporter:
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?274effb2-d6f8-4b05-8939-6c124dbf324a
Monday, September 14, 2009
2009 Commuter Pain report: Lessons for Oahu
The 2009 Commuter Pain report, an annual study conducted by IBM was released before Labor Day. It is based on surveys of 4,400 commuters in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Dallas-Forth Worth, Los Angeles, Miami-Ft. Lauderdale, Minneapolis-St. Paul, New York, San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, and Washington, DC. Here are some of the study findings [http://www-03.ibm.com/press/attachments/28320.pdf]. As you read along you may agree that we're not much different than those big metro areas in the U.S.
Frustration levels are rising: 45% identify start-stop traffic as the most frustrating part of the commute (up from 37% last year), and 32% identify aggressive/rude drivers (up from 24% last year).
If commuting time could be reduced, 52% would spend it with family/friends – nine points higher than 2008; 37% (6 points higher than 2008) would exercise more.
With gas prices down more than $1.00 from 2008, 23% of respondents have changed their commuting habits in favor of driving versus relying on public transportation or carpooling: 19% carpool less, 19% take public transportation less, and 17% work from home less. The lesson here is that sensitivity to gas prices will be less when most SUVs are replaced with efficient 4-cylinder and hybrid vehicles (let alone full electrics in the near horizon.)
44% of respondents now say they can work from home one or more days a week (up two points from 2008). The lesson here is that telecommuting is an inexpensive alternative that reduces traffic on roads and crowding in mass transit.
For trips other than to work or school, 90% of the potential drivers in this study say that driving is their main mode of transportation (91% last year). To this, The San Francisco Examiner adds that Bay Area commuters are still overwhelmingly likely to drive to work. Some 57 percent of workers in the region drive alone to get to their place of work, a total that far exceeds the next closest mode of transportation — the bus — which is used by a mere 6.7 percent of workers, according to the study. Question: Where is the multibillion dollar BART? The lesson here is that heavy rail provides tiny congestion relief and is a marginal transportation mode.
The typical commute for survey respondents is 16.7 miles or 31 minutes. Surprisingly the average statics for Oahu are similar because of the spread out residences and the concentration of jobs between airport and Waikiki.
The value of time consumed commuting is enormous. Like last year, 75% of respondents say that every 15 minutes stuck in traffic is worth $10-20 or more -- that’s a minimum of $40/hour. The 10 area average is at least $70.80/hour (versus $73.22/hour in 2008). Washington, DC, and Los Angeles are highest with $76.80 and 76.00/hour, respectively. There is a huge lesson here: A $5 toll on a road with reliable travel times that shortens commutes by 20 minutes is a sweet option to many.
The nation’s transportation problems did not occur overnight and it will take time -- along with targeted, state-by-state solutions -- to fix them. Investments in smart transportation solutions, coupled with intelligent fleet management principles such as better route planning, off-peak freight movement, alternative fuel vehicles, and hybrid vehicles, are among the many strategies that can help.
To alleviate the congestion crisis, the answer is a compendium of solutions – a comprehensive portfolio of traditional methods coupled with new innovations and political will. Commuters are eager for change. Now is the time to invest in the future of smart transportation.
I could not agree more. But who, in his or her right mind, would call a five billion steel on steel rail system for an island paradise "smart transportation"?
What are smart solutions you ask? Active traffic management, intelligent signals, urban underpasses, priority bus rapid transit (e.g. on freeway shoulder lanes), high occupancy/toll lanes (HOT lanes for carpools, vanpools and buses), telework centers and telecommuting incentives. And bikeways where they can be safely provided.
Frustration levels are rising: 45% identify start-stop traffic as the most frustrating part of the commute (up from 37% last year), and 32% identify aggressive/rude drivers (up from 24% last year).
If commuting time could be reduced, 52% would spend it with family/friends – nine points higher than 2008; 37% (6 points higher than 2008) would exercise more.
With gas prices down more than $1.00 from 2008, 23% of respondents have changed their commuting habits in favor of driving versus relying on public transportation or carpooling: 19% carpool less, 19% take public transportation less, and 17% work from home less. The lesson here is that sensitivity to gas prices will be less when most SUVs are replaced with efficient 4-cylinder and hybrid vehicles (let alone full electrics in the near horizon.)
44% of respondents now say they can work from home one or more days a week (up two points from 2008). The lesson here is that telecommuting is an inexpensive alternative that reduces traffic on roads and crowding in mass transit.
For trips other than to work or school, 90% of the potential drivers in this study say that driving is their main mode of transportation (91% last year). To this, The San Francisco Examiner adds that Bay Area commuters are still overwhelmingly likely to drive to work. Some 57 percent of workers in the region drive alone to get to their place of work, a total that far exceeds the next closest mode of transportation — the bus — which is used by a mere 6.7 percent of workers, according to the study. Question: Where is the multibillion dollar BART? The lesson here is that heavy rail provides tiny congestion relief and is a marginal transportation mode.
The typical commute for survey respondents is 16.7 miles or 31 minutes. Surprisingly the average statics for Oahu are similar because of the spread out residences and the concentration of jobs between airport and Waikiki.
The value of time consumed commuting is enormous. Like last year, 75% of respondents say that every 15 minutes stuck in traffic is worth $10-20 or more -- that’s a minimum of $40/hour. The 10 area average is at least $70.80/hour (versus $73.22/hour in 2008). Washington, DC, and Los Angeles are highest with $76.80 and 76.00/hour, respectively. There is a huge lesson here: A $5 toll on a road with reliable travel times that shortens commutes by 20 minutes is a sweet option to many.
The nation’s transportation problems did not occur overnight and it will take time -- along with targeted, state-by-state solutions -- to fix them. Investments in smart transportation solutions, coupled with intelligent fleet management principles such as better route planning, off-peak freight movement, alternative fuel vehicles, and hybrid vehicles, are among the many strategies that can help.
To alleviate the congestion crisis, the answer is a compendium of solutions – a comprehensive portfolio of traditional methods coupled with new innovations and political will. Commuters are eager for change. Now is the time to invest in the future of smart transportation.
I could not agree more. But who, in his or her right mind, would call a five billion steel on steel rail system for an island paradise "smart transportation"?
What are smart solutions you ask? Active traffic management, intelligent signals, urban underpasses, priority bus rapid transit (e.g. on freeway shoulder lanes), high occupancy/toll lanes (HOT lanes for carpools, vanpools and buses), telework centers and telecommuting incentives. And bikeways where they can be safely provided.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Summary of Scoops on Honolulu's Elevated Heavy Rail: From Bad to Worse
Honolulu's per person cost for rail will be $4,300. No other community has paid such a heavy tax. Phoenix recently opened its light rail service at a cost of under $180 per person! Normally, rationally this cost per person would be a show-stopper. That is, at ten times the cost of rail in other cities, Honolulu's proposal is insane. Insane proposals should not proceed. But with "strong leaders" and many special interests lined up to make billions, this boondoggle is still alive.
If Honolulu builds rail it will face two predictably bad situations: Low ridership and high cost to run the system. Here are two examples for 2009:
B. R. Horton's Ho'opili development with 13,000 proposed new homes next to a gridlocked freeway is a non-starter. The Land Use Commission is not likely to re-zone prime agricultural land into urban land. So the proposed rail will drive piles through prime ag land and two stations will be available for the exclusive use of tomatoes and watermelons. Ewa and Kapolei residents are not as lucky as produce. They won't get any station.
Bishop Estate, Architects and Planners are mounting a fight in favor of light rail. Ian Lind has many important scoops including the strong-arming tactics by the Hannemann administration. Some mayoral candidates are likely to jump on the light rail bandwagon. Unfortunately for them, there is no light rail design anywhere in the city's federally mandated NEPA process, so if light rail is chosen by the next mayor, then transit plans have to start from square one. The heavy rail "choice" was a trap created by specific politicians and willing professionals.
Here is a letter by Mayor Hannemann with his 2006 promises (please scroll to the bottom of the link.) Observe that the price of rail has nearly doubled in three years from 3 billion to well over 5 billion dollars. And we have not started building anything yet! He also promised partnerships with the private sector to pay for rail. (
Do you remember those pro-rail radio and TV ads "paid by city taxpayers" during the 2008 elections? Were they designed to dupe the voter? Yes! This has been a classic bait and switch: This is Not What 50.6% Voted Yes For.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Investment in Expanding Public Transit is a Tax Black Hole
Although it does not take a genius to realize that investment in public transportation in the U.S. is a counterproductive exercise, the pace of that investment continues unabated and the U.S. is determined to keep throwing good money after bad money in the futile effort that the trend will reverse itself.
What trend you ask? The trend of the share of trips done using public transit, or the market share of public transit. In 1910 it stood at 93.8% meaning that 94 out of 100 trips were made on public transportation. Forty years later, 1950, it dropped to 18.3%. Another 40 years later, 1990, it dropped to 1.9% and presently is somewhere around 1.6%. For every 1,000 trips, only 16 of those trips in the nation are done using public transit. The detailed trend can be found here: http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-usptshare45.pdf
The companion story is public subsidy. How much were the local, state and federal taxes that in addition to fares helped public transit break even? There was good news, once upon a time. Until the late 1950s these systems were profitable and owned and operated by private companies. But after WWII their profits diminished and then the public took over (or created subsidized competing systems and drove the private operators out of business. )
This was the beginning of a large black hole of taxation. In 1970, the taxpayer subsidy to move one person one mile on public transit was 27 cents, so for a 10 mile trip the public paid $2.7 for each passenger who made that trip. That was the good news too because by the turn of the millennium, the public’s taxes paid about one dollar per passenger mile so the average 10 mile trip required $10 in taxes in order to sustain public transit. These are inflation adjusted costs. The trend of subsidy can be found here: http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-ussby.pdf
An additional highly worrisome trend is the state of serviceability and safety of large existing rail and bus systems in the nation. Several hundred billion dollars are required for deferred maintenance, component replacements and technology upgrades of existing large systems in New York City, Washington DC, Boston, Atlanta, Chicago and San Francisco.
Ignorance of these trends creates a major mismatch in the allocation of funds for urban transportation. Hawaii mirrors this well. For example, between 1998 and 2008, Hawaii received $1.8 billion in federal funds for road, highway and bridge improvements, and $475 million for public transit. Even if Hawaii’s public transit share is three times as high as the national average, say 5% (this is a generous approximation), then public transit should have received 5% or so of the federal funds. Not so. It received 21%!
Another way to look at this is that we spend 21% on transit that serves 5% of the trips we make, and we spend 79% on roads that serve 95% of the trips.
The result of this funding mismatch is a decent bus system on Oahu that relatively few use, and terrible roads on Oahu that are counterproductive for our economy, and present an unsafe and unkempt condition for residents and tourists alike. Tiny sums have been allocated to effective alternatives such as bikeways and telecommuting. Or a ferry across Pearl Harbor.
If the proposed rail goes into construction and operation, then the share of funding for public transit will grow to about 40%. What would this accomplish? Nothing for the neighboring islands. On Oahu, public transit market share will grow 1%, from 6% to 7% over 20 years, if you believe the city's sales numbers for the proposed rail.
Nationally billions of dollars are likely to be spent in the next few years on public transit. Their net effect would be to increase market share by a tiny proportion. This is one of the worst tax black holes one can develop and a terrible transportation investment policy for the nation.
What trend you ask? The trend of the share of trips done using public transit, or the market share of public transit. In 1910 it stood at 93.8% meaning that 94 out of 100 trips were made on public transportation. Forty years later, 1950, it dropped to 18.3%. Another 40 years later, 1990, it dropped to 1.9% and presently is somewhere around 1.6%. For every 1,000 trips, only 16 of those trips in the nation are done using public transit. The detailed trend can be found here: http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-usptshare45.pdf
The companion story is public subsidy. How much were the local, state and federal taxes that in addition to fares helped public transit break even? There was good news, once upon a time. Until the late 1950s these systems were profitable and owned and operated by private companies. But after WWII their profits diminished and then the public took over (or created subsidized competing systems and drove the private operators out of business. )
This was the beginning of a large black hole of taxation. In 1970, the taxpayer subsidy to move one person one mile on public transit was 27 cents, so for a 10 mile trip the public paid $2.7 for each passenger who made that trip. That was the good news too because by the turn of the millennium, the public’s taxes paid about one dollar per passenger mile so the average 10 mile trip required $10 in taxes in order to sustain public transit. These are inflation adjusted costs. The trend of subsidy can be found here: http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-ussby.pdf
An additional highly worrisome trend is the state of serviceability and safety of large existing rail and bus systems in the nation. Several hundred billion dollars are required for deferred maintenance, component replacements and technology upgrades of existing large systems in New York City, Washington DC, Boston, Atlanta, Chicago and San Francisco.
Ignorance of these trends creates a major mismatch in the allocation of funds for urban transportation. Hawaii mirrors this well. For example, between 1998 and 2008, Hawaii received $1.8 billion in federal funds for road, highway and bridge improvements, and $475 million for public transit. Even if Hawaii’s public transit share is three times as high as the national average, say 5% (this is a generous approximation), then public transit should have received 5% or so of the federal funds. Not so. It received 21%!
Another way to look at this is that we spend 21% on transit that serves 5% of the trips we make, and we spend 79% on roads that serve 95% of the trips.
The result of this funding mismatch is a decent bus system on Oahu that relatively few use, and terrible roads on Oahu that are counterproductive for our economy, and present an unsafe and unkempt condition for residents and tourists alike. Tiny sums have been allocated to effective alternatives such as bikeways and telecommuting. Or a ferry across Pearl Harbor.
If the proposed rail goes into construction and operation, then the share of funding for public transit will grow to about 40%. What would this accomplish? Nothing for the neighboring islands. On Oahu, public transit market share will grow 1%, from 6% to 7% over 20 years, if you believe the city's sales numbers for the proposed rail.
Nationally billions of dollars are likely to be spent in the next few years on public transit. Their net effect would be to increase market share by a tiny proportion. This is one of the worst tax black holes one can develop and a terrible transportation investment policy for the nation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
