Traffic Signal Optimization

4,114 Stoplights in Los Angeles and the Intricate Network that Keeps Traffic Moving is a simple and informative article of some of the advances in moving heavy traffic in congested cities.

I note that the City of Los Angeles has placed major priority on this city function not only by developing their sophisticated control system called ATSAC but also by staffing its operation ... "Yu and his team of 35 ­engineers and 20 operators."

HONOLULU needs about 1/4 of this level of staffing. It has 1/10.

In general, traffic signal optimization is among the "low hanging fruit" in mitigating some of the traffic congestion in urban areas. But it needs funding and staffing because this is a 24x7 operations with ever changing flows and congestion spots.

Jobs: Fundamental Trends – 2000 to 2050. How Did We Get Here and What’s in Store?

There are three fundamental trends at play in this half century:

• Aging of both population and infrastructure;
• Advanced economies cannot absorb unskilled and low skilled laborers; and,
• Too many crises in one decade took our eye off the ball.

The first trend affects the US more than other nations. Baby-boomers have started reaching the age of retirement and the age when health maintenance expenses increase. As a result many state pension and health funds are under substantial stress and their situation is likely to rapidly worsen as more workers age and fewer workers find high paying jobs that pay high enough taxes to sustain pension and health expenses. One of the proposals toward retirement fund solvency is to raise the age of retirement from the typical of 65 year of age to 70.

Along with the baby boom in the US also came the second infrastructure boom (the first one was during the Great Depression.) The second boom focused mostly on transportation and the road and air modes in particular, along with a misguided urban rail renaissance* of the late 1970s till the 1990s. For example, BART in San Francisco and Metro in Washington. DC are facing work backlogs in the order of tens of billions of dollars for required refurbishment and rehabilitation to bring those systems to a top operational condition. The bills are in the billions for bridges and elevated highway sections, and for the strengthening and restoration of millions of lane-miles of roadways.

While infrastructure presents a great opportunity for boosting the job count, a lot of the work is both highly technical and very expensive. The former implies that unskilled labor is unsuitable, and the latter implies that a lot of infrastructure projects may be unaffordable. The existing gasoline taxes which have been constant for almost 20 years at the federal level have lost value and are insufficient to cover highway maintenance. In addition about 20% of these funds is re-purposed to pay for loss-making transit systems.

Electric and other non-fossil fuel powered vehicles are not visiting the gas pump regularly (or ever), thus no tax for their road usage is collected. The highway tax system needs both a tax rate update and modernization. This will create new jobs, but again, the expertise will vary from technician to engineer; no need for unskilled labor.

This segways us to the second trend which is the progressive evolution of advanced technologies out of labor intensive jobs. Agriculture, construction and manufacturing are increasingly automated. They require fewer and more skilled staff. A good example is driverless trains in France. They replace approximately 100 motormen with two dozen rail engineers and train management technicians in a control room. This cuts the job count by 75% and costs by 50%. Fewer, more comfortable and better paid jobs is what advanced economies provide.

Retailing absorbs low skill labor. But there are many changes that reduce the unskilled job count in retailing such as Internet retailing, big box store retailing and upscale retailing, all of which require fewer and better skilled workers.

The transportation sector employees roughly 5% to 15% of a region’s workers (the count is higher in highly urbanized areas). This sector is dominated by federal and state regulations as well as unions. Both regulations and unions make the absorption of low skill labor more difficult.

The third trend is actually a series of calamities that caused stress to the economy and inattention to its drifting into deep losses. I list eight major ones:

1. Global Warming related regulations leading to various stresses on energy production and pricing.
2. The September 11, 2001 attacks in the US and the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
3. Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans which, among other things, caused a fuel price escalation.
4. Drought in Texas with major impacts on jobs and food prices.
5. Huge losses in wind and solar projects, and erratic US energy policy.
6. Rapid increase in commodity and energy prices due in part to rising demand in Asia.
7. The sub-prime lending melt down.
8. Euro crisis, weakening US dollar, and Chinese RMB strengthening are causing various currency instabilities.

How did we get here? The discussion above suggests that large losses in the count of jobs in 2009 and 2010 can be explained by natural trends (aging), structural trends (modernization) and calamities (man and nature-made losses).

What’s in store? Prognostication is both fun and faulty. One thing that is certain is that the BAU model, that is, Business As Usual will bring more of the same.

If Congress remains dysfunctional, if state and federal administrations focus on government expansion and business regulation, if unions stress demands for perks instead of modernization and productivity improvements, if US energy policy continues to be an assortment of mostly special-interest ideas and incentives, then job count and quality of life will certainly deteriorate.

It does not have to be this way. Upcoming articles look into ways for more sustainable jobs.

------------------
(*) Rail Transit: Are we creating new life or resuscitating a dinosaur? This was the title of an 1980s article by Northwestern University’s Joseph Schofer, a distinguished professor of transportation at the McCormick School of Engineering and its Associate Dean.

Jobs. Jobs. Jobs.

Seth Godin, marketing guru, ex-VP at Yahoo! and author of 13 books, believes that “the current recession is a forever recession” because the industrial age has ended and this means that the days when people were able to get above average pay for average work are over. Self-improvement, continuous learning and investment on oneself are key to employment otherwise “never mind the race to the top, you'll be racing to the bottom.”

While this is useful advice for those currently employed, the pressing problem is unemployment and under-employment. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) calculates the official unemployment rate by looking at those who are employed or who have actively looked for work within the last four weeks. As a result, the official rate excludes workers who have decided to drop out of the labor market altogether. The official rate also ignores those who settle for part-time work since they are unable to find a full-time job.

Recognizing this shortcoming, the BLS also reports the U-6 rate, which includes those who have sought a job sometime in the last 12 months and those who have accepted part-time jobs but would prefer full time. The U-6 rate is a better representation of the ability of the economy to provide jobs. Let's take a look at the numbers as summarized in NCPA's Tracking the Unreported Unemployed:

• The 1948-2007 unemployment average is 5.6%.
• The unemployment rate moved from 5% in January 2008 to a high of 10.1% in October 2009, and a current rate of 8.6%.
• The U-6 rate moved from 8.8% in December 2007 to 17.4% in October 2009 and 15.6% in November 2011.
• U-6 rate is almost twice as high as the official unemployment rate. It explains the increasing pressure for economic improvement and jobs.
  
• By the end of 2011, 43% of all unemployed have been unemployed for more than 27 weeks. Besides being jobless, their skills deteriorate, which worsens their employment prospects.
  

Without doubt the unemployment challenge is serious. What causes a high unemployment rate? There are several causes. Here is a big one: The disconnect between supply and demand for jobs. There is a glut of low skill laborer supply. There is demand for high skill, specialized jobs. Unemployed carpenters. Engineers wanted.

The problem of turning 500 unemployed carpenters to 500 engineers is impossible to legislate. In general, turning thousands of low skilled workers to thousands of high skilled workers is very difficult to solve. We need to understand and address the root causes of the problem some of which have deep cultural roots such as over-emphasis in sports instead of scholarly achievement, under-performing public education systems, and stereotypes based on race and gender. Another part of the problem is government regulations and union rules. I’ll cover most of these in a series of articles.

Instead of addressing the root causes of unemployment, politicians in the recent past responded to the cries for “jobs, jobs, jobs!” in two wrong ways: (1) They approved “make work” projects for low skill and construction labor, and (2) they “incentivized” new high tech industries.

“Make work” projects is the use of taxpayer funds to develop unnecessary or low effectiveness infrastructure projects, typically show-off projects or transit projects. These provide some jobs for low skill labor but in reality the unemployment problem is postponed for a few years while the tax hole becomes bigger. “Make work” policies are unsustainable. They develop dangerous dependencies for thousands of low skill laborers instead of providing opportunities for advancement and job diversification.

The current genre of “high tech incentives” is the green industry. Incentives are typically taxpayer handouts to targeted groups, e.g., relating to solar panels and electric cars. People and industry respond to incentives. While accounting in Hawaii is poor, it is much better in the UK where the conclusion in Worth The Candle? The Economic Impact of Renewable Energy Policy the UK was that “for every job created in the UK in renewable energy, 3.7 jobs are lost.” In Hawaii, misguided policies will likely result in more solar guys than nurses per 1,000 people; and a deeper tax hole. Such outcomes are unsustainable and undesirable.

Politically expedient solutions to unemployment are both costly and ineffective. We can’t talk about solutions until we are able to wrap our brain around the issue of “jobs.” What are some of the many facets of employment and unemployment?

Unemployment varies widely by level of education. The Chronicle of Higher Education reports this: The overall unemployment rate for recent Bachelors degree recipients is 8.9%, compared with 22.9% for recent high-school graduates and 31.5% for recent high-school dropouts. It also varies by fields: Unemployment is higher among recent graduates with nontechnical fields of study, such as the arts (11.1%) and humanities and liberal arts (9.4%), but it is only 5.4% for graduates who studied health or education.

College pays off: The Los Angeles Times reports that the average take-home pay of college graduates is $38,950, compared with $21,500 for high school graduates. A college graduate's earnings would exceed a high school graduate's by more than $1 million over 40 years.

Gender makes a difference. The Economist published detailed analysis which I’ll summarize elsewhere but the bottom line of "The Cashier and The Carpenter" is that men and women do different work for different pay. For example, by working shorter paid hours, women are managing to achieve a reasonable balance in their lives. The Economist cites results that show that work-life balance dissatisfaction is about 18% for women and 27% for men in Europe.

The New York Times reports that in the two and a half years since the recovery officially began, men age 16 to 24 have gained 178,000 jobs, and women have lost 255,000 positions. “Apparently discouraged by scant openings, 412,000 young women have dropped out of the labor force entirely in the last two and a half years, meaning they are not looking for work. Young women in their late teens and early 20’s view today’s economic lull as an opportunity to upgrade their skills, their male counterparts are more likely to take whatever job they can find.” As a result, the next generation of women may have a significant advantage over their male counterparts in the near future.

The NYT article continues to say that many of the occupations expected to have the most growth, like nurses, home health aides and dental hygienists, have traditionally been filled by women. Jobs in male-dominated industries such as manufacturing and construction have been in decline. Manual labor careers can also be hard to maintain indefinitely because youthful strength eventually fades. The pension coverage of construction and manufacturing workers is also lagging which presents a challenge for males as they age.

Knowledge and understanding of the true causes of a problem are the right foundation for crafting solutions. My series of summary articles on “jobs” throws light onto the employment and unemployment challenges. Stay tuned!



1. Jobs. Jobs. Jobs. This article.

2. Jobs: Fundamental Trends – 2000 to 2050. How Did We Get Here and What’s in Store?

3. Jobs Hawaii: Outlook for Jobs in Education, Government, Military and Tourism

4. Jobs: The Young and Unskilled

5. Jobs: What Women Want

6. Top Jobs: 10 Hot Careers for 2012

7. The Right Job: Sustainable, Desirable Employment

Rail and Weather Forecasters

Hawaii weather is meant to frustrate weather forecasters. They predicted buckets of rain for Sunday and we got next to nothing. Then they predicted next to nothing for Monday and we got buckets of rain! As in the picture below.


Speaking of weather forecasts, professor Bent Flybjerg of Oxford University places weather and rail forecasters at opposite ends of the spectrum of truth and honesty.

Weather forecasters are neither deluded nor deceptive; they use some of the most complex models and report their forecast for a few days in the future. They get it right most of the time.

Honolulu Rail forecasters have used primitive models (*) and gobbles of delusion and deception (Dr. Flybjerg's words; see graph below) to predict rail's efficacy 20 to 30 years in the future! And they never get it right.


(*) Oahu rail forecasts were based on a relatively ancient OMPO zonal model from a 1994 survey. Much to the discredit of our local government at all levels, we have not conducted a comprehensive origin-destination survey since 1994. So we have developed a five billion dollar transportation investment using old and primitive data. We all know "garbage in, garbage out" and that's exactly what we are dealing with here.

Do not get me started about the traffic tools they have used in the multimillion dollar analyses to predict future traffic conditions. These rock bottom tools are acceptable to Hawaii government, and FTA simply does not care about traffic conditions. However, the Federal Highway Administration has this opinion: "Equation tools are very appropriate for localized study areas like a single intersection or a highway section. Equation tools also are appropriate for a quick-and-dirty preliminary analysis that may lead to or warrant a future, more detailed analysis." Above those tools come four more classes of tools with increasingly advanced sophistication, but hardly any of them were used in the rail EIS.

How Stimulus Spending Ruined Buffalo -- Lessons for Honolulu

Recently Steven Manlanga of the Manhattan Institute authored "How Stimulus Spending Ruined Buffalo" in the Wall Street Journal. It describes that stimulus was the vehicle for ruining Buffalo, New York and at the core of this stimulus was none other but a light rail system:

• In his State of the State Address this month, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced $1 billion in incentives to attract new investment. Too bad Mr. Cuomo ignores the factors that help keep areas like Buffalo inhospitable to new investment—namely steep tax rates and the high cost of government.
• Sometimes these schemes have done real harm. In the 1970s, the federal government decided to invest $530 million to build a 6.2-mile light-rail system through downtown Buffalo. It was supposed to further spur redevelopment.
• Opened in 1985 and anchored by a transit mall that banned cars, the rail line fell well below ridership projections—and downtown businesses suffered mightily from the lack of traffic. As Buffalo landlord Stephen P. Fitzmaurice wrote in 2009: "Walk down Main Street on the transit mall; aside from a few necessities like drug and cell phone stores, blight dominates." Last month the city received a $15 million federal grant to restore traffic to Main Street.
• These massive investment subsidies failed partly because officials were ill-suited to select the right projects and often instead gave money to favored insiders. Even former Mayor Anthony Masiello described the federal government's redevelopment funds as "a politically motivated system trying to please everybody."
• Image: Main Street in Buffalo: Emptied of traffic and stores by a light-rail infrastructure stimulus project in the 1980s.

Lesson 1: Factors that help keep areas like Honolulu inhospitable to new investment—namely steep tax rates and the high cost of government.

Lesson 2: Rail systems are planned as reasons to spur development. They do not. Quite the opposite they produce blight which cost even more money to reverse.

Lesson 3: Yet another rail line where projected rail ridership was a myth ( a lie.)

Lesson 4: Clueless politicians (i.e., Hannemann, Carlisle, Calwell) and appointed boards (HART) are “ill-suited to select the right projects and often instead gave money to favored insiders” (Mr. Malanga refers to pay-to-play politics which are prominent in Hawaii.)

Survival of the Unfittest: Why the Worst Infrastructure Gets Built

The worst infrastructure gets built! This is the concise conclusion of analysis by Oxford University professor Bent Flybjerg who for many years has been emphasizing the pitfalls of "megaprojects" which typically turn out to:

• be much more costly than predicted before construction started
• provide fewer benefits that planners predicted, and
• attain a 50% lower ridership than predicted, for urban rail systems

Dr. Flybjerg attributes this to several factors, many of which are prevalent in the proposed Honolulu rail megaproject, as shown below, followed by my assessment from * meaning "not so much in Honolulu rail " to ***** "spot on for Honolulu rail":

• Such projects are inherently risky owing to long planning horizons and complex interfaces. (***** Honolulu rail is all elevated, heavy rail in the middle of vital arterial streets of a a crowded city with cultural, historical and soils issues)
  
• Technology and design are often non-standard. (** Honolulu rail is heavy rail guideway with light rail automatic trains by Ansaldo)
  
• Decision-making, planning, and management are typically multi-actor processes with
• conflicting interests. (**** Honolulu rail is heavily political project built as a city project in the middle of state highways with political push from Senator Inouye in Washington DC.)
  
• Often there is ‘lock in’ or ‘capture’ of a certain project concept at an early stage, leaving analysis of alternatives weak or absent. (***** This is exactly why the NEPA-based lawsuit was filled in federal court. Mufi Hannemann took office in Jan. 2005 and by late fall 2006 the ~100 page Alternatives Analysis had selected elevated rail as the "winner".)
  
• The project scope or ambition level will typically change significantly over time. (**** Honolulu rail started as a 34 mile proposal for about $4 Billion and right before construction it is a 20-mile $5.2 Billion project that excludes Kapolei town, Waikiki and UH-Manoa!)
  
• Statistical evidence shows that such unplanned events are often unaccounted for, leaving budget and time contingencies sorely inadequate. (*** Honolulu rail will be subjected to many changes as eminent domain lawsuits begin once construction starts.)
  
• As a consequence, misinformation about costs, benefits, and risks is the norm throughout project development and decision-making, including in the business case. (**** Even pro-rail local newspapers and City Council members gripe about the lack of transparency and the ever evolving changes in costs.)
  
• The result is cost overruns and/or benefit shortfalls during project implementation. (***** If built, Honolulu rail's ultimate result will be a 50% cost overrun and a 50% ridership attainment, at best.)
  

LINK to the full article Survival of the unfittest: why the worst infrastructure gets built—and what we can do about it by Bent Flyvbjerg. Sa¨ıd Business School, University of Oxford, e-mail: bent.flyvbjerg@sbs.ox.ac.uk. Part of the research for this paper was carried out while the author was professor at Aalborg University, Denmark, and Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands.

Honolulu Rail is a White Elephant in the Jungle of Transportation Infrastructure

This slideshow explains why the proposed rail is a white elephant in the jungle of transportation infrastructure. Here is a short list of reasons:

1. Honolulu has a severe traffic congestion problem, not a transit problem
2. Honolulu is the most lane deficient medium/large metro area in the U.S.
3. Honolulu's bus is good but is becoming increasingly unproductive due to added low density routes
4. Voters with a tiny 50.6% "yes" margin approved light rail costing well under $5 Billion, not heavy rail costing well above $5 Billion
5. Successful rail systems are networks in multimillion population cities not 20 miles of single line on a corridor of less than 600,000 people
   
6. Proposed rail has an exorbitant cost per mile, per resident and per passenger... 2 to 3 times more than the hugely expensive Washington D.C. metro
7. Ridership forecasts are outright ridiculous and of course the majority of the projected riders are current bus riders; also about one fifth of the riders projected for year 2030 have not been born yet
   
8. Due to its huge construction costs, the proposed rail will absorb transportation funds for decades causing accumulated deterioration to the already mediocre roads and bus operations
   
9. For the price of rail and its foreign and environmentally intrusive technology Honolulu can build enough congestion relieving infrastructure to achieve 20-minute commutes for 75% of its population
10. 95% of Honolulu electric power comes from fossil fuel and thanks to utopian sun and wind policies dependence on oil for power will stay there for a long time
11. Reversible express HOT Lanes is clearly the best solution for Honolulu given the prevailing high Bus and Carpool use rates, and huge AM and PM commuting demand peaks; small trains with a capacity of 300 will do very little to demand peaks and even less off peak
    
12. The path to sustainability for Oahu requires HOT Lanes, Bus Rapid Transit, institutionalized TeleCommuting and expanded Bikeways but none of these are active projects
    
13. Independent macroeconomic analysis has confirmed that the proposed rail has a huge negative surplus (benefits minus costs) over a 40+ year horizon
    
14. Rail is unsustainable as a tax and energy black hole; Oahu has a $40 Billion funding liability and rail is the only discretionary project
15. Adding insult to injury, it is so ugly ... (see slide 21)
    

Infrastructure projects to fix the economy? Don’t bank on it.

Many good points in this Washington Post guest opinion:

• Even if federal agencies calculate the numbers properly, members of Congress often push ahead with "trash" projects anyway.
• As Morgan noted in his 1971 book, these big projects have often damaged both taxpayers and ecology.
• Taxpayers are double losers from all this infrastructure. They paid to build it, and now they are paying to clean up the environmental damage.
• When the federal government "thinks big," it often makes big mistakes.
• When the federal government is paying for infrastructure, state officials and members of Congress fight for their shares of the funding, without worrying too much about efficiency, environmental issues or other longer-term factors.
• The recent infrastructure debate has focused on job creation, and whether projects are "shovel ready." The more important question is who is holding the shovel.
• The federal government subsidizes the construction of urban light-rail systems, for example, which has caused these systems to spring up across the country. But urban rail systems are generally less efficient and flexible than bus systems, and they saddle cities with higher operating and maintenance costs down the road.

Five Myths about US Gasoline Taxes

A good summary article by Shin-pei Tsay and Deborah Gordon. CNN, November 19, 2011.

There is no doubt that federal gasoline and diesel tax should go to 40 cents per gallon and none of it should be used to fund transit and rail projects.

Lessons from US Mainland on How to Ease Congestion and Build Infrastructure

GOAL: Ease traffic congestion that cripples economy and quality of life

SOLUTION: Deliver lanes and tunnels as quickly as possible

LESSONS: US mainland success stories involve private financing and tolls so that infrastructure can actually be done instead of squeezing local taxpayers and depending on broke state and federal coffers.

EXAMPLES
(1) There is plenty monies in private funds: Pension Fund Invests in Florida Toll Project. One of America’s largest pension funds—Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America (TIAA) has purchased a 50% stake in Florida’s I-595 concession project, a complete reconstruction of this major freeway, including the addition of three reversible express toll lanes. TIAA purchased the stake from developer/operator ACS Infrastructure Development, which holds a 35-year concession to develop and operate the highway, which is now under construction.
Honolulu application: The level of traffic demand between H-1/H-2 merge and downtown easily justifies a tolled HOT Lanes and mainland investors as well as local pension funds will be attracted to it. (Note that none of them will invest a dime in the rail project.)

(2) Use Public Private Partnerships or PPP: A well-researched and fairly comprehensive overview of long-term concession toll projects appeared in the Oct. 22nd issue of The Washington Post. Written by Cezary Podkul, formerly of Infrastructure Investor, the article discusses a number of recent projects, both large-scale investment in new highways and bridges and the leasing of existing toll roads. It includes the growing involvement of pension funds as investors, and also discusses who won and who lost when a recent start-up toll road filed Chapter 11. (Note: at press time, this piece was available on the Post’s website, but with a very long URL. It’s simpler to just Google the title: “With U.S. Infrastructure Ailing, Public Funds Scant, More Projects Going Private.”)
Honolulu application: State of Hawaii does not have a suitable PPP yet.

(3) Deliver network short-cuts with tunneling: Tunnel Boring Begins for Port of Miami Tunnel. The huge (41-ft. diameter) tunnel boring machine from Germany began digging the first of two parallel tubes for the new Port of Miami Tunnel on Nov. 4, 2011. Each of the two tubes is expected to take six months to drill and line with concrete panels. The $1 billion project is being procured by Florida DOT under a 35-year concession awarded to a team led by France-based Meridiam Infrastructure Partners and Bouygues Travaux Publics.
Honolulu application: A toll tunnel from Iroquois Point to Lagoon drive will save leeward Oahu commuters to town over 30 minutes one way.

(4) Use Congestion Pricing to spread traffic demand: Higher peak-period tolls, and charging half-price (instead of zero) to carpools have reduced congestion and increased speeds on the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, according to UC Berkeley research commissioned by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. The biggest impact was that more than half the traffic formerly in the carpool lanes disappeared; officials speculate that some shifted to BART and some changed the time of their commute, and many were probably cheaters who now drive in the regular lanes. The overall reduction in AM peak traffic was about 4%, and time savings varied greatly depending on which approach road people use to get to the bridge and the time (within the peak period) that they travel.
Honolulu application: Both tolls and bus fares need to have peak and off-peak pricing. Use of inexpensive passes should not be allowed for 3-4 peak hours during normal workdays.

Thanks to Robert Poole of the Reason Foundation for these recent examples.

UCLA/RAND Expert on Transportation, Jobs and Economic Growth

Dr. Martin Wachs [1] recently wrote important article on public investment in transportation, and jobs. It dispels the sweet sounding myths promoted by politicians, contractors and unions. The full article can be found here [2]. Key excerpts are given below.

Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, rural and urban elected officials—all seek funding for roads and transit projects in their districts, asserting repeatedly that these expenditures will create jobs. President Obama vigorously sought to create jobs through transportation spending in the recent economic stimulus package. This seemed familiar: in 1991, when signing the historic Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), President George H.W. Bush stated that the value of the bill “is summed up by three words: jobs, jobs, jobs.”

Transportation projects are not all equally effective at creating jobs or stimulating economic growth. Sound transportation investments lower the costs of moving people and goods. Short-term job creation, while vitally important to economic recovery, should not cause us to ignore the longer-term view.

Transportation dollars should be spent on programs that most enhance long-term economic productivity. ... For example, building an ill-advised rail line might give a local economy a short-term boost in employment, only to saddle taxpayers with large operating deficits in the future.

Building the Interstate Highway System created many construction jobs, but it would be a huge mistake to interpret that employment as the system’s contribution to the economy. Workers who drew salaries from the construction program benefitted, but far less than the travelers and shippers of goods who have used those facilities every day for six decades.

By building an effective transportation network, government transportation spending draws jobs to those industries that benefit from the investment. At the same time, this moves jobs away from activities that would have been financed in the absence of the transportation investment. So while transportation investment can “create jobs,” it can also destroy them.

Public officials often mention that each billion dollars of transportation infrastructure investment will create over 30,000 new jobs. This estimate relies on what is called the “multiplier effect.” Construction workers spend their income to buy hamburgers, television sets, and automobile insurance, so a given dollar of construction expenditure ends up having more than a dollar’s worth of impact, thus “multiplying” the effect of the expenditure. Unfortunately, asserting that any expenditure will create a specific number of jobs is not well supported by evidence. Actually, in the short term, construction jobs and expenditures on steel and concrete are economic costs [that weigh heavily on the budget.]

To create or preserve jobs in the short term, it might be more effective to use federal dollars to subsidize the operations and maintenance of transportation systems. Dollars spent on operating bus lines, for example, are spent largely on labor and thus quickly recirculate in the local economy. By contrast, dollars spent on capital or construction projects may include costly expenditures on concrete and steel imported from outside the US. Construction jobs do not inherently have higher multipliers than jobs driving buses.

Identifying a project as shovel-ready in no way assures that it will produce long-term net economic benefits. Simply equating any transportation investment with jobs and gains for the economy cannot remain a sound basis for public policy. America needs to do a better job of systematically evaluating alternative investments.

One way to judge a public investment is to determine whether or not it generates a rate of return to society that exceeds the return earned on other investments in the private or public sectors.

NOTES

[1] Martin Wachs is Professor Emeritus of Civil and Environmental Engineering and City and Regional Planning at the University of California, Berkeley, and former Director of the Institute of Transportation Studies and of the University of California Transportation Center. He is also former Chair of the Department of Urban Planning at UCLA. He is currently a Senior Research Associate at the RAND Corporation (wachs@rand.org).

[2] TRANSPORTATION, JOBS, AND ECONOMIC GROWTH, Access, No. 38, University of California, 2011

Big Projects in Hawaii - Why Are They Stuck?

Big projects are complex. So the question why big projects get stuck can generate enormously complex responses. However, the answer boils down to a simple bottom line: Because they don't make the grade!

There are 10 basic dimensions that account for the reasons that big projects succeed or fail. Each project has its own complex set of technical, legal, institutional and financial requirements but 10 basic reasons cover the fundamental requirements.

A project needs to fulfill a major need (or mitigate a major problem), at a low cost, with a large share of it paid by outsiders, and with minimal environmental impacts and implementation risks. It is also important that a project has a strong local advocacy and a weak opposition, and some political support at all levels. A project has a better chance if it utilizes advance technology or is ahead of its time based on proven engineering (e.g., maglev trains, fiber based structural components, etc.) A sound business plan means that a scenario of reasonable adversity keeps the project's balance sheet solvent and subsidies are kept to a minimum even for government projects.

Table 1 presents the 10 fundamental requirements and theoretical scores using a scale where 5 is best and 1 is worst. As a result, a project that garners 50 points is “excellent” and would likely be built at a breakneck speed. Thirty or more points are needed for a project to be deemed “good,” therefore worthy of serious consideration for implementation. Projects with less than 30 points are deemed to be fair or bad and should be avoided.


There have been many high scoring projects such as the successful establishment of Costco and Wal-Mart in Hawaii in less than 10 years, the H-Power and AES power plants on Oahu, the 10 miles of Tampa’s reversible toll lanes built in less than 7 years for less than $400 Million, and the I-35W bridge replacement in the Twin Cities costing $234 Million (completed 3 months early and is Light Rail-ready,) just to mention a few.

Job creation is not a factor. While privately funded projects typically generate new jobs, several taxpayer funded projects tend to be make-work projects. In addition, the job creation aspect is partly accounted for by the Local Advocacy and Political Push factors.

Table 2 presents a sample of 8 big projects in Hawaii and their scores for the 10 basic requirements based on my ratings. Three local projects made it because they deserved it, two failed because they deserved it, and three big ones are predicted to fail. Other experts may assign different scores but the average scores of a handful of unbiased assessors with knowledge of all facets of a project should yield a reliable overall score for a proposed project.


Both the H-3 freeway and the grand expansion of the Honolulu International Airport (HIA) including its controversial reef runway had major cost and environmental problems, but their superior payoff (by providing needed roadway and runway capacity), sound business plan (by paying for themselves in the long run), and generous federal cost sharing garnered them a good score. They got done and work well.

Similarly the Hawaii Convention Center had a lot going for it. The main issue was its location. Once this was resolved, the project was built expeditiously. Its business plan was and still is weak.

Two recent project failures in Hawaii are unique. Both are water transportation projects, and both were implemented and then failed. Both should never have been started. This is particularly true for TheBoat that never had a credible business plan or solved a problem. It removed the equivalent of 2 to 4 buses from the road at a cost of $32 per commuter trip. The (sometimes nauceous) commuter paid only $2; all the rest was public tax subsidy.

The SuperFerry was a fitting transportation addition in the island state of Hawaii but it needed a super-sized investment in order to succeed; roughly four times what was actually available. It needed three fully debugged vessels with no need for custom docking platforms, and it needed media campaign and political greasing similar to the 2006-2008 pro-rail blitzkriegs. Given these requirements, it is questionable that a marine company can make a profit at the level of investment needed for establishing a competitive service. There have been several attempts since before statehood, all leading to losses and closures.

At least three large projects are currently "on the table" in Hawaii: The city's rail project, B.R.Horton's Hoopili project in Ewa (over 12,000 residential units), and the Big Wind project where wind turbines on Molokai and Lanai will generate 400 MW of electric power to be used on Oahu via submerged cables.

None of these projects make the grade. This does not mean that they will not be built. But it does mean that building them is not a good idea and that the monies should have been better spent on other projects and opportunities. Here is why.

Both Rail and Big Wind fulfill a major need but with archaic or problematic technology. Their project proponents have greased the wheels well and they enjoy strong political support, but both projects are very expensive for what they offer and the cost share by outsiders is small or nil. They have large impacts mostly borne by non-users. Both have strong local advocacy and opposition so that's a wash.

Hoopili and Big Wind have credible business plans but their externalities are not accounted for, e.g., Hoopili and surrounding developments require their own freeway lane to/from town, but none is being built. As a result, over 100,000 existing residents will suffer much worse congestion upon Hoopili’s completion and occupancy (even assuming rail is there.) In addition, both the rail and Hoopili obliterate a large portion of prime agricultural land in central Oahu.

A major externality of rail and Hoopili that is not accounted for in their direct costs is the loss of a major portion of prime agricultural land on Oahu. This is a huge loss for an overpopulated remote island.

The 20 mile rail should be replaced by 11 miles of High Occupancy and Toll (HOT) lanes and point-to-point express buses. Hoopili's 12,000 units should be replaced with 12,000 units in Kalihi and Kakaako. Big Wind should be replaced with geothermal power plants on Maui and Big Island, and coal, solar and biomass on Oahu.

The scores for HOT Lanes and Better Energy are shown in Table 3 below. These are good projects that should get done!

Note 1: Those who desire a better understanding on why big projects get or don’t get done may read articles on Megaprojects by Oxford University professor Bent Flyvbjerg, and Utah University's study on Bootleggers, Baptists and Enterprising Politicians, that is, the alliance of profit-driven interests, groups of uncompensated advocates, and opportunist politicians that form the tripartite support alliances needed for a big project to muddle through the project development process.

Note 2: On June 23rd at the Plaza Club, HVCA and ThinkTech present Big Projects in Hawaii - Why are they stuck? Contact: Jay Fidell, ThinkTech Hawaii, jay@fidell.com, (808) 780-9254 for information.

Cut, Cut, Cut -- Tax, Tax, Tax

Recent samples of governance by Cuts and Taxes, as published in Hawaii Reporter

Reject the “Jobs” Justification for Transportation Projects

I fully agree with Robert Poole's article which in part reads as follows:

• On a tour of China, government officials took renown economist Milton Friedman to a major construction site, where Dr. Friedman expressed surprise at seeing legions of workers digging away with shovels. When his host responded that a major purpose of the project was to create jobs, Friedman replied that if that was the case, they should equip the workers with spoons instead of shovels.

• That point was underscored in a report issued last month by the Bipartisan Policy Center. “Strengthening Connections Between Transportation Investments and Economic Growth”, written by economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin and civil engineering and urban planning expert Martin Wachs.

• Instead of focusing on short-term construction job-creation, the authors argue for a focus on long-term returns from infrastructure investment. “Over the long-term, higher productivity—the ability to generate more output and income from each dollar of capital or hour of work—is the key to higher labor earnings and improved standards of living,” they write.

• Hence, infrastructure policy should select projects that do the most to enhance long-term productivity—as did the creation of the Interstate Highway System, which dramatically lowered the cost of personal and freight transportation, leading to the world’s most productive logistics system.

Speaking of highways, three California Congressmen are asking that the funds of the California high speed boondoggle be diverted to correct the ills of SR 99. Part of their positions is as follows:

• The economic and environmental benefits of SR 99 improvements are strongly contrasted by the uncertainty of California’s now infamous bullet train, which has been described by the national press as “the train to nowhere.” Providing the state the option to redirect high speed rail funding to SR 99 will give state and local leaders the opportunity to step-back from what is likely to become a bottomless pit of spending.

The bottom line is government needs to invest taxes in productive and necessary infrastructure. For Hawaii this means road repairs, water and sewer line repairs, and airport and harbor upgrades within our ability to borrow and pay. All these are necessary projects and with proper scheduling and financing they can get done without breaking the citizens' backs.

The airport modernization, and the Middle Street merge fix projects that Gov. Abercrombie wants to do should be done asap. The Mufi/Carlsisle rail boondoggle needs to be thrown in the trash. The accumulated rail funds should be used immediately for the Middle Street construction, the Honolulu airport upgrades and for the design of the secondary treatment facility mandated by the EPA for our Sand Island effluent treatment plant. Now these are construction and engineering jobs worth paying for.

Decrepid Infrastructure Must Be Number One Priority

It seems that this message is loud and clear. People get it, Congress seem to get it and President Obama has started speaking more strongly about maintenance. But words must turn into acts.

America's capital investment deficit is a great recent article from the Washington Post. I quote this:

"The two deficits are more alike than people realize. Larry Summers, the outgoing director of the National Economics Council, explains it well: You run a deficit both when you borrow money and when you defer maintenance that needs to be done. Either way, you're imposing a cost on future generations. A dollar in delayed road repairs and a dollar in borrowed money are not, in other words, that different: Both mean someone is going to have to spend a dollar later. In 2011, America should stop passing that buck."

Meanwhile, Honolulu has terrible roads, poor facilities at parks and beaches, it operates under an EPA consent decree, it has over 365 water main breaks per year, and has a current deficit of about $100 million.

Unfortunately it also has a mayor who turns his back at the avalanche of existing liabilities and focuses on starting a rail boondoggle that under best scenario estimates will cost us $300 million per year for 30 years, on top of everything else.

Chromium-6 In Honolulu's Tap Water

Original post below. Please read the endnote.
===================================
In 1996 the cancer-stricken residents of Hinkley, CA won a $333 million settlement from PG&E for contaminating their tap water with hexavalent chromium, which is commonly abbreviated as chromium-6. This was the basis of the 2000 movie Erin Brockovich starring Julia Roberts.

Fast forward to 2010: Tap water from 31 of 35 U.S. cities tested contains chromium-6 according to laboratory tests commissioned by Environmental Working Group (EWG). [Click for a summary of the EWG report.] The highest levels were detected in Norman, Okla.; Honolulu, Hawaii; and Riverside, California, as the table below shows.

City ------------------------ Population ----- Chromium-6 in Tap Water
Norman, Oklahoma ---------- 89,952 --------------- 12.9 ppb
Honolulu, Hawaii ----------- 661,004 --------------- 2.00 ppb
Riverside, California ------- 280,832 --------------- 1.69 ppb
Madison, Wisconsin -------- 200,814 --------------- 1.58 ppb
San Jose, California -------- 979,000 --------------- 1.34 ppb

The EPA has not yet set a limit for chromium-6 in water despite mounting evidence of the contaminant’s toxic effects, including an EPA draft toxicological review that classifies it as “likely to be carcinogenic to humans” when consumed in drinking water.

According to EWG, the National Toxicology Program has found that chromium-6 in drinking water shows clear evidence of carcinogenic activity in laboratory animals, increasing the risk of otherwise rare gastrointestinal tumors.

California officials last year proposed setting a public health goal for chromium-6 in drinking water of 0.06 parts per billion (ppb). The level of chromium-6 in Honolulu's tap water is 33 times over this proposed limit.
===================================
Note added on December 29, 2010: This article suggests that the Chromium-6 reported amount in tap water is of no consequence to human health.

The Triumph of Pork over Purpose [Needs to Be Reversed]

The article with the "spot on" title Pork over Purpose was published on a most unfortunate date (the day before 9/11/2001) in a most unlikely publication, The Blueprint of the Democratic Leadership Council. The DLC provides perspective and advice to elected Democrats.

The Triumph of Pork over Purpose was written by David Luberoff of Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government.

Notable highlights of the article include the following.

There is no national purpose driving federal highway and transit funding programs. Instead, a variety of special interests -- from contractors and unions to environmentalists and urbanists -- have come to view the national highway and transit program as an opportunity. [Interestingly most environmentalists and urbanists are strongly against the proposed elevated rail for Honolulu, so the project is politician and union driven.]

Earmarked funding for an increasing number of projects: There were only a handful of earmarks in the 1982 act reauthorizing highway and transit laws, but the 1987 measure contained funding for about 150 specific projects --one of the rationales President Reagan cited in his unsuccessful veto of that law. In contrast, no one blinked an eye when ISTEA earmarked money for more than 500 highway and transit projects or when TEA-21 included more than 1,800 earmarks. [Earmarks is one manifestation of pork over purpose. But there are several other ways to promote pork. For example one can declare carbon emissions an enemy and start throwing money at anything that promises carbon emissions reductions. Then "green" causes a lot of real red. The huge deficits of Spain and California prove this.]

The prospect of significant federal funding drives states and localities to build projects that they never would undertake if they had to fund even a significant portion of the costs themselves. For example, the funding strategy for virtually every major rail transit project built in the last three decades -- from Los Angeles' Red Line to Seattle's current troubled project -- has been predicated on securing significant federal funding for those projects because local officials knew that local voters would never have approved local taxes needed to fully fund those projects. [It's worth repeating that 80% to 90% of the funding for H-1, H-2 and H-3 freeways came from FHWA, but only about 25% of the funding for rail may come from the FTA.]

The pressure for special projects and programs creates a process that is politically compelling but one that also is far from economically efficient. And that means that we're not spending the money we have in ways likely to produce significant positive payoffs by either making the economy more efficient or improving the quality of many people's lives. [This is another spot on statement: Infrastructure is paid by taxes. If the wrong infrastructure is built, then taxes are simply wasted.]

The four highlights above --that are worth about 30 Billion Dollars in Hawaii and over One Trillion Dollars in the U.S. as a whole-- explain why I am motivated to seek high elected office with power over infrastructure decisions.