The following was posted by a friend as a comment on a previous entry, but I’m elevating it to a guest post because it clearly expresses the problem with the city’s proposed cutbacks in bus services.
I am extremely concerned with the cutbacks in the bus service on O‘ahu.
The bus that serves the Windward side, route 55, has had a stable schedule since at least the mid-1970s. Now, as a result of high gas prices and economic privation generally, bus ridership is higher that it has ever been before. Furthermore, we are constantly encouraged to “go green” and lower our “carbon footprint.” So, naturally, the appropriate response to this is to cut bus service to just once every hour.
[In this part of the island, there are no alternative routes to choose from. One bus each hour--that's all there will be.]
Each morning when I get on the bus in Ka‘a‘awa, it is over half full. That means that when this new schedule kicks in, and we are reduced to half the number of buses, anyone who lives south of La‘ie or Hau‘ula will be standing on the bus for over an hour on their way to town.
No one who relies on the bus from any point north of Kahalu‘u is affluent. As it is, the bus is so inconvenient that the only people who use it are those who absolutely have to. And I suppose that is the real problem here. We are a population utterly bereft of clout. We are not constituents of anyone.
When I speak to my fellow bus riders, they are all upset about this imminent change, but they will not say anything to anyone about it. Like most Americans of modest means, they have always known that, as time goes by, life only gets worse and worse.
Thank you for bringing this up, Ian.
according to some commenters who are totally against rail, people who in Kapolei just need to move downtown.
so does this simplistic argument also apply to people who live on the Windward side of Oahu and the North Shore?
if we all move downtown, maybe we should start digging new homes underground. that way, Honolulu’s precious views (of power lines and dirty streets) won’t be affected by rail, tall buildings or some other form of change.
Ian, I am honored to have had my post elevated to “guest post.” Thanks.
Some other points relating to the proposed cutbacks in bus service that might be of interest:
• Route 65, which currently serves Kane‘ohe, the old Kamehameha Highway to Hygienic Store, and Temple Valley, will now skip old Kamehameha Highway entirely. That means that all the people who took the 65 and got off between Kane‘ohe and Hygienic Store will now have to take the 55 instead. Meanwhile, service on the 55 will have been cut in half.
• For the first time since at least the mid-1970s, there will be no Circle Island route. There will be one bus route that goes from town to Wahiawa via Mililani. Then route 55 will end in Wahiawa after serving the Windward side and the North Shore. Anyone wanting to go from Hale‘iwa, say, to any point south of Wahiawa will have to change buses in Wahiawa and, of course, likewise when they return home.
• As long as I can remember, every tourist guidebook to O‘ahu has always boasted about the Circle Island route as a way to see the island inexpensively. During mid-day, I always see tourists on route 55 (who pay full fare, of course). Some of these tourists no doubt stop and eat and spend money in places like Hale‘iwa. Far fewer are going to make this excursion with the elimination of this route.
• These are just the changes on the Windward side. There will be dramatic changes to bus service all over the island. All to save, according to the city, between $6 and $7 million per year. Meanwhile, we are building a train that will have an annual maintenance cost of over $100 million. Interest expense on a construction cost of $5.5 billion will be between $200 and $300 million per year. The ridership of this train is guaranteed to be far smaller than the number of people who will be effected by cutbacks in the bus system. (The poster inside the bus brags at us: “7,000,000 people take TheBus each month!”) Does this make any sense?
• While many people who take the bus have no choice financially and will have to suffer no matter how badly public services are eviscerated, many others who live closer to town CAN afford a car, but prefer not to deal with the drive and parking. Many in this latter group will be quite uncomfortable standing in a bus for a 30-minute stretch, and you will soon see their rear bumpers in front of you on the highway.
@t: I am certainly not opposed to the idea of a train to Kapolei. This is something that should have done in 1970s, when it was relatively affordable and when all other major American cities were doing similar things. But the price today is so exorbitant that it cannot be justified in any way (except as a method for certain well-positioned landowners to profit immensely).
Just because something is desirable, that does not mean it is prudent.
Please don’t pit spending on the rail project as somehow responsible for the proposed bus cutbacks.
Local funding for rail comes from a half penny increase in the sales tax and can only be used for the rail project.
Local funding for bus operations come primarily from property taxes
Isn’t the rail project also taking some federal funding that was initially intended for bus maintenance?
Mahalo Flatland for your comments. I live on the North Shore and while I do not regularly ride the bus, many in Waialua do ride it to get to school and their jobs in Honolulu. They will now be forced to ride 3 buses thus increasing their commute time. I thought that increasing bus ridership was part of the overall transit program to reduce congestion on our roads? How is decreasing the ease of accessibility a good thing?
And you are correct about the visitors – I have often heard how nice it is to take the bus and not have to deal with driving and parking. This is a huge disincentive to the eco-friendly tourist.
This is so wrong on so many levels and IMHO again points to an administration that is out of touch with all communities not directly linked to downtown. Mahalo Ian for providing this excellent forum!
One of the oddest proposals is to cut all Route 14 trips that currently go from Kapahulu through Kapiolani Park, to Kahala Mall and lower Kaimuki. In other words, cutting off Kahala. The #2 would quit circling Kapiolani Park before heading back downtown. The #14 cuts would leave the ARC-IN-HAWAII stranded. Currently, the 14 handles the daily trips made by retarded citizens and their minders.
The department of transportation services has already reconsidered the proposed change to route 14 and has said the proposed changes will not be made – because of input from those affected. That is the whole point of publicizing the proposed changes and holding public hearings – to get the public’s input. DTS has repeatedly emphasized the changes are ‘not a done deal’ and public input will have an influence in the final schedule. So speak up or write in, but let your opinions be known, North Shore, or forever hold your peace. “Life only gets worse and worse” if you sit quietly by and let it.
Well said, Jane. People who live on the Leeward side of Oahu also are allowed to speak up as well.
Well said, Jane. Comments can be sent to SRTSOP@Honolulu.gov, and additional information is available at http://www1.honolulu.gov/dts/short-range-transit-plan.htm.
Not just tourists. A senior couple living near me make the Oahu circle trip as an occasional excursion. It is low cost and car-feee. They are both well in their 90′s.
Our bus system is fantastic. More funding, not less. Can you imagine what we could do with our bus system with an itty, bitty fraction of $5 billion?
The very last of the hearings on the proposed cutbacks in city bus service will be held this Thursday, May 3 at 7 p.m. at Pauahi Recreation Center, 171 N. Pauahi Street (between Maunakea and River) in Chinatown.
If you can, please attend. These cutbacks will affect even those who never expect to use public transportation themselves.
The erosion of public services in rural areas is not limited to Oahu.
There are counties and municipalities that are downsizing radically. For instance, crime rates all over the United States are falling, especially in urban areas. The highest crime rates in New York state are in fact in small towns that have eliminated their police force because they cannot afford it.
That’s a big mistake, as NY City would seem to indicate. Crime rates are now widely seen to be falling there because the current strategy is to emphasize “boots on the ground” versus prisons. Prison is not really a deterrent for most people (young men) who commit crimes. Rather, lot’s of big cops with big guns and big dogs are a deterrent.
The problem, however, is that prisons are big business in the US, as the US has the highest per capita rate of incarceration. By allowing a small town to eliminate its police force because of bankruptcy, this “creates” crime and criminals who will end up in our extremely expensive prisons, which means that lobbyists representing the special interests of the prison industry will have more money to promote long prison sentences, especially for victimless “crimes” (selling small amounts of weed). By the logic that NY is using, we need more cops, better trained cops, better paid cops, and we need more rational laws, not Mother Hubbard, nanny-state laws pushed by cultural reactionaries and the prison industry. Unfortunately, I believe that Honolulu county is cutting back on police and fire services. That seems uninformed.
At the national level, the US gov’t plans on eliminating several thousand post offices.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/26/us/politics/senate-passes-bill-to-overhaul-postal-service.html
First, having a postal system is mandated by the US Constitution, and it seems unethical to eliminate a service that the less advantaged need. Second, the post office is now the heart of rural communities. I believe that the postal union wants to raise stamp prices and expand postal services; I have no idea how realistic the latter half of that proposal is. But it does seem that there is an obligation and need for rural postal delivery, and that eliminating post offices should at least be done gradually.
The point is, cutting back the bus service is not an isolated example of the decline of public services rural areas.
The real question is why this is happening.
It’s happening because people are moving out of those areas. Compare the trajectory of real estate prices in town and on the suburban fringes.
We need to realign our policies and change our ingrained expectations about transit in particular.
For example, in the face of traffic woes for suburban commuters, it might seem a tad bit simplistic to say “Just move into town.”
It is not simplistic.
Again, the whole point is that people already are moving into town.
Now, in the face of the decline of rural areas and the current migration to urban areas, what are the best policies?
Perhaps in a rural area, it would be best to supplement a declining public mass transit system with a private mass transit system, such as shuttles.
In a high-density area like the “Third City” between downtown and Diamond Head, there would be a greater emphasis in part on mass transit, but primarily on walkability, coupled with fuel user fees (comparable in cost to those in northern Europe) that would pay for road maintenance, the highway patrol, the PUC, the bus system, etc.
How can we get people to stop thinking in such conservative terms that seem locked into the 1950s — even as things change so quickly (which few seem to notice)?
I don’t think we can. New York City is the future and all the rest of us will have to learn the hard way.
@skeptical once again: Your narrative of “rural decline” is not descriptive of what passes for rural on O‘ahu.
• The population is not declining.
• Zoning laws are routinely circumvented to build multiple new houses on properties meant for just one, so housing density is increasing.
• Most everyone in “rural” O‘ahu commutes to town. “Exurban” is a more accurate term.
• People live here because of family, because it was where they grew up, or because it is the only place they can afford. Moving to town for many is just not a possibility.