An op-ed column by Honolulu City Councilmember Duke Bainum appears in today’s Star-Bulletin.
He makes a very good point.
Say you needed a new car and you’re eyeing a beauty on the showroom floor, but your brother calls and says he can get you a car for half the price, that is more energy efficient, has the latest technology, can be delivered sooner and have significant lower operating and maintenance costs. Wouldn’t you at least return his call?
This is effectively the rail proposal the Honolulu Chapter of the American Institute of Architects (AIA Honolulu) is offering. If the city would consider an at-grade rail system, particularly for downtown segments of the proposed route, we could have incredible cost savings on construction, significantly reduce the visual blight from pillars of concrete blocking our viewplanes, build the system more quickly, extend the system to areas like the University of Hawaii and Mililani sooner, better integrate the stops and stations into our neighborhoods, and save on future operating costs. The system would also provide better connectivity, flexibility and increased accessibility — and fit better into our neighborhoods.
Of course, Bainum’s position is contrary to the position staked out by Mayor Hannemann.
And the public may not yet fully appreciate the difference between the two types of rail. However, the engineering firms working for the city certainly do.
While the city remains committed to elevated heavy rail technology, it’s interesting to note that the web site, HonoluluTransit.org, created by the city’s contractor, Parsons Brinckerhoff, features news stories touting the benefits of light rail rather than the type of train being planned for Honolulu. Check their Rail News page for stories about the the new rail system in Phoenix (light rail, not what Mufi is building), the DART system in Dallas (again, light rail, not what Parsons is designing for Honolulu), and Denver (again, light rail that integrates into the environment and runs at street level through downtown Denver, not on huge elevated platforms seems committed to).
The fact of the matter appears to be that without news from the dozens of cities that have built light rail systems in the last two decades, there wouldn’t be much rail news for Parsons Brinckerhoff to report.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Ian,
Please be more careful in your reporting. Honolulu is planning to build an elevated light rail system, not a heavy rail system.
BART is a heavy rail system; Vancouver’s Sky Train is a light rail elevated system. There is a big difference in the visual appearance and footprint.
Good point, Lopaka, but the difference between a ground-level and any elevated track is huge. Elevated track is OK if you’re sharing the freeway right of way as per L.A.’s system but in urban areas if removes much of the New Urbanist advantages and it does cost more. If you’re running a track between elevated freeway lanes then elevated makes sense, or to get above Kalanianiole Hwy but downtown ground level or underground makes more sense.
Here in Berkeley citizens voted to pay more to put the BART line underground. Maybe citizens of Honolulu should be given similar choices.
If planning had started at the neighborhood level, planning first what kind of communities we would like to have in Honolulu, and only then begin to add into the process what kind of transportation would work best, I’m pretty sure we would have something quite different.
Of course, it’s a hassle to let the people plan. It’s messy, and they might not come up with the plan developer-supported politicians would want.
During the last round of City Council hearings the buzz in the peanut gallery was that the “fix was in” not only for heavy rail but for a particular vendor. I’m guessing the fix has been in for a long time. The political challenge is how to impose this on the people.
This is developer-oriented-transit, not transit-oriented-development. And there will be no federal funds to tear it down later on.
Perhaps the EIS will meet with a legal challenge. If so, people will get to see what alternatives look like. Mufi’s nemesis is here now as a counterforce, one that we haven’t really had before. Creating a fight (and winning) is in Bainum’s interests. Let’s see how it goes.
If I were an aspiring FBI agent I would ask for assignment to Honolulu and spend my time watching this story. It will last another decade or two; it will involve massive incompetence and corruption; and would provide me with a career opportunity without parallel. I would then write a textbook on how municipal corruption seems part and parcel of the local [failed] political class in Hawaii. It is “Ala Wai” in the Sky.