Earlier this month, the Advertiser reported that the city is about to abandon its shift to hybrid fuel-efficient buses because the promised 60% savings have not materialized and, basically, we can’t afford the price of this “green” technology.

Unfortunately, the Advertiser story doesn’t link to the report it quotes, so it’s difficult to evaluate what’s reported about fuel savings.

Hybrid articulated buses cost nearly $1 million each, compared to about $380,000 for a typical 40-foot diesel bus. Previously, the city has said those higher costs may be recouped by long-term fuel efficiency gains. However, the buses are not cost- effective unless fuel costs increase at a rate of 20 percent each year for 15 years, according to the report.

But when fuel costs spiked last year, costs doubled, doubled again, and kept rising in just a few months. Diesel fuel doubled in price and has stayed at those elevated levels, something I’m well aware of as a VW diesel owner.

So while current oil prices make our old fleet less costly to run, we may be risking being caught again by the next run-up in prices. But we can’t tell because that key part of the story wasn’t reported more fully.

The good part of the story was that the city was able to look at a previous decision and admit that it needed to be reevaluated in light of new financial information.

Isn’t it time to admit that the same is true of rail? And in the case of rail, we’re nowhere near as fully committed as in the case of buses that are already on the street.

I was reading the Star-Bulletin’s story earlier in the week concerning the city transit project, and a couple of items caught my eye.

First, a quote from Bill Brennan:

But a Hannemann administration spokesman, Bill Brennan, said that in its review of a route through Honolulu in 2006, the City Council decided to select a system that includes an elevated rail.

But then there are no specific provided. As readers, were left with a “trust us, take it or leave it” proposition. We already know that there’s disagreement over this point. It would have been useful to know which specific decisions are being pointed to as locking us into the fully elevated rail option.

Then there’s the council’s transportation chair, Gary Okino:

Council Transportation Chairman Gary Okino agrees that is the best alternative. “I wouldn’t have voted for it if it was an at-grade system,” Okino said. “It absolutely doesn’t make any sense to put the system on the ground. … There’s a huge difference in terms of efficiency, speed, capacity and operating cost.”

Okino said he agrees the elevated rail will affect the views, but believes it is a “trade-off.”

One has to wonder about the facts underlying Okino’s statement. Perhaps he has another definition of “efficiency”, but apparently most cities across the country have selected the more flexible technology that allows a mix of at-grade and elevated to be most efficient, as that’s been the technology of choice for two decades.

I can’t help feeling that this is a hangover of the city’s first serious plunge into the world of rail which came just as the Vancouver system was getting up and running. At that time, more than 20 years ago, Vancouver was “state of the art”, and anyone whose came of age professionally during that short period might be forgiven for harkening back to that assessment. And those are the folks in the city now calling the shots on rail and its design.

But, as several people have pointed out to me, the consultants hired to evaluate and design our system were given strict specifications that already included the elevated design. They weren’t asked to start with a clean slate and design the best system for Honolulu. They were given a preconceived solution and told to design it. And with consultants, as with other professionals, if the client demands it, that’s what the client gets. In the case of the rail consultants, the same companies are designing flexible light rail systems in other places at the same time that they’re giving Honolulu its fully elevated and more expensive design.

So what if what Okino understands as a “trade-off” in efficiency, speed, capacity and operating cost is no longer the case given the changes in state of the art transit technology? At least some very experienced transit planners point to technology choices that allow a mix of elevated and street-level travel capable of carrying the same passenger load with a more pleasant ride, fewer negative effects on the surrounding neighborhoods, and with little loss of time.

Speed? Honolulu’s design relies on a measure of “average speed” along its 20-mile route. That’s only achieved by the trains going faster where the stations are farther apart. Once getting close to downtown, where the stations are closer together, the train won’t be able to go much faster than one running at street level. And for the individual passenger, the time and effort of having to climb stairs (because like with escalators at the airport, escalators at heavily used train stations are going to be out of service a lot, trust me) balances out the few minutes diference in transit time.

My sense is that this new assessment of the trade-offs is what is motivating members of the AIA to make their push to substitute the latest flexible technology for the city’s pre-selected train.

It’s the Friday before a long weekend. Time to wind down, perhaps?

This is Mr. Silverman leaving few doubts about his intentions for the holiday weekend. I have a theory that cameras trigger yawns in cats, because I seem to be collecting an inordinate number of yawning cat photos. It’s certainly greater can be accounted for by random chance. Any theories floating around out there?

Last comment. Trouble sleeping? Blog early. Problem cured.