A letter to the editor in yesterday’s Honolulu Advertiser from Mark Scheibe, vp at Parsons Brinckerhoff, the city’s primary transit consultant, pointed to several prior studies that recommended against a light rail system running at street level.
He argued:
In 1976 an “Analysis of Transit Alternatives” looked at a light rail alternative that included grade-separated and street-running sections. In 1984 the “Hali 2000 Alternatives Analysis Study” examined at-grade light rail and partially grade-separated light rail alternatives from West Beach to UH-Manoa and Waikiki. Both studies determined that an at-grade light rail line would displace traffic lanes and worsen traffic conditions on several major streets, while providing slower and less reliable transit service than a grade-separated alternative.
What’s really interesting is that Parsons Brinkerhoff is a major player in the world of real light rail in cities across the mainland.
Parsons was the lead engineering consultant for the 20-mile Pheonix light rail system, running much of its length at street level, and they have been chosen as the lead engineering firm for a new segment of the Dallas light rail system. So they know light rail and its advantages, even as they bend over backwards to support the Hannemann administration, their client, in its choice of the far less flexible system modeled after Vancouver’s Skytrain.
Not surprisingly, Scheibe’s letter generated a flurry of emails between backers of a light rail alternative.
For example, one person argued:
Quoting 1975, 1984 and 1999 decisions shows how out of touch he is with how rail transit has improved and changed over the past ten years by universally replacing outdated overhead rail systems with LIGHT RAIL at grade. Many of the former overhead waterfront concrete structures similar to the one that his project proposes have already been demolished.
His argument that light rail will remove traffic lanes is a poor statement in light of the fact that his six to ten foot wide concrete columns will decimate many of Honolulu’s downtown streets.
His statement that” ” Light rail…would not be cheap” flies in the face of several studies that confirm that light rail at grade would be millions of dollars less expensive than overhead rail and be costructed in a fraction of the time.
Another placed the earlier studies in context.
Of course, 1975 was before the first use of light rail in the North America and when heavy rail in the largest metro area only was the norm. 1984 was when light rail was just being introduced in medium size cities (smaller than large metro areas but larger than Honolulu) in the US and Canada. However, by 1999 light rail for medium size cities was firmly in place in North America.
Mike Scheibe, as the manager at PB, obviously knows better. It is just a matter of the consultant serving his client by stating whatever needs to be stated. When Fasi was mayor in 1990-92, PB said heavy rail was the best option. In 1999 when Harris was mayor, PB said elevated busways were the best option. And now with Mufi, PB says heavy rail is once again the best option.
They are not about educating their client but are about following his marching orders…
However, this letter and the interview (Sunday) (are they on a misinformation piece a day from now on in?) is not at all surprising in that his firm, at the direction of the mayor, has been pressing architects working on the station designs to publicly contradict the AIA Honolulu position.
And about those cost advantages of light rail? I noticed a press release a $1.46 billion contract awarded to Parsons Corporation (apparently not related to Parsons Brinkerhoff) for expansion of Houston’s light rail. It will add about 20 miles of track, about the same as Honolulu’s planned transit route, but at far less cost.
Under this contract, Parsons will be responsible for designing, building, operating, and maintaining the expanded light rail system, which will include four new corridors totaling approximately 20 miles of light rail transit, 32 stations, storage and inspection facilities, and a major renovation to the existing operations center. The project also includes 103 light rail vehicles that are 100% low-floor, the first 100% low-floor vehicles to be purchased for the U.S. market.
According to the release: “The initial phase of the project is estimated to cost $632 million and includes utility work, 6.4 miles of light rail, a light rail overpass, a service and inspection facility, and the purchase of 29 light rail vehicles.”
Maybe I’m missing something in this quick hit-and-miss search for info about Houston, so don’t read too much into this. But it certainly does look like a true light rail system could offer meaningful savings.
And so the transit debate goes on, but it’s now about “whether or not to have rail transit” but “what kind of rail fits best”.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Former Houston mayor Kathy whitmire lived in Lanikai & I’ve heard her speak favorably about Honolulu’s system. Here’s a clip of her on camera from the city’s site: http://is.gd/3zXVd.
I’m generally on the same page with you on this, Ian, but I’d be careful about drawing much of a conclusion, without knowing more, by suggesting that, if it works in Phoenix, Dallas, or Houston, it can/will work here. Unlike those large, sprawling metropoli, we’re on an island (obviously), which leaves little room, generally, and with essentially only circumferential roads, we have less room, specifically, to build at grade rail without disturbing other vehicle traffic lanes.
*I* think it’s worth it to displace other vehicles because elevated means UGLY, period, but I think most other, car-loving Oahuans don’t share my priorities. Then again, we’ll both be driving every day (or, in my case, sometimes biking) from places on routes in which WE won’t have to deal with the loss of lanes.
So, maybe our high-mindedness will come at the expense of others’ inconvenience? I’m just sayin . . . .
Knowing how people drive and conduct themselves in traffic — usually without situational awareness and very little courtesy — an at-grade rail system will be repeatedly blocked by cars and constantly at-risk of striking pedestrians.
An elevated system that’s completely independent of surface traffic could be automated like an elevator, requiring fewer drivers and greatly reducing operating costs.
Maybe it does not need to be elevated all the way to Kapolei?
On the other hand, riders of an elevated system would probably enjoy better views than if it were at grade. I imagine a lot of tourists grabbing the train if it offered views. Just speculating.
Most of the cities mentioned as developing at grade systems appear to have multiple alternative routes into their centers, have highly scattered job centers, and have nothing like the concentration of Hawaiian burials that we have in downtown Honolulu.
The City studies did show that at-grade construction costs would be less than elevated. However, the benefits of elevating in terms of operations, safety, and minimization of surface excavations were judged to be worth the added cost.
Your continuing assumption that the professionals involved on the other side of the argument from you are compromising their professional judgments by making statements that support the City Administration position is an insult to them. If somebody was making similar assertions that you had no professional ethics and were making up stories just to attract readers, you would be naturally indignant. Unless you have proof that the consultants are twisting their analysis, you should do us all the favor of responding to their arguments factually and logically, rather than dismissing them as the work of sychophants.
It should be noted that the Vancouver Skytrain, while mostly grade separated (elevated), also has at-grade and below grade portions (it is completely below grade in their urban core) – a detail apparently missed by our city administration in mandating an all-elevated system they say is modeled after Vancouver’s system. The key here is flexibility. Neither Kamehameha Schools or AIA Honolulu are advocating an all-at grade system, rather they are promoting a system that is flexible, to serve each unique community appropriately. How much should be at-grade vs. elevated should be further studied. One thing is certain however, which is that the system being proposed by the city currently has NO FLEXIBILITY. As a result, it will almost certainly never extend to Waikiki, which would be highly unfortunate. So, what is the downside to changing the technology to Light Rail with low-floor vehicles? The upside is huge and we owe it to our future generations to provide a flexible approach, rather than an inflexible monster.
Peter is spot on. You can run a light rail elevated if you need to. However, Peter is dealing with facts and they really have no place in this discussion.
Mufi wants an elevated rail and you would be wise to just accept the inevitability.
The most shocking thing to me is Cleary the blatant attempt at deception. If you look up ‘disingenuous’ in the dictionary, it will probably reference this letter to the editor. Citing 1973 traffic studies? When I saw BS like this before I used to think it was so blatant and such a tip off that clearly people would get wise and call them on it. Unfortunately, Mufi has everyone so scared that if they dare even raise questions they might cancel the whole project, so everyone just nods and winks and says move long, nothing to see here….
?????????, ??? ??? ??????? ???????? ??? ??????????????? ???????
yea. let’s give riders and tourists a great view. while the rest of us deal with the worst visual blight every seen on any small island. and vandalism, graffiti, all over a system that will spall like hell and fall apart and bankrupt a city, county an state. Just cuz Muff wants his choochoo.
“Mufi wants an elevated rail and you would be wise to just accept the inevitability.” wise?! or simply apathetic. there is much justified ranting and… uh.. railing against this whole corrupt boosheeeyit scenario still. methinks it would be wise to explore more.
Why do some of the people who oppose elevated rail have to be so immature about it?
Peter is correct that flexible hybrid systems are possible. The LA light rail goes thru hugely congested areas on ground level but is also raised where that makes sense.
Would it really destroy traffic if a lane devoted to parking was lost on King or Beretania? I know it isn’t popular to state this, but history shows the more roads/freeways you build the more traffic you create. Every new road/freeway fills up.
Transit works when it’s easier than driving. Few people care to note that disincentives work along with incentives. When traffic gets really bad then people set aside their desire for car-freedom and take transit.
Kimo,
I was being sarcastic, sorry.
wait. what would “heavy rail” be exactly?