Phil Craig, the mainland rail consultant who prepared a detailed alternative Honolulu rail transit plan for Kamehameha Schools, was asked to comment on a rail resolution passed by the Democratic Party’s Oahu County Convention last month. The resolution urged support for “an effective, efficient, reliable, and environmentally sound modern steel rail rapid transit system.” There was, of course, some conflict over the resolution. The outcome was a mixed bag, a generally pro-rail resolution but without mention of the controversial specifics of Mayor Hannemann’s all-elevated train on concrete towers.
Craig’s comments are full of details on other rail systems across the country, and he keys on one of the city’s most common tactics. This resolution, like so much of the city’s pro-rail propaganda, touts the benefits of light rail systems in cities like Portland and Denver, although those cities use a rail technology that Honolulu refused to even consider in any serious way. So it’s a huge bait and switch, dangling the examples of “light rail” systems but actually preparing to deliver something quite different.
Craig writes:
…the sleight-of-hand in the proposed resolution lies in its citing cities that have built “real” light rail transit systems and attempting to pass them off to the unknowing as though they were the same as what Mayor Mufi Hannemann and his City Administration are proposing to build in Honolulu. To sum up it up with three local words, “That ain’t kosher.”
In any case, Craig’s comments are, as always, quite informative.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Why did you solicit Phil’s comments and what was ever done with them once you got them? The Democratic Party has not had a good internal debate over the Rail proposal(s). In part that is because “mass transit,” as an IDEA, has a lot of appeal for Democrats across the political spectrum; in part it is because the project will provide good union jobs to thousands of local residents. Particularly in a down economy, this is welcomed. But part of the reason is because the opposition to Mufi’s rail proposal was so closely identified with the rightwing of the Republican Party, what has emerged as the Teabagger wing. And no Democrat wants anything to do with a Sam Slom, Cliff Slater or Eric Ryan.
It was only when the AIA chapter started vocalizing their concerns that space was created in the debate for reasonable people to jump in with their concerns. And by that time, it seemed like a done deal.
Phil put a lot of effort into reviewing the Oahu resolution. But who ever saw this review? What effort was made to share his comments with active Democrats going to the State Convention where the reso might have been debated?
I am reflexively “pro-mass transit.” But I am also extremely skeptical about Mufi’s plan, which seems to have been designed more to generate campaign contributions, employ the maximum number of building trades guys, reward cronies with massive contracts, etc., than to serve legitimate transportation and planning goals.
There is space within the active core of the Democratic Party for such ideas to grow. But like any other organizing project, people gotta take the time to lobby the members. It would bae an uphill battle. But if one is going to take seriously resos passed by the Party at county and state conventions, opponents of Mufi’s rail should bother trying to work in that arena.
I don’t know the background of Phil’s comments or where they circulated. I only recently saw a copy and thought it would be useful to share.
I’m glad you agree.
You hit the nail on the head when it is said: “So it’s a huge bait and switch, dangling the examples of “light rail” systems but actually preparing to deliver something quite different.”
That is one of the many things that makes this whole mess very suspect.
(also I wish writers would use the proper term “Sleight of hand”. The other means nothing.)
The city’s contractors have lots of experience with at-grade light rail. The problem is that, from Day 1, here in Honolulu they were never given the green light by their client, the city, to study light rail alternatives. So nobody has come up with a solution because they haven’t looked. Light rail was conveniently dropped from recommended alternatives without doing that study.
I thought the same thing until I went to track down the decision.
I described what I found back in March.
http://ilind.net/2010/03/08/what-happened-to-the-light-rail-alternative-to-honolulus-transit-plan/
As far as I was able to tell, that study of light rail was never done.
“Also, the cross-traffic would be an issue stopping the train for lights, as happens in San Diego, would negate the transit speed”
No, it is not an issue. Trains run up the cali coast in SB and there are RR crossings where traffic stops for the train, NOT the reverse.
Yes Ian,
In fact ‘Light Rail’ was the terminology for voting in the first place, so looks like somebody needs to be satisfied things went their way.
My proposal is ‘Cut Costs Combine’ of:
OR&L line + Light Rail + Bike Plan = 1/5 $5.5Billion
USE EXISTING RESOURCES. Here’s my site:
http://rocogop.blogspot.com/
I think rail can be kept UNDER $20 million/mile, and cover Nanakuli, Ko Olina Ewa, West Loch, Heart of Kapolei. Check my plan.
John Roco