Full circle.
That’s where the discussion of rail has come since Monday’s entry (“What happened to the light rail alternative (redux)?“), which in turn linked back to a March 2010 entry with the same focus.
The point of both posts was to question why light rail wasn’t considered for use in Honolulu, although it has been by far the most prevalent type of urban rail transit built in the past three decades, both in the US and internationally. It has been the choice of most city planners and transit analysts. But not here. The question–why?
Enter Doug Carlson, a self-described communications consultant paid “specifically” to advance the city’s rail project.
In a series of comments, Doug said the light rail issue hadn’t been ignored. In response to questions, he wrote:
I’ll refer you to the project’s website: http://honolulutransit.org. The Alternatives Analysis and FEIS are there in all their complete detail. If you haven’t taken the time to read those documents, you might want to go there. That’s a reasonable suggestion; I don’t get the impression that people who comment at this blog want to be spoon-fed.
This prompted more comments seeking specific citations.
Doug agreed to check in with “people much more familiar with the details of those documents than I am.”
Fair enough. This is what he reported back:
Ian, detailed discussions of alignment and technology options were considered during the Alternatives Analysis process and can be found in the Alternatives Screening Memo, October 24, 2006 and the Detailed Definition of Alternatives, November 1, 2006. These documents were referenced in the Alternatives Analysis Report, DTS, 2006b and DTS, 2006a, respectively. Copies of these reports can be found on Docushare, Departmental Communications 2006, D-0900C (06) and D-0900B (06), respectively.
At this point I’ll toss Doug’s challenge back to him: “If you haven’t taken the time to read those documents, you might want to go there.”
Those documents are precisely where I started and why I asked the question about the disappearance of light rail.
Back in the March 2010 (link above), I wrote:
Beginning in the fall of 2005, the city did the preliminary screening of alternatives that RLB refers to, and published the “Alternatives Screening Memo” in October 2006. Several different alternatives were rated. Light rail was called “a strongly recommended technology“.
Recommendation – Light Rail is a strongly recommended technology for alternatives with limited portions of mixed traffic and predominately exclusive right-of-way, although the transition between the two types of service will pose technical challenges (power collection and visual impact). This technology is also recommended for analysis for alternatives with exclusive right-of-way.”
The alternatives screening memo concluded by recommending that light rail should be included among several technologies to be further considered.
But when the Alternatives Screening Report followed just a month later, several technologies had been dropped after further consideration, and just four alternatives were included in the analysis.
No Build
Transportation System Management
Managed Lane
Fixed Guideway
Light rail was not neither rejected nor included for any additional analysis. It was essentially ignored….
Check the documents Doug refers to. I did.
I searched “Alternatives Analysis Detailed Definition of Alternatives Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project” for the term “light rail.” The term appears only three times, twice in one paragraph. You can easily replicate the search.
A broad range of technologies was considered for application to this alternative, including light rail transit, personal rapid transit, automated people mover, monorail, magnetic levitation (maglev), commuter rail, and emerging technologies that are still in the development stage. Through a screening process, seven transit technologies were selected and will be considered as possible options. Those seven potential technologies include: conventional bus, guided bus, light rail, people mover, monorail, maglev and rapid rail.
Nothing more in this document, although light rail was still an option at that point.
The second document is titled, “Alternatives Screening Memo Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project.”
Here light rail (LRT) gets slightly more discussion, with the conclusion that it is “highly recommended.”
Light Rail Vehicle – This technology primarily provides the Mixed Traffic and Limited Mixed Traffic types of transit service. It can also provide exclusive right-of-way type of transit service.
Advantages – This technology had advantages in maneuverability, costs (at-grade only), environmental, supplier competition and accessibility. The technology scored highly overall for moderate and high speed operations in both mixed traffic and exclusive right- of-way.
Disadvantages – This technology scored only moderately in performance in mixed traffic services. If the technology is to transition from mixed traffic to exclusive right-of-way along an alignment, there are technical issues (power collection, visual impact) that will be challenging.
Recommendation – Light Rail is a strongly recommended technology for alternatives with limited portions of mixed traffic and predominately exclusive right-of-way, although the transition between the two types of service will pose technical challenges (power collection and visual impact). This technology is also recommended for analysis for alternatives with exclusive right-of-way.
But that’s as far as it goes.
After that, as far as I can tell it just disappears.
Parsons Brinckerhoff, which prepared the alternatives analysis, was well qualified to produce a study of the pros and cons of light rail. They’ve produced similar assessments for light rail projects in many cities across the country. What seems clear to me is that the client–the city–must have discouraged any real examination of light rail because, I would suggest, it would have been too obvious an alternative.
And, given the mindset of city officials, any serious examination of alternatives would have been seen as delaying the process and threatening the ability to apply for federal funds while Senator Inouye was in such a key position in the appropriations process. That’s just an educated guess on my part.
In any case, despite nearly 80 comments and lots of fire and brimstone on all sides, we still face that nagging question raised on Monday. Where did the city’s analysis of alternatives provide a detailed assessment of light rail? It doesn’t appear to be where Doug and those he consulted expected to find it. If it was evaluated seriously, where do we find that evaluation? If it wasn’t, then we’ve still got that “why not?” question to address.
And since light rail would likely be considerably less expensive, quicker to get built and running, and less visually intrusive, among other potential advantages, it deserved to be taken seriously.
But personally, I’m going to take a break and start the turkey roasting.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
IAN:
Today I’m thankful for your online post.
HAPPY THANKSGIVING everyone and don’t let the media P.R. hacks get you down. Eventually the truth will set us free–I hope.
It would be useful to know where the $107 Million (and growing) in public relations and consulting go to.
http://www.pritchettcartoons.com/cookie-jar.htm
There could be a semantic question of what it means to “discuss” or “consider” something.
If you and your friends go to a pizzeria on Pizza Night, you might look over the menu before you order and talk about the breadsticks and salads and sandwiches that the pizzeria also serves. But that is not why you are there. You are there to get pizza and you know it. You are making small talk, not really debating the items.
One irony is that the City now says that it is essentially building light rail rather than the heavy rail they said they were going to build (although they variously call it ‘hybrid’ or ‘super light’ and so forth). So the light rail option that was not considered in any serious way and basically dismissed out of hand is now what is going to be built.
But why has the City quietly shifted to light rail?
I suspect the City has informally (secretly) radically downsized its expectations on daily ridership. Building heavy rail and then having only, say, 5% of expected ridership would be embarrassing. With this light rail, the actual ridership would then appear on paper to be greater — say, only 20% of original estimates of daily ridership. In other words, with light rail, the seats on the train will be 80% unoccupied at rush hour, rather than 95% with heavy rail. It’s still embarrassing for the City, but not as much. (The City will then argue for the expansion of the system to raise ridership, but that will actually reduce ridership….)
Why might the City become pessimistic about rail ridership estimates?
Perhaps that might involve the City’s own behavior.
The Honolulu City and County’s Department of Transportation Services keeps building itself new parking garages.
It is as if those who are the most ardent proponents of rail don’t really plan on using the system for their own daily commute.
One of the things I am thankful for on this day is this site. It brings us news we might otherwise never get, and it provides insightful commentary both from Ian and from those who comment.
Please keep it up!
Here, here! What that one said,(beckoning with thumb towards that person in order to make message long enough to post!)
Whoa…full stop, Ian. The light rail scenario that you believe would be “considerably less expensive, quicker to get built and running, and less visually intrusive” is the street level scenario, I think. If that’s your position, please consider that the trenching and excavation work along the entire street-level route would be subject to the kinds of delays that hampered the H-3 project, so I’m more pessimistic than you that this could result in a less costly or more timely system than the one proposed.
The City gets crucified no matter what options it comes up with: elevated rail does not appeal to environmentalists and street-level means more environmental damage and cost. At some point, we the public have to think for ourselves about the kind of Oahu we want to have in our future, perhaps not for ourselves but for those who come after us. Both opponents and proponents get to argue their points, but there are some real discussions that need to happen in spite of all the noise.
One is whether we want to continue having an auto-dependent culture on our small island. It’s true that it won’t disappear, but do we want to have options within our lifetime? Whether we use rail, bus, car or shuttlecrafts (in some distant Star Trek future perhaps), there is someone, some company, developer or entrepreneur who stands to gain from any outcome. Is the merit of a project dependent on who ultimately benefits from it? Working people and future homeowners will benefit from the Rail when I think about what will follow its construction. Currently, we are ultra dependent on autos; the rail COULD change that to a degree, which means less revenue for those who now benefit from our car culture and current pattern of land development. If Oahu increases its housing stock, then those who currently have leverage and clout in land development would stand to lose that influence.
[As an aside, the Urbanophile has an excellent piece about clout and power (http://www.urbanophile.com/2011/01/16/chicago-the-cost-of-clout/). The discussion is about Chicago, but the idea is the same and I think it’s relevant to how things operate here in Hawaii.]
What do we do about population growth? Our islands are a popular place to both visit and live; I don’t see this changing. Oahu has this haphazard suburban sprawl because of unprecedented growth decades ago. It meant the gov’t did not have the time and means to plan or address growth proactively; are we going to have a repeat in the near future? Special interests have already shaped our island and we are living with the consequences of those decisions today, which contribute to why it’s expensive to live and do business here.
I believe the loudest opponents of Rail want to intentionally doom the project, whether or not it has merit as a possible solution that could improve everyday life on this island. At the same time, the public keeps up the mantra that the Rail project is already too expensive. The other option that Tom Berg likes to throw in is mag-lev, which is again inherently expensive.
So what is the solution that improves life for people long-term and keeps cost within some kind of acceptable range? What is the solution that has a chance of getting implemented? The Rail project as proposed is not a perfect solution…and neither is any other option that I’ve heard thus far. Rail is most definitely a game-changer and right now, there is much emotional discourse and less serious consideration about the kind of Oahu we want to have in the future.
The solution?
Move.
It’s a lifestyle choice to live in the suburbs, a choice that is destroying the world.
As James Howard Kunstler argues, the creation of suburbs is the single greatest misallocation of resources in the history of the world.
http://www.ted.com/talks/james_howard_kunstler_dissects_suburbia.html
The rail system should be built on the east side of Oahu where people live in apartments and have an urban culture — and where people will use a rail system.
The kind of people who live on the west side hate traffic but they will not ride the rail.
They want rail jobs so they can buy more trucks.
The rail project as planned is not an antidote to the addiction to suburb life, but is rather a manifestation of it.
The rail project as planned will feed the beast.
The rail system belongs on the east side of Oahu.
Given real estate prices, it’s not a simple black and white answer of choice on living in the suburbs. Having rail in east Oahu is a good thing but right now, two overriding factors are 1) traffic is much worse with the west side commuting into town and 2) eminent domain would be a much bigger issue with the more urbanized east Oahu. Ideally, a subway would be the best solution but it would also be the most expensive.
But no one at all on the west side will use the rail.
This will never change.
If you build it, they will not necessarily come.
It’s that simple.
Until you factor in commute times, then it’s not so simple anymore when people have to get up earlier and earlier or get home later and later to work around rush hour. This scenario is not unique to Hawaii, it gets played out over and over in cities around the world.
Then people everywhere should move into town … which is what is happening.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/26/opinion/the-death-of-the-fringe-suburb.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
There’s a place for rail, but not out in the suburbs.
Honolulu TOD – Transit Oriented Development is the REAL reason for this rail. HART is exempted from following the law.
Eminent Domain connected with this Honolulu Rail – stealing private properties to give to private corporations to development – will be a piece of cake.
There were originally no plans for Transit Oriented Development when the rail was announced.
The former Mayor and the City were late to realizing that rail is optimal with high-rise development. They seemingly had never heard of TOD.
Like a poker player who suddenly realizes that he has a losing hand, the City doubled down and raised the stakes and took on TOD rather than be embarrassed by admitting a mistake. The City and stakeholders thereby hoped that they might have a winning hand eventually, that TOD just might happen to justify a patronage project for which the fix was already in.
But there are still no plans for TOD, that is, for building high-rise apartment buildings and office towers on the west side.
The current plans are still for rezoning ag lands and building low-rise housing developments — and claiming that someday they will become high-rise. The rail is thus used to justify this ongoing low-rise suburban expansion.
There is a conspiracy, but it is not a conspiracy on the part of evil geniuses. The conspiracy is by rather confused small-town elites who find themselves in over their heads in the 21st century. They cannot admit mistakes, and they confuse economic development with 19th-century models of land development.
Pritchard sums the rail controversy well with his cartoon below. It’s politicians and bureaucrats greasing the wheels. It’s not about what’s best bang for the tax dollar and what’s the best system. It’s very evident.
http://www.pritchettcartoons.com/rant.htm
And its why, among other reasons, I won’t support the man in the cartoon for any political office.
I do not take Doug lightly after experiencing his work as an analyst and critic. In another time, he was my critical copy editor and right more often than I wished to admit. He taught me about context more than any college prof.
He fully understands Hawaii’s utility business and messed up emergency responses better than anyone I know.
I am a relative fan of light rail as I have come to know it in Seattle in recent years. However, it is compromised by a lot safety issues and resulting reliability concerns. Motorists, drunken or drugged or insane tend to ignore signals and smash into the trains, causing serious injury and long down times.That triggers major delays in catching your outbound fight.
Knowing how awful Honolulu drivers can be, I fear the notion of light rail here may not hold realistic water.
It’s entirely possible that light rail is an even worse and more expensive plan than Honolulu’s current $6 billion rail plan from the mall to D R Horton’s development. The reason we are having this discussion now is that the City failed to evaluate it as part of the EIS as they were legally required to do.
The issue isn’t whether we think it’s a good idea or not, but whether it was actually evaluated in the EIS. Based on documents that Doug Carlson has referred us all to, it doesn’t appear to have happened.
You all do remember that the impetus for this heavy, light, metro, hybrid whatever rail thing was to mitigate the traffic congestion from the west side, don’t you? You know, before jobs and before “options” and before economic stimulus and before weaning off petroleum and before transit oriented development. People just wanted to reduce traffic in their lifetime.
The answer? Spend $50,000 per foot. Wait a decade and a half. And then finally, the traffic will still stink.
Richard Gozinya, you describe the rail evolution spot on.
The rationale for the $5.5 BILLION was always a moving target with lots of smokes & mirrors PR.
It began with an initial $107 Million worth of PR and consulting SHIBAI.
Where is the outrage?
Thank you Ian.
And right on point Kalaheao.
Happy Thanksgiving everyone.
Unfortunately, everyone seems to have a different definition of “light rail”.
Fixed guideway allowed for rubber-wheel, mag lev and other types of technology to be considered. Unfortunately when the 2008 charter amendment was crafted as a “referendum” on rail we ended up with steel wheel / steel rail as the only option.
“heavy rail”: relatively high-capacity commuter rail
“light rail”: relatively lower-capacity commuter rail
“dedicated track”: a concourse for the vehicle (not necessarily rail, it could be rubber-tire tram or bus) that is separated from traffic.
“elevated”: a dedicated track raised above traffic.
“at-grade”: on the ground in traffic.
The City wants to build an elevated system of rail, but it increasingly looks more like light rail rather than the heavy rail that was first proposed.
So Ian could have better titled this entry as “Round and round we go in search of the missing alternately at-grade and elevated light rail alternative”.
I think Ian knows that I have much respect for his work as represented here; his research is thorough and I very much appreciate his analysis.
My reason for commenting comes down to the very last part of this post, which is Ian’s belief that the at-grade solution is an obvious better choice. If that’s the lens by which all the research and analysis is filtered, then yes, you end up with a story that involves some kind of cover up to prevent the best scenario from being analyzed. But I really do not think this is true.
The main point I was making is that light rail, whether at grade or elevated, is the dominant type of system being used elsewhere and was an obvious alternative that came “highly recommended” by the city’s own alternative screening analysis. As such, the public deserved that it be carefully scrutinized and tradeoffs–economic, environmental, etc–evaluated as part of the EIS. That apparently was not done, or at least hasn’t been located. And that public policy decision is what I am most concerned about, not my personal preference.
Ian, your own blog pretty much answers why light rail went no further in the analysis. It’s only efficient when there is limited mixed traffic or using exclusive right of way. Anyone with local knowledge of traffic and routes here know neither of the two exists if we were to have an at-grade route.
Ian, all of this will be settled in court, and that’s where the focus will go soon enough.
Hugh, good to see a comment written by an identifiable person. Thanks for your observations on at-grade rail transit’s safety issues.
Question: Did a court determine that the City must build an elevated rail system, or is this a project the city undertook of it’s own volition?
Answer: The city is building rail voluntarily, it has no enforceable legal obligation to build an elevated rail system, which demonstrates that the city is capable of taking action at will, without direction from a court.
A potential future legal victory for the defendants does not preclude the City from now voluntarily sharing with the public, in the spirit of open government and transparency, information on how at-grade rail fared when compared with elevated.
I think there is a confusion in this discussion because Ian seems to be using “light rail” to mean both at-grade and light (more like a trolley than a commuter train).
My recollection of the sequence of decisions was that the Hannemann administration early on decided that an elevated system made sense because it would cause much less disruption to surface traffic and pedestrian connections than at-grade, and would be much cheaper to operate because operating on an elevated guideway can be done much more cheaply with remote operators backed up by automated systems while operating at grade with crossings requires each train to have an operator.
Council approved that decision and the route for the elevated guideway, and then there was the evaluation of what technology to use on the elevated system. My understanding is that the EIS presents the alternative analysis of those technologies and of two route variations, via Salt Lake or via the Airport.
If you read the extracts about light rail that Ian provides, you will see that they talk about the at-grade systems being effective within restricted right-of-ways. What that means is to avoid collisions with cars and people and to not be stuck in traffic jams, the train has to run on its own fenced off route which creates a big barrier running through each community it crosses. That is how the Portland Max gets from the airport to Lloyd center in about 20 minutes, running on former rail lines.