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.
This blog sure kept some rail PR hacks busy this Thanksgiving. LOL.
now I know why nearly all comments always agree with master Ian on this blog…….he censors all comments that run counter.
Right you are!
That’s why things are nice and orderly, with no comments here that run counter to my views!
LOL.
Here’s a rather interesting editorial in the Wall Street Journal entitled “Would You Buy a New Car From This Man?” dating back to April 2011.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704101604576248801208413800.html
The WSJ writes:
The response of the WSJ writer is interesting in the way it reveals the writer’s (mis)interpretation of Obama:
That quote by a conservative commentator is interesting because if the government did not intervene in order to subsidize gasoline consumption in various forms (highway construction, military intervention, tax breaks on home purchases by the affluent, etc.), gasoline just might move up toward that $8/gallon range. And that would be good. That would be a truer capitalism (at least according to the standards of the WSJ), and it would be good for the environment and energy independence and fostering mass transit and getting people to move out of the suburbs. So the writer is really confused for a (so-called) conservative.
But there is another aspect to this, in that he gets Obama wrong. Obama is the conservative here, pointing the blame back at a consumer who wants to have the government subsidize his working-class lifestyle in the semi-rural suburbs by somehow lowering the price of oil. Got ten kids? That was your choice, even if you are Catholic or Mormon. Drive an SUV? That was your choice. Living in the suburbs? That was your lifestyle choice.
In some respects, critics on the left understood Obama better when he gave his first speech to the Congressional black caucus and said “now you have no excuses” and “Stop complainin’. Stop grumblin’. Stop cryin’.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/25/obama-to-congressional-bl_n_979708.html
It just seems to me that in the case of building a 20-mile rail system into low-rise suburbs — be it light or heavy rail or elevated or at-grade — Obama’s response above is the correct one.
It’s unrealistic as a traffic solution in that context. People are choosing to opt for suburban life and are puzzled by the traffic. But they do not plan on using a rail system themselves for commuting. This is exacerbated because in general they also won’t be commuting to jobs in offices next to rail stations; they work all over Oahu and tend to have blue-collar (non-office) jobs.
In this case, why can’t people listen to Obama?
You are the solution.
Yes, we can … move into town.
“Move to town” is easy to say; much harder to do if you’re in the earning money phase of life.
One possible way to do it is save as much as you can while single and working; get into an “affordably-priced” condo project; save more money while your unit appreciates in value; move to a bigger place once you get married/have kids and sell the condo.
Now, about those affordable projects…I know of NONE being built in East Oahu. Best bet is in Kakaako or Beretania/Makiki area. If there needs to be a zoning change to allow more projects to happen and an EIS needs to be prepared, then start saving now; the earliest that something could be available for ground-breaking is in 2014 barring further opposition to high-rise development on Oahu.