I’m sure lots of people picture themselves riding Honolulu’s rail system, coasting on those elevated tracks above the traffic snarl below, while catching up with reading or getting a little work done on a laptop during the commute into downtown Honolulu from the west side.
Well, a story by Mark Abramson in the current issue of Pacific Business News suggests that scenario isn’t accurate.
According to PBN, Honolulu’s two-car trains are designed to carry up to 350 passengers during peak periods.
Each car will have seating for a maximum of 38 people, apparently meaning there will be seating 76 out of the maximum 350 passengers on the two cars. But the seats are designed so that they can be retracted and folded away.
And here’s the catch–to carry their maximum load during peak commuter hours, many of those seats will have to be taken out of use. That’s right. The more passengers are expected, the less seating will be provided.
“It’s a newer design and different seat configuration,” said HART spokesman Scott Ishikawa. “BART, they are older cars. These Honolulu cars are going to be much newer in design, and because of [fewer] seats there will be a lot more people standing.”
I’m perhaps reading between the lines here, but Honolulu’s projected ridership numbers–the numbers that appear to show that enough people will ride the rails to pay for the system–appear to depend on the standing room only strategy.
I wonder if those surveys asking whether people are likely to use rail would get different results if the question included the information that most commuters will have to stand (over 80% will be standing, although the exact numbers weren’t provided in this PBN story) .
Fewer seats and “more people standing” is considered a new and improved design? That’s a line made up by someone who doesn’t make much use of public transportation, I would guess.
.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
LOL!
BTW, the City’s Department of Transportation Services keeps building itself new parking garages for their employees.
man, that sucks. how long is the ride?
Ha. Rail proponents would still push it even if it was ALL standing-room only, trust me. It’s all for the $ – nothing more, nothing less.
Hey, if I can stand in a bus with a baby and diaper bag in 1 arm and a folded stroller in the other, while holding onto a pole, anybody can do it. Mostly students and work people will be riding the train — all young and spry enough to stand.
When I was young and spry, I still could not handle standing on the BART train I took every morning from the East Bay to my job in the City.
The train trip was 35 miles, took only 35 minutes, and had all of 6 stops only, and still I abhorred having to stand and hang on to the pole.
Fortunately, the last few seats were available at my boarding station, and I could grab one of them provided I stood on the edge of the station platform in the Bay Area wind and rain.
For me, arriving at the office wet but rested (and enthralled by my daily viewing of the Golden Gate Bridge, visible from my seat, always on the left side of the train) was the preferable way to start working at the extremely challenging job I had.
By the way, when I occasionally catch the bus from Kailua to my office in town these days, I never see City administrators on board unless they are disguised as students, retirees, and such.
From BART to NYC and London’s old clunky system, I my have experienced around two dozen subway, overhead or mixes thereof systems. Standing, except for the frail elderly, is typical. This is not an Amtrac sleeper with assigned seats , folks.
But it seems the ration of seated to standing will be lower here than elsewhere due to the innovative new design.
Ian,
I’m not so sure that is an innovative new design.
I think it’s the same design they’ve been using to carry cattle to market for over a century.
The operating costs are around 44 dollars times the 350 even if the train runs less than full. The 44 dollar per trip cost was hidden by averaging a 7 dollar bus plus train trip. I doubt the city council ever asked for a straight per trip cost.
Source?
I think this is a non-issue. I think everyone who wants to ride the rail will have a seat.
But that’s becuase I think they would be lucky to get 76 passengers per train.
I think the reason that most people who do want rail actually want it is not so they can take, they just want it so other people can take it and then it wil take them less time to drive to work.
At the top of the list are all the government employees(DOT included) who get free parking downtown as part of there job.
Uh, I don’t know anyone who gets free parking. My wife works downtown and she pays for her parking.
Where can she sign up for the free perk?
Even legislators pay for their parking and you would think if anyone would end up with a freebie, it would be them.
For the city at least, there was an article a few years back examining the subsidized parking rates their employees pay. So maybe not free, but also not market rates private employees have to pay.
“According to PBN, Honolulu’s two-car trains are designed to carry up to 350 passengers during peak periods.”
I read an article some time ago, which I can no longer locate, but if memory serves, the article claimed that many numbers used to promote rail to the public are theoretical in basis, as opposed to being based on realistic expectations.
One such specification relates to train car passenger capacity. Basically, after counting each seat as able to accommodate a single passenger, the open floor space is divided up according to the amount of room an individual would occupy who weighs a given number of pounds meant to represent the average rider’s weight, say 150 pounds. A certain number of inches in each direction around the hypothetical rider is left free as well, possibly to account for the need to move about the interior of the rail car.
According to the article, however, in the real world, people don’t usually pack themselves into trains the way designers anticipate when calculating rider capacity. Just as in buses, people tend to pack themselves closer to doors and less tightly away from doors. Yes, trains have more and wider doors than buses, but my understanding is that that is not enough to overcome the problem.
I’m unable to locate the original article, but below are a few quotes from an article on a different subject that references the preference of train riders to stand close to doors.
http://motoring.asiaone.com/Motoring/Motorworld/Others/Story/A1Story20081121-102328.html
“White gloves, peak hours, crowd management – it all sounds like Tokyo’s infamous train-packers, who push passengers into the train, packing them in like sardines in a tin. Those packers ensure that trains are fully filled, with carriages so packed that passengers have to stand squished against one another, their arms pressed to their sides.”
“Ms Joanne Tan, 49, who takes a train to Raffles Place station every day for work, felt that service ambassadors were necessary.
She recalled once seeing a girl caught in the train doors because other passengers had gathered near the door instead of moving in.
Ms Tan said: “She was screaming and screaming, the poor thing. Luckily, a few men pulled her out and back onto the platform.
“Singaporeans just don’t want to move to the centre of the train cabin on their own because they’re afraid they can’t get out for their stop.”
There may be legitimate reasons for the city to sometimes use the theoretical passenger capacity when discussing rail. The realistic number of riders is difficult to impossible to pin down because that number is related to factors that are not easily controlled or measured. For instance, someone late for work might press into the already crush-loaded doorway of a train, whereas someone else with extra time would simply wait for another train, hopefully one with a less crowded doorway. Another example, some doorways may be occupied by a greater number of persons that enjoy an extra scoop of rice with their plate lunches.
However, if the city is using a theoretical number of passengers when “informing” the public on rail, it would be useful if they would take a moment to explain that the numbers they are using is larger than the actual, “realistic” number of passengers that will fit inside of a train car without resorting to our own version of Tokyo-style people pushers.
Of course, from the city’s standpoint, being more upfront about the use of theoretical numbers in explaining rail to the public has its drawbacks. One example: here on Oahu, I seem to recall that an earlier estimate of the theoretical passenger capacity of the train was used to create at least one of those rail “informational” cartoons that were very easy to come across before that steel wheel rail vote in 2008. I’m talking about the cartoon from those widely distributed flyers that purported to illustrate the number of autos rail could potentially take off the road. The message to the public being, greater train passenger capacity results in more autos off the road. Thus, a bigger theoretical number that could never be consistently realized would be more effective in promoting rail to auto drivers than a smaller but more realistic estimate.
To refresh the memories of anyone who can’t remember the cartoons, they were colorful up and down two panel cartoons with an upper drawing of a multi-lane highway jammed with tailgating cars and a lower drawing of the same highway now almost completely void of cars and with a cartoon train passing above it. I don’t believe the caption made any guarantees but if there’s truth to that old saying “a picture speaks a thousand words,” people probably got the intended message. I’ll put it this way, Ian Lind said in his main post above, “I’m sure lots of people picture themselves riding Honolulu’s rail system….” Similarly, I feel sure that lots of people saw the city’s train capacity cartoon in 2008 and pictured each of themselves in those few autos coasting down the near empty highway while the masses passed above using rail.
With all this noise about rail, here’s the big question to answer: in the long run, like 20 years ahead and beyond, how do you move thousands of workers into and out of the urban core, separated from street traffic, and without cars?
Because there’s only so much remaining capacity for our existing roads, and forget about trying to widen the freeways.
And once you do arrive in the urban core, where do you park?
Rail cars can’t carry more in peak hours? That’s when you increase the frequency of trains.
It’s annoying to hear people insist it can’t be done. Because more often than not, it can. In my career I had lots of moments where people told me, “no can”. But almost always, I proved it could. Just had to think hard and keep trying.
If NASA were populated with people saying “no can” in 1970, we’d have three dead astronauts from Apollo 13.
Buses. Every three bus passengers removes two cars from the road.
Also, people just need to move into town.
Per Bloomberg News today: “A study of 325 metropolitan areas worldwide says Honolulu is the least-affordable housing market in the United States.”
So people who moved to Kapolei so they could afford a home “just need to move into town”???
Sorry, but that argument is weak, no matter how many times it gets repeated by those who don’t want rail.
Yes, I am saying that they need to move before things hit the fan in Hawaii’s economy.
I am not saying this in response to the rail. I am saying this generally. People need to move ASAP out of the suburbs in general.
Sell your house and buy a couple of apartments and rent one out … and cross your fingers and pray to God.
“So people who moved to Kapolei so they could afford a home “just need to move into town”???”
I just wanted to add that Kapolei was meant to be a “Second City” with people living in apartments and working in Kapolei.
Kapolei is meant to be “town”.
“20 years ahead and beyond, how do you move thousands of workers into and out of the urban core, separated from street traffic, and without cars?”
First of all, the traffic issues we have aren’t just due to workers trying to get to the urban core.
But in 20 years, much of the need for individuals to get to the urban core could be obviated by technology. Some workers could telecommute. UH students could attend classes online. Business with Honolulu Hale could be done online, just as we no longer need to drive to there or to satellite City Hall to renew our car registrations. Meetings could be held by videoteleconference.
We should be focusing at least as much attention on ways to obviate the need to get to the urban core, as to providing alternative means to get there.
I mean to add that when it comes to the west side of Oahu, most commuters are not going to the urban core (i.e. downtown), they are generally blue-collar workers going all over Oahu in their trucks to construction jobs. Rail is optimal with white-collar workers living in apartments and commuting downtown.
But one thing about living in a society without a real college-educated middle-class is that no matter how many times one makes a rational argument, it just does not seem to sink in. “WE NEED THE RAIL FOR RELIEF FROM TRAFFIC!” But you don’t plan on using it, do you? Nor do any of your neighbors, do they? In fact, no one does. “BUT WE NEED RAIL JOBS!!” But there are no such rail jobs, the point of the fully automated rail plan was to eliminate jobs to save money. There might not even be security guards at the rail stations (or working bathrooms), if the City can’t afford it. And the City might not be able to afford the extra buses that are supposed to feed the rail (although the original rail plan was to lower the number of buses on the west side).
“With all this noise about rail, here’s the big question to answer: in the long run, like 20 years ahead and beyond, how do you move thousands of workers into and out of the urban core, separated from street traffic, and without cars?”
First off, why the provisos “separated from street traffic” and “without cars”? If an alternative works, it works; why unnecessarily tailor your “big question” so that the only answer that will fit is grade separated rail?
Forgive me if I’m wrong, but I anticipate that your response to my just posed question will be to reiterate your reasons why other options “can’t” work, so in the interest of saving time I would remind you of your own response to those pointing out the failings and disadvantages of elevated rail: “If NASA were populated with people saying “no can” in 1970, we’d have three dead astronauts from Apollo 13.”
If that position applies to the goose, then why not to the alternatives to rail?
Secondly, speaking for myself, I don’t see yours as the “big question”; I see it as a red herring with a closed-end that unfairly limits the choices available to respondents.
In turn, I would submit an alternate big question, one that is too often obscured by the aggrandizing of subordinate “big questions”: if we must expand, why not preserve limited agricultural land on Oahu for local food production — banking it for the future if it will not be used immediately — while at the same time eliminating most of the commute for thousands of workers by expanding vertically within the urban core itself?
Growing upward, in town, would save billions of dollars over building, operating, and maintaining an elevated rail system, and it would be greener by far in many different ways, and it would result in thousands of island residents having more time to spend with their loved ones and loved pursuits.
Which raises the question, why has this path been so little examined and discussed?
Could it be because it is not the path of maximum gain, financial and otherwise, for the right people? Perhaps people who are deeply invested in a different plan? Perhaps people with friends in high places, and maybe even people in high places themselves?
You hear the saying so often nowadays, “keep the country, country.” It’s even been appropriated by the rail syndicate/association who are using it as the heart of their campaign to scare people from Windward Oahu and Hawaii Kai into supporting rail. But why doesn’t “keep the country, country” apply to West Oahu?
No use H-1, try take Farrington Highway to travel between Waipahu and Kapolei one day, and look around. Does that look “urban” to you? Over there look like plantation days to me. Not as lush as Windward side but more like the mix of planted and unplanted lightly wooded areas from when sugarcane was still around. You could put a bunch of horses out there and they would do fine. Even get water. Feels like you can relax and let go of the stress little bit when you out there. Try imagine if never have the truck staging areas for rail and things like that, imagine how used to be and how it could be again if you took good care of the place.
Just because a bunch of people looking to score some money and influence stick a label that says “urban corridor” on a map of the country, does it really make it so? And if you feel it does, what if, later on, they come stick one new label near where your family lives and plays? The remaining land in West Oahu not going last forever. Eventually the developers going be looking for new places to build.
And if anyone thinks the developers really going be satisfied with transit-oriented development alone, how come Hoopili going be mostly houses if TOD is good enough? Why not increase Hoopili’s density so that all residents would live within a 10 minute walk of a rail station? Why they not talking about limiting Hoopili to one car to a household; that’s the way transit-oriented development works, isn’t it? Wake up! The world is a big place and get plenty people like replace us over here. And get plenty people with money who not going be satisfied with one TOD unit in Waipahu. They going want better. They going like live in places that let them use their cars to get around, places that don’t have West Oahu to town kind traffic, yet. Maybe fifty thousand of them even going like live where you live, not where the person I was first responding to lives, I’m saying this to whoever is reading this that has an open mind. In the early days when transit-oriented development was only in the earliest phases of discussion the city even handed out informational packets that said it over and over — “the rich don’t ride rail” because people had to know what we were considering getting ourselves into and I think the process hadn’t been completely taken over yet.
It’s time for the people of Oahu to take control of our island’s future. It’s time to stop the population exchange between Hawaii and the rest of the world. As far as I’m concerned, if you from someplace else but you already here then you one with us already, sounds like magical thinking but that’s the way it is. I’m also not against people already living here from bringing their families either, but no more doing our best to convince people with no connection to Oahu beyond visiting from moving here. If the other islands want them, terrific, but, and I know that all this is just my opinion, Oahu has enough already. And remember, rail will not prevent attempts at development in other parts of Oahu. Developers and their friends going build on anything and everything that will make them money, that is, if it’s not defended. They are trying to divide us–don’t let them.
Keep all the country, country. Protect our island’s food supply. Protect West Oahu.
Oh, and here is a little reminder of what the City of Honolulu were promising what the train would be like:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jr8yNedXNZY&noredirect=1
Look at minute 1:05 to see former Mayor Mufi Hannemann comfortably seated in a train filled with seats while the man sitting behind him talks on his cell phone and reads the paper.
It sounds like they should have filmed Mufi crammed into a cattle car instead.