54 thoughts on “Geller on Rail: “The problem is that we have no part in planning our own communities””

1. skeptical once again May 30, 2012 at 11:35 am

   Thanks to Larry Geller for the reference to the PBS series “e2”, and its fifth episode on the rail system in Portland, Oregon. I could not find it on the Internet, not even on the PBS website, so I watched it on amazon instant video last night.

   What the episode really covers is the way that light rail can revitalize an urban core. This is very real. One problem with that, of course, is that when the tracks are laid down and the tram begins to lure business to those areas in town that have light rail, areas without the tram wither and die. The city, however, supposedly adjusts in the long run. But there is no net increase in commercial activity in the city, it just concentrates it.

   Remember, though, that this refers to urban revitalization, and not to commuting between the city and the suburbs. In terms of commuting, the rail system in Portland is ineffective.

   For a sympathetic yet realistic appraisal of rail in Portland, here is a useful blog from an urban planner who lived in Portland.

   http://www.humantransit.org/2010/04/portland-the-lure-of-the-unmeasurable.html

   If one reads the linked posts as well as the comments, one gets the sense that rail in Portland is not primarily about transit, it’s about values, ideology, political correctness, identity, a sense of specialness and distinctiveness and the inferiority complex that can dog a provincial mid-sized city. We can say that “Portland loves its rail!”, and part of Portland does indeed love the rail (west Portland is liberal, east Portland is conservative). But this love is not based primarily on transit needs, but on psychology. Most unfortunately, this celebration of a mode of transit as somehow “progressive” can mask over serious social problems that fail to get addressed (e.g., massive numbers of runaway kids roaming Portland). Window dressing can obscure reality, and occlude the development of truly progressive public policy.

   That being said, something like Portland’s system might be useful in the urban core of Honolulu, between Kalihi and Diamond Head. But for commuting to and from the suburbs, nothing will suffice. This is because the problem is not cars, but commuting itself.

   Some on Oahu are espousing Bus Rapid Transit as an alternative to rail (although these voices seem to be the same people who not only earlier opposed BRT, but who gripe about bus subsidies). Some critics of rail advocate simply expanding the bus system or making it free, since every three bus passengers eliminates two cars from the road.

   None of that will work because these are still modes of commuting to and from the suburbs. Again, the problem is commuting. In fact, privatizing the bus system might be in order.

   What is necessary is raising the price of gasoline. Those who use the roads need to pay for them through user fees imposed on fuel. Every other proposal is a scam that will only lead to more fuel consumption and energy dependence (the Jevons paradox). I believe that the cost of gasoline in the Netherlands is $10/gallon. If we had courageous and visionary politicians in Hawaii, rather than panderers who want to be Santa Claus, this is how we would solve our transit “problems” (which are not really problems at all, but logical consequences of suburban sprawl).

   Also, a land-value tax is in order. This would preclude the need for the kind of urban-growth boundaries that can be arbitrary. (Note that Honolulu is getting rid of its urban-growth boundaries and planning on developing ag lands, even while the rail is used as an excuse to do this, which is the reverse of what happened in liberal Portland.)

   Also, it should be noted that the original purpose of having an elevated line on Oahu was to make the rail system fully automated, without the need for drivers. This was the response to the 2003 bus strike. It was argued that such a rail system would replace buses and their well-compensated bus drivers, who outside of peak traffic hours, spend most of the day transporting air in empty buses. Again, perhaps such an elevated rail system makes sense in town, between Kalihi and Diamond Head, especially now with the ‘Third City’ concept, which is actually becoming a reality (unlike Kapolei as a ‘Second City’).

   Again, a few things we can do to mitigate traffic that will work.

   1. Triple the price of gasoline with user fees on fuel.
   2. Institute a land-value tax.
   3. No government payment for new suburban infrastructure.
   4. Privatize the bus system.

   Reply ↓
   1. t May 30, 2012 at 3:30 pm

      TheBus has long been privatized. (Even Donald Trump would have trouble arguing against this.)

      OAHU TRANSIT SERVICES, INC.

      BUSINESS TYPE

      Domestic Nonprofit Corporation

      FILE NUMBER

      86204 D2

      STATUS

      Active
      PURPOSE

      THE PURPOSE OF THE CORPORATION SHALL BE TO MANAGE, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU BUS SYSTEM, SPECIAL TRANSIT SERVICE AND OTHER TRANSIT RELATED SERVICES ON BEHALFOF AND FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU. (SEE AMRS FILED 05/17/2004)

      Reply ↓
2. makikiboy May 30, 2012 at 11:44 am

   Gas prices are going to go up just like everything is, when it reaches 10 bucks a gallon in the year 2017 I’d like to see how many anti-rail people will regret their decisions. Don’t forget the roads are going to get more clogged each and every year as 16 year olds are getting their licenses. People should be able to make choices and that is: walk, bus, rail or drive your car to get where you need to get to.

   Reply ↓
3. Lopaka43 May 30, 2012 at 1:02 pm

   Undecided, the BC Rapid Transit Company which operates two of Vancouver’s Sky Train routes reports moving 250,000 passengers per weekday with an on-time service delivery performance rating of 95.46%. http://www.translink.ca/en/About-Us/Corporate-Overview/Operating-Companies/SkyTrain.aspx

   Reply ↓
4. Lopaka43 May 30, 2012 at 1:33 pm

   The estimate of 42 minutes from East Kapolei is based on the specs for the two-car train, the estimates for passenger load, and the estimated time required to unload and load passengers based on experience with comparable systems like Vancouver’s.

   And there is no whiplash effect. The SkyTrain accelerates and declerates smoothly with a very comfortable and quiet ride. It is unlikely that it will reach maximum speed of 55 mph, but I recall being told the cars could get up to 40 mph.

   And Taxpayers, the cuts in bus service are because property tax revenues which are the principal source of funds for the City operating budget are way down due to the recession.

   But the train is being built with dedicated revenues from the half penny increase in the excise taxes which are coming in on schedule so far the last I heard.

   Reply ↓
5. Claire May 31, 2012 at 2:43 am

   Skeptical posted the Human Transit link about Portland, but The Urbanophile summarized the Portland phenom in a better way here:

   http://www.urbanophile.com/2011/06/30/replay-picture-perfect-portland/

   Aaron Renn attributes Portland’s under-performance to its lack of diversity, which Honolulu has in abundance. But here’s the *problem* with diversity (from Michel Martin, host of Tell Me More on NPR, http://www.npr.org/2012/05/09/152346241/the-water-may-be-cold-but-go-ahead-jump-in):

   “…more diverse communities actually suffer in many ways from civic withdrawal. People are less likely to volunteer, vote, give to charity and work on projects together. People trust each other less, so they do less and hunker down.

   “Can I just tell you? Is this really a surprise? Diversity is hard for the same reason marriage is hard. You’re asking people who were raised in different houses, different families, usually different genders, to submerge a part of themselves for the sake of the whole. You’re asking people to think of someone else’s feelings, if not instead of their own, at least alongside their own. And when was that ever easy, even when you’re in love?

   “But we don’t tell people to stop getting married. And more to the point, today this country, and in fact the world, is not going to get less diverse.”

   So let’s keep talking about the choices and direction we want for Honolulu. Perhaps there are enough people who are done with ignoring the traffic and infrastructure problems so improvements are implemented instead of just talked about. A lot of our Honolulu infrastructure went to hell b/c there was no interest in making the hard choices.

   Lastly, this Streetfilms video is about greenways in Portland: http://www.streetfilms.org/portlands-bike-boulevards-become-neighborhood-greenways/ and perhaps Honolulu will get to the point where the conversation is more about linkages and not still on a rapid transit solution.

   Reply ↓
   1. hmmmm May 31, 2012 at 6:04 am

      “People trust each other less, so they do less and hunker down.”
      One of the most best, pull-no-punch descriptions of Hawaii’s culture.
      The lack of trust here is practically mandatory. It makes change even more difficult and raises many unanswered questions about what Aloha actually stands for.

      Reply ↓
6. Lopaka43 May 31, 2012 at 5:58 am

   Skeptical, Honolulu is not getting rid of its urban growth boundaries. The boundary is established by ordinance as part of eight development plans covering all of Oahu. Thousands of acres of prime agricultural lands outside that boundary are protected against urban development.

   On the North Shore, the boundary was recently amended to put the Lihi Lani lands previously proposed for development outside the boundary.

   There is also a proposal to amend the boundary to allow more development at Laie but that proposal has not yet been sent to Council for consideration, and has strong opposition.

   Reply ↓
   1. Taxpayers May 31, 2012 at 7:08 am

      Mayor Peter Carlisle, Donovan Dela Cruz and the pro-rail flock continue to use the phrase: ” If you want to Keep the Country Country, you will support rail to contain urban sprawl.”

      The Mayor said it again in the last debate with Hawaii News Now. He either can lie with no hesitation or he does not know what is going on.
      (Just like he did not know where Lualualei was.)

      Reply ↓
   2. hmmmm May 31, 2012 at 10:42 am

      taxie, wrong on both accusations.
      the point is to actually make a second city out of Kapolei, which requires a far better transportation between Kapolei & Honolulu, for obvious reasons. having development centered around Kapolei prevents development on the North Shore and other “Country” areas.
      that said, Taxpayers, i’ve noticed a habit of coming up with whatever grand explanation possible to block rail. (eg, the trains now will cause whiplash!!! what’s next; rail causes radiation sickness?)
      please continue – this helps show the holes in the persistent anti-rail rants, and provides some fun for rail supporters like me, Dean and Lopaka43.

      Reply ↓
      1. skeptical once again May 31, 2012 at 11:53 am

         the point is to actually make a second city out of Kapolei, which requires a far better transportation between Kapolei & Honolulu

         Once again, here we are being given an entirely new reason for building a rail system.

         The argument is that rail will help to develop Kapolei into the ‘Second City’ it was meant to be.

         But the primary reason for developing Kapolei into a high-density, mixed-use city was to largely (not entirely) preclude the need for commuting.

         But now we are being told that in order to do this, we need to encourage more commuting in the form of a multi-billion dollar rail project.

         Reply ↓
         1. experience May 31, 2012 at 8:40 pm

            “But now we are being told that in order to do this, we need to encourage more commuting in the form of a multi-billion dollar rail project.”

            uh no.
            People who live and work in Kapolei ……. may actually not want to stay there all the time. And if a hundred thousand people eventually live in Kapolei ………. they will want and need transportation, both for work and for play. Killing the rail project to boost Kapolei makes no sense. You would have twin cities sharing a terrible connection.

            “I am not sure how multicultural Hawaii is anymore.”

            Skeptical, jokes aside, do you actually live on Oahu? If you do, do you go outside much? If you had a job downtown in Honolulu, visited friends in Pearl City and Mililani, and lived in Kailua, you would laugh at your own arguments.

            I will enjoy your next group of paragraphs!

            Reply ↓
         2. experience May 31, 2012 at 9:01 pm

            I failed to mention two other places on Oahu:
            Waianae
            and Waipahu.
            If you don’t frequently visit them, I recommend it. It’s almost like going to amazing sub-islands!

            Reply ↓
7. skeptical once again May 31, 2012 at 11:40 am

   I mentioned above that traffic is not a problem but rather merely a symptom, and that the real problem is commuting. By that measure, not just cars, but buses and trains used for commuting should be phased out, and that TheBus should be ‘privatized’ (which it already is, apparently). What I meant is that TheBus should not be subsidized by the City.

   But I take that back. I recant. If the bus is used to reduce the numbers of cars on the road (every three bus passengers removes two cars from the road), then the bus can be subsidized — but on one condition. That condition is that bus subsidies should be paid for only by user fees imposed on fuel.

   This also should apply to any rail project: It should not be paid for with taxes, especially via a GET, which is the most regressive form of taxation, but by user fees applied to fuel.

   To address Geller’s complaint that in Hawaii, public decision making has only the veneer of public input and this is why things don’t work in the long run, I’d advise him to remember back ten years ago when the Bush administration was pushing for the Iraq war, both in the US and within international circles like the UN. The fix was in, and those in power who had already made their minds up lived in a fantasy world. So this is not just a “Hawaii thing”. It’s the way of the world.

   One can find comments above that if Hawaii did have a genuine democratic culture with public input, things would bog down and nothing would get accomplished because of things like a low education level among the population and a fragmented multicultural environment.

   First, I am not sure how multicultural Hawaii is anymore. Europeans point out that the United States can function because although the US is multi-ethnic, it is not multi-cultural, at least not in the public sphere (unlike Europe). Much the same can be said about Hawaii. At one time Hawaii was radically multicultural. I knew people in Hawaii born before WWI — born and raised in Hawaii, mind you — who spoke virtually no English until they were teenagers. But even that generation left the old cultures behind and became mostly ‘local’ in their culture and identity.

   Here’s an interesting anecdote. I was once at the UH library (Sinclair) and there was a group of local kids working there, stacking books. They were all local Japanese. Suddenly, one of the young women said “You know what? My parents think that I am some kind of Japanese girl.” All at once, half the members of the group said “Tell me about it!”

   There were a couple of paradoxes despite their protestations, because 1) their parents are likewise not really Japanese; 2) they were hanging out in a group that was exclusively Japanese. So the old cultures have long made way for something more recent, but the habits of fragmentation persist. In fact, whenever a corrupt real-estate investment hui is exposed in Hawaii, it seems like almost every member of the group belongs to a different ethnic group (in the cabal they’ll be a Chinese guy, a Japanese guy, a haole guy, a Hawaiian guy, etc.). But despite this integration and assimilation, the old habits of cliquishness persist (in the form of the hui).

   There was once a prominent question in the 1960s whether or not non-Western societies can become democracies. This included Japan, which seems to be democratic in form but bureaucratic in nature. It seemed that a big motive in asking this question was simply Western colonial condescension, even racism, mixed in with curiosity and real concern.

   (The Western stereotype of Asian societies was that they were ‘despotisms’ by nature, and that Eastern societies were feminine in character despite being ruled by a macho tyrant — think of the image of Sadam Hussein — because they lacked a public realm, which is a man’s realm, and therefore need Western ‘help’ in the form of leadership. The Western stereotype of southern, tropical or “tribal” people is that they even lacked a despot or a state, and were simply primitive or savage, and sometimes even lacked a private realm of the family.)

   So why do some Asian countries like Taiwan and South Korea seem to have thriving democracies, whereas a country like Japan seems not to? Japan is famously mono-ethnic and insular. Taiwan is multi-ethnic (they even have a small Polynesian population) and has all sorts of American and Japanese cultural influences. South Korea is mono-ethnic like Japan, though. So democracy in Asia might not relate directly to multi-ethnicity or culture (North and South Korea have the same cultural background) or even economic development (India is a democracy).

   It could be that democracy cannot be imposed from above, the way it was in Japan. People have to fight for it, but in a civil manner (Gandhi) . Economic development and multi-ethnicity and traditional culture might aid a population in asserting itself in a civil manner. But it is primarily a historical accident that this civil rebellion emerges. (Since Fukushima, a sense of distrust of their government has permeated Japan, and now Japanese are forming community groups separate from their government — civil society, in short — for the first time, or so I read last week. So democracy may emerge in Japan yet.)

   In the past, the economy in Hawaii was relatively simple: build houses and hotels. That system was run from the top down, just the way it is in Japan or Singapore — but without the organization or discipline or educational levels of those Asian countries. But even Japan and Singapore have been stagnating from lack of creativity and sophistication that Taiwan and South Korea seem to possess. Democracy is more awkward, especially at first, but it seems like it is democracies that are doing better in the 21st century.

   This is why Hawaii needs devolution. Oahu should be broken up into three counties. The school system should be run on the county level with funding from the State.

   Reply ↓
   1. WooWoo May 31, 2012 at 3:25 pm

      Once again, I am enlightened by Skeptical. Thanks! (no sarcasm, I’m serious).

      Reply ↓
8. At what cost? May 31, 2012 at 9:38 pm

   Skeptical replys: “Some critics of rail advocate simply expanding the bus system or making it free, since every three bus passengers eliminates two cars from the road.

   None of that will work because these are still modes of commuting to and from the suburbs. Again, the problem is commuting. In fact, privatizing the bus system might be in order.

   What is necessary is raising the price of gasoline. Those who use the roads need to pay for them through user fees imposed on fuel. Every other proposal is a scam that will only lead to more fuel consumption and energy dependence I believe that the cost of gasoline in the Netherlands is $10/gallon.”

   Skeptical, why would you want to increase the price of fuel for drivers on Oahu to $10 a gallon?
   That’s a massive hidden tax increase.
   TheBus is 70% paid for by taxpayers (property tax revenu, general fund), the other 30% from bus fare revenue collections. If the bus paid to run itself from fare collections, and not an additional 70% city subsidy each year($120m per year from taxpayers), then a one way bus fare would be $10.00 or $15-$20 roundtrip each day.
   The pro rail people say rail boarding tickets will be the same cost as a bus ticket.

   If local Oahu taxpayers currently pay 70% of all bus costs, why not make it free to ride for all Oahu residents? Only about 6% of the total population base on Oahu take the bus as a travel option each day, on weekends its even less, only about 3-4% of Oahu use public transit.

   I bet if they added more buses, and more new routes and made it FREE to ride to any Oahu resident, public transit ridership would increase and we would have less traffic on all roads. Add bike lanes to ALL local roads in town (Kahala to Kalihi), it’s that simple.

   Reply ↓
   1. skeptical once again June 1, 2012 at 11:35 am

      Skeptical, why would you want to increase the price of fuel for drivers on Oahu to $10 a gallon?
      That’s a massive hidden tax increase.

      First, it’s not a tax. A tax would be something like the GET that everyone in Hawaii pays for the construction (and operation?) of the rail project that a minority of people will use (or, in some scenarios, virtually nobody will use).

      It would be a user fee. Those who use the service would pay for it, and no one else. Just like when you want to camp at certain State parks, you pay a user fee.

      All public transportation and energy costs –relating to things like the PUC, the transportation department, the highway patrol, paving roads, etc. — should be paid for with a user fee imposed on fuel.

      Second, this is not a hidden fee. The whole point of this is to make costs explicit.

      We keep hearing about the “hidden costs” of petroleum dependence, such as having a $60 billion/year US military presence in the Middle East, the health costs of air pollution, the cost of subsidizing the auto industry, the costs of roads and suburban infrastructure, etc., etc.

      But the way to deal with these costs is to have users pay for them — not pile on more costs.

      In part, this is basic economics. Both justice and economic efficiency demand that “negative externalities” (e.g., pollution) that are incurred by “third parties” (i.e., neither buyer nor seller) be “internalized” via state action (i.e., the seller must be compelled by law to compensate victims). From the wiki:

      In economics, an externality, or transaction spillover, is a cost or benefit that is not transmitted through prices and is incurred by a party who did not agree to the action causing the cost or benefit. The cost of an externality is a negative externality, or external cost, while the benefit of an externality is a positive externality, or external benefit.

      In the case of both negative and positive externalities, prices in a competitive market do not reflect the full costs or benefits of producing or consuming a product or service. Also, producers and consumers may neither bear all of the costs nor reap all of the benefits of the economic activity, and too much or too little of the goods will be produced or consumed in terms of overall costs and benefits to society. For example, manufacturing that causes air pollution imposes costs on the whole society, while fire-proofing a home improves the fire safety of neighbors. If there exist external costs such as pollution, the good will be overproduced by a competitive market, as the producer does not take into account the external costs when producing the good. If there are external benefits, such as in areas of education or public safety, too little of the good would be produced by private markets as producers and buyers do not take into account the external benefits to others. Here, overall cost and benefit to society is defined as the sum of the economic benefits and costs for all parties involved.

      Of course, the tricky part is figuring out just what the societal costs of an industry are (e.g., figuring out the cost of the Chernobyl nuclear accident, which some say killed thousands, while others claim have killed or will kill a million people at least). But the cost of government services is better known, and fuel fees should pay for all government costs related to transportation and fuel consumption.

      The other economic aspect of this is the ‘Jevons paradox’.

      The economist W.S. Jevons pointed out that greater technological efficiency in production leads to lowered costs of a product. But instead of promoting reduced consumption of natural resources in production, the lowered costs only stimulates consumption of the product — often to the point where consumption of resources exceeds earlier levels of consumption. This is what happened in the 1990s, where conservation efforts in part helped to drive down the cost of oil to record lows — only to see consumers rush out and buy SUVs and giant trucks. Likewise, if a hypothetical “miracle energy source” like fusion power were to emerge to provide ridiculously cheap and safe energy, the price of oil would probably collapse to zero; but shortly thereafter, in places like India and China, oil consumption would roar upward and oil prices would be expected to return to or exceed current levels. Moreover, this would also lead to more consumerism in general, more population growth, etc, etc.

      This is one reason why providing transportation infrastructure “options” is so wrongheaded.

      If a rail system is built and people do flee their cars and flock to the rail (cross your fingers and hope to die), the effect will be temporary. Traffic will thin out and … soon enough people will buy more trucks and cars and hit the highway, perhaps worse than ever. Also, this would lead to more people buying houses out in the fringe suburbs, more ag lands getting zoned for suburban sprawl, undermining tourism, etc., etc.

      So all these big projects (energy, transportation) are really ways of having the private costs of poor and wasteful lifestyle choices (i.e., living in fringe suburbs) shifted to the state and taxpayer — when, in fact, current costs to the public should be shifted back onto consumers (in fringe suburbs) in the form of user fees (imposed on fuel use).

      Again, there are at least two ironies here.

      One is that if the state does “successfully” provide “transportation options” (i.e., rail) that will be used, then current private costs (traffic) will eventually get worse (after a ‘false Spring’ in which things seem to get better). Both public and private costs will then increase. This could set up society for a disaster, illustrated by what happened during the oil price hikes in 2008: Just when drivers were ditching their cars for mass transit, governments, drowning in debt, were cutting back mass transit. The solution is to move away from both private and public commuting.

      The other is that these big projects are tantamount to forms of “state-subsidized consumerism” rather than forms of environmentalist policy.

      One can see this in the rhetoric surrounding these projects.

      When it comes to private consumerism, customers in Walmart marvel, “Gee whiz, look at that plasma television! The blacks are so much blacker! I want one.”

      When it comes to these big projects in Hawaii, certain vocal citizens marvel, “Gee whiz, look at those wind turbines! Looks like something out of ‘Star Wars’! We need those.”

      It’s consumerism by other means. It’s greenwashing.

      To address your main point, again, I am all for making the bus free!

      But this subsidy should be paid for with fuel user fees, not with taxes imposed on all citizens. With user fees imposed on fuel, taxes could be lowered for everyone, rewarding in particular those who are less wasteful.

      Reply ↓
9. At what cost? May 31, 2012 at 10:25 pm

        The city Department of Transportation is supposedly attempting to control increased costs by eliminating & reducing bus service to current bus riders and Oahu taxpayers in order to fill an over $3 million funding gap caused by pay increases thru collective-bargaining union contracts for bus drivers and higher bus diesel fuel costs expectations that are forecast for the future. 

   This is not a good development after the city council recently discovered the use of $244 million of 5307 bus funding to go instead to build the rail project.

   Could this be only the beginning of the cannibalizing of Oahu public bus service just at the very start of construction on the $5.2 billion dollar rail fantasy?

   Reply ↓

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.