Did you catch the release of billionaire Elon Musk’s plan for high speed transit in the corridor between San Francisco and Los Angeles? Here’s how an article in Wired described it:
Load yourself into an enormous shotgun shell and shoot yourself 400 miles (640 km) across the state at 800 mph (1300 kph). It sounds crazy, but Musk swears it will work. And if he doesn’t build it, someone else will.
Musk’s proposal to revolutionize mass transit is called the Hyperloop. It would transport passengers in individual aluminum pods powered by turbines and solar energy in above-ground tubes, cost $6-10 billion (£3.9-6.5 billion) to build, and make the trip from San Francisco to Los Angeles in 35 minutes. Oh, and a ticket will run you around $20 (£13).
Musk’s white paper describing the technology can be found here.
Gizmodo also provided a pretty good summary.
What caught my eye was the potential price, which Musk projected would run between $6 billion and $10 billion. At the low end of the range, that would be only slightly more expensive than Honolulu’s planned rail system, which is now expected to cost something over $5 billion. For that price, Honolulu is going to get 20 miles of rail. Musk’s proposal would begin with a 520 mile system linking Northern and Southern California.
Of course, this is currently just engineering speculation, but it still provides quite an interesting perspective on the projected cost of Honolulu’s rail, with a design dating back in many key respects to the rail proposed during early years of Mayor Frank Fasi’s reign at city hall.
Meanwhile, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is scheduled to hear oral arguments Thursday in the the lawsuit challenging the rail project, Honolulutraffic.com v. FTA.
According to the 9th Circuit website:
Thu. August 15, 2:00 p.m.
Courtroom 1, 3rd Floor
Before: SCHROEDER, REINHARDT, HURWITZ, CJJ
According to the courts website, an audio recording of the session should be posted and available for listening by noon on Friday.
Attorney Robert Thomas, who writes the Inverse Condemnation blog, will be at the 9th Circuit for the oral arguments, and I would recommend checking his blog late tomorrow afternoon or early evening for an analysis.
In the meantime, here’s a preview.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
From 0 to 800 mph in how many seconds? We adrenaline junkies need to know. 😉
I don’t want to stand in the way of emerging technologies. But maybe the “hyperloop” system should be developed to ship freight as a proof of concept?
Breaking Bad had a scene of stoners debating whether the transporter used on Star Trek resulted in Captain Kirk-them being killed and reborn eveerytime it was used. I expect this “hyperloop” would kill quite a few people before the kinks are worked out. If they ever could be.
I think I’ll hitch-hike, thank you.
Any speculations on what the cost would be for an untested hypothetical transit system that has never even been tested as a prototype are purely speculations. What are known in the trade as WAGs.
In contrast, the Honolulu Rail Transit technology has been built and operated successfully in multiple locations around the world so cost estimates are fairly soundly based on comparables as applied to local conditions.
“cost estimates are fairly soundly based on comparables ”
Yeah, right. Lets check back in 5 years. If costs are within $1 billion of current estimates I owe you a steak dinner.
Important not to confuse the apples and oranges. There are comparable light rail projects that have been in operation. They do provide a basis for estimating what costs for building a “comparable” project in Honolulu should be. Nothing similar exists for the Hyperloop project.
Nobody believes that it is possible to predict future costs within a penny of the actual amount. All projects set aside a contingency account to provide for cost overruns.
The reports to date suggest the project is on budget and within the contingency cushion.
What is the basis for your assurance that the project will be more than a billion over estimated cost, including the contingency amount? Is it showing up in the tracking reports that HART has submitted?
I am talking about the current heavy rail project currently proposed for Oahu and the CURRENT cost estimate for that project. The basis for my statement is my experience as an engineer with large projects. Is this showing up on current tracking reports.? I would think not since the project is maybe 1% completed.
Easy to look up the report
http://www.honolulutransit.org/media/197522/201307-rail-update-hart-facts.pdf
Shows a contingency fund of $696 million of which $5 has been committed
Work paid for to date is $706 million out of budgeted $5,164, or around 14%
I’ll buy you that steak dinner. 1M over budget means it still 50M under the budget of the “high Speed” (choke, choke, cough, cough) line currency being implemented
Something similar was once proposed for New York’s subway system. They went with rail instead.
New York Times blog:
………………
Beyond that, the details of who would pay for Hyperloop, how it would be built and how long it would take are also unclear. But Mr. Musk theorized that if he devoted all of his energy, he could have a prototype done within one to two years. He estimated the project would cost around $6 billion and tickets would cost $20 per trip.
“It doesn’t seem plausible to me,” said Richard White, a professor of American history at Stanford and author of “Railroaded: The Transcontinentals and the Making of Modern America.” “I’m suspicious about everything, especially cost.”
Mr. White added, “How’s he going to build this thing for $6 billion? You can’t even build the Bay Bridge for that much money.” The still-unfinished renovations of the Bay Bridge connecting San Francisco and Oakland are expected to cost $6.3 billion.
So don’t pack your bags just yet. In an interview with Bloomberg Businessweek on Monday, Mr. Musk said he regretted mentioning the Hyperloop last year, saying that he has no time to work on the project and instead has to run SpaceX and Tesla Motors, his two other companies.
My conclusion? The quoted cost of this trap is a pipedream. 🙂
More to this point: http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/19848/musks-hyperloop-math-doesnt-add-up/
Very interesting piece about the other and some would argue greater benefits to an urban transit system:
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2013/08/public-transit-worth-way-more-city-you-think/6532/
For those who aren’t interesting in following links, that Atlantic Cities article says this:
“As more people collect in a city center, more jobs cluster there too, boosting both wages and economic productivity over time. And the key to it all…may be public transportation.”
“One of the potential benefits of having more people in an area is that you have a wider labor force. That, in turn, means a better chance of matching the needs of a job with the skills of a worker — and, of course, making this match more quickly. Another benefit could be information exchange. As casual encounters among skilled laborers increase, say in the shops and on the sidewalks that crop up near transit hubs, so too does innovation.”
“On average, across all the metro areas in the study, expanding transit service produced an economic benefit via agglomeration of roughly $45 million a year — with that figure ranging between $1.5 million and $1.8 billion based on the size of the city. Big cities stand to benefit more simply because they have more people sharing the transit infrastructure. They also tend to have more of the traffic that cripples agglomeration in the absence of transit.”
Of course the big difference is that the Hyperloop route actually makes sense.
Here are a couple of polls for anyone who feels that the number of people tricked into believing that rail will reduce traffic below current levels is inconsequential compared to the number of people that support rail for other reasons.
I saved the 2011 poll, from which the information below comes, after it was released but don’t have a current url for it.
—
Honolulu Rail Transit Study
May 2011
Background & Methodology
PB Americas, Inc. has contracted QMark Research to conduct a quantitative study in the form of telephone interviews among residents of the island of Oahu.
A total of 902 surveys were conducted beginning on May 9, 2011 and ending on May 20, 2011. The targeted sample distribution was 100 surveys in each City Council District. The margin of error for a sample of this size (n=902) is +/- 3.27 percentage points with a 95
% confidence level.
The sample for which the results from this project are based were derived using QMark’s Random Digit dialing software. A mix of 45% wireless phones and 55% landline users was the targeted goal.
Each respondent was screened to ensure they were at least 18 years of age, resided full-time at the residence they are being contacted at and that they did not work in the fields of marketing, marketing research, advertising, or public relations…
Reasons for Support
Next, respondents were asked why they support or oppose the rail project as described to them in this section of the research.
N=514
70% Traffic – something needs to be done
15% Reliable/Convenient/Faster
13% Helps environment – less cars/gas use
11% Economy – create jobs
9% route concern
6% Personally use/ know people who will use
5% Route – like
4% Provides an alternative form of transportation
3% Concerned about cost
Seventy percent of those who indicated they support this project say they do so for the simple fact that something needs to be done to address the traffic problem on Oahu.
Fifteen percent believe it will be a more reliable and faster way to commute while another 13% feel it will benefit the island by taking cars off the road and lessening our dependence on foreign oil. Eleven percent supports this project because of its positive economic impact it will likely have.
(And for anyone who hasn’t seen it, below is a quote from a different poll performed in 2012.)
http://honolulu.politics.government.blogs.civilbeat.com/post/18918815122/rail-supporters- misunderstand-traffic-impacts
“Of those who support rail, 76 percent say (incorrectly) that rail will improve congestion versus current levels, versus 10 percent who say (correctly) that traffic will be worse in the future, even with rail. Fourteen percent are unsure.”
How are certain rail backers maintaining the rail will reduce traffic from today’s levels deception?
Below is a July 19, 2013 “eBlast” email from HART, followed by an interpretation of its content from a professional journalist. After reading the exact same communications specialist composed “informational” email from HART, how much hope is there that the general public as a whole will come away with the correct understanding that rail is only projected to slow traffic’s growth rate, not reduce traffic from today’s levels. How many will realize that rail is only projected to delay, but not avert, the day traffic between West and Central Oahu and town becomes, as I seem to recall a former mayor putting it, “catastrophic.”
—
HART WEEKLY eBLAST | JULY 19, 2013
EXPERT SAYS RAIL WILL HELP
EASE TRAFFIC CONGESTION
Transportation expert Todd Litman says rail transit
will help relieve traffic congestion.
Todd Litman, a sustainable transportation expert invited to Honolulu as the keynote speaker for the 5th Annual Hawaii Clean Energy Day conference, says research shows that drivers who live in cities that include rail as part of their public transit mix experience much lower traffic congestion delay times than they would without rail.
“The results are very consistent,” said Litman, the executive director of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute. “If you have high-quality transit on a corridor, congestion delay, the intensity of congestion on parallel highways, is lower. It doesn’t disappear. But it is much lower than it would otherwise be.”
Traffic congestion as measured by vehicle hours of delay will decrease 18 percent with the Honolulu rail project. Rail will eliminate an estimated 40,000 cars and trucks from Honolulu’s congested streets and highways, as more drivers move from cars to the train. Rail ridership is projected to be more than 116,000 weekday passenger trips by 2030.
If you know what traffic is like when UH and private schools are out for the summer, you have an idea of the difference rail will make. And for those passengers who ride rail, there will be no congestion at all.
—
(Reminder: What follows is a journalist’s understanding of the above email.)
http://hawaii.news.blogs.civilbeat.com/post/56177344216/todays-honolulu-summer-traffic-could-be-year-round
Here’s an interesting tidbit about traffic congestion from the most recent “eBlast” newsletter from the Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation:
“If you know what traffic is like when UH and private schools are out for the summer, you have an idea of the difference rail will make. And for those passengers who ride rail, there will be no congestion at all.”
That means if you’re driving on the H-1 this summer you can expect the car load to be about the same once the city’s $5.26 billion rail system is fully operational in 2019…
Posted by Civil Beat Staff on 07/22/2013
—
(For anyone unsure as to whether rail is officially projected to reduce traffic from today’s levels, the below is from page 208 of the rail project’s Record of Decision issued in 2011.)
http://www.honolulutransit.org or honolulutraffic.com/Total_ROD.pdf
“Many commenters reiterated their concern that the Project will not relieve highway congestion in Honolulu. FTA agrees, but the purpose of the Project is to provide an alternative to the use of congested highways for many travelers.”
(Which brings to mind something from the 2011 PB Americas contracted QMark Research poll from my other comment.)
“Reasons for support… 4% Provides an alternative form of transportation.”
(Now, I have nothing against those who wish to share their views on the benefits of rail that are important to them. But I do feel it is important to keep something in mind. If you believe the project’s own poll: No lies about how traffic will be better than today’s with rail, no majority support for this rail from the public. The other reasons to build rail aren’t important enough to enough people.)
Thank you, “Undecided”, for completely ignoring what Honolulu’s traffic will be like in this crazy thing called “the future”. Sorry, but some of us care about the future, as opposed to repeating arguments and ignoring common sense.
If rail is not built and traffic in Honolulu becomes FAR WORSE, what will you do then? become angry that you allegedly won the debate?
Since parking spaces are not being eliminated in the Honolulu business district, for example, the number of cars on the roads will not decrease. Should one person decide to ride the rail, another will rent that space, since it is in demand. Parking places in Honolulu do not go vacant.
To the extent that this theory holds water, the rail would make little or no difference to traffic.
What gets people riding rail is the pain of being stuck in traffic. The greater the pain the greater the ridership. That pain will get worse with or without rail, but with rail people can avoid the pain by riding rail.
The model runs done for the Oahu Regional Transportation Plan 2035 show AM auto travel times from Ewa and Central Oahu to downtown Honolulu improving over 2007 conditions, mainly due to construction of the rail system (the equivalent of building a six lane freeway), construction of roadway improvements on Farrington and Kam Highway, and projected job growth in Ewa at the City of Kapolei, Ko Olina Resort, UH West Oahu, and light industrial areas.
“The model runs done for the Oahu Regional Transportation Plan 2035 show AM auto travel times from Ewa and Central Oahu to downtown Honolulu improving over 2007 conditions… ”
This is something I have not heard before. And judging by comments made in one of his debates with Gov. Cayetano, neither did our mayor less than a year ago. Of course, overall traffic on Oahu as measured by delay was higher before the widening of Fort Weaver road and other area projects were completed.
I think it’s been a few years since I’ve heard this one used:
“the equivalent of building a six lane freeway”
Still, I’d be interested if you feel inclined to share more.
In your reply, you seem to have neglected to express concern over the fact that, after so much money has been spent “informing” the public on this rail project, so many people have been left misinformed regarding their main reason for supporting it. Shouldn’t all these people have been permitted to participate in shaping our island’s future if they so desired? I assume that you are not of the mind that it is acceptable to leave the little people out of the loop by denying them the ability to make informed decisions on issues that will have a tremendous impact on their future.
And one more question, if I’m understanding you correctly, what is it that causes you to believe that traffic in the future with rail will be better than traffic without rail but addressed through different means?
Although many people on Oahu are under the impression that this rail project’s planning documents found elevated rail to be the most potent means of reducing traffic that was considered, that is not what those documents actually said.
While this rail project may best fit the purpose and need that was created to fit it, that purpose and need is not necessarily to build the project that would most reduce traffic. For example, if there were an alternative that could reduce automobile traffic in the future a thousand times more than building this rail would, that alternative would not qualify to replace rail under the rail project’s purpose and need if it did not also do enough to improve public transportation connections along the full length of the corridor that rail will serve. This is true even if buses in the future with the alternative to rail would be operating in traffic reduced from what it otherwise would have grown to.
To my knowledge, there is no proof that traffic in the future with rail will be better than the traffic that would exist under certain other scenarios. In particular, it seems to me that traffic with a multilane tunnel beneath Pearl Harbor would clearly be less than it would be with this rail plan.
And if the city suppressed that information from the public, they may be suppressing more. It could be that the people would be better served by a shortened rail line that focuses on the primary urban center and not on one that would encourage development on lands far away from Honolulu’s core.
In closing, here is a quote I came across on the internet:
“The advancement and diffusion of knowledge is the only guardian of true liberty.” –James Madison
@Undecided, you take a long time to get to your point, which means I’m only skimming your comments.
You cite poll results, which are useful for guiding campaigns and gauging sentiment but not much else.
How about acknowledging the studies that say building more highways and widening existing roads does nothing to reduce traffic.
“The simple truth is that building more highways and widening existing roads, almost always motivated by concern over traffic, does nothing to reduce traffic. In the long run, in fact, it increases traffic. …This paradox was suspected as early as 1942 by Robert Moses…”
http://stopthepave.org/why-building-roads-doesnt-ease-congestion
Berkeley scholar Michael Anderson asserts: “The intuition is straightforward: Transit is most attractive to commuters who face the worst congestion, so a disproportionate number of transit riders are commuters who would otherwise have to drive on the most congested roads at the most congested times. Since drivers on heavily congested roads have a much higher marginal impact on congestion than drivers on the average road, transit has a large impact on reducing traffic congestion.”
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2013/04/public-transportation-does-relieve-traffic-congestion-just-not-everywhere/5149/
So who’s paying how much for the lawsuit, and why is that such a big secret?
Undecided, your statement “Shouldn’t all these people have been permitted to participate in shaping our island’s future if they so desired?” mystifies me.
I recall an island wide vote on the system.
That was followed by an island wide vote on two Mayoral candidates who offered a clear choice – one promised to shut the rail project down and one promised to build it.
In addition, voters had the opportunity to vote for candidates for the Council who had clear positions on rail. In the bulk of those elections, the rail candidates won.
It seems to me that the public has had an opportunity to participate and voted mostly for those who want the rail system.
CAUSE:
The Honolulu Advertiser
Sunday November 2, 2008
“Draft EIS underscores how rail can benefit Oahu”
“And for those hesitating over how to vote Tuesday on the City Charter amendment, officially authorizing the project as a municipal effort, the data in the report should nudge them closer to a “yes” vote.
Projections for traffic-congestion relief are more encouraging: at least a 21 percent reduction — almost double the degree that city consultants originally expected.
“We have to meet the needs of tomorrow,” Inouye said, “and tomorrow calls for less congestion and more jobs”
EFFECT:
The Honolulu Advertiser
Wednesday Nov 5, 2008
“Voters on Oahu say ‘yes’ to rail”
Janice Chuck, 53, a teacher in Salt Lake also voted for rail.
“I’m in favor of rail because I think it’s going to mean less traffic on the road,” she said. “I think there’s a lot of benefits.
“This is going to be good for Hawai’i.”
—
“Many commenters reiterated their concern that the Project will not relieve highway congestion in Honolulu. FTA agrees, but the purpose of the Project is to provide an alternative to the use of congested highways for many travelers.”
“For too long, we have built transit for a car-dominated world, presuming that transit’s benefits will be marginal and that its first obligation is to stay out of the way…
“By 2040, when the Millennials are the ruling generation, there will be less patience for this unconscious bias. The economy will function only if we use existing road space more efficiently, and that means giving precedence to the modes of transport that move more people in less space. This idea will eventually become routine, not just because of fairness but because it’s the only way to deliver a transportation system that the economy can rely on. There still will be cars…but as in Paris or Amsterdam, cars will be one of many options, not the one provided for by default.
“Our current generation of leaders grew up with cheap gas, “free” freeways, and abundant land for suburbia, with a concept of security formed by the Cold War. For Millennials, the issues are economic insecurity and climate change, and they’re telling us, in every way they can, that they are not as interested in cars. …It’s easy for older people to pretend that their kids are like they were at that age, but the Millennials are not like their parents. Their formative experience is different, and so are their priorities.
“In 2040, the Millennials will sit in the power-seats of government and business. Sooner or later, the world…will be governed according to their priorities. So in the end, it comes back to one of the great human questions that every ruling generation has faced: Can you listen to your adult children, and honor the ways that they differ from you? Can you see the value in smoothing the path toward the world that they will rule? Or do you want only to slam on the brakes, protecting your own habits and assumptions?”
Jarrett Walker in the San Francisco Chronicle
http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/article/When-Millennials-rule-will-trains-roll-4703856.php?t=7373f83d76
I’ve read Jarret Walker’s blog, and it’s gratifying to find a follower of his.
But your implicit interpretation of Walker’s quotations runs against Walker’s basic message.
Walker is saying that young Millennials are abandoning cars and suburbs and moving into town, where mass transit makes sense. He is promoting public transit in places like Paris and Amsterdam and San Francisco. Suburbs just don’t cut it in terms of maximizing mass transit usage.
Here’s a related post of Walker’s on the problem of mass transit in the suburbs.
http://www.humantransit.org/2012/05/does-suburban-local-service-get-cars-off-the-road.html
Now, buses are much more diffuse in their distribution than rail systems, so one might expect that rail systems would be even less optimal than buses in the suburbs.
Again, Walker seems to be correct about recent historical trends in demography. There does seem to be a steady migration away from suburbs to the urban core, especially of young educated people. The suburbs are in decline.
http://www.salon.com/2013/08/03/the_suburbs_are_dead_and_thats_not_a_good_thing/
This provides an opportunity to promote mass transit in the urban core.
Unfortunately, what Honolulu has is a suburban commuter rail project.
We are not laid out like other cities which have near unlimited space to expand in blocks and grids; we are strung out in a line crunched between the mountains and the sea with a few major destination hubs.
This is why rail as a spine makes sense with buses circulating from/to it. That’s why the plan is for a rail WITH an already mature bus system to provide more frequent travel throughout our city.
Jarrett Walker advocates the best solutions based on geography.
Yeah but the young girl at the Koa Ridge meeting a few months ago wanted to buy a house in Koa Ridge when she come back from college. Who do I listen to? Neither?
There is more congestion today with H-1, H-2 and H-3 than without them before these highways were built to reduce congestion.
Do you see the fallacy?
Now replace the highways with transit. Same thing!
I cannot argue with that. I guess at this point it’s just a matter of who pays with money and who pays with time and money. Sometimes it feels like Hawaii is turning into one big rough take.
I had a hearty belly laugh when the Star-Advertiser described lawsuit plaintiffs Honolulutraffic.com as “an alliance including Cayetano, longtime rail opponent Cliff Slater and various academics and environmental groups.”
That’s just so utterly naive, misleading and incomplete, akin to saying a taxi or tour bus includes seats and a windshield, while omitting mention of the engine, transmission, drive shaft, axles, wheels and tires.
Clearly, this vocal group of good citizens and deep-thinkers also includes some significant special interests whose role in this whole affair remains pathetically unquestioned.
And they don’t even hide it. From their own public membership list:
http://honolulutraffic.com/whoweare.htm
Business & Organizations:
Andy’s Pool Service Corp.
Charley’s Taxi & Tours
E.N. Kemp & Associates, Inc.
Elite Limousine
Grassroot Institute
Hawaii Activities andTours
Association (HAATA)
Hawaii Transportation Association
HonCab
Kahala Kai Taxi
Maui Divers of Hawaii, Ltd.
Moana Taxi
Pacific Business Appraisers, LLC
Pacific Business Valuation, LLC
Paradise Cruise, Ltd.
Pegge Hopper Gallery
Polynesian Hospitality
RobertsHawaii
Robert’s Taxi
Small BusinessHawaii (SBH)
Star Taxi
Superstar Hawaii Transit
Talk Story Magazine, Inc.
The Cab
Waikiki Residents Association
Waikiki Taxi
So let’s see…what kinds of taxpayer-paid infrastructure improvements would help this group the most.
Makes ya go Hmmmm…
And what would this taxi and tour bus owners stand to lose if Honolulu was easy enough for tourists to discover on their own using the bus/rail network.
It would be interesting (just for curiosity’s sake) to have a (totally unscientific) poll that asks people to choose between a spontaneous trip utilizing public transportation or a book-in-advance chartered tour.