I was sorry to see Lee Cataluna’s glib column this morning disparaging the possibility of incorporating the at-grade option in order to complete Honolulu’s rail system, which is currently collapsing under the weight of dramatic cost overruns, inept planning and management, and vicious politics, which have combined to create world-leading per-mile costs.
A coalition has emerged to promote an at-grade option which promises lower costs and an improved rider experience at street level. We should be jumping at this option, not finding excuses to not even explore it further.
It doesn’t sound to me like Cataluna took the time to read any of the extensive documentation provided to support the at-grade alternative (see the Salvage the Rail report here).
Here’s the best Cataluna can do to deride this alternative proposal.
But that utopian photo rendering is not what downtown Honolulu streets look like. Where are the bicycles whizzing through intersections with impunity? Where are the guys on high-pitched, foul-smelling mopeds weaving in and out of traffic? Where are the people with their eyes glued to their phones and their ears plugged with earbuds leisurely moseying across the crosswalk while the red hand blinks to no effect? Where are the drivers yapping on their phones? The crush of late and frazzled commuters? The grandmas with huge dark glasses slowly pulling their wheeled shopping baskets along the roadside? The city streets are already full up, maxed out and crazy with vehicles, pedestrians and troublemakers without a train plowing through all that chaos. Will all those users suddenly be off the pavement and on the train?
The fact is that virtually all cities in the U.S. and internationally that have built rail systems in the past three decades have relied on the kind of light rail technology that allows trains to run on the ground, through shopping areas and downtown malls. They have all dealt with these common traffic issues. Planners have had to develop techniques for minimizing the issues Cataluna seems to feel are unsolvable.
It seems to me that officials have a responsibility to carefully assess this alternative now, before the opportunity passes. If there’s a chance that it can salvage a reasonable rail system out of the current financial train wreck, even if Hawaii drivers experience a bit of stress along the way, it’s not something to reject out of hand as Cataluna would have us do.
Right now, there are several possible scenarios. We could proceed with business as usual, and will probably end up spending $12 billion or more to complete the train as originally planned.
On the other hand, it’s always possible that Honolulu will be forced to throw in the towel, admit financial defeat, and spend the next ten years paying to demolish the parts of the system already built.
Or we’ll limp along, find a way to control the budget by stripping out all frills and extras, cutting stations and amenities, ending up what will still be the world’s costliest urban rail system, but with fewer stops, fewer riders, and perpetual ongoing deficits.
None of those are pretty pictures.
Given those alternatives, I would think reasonable people would want to spend some time to understand how other cities across the globe have made at-grade rail systems work.
Cataluna’s clever localisms don’t do anything to further that understanding.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Living on the Leeward side makes one aware of our truly awful the overhead rail is. It is just indescribable on our little island to see that monstrosity marring the roads and the landscape. Anything would be better than that.
I’ve ridden at-grade rail in the downtown areas of San Jose and Portland. One thing they provide that the elevated rail won’t is a way to get around the downtown area during the day, which really adds convenience in a place where parking is expensive and/or very hard to find.
Not having to drive and deal with parking would be a boon to local eateries, and would also make life easier for those who need to get around the area during the day in the course of business, e.g., lawyers who need to go to court, or architects who need to go to Honolulu Hale. It could even make it possible for some who currently need their cars during the day to leave their cars at home and commute via public transportation or carpool.
In fairness to Cataluna, she does make a good point in the last sentence of her column: “Nobody has come up with anything better.”
Cataluna also alludes to the point that, WRT cost, rail opponents have been right and rail proponents have been wrong.
Perhaps the legislature should ask Cliff Slater how much the rail would cost. He probably can provide a better answer than Caldwell.
Thank you for this post. I completely agree.
Thank you for this! Sadly, the powers that be seem hell-bent on this option: “cutting stations and amenities, ending up what will still be the world’s costliest urban rail system, but with fewer stops, fewer riders, and perpetual ongoing deficits.” The added insult to injury is that this on-going failure seems to have resulted in budget short-falls and a generalized neglect across the City resulting in cuts in emergency services, sewage spills, pot-holes, and dilapidated parks, etc… Where are the elected public officials that can see this reality and that are willing to help galvanize the public to demand that the FTA/City/State make rational decisions moving forward? This sad situation appears to accurately reflect the leadership vacuum on this island. It is a mystery to me that the failed Rail has such poorly defined projected “benefits” and yet elected officials seem afraid to put a stop to the train-wreck Even public interest groups like the Sierra Club that traditionally would raise red-flags about massive infrastructure projects that threaten both cultural and natural resources and resident’s quality of life (not to mention that for all we know the Rail may end up being powered by fossil fuels) seem to have been neutralized by the effective insertion of Pro-Rail propagandists and apologists into its leadership. I do not believe there will be change or progress unless a well-respected and effective high-level elected official “turns” and starts to advocate for the public.
Apparently you did not read the editorial page guest editorial from Krishiah Murthy, the new interim executive director/chief executive officer of HART, which provides a more comprehensive rebuttal of the arguments in favor of at-grade rail. His points are:
1. It would not be as inexpensive as claimed because the costs would not be the 2008 costs cited by HTTF
2. Long-term operating costs would be more expensive than an elevated system because it would be slower, require more trains, and would have to be operated by on-train drivers due to safety issues.
3. An at-grade system would have significantly more cultural impacts than an elevated system because it would involve substantially more trenching and excavating than the elevated system.
4. An at-grade system would be significantly less safe than an elevated system as indicated by collisions and fatalities on Seattle and Phoenix at-grade systems.
5. An at-grade system would be as slow as surrounding traffic.
I subscribe to the Portland TriMet system rider alerts that chronicle delays and warn of hazards of one kind or another. Haven’t reviewed the record, but I would say that over the last five or six years there have been one or two light rail/surface grade train collisions with motor vehicles every month or so – and an occasional incident with pedestrians. Those were cited as negatives in the Preferred Route decision way back. Those incidents really screw up the timetables. These days the most significant delays are caused by anti-Trump protesters roaming the streets (and tracks).
Service Alert: MAX Blue, Green and Red lines disrupted due to police activity in NE
MAX Blue, Green and Red lines disrupted due to police activity in NE Portland. Shuttle buses are running between NE 7th Ave and Gateway TC stations. Riders can transfer at Gateway to Blue Line to Gresham, Green Line to Clackamas TC and Red Line to Portland International Airport. Expect delays.
The same paper has a letter to the editor on how fast the elevated system will age. A lot faster than Aloha Stadium has, I imagine. Philadelphia’s Market Street L was unsightly and plight-fostering sixty years ago, as it is today.
In Hawaii, apparently not only is the best the enemy of the good; even the mediocre is the enemy of the good.
As the City finishes the overheard rail through the part of the island where the guideway actually is an aesthetic improvement, it is time to consider that the rest of the line will destroy more beautiful parts of Honolulu unless it is at grade.
I am writing this from a No. 54 bus currently mired in “at grade” traffic. I think Lee Cataluna makes an excellent point. A transit system with an “at grade” segment will never be faster or better than this weak link. I think we should emulate systems such as Taipei’s, which is fast, inexpensive, and comfortable–and has no “at grade” segments. The Taipei MRT has found a way to cost effectively improve the quality of life for its residents. We shouldn’t settle for anything less
The Taipei MRT appears to serve an area with a population of approximately 7 Million people. The system opened in 1996 (this is the most up to date technology we want?) and appears to be on track to cost a total of $32 Billion dollars to construct. From what I can gather the system spreads in a network over 81 miles and its record for single day ridership was 2.5 million passengers. If I am reading things correctly tickets are roughly $1 dollar. Rail works great in lots of heavily urbanized places with large populations to ride and to help support the costs.
The major hang up of our elevated rail system is cost. Not technical challenges, only MONEY.
An at-grade system opens up the risk of delay by a lot. Unless you’ve got some kind of awesome premonition, there is no way to tell what kind of construction challenges an at-grade system would face once it actually gets to the stage where we are building something. That process to get to the START of building at-grade could take YEARS. And more delay means more MONEY of an unknown amount.
My take is that champions of at-grade rail want to provide a means to legally challenge rail AGAIN.
And if you’re truly rooting for an at-grade system that is susceptible to all sorts of operational delays (provided it actually survives any legal challenge and construction delay from whatever unknowns are along the route), then I would argue you don’t really value transit that delivers reliable, predictable travel through the urban core of Honolulu.
A technical detail: our elevated rail system has two tracks. The renderings of the at-grade system show ONE track. SO OF COURSE IT WILL COST LESS TO BUILD.
Put on your critical thinking caps, please. A big sacrifice with the at-grade system as touted is functionality. If you do this to the transit system from the start then you are building for failure. It’s like, the dumbest thing ever.
I always thought the at-grade option made a lot of sense for the more rural portion of the train. It would have saved a lot of money. But the system of incentives driving the construction of this rail system, from the beginning, has led to maximizing costs. While providing transportation has been the main explicit justification for building rail, what should be secondary considerations, like providing good union jobs, pouring money into the pockets of engineers, architects, and contractors, helping deliver tourists to Ko Olina resorts, have been the engine driving the project.
But in the urban core, I am not convinced at-grade makes sense. In my mind, it goes from being a “train” to becoming an electric street car, stuck in the same traffic and stoplights as are buses. The plan also appears to call for a system of overhead electrical lines, also common to electric “street cars.” Sine we are trying to envision a beautiful city in our future, if I were to produce artist renderings of that future, our current power and telephone lines would be underground. I do not see the addition of a lot of overhead electrical lines as a step in the right direction.
Kirk Caldwell, Mufi Hannemann and much of the political-economic establishment have demonstrated how reckless they are in planning and in spending the public’s money. Proceeding with the elevated train will bankrupt the people of Oahu. Stopping and dismantling it will only half-bankrupt us, but leave us without a needed transit system from West Oahu. But I am not convinced dropping it to grade as it enters the city will give us a workable system. And if we can save billions, I am open to persuasion. But my cursory reading of the proposal suggests its sponsors are being as unrealistic as the people who have given us the train.
BTW, why is it that advocates for The Train say providing jobs for the building trades during construction is a “plus,” but employing someone to drive the train is a “minus”? Huh?