This is the track for the Max line, part of Portland’s light rail system, that runs in front of the small hotel where we’re staying for a couple of more days.
The rail line in front of our hotel.
It requires the width of one lane of traffic, with an adjoining sidewalk for loading and unloading. It is far less intrusive, easier and faster to build, and requires far less maintenance, than the elevated rails being used so far in Honolulu.
Unlike the Honolulu trains, the technology in use here can be run on elevated tracks or at grade, on the ground. Far more flexible.
Yes, I’m a fan of rail. But I’m coming around to the idea that we just can’t write a blank check to finish the Honolulu rail system as originally planned. No one really seems to know how much it will actually cost to build or operate. That’s unacceptable, given even the current price tag, which is sure to grow.
The rail should come down to ground level through town, which is technically possible, and far less expensive despite required changes. If die-hard proponents aren’t willing to accept the compromises this will require, then let’s just kill the project.
Anyway, I’m looking forward to Friday’s public forum on the light-rail option.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
We were lied to from the beginning. It was never light rail. It is a monstrosity and just cannot go through downtown to Ala Moana and totally ruin our waterfront. Makes me ill.
We’ve been following the HART saga for years, along with everyone else. Here in San Diego we’ve got a great light rail system. They are expanding it now up the coast through Pacific Beach and La Jolla, and into the Golden Triangle where a lot of tech companies are. It’s efficient, low profile and very user friendly. We hope that HART finds solutions at this meeting that work for everyone and the future of Oahu.
AS A WHOLE Hawaii’s rail fiasco is not generating very much attention on the mainland. Coincidently, there is a similar rail struggle brewing in California that might turn out to be more expensive than Hawaii’s–if it is allowed to continue–and it may not.
I was around during BRT, during Jeremy Harris, Duke, Mufi and Cliff Slater. Heard all the arguments, spin, hype, accusations, PR, special elections, etc. etc. etc. The sign waving for both sides, neighborhood board meetings, special council meetings, expert opinions, countered by more expert opinions. Millions of dollars spent on all forms of advertising. And don’t forget the lawsuits.
In the end, I must say, the anti-rail side can sit back comfortably and say, “see, we told you so!”
And please, spare me with the argument that the high cost of rail is in large part due to anti-rail lawsuits. Show some proof.
Rail opponents predicted this project would turn out to be a boondoggle and bottomless money pit for special interests and the project the way it was designed was never feasible to begin with.
And now what?
Is it really possible to cancel the project?
Finally, will voters allow themselves to be fooled like this again?
I agree with Shirley. But plan to listen to the proposed alternatives. Investigative reporting needed desperately in Hawaii.
It hardly seems an exaggeration to say we were hoodwinked, There’s a particular political culture here reflective of our history and geography which seems to make this sort of outcome more likely. While our pathetic and possibly corrupt attempt at a single rail line constitutes an abysmal comparison with Portland, Seattle and other cities, it’s also true that our level of civic engagement similarly suffers egregiously by comparison. Whether or not it qualifies as a “maxim,” there is some measure of truth to the adage that the people get what they deserve in our nominal democracy. It will be interesting to see if there is any political punishment meted out for this debacle. Meantime Ian, enjoy the convenience of MAX and the streetcar, and proximity to McCormick & Schmick’s where I hear there’s always someone waiting to pick up the check.
Thank you for this awesome reality check! Great points Ian.
Btw, additionally apropos this thread, Laura Thielen’s letter to the editor in today’s S-A:
“Please allow me to clarify my statement, reported in the article, “Legislators make little headway on settling rail funding” (Star-Advertiser, July 5).
I did not say spend $100 million studying alternatives to elevated steel-on-steel rail.
I said pick one of the less-expensive alternatives, like at-grade, mag-lev or dedicated bus rapid transit. Members of the building industry told me we can’t adopt a less expensive system because a new environmental impact statement would cost $100 million.
My response: If we build mass transit that goes to Waikiki and the University of Hawaii, and it costs $1 billion less than the current system, don’t we all come out ahead?
Saying we can’t cut our losses because it means doing a new EIS is ridiculous.”
Sen. Laura Thielen
Ian, we’re looking forward to your observations of the Portland rail system.
In particular, how fast does the train move relative to the parallel traffic? Is the speed of the train affected by traffic? That’s one of the big arguments against at-grade rail, but I’m skeptical. I’ve ridden at-grade light rail in San Jose, and my recollection is that traffic congestion didn’t affect the train speed.
It’s been a while since I rode the Portland rail system, but my recollection was that the at-grade stops made it very easy to use the rail for transportation within the downtown area, which would be useful for, say, the lawyer going to court, or the architect going to the building dept, taking cars off the streets throughout the day.
With elevated rail, because the stations will be very expensive, there won’t be many, and they won’t nearly as convenient as at-grade stations, so it will be of little use for intra-town transportation.
Ian and many others believe opinions are facts.
Yes, street-level rail is technically possible…when your street can accommodate it.
But would street-level rail through some of the old parts of Honolulu be far less expensive to do?
It may not be less expensive *IF* existing infrastructure cannot support a train running on top of it.
How long will digging up old infrastructure and installing new infrastructure take? And what kind of delays could snarl the process? None of these things will be known with certainty in advance.
I recall that there are lots of areas of fill in older parts of urban Honolulu.
If the underlying condition of our roads is the problem then add even more time for rebuilding those affected roads – it may not be cheap or fast.
The longer it takes, there’s more likelihood of cost increases and we’re not even talking about the train yet.
Lastly and this is incredibly important, ONE track takes one lane, so two tracks (if there’s one for each direction) require two travel lanes.
Our elevated rail line has two tracks and if you fail to see the significant technical difference then I truly cannot help your understanding!
Ultimately yes, it may be possible to spend less money on transit by intentionally providing less functionality at street-level.
And, Ian fails to note that the section thru town where the Portland Max runs at street level is the portion where it is as slow as the bus, stopping for traffic lights, and vulnerable to collisions with auto traffic.
Where the max runs fast is when it is out of the downtown area running on old rail lines that separate it from the adjacent highways.
Finally, any configuration that is not consistent with the existing approved EIS will not start until after a new supplemental EIS is approved which means an additional number of years, and possible forfeiture of the Federal money since we signed a contract to build the system described by the current EIS
With regards to Senator Thielen’s response, what’s not calculated is year over year cost of delay.
The 1982 EIS for fixed rail (so this is during Eileen Anderson administration) had $870 million for an 8-mile fixed guideway system, susceptible to escalation by some $70 million for a one-year delay (page IV-7).
There is escalation EVERY YEAR of delay.
In addition, Senator Thielen is leaving out any penalties that can come when signed contracts are cancelled and all the unknown years of delay while someone is doing the EIS plus however long it takes to go thru the court system.
IF (and this is a HUGE, GIGANTIC IF) a new plan survives the legal challenge the steps after that include bidding, signing those contracts AND THEN finally something can be built.
So NO WAY, it is not just some $100 million that would be spent to maybe not get another project that provides something for the rest of the route.
Mag lev (I presume she means low speed for urban areas) – YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME – thought that idea got a rest with Tom Berg.
My view: it is easy to be scared by large-scale change that has large numbers after dollar signs. Fear of the unknown is a predictable, natural response.
Lawmakers, however, get confronted with the reality of costs ALL THE TIME. I expect them to be more familiar with the state and city’s overall budget numbers and to be knowledgeable about the financial health of our government. I expect them to think about the overall value to the people of tomorrow that is achieved when problems are addressed today instead of left to worsen over time.
Many of the comments above aren’t about the merits of our rail project, which are outstanding on environmental and people-moving goals. Some of y’all really want all change to be unseen. In other words, a tunnel would be fine since the train or roadway (for buses if that’s what you prefer) would be underground. So I ask you, if tunneling had started but cost projections started to escalate, would you want that tunnel to be completed?
Our earth is changing and because of where we are on the planet we may see more flooding and severe weather. As far as I can tell we have horrible, old roadway and utility infrastructure that breaks on occasion causing streets to close for hours. Emergency storm drain repair is taking months. Our very real challenges to putting expensive infrastructure at street level is obvious if you have been paying attention.
http://khon2.com/2017/06/26/pensacola-businesses-continue-to-suffer-with-no-end-in-sight-to-emergency-repairs/
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/35857154/water-main-break-closes-both-directions-of-queen-st-in-kakaako
If you were to build any part of the rail system at street level wouldn’t downtown be the absolute worst part to do it?
Check out the short video I posted in 2012 about Portland’s transit system:
http://www.disappearednews.com/2012/05/portland-city-that-didnt-build-single.html
The light rail is only one of several parts of the system. It is quickly and cheaply constructed and encourages retail development along the route (as shown in the video). Imagine economically developing transit and a retail corridor all the way from the Leeward Coast into town.
I suppose it could utilize the elevated track (no EIS for that) and proceed (affordably!) all the way to UH and Waikiki, connecting the workforce to the work.
I haven’t been to Portland in many years, but last time I was there, transit inside the city limits was free. The bus shelters had maps and schedules, at least in town. Wheelchairs and scooters easily rolled on and off the cars. Etc.
How many car/train accidents have there been?