Tag Archives: Honolulu rail transit

Rail consultant’s letter draws reactions

14 Replies

A letter to the editor in yesterday’s Honolulu Advertiser from Mark Scheibe, vp at Parsons Brinckerhoff, the city’s primary transit consultant, pointed to several prior studies that recommended against a light rail system running at street level.

He argued:

In 1976 an “Analysis of Transit Alternatives” looked at a light rail alternative that included grade-separated and street-running sections. In 1984 the “Hali 2000 Alternatives Analysis Study” examined at-grade light rail and partially grade-separated light rail alternatives from West Beach to UH-Manoa and Waikiki. Both studies determined that an at-grade light rail line would displace traffic lanes and worsen traffic conditions on several major streets, while providing slower and less reliable transit service than a grade-separated alternative.

What’s really interesting is that Parsons Brinkerhoff is a major player in the world of real light rail in cities across the mainland.

Parsons was the lead engineering consultant for the 20-mile Pheonix light rail system, running much of its length at street level, and they have been chosen as the lead engineering firm for a new segment of the Dallas light rail system. So they know light rail and its advantages, even as they bend over backwards to support the Hannemann administration, their client, in its choice of the far less flexible system modeled after Vancouver’s Skytrain.

Not surprisingly, Scheibe’s letter generated a flurry of emails between backers of a light rail alternative.

For example, one person argued:

Quoting 1975, 1984 and 1999 decisions shows how out of touch he is with how rail transit has improved and changed over the past ten years by universally replacing outdated overhead rail systems with LIGHT RAIL at grade. Many of the former overhead waterfront concrete structures similar to the one that his project proposes have already been demolished.

His argument that light rail will remove traffic lanes is a poor statement in light of the fact that his six to ten foot wide concrete columns will decimate many of Honolulu’s downtown streets.

His statement that” ” Light rail…would not be cheap” flies in the face of several studies that confirm that light rail at grade would be millions of dollars less expensive than overhead rail and be costructed in a fraction of the time.

Another placed the earlier studies in context.

Of course, 1975 was before the first use of light rail in the North America and when heavy rail in the largest metro area only was the norm. 1984 was when light rail was just being introduced in medium size cities (smaller than large metro areas but larger than Honolulu) in the US and Canada. However, by 1999 light rail for medium size cities was firmly in place in North America.

Mike Scheibe, as the manager at PB, obviously knows better. It is just a matter of the consultant serving his client by stating whatever needs to be stated. When Fasi was mayor in 1990-92, PB said heavy rail was the best option. In 1999 when Harris was mayor, PB said elevated busways were the best option. And now with Mufi, PB says heavy rail is once again the best option.

They are not about educating their client but are about following his marching orders…

However, this letter and the interview (Sunday) (are they on a misinformation piece a day from now on in?) is not at all surprising in that his firm, at the direction of the mayor, has been pressing architects working on the station designs to publicly contradict the AIA Honolulu position.

And about those cost advantages of light rail? I noticed a press release a $1.46 billion contract awarded to Parsons Corporation (apparently not related to Parsons Brinkerhoff) for expansion of Houston’s light rail. It will add about 20 miles of track, about the same as Honolulu’s planned transit route, but at far less cost.

Under this contract, Parsons will be responsible for designing, building, operating, and maintaining the expanded light rail system, which will include four new corridors totaling approximately 20 miles of light rail transit, 32 stations, storage and inspection facilities, and a major renovation to the existing operations center. The project also includes 103 light rail vehicles that are 100% low-floor, the first 100% low-floor vehicles to be purchased for the U.S. market.

According to the release: “The initial phase of the project is estimated to cost $632 million and includes utility work, 6.4 miles of light rail, a light rail overpass, a service and inspection facility, and the purchase of 29 light rail vehicles.”

Maybe I’m missing something in this quick hit-and-miss search for info about Houston, so don’t read too much into this. But it certainly does look like a true light rail system could offer meaningful savings.

And so the transit debate goes on, but it’s now about “whether or not to have rail transit” but “what kind of rail fits best”.

Kamehameha School’s plan puts organization fully into transit debate

5 Replies

Back in April 2009, the local chapter of the American Institute of Architects held a panel discussion at which a mainland transit consultant predicted Honolulu’s rail EIS could be “in trouble”.

As I wrote at the time, the problem is “the city failed to deliver an environmental impact study that fulfilled what was promised in the official notice published in the Federal Register.”

Consultant Phil Craig told a gathering of architects that the Federal Register notice for the transit Environmental Impact Study committed the city to providing an analysis of alternatives, including “light” rail at grade as well as the “heavy” rail system favored by the city administration. But Craig said the available alternatives were never explored adequately or seriously considered, a flaw which he said could open the EIS to challenge.

What wasn’t clear at the times is that Craig was in Hawaii on a project funded by Kamehameha Schools to develop an alternative transit proposal to compete with the city’s proposed all-elevated system.

Today’s Honolulu Advertiser reports on Craig’s study, which has the potential to shave $1.7 billion off the transit price tag and also make the rail far more user and community friendly as it passes through Honolulu’s urban core.

Although the Advertiser says that the study has been in the hands of the Hannemann adminstration since “last month”.

What isn’t at all clear is whether Kamehameha made the study available to the Advertiser or is still trying to remain behind the scenes in the highly political jockeying for position.

Kamehameha is perhaps the only entity with the clout and deep pockets to force the city to seriously consider reasonable changes to its plan. I would imagine any signals that Kamehameha might back a legal challenge to the adequacy of the city’s environmental impact statement and its lack of consideration of alternatives could put the Hannemann administration in the position of having to either significantly delay until a legal ruling or make design concessions to placate critics.

I’m hoping Mayor Hannemann can actually show some real leadership and make the decision that there would be significant public benefits to the Kamehameha plan, both in cost savings and rider experience. The mayor’s leadership could demonstrate that he can do more than exhibit stubborn resolve, but can actually change direction when the evidence mounts up. That’s the sign of a good leader, and there’s always a chance that, facing a possible legal challenge with direct or tacit support from players like Kamehameha Schools, the mayor will see his way to a win-win resolution. He gets to deliver a rail transit system, as promised, and the public gets a less expensive, less intrusive, and more user-friendly design.

Monday…Light rail manufacturer pulls out of Honolulu transit bidding, update on door-to-door security sales, DCCA administrative decisions need updating, and meet a few of our morning dogs

2 Replies

The Advertiser’s Sean Hao reports today that there are only three bidders for the initial rail contract here in Honolulu.

Hao correctly notes that the specifications for these contracts lock in a particular technology, despite prior official statements that the specific technology would not be chosen until the environmental impact statement was completed and officials had an opportunity to study the tradeoffs inherent in each alternative.

But he misses the chance to explain what that technology choice involves.

Hao writes:

Siemens, which calls itself the nation’s No. 1 maker of light rail vehicles, did not explain why it’s not interested in the project.

Well, it’s no mystery. Honolulu’s rail project, as currently planned, does not utilize what is commonly referred to as “light rail”, which is used in most cities across the U.S. Instead, Honolulu is moving ahead with “automated light metro”, a more expensive, less flexible kind of train that won’t be capable of running quietly through the urban core at street level where desirable, as is done in so many other cities.

The Advertiser’s readers would have benefited from clearer understanding of that key fact–the Hannemann administration has so far refused to consider light rail–rather than leaving the impression that the pullout of the largest light rail manufacturer is somehow unexplained.

Here’s a little update on the unlicensed security companies selling door to door.

One of my neighbors had the paperwork the salesman from one company left, including a Honolulu Police Dept. permit form that falsely listed the company as a licensed contractor. The form used a bogus number instead of a contractors license number. That document, along with several others, have been submitted with a complaint to DCCA by one of our legitimate local alarm companies.

Another local company discovered another of the door-to-door companies trying to steal a client, Max Alarm or Homeland Security. The salesman Lied to the homeowner and pretended that they were from the company that had installed the home’s security system, and were supposed to install an “upgrade”. But when the homeowner saw them remove the original company’s sign and replace it with their own, she figured out it was a scam and had them remove the “upgrade”ew4. I’m told she’s filing a consumer complaint.

In Waipahu, police had calls last month when pushy door-to-door salesmen scared homeowners by insisting that they had to come into their homes.

A couple of weeks ago, the heads of several local security companies requested a meeting with DCCA Director Larry Reifurth to discuss the ongoing problems, but I haven’t gotten a follow-up report yet.

Prowling the web recently, I noticed the state’s Office of Administrative Hearings, part of the Dept. of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, makes some of its past decisions available online, including items of public interest such as disciplinary actions taken against licensed professionals. But the office appears to have stopped posting decisions back in 2005-2006. At least my browsing didn’t turn up more recent decision in “hot” categories, such as disciplinary cases before the Real Estate Commission.

Perhaps this little nudge will get them back on track and the decisions back online.

[text]I’ve got a backlog of dog photos and short videos that hopefully I’ll have time to share this week. This one features four of our daily favorites. Most days they’re in their front yard when we walk past, but on this morning they were out for a run on the beach. Click on the photo to see the video, or use this link if you’ve got a fast Internet connection. [Note: One reader reported a problem with the video, but solved it by first booting Quicktime and then clicking the link to the video.]

Oh–apologies in advance for my slip of the tongue while trying to keep the umbrella and bag of dog biscuits out of the way of the camera. And I don’t know why the shadows have that purple cast to them. Mysteries of video.

Wednesday…City rail symposium disappoints, and documents from furlough lawsuit and Superferry bankruptcy

2 Replies

How time flies. I “knew” it was Wednesday because the crew arrived at 5:30 a.m. to pick up our trash. But my brain still let a “Tuesday” headline into the original version of this entry. An early morning short-circuit!

[text]There was a lot of traintosterone at Blaisdell Center yesterday at the city’s rain transit symposium, which wasn’t designed to explore the serious issues but rather to serve as a pep rally for Mufi’s transit team.

It’s a shame, though, because the speakers flown in at substantial public expense had quite a wealth of experience, most with transit systems using exactly the more flexible type of technology that Honolulu is refusing to even consider as a theoretical option in its environmental impact statement.

That’s right. Among the cities represented were Denver, Charlotte, Seattle, and Phoenix, all of which use flexible light rail trains that can run on elevated tracks or, when appropriate, at ground level or even in tunnels.

But for some reason Mufi is adamant that we’re going to ram through a different, most costly, and more intrusive type of train.

It would have been very interesting to free up the speakers present yesterday to talk about this decision.

I would have wanted to ask each one: “Do you think that Honolulu should at least consider the kind of flexible light rail technology that your city has chosen?”

I would have been very interested to hear the answer.

In any case, that opportunity was lost. It’s a shame. While Mayor Hannemann says that he’s confident that the right choices have been made, his insistence on avoiding a real discussion of alternatives conveys a very different message, perhaps a fear that some of those alternatives would be persuasive. But why should that be threatening if it moves the rail project forward? Again, I don’t know.

There was some useful discussion of elevated systems vs. those running at ground level. Some of the cities run their trains on the ground on tracks in protected coridors, some on the street in traffic. Most have at least some sections on elevated tracks.

There seemed to be agreement that street level access is popular with the people in surrounding communities but management is much more difficult because of the disruption of street life and business while construction is ongoing. So there are tradeoffs in trying to keep the train on the ground.

On the other hand, in response to a question about the feasibility of using tunnels in Honolulu, one of the speakers said the issue is cost. If it costs $1 to be at ground level, and an elevated track costs $4, going to a tunnel system would run $9-$15.

I wonder if that 4-1 cost ratio of above-ground to street level is really in the ballpark? If so, no wonder our projected cost is so much higher than mainland systems have been.

Noted: The League of Women Voters of Honolulu devoted a portion of their June newsletter to the rail issue.

The day was also interesting for providing a glimpse at the vendors lining up to bid on parts of the project. Check out this consortium which boasts its own Honolulu web site.

And, of course, keep in mind that none of these companies have lobbyists registered with the city, and most never have. How is that possible? I don’t know.

Here are a few more documents to prowl through. First, yesterday’s motion for a temporary restraining order filed by the Hawaii State Teachers Association and United Public Workers in the latest move in their attempt to derail the Lingle furlough plan, along with their motion to bring a San Francisco law firm into the case on behalf of the unions.

Then a few tidbits from the Hawaii Superferry bankruptcy case: The State of Hawaii’s motion to move the case back to the islands, a copy of the Superferry’s security agreement with the Federal Maritime Administration, and an affidavit by the corporate secretary filed for the opening bankruptcy hearing spelling out the company’s financial structure.

For those following the cases, these source documents will be interesting.