Honolulutraffic News

This is really old news but unknown to us. It's just nice to have allies everywhere. The article is on the joint website for the Democratic Leadership Council and the Progressive Policy Institute.

"Illustrating what anti-toll politicians on Capitol Hill like House transport chair James Oberstar (Dem MN) are up against in trying to stem the tide of tolling, the major institutions of the San Francisco Bay Area this month have agreed, without any serious dissent, to progressively implement tolling on about 1270 lane-km (790 lane-miles) of high occupant vehicle (HOV) lanes on Bay Area expressways - or as they say over there - in the carpool lanes of area freeways. In addition another 440 lane-km (275 lane-miles) would be built. This will create the largest network of HOT lanes (High Occupancy and Toll) lanes in the US."

In light of the recent Advertiser poll, this is an especially interesting Wall Street Journal article which finds that people tend to be more honest with polls that are using computer generated voices than those using a live questioner. A well known example of the computer generated voice poll was the one taken two years ago by the Grassroot Institute, which was widely criticized at the time, but now seems to have been unjustified.

An elevator pitch is one that allows you less than 30-seconds to describe your point of view/proposal. Ours is simply this:

"Believe it or not, Honolulutraffic.com and city officials agree that we would have to spend over $4 billion in local taxpayer funds to build a rail line. We also both agree that the net result would be future traffic congestion far worse than it is today. We believe this is nuts; city officials disagree. Do you have any questions?"

We thought this cartoon might help to put matters in their proper perspective. For the visually challenged it reads, "Just between ourselves, your obsession that the rest of society is mad is probably true ... but they are in charge."

McKinsey's Calm Look at Greenhouse Gas Reduction — Everyone seems to have a pet solution for reducing U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Since many of the proposals for transportation call for drastic restrictions on driving (as measured by vehicle miles of travel-VMT), everyone in transportation has an interest in learning which GHG reduction measures are cost-effective and which are not. In that context, I want to call your attention to a major study by consulting firm McKinsey & Company, released in December 2007: Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: How Much at What Cost? It involved a number of academic researchers plus inputs from various corporations and environmental groups.

Here is the central conclusion. While U.S. GHG emissions are projected to increase from 7.2 gigatons of CO2 equivalent in 2005 to 9.7 gigatons by 2030, there is realistic potential to decrease the 2030 total by 3.0 to 4.5 gigatons using abatement options whose marginal cost is no more than $50/ton. And almost 40% of the total could be achieved at "negative" marginal cost-i.e., they would pay for themselves over their lifetimes. The five "clusters" where most of the reductions would come from are (in order) electric power, buildings and appliances, energy-intensive industry, carbon sinks, and transportation.

Although transportation is the smallest cluster (with reductions ranging from 0.3 to 0.7 gigatons/year by 2030, depending on which of three scenarios were implemented), it's clearly an important element. The two key themes are increasing average vehicle fuel efficiency and reducing the carbon intensity of transportation fuels. The three largest contributors to transportation GHG reduction would be cellulosic biofuels, inproved fuel economy for autos, and improved fuel economy for light trucks.

As in any such study, the results depend considerably on the assumptions made. One of the most important background assumptions was "no material change in consumer utility or lifestyle preferences." Holding consumer utility constant "would imply no change in thermostat settings or appliance use, no downsizing of vehicles, homes, or commercial space, traveling the same mileage annually [as was assumed in the government reference case]. In other words, the reductions in GHGs projected in this study do not require the hair-shirt kinds of measures favored by many environmentalists and urban planners: major land-use changes to compel high-density living and transit use, etc. Rather, it posits that we can retain current middle-class expectations and aspirations while still reducing significantly the carbon-intensity of our lives.

And these results are even more impressive when you finally get to page 45 and learn that throughout the study, the assumed long-term price of oil was only $59 per barrel. (Remember, most of this work was done during 2007, well before the recent escalation in oil prices.) As the report notes, "If the long-term price of oil were higher, these options would become even more attractive." I'm hoping McKinsey will put out a second edition, re-doing the calculations with something like $120/barrel.

The third question on the poll was, “… tell me whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree [with this statement]… We need a light rail system in order to reduce traffic congestion and commute times along H-1.”

For answers: 47 percent said “Strongly Agree” and 26 percent said “Somewhat Agree.” In other words, 73 percent said they agreed to a varying extent with the statement.

This may be the greatest disconnect between belief and reality since the 1841 publication of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds.

The Minneapolis MnPASS Express Lanes (aka HOT lanes) opened three years ago and is highly successful as this video shows. Features of the Express Lanes are:

Alan Pisarski is one of the most highly regarded transportation authorities in the nation. Among other things, he writes the decennial series, Commuting in America, for the Transportation Research Board, based on U.S. Census Data. He wrote Cars and Stripes Forever for the current Forbes Magazine which came out today. Here's the first couple of paragraphs:

Transportation, and particularly commuting to work, has always been about the trade-off between the value of our time and the cost of transportation. In the '50s, the cost of transportation was the dominant consideration for ordinary Americans. Cars and gas were expensive, and incomes were lower than they are now. In fact, while American lifestyles are sure to undergo a shift, it will not be away from the automobile."

Dr. Michael Uechi, MD, created this audio editorial, Follow the Money, for Hawaii Public Radio and it aired last week. This is the 2½ minute podcast version.

If we compare the poll taken for OMPO by Ward Research two years ago with their poll taken recently for the Advertiser one must conclude that HOT lanes are preferred over rail transit. It is unfortunate that such a question comparing the two modes was not asked during the Advertiser poll.

What makes it even more confusing is that an OmniTrak Group poll taken only last year for the Hawaii Business Roundtable and Pacific Resource Partnership found that our residents believe that we are on the wrong track in dealing with traffic problems. The result was an overwhelming margin of 74-18 percent. (see our Review Polls tab). It is all rather confusing.

This is a rather disturbing, even strange, poll. For example, 63 percent of residents polled said they agreed with the statement, "We need a light rail system in order to reduce traffic congestion and commute times along H-1." This despite the city projecting that traffic congestion with rail will be far worse than it is today. It means that 73 percent of Oahu residents appear to be ignorant of this basic fact.

We do not know whether the poll respondents understood how much rail transit will cost because they were not told or asked about that. The Advertiser said that cost was used in this question under, "DAY 1 TODAY — Do O'ahu residents support the city's plan to build a $3.7 billion commuter rail?" However, the Advertiser is in error since the question respondents were actually asked in the poll did not mention costs at all.

Most people oppose rail once they understand that it will not relieve traffic congestion and will cost many billions of dollars. If Oahu residents do not understand these most basic matters, then what is the poll worth?

Had the question been asked of people who understood the two basics, costs and effects on traffic congestion, the results would have been far different.

The other question that should be asked is what is the value of the Advertiser’s coverage of the transit issue if their readers can be so wrong on such a basic issue as traffic congestion?

It is also interesting to compare the Advertiser poll with one also conducted by Ward Research for the Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization in 2006 (see our Review Polls tab).

Residents were asked, “Would you support construction of an elevated high-occupancy highway for carpools, vanpools, and buses from ‘Ewa to downtown along parts of Kamehameha Highway and H-1?” Overall 69% for v. 25% opposed. Among Ewa/Leeward residents, 78% for.

They were then asked, “If such a project were constructed, would you support making it a high-occupancy toll facility, called a HOT facility? This facility would allow solo drivers to use it if they pay a toll and if the lanes are not fully utilized by high-occupancy vehicles.” Overall 67% for v. 28% opposed. Among Ewa/Leeward residents, 73% for.

While this poll conducted by SMS Research shows support for rail, we find this poll tainted and therefore not as credible as the Advertiser’s one. SMS Research’s Hersh Singer has testified to the City Council in strong support for rail and SMS does a significant amount of business with the city.

For example, one question asked in the SB poll is one to which we know the answer, “How do you commute to work, school or other locations?” This number is about 8 percent. Their poll result showed 15 percent, nearly twice as much. If this answer is off by nearly double one must question the other responses.

Stop Rail Now's Dan Douglass had a good take on polling in Hawaii Reporter yesterday and also found the following video on polling. It demonstrates the dramatically different responses are obtained by changing the way questions are asked.

Please go to www.stoprailnow.com and read about the Rally and the signatures still needed.

The section of the City Charter, which both the attorneys for the City Clerk and Stop Rail Now have commented on, is poorly drafted. However, it is merely complicated; it is not ambiguous. This very short Layman's Guide, which has been approved by SRN attorneys is useful to help everyone understand why Stop Rail Now is in the right.

Please pass it along to your friends, especially any attorney friends, since the newspapers have not had any attorneys review the charter language and are more relying on the City Clerk's pronouncements, which is to say, the Mayor's pronouncements.

Dr. Panos Prevedouros opened his HQ (www.panosforprogress.com) yesterday to wide media coverage including his entire speech on KHON. Honolulutraffic.com supports all the candidates who openly support our efforts to get rid of rail and offer cost-effective ways to reduce traffic congestion in Honolulu. In this speech Dr. Prevedouros says that his first action as Mayor will be to end the rail transit effort.

At 2:00 PM this afternoon on the steps of City Hall, Stop Rail Now's attorney, Earl Partington, noted for his civil rights defenses, will discuss how the City's position on the validity of the petition is totally wrong — and why. The petition and all the signatures will be filed with the city council on August 4th as previously announced.

All supporters of SRN and Honolulutraffic.com are encouraged to show their support at this event.

On Tuesday Stop Rail Now opened its books to the media and the TV channels covered it. The basic story was that SRN had collected and spent $60,000. The money was all from local folks with no Mainland money at all. No oil money, no chemical money, and no Texas beauty queens bringing in suitcases full of cash as the Mayor alleges.

The real story is where the opposition gets their money. For example, the Mayor's campaign contributions contain a half million dollars from non-bid contractors, another half million from those involved in land development and housing construction, and another half million from the Mainland. And the greatest irony is that the Mayor took $14,000 from Chevron, one of the oil companies.

In a July 17 News Release, the Nielsen Company surveyed the changing consumer habits wrought by $4 gas. Many are driving less, shopping more online, and carpooling more. But very few are switching to using public transportation. This four page survey is worth reading to get more details of changing consumer behavior.

Those who have made the effort to read the latest letter and the appropriate section of the City Charter (see below) all come to the conclusion that the city is grasping at straws to keep Stop Rail Now off the November ballot.

The Mayor's effort, through the Corporation Counsel and then the City Clerk, to keep Stop Rail Now off the ballot is not on sound legal grounds. The relevant passage which both parties are arguing over is the following, which is the City Charter, Section 404.3 (3):

You will note that the last sentence is merely to clarify the prior sentence. As the attorneys say, it is descriptive not prohibitive. Unfortunately, the Mayor has no incentive to settle this out of court. Since the private city attorneys the city would hire for this are non-bid contractors, the more the Mayor spends of taxpayers' money on legal issues, one might anticipate that more money rolls into his campaign contributions or, maybe, into Go Rail Go.

The City Clerk naturally defers to Corporation Counsel because they are the final authority on legal issues. The Corporation Counsel always does precisely what they are told to do by the Mayor — albeit within limits. For the Mayor to say with a straight face that the City Clerk opined on the ballot issue without any influence from the Mayor is complete nonsense.

What's on the ballot will be decided legally. All the attorneys who have reviewed the City Charter on this issue believe that our position is correct. The relevant passage is as follows:

3. For Initiative Special Elections. A special election for an ordinance by initiative power shall be called within ninety days of filing of the petition if signed by duly registered voters equal in number to at least fifteen percent of the votes cast for mayor in the last regular mayoral election, and if such petition specifies that a special election be called; provided that if the clerk certifies less than fifteen percent but at least ten percent, the proposed ordinance shall be submitted at the next general election or scheduled special election. No special initiative election shall be held if an election is scheduled within one hundred eighty days of submission of the proposal."

Reason Foundation's latest Surface Transportation Innovations highlights a new video: "Florida DOT has released a new video introducing the public to the forthcoming 95 Express Lanes—variably priced managed lanes with express bus service that will replace the existing HOV lanes on I-95 in Miami-Dade and a portion of Broward County. The first northbound section is set to open next month. The video is available in both English and Spanish-language versions."

This comes from a local political poll to which we were given confidential access. Some 37 percent of those polled also said they believed that Honolulu needs a rail line. We could interpret that to mean 28 percent of voters believe in rail because it will reduce congestion. The other nine percent are looking for jobs, or mistakenly believe that with rail the other guy will get out of his car.

For an idea of who Go Rail Go is, see our July 8 entry below. This corporation is a good vehicle for the Mayor's supporters to use to fund part of the Mayor's reelection campaign since they are not limited to the amount they can give to it.

The bold copy below is from their ad in today's Advertiser; the plain copy is our comments on it.

HOT lanes: “Called ‘Lexus Lanes’ on the Mainland.” They are only called “Lexus lanes” by the pro-rail professionals and politicians. That argument has been well answered by federal government polls of motorists in the areas with HOT lanes. They are overwhelmingly approved by bus users and motorists across all income groups.

“Cost to use — $8 to $12 per trip during rush hour.”One of the most expensive HOT lanes is L.A.’s SR-91. The average cost in the morning peak direction, peak two hours is $4. The afternoon peak two hours, peak direction is $9. The only time it hits $10 is Friday afternoon from 3:00 PM to 4:00 PM. See this link to the toll schedule: http://www.91expresslanes.com/tollschedules.asp

“20-mile toll road would cost billions.” We do not propose 20 mile HOT lanes; 10-12 miles would be adequate. It would not cost billions that is just City spin. Similar highways are now being built in Florida for $450 million.

½ percent state excise tax can only be used for fixed guideway.” At the moment, that is true. However, with the defeat of rail at the polls, the legislature could change that during the next legislative session.

HOT lanes “environmental visual blight.”The HOT lanes would stop at the edge of town and at no time would it pass through any residential areas. Rail on the other hand would pass through many residential areas including snaking its way through the center of Honolulu all the way to UH.

“More cars, buses and pollution … encourages more use of gasoline.” According to the U.S. Dept of Energy, the average rail line uses more energy per passenger mile than does the average automobile and about the same as an average light truck/SUV. In addition, the typical bus/train/bus route travels a longer distance — about 10 percent more — than the automobile going from home to work.

“$900 million in federal funds has been promised.” It has not been promised; there is no evidence whatsoever that it has been. As of today, the only written evidence is that of FTA officials telling the OMPO Policy Committee that the practical limit was $500 million. Subsequently, the OMPO Policy Committee agreed as to what had been said and approved inclusion of the FTA statement in the minutes of the meeting. In any case, even if it were $900 million it would be less than 15 percent of the total bill; it is the local cost that is important.

Rail “runs on electricity not gasoline.” What a dumb statement; both electricity and gasoline are products of crude oil.

Two years ago the state of Washington commissioned an area-wide study of how to reduce traffic congestion. Apparently there were no politically imposed pre-conditions. While several consultants were involved, Parsons Brinckerhoff was the lead consultant. The following are some of the conclusions of the study, which is worth reading if only for the Executive Summary:

"Major transit expansion … transit expansion alone is not shown to be effective in reducing total delay at the system level ...

"Region-wide value pricing (roadway toll rates vary according to demand levels) is indicated to be very effective in reducing total delay. Roadway tolling helps to dampen travel demand, shorten trips, shift travel to non-peak periods, and encourage use of other travel options (transit, carpooling, biking and walking) that are not subject to toll charges. Value pricing helps to maximize the efficiency of our transportation system. Value pricing is consistent with the way almost all other utility and transportation services are provided in market-based economies (for example, water, electricity, air travel and telecommunications services). As with the use of prices to establish access to services in other utility areas, special provisions may be necessary to assure adequate access by those unable to pay market prices for indispensable services. The special requirements need to be carefully considered.

"Value pricing in the form of High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes is found to reduce corridor delay and make the corridor operate more efficiently. HOT lanes make corridor travel time more reliable, which benefits everyone, including occasional users."

Described in the media as “Go Rail Go, backed by a group of residents …” Here are the “residents”:

The organization is the Committee for Balanced Transportation, Inc. dba Go Rail Go.

Vice President, Wes Frysztacki, Weslin Associates, City non-bid rail transit contractor.

Vice President, Darrlyn Bunda, former Executive Director of LOTMA funded by Leeward Developers

“Every month or so , another magazine calls Portland the nation’s “most sustainable city,” citing its high mass-transit use.”

According to the 2006 American Community Survey, currently 6.4 percent of Portland commuters (http://tinyurl.com/6pzb5y) use public transportation and 82.0 percent use cars. Not much different than other urban areas across the nation.

Portland’s experience with rail exemplifies the congestion reduction …”

Of the 85 urban areas covered by the Texas Transportation Institute, the nation’s keeper of congestion data, Portland increased its average hours of delay per person from 13 hours annually in 1982, to 38 hours in 2005, resulting in the 29^th worst increase in the nation. It is instructive to Google “Portland” and “traffic congestion.” http://mobility.tamu.edu/ums/congestion_data/tables/national/table_4.pdf

Portland’s experience with rail exemplifies the … reduced driving …”

The U.S, Census shows that Portland’s percentage of commuters using public transportation declined from 7.2 percent to 5.7 percent between 1980, before any rail was built and the last Census in 2000.[1] The 2006 American Community Survey shows 6.4 percent. The percentage is important because when it is stable at say 6 percent then for every 100,000 increase in commuters, 6,000 will use public transportation and 75-80,000 will use their cars. Some reduction.

“In the first quarter of 2008, the light rail system logged its highest annual growth rate in four years.”

The American Public Transportation Association statistics on the nation’s ridership show that Portland’s light rail in the 1^st Quarter of 2008 showed a 2.08 percent growth.

“One aspect of Portland’s transit system that is admired by most cities is its ability to get projects completed … under budget.”

There are only two official reports evaluating ridership and cost forecasts for transit systems. They are the U.S DOT’s 1990 assessment Urban Rail Transit Projects (aka Pickrell Report),[2] and the more recent Federal Transit Administration’s 2007 assessment (CPAR).[3]

The Pickrell report shows that the initial MAX line came in 55 percent over budget on construction and 45 percent over budget on operating costs. Ridership was 54 percent less than projected.

The CPAR shows that Portland’s Westside-Hillsboro line came 72.4 percent over forecast construction cost, 8.0 percent over on operating costs and 27 percent less than projected for ridership.

As Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, “Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts.”

[1] Journey to work trends in the U.S. and its major metropolitan areas, 1960-2000. U.S. Dept of Transportaton, FHWA. ftp://ftp.abag.ca.gov/pub/mtc/census2000/JTW_Trends/PDF/FullReport.pdf

[2] Urban Rail Transit Projects: Forecast versus Actual Ridership and Costs. U.S DOT. 1990. DOT-T-91-04. Available at the State Library.

[3] Federal Transit Administration. Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR). September 2007. http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/CPAR_Final_Report_-_2007.pdf

Last Tuesday Governor Cayetano wrote a scathing op/ed in the Advertiser. He declared, "I weigh in at this time because I am very concerned about the mayor's personal attacks on those who oppose the rail transit project. At the mayor's direction, the city — as well as his campaign organization — has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars demeaning the opposition. This is unfortunate as there is a significant and legitimate case to be made against rail transit that the public should hear on its merits." He concluded with, "We have already seen the first $107 million being awarded to Parsons Brinckerhoff and InfraConsult, and it is disturbing that so much of the funds are going for high-powered public relations efforts. If the project is going to be explained to us objectively, rather than just simply sold to us, then such expenditures should not be necessary." It was a very fine op/ed that all should read.

We have a significant case against the City for misleading Oahu voters about the suitability and the benefits and disbenefits of rail transit. For a small taste of it click here.

Here's some interesting comment from a General Accounting Office report recently on the change in federally funded projects, "Since the fiscal year 2001 evaluation and rating cycle, the New Starts pipeline—that is, projects in the preliminary engineering and final design phases—has changed in size and composition, responding to a variety of factors. The number of projects in the New Starts pipeline has decreased by more than one-half, and the types of projects in the pipeline have changed, with bus rapid transit replacing commuter or light rail as the most common type of project. FTA officials attributed the decrease in the number of projects to FTA’s increased scrutiny of applications to help ensure that only the strongest projects enter the pipeline, and to FTA’s efforts to remove projects from the pipeline that were not advancing or did not adequately address identified problems."

Wherein the Mayor goes off on a rant about a Texas Beauty Queen sent over by oil and chemical interests to destroy the Honolulu rail project. This is something to behold. If anyone knows what the Mayor is up to in this video, please let us know. The Mayor is also running ads of a similar nature.

As for the Mayor's charges; they are baseless. We are not “part of a national effort.” No person from the Mainland is involved in this petition effort. No money has come from the Mainland; the money is raised from T-shirt and bumper sticker sales and from its members and local friends.

As for “conservative,” Dennis Callan, co-chair, is a long-time Progressive Democrat and community activist and if Dr. Michael Uechi, MD, the other co-chair, is a conservative he keeps it well hidden. Neither Cliff Slater nor Dr. Prevedouros have ever belonged to a political party. However, Dale Morita Evans, CEO of Charley’s Taxi, on being sternly asked by the Mayor, “Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Republican Party?” bravely did not take the Fifth, but did break under the pressure and admit she had once been, but had since repented.

The City Council Transportation Committee Agenda for this Thursday has two items that we should pay attention to. In particular, we should object to the form of congestion pricing they are referring to. This is the cordon pricing scheme now in use in London and proposed for New York. These are not variably priced by time of day and do not limit driving once inside the cordon. It is merely a new tax in user fee disguise.

. RESOLUTION 08-149 – SUPPORTING CITY INVOLVEMENT IN A STUDY ON THE STATE OF INFRASTRUCTURE IN HAWAII.Expressing the Council’s support for city involvement in a study on “The State of Infrastructure in Hawaii.”

RESOLUTION 07-258 – URGING THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES TO DETERMINE THE FEASIBILITY OF IMPLEMENTING CONGESTION PRICING IN HONOLULU. Urging the Department of Transportation Services to study the use of congestion pricing in London, England and the proposed plan for congestion pricing in New York City to determine the feasibility of implementing congestion pricing in Honolulu.

The Mayor is intent on undermining the citizens’ effort to enable a vote on the rail transit proposal. He has blatantly said that he will do everything possible to kill this effort.

His latest effort is a smear against citizens who only want to give the voters a voice on this multi-billion dollar rail. He is trying to divert attention away from “follow the money.” Rail is not about transportation; it is about campaign contributions.

The Mayor is trying to portray a conspiracy among those opposed to his rail proposal. However, he really knows better. He knows that the opposition is coming from ordinary folks who are totally upset by the idea of spending $5 billion or more on a project, the net result of which will be traffic congestion far worse than it is today.

Anyone who saw the Stop Rail Now folks at the initial press conference on April 21^st will remember them as just a total cross section of the community. The co-chairs are Dr. Michael Uechi, MD, and Dennis Callan, President of the Hawaii Geographic Society, two citizens outraged by this waste of taxpayers’ money.

The Mayor really knows that none of the anti-rail people get money from the oil companies, or from any “special interests.” He keeps mentioning taxi companies but the fact is that taxi companies would benefit from rail transit. Since rail rarely takes you exactly where you want to go you need transportation to get there and the quickest way is to take a taxi.

ALL the money that Stop Rail Now gets is from the sale of T-shirts and from its members. Even so, it has spent a tiny fraction of the vast amount of money being spent by the City, its contractors and the unions in trying to push this rail project down the throats of Oahu voters.

Voters must remember that rail transit development is all done by non-bid contractors. On the other hand, HOT lanes are simply highways; the HOT lanes approach is how they are operated. Accordingly, once designed they are put out to bid and there is little spare money to go for campaign contributions.

Cox's Demographia website, www.demographia.com is rated by National Journal as one of the four best transportation sites in the nation.

In this particular analysis he uses FHWA data to demonstrate that all the recent brouhaha about gas prices moving people to transit does not really affect traffic as you may have noticed.

Dr. Panos Prevedouros is Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at
the University of Hawaii.

He’s the perfect mayoral choice because Oahu’s problems are virtually all civil engineering problems. Consider our terrible traffic congestion, aging sewers,
deteriorating water pipes, dilapidated bridges and highways and potholes abound.

Panos has the expertise and experience to deal with these problems as an engineer, not a politician. He would follow in the shoes of another engineer, the
highly successful three-time Honolulu Mayor Johnny Wilson.

Right now, we have a politician at city hall who enjoys shaking constituents’ hands and being seen at public events. But what has he really done for the people of Oahu over the last four years?

Visit the website www.draftpanos.com today and see if we can persuade Panos to run for Mayor of our city.

Last Monday for the 7-8 AM segment of the Rick Hamada Show on KHVH 830 AM, Gary Okino and Maeda Timson took on Honolulutraffic.com's Cliff Slater and Stop Rail Now's Eric Ryan on the rail transit issue. It was podcast and is now online. If you want to see a clear difference in the thinking between the two sides on this debate, we suggest you listen to the podcast. It is an eye opener.

Today's Star-Bulletin story is from Seattle-based INRIX, a major supplier of real time traffic information. It says: "If you happen to be driving on a Thursday from 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. on [Honolulu's] main highways, you're no longer in the Aloha State," according to the report compiled by INRIX. "You're in the worst place and worst hour of any single roadway in the U.S., taking 88 percent more time to get where you're going than if there were no congestion."

They also said, "Honolulu also has two of the 100 worst bottleneck areas in the country. Ranked 41st are the eastbound Moanalua Freeway lanes by the H-1 freeway interchange, with an average congested speed of 8 mph. And ranked 87th are the eastbound H-1 lanes by Kalihi Street, with an average congested speed of 12.6 mph. Those spots are the worst and second-worst bottleneck areas in Honolulu. The third-worst bottleneck, and the 104th in the nation, is the H-1 freeway eastbound near Middle Street."

INRIX gets its data differently than any other survey of the nation's traffic congestion. It tracks a variety of in-vehicle GPS equipment and can thereby determine average and specific delays that would appear to be more accurate than any other method.

Of course, the reaction to this from the political establishment will be all the more reason to build rail transit. Why they don't want to understand that we have a highway traffic congestion problem that can only be solved by increasing highway capacity is beyond us.

As one would expect, Honolulu's bus ridership is up a few percent with consumers hurting from the effects of higher gas prices. Nationally, it is the same. With gas prices up, but bus ticket prices remaining the same as in 2003, one should expect that bus ridership would be up.

However, if we review what happened in the 1970s when gas prices also doubled in real terms, we find that by the end of the decade commuter use of transit had declined both as a percentage and in total. People drove less and bought smaller cars.

Gasoline usage increased for a few years until the smaller, more energy-efficient automobiles worked through the system and peaked in 1978. For the next few years U.S. gasoline usage declined by 14 percent until oil prices dropped, gasoline became considerably cheaper and drivers used more of it.

Here are two interesting quotes from this period: "The first myth was that the demand for energy would continue to grow ... The second myth was that energy prices ... would continue to increase ... The third myth was that we were running out of oil."

"... an amazing consensus ... on crucial but mistaken assumptions. The consensus made the mistakes much harder to see for what they were. The consumer joined government and industry in accepting the assumptions that we were running out of oil, that prices would spiral ever upward, that we needed to conserve for virtue's sake, that economic growth marched lockstep with energy use, and that government needed to see to it that we got the synfuels and renewable energy sources that we needed." Lee, Thomas H., Ball, Ben C. Jr. & Tabors, Richard D. Energy Aftermath. Harvard Business School Press. 1990. pp. 20 & 39.

When summer comes university students, private school students and the myriad public school students with (actual or faked) geographic exemptions all leave the highway. When this 20 percent of the traffic leaves H-1, traffic congestion virtually disappears.

We could experience the same traffic relief year round were we to increase H-1 highway capacity by 25 percent. This would give us the same ratio of cars to road space we experience on H-1 during the summer vacations.

Since H-1 only has seven lanes, any two-lane addition would make a distinct difference. However, the two lanes of the HOT lanes will carry twice the traffic that two of the H-1 regular lanes because the managed HOT lanes traffic will be completely uncongested. And full but uncongested freeway lanes carry twice the number of cars that congested freeway lanes can. Therefore, the effect of the two-lane HOT lanes will be as if we had added four lanes to H-1.

HOT lanes will effectively add far more than 25 percent to the Leeward Corridor highway capacity and motorists will experience summertime in winter.

In an outrageous statement to KITV yesterday, Rep. Neil Abercrombie said that "by signing the petition, people are killing any chance of a mass transit system for Honolulu."

That is an appalling lie unworthy of any member of Congress. The fact of the matter is that the Stop Rail Now effort only puts the issue of rail transit on the ballot so that Oahu voters can vote on it. Many signers of the petition are pro-rail supporters who still believe their support for democracy trumps their rail support. Congressman Abercrombie obviously does not.

The only reason to not sign the petition is if you believe that there is a chance that the vote would go against rail and you don't believe the majority should decide — in other words, you do not believe in the democratic process.

Stop Rail Now's Eric Ryan put the matter in perspective in rebutting Abercrombie on KITV. He said that the federal contribution for rail pales in comparison to the local contribution which is five times that of the federal. There may be a time and place to max out our credit cards but this is not it.

We are the only jurisdiction in the U.S. where the people do not get to vote on projects of this magnitude; our legislators do not appear to support the people having their say in such important issues. Chief among those is Abercrombie.

"California faces a huge budget shortfall, a weakening economy, a home foreclosure mess, a drought and the need to expand its reservoir system. Tax increases loom even as businesses are down-sizing and inflation threatens a comeback.

"Amid all these challenges, California voters will be asked to approve $10 billion in bonds in November to open the way for the Boondoggle Express. It's a high-speed, high-hopes rail line from San Francisco to Los Angeles that is short on planning and long on fantasy.

"Of course, $10 billion is only the beginning. Another $23 billion will be sought from a deficit-ridden federal government and private investors wary of a recession. The cost of the high-speed train is estimated at $33 billion for the main line, with an additional $7 billion for spur lines to Sacramento and San Diego.

"Does anyone who has followed the saga of the Bay Bridge debacle really believe the high-speed rail system will cost less than $60 billion, $80 billion?"

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY: One would think that given the state of our visitor industry, our chief source of income, that our elected officials would be having second thoughts about vast expenditures such as the rail line. If they are we have not seen any sign of it. Tax revenues are subsiding, our population on the island is declining but it does not seem to bother them.

"Djou has crafted a bill that would require the city to attach a disclosure for city-funded newspaper, radio or TV ads. It's a move anti-rail protesters applaud.

"The city should not be involved in the kind of propaganda they're putting on. They should be informing the public, the information they pass out should be balanced. There is no excuse," said Cliff Slater, an anti-rail protester.

"Stop Rail Now says it funds all of its anti-rail material using private donations. The group says the city should do the same. Mayor Mufi Hannemann's administration was not available on Tuesday for comment."

As part of the story, make sure you see the video of Stop Rail Now volunteers manning the phones, fulfilling requests for petitions,etc.

From the beginning our HOT lanes proposal has advocated that express buses and vanpools have priority and go free of charge while all others would pay a toll such that all HOT lanes vehicles would have uncongested travel. In an effort to make this point we have begun to term it the HOT BRT Alternative. There is no change at all in the policies we advocate, merely the term for it.

Much of the criticism of the HOT BRT Alternative totally ignores the BRT element — most of it deliberately. However, Express buses on HOT lanes will offer commuters a far swifter commute than will rail. Not only will the buses travel faster on the HOT lanes, there is a far greater chance that commuters will be able to make a no-transfer journey by bus. On the other hand, the rail will almost certainly require some kind of transfer and since this is a major deterrent to using public transportation, this aspect of it is likely to benefit Express bus travel.

“One of the main reasons for starting construction on the 'Ewa end is to avoid right-of-way acquisition issues during the project's early stages, according to Jim Van Epps, project manager for Parsons Brinckerhoff, which is the city's largest transit contractor.”

“In the 'Ewa area, "the parcels are available or should be readily available to us to get the construction going easy," Van Epps said during a recent city-sponsored radio show. "We're not dealing with a lot of residential and commercial areas that are side by side by side that are going to take so many years for us to acquire in order to get the length of property that we need."

What is going on here rests on the fact that large public works projects, once begun, are always finished. This is because most voters are not businesspeople and do not understand the concept of not throwing good money after bad. Thus, if the Mayor is allowed to construct any part of his Kapolei to Waipahu “Shoppers’ Special” rail line and spends, say, $1 billion to do so, the rest of the $6 billion “locally preferred alternative” rail line out to UH and Waikiki will get built. Otherwise, the voters will say, the money spent will be wasted.

Accordingly, the Mayor proposes taking the path of least resistance by building the initial segment out in open fields where there will be no objection to it. After the first section is built, it will be easy to bludgeon into submission those property owners who will be in his way in subsequent sections of the rail line.

The public is going to be affected by this property acquisition program in three ways. First, the $millions to be laid out for these properties and their relocation costs will have to be paid for with taxpayer’s money. Second, the businesses' increased costs will be passed along to consumers. Third, when thriving businesses are condemned it means less competition in their field, which will lead to increased prices to consumers.

We are getting a little tired of the Mayor telling voters that he doesn't know any alternatives to rail. The fact is that it is the Managed Lane Alternative, which are High Occupancy Toll Lanes with priority given to Bus/Rapid Transit — HOT BRT — and he knows it.

In the 2006 Alternatives Analysis, the Mayor persuaded his "client-focused" consultants, Parsons Brinckerhoff, to put an absurd projected cost of $2.6 billion on the HOT lanes despite the Tampa Expressway having just opened at a cost of only $320 million.

We have recently done more work with the help of our friends in Florida and are now convinced that HOT BRT can be built for less than our original estimate of $900 million.

According the today's newspapers, the Mayor is planning a $350 million airport link as shown on the map below. The questions it raises are:

First, if the rail line is presently maxed out at a train every three minutes during the peak hours, how are they going to be able to run a separate train in-between those regular trains? You certainly cannot run a train every 90 seconds; that is not doable.

Are they instead not going to have a separate Airport train but rather that you merely transfer from one of regular trains at the Middle Street Station and change for the Airport Station? They would build a $350 million line just for that? When passengers will have to change to another shuttle anyway when they get to the Airport Station?

For just two miles it would make more sense to have a bus shuttle from Middle Street directly into the Airport. Why am I even raising the issue about "sense" when we have not seen any evidence of it at all so far in this project?

The second issue is, who is going to take the train to the airport? Certainly very few visitors since they are here with large bags, which will undoubtedly not be allowed, not local folks going to the airport with large bags? And we do not have the kind of businesspeople coming into town with an overnighter bag to be leaving the following day as you see in many Mainland cities. The City will come up with some projection showing that hordes of people will use the rail extension. We'll see.

It seems to us that our newspaper reporters might have asked more questions of the city.

Two years ago Dr. Martin Wachs, who heads the Rand Corporation's transportation practice, wrote A Quiet Crisis in Transportation Finance, a 24-page narrative on what has led to the crisis and what action could be taken by various local, state and federal authorities. He concluded:

"As the joint federal and state commitment to building the great Interstate Highway System has been replaced by a more scattershot program of highway system maintenance, limited capacity expansion, environmental mitigation, and alternative travel modes, federal transportation leadership has faltered. In each of the post-Interstate transportation bills passed since 1990, the number of special funding categories has increased, while the number of earmarked projects has skyrocketed (to more than 6,300 in the 2005 legislation). Many of these projects would not survive the benefit/cost scrutiny to which program-funded projects are typically subjected.

In addition, the “strings” attached to federal matching grants, in the form of procedural and environmental rules and regulations, have increased over the years, while the relative federal contributions of highway revenues and public transit subsidies have fallen. This, in no small part, has led to the rise of county transportation taxes and transportation agencies described above. So while the federal government remains today the central player in surface transportation planning and finance, the federal program is far less focused, and less compelling, than it once was.

We are thus in a difficult situation to be sure, but not an irresolvable one. There are a wide variety of public policies available that elected officials – at the federal, state, and local levels – can use to address the chronic cost/revenue squeeze in transportation finance. These include greater reliance on borrowing, shifts to alternative forms of user fees, such as electronic tolls or mileage based charges, greater reliance on general taxes and fees that are not directly linked to use of the transportation system, or some combination of these approaches. Forging consensus on who should pay for transportation systems, and how they should pay, will be necessary to avoid a prolonged period of instability and crisis in American transportation finance."

This is an issue that our elected officials should study carefully before committing themselves to any massive rail lines.

Starting last Monday and continuing every subsequent Monday from 7:00 to 8:00 AM, Rick Hamada will host a debate/discussion between rail proponents and proponents of Express buses on HOT lanes. Tomorrow morning, May 19, will be Steve Hogan of Parsons Brinckerhoff and Cliff Slater of Honolulutraffic.com.

From yesterday's Advertiser: "City Council members Rod Tam and Ann Kobayashi want to ban homeless people from hanging out at bus stops. What are they supposed to do for transitional housing until the rail stations are built?"

"There’s a wealth of survey data suggesting that the public would rather pay tolls for new highway capacity than have their gas taxes increased. That’s a principal finding of an important new synthesis report from the National Cooperative Highway Research Program of the Transportation Research Board. The report (NCHRP Project 20-05, Synthesis Topic 38-03) is due out later this month (or early next month) and should be downloadable soon from the TRB website (www.trb.org). You can get a preview from an article by co-author Johanna Zmud in the Winter 2008 issue of Tollways, the quarterly from the International Bridge, Tunnel & Turnpike Association (www.ibtta.org/files/PDFs/win08_Zmud.pdf).

"The research project examined 110 U.S. public opinion studies on some aspect of tolling or road pricing carried out over the past 10 years. Most of the surveys had large enough sample sizes to be useful and were carried out in a scientific manner. Some very interesting results emerged. For example, if respondent pool consisted of “potential users,” support for tolling or pricing trounced opposition by 74% to 15%. Using “registered voters” as the sample, tolling support was almost the same: 71% vs. 24% opposed. But if the survey targeted the “general public,” the pro and anti-toll position tied at 42% each. Another strong finding was that surveys based on a specific project showed far higher support for tolling than surveys posing a general question about tolling or pricing—62% support if project-specific versus 38% if a general question."

The list of contractors and the amounts of their contracts shows that a significant amount of it is for what the city euphemistically calls "outreach," but which in reality is pure hard sell. Examples are $120,000 for former Secretary of Transportation Mineta, $500,000 for local flack Elisa Yadao, Pat Lee $216,000, the ever charming John DeSoto $150,000 and so on. Any insider information that you have about those on the list will be most welcome.

The four pro-rail councilmembers, Garcia, Apo, Okino and Tam attempted to have new Bills 36 and 38, relating to transit technology, "filed," which means they would not be referred to the Transportation Committee as is usually routinely done. The other five councilmembers opposed that move and defeated the attempt by votes of 5-4.

In today's MidWeek, Larry Price's the Price is Right column for this week is titled, "Ready For A Rail Referendum." The most important paragraph is the final one where he says:

"The 'Stop the Rail' movement has the ubiquity of Internet access and information technology on its side, and there is no question the public is now more connected than ever before and firmly believes their wishes are not being addressed by arrogant elected officials. Said another way, they have few practical hurdles before them they cannot clear with ease. Their real obstacles are mental ones. Our governmental officials would be well-advised to consider this referendum worthy of their utmost attention."

The City Council meets tomorrow morning, Wednesday, May 7 at 10:00 AM to discuss among other matters, the creation of a Transit Authority, and Bills 36 & 38 relating to transit technology. One is for "rubber tire on concrete" and the other "rubber tire and maglev."

First they shouted at their rallies, “Traffic Sucks!” and that we had to reduce traffic congestion and so we needed rail. When we pointed out that their own studies showed that traffic congestion would be far worse with rail, they changed gears.

They said OK, it will not improve congestion, but it will give people a choice. When in time the public didn’t buy that, they moved on to development.

They said the major advantage of rail was that it would allow us to build transit-oriented developments (TODs) around most of the stations. Now that it is revealed that all TODs require heavy subsidies to make their “vibrant, walkable, live and work” neighborhoods palatable to buyers, they are changing emphasis to “it will provide jobs in this poor economic environment.”

The fact is that the federal funds will not come close to funding all the items that must be purchased offshore. This covers trains, steel rail lines, escalators, elevators, electrical sub-stations, computers and the myriad pieces of equipment that go into furnishing a rail transit system. What remains of our local funds will go construct a totally uneconomic rail transit system.

It seems to us that we can accomplish providing the jobs by just paying the workers. At least that way we will not be building something that will create heavy annual losses.

In writing this, we are reminded of Houston businessman Bob Lanier who opposed rail transit in 1990. He was elected Mayor replacing the pro-rail Mayor Kathy Whitmire.

He said about rail: “First they say, `It's cheaper.' When you show it costs more, they say, ` It's faster.' When you show it's slower, they say, `It serves more riders.' When you show there are fewer riders, they say, `It brings economic development.'When you show no economic development, they say, `It helps the image.'When you say you don't want to spend that much money on image, they say, `It will solve the pollution problem.' When you show it won't help pollution, they say, finally, `It will take time. You’ll see.” From the Houston Metropolitan Magazine, November 1990, page 49.

The city has posted what it says are the “TOP 5 REASONS FOR RAIL” on its website. We have responded with our comments on it and the comments include the city's top 5 reasons in full.

The best indicator that rail transit is a poor choice is that the City has to spin, obfuscate and toy with the truth trying to drum up support for it.

When they behave this way they essentially concede that our transit proposal, HOT BRT, or Express Buses on HOT Lanes, is superior to rail. Otherwise they would merely state the truth about both projects.

We believe that an even handed comparison between HOT BRT and rail transit would show that HOT BRT can carry more people, is twice as fast, is far less costly and offers greatly reduced traffic congestion.

It is important that the city's "reasons" and our "comments" be read to understand how the city is spinning their story.

Companies with city contracts [such as PB] are banned from contributing to city political campaigns. …

"We have an interest in supporting transit and supporting those people that we believe are strong
advocates for infrastructure in general," said Parsons Brinckerhoff spokeswoman Judy Cooper.

We also have posted his Star-Bulletin op/ed of March 30, Transit-oriented development not a panacea for our communities which we had forgotten to cover at the time. In it he points out that, "the public does not generally value the "higher density, vibrant neighborhood" features of TODs. We know that because home buyers and retailers will not pay the full costs of the apartments, houses and shops that have been built. To make them saleable, taxpayers have had to provide heavy subsidies.

"TODs are now often being touted as a major reason for building rail transit even though there are no TODs that are not heavily subsidized. Are our planners and elected officials proposing heavily subsidizing rail transit in order to heavily subsidize TODs? You gotta love the way these folks think."

Every so often the old myth about General Motors destroying the U.S. streetcar system is trotted out and once more we have to write a rebuttal. Yesterday's Star-Bulletin carried the following letter under the heading "Don't let auto lobby derail another train":

"It is beyond belief that some are acting outraged at the "radical idea" of rail here. Early in the last century we had trains, streetcars and ferries running all over the San Francisco Bay area and down to San Jose. It was simple and cheap to get around. After the war, General Motors, et al, changed all that with their scheme to sell buses everywhere. The same happened in Los Angeles, which had Red Trains running far and wide and were destroyed. Look at LA. now.

San Diego was smart enough to build a beautiful rail system, which runs from suburbs to the north to the Mexican border. We must not listen to the naysayers here who would cripple us. In the past we had a train that ran out to Haleiwa, but we let the auto industry kill that, too. Nancy Bey Little, Honolulu."

The real facts are that starting around 1920, before General Motors ever got near the bus business, cities began dismantling streetcar systems in favor of buses. It began with the smaller cities and continued over 40 years. Honolulu began dismantling its streetcars in 1933. The Advertiser said at the time, “Honolulu is doing what all progressive mainland communities are nowadays doing: getting rid of streetcars and replacing them with good-size buses...we certainly will finally progress to the point of abolishing streetcar tracks. And that will certainly be a vast improvement.”

Three weeks later, the Japanese language Hawaii Hochi agreed, stating that buses, “are vastly better than the rattle-trap, clanging streetcars. Instead of an ordeal to be dreaded, a ride in these buses is an enjoyable, restful experience."

By 1941 Honolulu had finished replacing its streetcars and become an all-bus city; none of the buses were from GM, they were all Twin Coaches. For more detail, read General Motors and the Demise of Streetcars.

On the Rick Hamada Show last Monday the whole hour from 7:00 AM to 8:00 AM was spent debating the rail issue. It was between Mike Schneider, Managing Partner of InfraConsult LLC, and former Executive VP of PB Consult, the consulting arm of Parsons Brinckerhoff, and Cliff Slater, Chair of Honolulutraffic.com. Fortunately it was during Rick Hamada's podcast hour.

The Mayor keeps telling us that we need rail because it is about our Quality of Life. This short video clip demonstrates the relationship between rail transit in Hawaii and Quality of Life.