Decades of debate over how best to move people through Oahu’s increasingly congested urban corridor have produced a massive public issue that evokes passionate views on all sides. It’s unsurprising that many who are involved in the debate seem to believe their opinions represent the truth of the matter.Although we believe Honolulu’s transit project is long overdue, we’re trying not to make this a black-or-white issue – as if only our views have merit and those on the other side have none. Today’s long Honolulu Advertiser story on the rail issue quotes spokespersons on both sides, and residents still assessing the project probably can find credible statements from both camps.
For example, we respect the opponents’ argument -- their “truth” – that the private automobile has become an indispensable tool for Oahu residents in meeting the demands of their busy lives. Proponents of “individual transportation” say cars allow them to drop children off at private schools, go the cleaners, buy groceries, etc. Just about all car owners have days like that and can’t conceive of giving up that freedom. Neither can we.
On the Other Hand
Our “truth” is that Honolulu’s elevated rail system is intended to do something relatively uncomplicated – move large numbers of people from point A to point B and back to A again. That’s the job of transit systems all over the world. Honolulu’s proposed system typically will serve commuters going to and from work and school in both directions between the emerging Second City on the ewa plan in the west and urban Honolulu on the east end of the line without having to deal with everything “individual transportation” entails – rising gasoline prices, costly parking and the biggest car-related problem, traffic.
There’s “truth” in both of the preceding two paragraphs, and we acknowledge both. But some of transit’s most visible opponents aren’t willing to acknowledge our A-B-A “truth.” They say a better idea is to build High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes. HOT lanes cost less, they say, and would move buses, multi-passenger cars and toll-paying single-occupancy vehicles faster along their length than the train over a comparable distance. Even the City’s Alternatives Analysis (AA) acknowledges that specific assertion about travel time for vehicles while on the lanes.
But the AA also predicts that traffic congestion on both ends of the proposed HOT lanes would increase – a “truth” that’s also logical, inasmuch HOT lane vehicles eventually would be returned to surface streets and high levels of congestion. The AA says any time advantage gained along the lanes would be negated by surface road traffic.
Bottom-Line Truth
And here’s where we believe Oahu residents can make a distinction between all the so-called “truths” in this debate. In addition to the AA’s assertion, our bottom-line truth is that HOT lanes would be susceptible to accidents, vehicle breakdowns and other unanticipated traffic interruptions like any highway – interruptions that simply will not affect rail commuters. Honolulu’s transit system will be immune to traffic congestion no matter where it occurs. Commuters will know exactly when they will reach their destination before they even begin their journey. That’s why they call the schedule a timetable.
The bottom-line truth is about mobility – a quality “individual transportation” advocates embrace when they tout the private automobile for trips to the market and the in-laws. But only grade-separated transit guarantees true mobility for 5-day-a-week commuters traveling through the urban corridor between the ewa plain and downtown Honolulu.
That truly is Oahu’s greatest transportation challenge – devising a way for commuters to avoid the massive traffic congestion problem that will continue to grow throughout the length of the urban corridor as Oahu’s population inevitably grows.
The City’s transit project meets that challenge head-on and guarantees mobility in our city for the large number of commuters who simply want to go from A to B and back to A again. Certainly there will be days when those commuters will also head to the market after returning home on the train, and they’ll probably go by car.
The truth of the matter is that both modes of transportation are needed in our community – a train for tens of thousands of commuters to conveniently, economically and reliably travel to and from work and school, and private automobiles for all the trips we will continue to make in them.
It’s neither either-or nor black-or-white. It’s both.
8 comments:
Rail answers the wrong question. The real question is overdevelopment. Solve that first and rail makes sense. I don't think anyone at city hall has the political will to effectively stop it. Thoughts? Aloha!
The real issue here is overdevelopment. That is not addressed with rail. Indeed rail without an effective (and rather harsh) no-further-net-development plan is going to accentuate growth and sprawl, not alleviate it. Fix the development question first, then ask the people to fund rail.
Doug Carlson,
Stop living in a fantasy world with the argument that a rail system will never break down. It happens all the time and when one train breaks, the other's can't go around it tying up everyone else. The net result being that everyone stuck is hours late instead of minutes late. Not to mention the massive amount of electricity that will be required to power the rail system that HECO currently cannot supply without building a new powerplant costing us taxpayers even more money. Rail is something we cannot afford.
Where did we say rail systems never break down? Everything breaks down, but rail hardly ever "breaks down" compared to the road system "breaks down", which is daily. I.E., the daily traffic congestion is a breakdown of mobility. Every day! So if there's a fantasy afoot, it's thinking that commuters have freedom of movement today, when the evidence is so obvious that they don't. That's what they'll have with rail -- unrestrained movement through the urban corridor above the traffic jams on the roads.
And I'm glad you brought up electricity. Read some of the posts here -- such as August 12th -- about how this system eventually will operate on renewable energy from the ocean, the wind, the sun, etc. How big is your vision? Not very if continued reliance on the internal combustion engine is what you envision for the future.
This addresses the shorter of the two "anonymous" comments:
You have it exactly backwards. The automobile has produced urban sprawl. Would Mililani Town have been built without access by car? Rail will give developers as reason to congregate residential and commercial facilities near train stations. It's called Transit-Oriented Development. Please read the Alternatives Analysis linked from today's post and read up America's history in the latter half of the 20th century. The automobile made suburbia possible. The train system will decrease pressure for more sprawl.
But if you're serious about curtailing growth beyond current boundaries, read up also on the State Land Use Commission's powers. That's where you'll want to submit testimony the next time a developer wants to reclassify "agriculture land" to "urban." But thanks for your comment.
Re the shortest of the "anonymous" comments: Please see what I've already posted re overdevelopment.
Mahalo.
This is all about choice. I love the convenience of my car but I want the choice to get places without being required to buy, insure, maintain, fuel,store and spend a big portion of my life driving an automobile.
Yes, having convient, safe and reliable transportation choices is lacking here in Honolulu. Walking is not a preferred choice outside the denser areas of Downtown, Ala Moana and Waikiki. Bicycling is still nowhere near a where we'd like it to be; you're gambling your life out there. TheBoat is a limited point-to-point express (not unlike the HOT lane/Phileas "neighborhood-to-destination" bus concept). Roadways are unpredictable and overburdened, which affects automobile and bus travel performance.
Grade-separated transit would be an important positive addition to our current dysfunctional transportation system. At the very least, if it turns out the only benefit is merely shuffling bus riders from one vehicle to another, that creates the benefit of freeing up buses. I believe our rail transit system will do more than that. It gives that badly-needed option, not only for those on the 'Ewa plain, but everyone else along the route and those that choose to transfer by bus that aren't directly served. TOD's near stations would encourage walking. Bike riders would not have to negotiate through as much streets on long-haul rides if their bikes can be taken on the rail.
True, nothing is 100% reliable. Though pro-railers concede there is the probability of breakdowns on the guideway, the pro-HOT lane people conveniently leave out that roadway accidents are more likely than transit (train or bus) ones. Instead they imply HOT lanes are immune (e.g. used as an evac route).
Nice job Doug, on answering the overdevelopment-sprawl point. Though the Kapolei Long-Range Development Plan has so much lower-density residential, having the rail there will encourage better and denser development on the 'Ewa plain. Redevelopment of Waipahu, Kalihi and Kakaako would bolster these areas, and possibly other places in the urban core, so that development may be directed away the areas such as the North Shore and Windward Oahu.
Post a Comment