76 Percent of State House Urge Governor Lingle’s Quick Acceptance of Honolulu Rail Project’s FEIS

Representatives Mark Takai (Newtown, Waiau, Pearl City, Waimalu), Tom Brower (Waikiki, Ala Moana), Sharon Har (Royal Kunia, Makakilo, Kapolei, Kalaeloa) and Joey Manahan (Sand Island, Mokauea, Kalihi Kai, Kapalama)

Thirty-nine of the 51 members of the Hawaii State House of Representatives have signed a letter urging Governor Linda Lingle to accept the Honolulu Rail project’s Final EIS when it reaches her desk.

A delegation of House members made the announcement at Mayor Mufi Hannemann’s rail forum this afternoon in the State Capitol’s auditorium. It’s the same venue used by the Governor three weeks ago when she invited local architects to make a case for at-grade rail in Honolulu rather than the City’s elevated system.

Even more remarkable perhaps than the overwhelming support of the House for quick acceptance of the FEIS was the 100-percent participation of neighbor island representatives. Hannemann (at right) said the neighbor islanders’ endorsement shows they understand the entire state will benefit from the Honolulu rail project.

Rep. Mark Takai lead the effort to obtain the members’ signatures and told the standing-room-only audience, “We can’t give up the opportunity to receive $1.55 billion in federal funds.” Federal Department of Transportation officials said last week Honolulu is virtually assured of receiving that amount in federal funds for the project.

Rep. Sharon Har, whose constituents live in communities near the western end of the rail system’s route, said the Second City concept on the ewa plain was conceived decades ago, but severe traffic congestion has burdened residents of the area.

“The dream of a Second City has become a nightmare because of government’s failure to build adequate infrastructure,” she said, adding that rail transit will be a crucial part of the required infrastructure.

Hannemann said Honolulu rail is the only shovel-ready project in the state that could add 4,000 jobs to the economy in 2010. That number would grow steadily to 17,000 within five years, he said, and he emphasized the significance of last week’s endorsement of the project by DOT Secretary Ray LaHood and FTA Administrator Peter Rogoff.

The Mayor added, “Some who have been in the transportation business a long time say they’ve never heard such a strong statement and commitment” from federal officials for a transit project even before the FEIS has been formally completed.

House Letter’s Highlights

“We, the undersigned members of the Hawaii House of Representatives, strongly request that you review and accept the final Environmental Impact Statement for the Honolulu Rail Transit Project in a timely manner once the document is released by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA).

“Along with dealing with our transportation woes, the Honolulu rail transit project is the biggest economic stimulus project on the horizon that will provide thousands of jobs and create tax revenue for our state and county governments to fund essential services currently being cut.

“The Obama Administration, in its budget submission to Congress, earlier this month gave the Honolulu rail project a vote of confidence by requesting $55 million in federal funds for rail in FY 2011. Peter Rogoff, head of the (FTA), told the local media his agency will sign an agreement by next year to provide another $1.55 billion in construction funds….

“The FTA informed the city that if any decision is made to change the rail system from elevated to at-grade, the FTA would have to start the environmental review process again. Our rail project has gone through five years of extensive planning and environmental review. As the FTA stated, making changes to the project now would put it back to square one and possibly halt the project indefinitely.

“The bottom line is that the FTA and the U.S. Department of Transportation see nothing at this point to stop Honolulu’s rail transit project from continuing to go forward and are committed to continue working with the city to help make rail transit a reality for Honolulu.

“Ultimately, Oahu residents in November 2008 voted in support of the rail project. The people have spoken. There is no major construction project other than rail that is shove-ready. The longer you delay Oahu’s and our state’s economic recovery, the longer you will leave our workers unemployed and struggling during this economic recession. WE, the undersigned, therefore request that you act expeditiously in accepting the final Environmental Impact Statement once it is released by the Federal Transit Administration.”

Part of standing-room-only crowd in the Auditorium.

Human Factor Causes another At-Grade Crash; Bus Runs Light, Smashes into Houston Train; 12 Sent to Hospitals, Rail Service Halted for Hours

If you’re building a multi-billion dollar transit project, do you make sure safety is priority #1, or do you build it “on the cheap” on the advice of a small group of architects and virtually guarantee people riding the train and others will be injured?

That’s a key issue Governor Linda Lingle faces right now as she mulls over the merits of Honolulu’s proposed elevated rail system. The Governor would do well to take a few moments to check in with the Houston, TX news media about yesterday’s bus-train crash.

At least two Houston television stations (KHOU and KTRK) have video on their websites showing the aftermath of a mid-afternoon crash when a city bus ran a red light and knocked an at-grade train completely off the tracks.
According to news reports, 12 people were taken to area hospitals. Houston METRO implemented a “bus bridge” to shuttle rail passengers around the crash site. Service was disrupted for hours while METRO cleared the track.

This kind of accident happens everywhere rail transit systems are built at-grade. The Phoenix, AZ system recorded 52 accidents in its first year of service that ended in December – one a week.

Once the Final Environmental Impact Statement is delivered to Governor Lingle, it will be her legal obligation to ensure that the FEIS adequately covers environmental and historic preservation issues. What she is not tasked to do is determine whether an at-grade system would be more aesthetically pleasing, which from her public statements seems to be on her mind.

But if she does stray from her legal mandate, then she surely must also take safety into consideration, and there is absolutely no question that an elevated system will be safer than a partially at-grade system some local architects are pushing.

Elevated rail will be faster than at-grade rail, more frequent because automated trains can be spaced closer together than at-grade trains with human drivers, more reliable compared to accident-prone at-grade transit and safer for all concerned, including pedestrians.

The Governor must not forget this, and we citizens have an obligation to be sure she doesn’t.

It’s the City’s Turn to Talk Rail Transit in Capitol; Mayor Hannemann Will Connect Project to Jobs

The at-grade vs elevated rail transit debate highlighted the AIA’s session in the State Capitol three weeks ago, but our bet is that the focus will be on jobs, jobs and more jobs when Mayor Mufi Hannemann takes the same stage in two days.

There’s no denying that the sooner the project is underway, the sooner construction workers and the supporting economy will realize the benefits of building Honolulu’s transit system. Even the Governor, who seems unduly influenced by the architects and their at-grade rail proposal, can appreciate the jobs argument.

We’ve spent untold hours here documenting the inherent disadvantages of at-grade transit for a variety of factors – safety, efficiency, reliability and the rest. If all this is new to you, you might want to start reading here.

The program will run from 12:30 to 1:30 in the Capitol’s chamber-level auditorium. Call (808) 768-6136 to inquire about the limited public seating.

Accepting Rail EIS Would Put ‘Jobs on Track'

An editorial in today’s Honolulu Advertiser urges overhaul of State procurement procedures so federal stimulus money can be spent quickly and create jobs for an economy that could use them now. A few sentences jump out at you:

“But just meeting deadlines is not enough when the economy needs far more jobs, and more rapidly than the state seems capable of delivering.”

Then there’s the conclusion:

“Hawaii needs a boost in consumer spending, and that requires getting jobs on track. More than ever, that must be a fast track.”

Procurement reform is the issue, but you can’t read the editorial without thinking about a big job-creation project that could launch within a few months – Honolulu rail.

“Getting jobs on track” will happen if the State Administration erects no artificial barriers to the Honolulu rail project when the Final EIS reaches the Governor’s desk. More than a few observers already have identified politics as the major player in the looming confrontation between the City and the Governor’s office on acceptance of the FEIS.

Once the EIS is submitted in final form to the Governor with approval and coordination by numerous State agencies, her acceptance will clear the way for the Honolulu rail project to begin stimulating our economy. At that late date, it will be simply inconceivable for the Governor to cast about for an excuse to deny her acceptance, such as a belief at-grade rail would be a workable option for Honolulu.

If she still has doubts, let her Google “at-grade rail accidents,” including those in Phoenix, Houston and Los Angeles. The safety angle alone should be enough to convince her at-grade transit is unsuitable for our crowded city.

Los Angeles Tries ‘Sting’ Operation To Curtail Violations along Accident-Prone At-Grade Line

An officer cites LA pedestrian after a potentially fatal violation.

The at-grade vs elevated issue debate over Honolulu’s future rail system isn’t going away soon as long as Governor Lingle continues to verbalize a preference for a lower profile project. It’s therefore understandable that we’re going to keep the at-grade accident issue alive, too.

At-grade rail has a tremendously higher accident rate than elevated rail – not surprising since the former is in the mix of pedestrian and street traffic that the latter completely avoids.

A Los Angeles-based blog writes that LA sheriff’s deputies and police cited more than 300 violations in a four-hour period yesterday morning along the city’s notoriously dangerous Blue Line, which is described as perhaps the most dangerous in the nation. An online search finds ample evidence of crashes and fatalities involving this at-grade system.

Building Honolulu’s system elevated as designed will virtually eliminate the potential for injury and death here. As City Department of Transportation Services Director Wayne Yoshioka said two weeks ago:

“You’re elevated. You’re totally separated from the roadway. You’re in a protected environment and completely separated out…. What cars are flying at that level above the ground? And what people are flying through the air at that level above the ground? As opposed to an at-grade transit that’s crossing active streets with active vehicles turning in front of the train, with pedestrians crossing in front of the train. That (comparison) doesn’t seem to make logical sense to me.”

Los Angeles drivers and pedestrians have learned the hard way why elevated transit does make sense when the option exists to achieve grade separation. That’s what Honolulu intends to do, and that’s what the Governor needs to appreciate before she derails a project that will deliver safe, convenient and economic commuting to Oahu residents for decades to come.

Editorial Lauds FTA’s Support for Honolulu Rail; Former Mayor Fasi, Long-Time Advocate, Dies

The Honolulu Star-Bulletin continues its string of pro-rail project editorials today with “Feds’ rail boost reassuring” offering. The editorial focuses attention on the one issue that is growing larger each day because of its potential to actually kill the project – Governor Lingle’s skepticism. If she does not formally accept the Final Environmental Impact Statement, that’s what will happen.

The Governor was on her favorite conservative local talk show yesterday morning and did not waver in her skepticism even after federal officials essentially endorsed Honolulu rail by including $55 million in the Department of Transportation’s 2011 budget and signaling a full funding agreement that would bring in an additional $1.5 billion in federal support.

Federal Transit Administration leader Peter Rogoff noted the involvement of 13 state agencies that have been closely involved in the project’s environmental review process without sending up alarms. “I have to be honest,” he said. “We’re finding the process of involving the governor to be somewhat perplexing.” (That approximates the reaction of federal Department of Education officials to Hawaii’s ongoing Furlough Friday mess that has reduced public school days here to the lowest number in the country.)

Doing the Job Right

Presuming the Governor’s concerns about the project’s financial plan can be overcome by ongoing positive developments, a bigger obstacle could be what she feels inside – her emotional reaction to the proposed elevated rail line.

Will the guideway impact sight lines? Of course, especially up close, and the EIS acknowledges that. But the document also notes that the impact lessens with distance, and once that distance is at least a block or two, the guideway can’t even be seen in most instances because it will be hidden behind existing buildings and structures. The same can’t be said about high-rise towers that have walled off the ocean from many locations in Honolulu.

The essential point for the Governor and her advisors to appreciate is this: Only grade-separated transit completely avoids traffic congestion. Only this mode of transit gives users a predicted time of arrival at their destinations that is virtually guaranteed. That’s why grade-separated transit systems issue timetables; their station arrival and departure times are established and maintained, in Honolulu’s case, by computer control.

At-grade transit would not be as fast as elevated rail, wouldn’t be as frequent (due to greater time intervals between trains imposed by human drivers), wouldn’t be as reliable because of inevitable interference by other surface traffic and wouldn’t be as safe due to the inevitability of accidents. Phoenix’s new system averaged a crash a week in its first year of operation.

Both the Star-Bulletin and Honolulu Advertiser have spent decades following and studying this city’s various rail projects and have consistently endorsed their elevated alignment. The sooner the Governor reaches the same conclusions, the sooner construction can begin, people can be put to work and commuters will have an alternative to wasting hours each day sitting in traffic.

Frank F. Fasi

Frank Fasi, the long-time colorful mayor of Honolulu who repeatedly attempted to have high-speed grade-separated rail transit built here, died last night at his Makiki home, according to this on-line report at the Advertiser’s website. He was 89.

Fasi was mayor for all but four years between 1968 and 1994, when he resigned from office to run for governor, one of his four unsuccessful tries for that office (that ultimately resulted in the "Fasi resign-to-run law").

His attempt to build the Honolulu Area Rapid Transit project was derailed by his 1980 defeat for reelection by Eileen Anderson, who promptly scrapped the project. Back in office after Anderson’s single term, Fasi resurrected his transit planning and solicited bids in the late 1980s to build an elevated line from Leeward Community College to the University of Hawaii campus in Manoa and also above Kuhio Avenue all the way to Honolulu Zoo in Waikiki.

One year after a consortium of train manufacturers, construction companies and others was selected, the project died on a 4-5 City Council vote in 1992 to increase the general excise tax to provide the local share of the project’s $1.3 billion cost – 70 percent of which would have been paid by the federal government.

Had the vote gone the other way, the project was scheduled to have been completed by 2003 and would have been one of Frank Fasi’s numerous lasting legacies.

FTA Slates $55 Million for Honolulu Rail in '11; Agency Says Transit Project To Get $1.55 Billion

We knew something better would come along to write about on Groundhog Day than those silly online opinion surveys – and something did:

The Obama Administration has proposed to award Honolulu $55 million during fiscal year 2011 as a head start on a Full Funding Grant Agreement that eventually will reach $1.55 billion.

The Honolulu rail project is one of 27 major transit projects across the nation that would receive funding according to the President’s 2011 budget.

“These projects, planned and developed are crucial investments that will boost economic vitality in cities and towns across the country," said U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood (at right). "From New York City to Honolulu and areas in between, these projects will create jobs, diversify local transit options for consumers, and stimulate economic activity at a critical juncture in our continuing recovery."

Federal Transit Administrator Peter Rogoff (at left) said: “Projects like these are at the very heart of President Obama's agenda to clean up our environment, reduce our dependence on oil from overseas, and put people back to work. They will give our citizens a way out of punishing traffic jams and improve their quality of life."

Speaking to reporters after the announcement, Honolulu Mayor Mufi Hannemann said federal support for Honolulu rail is clear and urged Governor Linda Lingle to set aside whatever concerns she has about the project’s financial plan:

“We would really hope that she would start sending some positive messages and signals,” Hannemann said. “Whatever it is that’s holding her back, cast it aside for the good of the people. This is a train that will bring economic benefits for people for years and decades and generations to come.

"I’m very pleased that Federal Transit Administrator Peter Rogoff with Department of Transportation Secretary Ray Lahood has proclaimed this morning great confidence in Honolulu city rail transit initiative… Today’s show of financial support validates the financial analysis, the evaluations that have been put forward for many years, and certainly it could not come at a better time, especially when the chief executive of this state is expressing strong concerns and reservations about going forward.

“For the federal government to also say today that we are committing to one point five billion dollars towards that full funding agreement that we will sign by 2011 is the ultimate. It’s wonderful news. This is going to be one of the highest amounts or awards ever given to a city in America….

“The other news that I want to put out today again is that in the new criteria going forward for transportation projects under new starts funding, there’s going to be an emphasis on livable communities. There’s going to be a collaborative effort between (the Department of Housing and Urban Development) and (the Environmental Protection Administration) to identify those projects that will bring about green communities, livable communities and sustainability. And Honolulu will rank again very high, mark my words. Why? Waipahu, Pearl City, Aiea, Kalihi, Chinatown, eventually McCully, Moiliili will all be the recipients and beneficiaries of a transit-oriented development concept.

"They know this is an excellent project. If they didn’t believe that was so or if they believed that it was shaky, they would not have approved what they have approved and have announced today. So, good news for Honolulu, even better news for the state of Hawai`i, because this is going to benefit all of us in the state….

When asked how soon he would like the Governor to approve the FEIS, Hannemann answered: “It’s not on her desk yet, and we knew that, but the fact of the matter is, and Peter Rogoff reiterated it this morning, that 13 state agencies have already opined, have already given their comments and suggestions. We’re working very closely with them. We’ve been collaborating very closely with the Office of Environmental Quality Control, so the fact of the matter is there has been a lot of consultation going on. We believe it’s 99 percent done. We really would hope that she would start sending some positive messages and signals.

“You know how many states would love to hear what we heard today? This is unbelievable, that we got the good news even before the EIS was released from Washington, so that validates the fact that they know that we’re doing a good job and we brought it to this point that they’re willing to go out and say one point five billion. So I really believe the Governor, whatever it is that’s holding her back, cast it aside for the good of the people. This is not Mufi’s train. This is the train that will bring about economic benefits for the people for years and decades and generations to come….”

If It’s Another Meaningless, Unscientific Survey on Rail Transit, Today Must Be Groundhog Day

Call it further evidence that society and culture are on a dumbing-down track. Everywhere you look on the local media’s websites you find surveys – on Furlough Fridays, taxation, graffiti, rail transit, whatever.

“We really, truly, honestly, most assuredly do want to know what you think” is the message, but tiny type reminds you the results are not scientific and therefore are worthless. Example: A poll out there today gives visitors three options to vote on rail transit – two against and one for. Need we say more?

We will say more. The most recent scientific public opinion survey conducted on the Honolulu rail transit project found strong public support. We’ve mentioned the Q-Mark survey results several times, particularly on November 3 and November 6, and also noted how the media – which presumably are oh so interested in knowing what you think – incredibly have failed to report those results. The only mention the Honolulu Advertiser’s lead rail reporter has seen fit to give the poll was in a story that implied non-existent improprieties about the survey company.

Scientific polling is the only kind that matters, unlike these media surveys that attract hyper-active rail opponents like dogs attract fleas.

How To Lie With Statistics: Architects Are Trying To Squeeze Through the Eye of a Needle with a Claim At-Grade Rail Is as Safe as Elevated; Plus:

Advertiser Reporter Misquotes City Official

Let’s start with a few photographs in response to another tortured attempt by the local AIA chapter as reported in the Advertiser by Sean Hao to suggest at-grade rail transit is as safe as the elevated system Honolulu intends to build:

Fatality narrowly avoided in Phoenix at-grade rail crash.

These photos show accidents involving Phoenix Metro’s new at-grade system, which opened in December 2008. You don’t have to look long and hard to find many reports on crashes involving this at-grade rail system. Phoenix averaged one crash a week in its first year of operation. (About half of those collisions were along a mile and one-quarter strip in a dense part of Phoenix; the AIA wants Honolulu rail to run at-grade through densely-packed Chinatown.) Luckily, there were no fatalities, but that indeed was pure luck, as photos of a van wrapped around a utility pole suggest.

Today’s story in the Advertiser recalls a book graduate students in Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism were required to read way back when. Here’s part of a review of “How to Lie With Statistics” at Amazon.com:

“Although many of the examples used in the book are charmingly dated, the cautions are timeless. Statistics are rife with opportunities for misuse, from 'gee-whiz graphs' that add nonexistent drama to trends, to 'results' detached from their method and meaning, to statistics' ultimate bugaboo--faulty cause-and-effect reasoning.”

A generation ago, journalism students were cautioned about over-reliance on statistics tossed out by their sources. That caution seems to be missing today.

The Architects’ Futile Argument

The local architects want you to believe their preferred at-grade rail system is just as safe or even safer than the fully elevated system Honolulu intends to build. Just ask yourself: How can a train that crosses dozens of streets, crosswalks and intersections be as safe as a train that crosses none of them? It can’t be, no matter what statistics the architects want to push your way through the seemingly most gullible and/or complicit journalist in town. Which prompts the second major topic of today’s post:

Sean Hao’s Inaccuracies Revealed

Advertiser reporter Sean Hao’s journalistic integrity has become an issue in the paper’s coverage of the Honolulu rail project. The slant of his reporting – taken as a whole – has a decidedly anti-rail bent that’s revealed by what he chooses to highlight, whom to interview and what to ignore.

He ignored (and continues to ignore) the results of a City-sponsored public opinion survey scientifically conducted in September by local firm Q-Mark that revealed strong support for rail. His only mention of the poll has been about its cost and the fact that Q-Mark is not listed as a subsidiary of City contractor Parsons Brinkerhoff. That’s because Q-Mark is not a PB subsidiary.

Hao’s reporting for today’s story is an obvious continuation of his anti-rail slant – plus, it reveals a lack of enterprise and an inattention to accuracy, to wit:

• Sean Hao’s Selective Use of Quotes

Hao quotes architect Peter Vincent today and presumably obtained these quotes specifically for the safety story. He also quotes City Transportation Director Wayne Yoshioka, but Yoshioka’s quotes are old quotes – his remarks at a January 21 City Hall press conference. There’s nothing new from Yoshioka in response to Vincent’s statement that the City has “a skewed perspective” on safety.

I attended the January 21 press conference, recorded Yoshioka’s comments and transcribed them for a post here at Yes2Rail the next day. Both Yoshioka and APTA President William Millar addressed the safety issue at that event, but I have to believe Yoshioka would have said even more to refute architect Vincent had he been given the opportunity to do so. Hao appears to have simply used an old Yoshioka comment on safety that lacked the punch of a strong refutation he could have given to the architects’ recent at-grade assertions.

• Sean Hao’s Inaccurate Reporting

My video recording contains what Yoshioka actually said at the press conference. It's standard practice for both broadcast and print reporters to record interviews and press conferences to ensure accuracy, but accuracy eluded Sean Hao in this story. Here’s Hao’s reporting of Yoshioka quote in today’s story:

“You’re elevated. You’re completely separated from the roadways (and) you’re in a protected environment,” he said. “What incidents are we going to have as opposed to an at-grade transit that’s crossing active streets? That doesn’t make sense to me.”

Here’s what Yoshioka actually said on January 21. Not only is Sean Hao’s version inaccurate, the words and phrases he selectively chose to use eliminated much of Yoshioka’s strong description of at-grade rail's hazards:

“You’re elevated. You’re totally separated from the roadway. You’re in a protected environment and completely separated out…. What cars are flying at that level above the ground? And what people are flying through the air at that level above the ground? As opposed to an at-grade transit that’s crossing active streets with active vehicles turning in front of the train, with pedestrians crossing in front of the train. That (comparison) doesn’t seem to make logical sense to me.”

Putting quote marks around a newsmaker’s statements suggests only one thing – that this is exactly what he said. Hao did not accurately report Yoshioka’s remarks, and I’d bet the farm that he did not attempt to contact Yoshioka for fresh comments in response to architect Vincent's disparaging remarks about the City’s perspective on safety.

• Sean Hao Reports Half the Story

Deep in the story, reporter Hao gets around to mentioning the safety record of Phoenix’s new at-grade system, which completed its first year of service in December. Here’s what he wrote:

“No fatalities were reported during the first year of service, although the train was involved in several major accidents with autos.”

What Hao couldn’t bring himself to report was that Phoenix Metro experienced an accident a week in that year. By avoiding that fact, Hao misrepresents the record of the nation’s newest at-grade rail system – a fact easily accessed from numerous on-line reports by Phoenix news media.

When taken in its entirety, Hao's reporting on rail is highly suspect at best, and in his apparent determination to convince us at-grade is as safe as elevated, his reporting has taken a darker turn. Honolulu citizens must use common sense in assessing the architects' claims of at-grade safety. Unfortunately, Honolulu Advertiser readers must also be wary of the paper's reporting on the entire rail story.

3 More At-Grade Rail Myths Debunked, Plus AIA Internal Poll Shows Low At-Grade Rail Support

This makes the third consecutive day we’ve focused on what we call the myths about at-grade transit that the AIA Honolulu chapter dispensed to an overflow crowd at the State Capitol last week.

The architects’ passion for their at-grade rail transit proposal is obvious, and so is their lack of expertise. We've been pointing that out this week; for the City rail project’s responses to myths 1-8, please see our 1/27 and 1/28 posts. Let’s move ahead to the final three myths identified during the Capitol “hearing.”

3 More Myths Meet the Truth

• Myth 9—At-grade rail is better for Transit-Oriented Development.
The Truth: Not so. The number of riders a station attracts is key to TOD. The higher ridership of an elevated system indicates greater opportunities for TOD. If at-grade transit is so beneficial to adjacent business districts, why is Hotel Street still the way it is, years after cars were banned in favor of bus-only usage of that street?

• Myth 10—It will take only six months for a supplemental rail transit Environmental Impact Statement that includes a route with at-grade rail sections.
The Truth: This is completely false and misleading in the extreme. The Federal Transit Administration has indicated any decision to change the alignment from elevated to even partially at-grade would require a totally new EIS. It’s taken the City five years to get to where it is now, and renewing the EIS would require much longer than six months and jeopardize federal funding.

• Myth 11—The Draft Environmental Impact Statement is deficient because it does not address the five transit technologies in the federal Notice of Intent.
The Truth: The technology selection process in the DEIS covers the same technology choices described in the Notice of Intent. The Notice states: “Comments on reducing the range of technologies under consideration are encouraged,” which clearly recognizes that fewer technologies may be under consideration at the time of the DEIS.

What Do Architects Really Want?

A few architects within the AIA Honolulu chapter have voiced these myths and have implied widespread agreement within the entire architect community. They don’t go out of their way to disabuse audiences of that impression, and it’s another regrettable example of AIA “airbrushing.”

We first called attention to the tactic two weeks ago with regard to AIA’s airbrushing out of crosswalks on Hotel Street in front of an artist’s rendition of an at-grade train – presumably to make the train seem less threatening.

This new “airbrushing” involves the spinning of the chapter’s internal survey of its members’ views on rail. You can visit the chapter’s website to see how little support at-grade rail actually had in that survey. Highlight the Advocacy menu on the chapter's home page, then click on View AIA Transit Page and scroll down to “AIA Members-Only Poll Helped Inform AIA Transit Position.”

The results are remarkable in light of the chapter’s impassioned advocacy of at-grade rail. Using the figures in the poll summary reveals only 5.3% of the chapter’s membership responded in favor of at-grade rail. Larger percentages favored elevated rail (6.3%) and below-grade rail (8.4%).

Another way to parse these numbers is that nearly three times as many respondents favored grade-separated rail (96) compared to at-grade (35).

So how can the AIA Rail Task Force members go before the community with a straight face and say at-grade rail is such a favorite among local architects?

Let’s call that one Myth #12.

12 Noon Update: A reader had a good suggestion -- to give the survey's percentages in favor of the various rail options. Here they are:

• At-grade -- 24.3%

• Below-grade -- 38.2%

• Elevated guideway -- 28.5%

• It does not matter -- 2.8%

• N/A -- 6.3%

The reader also pointed out some additional AIA "airbrushing." The chapter's explanation of the poll results combined the at-grade and below-grade numbers to conclude that 62.5% of the respondents favored a mode other than elevated rail. The chapter did not bother to explain that at-grade rail actually had fewer votes than elevated rail! Given the options, 75.7% of the respondents chose not to select at-grade rail--a remarkable outcome in light of the chapter's campaign in favor of that option.

Continuing To Dissect AIA Myths on Rail Transit

Yesterday’s post started the dissection of the architects’ myths about the Honolulu rail project that they disseminated 10 days ago, but we’re wondering whether “myth” is the right word. The architects are trying to stop Honolulu's progress in building a fast, frequent and safe elevated rail system by promulgating these so-called myths. With such big stakes, a word like “falsehood” seems to fit the intent better.

But we’ll stick with “myth” as we examine four more AIA statements they made about their at-grade rail scheme in the January 18th State Capitol “hearing.”

More AIA Myths Meet the Truth

• Myth 5—A combination at-grade/elevated rail system can carry as many riders as an elevated rail system.
The Truth: Not even close to true. At-grade trains can be no longer than the shortest city block to ensure they don't block cross streets, and in Honolulu, the shortest blocks are in Chinatown. At-grade trains therefore can have only two vehicles attached together. Elevated trains can be twice as long because they’re completely free of surface considerations. In addition, because they have drivers at the controls, at-grade trains must have greater separation between them than automated elevated trains. Shorter and less frequent trains means much lower carrying capacity.

• Myth 6—At-grade rail can be built with a track bed 2 feet deep or less and 8 to 10 feet wide.
The Truth: No. To construct an at-grade train route would require digging a trench for a two-lane track bed approximately 30 feet wide and up to 5 feet deep continuously along the route. This would require additional right-of-way acquisitions and relocating most or all underground utilities – water, sewer, storm drain, electrical, gas, telecommunications, etc.

• Myth 7—A hybrid system that combines at-grade and elevated rail can be built in six years.
The Truth: This is highly debatable, since at-grade rail construction isn’t necessarily faster than elevated. At-grade requires more utility relocations and results in more traffic disruptions and can lengthen construction times. For example, a 4.9-mile at-grade section in the Rainier Valley segment of Seattle’s light rail line that opened last year took about five years to complete – more than a year per mile.

• Myth 8—Building portions of Honolulu’s system at-grade won’t require significant additional right-of-way acquisitions.
The Truth: No. Building at-grade rail correctly is not small-scale construction. Street corners must be widened, driveways relocated and many streets widened to compensate for the loss of traffic lanes. Right-of-way acquisitions would be required from businesses and homes next to the route, creating a much greater impact on the community than elevated rail.

We’ll wrap up our list of at-grade transit Myths vs. The Truth in tomorrow’s post.

Dissecting AIA Myths about Honolulu Rail Project

The dust that had settled after last week’s Governor Linda Lingle-sponsored AIA “hearing" in the State Capitol on rail transit was stirred up again yesterday with Mayor Mufi Hannemann’s assertion that the Governor opposes rail. (The Mayor's Tuesday press conference can be seen on YouTube: Part 1 and Part 2.)

The architects had criticized the Honolulu rail project and pushed their own version of rail – at-grade transit, which from all appearances has attracted the Governor’s attention. If the Governor “believes (the architects) have some valid concerns that we need to look into,” according to an aide, it’s time to closely examine the AIA’s statements at the hearing. We call the City rail project’s assessment of those statements:

AIA Myths Meet the Truth

• Myth 1—Building 10 miles of Honolulu’s rail system at-grade would save $1.8 billion.
The Truth: It’s highly unlikely that could be the case, since the AIA didn’t figure in the considerable costs of at-grade transit, such as relocating underground utility lines that would be dug up, additional right-of-way acquisitions and the cost of delaying construction. The Mayor says that delay could add an additional $200 million a year. Totally ignored by the AIA are at-grade’s impact costs on the community – safety hazards for vehicles and pedestrians and the inevitable congestion increases due to dedicating traffic lanes to rail.

• Myth 2—Operating costs are lower for at-grade rail.
The Truth: Not so. At-grade rail requires more trains because they operate at slower speeds. What’s more, they can’t be automated since they’d be in the mix of traffic, so each train would require a driver. Do that on all trains 20 hours a day and you jack up operating costs big time. The AIA’s “transit experts” showed how little they really know about transit on this myth alone!

• Myth 3—At-grade trains are safer.
The Truth: This one is a real whopper, and something elementary school children can figure out. Put trains on the ground, run them through intersections, over crosswalks and along pedestrian sidewalks and the inevitable result is an accident. Make that plural; Phoenix’s new at-grade system racked up a crash a week in its first year of operation. Grade-separated transit is the “gold standard” of public transportation (Honolulu’s will be elevated) for the obvious reason trains have their own right of way completely separated from traffic.

• Myth 4—At-grade rail is nearly as fast as elevated rail.

The Truth: Once again, myth meets common sense. Check out this map of downtown Honolulu showing the proposed at-grade route of the AIA’s New Jersey-based consultant (in red) and the City’s elevated train route (in blue). We’ve used it here before because it does such a good job destroying this “fast at-grade” myth. Imagine a train moving diamondhead on Hotel Street. It comes to Richards and makes a hard right, goes one block makai and hangs a left onto busy King Street. It continues on Kapiolani at the merge with King. On the return trip, it turns right at that merge onto Alapai Street, then left onto busy Beretania past the Capitol, then left onto Richards and right back onto Hotel. How in blazes can a train on that route slowed by vehicle and pedestrian traffic even come close to the same elapsed time as elevated trains traveling on the blue route? Answer: They can’t!

And so it goes with the myths promulgated by local architects who want you to believe they’re transit experts, too. We’ll cover more of their myths in the days to come.

Legislature-Created Construction Task Force Says Honolulu Rail Top Priority, Urges FEIS Acceptance

An advisory body of local business and community leaders created by the 2009 Legislature recommends building the Honolulu rail transit project as its top priority to provide “a significant boost to the state’s economy.”

The state's Construction Industry Task Force released its findings this week and puts the Honolulu rail project at the top of its priority list:

The task force considers the Honolulu Rail Transit project to be its top priority. The project is expected to create 10,000 jobs during its construction phase – 4,000 jobs in construction alone – and provide a significant boost to the state’s economy. Recommendations include:

• Encouraging state approval of the rail project’s Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) as expeditiously as possible;

• Asking the Legislature to preserve the county surcharge to fund Honolulu’s rail project;

• Encouraging the City & County of Honolulu to establish a semi-autonomous Public Transit Authority, which would oversee and manage construction, operations and expansion of the rail system; and

• Along with the Honolulu Rail Transit project, the construction of the University of Hawaii’s West Oahu campus will have a huge economic stimulus benefit to our economy.

Other priorities are workforce housing, improved efficiencies in the state’s procurement and permitting processes to reduce project delays and accelerating regulatory approvals and permits for large renewable energy projects.

The task force is chaired by Warren Haruki of Grove Farm and Maui Land & Pineapple. Other members are Perry Artates, Hawaii Operating Engineers Industry Stabilization Fund; Stanford Carr, Stanford Carr Development; Tom Foley, Thomas M. Foley, LLC; Michael Fujimoto, HPM Building Supply; Don Horner, First Hawaiian Bank; Rick Kahle, former director, State Department of Taxation; Ray Kamikawa, Chun Kerr Dodd Beaman & Wong; Micah Kane, former director, State Department of Hawaiian Home Lands; Glen Kaneshige, Nordic PCL Construction; Paul Oshiro, Alexander & Baldwin, Inc.; Bruce Robinson, Gay and Robinson; John Sabas, Sabas & Associates; Harry Saunders, Castle & Cooke Hawaii; Jeff Stone, The Resort Group, and Ron Taketa, Hawaii Carpenters Union.

Editorial: Elevated Rail Best Deal for Taxpayers; Also Commuters, Drivers and Property Owners

The string of editorials supporting the City’s plan to build an elevated rail system remains intact with today’s Honolulu Advertiser offering. While the headline focuses on cost, the editorial goes far beyond that single issue. It pretty much blasts every argument the local chapter of the American Institute of Architects uses in its dubious promotional campaign for an at-grade system.

For instance, imagine as the editorial does what putting at-grade rail would be like on a six-lane street like Kapiolani Boulevard, the AIA’s New Jersey-based consultant's idea that the local architects apparently have endorsed. A minimum of two lanes would have tracks laid on them in their scheme – presumably the outside lanes for discussion’s sake. Would drivers then be denied use of those lanes? To keep the trains moving, you’d have to assume so, which means six lanes of traffic would be reduced to four. (The map shows the proposed at-grade route in red, the City's elevated line in blue. Guess which one would move commuters more efficiently and quickly through town.)

Then imagine how drivers would make turns right and left from Kapiolani onto intersecting streets such as Ward Avenue, Pensacola, Piikoi and Cooke. They’d have to cross over the tracks and through the pathway of the at-grade trains – a maneuver that has resulted in dozens of vehicle-train crashes in the first year of Phoenix’s new at-grade system.

Also for the sake of discussion, let’s say the double tracks are in the center lanes, which would require passengers to wait for a “walk” signal (or go against the light) to cross the outside two lanes to go to and from the at-grade system’s “stations.” That hardly seems conducive to building ridership.

And if six lanes were to be retained for traffic while adding two tracks of rail, Kapiolani would have to be widened. Do you see any way that could happen without taking dozens of properties along Kapiolani Boulevard alone?

The editorial also dismantles the AIA’s arguments on expense and timing, issues covered in our two most recent posts here on Thursday and Friday – the summaries of the City’s response to the AIA’s hearing in a news conference. The editorial’s final sentence wraps up the issues nicely:

“If we’re going to spend billions of dollars on a rail system to handle Oahu’s long-term transit needs, we should at least buy one that’s going to work.”

City’s News Conference, continued: AIA’s Transit Experience Lacking; Lingle Should Accept FEIS; At-Grade Safety Much Worse than Elevated Rail

Last evening’s post focused on the remarks of APTA President William Millar at yesterday afternoon’s City Hall news conference. Today we continue with the comments of Department of Transportation Director Wayne Yoshioka as he addressed comments earlier in the week by architects about their proposed at-grade rail system for Honolulu.

Yoshioka focused on the thoroughness of the environmental process. As we noted last evening, he began by noting his frustration with the attention the architects’ have attracted (all his comments are recorded quotes or have been edited slightly to delete non-essential phrases):

"The frustration that I have is that, while I have great respect for architects…., we have a group of architects that clearly are not transit professionals, did not ever build a transit system, and here is our project led by our Chief of Rapid Transit Toru Hayamasu who’s been in this business for over 30 years, and we have a line of exceptional professionals who have tremendous years of experience in transit. These are the experts, and yet, we have a forum (Monday’s hearing) and much ado about this forum with a small group of architects who have no transit experience whatsoever. And it seems people are giving credence to an 'alternative' brought up by this group of architects who have no transit experience.

Transit Qualifications

“My primary frustration is an ‘alternative’ raised by an inexperienced group of individuals. They may be great architects and great professionals, and I’m sure they are, but they are not transit experts. On the other hand, we have years of experience and five years of intense effort on this project, detailed design, detailed analysis against a guy named Phil Craig who says he knows what he’s talking about because he has walked the corridor. He’s been here a couple times…. What we really have to focus on here is that we have to put our faith in the fact that the effort has been put forth by the City with a very professional team, thorough analysis, very very thorough results, and we’re that close to getting this thing done. We’re going to see this process through. I know that people keep asking us when the Final EIS is going to come out. It’ll come out when the FTA tells us it’s ready to come out, because we’re not going to short-change the environmental process. We’re going to address the issues as we go through them, and we will come out with a solid Final Environmental Impact statement.

Environmental Process

“We’re very close, and I think we can get there in the near future. When that comes out, we really sincerely hope the Governor will be expeditious in reviewing it and accepting it. This is not an ‘approval’ process. All she has to do is accept this thing as a valid environmental document, and we believe this is a valid environmental document. So again, we encourage the process to move along. We will not short-change the environmental process, and we believe we’ve done all the work necessary. We don’t need to rehash this. Alternatives were looked at in the Alternatives Analysis. Let’s move on and let’s get this thing done.”

City Managing Director Kirk Caldwell also addressed the environmental process after Yoshioka’s comments:

“We cannot allow this small group of architects to come forward and throw out an ‘alternative’ that’s no alternative whatsoever and that was looked at and voted on, and we moved forward. One thing we’ve requested of the Governor is that politics not come into this. We’re walking up the steps to Washington Place (the Governor’s residence). We have the FEIS in its final stages. We will answer every last question raised by any agency that asks it. The Mayor has instructed us to leave no question unanswered and cut no corners. If it takes a little longer, it takes a little longer.

“But we do hope that when we get to the stop of the stairs and knock on the door of Washington Place and we deliver the FEIS as approved by the FTA to her, that politics will not be part of this and that she will look at it in the same way that any FEIS should be looked at. That’s not going backward to the first step and asking should there be another alternative. That is not what is supposed to occur in this review, and we hope that she’s perhaps learned this lesson after the failure of the Superferry and the fact that no EIS was done.…. We see our kids furloughed. We don’t want to see rail furloughed. It is our best hope for true job creation. We’ve heard the Governor say in her State of the State that the focus is going to be job creation. We heard her yesterday on many of your channels saying she’s looking to the State Legislature for ideas on how to create jobs. This is that idea! It is the best idea. It is truly the only idea that will create jobs now. And so let’s go forward. Let’s get the FEIS done, and let’s get the Governor to then accept it."

Reporter’s question: “There were two safety-related issues that the AIA raised…. One, there’s an absence (in the City’s plans) of screen doors at the stations… And on a per-mile basis (inaudible but related to accident rate comparison of at-grade vs elevated transit).”

Yoshioka: “Let’s go back logically and look at this. You’re elevated. You’re totally separated from the roadway. You’re in a protected environment and completely separated out…. What cars are flying at that level above the ground? And what people are flying through the air at that level above the ground? As opposed to an at-grade transit that’s crossing active streets with active vehicles turning in front of the train, with pedestrians crossing in front of the train. That (comparison) doesn’t seem to make logical sense to me.

“Platform screen doors are a possibility. Right now, I think the station designs have not shown it, but that’s always a potential, and I think that will go along with the further design of the stations. The stations have not gone through final design yet, so that’s an issue that can be addressed during final design of the stations.”

APTA President William Millar: “As far as a claim someone might make that a sealed corridor (grade-separated transit) is less safe than an at-grade system, experience does not show that. Certainly the best safety records in rail transportation are either when you have a complete subway or complete elevated system. That is the safest kind of system to have. The at-grade street crossings, as we’re learning, automobile drivers for whatever reason in many cities try to race the train to the intersection or something, and they lose! And so again, statistics are clear. Houston may be the poster child for this, but you can go to Los Angeles, you can go to many other communities and find the same set of problems. So I don’t understand the factual basis for a question like that. It’s certainly not in my experience."

Reporter’s question: “Any concern about the Governor planning to hold more hearings when the FEIS comes out?”

Managing Director Caldwell: “We’ve heard mention that perhaps they would hearings, also that the City Council has talked about holding hearings. Our position is that we’re not opposed to them. We do believe that, while it’s not part of the process and there’s no requirement of Chapter 343 of Hawaii Revised Statutes and under the federal due process to hold such hearings, if they wanted to hold hearings we’d be participants in them. But we don’t believe that those hearings should be a reason to hold up approval of the FEIS. If they want to expeditiously hold hearings and have received comments that are directed specifically at the FEIS and not revisiting issues that were heard in 2005, that is something that we’d participate in at the table and cooperate and share this information that you hear today.”

'Positive' News Challenged

Although the Honolulu Star-Bulletin prominently displayed a story on Tuesday that the Governor is “not sold on elevated project,” the paper did not send a reporter to this news conference. The Honolulu Advertiser’s reporter asked the safety-related questions, above, and nothing else. Honolulu’s four network-affiliated television stations sent three news crews among them, but only two of them aired coverage of the news conference at 6 pm. The others waited until their 10 pm newscasts, having missed the higher-rated 6 pm shows.

National Transit Leader Calls Honolulu Rail Plan 'Gold Standard' of Transit, Says Elevated Rail Is Safer, More Reliable and More Attractive to Ride

Wayne Yoshioka, Kirk Caldwell and William Millar (L-R)

A City Hall press conference today managed to refute much of the AIA Chapter’s presentation at its Monday “hearing” in the Capitol, but beyond that, it was a veritable smorgasbord of quotes on why Honolulu’s proposed elevated rail system is right for our community.

American Public Transit Association President William Millar was the primary speaker and was joined by Honolulu Managing Director Kirk Caldwell and Wayne Yoshioka, director of the Department of Transportation Services. Millar is in town for the APTA group’s annual Business Member Board of Governor’s meeting.

I’m not sure how much of the three speakers’ comments will get through the media filter. The Star-Bulletin didn’t seem to be represented, and the Advertiser sent its usual super-rail-skeptic reporter. It's two hours after the 6 pm news as I write this, and the three TV outlets who were present have yet to post a story on their websites. Maybe there was TOO MUCH information for them to absorb, and there was plenty.

We’ll wait a day or so to post Wayne Yoshioka’s main thrust, which was a refutation of the AIA’s Monday presentation. Our focus here is on Mr. Millar’s extensive comments on elevated vs at-grade transit, safety, cost and the environmental process. The following statements are exact quotes in nearly all cases, with a few non-essential phrases deleted.

Going Elevated

“Can you build public transit on the surface? Of course, you can, but it becomes a completely different project and will serve a different purpose than what you have proposed here. Instead of it being a relatively high-speed safe system for commuters, (an at-grade system) will take on more of a local circulator characteristic. It’s not a bad idea, but as we’ve learned from Phoenix and a number of other cities, instead of carrying a large number of people, it will carry a much lower number of passengers.

Safety and Speed

“Street running will also bring with it its own set of complications by being mixed with other traffic and cross streets. One need only look at some of the experience in Phoenix, but probably the classic case is Houston, where regrettably there have been a lot of interface with automobiles, much to the detriment of the automobiles as well as to the rail system. So there have been many many accidents, injuries, property damage and things of that sort.

“Even if you’re skillful enough and lucky enough to be able to design your street portion if you were to go that way…you then are going to be slowing down the automobile traffic. I don’t pretend to know and understand your city totally, but it doesn’t look to me like slowing down automobile traffic is something people would expect or want. So I think that would be a problem.

Environmental Process

“I think in terms of process, you need to be realistic about this. I was reading in one of your local papers…and it quoted somebody as saying, ‘Gee, if we make this change, it’ll simply delay the project by six months.’ Ladies and gentlemen, that is not true, and I tell you from experience every time you make a significant change in a project, particularly a project that has gone through the amount of study that this one’s gone through…if you were to take several miles of your right of way and suddenly take it from being an elevated to a street operation, you’re going to have to go back through most of that if not all of the environmental process. Why? It’s not only the environmental laws themselves that are written to protect people and protect the decisions that are made. You can’t go through an environmental process with one set of assumptions and then change a key assumption and not have to go through the process again….

“It also will change the character, as I said earlier, of this particular program. Instead of being a relatively high-speed safe elevated automated system, as soon as you come down to street grade you’re going to not be able to be an automated system anymore. You’re going to be adding drivers to the system. That is going to change the cost characteristics of the system, and the list goes on and on. Slower speeds mean you’ll need more vehicles to carry the same number of people. Of course, that really won’t be a problem because you won’t have the same number of riders. You’ll have many fewer riders than you had before (as an elevated system). Many fewer riders means there’s less benefit for the project….

“We find in city after city, the people who benefit from it of course are first the people who use the system, but the second biggest group of beneficiaries are motorists. So if you have fewer people riding the system and more people driving – well, you figure it out. (An at-grade system) isn’t going to be as beneficial as it possibly could. So you need to move very carefully in that area. From personal experience, I know that changes in the environmental process can lead to years and many many millions of dollars more of study.

Employment

“We are in the worst recession the nation has faced since the 1930s. We need jobs and we need jobs now. A project like this that is very near its planning and environmental process and just about ready to get the federal approval is a project that could move forward quickly that could generate hundreds if not thousands of construction jobs, never mind all the supply industry jobs that come along with this. If there was ever time in this country and in this community when you needed jobs, now is the time, and you have a project ready to go.

Reduced Cost

“There’s another benefit to going forward that makes a lot of sense to me, and that is, because of the bad times in the construction industry, we’re seeing all over the country…the bids from the private sector to build these projects are coming in much cheaper than the engineering estimates. It depends on the project, but 20 percent cheaper is not an unusual number we’re seeing across the country. Now that won’t last, our economy will get better, people will get back to work eventually, and the cost of construction will continue to rise. So the jobs area strikes me as something you need to consider here.

Federal Funding

“Finally…in Washington where I do most of my work there is intense competition for money to do the kinds of projects you’re talking about here in Honolulu…. I’m sure there’s at least 40 different projects around the country that are in what’s called the New Starts pipeline. That’s projects that have done their initial planning, are well into their environmental work or perhaps even through their environmental work. The Congress is unable to fund all those projects, so there’s great competition for that, and in fact, here in Honolulu you have some experience with that. The last time you moved forward with as rail project that fell apart at the end, you had hundreds of millions of dollars that did not come to Honolulu that when someplace else…. The people of Salt Lake City are very grateful to you all, because when your project failed, the money that was to come here to Honolulu in part when to Salt Lake. It went to several other cities as well…. I guess the question I’d really ask you is, do you really want your federal tax dollars that are scheduled to come to Honolulu to go to somewhere else? Because there are plenty of somewhere-elses that would be happy to take that money off your hands.”

We’ll turn to Wayne Yoshioka’s comments soon. Here’s a taste:

"The frustration that I have is that, while I have great respect for architects…., we have a group of architects that clearly are not transit professionals, did not ever build a transit system, and here is our project led by our Chief of Rapid Transit Toru Hayamasu who’s been in this business for over 30 years, and we have a line of exceptional professionals who have tremendous years of experience in transit. These are the experts, and yet, we have a forum (Monday’s hearing) and much ado about this forum with a small group of architects who have no transit experience whatsoever. And it seems people are giving credence to an 'alternative' brought up by this group of architects who have no transit experience.”

Come back soon for more.

LA Residents Fighting for Grade-Separated Transit: At-Grade Rail Unsafe for Kids, Elderly, All

You have to wonder why some of us don’t bother to learn the lessons others have learned elsewhere. In the midst of our community debate over at-grade rail vs elevated rail, other communities are determined to run their tracks anywhere but at-grade.

In Los Angeles, residents appalled by at-grade rail’s poor safety record are fighting tooth and nail to prevent the City’s Metropolitan Transit Authority from building the Crenshaw Boulevard line at-grade, and they’re winning. From the Fix Expo Campaign’s website:

“For the first time in the history of the current process, MTA will now conduct a study and identify a funding strategy to keep the entire Crenshaw Blvd portion of the Crenshaw-LAX Line in a subway. A full Crenshaw Blvd. subway would allow our children, elderly and the public at-large to walk/drive across the street without having to negotiate with 225-ton trains….”

But here in Honolulu, architects in the AIA Hawaii chapter’s Transit Task Force are campaigning for at-grade transit through the heart of town. They want to build the system at ground level in the mix of pedestrians, cars, trucks, taxis, bicycles, motorcycles, skaters, scooters and Segway pilots.

Safety is #1

LA citizens understand the safety issue and Honolulu architects don’t. Anyone who isn't dazzled by the architects’ vision of planning purity can see that at-grade rail systems are more hazardous to the public welfare than grade-separated systems. LA residents want a subway, which they believe is the right kind of grade-separation transit for their community.

For financial and aesthetic reasons, Honolulu intends to achieve grade separation by elevating the rail line. Going underground in Honolulu would be prohibitively expensive, but beyond the cost, it would be unthinkable to build our core transit link underground below one of the most beautiful places on Earth. Doing so would be like draping blankets over paintings in The Louvre.

Regarding Aesthetics

The architects want you to believe a 30-foot-tall elevated guideway would be an abomination, while 300-foot high-rise buildings aren’t. They’re like stage magicians who attract your attention by waving one hand around so you don’t see the other hand stealthily setting up the trick. “Don’t look at the high-rises we’ve built,” they say. “Just look at this narrow canyon between them and how terrible it would be to put anything in it.”

It’s looks and sounds hypocritical, but whatever it is, they take it even further. The architects insist that the narrow view planes they’re intent on preserving are more important than the poor safety record of at-grade systems compared to grade-separated rail. Without any doubt whatsoever, at-grade rail in Honolulu would result in accidents, injuries and possibly deaths. Why wouldn't it? That's what happens everywhere at-grade is built.

In other words, preserving the makai view down Bishop Street is more important than building an elevated system that is virtually accident-free. They’re trying to convince the public (including the Governor) that building at-grade on Hotel Street through Chinatown’s crowded sidewalks and cross streets is preferable to putting a 30-foot-tall structure in our city.

That’s simply bogus. Citizens concerned about pedestrian safety and surface traffic congestion, which would increase with at-grade rail, must stand up to the building and interior designers who are passing themselves off as transit experts.

More better Honolulu architects use their expertise to integrate our elevated rail system into the urban landscape, including transit-oriented development. That’s something they may understand. Transit – not so much.

Honolulu Has USA’s 2nd Worst Traffic Bottleneck, Yet the AIA Still Wants To Build At-Grade Trolley

Nobody has to tell Oahu’s road-weary car commuters what The Daily Beast just confirmed: The H-1 Freeway is the Second Worst bottlenecked metropolitan highway in the country.

The H-1 experience is worse than the worst highway in the New York City region, worse than the worst in San Francisco, Washington, DC, Seattle, Chicago, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Minneapolis-St. Paul and everywhere else in the country except the Hollywood Freeway in Los Angeles.

Knowing presumably that we have tremendous commuting problems for drivers on our space-tight island, what does the local American Institute of Architecture chapter want to build? Not a fast, high-capacity rail system designed to move large numbers of commuters and therefore allow them to bypass the H-1 bottleneck.

That’s not what the local architects want. Instead, they are strongly advocating a people-mover – something closer to a trolley than a true commuter-serving rail system.

A trolley is what you'd have to call the AIA’s proposal for an at-grade rail line through downtown Honolulu. Trains traveling east on Hotel Street would be required to make right-angle turns at Richards Street, one block later at King and Richards, again eventually at the Kapiolani and South intersection, at the intersection of Alapai and Beretania, at Richards again at Beretania and finally at Richards/Hotel. This map shows that tortured route with six turns of close to 90 degrees.

Pedestrians might be able to walk fast enough to keep up with a train/trolley on this route, and if they couldn’t walk that fast, they undoubtedly could keep pace in a slow jog.

That’s not what Honolulu needs to address its commuting problems – no more than a baseball team caught in a batting slump would need new uniforms to cure its problems. Honolulu requires a true and attractive alternative to driving, a system to move 100,000 or more people a day quickly, efficiently, reliably and safely through our urban corridor.

The AIA’s proposal is the equivalent of dressing that ball club in new shirts. Its people-mover can’t do what Honolulu needs for reasons you’ll find among this blog’s many posts, but if you want to be pointed somewhere, you might want to spend some time at our January 15th post, below.