Two movements are currently under way concerning Honolulu's mass transit project. Mayor Mufi Hannemann, with the city Department of Transportation Services and its contracted consulting team following his lead, is pursuing a "damn the torpedoes" course of action aimed at keeping to the schedule but narrowing the competition. On the other hand, the Stop Rail Now movement continues its well-funded effort to gather enough signatures to place a referendum blocking rail transit on this November's ballot. Both efforts deserve to be criticized.

The anti-rail group probably has few adherents west of Aloha Stadium. The mayor rightly states that they offer no real solutions for commuters. Their vehicle-oriented approach to everything flies in the face of the reality of $4.00+ per gallon gasoline prices while transit ridership increases nation-wide. If the signatures goal is not met by August, there remains an unanswered question as to whether or not the campaign can continue, possibly forcing a special election if the goal is eventually met-a cost to taxpayers, according to the mayor, of $1.5-2 million.

Mayor Hannemann, so far unable to gain five votes in the city council for his "steel wheels on steel rails" technology preference, is proceeding as if the council is of no consequence. Briefings given at the city-sponsored Construction Workshop in June left 300+ infrastructure contractors and other attendees with the impression that a request for proposals (RFP) for the transit stations, maintenance and storage yard, and guideway will show preliminary designs based on a steel wheels on steel rails system. No mention was made of a transit center, e.g., retail, parking, other functions, in the stations discussion, and only one parking facility was briefed with 1,500-2,000 stalls at Pearl Highlands. The 45-acre yard, already planned for the sloping site below Leeward Community College, will require excavation of 350,000 cubic yards of dirt to create a level surface rather than, for example, placing it on flat land near the East Kapolei end of the line.  Based on earlier presentations, the guideway design will have a cross-section of 26 feet or more and will require low walls for noise mitigation as well as higher noise barriers for specific locations. This guideway is not only at least five feet wider than what would be required for magnetic levitation (mag-lev) or conventional monorail systems but would, unlike the others, be solid across and require considerably more steel and concrete material for its construction.

If the council approves an RFP for a guideway with a minimum width of 26 feet, it will in effect eliminate other technologies from the competition by taking away one of their major advantages. This is good for the mayor, construction contractors, and unions because it creates a need for more materials and jobs, which likely will translate into more votes. This, however, is bad for the taxpayers because it will raise the cost per mile for the guideway and later result in higher operations and maintenance (O&M) costs.

Using the Mitsubishi-Itochu HSST mag-lev-the author's preference for technology-as an example, its supplier believes that guideway construction savings of $460-480 million can be realized for the 20-mile minimum operable segment (MOS). Translating those savings into additional guideway construction as part of the MOS could mean earlier completion of a complete airport alignment (rather than just a spur) or extension of the guideway to West Kapolei or to the University of Hawaii Manoa campus. No jobs would be lost if the project applies the city's estimate of 4,700 construction jobs per year. The taxpayers would just get more guideway sooner. For O&M, despite about a ten percent increase for electricity to elevate the mag-lev train above the guideway, virtually friction-free operations will yield about $15-20 million savings per year against the city's estimates. To reiterate mag-lev advantages from an earlier column, the HSST provides the added bonuses (over steel on steel) of a little faster speed and much quieter noise levels without the need for (additional cost) noise mitigation measures.

So the questions remain:  Will the city council insist upon approving only construction RFP specifications general enough to leave the technology competition open to all interested suppliers or "look the other way" as the city tailors the RFP for its favored steel on steel systems? Will area council members Todd Apo and Nestor Garcia reconsider their previous position to limit the competition? Perhaps the question that really needs to be answered is why the current competition is not open when the 1992 competition allowed all interested suppliers to make bids? The bloggers say, "Follow the money." I hope they are wrong. Rather than accept a decision that could be costly to taxpayers as well as the environment, Chair Barbara Marshall should demand that the technology bill be recalled for a full vote by the city council.

---

Social Bookmarks:

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (Registered users only)

I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment