Honolulutraffic News

Honolulutraffic.com

Offering cost-effective ways to reduce traffic congestion in Honolulu

The case against rail

Honolulu is a city that is falling apart in front of our eyes.

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?

The sewer lines and water mains are is a very poor state and there is a billion dollar backlog in replacements and maintenance.
Honolulu pavements are among the worst in the nation and all the current administrator does is patch them.
Honolulu is threatened with huge penalties by the EPA and retrofit bills for all its wastewater treatment plans, which do not include secondary treatment.
Honolulu's solid waste management is simply mismanagement and postponement.
Bridges, culverts and other infrastructure need regular inspections, maintenance and in many cases, replacement.
Waianae needs a bypass road. Leeward Oahu needs roadways.
Traffic congestion is stifling our economy and life style. Honolulu has too many bottlenecks and uncoordinated traffic lights.

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

Monday's rail battle on Rick Hamada now on podcast

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.

June 18, 2008.

Star-Bulletin: "Honolulu’s traffic among worst in U.S.":

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.

Let's put transit ridership increases in perspective:

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.

June 17, 2008.

Honda rolls out new zero-emission car

This news of a zero-emission automobile is likely to send the anti-auto crowd into a total tizzy as will the coming introduction of Hyundai i30 diesel (already in Europe) that gets 60 mpg and has very low emissions. All this on top of the news of inroads being made by hybrids and plug-ins must be most disheartening. After all, what the anti-auto people do not like about cars is that they are for individuals instead of the "masses." With cars having less emissions and less energy use per passenger mile what are going to be their new arguments against the auto?

HOT lanes will be like school's out all year:

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.

HOT lanes will provide this 25 percent.

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.

June 15, 2008.

Abercrombie lies about Stop Rail Now:

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.

June 14, 2008.

Stunning: Contra Costa Times editorializes against rail:

Under the headline "Boondoggle Express," the Contra Costa Times wrote the following on Thursday:

"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.

June 5, 2008.

Great coverage of Stop Rail Now volunteers on Channel 8:

As part of their story on Rail Ads Stir Questions of City's Use of Tax Dollars, Channel 8 had the following on Tuesday,

"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.

June 3, 2008.

Misunderstanding the BRT aspect of the HOT BRT proposal:

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.

June 1, 2008.

The other costs of being railroaded:

Read the today’s Advertiser story “189 Hawaii properties in transit's path” carefully. In particular, pay attention to the following section:

“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.

May 28, 2008.

The alternatives to rail defined:

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.

Here's our revised plan, the HOT BRT Alternative, which includes a discussion of revised costs.

May 24, 2008.

Airport back in the rail plan, but how?

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.

May 21, 2008.

Transportation funding crisis spreads to cities:

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."

It is now two years later and little has happened.

A recent article in U.S. News and World Report, Mass Transit Systems Have a Hard Time Paying the Bills, details what is happening to various transit agencies across the nation.

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

May 18, 2008.

Rick Hamada Show every Monday for transit debate:

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.

Click here for the podcast for last Monday with Dr. Panos Prevedouros and Steve Hogan.

Advertiser: David Shapiro's thought for the day:

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?"

May 14, 2008.

Reason: "Public Prefers Tolling to New Taxes":

The April issue of Reason Foundation's Surface Transportation Innovations suggests that there is robust support for tolling:

"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."

See the links above for further details.

May 8, 2008.

City lists $108 million in contracts for rail:

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.

City produces maps of proposed rail stations:

The maps show an overall map of all stations and the other link is to detailed maps of each station.

Council fends off attempt to kill technology bills:

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.

May 7, 2008.

Larry Price warns officials that the initiative is serious:

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."

May 6, 2008.

Council meets tomorrow on transit:

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."

COMMENT: "Benefits" of rail change over time:

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.

May 5, 2008.

Our comments on the city’s latest spin:

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.

May 4, 2008.

And this is all legal?:

The Advertiser's Sean Hao has a story today headlined, "Transit firms backing Mayor: Contractors have contributed $163,000 towards his re-election." Here are three excerpts from this story; see if this sounds legal to you:

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

$16,750 came from Parsons Brinckerhoff employees with out-of-state addresses…

"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.

John Pritchett's "A Hawaiian Sense of Place."

May 3, 2008.

Please welcome another 35 new members:

Mike Fuller Robert Kay Bob Briggs Pat Sylva Barbara Nakamura

James Wiedman James Leith Paula Boyce Brett Kurashige

Catherine Robinson Charles Gill Chester Lau Albert Canon

Eve Leith John Rogers Joyel Horita Mark Webster Matt Reynolds

Mark Myer Sean Nichol Janice Pechauer Michael Lee Gerhard Hamm

Alice Silva William Crowe Ellie Crowe Jan O'Donnell Talifaitasi Satele

Warren Woodward Talk Story Magazine, Inc. George Berish Ethan Boone

Caryl Joy Campbell Susii Hearst Leonard Franzen

Today's Star-Bulletin carries op/ed on HOT lanes cost:

Today's SB carries an op/ed by Cliff Slater, City glossed over truth about cost of HOT lanes ,which deals with the completely exaggerated cost projected by the City for constructing HOT lanes.

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."

Not that old General Motors myth again:

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.

May 2, 2008.

Today's PBN Survey results show 70% want to vote:

Last Monday's Schneider v. Slater podcast:

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.

Rail as a Quality of Life issue:

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.

Promises, promises, promises, promises: