No one should have been surprised by the 4-1 recommendation of the Technology Panel in favor of steel-wheel on steel-rail since that was what the mayor wanted and that was why the four panelists who favored it were chosen.
Due to the significant limitations in the Panel's evaluation, the outcome can be ignored. This is why:
- Nowhere in the materials that the Panel analyzed was there information on capital costs for each technology or their operational costs -- and none on its potential benefits.
- There was no information about the ability of the city's taxpayers to pay for a steel wheel on rail system, which in 30 years will need a total re-build. For example, after 35 years, San Francisco's BART system faces an $11 billion backlog in replacement and maintenance.
- Simple figures such as cost per taxpayer, per family, or per rider were not available.
- There were no information on the trip behavior of Oahu's citizens such as how many worker and students are working multiple jobs, how many parents drop-off students to either public or private schools.
- The issue of economic sustainability was not considered, such as the impact of the system on our economy and our population's ability to pay both the initial and future bills. See the footnotes at http://www.honolulutraffic.com/pdpnotes.pdf for estimates of cost-effectiveness. The other panelists did not do such calculations.
- There was not one criterion of effectiveness for each technology as a solution to traffic congestion, or minimization of Oahu's dependency on fossil fuels.
- While there was one criterion on noise, there were none for vibration, or for steel-wheels on steel-rails squealing while turning, which is inherent in this technology. The recommended system has sharp turns in-town.
The panel was forced to work through the evaluation and come to a decision within 4.5 days (including a weekend and a holiday), in the absence of any substantive deliberation and with no ability to obtain more detailed information from the companies which had responded to the city's Request for Information. It should also be noted that most company responses had several items left blank or answered with generalities.
As a result, the panelists made their choice based on a limited set of 21 engineering criteria, limited and incomplete information, their own preferences, and their own limited knowledge of transportation solutions and about Oahu.
Throughout March 2008, some members of the city administration, the Council and the media have used the panel’s vote as the best and wisest decision for Honolulu’s transit system and have been referring to the four mainland panelists as “impartial international experts.” Not so. International experts are widely recognized by their extensive record of publications and presentations in the subject matter of their expertise. They can be found in transportation research databases, Google Scholar or even plain Google. The mainland “technology experts” chosen for Honolulu’s Technology Expert Panel have limited or non-existent records as experts. What they have is a clear affiliation (bias) with steel wheel on steel rail systems.
As far as the technology question is concerned, we have made no headway. The effort for making a choice begins anew at the Council’s Transportation Committee meeting at 9 a.m. on Thursday, April 3, 2008.
Panos D. Prevedouros, Ph.D., is a Professor of Transportation Engineering for the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Hawaii at Manoa; President of the Hawaii Highway Users Alliance (HHUA.org); a member of the Subcommittee Chair, Freeway Operations, Transportation Research Board and a member of the Board of Scholars, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii. He can be reached at mailto:pdp@hawaii.edu
HawaiiReporter.com reports the real news, and prints all editorials submitted, even if they do not represent the viewpoint of the editors, as long as they are written clearly. Send editorials to mailto:Malia@HawaiiReporter.com
