The textbook process for the analysis, evaluation and decision making for a major public transportation investment involves a number of professionals doing the analytical work that produces the measures of effectiveness (evaluation) necessary to aid decision makers in making the right decision which, given a budget, would provide the maximum benefit for the society they serve.
The green line in the graph below shows the proper way for professionals and decision makers (or the public) to move through the process. The green (diagonal) line labeled “optimal” shows that as the analysis progresses and gets fine-tuned in a cooperative way, the confidence of both decision makers and the public grows and by the time the technical evaluation reaches 100%, the decision makers and the public have 100% confidence in the process and its results. This optimal goal is rarely accomplished, but many well managed and executed processes achieve a similar result.
The other two lines on the graph depict undesirable paths for the AA process. Honolulu’s alternatives analysis achieved both of them.
Recall that all politicians who currently support rail had decided that “rail is good to go” before engineering consultant Parsons Brinkerhoff received a penny of their $10 million contract to do the Alternatives Analysis (AA.) This is the top (red) line which signifies prejudice. This graph is from planning and evaluation classroom materials and Honolulu’s decision makers fit it to a T. Because of their prejudice, the supporters of the results typically do not care for the details (and the devil is in the details.) As a result, decision maker confidence is usually below the theoretical maximum of 100%. The refusal to debate the issues in public forums signifies their lack of knowledge and confidence.
On the other hand, neither the City nor the consultant engaged the public and private stakeholders such as the hospitality and tourism industries, the transportation and distribution industries, and the emergency service agencies in any meaningful way. Dog-and-pony shows of pre-specified rail alignments and station locations do not constitute meaningful and substantial public involvement. Neither does a Mayor’s Transit Conference, with several fake experts, conducted just a couple of months before the AA was completed, qualify as public involvement. From the very beginning, a large part of the AA process was a promotion campaign. The result is predictable and it has been reflected in four polls: at most 45% of the respondents favor the rail alternative. This is shown by the bottom (purple) line in which during the analysis the public was decoupled from the process and the resultant confidence comes late and is limited to a low percentage, typically around the mid-point (50%).
These are common transportation planning guidelines. The proof that the AA has failed is that the City Council is confused to a maximum degree and one week before its self-imposed deadline, it is attempting to throw support to an all-bus based system (a potentially wise move), and is “arbitrarily” picking and choosing segments to form “a preferred alignment.” In addition, it is established beyond doubt that the Managed Lane (ML) alternative was engineered to fail. All these signify that we are in the middle and not at the end of the AA process. Neither a bus system nor the Council’s alignment are in the current AA, and the ML needs to be reconfigured and re-modeled.
Therefore, the current AA should be treated as a preliminary report. Its results should be clearly communicated to the public, debates should occur and specific guidance from the public, from private stakeholders and from the Council should be given to the consultant in order to finalize an acceptable AA from which the Locally Preferred Alternative can be chosen directly.
Hopefully by this Friday, 12/22, the Council will finally realize what has been done, what is going on, and what needs to be done.
Basic honesty dictates that additional General Excise Tax should be collected only after an acceptable AA is available, after a Locally Preferred Alternative has been approved from within the AA’s specified alternatives, and after the Federal Transit Administration has accepted the AA and has given the nod to proceed with the NEPA process and work on the state and federal Environmental Impact Statement.
See related stories: "Myths and Facts About Roadways and Rail, Some Promulgated by the Mayor Himself" and "Honolulu Needs a Respectable Analysis Report to Help Honolulu Make the Right Decision About Mass Transit"
Panos D. Prevedouros, PhD, is a Professor of Transportation Engineering, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Hawaii at Manoa. Reach him via email at mailto:pdp@hawaii.edu
