Honolulu Transit --
Elevated Yes! Rail No!
Elevated Yes! Rail No!
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Government proposes, bureaucracy disposes. And the bureaucracy must dispose of government proposals by dumping them on us. P. J. O'Rourke |
|
- The table below was originally published in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin in April, 2009. To illustrate the significant advantages
which PRT offers compared to older, heavier, linear and more expensive rail technologies, a new column with relevant
information is added.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This... this... this... |
| or this? |
| What's more reasonable? |
| Also check out honolulutraffic.com stoprailnow.com |
PRT would be an excellent choice for transit in Honolulu:
PRT could mean JOBS for Oahu. It’s very feasible that certain PRT vendors might gain the City's business by offering to assemble
vehicles there, and potentially assemble guideway (track and pylon structure are manufactured by offshore plants and then quickly
transported to the implementation, reducing construction time). As new, state-of-the-art technology, PRT will need to be tested
and marketed as a solution for the island -- this means more job opportunities and creates a draw from anywhere else where PRT
is being evaluated. With manufactured guideway designed and shipped from offshore, an installation could occur with vehicles
operational in a neighborhood in a matter of days.
PRT can be engineered, routed, and vehicles produced in quantity to handle the same ridership that’s projected for light rail. By
deliberately starting small, and attracting commercial participation for station portals (and even owned/leased vehicles), the
network can be funded from both public and private sectors and grown to match ridership capacity equivalent or better than
traditional “mass transit”. The misinformed will attack PRT’s small vehicle and assume that system capacity is limited – but this
can be easily disproven with computer modeling customized for your specific routing and ridership scenarios. ”Networkability”
flattens the passenger load over a broader area and then is more accessible to an even larger user base.
An elevated solution is much more preferable in order to separate PRT from surface traffic, cause absolutely no additional
congestion and eliminate potential accidents, injuries and fatalities. Unlike the proposed rail system, PRT is a much lighter weight
design and is far less visually impactful. It can operate in non-traditional right-of-ways, like alleys and drainage channels, to better
hide it from view. Its stations can be built into structures and be less obtrusive. We emphasize that PRT is built in loops -- single
unidirectional guideways that are just as useful as dual train tracks. We’ve collected information here which also illustrates that
at-grade light rail can be extremely dangerous – for example, Long Beach’s Blue Line to Los Angeles has been involved in over 90
fatalities over its 20 year operation. The new Phoenix system suffered 51 accidents in 52 weeks of operation last year.
- It fosters public/private partnerships, e.g. hotels, shopping centers, big box retailers, apartment/condo complexes and
ordinary office buildings can be funding station portals built into their structures or above their parking lots for direct
access by users, customers and guests.
- As station portals are designed “offline”, as many as are feasible and affordable can be placed anywhere on the network
without lengthening ride times.
- PRT is immediately useful as its elevated guideway is built in interconnected loops – that is, it need NOT be a linear
alignment and then only useful after miles of expensive tracks are built. A single guideway loop with just two stations can
be productive right away and still be expanded upon. PRT is built in a network that can serve users all over the city, not just
along a linear path.
- PRT networks are easily extended onto private or special properties as secure 24/7/365 “collector/distributor” systems, e.
g. for college campuses, the airport and military bases.
- PRT is completely electrified, emitting no GHGs or pollution. Guideway is also suitable for solar collection to partly power
the system, or for selling power back to your electric utility.
- Compared to rail, PRT is dramatically LESS EXPENSIVE – about one fifth to one tenth its cost.
- PRT would become “an attraction of its own” – potentially drawing visitors to the island to examine it and use it for hotel <>
airport transfers and touring between venues. It will attract a middle-class demographic due to its privacy, and be able to
operate without drivers 24/7/365.
PRT could mean JOBS for Oahu. It’s very feasible that certain PRT vendors might gain the City's business by offering to assemble
vehicles there, and potentially assemble guideway (track and pylon structure are manufactured by offshore plants and then quickly
transported to the implementation, reducing construction time). As new, state-of-the-art technology, PRT will need to be tested
and marketed as a solution for the island -- this means more job opportunities and creates a draw from anywhere else where PRT
is being evaluated. With manufactured guideway designed and shipped from offshore, an installation could occur with vehicles
operational in a neighborhood in a matter of days.
PRT can be engineered, routed, and vehicles produced in quantity to handle the same ridership that’s projected for light rail. By
deliberately starting small, and attracting commercial participation for station portals (and even owned/leased vehicles), the
network can be funded from both public and private sectors and grown to match ridership capacity equivalent or better than
traditional “mass transit”. The misinformed will attack PRT’s small vehicle and assume that system capacity is limited – but this
can be easily disproven with computer modeling customized for your specific routing and ridership scenarios. ”Networkability”
flattens the passenger load over a broader area and then is more accessible to an even larger user base.
An elevated solution is much more preferable in order to separate PRT from surface traffic, cause absolutely no additional
congestion and eliminate potential accidents, injuries and fatalities. Unlike the proposed rail system, PRT is a much lighter weight
design and is far less visually impactful. It can operate in non-traditional right-of-ways, like alleys and drainage channels, to better
hide it from view. Its stations can be built into structures and be less obtrusive. We emphasize that PRT is built in loops -- single
unidirectional guideways that are just as useful as dual train tracks. We’ve collected information here which also illustrates that
at-grade light rail can be extremely dangerous – for example, Long Beach’s Blue Line to Los Angeles has been involved in over 90
fatalities over its 20 year operation. The new Phoenix system suffered 51 accidents in 52 weeks of operation last year.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Arizona Republic, 2/22/10 |
| Phoenix marks first year of light rail With mixed results -- slow, accident-prone, tardy |
| Arizona Republic, 2/22/10 |
| Phoenix marks first year of light rail With mixed results -- slow, accident-prone, tardy |