������Ƶ

Most elected officials and other rail supporters assume everyone will want to ride rail. It is counter intuitive to think that we could build a mass transit project and it would not attract riders.

It is also true that the Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation and the city have not discussed with the public who will ride rail. HART told the Honolulu City Council in December that HART had no ridership plans for rail, only the original projections from the Parsons Brinckerhoff ridership analysis that we first saw around 2008.

To build an entire 20-mile elevated guideway dedicated to one type of vehicle that can only carry transit commuters (heavy rail with an electrified third rail) is “off the charts” risky. It is not being done anywhere else in our country. The FTA is funding no similar project.

Parsons Brinckerhoff told us only 5.7 percent of all trips on Oahu are transit when the firm did its work years ago. They projected, with rail up and running, the percentage of transit riders would be 7.1 percent. The entire projected benefit for this project is found in this small increase in transit riders.

Low rail ridership is the most significant risk facing this project.

If the ridership is low, we have no alternative vehicles that can make use of this elevated bridge across our island because of the rails and the electrified rails. No rubber tire vehicle (police, civil defense, carpools, commercial vehicles that serve Waikiki, etc.) could use the guideway. It will just be mostly empty – all day long. Is this what we want for our $8 billion?

Let’s examine (for the first time) the Parsons rail ridership projections.

Parsons tells us it expects approximately 60 percent of rail riders will come from the bus. “Come from the bus” is a euphemism for “The city will re-route approximately 20 bus routes and force those riders to transfer to rail.”

If you currently ride the Country Express “C” from Makaha to Ala Moana Center, this route will now stop at a rail station heading into town. You will need to transfer to rail. If your destination is not along the rail route (like UH, Queens Medical Center or Waikiki), you will need to transfer again to a bus to get to your original destination.

The same is true for Country Express Route “E” out of Ewa Beach, City Express “A” from Waipahu and many more (Routes 91, 92, 93, 94, 101, 102 and more).

The city is not planning to continue with these bus routes that would run parallel to the new guideway. Parsons says the plan will move over 30,000 riders per day from bus to rail. Parsons worked out the entire plan, which affects more than 20 bus routes.

If we do not get 30,000 bus riders daily to go along with this plan, ridership will decline. A large percentage of bus riders have a choice. Bus is not their only option.

Until the city and HART openly reveal this plan and get feedback from the thousands of bus riders affected, it is impossible to tell the outcome.

Of course, many bus riders will like the change because they will get to their destination a few minutes earlier. But what about senior bus riders, junior bus riders, and disabled bus riders? Will they all be happy to have to transfer from their favorite buses to rail, and then perhaps have to transfer again to another bus in order to get where their previous express bus took them in the first place?

What about commuters who end up getting to their destination later because of the transfer time?

As a percentage, there are more seats on a full bus (fewer people standing) than there are on a full rail train (70-75 percent of rail riders will be standing). Will losing your seats when you are forced to transfer to rail become a big problem during busy times? Do the folks in Ewa Beach and Waipahu have a chance of getting any seats on rail (they will transfer to rail around station number four or five) during the morning rush hour?

When a current bus rider transfers to rail, the sense of security goes from excellent (bus driver/cameras/radios) to poor (no security personnel on the trains or on the platforms, which are not visible from the street).

After the first crime on the unpatrolled rail station platforms, will ridership decline?

Current bus riders are in for a big shock. If there is pushback and we do not get 30,000 bus riders daily to go along with this plan (seniors decide not to ride, parents pull their school kids from rail, disgruntled bus riders decide to drive or carpool, the commute is much longer, etc.), rail ridership will decline. A large percentage of bus riders have a choice. Bus is not their only option.

Once our elected representatives, press and general public understand this bus plan, stopping rail at Middle Street will look like a more viable option.

The assumption here is that the city will have express feeder buses from Middle Street. (The Parsons plan already includes these feeder buses from the Civic Center stops.) If your destination is UH, you will probably get there faster by getting off rail at Middle Street; your feeder bus can use H-1. If your destination is Waikiki, you could also get there faster by getting off rail at Middle Street, depending on the number of stops the new feeder bus will make. Nimitz is signed for 35 mph, and that is faster than the average speed of rail: 28 mph.

Walkers, Parkers And Kissers

The next largest group of projected rail riders is called “walk to rail.” Parsons projected approximately 15,000 people per day would be in this category. Who are these people? Are they real?

How many years will it take until the housing they are supposed to walk from is built? Are these riders currently transit riders or not?

Of course, some commuters will find they live near rail and work near rail, and they will enjoy the rail commute.

In the “transit oriented design” discussion, there is an assumption that couples will keep one car instead of two because they live near rail.

Parsons also pointed out that there are more trips per day on Oahu for shopping than going to work. Can you go shopping on rail? Are we building a Longs and Safeway at each rail station? Are we really thinking about the details (kid care, parent care, medical needs, etc.) of the TOD vision where folks use transit more and cars less?

If the projected 15,000 riders in the walk-to-rail category are not real, the entire rail ridership will decline.

The next two categories are easier to understand: “Park and Ride” and “Kiss and Ride,” the latter representing riders dropped off at a rail station by a loved one or friend. Parsons rail ridership projections for these two categories adds up to about 10 percent.

The big question here is parking. Does each rail station have a lot for park and ride? Do each of these categories represent daily riders, or just once-in-a-while riders? If they are not daily, the entire rail ridership will decline.

All of these projected category are potentially problematic. Rail transit ridership is the project’s operating Achilles heel. Let’s start the conversation about what it means for rail’s future.