It was also built on the cheap with more opportunity for disruption: Proper surface light rail construction requires relocating utilities from under the line so that the line doesn’t have to be shut down to access them later. The Portland Streetcar is a fine example of a local-stop, low-speed circulator, but it is, by design, slow and unreliable. This should be a screaming red flag, because it implies a common and dangerous categorical confusion between streetcar and light rail. (At one point, the Portland Streetcar’s two-year construction time is cited as a reason light rail can be fast. It even suggests operating in the curb lane of some streets, exposing the line to constant interference with right-turning traffic, and all the crash opportunities that this will present. Craig’s report, though, I noticed alarming suggestions that the line could mix with car traffic at certain points. These cause unpredictable delay as well as a much higher rate of crashes. Surface light rail, even if separated from traffic, still has to interact with it at intersections. Reliability will also unquestionably be superior on the elevated line, because it will have no interference from other traffic. I guarantee that if the surface light rail is built, it will never run better than every 15 minutes at 11:00 PM, but the driverless metro is easy to run every 5-6 minutes even when demand is low, because driverless metros sever the link between frequency and operating cost. Driverless metros are easy to run frequently all the time, even late in the evening, while surface light rail, which requires drivers, will always be under financial pressure to run the minimum possible amount of service at low-demand times. Moreover, the low speed is concentrated in the slow downtown segment, so medium-length trips that have to go through that segment could be more than 30% longer.īut the frequency difference is even more profound.

Speed is certainly a big difference: end-to-end travel times on the surface light line are about 20-30% longer than on the elevated line, and any modeller will tell you that’s enough to make a difference in ridership. The most striking thing about the debate, for me, is that it’s been discussed on both sides as though the main payoff of the elevated line is speed, rather than frequency, an example of the “travel time” fallacy I discussed here. The urban design solution, surface light rail, is beautiful downtown - redolent of Portland, in fact - but unfortuately it’s also slow, less frequent, and less reliable. The transportation solution - a mostly elevated driverless metro - is fast, frequent, and reliable, but it does require a pretty impactful elevated structure (presumably because the best solution, undergrounding it through downtown, is too expensive). It’s perfectly designed to heighten the contrast between transportation thinking and urban-design thinking, and to confirm the worst stereotypes each holds of the other. If you care about the eternal struggle for planning power between the architecture and transport professions, you’ll love this dispute. Last year, a study by transit consultant Philip Craig came out arguing for this option. They propose a light rail solution where parts of the line could run at grade, and which would go through downtown Honolulu on-street at low speeds with frequent stops, much like the downtown light rail segments in Portland, San Diego, Denver, and many other cities. One key player in the revolt was the local chapter of the American Institute of Architects, who have devoted a section of their website to attacking the project. Late in the process, long after this option had been selected and the environmental work done, there was a revolt. Instead, a substantial elevated structure is proposed, one that would definitely have some visual impact, as this computer generated image indicates. Unlike SkyTrain, though, it would not go underground downtown. A good blog on the subject is here.Ī mostly-elevated driverless metro, quite similar to Vancouver’s SkyTrain, is the preferred alternative.

The Transport Politic has covered the background here and here and here. Posted on Apin Honolulu, Portland, Rail Transit, Streetcars (Trams)Įight months ago, a freelance reporter asked for my views on the emerging argument over Honolulu’s proposed rail transit line, which would stretch most of the length of the populated southern shore, from west of Pearl Harbor through downtown to Ala Moana Center on the edge of Waikiki.

Honolulu rail route map