x

Traffic congestion is curable

Honolulu’s terrible traffic congestion is curable but not with any conventional inside-the-box thinking such as the City's current Bus Rapid/Transit (BRT) proposal.(1)

This is the first in a series of three proposals that could radically transform traffic congestion, especially in the Leeward Corridor. The three are more road space, better door-to-door public transportation, and managed highways.

First, building more road space.

Hawaii has less urban road mileage per resident than that of any other state. I'll repeat that: If we divide each state's urban population by its urban highway mileage we find that Hawaii has less mileage per resident than any other state. We are bottom of the list and half the national average (2).

We have an obvious need to build more roads.

But we don't have the room, say conventional thinkers. Well we did not have room in 1959 either but our leaders decided that we needed a freeway through town and they bulldozed a corridor through the center of the city to make H-1. If you do not think that was a good idea, then contemplate how cross-town traffic would be today without H–1.

And do not say that we cannot afford more roads. We just wasted $1.5 billion on H-3, “The Highway to Nowhere.” And now we are proposing to spend $1.5 over the next ten years on the BRT system, which will make traffic congestion even worse by reducing existing road space to convert it to BRT’s exclusive use. And, besides, new road space is eligible for 80% federal funding, which is a far greater percentage than what is proposed for the BRT. This is because any expansion of buses requires massive operating and maintenance costs. In comparison, per trip highway and maintenance costs are relatively minor.

What kind of road space? For example, we could build a two-lane HOV highway from, say, Waikele to the Aala Park area in the right-of-way originally proposed for the rail transit proposal of ten years ago. It could operate one-way going into town in the morning and one-way out in the afternoon. The required occupancy could be varied to keep the highway congestion free.

The advantages are that many high-occupancy vehicles, such as express buses, vanpools, and taxis, would attract far more riders than they do presently because they would offer a congestion-free commute. Many commuters would leave their cars at home if the alternative were a door-to-door commute with a saving of a half hour each way in travel time.

Or, if you do not like this highway’s construction costs, we could even get that extra road space for free. Private investors have recently built a successful tollway in China. They would, I believe, be willing to build this highway and recoup their investment over time by charging tolls. The tolls would vary to keep traffic flowing freely at all times. Those unwilling to pay a toll would also benefit from the greatly reduced traffic on existing highways. In short, cost is no excuse.

I have great news for elected officials: Roads work. People use them more and more. Whereas, Honolulu’s conventional public transportation is being used less and less—even when Hawaii taxpayers subsidize 75% of its costs.

I have a question for these elected officials who tell us either there is no space for roads, or we cannot afford new roads, or we shouldn’t have a tollway. What on earth were you doing authorizing all the new housing on the Leeward side if you were not willing to build the necessary new roads to service them? Answer your constituents on that one.

Cliff Slater is a regular columnist whose footnoted columns are at www.lava.net/cslater

Footnotes:

(1) Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Primary Corridor Transportation Project. City and County of Honolulu, Department of Transportation Services. March 2002. p. 6-8. Available online.

(2)
Highway feet per urban resident

	Metropolitan	Urban	Highway
	Population	highway	feet per
	(,000's)	mileage	Urban
			resident
U.S.. . .	225,968	846,059	20
WY . . . . .	148	2,294	82
MT . . . . .	306	2,585	45
VT . . . . .	169	1,376	43
AR . . . . .	1,321	10,603	42
ID. . . . . .	508	4,004	42
MS . . . . .	1,024	7,933	41
SD . . . . .	261	1,979	40
IA . . . . . .	1,326	9,519	38
AK . . . . .	260	1,809	37
KS . . . . .	1,521	10,171	35
AL . . . . .	3,109	20,658	35
ND . . . . .	284	1,834	34
OK . . . . .	2,098	13,286	33
NM . . . . .	1,035	6,074	31
NE . . . . .	900	5,175	30
ME . . . . .	467	2,631	30
KY . . . . .	1,973	11,079	30
GA . . . . .	5,667	27,459	26
RI . . . . . .	986	4,719	25
TX . . . . .	17,692	81,969	24
MN . . . . .	3,463	15,953	24
TN . . . . .	3,862	17,722	24
WI. . . . . .	3,640	16,540	24
IN. . . . . .	4,390	19,941	24
OR . . . . .	2,502	10,902	23
MO. . . . .	3,795	16,370	23
NC . . . . .	5,437	23,395	23
UT . . . . .	1,708	7,316	23
WV . . . . .	766	3,223	22
LA . . . . .	3,370	13,942	22
NH . . . . .	740	2,929	21
CO . . . . .	3,608	14,248	21
AZ . . . . .	4,527	17,277	20
MA . . . . .	6,088	23,063	20
SC . . . . .	2,807	10,619	20
WA . . . . .	4,899	18,194	20
MI. . . . . .	8,169	29,932	19
OH . . . . .	9,214	33,495	19
CT . . . . .	3,257	11,774	19
VA . . . . .	5,528	19,002	18
IL . . . . . .	10,542	36,194	18
NV . . . . .	1,748	5,789	17
PA . . . . .	10,392	34,287	17
FL. . . . . .	14,837	48,320	17
DE . . . . .	627	1,969	17
MD . . . . .	4,911	14,321	15
NJ. . . . . .	8,414	24,165	15
CA . . . . .	32,750	83,787	14
DC . . . . .	572	1,425	13
NY . . . . .	17,473	40,913	12
HI . . . . . .	876	1,895	11

Source: Statistical Abstract of the U.S. Census Dept. 2001. Tables 30 &1075. Available online.