Posted on: Monday, August 30, 2004

SECOND OPINION
Congestion, transit barely tie in

By Cliff Slater

A question posed of both of the principal Honolulu mayoral candidates at a recent forum was, "What will you do about mass transit?" What most people inferred from such a question was the more important, "What are you going to do about traffic congestion?"

But these are two utterly different questions. It may run counter to prevailing thinking and even, some would say, common sense, but when you look at the evidence, you find that improving public transportation has little or nothing to do with relieving traffic congestion.

Here are a few facts:

Portland, the poster city for light rail, had an increase of 20,000 transit commuters during the census period 1990-2000, which everyone has applauded as a spectacular performance. However, it also had an increase of 175,000 in the number of car-driving commuters. Since Portland had done little or nothing about increasing road space (having spent the money on light rail), the result was one of the worst increases in traffic congestion in the nation. And yet its public officials still gloat over the ridership increase.

Similarly, Denver built rail transit during the 1990s. It increased daily transit commuters by 17,000 but had an increase of those driving to work of 248,000. San Diego increased transit commuters by 3,000 and car drivers by 88,000. Pittsburgh, another rail city, had a decrease in transit commuters of 11,000 while still increasing car drivers by 81,000.

Nationally, according to the American Public Transportation Association, taxpayer-provided subsidies for transit nationally were $160 billion in combined capital and operating subsidies just for the 10 years 1990 to 2000.

During this period, the number of commuters using public transit — not just the percentage — declined. At the same time, those driving to work increased by 13 million. Essentially, all the new workers chose to drive alone to work.

Locally, Honolulu's usage of public transit for commuting has been continuously declining despite the huge subsidies provided — over $100 million in the current year. Fewer workers today commute by transit than at any time in the last 25 years.

This is why transit is virtually irrelevant in any discussion about relieving traffic congestion. There are valid reasons to support transit, but the relief of traffic congestion is not one of them.

Let's do the math: Some people walk to work, some bicycle, but ignoring these, 90 percent of all Honolulu vehicular commuters use cars and the other 10 percent use transit.

Thus, the traffic congestion problem is about cars — the 90 percent. You cannot improve congestion by toying around with transit, which is only 10 percent of the problem. Given the official estimates of population growth for the next 10 years, even if we were able to increase Honolulu's transit commuters by a highly unlikely 30 percent, it would still result in over 20,000 more cars on the road.

And since we would have spent all our money on transit, no roads would be built and so more congestion. The basic problem is that the percentage of commuters using transit is small and has been declining — and continues to do so despite all the money poured into it, locally, nationally and internationally.

It is necessary to recognize that congestion as appalling as that of the Leeward Corridor rush hour is because road building did not keep pace with population growth. It is that simple.

These folks need relief, and the only relief that will work is what Tampa, Fla., is building right now: a reversible nine-mile elevated tollway (buses and vans go free) from downtown to the suburbs. When will our elected officials take a good, hard look at this option?

Elected officials who have allowed continued development of housing without a commensurate increase in highways (and schools) should not be forgiven at the polls this November.

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