Honolulu Rail Honolulu's Impeding Rail System: Addressing

Honolulu Rail Honolulu's Impeding Rail System: Addressing the Necessary Factors to Ensure the Successful Implementation of a Mass Transit Rail System in Honolulu, Hawaii The Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project has already gone through a plethora of designs and revisions and has recently the project has been approved by the governing authorities. The project is meant to address many issues that can propel Honolulu into a more sustainable direction. Inspiration for this project did not require a great leap in human inventions and technology.

In fact, many nations have already successfully constructed such rail systems. Not only have they proven successful, but they have been successfully transporting people for many decades now. However, for whatever reason, the United States has never adopted the efficiency of rail systems to the extent that other cultures around the globe have. These issues that stand the most room for prosperity from the implementation of a contemporary rail system can be, for the most part, split into two underlying themes.

One such theme can be identified as a mere practicality. Rail systems, especially the more advanced high-speed versions, can offer individuals many superior benefits in regards to their travel that cannot be otherwise found in other alternative options such as automobile, bus transit, or even air. The other theme that accounts for the bulk of the attraction not already mentioned is the fact that rail systems are comparatively environmentally friendly. Rail systems do not emit nearly as many greenhouse gases as competitive transport methods per user.

This is an important consideration given the fact that many among the atmospheric sciences discipline are currently stating that "our planet is in peril" (Hansen, 2007). Problem Statement In order to conduct research properly, the problem must be identified and in this case the problem is that it is unclear what makes a rail system valuable to an expanding community. The Literature Review section will present a background of worldwide systems that are currently being utilized. The Methodological section will introduce the commonalities that various systems share.

Furthermore, the analysis section will provide interpretations of different factors that affects the success of & #8230;., based on the findings in the Methodology section and the Literature review sections, and also provide answer as to which factors might determine the success of the impeding rail system in Honolulu. Finally, the Conclusion and Recommendations section summarize the findings and provide possible recommendations for other cities to follow. Literature Review The United States had historically used the resources that it has access to within its own borders for its development.

The early portion of its industrialization was primarily fueled by fossil fuels, mostly oil and coal. Although coal is still relatively plentiful, oil as a domestic resource it ran into its peak production sometime in the mid-twentieth century. However before the demise of domestic oil production, an infrastructure and to some extent a culture had already formed on the presence of inexpensive and available oil resources. Therefore to meet the demands of the American society oil was imported and the industry was heavily subsidized by the U.S. government.

To meet the obligations of this arrangement oil has been heavily imported ever since the U.S. sources dried up. However, the contemporary arrangement is currently being stressed by a plethora of factors which bring in to play many of the alternatives to development without ubiquitous oil, such as efficient public transportation, which under the circumstances are more attractive. Such factors include world-wide peak oil production as well as unrest in the Middle East; the wealthiest region in terms of petroleum resources.

By comparison, Europe and parts of Asia developed without a similar access to resources as the U.S. had and therefore their trajectories represent a growth pattern that evolved without the prevalence of oil and furthermore integrating more encompassing forms of public transportation. As previously mentioned, there are two underlying categorization of ambitions that can account for most, if not all, aspects of the need for advanced rail systems in light of the new energy constraints being placed on the U.S.

This is evident in the stated goals of the rail project itself. For example, the project's goals are stated clearly on the primary website that the charter organization has developed (Honolulu Rail Transit, 2011). The stated goals of the project are: Improved Mobility Reliability Improving the Economy Protecting Our Environment Sustainable Growth Fairness Each goal is virtuous in its own right, however when considered as a whole, the benefits to the Hawaiian community are plentiful.

Since the United States has been relatively slow in attempted to adopt this technology, there is some debate about how feasible it will be to build rail systems in a manner that would met the standards already in place in other nations. President Barrack Obama addressed this very point in a speech he presented to a crowd in the University of Tampa, who is also engaged in plans for the construction of a rail system.

The President announced, "There's no reason why other countries can build high-speed rail lines and we can't" (Mauvinere, 2010). However, even the high-speed rail advocates in the U.S. still have their doubts about whether the domestic systems will be able to provide the results found in countries such as Japan, Spain, France, and China. Other critics are quick to point out that there is such a large gap in the development of the industry between the U.S.

And its competitors that even substantial investments of public money will not produce anything near what can be found abroad. For example, today you can travel between Paris and Lyon (250 miles) on a high-speed train in less than two hours. From Boston to Philadelphia, a comparable distance, it takes some five hours on what is considered to be the U.S.'s closest thing to high speed rail; the Amtrak Acela (Walsh, 2010). Therefore, to create similar systems in the U.S.

As found elsewhere in the world, many argue that it will require more than just money; instead it will require the rapid development of an entire industry. "The problem with the passenger rail business has been the lack of demand" said Robert Furniss in regard to the situation with rail in the United States (Walsh, 2010). To further illustrate this point (illustration shown below), an example of the technology that exists in Japan is provided.

This technology is not used today however, it was finally retired in 2002, but the since its introduction in 1964 it could transport millions of passengers daily at speeds up to one hundred forty miles per hour; nearly a half century before a, taken in a loose context, comparable system emerged in the U.S. Figure 1-1964 Japanese Shinkansen Since the industry may not be capable of constructing efficient systems while domestic producers are still in their infancy, many outsourcing opportunities have also been considered.

Chinese companies' seem to be more than willing to offer bids for many of the potential projects. China does hold some expertise in the technology and has already built over four thousand miles of high speed rail for its own train system (McDonald, 2010). Additionally, Beijing already has in the works over sixteen thousand additional miles planned to be completed before 2020. Currently, the Chinese are employing technology from compilation of French, German, and Japanese technology.

Another option would be to outsource the rail technology from a number of European or Japanese firms and use U.S. sub-contractors to complete the labor requirements. Examples of firms that cities in the U.S. could pursue such a strategy with are companies such as Siemens AG (German), Veolia Environment SA (French), and the Skanska AB (Swedish) firms (Elfes, 2011). However, even though there are many companies that specialize in the industry internationally, the demand for rail is also growing at an exponential rate.

Currently, the list of rail projects underway exceeds fifty, and includes a range of countries including everyone from Ghana, India, Turkey, and South Korea and of course more developed countries such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the Netherlands (Railway Technology, 2011). The spikes in demand for such systems have undoubtedly limited the supply by many of the major industry competitors.

Research Question What factors are necessary for Honolulu to sustain and gain maximum benefit from a rail system? Methodology With so many examples available of rail systems outside the United States, the primary question that must be asked is what criteria should be utilized in identifying appropriate models. In order to explore this issue it seems reasonable to look at systems that are commonly thought of as the most successful system as well as the least successful rail transit system.

Ratings of these rail systems contain a significant subjective aspect to the scales of inquiry. However, the categories by which the scales are determined generally fall into three broad and all-encompassing aspects. One such aspect deals with monetary matters. The system must be less expensive or at least comparable other modes of transport. Additionally, it must also provide some reasonable return on investment to the financial stakeholders. Therefore, the project must make financial sense to all stakeholders involved; both internally and externally.

Another broad criterion that was identified deals with ease of use or usability. The system cannot be so complex that the steep learning curve eliminates users from navigating the system freely and effortlessly. The final of the criterion, can be thought of in terms of comprehensiveness. The system must allow travelers the option of traveling to a wide array of destinations without having to leave the system frequently; consequently this doesn't necessarily mean that it all has to be done with rail.

If the rail system connects to other means of public transport, such as bus, taxi, or even air, then this could be considered a part of an extended system. From the users' perspective, if public transport only gets them half way to their final destination, then it requires some leap of creativity for them to finish the journey hence making the option less attractive than traditional transport.

In summary the three main categories of criteria can be condensed into this brief list: Financial Attractiveness (All Parties) Simplicity and Usability Comprehensiveness These criteria were used to cross reference other informal lists of best and worst rated systems posted electronically. These lists were mostly informal in nature given the subjective elements inherent in generating the ratings. However, some trends did seem to emerge. Systems in Japan, China, France, and New York seemed to be atop most lists; in different orders.

Best Model - Hong Kong As one of the most efficient systems in the world, arguably the most efficient, and transports more than seven million riders daily; the greatest in sheer volume (Environmental Graffiti, 2011). Not only is the system huge in regards to the number of users, but it is so comprehensive that nearly ninety percent of the population in Hong Kong relies on it for its daily transportation; the highest user rating of all systems worldwide. The Hong Kong rail system rates highly on the three criteria previously mentioned.

First, it is financially attractive to not only the users of the system but also to the investors (MTR Corporation). The system even subsidizes the fares of many low income groups such as students and the elderly. Next, it is simple and easy to use. There is even a single payment method for all of the public transportation in Hong Kong known as the "octopus" which simplifies the method of payment to the end user.

It lets users purchase any type of ticket on any form of public transportation through a network of integrated technologies; including purchases from a mobile phone. Finally, the system scores incredibly well on the last considered criterion of comprehensiveness. The "linked" method of public transportation allows users to reach almost any destination; which can also be extrapolated by the fact that ninety percent of the cities inhabitants rely on the system for their primary means of daily transportation.

Worst Model - Atlanta Georgia Atlanta was chosen for one of the worst mass transit systems in the world for a plethora of reasons; it rates incredibly low on all three of the criterion identified. First of all, the system in Atlanta is far from financially viable; from any perspective. From the perspective of the user, it is not viable because it does not meet the other criterion of comprehensiveness. Therefore, users only have access to mass transit for a small portion, in most cases, of their total transit distance.

Thus they often have to supplement the lack of public transportation with other means such as lengthy walks or expensive cab rides. This makes it unfeasible for all but the most desperate of users. As a consequence, most users spend more than sixty hours a year stuck in traffic (Woolsey, 2008). The next criterion that Atlanta scores horrifically low on would be the simplicity and usability criteria.

The mass transit systems are far from integrated by any means and thus, as a user, you must plan your entire route piece by piece. Furthermore, for each step of your trip you would have to pay each version of the means of transportation separately. This means that it is up to the user to coordinate mass transit systems as they do not function as a whole.

Therefore, theoretically if you want to travel from downtown Atlanta to a suburb the planning stage would require a substantial number of unnecessary steps that would not be found in places like Hong Kong. Comparison at a Glance Atlanta Hong Kong Miles of Rail 48 Stations 38 Daily Riders 82,500 7,000,000 Analysis The analysis of Honolulu's system can be based upon the same three criteria that were used in the examples of the world's best and worst mass transit systems and contrasted against the data previously stated in the mythology section.

However, a strict comparison may be unfairly biased against Honolulu in the sense that the rail system in Honolulu was designed to alleviate congestion on the west side. Therefore it isn't designed to be as comprehensive as the system in Hong Kong, for example. Therefore, there are two levels from which Honolulu can be considered for its ranking of comprehensiveness; the comprehensiveness of its achieving its intended goals and the comprehensiveness of the system as a whole.

Figure 6 - Honolulu Rail Project The first criteria which can applied to the impeding Honolulu rail is the monetary considerations. The project consists of roughly twenty miles of track and roughly twenty one stations. The project's cost is estimated to be roughly seven billion dollars, including a projected overrun of nearly two billion dollars, which is publically funded through the city's excise tax.

Therefore the stakeholders in this project include the entire community and therefore the primary value of the project can be thought of an infrastructure improvement as opposed to a traditional investment opportunity. The funding for this project was decided in a vote that received 53% of population supporting the project and 47% opposing the additional expenses (Au, 2008). Furthermore, given the stated goals of the project, it is reasonable to speculate that fees to the users will be consistent with the expected rate of return.

Usability of the system is somewhat hard to predict since the project is for the most part in the design phase. However, even in the face of this limitation, there is some evidence that suggests the system will rate high in regards in terms of usability. Since there has been more than ample time to upon previous rail technology it is reasonable to suspect that the technological design of Honolulu's rail will be at least adequate to make the system easy to use for the user in terms of accessibility.

Secondly, it has been noted that the system will integrate with other forms of public transportation, more specifically bus and air, allowing the user multiple options for reaching various destinations. Finally, the issue of comprehensiveness could be the greatest constraint to the systems success. Though the system will surely meet the intended short-term goal of alleviating traffic congestion on the western corridor, when considering the comprehensiveness of the system as a whole, it lacks in a measure of connectivity.

While this could also be considered a "first step" to a larger and more interconnected system, it certainly does not meet the same standards that are already in place in nations such as France, Spain, China and Japan, for example. Therefore for the rail system to meet these high standards the Honolulu system will have to inevitably undergo a series of expansions.

If the Honolulu project is to succeed, it will need to integrate with the existing mass transit systems as much as possible; maximizing its potential to gain the needed comprehensiveness. So the riders could easily attach a bus ride to their rail trip or find a place to park near the boarding area. Furthermore, this integration should also be easy for the commuters to use.

An example would be to develop an electronic ordering system that would allow users to purchase tickets for multiple modes of public transit from one site; even better would be to have this feature available on a mobile platform so that commuters could do this from their phones. Conclusion Honolulu's rail project took a considerable amount of time before it finally gained enough political support to make the project a reality. On one hand, the somewhat delayed construction on a rail system benefited from the.