By Melvin Ah Ching, Originally posted to HawaiiReporter.com, April 2002
It is quite alarming that supporters like Richard L. Quinn claim that the
city's Bus Rapid Transit project will improve our lives. The
implementation of the BRT will be at great cost and inconvenience to my
life as well as to the majority of the motoring public. Let me explain.
In the opening statement of his article, Mr. Quinn states "We need the Bus
Rapid Transit not to improve traffic, but to improve quality of life."
He is correct that the BRT will not improve traffic. On the roadways where
the dedicated BRT will run, lanes and parking spaces will be stolen from
taxpaying motorists. Elimination of up to 3 lanes for motorists equals
more congestion and road rage. The elimination of nearby, on-street
parking on main thoroughfares such as Kapiolani Boulevard will greatly
impact the residents and businesses who have traditionally relied on those
parking spaces in order to maintain the quality of their lives.
"Experts seem to be in agreement that traffic is going to get worse in
Honolulu with or without BRT. Doing nothing now will seem an irrational
decision in the hindsight of the near future."
The city is already addressing transit issues with the addition of more
busses and express routes to the present system. These improvements
already address the needs of the resident population who use The Bus.
Funds allocated to the BRT would be better spent on the improvement and
maintenance of our present streets and roadways.
"There is more congestion on our streets because we are driving our fewer
cars more miles and driving more often in our day-to-day lives."
Hello? We purchased cars to use them, to make our lives more efficient and
convenient. No form of mass transit will substitute for the individual
convenience and efficiency automobiles have brought to our lives. Do I
have to mention the fact that parents with small children rely on their
vehicles to pick them up, take them to ball games, and to the grocery
store to do some shopping before going home. It is much more convenient to
do this with a personal vehicle over using public transportation.
"Making our city even more car friendly only encourages the pattern of car
dependency, and actually reduces the quality of life for all of us."
Car dependency is already here. People will not change their daily
routines. BRT will only frustrate motorists and add to congestion.
Businesses face the possibility of less revenue if motorists are impeded
from patronizing them because of left turn restrictions and less public
parking that will come as a result of the BRT .
Most businesses are already set up to cater to the motoring public. Every
shopping center and big box retailer have parking for customers who use
these spaces whenever they shop. It is more practical to use your own car
whenever you go shopping because you can load that vehicle up with all the
stuff you bought and go to another store to do it all over again within
the same trip. You can't do that with mass transit, since you are limited
to only what you can carry on your person whenever you ride the bus.
Discouraging the use of automobiles is bad for business.
Remember, the automobile is part of the American culture. It will always
be. We love our cars.
"Having a convenient alternative to the car is essential to creating a
livable city."
All public transit systems put the individual at the mercy of their
schedules and routes. Waiting for a bus or train is not an efficient use
of time. It is definitely not convenient. Mass transit is also not
convenient if you have to stand up in a crowded vehicle and then be pushed
to the back of the vehicle once you get on, and then having to push your
way to the door in order to get off.
Need I also mention that you have to share your personal space with
undesirable people at times in a crowded bus situation. I don't like doing
that.
It is also not convenient if you have to walk several blocks to and from
the public transit stop from your home or business. Add an occasional
downpour to this mix and you're all soaking wet!
"Should the car driving taxpayer subsidize the BRT system for a minority
of users? Absolutely. We all benefit with a transit alternative, whether
we use it or not...."
Taxpayers are already subsidizing too much government that caters to only
a few. BRT will only put increased pressure on the city to raise our
property, vehicle registration and gasoline taxes to fund a system that
only 10% of the population actually uses.
Our vehicle registration and fuel taxes can be better spent on the
maintenance of our roadways. The current state of Honolulu's city streets
are quite pitiful, especially when viewed in light of high profile and
questionable capitol improvement projects that the mayor and city council
have approved in recent years.
"Spendable income of the marginally employed increases when the expense of
a car can be avoided. Minimum wages go farther, and businesses benefit
from that. I'll pay more in taxes for rapid transit, but benefits come
back to me whether I use it or not."
So what Mr. Quinn is saying is that mass transit is for the poor and that
the cash filled and fully employed motorists have to bear the burden to
subsidize the system. Users of public transit would think differently if
they had to bear the full cost of riding the bus if they had to pay for
more of their share. The motoring public already does and shouldn't be
penalized for it by taking away their fair share of the roadway.
"Will BRT make traffic congestion worse on a few selective streets? Most
certainly. Since congestion is going to get worse with or without BRT, I
suggest that those businesses that are concerned about congestion move
their location to a spot closer to a BRT terminal and enjoy increased
pedestrian access."
BRT or not, Mr. Quinn is probably right that traffic congestion will grow
worse. I am willing to sit in the comfort of my car, alone or with a
passenger(s) of my choice, listening to my own radio or stereo vs. having
to be on the same street in a cramped vehicle, standing up and filled with
strangers breathing on my neck.
I am sure Mr. Quinn will be the first person in line to pay for the new
leases, moving expenses and other related costs in order to get those
businesses moved to a nearby BRT terminal to enjoy the perceived increase
in foot traffic. Get real.
"Knowing that you have to face heavy traffic and parking problems has been
an inhibition to urban excursions, and bad for local business. A trip into
Waikiki or to a downtown event will seem more attractive with a convenient
alternative to the car."
The current bus system already provides the public with an alternative.
The BRT is only a fancy and expensive bus that will not add to the
services The Bus already provide to Waikiki and downtown Honolulu.
What is more likely is that the BRT will further erode private
transportation services that cater to the visitor market by emphasizing a
route that will cater to tourists.
"Our current bus system is good, but it's not rapid transit, and that's
what we need to break through the psychological and practical barriers to
transit use."
The BRT is not rapid transit either. It won't improve the quality of our
lives as Mr. Quinn claims. What the BRT will do is divide our city even
further, cause great economic hardship for businesses that are impacted by
the its route structure, increase road rage among motorists stuck in
traffic, be a financial burden on the city as well as the taxpayers and in
the end, be another huge public relations and practical headache even
greater than that of the ill-fated traffic camera program. It is not too
late for the city to rethink this issue. It's time to stop the BRT from
rolling forward.
__________________
Mr. Ah Ching is a longtime Honolulu resident, Macintosh consultant and
independent web publisher. Copyright 2002 Melvin Ah Ching Productions.
Used with permission.
