First, he parrots the anti-transit talking point of the week about energy efficiency. We covered this earlier but Mr. Setty covers it again. My first thought was some poor sap fell for a line, but then I've been seeing it over and over again. People are actually falling for it, pushing numbers out of context. He also makes the claim that trains aren't that efficient compared to electric cars. Well how about trains that can be improved as well? Lighter, more energy efficient. Technological advances aren't just reserved for cars people.
Second he takes a number about one train and expands it purposefully, hoping his readers won't question him on it. Again I expect better from a professor of transportation.
... each train can carry 300 people, and during the peak times, there is expected to be one train every 3 minutes, for a total of 6,000 people per hour on the peak direction... Managed freeway lanes, such as HOT lanes, are designed to carry 2000 vehicles per hour per lane at free flow speeds, and since they carry express busses and high occupancy vehicles, the average occupancy would be well over 3 people per vehicle, for a total of 6,000 people per hour per lane.This is intellectually dishonest because trains are well...trains. They are three to four of those vehicles coupled together. That blows his numbers all out of wack doesn't it? So instead of 6,000 people, it's more like 24,000 with four car trains.
Finally he states that BRT is more convenient than the rail line and states that people would have to make two transfers. One from their house to the line, then another when they get off the line. I find it hard to believe that if the feeder bus to rail line doesn't go to where their express bus goes now, then their express bus doesn't go to where they want to go now. If the rail line comes every 3 minutes, hits major destinations, and is much faster than crawling traffic I don't really see what the problem is. Especially in a very dense place like Honolulu.
He then talks up how the FTA loves BRT. Of course they like BRT! The Bushies hate spending money on transit. He also points to a BRT study that further muddies the definition of BRT. Who knows what BRT means anymore. All I know is that you can run cars on that lane of concrete, which is what he wants to do anyways with his HOT Lane BRT idea.
This doesn't fly, and I'm really annoyed at the capacity lie. The opposition is getting scared, and starting to grasp at straws. And to top it off, Panos recommended light rail for the subway corridor in Los Angeles.
A less expensive option would be light rail at $100 million a mile - an option Prevedouros supports...James Moore, director of the transportation engineering program at USC, is pushing for a busway because they are cheaper to build. Plus, buses can hold more passengers than rail cars.What?! What is wrong with these engineers? Where is Vukan Vuchic when you need him?