The BRT Will Not Improve Our Quality of Life 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. Guest Editorials...© 2002 Hawaii Reporter, Inc. .