Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rail Transit

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Crimes and misconceivers ,, Re: Rail Transit

    .
    --So you're saying we should all be living by candle light? Or are you saying we should have moved to fluorescents or LEDs sooner? If it's the former, I find that ironic because you're posting on a PC no doubt in a room lit by electric light.--jtree

    Fluorescents yes, and for sure other lighting yet to be conceived.

    As for being at a keyboard in darkness were it not for electric light...well, its daytime here and sunlight is doing a great job lighting the surroundings...but are you suggesting I am hyocritical, that I am trying to find fault with technology generated electricity (which it appears that you are, like your 'candlelight' inference, engaging in an attempt toward reducing to absurdity that which you either do not understand or that by which you feel threatened), because if that is the track you are on you are wasting the time and energy of each of us, not to mention wasting the energy to light your surroundings (as well as your employer's money if you are at work now) allowing you to present such mindless reductions to absurdity that warrant respectfully considered response.

    Comment


    • Re: Rail Transit

      Hey - the "rail" thread ... got derailed!


      OK - maybe I'm the only one who is amused by that...what can I say? It's a lovely sunny and warm Friday afternoon here.

      Comment


      • derailed? ,Re: Rail Transit

        .
        --Hey - the "rail" thread ... got derailed!--Leo Lakio

        I suspect you're being facetious. Hopefully a single tangential post followed by a response doesn't constitute a derailing of this thread, especially since both posts address electric power distribution, consumption and/or wastes all of which relates to the means by which Honolulu's proposed rail transit is to be powered.
        Last edited by waioli kai; April 6, 2007, 12:35 PM.

        Comment


        • Re: derailed? ,Re: Rail Transit

          Originally posted by waioli kai View Post
          Fluorescents yes, and for sure other lighting yet to be conceived.

          As for being at a keyboard in darkness were it not for electric light...well, its daytime here and sunlight is doing a great job lighting the surroundings...but are you suggesting I am hyocritical, that I am trying to find fault with technology generated electricity (which it appears that you are, like your 'candlelight' inference, engaging in an attempt toward reducing to absurdity that which you either do not understand or that by which you feel threatened), because if that is the track you are on you are wasting the time and energy of each of us, not to mention wasting the energy to light your surroundings (as well as your employer's money if you are at work now) allowing you to present such mindless reductions to absurdity that warrant respectfully considered response.
          Now why is it absurd? Or you just merely didn't like my question?

          Afterall, you did say the incandescent should have died a long time ago and then left it there so anyone can infer either you wish to go back to candle light or you meant moving onwards to fluorescents or LEDs. And nope, not at work so no employer's time nor money is wasted.


          Originally posted by waioli kai View Post
          I suspect you're being facetious. Hopefully a single tangential post followed by a response doesn't constitute a derailing of this thread, especially since both posts address electric power distribution, consumption and/or wastes all of which relates to the means by which Honolulu's proposed rail transit is to be powered.
          It is a derailment, your post did go off on tangents about the war in Iraq and Israel and Palestine. But no need to get all worked up, Leo pointed it out in jest.

          Comment


          • The Case Against a Honolulu Rail and Against More Taxes on Oahu Residents

            The Case Against a Honolulu Rail and Against More Taxes on Oahu Residents

            http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story....9-852a69fd5e9f

            Congestion: The city forecasts that while we are already 15 percent over capacity on H-1 during the rush hour, we will be 81 percent over capacity in 2030 - with rail.

            Planners have had no intention of reducing traffic congestion and never did. They have been conducting a war against the automobile, which is why traffic congestion is so bad now.

            Cost: The city forecasts (AA, table 5-1) that to build their preferred 28-mile full alignment from Kapolei to UH, it will cost $4.6 billion. We have calculated that it will actually cost $6.4 billion - and possibly more. In addition the operating losses will be another $90 million a year.

            More Taxes: The mayor originally forecast that it would cost $2.6 billion to build rail and said he needed a one percent hike in the General Excise tax but the Legislature only authorized a half percent. Now his forecast has nearly doubled to $4.6 billion (our is even higher). We calculate it will take a 40 percent hike in property taxes to build the full alignment.

            Environment /Blight: Imagine this elevated rail line snaking through town. It will go along Dillingham cross over to Nimitz, along Nimitz to Halekauwila, up Ward Avenue, along Kona Street, onto Kapiolani Boulevard to University, up University and over H-1 to UH. All the while at 75-77 decibels.

            The Case for HOT lanes and a Tax-Free Alternative

            Congestion: We propose a two-lane reversible, elevated highway operated as a High-Occupancy/Toll facility (HOT lanes). Buses/Rapid Transit (BRT) and Vanpools would go free and have priority; all other would pay a toll variable by time of day. The function of the variable toll is to keep the HOT lanes traffic full, but congestion free. When operated this way the throughput of vehicle traffic on one of the HOT lanes will be twice as much per hour as a nearby regular H-1 lane. It means that the two HOT lanes will carry as much as four lanes of the regular H-1 freeway.

            Cost: The city forecasts a cost for the HOT lanes of $2.7 billion (AA, table 5-1). However, the almost identical facility in Tampa was built for $420 million. No engineer we work with has come up with a number greater than $1 billion - and some much less. We are using $900 million as our estimate.

            No more taxes: The federal government will fund half of the cost, or $450 million. The other half will be funded by revenue bonds to be paid off by toll revenues.

            Environment /Blight: The elevated toll lanes will run along Kam Highway then along H-1 by the airport, then along Nimitz to finish by Hilo Hattie’s. Several entrance/exits will provide access along the way. Unlike the rail alternative, the elevated tollway will not go through town or any residential neighborhoods and be a visual and noise blight.
            http://twitter.com/surfoahu

            Comment


            • Topical points vs. wholesale distractions ,Re: Rail Transit

              .
              --Now why is it absurd? Or you just merely didn't like my question? Afterall, you did say the incandescent should have died a long time ago and then left it there so anyone can infer either you wish to go back to candle light or you meant moving onwards to fluorescents or LEDs. And nope, not at work so no employer's time nor money is wasted.-- jtree

              That is why, in my 1025am post, I put the asteric(*) in the sentence to which you are referring: so that anyone with a genuine interest in the topic could become better informed and not just have to take my word for it. Anyone who follows up on the book I referenced and link provided will find that fluorescent lighting was invented well before the end of the 19th century.

              Considering estimates and information from the following links
              http://www.bluemassgroup.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=6377
              World First? Australia Switches Off Incandescent Bulbs http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/02/world_first_aus.php

              California to ban the lightbulb? http://www.greenoptions.com/blog/2007/02/01/california_to_ban_the_lightbulb

              THE inefficient standard light bulb could be phased out within three years to save up to 800,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions.
              http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/light-bulbs-ban-to-slash-emissions/2007/02/19/1171733685061.html
              The (Australian, not U.S., of course!) Federal Government estimates replacing the old bulbs with compact fluorescents in homes could cut greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 800,000 tonnes a year in 2008-12. Australia's emissions in 2004 totalled 564.7 million tonnes.

              it would make an excellent thesis for someone's graduate or doctoral degree to determine how much oil and coal has been wasted over the past century to foster a U.S. society and economic system using Edison's incadescent lighting idea (singular) instead of using Nikola Tesla's fluorescent lighting ideas(plural) . And who has profited the most from such inefficiency and wastes? Corporations like General Electric and US oil and coal companies....not to mention the politicians such corporations have been buying for the past 100+ years!

              One estimate has been circulating that in the U.S. 'if everyone were to replace if just one incandescent light bulb with one fluorescent bulb the energy savings and green house gas reduction would be equivalent to taking 1million automobiles off the roads.' Wonder whose profits such an energy savings would affect? Answer: the same profiteers who benefitted from the demise of electric public transit a century ago!
              And since in this post I have directly addressed the topic of this thread I feel I can take the liberty to address the again wholly off-topic joshuatree 1258pm post: My post at 954am --Crimes and misconceivers ,, Re: Rail Transit-- addressed public rail transportation while in the same post I made corollaries to other misconceptions in the public sphere. Your 1025am did not mention anything that you connected to this particular thread's topic; therefore, it was wholly tangential. My 1053am post addressed your wholly tangential 1025am post, and it was these latter two posts to which I referred when I later responded to Leo's observation and comments. Over the years in this forum I have acquired a pretty fair understanding of, agreement with, and respect for Leo's point of view and how he presents it. Contrary to jtrees' 1258pm inference I was not for instant believing that Leo's 1156am post was disparaging toward me in any way nor necessitated, as jtree wrote of me, " a need to get all worked up about" which is why I used the word "facetious"

              Main Entry: fa·ce·tious
              Etymology: Middle French facetieux, from facetie jest, from Latin facetia
              1 : joking or jesting often inappropriately : <just being facetious>
              2 : meant to be humorous or funny : not serious <a facetious remark>
              There is difference between being facetious(eg, Leo Lakio) and being derisive(eg, jtree) , both in context and intention. If jtree wants to debate the matter in a post that again has no bearing or relationship to the subject of this thread he should PM or start a new thread for his purpose.
              Last edited by waioli kai; April 6, 2007, 04:09 PM.

              Comment


              • Re: Rail Transit

                Funny how you say I'm going off topic. If you haven't included tangential and off topic comments in your posts, there wouldn't have been anything off topic for me to respond to. At this point, it's the pot calling the kettle black. I've noticed you've been posting much about the US Imperialists, etc in a few threads. Perhaps you should simply start one as the main topic and let people discuss away?

                Comment


                • Re: The Case Against a Honolulu Rail and Against More Taxes on Oahu Residents

                  The light rail system hardly will make any noise at all, with your additions of more roadways and more cars, louder Honolulu streets is just what we need!!! How many decibels does one car make??

                  KalihiBoy

                  Comment


                  • Re: The Case Against a Honolulu Rail and Against More Taxes on Oahu Residents

                    I'm just curious as to why this thread got started in a "hobbies & crafts" forum...

                    Comment


                    • Re: Rail Transit

                      Whoever said rail transit on O‘ahu was a done deal, apparently hasn’t been paying attention. Bravo to the Honolulu City Council for keeping it interesting.

                      We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans.

                      — U.S. President Bill Clinton
                      USA TODAY, page 2A
                      11 March 1993

                      Comment


                      • Re: Rail Transit

                        I haven't been following the whole thing. It's good that they are looking at the whole thing and not just getting stuck on "rail". I wonder why Hannemann is insistent on rail? I've seen a little on what I think they are looking at. Sure sounded great to me.

                        Comment


                        • on bus rail transit

                          hi this is sansei and i have one comment on the proposing bus rail transit is i this morning spoke with my sister on the mainland and i've learned that a bus rapid transit with an elevated highway wouldnt work is that my sister said that she's seen this in her city and it didnt work even with elevated highway's is their highway's are toll and if we have this here,people woujld complain on paying a High Fee for the toll and my sister suggested that they should use a Railtransit which would be like a Train style so i thought to share my thought's with everyone.

                          Well thank's for your time:O(

                          Comment


                          • Re: on bus rail transit

                            Originally posted by sansei View Post
                            :my sister on the mainland said that she's seen this in her city and it didn't work even with elevated highway's is their highway's are toll and if we have this here, people would complain on paying a High Fee for the toll:O(
                            If 20% were willing to pay the toll on a given day, that would take 20% of the cars off the H-1.

                            I use a toll road in San Diego occasionally and it works there and is a lot less costly than rail.

                            Bob

                            Comment


                            • Re: Rail Transit

                              Whatever the solution it should accomplish two things:

                              1) Help move thousands of people in that 2-hour rush-hour time window.
                              2) Not require additional parking in downtown Honolulu.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Rail Transit

                                hi this is sansei and im hoping that our mayor in a couple of year's has our railtransit built and not with a Bus type of system,with a train type of system from the other side of the island to town and the designated route's that come with it is that would be a Great thing for the people of hawaii.i dont think a Bus type of rail would help.

                                well thank's for your time

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X