Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rail Transit

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

  • Re: Rail Transit

    Originally posted by salmoned View Post
    I suppose you may not have escaped a catastrophe, run a marathon or ridden in a bike race on a freeway, but I assure you, many of us have. Roadways, including freeways, don't suffer from the single use purpose of commuter railways. A freeway can [and does] carry buses, supply and service trucks, emergency vehicles, etc. In fact, a freeway can carry any sort of vehicle or pedestrian we wish to allow in the future, whether temporarily or permanently. I'm surprised at your narrow-thinking. In an emergency, would you rather take a train to the hospital or a freeway? When you purchase a refrigerator, will you be able to bring it home on the train?
    Well when the bridge collapse happened a while back, a rail line could have been the escape to that traffic catastrophe. The argument of providing access for emergency vehicles by a freeway is a rather weak argument as emergency vehicles are usually stationed to service a local area, hence the scattering of fire stations across the island instead of putting them all in one central location. The interstate system on the island was built with the intention of providing emergency access for the military bases but trying to picture the system providing smooth and quick emergency access for military vehicles on any given day in traffic is rather hard. Ultimately, you can argue about adding more and more roads to keep providing that flexibility you speak of but it always gets filled in with more cars. It's time for an alternate that actually can remove cars, thereby freeing up the existing roadways for the flexibility you speak of. This isn't a black and white solution. Not everyone has to use rail, just a significant portion so a positive impact can be felt by all, rail or road.

    Comment


    • Re: Rail Transit

      Originally posted by TuNnL View Post
      And clearly, I disagree. It’s a simple matter of opinion. No need to get snippy about it.

      Character assassination isn’t going to legitimize your criticism any more than obscenity. Stick to the facts.

      Basically because “those happy with the current situation” are a minority compared to the majority of commuters who are simply fed up. If I had my way, I would quadruple the tax and apply it ONLY to registered and insured motorists. I would call it “the luxury tax.” Then increase ticketing enforcement by HPD. That would instantly decrease our traffic problem. Not six years from now, immediately. But then again, I’m an idealist.
      No, you may disagree, but you also insist upon my sticking to the facts - something you have failed to do, yourself. If you consider that a reflection of your character, so be it, but I certainly haven't made that leap.

      Why don't YOU stick to the facts and show proof of your assertion that the majority of commuters ARE fed up AND want AND will use a rail system? Your plea for facts is still unreflected in your own arguments and there has been no 'character assassination', only your 'arguments' and faulty line of reasoning have been addressed.

      I see you now agree that small policy changes can improve traffic congestion now, and presumably in the future, without spending huge amount of money on a rail system. I don't see why you believe such actions are 'idealist', however.
      May I always be found beneath your contempt.

      Comment


      • Re: Rail Transit

        Originally posted by salmoned View Post
        I suppose you may not have escaped a catastrophe, run a marathon or ridden in a bike race on a freeway, but I assure you, many of us have. Roadways, including freeways, don't suffer from the single use purpose of commuter railways. A freeway can [and does] carry buses, supply and service trucks, emergency vehicles, etc. In fact, a freeway can carry any sort of vehicle or pedestrian we wish to allow in the future, whether temporarily or permanently. I'm surprised at your narrow-thinking. In an emergency, would you rather take a train to the hospital or a freeway? When you purchase a refrigerator, will you be able to bring it home on the train?
        You were just reminding me that the roadways would still be there.
        “First we fought the preliminary round for the k***s and now we’re gonna fight the main event for the n*****s."
        http://hollywoodbitchslap.com/review...=416&printer=1

        Comment


        • Re: Rail Transit

          Originally posted by salmoned View Post
          I'm surprised at your narrow-thinking.
          Yep, sounds like some character-attacking happening here.

          The comment about bringing a new refrigerator on the train reminds me of a funny story that is completely off topic, but once a friend and I dollied a refrigerator on the city sidewalks of Hollywood. For about 2 miles. We needed to move it, so we did what we had to.
          ~ This is the strangest life I've ever known ~

          Comment


          • Re: Rail Transit

            Originally posted by joshuatree View Post
            Well when the bridge collapse happened a while back, a rail line could have been the escape to that traffic catastrophe. The argument of providing access for emergency vehicles by a freeway is a rather weak argument as emergency vehicles are usually stationed to service a local area, hence the scattering of fire stations across the island instead of putting them all in one central location. The interstate system on the island was built with the intention of providing emergency access for the military bases but trying to picture the system providing smooth and quick emergency access for military vehicles on any given day in traffic is rather hard. Ultimately, you can argue about adding more and more roads to keep providing that flexibility you speak of but it always gets filled in with more cars. It's time for an alternate that actually can remove cars, thereby freeing up the existing roadways for the flexibility you speak of. This isn't a black and white solution. Not everyone has to use rail, just a significant portion so a positive impact can be felt by all, rail or road.
            Do you live on Oahu? If so, I must assume you realize how often emergency vehicles use the freeway, without regard to where they are 'stationed'. Fire trucks, ambulances and police vehicles are constantly using our freeways to get from point A to point B in emergency mode. To imagine that that daily use amounts to a 'weak argument' for the flexibility of the freeways is to deny reality. The freeways allow for priority tasking, multiplicity of use and transportation continuity, all features a rail system will lack.

            Now, I'm not advocating we expand our roadways (or freeways). I simply advocate we try to use what we have more efficiently by changing some of the details of how, when and where we work and live, because THAT'S where the problem lies. The fault is not in our infrastructure, it's within ourselves and our clinging to unsustainable modes of behavior.
            May I always be found beneath your contempt.

            Comment


            • Re: Rail Transit

              Originally posted by sinjin View Post
              You were just reminding me that the roadways would still be there.
              Yes, but some are suggesting that a freeway is somehow NOT flexible and I'm just pointing out how wrong they are in that assertion (admittedly, a digression).
              May I always be found beneath your contempt.

              Comment


              • Re: Rail Transit

                Originally posted by salmoned View Post
                Do you live on Oahu? If so, I must assume you realize how often emergency vehicles use the freeway, without regard to where they are 'stationed'. Fire trucks, ambulances and police vehicles are constantly using our freeways to get from point A to point B in emergency mode. To imagine that that daily use amounts to a 'weak argument' for the flexibility of the freeways is to deny reality. The freeways allow for priority tasking, multiplicity of use and transportation continuity, all features a rail system will lack.

                Now, I'm not advocating we expand our roadways (or freeways). I simply advocate we try to use what we have more efficiently by changing some of the details of how, when and where we work and live, because THAT'S where the problem lies. The fault is not in our infrastructure, it's within ourselves and our clinging to unsustainable modes of behavior.
                Oh I'm aware of the daily usage but they are usually short dashes, not the entire length of the freeway, which seems to be an argument point anti-railers like to use. That an emergency vehicle can hop on a HOT from one end to the other vs rail is a weak argument because that doesn't happen often.

                When rail removes significant amounts of people off the road, the existing roads and freeways will be sufficient for the emergency vehicles.

                Comment


                • Re: Rail Transit

                  Originally posted by salmoned View Post
                  When you purchase a refrigerator, will you be able to bring it home on the train?
                  No you don't, you pay for the little extra money to get it delivered. On this line of thinking, I don't own a car. I use TheBus as a primary means of transportation, however they are other transportation options available, for instance calling a taxi when (a) when waiting around for a bus to show up is not an option (b) you are carrying something big (okay maybe a small refrigerator, or a computer or anything that can fit into a trunk of a car) (c) TheBus doesn't service the area in question or (d) it's during the time TheBus is not running.

                  I don't paying say $10 to $20 for a taxi ride, with $40 being about the max.

                  And for special events I would rent a car for a day (or more depending on the event).

                  Comment


                  • Re: Rail Transit

                    Originally posted by sinjin View Post
                    Would that penalizing be necessary if we had nearly unlimited, cheap and clean energy?

                    It would be wonderful if we could all walk or bike to work. But how far before that becomes impractical? 5 miles? 10 miles? And let's remember who we're talking about in the U.S. and maybe moreso in Hawaii. Two scoops of rice and potato salad. Then there's those of us with children to drop off and pick up. Then there's seniors and other challenged individuals. Rail stands a better chance of getting people to walk or bring their bike than just about anything else.

                    Answered by the she honu.

                    Railway R/W can be relatively narrow. Highways need expensive bridges and tunnels. Big ones. And remember that easy public trans produces additional trips for reasons not related to work commutes. I go to Laker games using our subway. Driving and parking are a bitch. Staples is near where I work. 23 miles from where I live.

                    Intelligent people will disagree. You're certainly entitled.

                    You could take the population and compress it into a quarter of the space and you still would have a big city. Blaming government for peoples demands being met gets us nowhere.

                    A plus.

                    Who's the we that "allows"? This ain't China. You don't have to want a mansion to want to be out where you have yards and trees and a little peace and quiet. There are worse things than suburbs.
                    People who live far from work are penalized by their commute to work - the longer the commute, the higher the time 'penalty'. Trying to ameliorate that penalty at the expense of the general public is wrong-headed in that it rewards inefficiency. If energy were free, it still wouldn't make sense to live far from work.

                    There's no reason to believe that most people are incapable of living within 5 miles of work, especially on an island that's 40 miles long and 26 miles wide. It WOULD be wonderful, wouldn't it? Most children DO live within 5 miles of their school - how did THAT happen?

                    If intelligent people disagree, why don't they present their case?

                    The 'we' is our government, the same organization trying to push the rail system down our throats without a proper evaluation. Yards and trees and peace and quiet are nice, but why should I pay for yours when I can't afford it for myself?

                    It's us po' fo'k what's payin' dat excise tax fo' you rich fo'k's train commute. WE already walk, bicycle or bus to work and know that transferring to a train and then maybe back to a bus is gonna take a whole lot longer than what we got now.
                    Last edited by salmoned; July 9, 2008, 09:55 AM.
                    May I always be found beneath your contempt.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Rail Transit

                      Originally posted by helen View Post
                      No you don't, you pay for the little extra money to get it delivered. On this line of thinking, I don't own a car. I use TheBus as a primary means of transportation, however they are other transportation options available, for instance calling a taxi when (a) when waiting around for a bus to show up is not an option (b) you are carrying something big (okay maybe a small refrigerator, or a computer or anything that can fit into a trunk of a car) (c) TheBus doesn't service the area in question or (d) it's during the time TheBus is not running.

                      I don't paying say $10 to $20 for a taxi ride, with $40 being about the max.

                      And for special events I would rent a car for a day (or more depending on the event).
                      Dear Helen, you make my point exactly. That delivery van/taxi/bus (particularly express)/rental car certainly makes use of the freeways. What a wonderfully flexible system that promotes commerce of almost every sort. It may be expensive, but there's no question of its value - 24 hours/day.
                      May I always be found beneath your contempt.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Rail Transit

                        Originally posted by joshuatree View Post
                        Oh I'm aware of the daily usage but they are usually short dashes, not the entire length of the freeway, which seems to be an argument point anti-railers like to use. That an emergency vehicle can hop on a HOT from one end to the other vs rail is a weak argument because that doesn't happen often.

                        When rail removes significant amounts of people off the road, the existing roads and freeways will be sufficient for the emergency vehicles.
                        Joshua, trauma cases island-wide may be taken to Queen's (fire trucks from Pearl City may respond to large fires in Waianae, police can be seen racing from one end of the freeway to the other [on emergency calls?], etc.). Emergency vehicles don't need to use the HOT lane, they can make way on a priority basis by using their sirens/lights. The existing roadways ARE sufficient for emergency vehicles, and in fact for every vehicle. The problem lies only with rush hour traffic - something better addressed by policy/behavioral change than by creating an expensive commuter edifice.

                        One question please, where are these people who will desert the roads for a rail system? The only people currently willing to give up their cars ride the bus (or walk or bicycle or ride-share) and will continue that behavior when we have rail. The bus is currently as fast as rail is projected to be, so who is going to switch from cars to rail (and why aren't they on the bus now)?
                        Last edited by salmoned; July 9, 2008, 10:03 AM.
                        May I always be found beneath your contempt.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Rail Transit

                          Originally posted by salmoned View Post
                          People who live far from work are penalized by their commute to work - the longer the commute, the higher the time 'penalty'. Trying to ameliorate that penalty at the expense of the general public is wrong-headed in that it rewards inefficiency. If energy were free, it still wouldn't make sense to live far from work.
                          I'd say that depends on what that time penalty buys you.

                          There's no reason to believe that most people are incapable of living within 5 miles of work, especially on an island that's 40 miles long and 26 miles wide. It WOULD be wonderful, wouldn't it?
                          You'll ceratinly have the support of the housekeepers of the rich and famous.

                          Most children DO live within 5 miles of their school - how did THAT happen?
                          I shop at the nearest Target. How did that happen? My wife works for a major studio in their corporate HQ in Century City. We couldn't afford to live within 5 miles if they halved the home prices.

                          If intelligent people disagree, why don't they present their case?
                          They're stuck in traffic.

                          The 'we' is our government, the same organization trying to push the rail system down our throats without a proper evaluation. Yards and trees and peace and quiet are nice, but why should I pay for yours when I can't afford it for myself?
                          Because you could come over and swim and drink and not have to drive to get back.

                          It's us po' fo'k what's payin' dat excise tax fo' you rich fo'k's train commute. WE already walk, bicycle or bus to work and know that transferring to a train and then maybe back to a bus is gonna take a whole lot longer than what we got now.
                          Folks who commute distances to reach affordable homes aren't rich generally. Rich folks often have short commutes and will always be able to afford to drive. If they use public trans it's on principle.
                          “First we fought the preliminary round for the k***s and now we’re gonna fight the main event for the n*****s."
                          http://hollywoodbitchslap.com/review...=416&printer=1

                          Comment


                          • Re: Rail Transit

                            I see, those 'intelligent people' you spoke of proved to be not intelligent at all.
                            May I always be found beneath your contempt.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Rail Transit

                              Originally posted by salmoned View Post
                              Joshua, trauma cases island-wide may be taken to Queen's (fire trucks from Pearl City may respond to large fires in Waianae, police can be seen racing from one end of the freeway to the other [on emergency calls?], etc.). Emergency vehicles don't need to use the HOT lane, they can make way on a priority basis by using their sirens/lights. The existing roadways ARE sufficient for emergency vehicles, and in fact for every vehicle. The problem lies only with rush hour traffic - something better addressed by policy/behavioral change than by creating an expensive commuter edifice.

                              One question please, where are these people who will desert the roads for a rail system? The only people currently willing to give up their cars ride the bus (or walk or bicycle or ride-share) and will continue that behavior when we have rail. The bus is currently as fast as rail is projected to be, so who is going to switch from cars to rail (and why aren't they on the bus now)?
                              So what exactly is the policy/behavioral change you are espousing? I haven't seen any detail. A lot of vague comments won't resolve the transit issue.

                              And what makes you so certain that the only people willing to give up their cars are those that already aren't using a car? You seem so confident to speak for all. As the cost of living continues to rise, watch more people trading for smaller cars or getting rid of them if there is an alternative.

                              Also, not everyone can afford to live near where they work. Your comments that those who live far away from their jobs lack intelligence are over simplistic and rather condescending.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Rail Transit

                                Huh? I've mentioned more than a few changes, maybe you should look back a bit. I'm not suggesting any of my ideas are perfect, just that there are other possible solutions. A rail system won't resolve the transit issue, either, by the proponents' own admission.

                                What makes me certain is the proof of current behavior. Sure, people could change, just don't go holding your breath (and spend billions of dollars on a transit system that's redundant to and less flexible than the one we already have) until they do. I don't speak for all, but I do speak from plainly observing how people behave. Yes, I'd expect more people to buy more fuel efficient cars, but as for an alternative to cars - there already IS one, one that services more neighborhoods than rail will ever reach and is much cheaper than cars. It's a great alternative - so why can't you answer my one question? Why aren't the drivers currently congesting traffic during rush hour taking The Bus? It won't be cheaper than The Bus, it won't be faster than The Bus - what will make them choose to take a train, when they refuse to take a bus now? Are they going to get smarter, more considerate of their neighbors, more cost conscious?

                                I never suggested EVERYONE could/should/can/must live near their work, only that it is preferred. It is I who would lack intelligence were I to willingly pay for your decision to live far from your work, when I have chosen otherwise. You pay for what you choose, I pay for what I choose. I buy a house that costs twice as much as yours (or is half as nice), but walk to work; you buy a half-price (or twice nice) house and pay to commute. Why should I NOW fund your [bad] decision? Simple, yes; simplistic, no.
                                Last edited by salmoned; July 9, 2008, 04:46 PM.
                                May I always be found beneath your contempt.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X