Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rail Transit

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

  • Re: Rail Transit

    Random, I see you're making an assumption on where the rail line and station(s) MIGHT be located - there's no guarantee. Kalihi may not even have a stop when all is said and done. On the other end, do you know for certain your workplace will be within walking distance of a station? As for transfers, I'm not talking about added expense, I'm discussing the added wait time for commuters. Whether you have a pass or not, transfers entail waiting. Also, a rail system may not combine funds with The Bus and there may be no 'monthly pass' for rail. You may not have noticed, but I was specifically addressing joshuatree's and Composite2992's quoted comments, not making a blanket observation for any and every person's personal position/conditions.
    Last edited by salmoned; July 14, 2008, 01:58 PM.
    May I always be found beneath your contempt.

    Comment


    • Re: Rail Transit

      Originally posted by salmoned View Post
      Random, I see you're making an assumption on where the rail line and station(s) MIGHT be located - there's no guarantee. Kalihi may not even have a stop when it's all said and done.
      They going bypass Kalihi? That would be a world-class dumbest move on your County government's part. Whoever is the councilperson for Kalihi should be tarred-n-feathered (or thrown into the Kilauea volcano) for not fighting for such a route, in addition to being elected out of office.

      If the enhanced bus system includes bringing back a Kalihi-to-Airport route back, I'd support you ... spiritually.
      Last edited by Random; July 14, 2008, 01:52 PM.
      Beijing 8-08-08 to 8-24-08

      Tiananmen Square 4-15-89 to 6-04-89

      Comment


      • Re: Rail Transit

        Proposed routes through Kalihi vary from Nimitz Hwy, Dillingham, King St. or even School St. They haven't even really decided if the UH West Oahu campus should have a stop.

        Yeah, more drivers, but not as much more personnel as a rail system would entail - and another unionized group to 'compete', seesaw fashion, with bus driver contracts. 'Hey, dey get mo', we want mo'!'
        Last edited by salmoned; July 14, 2008, 02:45 PM.
        May I always be found beneath your contempt.

        Comment


        • Re: Rail Transit

          Originally posted by salmoned View Post
          Proposed routes through Kalihi vary from Nimitz Hwy, Dillingham, King St. or even School St. They haven't even really decided if the UH West Oahu campus should have a stop.
          So, the Stop Rails movement is more about having a well-laid plan including routes before we build them, not "we don't want rails, period."
          Beijing 8-08-08 to 8-24-08

          Tiananmen Square 4-15-89 to 6-04-89

          Comment


          • Re: Rail Transit

            Originally posted by salmoned View Post
            Yeah, more drivers, but not as much more personnel as a rail system would entail - and another unionized group to 'compete', seesaw fashion, with bus driver contracts. 'Hey, dey get mo', we want mo'!'
            What's wrong with having security at rail stations?

            TheBus could use a few "Transit Marshals" despite only a few incidents that involves a bus rider (be it male or female) and a perpetrator or two.
            Beijing 8-08-08 to 8-24-08

            Tiananmen Square 4-15-89 to 6-04-89

            Comment


            • Re: Rail Transit

              Just because I don't support rail doesn't mean I don't pay attention to modifications of the proposal. Who knows, they may make a proposal that makes sense and I wouldn't want to miss the opportunity to support a sensible plan. They're spending millions just figuring out what sort of rail system they want, having rejected better options, and that money is being spent before a plebiscite will be held, am I to ignore information paid for by my tax dollars? I'm not against rail per se, I'm against the concept that rail is the best way to address Honolulu's transit problems. If we had a population one order of magnitude higher and a correspondingly bigger traffic problem, rail might be suitable. As it is and as it is projected to be in the next 30 years, it isn't suitable. In the meantime, if C & C planning isn't able to promote intelligent development (including much reduced growth), then worsening traffic and other strained resources will create a compelling incentive for improved planning.

              Nothing is 'wrong' with rail security, it is an integral part of every rail system of which I am aware. Why wasn't security included (by the experts) in the $3.7 billion estimated cost of the system two years ago? Or the $5 billion estimated cost today? Why wasn't the cost of foreclosing/buying property included? Or the cost of servicing the debt that will be incurred?
              Last edited by salmoned; July 14, 2008, 04:07 PM.
              May I always be found beneath your contempt.

              Comment


              • Re: Rail Transit

                Originally posted by salmoned View Post
                1) There's been no successful petition for rail (for the last 35 years). Now, there's a successful petition against rail [since the mayor decided for it without a plebiscite]. I find that lack of a successful petition FOR rail significant and not moot.

                2) Of course it won't. But why does anyone want to guarantee 2 transfers for life, when they can enjoy no transfers and even express service (when and where there's demand) by bus right now?

                3) Try living with an inflexible backbone, you'll change your tune. Even internet backbones have to be flexible and the more flexible the better. You want to cite Southwest's flexibility as an example of the benefits of fixed hub and spoke systems? You're not gonna fool me with that one.

                4) I've used BART extensively. It's been around for quite a while. I haven't seen an increase in commerce there. Can you really show proof of increased commerce in Hong Kong or Japan DUE to their rail systems? It is more likely commercial enterprises migrated to rail stations to take advantage of the 'captive' population.

                5) Of course, you're happy to omit any factor increasing the estimated costs. For $3.7 billion, we could have gotten a rail line from downtown to almost reach Kapolei 2 years ago (with no cost of inflation or price increases [like the doubling of the price of steel since then]). That's not the figure today and even the original estimate never included the price of the land the system will be built on or interest charges, and was probably overly optimistic on shipping and labor costs, as well. My $10,000/person figure has already been dwarfed by any realistic current estimate.

                Look, even if the feds picked up the whole tab, the expenses of operation (you don't think it's going to pay for itself, I hope) will bleed funds which could support more essential C & C services, including bus service (which is more essential because it reaches into almost all communities). The benefits of rail as a solution to rush hour traffic are simply not large enough to justify the expense, especially since there are plenty of other low cost or no cost solutions available. Here's one, instead of one zipper lane, move it farther out to two, or how about a dedicated Bus freeway lane (worse for everyone else, better for bus commuters - maybe the bus CAN beat your car, if traffic gets bad enough).
                1) Your argument is circular. Both Hanneman and Bainum were pro-rail during their run for mayor. Unless you weren't paying attention or didn't care at the time, voting for either candidate meant you knew to a degree they want to put in rail and supported it. The current petition against rail is struggling. Seriously, I know people who've been heckled because they didn't sign the petition. That's some pretty strong arm tactics for a supposed democratic process. I've said it before and I'll say it again, if the opposition is so overwhelming, it does not need this long and this much effort to get the amount of signatures it has. And the number so far is based on what they claim, none of the signatures have yet to be officially certified.

                2) What makes you think all riders entail 2 transfers? It's rather presumptuous of you to assume all riders need 2 transfers. And clearly you've chosen to ignore that transfers are not an issue if the frequency is high and ultimately if transfers result in a feeder bus closer to your doorstep, it's a good trade off. Try not to think in the context of private transportation. Comparing private transportation to public transportation is comparing apples to oranges. As a public transit user, I rather have multiple transfers any day if it means I literally have service at my doorstep and a good frequency of service.

                3) Negative, a backbone is a backbone. Otherwise it be called something else. A single rail line that can displace 20+ bus routes is a smart move. Do you know how many buses are involved in 20+ bus routes and it's affiliated schedule? If you want to add even more supposed express bus routes, how many buses will you ultimately need? Remember, each bus has maybe only a capacity of 60 and needs a driver. One train can carry hundreds and requires no driver. Internet backbones that are flexible are inferior and poorly designed. It's a simple as that. Try working with telcos. They will let hell freeze over before they do anything to change their core backbones. All the flexibility happens at the distribution and access layers. In the case of public transit, it happens with the feeder buses. There's nothing to fool you with in regards to Southwest. Presently, there is no such thing as a point-to-point flight across the country on Southwest. They have developed a form of hub and spoke. Please show me a Southwest coast to coast flight that is nonstop.

                4) Did I say anything about BART? BART epitomizes the old American concept of public transit. Where is it written in stone we on Oahu can only follow that path? I mentioned Tokyo and Hong Kong. You ask for proof. Please research Hong Kong's MTR corporation. A public entity that has now been privatized and traded on the stock market. It's been so successful in developing real estate and commerce around rail stations that it's model is being mimicked by Vancouver. Why do you think this model cannot be replicated on a smaller scale on Oahu where real estate is a prime money maker? Oh yeah, one failure of BART is, how well is the local bus system integrated with the BART? That's the issue with many existing US pubic transit systems. They tend to separate the bus system from the rail system. It doesn't work that way, bus and rail are all part of the public transit system and need to be viewed as one comprehensive system. Given Oahu's small size, this is realistically achievable and the current proposal to create a central public transit agency is spot on.

                5) And what about the costs of not giving the people of Oahu a traffic alternative? How much does it already cost us annually in wasted fuel, time, and productivity in congested traffic? These are real and tangible numbers. You talk about dedicated bus lanes but the last mayor tried that with an estimated price tag of over a billion dollars. So please explain to me why did it fail? Why did the feds consider the plan a failure and chose not to fund it? How many more ludicrous shouts of "let's try other alternatives before rail" do we have to put up with before realizing we did try other alternatives, they failed, so let's just get to work and implement rail. We could have had rail in 1992 for only a billion plus. But it's the same arguments and stubbornness that killed it last time. So in the last 16 years, what has been done in regards to buses and roads and supposedly alternate solutions to resolve the traffic crunch? NOTHING, so enough is enough. Let those of us that really want a traffic solution fix the problem.

                Comment


                • Re: Rail Transit

                  Originally posted by salmoned View Post
                  If it's such a great idea and was a great idea 35 years ago, why haven't we already done it?
                  It's because nay sayers keep getting in the way of implementing a good idea.

                  As for increasing bus capacity, with a bus going through downtown every 30 seconds at peak traffic hours, that'll be a neat trick. Maybe connect the buses so that they go through every two seconds. In which case you have, yes, a TRAIN.

                  Nothing, other than helicopters, can go from point-to-point faster than a car. Doesn't take special intelligence to figure that one out. But rail is a more efficient option to move a lot of people in and out of a congested area than a car, and faster than a bus.

                  Yes, cost would have been less if we did it earlier. Back when the rail system was first studied the federal government could have covered up to 80 percent. But there's that issue of a minority of people putting up barriers to progress, striking irrational fear into the hearts of the uninformed. It's held us up before and might do so again. Then the majority of people who know better, and who have a sense of what is needed for the future, will have to get the show back on the road again.

                  No one is saying anyone should have to give up their cars. But the rail system is an opportunity for those who want a practical commuting option that will beat any bus system.

                  HOV lanes haven't worked. In fact, the HOV lane on H1 is a joke. Take a look at how many single occupants drive in that lane every day. What a waste that concept was. The HOV lane going through Waipahu, Pearl City and Aiea moves at the same pace as the rest of the lanes. Where's the advantage for those who are trying to make a difference by carpooling? The Zipper Lane doesn't carry enough to make a serious dent in traffic capacity. And when it does, it moves at the same pace as the rest of the lanes. How useless is that? And it takes just one fender bender to bring it to a complete halt.

                  Some bus routes are maxed out. While you say getting passed is not a big deal, it certainly IS a big deal if you're the one getting passed up.

                  Look toward the future. People will always have to get from outlying areas into downtown Honolulu, the airport, and the University. The question is: how do you move thousands of people, independent of gridlocked street traffic, without the clutter and cost of cars? Jet packs? PeopleMover conveyor belts? Star Trek teleporters?

                  With the increase in population here, it's no longer reasonable to say "no". You have to experience the traffic on the Leeward side to understand how bad it is and how much worse it will get. I stay off the roads after 2 p.m. because it's a waste of time and gas. You can't help but get stuck in traffic in Ewa after 3 p.m. and it stays that way for the next four hours. Try it for a month and see how wonderful it is.

                  Rather than "just say no", embrace the concept, and come up with strategies to make it work. Cramming more cars into the traffic stream is NOT the answer for the near term or for the years ahead. Rail isn't cheap, but the true cost of cars already dwarfs the cost of rail: $7,800 a year according to AAA. 710,000 cars on Oahu according to Hawaii State Data. Based on simple math, we spend $5,538,000,000 annually on cars.

                  More than 11 billion dollars in two years. And you think rail is expensive?

                  Comment


                  • Re: Rail Transit

                    How is it that we supposedly have a majority for rail transit, and yet the 'naysayers' have continually won the day for the last 35 years - even against the powers-that-be that wanted a rail system? How can a minority with meager assets strong-arm the government into following a policy that's detrimental to the public good? What private interest gains from not building a rail system?

                    Full trains may be more efficient than cars (but not necessarily in the future as cars are continually replaced and improved), but empty trains are much less efficient than empty cars because empty cars don't consume fuel, but empty and nearly empty trains will fill a train schedule and continue to consume fuel, especially if the trains run every 10 minutes from 4am to midnight, as planned.

                    Tokyo and Hong Kong have a bit larger population than Oahu. If we had that large a population, a rail system would be justified, as I have previously stated. We don't.

                    The billion dollar cost for a dedicated busway was predicated on new construction, I suggest we use an existing lane for dedicated bus service - cost would be minimal and increased traffic would encourage bus use.

                    Has anyone read that UH professor's study on rail transit for Oahu?

                    I don't know what is meant by 'some bus routes are 'maxed out'. Do you mean it's just bus after bus, continually picking up busload after busload with spacing for safety only? I never imagined The Bus had such successful routes. I've seen 2 buses travel the same route together due to high demand, but never a continuous line of buses.

                    I keep seeing this 'comparison' concerning spending on cars versus spending on a rail system. The spending on cars won't go away were we to build a rail system. People individually choose to have a car or not, we don't insist everyone buy a car or make them pay. We already have a viable, publicly funded alternative for those who choose not to drive, why do we need yet another?

                    How is rail going to 'beat' the bus system when it will certainly RELY on the bus system to make it viable? I never claimed everyone would require 2 transfers, only those who don't live close enough to walk to the train station or walk from the train station to where they are going, which will likely be a large majority of riders.

                    I don't look forward to a future of unlimited population growth - it's just not the future I choose to pursue.

                    710,000 cars on Oahu. How many of those cars will disappear due to rail? How much money will we transfer from cars to rail? Answer - none. The C & C doesn't pay for those cars, in fact, those car owners pay for the C & C to build and maintain the roadways of which everyone enjoys the use.

                    "Rather than 'just say no', embrace the concept..."? I see, how about "rather than 'just say no', embrace the concept of paying for something unwanted, unneeded and detrimental to your lifestyle for the indefinite future..." Now, why should I embrace the concept, when it's the reality I would have to endure?
                    Last edited by salmoned; July 15, 2008, 08:43 AM.
                    May I always be found beneath your contempt.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Rail Transit

                      Originally posted by salmoned View Post

                      I don't know what is meant by 'some bus routes are 'maxed out'. Do you mean it's just bus after bus, continually picking up busload after busload with spacing for safety only? I never imagined The Bus had such successful routes. I've seen 2 buses travel the same route together due to high demand, but never a continuous line of buses.
                      Ever tried to catch a bus near Bishop and King streets? Perfect example of maxed out buses.
                      Last edited by helen; July 15, 2008, 08:45 AM. Reason: fixing the quote tag
                      ~ This is the strangest life I've ever known ~

                      Comment


                      • Re: Rail Transit

                        Originally posted by turtlegirl View Post
                        Ever tried to catch a bus near Bishop and King streets? Perfect example of maxed out buses.
                        Oh, I see. Not a bus system 'maxed out', just a bus. No, I always walk down to an earlier stop when the odds for getting on look bad or I ask the driver to open the rear door because I see room there. Of course, when the driver just drives on by without stopping, I'm outta luck. So, does that mean the successful rail systems in Tokyo and Hong Kong don't have 'maxed out' trains? I've heard otherwise. So the point is, uh, drive your car because it's never 'maxed out'? Or was the entire mention of 'maxed out' buses meaningless? At least, the bus system can respond fairly quickly (a matter of hours, days or months) to capacity demands. A rail system will be no more capable of anticipating and responding to demand.
                        Last edited by salmoned; July 15, 2008, 09:07 AM.
                        May I always be found beneath your contempt.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Rail Transit

                          Originally posted by salmoned View Post
                          How is it that we supposedly have a majority for rail transit, and yet the 'naysayers' have continually won the day for the last 35 years - even against the powers-that-be that wanted a rail system? How can a minority with meager assets
                          I question the meager part. Those who sympathize with you or share your interest without joining/registering your movement are not entirely selfless.

                          This is a political game, and while your group is dealing out in the open and in public, there are always someone backdoor dealing as well.
                          Beijing 8-08-08 to 8-24-08

                          Tiananmen Square 4-15-89 to 6-04-89

                          Comment


                          • Re: Rail Transit

                            Originally posted by salmoned View Post
                            Oh, I see. Not a bus system 'maxed out', just a bus.
                            When was the last time you rode a bus as your only means of transportation? Lucky if your route never had buses maxed out during rush hours.

                            "A bus." Bah! I think ALL not most or some of the Stop Rails Now members should ride the bus regularly.
                            Beijing 8-08-08 to 8-24-08

                            Tiananmen Square 4-15-89 to 6-04-89

                            Comment


                            • Re: Rail Transit

                              Originally posted by salmoned View Post
                              So the point is, uh, drive your car because it's never 'maxed out'?
                              Ok, sure, your private car may never be maxed out, unless you're the star of John and Kate Plus Eight.

                              Unfortunately and obviously many of our ROADS are maxed out. And the point is to have viable alternate non-road-using transportation. Sheesh! Will you ever get it?

                              I remember when the Red Line light rail opened in Los Angeles. For the first year it was often nearly empty. People were complaining that it "didn't go anywhere" , "is inconvenient", and "doesn't serve my needs", and "I won't give up my car". Now, just a few years later, it is regularly used by many, and often full. I know Sinjin can back me up on this story.

                              And even if some prefer their cars to drive to work, have you considered that it might be nice to go for lunch on the rail? Imagine this - instead of wasting half your lunch hour driving and then trying to find parking, or walking for blocks in the heat, you can take a nice air conditioned train a stop or two down the line to a restaurant and enjoy more of your lunchtime.

                              Regardless, it IS time to try to reduce road traffic, and the answer IS rail.
                              ~ This is the strangest life I've ever known ~

                              Comment


                              • Re: Rail Transit

                                How many cars are running near empty (single occupant) everyday, 90%? Collectively, they out consume fuel compared to an empty train. How about near empty buses that burn diesel that run the non-peak hours? During non-peak hours, the train will be using electricity from the grid that would have been produced from fuel regardless if anyone would be using it, otherwise known as the baseload. Let's not forget a powerplant is far superior in efficiency when producing electricity from fuel than a car would any day.

                                Tokyo and HK may have larger populations but they have multiple train lines. When looked at population per line, we are within parameters. Also, we are fossil fuel resource poor like these two places. We also are limited in land availability like these two places. Our population is much smaller than LA but why does our skyline look like Tokyo or HK?

                                Harris's BRT involved existing roadways, taking lanes away from cars along Dillingham. It still carried a price tag of over a billion.

                                Post 613, "But why does anyone want to guarantee 2 transfers for life".

                                Having a reliable alternative form of transit means people can really opt out of owning a car or reducing the number of cars in a household. This would be tangible savings. Is it really a choice with the car when there isn't a reliable alternate? The current bus system falls under alternate but it is not reliable as attested by many user experiences posted here. This is not about building a separate, second alternative. This is an expansion and evolution of the bus system. Just simply multiplying the number of buses is not scalable nor does it address reliability issues with schedule.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X