Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rail Transit

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

  • Re: Rail Transit

    well, at the risk of getting attacked by anti-railers...
    <sticks toe in, tests the waters>
    ... I wish that this proposed vote was not about forcing the public to make a yes or no decision, but rather a where and why decision.

    We do need a light rail service. We do not need it everywhere that it has been proposed. Some of the rail service is easy and obvious to plan - such as a route from the airport to Waikiki, or Ewa side to Honolulu, or UH to...wherever people that attend UH live. It should not necessarily be imposed upon communities that will truly not need it, don't want it, and will always 'rail' against it. Such as Hawaii Kai, for example. Those people generally have 3 or more new cars in their driveways, and likely nothing short of the complete absence of fuel will get them out of their cars. Fine. The railway planners should just leave them out of the proposed loop. But there are many communities who will enjoy having rail as an option, and will use it regularly, and these people should have a say in where the rail will service.

    So, instead of a final yes vs. no vote, I'd prefer if people could vote based on the merit of their individual communities' need and want for rail service. Yes on rail! No on rail anywhere and everywhere they feel like putting it!
    ~ This is the strangest life I've ever known ~

    Comment


    • Re: Rail Transit

      Originally posted by Creative-1 View Post
      I'm close to the Stop Rail Now folks and they are NOT special interests.

      They are taxpayers who have studied rail and know that it has NOT alleviated traffic in ANY U.S. city.

      They use U.S. Dept. of Transportation figures, not their own. Average ridership in the U.S. is in the 3 - 5 % range.

      Even Hannemann's own projections are that 7% will use it.

      SRN opposes rail in Honolulu because it would be a huge waste of money.

      We're distant from other cities with rail. It looks good to casual observers or on paper. But once they are built, they have NO NOTICEABLE impact on traffic.

      There are much better solutions:
      1) Dedicated lanes
      2) Four day work weeks
      3) Better traffic management
      4) Staggered work/school hours
      5) Moving jobs to where people live rather than vice versa.

      All of these cost less and are more effective than rail.

      Dedicated lanes - Dedicated in what way? HOT? Better yet, why not just save some money and convert the entire H1 into a toll road? No need to build anything extra. Only occupants of 3 or more can use the H1 for free.

      4 day work weeks - Great but can you force private companies to do this? Perhaps for city employees, but then, how will the public like only having 4 days out of the week to get service? I'm used to 24/7 Walmart or banks having 6 days a week of business hours.

      Better traffic management - All for it but does one really think all it takes is a few more control rooms, light syncs, and CCTVs to resolve the issue? It should be pursued but don't count on it to magically fix traffic.

      4 & 5- Again, isn't it up to those respective schools and businesses to decide?


      Originally posted by turtlegirl View Post
      well, at the risk of getting attacked by anti-railers...
      <sticks toe in, tests the waters>
      ... I wish that this proposed vote was not about forcing the public to make a yes or no decision, but rather a where and why decision.

      We do need a light rail service. We do not need it everywhere that it has been proposed. Some of the rail service is easy and obvious to plan - such as a route from the airport to Waikiki, or Ewa side to Honolulu, or UH to...wherever people that attend UH live. It should not necessarily be imposed upon communities that will truly not need it, don't want it, and will always 'rail' against it. Such as Hawaii Kai, for example. Those people generally have 3 or more new cars in their driveways, and likely nothing short of the complete absence of fuel will get them out of their cars. Fine. The railway planners should just leave them out of the proposed loop. But there are many communities who will enjoy having rail as an option, and will use it regularly, and these people should have a say in where the rail will service.

      So, instead of a final yes vs. no vote, I'd prefer if people could vote based on the merit of their individual communities' need and want for rail service. Yes on rail! No on rail anywhere and everywhere they feel like putting it!
      I concur, how do you feel about the proposed vote for a transit authority?

      Comment


      • Re: Rail Transit

        Originally posted by Creative-1 View Post
        [...]
        They use U.S. Dept. of Transportation figures, not their own. Average ridership in the U.S. is in the 3 - 5 % range.

        Even Hannemann's own projections are that 7% will use it.
        [...]
        Based on an Oahu population of (rounded number) 900,000...and using the 3, 5 and 7 percentages you mention above, here's what possible ridership looks like:
        3% = 27,000
        5% = 45,000
        7% = 63,000

        I'm not judging whether these number are good, bad or indifferent because I don't know but I'm willing to learn! Also, what is TheBus ridership? This number has, I'm sure, been mentioned in HT but the search turns up too many posts to read!

        Comment


        • Re: Rail Transit

          Originally posted by joshuatree View Post
          After listening to both sides, Sakamoto pulled out his notes on a yellow legal pad and read a prepared statement. He had harsh words for the city for attempting to keep the question off of the general election ballot: “The voice of the people should not be suffocated by erroneous rulings of the law by its own government. The city clerk shall immediately cease any continuing refusal to accept the petition," Sakamoto said.

          Hmmm, so it appears the judge already made up his mind even before lawyers from both sides could make their opening statements? Another farce trial in court.

          Link
          Originally posted by Random View Post
          FIRE SAKAMOTO!!! I no care if losing his judge's salary will force his children to attend public school.
          Couldn’t have said it better myself. Kitaoka should be furious with this ruling! The fact of the matter is, it’s only a preliminary injunction, so the city should appeal it. Sakamoto was obviously ruling based on personal sentiment, rather than any opinion based on law. That’s a no-no. Kudos to Malia Zimmerman and hawaiireporter.com for giving us more insight into the courtroom antics of this shibai ruling.

          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

            Originally posted by Creative-1 View Post
            I'm close to the Stop Rail Now folks and they are NOT special interests.

            They are taxpayers who have studied rail and know that it has NOT alleviated traffic in ANY U.S. city.

            They use U.S. Dept. of Transportation figures, not their own. Average ridership in the U.S. is in the 3 - 5 % range.

            Even Hannemann's own projections are that 7% will use it.

            SRN opposes rail in Honolulu because it would be a huge waste of money.

            We're distant from other cities with rail. It looks good to casual observers or on paper. But once they are built, they have NO NOTICEABLE impact on traffic.

            There are much better solutions:
            1) Dedicated lanes
            2) Four day work weeks
            3) Better traffic management
            4) Staggered work/school hours
            5) Moving jobs to where people live rather than vice versa.

            All of these cost less and are more effective than rail.
            SRN's champion, Panos Prevedouros, is the president of Hawaii Highway Users Alliance, an advocate for pro-highway policies. How can you claim SRN is not a special interest group?

            I'd bet that if you ask people in San Franciso, Denver, Portland, Dallas, Minneapolis, heck even Charlotte, or other areas with an LRT component, they'll tell you that that rail is a convenient way to travel. Rail is an alternative, it's not supposed to be "The" solution to traffic.

            I'd really like to hear Prevedouros and Slater explain how they are going to implement solution 2 and 4, or pay for solution 1. Solution 5 is not a viable option either. How are they going to move more people to the urban core, or move more jobs out to Central, Leeward, or Windward Oahu? I bet they don't have a clue.

            Comment


            • Re: Rail Transit

              Originally posted by TuNnL View Post
              Couldn’t have said it better myself. Kitaoka should be furious with this ruling! The fact of the matter is, it’s only a preliminary injunction, so the city should appeal it. Sakamoto was obviously ruling based on personal sentiment, rather than any opinion based on law. That’s a no-no. Kudos to Malia Zimmerman and hawaiireporter.com for giving us more insight into the courtroom antics of this shibai ruling.

              I'm sure your reaction wasn't the sort of reaction Zimmerman was hoping for.

              Comment


              • Re: Rail Transit

                hi this is sansei and i spoke with my sister on this issue and i shared with her of the judge ruling in the stop rail now coalition and how they want it on the ballot and my sister say's they do it where she live's only she dissaprove's of this is it should be up to the city's mayor who want's it the way he or she does and not from a coalition who want's to de-rail,rail and i agree with her and she say's in the city she live's in, their rail work's well and their's more rider ship there and i also agree with her on this point also.

                In response to random,in my thought's,i wondered why i should vote no on this question that was posted,i thought if you vote yes,it would be ok for the mayor to build rail is we need rail,not h.ot. lane's or elevated highway's or toll b's and my sister said none of these would work here also.

                Well thank's for your time

                Comment


                • Re: Rail Transit

                  Originally posted by Keanu View Post
                  SRN's champion, Panos Prevedouros, is the president of Hawaii Highway Users Alliance, an advocate for pro-highway policies. How can you claim SRN is not a special interest group?
                  I'd define a SIG as a group who has an agenda different from the general population. Usually this means they'd benefit financially in some way, like the carpenter's union.

                  Stop Rail Now are taxpayers who use and pay for our transportation systems. Cliff Slater or Panos will not benefit financially any more than you or I.

                  Originally posted by Keanu View Post
                  I'd bet that if you ask people in San Franciso, Denver, Portland, Dallas, Minneapolis, heck even Charlotte, they'll tell you that that rail is a convenient way to travel. Rail is an alternative, it's not supposed to be "The" solution to traffic.
                  I'm sure some would, but most would say they rarely use it because it's inconvenient for them. Most would say it would take longer and cost more to use rail, something Honolulu will discover AFTER it's built.

                  Originally posted by Keanu View Post
                  I'd really like to hear Prevedouros and Slater explain how they are going to implement solution 2 and 4, or pay for solution 1. Solution 5 is not a viable option either. How are they going to move more people to the urban core, or move more jobs out to Central, Leeward, or Windward Oahu? I bet they don't have a clue.
                  Dedicated lanes cost much less than rail. If they were toll lanes, they'd pay for themselves (and take people off H-1).

                  Solution 5 is my favorite. Tax credits work across the U.S. to lure companies that create jobs. I think they'd have to be more generous than the average U.S. ($3-5,000 over 3-5 years per job).

                  But if they had to be $10,000 per job, this could be implemented at only 10% of the $4.6 billion cost of rail and be much more successful at taking cars off the road.

                  I'm sure many leeward residents would rather work near where they live.

                  The other solutions don't have to be massive or costly to take more cars off the road than rail.

                  The City says rail will take 800 cars an hour off the road (8,000 current leeward commuters; 16,000 projected in 20 years).

                  Of all the alternatives, rail is the least effective and costliest.

                  I support SRN because I feel rail is a poor choice.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Rail Transit

                    According to a Star-Bulletin poll, about 15% of respondents said they used the bus. 81% drove alone.

                    http://starbulletin.com/2008/07/28/news/story02.html

                    According to an Advertiser poll, 47% said they were unlikely to use rail. However, 16% said they would use it and another 24% said they were somewhat likely. If they lived close to the line, those numbers change significantly with 23% saying they're likely to use it and 23% saying they were somewhat likely to use it. That's a much higher number in either case than currently riding the bus. Those "very unlikely" to use the rail system drops to 31%.

                    http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/ap...807280345/1001

                    Gas prices is the leading incentive to use rail. Of those saying they'd use the rail system, 24% said high gas prices would be a reason for using rail transit, according to the poll. Just 8% said they'd use it to avoid traffic. Only 5% said they wouldn't use the rail because they were opposed to it.

                    Rail isn't just about alleviating traffic. It's also about giving citizens a mobility option. How to get to their jobs and other destinations without depending upon cars or getting stuck on a bus. It's also about energy efficiency, and that's probably one of the most forward-looking aspects of this transportation solution.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Rail Transit

                      Originally posted by Creative-1 View Post
                      Dedicated lanes cost much less than rail. If they were toll lanes, they'd pay for themselves (and take people off H-1).

                      Solution 5 is my favorite. Tax credits work across the U.S. to lure companies that create jobs. I think they'd have to be more generous than the average U.S. ($3-5,000 over 3-5 years per job).

                      But if they had to be $10,000 per job, this could be implemented at only 10% of the $4.6 billion cost of rail and be much more successful at taking cars off the road.
                      How would toll lanes be cheaper than rail when toll lanes absolutely require the continued use of a car? So now not only does one have to deal with the cost of car ownership and maintenance, one has the additional burden of paying a daily toll. A fully deployed rail/bus system gives one the alternative of not needing a car or reducing a household's car ownership from multiple cars to a single car. This logic of just looking at the upfront price tag and ignoring all the other hidden costs of toll lanes just baffles me.

                      By giving tax credits to companies, are we not asking the taxpayer to fork out the money? So how is this different than the rail project? In fact, it would seem to be even more special interest as companies would benefit directly from public money. Slater is a businessman, this argument makes obvious sense of his position and as a taxpayer, I refuse to subsidize his business. In addition, there is no guarantee a person works for one company for life. What happens when a person lives in an area and works in the area but then switches jobs to another area? How much tax subsidy will be needed to keep up with this?

                      Comment


                      • Re: Rail Transit

                        Originally posted by Creative-1 View Post
                        I'm sure many leeward residents would rather work near where they live.
                        Good idea. But not possible if you're an air traffic controller, nurse at Shriner's Hospital, longshoreman, downtown secretary, waiter in a Waikiki restaurant, vehicle registration clerk, UH assistant professor, Honda mechanic at Pflueger, etc.

                        Work is where you find it. Take a poll and you'll probably find a minority of respondents saying they took a job because it was close to home. They'll choose profession availability and pay scale first.

                        The question to ask is: how do you move thousands of people every single day in all weather conditions along the Honolulu transit corridor without depending upon cars, and how to do it independently of gridlocked traffic?

                        As for the cost of rail, the amount we spend to own and operate our cars each year at least equals what it would cost to build the entire rail system. Multiply $7,000 (a bit less than what it costs to own and operate the average car each year) by 710,000 registered owners: More than $4.97 Billion!

                        And if each car went 12,000 miles, getting 25 MPG, that translates into $1.4 Billion spent on gas. (340.8 million gallons of gas at about $4.30 a gallon).

                        These numbers aren't for statistics from the entire State of Hawaii. Just Oahu.

                        So the rail isn't cheap. But let's compare it to what we're doing right now.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Rail Transit

                          I'm REALLY getting SICK of those stop rail now people, if I knew how to I'd have crashed thier website. Bitch, bitch, bitch but no solutions. Now we have one of thier buffoons saying he's going to run for mayor? I hope he gets run out on a rail (pun intended), along with the eternal bitcher Cliff Slater.
                          GO RAIL GO!!!

                          Comment


                          • Re: Rail Transit

                            Originally posted by Keanu View Post
                            I'm sure your reaction wasn't the sort of reaction Zimmerman was hoping for.
                            Actually, I’m hoping that Zimmerman is finding her voice again. Remember, the story that made her famous was essentially, a pro-Mufi story (or at least that is the effect it had).

                            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

                              Originally posted by TuNnL View Post
                              Actually, I’m hoping that Zimmerman is finding her voice again. Remember, the story that made her famous was essentially, a pro-Mufi story (or at least that is the effect it had).
                              I remember some sort of controversy surrounding the 2004 mayoral campaign but I had no idea the magnitude of it. Wow! Thanks for the link. I've forwarded it on to another family going thru exactly the same thing right now. So far it appears they will have a more favorable outcome than the Murasaki family but not without an inordinate amount of hard, hard work.

                              Sorry for derailing this thread! <pun intended...puts it back on topic!>

                              Comment


                              • Re: Rail Transit

                                Originally posted by TuNnL View Post
                                Actually, I’m hoping that Zimmerman is finding her voice again. Remember, the story that made her famous was essentially, a pro-Mufi story (or at least that is the effect it had).
                                But, Will she be as good as Larry Price as an investigative reporter?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X