Rail Transit

[jkpescador]

Dang my son got a lot of toys cars for Christmas. He should have gotten a city bus or a rail replica.

[Composite 2992]

Originally Posted by mapen

At a cost of 6 billion, the rail will cost you, your wife/husband/SO, and all your children over $6000 EACH.

That's assuming we get billied in a single year. Amortized over 20 years it's $300/year, assuming that the State of Hawaii is footing the entire bill. However, the federal government will carry a significant portion of that burden, anywhere from half to 80 percent of it. If the feds cover 70 percent of that cost, over 20 years each of the 1 million individuals in Hawaii pay about $90/year for the construction of the system.

Again, compare rail transit to other costs. From the Advertiser, Nov 27, 1998: "A 1996 national study showed rush-hour delays cost each Oahu driver $540 a year in fuel and lost time. Honolulu was ranked 12th worst among the 50 U.S. cities studied." You can bet that figure has gone up in the past 10 years. And as it is, that's almost twice what each person would pay for a transit system over the next two decades.

[mel]

Originally Posted by Palolo Joe

If anyone is making a personal attack in this thread, it's you. Go ahead and take the low road Mel. You know I couldn't care less if you get your panties in a bunch.

And once again you take off your pants and slosh your wet stained panties into the fray when you have nothing else to say.


Only 5 days before taxes go up. Buy your big ticket items today.

[helen]

A few questions stick in my mind about this transit project assuming it's rail.

1) Will it be just one train or made of several trains
2) How often will it run?
3) Will it be a 24 hour operation?
4) Would TheBus still operate routes that run parallel to the rail?

[mel]

Originally Posted by pzarquon

You so relentlessly take the "woe is me, I'm a minority" tack, it's hard to imagine that you, too, choose to remain in Hawaii, for all the injustices heaped upon you. But obviously you do. (Otherwise, PJ has amply demonstrated there's an alternative.)

I was born and raised here as you well know, and I don't want to move. But I also don't want to pay more for everything either. 2004 the bottle tax. 2007 the rail tax. Higher property taxes. Return of GET on the mandated ethenol in gasoline. What's next? It's a never ending spiral... you know it. More money out of your wallet.

But then again, you all won. I am the minority on this board. I am just stating the obvious fact just by the number of mean responses I am getting and the personal attacks you are allowing by people such as PJ who always throws his wet panties around everytime he is frustrated.

HawaiiThreads mean? It continues to be so.
Especially if you are conservative and in the minority and express that viewpoint.

Originally Posted by pzarquon

My only hope, as others have said, that with most oars finally in the water paddling toward the same horizon, lesser people don't find a new mission in trying to sabotage and sink the boat. (I'm looking at you, Djou.) There are lots of reasons to oppose rail, I concede... but the vote is taken, the course is clear, and the mission now should be to help steer things responsibly (the countdown begins now for the first of many campaign finance and other investigations related to this big build!), not claim the title of martyr and take everyone else down with you.

Yes. The vote is taken. YOU WON. Why waste time continually lecturing me and the few other opponents on this board.

Perhaps it is time to close this subject thread. Open a new one up where only cheerleaders for rail and more taxes are allowed. Maybe I might even permanently go away from this major portion of the board as the panty man so wishes.

Only 5 days to more taxes.

[mel]

Originally Posted by Composite 2992

The issue of neighbor islanders paying for a rail transit system they'll never use is not unlike people on Oahu paying taxes that pay for roads and bridges on the neighbor islands that they'll never use. It comes with being part of a state.

The major difference between the regular portion of the GET and the surcharge portion of the GET is the fact that the surcharge is a dedicated tax applied only to the transit plan specifically for Honolulu-Oahu. The rest of the GET is allocated to the State's general fund where through the legislative process tax money is appropriated to various uses throughout the state. As things stand now, the increased portion of GET only goes to fund transit on Oahu which truly is unfair to all neighbor islanders.

[joshuatree]

Originally Posted by mapen

At a cost of 6 billion, the rail will cost you, your wife/husband/SO, and all your children over $6000 EACH.

Typical overstatement by nay-sayers. The full route with the Waikiki spur estimated by the AA is $5.5 billion with a 33% cost overrun factored into it. The other $500 million is for The Bus so that happens regardless, not unless you want to shut down The Bus too. So instead of spending all your efforts on trying to sabotage an officially voted project, if you spend your effort on making sure this project is on time and on budget, the actual build cost is $3.685 billion. Or if divided roughly by Oahu's ~900k population, $4094 a person. Over 15 years (I believe the GET surcharge is for 15 years), that's about $273 a person annually. And as composite said, there is nothing to say the city cannot find other sources of revenue to supplement this project. Maybe now that the vote is taken, we should focus on getting the city to also find additional sources of revenue instead of sabotage?

I still think it's a great idea if they built retail space into the stations. Not a lot, but enough for things like Starbucks, Post Office, ATMs, 7-11, Florists, McDs, drycleaner? Things that add more convenience for commuters since nay-sayers whine about having chores to do. The rents collected can be used to offset rail costs.

Originally Posted by mapen

Just imagine a family of four in Hilo, Hawaii. Their fair share of the cost of rail is over $24,000. And they would have to get on a plane and fly to Oahu just to use it.

I would rather focus on seeing how the GET surcharge can be applied fairly and not drag the neighbor islands into our project instead of throwing out Chicken Little stats to stir up animosity and sabotage. But then again, that's typical of some of the people of Hawaii.

Originally Posted by GeckoGeek

However, I think the property prices (and rents) are likely to rise in the areas serviced by rail because it's not easier to get to work. Then what?

Your thought intrigues me because it sounds like you don't believe rail will be a success? Yet you think the real estate around the rail will go up. How is that possible?

If you do think rail will be successful, this is why I strongly believe the city itself should dabble in real estate around the rail. Build "affordable" housing units. One, you keep the real estate in check. Two, another source of revenue to fund the rail.

[Composite 2992]

Originally Posted by helen

A few questions stick in my mind about this transit project assuming it's rail.

1) Will it be just one train or made of several trains
2) How often will it run?
3) Will it be a 24 hour operation?
4) Would TheBus still operate routes that run parallel to the rail?

1 & 2 -- it would be several trains running simultaneously. Intervals, reportedly, can be as frequent as five minutes. Each train can consist of a different number of cars to adjust for ridership.

In a fully automated system it's certainly possible to maintain a high-level of train frequency with excellent safeguards against accidents. GPS position systems are accurate to less than 30 feet with speed measurements in fractions of a mile-per-hour. Computer control may sound scary until you realize that many critical aircraft flight systems in many types of aircraft (Airbus A300, F-15, F-16) are computer controlled, including the flight surfaces themselves (ailerons, flaps, elevator, etc). It's possible to run the system unmanned, the way that elevators in buildings are unmanned. Labor costs are reduced and reliability increased.

3 -- Hours of operation? Good question. Even theBus shuts down around 11 p.m.

4 -- theBus would be an essential feeder system to the main line. Whether it'll also run parallel to the main line is a good point. Each can provide a backup to the other as no system if absolutely failure proof.

[Miulang]

Originally Posted by Pua'i Mana'o

I wish we would be proactive and look at mass transit solutions for the neighbor isles NOW. Maui could sure use it, as could the Big Isle.

I definitely agree with you about the situation on Maui, Pua'i. Even though there is now sort of a public bus system available, those buses are also caught in the middle of the traffic jams on the Piilani and Honoapiilani Hwys especially, so while they do offer an alternative, it's not a very efficient one.

It would be so cool if Maui could have either a fixed rail or monorail system going between Wailea and Lahaina and either Kahului or Wailuku, and maybe a feeder line from Upcountry (terminal with a large park and ride in Pukalani, maybe?). I know if something like that existed, it would not only help out the locals to get to their jobs, but the tourists would also find it useful. Driving on Maui is no fun at all; sometimes it gets as bad as the worst traffic jams I encounter up here. And that reverse-lane situation coming down from Pukalani gives me the creeps...it's a wonder that there haven't been more head on traffic accidents from people driving the wrong direction in the mornings and afternoons when that one inside lane reverses.

Miulang

[joshuatree]

Originally Posted by helen

A few questions stick in my mind about this transit project assuming it's rail.

1) Will it be just one train or made of several

That has yet to be decided. One of the next steps is for the council/city to decide what technology, monorail, rail on steel wheels, rail on rubber wheels, rail on magnets (personally I think that one is too unproven to seriously consider). Then whatever tech is decided, it will be several trains to provide frequency.

Originally Posted by helen

2) How often will it run?

IIRC, AA stated during peak hours, a train every 3 min at a station and usually every 6 min.

Originally Posted by helen

3) Will it be a 24 hour operation?

Again, IIRC, AA stated hours of op from 4AM to 12AM, 4 hours downtime for cleanup and maintenance.

Originally Posted by helen

4) Would TheBus still operate routes that run parallel to the rail?

Most of the parallel routes will be removed. Buses will be rerouted to do more North-South routes to run deeper into neighborhoods and also to provide new service to unserved areas. The AA estimates with rail, the 2030 bus fleet will be ~240. Right now, it's over 500. So the rail will definitely remove a few buses off the road.

[Composite 2992]

Originally Posted by Miulang

It would be so cool if Maui could have either a fixed rail or monorail system going between Wailea and Lahaina

Maui already has rail transit: The Sugar Cane Train! :-)

[Miulang]

Originally Posted by Composite 2992

Maui already has rail transit: The Sugar Cane Train! :-)

That doesn't count. Until around 1950 or so, though, Maui did have a commuter rail line (Kahului RR...I even have some tokens from that line!) that ran from H'poko to Kahului, and I think there was an extension from Kahului to Wailuku, too (I think the Wailuku Station was at the corner of Market and Main St. next to the old National Dollar Store). And Honolulu used to have cable cars, too.

Miulang

[Bard]

Originally Posted by mel

Yes. The vote is taken. YOU WON. Why waste time continually lecturing me and the few other opponents on this board.

You ever had a kid who was angry at you when out in public, and just sits down on the concrete and refuses to move? Puts all their weight into keeping you from moving them? There's still a good reason to want even the grudging support of rail opponents. It's quite possible for it to turn into even more of a drag than it might have been because of people trying to downgrade it and sabotage it. Still end up paying the taxes, and get a much crappier light rail for it.

You guys still have a very worthy and noble task ahead of you even if the gov't is hell-bent on putting in the rail: watching like hawks to make sure that it is no more expensive or burdensome than promised.

[mel]

Originally Posted by Bard

You guys still have a very worthy and noble task ahead of you even if the gov't is hell-bent on putting in the rail: watching like hawks to make sure that it is no more expensive or burdensome than promised.

That is part of the oppostion process. Divide and conquer which is what rail is also successfully doing.


General Excise Tax Surcharge Will Hurt Hawaii's Economy

[helen]

Originally Posted by mel

You will get your train. You will get more taxes. I have to pay. You too. You won.

Of course, you already won. The only thing opponents can do is continually nit pick on this every step of the way in hope the entire thing will be (unlikely) scrapped. It will be expensive no matter what.

I say it again. You won. Opponents lost. More money taken away from us. We pay more. You pay more. We all pay more. The beginning of a bottomless pit.

Up to now I can understand your view against raising taxes for rail transit since in eariler posts you do not want to ride the rail or other mass transit, you would rather drive. However we do have a traffic congestion problem that needs to be addressed. Since none of us wants to move away and this problem is going to get worse as more people stay something needs to be done.

Instead of rail would more roads being built be the answer to this problem? Even doing that it is going to cost money to do and one needs to raise taxes to get that done. Would you rather see those monies going to build more roads? It might be something that the Neighbor Islands might do with their share of the transit GET if they decided mass transit is not what they want.

As far as Oahu is concerned, right now in this moment in time no one has won and it won't be until an operational system is in place. Right now everything is in the planning stages.

And by the way an successful mass transit system does benfit you too. The more people who take it, the less people they are on the road.

[mel]

Originally Posted by helen

Up to now I can understand your view against raising taxes for rail transit since in eariler posts you do not want to ride the rail or other mass transit, you would rather drive. However we do have a traffic congestion problem that needs to be addressed. Since none of us wants to move away and this problem is going to get worse as more people stay something needs to be done.

Rail -- Do we need it? Can we afford it? Can we maintain it? No to all 3. Especially the "afford it" part.

People bitch and moan all the time about sitting in traffic now. Are they all using TheBus as is coming in from Mililani, Ewa Beach and Waianae? Many are not. Yet they bitch and moan but still choose their car over mass transit we now have. Why is that?

I am in favor of adding more busses just by using the sources of income the city currently have (the tax surcharge not being counted at this time). It's a matter of prioritizing, just like what we do in our own lives. If the city wants to prioritize transportation then something has to be cut, like parks for example. Work within the budget they already have. Not ask for more money from the taxpayers.

Originally Posted by helen

Instead of rail would more roads being built be the answer to this problem? Even doing that it is going to cost money to do and one needs to raise taxes to get that done. Would you rather see those monies going to build more roads?

You don't have to raise taxes. Build a toll road and charge users who use it a fee. Others who don't want to use the toll road can use the present system. Allow the bus to use the toll road.

The city should also look into other options like privately run jitney van service that deliever passengers door to door, seated down.

Originally Posted by helen

It might be something that the Neighbor Islands might do with their share of the transit GET if they decided mass transit is not what they want.

The neighbor islands are not getting any share of the GE Tax surchage, the increase part of the tax that only goes to Honolulu/Oahu transit. They still have to pay for it in many cases but don't benefit at all from it. The respective county councils on the neighbor islands turned down the tax authorization that was granted to them in Act 247 in 2005. Only Honolulu approved the tax, yet the neighbor islands may still have to pay for it. Unfair for them. It is a dedicated "rail" tax.

Originally Posted by helen

As far as Oahu is concerned, right now in this moment in time no one has won and it won't be until an operational system is in place. Right now everything is in the planning stages.

Rail supporters have won. They have the tax. They have the transit approval from the city council. The taxpayers will lose personal dollars to more taxes starting January 1. Opponents have definitely lost already because we will be paying a tax for something we don't want. It is a dedicated rail tax. The rest of the GE Tax that is not part of the surcharge is allocated to the state general fund, where through the normal legislative process, allocations are made to various state projects.

Rail won. Taxpayers are losing. Property owners and residents next.

Originally Posted by helen

And by the way an successful mass transit system does benfit you too. The more people who take it, the less people they are on the road.

The secret is in the word "success". Census data show that only 8.3% of Honolulu's population use public transit. Rail will not alleviate traffic unless governmnet comes up with legislation to force us out of our vehicles.

There is no guarantee that rail will be a success. What it will be is an endless pit where tax money will constantly be flushed down into a very, very deep financial abyss.

If you build more roads, more people will use those.


General Excise Surcharge Will Hurt Hawaii's Economy

[Composite 2992]

Originally Posted by mel

People bitch and moan all the time about sitting in traffic now. Are they all using TheBus as is coming in from Mililani, Ewa Beach and Waianae? Many are not. Yet they bitch and moan but still choose their car over mass transit we now have. Why is that?

Why don't more people take the bus now?

Answer: try taking the bus from Ewa Beach to downtown and you'll see why. Because the bus is stuck in the same insane traffic as everyone else. Keep in mind that the right bus won't come to the bus stop all that frequently. If you miss one, you could end up waiting another 30 minutes for the next one. Imagine spending 4 hours a day just getting to and from work and it becomes painfully apparent that just adding more roads isn't a good long-term solution.

I was able to ride a bike the same distance in the same time it took ride the bus in all that traffic.

We need to move more people, not just cars, and in a time-efficient manner. And if it takes as much time (or less time) to go via mass transit as it does via car, more will make the switch. Especially if it saves them money. The cheapest parking I used to find in town was $4/day. Plus gas (about a gallon a day). Plus other operational costs of a car ($16/day to pay off a $25,000 car loan at $500/month). Add insurance and maintenance. More than $22/day to drive. Those are real costs. The increased GE tax increase is insignificant compared to that.

What would a rail pass cost? $30 a month? $40 a month? That's less than what it truly costs to operate a car for two days.

Check out http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/20...car-ownership/ for more information. It'll open your eyes. Cars are convenient but expensive.

As for what we did to help alleviate our contribution to some of our community's problems: we got a hybrid car to cut gas usage by half.

I'd carpool with my wife, which brought down the expense by yet another half. And in the days when my work schedule was unpredictable, she would catch the bus both ways.

Nowdays I work at home. If I need to go to the bank I walk a 2-mile round trip instead of jumping into the car.

And I developed a way for the co-owners of our company to transmit most of their files via FTP instead of hand-delivering materials back-and-forth between different parts of the island. That's three cars off the road. If we do drive it's mostly during the off-peak hours.

There are some of us who are doing whatever we can to help alleviate traffic. To say that those who complain about traffic won't take mass transit isn't true. When the time comes, I'll certainly use a rail transit system whenever possible.

A lot more people should take a closer look at their own contributions to these problems and consider what they could personally do to solve them. Not everyone has to. But it would certainly make our islands a better place if a lot more did.

[mel]

Originally Posted by Composite 2992

The cheapest parking I used to find in town was $4/day. Plus gas (about a gallon a day). Plus other operational costs of a car ($16/day to pay off a $25,000 car loan at $500/month). Add insurance and maintenance. More than $22/day to drive. Those are real costs. The increased GE tax increase is insignificant compared to that.

Those operational costs for using your own vehicle are made by choice. The tax is being forced upon us through law. Big difference there. People can choose to cut costs where they please, but if the cost of using a car is worth the convenience, then people will continue using cars as they are now. Personal transport and convenience is worth the price to many.


General Excise Surcharge Will Hurt Hawaii's Economy

[joshuatree]

Originally Posted by mel

I am in favor of adding more busses just by using the sources of income the city currently have (the tax surcharge not being counted at this time). It's a matter of prioritizing, just like what we do in our own lives. If the city wants to prioritize transportation then something has to be cut, like parks for example. Work within the budget they already have. Not ask for more money from the taxpayers.


There is no guarantee that rail will be a success. What it will be is an endless pit where tax money will constantly be flushed down into a very, very deep financial abyss.

If you build more roads, more people will use those.

The council voted for a fixed guideway. So it could be a dedicated elevated roadway for only buses. Do you object to that?

You are right, there is no guarantee that rail will be a success. There is also no guarantee that more roads, a tollway, or more buses will work either. Rail was voted down several times in the past, more roads were built. Did that really work? Not really, since we are dealing with the same congestion problem. BRT was tried and it was a failure. Funny how you keep insisting on items that have been given opportunities to prove themselves and have shown only limited success at best.

If you build more roads, more people will use those? Hmm...yet you don't think if you build a rail, people won't use it huh?

Originally Posted by helen

Up to now I can understand your view against raising taxes for rail transit since in eariler posts you do not want to ride the rail or other mass transit, you would rather drive. However we do have a traffic congestion problem that needs to be addressed. Since none of us wants to move away and this problem is going to get worse as more people stay something needs to be done.

Instead of rail would more roads being built be the answer to this problem? Even doing that it is going to cost money to do and one needs to raise taxes to get that done. Would you rather see those monies going to build more roads? It might be something that the Neighbor Islands might do with their share of the transit GET if they decided mass transit is not what they want.

As far as Oahu is concerned, right now in this moment in time no one has won and it won't be until an operational system is in place. Right now everything is in the planning stages.

And by the way an successful mass transit system does benfit you too. The more people who take it, the less people they are on the road.

Right before last Friday's council vote, that was the huge debate. That roads would solve the congestion instead of rail. But that argument is so loaded. New roads will only provide congestion relief until the population grows and more people buy more cars. That's been the game plan for the last 30 years, more roads. But at what point do you say, enough is enough. This is an island with finite land. At what point do you say there is just no more land for roads? I guess a double decker road? A triple decker? All the anti-rail folks paint this beautiful picture that a privately funded tollway will solve our problems. What they don't tell you is the details, and the devil's in the details. They love to use Tampa's Tollway as the perfect example, ignoring so many details such as the cost of living is cheaper there and it's only been in operation for at most a year. They don't tell you tollways that fail like the 91 tollway in California, a place that has cost of living closer to ours and the fact that it's been in operation since 1996 with about 10 years worth of data to look over.

Originally Posted by mel

Those operational costs for using your own vehicle are made by choice. The tax is being forced upon us through law. Big difference there. People can choose to cut costs where they please, but if the cost of using a car is worth the convenience, then people will continue using cars as they are now. Personal transport and convenience is worth the price to many.

It's not a choice Mel when there isn't an adequate form of public transportation to use if one did not want a car. Car users like you have been forcing this lifestyle upon others for a very long time.

If the tax increase is such a burden, you can choose to cut your consumption since your logic is that all of us choose to use cars.

[Bard]

Originally Posted by mel

Yet they bitch and moan but still choose their car over mass transit we now have. Why is that?

'Cause buses suck?

I can't really speak for The Bus since I only rode it once, though it seems pretty similar to Portland's system. But in Portland the same trip I take every day for about 25 minutes each way would've cost about 45 minutes on a bus. It's also subject to the same traffic woes as all the cars, as others have mentioned. On the totally separate lines here (on highway right of ways), you can happily sit on the train during the middle of rush hour and watch the gridlocked cars fly by at 60mph.

A full block-sized train can carry the same number of people as about 4 buses. When things inevitably start moving more towards more renewable power sources, electric trains will be a much better long term choice than buses as well.

A fixed-route bus with a separate track could also answer these concerns, but why go for some sort of exotic, probably more expensive, system than to just go for the same light rail cars and tracks as many other cities are now installing (and helping with their affordability)?

I guess I'm just flinging around some wet underwear here though... So I'll stop...

[mapen]

composite, you don't have to quote statistics to prove to me that traffic is bad and getting much worse. I am among the vast majority of people who own a car and drive to get where I want to go. But as bad as traffic is, it's still a hell of alot more convenient than the rail will be or the bus currently is.

The proposed rail route will not help me get to work. The proposed rail route will not help me get to the places I often go. The bus is inefficient compared to owning a car. I am an example of the vast majority of Oahu citizens.

I am not against mass transit. I do occasionally ride the bus when it's convenient.

However, I am against paying 5.5 billion dollars for something that I am sure will not significantly help alleviate traffic congestion when that money could be put to much better use on cheaper alternatives that will help both mass transit AND car owners such as myself. The elevated contra-flow solution combined with dedicated elevated bus lanes in place of rail is a small fraction of the cost and would be more effective at helping both mass transit users AND car owners. A tunnel or bridge over/under Pearl Harbor would help ease traffic tremendously, making it better for bus riders AND car owners.

5.5B for rail is a colossal waste when there are so many better options.

[Kalihiboy]

Because of the disaster that happened in Boston I dont think a underground tunnel will be easily approved in any city until facts and figures are researched better. It could be a ecological disaster digging holes into Pearl Harbor and imagine if another quake were to hit how many people could be trapped not to mention people like me who would avoid it because I'm claustrophobic.

You keep saying there are "better options", but I've yet to see either Mel or Mapen list one.

I'm actually surprised Mel who is so against taxes would support paying a toll to drive on a road every single day, talk about being taxed!!!

There are some bridges on the mainland that were completed 40 years ago and supposedly back then after 20-25 years a toll would be REMOVED, yet why are people still paying to drive on these bridges and roads? I guess someone has to pay for the upkeep of these roads/bridges.

KalihiBoy

[Kalihiboy]

Phoenix is another major city in the midst of building a major rail transit and here shows they are on BUDGET as well as on TIME:

http://www.valleymetro.org/METRO_igh...dule/index.htm

Perhaps Mufi could take a trip to view the construction while in progress, this
rail transit in Phoenix will eventually be nearly 60 miles and will finally
finish in 2025 if all measures and propositions are passed.

KalihiBoy

[helen]

I really don't think putting automobiles on the elevated section is a good idea. For instance you will need on-ramps and off-ramps to be useful. If you kept it to either the rail or bus it should be all right since people would be getting off and on via the stations.

Of course it might be useful to have an midway place or two for rail and/or buses to enter and exit in case of equipment malfunction.

[Konaguy]

Originally Posted by Composite 2992

The issue of neighbor islanders paying for a rail transit system they'll never use is not unlike people on Oahu paying taxes that pay for roads and bridges on the neighbor islands that they'll never use. It comes with being part of a state.

That is totally inaccurate. As far as I understand, the .5% GET increase is for Oahu rail only. It won't benefit anyone except Oahu residents. But everyone statewide will have to pay the .5%.