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 TuNnL View Post
    The fact that “Stop Rail Now” has been running full-page major daily ads, front-page MidWeek ads, broadcast commercials, and posting minions in front of Mānoa Safeway® with clipboards...and STILL haven’t got a measly 44.5K signatures after two and a half months is enough proof for me. If I took your arguments on the merits, it should be duck soup considering there’s nearly a million residents on this island. The reality is, in most parts of the world, bumper-to-bumper traffic is only acceptable if you’re not in it.
    I have to concur. We have three more weeks till the deadline and I haven't heard anything about reaching the 44.5k signatures. This isn't a knock down but if the majority were against rail, this petition drive would have been a cake walk, right? I mean, in the beginning, the rebuttal was that the mass majority were misinformed. Well, it's been two and a half months of media blitzing with a whole lot of personal attacks included. The public is definitely aware of the rail project at this point. Oahu has 900,000+. I'll halve that to weed out those too young or not qualified to vote. That's still 450,000 and the petition drive is being pushed into overdrive just to get to 30,000 signatures. Not exactly majority.

    Originally posted by salmoned View Post
    I use The Bus, but I don't look forward to riding rail. It would mean taking a bus to rail, taking rail to the appropriate station, then taking a bus to my final location. Right now I take a bus and ride it to my final location. Which ride will take me longer? [This is a rhetorical question, if the answer isn't obvious, you don't understand public transportation (the rail trip takes longer)].
    Again, you're oversimplifying. While you may be lucky to only need one bus, there are plenty who currently transfer from bus to bus so bus to rail is no different. You're also overlooking the fact that with a rail backbone, the current 500+ bus fleet can be reallocated as feeder routes that run deeper into neighborhoods. What this translates to is that perhaps a local bus stop will now be even closer to your doorstep or your work's doorstep. Someone already mentioned how people would rather wait for a closer parking spot to a store than park further away just to avoid walking. If stops are closer to end points, the hassle of transfers can easily be accepted provided frequency of buses and trains are high. You can conceivably accomplish this with buses but you would need a whole lotta buses that make 500+ look small. Then you need a whole lot more drivers for these buses and mechanics to maintain them. All of a sudden, if you factor in all these details, it's not a whole lot cheaper. And let's not discount the fact that rail has always provided a far superior level of ride comfort compared to a bus. Does this sound manini? No, because if one takes public transit daily, that extra comfort makes it or breaks it for individuals who contemplate using public transit.


    Originally posted by salmoned View Post
    The lowest cost estimate of a rail project, one that will end at downtown (and not reach UH Manoa or Waikiki), results in an expense of at least $4,000 for every man, woman and child on Oahu (2006 est.). The federal government may kick in $1,000/person. Of course, the expense won't be divided equally, people spending a higher proportion of their income here on Oahu (as in poorer people) will pay proportionately more (based on income), since it is being funded through an excise tax. Visitors will kick in a share too, based on their spending on Oahu. Those figures, of course, don't include rising cost estimates, inflation, the expense of increasing our electrical generating capacity (for an electric train), the losses of commerce during construction (and condemnation/destruction of existing properties), the ongoing operation and maintenance of the facilities or myriad other 'associated but unanticipated' expenses. Let's just round it all out to $10,000 each to get it through the first year or two of operation. If we all just pay up now, it might turn out to be less, if we don't, it may be more. So, step right up and plunk your money down, everyone who votes "yea"! Oh, 4 people in your family, that'll be $40,000, thank you very much. Oops, too late - it's gonna cost even more now.
    Let's just round it out to $10,000? That's some major fluffing there. Even you mentioned that visitors kick in a share. The estimate of $4,000 per individual is already over exaggerated much less $10,000. Oahu receives close to 7 million visitors a year. I really would like some official stats but I have a feeling the visitors' share isn't minuscule. You talk about losses of commerce during construction but you then don't credit windfall of commerce once the line is up.

    Comment


    • Re: Rail Transit

      Originally posted by salmoned View Post
      Composite 2992, some buses are slow, some fast. You said it took 2 hours, how long would it have taken by car?
      It took two hours or more every single time I rode the bus from UH Manoa to Pearl City. I did it for a couple of semesters. Hardly a single data point. Time spent waiting for the bus to arrive. Time spent riding through traffic. Time spent waiting at Ala Moana to transfer from one bus to another. And more time spent going through traffic.

      It took 45 minutes or less to do that same commute by car. And I did that for the rest of the time I was at UH Manoa. Total time spent commuting by bus: 4 hours or more a day. Total time spent commuting by car: 1.5 hours or less. How much is 2.5 hours per day -- or 12.5 hours per week -- of your time worth? The difference in time spent per week between riding the bus and driving a car is almost equivalent to what some people spend on part-time jobs!

      Comment


      • Re: Rail Transit

        Originally posted by salmoned View Post
        Originally posted by TuNnL View Post
        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.
        You make no mention of constructing a rail system in your comment here, which is the one to which I referred. I read it very carefully.
        When I say quadruple the tax, what tax did you think I was referring to? In any event, I was referring to the transit tax. Duh. (see title of thread)


        Originally posted by salmoned View Post
        turtlegirl ... your comment, 'Salmoned! - Are you retarded?', doesn't compare favorably with mine of, 'I'm surprised at your narrow-thinking', in terms of character assassination.
        Au contraire. Turtlegirl made no judgement. She asked a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question. You, on the other hand, made a condemnation of her character (i.e. your narrow thinking.) [/English 101].

        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 Composite 2992 View Post
          It took two hours or more every single time I rode the bus from UH Manoa to Pearl City. I did it for a couple of semesters. Hardly a single data point. Time spent waiting for the bus to arrive. Time spent riding through traffic. Time spent waiting at Ala Moana to transfer from one bus to another. And more time spent going through traffic.
          I take it you did this before 1999? More than likey using the #54 and then the #6 bus routes?

          Comment


          • Re: Rail Transit

            Originally posted by Composite 2992 View Post
            It took two hours or more every single time I rode the bus from UH Manoa to Pearl City. I did it for a couple of semesters. Hardly a single data point. Time spent waiting for the bus to arrive. Time spent riding through traffic. Time spent waiting at Ala Moana to transfer from one bus to another. And more time spent going through traffic.

            It took 45 minutes or less to do that same commute by car. And I did that for the rest of the time I was at UH Manoa. Total time spent commuting by bus: 4 hours or more a day. Total time spent commuting by car: 1.5 hours or less. How much is 2.5 hours per day -- or 12.5 hours per week -- of your time worth? The difference in time spent per week between riding the bus and driving a car is almost equivalent to what some people spend on part-time jobs!
            You're arguing against yourself again. You're still arguing FOR car commuting, not for train commuting or even against bus commuting, because you haven't thought about how long a train commute will take or where the train is going (only to downtown, as of last estimate); waiting for the bus to the train, waiting for the train to the station, time spent waiting for your next bus. You're not going to get around those waits, anymore than you could with The Bus alone.

            joshuatree, I'm sure you've seen the commercials that state that more people in Hawaii voted in a singing contest than at the last election. If you want to make a point on 'signature gathering', tell me how many people have signed up FOR the rail project and how many have signed up to USE the rail system for commuting? I believe we have less than 200 signatures in the first category so far...

            As for reallocating buses, I have two points. 1) We will not be able to discontinue ALL buses running along the same route as the train because the train will not have stops frequent enough to adequately service the communities. 2) Why can't we take a small portion of the money saved [by not pursuing rail] and double the bus fleet? But not all at once, we increase the fleet as demand [in terms of ridership] increases. We have a flexible system, why put an inflexible 'backbone' on top of it? Increased bus service means more direct routes and less transfers, whereas adding train service means more transfers. I fail to see why you all don't get it. Look, the airlines had point to point service, then they tried hub and spoke (comparable to bus and train), then Southwest came along and went back to point to point [and saved a lot of money over the hub and spoke because of point to point demand]. Can you hear me now?

            Windfall commerce? What, are people gonna buy a lot of stuff while they wait for the train? That idea is notional, at best, whereas loss of commerce due to construction is real - just ask any business where foot/road traffic is disrupted.

            As for visitor support, if 7 million visitors stay for 1 week each and spend $500/day their contribution would be $122 million/year. In 7 years it adds up to the federal contribution. Of course, this is assuming we get 7 million visitors to Oahu and they each spend 7 days and $500/day here. As for the numbers, they are already outdated, the cost will be more than $10,000 for each man, woman and child living on Oahu after the federal and visitor contributions are added in.

            TuNnl, so? You still didn't mention how we might spend that money. No one has determined how that money will be spent yet, or if it will be spent at all. That's what we're discussing here. If you believe turtlegirl's question was an honest desire to know the answer, and not a rhetorical question containing a presumptive answer, then your thinking is not only narrow, but faulty.
            Last edited by salmoned; July 11, 2008, 08:54 AM.
            May I always be found beneath your contempt.

            Comment


            • Re: Rail Transit

              The problem with the rail project is that financially and politically powerful special interests, such as the Carpenter's Union (mentioned because they have ads on TV), stand to make huge profits from BUILDING and maintaining the project, but no interest in USING the rail system. Transit users want fewer transfers and routes that are more direct (fewer stops), but don't yet realize that a rail system can only lead to more transfers and discourage express routes [because they would duplicate and obviate the rail route].

              I've used rail systems, in Washington D.C., N.Y.C., S.F. Bay Area and Europe. I've used buses in all those places. too. Trains are fun, but buses are better, especially for shorter trips (cheaper, more convenient and flexible, better area coverage, etc.). As an example of a longer trip - the train from Washington D.C. to N.Y.C. was twice the price and took 30% more time (as scheduled) than the bus [despite rush hour traffic in N.Y.C.]. Naturally, I took the bus and arrived sooner and with more money in my pocket.

              How many of you arguing for the rail system currently use the bus?
              May I always be found beneath your contempt.

              Comment


              • Re: Rail Transit

                Originally posted by salmoned View Post
                joshuatree, I'm sure you've seen the commercials that state that more people in Hawaii voted in a singing contest than at the last election. If you want to make a point on 'signature gathering', tell me how many people have signed up FOR the rail project and how many have signed up to USE the rail system for commuting? I believe we have less than 200 signatures in the first category so far...

                As for reallocating buses, I have two points. 1) We will not be able to discontinue ALL buses running along the same route as the train because the train will not have stops frequent enough to adequately service the communities. 2) Why can't we take a small portion of the money saved [by not pursuing rail] and double the bus fleet? But not all at once, we increase the fleet as demand [in terms of ridership] increases. We have a flexible system, why put an inflexible 'backbone' on top of it? Increased bus service means more direct routes and less transfers, whereas adding train service means more transfers. I fail to see why you all don't get it. Look, the airlines had point to point service, then they tried hub and spoke (comparable to bus and train), then Southwest came along and went back to point to point [and saved a lot of money over the hub and spoke because of point to point demand]. Can you hear me now?

                Windfall commerce? What, are people gonna buy a lot of stuff while they wait for the train? That idea is notional, at best, whereas loss of commerce due to construction is real - just ask any business where foot/road traffic is disrupted.

                As for visitor support, if 7 million visitors stay for 1 week each and spend $500/day their contribution would be $122 million/year. In 7 years it adds up to the federal contribution. Of course, this is assuming we get 7 million visitors to Oahu and they each spend 7 days and $500/day here. As for the numbers, they are already outdated, the cost will be more than $10,000 for each man, woman and child living on Oahu after the federal and visitor contributions are added in.
                How many people have signed up FOR rail? Did I miss something? There's a petition FOR rail? Unless I am unaware of one, the argument of how many people signed up FOR rail is moot if that petition is nonexistent.

                A rail line will not discontinue ALL current bus routes, definitely not the windward or east Oahu routes. But there is at least 20+ routes that run east-west than can be discontinued and reallocated for better neighborhood routes, such has routes from each station. Then all that talk about walking to a station becomes moot.

                A backbone should not be flexible, then it be spineless.

                Seriously, my work background is in computer networks, and backbones or cores, should not be flexible to a certain degree. Part of the problem with bus routes is that there is little in terms of permanent infrastructure along the route, a bus stop is simply a sign and a bench vs a rail station. We've all see how The Bus arbitrarily changes stops to the detriment of its riders. The whole hub and spoke concept actually proves your argument wrong. As fuel gets more expensive, hub and spoke is back in fashion. Look at the demise of the regional jets as thin line jet routes are no longer feasible. The Airbus 380 Superjumbo is geared for hub and spoke and airlines who have taken delivery love the returns on this plane. Southwest started as a point-to-point using secondary airports but even now, they have focus cities where pax change planes or stay on that plane to get to final destinations when going cross-country. It's not exactly point-to-point.

                There will definitely be windfall commerce. Have you used rail systems in Hong Kong or Tokyo, lots of major commerce around rail stations? You may argue that Oahu is not Asia but look around you, we have many customs and culinary cuisines from there, imitating their successful rail systems involves no shame.

                Okay, let's take your numbers that the visitor contribution is $122 million a year. The GET increase is a 15 year 0.5% tax so 15 years equals $1.83 billion. If the Feds do give us $1 billion, that leaves a difference of $870 million if we went with $3.7 billion. For a population of 900,000, that's $967 per individual, hardly $4,000 to $10,000. I'm still hoping the city gets smarter and decides to build retail space around stations and collect rent to further offset the cost.

                Comment


                • Re: Rail Transit

                  Originally posted by salmoned View Post
                  because you haven't thought about how long a train commute will take or where the train is going (only to downtown, as of last estimate); waiting for the bus to the train, waiting for the train to the station, time spent waiting for your next bus.
                  Going by rail has significant time advantages: 5-minute wait for a train, rather than two to four times that for a particular bus. And it doesn't get stuck in traffic like a bus or a car.

                  Right now going via bus is impractically slow for a lot of people. Yet ridership is on the increase due to the cost of fuel at $4.50/gallon. And as it is, the bus is maxed out with insufficient capacity in some routes. Which means an even slower commute for riders who get passed by.

                  The rail system would provide east-west carrying capacity, freeing up buses to provide better and more frequent service in various neighborhoods.

                  If constructed, and if the nay-sayers don't kill this important project yet again, the rail system would eventually provide service to the entire east-west corridor, from Hawaii Kai to Kapolei. That's what was envisioned 35 years ago.

                  It's easy to knock an idea and come up with a myriad of excuses why an advanced concept can't work. There are many who don't like to ponder necessary changes for the future. They would rather stick to the status quo, even if it means leaving things in a quagmire for the next generation. It's easier. It's familiar. It's cheaper.

                  It takes forward-thinking visionaries to turn an idea into a fully functional reality. It's what gave us sanitary sewer systems, agriculture and landed men on the moon. If it weren't for creative, solution-seeking thinkers, we'd still be reading by candlelight, hitching up horses to the wagons each morning, and blaming the bubonic plague on evil spirits.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Rail Transit

                    Originally posted by salmoned View Post
                    How many of you arguing for the rail system currently use the bus?
                    Do you believe in the nation's defense system? When was the last time you rode in a nuke sub?

                    The rail system benefits the community as a whole. It's not necessary to have everyone use it. But it'll be there for thousands who need it. Not everyone uses Dillingham airfield, yet there it is, paid for by our tax dollars, and used by those who would find flying out of Honolulu International way too impractical and dangerous. There are more than a dozen fish aggregate buoys miles out at sea surrounding our islands, and very few of us have even seen them on a nautical chart, much less actually visit and use them. But they're paid for by our tax dollars. Where's the direct benefit?

                    When was the last time you went to a library? Attended the University?

                    It's not necessary to be a direct user to support a concept. I support the concept of medical insurance for mammograms, but as a male I doubt I'll be getting one anytime soon.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Rail Transit

                      Originally posted by salmoned View Post
                      How many of you arguing for the rail system currently use the bus?
                      When I was living in Honolulu until April of this year, I have always use TheBus. It's my only mode of transportation, sans taxi.
                      Beijing 8-08-08 to 8-24-08

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

                      Comment


                      • Re: Rail Transit

                        hi this is sansei and i recently spoke with my sister who live's in the mainland and her response is what i've shared with everyone that elevated highway's wont work here and that toll would be to expensive and only the rail would work here and that's her response to what i spoke recently to her about and she's my best eldest sister and best friend so i thought to share this with everyone.


                        well thank's for your time

                        Comment


                        • Re: Rail Transit

                          Originally posted by Composite 2992 View Post
                          1) Going by rail has significant time advantages: 5-minute wait for a train, rather than two to four times that for a particular bus. And it doesn't get stuck in traffic like a bus or a car.

                          2) Right now going via bus is impractically slow for a lot of people. Yet ridership is on the increase due to the cost of fuel at $4.50/gallon. And as it is, the bus is maxed out with insufficient capacity in some routes. Which means an even slower commute for riders who get passed by.

                          3) The rail system would provide east-west carrying capacity, freeing up buses to provide better and more frequent service in various neighborhoods.

                          4) If constructed, and if the nay-sayers don't kill this important project yet again, the rail system would eventually provide service to the entire east-west corridor, from Hawaii Kai to Kapolei. That's what was envisioned 35 years ago.

                          5) It's easy to knock an idea and come up with a myriad of excuses why an advanced concept can't work. There are many who don't like to ponder necessary changes for the future. They would rather stick to the status quo, even if it means leaving things in a quagmire for the next generation. It's easier. It's familiar. It's cheaper.

                          6) It takes forward-thinking visionaries to turn an idea into a fully functional reality. It's what gave us sanitary sewer systems, agriculture and landed men on the moon. If it weren't for creative, solution-seeking thinkers, we'd still be reading by candlelight, hitching up horses to the wagons each morning, and blaming the bubonic plague on evil spirits.
                          1) You continue to fail to address the issues important to actual riders, such as minimizing transfers. Not even 5% of potential ridership will ever live within walking distance of a rail system. A rail system will guarantee more transfers, an enhanced bus system will minimize transfers. You are happy to ignore transfers, why don't you address that issue? Yes, for those few handfuls of people who live and work within walking distance of the rail system stations travel time will be shorter. For the rest of us, it may take longer or even take the same time, but for us it will always involve more transfers with no possible relief.

                          2) The bus (as well as a rail system) will be 'impractically slow' for THOSE people always. A rail system is never going to beat cars for point to point travel (except in tests with a built-in route bias for rail), neither will a bus system. Yes, bus riders are passed up sometimes. However, when that happens it is duly noted and bus capacity can be added [by rerouting for capacity addition or fleet addition] and it doesn't take decades to do it, either.

                          3) An enhanced bus system can do more, sooner, at lower cost and with greater flexibility. You're wanting to bring back a dinosaur that was rejected years ago, so that a bus system, doing a great job right now, can feed that dinosaur. I'm just saying we don't need the dinosaur.

                          4) Yes, but at what cost? If it's such a great idea and was a great idea 35 years ago, why haven't we already done it? If the politicians wouldn't do it, the voters could have voted it in, instead of the voters now having to vote it out.

                          5) It's easier to spend a lot of money on a 'solution' that doesn't solve anything. It's easier to spread a lot of public money around for private gain. It's easier to call a boondoggle 'necessary' than to figure out how to really solve the problem.

                          6) Rail is not some innovative idea, nor is it comparable to sewer systems or agriculture. It's been around a long time, we've even had it here. I believe landing men on the moon is the most apt comparison - we did it a few times and have yet to repeat the mistake in the ensuing decades, not because we don't want to, but because it's too expensive.
                          May I always be found beneath your contempt.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Rail Transit

                            Originally posted by joshuatree View Post
                            1) How many people have signed up FOR rail? Did I miss something? There's a petition FOR rail? Unless I am unaware of one, the argument of how many people signed up FOR rail is moot if that petition is nonexistent.

                            2) A rail line will not discontinue ALL current bus routes, definitely not the windward or east Oahu routes. But there is at least 20+ routes that run east-west than can be discontinued and reallocated for better neighborhood routes, such has routes from each station. Then all that talk about walking to a station becomes moot.

                            3) A backbone should not be flexible, then it be spineless.

                            Seriously, my work background is in computer networks, and backbones or cores, should not be flexible to a certain degree. Part of the problem with bus routes is that there is little in terms of permanent infrastructure along the route, a bus stop is simply a sign and a bench vs a rail station. We've all see how The Bus arbitrarily changes stops to the detriment of its riders. The whole hub and spoke concept actually proves your argument wrong. As fuel gets more expensive, hub and spoke is back in fashion. Look at the demise of the regional jets as thin line jet routes are no longer feasible. The Airbus 380 Superjumbo is geared for hub and spoke and airlines who have taken delivery love the returns on this plane. Southwest started as a point-to-point using secondary airports but even now, they have focus cities where pax change planes or stay on that plane to get to final destinations when going cross-country. It's not exactly point-to-point.

                            4) There will definitely be windfall commerce. Have you used rail systems in Hong Kong or Tokyo, lots of major commerce around rail stations? You may argue that Oahu is not Asia but look around you, we have many customs and culinary cuisines from there, imitating their successful rail systems involves no shame.

                            5) Okay, let's take your numbers that the visitor contribution is $122 million a year. The GET increase is a 15 year 0.5% tax so 15 years equals $1.83 billion. If the Feds do give us $1 billion, that leaves a difference of $870 million if we went with $3.7 billion. For a population of 900,000, that's $967 per individual, hardly $4,000 to $10,000. I'm still hoping the city gets smarter and decides to build retail space around stations and collect rent to further offset the cost.
                            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).
                            Last edited by salmoned; July 14, 2008, 01:36 PM.
                            May I always be found beneath your contempt.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Rail Transit

                              Oops, just another editing glitch.
                              May I always be found beneath your contempt.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Rail Transit

                                Originally posted by salmoned View Post
                                1) You continue to fail to address the issues important to actual riders, such as minimizing transfers. Not even 5% of potential ridership will ever live within walking distance of a rail system. A rail system will guarantee more transfers, an enhanced bus system will minimize transfers.
                                Then I would be one of the less than 5 percents that would live within walking distance of a rail system (i.e., Dillingham Boulevard route).

                                And what sort of enhanced bus system that would minimize transfers? More buses? To be brutally honest, that means more bus drivers. That also means larger bus driver contract that would push the monthly bus pass rate to $60/month just to keep the operation going (which includes the soaring gas price to fuel them until the County can afford solar-paneled plug-in electric buses).

                                Originally posted by salmond View Post
                                You are happy to ignore transfers, why don't you address that issue?
                                Because it's a non-issue for me. You either get a monthly bus pass for unlimited ride so you don't have to ask for transfer, or simply ask for one. At least the current system allows the transfer to be used both ways (i.e., roundtrip). I can go downtown CBD paying $2 and with a transfer I asked for, go back home. That's like paying a $1 for each trip.
                                Beijing 8-08-08 to 8-24-08

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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X