2008 Honolulu Mayoral Debate

[salmoned]

Re: 2008 Honolulu Mayoral Debate

Where are the savings over taking The Bus? Come on Composite 2992, there are NO SAVINGS, there is NO ADDED CHOICE. We have a bus system that provides an alternative to driving, why do we need to add an expensive rail system which will only supplement The Bus? How many alternatives should the government provide and how much are we willing to pay for those 'added' alternatives?

If we could build a rail system that would ONLY cost $18.27 per round-trip commuter per day (total cost, not the subsidized fare), I might support it (even though The Bus currently costs about 1/3 of that figure). However, the proposed rail system will cost much more, especially when amortized to 2030 as shown in the Alternative Analysis.

People who want to save on commuting can (and do) take the bus today, they don't have to wait 8 to 12 years for a rail system to be built. I'd like to know exactly what the fundamental difference is between taking the bus and taking a train and why anyone believes that a significantly greater number of commuters will take the train than will take the bus, since this idea has been thoroughly contradicted by the existing body of data in the U.S.

[sansei]

Re: 2008 Honolulu Mayoral Debate

hi this is sansei and since i heard Ann K want's to educate the people of Honolulu about Not buying into rail,i disagree is she should know that if she had watched on a local channel on the news that Once in the mainland,that when they tried H.O.T. lane's,people tried to cut from one lane to another and it caused trafficgrildlock and it was not a kind sight to see on the local channel and that's one reason,we dont need H.O.T. Lane's or toll bridge's is since i know what that's like,it's going to be costly.

I think rail is the best way. sorry to our moderator's if i posted this in the incorrect place.if you may wish to move this post,i would truly understand.

Well thank's for your time

[TuNnL]

Re: 2008 Honolulu Mayoral Debate

I'd like to know exactly what the fundamental difference is between taking the bus and taking a train

It’s sad that the answer to your question has been answered more than a half dozen times in the ‘Rail Transit’ thread alone, but I will humor you, since you’re new, and obviously too lazy, or too myopic to read it for yourself. The fundamental difference between taking the bus and taking the train is, the train won’t get caught up in traffic. It will always travel at the same speed, and will always get you to your destination at a set time. In contrast, the bus is just another anonymous vehicle on the H-1 freeway or Nimitz, subject to the same five-hour long delays (as the rest of the cars, trucks, vans and tractor-trailers) that result from critical or fatal accidents that occur, on average, once a week somewhere on the island, but usually on major thoroughfares.

[Composite 2992]

Re: 2008 Honolulu Mayoral Debate

In a desperate attempt to inherit Panos' supporters, Ann is changing her tune.

In my book that demonstrates a complete lack of personal conviction and a good reason to vote for Hanneman.

[joshuatree]

Re: 2008 Honolulu Mayoral Debate

It’s sad that the answer to your question has been answered more than a half dozen times in the ‘Rail Transit’ thread alone, but I will humor you, since you’re new, and obviously too lazy, or too myopic to read it for yourself. The fundamental difference between taking the bus and taking the train is, the train won’t get caught up in traffic. It will always travel at the same speed, and will always get you to your destination at a set time. In contrast, the bus is just another anonymous vehicle on the H-1 freeway or Nimitz, subject to the same five-hour long delays (as the rest of the cars, trucks, vans and tractor-trailers) that result from critical or fatal accidents that occur, on average, once a week somewhere on the island, but usually on major thoroughfares.

I would like to add the number one difference between bus and rail is consistent, reliable, punctuality of rail. Short of something catastrophic on rail, I have never been at a rail station where the train does not arrive within 2-3 min of schedule. Places like Japan is clockwork. But I'm not even expecting that level of service with rail in the US. Just being within 3 min of posted time is awesome compared to the erratic arrivals and departures of a bus.

A second major difference is ride comfort. For those who have used both, they can attest riding a rail is far more stable and comfortable, you just deal with forward and backward forces during acceleration and deceleration, not the bumping, sometimes bone jarring ride a bus provides. Sounds manini but very important if you are standing during a commute.

[joshuatree]

Re: 2008 Honolulu Mayoral Debate

In a desperate attempt to inherit Panos' supporters, Ann is changing her tune.

In my book that demonstrates a complete lack of personal conviction and a good reason to vote for Hanneman.

I just read the article in the Advertiser. That's really sad. Her rubber on concrete was a cornerstone of her campaign and it does smack of desperation when you toss out one of your foundations. Now, she'll just look two-faced because she clearly voted for mass transit on the city council.

"Prevedouros and Kobayashi declined to discuss their transportation plan yesterday, saying it will be released to the public in the next week. But she said rail will not be part of it."

So with about a month to go, how much will the public learn in terms of details of this new transit plan? How much you want to bet it's going to involve a HOT?

[Composite 2992]

Re: 2008 Honolulu Mayoral Debate

The problem with a bus using a HOT lane is destination options. Once the bus is on the lane, you're stuck on it until it gets to wherever it's headed. And you can't get on anywhere in between.

Rail gives you the option. And as Joshua mentioned, it's independent of traffic. We all know how little it takes to back up traffic on H1: A stalled vehicle. A minor accident. Then when the freeway gets closed off for a major incident that really brings the entire city to a halt. Amidst all that, rail will continue to run unimpeded.

For those wondering how rail will provide a savings over the bus: if time is money, rail will consistently save a huge chunk of time for the daily commuter.

[amagab]

Re: 2008 Honolulu Mayoral Debate

You all have to agree though that rail is a luxury and not a necessity.

Btw, I was a Panos supporter but I am no way in hell voting for Kobayashi.....what a sell-out.

[Leo Lakio]

Re: 2008 Honolulu Mayoral Debate

You all have to agree though that rail is a luxury and not a necessity.

Do we? You could just as easily say automobiles are a luxury, then. Food, shelter, companionship - those are the necessities.

[amagab]

Re: 2008 Honolulu Mayoral Debate

To me, luxury is something you buy even though you can't afford it. Honolulu don't have the money for the rail. I have not seen a single spreadsheet, calculation, or just a paper that shows how it will be financed. Please prove me wrong and guide me in the direction where I can find it. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have the rail but I don't want to risk my kids future finances on it.

[salmoned]

Re: 2008 Honolulu Mayoral Debate

It’s sad that the answer to your question has been answered more than a half dozen times in the ‘Rail Transit’ thread alone, but I will humor you, since you’re new, and obviously too lazy, or too myopic to read it for yourself. The fundamental difference between taking the bus and taking the train is, the train won’t get caught up in traffic. It will always travel at the same speed, and will always get you to your destination at a set time. In contrast, the bus is just another anonymous vehicle on the H-1 freeway or Nimitz, subject to the same five-hour long delays (as the rest of the cars, trucks, vans and tractor-trailers) that result from critical or fatal accidents that occur, on average, once a week somewhere on the island, but usually on major thoroughfares.

A train won't get caught up in traffic -that is true, but a rider will when going to and from the train stations (most riders will take the bus or drive to/from the stations). Also, a bus won't get caught up in traffic if it's given it's own lane [which can be done on the freeway and on city streets]. So, I still don't see how the difference favors the train, unless you imagine bus service cannot change (which would be discounting one of it's primary advantages over rail).

A train will not travel at the same speed, it will invariably stop and start at every station, every trip (estimated to average about 20 mph, without regard for traffic or passengers). However, we already have express buses that don't make every stop (in fact, every bus doesn't stop at every stop, except by passenger request), that are just as fast as driving is today (and faster than the train is projected to be in the future) and have routes that extend well beyond the projected rail route. Also, routes can easily be added or altered based on changing rider demographics (try that with rail). Trains have breakdown/stoppage incidents, just like cars and buses, and a stoppage incident on the train will reverberate throughout the system WITH NO RECOURSE for passengers (other than having buses rescue riders, just as they do when a bus has a stoppage incident). How is rail favored?

I've never experienced a five hour delay (or even a 2 hour delay) on Oahu, so I can't really comment on this hypothetical occurrence, but I seriously doubt it happens every week, or every month, or even every year along the 20 mile stretch covered by the projected rail project. However, if it does happen, wouldn't it make more sense to independently address that issue without regard to rail?

[Leo Lakio]

Re: 2008 Honolulu Mayoral Debate

You all have to agree though that rail is a luxury and not a necessity.

You could just as easily say automobiles are a luxury, then.

To me, luxury is something you buy even though you can't afford it.

Cool - looks like we are in agreement.

[TuNnL]

Re: 2008 Honolulu Mayoral Debate

a rider will when going to and from the train stations (most riders will take the bus or drive to/from the stations).

This seems like a baseless theory. Any documentation to back it up?

Also, a bus won't get caught up in traffic if it's given it's own lane [which can be done on the freeway and on city streets].

That’s a big if, and would probably be far less popular then rail.

A train will not travel at the same speed, it will invariably stop and start at every station

Apparently joshuatree understood my point, but you did not. When I say same speed, I am referring to overall train commute time, not mph at some random freeze-frame point on the route.

I've never experienced a five hour delay (or even a 2 hour delay) on Oahu, so I can't really comment on this hypothetical occurrence

Having personally been at the scene of more than a dozen of these occurrences, I can confidently state you are wrong in your assertion as to it being ‘hypothetical.‘’ Consider yourself lucky.

I seriously doubt it happens every week, or every month, or even every year along the 20 mile stretch covered by the projected rail project.

Again, I grow tired of your ignorant, uneducated “doubts” when the stats are readily available. Here’s the fatal accident count. Here’s the route stats. I can assure you, based on my personal conversations with HPD traffic officers that critical accidents occur as frequently as fatal ones, so my original estimate was actually conservative.

[joshuatree]

Re: 2008 Honolulu Mayoral Debate

A train won't get caught up in traffic -that is true, but a rider will when going to and from the train stations (most riders will take the bus or drive to/from the stations). Also, a bus won't get caught up in traffic if it's given it's own lane ...... (in fact, every bus doesn't stop at every stop, except by passenger request), that are just as fast as driving is today (and faster than the train is projected to be in the future) and have routes that extend well beyond the projected rail route. Also, routes can easily be added or altered based on changing rider demographics (try that with rail)......

You're missing an important point. The ride to/from a train station is supposed to be short. A short hop in traffic is more tolerable than a commute in traffic any day of the year.

A bus with its own lanes was not well received on Oahu. That was Harris's plan with the BRT.

Bus as fast as driving, what scenario are you presenting here? That's almost a blatant lie.

Part of the issue with bus is easily adding or changing routes, you don't build any permanent transit oriented development because of that. No one is willing to commit to building along a route that may disappear the next day.

Going back to topic, you think Kobayashi is going to promote a bus only lane now that Panos is in charge? It will be a HOT again with room for buses, not bus only.

[Composite 2992]

Re: 2008 Honolulu Mayoral Debate

People who push the idea of the bus as a transit solution probably don't ride the bus. Anyone who rides the bus regularly knows how unreliable they can be.

A bus system, being subject to traffic conditions and infrequent compared to a rail system, is something I wouldn't use. But a rail system that comes through every three to six minutes, and is independent of traffic, is something I would use.