Tweet
Re: 2008 Honolulu Mayoral Debate
TuNnl, enumerate your 12 incidents of 5 hour traffic delays if you can, because fatal accidents don't always (or even often, if ever) cause traffic delays of 5 hours. If I must produce documentation of a hypothetical future, I'd like to see yours of an asserted past. Provide proof of these twelve 5 hour delays due to fatal accidents, and I will enthusiastically support rail.
Of course, I can't prove our rail stations will experience traffic congestion because [almost] no one rides rail. No one is riding rail here and almost no one (as a percentage of daily commuters from low and medium density areas) rides rail across the entire U.S.A. Since I believe this will prove true here, my hypothetical traffic congestion would only apply if drivers switched to rail in numbers greater than anywhere else (as predicted by the Alternative Analysis). If they don't, rail will be a complete failure at easing traffic whatsoever. Now, if 25,000 drivers DO switch to rail and want to drive to the stations, most will be out of luck, since less than 9,000 parking spaces will be available throughout the rail system. That lack of parking is what I predicated my prediction of station traffic congestion upon.
Bus lanes may be a big 'if', but not comparable to the $7 billion 'if' of rail.
Joshuatree, half of my rush hour traffic delay occurs between my house and the freeway. The rail station will be near the freeway, so I can expect the same traffic getting to the station as I experience getting to the freeway, whether anyone else takes rail or not.
Rail has not been well received in the past, either. Circumstances change. If Honolulu had 10X the population it currently enjoys, I'd say rail would be spot on. It doesn't, so rail isn't appropriate.
Look at the Alternative Analysis Table 3.6, Peak-Hour Transit Travel Times by Alternative. Remember, the AA is the primary document that resulted in the push for rail. Waianae to downtown - Walk to transit 87 minutes, Auto travel time 81 minutes. Certainly looks to me like the bus is competitive with driving (6 minute difference) on a time basis. The difference from Ewa is 8 minutes. I'm sure you're aware that the bus is more than competitive with car driving on a cost basis, so why isn't the majority taking the bus now? The only answer is that transit (bus today, rail tomorrow) doesn't serve their needs as well as driving.
Now, look at the estimated travel times with the 20 mile Alignment (the only rail alternative deemed 'affordable'). Notice the overwhelming lack of improvement? Notice how they pretend driving to transit will save time, but walking to transit is about the same? So unless many drivers switch to transit (more than seen anywhere else), there will only be a negligible over-all decrease in travel time.
TuNnl, enumerate your 12 incidents of 5 hour traffic delays if you can, because fatal accidents don't always (or even often, if ever) cause traffic delays of 5 hours. If I must produce documentation of a hypothetical future, I'd like to see yours of an asserted past. Provide proof of these twelve 5 hour delays due to fatal accidents, and I will enthusiastically support rail.
Of course, I can't prove our rail stations will experience traffic congestion because [almost] no one rides rail. No one is riding rail here and almost no one (as a percentage of daily commuters from low and medium density areas) rides rail across the entire U.S.A. Since I believe this will prove true here, my hypothetical traffic congestion would only apply if drivers switched to rail in numbers greater than anywhere else (as predicted by the Alternative Analysis). If they don't, rail will be a complete failure at easing traffic whatsoever. Now, if 25,000 drivers DO switch to rail and want to drive to the stations, most will be out of luck, since less than 9,000 parking spaces will be available throughout the rail system. That lack of parking is what I predicated my prediction of station traffic congestion upon.
Bus lanes may be a big 'if', but not comparable to the $7 billion 'if' of rail.
Joshuatree, half of my rush hour traffic delay occurs between my house and the freeway. The rail station will be near the freeway, so I can expect the same traffic getting to the station as I experience getting to the freeway, whether anyone else takes rail or not.
Rail has not been well received in the past, either. Circumstances change. If Honolulu had 10X the population it currently enjoys, I'd say rail would be spot on. It doesn't, so rail isn't appropriate.
Look at the Alternative Analysis Table 3.6, Peak-Hour Transit Travel Times by Alternative. Remember, the AA is the primary document that resulted in the push for rail. Waianae to downtown - Walk to transit 87 minutes, Auto travel time 81 minutes. Certainly looks to me like the bus is competitive with driving (6 minute difference) on a time basis. The difference from Ewa is 8 minutes. I'm sure you're aware that the bus is more than competitive with car driving on a cost basis, so why isn't the majority taking the bus now? The only answer is that transit (bus today, rail tomorrow) doesn't serve their needs as well as driving.
Now, look at the estimated travel times with the 20 mile Alignment (the only rail alternative deemed 'affordable'). Notice the overwhelming lack of improvement? Notice how they pretend driving to transit will save time, but walking to transit is about the same? So unless many drivers switch to transit (more than seen anywhere else), there will only be a negligible over-all decrease in travel time.
hi this is sansei and im now viewing our mayoral debate and my thought's for kauai mayor if i could vote for would be joann yukimura is she make's some valid point's and if i could vote for the big island governor.not sure yet? For our mayor,would be mufi h and that's my thought's on this subject. Also im voting yes for rail and not to sure on Con Con?
Comment