Rail Transit

[Composite 2992]

Re: Rail Transit

i caught the bus to town since i had to go to get something for my mom and then when i waited by the alakea bus stop,i waited for about 20 Minutes to almost 15 minute's more and then my bus came and when we were coming to our stop by our park...(

When people claim the bus is such a wonderful mode of transportation you have to wonder if they ever rode the bus on a regular basis. If they did, they wouldn't claim it to be quite so wonderful.

An automated system that runs independently of automobile traffic would make a lot more sense, especially if it's to attract a larger number of users. Buses are inconvenient and slow. I could ride a bike faster than a bus could make it from downtown to Aiea during rush hour.

[sansei]

Re: Rail Transit

hi this is sansei and what i was sharing composite 2992.i meant that i waited a few more minute's than usual for waiting for the bus and i applaud our mayor mufi for wanting rail is hawaii need's rail and an intergrated bus system and i didnt mean that i enjoy riding the bus,only if it's for my mom to get thing's for her. i dislike waiting for the bus in usual for a half an hour or 15 minute's more so this is what i was sharing.

well thank's for your time

[Composite 2992]

Re: Rail Transit

Sansei...

Sorry. I wasn't aiming the comment at you. Rather it was a generalized statement about how some might promote buses instead of rail and not fully appreciate how the bus system can be inconvenient and slow as you had experienced.

I used to ride the bus when I was in college and that was such a waste of time.

Today the bus system might be a little faster but not by much. And it won't get any faster seeing how traffic is getting worse.

I make it a rule to avoid going from town back to the Leeward area after 2:30. At that point traffic starts to build up. By 3:30 it's slowed down and by 5 it's a mess.

[salmoned]

Re: Rail Transit

Yes, the bus is slower than driving. I regularly choose between the bus and riding my bike, and the choice is more weather dependent than time dependent on the Ewa Beach to downtown route (unless I catch the express, which is much faster, likely faster than any bus to rail/rail to town/bus to final destination scenario). Riding to Aiea, biking saves an average of 15 minutes (about the time I need to walk to and from the bus stops). Certainly all the local routes are slow, however the express routes are faster. With more emphasis on express routes, buses are very competitive with rail because rail isn't 'just rail', rail means drive&park/bus/walk/taxi to the rail station, take rail to the closest destination station, then walk/bus/taxi to one's final destination. All the time (and expense) involved in the drive&park/bus/walk/taxi segments must be included in the total trip time (and expense) of rail, just as you must include the time (and expense) involved in parking and walking to work/school when driving (the clock starts when leaving home and ends when 'punching in' at work/school). At least initially (and likely always), most rail riders will also be bus riders - no one projects more than 10% of car commuters to switch to rail, no one (maybe that's why no one added the expense of parking lots to the cost estimates). Bus routes are flexible, when and where there is demand for service, it can be provided. Rail will not be flexible, rail will not be capable of servicing demand (as in new businesses and housing) generated far from the rail line. If we can't promote the building of suitable housing near workplaces, how will we be able to promote workplace and housing growth near the rail line?

If a rail system is promoted to ease commuter traffic, as I see it has been promoted (particularly by the Carpenter's Union), then why can't we try some other cheaper, easier, faster and more effective methods before committing huge sums of money to rail? If a rail system is being promoted for some other reason(s), why the singular emphasis on easing traffic (which, per general expert agreement, it will be most ineffective at accomplishing)?

Okay, here's an issue that hasn't been addressed - trip subsidies. The expense of building a rail system (which is likely to be a high single digit multiple of estimates, as exampled by H-3) is only a portion of the cost to be borne by taxpayers, there's also the matter of operation. Fares will not cover the full fixed and variable expenses of operating a rail system, so taxpayers will have to subsidize the annual operation. Usually these cost are divided by the number of user trips to arrive at a 'cost per trip' subsidy of operations. Is a $20/trip or $40/trip subsidy unheard of? Not at all. We will be subsidizing every visitor using rail, every joy ride on rail, every rail trip. Rail systems vs. bus systems may have trip subsidy multiples of 3X to 20X+ greater for rail in other cities. All aboard!

[Random]

Re: Rail Transit

If a rail system is promoted to ease commuter traffic, as I see it has been promoted (particularly by the Carpenter's Union), then why can't we try some other cheaper, easier, faster and more effective methods before committing huge sums of money to rail?

What other methods and can they be long-term?

[salmoned]

Re: Rail Transit

Random, since you've been responding in this thread for a while, I assumed you've been following along (my error). Go back to post #747 for the start of a suggestion that can easily be 2X to 5X+ as effective at getting cars off the road during commuting hours than rail, years sooner than rail and with a minimum of taxpayer expense. It simply involves expanding the HOV concept to more existing lanes of traffic than now. It's flexible, even reversible, and it isn't punitively priced. Everyone benefits, except those who continue to be solo driver commuters. I'm not promoting this idea as 'the answer' to traffic congestion, only as one possible part of a solution. What I am promoting is local, creative and low(er) cost solutions with immediate and long term benefits for all the island's residents, including those who don't commute.

If you look at traffic congestion as a behavioral problem, you will quickly see that adding a rail system is unlikely to change the behavior of solo car commuters - they are committed to the concept of freedom embodied in their solo driving habits, despite sitting in rush hour traffic day after day after day, even if they rarely waiver from a home to work to home routine. Rail will do nothing to motivate them to change their ways, in fact, it will motivate them to continue in their wasteful, traffic congesting behavior (by permitting them to think the other guy will choose rail and ease their own [self-made] traffic congestion). The best way to change behavior is to make that behavior, day after day after day, so onerous [and the desired behavior so attractive] as to compel change. With an estimated 80% of commuters driving solo, we have a huge hurdle to overcome, but the benefits of doing so (in easing traffic, saving fuel, improved lifestyle, etc.) are considerable.

[TuNnL]

Re: Rail Transit

Go back to post #747 for the start of a suggestion that can easily be 2X to 5X+ as effective at getting cars off the road during commuting hours than rail, years sooner than rail and with a minimum of taxpayer expense. BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH ....

If you look at traffic congestion as a behavioral problem, you will quickly see that adding a rail system is unlikely to change the behavior of solo car commuters - BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH

The problem I think many on this message board have with your posts, salmoned, is you start off making a legitimate argument and in the middle, you bury an absurdly presumptive statement based on subjective theory. That way, no one can have an honest debate with you, because of the smoke-and-mirrors tactics your passive-agressive writings employ. I’m only posting to see if you plan to continue this subterfuge, or are finally genuinely interested in fully considering the merits of what others with an opposing viewpoint have to say.

Case in point: The behavior of a solo car commuter is currently dictated by the fact that we do NOT have a rail system. Therefore, you are only making a blind assumption that they would not change their behavior if a rail system DID exist. If the rail system is going to the same place you need to get to, it doesn’t matter whether you are traveling alone or with company. It helps you avoid the risk that driving on the freeway presents. Regardless of how many HOV lanes there are on H-1, accidents will happen. And when they do, you’re f*#ked. Even making ALL lanes into HOV lanes will not change this fact. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t make more lanes HOV during peak hours. But if John Doe lives alone and doesn’t know any of his neighbors, he still has to get from point A to point B somehow. Who’s to say he won’t choose rail?

[salmoned]

Re: Rail Transit

The only posters using smoke and mirrors are those who take comments out of context and misconstrue them. Your failure to address even the legitimate arguments you see, without regard for 'smoke and mirrors', exemplifies who is and isn't presenting cogent arguments here. You keep mentioning 'passive-aggressive' writing - I have no idea what you mean by the term (it seems to be your own incarnation of 'smoke and mirrors'), if it means I don't agree with you, I'm guilty as charged. Why can't you just address the arguments without addressing the presenter personally? If I'm using smoke and mirrors, show us the smoke, show us the mirrors, but don't slur the character - ad hominem arguments are fallacious on a prima facie basis.

So, since we don't have a rail system, we can't imagine how drivers may react with regard to rail, eh? We can't extrapolate from our experience with bus usage or what drivers in other cities have done when rail systems were built there - we're just completely in the dark as to what drivers HERE might do when a rail system is built. That's your position? If so, why should we commit billions of dollars when it may not spur even one car commuter to switch to rail? If we don't know how many may switch from driving straight to work to the more complicated driving/walking/busing to rail, etc., that lack of knowledge works more as an argument against building rail than for it. Studies are called for, not jumping into construction. If rail is presented as easing traffic, shouldn't we be fairly certain how much traffic might ease, if at all, before building it?

Fortunately, we DO know to a good degree of certainty how many might switch from car to rail commuting, based on studies of other cities which have constructed rail systems within the last 30 years, so your position is rendered moot. The effects on traffic in those cities has been less than spectacular - an average reduction of less than 5%, or 1 in 20 vehicles 'removed' from the roads. The actual cost per vehicle removal is astronomical - we could pay those commuters to stay home and not work at all (including annual count & pay increases) for less than building and maintaining a rail system.

If John Doe lives alone and doesn't know any of his neighbors, I'd say more HOV lanes would be a great incentive for him to introduce himself and, perhaps, discover how easy it is to find commuting partners. If not, well, at least he could become a functioning member of his community by interacting with his neighbors. I'm afraid this John Doe character you've imagined doesn't seem very friendly, however.

[salmoned]

Re: Rail Transit

Oops, replicant post.

[Composite 2992]

Re: Rail Transit

So, since we don't have a rail system, we can't imagine how drivers may react with regard to rail, eh?

Riding the bus isn't like riding the rail. So an accurate extrapolation isn't possible. It would be like comparing riding a horse to riding a wagon. Almost anyone might be willing to ride a wagon. But not everyone would be willing to ride a horse, even tho they're going the same speed and over the same terrain.

And comparing other cities to Honolulu might not be a good predictor since rising gas prices isn't being considered. Bus ridership has already increased due to gas going beyond $4/gallon.

People might ride the rail for two reasons: Spend a lot less on gas and parking, and avoid being stuck in traffic. It might not ease our traffic congestion but it'll certainly give thousands the option of staying out of that mess.

[salmoned]

Re: Rail Transit

Composite 2992, either you can or you can't compare riding the bus to riding a rail system, but you can't have your cake and eat it too in the same post. Other cities have faced the same rising gas prices we face here - why can't we compare the results of rail transit in other cities to the possible results of rail transit in Honolulu?

Riding a horse would be comparable to driving your car, riding a wagon would be comparable to taking a bus or a train, since a wagon will likely hold more than one person, make scheduled stops and not take you directly to your destination. The problem here isn't trying to get people to ride horses, it's trying to get them into those figurative wagons, rail or bus or carpool. Public transportation is public transportation, and rail transit is utterly unfeasible without buses to feed it. To not recognize that fact is equivalent to sticking your head into a hole in the ground and commenting on the weather down there. Rail transit IS bus transit for the majority of likely users. Only a minority are projected to walk/drive/bike/taxi to the rail stations. That's why plans and cost estimates included tentative bus stops at the rail stations, but not parking lots. As an example, rail transit will not relieve the Ewa Beach to freeway bottleneck which accounts for ALL the traffic delay from Ewa Beach to Leeward Community College - even if commuters use rail, that route will be congested with cars (unless a majority of commuters take a bus to the station). By not focusing on the nuts and bolts of rail transit, it's easy to imagine rail will make everything better, but that's just a fantasy, a very expensive fantasy.

I just can't understand why so many seem so dense on the issues involved in rail transit. Almost no one has suggested the reason the Carpenter's Union is FOR rail transit, why they are spending so much on public advertisements - that the construction unions, trades and professionals stand to gain from any long-term, high cost public construction project, both in membership and control over public spending (can you imagine a strike mid-way through the project (5 to 7 years from now), when current transportation routes are maximally disrupted?). Does anyone believe the Carpenter's Union wants rail transit so their members (or the public) can USE IT?

Big Money will be spent on rail transit, a few tens or hundreds of millions might easily be 'lost' in graft and/or corrupt practices (inflated prices/labor costs, unanticipated delays, etc.), and government leaders will be responsible purposely or negligently [and glean some of the benefits, of course]. Why has it only recently occurred to the mayor and/or city council that a vote on the issue might be appropriate?

[Random]

Re: Rail Transit

For now, the bus will supplement with rail transit. Who knows? More funding would expand the rail to more areas so then less buses (and Panos's taxis) are needed in the future.

[salmoned]

Re: Rail Transit

Huh? For now and for years, the bus will remain our primary public transportation system. Rail may supplement it in a decade or so. Rail will never expand to be more than a supplement to buses because rail makes no economic sense in Honolulu today or for any number of tomorrows. When we're asking Congress for billion dollar bailouts, don't expect much because they won't appreciate the 10X to 20X+ fare supplemental subsidy, especially when compared to our current 2X to 3X fare bus subsidy. At a time when rail transit systems/expansions are being curtailed, shelved or canceled around the world due to non-viability on an economic basis, we want to start building a rail system. As I learned in the military, Situation Normal - All Fouled Up!

Check this out - http://www.heritage.org/Research/SmartGrowth/wm1607.cfm Disclaimer - I am not a regular reader at The Heritage Foundation site, nor do I agree with all the ideas espoused.

Note: this issue isn't only of interest to Oahu residents, rail transit expenditures/bailouts are likely to tap state coffers as well (if indirectly), leaving fewer funds for outer island subsidies.

[Random]

Re: Rail Transit

So, prefer an expanded roadway? That means the government will have to use Eminent Domain to gain a lane on both sides of the road. That's going to hurt a lot of landowners, especially in the crowded downtown area.

[Ron Whitfield]

Re: Rail Transit

I've asked plenty, and not one City bus driver has anything good to say about the Mayor's rail plans. All want more buses and new routing to do the job.

That should tell you something...