Rail Transit

[Composite 2992]

Re: Rail Transit

Here's an excellent article on paying for Hawaii's transit plans. Unfortunately, it's not from the Carpenter's Union, so cannot be trusted as unbiased.

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story....2-cdcc7fa14426

Sorry, this is not an unbiased source. Hawaii Reporter is anti-rail.

[Composite 2992]

Re: Rail Transit

hi this is sansei and i just learned that former gov ben cayetano is speaking up for stop rail now that he say's mayor mufi h want's to get the rail on track so he can run for higher office and i heard a spokesperson for mufi h say's that's not true so im voting yes for rail.

Well thank's for your time

Cayetano was anti-rail even before he became governor. I had the chance to ask him about it directly way back when, and he was very clear about it. He felt the State couldn't afford it.

He's a very smart guy. But Cayetano lost my respect when he pardoned an attorney who served just a couple years or so of a 10-year prison term for a DUI death. That was the third DUI conviction for that attorney.

[salmoned]

Re: Rail Transit

In case you haven't noticed, traffic gridlock exists every day during rush hours. I have yet to see any source aside from the usual anti-rail groups stating 40% or now 60% property tax increases. All I'm asking for is another source aside from the usual suspects to confirm 40% or more property tax increase. If it's not fear mongering, there should be many other sources.

Yes cheaper labor rates, you seem to think the world of construction defies market conditions. When you see a sudden slowdown in projects, or even a darth of projects, it becomes a buyer's market. I guess you forgot the last time Oahu went through an economic slump in the 90s when many construction workers moved to Vegas to find work there when the strip was going through a building boom.

[Fourth quote] "Transit currently receives about 20 percent of federal surface transportation funding. Next year’s surface transportation authorization will give us the opportunity to draft transformative legislation and completely restructure our transit program to reflect the new realities of America’s transportation needs.
[/B]

The fourth quote I find very important because a new dimension is being emphasized. Economic development. Many people say we can't afford it, we're gonna hit the skids with the economy. But these same people haven't proposed anything to save the economy from the nosedive. More tourism ads? Seriously, when people can't afford mortgages, what makes you think they will think of the Hawaiian vacation? Is the expectation for everyone to just sit still and hold tight and wait it out? The rail project isn't just a transit solution anymore, it's also an economic engine that we can use to weather the downturn. I wouldn't find it a stretch that the fed funds can be obtained from the $700 billion bailout package since it would help keep the local economy running.

Traffic gridlock is a virtual standstill - I've never experienced it here on Oahu, particularly not along the 20 mile Alignment corridor. Getting to work/school and back home at an average of 15 to 20 mph (which is the worst I've seen) matches the rate estimated for rail, except rail won't get me all the way home or all the way to work. I'll have to ride a bus for those portions (and see lower averages speeds due to transfer delays).

You may believe construction worker pay rates operate in a manner consistent with ideal supply/demand economic models, but you're mistaken. I do agree that many of the workers for a rail project would come from out of state (since you pointed out how mobile construction workers can be, add in the high pay rates here), but that's not a very efficient or equitable way to stimulate our local economy (by paying high wages to workers from out of state). It would be a much better proposition to pay for more bus drivers and mechanics, sourced and trained here on Oahu. We could increase the fleet as needed, buy when the price is right, etc. It MAY be more expensive over a 30 year span (though I've seen nothing convincing that it would be more expensive), but it would be cheaper and more flexible at every moment beforehand and more of the funds spent would go to local workers, providing for local needs right now and expanding in the future (as necessary).

I've already pointed out that it is much more efficient and equitable to stimulate the economy by supplementing low/no income earners than to subsidize highly paid construction workers and out of state companies during this downturn. By putting all economic stimulus funds into the hands of the needy, nearly all the funds will be spent supporting local people and local businesses because needy people don't generally have enough to save, invest or travel. Rail transit doesn't even directly address traffic congestion, even less so the economic downturn. If spending on construction projects will stimulate the economy, let's repair our current infrastructure (roads, waterworks, schools, etc.) before we look to add to the maintenance burden with something new.

We can ease traffic congestion right now by simply designating and enforcing HOV lanes throughout our highway system and on certain surface streets. The current hodgepodge of HOV lanes does reduce travel time, one can only imagine how much better a comprehensive and integrated system of HOV lanes would function. The problem isn't that our roadways aren't adequate, it's that our behavior (single occupant vehicles) isn't adequate to optimize our use of the roadways during rush hours.

[Composite 2992]

Re: Rail Transit

It would be a much better proposition to pay for more bus drivers and mechanics, sourced and trained here on Oahu.

The idea of using an automated rail system includes a reduction of operational manpower, reduction of dependency on oil, a reduction of emissions, a reduction of traffic on the streets and fewer cars that need to be parked somewhere.

Adding a slew of buses isn't a good way to attain many of those goals.

You want to begin implementing an efficient mass transit system BEFORE gridlock becomes a routine. Not after. You don't start a healthy diet and exercise program when a heart attack becomes imminent. And even in this situation, the rail system is barely within the "proactive" stage.

Rail gives those who can't afford cars a much better commute option than a bus system. It's outside of the traffic problem. While HOV is mentioned, it's not realistic. It's not enforceable. Look at H1 every morning. At least 1/4 or more of the cars in the HOV lane are in violation. Yet no one gets pulled over because there's nowhere to stop them.

And reserving HOV lanes on city streets would make traffic even worse.

Remember that rail isn't intended to replace cars entirely. It's an option. You're still free to drive a car. Cars will not be banned. But for those who want to get to work on a daily basis and not have to spend 58 cents a mile to do it, the rail will provide a reasonable option.

Rail might not be twice as fast. In fact, it might be about the same speed as a car. But it's WAY cheaper ($3 a day instead of $16 a day) for a typical passenger from Leeward Oahu who only needs to routinely get to their office, classroom or store. And while that doesn't apply to everyone, it can apply to a LOT of people.

As for economic stimulus, look at how Herbert Hoover stimulated the economy with the construction of Boulder Dam during the depression. It was a huge project that employed thousands of workers.

Don't give a hand-out when you can give a hand-up. Rather than give money out to the unemployed, give them jobs. The same concept was used when the US rebuilt Germany and Japan under the Marshall Plan. We didn't ship money to those countries. We employed a huge army of workers here to manufacture what was needed to get those countries back on their feet. Those countries got the goods, but American citizens got the work and a lot of the cash. The same should have been done for Iraq and the same can be done right here in Hawaii.

Give the unemployed local workers jobs. The money gets put back into our economy when they pay taxes, buy groceries, pay rent and purchase homes. These people get a better sense of self-esteem when they become productive members of society, rather than remaining as welfare cases.

And on many jobs like this, they can point at it and proudly say, "I helped build that!" Better to have formerly unemployed building the various columns and spans of a rail system than to have them living underneath in tarps.

People say that the unions support rail because they want the jobs. Well, yes. But who are the unions? They're people like my dad, my next door neighbor, my high school friends, my relatives. Mechanics, carpenters, steel workers, masons, engineers.

Sure, the rail system is going to cost a lot. But where is much of that money going to go? Right back into our economy. That's something that very few consider when they say it's going to cost billions. A huge portion of those billions go into local companies that employ thousands of local residents. It will be distributed among the people who live right here in the islands. And some of them even live right next door.

[salmoned]

Re: Rail Transit

The notion of 'an automated rail system' belies the facts. Since there will be no barrier to entry into the stations, as currently planned, a team of conductors or 'fare inspectors' will be necessary. That is not exactly an automated system. Now add in a security force, since I've yet to hear of a rail system in the U.S. without one. Machinery requires mechanics for repair and monitors to ensure smooth operations. I could continue about your 'automated rail system', but I think you see the point - it ain't what you say it is.

A rail system will be no less dependent on oil than cars. Neither does it guarantee or mandate a reduction in traffic (it only 'hopes' for one, the size of which hasn't been observed anywhere else in the U.S.).

How are HOV lanes unrealistic? We have them now and they work. If we expand them, why won't they work even better? You are simply contradicting the reality we can see in operation every day. I agree enforcement is lacking, but not because it's not feasible - the police are fully intelligent enough to find ways to enforce the law when given the priority. Yes, HOV lanes on city streets and throughout the freeways will make single driver traffic worse - that's the objective. We must improve the passenger/vehicle ratio to improve the traffic, rail or no rail. This hugely expensive rail project is optimistically projected to lower traffic by 11%. We can easily lower traffic today by a multiple of 2x to 4x that amount with no cost by increasing the passenger/vehicle ratio. That should be our primary objective. I don't need to also mention that emissions, oil use and parking problems would decrease right along with traffic. Why promote a notional solution for 10 years from now when we have a practical solution in place that can be expanded immediately and expanded even more over time as necessary? There's only one possible reason - there is no special interest group that will take the elephant's share of the monetary benefits for an expanded HOV lane system. The benefits will be shared by everyone that participates (via riding the bus or multi-passenger vehicles) and no one that doesn't.

Okay, if we were to hire only local unemployed workers to build rail it would be great for our economy - but how many of them WILL be hired? Will there be a requirement for local only workers? Of course not. The unions aren't benefited only by local workers, they will take equally from out of state workers who will come to share in the 'bounty'. The unions will benefit even if no local workers are hired for this project (although they will, of course, try to have every local member in good standing hired).

If rail were going to return 90% of it's cost to the community, I'd say it could possibly be a good economic stimulus, but it won't return even 60% of it's cost. We don't produce steel here, or rail cars or any of the technology of rail. We won't be hiring only local workers or businesses, as they have no experience with building commuter rail systems (and we will require experienced workers to stay 'on budget'). We will be disrupting and displacing local small businesses both during the years of construction and permanently. Traffic will worsen due to construction (less at first during the Kapolei to Pearl City work, more for in-town work). All this so that in 10 years we can duplicate our current bus service with slightly speedier rail service. That's all we'll do - duplicate our current service because the bus will still service nearly all rail passengers (estimated 90%, but likely 96%) and bus routes along the rail line will still be needed just as much as today.

I certainly won't benefit from rail construction and no one I know has suggested they will either, although a few bus riders think it'll lead to faster transit service when operational. In the mean time, we're all paying and will never stop paying for this boondoggle. I'd rather just hand money over to my needy neighbors (not those earning $25/hr and more) than see the ongoing problems and expense a rail system will produce.

[Composite 2992]

Re: Rail Transit

Salmoned...

The difference between how you think and how I think is this:

You're looking for reasons why it will fail.

I'm looking for ways that will make it work.

In the 1960's NASA was full of nothing but people who were going to make an impossible dream come true. And they did. Neil Armstrong walked on the moon less than 10 years after Kennedy declared it will happen. And that same mentality brought the crew of Apollo 13 back to Earth alive and in one piece. They accomplished that after a catastrophe in which so many would have thrown up their hands and said, "that's it. They're as good as dead."

It's so easy to assume failure, give up and take the easy, familiar course.

It far more difficult to find ways to develop new solutions and accomplish monumental tasks. If everyone just gave up at the slightest hint of trouble, mankind wouldn't have gotten anywhere.

[joshuatree]

Re: Rail Transit

I don't get how people think giving a handout is better than employing them in a task. There is no subsidy of a construction worker when you are employing that worker to build you something. Are you subsidizing a McD employee when you buy a Big Mac? I always viewed it as paying for a product/service. Giving money out with nothing in return is truly a subsidy.

I also don't get where people have this notion that the rail project will employ primary out of state workers? Yes, you will need designers but what prevents local workers from building the structure? If the argument is the rail cars, newsflash, none of the buses we use are made in Hawaii. Do people really think every civil project we see go up such as the expansion of Ala Moana to all the new high risers to H3 employed 100% local?

As for the economy, ever heard of the trickle down effect? With employed workers, you get to tax them as opposed to a hand out. And I don't know about others, but my morale and confidence is always higher employed instead of being given a hand out.

Rail is far more automated than bus ever will be. For one, you don't need a 1:1 ratio of driver to car. There is no need for a seperate team of conductors vs security. LA Metro is a perfect example of this, they don't even employ transit cops. They simply employ LA County sheriffs to randomly patrol the line and to spot check for fare evaders. It's $1.25 to ride but a $250 fine if no proof of fare is shown upon demand; no ifs, ands, or buts. So a fare evader will have to successfully ride the train 200 times without getting caught to make up for one instance of being fined. Rail yards are automated to the point where trains automatically get parked in the appropriate spot. When you have a driverless train, it's fair enough to call it automated. Show me a driverless bus.

[helen]

Re: Rail Transit

By the way for the rail project for Oahu are the trains going to powered by electrcity or by burning some kind of fuel directly on the train?

[sansei]

Re: Rail Transit

hi this is sansei and in response to our moderator helen.it's by electricity and not by burning something,that's how all or most of all rail's are and i rode once rode the bart and it would be the same as how our possible rail would be and it get's you quick to your destination on time so i hope this may help with everyone's thought's?

Well thank's for your time

[Composite 2992]

Re: Rail Transit

By the way for the rail project for Oahu are the trains going to powered by electrcity or by burning some kind of fuel directly on the train?

There are some who would have us believe the operators will be shoveling coal!

They're electrically powered. Which means there's always the potential for powering them from various sources: Wind. Solar. Ocean thermal. Geo thermal. And even if it's from a oil-fired powerplant, it's much easier to handle point source pollution than try to fine-tune hundreds of diesel engines running at varying speeds.

[joshuatree]

Re: Rail Transit

Heco is bringing online a new biodiesel power plant next year. So while not technically dedicated to rail, one could argue the rail will be drawing power from this new power source so it's greener than usual power sources.

[salmoned]

Re: Rail Transit

Salmoned...

The difference between how you think and how I think is this:

You're looking for reasons why it will fail.

I'm looking for ways that will make it work.

In the 1960's NASA was full of nothing but people who were going to make an impossible dream come true. And they did. Neil Armstrong walked on the moon less than 10 years after Kennedy declared it will happen. And that same mentality brought the crew of Apollo 13 back to Earth alive and in one piece. They accomplished that after a catastrophe in which so many would have thrown up their hands and said, "that's it. They're as good as dead."

It's so easy to assume failure, give up and take the easy, familiar course.

It far more difficult to find ways to develop new solutions and accomplish monumental tasks. If everyone just gave up at the slightest hint of trouble, mankind wouldn't have gotten anywhere.

You aren't comprehending my position in the least. I've never heard anyone define success or failure for rail transit yet, so why would I even imagine such a project COULD fail or succeed? My position is that to solve the traffic congestion problem, we should address it directly and not assume a project only marginally related to traffic will solve the problem, especially considering the AA's rosy assessment that rail will only reduce traffic by 11%. If that is the definition of success, it looks a lot like failure to me. If we build a rail system so we can say, "there, we did it", to decrease rush hour traffic congestion by 11%, or to spur the economy, then 'doing it' is going to be a failure even if those objectives are met if a dollar more than necessary is spent (and we'll be spending millions or billions more than necessary, that is certain). 'Doing it' will be a failure because we'll be taking proportionally more money from the poorest in the county to benefit the wealthy in the county (including tourists). 'Doing it' will be a failure because those who benefit the most [with regards to commuting times] will be those who continue to drive solo to work, i.e., those who refuse to change their behavior for community benefit, who refuse or don't need to save money or resources (they will continue to have the quickest commutes). This project is an income redistribution, but it redistributes income from the poor to the wealthy, enhancing inequality - that is what you're promoting in this project. 90% of estimated future rail riders currently ride the bus [as per the AA]. They may see small decreases in their commute times (over doing nothing, not when compared to my suggested solutions), but the cost to them (in increased excise and property taxes to pay for construction, operation and maintenance of rail) will greatly outweigh that slight benefit. Also, they will paying some of those increased costs for about a decade before any benefit whatsoever is bestowed (Note: a decade may be a rosy estimate, just look at the Halawa stream bridge project overrun).

As for the question as to whether a rail project would be a 'handout' to the construction trades or any different from a handout to the needy, well, if we don't NEED a rail project then it IS a handout. If rail will not save money or resources now or down the road, then it IS a handout and a flat giveaway. If someone works for their handout, it doesn't make it any less a handout if the work fails to produce a net benefit. If the government's goal is to provide self-esteem to the construction trades, I'm against it. If the government's goal is to support the needy while spurring the economy, I'm for it. The loss of self-esteem [and subsistence living] in taking a handout is exactly what spurs someone to seek useful employment. The construction trades don't need a handout, no matter how many pro-rail ads they run.

Cars and buses can run on biodiesel, natural gas and electricity, too. The difference here is that INDIVIDUALS will buy cars that run on biodiesel and electricity, the government doesn't have to incur any capital expenditure for that scenario. The poor won't need to supplement the benefit to the wealthy, either (although they DO supplement the wealthy with regard to utilities in general).

Just one more plum to consider - how much energy will be consumed in the construction, operation and maintenance of this project and how does that compare to the 'estimated' energy savings over a 30 year period? Construction materials (cement, steel, aluminum, etc.) are energy intensive, will a rail project compare to corn-based ethanol in requiring more energy than it conserves/'produces'?

[Composite 2992]

Re: Rail Transit

My position is that to solve the traffic congestion problem, we should address it directly...

You're always hunting for reasons to shoot down the concept. Anyone can do that. It's not hard to find statistics to fit a position. There's lots of stats that say the opposite.

The issue here is finding a solution. Not finding reasons why we're facing a hopeless situation.

Here's the requirements: How to reliably move a lot of people independently of traffic conditions and without using cars?

The solution has to be energy efficient and able to operate in a variety of weather conditions including heavy rains and brisk tradewinds.

It should be able to run continuously both during the day and most of the night.

For long-term environmental considerations, it should be able to run on something other than fossil fuels.

It should provide a viable mobility option for those who choose to avoid using a car for routine trips, or for those who can't drive a car for whatever reason.

So what's the solution?

[salmoned]

Re: Rail Transit

I am not shooting down the concept. I am suggesting an alternative proven concept that actually works and is much, much cheaper. The problem is far from hopeless, and far from desperate. We have an easy solution and it doesn't involve spending billions of dollars on a new system, or waiting 10 years for it to be built. It depends upon using what we already have, more efficiently, right now.

Exactly why do YOUR 'requirements' depend upon independence from traffic and not using cars? That is the only one of your 'requirements' not met by my solution. Are you planning on banning cars in the future? We have cars and buses now and they work pretty darn well (and will continue to work darn well even if rail is built). What exactly is the problem with having drivers double-up, triple-up, quadruple-up? Are you saying that won't solve our traffic problems? That it won't reduce energy use, pollution, parking problems? Are you saying that if half of rush hour solo drivers (estimated at 80&#37 double-up, we won't reduce traffic by 20% during rush hours? I really want to know why you think a solution MUST HAVE that particular requirement. Why re-invent and reconstruct the wheel when it only needs to be re-balanced?

We HAVE a viable mobility option for those who choose to avoid using a car, day or night, for routine or non-routine trips - it's The Bus. And guess what? It provides good, steady jobs during economic slumps, too.

[Vanguard]

Re: Rail Transit

So what's the solution?

THE MONORAIL!