Rail Transit

[sansei]

Re: Rail Transit

hi this is sansei and in my response to mapen,when sf had bart and when we visited my eldest sister and her family,she took us to ride bart and it's quiet and not noisy like the old time train's from the past was and they have a smooth ride and it's quiet and good seating with cushion's so i thought to share this with everyone.

well thank's for your time

[mapen]

Re: Rail Transit

hi this is mapen and in my response to sansei,when i went to sf i rode the bart train and it was expensive and the cushion smelled like ass (so did some of the people), and when i rode the train in tokyo it was crowded, and when i rode the tube in london the seat was hard and when i rode the subway in rome it didn't go where i wanted it to go and when i rode the metro in vancouver i had to walk a great distance, and the seat was hard, and i rode the metro in los angeles and i think the black gang banger wanted to steal my money so i thought to share this with you and when i rode the mrt in singapore it was pretty nice. but i always liked driving my car because it was cheap and went right where i wanted to without standing and i liked it alot

well thanks for your time

[Creative-1]

Re: Rail Transit

The Mayor's own statistics say RAIL WILL NOT REDUCE TRAFFIC CONGESTION.

He says there are 8,000 cars an hour now at rush hour. He says in 20 years, it will be 16,000 cars.

Rail will take 800 cars per hour off the road. His own data says traffic will be worse in 20 years and rail will only reduce it by 5%.

Why would we pay $16,000 per family over 20 years for something that will not work???

Rail supporters: Can you point to ONE U.S. city that reduced traffic congestion using rail? (Hint: Not one city has).

Most rail supporters I've talked to believe 20-30 percent of commuters will switch to trains. The US average, however is just 3-8%.

In Manhattan, the best city for rail, only 13% of commuters use it daily (U.S. government data). There are 5 lines in NYC and no one is more than 1/4 mile from a station. How can anyone believe it would be better in Hawaii than NYC?

[cynsaligia]

Re: Rail Transit

hey, mapen, by any chance, do you drive an suv or wish you did?

[dick]

Re: Rail Transit

Instead of rail, double deck Nimitz. It will be less ugly than rail.

Who cares about ugly? That reminds me of the "don't build wind turbines because they're ugly" mentality.

And, people will weep and wring their hands during the ten years it will take to build the second deck while Nimitz is rendered useless in construction.

The thing about rail, and I've mentioned it countless times before, is that people need to change how they function in order for it to work. They actually have to walk. For some it might be quite a distance in order to get to the station. Like I said before, I had to walk nearly a mile to get to the rail station when I lived in Japan. And so did the rest of neighborhood. And by golly, we were that much more healthy for it. Oh wait, we're not supposed to be healthy in Hawaii. Can I have another three scoops of mac salad? I don't want to be able to walk to the rail station.


People in Hawaii are stunningly lazy and refuse to walk anything further than three parking spaces. And that's the real problem here. But I suspect high fuel prices will make a bit a walk a bit more palatable for a lot of people. I'm thinking that by the time this thing is actually built, fuel prices will be so high people will be riding in droves. Hell, if it had been built already, I'm sure we'd see high ridership numbers now.

[mapen]

Re: Rail Transit

hey, mapen, by any chance, do you drive an suv or wish you did?

No.

I drive a small 30mpg car and want to get a car with better gas mileage. I don't care for SUVs or trucks or anything with crappy gas mileage (except for fun).

I live one mile from work and walk. Gotta have a car for all the other things, or for when it rains.

By the way, I googled and found that Honolulu bus fares only pay for 25% of the costs of operating our bus system. Just think how much worse rail is going to be in sucking up taxpayer money.

[Keanu]

Re: Rail Transit

The Mayor's own statistics say RAIL WILL NOT REDUCE TRAFFIC CONGESTION.

He says there are 8,000 cars an hour now at rush hour. He says in 20 years, it will be 16,000 cars.

Rail will take 800 cars per hour off the road. His own data says traffic will be worse in 20 years and rail will only reduce it by 5%.

Why would we pay $16,000 per family over 20 years for something that will not work???

Rail supporters: Can you point to ONE U.S. city that reduced traffic congestion using rail? (Hint: Not one city has).

Most rail supporters I've talked to believe 20-30 percent of commuters will switch to trains. The US average, however is just 3-8%.

In Manhattan, the best city for rail, only 13% of commuters use it daily (U.S. government data). There are 5 lines in NYC and no one is more than 1/4 mile from a station. How can anyone believe it would be better in Hawaii than NYC?

Rail is a transportation alternative, it's not being built as "The" solution to traffic congestion. Traffic congestion will increase as the population increases, meaning there will be more vehicles on the road in the years ahead.

I do agree, however, that ridership expectations of 20% to 30% (from the people you talked to) is unreasonable.

[joshuatree]

Re: Rail Transit

The Mayor's own statistics say RAIL WILL NOT REDUCE TRAFFIC CONGESTION.

He says there are 8,000 cars an hour now at rush hour. He says in 20 years, it will be 16,000 cars.

Rail will take 800 cars per hour off the road. His own data says traffic will be worse in 20 years and rail will only reduce it by 5%.

Why would we pay $16,000 per family over 20 years for something that will not work???

Rail supporters: Can you point to ONE U.S. city that reduced traffic congestion using rail? (Hint: Not one city has).

Most rail supporters I've talked to believe 20-30 percent of commuters will switch to trains. The US average, however is just 3-8%.

In Manhattan, the best city for rail, only 13% of commuters use it daily (U.S. government data). There are 5 lines in NYC and no one is more than 1/4 mile from a station. How can anyone believe it would be better in Hawaii than NYC?

I think anti-rail folks read too hard into the statement "rail will not reduce traffic congestion". If you are riding rail, you won't need to deal with traffic congestion. You're not in it. The mayor's own stats also point that with all the alternatives, traffic congestion will get worse in the future no matter what and rail has the best impact on a worsening situation. The analysis was also done when gas was not $4 a gallon. Why do anti-rail folks only swear by one portion of the mayor's analysis and not the other?

The whole "give me one US city that rail has reduced congestion". That's the easiest question in the world. NYC, Chicago, LA, SF. You may laugh at me with these examples but I ask you this. If these cities overnight got rid of rail, can you fathom the traffic gridlock as these riders hop back into their cars?

I also find it funny that anti-rail folks call pro-rail folks a selfish bunch. The US has about 3% of the world's population but consumes about 24% of the world's energy resources. Explain how our current car lifestyle is generous and benevolent? How much land on Oahu must be paved with asphalt? An elevated rail is ugly? How is it different from an elevated toll or a double decked H1? Last time I read the driver's license manual, driving is a privilege, not a right. Why aren't anti-rail folks pushing for no build of any additional roads, but rather put in congestion pricing to reduce congestion? That's less selfish in my book. $10 to drive into downtown or Waikiki during peak hours. That would also help replenish the highway and road funs. The feds have long concluded current gas taxes don't even reflect the proper amount needed to upkeep and maintain existing roadways. There should be more taxes but they decided not to because it wouldn't be popular. So again, how are car-loving, anti-rail folks not selfish? And if you think I'm a car hater, I own a car, I love fixing up my car, I just don't feel I need to burden society during weekday mornings and afternoons when my goal is to simply get to work and back.

[mel]

Re: Rail Transit

Rail is a transportation alternative

A very expensive alternative that we are already paying for in terms of a higher General Excise Tax. It will cost $6.4 billion to build and more to maintain and operate. After they find out the GE tax increase is not enough the city will either go back to the legislature and ask for more tax increases or raise property taxes. Every homeowner, business, renter and tourists are negatively impacted by higher taxes. We are paying more for everything because of higher taxes than we did 4 years ago.

Rail will only benefit the developers, labor unions, some politicians and a few riders from the leeward area and Ewa. It won't solve traffic congestion as has been stated many times. We cannot afford to bear this tremendous cost. Time to stop the rail is now.


Stop Rail Now!

[Keanu]

Re: Rail Transit

A very expensive alternative that we are already paying for in terms of a higher General Excise Tax. It will cost $6.4 billion to build and more to maintain and operate. After they find out the GE tax increase is not enough the city will either go back to the legislature and ask for more tax increases or raise property taxes. Every homeowner, business, renter and tourists are negatively impacted by higher taxes. We are paying more for everything because of higher taxes than we did 4 years ago.

Rail will only benefit the developers, labor unions, some politicians and a few riders from the leeward area and Ewa. It won't solve traffic congestion as has been stated many times. We cannot afford to bear this tremendous cost. Time to stop the rail is now.


Stop Rail Now!

I don't disagree that rail is an expensive alternative but what are the other options?

What bothers me is the fact that the stop rail supporters are advocating for the public to have a say on the the City's fixed guideway project while, at the same time, attempting to push the HOT lane alternative through the backdoor. Why not specify your alternative in your petition? if you guys are so interested in letting the public have a say on the issue, define the alternative in the petition and let the electorate decide between the two.

[Walkoff Balk]

Re: Rail Transit

hi this is mapen and in my response to sansei,when i went to sf i rode the bart train and it was expensive and the cushion smelled like ass (so did some of the people),

I wouldn't smell that line with a Pinocolio nose.

[mel]

Re: Rail Transit

Stop Rail Now is not trying to push HOT Lanes through a backdoor. They have been pretty upfront about it as noted on this page at their website, and also when asked during petition signing drives. If you are in doubt just call 536-4384 and ask.

Several articles on HOT Lanes and other options have been published in various places advocating a non-rail option.

• Hot Lanes Can't Be Ignored in Transit Plan
• City Glossed Over Truth About the Cost of HOT Lanes
• A Better Idea to Ease Honolulu's Traffic Woes

HOT Lanes have been advocated at City Council hearings, various community and business meetings, and within the confines of the 5 member selection panel itself when the choice between the different technologies were being discussed earlier this year.

From the HonoluluTraffic.com website are these alternatives to rail:

• HOT Lanes with Managed BRT from leeward to Downtown
• Traffic Signal Optimization
• Ramp Metering
• Telecommuting
• Get Rid of Uninsured Motorists
• Speeding up freeway accident clearances

A report on these options with links to other reports can be downloaded from:

http://www.honolulutraffic.com/alternatives.pdf

[joshuatree]

Re: Rail Transit

What bothers me is the fact that the stop rail supporters are advocating for the public to have a say on the the City's fixed guideway project while, at the same time, attempting to push the HOT lane alternative through the backdoor. Why not specify your alternative in your petition? if you guys are so interested in letting the public have a say on the issue, define the alternative in the petition and let the electorate decide between the two.

Agreed Keanu!!! The stop rail campaign smacks of special interests. By no means am I saying the city doesn't have its share of concerns but why does the petition simply not present all the alternatives and let the people choose? Or why does the petition simply not state, "Shall we let the people of Honolulu vote on the mass transit project"?

Instead, this is the question posed by the petition.

SHALL AN ORDINANCE BE ADOPTED TO PROHIBIT TRAINS AND RAIL TRANSIT IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU?

WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, AS DULY REGISTERED VOTERS IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONTENT OF THIS PETITION, PROPOSE AN ORDINANCE SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE MANNER SET FORTH: 1. TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF TRAINS OR RAIL TRANSIT IN ANY MASS TRANSIT SYSTEM WITHIN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU; AND 2. TO BE EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY UPON APPROVAL.

This has nothing to do with letting the people decide. This basically states an ordinance to ban rail, nothing else about what to do to relieve traffic. The website may have fancy, colorful, quick sales pitched ideals about other ways to reduce congestion but the actual payload is a death blow to rail and nothing more. Pretty sneaky if you ask me. If the ordinance is passed, we are still wasting time and money on deciding what to do to solve congestion with one hand tied behind our backs because rail can't even be considered till the ordinance is removed.

Stop Rail Now is not trying to push HOT Lanes through a backdoor. They have been pretty upfront about it as noted on this page at their website, and also when asked during petition signing drives. If you are in doubt just call 536-4384 and ask.

Several articles on HOT Lanes and other options have been published in various places advocating a non-rail option.

• Hot Lanes Can't Be Ignored in Transit Plan
• City Glossed Over Truth About the Cost of HOT Lanes
• A Better Idea to Ease Honolulu's Traffic Woes

HOT Lanes have been advocated at City Council hearings, various community and business meetings, and within the confines of the 5 member selection panel itself when the choice between the different technologies were being discussed earlier this year.

From the HonoluluTraffic.com website are these alternatives to rail:

• HOT Lanes with Managed BRT from leeward to Downtown
• Traffic Signal Optimization
• Ramp Metering
• Telecommuting
• Get Rid of Uninsured Motorists
• Speeding up freeway accident clearances

So you are saying Stop Rail is pushing HOT through the front door? Then why not simply, hotnow.com? Or a petition to state, "We demand HOT now?" Why demonize rail to further the HOT agenda? Can HOT not be presented objectively on its own?

[sansei]

Re: Rail Transit

hi this is sansei and im hoping the stop rail now coalition fade's out of our sight so the mayor can carry his plan to build rail and i will always be a rail supporter and it will help people get out of gridlock on the road's and with the steel track's they build,it'll help cut down traffic and the rider's will enjoy it.

well thank's for your time

[mapen]

If these cities overnight got rid of rail, can you fathom the traffic gridlock as these riders hop back into their cars?

You missed the point. Honolulu is not the same as New York, Chicago, LA, or SF. Rail makes sense in big cities with tens of millions of taxpayers because the economies of scale are there. Honolulu has less than a million people. I don't think any city this small has been stupid enough to do rail on the scale that Mufi is doing.

I also find it funny that anti-rail folks call pro-rail folks a selfish bunch. [...]An elevated rail is ugly?

These two arguments were started by rail supporting people like you who said anti-rail people are selfish, and double decked highways are ugly. So I was pointing out that rail supporters are more selfish, and if you think double deck highways are ugly, take a good look at rail. Now you're repeating the other side of the circular argument.

[...] gas taxes don't even reflect the proper amount needed to upkeep and maintain existing roadways.

Yes, I know drivers are subsidized by the building of roads. My point is that gas taxes and registration fees pay for much more of the cost of driving than bus fares. Bus fares only pay 25% of the costs to operate the TheBus, so transit riders are subsidized by all taxpayers to the tune of 75%. I don't think car drivers are subsidized anywhere near that much, which is the point.


Bottom Line: Rail is too expensive and will probably cost somewhere around $20 a ride. Think about that. If you had to pay $20 to ride the rail, wouldn't you rather just drive a car? Unfortunately, most of the $20 cost will be hidden and the people will only pay about $5 so they will think it's a good deal, when actually they're too stupid to realize that the other $15 is coming out of all our taxes (welfare).