Rail Transit

[mapen]

Re: Rail Transit

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

1. New highway and bridge over Ford Island to Ewa Plain, or tunnel under Pearl Harbor.
2. Double deck Nimitz.
3. Make the TheBus system better by creating whole new dedicated elevated lanes (like rail) in key areas to bypass traffic jams.
4. Problem solved for now, at a fraction of the cost of rail.

I don't like HOT lanes or anything involving tolls. Highways should be payed for by existing taxes.

[mel]

Re: Rail Transit

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.

The first step is to ban rail and after that happens, consider the alternatives.

That is why the campaign is called....

The ballot question is simple: "Yes" if you want to stop rail. "No" if you support rail.

[joshuatree]

Re: Rail Transit

The first step is to ban rail and after that happens, consider the alternatives.

That is why the campaign is called....

The ballot question is simple: "Yes" if you want to stop rail. "No" if you support rail.

Ahh...so it's not about letting the people of Honolulu decide, it's about banning rail, then seeing what happens. A wolf in sheep's clothing, this group ain't about looking out for the people, it's about looking out for their special interests.

And this brings up another point, why the attempt to obfuscate the issue? Why the double meaning? Yes to stop, no to start? Hoping to have people vote incorrectly in favor of the ban, people thinking they voted yes for rail but instead it's yes to stop?

So not all pro-rail folks are the city's minions or they are greedy. Many pro-rail folks want accountability on the rail project and acknowledge much can be done to improve it. But many of us see right through the shibai of stop rail.

[mel]

Re: Rail Transit

Letting the people decide is giving them the power to vote at the polls. Before that can happen the petition must be signed in order to get the question on the ballot.

There is no shibai behind this.

Stop Rail Now is just that. To stop rail.

The alternatives to rail can be addressed after the vote is taken (if the question makes it to the ballot). If rail is voted down then it is stopped. If rail not voted down then everything continues as it is now.

BTW, I am not an official spokesperson for Stop Rail Now. If any of you want to get the straight answer from the horse's mouth, feel free to call Stop Rail Now at 536-4384.

All I am is one of the many supporters of the effort and not a special interest.

[Keanu]

Re: Rail Transit

Letting the people decide is giving them the power to vote at the polls. Before that can happen the petition must be signed in order to get the question on the ballot.

There is no shibai behind this.

You've got to be kidding. If the stop rail folks were really interested in giving the people the power to vote on this issue, they would have tried to put their alternative against rail on the ballot and let the electorate choose between the two.

The fact that they want to kill rail first thereby giving their alternative a better shot at reality is hypocrisy at its finest!

[Creative-1]

Re: Rail Transit

The alternative to rail is to develop jobs in the leeward area so residents can walk, bike or drive a short distance to work.

My proposal is to use 10% of rail's cost to create incentives for mainland and international companies to open in the leeward and central areas. The right incentives - typically $3-5,000 per job paid over 3-5 years on the mainland would probably have to be double here.

I haven't polled leeward residents, but I'd bet many would rather have a good job closer to home.

Honolulu companies might resist this, so lets give them incentives to open branches or move to where their workers live. Some can do this, and would if the cost worked out.

The unions won't like this because it means giving up a 20 year public works project, and jobs thereafter.

The environmentalists will LOVE this because it reduces oil usage.

The politicians will hate it because they won't have the campaign contributions from rail supporters and a monument to their egos.

[sansei]

Re: Rail Transit

hi this is sansei and tomorrow morning,i'll speak further with my sister who live's in The mainland where they have bart and what her thought's would be on our rail since our great mayor will i believe in my heart build it and no one who live's here would wish to wait for a possible 16-20 year's to bring up rail so when i learn her thought's,i'll post it here.

well thank's for your time

[TuNnL]

Re: Rail Transit

The alternative to rail is to develop jobs in the leeward area so residents can walk, bike or drive a short distance to work.

Well apparently, we’re spending more than $130 million to build the first phase of the new UH West O‘ahu campus. Money that could’ve been used for much needed repairs and maintenance at UH Mānoa, local ethanol incentives, or to help fund rail.

So hopefully that mammoth capital investment does “develop” those jobs which you speak of.

[salmoned]

Re: Rail Transit

Mammoth? That's manini compared to the proposed rail system. I agree logic is unlikely to decide the fate of the rail project, but that doesn't free you, personally, to promote nonsense as reason. The west Oahu campus will have teachers and students. As a minimum, THEY will not be making the daily commute to Manoa. So we don't have to be 'hopeful', we can be certain. Rail costs more than any societal benefit it may possibly provide, even including the benefits of employment in it's construction and maintenance.

For a lesser amount we could support the building and maintaining of a sustainable energy system to provide all our electrical and transportation energy needs (bring back cane, now). Can you imagine all the money spent on oil STAYING here, as wages for cane workers, ethanol distillers, bagasse/trash to power operators, etc.? It makes this rail question seem manini, eh?

[joshuatree]

Re: Rail Transit

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.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.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).

I think that is oversimplifying the issue. While larger cities have a larger population, they have much larger geographical areas to contend with. It's not just about population, it's about population density and geography. NYC has about 8.6 million people but its subway consists of about 26 lines. That's about 330,000 people per line. Oahu has over 900,000. Granted the line does not service the entire island so let's say 1/3? So 300,000 for one line. Well within parameters. And let's not forget the biggest issue of all, geography, the east-west corridor is simply narrow by natural boundaries and by political boundaries, the military.

I disagree with that statement. While you may not have started the statement that an elevated rail is ugly, it definitely was a rallying point for anti-rail folks as it was in articles on more than one occasion.

I do not refute that public transportation is heavily subsidized. But so is our education system. I don't have any children in school. Why am I forking over big kala for something I don't use? Or why am I being deducted each paycheck for medicare? Is it because those are costs for living in our society?

If I was in control of our island's public transportation, I would actually change many things. I don't see anything wrong with raising the fares a little more, it would still be cheaper than a daily trip in a car. I would also create a fare system based on distance traveled. More complicated but much more fair to the riders and higher farebox recovery. It would also entice many more short distance riders, easier to entice someone onto rail if the trip is say only 3 stations and the cost is only $0.50.

Cars also have many hidden costs and subsidies. In addition to just gas, have you considered car insurance, tires, brakes, motor oil, spark plugs, parking, depreciation as part of the cost equation? If it's a hybrid or a Hummer, what about the tax breaks? Car purchases were tax deductible till about 1986 or 1987. Still is today if used for business purposes.

1. New highway and bridge over Ford Island to Ewa Plain, or tunnel under Pearl Harbor.
2. Double deck Nimitz.
3. Make the TheBus system better by creating whole new dedicated elevated lanes (like rail) in key areas to bypass traffic jams.
4. Problem solved for now, at a fraction of the cost of rail.

I don't like HOT lanes or anything involving tolls. Highways should be payed for by existing taxes.

I don't know why you think double decking Nimitz or any bridge/tunnel via Pearl Harbor will be cheaper than rail. The North/South interchange project alone carries a pricetag of $134 million, assuming no cost overruns. That's just one interchange.

[sansei]

Re: Rail Transit

hi this is sansei and this morning i spoke with my sister on the mainland and she mentioned that their toll bridge cost's $5.00 both way's and on another bridge to get from one point to another,it would cost $4.00 both way's and she said that the rail system would work here just like where the bart system work's there so i thought to share this with everyone.

she also said eleveated Highway's wouldnt work here also.


Well thank's for your time

[mapen]

I don't know why you think double decking Nimitz or any bridge/tunnel via Pearl Harbor will be cheaper than rail. The North/South interchange project alone carries a pricetag of $134 million, assuming no cost overruns. That's just one interchange.

The benefits of any road or any road interchange project far outweighs any similar rail project by many multiples because roads can be used by all manner of commerce for transporting our food, goods, service workers (plumbers, cable, termite dudes, etc., hauling of all manner of items like trash, fuel, deliveries, etc. etc. etc. Rail is very limited in its usefulness. Open roads cut the cost of conducting commerce and reduce prices of everything for everybody. This benefit is huge because it cuts the costs of all the goods and services we buy.

NYC has about 8.6 million people but its subway consists of about 26 lines. Granted the line does not service the entire island so let's say 1/3? So 300,000 for one line. Well within parameters.

Nope, the first line is always way more expensive than the rest because of all the fixed costs involved. When you talk about economies of scale, the first line is far more expensive then the subsequent lines. Honolulu probably needs at last 2 million population before it makes sense.

Cars also have many hidden costs and subsidies. In addition to just gas, have you considered car insurance, tires, brakes, motor oil, spark plugs, parking, depreciation as part of the cost equation?

Heck yeah I've considered all that. Car owners practically pay their own way compared to the amount of subsidies transit riders get, and even when costs get close, look at the convenience and efficiency of cars. Cars get you excactly where you want to go in comfort and save gas in the process because you don't have to connect at Ala Moana to transfer to another bus to get there.

[sansei]

Re: Rail Transit

hi this is sansei and in response to mapen.i have had to transfer from one bus to the ala moana bus and i admit it's no fun since you would have to wait for sometime and it at time's,isnt great and i believe in my heart and my sister's word's that a rail system would work here and only a bus system in my area would work and it shouldnt be put in the ballot to vote on and if the people vote no,we'd have to wait for another 16-20 year's for another chance at a rail system so i thought to share this with everyone.

well thank's for your time

[Composite 2992]

Re: Rail Transit

I would support a nukular power plant in Hawaii. We won't be dependent on oil and our electricity bills will be cut in half.

Are you kidding? It will reduce our dependency on oil and reduce greenhouse emissions. But it's not going to cut our bills at all. Nuclear is very costly to build and operate. The fuel it uses will have to go through high-security special handling and shipped to a proper disposal or recycling center somewhere in the Mainland. It's a good idea but it's not a cheap one.

An additional option is solar energy tax credits or subsidies that actually encourage people to install them. Distributed generation of power means fewer transmission lines are needed since the power is being produced at the point of usage.

As for rail transit, it's something everyone needs to carefully consider. It's quickly getting to the point where there needs to be an option other than cars. Fuel prices are never going to get lower. Bus ridership is already seeing an increase due to cars becoming less affordable.

Congestion will never get better. More roads make no sense because even with the increased capacity there's still the problem of where to park. And Honolulu's linear layout makes it ideal for a rail transit system -- planners understood that from the early 1970s.

Rail won't take cars off the road but it will help move people to where they need to be on a regular basis, and that's the key to mass transit.

Move people, not cars.

[TuNnL]

Re: Rail Transit

Mammoth? That's manini compared to the proposed rail system.

Mammoth when you consider, as I stated earlier, it’s just the first phase, and manini in the effect it has on traffic.

The west Oahu campus will have teachers and students. As a minimum, THEY will not be making the daily commute to Manoa. So we don't have to be 'hopeful', we can be certain.

False. You are assuming that people who already live in West O‘ahu will become teachers at the new campus. You’re also assuming that all the students will choose degrees that the West O‘ahu campus offers. Some will, some won’t. And some have so little faith in public education (i.e. UH), they commute to HPU.

For a lesser amount we could support the building and maintaining of a sustainable energy system to provide all our electrical and transportation energy needs (bring back cane, now). Can you imagine all the money spent on oil STAYING here, as wages for cane workers, ethanol distillers, bagasse/trash to power operators, etc.?

Why can’t we do ethanol now? Ethanol was sold to Hawai‘i by Governor Lingle with the understanding that the two surviving sugar plantations would become the impetus of a local ethanol industry. If they needed a government grant, I’m sure they would have raised the issue by now. Is money the reason Lingle is dragging her feet?

Other public works projects we need like your second H-power plant, secondary treatment of our wastewater facilities, and sewer line replacement could not be funded by the transit tax, so your “this instead of this” rationale is mostly irrelevant.