|
Action for relief
|
JJB wrote: Obviously, this is a hot topic, and people are resorting to name calling. Myself and the rest of the Oahu residents are selfish---we want to know how the alternatives might or might not affect us. We don't care about who can call the other the worse name, nor are we going to join one side or the other based on the name calling. People who spend their efforts calling the other side names have wasted their opportunity to persuade most of us residents. You and Dave should sign the petition rather than make "holier than thou statements" which take up valuable space. Let the people vote on Rail. Go to stoprailnow.com and download the petition.
|
|
Kailuaresident
|
Hot lanes work when they are underutilized (therby providing a free passage for those few who can afford to use them). Rail is called 'mass' tansit for a reason. HOT lanes are mini-transit. And when those buses exit the 10 mileHOT lane, they are right back into congestion. HOT lanes also do nothing to get us away from a auto-centric type of society.
|
|
Tsarbomba
|
Need for traffic relief wrote: <quoted text>
Okay, let's forget Slater. The City's/Parson Alternative Analysis (AA) states that the H-3 freeway adjusted cost in 2006 dollaars is $41.6 million per lane mile and the Managed Lane estimate is $80.5 Million per lane mile.
Do you really believe that H-3 is half the cost of a three lane elevated hwy built over existing Kamehameha Hwy and Nimitz hwy?
Only a moron (not saying that you are) would believe that. Actually I haven't seen where in the AA it points out the managed lane is twice the cost of the H3 in 2006 dollars. Can you please provide the link or page number? A lot of detail seems to have been left out. The managed lane alternative calls for the construction of 4 major park and rides. You may argue that should not be included in the cost but then again, you've touted over and over about how wildly successful a HOT will be with express buses. So the inclusion of park and rides makes logical sense. You also need to factor in just because you put the H3 and the managed lane both at 2006 dollars, it doesn't mean there aren't other variables such as inflation. For instance, what was the price of a barrel of oil in 2006 vs 2008? It's probably over double the amount in just two years. But I still would like to see that exact page in the AA.
|
|
dwilliams
|
Need for traffic relief wrote: <quoted text>
What specific negatives can you cite regarding Slater's statement? Are you attacking the messenger and not the message because Slater is stating the facts that you cannot deny?
A rail system will require 3 steps for each commuter, every day. Transportation to the boarding station (cab, bus, personal vehicle), passage on the train, disembarkation and transfer via a 3rd vehicle (cab, bus, waiting personal vehicle). Who can possibly see this as an attractive option?
Express buses at peak hour will travel non-stop on HOT Lane from each of the many communities directly to downtown at 60 mph with one or zero transfers.
The proposed train will not get people out of their cars very easily.
Would bus riders rather transfer to a train that travels at 25 miles per hour or stay on the bus at 60 miles per hour?
Less commuter cars and more express bus riders will result with HOT Lanes. Peak hour traffic congestion on H-1 will be reduced by 35 percent while Rail will worsen traffic congestion.
Conclusion: Less gasoline will be used if HOT Lanes Transit System rather than Rail. HOT Lanes and bus traffic is predicated on one cost that you don't account for: buses are expensive to buy, operate, and maintain. Those nice, articulated buses that would only hold 80 people per bus, cost $1 million each. Add to that fuel (which, right now, is diesel that is MORE than auto gas), maintenance (which is really bad if the buses begin to break down after the company that made them doesn't exsist), and one fact: more buses contribute to more traffic. Remember the days during the bus strike? The roads were much clearer and the right lanes didn't have to stop as frequently for buses alighting for passengers. Oahu needs CHOICES for transportation, not a one-size fits all solution of "build more roads and let'em use motor vehicles." More roads (even toll roads) leads to the public saying "Oh, now I can buy 2 more cars and drive even more." This attitude contributes to more traffic. If we have another mode, we can make a choice. HOT lanes only give us one choice: using some type of gasoline powered motor vehicle.
|
|
compressed air car
|
I notice that pro-railers always talk about today's cars when poo-pooing HOT lanes. There are new technologies ramping up for mass production as we speak. Here are a couple of articles about a car that runs on compressed air. They also have a hybred model that uses a small gas engine to assist the compressed air engine that gets something like 100 mpg. These types of cars would be perfect for Oahu, as most of the time the distances traveled are under 100 miles. As stated in the articles, this version of the car may not make it in the USA due to it's construction techniques and materials...however, it's only a matter of time until someone uses this technology and builds a vehicle that will pass American laws. Once Americans see other people in other countries using these types of vehicles, there is no way that American auto makers will be able to not offer this technology.(And if they insist on not offering it, the Japanese or Korean auto makers will). http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/ne... http://www.businessweek.com/autos/content/mar...
|
|
Kailuaresident
|
Lol at the compressed cars guy - are you prepared to mandate that all cars sold in hawaii be green? If so, I would be willing to revisit HOT lanes, although I still think we need to get away from a car based scoiety - no matter what type of car. Our limited land space demands we shift our views!
Not to mention green cars still need someplace to park when they get downtown...
|
|
compressed air car
|
Kailuaresident wrote: Lol at the compressed cars guy - are you prepared to mandate that all cars sold in hawaii be green? If so, I would be willing to revisit HOT lanes, although I still think we need to get away from a car based scoiety - no matter what type of car. Our limited land space demands we shift our views!
Not to mention green cars still need someplace to park when they get downtown... Of course not! If I had that kind of power, I would mandate a 2 car maximum for each home or apt (no matter how many people live in said abodes). I would also put a cap on how many people can come into this state. This is the only island state (Rhode Island doesn't count) and some new laws are going to have to be made soon, as room is running out here. If the price of the compressed air car can be kept down, lots of people will buy one of them for the daily commute. The monitary savings they gain can be used for the other costs of "living in paradise". I totally agree with your belief that we should get away from the car based society. New developments should be built with everything within walking distance, but somehow I don't think developers are going to do that unless forced to by law. And I don't think that is going to happen with the kind of people we have in office now.
|
|
Kirkland
|
There is nothing wrong with a car based society. It is ludicrous to even think that we all in Oahu are to get rid of our cars and begin using bicycles and start riding the train and buses. Pro-rail people who are not hired PR of the city writing in this forum needs to look closely at the message and not at the messenger. The consequences to the people of Oahu of spending billions and billions just to build and then millions and millions just for the maintainenance of rail transit is financial disaster which is too horrible to allow to exist. The current one-half percent GET is terribly insufficient to generate $1 billion. That would mean either increasing the GET and or property taxes.
|
|
Tsarbomba
|
Kirkland wrote: There is nothing wrong with a car based society. It is ludicrous to even think that we all in Oahu are to get rid of our cars and begin using bicycles and start riding the train and buses. Pro-rail people who are not hired PR of the city writing in this forum needs to look closely at the message and not at the messenger. The consequences to the people of Oahu of spending billions and billions just to build and then millions and millions just for the maintainenance of rail transit is financial disaster which is too horrible to allow to exist. The current one-half percent GET is terribly insufficient to generate $1 billion. That would mean either increasing the GET and or property taxes. There is also nothing wrong with a public transit based society either. Pro-rail folks are not trying to eliminate cars all together but to provide an alternative so there is no need for two or more cars per household. Anti-rail folks tend to attack the solution instead of the execution. A sustainable method of implementing rail is to create a public transit agency (bus/rail) with the power to dabble in real estate, specifically, real estate around planned stations. The revenue generated from the real estate provides the dollars needed to pay for rail as well as the operation costs. This has been done in other places and has been done with so much success, they are now a public traded entity.
|
|
dwilliams
|
Kirkland wrote: There is nothing wrong with a car based society. It is ludicrous to even think that we all in Oahu are to get rid of our cars and begin using bicycles and start riding the train and buses. Pro-rail people who are not hired PR of the city writing in this forum needs to look closely at the message and not at the messenger. The consequences to the people of Oahu of spending billions and billions just to build and then millions and millions just for the maintainenance of rail transit is financial disaster which is too horrible to allow to exist. The current one-half percent GET is terribly insufficient to generate $1 billion. That would mean either increasing the GET and or property taxes. All I am asking for (and I'm sure the pro-rail people are as well) is an ALTERNATIVE to driving a car to/from work/school. Driving will never be displaced by any form of traffic mitigation, whatever mode is used. This entire issue is about giving the commuting public choices. Building another road, however it is financed, used, or considered efficient in alleviating traffic, the fact still remains: it is still the same old car-based solution to a problem that needs a different solution. On the idea of the GET being raised to fund it, check the City's own plan that states the tax will lapse in 15 years. While that seems like a long time to bear the higher cost, consider how much more money will be needed to fix the roads if we build another road (even if it is completely covered by toll collection). Asphalt is a petroleum product, which will only go up in cost. Concrete is made from rock, which has a finite supply on this island. Rail has resource costs as well, but electricity on Oahu's grid (the biggest expense for rail), can be provided by non-oil products. It won't provide ALL the power for rail, but it can offset the increase need within the grid. We need different solutions, rather than the same old "build more roads" notion. We need a different way to commute and travel and rail appears (at least for now) to be the best idea. PS I don't work for the City, or any other rail entity. I commute daily by bus to work and the bus I use does not gain benefit from said HOT lanes. I don't benefit from the rail, as I'm not a west side resident, either).
|
|
Need for traffic relief
|
Tsarbomba wrote: <quoted text>
Actually I haven't seen where in the AA it points out the managed lane is twice the cost of the H3 in 2006 dollars. Can you please provide the link or page number?
A lot of detail seems to have been left out. The managed lane alternative calls for the construction of 4 major park and rides. You may argue that should not be included in the cost but then again, you've touted over and over about how wildly successful a HOT will be with express buses. So the inclusion of park and rides makes logical sense.
You also need to factor in just because you put the H3 and the managed lane both at 2006 dollars, it doesn't mean there aren't other variables such as inflation. For instance, what was the price of a barrel of oil in 2006 vs 2008? It's probably over double the amount in just two years. But I still would like to see that exact page in the AA. Aren't you the sly, devious one. You referred me to the City's AA as the source of your "FACTS" on costs for rail and Hot Lane, the Tampa HOT Lane, HOT lane operating costs, etc. and that they were current enough to refute Professor Prevedouros HOT Lane study published in March 2008. Now you say you have no idea where the estimates for HOT is contained in the City's and Parsons Alternative Analysis Study? You're incredible! Do your own homework! Let me repeat, the City's (Parsons) AA study states that the proposed three lane elevated HOT for Oahu will cost TWO times the cost of building H-3, as stated by Slater! You need to stop critizing Slater who is only the messenger.
|
|
Need for traffic relief
|
dwilliams wrote: <quoted text>
HOT Lanes and bus traffic is predicated on one cost that you don't account for: buses are expensive to buy, operate, and maintain. Those nice, articulated buses that would only hold 80 people per bus, cost $1 million each. Add to that fuel (which, right now, is diesel that is MORE than auto gas), maintenance (which is really bad if the buses begin to break down after the company that made them doesn't exsist), and one fact: more buses contribute to more traffic.
Remember the days during the bus strike? The roads were much clearer and the right lanes didn't have to stop as frequently for buses alighting for passengers.
Oahu needs CHOICES for transportation, not a one-size fits all solution of "build more roads and let'em use motor vehicles." More roads (even toll roads) leads to the public saying "Oh, now I can buy 2 more cars and drive even more." This attitude contributes to more traffic.
If we have another mode, we can make a choice. HOT lanes only give us one choice: using some type of gasoline powered motor vehicle. 200 new buses will cost $200 million plus 200 new bus drivers at 40,000 per year will cost $8 million per year. The HOT will cost $1.0 Billion. Compare this with the Rail which will cost $5.0 to 9.0 Billion to construct,$200 Million per year to operate and maintain, plus another $10 million for the transit police, ticket sellers, gate watchers, station custodians, etc. Now which is more expensive? We're not even talking about the low numbers of commuters using the rail because it is not in the right locations, Ewa Beach, Airport, Pearl Harbor, Hickam, Ewa, Mililani, Wahiawa, Waianae, Makaha, ad nauseum. Cite more valid reasons before you post again.
|
|
Tsarbomba
|
Need for traffic relief wrote: <quoted text>
Aren't you the sly, devious one. You referred me to the City's AA as the source of your "FACTS" on costs for rail and Hot Lane, the Tampa HOT Lane, HOT lane operating costs, etc. and that they were current enough to refute Professor Prevedouros HOT Lane study published in March 2008.
Now you say you have no idea where the estimates for HOT is contained in the City's and Parsons Alternative Analysis Study? You're incredible! Do your own homework!
Let me repeat, the City's (Parsons) AA study states that the proposed three lane elevated HOT for Oahu will cost TWO times the cost of building H-3, as stated by Slater!
You need to stop critizing Slater who is only the messenger. Sly what? Why is it that you on purposely misread posts? I have not said I do not know where estimates of the managed lane in the AA are. I have asked you to kindly show me where in the AA states SPECIFICALLY that the managed lane alternative will cost twice as much as the H3 in 2006 dollars? This is a legitimate question. This isn't about doing homework. This is something I simply do not see in the AA. So the burden of proof is on you since you've made this claim. Or are you making stuff up again?
|
|
Tsarbomba
|
Need for traffic relief wrote: <quoted text>
200 new buses will cost $200 million plus 200 new bus drivers at 40,000 per year will cost $8 million per year. The HOT will cost $1.0 Billion.
Compare this with the Rail which will cost $5.0 to 9.0 Billion to construct,$200 Million per year to operate and maintain, plus another $10 million for the transit police, ticket sellers, gate watchers, station custodians, etc.
Now which is more expensive? We're not even talking about the low numbers of commuters using the rail because it is not in the right locations, Ewa Beach, Airport, Pearl Harbor, Hickam, Ewa, Mililani, Wahiawa, Waianae, Makaha, ad nauseum.
Cite more valid reasons before you post again. Look who's fluffing up the issue again. Now it's $5.0 to $9.0 billion? Can you cite specifics of where these numbers came from? Ticket sellers? What century are you in? Where's the conductor to yell "All aboard" while we're at it? As for buses, only 200 bus drivers for 200 new buses? Guess the buses only will run 8 hours a day and that's it? Or only 5 days a week since the standard work week consists of 40 hours. Guess no pension and health benefits for the drivers. Guess no need for mechanics to take care of the buses. Guess no need for custodians to clean the buses. Guess no need to worry about the amount and cost of fuel. Oh yeah, guess you don't have to factor in that these buses need to be replaced every 12 years compared to rail cars that are designed for 30-40 years. Never mind the fact that the buses will provide less capacity and ride comfort. Never mind buses will not be able to provide the level of schedule punctuality. Never mind that's another 200 buses on the road adding to the traffic.
|
|
Need for traffic relief
|
dwilliams wrote: <quoted text>
All I am asking for (and I'm sure the pro-rail people are as well) is an ALTERNATIVE to driving a car to/from work/school. Driving will never be displaced by any form of traffic mitigation, whatever mode is used.
This entire issue is about giving the commuting public choices. Building another road, however it is financed, used, or considered efficient in alleviating traffic, the fact still remains: it is still the same old car-based solution to a problem that needs a different solution. Stop changing the goal of Mass transit! The city originally stated that Peak Hour Traffic congestion on H-1 is the goal of building a Mass Transitsystem! The commuting Public will never accept less. Goals such as "provide more jobs in a failing economy", prevent urban sprawl", "provides an alternative to the commuting public" will NOT be acceptable to the commuter, who is daily stuck in congested traffic on H-1. No matter how many secondary improvements you provide , it will still the fact that "Traffic congestion on H-1 must be eliminated...which HOT does by 35 percent and Rail does not remove traffic congestion. Got it?
|
|
Need for traffic relief
|
Tsarbomba wrote: <quoted text>
Sly what? Why is it that you on purposely misread posts? I have not said I do not know where estimates of the managed lane in the AA are. I have asked you to kindly show me where in the AA states SPECIFICALLY that the managed lane alternative will cost twice as much as the H3 in 2006 dollars? This is a legitimate question. This isn't about doing homework. This is something I simply do not see in the AA. So the burden of proof is on you since you've made this claim. Or are you making stuff up again? Cliff Slater made this statement on HOT projected cost by the City to be twice as much as to build the H-3 freeway which has two miles of tunnels,(point 1)in his "Transit Matters article, go ask him for specifics. You can stop begging for info, you're already discredited.
|
|
Need for traffic relief
|
Tsarbomba wrote: <quoted text>
Look who's fluffing up the issue again. Now it's $5.0 to $9.0 billion? Can you cite specifics of where these numbers came from?
Ticket sellers? What century are you in? Where's the conductor to yell "All aboard" while we're at it?
As for buses, only 200 bus drivers for 200 new buses? Guess the buses only will run 8 hours a day and that's it? Or only 5 days a week since the standard work week consists of 40 hours. Guess no pension and health benefits for the drivers. Guess no need for mechanics to take care of the buses. Guess no need for custodians to clean the buses. Guess no need to worry about the amount and cost of fuel. Oh yeah, guess you don't have to factor in that these buses need to be replaced every 12 years compared to rail cars that are designed for 30-40 years. Never mind the fact that the buses will provide less capacity and ride comfort. Never mind buses will not be able to provide the level of schedule punctuality. Never mind that's another 200 buses on the road adding to the traffic. I repeat:$200 million for new buses, 8 million for new drivers and $1.0 Billion for HOT for a total of $1.208 Billion. Rail,$5.0 to 9.0 Billion plus $200 mil per year for O&M plus $8 million for rail employees for a total of $5.308 Billion to %9.308 Billion. HOT will reduce traffic on H-1 during perk by 35 percent, therefore less cars on the road during peak. Rail will not reduce traffic congestion! Anything else? No, since you don't say anything substantive, don't waste my time.
|
|
Kirkland
|
dwilliams wrote: <quoted text>
All I am asking for (and I'm sure the pro-rail people are as well) is an ALTERNATIVE to driving a car to/from work/school. Driving will never be displaced by any form of traffic mitigation, whatever mode is used.
This entire issue is about giving the commuting public choices. Building another road, however it is financed, used, or considered efficient in alleviating traffic, the fact still remains: it is still the same old car-based solution to a problem that needs a different solution.
On the idea of the GET being raised to fund it, check the City's own plan that states the tax will lapse in 15 years. While that seems like a long time to bear the higher cost, consider how much more money will be needed to fix the roads if we build another road (even if it is completely covered by toll collection). Asphalt is a petroleum product, which will only go up in cost. Concrete is made from rock, which has a finite supply on this island. Rail has resource costs as well, but electricity on Oahu's grid (the biggest expense for rail), can be provided by non-oil products. It won't provide ALL the power for rail, but it can offset the increase need within the grid.
We need different solutions, rather than the same old "build more roads" notion. We need a different way to commute and travel and rail appears (at least for now) to be the best idea.
PS I don't work for the City, or any other rail entity. I commute daily by bus to work and the bus I use does not gain benefit from said HOT lanes. I don't benefit from the rail, as I'm not a west side resident, either). The expiration of the GET is not the issue. The issue is the exorbitant AMOUNT OF INCREASE in the GET and or the property tax that will be needed to finance a rail transit project that will cost billions and billions to build and millions and millions to maintain. It is the height of irresponsibility and extreme callousness for any one who advocates rail transit who does not consider the dire financial impact of the project to the people of Oahu.
|
|
kailua guy
AOL
|
This is a decision that should be put to the people. The mayor has long ago made up his own mind and is not open to discussion. He is in full "do what ever it takes" mode to make this happen. The City Council is certainly not up to the job here. They have failed to catch the rigged game being played on them with phony Alternative Analysis and the joke of a Technology Panel that slected "steel on steel". Sign the petition, we need a vote. stoprailnow.com
|
|
Tsarbomba
|
Need for traffic relief wrote: <quoted text>
I repeat:$200 million for new buses, 8 million for new drivers and $1.0 Billion for HOT for a total of $1.208 Billion.
Rail,$5.0 to 9.0 Billion plus $200 mil per year for O&M plus $8 million for rail employees for a total of $5.308 Billion to %9.308 Billion.
HOT will reduce traffic on H-1 during perk by 35 percent, therefore less cars on the road during peak. Rail will not reduce traffic congestion!
Anything else? No, since you don't say anything substantive, don't waste my time. Ahh yes, the usual side step. Truly a waste of time indeed. Repeating gibberish is still well....gibberish. You seem to have a god complex, that somehow if you repeat, it makes it right and fact.
|
Judge it!
