Transit Matters: Build now or regret it later

If we don't build it now, we will regret it later When Atlanta debated its rail project 30-some years ago, the opposition was tremendous, with all types of sages and academics weighing in against it.

[Formerly undecided]

Regardless if one is for or against mass transit, if memory serves, H1 was designed, built and paid for entirely by the Feds. How can anyone compare H3 in any way with Oahu's transit project which will cost we local folks $billions.

[Kanaka]

I'm reading this column with disbelief. Here we have an intellectual from UH stating his case for rail and all he can come up with is that NY & Atlanta have it too?

Zero justification for rail. Indeed, to him its a "no brainer". Forget about the studies which state that H1 congestion gets worse AFTER rail is built, IN 2030.

Another case of Kindergardener logic, "but ma, he's doing it!".

Sad, very sad.

[Kanaka]

and to add insult to injury, as an example of success in Honolulu, what does he point to? A HIGHWAY PROJECT!

Is this the current state of University critical thinking? Scary.

[townie]

Build it. Build it now. In 50 years this will make sense. If you disagee, well OK.

[Oki]

Professor Singh specializes in construction management, i.e. is the intellectual honcho of the big buck deals and teaches students how to put in bids. What else can you expect to hear from him. It's too bad his colleague , Professor Prevedouros, a traffic engineering expert, completely disagrees with him.

[willie]

Yes Atlanta and NY have trains, so does San Francisco. What is subsidy level for BART again? Oh yeah the average tax payer pays more for each rider than the riders pay. Look for more of the same in Honolulu when virtually no one uses it and the taxpayers get saddled with never ending subsidies.

BTW, the NY train system is PRIVATE...it makes money. Comparing a city like NY to Honolulu islike comparing the moon to the galaxy...but then those who want this train to nowhere are just looking at the dollars they may make not the actual impact.

[John W Bienko]

Steel Rail makes the taxpayer hostage far into the foreseeable future.. probably forever. There will be monster cost over-runs and exhorbitant operational costs. The builder corporations, special insider interests and politicians will reap the financial benefits. In Seattle and New York winter conditions favour Steel Rail but that is NOT the case in Hawai`i. Hawaiians would be wise to decentralize residential and business centers.. creating a live- work-play environment that virtually eliminates communting.. improves the quality of living.. provides more free time and an environmentally friendly lifestyle.

[John W Bienko]

THe multi-billion dollar debt to be assumed by Hawaiians forever will make them economic slaves to pay the costs.
Proponents to build Steel Rail do so knowing that they expect others to pay the largest part of the initial and operational costs.
In simple economic terms the users should be required to pay all the costs.. and they would NEVER build Steel Rail if they had to carry that financial burden. As is usual in these projects the proponents expect the general public who would never use the system to pay the price.

[Bongo Fury]

Rail Transit will give us a way to commute from West Oahu and ten years of economic growth (probably more) on intelligent growth along the corridor.

You have to either be stupid or working for the automotive industry to be fighting it.

An extra 1/2% tax wont' kill you...gas when up 20X that this month and you still think it's a good idea.

[Mike Hu]

Maybe we can get some of these "big-thinkers" to buy the Hawaii Convention Center, The Boat, the future revenue streams from a world-class Natatorium and a bridge across Pearl Harbor from the taxpayers -- to finance the rail system.

[manini_fish]

Oahu needs rail!!! Opponents --especially the Councilmen who want to emulate Rene Mansho , should sit back and take a good look beyond the end of their noses. Oil will hit $200.00 a barrel and maybe even $300.00 a barrel in our lifetime. Grow up Council people...please grow up.

[Excuses]

No solid facts here to support rail for Oahu, just more cheerleading. Rail may provide some traffic relief, but at outrageous costs, monetary and otherwise. Question that has not been answered by this writer and the mayor is why haven't we looked at other solutions? When are our roads and highways going to have badly-needed repair and expansion? Why not expand the bus system and make it free? Environmentally, rail is no better than cars and buses that will soon be running on clean-burning, renewable fuels. Until we look at other solutions, there will be, rightfully, significant opposition to rail.

[Excuses]

Our transportation future does not rest on building rail or not. The city needs to back to the drawing board and figure out what solutions would benefit the vast majority of island residents. Come up with a master plan and then go from there.

[Cat Manapua]

<<<No doubt, the energy consumption of rail will be significant. Opponents of rail cite this as a problem, based on the assumption that we will continue to burn fossil fuels. However, that assumption is patently false. The world, not just the United States, will be compelled to switch to alternate techniques of power generation very soon.>>>

----------

Wow, What a whopper of an assumption. The Train To Nowhere will run on alternative fuel? Baloney. It will require a whole new power plant - an oil burner - and the costs are not in the $5 billion price tag yet.

[Kirkland]

Bongo Fury wrote:

An extra 1/2% tax wont' kill you....

The 1/2 percent tax only rakes in $160 million a year and is insufficient to fund the entire rail system. If the 0.5 percent GET rakes in only $160 million, to rake in $1 billion the GET has to increase to 3.125 percent or an increase of over 600 percent.

[Elite Not]

I was planning to send my kids to UH, but after reading this clown's comments, I'm starting to have second thoughts. His arguments for rail are full of holes and assumptions. I am for rail and improving Oahu's infrastructure, and I agree we need it to meet our needs in the future, but our pandering politician, are more concerned about their political careers than doing this project correctly, and their arrogance is grinding to most hard working taxpayer.

[AWM]

Rail versus Highway-

Hmm- a three lane elevated reverisble expressway would do the following-
I spend 15 hours a week commuting to and from work from Ewa to the Capitol..this costs me about $50 a week in gas- so my gas alone is $400 a month...a three lane reversible expressway will cut my commute into 5 hours a week total to and from..with a total of $60 for gas for the month...so if I pay a toll each way at $2.00 (average toll for 77 toll roads accross America is $1.50/per 20 mile stretch)to and from work- I will be spending $20 a week or-$80 a month total in toll expenses-

So now- if I add up the toll and gas expense per month to use a toll road will cost me $160 total.

With the toll- I will save $40 a month- recoup 40 hours in "free" time a month not spent in traffic- save on wear and tear on my mind and auto as well...less pollution too by getting to destination quicker to boot!

So - a three lane elevated reversible toll road will save me $40 a month...a three lane reversible expressway can move 9000 vehicles per hour- sitting in comfort, without a tax burden...

That is why the Mayor and Legislature came up with the idea of eliminating/forbidding the tax surcharge for highway technology on Oahu because it is superior for the economy and can do circles around any rail configuration...instead, the City compared a one lane highway configuration to the rail- an unfair comparison...

Rail people- you are mean, rude, and hurting the economy, and most of all, very, very selfish.

[Mahu]

Let's not forget this memorable line,"...No doubt, the energy consumption of rail will be significant. Opponents of rail cite this as a problem, based on the assumption that we will continue to burn fossil fuels. However, that assumption is patently false. The world, not just the United States, will be compelled to switch to alternate techniques of power generation very soon."

So, we build a mutually exclusive temporary fossil fuel power plant, large enough to supply the rail with all its power supply, then in 10, 20 years we switch to power generated by squirrels running in a wire treadmill, powered by nuts! Yes, Prof. Numb-nuts, sit down and shut up!

[Tsarbomba]

Formerly undecided wrote:

Regardless if one is for or against mass transit, if memory serves, H1 was designed, built and paid for entirely by the Feds. How can anyone compare H3 in any way with Oahu's transit project which will cost we local folks $billions.

Because if people want to argue about cost of building rail, you need to compare it on a fair level with other transportation projects on Oahu. Regardless if the feds paid for H1 or not, if you adjust the final price tag of H1, H2, or H3 into 2006 dollars and then compare it to the rail project, one can see things objectively.

[Tsarbomba]

Cat Manapua wrote:

<<<No doubt, the energy consumption of rail will be significant. Opponents of rail cite this as a problem, based on the assumption that we will continue to burn fossil fuels. However, that assumption is patently false. The world, not just the United States, will be compelled to switch to alternate techniques of power generation very soon.>>>
----------
Wow, What a whopper of an assumption. The Train To Nowhere will run on alternative fuel? Baloney. It will require a whole new power plant - an oil burner - and the costs are not in the $5 billion price tag yet.

Can you show me what documents point out the need for a new power plant? Will we switch our power generation to alternatives on a large scale in the near future remains to be seen but show me where the rail requirements include a new power plant?