Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I took the Superferry a couple of times with my car over to Maui - the couple of times I took it - it was packed and was a smoking deal so you could avoid a rental car. My trips were smooth but I could see winter being more a wild ride.
People complain about about high interisland airfare - well, you all had an alternative.
Ever think about the sustainability of the island? There is more to sustainability than cutting 3 minutes out of a 1-hour commute (absolute best case reduction in drive time after rail is complete). Rail will allow the green-lighting of tens of thousands of homes... increasing our already overwhelming population by 250,000 to 300,000 people on top of the nearly 1 million over the coming 3 decades. Where do we get the fresh drinking water? The electricity? Proper wastewater treatment? What about our refuse? You do realize we are tapped out in all these areas TODAY, right? And what about FOOD? Do the prospects of importing EVERYTHING we eat sound good to you? This is exactly what you're advocating when you blindly support rail.
Look, I don't live in Hawaii, so feel free to disregard what I'm going to say as nothing more than the know-nothing ramblings of an ignorant Mainlander. And I haven't looked at the technical details of this rail line to know whether or not it is being designed wisely. (Based on what little I've heard, I'm starting to have my doubts.) But I can tell you this: if there are 250,000 to 300,000 people getting ready to move to Oahu, they're going to come whether you build a rail line or not. No one out there is saying, "I really want to move to Honolulu, but they don't have a rail system, so forget it." No, they're going to come, whether you are ready for them or not.
You want to talk sustainability? Cramming thousands upon thousands of additional cars onto a six-lane freeway that is not very well designed (from a traffic engineering standpoint) and is already functionally obsolete -- and is already operating at capacity during peak hours, if not longer -- is not sustainable. Having to ship in all the extra gasoline for all those new cars is not sustainable. Having the extra pollution from all those extra cars . . . well, you get my point.
A rail transit system, if built right, allows for a much greater population density than simply building more highways. Look at it this way -- would you want those hundreds of thousands of newcomers to live within the existing Honolulu urbanized area, in high-density housing (condos or townhouses) clustered around rail stations; or would you have them spread out across the Ewa Plain or wherever else there's empty land to be found? I'm not a resident, but even I know that Oahu isn't exactly overflowing with empty land. What kind of island do you want to leave to your descendants? One that's urbanized in parts but also has small towns and open space? Or one that's just one big clump of sprawl from Diamond Head to the North Shore?
Yes, rail is expensive to build, maintain, and operate. But it seems to me that the cost of not building it, on a relatively small island with a large and growing population, is even greater.
I took the Superferry a couple of times with my car over to Maui - the couple of times I took it - it was packed and was a smoking deal so you could avoid a rental car. My trips were smooth but I could see winter being more a wild ride.
People complain about about high interisland airfare - well, you all had an alternative.
I always thought that car ferries between the islands was a no-brainer, and I was shocked that Super Ferry failed. Was it really just because of some loud-mouth environmentalists on Kauai? What was their beef, anyway? That people could actually (gasp!) get around more conveniently and less expensively?
But I can tell you this: if there are 250,000 to 300,000 people getting ready to move to Oahu, they're going to come whether you build a rail line or not.
Well - no. About 11,000 people per year move to Oahu. About 12,000 people move away from Oahu per year. Oahu has had a net migration issue for about the last 20 years.
It does have a population growth issue - far more births than deaths are leading to the population growth.
I always thought that car ferries between the islands was a no-brainer, and I was shocked that Super Ferry failed. Was it really just because of some loud-mouth environmentalists on Kauai? What was their beef, anyway? That people could actually (gasp!) get around more conveniently and less expensively?
Please reread the thread, i believe some including myself have given good reasons for why locals don't want these kinds of projects. Have a good day.
Look, I don't live in Hawaii, so feel free to disregard what I'm going to say as nothing more than the know-nothing ramblings of an ignorant Mainlander. And I haven't looked at the technical details of this rail line to know whether or not it is being designed wisely. (Based on what little I've heard, I'm starting to have my doubts.) But I can tell you this: if there are 250,000 to 300,000 people getting ready to move to Oahu, they're going to come whether you build a rail line or not. No one out there is saying, "I really want to move to Honolulu, but they don't have a rail system, so forget it." No, they're going to come, whether you are ready for them or not.
You want to talk sustainability? Cramming thousands upon thousands of additional cars onto a six-lane freeway that is not very well designed (from a traffic engineering standpoint) and is already functionally obsolete -- and is already operating at capacity during peak hours, if not longer -- is not sustainable. Having to ship in all the extra gasoline for all those new cars is not sustainable. Having the extra pollution from all those extra cars . . . well, you get my point.
A rail transit system, if built right, allows for a much greater population density than simply building more highways. Look at it this way -- would you want those hundreds of thousands of newcomers to live within the existing Honolulu urbanized area, in high-density housing (condos or townhouses) clustered around rail stations; or would you have them spread out across the Ewa Plain or wherever else there's empty land to be found? I'm not a resident, but even I know that Oahu isn't exactly overflowing with empty land. What kind of island do you want to leave to your descendants? One that's urbanized in parts but also has small towns and open space? Or one that's just one big clump of sprawl from Diamond Head to the North Shore?
Yes, rail is expensive to build, maintain, and operate. But it seems to me that the cost of not building it, on a relatively small island with a large and growing population, is even greater.
I'm not getting what you're saying. There are viable alternatives. We could widen the freeways island-wide by one lane each direction simply by RESTRIPING the pavement. Then you could dedicate these lanes for buses only. Or more cars. Or HOV. There are ridiculously inexpensive options our city/state did not even bother implementing. Ever wonder why we have the world's most idiotic zipper lane system? We have one moveable barrier smacked up against another fixed one. And when we move one it takes up two lanes in the opposing direction to give one in the other. If the entire center concrete median were movable, the lanes could be shifted on BOTH sides and we would not have to lose two lanes to gain one. Special interest groups have eliminated any of the less expensive alternatives and fixes.
We clearly disagree on what "sustainability" is. To me, giving residents the opportunity to forever commute into town by wasting vast amounts of energy by moving from one side of the island just to work and put food on the table is just plain asinine to me. Rail is great for me personally, all the property I own is in the urban core and all rail does is make the urban core THE destiny to be in. To work in. To play in. To do anything people want in. I'm also in the construction industry. So from a financial standpoint, I score big time with rail. I just don't agree with the proposed system. The system would have been vastly more convenient if it were designed more like a web than a straight line. It should have been at grade and NEVER elevated. It should never have been started in the middle of nowhere. The rail system should have connected EXISTING communities and that's not the case. Why it doesn't go to UH on the first run is comical. Pure unadulterated comedy. Let's connect the brand spankin new UH West Oahu to.... A SHOPPING CENTER!
You talk of all the gasoline to ship here and how horrible it is all these cars will be sucking it up like no tomorrow and polluting our air. Electric cars will be everywhere by the time rail is even functioning. Not sure why you don't think we will progress with automobile technology. That to me is just ridiculous. To NOT think that most cars will be electric and self driving in 20-30 years is not accepting the reality of things. We are not residing in a time warp.
Rail got a big push because the "second city" never materialized. Years back the city/state tried to build city facilities in Kapolei in hopes of establishing a second central business district. Never happened because nobody wanted to live in Kapolei. We should have given massive tax breaks and incentives to developers and contractors... even land owners... to allow for more commercial facility development in Kapolei. A truly sustainable, properly functioning island would have two central business districts complete with commerce necessary to keep them humming along. They failed at that because there simply was ZERO incentive. It makes absolutely no sense to shuttle people 40+ miles to work every single day. A sustainable city has residents that commute SHORT distances to work. NOT LONG DISTANCES. Rail forever entrenches our isle's residents in this long tiring, energy-wasting, inefficient trek to and from work like a bunch of cattle. Depressing... Very very depressing.
If rail was NOT developed, the population base would not grow at the same rate you suggest it would. Rail absolutely 100% increases the rampant paving of our aina at an alarming/accelerated rate. The agricultural land out there would not be paved over for starters. We would have had opportunities to explore financially prudent viable alternatives to rail even if keeping rail but just completely revamping its current design. I'm against rail in general as I believe it's antiquated technology and the future will be all about individual personal transportation vehicles. But I would have definitely been more supportive of an at-grade system that can service a much larger area... than a straight line high up in the sky.
Location: not sure, but there's a hell of a lot of water around here!
2,682 posts, read 7,571,651 times
Reputation: 3882
Quote:
Originally Posted by pj737
I'm not getting what you're saying. There are viable alternatives. We could widen the freeways island-wide by one lane each direction simply by RESTRIPING the pavement.
Really? So all we need is narrower cars! Friggin brilliant Give rail a chance, even though we are such an automobile infatuated culture from the onset that the very idea of not sitting in ones own little vehicle while stuck hopelessly in traffic seems somehow more attractive an idea than sitting in a train going an average speed of 30 mph. Maybe folks will adapt. After all, the people who plan for these eventualities, population growth, urban sprawl, etc., must have been taken by surprise at the sudden appearance of near gridlock on Oahu's highways.
Please reread the thread, i believe some including myself have given good reasons for why locals don't want these kinds of projects. Have a good day.
Most are totally for inter-island ferries. If the politicians can work the politics out of the issue, we will have one. I would LOVE for farmers from the neighbor islands to have a cost effective method of transport for their businesses, as well as Oahu businesses having a way to ship inventory in a cost effective manner.
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Give rail a chance, even though we are such an automobile infatuated culture from the onset that the very idea of not sitting in ones own little vehicle while stuck hopelessly in traffic seems somehow more attractive an idea than sitting in a train going an average speed of 30 mph. Maybe folks will adapt. After all, the people who plan for these eventualities, population growth, urban sprawl, etc., must have been taken by surprise at the sudden appearance of near gridlock on Oahu's highways.
