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.
You mean like being able to go out and not worrying about a DUI since you caught Rail? Not being stuck in traffic because of construction? Being able to go to the Airport without having to find parking? Catch a cab or the bus? Going to a UH event on rail? Getting better bus service because the Bus will be integrated with the rail?
Apparently you've never heard the term "cost-benefit". Most intelligent people take this into consideration every time they pay money in exchange for a good or service. As for the not-so intelligent?... well not so much. When every single household on Oahu needs to chip in an average $20K+ of hard earned AFTER TAX income into a system that they will most definitely not ride, it translates into cost-benefit being entirely ignored. $20K represents more than 1/3 of the cash the average retiree has available to them when they reach retirement age. This is absolutely shocking to most intelligent people. Shocking.
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.
Intelligent locals don't support rail because we don't want our tiny little island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean recklessly and blindly developed. I understand the concept of population growth and how it's essentially a necessary evil. But that doesn't mean that it should accelerate at an obscene rate which historically speaking is WAY out of proportion. Rail will only make traffic WORSE because the development that comes as a DIRECT RESULT OF RAIL will be so pervasive and aggressive that traffic infrastructure simply can't keep up.
Ever consider that TECHNOLOGY would make rail obsolete? Rail has a life-cycle expectancy of 90-100 years. That means this archaic steel on steel transportation technology will still be here in 2130. That's just absurd. Technology is advancing at breakneck speed. By the time rail is actually completed, most cars sold will be either partially driven by computers or entirely driven by computers. Car prices will plummet due to new advancements in technology and even the poor will afford automobiles. They will be safer than ever, more comfortable than ever and will never allow themselves to plow into cyclists, pedestrians... or other cars. Roads will be exceedingly safer than today in 15-20 years. In 20-25 years cars will actually talk to each other and will allow car spacing to be reduced, effectively doubling or even TRIPLING the capacity of our current roadways. All while rail will have seen only 10-15% of its life expectancy reached. In the meantime, all the poor have-nots, social rejects and homeless people will be utilizing the archaic steel on steel rail technology because they will be the only ones that cannot afford inexpensive, individually operated, partially autonomous and EFFICIENT vehicles of the near future.
And from an energy consumption standpoint, rail is grossly inefficient. Identical rail systems in other cities achieve a MPG equivalent of 23 MPG per each passenger. So if your car gets better than 23 MPG today, your car is more efficient (energy consumption wise) today at getting you from point A to point B than it will be in 12-15 years riding the train. And in just 10 years (before rail is even built) ALL cars sold will be REQUIRED BY LAW by the federal government (google CAFE STANDARDS) to be nearly THREE TIMES AS EFFICIENT AS RAIL. Yes, by the time rail is built, riding around in that brand new shiny rail car will be 1/3 as efficient as the most INEFFICIENT car sold anywhere. You are effectively burning 3X the amount of electricity/fuel to get you from point A to point B in an automobile the very first day rail is open to the public.
Sometimes you have to look out a little further than just past your nose.
How do you think 90% of the people that ride the proposed rail system plan to get to the actual rail station? You do realize it's just a straight line elevated system, most of which cuts through areas that currently have relatively low to almost non existent population density?
So, it's already poorly planned, from the start?
That doesn't mean Honolulu should scrap rail. And, hopefully if it cutting through relatively low to non-existant population density, hopefully those areas are zoned all up to limit walkability, business, mixed-use, etc.
I'm pretty sure we did commuter ferries (on Oahu alone) twice, and both time went bust from lack of ridership.
__________________ ____________________________________________
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
That doesn't mean Honolulu should scrap rail. And, hopefully if it cutting through relatively low to non-existant population density, hopefully those areas are zoned all up to limit walkability, business, mixed-use, etc.
Oh yes, look at some of the proposed rail stops. Look at all those buildings and density. Rail is just dying to pick up all those people living and working there.
It's literally appalling that people think others are going to give up their cars because we build a single straight-line elevated rail system from an obscure location in Kapolei to Ala Moana. The people that will be riding the train are the exact same people that currently use our public transportation - bus riders. If you're not a bus rider now, you won't be taking the train. If you are a bus rider now there is a very good chance you will still never take the train.
Unless you live within a stone's throw of a station at the originating AND final destinations, rail in its current form is nothing but a massive inconvenience. It will not take anyone out of their comfortable cars.
Progress means less time commuting and more time doing other things. Rail translates into more time commuting and less time doing other things. We are literally going backwards in time for a cool $8 billion. This is by far the most spectacular public works disaster in the history of man kind. Nothing even comes close.
There are many, many alternatives to the straight-line elevated rail system that would have a greater impact on traffic. But all of them don't enrich our landowners, politicians and developers. That's why we are where we are.
If it doesn't connect to Waikiki, University of Hawaii, and is in obscure locations. Than, that's a definite problem.
Rail is a great thing. I wish U.S. cities would model after Asian cities, particularly Japan. It sounds like they are using the 'commuter system' model, where driving to get to stations is part of the plan? If so, it's still better than nothing. But, it would be great to see rail that brings people directly to the highest-density areas, drops them off, and continues on to another high-density area. Complete with stations with high-density everything all around it.
Does anyone know what the land underneath the rail will be used for? It seems like such a waste of space and potential eyesore. If you add landscaping you drive up the costs and I can't see how it could be used for retail.
I don't know anyone who doesn't have errands to run before and after work, kids to shuttle to practices, thinks to pick-up etc. It's not like San Francisco where there are businesses interspersed with residential.
I'm often surprised Hawaii doesn't use more Asia examples or San Francisco examples for housing, intermixing retail with residential, etc.
Japan, you'll almost always see little convenience stores in absolutely every residential neighborhood, all over the place, let alone other stuff as well. It's great to step outside of your house, no matter how residential the neighborhood, and have a ton amenities. Seems like it would stimulate things for the better economically as well.
Location: not sure, but there's a hell of a lot of water around here!
2,682 posts, read 7,580,958 times
Reputation: 3882
Quote:
Originally Posted by pj737
And from an energy consumption standpoint, rail is grossly inefficient. Identical rail systems in other cities achieve a MPG equivalent of 23 MPG per each passenger. So if your car gets better than 23 MPG today, your car is more efficient (energy consumption wise) today at getting you from point A to point B than it will be in 12-15 years riding the train. And in just 10 years (before rail is even built) ALL cars sold will be REQUIRED BY LAW by the federal government (google CAFE STANDARDS) to be nearly THREE TIMES AS EFFICIENT AS RAIL. Yes, by the time rail is built, riding around in that brand new shiny rail car will be 1/3 as efficient as the most INEFFICIENT car sold anywhere. You are effectively burning 3X the amount of electricity/fuel to get you from point A to point B in an automobile the very first day rail is open to the public.
Sometimes you have to look out a little further than just past your nose.
I looked a little past my nose, and couldn't find anything to substantiate those numbers.
We folks on Maui need to know these things, as our rail system will more than likely be up and running before Oahu's is
LOL. I hope you realize that trains run at very low capacity or almost empty 70% of the time it's in operation, right? When it's nearly empty the handful of people riding in each car are getting 3 to 4 MPG... or worse. Average it out over time and you end up at the 23 MPG figure. You can backwards calculate based on BTU/mile analysis here -
Now if they shut the rail cars down completely during NON rush hours, then yes, you make a good case. But I'm pretty sure every single rail system on the planet does not operate this way.
I'm pretty sure we did commuter ferries (on Oahu alone) twice, and both time went bust from lack of ridership.
I vaguely remember "TheBoat" - took an hour from Kapolei (considering you had to get to the harbor and wait that commute was no picnic) people were getting seasick - the boats just weren't reliable enough and if I rember correctly tossed you around pretty good. Given it started when the economy was awful in Hawaii (2008 or so) the timing was awful as traffic wasn't nearly as bad as today.
people were getting seasick - the boats just weren't reliable enough and if I rember correctly tossed you around pretty good. .
That pretty much sums up the Superfail as well...
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.
