Honolulu Rail Transit (Aiea: 2013, to buy, live)

[hawaiian by heart]

Originally Posted by ScottStielow

Here is one of the news casts about the Rail project costs. Projected to increase to $500 to $750 Million. From 18 December 2014.
Honolulu Rail Transit - Hawaii News Now - KGMB and KHNL

Wow talk about milking it, the whole lightrail max system from portland to greshem and beaverton and clackamas oregon cost only $214 million, thats 87 stations and 52.4*miles of track.

[Mikala43]

It was projected to be late and over budget.

Only way they could convince the voters.

[honobob]

Originally Posted by kaimuki

No such rail system will ever be built.

Yeah, I'm sure they'll shortcut and go under the Pali.

[ScottStielow]

Here is the weekend schedule for my area around Kam Hwy Aiea and Pearl City.
It is a pain in the rear, to get around on the weekends on Kam Hwy, and the State is working on the H1/H2 Freeway widening project at the same time in Pearl City to Waipahu.
Kamehameha Highway - Honolulu Rail Transit | Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation

[Mikala43]

They just closed Farrington Hwy down to one lane getting on the freeway in the mornings.... I'm not sure how long that is going to last, but it increased my commute by about 25 minutes! I'm going to have to go into the office later when the traffic isn't as bad.

[nerdlette]

Article: To Save Money on Building Rail, Spend Money on Marketing Buses

“Bus-based public transit in the United States suffers from an image problem.”

That fact, laid out in a 2009 report from the Federal Transit Administration, isn’t surprising, but it has led to a perverse outcome: Transit agencies are spending millions of dollars on new rail infrastructure that is no faster than existing bus service, simply because riders perceive a train as better than a bus.

Interesting article. I've found that subways in large cities are definitely faster than buses. But, light rail and street cars aren't that fast.

[Tiger Beer]

Originally Posted by nerdlette

Article: To Save Money on Building Rail, Spend Money on Marketing Buses

“Bus-based public transit in the United States suffers from an image problem.”

That fact, laid out in a 2009 report from the Federal Transit Administration, isn’t surprising, but it has led to a perverse outcome: Transit agencies are spending millions of dollars on new rail infrastructure that is no faster than existing bus service, simply because riders perceive a train as better than a bus.

Interesting article. I've found that subways in large cities are definitely faster than buses. But, light rail and street cars aren't that fast.

Interesting article titles! Buses have an image problem everywhere. People will always take trains over buses in urban areas, if the two go to the same destination. Mostly entirely because buses are subject to the same issues/problems that cars have. Traffic.

Rail is to alleviate the highway/road system. Buses are simply another vehicle on that same road/path. Another thing to try to get around.

[TimTheEnchanter]

Originally Posted by Tiger Beer

I'd imagine the fees to ride it, will offset costs in the long run. Some of these rails end up in the surplus in future years.

I don't think we'll ever see a highway or road end up with a surplus.

As populations just continue to explode and expand into the future, basic infrastructure is essential.

If cities like Manila, Calcutta, Lima, Caracas, Recife, Algiers, etc can have subways/rail, than it seems like Honolulu could afford to create one line going through it's heaviest populated areas.

I am curious which U.S. public transit systems are in surplus, especially the ones with rail and/or subways?

And are you really equating land value in Calcutta to land value on Ohau?

Originally Posted by Tiger Beer

Interesting article titles! Buses have an image problem everywhere. People will always take trains over buses in urban areas, if the two go to the same destination. Mostly entirely because buses are subject to the same issues/problems that cars have. Traffic.

Rail is to alleviate the highway/road system. Buses are simply another vehicle on that same road/path. Another thing to try to get around.

Not when you create bus express lanes. Buses are so much more effective and inexpensive than boondoggle rail projects, it isn't even funny.

But buses aren't sexy and politicians love sexy.

Oh and in HI, they love union construction jobs. Do check who is contributing to the politicians campaign coffers.

[Tiger Beer]

Originally Posted by TimTheEnchanter

I am curious which U.S. public transit systems are in surplus, especially the ones with rail and/or subways?

And are you really equating land value in Calcutta to land value on Ohau?



Not when you create bus express lanes. Buses are so much more effective and inexpensive than boondoggle rail projects, it isn't even funny.

But buses aren't sexy and politicians love sexy.

Oh and in HI, they love union construction jobs. Do check who is contributing to the politicians campaign coffers.

When I lived in New York City, from 1997-2000, every year the metro subway was always in surplus. I don't know about all transit systems, but just did a quick search for NYC with the surpluses online, and it seems to confirm that.

Calcutta? Not sure what you are talking about.

Creating bus express lanes? You mean, your solution is to continually widen out highways? Buses have to navigate in that as well. Sure, you can create bus lanes, but they still have to exit and enter like everyone else, and still have to navigate everything off of the highways. It's slow, trust me. I don't think you've ridden in city buses before.

Well, I can definitely tell I'm communicating with someone who hasn't used mass transit at all, if ever. Generally speaking, most who prefer mass transit, they avoid buses, if they have rails. Buses get stuck in traffic. Rails can be timed, and you get off right at your stop. Widening out highways isn't pretty. In 100 years, you'd have 50-lane highways running up and down all of Oahu? No thanks. Build a train, people get off their stops, and they walk home. It's just efficient.

Having a little island all paved over with highways and parking lots isn't pretty. Don't know why anyone would insist on that.

[pj737]

Originally Posted by TimTheEnchanter

Not when you create bus express lanes. Buses are so much more effective and inexpensive than boondoggle rail projects, it isn't even funny.

But buses aren't sexy and politicians love sexy.

Nothing to do with sexy. Expanding bus infrastructure (which I agree will have a MUCH greater impact on traffic and will result in overall higher convenience for riders) does not produce billions for land owners and developers. Neither does adding additional car lanes or bike lanes. The whole point of rail was to take countless acres of land worth 20 cents/SF and increase that 25,000% to $50/SF. Billions created, poof, out of thin air. Huge windfall for landowners which then trickle that $$$$ down to developers which then trickle that $$ down to union contractors. All paid for by us hard-working tax payers. Rail is 100% a land development scheme. Nothing else is even a consideration or worth mentioning.