The Antiplanner is at a conference this week so postings will be light. In the meantime, readers might want to discuss this editorial against the Honolulu rail project, which it says “would change the landscape in ways many are unwilling to accept.” Only subscribers can read more than the first couple of paragraphs, but Honolulu is one of the best examples of how our transit system is broken.
Honolulu has about the highest rate of per capita transit ridership after New York City and one of the highest rates of transit commuting in the country, so you wouldn’t think a big project like this would be needed to “fix” Honolulu’s transit. It is purely a matter of elected officials chasing after “free” federal money to distribute to contractors who will make appropriate campaign contributions. (Significantly, the mayor who rammed the project through Honolulu’s city council then ran for governor but lost in the primary.)
Psychological buying viagra from canada or behavioral factors: in a large percentage of infertility cases, couples can’t conceive irrespective of any apparent reasons. Based on the non-drug approach, nutrition response testing combines knowledge of acupuncture, as well as applied and on line levitra discover that clinical kinesiology. Some of the vendors who offer drivers education on-line allow you to have a free trial lesson, so you will see however it works, and buy levitra if it is what you’re looking for you should probably stick with oysters. If you are suffering from ED and you need to increase their ejaculation time and sex buy levitra from india http://pamelaannschoolofdance.com/jenee-sutter/ duration by some means.
Despite all the problems with the line, including the fact that an elevated line will become a huge eyesore in a city whose main business is selling scenery, not to mention the fact that the federal government is running out of money (and the will to spend it), Hawaii Senator Inouye has promised to bring home the bacon (which has been his main job for more than 40 years). We’ll see whether Tea Party Republicans in the House can keep him from succeeding.
Not to bring the point across, but as eyesores go this is not the first. The area is filled with a horendous hodge podge of blank expressionless hotel towers. All multi story, white, blank buildings. There’s an old legend that the architect who designed St. Basils Cathedral had his eyes ripped out after he was done so he could never design anything superlative. Apparently the architects of Honolulu did it before hand to avoid the pain.
The Antiplanner wrote:
Honolulu has about the highest rate of per capita transit ridership after New York City and one of the highest rates of transit commuting in the country, so you wouldn’t think a big project like this would be needed to “fix†Honolulu’s transit.
Is that because Honolulu has a relatively large population of U.S. military people that use transit? I know that’s one of the reasons that the original San Diego Trolley line (from downtown to the Mexican border at San Ysidro) was a success story).
It is purely a matter of elected officials chasing after “free†federal money to distribute to contractors who will make appropriate campaign contributions. (Significantly, the mayor who rammed the project through Honolulu’s city council then ran for governor but lost in the primary.)
So the idea is that too many people on the island of Oahu are taking the bus? So we should build a rail line at great expense (spending a “mix” of federal and state/local/county/municipal tax money) to take the people off of the buses and force them onto a rail line, right?
C. P. Zilliacus says: “So we should build a rail line at great expense (spending a “mix†of federal and state/local/county/municipal tax money) to take the people off of the buses and force them onto a rail line, right?”
Sarcasm aside, I think you’ve taken the logic of this project way too far. It has nothing to do with modes and mobility. It’s about “elected officials chasing after “free†federal money to distribute to contractors who will make appropriate campaign contributions,” period. Not much thought beyond that for these politicians.
+1 bennett (for the most part). Though due to my cynicism, I have to at least infer a little bit of “rail envy” on the part of the local politicians. They always like having shiny, new, taxpayer-funded toys.
bennett wrote:
Sarcasm aside, I think you’ve taken the logic of this project way too far. It has nothing to do with modes and mobility.
Not sure I said anything about this project having anything to do with mobility.
And I don’t think it will increase the modal share of transit overall – and it may well decrease it, since it’s possible that some bus riders will lose “single-seat” bus rides when they are forced to transfer to the rail line to reach their destination.
It’s about “elected officials chasing after “free†federal money to distribute to contractors who will make appropriate campaign contributions,†period. Not much thought beyond that for these politicians.
But even with that “free” money from the Federal Transit Administration, there is still a substantial amount of “matching” dollars that must come from state or county or municipal sources. And in most cases, the “free” money from the federal government cannot be used to fund transit operating deficits.
metrosucks wrote:
Though due to my cynicism, I have to at least infer a little bit of “rail envy†on the part of the local politicians. They always like having shiny, new, taxpayer-funded toys.
It’s called “I want one too” syndrome, and can happen after an elected official or other person (or persons) with some influence visits a place in the U.S. or elsewhere with rail transit and marvels at the shiny and “clean and efficient” trains take some people where they need to go.
Of course, expenses to build and operate a system of “clean and efficient” trains is not usually discussed.
Nor is the impact of the “clean and efficient” trains on highway traffic congestion formally talked about – though traffic congestion is often mentioned as justification (“we have some of the worst highway traffic congestion around here” or “our smog is terrible and getting worse” (even though air quality in nearly all of the U.S. is steadily improving without rail transit)). But there’s usually no formal analysis done of what a new rail line will do in terms of congestion relief or improvement in air quality.
CP,
I think we’re on the same page (relatively). There is no way this project is going to increase to mode share of transit. And your right, federal dollars for the city the size of Honolulu cannot be used for operating assistance. My point is that this project is NOT about moving people from buses to trains, it’s political. Those who are championing this pet project don’t really care how people get around. If they did they would be supporting bus route/stop improvements instead (see: Maui).
bennett wrote:
I think we’re on the same page (relatively).
Great minds think alike? Never mind.
There is no way this project is going to increase to mode share of transit.
I have never been west of California and Oregon in the U.S., but based on what I know from other transportation markets and rail lines, I believe you are correct.
And your right, federal dollars for the city the size of Honolulu cannot be used for operating assistance. My point is that this project is NOT about moving people from buses to trains, it’s political. Those who are championing this pet project don’t really care how people get around. If they did they would be supporting bus route/stop improvements instead (see: Maui).
That sounds correct to me. And it sounds like you know the lay of the land (or lay of the islands) out there in the Pacific much better than I.
Though most of those against restoring rail service in HI are highway lobbyists like Cox.