So where's all the rail supporters now,i bet after all the fu#k ups they have had a change of heart..you know im not a genius but the first thing I would have checked into is can the electrical system we have now is up to par to power the rail.Not when the project is already started and moving forward.(idiots).man this project is going to suck the taxpayers dry.Sorry guys just venting.

So where's all the rail supporters now,i bet after all the fu#k ups they have had a change of heart..you know im not a genius but the first thing I would have checked into is can the electrical system we have now is up to par to power the rail.Not when the project is already started and moving forward.(idiots).man this project is going to suck the taxpayers dry.Sorry guys just venting.

If you're talking about the politicians who are supporters of rail, they are no doubt snuggled up with the cash donations from the contractors awarded the design and construction contracts. No worries.

What kind of terrorist are you sir? Proposing common sense, planning and forethought, that's the "old" way.

The "new" way is to forge ahead on feelings, dreams and hope  as well as other peoples money!   

The electrical system we have isn't even adequate for the infrastructure we have now, despite the billions that HECO rakes in. They can't even manage to keep it on if the wind blows a little hard. Just wait until all the buildings coming up now in Honolulu come on line and start drawing power, plus the Koa Ridge development, PLUS the rail.

These boneheads couldn't plan their way out of a wet paper sack.

More of this


or build this:


either way = MOAR taxes!!!! If they were wise enough to have foreign property investors help pay for our infrastructure....hmm...

All the politicians that rallied for rail will likely NOT use it! With all the kickbacks they can now move on up to the east side where the rail won't be messing things up for them.
And why the creation of a CEO for a public project? Wouldn't it make sense for this project to fall under a City dept.?

another related issue is the way rail is messing up the aina!  Many times greater than a telescope sitting passively looking at the stars! The massive rail columns are plunged hundreds of feet into the earth!

I have always kind of been on the fence on this issue. On the one hand I am sure there is waste left and right and I wouldn't be surprised if there was some corruption as well, but on the other hand I do think a rail system would serve the island well. Imagine if we tried to build this 20 years from now when we were more crowded.

HECO's Honolulu power generation facility has been deactivated and mothballed for the last couple of years. That would tell me that they are getting enough power from wind and PV to idle that plant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

my cousins husband is an engineer on the rail project. prior to the build, he was pro rail and excited about it while the rest of us.....not so much. we'd go out of our way to always bring up rail at gatherings.

conversation with him now: "hey....how's the rail project?"........"F*&%$^%ing Kiewitt Damn MotherF*&^%&ers!.......i hate them. HART Stupid A$%*&^^#@"........then he walks away shaking his head. we start laughing.

so no........no supporters where i am.

I have said in earlier posts that I might be a supporter of rail if it were designed to serve the people who needed it the most, was of the type of construction that would have saved the taxpayer a lot of money over what we got, and if there was some sort of over sight committee that could remove any and all of the HART officials without asking them to remove themselves. Unfortunately, the rail does not have stations close to the people who would benefit the most from having the rail. The City Council decided on an overhead heavy rail system when they could have chosen a light rail system and at some locations run the rail on the ground where it is a lot cheaper to install per mile. The fact that the head of HART and the cronies underneath him cannot be removed shows they have no direct accountability.

And BTW I read somewhere that the proposed price of a ticket and the additional half percent sales tax that is supposed to be temporary is not enough to operate and maintain the rail project after it is built. Something our city council chose to ignore and not inform us of before they put it to a vote. The taxpayers were lied to and the people voted for this project based on the lies. And when enough evidence that the first vote was based on lies and half truths and not complete evidence it was presented to bring it to a vote again to stop the rail after it was started, that vote was not allowed.

I am not a supporter of the rail as it is currently designed and built. But even under all those conditions I probably would have still voted against it as the cost and the cost overruns would still be prohibitive. I worked on the rail for a year and a half. So I benefitted from the work. But I don't think the taxpayers are benefitting from this project nor will they in the future unless something drastic happens.

They should have used the old Oahu L&R right of way for a on grade rail most of the right of way is open.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The rail is ridiculous, I said it from the start, if people still have to drive their cars or bus it to the stations just to get on the rail, it is useless.  In major cities where rail has been successful (i.e. Tokyo, Hong Kong, Toronto) the rail serves a densely populated area within the heart of the city, where passengers would benefit most from having stops and stations near their destinations.  But no, Hawaii's rail does not do that, it only serves to transport a certain region of people (central and westside) to town, and that's it, there is no added utility other than that. 

Furthermore, nobody suggested to incorporate sustainable energy (i.e. pv panels or hybrid technology like you would find in toyota camry hybrids) into the rail system.  They could have, at the very least, incorporated a pv system on the roof of the train cars, or on the roofs on the stop-station structures.  But no, we love to think INSIDE the box, innovation is NOT in our blood, and there is ZERO determination to set a global standard, we love to think locally, and that is not a solution, it's a problem. 

The rail is, was, and will be a fiasco.  The past, present, and future of Hawaii folks.

Furthermore, THE RAIL SERVES TO BENEFIT ONLY A CERTAIN REGION OF PEOPLE, and for a trivial cause: to relieve TRAFFIC.  What I mean by this is, for example, folks in Waimanalo, Kaneohe, East Honolulu, North Shore, Laie, and I can venture to say Maui, Kauai, Big Island, simply do not and will not ever need to use the rail, BECAUSE IT DOES NOT SERVE THEIR LOCATIONS.  SO WHY WOULD THEY PAY FOR SOMETHING THEY WOULD NEVER UTILIZE?   I call babooze alert on the a-holes that pushed the rail through......  it's a scam, a sham, corruption, and Kiewit and all the other contractors are the only ones gaining financially.......   

it's a scam, a sham, corruption, and Kiewit and all the other contractors are the only ones gaining financially.......   

not the only ones-
politicians and unions...

The rail is ridiculous, I said it from the start, if people still have to drive their cars or bus it to the stations just to get on the rail, it is useless.  In major cities where rail has been successful (i.e. Tokyo, Hong Kong, Toronto) the rail serves a densely populated area within the heart of the city, where passengers would benefit most from having stops and stations near their destinations.  But no, Hawaii's rail does not do that, it only serves to transport a certain region of people (central and westside) to town, and that's it, there is no added utility other than that. 

Furthermore, nobody suggested to incorporate sustainable energy (i.e. pv panels or hybrid technology like you would find in toyota camry hybrids) into the rail system.  They could have, at the very least, incorporated a pv system on the roof of the train cars, or on the roofs on the stop-station structures.  But no, we love to think INSIDE the box, innovation is NOT in our blood, and there is ZERO determination to set a global standard, we love to think locally, and that is not a solution, it's a problem. 

The rail is, was, and will be a fiasco.  The past, present, and future of Hawaii folks.

Furthermore, THE RAIL SERVES TO BENEFIT ONLY A CERTAIN REGION OF PEOPLE, and for a trivial cause: to relieve TRAFFIC.  What I mean by this is, for example, folks in Waimanalo, Kaneohe, East Honolulu, North Shore, Laie, and I can venture to say Maui, Kauai, Big Island, simply do not and will not ever need to use the rail, BECAUSE IT DOES NOT SERVE THEIR LOCATIONS.  SO WHY WOULD THEY PAY FOR SOMETHING THEY WOULD NEVER UTILIZE?   I call babooze alert on the a-holes that pushed the rail through......  it's a scam, a sham, corruption, and Kiewit and all the other contractors are the only ones gaining financially.......   

Not exactly true. The people on the windward side could still benefit from a standpoint of reduced traffic. Reduced cars on the road can have a ripple of positive effects, I don't think it is fair to suggest it will only have one narrow benefit. The rail could always be added to as well to serve people living in central Oahu for example.

Now don't get me wrong, I have my criticisms of the rail system too but loo at the overall picture, the bad and the good.

Not exactly true. The people on the windward side could still benefit from a standpoint of reduced traffic. Reduced cars on the road can have a ripple of positive effects, I don't think it is fair to suggest it will only have one narrow benefit. The rail could always be added to as well to serve people living in central Oahu for example.

Now don't get me wrong, I have my criticisms of the rail system too but loo at the overall picture, the bad and the good.

I await with great anticipation for an independent investigator/auditor to publish the results of the "reduced cars on the road" and "ripple of positive effects" study. I assume you mean "ripple of positive effects" other than to the wallets of politicians, contractors and unions.

Not exactly true. The people on the windward side could still benefit from a standpoint of reduced traffic. Reduced cars on the road can have a ripple of positive effects, I don't think it is fair to suggest it will only have one narrow benefit. The rail could always be added to as well to serve people living in central Oahu for example.

Now don't get me wrong, I have my criticisms of the rail system too but loo at the overall picture, the bad and the good.

We need more emojis for me to respond here.     

I await with great anticipation for an independent investigator/auditor to publish the results of the "reduced cars on the road" and "ripple of positive effects" study. I assume you mean "ripple of positive effects" other than to the wallets of politicians, contractors and unions.

It was already done, before the first tax dollar was wasted. It was ignored, and people still spew the "It'll help with traffic" line.

I don't know where to find it now, but I'll look. The result of the the study showed that traffic would be reduced by a whopping 1% at the projected time of the projects completion.

To add insult to injury, the study was sponsored by the government.

and then there's this:
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/30736814/hart-launches-free-shuttle-rides-to-compensate-businesses-hit-by-construction

and i believe they were offering businesses affected a flyer or coupon book........to give discounts after losing 25%-50% of their sales. yeah.......that makes sense.

 

and then there's this:
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/30736814/hart-launches-free-shuttle-rides-to-compensate-businesses-hit-by-construction

and i believe they were offering businesses affected a flyer or coupon book........to give discounts after losing 25%-50% of their sales. yeah.......that makes sense.

 

 

What an insult! That's just like offering a band-aid with a touch of Robitussin to a person with a compound fracture.

Not exactly true. The people on the windward side could still benefit from a standpoint of reduced traffic. Reduced cars on the road can have a ripple of positive effects, I don't think it is fair to suggest it will only have one narrow benefit. The rail could always be added to as well to serve people living in central Oahu for example.

Now don't get me wrong, I have my criticisms of the rail system too but loo at the overall picture, the bad and the good.

you have a good point to which I have a rebuttal to your "reduced cars on the road" argument: Not to digress from my main points stated above but to reiterate a standpoint that I have taken and posted about previously in a different thread: I am willing of all the west side and central oahu inhabitants who are current vehicle owners and daily vehicle commuters, a large majority will not simply forfeit the utility, convenience, and freedom of their vehicles in order to add to their commute time, decrease the utility of convenience of their owned vehicles, and furthermore pay additional out of pocket costs to use the rail once it is completed. 

hypothetical but realistic example: I am a car owner and use it as a daily driver.  If i lived in millilani, for example, and all else remained the same, I would NEVER forfeit the utility and convenience of my already owned vehicle to commute to the rail station, which further adds to my commute time at a decreased convenience factor in order to pay $5/one way, or whatever ungodly amount they might start charging, in order to board the rail train to go to work everyday.  What if I have a hot date or dinner plans after work?  Or an emergency occurs and my (hypothetical) child needs to be picked up from school? I would be kicking myself in the ass saying "why did i take the rail today?  Why didn't I drive today?!?!"   I would be stuck in town with no options, except the rail, to get back to the millilani, where I would have to commute from the rail stop back to my home.

Furthermore for the active 2aHI preppers here: what will happen if we have a tsunami warning? sudden earthquake? island-wide flash flood? hurricane? will the rail train still operate? have these contingencies been made abundantly clear to taxpayers? can folks rely on it to be operative in spite of adverse weather conditions?  No, folks cannot. can folks rely on their vehicles and their feet and willpower to get them home in spite of adverse weather conditions? yes, at least more so than the rail. 

Furthermore, what if I was a daily rail user, and the rails breaks down one day (much like the zip mobile broke down that one horrendous day of traffic), how the hell am I to get home in a timely and convenient fashion?  Bus? $80 uber ride? hell no...

So why invest billions into something for which our political leaders cannot substantiate absolute answers for? 

This illustrates the situation that exists for many central and ewa/west side inhabitants who enjoy the convenience and freedom of their vehicles.  I am simply putting myself in the shoes of a millilani/ewa/westside inhabitant.

The "ripple effect" is at the most a hopeful outlook.  Everyday the same places are clogged up with traffic at the same times, and many of those places are not west of Red Hill, Fort Shafter, where traffic seems to gather.  I've used the traffic function on google maps enough to witness these patterns.  How will the rail positively affect traffic in Kahaluu where the same number of people are funneled into the same 2 lane road in order to get back to their homes on east coast (Laie, Punalu`u, Hau`ula, Kualoa, Malaekahana) of oahu? How will the rail positively affect the traffic jam of people into and out of Lanikai?  How will the rail positively affect the mass exodus of East siders who primarily use the Pali Highway to get the town?  How can those inhabitant benefit directly from the rail? They can't.  The rail does not serve the vast majority of Oahu's neighborhoods.


Through these "narrow" details I am very much analyzing the large picture.

The rail may have multiple benefits but IMO the drawbacks and hassles outweigh them by large margins, and their are zero direct benefits to a vast majority of Oahu's inhabitants (not even talking about non-Oahu inhabitants).

sorry for the long-winded response, but I have been a rail opponent ever since ever, and I have some really poignant questions that have no answers

It was already done, before the first tax dollar was wasted. It was ignored, and people still spew the "It'll help with traffic" line.

I don't know where to find it now, but I'll look. The result of the the study showed that traffic would be reduced by a whopping 1% at the projected time of the projects completion.

To add insult to injury, the study was sponsored by the government.

It was 2% I believe however it was also mischaracterized. I cannot remember the exact details but the number had to do with the overall number of cars on the roads however opponents claimed it meant only a 2% reduction in traffic during rush hour. The study was used dishonestly or inaccurately by opponents. I will see if I can dig up the specifics of the issue.