The Rail Transit establishment has been discussing the point of providing the rail transit system for Honolulu for a long time. It operates with certain responsibilities. It helps to analyze certain arguments of providing the rail system. The further analysis will demonstrate the proper points of views of proponents and opponents of the idea.
The proponents consider the traffic congestion issue as one of the most serious in Honolulu. The traffic overload is one of the most crucial challenges in Hawaii. Honolulu is the fourth most traffic congestive city on the island. There is a comparison between travelling times during overpopulated periods and to times, when traffic is streaming freely (Engle).
A lot of investigations are dedicated to finding right solutions to the traffic challenge. In 1967, the Transportation research in Oahu stated that an established guide way transit system would be an essential part of the complete transportation structure. No single traffic`s method can realize all of the transport requirements. The proponents state that the prompt transportation system could be the only essential part of the total system. Although the vast transport system was proposed twenty three years ago, there have been disagreements and debates over this need. The Honolulu authorities tried to develop the traffic structure fifteen years ago, but it has failed. The traffic congestion is the main society`s concern, because everybody has experienced the traffic gridlock. The Government and society have finished debating over the issue. They are united in supporting the idea of an effective transport system for the capital (“Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation”).
The local interaction for a prompt system is necessary for getting a proper financing. Other cities rival for finance to create an effective transit structure. Due to the Honolulu`s originality, society is classified by the federal authorities for the insufficient funds. The government has delegated to financing thirty percent of a structure, based on guarantees of a balance. The society agrees that the transport is as an essential need. The transport system should not be assured to have a successful financing. The business activity has never been created with a complete assurance of success. The long term values of the electric system and telephone were not forecasted, when they were first offered. Similarly, the long term benefits of a prompt transport system cannot be fully foreseen now. The rail way system benefits cannot be quantified. Everybody will feel the actual benefit of the open space and clean air. They can feel positive changes of the convenient access to travelling. The proponents state that the process of the transport system establishment is providing for the future generation. As soon as humans begin establishing a prompt transit system, they will save more of building charges in future. It is necessary to create an innovative transport system.
There are proponents and opponents of the idea. The opponents of the idea of the rail transit system have their own arguments against it. They state that business, society and authorities are unique in selling the rail transit. They spent millions of tax dollars on planning station locations and routs. There has been just little debate in publicity about this idea. The population of Oahu is smaller than that of other cities with the rail system. The projected rail ratio is unfairly high, and the fares are at the current level. The projected travel time for the cars will reduce at all. The projected and annual costs are higher for the rail, when compared with the alternatives. The offered excise tax rise is regressive and it would predominantly affect the poor population.
The proponents consider the rail system as the essential need after the telephone, water and electric system. The opponents emphasize the proper differences. They state that the rail system is used by a small part of the population. The benefit is insignificant. The users of the rail system pay a small share of ride`s actual charges, when other types of utilities are feed by people, who use them. The opponents see the alternative solutions such as the transit point and road rationing or pricing. It will help to avoid local taxes` raising and charges of transit users.
What about the environmental challenges of the rail transit system? The proponents say that the air quality is refined with rail. The carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon issues are decreased by more than ninety nine percent, when an electrically powered prompt transport system is replaced for an average switch trip (“Sustainability - Honolulu Rail Transit”). The nitrogen oxides` emissions are decreased by more than sixty percent, when proper issues are reduced by more than ninety percent. Today, seventy percent of the generated power goes for the transportation needs. The proponents state that the rail has significant health benefits. If the rail structure is electrically powered, air quality could be better. It would take less fuel if the system provides oil products. People will expect less car incidents with a prompt transport system. At last, the prompt transit system providing could cause a lesser stress to the commuter than driving a car.
|You can chat with our custom service representative|
The opponents give their arguments. The city`s projects shows the decreasing of a car usage in comparison with the rail transport by one to three percent. Most of the electricians will have the power of petrous oil. The majority of the electric power in Oahu comes from the oil products burning. If the rail transportation system is successful, the general decreases might happen in terms of some issues. If the rail projects prove to be overvalued, there will be no proper effect on the air quality (Higgins). The trains are noisy, which can cause an inconvenience for the further years. The personal health benefit is insignificant. Humans will require a bus trip to get to the rail station. If the bus system is decreased as a part of the railway station, then it will cause only stress. If the rail transit is uncomfortable, a lot of bus riders can use cars for commute. It can potentially affect the society in a negative way. The opponents think that the rail transit financing prevents spending money on real advantages. They state the real benefit can be achieved in a ratio to the cars taken off the road. The proponents agree that the immense bus system will not work correctly. Buses are the big cars; thus, they are similar in a way of causing a traffic issue. The expanded structure will need to provide much more buses. The electric buses would cause an unfavorable reaction as the system could cost as much as the rail transit system. There could be a lack of additional costs for the drivers. The present number of buses shows the actual issue with the bus system. According to the proponents, the road pricing and rationing will hurt demands to a considerable degree, which will be more than an excise tax and credit increasing.
The opponents mention the cheap and effective alternative that is available to the rail system. It could be a positive moment to relieve the traffic congestion than creating the fixed structure. They propose the best bus alternative. It is defined as the best transport service using buses without the fixed construction. The main topic of the transit strategy is to be successful. It must be the prior concept for public cars and a certain disadvantage for private autos (Hamer). The main point should be the right service provided by the bus prompt system. The expanded facilities for commuter cars are considered to be impossible. The proper controlled system helps in the prompt bus network developing. Buses have the average speed as the rail transit. They can act operatively at a passenger mile cost, which is similar to the rail alternative. The major difference is the total price feature.