Steel Rail Boondoggle
John W. Bienko
subject. Imagine using those wasted millions on Steel Rail
and investing in a wiser course of development.
A LIVE-WORK-PLAY city plan that encourages building new
communities in new settings that would NOT require MASS
TRANSPORT Steel Rail,
Jerry Okamura
problem. The problem is population growth.
"John W. Bienko" <as...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:fv4kdr$ruo$1...@theodyn.ncf.ca...
John W. Bienko
I have provided a solution to the problem that would be a brand
new way of lifestyle.. less dependent on roads and rails.
Placing people at the highest priority.. stopping the madness
in the current planning cycle that will end in a financial
catastrophe for Hawaiians.
Time is the most precious resource.. and lond distance
commuting is a waste of valuable time. Mass Transit and Steel Rail
do NOT serve the people. It just makes money for special
interest corporations and politicians.
I have written about this in the other Alt Hawaii Culture
but for some strange reason the message is NOT shown there.
Jerry Okamura
> Jerry is technically correct. But population growth is inevitable.
Let me suggest that "population" growth "is" inevitable for many part of the
world, but it may not be "inevitable" on Oahu. Recent data indicates that
the people of Hawaii are leaving Hawaii. Population is increasing because
people who are not living in Hawaii now, are coming to Hawaii. That does
not mean, that trend will continue.
> I have provided a solution to the problem that would be a brand
> new way of lifestyle.. less dependent on roads and rails.
> Placing people at the highest priority.. stopping the madness
> in the current planning cycle that will end in a financial
> catastrophe for Hawaiians.
Let me suggest, that the "finanical catastrophe" in Hawaii is due to a
number of factors, which has very little to do with were people live. The
"financial catstrophe", if that is the term we want to use, has to do with
the simple fact that people do not earn enough money to meet their basic
needs (whatever their basic needs may be) other than those who have a well
paying job, and those who are rich. That is why in Hawaii, many familes
have multiple people working multiple jobs. It would not be as big a
problem as it is, "if" we can figure out how to bring good paying jobs to
this State. And I would add the high cost of living, the taxation rate, the
many obstacles that our government puts in front of anyone who wants to
start a business in this State does not help, but hurts that effort.
> Time is the most precious resource.. and lond distance
> commuting is a waste of valuable time.
Well, yes it is. But that does not mean they will not commute.
Mass Transit and Steel Rail
> do NOT serve the people. It just makes money for special
> interest corporations and politicians.
> I have written about this in the other Alt Hawaii Culture
> but for some strange reason the message is NOT shown there.
As I recall, your basic idea is to have "planned communities" where people
are closer to the place they work. As I see it, there is a basic problem
with that idea. Let us assume you do create such a community. That means
in order for this idea to work, you need the businesses to be within the
community that they will work. As I see the problem, the days when we
worked for one establishment for our entire career is fast disappearing.
The odds are that people will "move" from one job to another, during their
working life. And many will hold many many different employers in their
working life. And businesses will come and go, along with the jobs they
create. So, you create such a community. People move into that community
because the job is in the community. Then the job disappears, or the
"people" find someone else who will pay more for their services, who is not
located in that community. In either case, these people who do that, will
no longer be within a short distance to their work place. So, while you
may start out with an "efficient" system, over time, it will not be as
"efficient" as it began.
John W. Bienko
on your analysis,
I suggest that the current concentration of work opportunities
in city centers is unsustainable.. and destined for
catastrophe. See New York and Los Angeles.. the worst
place on earth to live and raise a family. Crime .. pollution..
Now reflect on my suggestion and I challenge readers to
find a way to make it work in their best interests.
I harken back to early development of towns and cities.
In Quebec City I have walked through Old Quebec.. lined with
streets where early businesses were located. The stores were
facing the streets . The work as done in the back rooms and
yards.
The owner and family lived on the 2nd and 3rd floors.
The workers and apprentices lived in buildings behind the
establishment, separated by a back alley.
To my amazement Old Quebec is undergoing restoration..
retrogressing to the old business model.. very successfully.
Now high end Armani.. Ralph Lauren.. businesses are
paying high rents to operate in the area.
Again I state that someone in Soc. Hawai`i has blocked my
contributions on this subject.. an dnow I will never post
there.
Deus te amat
Jerry Okamura
I see a disconnect between what you said earlier and what you are saying
now. We started this conversation with a suggestion that the "solution" to
the problem you described is some sort of "planned community", where the
workers in that community live near their workplace. One of the problems I
would think the workers who are working and living in this new "revitalize"
Quebec face, is basically the same problem the people of Oahu face. That is
the cost to living. And I would think that the cost to put a roof over your
head would be a whole lot more expensive living within a city center, then
it would be to live out in the outskirts of the city, because of the cost of
land. It seems to me there is a basic tradeoff issue here. To live near
your workplace, you will be paying more to put a roof over your head, and
that roof may not be as nice as the roof you could afford to put over your
head, "if" you did not live near your workplace. And there is a small
matter of where you go to buy the food you need to live. "If" there is a
supermarket within a short distance of where you live, then your cost of
living is less. But "if" there is not supermarket within a short distance
of where you live, then your cost of livng is more. And of course there is
the not too small matter of how you get to that supermarket, "if" it is not
close to where you live, which to me translates to needing a car, which then
brings up another problem, even if you have a car, where would you put it in
the city center you live in.
Hertz Donut
It's no use. The leadership of this state is at least 50 years behind the
time. The Mayor has stated he will kill anything that is not "steel on
rail", when that is the least desirable of options. That, and the fact that
if built, the rail system will only reduce the traffic by about 2%.
We need to make it harder for people to own vehicles. We need to make it
more palatable for people to use the bus system. We need to double deck the
freeways like they did in California. But none of this will get done,
because of the mental grid-lock of our legislators. Yet the state keeps
electing the same old idiots over and over again.
Honu
Jerry Okamura
"Hertz Donut" <som...@outthere.com> wrote in message
news:n6OdnVa519XTloXV...@hawaiiantel.net...
>
> We need to make it harder for people to own vehicles.
Why do you want to taake away a persons right to make their own decision of
how they want to get around?
We need to make it
> more palatable for people to use the bus system.
How do you do that?
We need to double deck the
> freeways like they did in California.
Where are the "double decked" freeways are in Los Angeles? And even when
they "double deck" the freways did that solve the problem?
But none of this will get done,
> because of the mental grid-lock of our legislators.
Or maybe because whatever option you consider it has its advantages and
disadvantages?
Yet the state keeps
> electing the same old idiots over and over again.
The "State" does not elect these people, we the people in the State elect
these people. So, "if" they are "idiots" that means the people in the State
who voted for them, are the "idiots", don't you think? Of course having
said that, maybe regardless of who we elect, nothing much will change. Or
perahps this state has a problem because one party has been in firm control
of the government for an awful long time. In any event, complaining about
the problem does not solve the perceived problem it seems to me.
John W. Bienko
Imagine the wonderful lifestyle .. if the International Place
property was rebuilt as a LIVE-WORK_PLAY concept that I am
promoting.
Here in the very center of Waikiki.. the people would have the
perfect opportunity to LIVE WORK PLAY with all the
wonders of everything OAHU can offer .. and NOT waste a
single second of their lives commuting.. and NOT wasting
an iota of scarce natural resources.
THis concept could be replicated at various other locations
with the same benefits to all the residents..
in Ala Moana... at the UNiversity... at Kapiolani..
at Kakaako..
at Waikiki Ewa.. at
In the event a resident decides to take employment in another
locale.. he/she has the option to sell and move to the
new LIVE WORK PLAY place..
thereby avoiding all the hassle and waste that communting
and STEEL RAIL forces on the taxpayer.
Hertz Donut
"Jerry Okamura" <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:48189f13$0$4075$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>
> "Hertz Donut" <som...@outthere.com> wrote in message
> news:n6OdnVa519XTloXV...@hawaiiantel.net...
>>
>> We need to make it harder for people to own vehicles.
>
> Why do you want to taake away a persons right to make their own decision
> of how they want to get around?
>
No, of course not. There are simply too many vehicles on the road, many of
them being operated by persons who do not know how to drive.
> We need to make it
>> more palatable for people to use the bus system.
>
> How do you do that?
Make it cheaper. Make it island wide. expand the coverage, mopre frequent
busses, etc. The Bus has already made little progress in this area.
>
> We need to double deck the
>> freeways like they did in California.
>
> Where are the "double decked" freeways are in Los Angeles? And even when
> they "double deck" the freways did that solve the problem?
Guess you've never been to California? And yes, it made the commute much,
much faster.
>
> But none of this will get done,
>> because of the mental grid-lock of our legislators.
>
> Or maybe because whatever option you consider it has its advantages and
> disadvantages?
>
> Yet the state keeps
>> electing the same old idiots over and over again.
>
> The "State" does not elect these people, we the people in the State elect
> these people.
By the "state". I meant the voters in Hawaii.
So, "if" they are "idiots" that means the people in the State
> who voted for them, are the "idiots",
The average voter in Hawaii doesn't vote for whom is best...
don't you think? Of course having
> said that, maybe regardless of who we elect, nothing much will change.
That attitude is as much to blame for our current situation as anything
else. The "good ol' Boy" system in Hawaii has to change. A freeway project
or roadwork project that would take two weeks in the mainland takes years
here in Hawaii. I know...Ilived in the mainland. I lived in the snow belt,
in an area where heavy salt was used to keep the roads clear in the winter.
Every year, vast stretches of highway and surface streets would be repaved.
Here in Hawaii, a 2.3 mile stretch of road just past my home is being
repaved. So far, it has taken 8 and a half months. and the project has
barely done anything. In the mainland, the work would have been finished in
perhaps 3 to 4 days.
The amount of fraud and waste when it comes to public works in this state is
truly frightening. I wonder what would happen if the federal government
ever decided to investigate?
Or
> perahps this state has a problem because one party has been in firm
> control of the government for an awful long time.
Yet the "PEOPLE* keep electing the same party that never changes anything.
Perhaps it is time to get rid of the democrats (yeah...like that isever
going to happen...)
In any event, complaining about
> the problem does not solve the perceived problem it seems to me.
>
*NOT* complaining is the same as approving what is going on. That is
another thing that bothers me about Hawaii...no one ever complains. Perhaps
if more people *DID* complain, it might make a difference.
Honu
Hertz Donut
What about the other 95% of the population who do not live or recreate in
Waikiki?
What about the other 95% that do not like the tourist traps and high prices
that have become Waikiki? And what about the other 95% that are not student
and faculty at UH Manoa?
It is sad that the people of Hawaii are ignored when decisions are being
made about the "transportation problem" in Hawaii.
The problem exists everywhere...not just in Waikiki or Manoa...but since
that is where the money is...they are the ones that will get a "solution",
no matter how inappropriate that solution may be.
Honu
Jerry Okamura
>
> "Jerry Okamura" <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:48189f13$0$4075$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>>
>> "Hertz Donut" <som...@outthere.com> wrote in message
>> news:n6OdnVa519XTloXV...@hawaiiantel.net...
>>>
>>> We need to make it harder for people to own vehicles.
>>
>> Why do you want to taake away a persons right to make their own decision
>> of how they want to get around?
>>
>
> No, of course not. There are simply too many vehicles on the road, many of
> them being operated by persons who do not know how to drive.
Huh? How can you make it "harder for people to own vehicles" if you do not
take away a persons right to make their own decison?
>
>> We need to make it
>>> more palatable for people to use the bus system.
>>
>> How do you do that?
>
> Make it cheaper. Make it island wide. expand the coverage, mopre
> frequent busses, etc. The Bus has already made little progress in this
> area.
Operating ANY system like a bus system requries MONEY. "If" you make it
"cheaper" for the people to start using the bus system, that only means you
have to pay for the system by getting the money from people who do not use
the bus system. Since the people who are using the bus system is not paying
the full cost of that system. As for the idea of creating an island wide
system, in order to do that, you just made the system more expensive and
more inefficient, which means someone who is not using the bus system is
going to pay an even higher price for having such a system. And when you do
that, I would suggest you just introduced more inefficnet use of the system,
because there will be some routes which will cost even more, moving few
people at greater cost. An effective mass transit system, works best where
it moves a lot of people per vehihicle. A bus full of people costs a lot
less to operate than a bus with few people being moved from one point to
another.
>>
>> We need to double deck the
>>> freeways like they did in California.
>>
>> Where are the "double decked" freeways are in Los Angeles? And even when
>> they "double deck" the freways did that solve the problem?
>
> Guess you've never been to California? And yes, it made the commute much,
> much faster.
>
>
I worked and lived in Southern California for almost thirty years. And no,
it did not make the commute "much faster". It only meant that more cars
used the freeways. It is just as congested today as it was when I used to
commute using the freeways. And I would argue it has only gotten worse not
better. When I worked there, which was not that long ago, the freeways were
very congested during the commuting time, but you could go at maximum
freeway speeds, in the off hours. Today, when you travel the freeways in
Los Angeles, many freeways are congested during the entire daylight hours.
>>
>> But none of this will get done,
>>> because of the mental grid-lock of our legislators.
>>
>> Or maybe because whatever option you consider it has its advantages and
>> disadvantages?
>>
>> Yet the state keeps
>>> electing the same old idiots over and over again.
>>
>> The "State" does not elect these people, we the people in the State elect
>> these people.
>
> By the "state". I meant the voters in Hawaii.
"If" the "voters" of Hawaii elected the same idiots over and over again,
then you are saying that the "voters" are the "idiots"? And since they are
"idiots" for doing what they do do, and you know that, then by definition
you are not an "idiot"?
>
> So, "if" they are "idiots" that means the people in the State
>> who voted for them, are the "idiots",
>
> The average voter in Hawaii doesn't vote for whom is best...
How do you define "best"? How does the voter know who is "best"?
>
>
> don't you think? Of course having
>> said that, maybe regardless of who we elect, nothing much will change.
>
> That attitude is as much to blame for our current situation as anything
> else. The "good ol' Boy" system in Hawaii has to change. A freeway
> project or roadwork project that would take two weeks in the mainland
> takes years here in Hawaii. I know...Ilived in the mainland. I lived in
> the snow belt, in an area where heavy salt was used to keep the roads
> clear in the winter. Every year, vast stretches of highway and surface
> streets would be repaved. Here in Hawaii, a 2.3 mile stretch of road just
> past my home is being repaved. So far, it has taken 8 and a half months.
> and the project has barely done anything. In the mainland, the work would
> have been finished in perhaps 3 to 4 days.
It is a matter of perception. I too lived on the mainland. It is also a
matter of a States prioorities, where they want to spend the money.
>
> The amount of fraud and waste when it comes to public works in this state
> is truly frightening. I wonder what would happen if the federal
> government ever decided to investigate?
In the years I have lived here, I have read very few stories of waste in
this state when it comes to public works projects, and have heard of no
cases of fraud, though I may be mistaken.
>
>
> Or
>> perahps this state has a problem because one party has been in firm
>> control of the government for an awful long time.
>
> Yet the "PEOPLE* keep electing the same party that never changes anything.
> Perhaps it is time to get rid of the democrats (yeah...like that isever
> going to happen...)
>
>
>
> In any event, complaining about
>> the problem does not solve the perceived problem it seems to me.
>>
>
> *NOT* complaining is the same as approving what is going on.
That is also true.
That is
> another thing that bothers me about Hawaii...no one ever complains.
> Perhaps if more people *DID* complain, it might make a difference.
>
I would not say that no one complains. Perhaps not enough people complain.
But that applies to all levels of government. But yes, "if" a lot more
people would complain, it might make a difference. Of course we may not
like it when they do make changes that we think are required either.
Hertz Donut
>
> "Hertz Donut" <som...@outthere.com> wrote in message
> news:8N2dnQ6heetCiYTV...@hawaiiantel.net...
>>
>> "Jerry Okamura" <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:48189f13$0$4075$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>>>
>>> "Hertz Donut" <som...@outthere.com> wrote in message
>>> news:n6OdnVa519XTloXV...@hawaiiantel.net...
>>>>
>>>> We need to make it harder for people to own vehicles.
>>>
>>> Why do you want to taake away a persons right to make their own decision
>>> of how they want to get around?
>>>
>>
>> No, of course not. There are simply too many vehicles on the road, many
>> of them being operated by persons who do not know how to drive.
>
> Huh? How can you make it "harder for people to own vehicles" if you do
> not take away a persons right to make their own decison?
>>
Jerry, no one is interfering with anyone's "right" to drive. What I am
saying is that the state hands out drivers licenses like candy...there are
many people on theroad that should not be driving...they don't have the
skills necessary, many cannot read English, etc. A more comprehensive
driving test, that actually tests their driving skills, given in English,
should be the norm.
Notice that I am not advocating taking away the "right". I am just saying
the standard has to be higher than it is now.
>>> We need to make it
>>>> more palatable for people to use the bus system.
>>>
>>> How do you do that?
>>
>> Make it cheaper. Make it island wide. expand the coverage, mopre
>> frequent busses, etc. The Bus has already made little progress in this
>> area.
>
> Operating ANY system like a bus system requries MONEY.
Yes, but big cities do it all the time. Omaha is a good example.
"If" you make it
> "cheaper" for the people to start using the bus system, that only means
> you have to pay for the system by getting the money from people who do not
> use the bus system.
Again, what is wrong with that? If you choose to drive, which is your
"right" as you like to call it, you should still help fund public
transportation. People that do not drive pay taxes that are used to build
and repair roads...what is the difference?
Since the people who are using the bus system is not paying
> the full cost of that system.
The state can anddoes get federal funding to help. If the system were
operated efficiently, it could be self-sustaining. Negative thinking is
what causes it not to get done. The "well, we've always done it this way"
attitude isn't cutting it anymore.
As for the idea of creating an island wide
> system, in order to do that, you just made the system more expensive and
> more inefficient,
How so? serving a larger customer base, with strategically placed hubs,
would make it better, more efficient, and more attractive.
Of course, you'll say it's not simply because of your mode of thinking.
which means someone who is not using the bus system is
> going to pay an even higher price for having such a system.
What part of "public transportation" do you not understand? It is a public
project. You are a member of the public, are you not? What is wrong with
you paying your fair share?
You pay Unemployement taxes, yet I assume you do not collect unemployment.
You pay taxes for other public works projects that you never use. Why is
public transportation any different? Your argument of "I'm in favor of
better public transportation as long as it doesn't cost *ME* anything is
symptomatic of the problem.
And when you do
> that, I would suggest you just introduced more inefficnet use of the
> system, because there will be some routes which will cost even more,
> moving few people at greater cost.
Again, the system can be made very efficient. Other big cities have done
it...why not Honolulu?
An effective mass transit system, works best where
> it moves a lot of people per vehihicle.
Yes...and making a costly, innefficient system reduces the nmumber of people
using it. Can you understand that?
A bus full of people costs a lot
> less to operate than a bus with few people being moved from one point to
> another.
And ridership will vary by time of day, and whether it is a holiday or not,
etc. Your point is moot. You can not use that as a justification to condemn
the whole system.
In your dream world, every seat would be filled and every bus would be full.
Ain't gonna happen, Jerry...and killing the system because each bus will not
be full 100% of the time is unrealistic and foolish.
by electing those that get things done...instead of electing the same old
good ol' boys" over and over again.
>>
>>
>> don't you think? Of course having
>>> said that, maybe regardless of who we elect, nothing much will change.
>>
>> That attitude is as much to blame for our current situation as anything
>> else. The "good ol' Boy" system in Hawaii has to change. A freeway
>> project or roadwork project that would take two weeks in the mainland
>> takes years here in Hawaii. I know...Ilived in the mainland. I lived in
>> the snow belt, in an area where heavy salt was used to keep the roads
>> clear in the winter. Every year, vast stretches of highway and surface
>> streets would be repaved. Here in Hawaii, a 2.3 mile stretch of road just
>> past my home is being repaved. So far, it has taken 8 and a half months.
>> and the project has barely done anything. In the mainland, the work
>> would have been finished in perhaps 3 to 4 days.
>
> It is a matter of perception. I too lived on the mainland. It is also a
> matter of a States prioorities, where they want to spend the money.
so, you think it's okay for your tax money to be spent the way it
is...wastefully...yet you don't want to pay a cent for public
transportation? Jerry...you are a confusing person!
>>
>> The amount of fraud and waste when it comes to public works in this state
>> is truly frightening. I wonder what would happen if the federal
>> government ever decided to investigate?
>
> In the years I have lived here, I have read very few stories of waste in
> this state when it comes to public works projects, and have heard of no
> cases of fraud, though I may be mistaken.
because people in Hawaii accept the fraud and waste as normal. Why should a
project that would take days in any city in the mainland take months or
years in Hawaii?
Why are companies allowed to low-ball bids over and over and over again, and
then stangle the state with delays and cost-over-runs?
Jerry, again...you are a confusing person...you turn a blind eye to the
corruption in the state, and then complain when it appears you may have to
pay a few extra dollars in tax to support a public transportation system.
>>
>>
>> Or
>>> perahps this state has a problem because one party has been in firm
>>> control of the government for an awful long time.
>>
>> Yet the "PEOPLE* keep electing the same party that never changes
>> anything. Perhaps it is time to get rid of the democrats (yeah...like
>> that isever going to happen...)
>>
>>
>>
>> In any event, complaining about
>>> the problem does not solve the perceived problem it seems to me.
>>>
>>
>> *NOT* complaining is the same as approving what is going on.
>
> That is also true.
>
> That is
>> another thing that bothers me about Hawaii...no one ever complains.
>> Perhaps if more people *DID* complain, it might make a difference.
>>
> I would not say that no one complains. Perhaps not enough people
> complain.
No one complains. Can you cite one exapmle of a grass-roots movement that
caused a radical shift in anything in Hawaii (and no, I don't mean the
rediculous Hawaii Government idiots).
> But that applies to all levels of government. But yes, "if" a lot more
> people would complain, it might make a difference. Of course we may not
> like it when they do make changes that we think are required either.
Change only occurs when someone or something makes it happen. As long as
everyone says "eh, no worries, brah", things will just stay the
same...nothing will ever improve...the poor will get poorer and the rich
will get richer, the infrastructure will decay...you can see where it is
going.
Jerry, someday, I'd like to sit and buy you a beer. I think we could have a
very interesting conversation. I am fascinated by the dichotomy in your
thinking!
Honu
Jerry Okamura
>
> "Jerry Okamura" <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:481a00f4$0$20188$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>>
>> "Hertz Donut" <som...@outthere.com> wrote in message
>> news:8N2dnQ6heetCiYTV...@hawaiiantel.net...
>>>
>>> "Jerry Okamura" <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
>>> news:48189f13$0$4075$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Hertz Donut" <som...@outthere.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:n6OdnVa519XTloXV...@hawaiiantel.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> We need to make it harder for people to own vehicles.
>>>>
>>>> Why do you want to taake away a persons right to make their own
>>>> decision of how they want to get around?
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, of course not. There are simply too many vehicles on the road, many
>>> of them being operated by persons who do not know how to drive.
>>
>> Huh? How can you make it "harder for people to own vehicles" if you do
>> not take away a persons right to make their own decison?
>>>
>
> Jerry, no one is interfering with anyone's "right" to drive. What I am
> saying is that the state hands out drivers licenses like candy...there are
> many people on theroad that should not be driving...they don't have the
> skills necessary, many cannot read English, etc. A more comprehensive
> driving test, that actually tests their driving skills, given in English,
> should be the norm.
First of all, what has that got to do with the best way to move people
around? But to the point you are trying to make. When some tourist comes
from a place like Japan, can they rent a car? The answer is "yes" they can
rent a car. Can they all read english? The answer is, very few can read
english. Now, I will agree with you that a more "comprehensive" driving
test would be a good thing, but it has nothing to do with the need for mass
transit.
>
> Notice that I am not advocating taking away the "right". I am just saying
> the standard has to be higher than it is now.
>
>>>> We need to make it
>>>>> more palatable for people to use the bus system.
>>>>
>>>> How do you do that?
>>>
>>> Make it cheaper. Make it island wide. expand the coverage, mopre
>>> frequent busses, etc. The Bus has already made little progress in this
>>> area.
>>
>> Operating ANY system like a bus system requries MONEY.
>
> Yes, but big cities do it all the time. Omaha is a good example.
Let me suggest, that a mass transit system works best, when it is serving a
densily populated metropolis, which has routes that serve those areas that
is densely populated. It does not work very well if you do not have that
combination. So, yes, the bigger the city is, the more practical a mass
transit system is. But regardless, the system does require MONEY to
operate, and since not one of the mass transit systems that I know of pays
for itself from the fares they charge, that means that people who do not use
the system are paying for a system they are not using.
Cor...@yahoo.com
<okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"John W. Bienko" <as...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
>news:fv5f8o$c09$1...@theodyn.ncf.ca...
>> Jerry is technically correct. But population growth is inevitable.
>
>Let me suggest that "population" growth "is" inevitable for many part of the
>world, but it may not be "inevitable" on Oahu. Recent data indicates that
>the people of Hawaii are leaving Hawaii. Population is increasing because
>people who are not living in Hawaii now, are coming to Hawaii. That does
>not mean, that trend will continue.
Population growth and the movement of people from one region to
another are two different but possibly interrelated subjects. They are
significantly interrelated if and only if the amount of people moving
is more in a minus (this meaning more people moving out of the area
than into the area) than the amount of new people (births). Birth rate
plays a most significant role in population growth. More often more
important than the movement of people from one region to another.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **