COMMENTARY
Fixed-rail transit long overdue
By Karl Kim
Interim vice chancellor and professor of urban and regional planning at the University of Hawai'i
It is encouraging to hear the dialogue between the city and state on the topic of fixed-rail transit. We've not had this type of leadership and cooperation between elected officials in a long time.
Karl Kim photo
When you examine our transportation needs, the aging of our population, our continuing concerns about urban sprawl, our dependence on fossil fuel-burning motor vehicles and the economics of public transport, fixed rail begins to make some sense.
Seattle's monorail: To succeed on O'ahu, a rail system must be fully integrated with bus systems, overall land-use and development strategies around stations. Offices and businesses must complement transit stations, going far beyond park-and-ride lots.
Given that virtually every major city in the world has a rail system and that in the United States there are huge federal subsidies for the planning, design, construction and operation of transit programs, why then has it taken Honolulu so long to build a fixed-rail transit system?
Moreover, given that we have the dubious distinction of being the only city to have turned down federal financing of rail not once or twice but three times, why should we even bother to start up the debate again?
We have an opportunity to get it right this time. We can build on our own experiences (and failures) and those of other cities that have built rail projects. We can take advantage of new technologies and design principles that can help lower costs and improve ridership. We can recognize that while the stakes are high for a billion-dollar investment, the returns to our community over the long term can be great.
To control operating costs, especially labor, we need an automated system. Not just for train control, but also ticketing, fare collection and other transit operations.
Other cities have found that roving ticket inspectors can also increase security for passengers.
In order to have automation, we need grade separation, that is, the trains must operate on an exclusive, dedicated right of way. Grade separation also will improve performance and reliability and reduce travel times for passengers.
This may require building an elevated guideway structure.
There are locations where an elevated guideway makes sense, such as over the H-1 Freeway, where not only the views from inside the train would be spectacular, but there also is the necessary buffering to reduce the visual and other impacts of a rapid-transit system.
Building the transit system above our highways would also provide an incentive for drivers stuck in traffic to switch to rail: They would see sleek, modern trains whizzing by overhead every few minutes.
Vibrant transit stations
For rail to be successful, it needs to be fully integrated, not just with the bus system and other transportation modes, but with overall land-use and development strategies around stations along the guideway, within the transport corridor and across the metropolitan region.
We need to encourage the joint development of not just offices, retail business, government offices, schools, hospitals and other important services, but also housing in and around the transit stations. We need to go beyond park-and-ride lots.
Transit provides an opportunity to concentrate development. Thousands of passengers coming and going each day represents real business opportunities for many in our community.
A vibrant transit station with not just newsstands and florists, but also many other small businesses — coffee shops, fruit stands, bakeries, dry-cleaners, opticians and other services — would also improve the convenience for our residents.
In addition to encouraging the development of businesses and homes around stations, we should use the guideway as an infrastructure corridor, one in which not just electrical transmission lines and substations are aligned, but also with other important services (water, wastewater, solid waste, etc.) integrated into the system design. What if transit stations were to also serve as recycling centers? What if, when we are digging up our streets to build the rail system, we also upgrade our water and sewer lines? What if we use the elevated guideway to carry telephone and TV cables? What if we thought about planning a new university campus in West O'ahu as part of an overall development plan that includes transit?
Building for the future
One does not build a fixed-rail transit system without looking into the future. We should be planning and designing a transit system with at least a 30-year time horizon, if not much longer. We should be planning a system for the next generation, not just to solve today's congestion problems.
We need to widen the transportation choices for our community. We need real alternatives to driving.
We need not just the city and state governments to be working together, but also the federal government and the private sector to move this project forward.
It is easy to be critical of changing the status quo. It is much easier to just say no than to work on the many different elements that must be brought together to ensure a successful project.
It is, moreover, so easy to find fault with ourselves. The last transit proposal was the wrong size. The elevated design was too hard to look at. It was in the wrong place. It used primitive technology. It depended too much on a regressive system of financing.
It did not fully serve key areas: the airport, Waikiki, Ala Moana Center and other key activity generators.
Constructive criticism does play an important role in planning and design. But we can learn from our mistakes and build a better system, one that truly makes sense for our community.
