EDITORIAL
New transit proposal poses huge questions

The latest word that state and city officials have agreed — at least in concept — on a major $2.6 billion rail transit system for O'ahu is stunning news.

Whether that project, or anything like it, will ever get built is another question entirely.

O'ahu has been through this before — several times. When similar projects surfaced in the 1970s, they were driven by the prospect that Uncle Sam might pay 80 percent or even more of the cost of the project. But even the prospect of that much "free" money was not enough to overcome other obstacles, including construction worries, disruption and the local share of costs.

Greater local share needed

Today, while there is an expectation of some federal help (optimists are talking about 80 percent again), the reality is that diminished federal support for mass transit in general and competition from other projects suggest that a greater share of any cost will have to be picked up locally.

That means new local taxes.

Gov. Linda Lingle, who campaigned on a no-new-taxes platform, has gulped hard and acknowledged that a project of this size cannot happen without increases in taxes. The options are varied, ranging from the ever-ready general excise tax through hikes in a variety of transportation taxes.

It is crucial that local officials go after the greatest possible federal match if this project proceeds.

This is a substantial gamble for Lingle, since the tax increase would have to be proposed and approved long before the project is built and she is out of office — even considering a second term. She will also have to convince a tax-leery legislature to impose new taxes at a time when many Islanders are still struggling with a cool economy.

The good news in all this is that local officials at both the county and state are thinking beyond themselves and their immediate political prospects.

Basic questions remain

As planning moves forward on this ambitious effort, several fundamental questions must be addressed.

The first is the related plan to build a second deck to Nimitz Highway between the Ke'ehi interchange and Pacific Street (near Hilo Hattie's). This is a $200 million upgrade of the generally successful Nimitz contraflow lane.

The flyover, as it is being called, would allow for extra lanes of contraflow traffic in both morning and afternoon commute times. If and when a rail project is built, it could become part of the system.

Double deck problematic

In isolation, the Nimitz second story has appeal. But the danger is that once this small segment is built, there will be pressure to extend it in both directions, bringing an unwanted and ugly concrete barrier between Honolulu and its beautiful, if underappreciated, waterfront.

The second major issue is dealing with the "if-we-build-it-they-will-come" issue. There seems to be an automatic assumption that if we build a sleek new rail system, commuters will abandon their cars in droves. That can be a dangerous assumption.

Public opinion polls will always turn up strong support for such a project. That's because people assume that someone else will use the mass transit system, leaving them the freeways.

What will be needed is empirical evidence that the rail system will draw commuters in sufficient numbers to justify its cost. Where has this worked elsewhere — either in the United States or even in Asia or Europe — and what were the conditions that made it successful?

Avoiding past mistakes

The plain fact is that while there are rail transit success stories, there are also failures. Can we identify the differences here and make sure we do not repeat the mistakes of others?

Part of the answer lies in other public policy decisions — and related vigorous community dialogue — that must accompany this project. Are we willing to step away from what today amount to cheap and inefficient incentives for private automobile use (such as subsidized public parking and zoning rules that demand lavish parking accommodations for all new construction)? Are we willing to pay for, and build, convenient in-town transportation for those who choose to leave their cars?

None of these questions is insurmountable. The key is to take as much politics as possible out of the decision-making, treat this as more than a make-work project for our local construction and engineering companies and understand the vast social and policy changes that will be required to make it work.