Posted on: Tuesday, February 15, 2005

DRIVE TIME

By Mike Leidemann
Advertiser Transportation Writer

As the debate over mass transit — and especially paying for it — heated up again across the state last week, there was one complaint I kept hearing over and again.

In its many variations, the rant went pretty much like this:

"I'm never going to use it, so why should I pay for it? I live in Hawai'i Kai (or Kailua, Manoa, Mililani, Hale'iwa, Waikiki, take your pick) and the rail system they are talking about is not going to serve me. Besides, I drive a car all the time. It's not fair for them to increase my taxes to pay for this."

Take a civics lesson, people.

The government does not collect taxes to make an individual life better. It is supposed to use the money to make everyone's lives better. As tax-paying citizens in a democracy, those of us who are better off have an obligation to help those with problems.

It's hardly a new idea. It was the 17th-century philosopher John Locke who first refined the theory that people sometimes have to yield some of their own interests to the greater good, via the government. It's called the social contract, and that's what we're all going to have to talk about as the debate over transit gets rolling again.

We already share the burden every day. Those of us who don't have children still pay taxes to support public education. Those of us who have never been burglarized still pay police to investigate other crimes. Those who have never been on an airplane still pay for airport security.

And the social contract is especially strong in the world of transportation. Even if you don't drive, there's a greater good to commerce and the state as a whole if our highways are maintained in good condition. Just because you've never been on a ship, it doesn't mean that it's worthless to keep our harbors safe and productive.

Subsidizing the bus for those who can't or won't drive helps more people than just the riders.

So when I got all those calls and e-mails last week from people saying they won't pay taxes for a project that won't help them directly, I wanted to point out to them:

"Who do you think helped pay for that nice wide highway out to Hawai'i Kai that you enjoy?" The people of Mililani.

"Who do you think helped fund that big freeway that speeds you back and forth across the Ko'olau?" The people of 'Ewa Beach.

"Who do you think helps to pay for all those contraflow lanes that help get you around town?" We all do.

None of this means I unequivocally support rail transit. In the coming months and years, rail supporters are going to have to work hard to make the case that the costs of any proposed project are justified and serve the greater good. They can't try to hide, like some transit supporters have in the past, the true costs of building and operating such a system.

They can, however, demonstrate how rail can help everyone, now and in the future. There is an argument to be made that the costs are worthwhile — and not just for the people who live in Kapolei, 'Ewa or along any proposed rail route.

Building a rail system in Honolulu could have benefits far beyond the local ones and far beyond the short-term implications of H-1 traffic congestion. If that's the case, we all need to be willing to support it — and pay for it.

Reach Mike Leidemann at mleidemann@honoluluadvertiser.com or 525-5460.