Planning and building a rail system is a monumental task, a job for professionals who can concentrate on bringing the project from the drawing board to construction.

Creating a transit authority, one that is under the city's umbrella yet can operate with a measure of autonomy, would move Honolulu closer to that goal more efficiently than the current sputtering of the elected leadership.

That's why the best course for the City Council is to move out Resolution 07-90, which would establish the transit authority by City Charter amendment.

The council feels compelled to give the voters a chance to weigh in on the $3.7 billion project. Fair enough. But the City Charter, a document not to be amended casually, should not be the vehicle for referendums on projects.

In general, decisions on complex public works projects should not be decided by a popular vote. The city's elected officials have been informed through a process of careful technical study and should be held accountable for their decision at the polls.

However, creating a transit authority is a necessary step in giving development of the rail system the focus it deserves. This must be done through a Charter amendment; that's why Resolution 07-90 is the better proposal under consideration.

It will also yield some indication of public sentiment on rail, which many people favor.

It's certainly far better than the option Stop Rail Now had been seeking through its petition: a referendum that accomplishes nothing except banning rail as an option.

And, judging by a recent sampling of public opinion, rail is one option that should not be taken off the table.

In the recent Advertiser and KGMB9 Hawai'i Poll, about 56 percent of respondents living near the route said they would likely ride the rail transit system.

That's a strong statement coming from a community of people who have relatively limited experience riding metro systems.

Rail is designed to serve those living along the island's most congested transportation corridor. Of those who said they were unlikely to use the rail regularly, 60 percent said it was because they don't live near the rail route.

But as Kapolei continues to develop as a "second city," more people living in Central or East O'ahu will want a more efficient way to transit westward.

Among the most encouraging statistics from the poll: About 61 percent of respondents, regardless of where they live, said they'd vote in favor of rail. This signals that Honolulu residents understand the value of rail as a major component of a comprehensive transportation network, even if they don't use it themselves with regularity.

If the city intends to give voters a chance to weigh in on rail — and 76 percent say they want a vote — then the question should concern the way government is constituted to run the system.

Resolution 07-90 most sensibly frames the question.

The competing Resolution 08-166 would leave the establishment of a steel-wheel-on-steel-rail system to the director of transportation services.

The council should reject this option.

During the next decade, that agency will have enough to do providing oversight of the remaining components of the transit network.

The authority's board of directors would be appointed by the council, mayor, speaker of the House, president of the Senate and the governor. So the lines of accountability will be drawn to an elected body, while insulating the board somewhat from political tides.

This massive project needs to be run in the most efficient, effective way possible. The taxpayers footing the bill deserve no less.