There is always some risk in any venture worth taking. And the investment in sensible transit options for Honolulu's future is certainly worthy.

The fact that Honolulu taxpayers are already putting up their own money to seed the multi-billion-dollar mass-transit project shows city leaders recognize the need to invest local money before federal dollars come through.

But how much risk is acceptable at this stage? And are there benefits to pursuing a fast-track timetable for Honolulu's fixed-guideway system, as Mayor Mufi Hannemann wants to do?

Hannemann has pledged to break ground on the project in 2009. That's certainly sooner than the Federal Transit Administration could possibly deliver a grant that funds its share — estimated at half or more — of the cost.

Weighing the pros and cons of this strategy, it seems a relatively safe bet, and one that could pay off with lower expenses in the long run.

To begin with, there's precedent for this method: Several cities have run with their transit projects ahead of the federal funding timeline. For instance, it took eight years for Dallas Area Rapid Transit to secure its $700 million in federal funds for a light-rail line.

Also, waiting carries its own financial risks. There's an enormous burden of proof transit authorities must provide to clear the final FTA funding hurdles; if officials wait for the ultimate green light to flash before getting under way, projects can be years behind schedule, escalating the costs.

So far in Honolulu, omens have been good. FTA officials have indicated that the local funding mechanism shows commitment, and unified support from our Congressional delegation already has secured $15 million in initial funding.

This high level of commitment is exactly the message that Honolulu must convey. It was the city's ambivalence that lost us millions in federal dollars in transit funds over the past 30 years. That's one risk not worth taking.

The time for meeting the mayor's deadline is running short. The City Council needs to finalize the selection of steel-on-steel technology, which seems the best compromise among factors of cost and reliability. No public interest will be served by delaying this action. There needs to be enough time allotted for a thorough environmental impact statement to be prepared, so that the public can have ample opportunity to weigh in on how the project should fit into the existing community.

What Honolulu doesn't need is a continued show of confusion and indecision over a project so crucial to managing the city's future growth. An efficient, farsighted transportation system should be seen as a baseline need, not a bone of contention.