Bigger bus system would be better for taxpayers, commuters than rail transit
STOP the train, I want to get off, and so do a majority of Honolulu residents! The simple truth is that a rail transit system requires a dense residential pattern, which we do not have on Oahu. This crucial relationship between transportation and land use has not yet been properly addressed in the so-called alternatives analysis presented by the city, or in most discussions in the media.
The tragedy is that our politicians are blindly pushing us along this dead-end path, over the fiscal cliff.
The often-cited description of Honolulu conjured up by rail proponents as a dense, linear city ideal for rail is a myth. Oahu's settlement pattern of single-family homes in suburban subdivisions is too dispersed for rail to be effective. How many people now live within walking distance of any likely stations? Not nearly enough to support rail rapid transit.
Consider how someone living in a single-family suburban home would have to get to work on rail: walk to a bus stop, wait for the bus, ride to the rail, walk to the platform, wait, board, ride, walk from the rail to another bus stop, wait, board, ride, walk to work; then do the same thing in reverse going home. Who is going to put up with this?
Most who are supporting rail probably would not ride it, but hope that others will, to make more room on the roads for the rest of us.
During my travels around the world leading tour groups from Hawaii, I have used rail transit systems in 41 cities, all of which are larger or more densely populated than Honolulu. When you look at successful rail transit systems you see they are in cities with medium- and high-density housing where most users walk to the station and then walk to their workplace at the other end. While I am not a traffic engineer, like 99 percent of those of us with an opinion on this complicated topic, I've been involved with the issue for 30 years and still see no evidence to change my mind.
Huge amounts of money are involved in this plan, some of which might flow into the pockets of our politicians, which is perhaps why they are so rabidly pushing rail right now, before term limits force them out.
The lure of concentrated development around train stations, which astronomically increases selected land values, is a huge fundraising magnet for salivating politicians. Notice how silent the politicians are about future development rights, while no doubt negotiating like crazy with powerful interests behind the scenes.
About the money: Why are we being forced to pay $5 billion for this long-term capital project during the next 15 years of increased excise tax, rather than funding it through long-term bonds, the way most huge government projects are paid for? Such a system should be expected to function for at least 50 years, so why should future riders not pay their share, which is what bonds are for?
The silence on this topic is probably because the bond market is keenly aware that this is a fiscally risky proposal, forcing them to charge higher rates for "junk bonds" and thereby lowering Honolulu's credit rating, which would increase all government costs.
More buses, toll lanes
There are better transportation alternatives. One is to vastly expand our bus system. We need more buses, exclusive lanes, frequent service, additional routes, express lanes, better connections and lower fares.
Our bus system is claimed to be one of the nation's best, which is another myth that stands in the way of solutions. It can be drastically improved.
Extensive road construction will be needed, including some elevated busways, bus stations, underpasses at busy intersections, more use of contra-flow and other improvements, including managed toll lanes for cars and construction of more parking lots downtown, with short shuttle services to end destinations. There is more than enough work here to keep the construction industry happy, and the results would actually be useful rather than a big waste of resources.
A well-planned bus service could pick you up near your home, bring you to a bus station where one transfer would put you on a bus that is going close to the final destination, riding on exclusive lanes free of other traffic. Commuters also could drive to transit stations at regional shopping malls, park for the day and catch an express bus direct to their destination. The whole island can benefit from this approach, rather than one narrow Leeward corridor.
Dense housing
In addition, we should change the way we build housing so that it is more dense, with emphasis on the urban core, increasing transit utilization and preventing continued sprawl.
Unfortunately, our misguided Legislature passed a bill last session that prohibits expenditures of new transit revenues on road improvements. How can the city now tell us with a straight face that all transportation alternatives were given fair consideration?
This legislation could be changed, but given past performance of our politicians, the outlook is bleak. Today, the city has the gall to tell us the transit debate is over and the only public input to be considered henceforth is where the train should go. Yet a majority of the public is still opposed to rail. What kind of democracy are we running here?
Rail is a luxury that we are not ready for and cannot afford. Imagine 10 years of disruptive construction for a massive elevated train that hardly anyone in our lifetimes is going to use, leaving the rest of us stuck in gridlock and our children unable to find affordable housing. We can do better.
Dennis Callan is president of the Hawaii Geographic Society and has been involved for many years with various community organizations dealing with transportation issues. He is a frequent contributor to the Star-Bulletin's travel section.