[ OUR OPINION ]
Modest transit plan
better than gridlockTHE City Council has delivered a critical vote accepting Mayor Harris's plan for a Bus Rapid Transit project, approving expenditures for its first phase from Iwilei through Waikiki. While the project may cause temporary disruptions for motorists, it is the much-needed first step in eventually reducing traffic congestion on Oahu.
THE ISSUE The City Council has OK'd funding for the first phase of the Bus Rapid Transit project.
Although planners have yet to decide on technological details, the plan is for quiet gasoline- or electrically propelled buses to travel two to four minutes apart during peak hours in bus-only or shared-traffic lanes from the Ewa plain through Waikiki. Completion is forecast in 10 years. The first phase will be from Iwilei to Kapahulu Avenue.
When completed, Bus Rapid Transit will allow commuters in Kapolei to ride on a bus traveling in a zipper lane to Middle Street, then transfer to a bus destined for Manoa or Waikiki. It will be coordinated with City Express buses and the hub-and-spoke system.
The project is expected to cost $1 billion, with half of the money coming from the federal government. It will be completed in phases to ease the financial burden, and that also should prevent widespread traffic delays. The first phase alone has a price tag of $67 million, with nearly half paid by bonds that the Council has approved for the city to issue.
The project is smaller and less expensive than the light-rail plan proposed a decade ago by the Fasi administration, which died when the City Council refused to approve a tax increase to finance it. Completion of the H-3 freeway and introduction of the zipper lane have mitigated some traffic problems since then, but a broad system envisioned in the Harris plan is needed.
Councilwoman Ann Kobayashi, who has argued that the city has other financial needs, cast the only vote against the plan. Councilman Duke Bainum reflected the prevailing view that a modest and imperfect plan is better than continued gridlock. "We can complain about traffic, or we can move ahead and take a chance," he said.
BACK TO TOP
|
Court closure keeps
public in the darkATTORNEY General John Ashcroft has received a clear signal that he can take extreme legal measures in cases related to terrorism by ascribing them to wartime authority. The U.S. Supreme Court has allowed a blanket closing to the public of immigration hearings in such cases, casting aside First Amendment considerations and rights to due process. Congressional hearings may be the only way to identify and prevent abuses of the legal system.
THE ISSUE The U.S. Supreme Court has blocked a judge's order opening to the public some terrorism-related immigration hearings.
About 700 foreign nationals were arrested after Sept. 11, and the government was secretive about who they were or why they were picked up. More than 100 are still in custody, but no information about the charges they face has been released. An unknown number apparently have pleaded guilty to immigration violations and been deported.
The government has not released the names of detainees or listed their deportation hearings on court docket sheets. Information about the cases has come from the detainees themselves, who have been free to call relatives and reporters.
U.S. District Judge John W. Bissell of New York last month overturned an immigration judge's order excluding the public, the press and family members from attending hearings for "special interest" detainees facing deportation. Bissell ruled that the government could close hearings on a case-by-case basis where closure can be specifically supported. Without comment, the high court essentially overturned Bissell's ruling.
The Justice Department argues that the cases are extraordinary, "touching on the nation's very ability to defend itself against the continuing threat of hostile attack from myriad and unknown sources." Such scare language should not be allowed to close courtroom doors on such a broad scale.
Ashcroft has denied other ordinary rights in cases linked to terrorism. For example, American citizens accused of being war combatants have been denied legal representation while being held. Legal experts generally agree that the government has the authority to deny constitutional rights to those detainees, likened to prisoners of war. The blanket policy of closing immigration hearings is more arbitrary and dangerous.
BACK TO TOP
Published by Oahu Publications Inc., a subsidiary of Black Press.Don Kendall, Publisher
Frank Bridgewater, Editor 529-4791; fbridgewater@starbulletin.com
Michael Rovner, Assistant Editor 529-4768; mrovner@starbulletin.com
Lucy Young-Oda, Assistant Editor 529-4762; lyoungoda@starbulletin.comMary Poole, Editorial Page Editor, 529-4790; mpoole@starbulletin.com
The Honolulu Star-Bulletin (USPS 249460) is published daily by
John Flanagan, Contributing Editor 294-3533; jflanagan@starbulletin.com
Oahu Publications at 500 Ala Moana Blvd., Suite 7-500, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813.
Periodicals postage paid at Honolulu, Hawaii. Postmaster: Send address changes to
Star-Bulletin, P.O. Box 3080, Honolulu, Hawaii 96802.
