---

Set tax increase cap
at 1 percent

THE ISSUE The House and Senate are at odds as to how much of a tax increase to allow counties for transit projects.

STATE lawmakers agree that an excise tax increase is the way for counties to fund public transportation projects, but they don't agree on the amount of that increase.

The Senate says one-half of 1 percent is enough; the House supports a raise of a full percentage point. Mayor Hannemann wants 1 percent. Lawmakers should yield that maximum and allow the mayor to account for the increase with city residents.

Figuring an amount is problematic because no one knows what form or forms of transit projects the city will choose. Though a rail system has been most discussed, Hannemann told the Star-Bulletin's editorial board that solving the city's terrible traffic jams likely will involve a number of methods, possibly a combination of rail, ferries, buses and contraflow lanes.

However, getting a funding mechanism in place now is imperative, according to Congressman Neil Abercrombie. That would demonstrate to federal authorities, who prioritize subsidies, that the state is serious about doing something, especially since a previous venture for which federal monies were available was derailed when the City Council balked at a tax increase for local funding.

Some business groups oppose the increase, contending whatever money is raised could easily be grabbed to pay for other expenses, but the bill's present form limits collections to transit uses. What it doesn't provide is relief for lower-income taxpayers who will give up proportionately more of their paychecks. Lawmakers should include some help for them.

The bill puts a ceiling on the additional tax, but it will be up to each county to set the exact amount, depending on what transportation plans are designed. Hannemann's remarks indicate that should lawmakers authorize 1 percent, the city would favor the maximum. While city residents agree on the need for traffic solutions, he will have to justify the increase when the time comes.

---

BACK TO TOP
|

Senate bows to clout
of cell-phone users

THE ISSUE A Senate committee has shelved a bill that would prohibit using hand-held cellular phones while driving.

THE roar of a rising motorcade of cellular-phone users has overwhelmed proponents of highway safety. The Senate Judiciary has pushed into the borrow pit a proposal to ban the use of hand-held cell phones while driving. Committee Chairman Colleen Hanabusa's explanation that more study was needed is farcical.

Numerous studies have concluded that drivers are distracted to a dangerous degree while talking on cell phones. Hanabusa needed only to contact Matt Sundeen, a National Conference of State Legislatures staffer, for information about the danger, which he has been following for years.

"Unlike drinking a cup of coffee or using a radio or CD player," Sundeen reported three years ago, "new technologies such as wireless phones and Web interfaces require the driver to cognitively interact with the device, thereby diminishing the driver's ability to focus on the task of driving."

That assessment has been made again and again. A 1997 study published by the New England Journal of Medicine found that the risk of an accident while the motorist was on the cell phone quadrupled, about the same effect as driving with a blood-alcohol level of more than 0.08 percent, the legal threshold for drunken driving. A more recent study found that 18- to 25-year-old motorists talking on hands-free cell phones reacted at the same level as septuagenarians to adverse traffic movements.

A ban approved by the House would be limited to hand-held cell phones but would be a first step in dealing with the problem. However, it generated strong opposition from cell-phone companies and users.

Those users comprise a new, powerful interest group comprised of up to 100 million people in the United States. The study of most interest to Hanabusa found that, at any given moment, an estimated 8 percent of all motorists in the United States -- about 1.2 million potential voters -- are using cell phones while driving.

---

---

---