• My Pages
• Commitments
• Community
• Campaigns
• Content
• Events
• About

Share this blog with friends via email, SMS, Facebook, Twitter, instant messaging, and more. When sharing, a link to this page will automatically be added.

Rail transit revisited - a question of commitment

Sep 05, 2008 | By Andrew Aoki

What is an island-style approach to an issue like rail transit? …to keep an open mind while gathering facts, to respect others even in disagreement, to have the courage to share views openly and to be accountable for those views, to take responsibility for the real world consequences of the decisions we make, to make the best of the situation at hand because, after all, we live together on islands.

One of the great benefits of taking this approach is that thoughtful people on opposing sides still talk to you. Since we wrote the articles on how we act and how we decide on the rail issue, we've had constructive conversations with people on both sides-with advocates and relatives and everyday people. As a result, we've been able to boil down our position even more (again, this is our personal opinion, not the opinion of all Kanu members).

First… the Goals Matter

As members of Kanu, we care about curbing urban sprawl and preserving our rural communities and character; reducing our dependence on the automobile and on fossil fuels; creating neighborhoods that lend themselves to civic engagement and island culture; reducing the amount of time people spend sitting in traffic and away from their families; providing equitable access to the things that all people need including healthcare, education, recreation, and jobs.

We recognize that many people care about other things and so they analyze the situation differently. For example, some feel that traffic reduction is the only public issue we should focus on. Others care only about their self interests, like the impact on my drive time, my share of taxes, my job prospects, or my political interests. It should come as no surprise that people with a different view of the goals might reach conclusions that are different from ours.

A debate over the goals of rail transit could be a useful exercise. We believe that the goals we value as part of Kanu are the future-looking matters that many Hawaii residents are longing to address and that have been too often ignored. Furthermore, we don't think good public policy has ever resulted from an "every-man-for-himself" attitude; particularly on an island where we are so interdependent. A discussion of what we should be trying to accomplish as a society is long past due in Hawaii and we welcome it. If we are not clear about the goals we are trying to achieve as a society, we will never have the commitment and unity we need in order to address the difficult issues before us.

The Case For Rail

Given our goals, we analyzed the issue and found two persuasive arguments for rail.

1. The potential impact on Oahu's development patterns

When we looked at the numbers, we were underwhelmed by the environmental and traffic benefits of rail.  While rail does have a net positive impact on future traffic and automobile emissions (arguably more than the other transit options on the table) the amount of that impact seems like a pretty small payout from what would be the costliest public works project in Hawaii history. This was particularly eye-opening because many people assume that the whole purpose of building rail is to reduce traffic. 

However, rail can do something that no other option offers. A fixed rail line offers the possibility of Transit Oriented Development (TOD) which could help reduce urban sprawl, provide new opportunities to address the housing crisis, and increase the ability of more Oahu residents to reliably and affordably get to the places that all people need to get to. This could occur if mixed-use developments concentrate themselves around transit stations. This might occur because rail creates an economic incentive for developers to look at urban rather than rural areas. Done thoughtfully and intentionally, over time this could significantly improve quality of life for Oahu's people.

TOD and urban density would have its challenges too, not the least of which would be redefining an island lifestyle in an urban setting, and maintaining the island's beauty with a large elevated railway running through the city. These could require huge trade-offs. But we think the alternative-continued development pressure and sprawl on the Ewa Plain and into rural communities, and decreasing access and mobility particularly for the elderly, the disabled, and those with lower incomes-is clearly undesirable.

But it is important to note that well executed TOD is only a possible outcome of rail. It is not guaranteed to happen nor will it be easy. It will require strong leadership and good planning. We freely admit that the mere possibility of better development patterns on Oahu is not the most compelling rationale one might hope for.  But at least this possibility is part of a feasible vision-of a more livable Oahu-that is preferable to the unimaginative status quo and a blind faith that our current problems will somehow solve themselves.

2. It has been through the "process" and is ready to go

We continue to hear fantastic ideas for improving traffic, for changing work and school schedules, for moving job centers, and more. There is likely some combination of these ideas that would be superior to the rail project, and we hope many of these ideas become policy someday. But rail has a huge advantage over these ideas-rail is not just an idea, it is actually on the table. This fact doesn't make rail a winner on its face, but it is a considerable advantage.

Will these other "better" ideas really come to fruition? Will they stand the scrutiny of research and analysis? Will they drum up the necessary political support? Will they withstand the public hearings and the opposition from special interests? Will there be leaders to see the projects through? Will money be diverted to those projects? Will they get beyond pilot phases and be "taken to scale" anytime soon?

If not, the actual alternative to rail may turn out to be, despite our best intentions, the status quo-especially in a Hawaii where bold ideas and political courage are in scarce supply. While we wait for these other ideas to be vetted and readied, the alternative to rail may essentially be things as they are-a worsening of traffic, pollution, and sprawl already trending in the wrong direction toward unbearable levels. Rail would have to be pretty bad idea to be bested by the dreary projections of the status quo.

The Case Against Rail

The previous reasoning was enough for us to express some tepid support for rail. Since then we've talked to well informed opponents of rail who made us ponder this question: What if living with the terrible status quo while we cook up a better solution was actually better than doing this rail project? Wow, rail would have to be a monumentally awful idea for this to be true!  Well, we heard two compelling arguments that at least make us think about the possibility.

1. The cost – lost opportunities and risks

The rail project is expensive, but that alone doesn't make it a poor investment. For most people, buying a house is an enormous, once-in-a-lifetime investment, but it is usually well worth it.

But imagine that someone asks you to make a big personal investment-$5,000 or $50,000 or whatever is a lot of money to you; an amount so great that if it doesn't work out, it could jeopardize important things like your kid's education or your retirement plans or your health. Would you make that investment if you didn't understand the risks?

Similarly, a number of well-informed people have told us that they need to know more before they can support this rail project. How much will it really cost to operate and maintain the system? Can changes to the route or technology reduce the cost of rail? What are the chances of it costing more than we think? What would happen if it does? How might this affect our ability to improve and maintain other city functions into the far future? What are the full array of costs and benefits of this project?

Some of these questions have been addressed by the City and its consultants. (If you want to be hardcore about it, read Chapter 5 of the Alternatives Analysis). But there are gaps in the justification, and there is still ample confusion on display at City Council hearings, suggesting that some fundamental things are unknown or not fully understood or worse, undisclosed. The rail transit project will cost an epic amount of money by Hawaii standards. For this project, of all projects, we should have complete, sober, clear-eyed fiscal analysis that levels with the people. Yet the fiscal issues seem to be the most inadequately explained of all. If the financial big picture, projections, risks, and costs-benefits were clearer and better communicated, it would go a long way to convincing skeptics that this rail project is the way to go. Lack of this only feeds the suspicion that a few people are leading us all into a rush to judgment.

2. No trust that this government will do it right

Even if this rail project is a good idea, some are doubtful that it will be implemented well. Some of the people who feel this way are forever cynical about government or they have a political axe to grind-those arguments don't move us. But others point to legitimate complaints about the process thus far including a lack of transparency, poor communication, over-selling, and the injection of political interest over the public interest.

Will government be able to inspire commitment among residents, competently manage costs, deal with political infighting, and follow through on obligations even after the current political players have moved on? What are the chances of irreversible mistakes, huge cost overruns, delays, extreme buyer's remorse or outright failure of the project?

These are good questions; and depressing ones too, because we firmly believe that government is a reflection of ourselves. We have the government we created. Government's performance is a function of how much we supervise, manage and nurture it. So if this is the primary problem with the rail option, our prospects for any better solution remain dim.

As with the cost issue, the implementation issue could be addressed if government leaders could better indicate that it is listening to the critiques and responding accordingly, that it has a capacity for improvement, and that it is willing to get beyond a "just trust us" mantra toward real accountability.

A Heavy Decision

Okay, so here we are.  Not exactly awe-inspiring rationales on both sides.  But we the people of Oahu own this situation and we have an obligation to decide and move forward. So how do we choose?

It begins with the goal. If all you care about is yourself, it's pretty simple to figure out whether your address lies along the route or whether you might be richer or poorer after all is said and done. But if, like Kanu Hawaii, you also have goals for future generations and for a better Hawaii, we believe this is the choice that is left:

A vote for rail

If your bold vision of the future includes a smartly reconfigured Oahu that is less dependent on cars, and if you are convinced that it is worth the huge investment, then vote for rail. But know that to make it work will take a number of commitments: to ride the rail and encourage others to do the same, to pay the costs, to advocate for transit oriented development and to help resolve the challenging issues that will result, to participate in the development of city plans, and to hold government accountable throughout its construction and operation.

A vote against rail

If you sense a huge lost opportunity to pursue better solutions and a high probability for Oahu to be mired in this expensive rail project, then vote against rail. But know that this obligates you to help quickly define a better alternative, to pay for its costs, and to work hard for speedy implementation to address the urgent issues that rail might have addressed and that the status quo will not. Know also that you are admitting a huge failure in your government and that we won't get a refund on the public money, time and energy already spent to get rail to this point.

Which commitments are we willing to make? A heavy decision indeed. As to our personal opinions, the two of us may end up voting differently on this. Imagine that… And we will remain friends and commit to making the best of whatever happens. Imagine that…

It's time to think differently and take responsibility for our opinions and our government. To our fellow Kanu members on Oahu, we urge you to discuss this issue with as many people as you can-with intelligence, with passion, with an open mind, with respect, with integrity, with obligation, and with aloha. Try your best to model how it can and should be, if we are ever to successfully address the tough issues of our time while still staying true to our core island values.

Please login or signup to comment.