Since the 1960s, Honolulu mayors have realized the need for a rail transit line, correctly anticipating an ever-worsening traffic problem on crowded Oahu. Actual construction of the rail transit line finally has begun, but the project is threatened by a mayoral race that has been sidelined by unrelated and irrelevant personal attacks. Mayor Peter Carlisle and Kirk Caldwell, the two candidates who support rail, so far have done a poor job in emphasizing the importance of the rail project in this election, and for the future of Honolulu.
Oahu’s traffic now is rated the worst in the country among cities, and could become much worse in the years ahead. No one doubts that congestion has worsened every year and will continue in that direction. Temporary patch-ups will always be inadequate; a permanent, long-term solution is required.
Years of consideration and preparation have brought us to this point. Dan Grabauskas, a seasoned expert on the subject, most recently as general manager of Boston’s rail transit system, has brought some refreshing candor to the project as the new chief executive officer of the Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation.
Grabauskas sees it as "a really good project, and I think it really has the potential to be a game-changer for the next 100 years in terms of mitigating problems today, and offering some opportunities for jobs today, jobs in the future and a good source of transportation all along this corridor."
Grabauskas has been rightly responsive to criticisms of the operation and has significantly shrunk the number of public relations jobs tied to the project. When faced with criticism that two-car trains originally were to hold 318 passengers with only 64 seats, he said he would ask the contractor to increase the number of seats — a plus for riders.
At this crucial time, former Gov. Ben Cayetano has converted his inclusion in an anti-rail lawsuit, into what is essentially a single-issue candidacy for mayor. As Cayetano stated in last week’s televised debate, rail is the mayoral race’s "800-pound gorilla" in the room.
His popularity has resulted in a $900,000 campaign chest, far more than contributions to incumbent Mayor Carlisle and Caldwell, former city managing director and acting mayor. Both are strong supporters of the rail but have been less than effective in responding to Cayetano’s criticism of the project, essentially leaving it up to special-interest groups to advertise on rail’s behalf.
Even then, the message gets off-track. An advocacy group of contractors, unionized carpenters and construction workers who see the rail project as a source of jobs has tried to smear Cayetano for what it claims is his having received "pay to play" campaign contributions in the 1990s. That side show detracts from what really is at stake.
Cayetano argues that he would prefer the Bus Rapid Transit plan proposed in 2003 by then-Mayor Jeremy Harris. But Harris himself had proposed the bus plan as a temporary strategy, not a longterm solution, recognizing in his 2004 State of the City address, "Ultimately, Honolulu must build fixed rail."
Carlisle and Caldwell have been less than effective in pointing out why Honolulu needs rail. There are many good reasons. The city’s lineal urban configuration is ideal for a single fixed-rail line. The need for alternative transportation already exists, and it will become more necessary in the decades ahead to allow residents to easily travel between Honolulu’s central city and the second city, just as it was envisioned from the start.
While other options, such as a more extensive bus system, may be cheaper to buy, there is the real constraint of limited land, lane and street space on which to run them.
A turn in the road at this point would be devastating. Contrary to Cayetano’s warning that the federal government may renege, no federal grant for a transportation project at this stage has been denied. However, the city’s reversal to halt the project is likely to jeopardize federal help in any future project aimed at coping with traffic congestion in Honolulu.
Caldwell and Carlisle need to explain those long-term ramifications to give voters a clearer understanding of what’s at stake — not only the rail line, but the future of Honolulu.
