The biggest problem with rail is that Leeward Oahu does not have enough people living near the proposed stations, which would result in very low ridership and therefore have little impact on traffic congestion. Rail transit requires concentrated populations to support it, living and working in walking distance of the stations, but we do not have that along the proposed rail route.

Our analysis of the 2010 Census shows an average population density of only 12 residents per acre living within half-mile of the 15 proposed stations from Kapolei to Kalihi, while planning standards suggest 45 residents per acre are required for an effective rail system, as explained in a recent study by city planners at the University of California-Berkeley. Their study concludes that cost-effectiveness for rail transit requires "dense concentrations of people and jobs around transit stations … of approximately 45 residents per gross acre," and even "light rail needs about 30 residents per gross acre" to be justified. Our study and supporting documents, including a short movie, can be found at honolulutraffic.com.

These might seem like abstract statistics or unimportant numbers, but this cuts to the very heart of the issue: Rail will help very few people. A population study conducted by city rail contractor Parsons Brinckerhoff in 2006 shows similar small population numbers, confirming our count. There are just not enough riders to justify rail. The rest of Oahu’s population will not benefit and we will all see traffic congestion get worse every year.

Most residents living near proposed rail stations are in low-density, single-family homes. Yet the city is currently projecting more than 100,000 daily rail trips. Where are these riders going to come from?

The city also claims that more than 60 percent of Oahu residents live on the rail route, but our analysis shows that less than 6 percent of Oahu’s population actually resides within walking distance of the proposed Leeward train stations.

Inflated ridership numbers from our city government are part of the ongoing propaganda campaign that has distorted many aspects of the rail system in an attempt to sell it to the public with rosy projections. The city administration would like you to believe rail is very accessible and useful — arguably, it is not.

Of course the city assumes new riders will appear when future housing is constructed in these farm fields and around other train stations, which is very doubtful. Similar hopes for "transit-oriented development" in some mainland rail systems have made little progress. Even if such schemes did happen, they could backfire, pushing greatly increased development into the Leeward corridor, further increasing traffic congestion.

Because of this current lack of residents near stations, the city is hoping that Leeward commuters will ride a bus and transfer to the train. But consider how many individual segments such a daily round-trip would involve:

» Walk from your home to the bus stop.

» Wait for the bus.

» Ride the bus to the train station.

» Walk to the train.

» Wait for the train.

» Ride the train.

» Walk or bus from train to work.

Now do everything in reverse to get home: round-trip segments involving a lot of walking, waiting and transferring. How many people would be willing to make such a complicated journey?

Given the $5.2 billion project cost, relatively few people would use rail, depleting our transportation budget with little money left for real solutions or other pressing infrastructure needs — and leaving horribly increased traffic congestion on our roads for decades to come.

Opposing view: The rail will provide equal access to social and economic opportunity