In a creative misinterpretation of rail funding and oversimplification of process, mayoral candidate Ben Cayetano says he would use special tax revenues to build what he brands a new bus rapid transit system and pay for whatever city functions he desires. Such moves would undoubtedly be challenged in court, extending legal battles indefinitely while miring motorists in continued gridlock.
The former governor, a lawyer, argues that the 2005 state legislation that allowed a general excise tax surcharge collected in Honolulu — projected to reap $3.36 billion — could be turned to pay for much of his "Flexible Affordable Smart Transportation" system.
That would include, he says, increased bus service, digging urban underpasses and various other changes of streets and the H-1 freeway. None of which, by the way, has even gotten off the starting block in terms of requirements such as ground studies, analyses, ridership projections and vetted cost estimates.
As for usage of the excise tax surcharge, that clearly was not what the Legislature had in mind. The 2005 law offered the surcharge for Oahu to plan and construct a "locally preferred alternative for a mass transit project," which Cayetano seems to think can mean just about anything.
However, an accompanying legislative committee report pointed out that the tax revenue would be for construction of "a fixed rail system with an initial trunk line extending from Kapolei in West Oahu to Iwilei in the central business district." Rep. Marcus Oshiro, then the House majority leader, says that was clearly the intention.
Indeed, news coverage of the Legislature’s approval of the tax addition said it was for the "rail project." Then-City Councilman Gary Okino commented upon the Council’s approval a month later, "A rail system is the only major solution that will bring improvement to this community. We cannot afford not to do this rail system."
In the November 2008 election, Honolulu voters approved a City Charter amendment that authorized the city to begin construction of, specifically, a steel-wheel on steel-rail train system.
When voters approved creation of a semi-autonomous agency called the Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation two years later, they gave it the authority to build and operate a "fixed guideway mass transit system." There was no confusion about what that meant, and there are serious questions here about the legal entanglements awaiting Cayetano’s FAST proposal.
Cayetano suggests that a new federal law widens the use of federal funding for "fixed guideway" systems, and he thinks the Federal Transit Administration "would look at the readiness" of his bus rapid transit system. However, the law could include a BRT system only if it is rail-like, according to the administration: "A BRT system may include a mixture of both exclusive guideway and non-dedicated guideway with traffic signal priority, so long as the exclusive guideway (during peak periods) constitutes a ‘majority of the line’ and so long as the other features emulating rail transit are present."
Disappointingly, Cayetano misdirects in playing FAST and loose with his bus plan, which does not pass the smell test on his imagined $1.5 billion assistance from the FTA.
Former city Managing Director Kirk Caldwell issued a written statement that it is clear his mayoral opponent’s proposal "has been cobbled together purely for political purposes and not to address Oahu’s critical transportation needs."
Cayetano’s attempt to change a decision made over and over for many years is intended to halt the rail project. That alone, not an expanded bus system, would be the result — and that would leave Oahu residents with nothing.
