The Honolulu rail project has reached a point where completion of the project as originally planned no longer appears possible without another large infusion of local or state funding. Honolulu now faces a momentous decision on where to locate the terminus of a shorter rail project that may be in place for many years, possibly decades. The way that decision is reached will determine the confidence of local officials, and the trust of the public, that the modified project will be finished successfully.
We evaluated dozens of major transit projects during our careers in the Federal Transit Administration’s Office of Planning. Honolulu’s rail project clearly met the evaluation criteria set by Congress and, consequently, received a Full Funding Grant Agreement in 2012.
We personally supported that decision because the project would be a huge improvement in transit service for the tens of thousands of existing transit riders and others who might choose to use it. We continue to think that is true.
The estimated $5.1 billion project cost was a concern because of Honolulu’s relatively small population and tax base. But we believed the benefits of the project justified that expenditure and the city’s financial plan indicated it was affordable.
Escalating costs and schedule delays led the FTA to require a “recovery plan” for completion of the 20-mile project. The Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation (HART) prepared, and FTA accepted, a plan that in 2019 promised completion by 2026 at a total cost of $8.9 billion, with the additional funding coming from new local tax revenues.
Now, barely two years later, HART anticipates completion in 2031 at a total cost of $12.4 billion but with a $3.5 billion funding shortfall — a stunning revelation that threatens any remaining public faith in a useful project outcome.
Another “recovery plan” is clearly inappropriate for the decision at hand. The question is no longer, “How will we finish the 20-mile project?” but rather, “What shorter project makes most sense for our foreseeable future?”
The answer to this new question requires, first, a careful and objective analysis of where the project actually stands in terms of expenditures to date, and then, a realistic assessment of the costs and benefits of alternative locations for a new project terminus short of Ala Moana Center. Candidate locations would likely include several of the currently planned stations.
The analysis would have to address the design of a terminal station that could accommodate potentially heavy volumes of arriving rail passengers; changes to the bus system needed to move rail passengers from the terminal; impacts on street traffic near the terminal; impacts on transit travel times and transferring; the number of potential riders who would opt out of travel by rail; and the trade-offs among the costs, impacts, and benefits of the options.
While HART would be an essential participant, the effort requires expertise that is different from HART’s construction-oriented mission. The work should be done by an independent team with objectivity, the necessary technical expertise, and a commitment to transparency. The team’s only responsibility would be to provide solid information that the people of Oahu and their elected officials can trust as the basis for the hard decisions at hand, and not to advocate for a particular terminus location.
The City Council or Hawaii Legislature would be the appropriate sponsor of the analysis, ideally with technical assistance from FTA. Having worked on the planning of this worthy project for many years, we want it to succeed. Decisions should not be rushed, and the necessary analysis will take some time. It is critical to get started — soon.
Ron Fisher was director of the Federal Transit Administration’s Office of Project Planning and a national consultant; Jim Ryan was chief of the Technical Methods division of that office and a national consultant.
