The advantages of rail transit over the two alternatives considered (those of doing nothing and the transportation system management option) are barely discernible, much less convincing. Even so, there are some who believe that the city has fudged its figures. Had the city been more honest, they contend, the marginal advantages of rail transit would disappear altogether.
The Honolulu League of Women Voters has studied the subject of rail transit since the earliest days of HART (Honolulu Area Rapid Transit) a decade ago. The League has questioned rail transit on its cost, on the undemocratic methods employed in its selection and in hearings held by the city administration on the topic, and — perhaps most important — on the ridership projections put forward to justify the expenditure of so many federal taxpayer dollars. It has voiced skepticism over the rather significant increase in rider projections that occurred between publication of the Alternatives Analysis/DEIS in 1990 and the SDEIS in 1992.
League President Arlene Ellis testified as follows to the Department of Transportation Services on April 23, 1992: “The 1990 projections showed the increase in transit ridership (over a TSM system) to be minimal (less than one percent of total daily trips;) indicated no significant decrease in daily vehicle miles traveled or in air pollution; and showed a Cost Effectiveness Index [CEI] barely within the Federal requirements.
“The 1992 cost projections show an increase of approximately 75 percent over 1990 estimates after allowance is made for the elimination of the Waikiki sector of the rail structure and of the Hotel Street subway in favor of Nimitz above-ground. Thus, the 1990 ridership projections could no longer meet the federal CEI threshold.
“No problem: rail ridership projections with Waikiki eliminated went up 34 percent (140,100 to 187,000); total transit ridership went up 24 percent (255,100 to 315,400); fixed guideway trips to and from downtown increased 65 percent (45,100 to 74,500); and the projected increase in transit ridership over the TSM alternative shot up to 80 percent (25,500 to 46,000) — just coincidentally a little higher than costs increased, thus leaving the projected CEI just about the same as calculated in the 1990 AA/DEIS.
“The justification for these increases in ridership is said to be the 1990 census which, it is alleged, points to greater population and employment growth than previously expected. This goes quite contrary to State Economist Gregory Pai’s statement a couple of months ago to the effect that the state’s M-K projections, used by the city as the population variable for the ridership projections, are probably too high and that therefore the then-current ridership needs to be revised downward.”
Volume 2, Number 12 June 1992