Misguided opposition to fixed guideways

Opposition to rail is growing more bizarre as the project gets closer to actually being approved, culminating in Sunday's newspaper story raising the specter of elevated rail stations spoiling scenic views. My more attendant viewers, listeners and readers know by now that I come from Washington, D.C., and am therefore a rail supporter. Rail in our nation's capital provided a wormhole through congestion and preserved the character of many fine neighborhoods by concentrating development along rail corridors. Good as it was for Washington, D.C., it will be better for Honolulu, because our city is more linear and land is scarcer. The false impression of widespread opposition to rail has been generated by a small number of asphaltophile critics, some of them masquerading as independent analysts, whose criticisms are sometimes taken straight from the anti-rail website of the national highway lobby. They do it by leveraging the general public suspicion of all large public works projects, which applies equally to highways. In fact, one sign of public support for rail is how many people manage to overcome their instinct to be against anything costly, knowing as they do that major public works projects usually take longer and cost more than you were told. (Among the very few exceptions are some recent rail projects in other cities. But let that pass.) Rail critics now say elevated stations will be insufficiently pretty, blocking views. Amazing! Half a dozen condo high-rises have risen more than 30 stories from downtown to Waikiki lately without a peep from these people and now they think a low-rise elevated rail station will spoil the view? This is Hawaii Superferry all over again. People who never raised their voices as interisland barge traffic double, who made only token opposition to massive cruise liners, suddenly want to jump in the water to demonstrate against a ferry that will mostly carry local residents? It doesn't make sense. Either the objections are real or they aren't. If so, they should have been raised before, against enterprises far more impactful than this. For most people, rail will improve scenic views, because you will be able to see things from an elevated line that you cannot see from a car, even if you're not the one driving. I recently did a feature on a high-rise condo on Kapiolani Blvd., looked down from a lanai, and was astonished at how much prettier Kapiolani looks from up there, where you can see the trees better. It was mentioned in the Sunday article in the Advertiser that some fine trees will be felled to make way for rail; I shall mourn them, and I am among those who thinks the current city administration has been decidedly too assiduous in cutting down things that are deciduous. But you'll better enjoy other trees from the fixed guideway than you do from your Lexus. If you've been watching the rail debate from the sidelines, without a strong opinion one way or another, you probably should be told that part of what is going on here is a partisan fight (as a political independent I am slipping back into my reportorial role here). Democrats seem to promote rail while Republicans promote highways. This is a national condition, not just here. Lyndon B. Johnson was a big supporter of mass transit -- a new book on the Washington Metro is called "The Great Society Subway." He bought into mass transit because he and everybody else thought of buses and subways as transportation for the non-elite. Everybody rides Metro, as it turns out, including diplomats, lobbyists and senators, but let that pass, too. The Interstate Highway System, by contrast, was conceived in the Dwight D. Eisenhower administration, Eisenhower having gotten a bellyful of bad roads when he had to lead an Army convoy coast-to-coast in the years before World War II. Automakers and highway contractors benefited, and made deep-pocketed political contributions. (Related factor: all sides tended to accept the oversimplified assumption that Democrats backed labor and Republicans backed management, and automakers were unionized.) Here we have seen Charles Djou, a Republican who wishes to ascend from the city council to something a little more exalted, raise every objection he can to rail. Young Djou has many redeeming qualities and I Iike him personally (I was especially impressed when he came on "Sunrise" as a political analyst and resisted the temptation to always press for his boy), but in this instance he risks being accused by a future opponent of having taken sides in favor of blight, pollution and gridlock. Many Republicans and independents didn't get the memo about hotlanes for the elite and actually want rail built. I predict that when the rail line opens the debate will instantly shift from whether rail is good to why it wasn't built to more neighborhoods. Light rail will one day roll down Kuhio or Kalakaua, too. Waikiki businesses may object to it now but one day there will be so many affluent condo residents in the "tourist district" that they will outvote the businesses. Thirty years from now, when Kona and Wailea are the new Waikikis, Oahu residents will look back on our time and think of today's rail opponents the way we think of Rene Mansho today, as hopelessly misguided.

Comments

[Eric]

Thanks for your insight Howard. As always a very grounded point of view that the community benefits from. In this post you stated: "For most people, rail will improve scenic views, because you will be able to see things from an elevated line that you cannot see from a car, even if you’re not the one driving. I recently did a feature on a high-rise condo on Kapiolani Blvd., looked down from a lanai, and was astonished at how much prettier Kapiolani looks from up there, where you can see the trees better."

I sincerely believe that may be "a" key point to this matter. If the rail system were built to be an "attraction" show casing the area its passing through, it would be more popular to use for the general public. As it stands, it is a bare utility vehicle with no other purpose than to move people from point A to point B. Buses are similar but technology like a "kneeling bus" and bike racks make for a more user friendly utility. I realize it is a complex issue just talking about the bare bones infrastructure and technology issues, but if we could flesh this thing out more and give it a more well rounded point of view it may be more acceptable to more people,instead of being simply an ugly eye sore and pollution and liablity risk in the middle of the city. As our mayor says, we should make lemon aid if life gives us lemons.