The Rail Divide — Part 3: City Claims Evaluated
This is part of a series of stories examining the decision to build a rail transit line in Honolulu.
- Overview
- Honolulu Hale’s view
- Opposing view from Cliff Slater
- The Rail Divide — Part 1: City Claims Evaluated
- The Rail Divide — Part 1: Slater Claims Evaluated
- The Rail Divide — Part 2: Slater Claims Evaluated
- The Rail Divide — Part 2: City Claims Evaluated
- The Rail Divide — Part 3: Slater Claims Evaluated
- The Rail Divide — Part 3: City Claims Evaluated
City’s claim: The Managed Lane alternative would not have qualified for the project’s primary funding sources, provided fewer benefits than Rail Transit in terms of environmental, traffic congestion and cost issues.
The city is using a General Excise Tax surcharge and funds from the Federal Transit Administration’s New Starts program as the primary funding sources for a mass transit project.
It says the funding from those sources can be applied to a Fixed Guideway project but not to Managed Lanes.
Some of the state’s reasoning is based on how the 0.5 percent General Excise Tax Surcharge is worded. It was passed in 2005 by the state legislature for funding of a locally preferred alternative for a mass transit project.
The key words here are “locally preferred alternative.” The City Council selected Rail Transit as the preferred alternative after the 2006 Alternatives Analysis report recommended it as being superior to other options.
As such funds from the surcharge cannot be used for the No Build and Transportation System Management alternative or Managed Lanes.
