COMMENTARY
Root of traffic woes missing in the debate
By Mark Dyer
In the debate over whether to build a fixed rail system for Honolulu there is a curious lack of discussion of the underlying cause of our transit problems. Most people seem to think of "traffic" as the problem without stopping to consider why it exists.
Honolulu's traffic woes are the result of too many people living in one place, and working, or going to school, in another place many miles away. This commuter lifestyle is not a necessary part of the human experience — we've been doing it for less than 100 years. As we are finding out, traveling long distances between home and work has become increasingly dysfunctional. The time required, and the costs incurred, both continue to increase as our city's transit infrastructure strains to accommodate the growing numbers of cars on the road. Decades of poorly planned growth that placed more and more homes in Central or Leeward O'ahu while continuing to concentrate jobs in the downtown core and Waikiki have predictably caused rush-hour traffic to get worse and worse.
To date, attempted solutions to Honolulu's traffic problems include various Band-Aid measures such as carpool and zipper lanes, express bus service and a ferry. Our mayor is now proposing a fixed rail transit system that will cost billions of dollars and take years to build. None of these cures, however, addresses the root problem of moving too many people too far a distance between home and work or school on a daily basis. Why not reduce the need to commute in the first place?
The following are a few suggestions that attempt to put schools and workplaces closer to where people live. For the most part, these are not new ideas. They do, however, deserve to be acted on — not just individually but together as part of a comprehensive plan to reduce traffic.
Taken together, these measures would take a lot of cars off the main rush hour traffic roadways. Would they be enough to make a rail system unnecessary? Perhaps not, but you certainly can't tell from the recent "Alternatives Analysis Report" which does not even consider them as an alternative. If we can spend millions of dollars studying various mass transit systems, why not spend a few thousand trying to determine the feasibility of moving jobs and homes closer together? Even diehard proponents of rail should be open to these ideas as a complement to building a fixed guideway system. The "Alternatives Analysis" readily admits that "traffic congestion on key corridor facilities is expected to exist under all alternatives." (Page 3-28.) In other words, rush hour traffic will still be a problem even if rail gets built. Working to reduce commuting, rather than creating and enabling more of it, is, therefore, a sensible solution worthy of serious consideration.
Mark Dyer is a resident of Kane'ohe. He wrote this commentary for The Advertiser.
