With the primary election behind us, the debate over Hono-lulu's $3.7 billion elevated commuter rail project now moves to center stage.

After months of discussion, including a drawn-out battle over whether the issue should be on the ballot, voters will finally get to voice their opinion on Nov. 4.

The results of Saturday's primary election suggest the vote on the rail issue could be close. Mayor Mufi Hannemann, who has been the rail project's No. 1 proponent, was forced into a runoff against Ann Kobayashi, an opponent of Hannemann's transit plan.

In November, voters will be asked if they favor "establishment of a steel wheel on steel rail transit system."

Hannemann favors the steel rail system, while his most vocal opponents support building an elevated highway with high-occupancy toll lanes.

The so-called HOT lanes are designed primarily for express buses and other high-occupancy vehicles. Single-occupant autos can use these lanes if they pay a toll and if the added traffic doesn't interfere with the free flow of high-occupancy traffic.

Proponents of HOT lanes contend that a new freeway from Waiawa to Iwilei will alleviate more traffic congestion for a lower price than a train.

Rail proponents argue that a train from East Kapolei to Ala Moana will do more than just move people across the island. Train stations, and the potential for nearby economic activity, also could help change development patterns and curb urban sprawl.

The real issue before voters in November is whether the city should move beyond current land development and commuting trends, said Peter Flachsbart, who teaches urban and regional planning at the University of Hawai'i.

"Highways serve cars and that facilitates the development of more single-family dwelling units, whereas rail is more likely to lead to transit-oriented development, which is moderate- to high-density, mixed-use, walkable communities," he said. "That's the difference I see."

A 2006 city-sponsored study called the Alternatives Analysis concluded the train is the best option for Honolulu, and opinion polls suggest the majority of residents may support the project. The popularity of mass transit also has received a boost after a recent spike in gasoline prices.

However, a train is not expected to cause a major shift in commuting patterns, which overwhelmingly favor people driving to work alone.

In Honolulu, mass transit was the preferred means of getting to work for 5.4 percent of commuters in 2006, according to the Census Bureau. Honolulu's proposed train is expected to boost that to 7.4 percent by 2030, according to the Alternatives Analysis prepared by city consultant Parsons Brinckerhoff.

The train could reduce traffic delays by 11 percent. However, even with the train system, there will be an estimated 57 percent increase in traffic on H-1 Freeway during morning rush hour in 2030 compared with 2003, according to the city.

GROWTH SURGE IN 'EWA

Most of the increase would be caused by growth in the Kapolei area. In the next two decades, there will be a surge in the number of homes on the 'Ewa plain from about 25,000 today to about 60,000, according to city estimates.

The H-1 corridor already contains two of the 100 worst traffic bottlenecks in the country, according to a June report by INRIX Traffic Services. The Moanalua Freeway near H-1 Freeway ranked 41st, while H-1 near Kalihi Street ranked 87th.

The anticipated increase in traffic, more than any other reason, has fueled opposition to rail.

Trains aren't conducive to lifestyles that involve transporting children to private schools, attending sporting events and shopping at big-box retailers, said Cliff Slater, a critic of rail and HOT lane supporter. As a result, efforts to alter people's auto-centric lifestyles in favor of rail will fail, he said.

A multilane, 12-mile or so managed highway would help reduce congestion by driving more people to carpool and by increasing public transit ridership by reducing bus commuting times, Slater said.

"Today, you really can't do much without individual transportation," he said. "Public transportation is just not there for most folks. To think that we're going to change a 90-year-trend, I think, is wishful thinking in the extreme."

AN OPTION ELSEWHERE

So why is the city planning to build rail rather than new lanes? The city's Alternatives Analysis determined the train reduced traffic congestion and increased public transit ridership more than managed highway lanes. A new elevated highway also would cost more to build on a per mile basis and cost more to maintain, according to the city's study.

Building new roads also sends commuters the wrong message, said Michael Schneider, managing partner for InfraConsult LLC, which provides management support on the train project.

Still, several cities are moving forward with the HOT lane concept, which was developed in the early 1990s by the Libertarian think tank The Reason Foundation.

HOT lanes are operated in at least six locations ranging from California to Minneapolis. They're also under consideration in cities such as Dallas, Miami and San Francisco.

In Honolulu, the peak toll on a HOT lane would be $6.40 in 2006 dollars, according to the city.

The high toll prompted critics to dub them "Lexis lanes," arguing that they're tailored to the affluent. However, a March 2003 Federal Highway Administration guide on HOT lanes reported that the benefits of HOT lanes are enjoyed widely at all income levels.

In most cases, HOT lanes were created by converting existing high-occupancy vehicle, or HOV, lanes to make more efficient use of highway capacity, said InfraConsult's Schneider. That's because the cost of building new highways cannot be recouped by toll charges, he said.

It's unclear whether Honolulu would be able to get federal funds for a HOT lanes project. State taxes that are being collected to pay for construction of a train system cannot be used to build a HOT lanes system without a change in state law.

Schneider argued that Ho-nolulu's best opportunity to garner federal funds is to build a transit project such as rail rather than a highway project.

"On the transit side, we have a good chance, on the highway side we have no chance" of getting federal funding, he said. "That's an important factor."

Proponents of new highway construction contend the city did not conduct a rigorous, good-faith analysis of the managed lane option. Their biggest complaints are that the city overestimated the cost of building managed lanes and underestimated how much they would reduce traffic congestion.

Among the concerns raised is how the city eliminated the Kapolei-to-Nimitz Highway high-occupancy vehicle Zipper Lane in its analysis of the traffic impacts of the managed lanes alternative. That meant the new highway would result in only one net new in-bound lane of traffic, said Slater, the rail critic.

In addition, the cost of a two-lane, reversible elevated highway was estimated at $2.6 billion, according to the city. That's more than the cost of the four-lane, 16.1-mile H-3 highway, which was built for $1.3 billion and completed in 1997. The city's HOT lane cost estimate also is far greater than the construction costs for comparable Mainland highway projects, Slater said.

Both examples illustrate a lack of due diligence on the part of the city, he said.

"You would never see that in the private sector," Slater said. "You would never see it anywhere where there's honest government. If you put back in the Zipper Lane and you reduce the cost to whatever — a billon dollars — suddenly the numbers go upside down (in favor of managed lanes)."

ANALYSIS DEFENDED

Both the city and Parsons Brinckerhoff defend the cost estimate for a managed lane system and denied allegations they pushed rail as a preferred transit alternative.

"The Federal Transportation Administration and its independent project management oversight team concluded that the content of the (Alternatives Analysis) is unbiased," city transportation director Wayne Yoshioka said in an e-mail to The Advertiser.

That assertion is supported by a December 2006 Transit Advisory Task Force report that found the city's assessment of the rail and managed lane alternatives fair and accurate. However, the report also noted that other versions of the managed lane alternative could make it more attractive than the version studied by the city.

The report also questioned why the city eliminated the H-1 Zipper Lane when it studied the reversible managed lane option. The city did not respond to questions regarding the removal of the Zipper Lane from the estimate.