There’s an interesting item by architect Bob Crone written for the League of Women Voters in which Crone examines whether Honolulu’s population base is large enough to support the mayor’s chosen rail system.

First, Crone challenges the often-heard claim that Honolulu is the country’s 12th largest city, pointing out that this is the case only if you compare the population of all of Oahu with the urban core of other cities. When you compare Honolulu’s overall population with the larger metropolitan areas of other cities, we drop to down around #50, give or take a few ranks, depending on the list. Here’s one listing from Wikipedia that ranks Honolulu as #55.

Then Crone gets to the point:

In the census estimate, Honolulu is ranked 53rd in the US (by metropolitan population) and 49th (by urban area population). Grade separated rail systems (heavy rail such as the mayor’s proposed train) are in the top 12 US metropolitan areas (from 1-New York thru 12-San Francisco), plus Baltimore at no. 21. US metropolitan areas ranked 13 thru 48 (Phoenix thru Salt Lake City) plus Dallas-Ft Worth at no. 4 and Houston at no. 6 use light rail mostly at grade. There is no rail in metropolitan areas no. 49 thru 52.

So, the question is – How can Honolulu with the tax base of a metropolitan area ranked 53rd in the country even be contemplating an expensive grade separated heavy rail system? Obviously, for a city it’s size, the right rail is light rail!

It looks like this is the type of assessment behind Gov. Lingle’s reported statement that Honolulu’s proposed rail project would be the most expensive transit project in U.S. history on a per capita basis.

The actual cost per resident drops when you factor in the proportion of the general excise tax paid for by visitors, which is likely in the neighborhood of 10-20%, but rail still has a very hefty price tag.

Meanwhile, Advertiser reporter Sean Hao provided an update on transit-oriented development along the rail route and reports interest is slow in developing.

A couple of observations.

First, it’s interesting that Hao quotes a number of people but the city’s manager of transit-oriented development is not among them.

That omission stands out after Honolulu Weekly’s interview with TOD manager Terrance Ware just last week.

Second, while Hao collects comments on the slow pace of development plans, it strikes me that this could also reflect the relative difficulty of TOD with an all-elevated rail system compared to a light rail system running at grade in some areas. I also notice that a 2007 report by the Hawaii Chapter of the American Planning Association differentiated between “transit-oriented” and “transit adjacent” development. Different beasts from a planning perspective.

Two final notes. Honolulu Weekly editor, Ragnar Carlson, announced in an “editor’s note” that he is turning over duties relating to the rail issue to Adrienne LaFrance, HW managing editor, to avoid the appearance of a conflict.

Late last year, in connection with a freelance piece that ran on our cover, some concern arose inside and outside the paper about the connection between my job as editor and the role my father plays in the City’s rail efforts.

My dad, communications consultant and longtime rail advocate Doug Carlson, is a paid consultant to Parsons Brinckerhoff, the City’s prime contractor on the current stage of the rail project. Beyond that, he has been both a professional and an avocational rail advocate going back to the Fasi administration.

I have no reason to believe that his business affects my judgment in this case more than it has relative to any of the other high-profile clients he’s had over the years.

Nevertheless, after a lot of thought and discussion on our end and some consultation with outside ethics experts, my boss, my staff and I are in agreement: The perception of a conflict is as real a threat to our mission as any potential conflict itself. Readers need to trust our coverage implicitly.

Finally, with the city’s admission that the rail system’s final environmental impact statement won’t be completed until “late summer”, a vague target that could slip further. That will allow Mayor Hannemann to peak his push for final approval just as his campaign peaks in the Democratic primary for governor. I imagine this is seen as a major plus in Hannemann’s political circles.

It also raises the possibility that Hannemann, if he gets himself elected governor, would just move across the street and approve the EIS that, as mayor, he forwarded over for review.

Now, wouldn’t that be a tight little circle of power and control?