Critics of the rail project often complain that the $5+ billion anticipated price tag for the project does not approximate the project's actual cost.   Former governor Ben Cayetano has staked his mayoral candidacy on his challenge of the rail project, noting that the monies slated to be used for the rail project are sorely needed elsewhere.   If Cayetano wins, he has indicated he intends to dismantle the project and to find a way to redirect rails funds to other projects, such as fixing and upgrading the City's sewer system. 

However, rail construction is now moving ahead — the City received federal authorization to move forward with construction of pillars and an initial expenditure of over $180 million dollars.  And, the plaintiffs in the ongoing rail litigation disputing the validity of the City's Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") have indicated that despite the expected expenditures, they do not intend to attempt to stop construction in court, having received assurances from the City that in the event the plaintiffs prevail in their lawsuit, any existing construction will be dismantled and removed.  In the meantime, public support for the rail project has waned in the face of the constant stream of criticism from project opponents and poor messaging from the City.   

One question which has not been discussed is just exactly what "abandonment" of the rail project would look like; how could the project legally be undone in the event the mayoral election results in a Cayetano victory, or plaintiffs in the ongoing EIS litigation prevail?  How much would that unraveling cost?  Has the train already left the station? 

 In 2008, the City held a referendum on the question of rail.  The results were as follows:   "Oahu residents voted to approve the City Charter amendment supporting the 20-mile elevated steel-rail transit system from Kapolei to Ala Moana, the single-largest public works project in state history." The measure passed with 52.6 percent of voters approving, 47.4 percent opposing. 

In other words,  the City Charter was amended to require the construction of a 20 mile elevated steel-rail transit system.  Under what circumstances can the newly elected mayor direct that the Charter be amended to delete that language?  In the event the EIS litigation is successful, would that relieve the City of its obligation to fulfill the requirements of its charter?  Will an additional referendum be necessary to undo the existing charter amendment? 

 And, how much would all of this cost?  In a recent interview with Honolulu Weekly, Cayetano was asked the same question: 

"So what are we looking at in terms of costs [to undo rail]?

As I recall, the federal money that has actually been spent is something like $115 million. They want to give the impression that it’s billions of dollars, and that’s typical. They can’t win their arguments on the facts, so they’re doing what Hannemann was good at doing: bullying people to try and maneuver in a certain direction." 

While there has been some talk about alternatives to rail (for example, former governor Cayetano has suggested that designated bus lanes would be an option), I have not yet seen any discussions that attempt to corrall and estimate the legal and cost ramifications of ending the rail project at the point the project is most likely to be derailed (i.e. upon election of  a mayor hostile to the project or in the event the EIS suit is successful).  Until that discussion takes place, any comparison between the cost of rail vs. potential alternatives seems woefully incomplete.