feed2js_ck = true;

document.write('<div class="rss-box">');
document.write('<ul class="rss-items">');
document.write('<li class="rss-item"><a class="rss-item" href="https://www.civilbeat.org/2019/05/chad-blair-why-bikini-islanders-bought-land-on-the-big-island/" target="_self">Chad Blair: Why Bikini Islanders Bought Land On The Big Island</a><br />');
document.write('<span class="rss-date">Wed, 22 May 2019 10:01:27 +0000</span><br />');
document.write('The purchase of 283 acres of land near Hilo by a group of Micronesians is being described as a potential “fresh start” for the people of Bikini Atoll. It is a way for the Bikinians to not only generate revenue by developing lots to sell at market value but also serves as a place for Bikinians themselves to one day relocate from Micronesia. The low-lying islands are especially vulnerable to rising sea levels due to global warming. The sale illustrates not only the story of a misplaced people but the challenges that often come with newcomers fitting in to new lands. Some Hawaiian activists mistakenly thought that the 283 acres valued at nearly $1 million actually belongs to the state’s Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. It does not.   Bikinians have been “nuclear nomads” since July 1, 1946, when only the fourth nuclear bomb in history (the others were Los Alamos, Hiroshima and Nagasaki) was dropped on Bikini as part of the Able test of Operation Crossroads. As has been widely reported, including in Civil Beat’s series “The Micronesians,” “Able was 50 percent more powerful than Little Boy, the atomic bomb that devastated Hiroshima in 1945.” ‘Idyllic Islands’ Irradiated Before the blast, 167 residents of Bikini were moved from the atoll. Today, most of the survivors and their descendants live on Kili, an island in the Republic of the Marshall Islands that is widely described as a rough place to live. For one, there is no lagoon, making fishing difficult. For another, king tides are literally washing away the shoreline. As the Civil Beat series explained, “Bikinians, by and large, haven’t returned to their homeland since.” The purchase of the land, in the Kaumana area of Hilo, was blogged by Big Island real estate agent Mealoha Kraus April 30. The Republic of the Marshall Islands is a nation of low-lying coral atolls in the eastern Pacific Ocean. “The celebration marked the end of a long journey and introduced the potential for a fresh start for the people of Bikini Atoll, whose idyllic islands were routinely used as nuclear test sites by the U.S. government throughout the 1940s and 1950s,” Kraus wrote. Kraus, who did not respond to a media inquiry Tuesday, said the land was sold by Akalea Partners, LLC, to Bikini Ejit Local Government. Ejit is the name of a small island on Majuro Atoll, where some Bikinians live. “Purchased for $4.8 million, the land is vacant, with a stream running through it,” Kraus wrote on her blog, which includes photos of the ceremony. “Ultimately, they are driven by a goal to make their trust grow over time, in order to benefit their people for generations. If climate change drives them from their home, the Kili Island residents would move to the land on Hawaii.” The sale was reported on social media. The Marshall Islands Journal in Majuro picked up the story. “Bikinians have been talking for years about the option of purchasing land in the U.S., and this is the first time for it to actually happen via the local government,” Giff Johnson, the paper’s editor, told me via email. Many of the Marshall Islands, like Ejit Island, part of the Majuro Atoll, are vulnerable to rising sea levels.Mark Edward Harris/Civil Beat Johnson, who confirmed the purchase with Hawaii’s Bureau of Conveyances, explained that the Bikini Council in the 1980s looked at buying land on Maui, “but after initial discussions, people and political leaders on Maui were not friendly about the prospect so the idea of buying land there was dropped.” In a more recent development, the U.S. Department of the Interior in gave the Kili/Bikini/Ejit mayor and local council “total control” of the U.S. Congress-provided Bikini Resettlement Trust Fund. That’s “somewhere around $55 million, with the proviso that they could never come back to Interior to seek assistance to get additional funding from the Congress,” said Johnson. Since then, the Bikinians have bought two landing craft vessels, an apartment complex in Majuro and now the Hilo land. “They are said to be looking at buying an airplane,” said Johnson. Esther Kiaaina, a Hawaii resident and former assistant secretary for Insular Affairs at Interior, welcomes the purchase. “The concept for the Bikini trust fund established by the federal government did not factor in relocation from the Marshall Islands when it was established decades ago,” said Kiaaina, who visited Bikini Atoll in 1966 as a congressional staffer working for U.S. Sen. Dan Akaka of Hawaii. “So, given that funding is finite, I aloha our brothers and sisters from Bikini and applaud its leaders for buying land to secure a future for their community.” Continuing Outmigration The Bikini town hall on Majuro Atoll.Mark Edward Harris/Civil Beat It’s not clear if or when Bikinians may relocate. But there has already been significant outmigration from the Marshalls (including Bikinians) to Hawaii and to places like Springdale, Arkansas, the latter home to at least 12,000 Marshallese and other Micronesians. Under a 1986 treaty called the Compact of Free Association, residents of the Marshalls and the Federated States of Micronesia are allowed visa-free travel to the U.S. and its territories. The Republic of Palau was added in 1994. As is the case with other immigrant groups to America, Micronesians have encountered a lot of discrimination. Social media posts such as this one illustrate the concerns — and misunderstandings — some Native Hawaiians have about one displaced group seeming to displace another in Kaumana. In fact, even though the state Department of Hawaiian Home Lands holds a lot of land in the greater Hilo area, the Hawaii County parcel bought by the Bikinians is not part of that land. Nor is it land that was leased by sugarcane farmers who later returned the land to DHHL once the leases expired, according to agency spokesman Cedric Duarte. Complicated Ties The Bikini land purchase comes at an interesting time for the COFA nations, and Hawaii. On Tuesday the presidents of all three COFA nations met with President Donald Trump to “jointly reaffirm our interest in a free, open, and prosperous Indo-Pacific region,” as the White House said in a press release. “We recognize our unique, historic, and special relationships, and reaffirm our countries’ commitments to the Compacts of Free Association, resolving to continue our close cooperation in support of prosperity, security, and the rule of law.” It’s the first meeting between a U.S. president and island leaders. Hanging over the meeting was the fact that the compact expires in 2023, at which time financial aid to the COFA nations from Washington will cease. Treaty renegotiations are reported to be underway. Not coincidentally, the talks come as China is asserting its influence in the region. Bikini Atoll is part of the Republic of the Marshall Islands. The circular cuts in the reef in the upper left part of the atoll show how some nuclear tests evaporated land. On a related note, it was also reported this week that a giant concrete dome on Runit Island on Enewetak Atoll holding nuclear waste from the U.S. tests in the Marshalls is now cracked and leaking. That’s nothing new to many Marshallese, but the story is finally getting out to a greater audience. Like nearby Bikini, Enewetak was also subjected to the deadly tests. They were so powerful that maps show enormous circular blue scoops where explosions evaporated whole islands from the reef. This is part of our complicated, often tragic history in the Pacific. The FSM and Palau have their own long ties with America. I agree with what Mealoha Kraus says in her blog post: “I hope this land purchase helps to restore a feeling of stability to Kili Islanders, knowing that they have a home in these islands should they ever need it.” A screen shot of the front page of the May 3, 2019, Marshall Islands Journal shows how important the land purchase is: The post Chad Blair: Why Bikini Islanders Bought Land On The Big Island appeared first on Honolulu Civil Beat.');
document.write('</li>');
document.write('<li class="rss-item"><a class="rss-item" href="https://www.civilbeat.org/2019/05/why-are-there-so-many-candidates-for-president/" target="_self">Why Are There So Many Candidates For President?</a><br />');
document.write('<span class="rss-date">Wed, 22 May 2019 10:01:27 +0000</span><br />');
document.write('Seven Democratic presidential candidates gathered on national television early in the 1988 campaign to debate each other. The field of candidates, derided by Republicans as the “Seven Dwarfs,” pales in comparison to the 24 Democratic candidates who have – at last count – declared their candidacy for president. The seven Democrats on the stage in 1988 represented an unprecedented number of candidates vying in a presidential primary. Now, 17 of the 24 declared Democratic presidential candidates have currently met the standards set by the Democratic National Committee to qualify for participation in this election cycle’s debates. And in 2016 the GOP used two debate stages to accommodate the 17 declared candidates. I study political parties and their role in electoral politics. And I believe the rise in the number of presidential candidates in recent years results from divisions within the party coalitions and from easier access to vital campaign resources – money and media – that were not present in previous election cycles. Nine of the 17 Republican presidential candidates on stage with debate moderator Wolf Blitzer during the fifth Republican presidential debate on CNN, Dec. 15, 2015, in Las Vegas. AP/John Locher The Old Way Political parties are not monolithic organizations. Parties consist of a network of groups with different policy interests who work together. For example, within the Democratic Party there are labor organizations, environmentalists and civil rights groups, each with different priorities. Each group would ideally prefer a candidate who will champion their ideas and strongly support their policy preferences. But a primary filled with many candidates who attack one another risks harming the eventual nominee’s standing with voters. Likewise, these divisive primaries may cause supporters of a candidate who fails to win the nomination to withhold their support of the nominee. So to avoid the problems created by a divisive primary, these groups must coordinate behind a single candidate who may not be everyone’s – or anyone’s – first choice. This requires the groups within the party to compromise, subordinating their group’s interests in favor of a win for the party. In previous election cycles, where the average number of candidates who declared their candidacy and campaigned actively through the first primaries and caucuses was much smaller, these groups have worked together effectively to stand behind one candidate. Money, Media And Staff As my research shows, unified parties are able to discourage candidates from running or encourage them to drop out. They do this by making it difficult for the candidates they don’t prefer to acquire the vital electoral resources that are necessary to win the nomination: media coverage, campaign funds and quality campaign staff. Donors, staff and the media take cues from party elites about which candidates are the party’s choice. They are less likely to support, work for or cover those lacking the party’s support. Reforms to the presidential nomination process in the early 1970s took choosing a nominee out of smoke-filled back rooms. But parties have continued to influence the outcome through their control of the money and other campaign resources necessary to win the nomination. While these resources are available in abundance within the party network, they were previously harder to find outside of that network. In previous years, candidates who realized it would be hard to amass the necessary resources through party support ultimately declined to run or dropped out quickly, resulting in much smaller presidential fields. Declining Party Influence In recent years, things have changed. Parties may still have the ability to push a candidate through the nomination when they are united. But I believe party unification and power over electoral resources has also declined in these four areas: 1. Media control: In the past, candidates were reliant on the media to publicize their candidacy and get their message to voters. Party leaders and elites consistently have better connections with the media establishment and use those connections to promote preferred candidates. But today’s media environment allows candidates to bring their message directly to voters. Social media bypasses reporters and editors and those who have connections to them so more candidates have easier access to this key campaign resource. 2. Candidate ambitions: Before, running for president was almost entirely about advancing one’s political career. As Paul Tsongas, the former senator and presidential candidate, once said, “When you get to the Senate, half the people around you are running for president. You see them and you think you are just as good as they are…So you start to think about running yourself.” Now, a run for higher office can be a means to other opportunities outside of politics. Republican Sen. Rick Santorum, a presidential candidate in 2016 and 2012, became a pundit on CNN. Another candidate, the GOP’s 2008 vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin, ended up with a show on cable news. While parties still pressure candidates to withdraw, candidates may be less responsive than in the past. That’s because they care less about the desires of party elites since they may not be as interested in a career in party politics. Until recently, parties played a large role in choosing presidential nominees. Here, delegates to the Republican National Convention in Chicago, July 8, 1952. AP/William Smith 3. Fundraising: Changes in campaign finance have also helped candidates find sufficient money outside of the party network to launch their campaign. The rise of super PACs and other independent political entities has allowed candidates to gain access to large sums of money from a small number of donors. Campaign finance rules previously encouraged candidates to rely on a larger base of wealthy donors – many of whom took cues from party elites. At the same time, the internet and social media have also expanded the role of small donors who are not traditionally involved in party politics. Small dollar donations have taken a more important role in campaign funding. 4. Party disunity: Lastly, party coalitions have also become more divided. Divisions within the Republican Party coalition became more evident during the Tea Party movement. Similar ideological divisions have emerged in the last two election cycles between Democratic Party leaders and the more liberal wing of the Democratic Party. The rise of differences and divisions within the parties makes it harder for the groups within the party network to coordinate on a single candidate. Here To Stay While the number of candidates running for president in 2020 may be unprecedented, a crowded debate stage is unlikely to be a strange sight in the future. The divisions within parties and the availability of money and media coverage outside of the traditional party network mean that potential candidates will continue to see – and take – opportunities where previously they did not. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The post Why Are There So Many Candidates For President? appeared first on Honolulu Civil Beat.');
document.write('</li>');
document.write('<li class="rss-item"><a class="rss-item" href="https://www.civilbeat.org/2019/05/who-or-what-is-to-blame-for-the-death-of-sheldon-haleck/" target="_self">Who — Or What — Is To Blame For The Death Of Sheldon Haleck?</a><br />');
document.write('<span class="rss-date">Wed, 22 May 2019 10:01:21 +0000</span><br />');
document.write('By now, the circumstances of Sheldon Haleck’s death are well known. The question remains who’s to blame. Haleck, a former Hawaii Air National Guardsman, died March 17, 2015, after a violent struggle the night before with Honolulu police officers on South King Street in front of Iolani Palace. Police officers were called to the scene around 8 p.m., responded to a report of an unidentified man darting through traffic wearing dark clothes. The camera on an HPD Taser captured Sheldon Haleck with his hands up in the air shortly before being arrested in 2015.Honolulu Police Department When they arrived, they found Haleck acting erratically and refusing to leave the roadway. First they deployed their pepper spray, then they used their Tasers. By the time Haleck was handcuffed, subdued and shackled, he had stopped breathing. Related Articles Cory Lum/Civil Beat HPD Taser Case: Did Officers Follow Protocol When Sheldon Haleck Died? July 20, 2015 Honolulu Police Department WATCH: Taser Video Shows Final Minutes Before Sheldon Haleck Died in Police Custody June 30, 2015 Honolulu Police Department Autopsy: Honolulu Man Dies After ‘Violent Physical Struggle’ With Cops July 14, 2015 Opening statements are expected Wednesday in a federal civil trial in which Haleck’s family has accused three Honolulu police officers — Christopher Chung, Samantha Critchlow and Stephen Kardash — of using excessive force the night they tried to remove him from King Street. The officers, on the other hand, say they were just doing their jobs and that Haleck died because he was high on methamphetamine and had other underlying health issues. Ultimately, the case rests on a simple question: Who’s most responsible for Sheldon Haleck’s death — him or the cops who arrested him? Eric Seitz, the attorney representing Haleck’s family, said he didn’t want to talk about the specifics of the case on the eve of trial.  He did say, however, that the lengths the city has gone to defend itself are “unprecedented.” The fact that Haleck’s case has made it to trial is unique in itself, particularly in Honolulu, where such cases typically end with a cash settlement. For example, after Honolulu police officers killed Aaron Torres in 2012, city lawyers decided it was more prudent to pay out $1.4 million to Torres’ family than to argue the facts of the case in open court. The city paid out another $1 million settlement in 2017 in connection to the death of Stephen Dinnan. In that case, an HPD officer and off-duty firefighter mistook Dinnan for a truck thief. US Supreme Court Declined To Take Case One of the arguments the city made to try to get the Haleck case dismissed was that the officers were acting as “community caretakers” when they decided to pepper spray him and deploy their Tasers. The city has argued such force was necessary to protect public safety because Haleck was in the middle of a highly trafficked roadway. “The worst fear I have is that we lose this case and it emboldens the police to do more and it deters people from holding the police accountable.” — Eric Seitz When the argument didn’t succeed, city attorneys went to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and then the U.S. Supreme Court, which did not take up the case. Still, the fact that the city went to the nation’s highest court attracted outside attention, including from the National Association of Police Officers, the International Municipal Lawyers Association and the National Sheriffs’ Association. Together they filed a legal brief to the Supreme Court in support of the city’s argument. Seitz said the outside influence didn’t stop there. The city also plans to call as a witness a top official from the Taser company and other hired experts who will argue that Haleck died of a controversial malady known as “excited delirium.” “The worst fear I have,” Seitz said, “is that we lose this case and it emboldens the police to do more and it deters people from holding the police accountable.” Traci Morita, one of the city attorneys representing the officers in the case, declined to comment. What Is Excited Delirium? The official cause of Haleck’s death, according to an autopsy report, was “multiple metabolic and cardiac complications” following a physical altercation with police. The cause noted Haleck was also “acutely intoxicated” with methamphetamine. The medical examiner ruled his death a homicide, which was used as a medical classification, not proof of the officers’ intent to kill him. Another term  that came up in the autopsy — and is expected to be an issue during the trial — was “excited delirium.” The term refers to a syndrome associated with symptoms of agitation, manic excitement, increased pain tolerance and unusual strength, according to a white paper by the American College of Emergency Physicians. It is also often associated with drug abuse and mental illness. But the exact pathophysiology of the syndrome “remains unidentified,” the white paper also said. In fact, many medical organizations and manuals do not recognize it as an actual medical diagnosis, including the World Health Organization, American Medical Association and American Psychiatric Association. The term primarily appears in medical examiners’ reports, especially related to law enforcement situations. It’s often tied to restraint methods used by police. Media reports and lawsuits have also linked the syndrome to police incidents involving Tasers. The first official mention of excited delirium in the Haleck case came in his autopsy report, which was authored by Honolulu’s chief medical examiner, Dr. Christopher Happy. Eric Seitz represents the family of Sheldon Haleck in a lawsuit against three Honolulu police officers.Cory Lum/Civil Beat He discussed excited delirium in the autopsy report, but quickly dismissed it as an official cause of death. “Mr. Haleck displayed many of the signs and symptoms described in this syndrome,” Happy said. “However, there are currently no well established diagnostic criteria for this syndrome and the terminology represents a heterogeneous constellation of medical findings.” But the city has since hired outside experts in an effort to bolster the idea that Haleck died from excited delirium rather than his scuffle with police. Among the defense’s lineup of witnesses is Stacey Hail, a Texas-based emergency physician who has written about the relationship between electrical weapons and excited delirium. A co-author for that article was another witness in the trial, Mark Kroll, a director for Axon Enterprise, Inc., which was formerly known as TASER International. Another witness due to take the stand is John G. Peters, president of the Institute for the Prevention of In-Custody Deaths and certified Taser instructor. He’s participated in scientific studies on excited delirium and developed lesson plans used to train law enforcement on the syndrome. John Burton, a California-based attorney, says he’s all too familiar with this “cast of characters.” Haleck’s family contends the use of excessive force by three HPD officers led to his death. Haleck previously served in the Hawaii Air National Guard.Submitted Kroll and Peters have testified together in similar cases before, including recently in Omaha, Nebraska, in a felony assault case against a cop who tased a mentally ill man in 2017. “They’re sort of, in our field, a line-up of go-to guys for the defense,” Burton said. “We know what they’re going to say before they even say it.” Burton has worked on police-related death and injury cases for most of his 40-year career, and has encountered Kroll on the witness stand. He said Kroll, who Burton notes is not a medical doctor, has been a leading voice saying Tasers are harmless. Seitz tried to block excited delirium from being brought up during trial, saying in court filings “it has little scientific support and is typically raised as a defense by police officers when a person dies while in their custody.” When arguing this point in a proceeding this week, Seitz told U.S. District Court Judge Helen Gillmor, who’s presiding over the case, “What killed him was the interaction with police.” Morita, however, argued that his pre-existing conditions stemming from excited delirium cannot be ignored. “Haleck was on this continuum of excited delirium,” she said. Gillmor issued an order Tuesday denying Seitz’s attempts to block excited delirium and Kroll from testifying. The trial is expected to last about eight days. The post Who — Or What — Is To Blame For The Death Of Sheldon Haleck? appeared first on Honolulu Civil Beat.');
document.write('</li>');
document.write('<li class="rss-item"><a class="rss-item" href="https://www.civilbeat.org/2019/05/preservation-land-should-not-be-rezoned-for-profit/" target="_self">Preservation Land Should Not Be Rezoned For Profit</a><br />');
document.write('<span class="rss-date">Wed, 22 May 2019 10:01:16 +0000</span><br />');
document.write('At what point do we say enough is enough? In Windward Oahu, our communities are rising to reject unjust development at the county level, at Sherwoods in Waimanalo, and now in Puohala Village in Kaneohe. The message is the same: Our communities do not feel their interests are being represented in government, to the extent we must fend for ourselves to protect our homes, while balancing competing needs to survive in Hawaii. For half a century, nearly 4 acres of preservation land in Puohala remained untouched until now. A local land company is proposing to convert these lands, lands purchased at very low costs, into a gated residential community, a change many say would significantly alter the aging neighborhood. From the start, the community rejected the proposed development due to concerns over flooding, further damage to the ecosystem and increased traffic. Residents contend the lands are not safe because it is too wet. To respond, the Kaneohe Neighborhood Board passed a resolution to oppose it. But yet, the concerns of the board and these families were ignored. Almost 4 acres of preservation land in Kaneohe are at risk of development, according to the author. This is the view of the area from the end of Puohala Street.Kau\'i Pratt-Aquino To add insult to injury, this month, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend the approval of the rezone against the recommendations of the Department of Planning and Permitting to scale down the project, and despite over 300 signatures from residents in opposition. The application is now under consideration by the Zoning Committee of the City Council. The message from the community is clear: The City Council should not reward developers who purchase preservation land at cheap prices to turn a profit, and bully the community to force a rezone. It sets a dangerous precedent for Hawaii while our families struggle to make ends meet, to stay in Hawaii and purchase their own homes at market value. Preservation lands were zoned that way for a reason, to preserve those lands for the environment and residents of the county, not to be used as an opportunity to make a profit. To stop the attack on our communities and to save what we have, the City Council should reject the rezone for the people they swore to protect. The post Preservation Land Should Not Be Rezoned For Profit appeared first on Honolulu Civil Beat.');
document.write('</li>');
document.write('<li class="rss-item"><a class="rss-item" href="https://www.civilbeat.org/2019/05/theres-still-no-word-on-how-much-honolulu-rail-will-cost-to-ride/" target="_self">There’s Still No Word On How Much Honolulu Rail Will Cost —To Ride</a><br />');
document.write('<span class="rss-date">Wed, 22 May 2019 10:01:15 +0000</span><br />');
document.write('As rail officials race to get Honolulu’s elevated transit line ready for interim service late next year, the city is nowhere close to setting passenger fare rates. “We haven’t even had that discussion,” City Council Budget Chairman Joey Manahan said Tuesday. “It hasn’t really come up” other than in a few brief questions at a recent council committee meeting, he said. Still, fares are among the prime details that Oahu residents consistently ask about rail, alongside lingering concerns about the billions of dollars it’ll ultimately cost to build the system. Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation spokesman Bill Brennan says the top two questions he gets from the public are first, when will the system be ready, and second, how much will it cost to ride. The fare query is the only one Brennan doesn’t have an answer for, he said. “I feel bad because I have a lot of other answers to a lot of other questions,” he said Friday. Crews test one of Honolulu rail’s driverless trains on the elevated track above Farrington Highway in Waipahu.Cory Lum/Civil Beat To be sure, Brennan can’t give a bulletproof answer for when the system will be ready, either. HART currently aims to have rail ready for limited, interim service in December 2020 and to offer full service in December 2025. But it remains to be seen whether the agency will hit those dates following years of delays, as the project still faces plenty of challenges. Nonetheless, the city will have to make some key decisions ahead of the opening — not just how much the fare will be but also whether it will be a flat rate or distance-based. Officials also have to decide whether to set a cheaper price for the interim 10-mile service from the fields east of Kapolei to Aloha Stadium. Manahan said he can’t imagine the city would charge the same as for the full service to Ala Moana Center. City Council Ultimately Approves The Fares In 2016, Honolulu voters opted to move such operational decisions from HART, which now focuses solely on building the system, to the city’s Department of Transportation Services through a charter amendment. The setting of rail fares will start with recommendation to city leaders by the seven-member Rate Commission, which was created by the same charter amendment. The commission’s chairwoman, former DTS director Cheryl Soon, didn’t respond to requests for comment. However, the commission’s 2018 annual report stated that it plans to discuss rail fares this year after having spent most of last year hashing out recommendations to raise fares for TheBus and Handi-Van riders. “We expect to devote considerable time and effort into developing a package of policy guidance and rate particulars, including inter-modal transfers,” the report stated. Honolulu City Councilman Joey Manahan says rail will have to be “easy and seamless” for passengers to use if it’s to collect sufficient revenue.Cory Lum/Civil Beat Once the commission is done, DTS and the mayor’s office can make their own recommendations. Ultimately it rests on the City Council to adopt the fares — and Manahan said that could happen at any point prior to the interim opening. Brennan said his outreach team at HART will need to spend most of 2020 educating the public on how the system will work. “We really need to go full bore and make sure no questions are unanswered and everyone feels comfortable,” Brennan said Friday. The City Council is still trying to finalize fare increases for TheBus and Handi-Van users that incorporate recommendations from the Fare Commission and DTS, Manahan said. Those increases would be enacted via 2018’s Bill 77, and they would include raising TheBus’ current single fare from $2.75 to $3. They’ll be especially important since they’ll also set the table for rail’s eventual fares, Manahan said.  City officials are also testing a “Holo” smart-card with a limited pool of bus customers, and they aim to offer that option to ride rail, too. Notably, the Fare Commission’s 2018 report also states that the city’s plan “assumes a single fare for both rail and bus, and which inflates from current fare rates.” DTS officials weren’t available for comment Tuesday. The department’s former deputy director, Mark Garrity, is currently working as a consultant for the city as its “operations and maintenance interface manager,” helping to get DTS ready for rail. Since he’s a consultant he’s not authorized to speak to the media on the record, according to Honolulu Mayor Kirk Caldwell’s office. Clues On Fares Buried In The Budget For now, the public must rely on HART’s future rail operations budget, part of its federally submitted recovery plan for the project, for hints on what the fares might look like. According to that plan, the city doesn’t expect to collect much fare revenue from passengers during its initial service going as far as Aloha Stadium. The city expects to take in just $3 million in rail fare revenue during its first full year of interim service.  Rail will rely on healthy ridership to help recover about a third of operational costs. Longtime critic Panos Prevedouros remains skeptical of the city’s ridership projections, however.Cory Lum/Civil Beat Once the full 20-mile rail line opens, however, those revenues are expected to jump to $40 million. That’s based on an official projection of more than 120,000 daily rides. The costs to operate are expected to hit $127 million that year. The plan further shows that future rail fares, combined with bus fares, will  cover from 27% to 33% of those systems’ total operating expenses. That’s the range set under the city’s longtime “fare box recovery” policy, which city leaders use to set bus fares. Not everyone is as bullish on the city’s projected ridership numbers, however. Panos Prevedouros, the chair of the University of Hawaii’s engineering department and a longtime outspoken critic, believes the system will attract about half of the 120,000 projected daily rides. To recover about 30% of costs through fares, the city will have to make the system “easy and seamless” to use between bus and rail, Manahan said.   The post There’s Still No Word On How Much Honolulu Rail Will Cost —To Ride appeared first on Honolulu Civil Beat.');
document.write('</li>');
document.write('</ul></div>');