Recent developments in the city's efforts to build a new transit system for Honolulu bode well for the implementation of a new transportation alternative for Honolulu. The fact that so many vendors with a wide array of technologies have expressed interest is a positive sign. Yet for us to move forward on this multibillion-dollar endeavor, there needs to be clarity as to the goals and objectives for the project and articulation of the criteria used to evaluate these alternative technologies.

Indeed, I remain hopeful that there will be effective deliberation as to the pros and cons as well as the costs and benefits of the competing technologies.

This should be an exciting, albeit challenging endeavor.

In addition to the obvious goal of building a rapid-transit system, capable of quickly and safely transporting thousands of people per hour, it seems that we should also be striving to build a system that will serve us for the next 50 to 100 years. As such, we should adopt a more long-term perspective in terms of this major capital investment.

We should also be looking at serving not just future generations, but also those currently underserved by our transportation system. The opportunity to greatly enhance the mobility and access to transportation services for people without cars, transit-dependent populations, people with disabilities and others who want options to driving or commuting by car should be a foremost consideration in selecting a technology for Honolulu.

We also need to select a system that can compete effectively with existing modes in terms of trip duration, reliability, ease of use and cost. There are at least five main criteria that should be considered in the selection of a new system.

1. Proven technology. We don't want Honolulu to be the test site for some newfangled gizmo that hasn't been proven as a safe, reliable system. We don't need and can't afford to invest in a system that hasn't been built yet, that's still on the drawing boards, and that still needs all the kinks and bugs worked out. There are horror stories of parts of elevated systems falling off or components of systems that never worked as intended.

We need to see the system in operation, not just on a test track, but actually implemented and up and running in a comparable city where the human and environmental factors have been tested in actual service. The growth in ridership depends on the reliability of service. There are so many different aspects — from traction and control, power systems and electrification, vehicle design, communications, guideway and station construction, fare collection, security, and so forth, that it is best to go with proven technology.

2. Cost of operations and maintenance. While many have focused on the capital costs — which are critical — we also need to pay close attention to the operating and maintenance costs of these different technologies. There are trade-offs between steel- and rubber-tired systems, between automated and driver-controlled systems, between systems that operate on an exclusive guideway that reduces the risk of collision with other vehicles and other disruptions.

Here's where technology and prudent design can also serve to reduce costs of operation.

Given our remote location, we should also be reviewing the service and maintenance records of the various competing technologies.

3. Expandability and flexibility. One of the worst things we can do is sell ourselves short. The new system must be easily expandable and flexible as our conditions and needs change. We should be able to add more trains and vehicles as the need arises. As our population continues to grow, we should be able to add stations and then lines as the demand for transit increases. We should be planning for a system that has surplus capacity, so that as fuel prices rise and more people switch from driving to transit and as others discover the benefits of travel by train, there will be room for expansion.

In most cities with a successful transit system, patterns of land use adjust over time so that there is greater density — and riders — located around stations.

4. Integration with other travel modes. The technology should allow for integration with other travel modes — pedestrian, bike, bus, ferry, paratransit, taxi, car/vanpool, drop-off lots (kiss/ride), commuter parking lots and other transportation systems. We need integrated fare systems, cooperation and coordination with other transport providers, and technologies that allow for ease of transfer between transportation modes.

We should insist on technology that can be fully integrated with the complete mix of transportation alternatives as part of an overall system of moving people efficiently throughout the island.

5. Environmental Considerations. While an electric transit system has obvious environmental advantages over fossil fuel burning automobiles, the new system should also be one that is both environmentally sensitive as well aesthetically pleasing in our community, which places such a high premium on the natural environment.

Issues such as noise, vibration, as well as the visual impacts of guideways, stations, power systems, and other aspects of transit technology need to be taken seriously in the selection process. The environmental concerns relate not just to the operations, but also to repair and maintenance, disposal and/or recycling of components.

As the city moves forward on the deliberation and selection of a new transit system for the 21st century and beyond, let us hope that not only is there more public disclosure of the criteria and basis for picking a technology, but also that we end up buying, building and owning a system we can all be proud of.

Karl Kim, Ph.D., is professor and chair of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Hawai'i. He wrote this commentary for The Advertiser.