This could be something that would take time, people would have to get used to the idea of not having their car. That being said, over time I do think people will get used to a rail system. The ever increasing cost of parking, ever increasing traffic, increasing fuel prices, etc will make the rail more attractive. I would also contend that many will see a reduced commute time rather than an increased commute time as you suggest. Also that commute time can be used to do things such as study, read, sleep, crochet, etc. When I lived in Japan I had ditch my luxuries of driving everywhere I wanted and taking the train system. I didn't immediately like having to walk everywhere but I got used to it over time. I am not saying it will be an easy sell or that we will see instant results, but when it grows on people I think they will begin to accept and even like it.
Consider also the benefit of a possible reduction in drunk drivers. I can go home wasted without putting anyone in danger at a fraction the cost of a taxi.
How did people live without cell phones 30 years ago? They managed. I would point back to my experiences in Japan to answer your question. They still face the same issues you raise but they decide to take the train. Ditto on your issue about national emergencies.
Now this is not to say everyone would sell all their cars. In Japan many families own 1 car and use it on occasions where a train just wouldn't work.
Sooner or later traffic and parking will be so bad that no one will want to drive. But at that point, building a rail system will be a lot harder and more expensive to build.
How is this any different than when fatality occurs or some guy with a crane on a truck takes out an overpass?
I live Kaneohe so I won't get any direct benefit, however I do believe that rush hour commute into town will be less for me given that I won't be merging into as much traffic on the town side. The bus system in Mililani is pretty decent, most residences do not have a long walk to a bus stop. They would have to catch a bus that goes down to a station along the rail line. It may be hard to imagine but it does end up making sense.
I personally could foresee this just being the beginning of a larger rail system, one that goes up through central Oahu and also serves Waikiki and UH.
I am intrigued by your past living in Japan, which probably adds to your unwavering hope in seeing the rail succeed. I just came back from a 1 week tour of Tokyo and surrounding areas, my first,
loved it, never used the metro though, we traveled to the tourist spots by bus/motor coach, in comfort. I very much want to go back as a tourist, i looked up living expenses in Japan earlier today to entertain the thought of moving there and working as an English teacher, let's just say, not gonna happen, at least for now, the high quality of living there comes at a hefty price in dollars and time.
Anywho, the interconnected-ness of Japan's rail system was decades in the making, and it was the result I believe of necessity. Tokyo itself is a very large metropolitan area. Tokyo proper, I would venture to estimate, is probably larger than Oahu itself, with a much higher population and density. Their rail system benefits from their way of life: they maintain extreme cleanliness and a grand sense of respect for public space, a level that nowhere in US could ever be compared to. Their rail system benefits from this.
However it is completely imprudent to assume that our rail system will be anywhere near as safe, clean, and free of vulgarians as Japan's.
Oahu's infrastructure is rooted in roadways. You are saying that the existence of the rail will somehow cause people to change behavior, particularly their use of vehicles, over a course of several decades. This is so farfetched an idea. If that was the case then some of the rail's budget should have went towards changing people's behavior today, like incentives to use the bus, or maybe even expanding the bus system, which as you've said, works well, I very much agree. I have also suggested expansion of the bus system previously in another topic. I think our bus system is good, now. But if we invested just a fraction of the rail's cost, say $1 billion, the bus system could alleviate traffic more than the rail ever could. Currently the my closest bus stop is a 15 minute walk from my house, literally up a hill, down a dirty roadway with a shoddy sidewalk, and through a strip mall (Salt Lake shopping center), and an up to 20 minute wait for my #3 bus just to get on it. walking up that damn hill on my way home is a PITA albeit good exercise. But, if there was a bus stop at the edge of my cul de sac, and if my #3 was "garaunteed" to pass by, with the same reliability of Tokyo's metro timing, every >15 minutes, I would gladly keep my Toyota Camry Hybrid in the garage and opt to use the bus. But its not, and the #3 which services Kaimuki all the way Salt Lake (a 14 mile route one way) is ALWAYS packed with Salt Lakers who live in the Salt Lake's "corridor of condominiums." If they added a mere 3 more buses to the #3 route during peak traffic times I would consider using the bus sometimes, but no, they stingy. To compare, the #1 route which services mainly a large loop around downtown Honolulu is garaunteed to pass by any of its stops every 10 minutes, much more convenient and reliable.
Most of today's taxpayers will not be here 30, 40 years from now to see the transformation, to see if there is a benefit or to see if their investment was a huge waste of money. There are so many unanswered questions, so many what if's and maybe's that this project should have never been initiated. A project of this magnitude should have taken a decade of analysis to prove that it would benefit Hawaii's society, that analysis never happened.
As I said, the questions, the if's and's and but's that were overlooked, that never succumbed to scientific dissertion is evidence that the decision was made by a few, and without proper analysis. A successful project is not one that has half-assed beginnings that requires bandages over the next decades to make work. Japan's rails weren't built half ass, they were carefully planned, every single expense.
On a side note, interestingly the H3 costed $80 million per mile to construct (top speed 80 mph), and it has duality of purpose: to transport people quickly from East to West and, like the rest of the United State's vast interstate system, to the connect military bases. The maglev bullet train in Japan costed $1 billion per mile to construct (regular speed ~260 mph). So we are looking at a figure somewhere between $80 million to $1 billion per mile for the HART. Which do you think will it end up being closer to?