Why Are Public Works Projects Like The Honolulu Rail Project

Why are public works projects like the Honolulu Rail project nearly impossible to stop once they have been approved, even if later cost estimates skyrocket?

Public works projects such as the Honolulu Rail project often become nearly unstoppable after initial approval due to a combination of psychological, political, financial, and bureaucratic factors. Once a project gains official endorsement and begins receiving funding, stakeholders frequently develop a vested interest in its continuation, making cancellation politically and economically challenging. Additionally, sunk cost fallacy, political commitments, and public expectations contribute to the difficulty of halting such projects, even amid escalating costs and evident shortcomings.

One of the primary reasons such projects become entrenched is the phenomenon of the sunk cost fallacy. Once significant resources—financial, political, and social—have been committed, decision-makers tend to justify continued investment by overemphasizing previous expenditures rather than current and future costs and benefits. This cognitive bias discourages cancellation because stakeholders perceive abandoning the project as a loss, despite mounting evidence of inefficiency or cost overruns (Arkes & Blumer, 1985). In the case of Honolulu, initial funding, political support, and public approval provided a foundation that made it difficult for officials to justify stopping the project, even as costs ballooned from an estimated $4.6 billion to over $10 billion.

Furthermore, political and bureaucratic dynamics play a crucial role. Once projects like the Honolulu Rail project receive political endorsements, canceling them can be perceived as a failure of leadership or poor planning, risking political repercussions. Leaders and stakeholders who have invested substantial time, effort, and political capital may resist project termination to avoid blame or loss of credibility (Flyvbjerg, 2005). Bureaucratic inertia and contractual commitments can also lock in ongoing expenditures, preventing even the recognition of the project's impracticality. As a result, both public and private entities involved in large infrastructure projects often find themselves compelled to proceed, despite catastrophic budget projections.

Economic and social commitments further cement project continuation. For example, local governments often implement policies—such as taxes or regulatory measures—that assume project completion and emphasize economic development or social benefits. The perceived risk of political fallout and public backlash may deter officials from halting projects, especially in highly visible, politicized environments like Honolulu, where public opinion polls are unfavorable yet efforts to cancel or modify the project face resistance due to prior commitments and stakeholder interests.

How might “delusion” be a cause of ballooning budgets in this project?

“Delusion” in project management refers to the cognitive bias where project stakeholders persistently underestimate costs, overestimate benefits, and dismiss risks—often due to overconfidence or wishful thinking. In the Honolulu Rail project, delusion manifests through overly optimistic initial cost estimates, underappreciation of technical complexities, and an underestimation of environmental and social impacts. These delusions lead to planning that does not accurately reflect the realities of construction, logistics, or economic conditions, thereby inflating costs once the project progresses (Flyvbjerg, 2017).

For instance, early estimates for the Honolulu project were made during times of economic downturn and uncertainty, which led to artificially low initial bids and projections. As the economic landscape changed and delays accumulated, the project’s costs were dramatically revised upward. The optimistic assumptions during initial planning created a false sense of affordability, prompting continued investment despite evidence of cost escalation. This cognitive bias fosters a disconnect between projected and actual costs, prolonging delays and increasing expenditures, as stakeholders cling to the belief that costs will stabilize or decrease, which rarely occurs in reality.

How does “deception” affect the final project budget overruns?

“Deception” in project management involves deliberate misrepresentation of facts, figures, or intentions to influence stakeholders' perceptions and decisions. In large infrastructure projects like Honolulu’s rail system, deception manifests when project advocates intentionally downplay potential costs, environmental impacts, or technical challenges to secure approvals and funding. Such strategic misinformation creates a false narrative that the project is more feasible and affordable than it truly is (Clegg et al., 2017).

This deceitful practice can significantly distort the project’s financial trajectory. By misrepresenting costs or overhyping benefits, project proponents may secure funding based on overly optimistic or fabricated data. When actual costs reveal the true extent of funding required, the overruns are often far worse than publicly acknowledged estimates, leading to budget crises and loss of public trust. Deception also hampers effective risk management because it prevents realistic assessment and contingency planning, leaving stakeholders unprepared for inevitable overruns and delays.

In Honolulu, accusations of deliberately low-balling initial estimates suggest that deception played a role in setting the stage for dramatic budget overruns. The strategic underselling of costs helped proponents gain political support, but it also laid the groundwork for subsequent financial crises once the true costs surfaced. Strategies of deception, while often intended to facilitate project approval, ultimately undermine financial integrity and stakeholder confidence, intensifying overruns and project failures.

Conclusion

Large-scale public works projects like Honolulu’s rail system tend to become almost impossible to halt after approval due to psychological biases, political commitments, bureaucratic inertia, and sunk costs. Delusional optimism fosters unrealistic cost estimates, encouraging continued expenditure based on overconfidence and wishful thinking. Meanwhile, deliberate deception by project advocates during the planning phase misleads stakeholders, leading to underestimations that become apparent only as the project progresses, resulting in significant budget overruns. Addressing these issues requires transparent estimation practices, realistic risk assessments, and mechanisms for independent oversight to prevent cognitive biases and strategic misinformation from driving projects toward financial calamity.

References

• Arkes, H. R., & Blumer, C. (1985). The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35(1), 124–140.
• Flyvbjerg, B. (2005). Design by deception: The case of megaprojects. Thresholds in Planning, 31, 120-23.
• Flyvbjerg, B. (2017). The Oxford Introduction to Large-Scale Planning. Oxford University Press.
• Clegg, S. R., et al. (2017). Strategic management and deception: On the ethics of information manipulation. Journal of Business Ethics, 146(2), 229–246.
• Flyvbjerg, B. (2017). The all-too-human side of planning: Bias, overconfidence, and delusion. Planning Theory & Practice, 18(4), 467-479.
• Morledge, R., Smith, A., & Kashiwagi, D. (2013). Building procurement. John Wiley & Sons.
• Magnusson, P. R., & Turner, R. (2013). Resisting the urge to cut corners: Leadership and integrity in project management. International Journal of Project Management, 31(7), 974–985.
• Olander, S., & Landin, A. (2005). Evaluation of project stakeholder management. International Journal of Project Management, 23(4), 319–326.
• Thompson, J. B. (2012). Critical discourse analysis. Macmillan International Higher Education.
• Frooman, J. M. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 191–205.