This is part of a series of stories examining the decision to build a rail transit line in Honolulu.

• Overview
• Honolulu Hale’s view
• Opposing view from Cliff Slater
• The Rail Divide 鈥� Part 1: City Claims Evaluated
• The Rail Divide 鈥� Part 1: Slater Claims Evaluated
• The Rail Divide 鈥� Part 2: Slater Claims Evaluated
• The Rail Divide 鈥� Part 2: City Claims Evaluated
• The Rail Divide 鈥� Part 3: Slater Claims Evaluated
• The Rail Divide 鈥� Part 3: City Claims Evaluated

Cliff Slater’s claim: The city did not attempt to provide facilities to reduce traffic congestion at the downtown Honolulu terminus of the Managed Lane Alternative.

The city’s Alternatives Analysis says significant congestion is projected where the Managed Lanes connect to Nimitz Highway near Dole Cannery in Iwilei.

鈥淣imitz Highway is already projected to be over capacity at this point, and the addition of high volumes of traffic exiting and entering the managed lanes would create increased congestion and high levels of delay for all vehicles using the facility, including buses. Hence, much of the time saved on the managed lane itself would be negated by the time spent in congestion leading up to the managed lane as well as exiting the lanes at their Downtown terminus.鈥�

The analysis notes the alternative would improve travel times for some areas that are well served by the Managed Lanes such as the Waipahu Transit Center to Downtown or Mililani to Downtown. But it has 鈥渟ignificant limitations with regard to improving travel times or transit service for a broader customer base.鈥�

Slater contends the congestion would not occur if there had been better designs employed for the entry and exit ramps. He cites research by Prevedouros.

Prevedouros wrote a letter to the Federal Transit Administration complaining the Managed Lanes alternatives was under-engineered. The professor鈥檚 studies show 鈥渨ith properly designed ramps traffic congestion can be reduced and excessive traffic congestion would not occur even during peak-hour traffic,鈥� wrote Slater in a position paper.

Slater claims that the city is required to consider avoidance of historic properties, including burial grounds during its Alternatives Analysis stage.

Slater believes there wasn鈥檛 full compliance with this requirement and cites as his proof a letter from the National Trust for Historic Preservation to the Federal Transit Administration.

He says the law, Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966, requires projects be evaluated in the alternatives analysis stage. The law protects historic sites from acquisition and conversion to transportation use.

The October 2009 letter from the Washington-based trust says it was 鈥渆xtremely concerned鈥� the city wasn鈥檛 undertaking a detailed identification of historic properties within the Middle Street to Ala Moana Center phase of the Rail Transit project given the area has a high concentration of unmarked burials of Native Hawaiians.

The Oahu Island Burial Council has also said an archaeological inventory survey should have been conducted before selection of a Kakaako route. The city does note the current route will almost certainly encounter buried human remains, which could delay the project and drive up costs.

It has agreed to do an archaeological inventory survey two years earlier than planned.

The Final EIS also acknowledges the potential for finding the burials, noting areas along Dillingham Boulevard, Downtown Honolulu and Kakaako have a high potential for finding burials and other historic resources.

The city has adopted a phased approach to building and says an archaeological survey will be done prior to the final design and construction of each phase.

City officials have maintained that their approach to identifying historic properties and burial grounds has been within regulations. The city’s phased approach is being reviewed by the state.