The Rail Divide — Part 1: City Claims Evaluated
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 — Part 1: Slater Claims Evaluated
The city’s response revolved around three major points: The selection of rail transit was done through a detailed process, that all alternatives received a reasonable amount of consideration and the Managed Lane alternative preferred by Cliff Slater was inferior to rail transit on many counts.
The selection of a Fixed Guideway (Rail Transit) resulted from a rigorous process.
Mass transit projects for Honolulu have been considered for at least four decades, with a 1980 EIS for an 8.4-mile project from Honolulu Airport to the University of Hawaii promoting a Fixed Guideway (Rail Transit) solution over other alternatives.
In 1992, a second Environmental Impact Statement was issued, this one for a Fixed Guideway system running 15.9 miles from Waiawa to Downtown Honolulu. Other alternatives considered and rejected during that process were Do Nothing and Transportation System Management (enhancement of bus service and other improvements).
The current project’s planning and evaluation went through a series of public hearings and analysis.
This included:
Dec. 7. 2005 – The Federal Transit Administration and the Honolulu Department of Transportation Services issue notice of intent to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Alternatives Analysis for High-Capacity Transit Improvements. The notice said at least four alternatives would be studied – Doing Nothing; Transportation System Management, Managed Lanes and Rail Transit.
April 2006 – A “scoping” report is released based on public and agency comments on a possible transit project. “Scoping meetings” were held in Honolulu and Kapolei for discussion and taking of comments from individuals, organizations and businesses.
April 2006 — The Oahu Regional Transportation Plan 2030 is published by the Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization, commonly known as OMPO. It is a federally mandated organization that is responsible for coordinating transportation planning on Oahu. The report says traffic congestion will increase by 2030 as the population increases by 240,000. Its transportation plan includes the building of a Kapolei-to-Manoa/Waikiki rail transit system.
October 2006 – The Alternatives Analysis review conducted by the city is published. It compares various alternatives in terms of cost, benefits and impacts and identified the Fixed Guideway as the most cost-effective solution. The Honolulu City Council used the report’s findings to get further input during hearings on the selection of a preferred alternative.
December 2006 – The City Council Transit Advisory Task force issues a report saying it found the Alternatives Analysis was presented fairly and accurately. It notes that different variations of the Managed Lane alternative might make it more attractive or feasible than the version that was considered.
May 2007 – A report on public and agency input on the project, including alternatives to be considered and environmental and community impacts, is prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff.
November 2008 – A Draft Environmental Impact Statement is circulated for public comment. The document covered various aspects of the Rail Transit project, including environmental impacts, potential effects on parks and historic planes and funding sources.
June 2010 – Final EIS is issued.
As can be seen from the above, the project went through a lengthy process.
But Slater contends the process, while extensive, was biased toward a Rail Transit project. He says analysts inflated construction costs for the Managed Lane alternatives, improperly designed ramps near Downtown Honolulu that resulted in more traffic congestion and padded operating costs with more buses and parking spaces than were needed.
More analysis tomorrow in Part 2.
