ÌìÃÀÊÓƵ

Mayor Peter Carlisle made it essentially his first order of business to fly off to Washington to meet with federal transportation officials regarding the rail project he inherited.

As much as former Mayor Mufi Hannemann might have wanted to make the $5.5 billion, 20-mile line from Kapolei to Ala Moana a done deal, questions continue to linger over its financial viability and whether it’s the best way to reduce congestion and improve commuting in Honolulu.

Civil Beat just ran a four-part series — The Rail Divide — on whether the process that culminated in the current city proposal adequately evaluated what would be the most cost-effective transit solution to best serve the largest number of people.

Veteran Honolulu reporter Greg Wiles subjected the responses of Honolulu Hale and project opponent Cliff Slater to rigorous scrutiny.

You can read his analysis here.

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

Our second question was also fundamental: What are the five best reasons to support or oppose the project.

Today, we’re publishing the responses in full. Read Slater’s response and Honolulu Hale’s response.

But we’re going to take a different route in fact checking the claims. We’re going to ask you to help, something known as crowdsourcing.

We hope some of you will subject their writing to scrutiny and share with your fellow readers your findings. In any event, given the level of debate still swirling about the project, we believe it may be useful for you to hear directly from the proponent and key opponent so you can make up your own mind.

Summary of the City and County’s response: The city’s main arguments are that rail is needed to relieve congested roads and freeways, and, the public wants it. The project is supported by more than 40 local business, labor, media and community organizations.

Summary of Cliff Slater’s response: The five best reasons to oppose the project are a) the Final EIS is not credible, b) the elevated railway costs are too high for a city our size, c) a lack of benefits accruing from it, d) the visual and noise blight that would result, and e) building rail precludes spending on other alternatives.