Civil Beat states the obvious in Part I: 鈥淩ail planners initially put the line too close to the airport and ultimately had to move it.鈥� The bottom line in Part II is equally obvious: 鈥渦ltimately the responsibility for ensuring compliance with federal guidelines belongs to the city, and by extension, its consultants.鈥� In Part III, Civil Beat concedes the possibility that someone made a 鈥渕istake鈥� (the scare quotes are Civil Beat鈥檚, not ours), but Civil Beat assures readers that the cost of fixing it is immaterial.¹

We have come to expect Civil Beat to carry water for the city on rail issues, but this is the first time Civil Beat has argued that the city has been too hard on itself: 鈥渆ven the city [has] overstated the financial consequences [of the alleged mistake].鈥�

Nowhere in its 4,765-word series does Civil Beat address the conflict of interests involving Parsons Brinckerhoff, InfraConsult and Yoshioka, or express concern that the city has flatly refused to investigate the airport-routing misstep.

Civil Beat claims to have conducted its own investigation, but that included asking potentially liable parties whether they made a mistake.

Civil Beat also claims we said that Parsons Brinckerhoff and InfraConsult should bear the cost of fixing the mistake, which isn鈥檛 true. Here鈥檚 what we wrote: 鈥淚f the project manager or any other consultant is found to have been negligent, that party or parties 鈥� rather than Honolulu taxpayers 鈥� should be held accountable for the financial consequences of their negligence.鈥�

Finally, Civil Beat claims that we attributed Yoshioka鈥檚 failure to identify a responsible party to close relationships with two of the city’s main rail contractors. If Civil Beat had simply linked to our one-page public statement² or quoted what we actually said, readers would see for themselves that we made no such claim.

Civil Beat鈥檚 coverage of rail and of our statements about rail has consistently been biased and substandard. The series on the airport-routing problem is the final straw for us. We have come to view Civil Beat as little more than an over-priced blog with a pro-rail hidden agenda.

About the authors: Ben Cayetano, Walter Heen, Randall Roth and Cliff Slater have filed a federal lawsuit against Honolulu’s rail project.

The post Civil Beat’s News Coverage of Rail is Substandard appeared first on 天美视频.

Civil Beat judged our statements as half true. We stand by our statements.

Civil Beat took an early wrong turn when it decided to separate the projected subsidy for TheBus and TheTrain into two separate numbers. This made no sense in light of the City鈥檚 plan to integrate the two systems and use a unified fare structure.¹ Once someone bought a Bus/Rail pass, no one would know whether that person was using it to ride the bus, the train, both, or neither.

Similarly, today鈥檚 bus operating and maintenance costs cannot meaningfully be compared with projected bus operating costs in an integrated system. If rail is built, the bus system will be turned upside down: Virtually all long-haul express bus routes would be eliminated and other routes reconfigured to feed the train.²

Of course, the exact amount of the additional subsidy for the integrated system is unknowable at this time, but $100 million is a conservative estimate. The City says the increase in the first full year of their joint operation would be $119 million, and even that number assumes that actual ridership will not fall below the projections. The evidence suggests that the City鈥檚 projections are overly optimistic.

The City assumes that public transportation trips will increase from 6.0 percent of all trips to 7.4 percent, if rail is built. That would be a 23 percent increase in market share. Yet the percentage of the U.S. population using transit actually declined significantly between 1980 and 2000.³

U.S. Census data show that no U.S. metro area with rail experienced an increase in the percentage of commuters using transit during that 20-year period, which was when most of the nation鈥檚 new rail lines were built.⁴

The latest Federal Transit Administration survey of forecast vs. actual rail transit ridership shows that actual rail ridership averaged 41 percent less than what had been forecast. The only heavy rail⁵ lines listed in this survey were BART鈥檚 San Francisco Airport extension to Daly City and the Tren Urbano in San Juan. These achieved ridership less than half of what they had forecast.⁶

The city relies on federal funding for the costs of replacement buses each year, and it intends to use $244 million of this funding between 2013 and 2019 to build the rail line.⁷ In other words, the city would be taking what normally are federal bus funds to use for rail construction, and then substituting General Funds to pay for new buses. The city would probably do that more directly if it were clearly legal to use General Funds for rail construction.

If anyone who thinks we are being too skeptical of the City鈥檚 numbers, here鈥檚 what the Federal Transportation Administration Oversight Contractor wrote about the City鈥檚 financial plan:

“The cost estimates/planning assumptions/financial capacity sub-factor is rated Medium-Low. Several observations support this rating. First, it is questionable whether the City can afford the growth in subsidies presented in this financial plan, which require a higher portion of the General Fund and Highway Fund revenues than has historically been the case. Second, the subsidies could be yet higher due to optimistic assumptions regarding operating cost growth for all services. Third, the projected cash balances of the Public Transportation System Fund, inferred from current cash plus investments and the forecasted balanced budget, fall below the 1.5 month standard (12 percent of operating costs) that would be needed to support a higher rating. Finally, there is some prospect that the Project’s O&M costs could be understated, based on a comparison to heavy rail and light rail operations in the U.S.”⁸

Civil Beat simply assumed the City鈥檚 numbers to be accurate, including wildly optimistic projections. We don鈥檛 know if that reflects incompetence or bias.

1. “A unified fare structure is planned, similar to the current structure for TheBus鈥� (FEIS, p. 2-30)

2. “Bus routes eliminated: Transit service will be improved through local bus routes and pedestrian and bicycle access to guideway stations, resulting in an increased transit share of total trips (particularly for work-related trips).” (FEIS, p. S-6). Some bus routes will be reconfigured to bring riders on local buses to nearby fixed guideway transit stations. Service on duplicative routes will be reduced as the service is replaced by the fixed guideway system. 2 To support this system, the bus fleet will be increased in 2030 (Table 2-5). Appendix D, Bus Transit Routes, details future transit routes.” (FEIS, p. 2-24)

3. These two facts are true for the nation as a whole and virtually every metro area in the country 鈥� including Honolulu 鈥� and can be easily verified in the chart below and the sources of data.锟�

A double check on that is that of transit boardings 9.4 billion in 2000 to 10.2 billion in 2010, an increase of 8.5 percent while urban populations have growing at twice than rate. and

The U.S. Urban population total was 125.649 million in 1960, growing to 222.353 million in 2000, an increase of 77 percent, while transit boardings remained flat. In the last ten years boardings increased by 9 percent while urban populations whose data is not yet available appeared to be still growing at the faster rate.

Nationally, we can check the census data since 1960 for the percentage of people using public transportation to commute. It has declined steadily from 12.6 percent in 1960 to 4.7 percent in 2000 and judging from preliminary American Community Surveys seems certain to decline once again in 2010 once that data becomes available. The same holds true for the use of public transportation in general.

4. The sole exception was San Diego, which eked out an increase from 3.3 percent to 3.4 percent

5. “The City has referred to the mode as a ‘Light Metro’ vehicle. However, the vehicles can be described as automated short heavy rail vehicles with a tight turning radius. For the purposes of this Spot Report, including the transit capacity analyses, the vehicles are identified as a 鈥榟eavy rail鈥� vehicle, which corresponds with the modal technology identified in the Standard Cost Category (SCC) workbook estimate provided by the City.” FTA鈥檚 PMOC Report, January 2009.

6.

7. Source Page I.

8. FMOC Report

The post Civil Beat Underestimates The City’s Cost For Rail appeared first on 天美视频.

Civil Beat can take pride in knowing it is the first news outlet to explain fully to its readers why the City鈥檚 proposed heavy rail system will not reduce current levels of traffic congestion. It comes more than a year after the City admitted in the EIS that 鈥渢raffic congestion will be worse in the future with rail than it is today without rail,鈥� but late is better than never.

In analyzing our charge that the City misled the public by creating the impression that rail would reduce traffic congestion from current levels, Civil Beat went to extraordinary lengths trying to convince its readers we were wrong. Civil Beat argued that although City officials and an official City brochure repeatedly used phrases like 鈥渞educe traffic congestion鈥� and 鈥渁lleviate traffic congestion,鈥� no one from the City ever said publicly that rail would reduce traffic congestion from current levels.

Nevertheless, Civil Beat admitted that headlines can be misleading and used as an example the City鈥檚 8-page color brochure with the headline, 鈥淗ow does rail help reduce traffic congestion?鈥� 鈥淚t鈥檚 true,鈥� Civil Beat wrote, 鈥渢hat if people didn鈥檛 read any further (than the headline) they might have been left with the impression that traffic congestion would be reduced from today鈥檚 levels 鈥� but the text below the headline makes clear that the city is talking about future congestion.鈥�

The problem, of course, is that many people read headlines of brochures and never get to the fine print. The public expects the City to be candid and transparent in promoting any government project. This particular headline helped reinforce the impression that rail would 鈥渉elp to reduce traffic congestion鈥� from current levels.

This thought finds support in a 2009 Honolulu Advertiser poll which asked people to respond to the following statement: 鈥淲e need a light rail system in order to reduce traffic congestion and commute times along H-1.鈥� An overwhelming 73% of the respondents agreed with the statement, which strongly suggests that they viewed rail as a solution to reducing the current level of traffic congestion.

How many of the 73% were aware that traffic congestion would get worse even if rail were to be built? Very few we suspect. Surely DTS Director Wayne Yoshioka and Mayor Mufi Hannemann knew. Yet when asked about this issue, both Yoshioka and Hannemann dodged the question and even accused the questioners of trying to confuse the issue.

We will spare Civil Beat readers from our own long list of misleading quotes from Hannemann and City officials. However, we submit two very important quotes ignored by Civil Beat, one by Hannemann the other by Yoshioka, that show how they tried to obfuscate the issue:

(1) When asked about the statement 鈥淭丑别 City admits future traffic congestion will be worse with rail than it is today,鈥� Yoshioka 鈥� described by several city council members as 鈥渧isibly upset” 鈥� replied:

鈥淭his is a cleverly crafted statement that knowingly uses only part of the information available. The Alternative Analysis shows that a fixed guideway will reduce future traffic congestion between Kapolei and Honolulu by 11 percent.鈥�

Yoshioka was not being asked about the Alternative Analysis. His non-responsive answer only obfuscated the issue.

(2) During the 2008 Mayoral debate before a statewide television audience and a packed auditorium (video available at http://www.fixoahunow.com/video/2206164:Video:2811) the question came up again. If Civil Beat had been around in those days, it might now recall the following exchange between UH Professor Panos Prevedouros and Mayor Hannemann:

PREVEDOUROS (addressing this directly to Hannemann): 鈥淭丑别 city鈥檚 own studies forecast future traffic congestion will be far worse than it is today. True, yes or no?
HANNEMANN: 鈥淵ou are wordsmithing again here. In terms of your actual interpretation of the Alternatives Analysis. They looked at all the modes of travel including your very favorite HOT lanes. What it said was of all of them this would reduce traffic congestion the best of them and that鈥檚 steel on steel by 11 percent. The system that you prefer would actually increase traffic by 1 percent 鈥� by 0.4 percent 鈥�. Therefore, to answer your question with a simple yes or no is not correct. Professor, you are distorting the facts.鈥�

The questions posed to Hannemann and Yoshioka were not about the Alternative Analysis. In Hannemann鈥檚 case it was a simple yes or no question about whether the level of traffic congestion would get worse even with rail. A simple 鈥測es鈥� followed by an explanation would have helped to clear up the issue. Instead, both men dodged the question.

Hannemann and Yoshioka are intelligent men. They realized that if the people knew the $5.3 billion rail project would not improve traffic congestion from the current levels, they might have second thoughts about whether the project would be worth the cost.

Taxpayers have the right to expect truthfulness and transparency from their public servants. They did not get it from Hannemann and Yoshioka.

The post Rail Opponents Rebut Civil Beat Editorial on Congestion Deception appeared first on 天美视频.

鈥淓XAGGERATED JOB CREATION: The city initially claimed that rail would create 17,000 new jobs during the construction phase, but later lowered its estimate to 10,166, without explanation. Even this number is pure fiction. The $483 million construction contract went to Kiewit, which said it needed 350 workers to build the first segment. The same workers would probably end up building the remaining segments, because the plan is to build the system in segments, not all at once. An Italian company, Ansaldo, expects to receive more than $1 billion for providing and maintaining the trains and rail system. It is promising “300 local jobs for local people. If you are counting, we have identified 650 new jobs. The city has yet to identify the other 9,516 that it has promised.鈥�

Civil Beat rated the above statements 鈥渉alf-true,鈥� agreeing with us that (1) the city created the impression that the promised jobs will all be in Hawaii, which is clearly not true; (2) an independent UH economist criticized the city for using multipliers that produced job forecasts that are 鈥渨ay too high鈥� and (3) our statement that the city has identified only 650 of the promised jobs is literally correct.

What was not true, Civil Beat wrote, was that (1) our statement that the city 鈥渋nexplicably鈥� changed the number of promised jobs from 17,000 to 10,000 differed from the city鈥檚 claim to have always been clear that the 17,000 number is for the peak-construction year and the 10,000 number is an average, and we did not prove otherwise; (2) because the city used 鈥渁 widely used鈥� modeling program to estimate the number of new jobs, it was wrong for us to refer to the city鈥檚 numbers as 鈥漰ure fiction鈥�; and (3) although it was literally true that the city has identified only 650 of the promised jobs, it was 鈥渘ot fair (for us) to give the impression that the city should be able to identify all the jobs the project will create (because) that鈥檚 not the way job models work.鈥�

We think Civil Beat鈥檚 analysis amounts to quibbling over the placement of the knives, forks, and spoons at a table on which sits an elephant nearly the size of an aircraft carrier.

Our overarching points about the city鈥檚 jobs claims are unassailable: the city has led the public to expect that the proposed heavy rail system would increase the number of jobs in Hawaii by at least 10,000, and that number is extremely misleading.

This is a classic case of 鈥済arbage in, garbage out,鈥� where modeling has been used for advocacy purposes rather than to enlighten the public. The city told the computer than it would be spending at least $5.3 billion. The computer responded with an educated guess that the average number of new jobs would be about 10,000; and that more than 4,000 of those jobs would be 鈥渄irect鈥� (i.e., construction) jobs. What the city neglected to tell the computer (i.e., to include in the modeling analysis) was that the city won鈥檛 be spending 鈥渘ew鈥� money, but money taken out of Hawaii鈥檚 private sector in the form of higher taxes, and that the city will spend a great deal of it outside of Hawaii (e.g., paying more than a billion dollars to Ansaldo, an Italian company, and another $1.5 billion to creditors, most of which would almost certainly be located outside Hawaii).

Common sense alone tells us that taking billions out of the private sector affects the economy and job count in this state to some degree. Here鈥檚 how UH economist Summer LaCroix described it last year:

鈥楾hat excise tax (being collected to pay for rail) 鈥� a net of $460 million so far 鈥� is costing the state jobs. The extra excise tax is a drag on market activity. People are finding that their budget doesn’t go as far so they’re cutting back just a little bit. What that means is some businesses don’t get that spending. If you want to look at the jobs created by the project, you have to subtract out the jobs that have been lost from the effect of the excise tax.鈥� (Emphasis added)

When the federal government recently announced that the number of jobs created during the past month was roughly equal to the number of jobs lost, the Obama administration properly focused on the fact that the net number of new jobs last month was zero. In contrast to that, the city simply pretends that the negative part of the jobs equation in Hawaii doesn鈥檛 exist.

Economists at the University of Hawaii Economic Research Organization (UHERO) did their own modeling and there is a considerable discrepancy between the job numbers produced by the city鈥檚 model and UHERO鈥檚 model: UHERO forecast just 2,000 direct jobs rather than 4,240 claimed by the city according to the Honolulu Advertiser 鈥� a more than 100% discrepancy.

Comparison with completed projects elsewhere is also instructive. According to a 2009 Advertiser article, the city’s estimate that rail would create an average 4,240 direct jobs annually is only about 1,000 jobs shy of the actual number of construction workers employed by Boston’s $14.6 billion 鈥楤ig Dig,鈥� which was the nation’s most expensive highway project. How realistic is it to expect the City鈥檚 $5.3 billion rail system to create nearly 80% of the jobs actually created by a project nearly three times its cost?

Kiewit plans to hire 350 people to build the proposed elevated heavy rail system in Honolulu, and Ansaldo says it would hire 300 people in Hawaii. The resulting 650 is long way from the claimed 4,240 direct jobs. As pointed out by Civil Beat, 鈥渄irect jobs are jobs created in the construction industry.鈥�

Given the discrepancies mentioned above, we believe the city should explain why it continues to promise that rail would create more than 10,000 jobs without explaining how many of these jobs would be in Hawaii, and whether the 10,000 number takes into account the number of jobs lost by the drag on consumer spending and job creation of the .5% general excise tax. After all, the public has the right to know the net number of jobs that can realistically be expected and how many are likely to be in Hawaii, rather than in Italy, the mainland, or any other place.

City leaders are not dumb. They undoubtedly know that thousands of the new jobs would be outside Hawaii, and that the bulk of the lost jobs (because of higher taxes) would be here in Hawaii. Why has the city not explained any of this to the public?

We wonder why Civil Beat continues to quibble over the literal accuracy of metaphors like 鈥減ure fiction鈥� and 鈥渁ircraft carriers in the sky,鈥� and we marvel that a self-proclaimed civic watchdog would be upset about the 鈥渇airness鈥� of four individual citizens asking the city to be more honest with the public. Does Civil Beat not understand the implications of our allegations?

We don鈥檛 mind having Civil Beat fact check our statements. In fact, when Civil Beat took the 鈥渁ircraft carriers in the sky鈥� metaphor literally 鈥� and actually went to the trouble to compare the measurements of three classes of aircraft carriers to those of the planned rail stations 鈥� we were amused. But we could not even smile when Civil Beat insisted that it is neutral on the issue of heavy rail. We believe that statement should be 鈥渇act checked.鈥�

The post Civil Beat is Wrong Again 鈥� This Time Regarding Job Creation appeared first on 天美视频.

Hatchet job #2 on our op/ed is false

Civil Beat鈥檚 second FACT CHECK is the second in their hatchet job of our op/ed that appeared in the August 21 Star-Advertiser.

We had written that,

鈥淪ome of the stations would be 10 stories high.鈥�

Civil Beat concludes that,

鈥淏ottom line: The claim about multiple stations being 10 stories high is categorically false.鈥�

In response to a query from them we had sent Civil Beat the following:

鈥淭丑别 ten stories came from the planned extension to UH discussed in the FEIS but not detailed in the plans. That line is planned to go over Ala Moana Center along Kona Street.鈥� (emphasis added)

In its fact check, Civil Beat discusses a 鈥減ossible extension.鈥� It is not a 鈥減ossible鈥� extension. That is simply wrong. It is not a 鈥減ossible鈥� extension to UH. It is a planned extension and is so referenced in the Final EIS. That we have to go to the Draft EIS for the plans is because the city provides no details of the upper Ala Moana Station in the Final EIS even though the UH and Waikiki lines are 鈥减濒补苍苍别诲鈥� according to that document.

鈥淭丑别 planned extensions are included as illustrative projects in the ORTP (OahuMPO 2007) and are anticipated by RTD to be completed at some time in the future prior to 2030 as separate projects that would receive detailed environmental review.鈥� (FEIS 2-41) (emphasis added)

The FEIS also states:

鈥淭丑别 UH M膩noa extension would connect to the current Project at Ala Moana Center and then veer mauka to follow Kapi鈥檕lani Boulevard to University Avenue. It would then turn mauka to follow University Avenue over the H鈥�1 Freeway to a proposed terminal facility on UH M膩noa鈥檚 Lower Campus (Figure 2-8).鈥�

One of our complaints in our lawsuit concerns this segmentation of the corridor. We wrote the following on June 9, at ,

鈥淥ne of the major violations of environmental law committed by the City in the Final EIS has been to study only a segment of the 鈥淗onolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor鈥� instead of the entire corridor. Thus the City has also excluded any study of what they call the “planned extensions,” the future additional eight miles of rail line connecting East Kapolei to Kapolei proper and Ala Moana Center to UH Manoa and Waikiki and their cumulative effects on the corridor as a whole. As the courts have already ruled, “When several foreseeable similar projects in a geographic region have a cumulative impact, they should be evaluated in a single EIS.”

Thus it is only reasonable for us to go to the Draft EIS, for the rail height of 85 feet over Ala Moana Center, which with an additional 20 feet for the platform and its roof, makes a total of 105 feet, or over ten stories by Civil Beat鈥檚 own definition.

The Pearl Highlands station in the Final EIS shows a rail line height of 50 feet, which would result in a station of at least 70 feet. This is a reduction from the station height of 95-100 feet shown in the Draft EIS. To achieve this lower height the City increased the grade angle of the rail from 2.5 percent to 5.7 percent. Engineers have told us that such a grade would never be built; that it is pure shibai. What would happen is that in Preliminary Engineering, or later in the Final Design phase, they will revert to something like the original 2.5 percent.

The UH Lower Campus station needed for the 鈥减濒补苍苍别诲鈥� extension to UH is also a contender for the ten story group because the railway would pass 25 feet above H-1, and the adjacent UH station would be way above the Lower Campus below. Again because of segmentation 鈥� which we consider a violation of federal law 鈥� the city has not yet made those drawings available to the public.

One of Civil Beat鈥檚 apparent errors is to assume that what the City shows in its plans do not have a public relations component. Such plans change as the project progresses, just as the projected costs change, the ridership forecast changes, and the revenue projections change. It is called, 鈥渂oiling the frog.鈥�

For more detail on how this evolutionary process works see Hamer鈥檚 鈥淭丑别 Selling of Rail Transit鈥� and, more importantly, the work of Dr. Martin Wachs, Emeritus Professor of Urban Planning at UCLA and presently head of Rand Corporation’s transportation practice, who wrote, [pdf] in 1989. Here is an excerpt:

“The most effective planner is sometimes the one who can cloak advocacy in the guise of scientific or technical rationality. Rather than stating that we favor a particular highway project or renewal program for ideological reasons or because our clients stand to gain more from that project than from alternatives, we adjust data and assumptions until we can say that the data clearly show that the preferred option is best.”

In short, we are quite satisfied that our statement, 鈥淪ome of the stations would be 10 stories high,鈥� is an accurate description should this project be actually fully built.

The post Rail Foes Decry ‘Hatchet Job’ Fact Checks – Part 2 appeared first on 天美视频.

Civil Beat鈥檚 hatchet job #1.

Civil Beat chose to fact check only one (in bold face below) of the nine points we made in the environmental section of our op/ed that appeared in the August 21 Star-Advertiser:

鈥淐onstruction of the proposed system would lead to the large-scale development of prime farmland and change forever the Hawaiian sense of place. Imagine the sound of each 72,000-pound, steel-on-steel elevated rail car as it accelerates to 60 miles per hour and then decelerates to a stop between each of 21 stations, every three minutes in each direction. The elevated railway would permanently diminish the mauka/makai views along the entire route, and the ambiance of Honolulu’s waterfront would be particularly affected. The city claims that rail would save energy. However, U.S. Department of Energy data shows that, except in heavily populated urban centers, rail requires more energy per rider than do automobiles. The smallest urban center with heavy rail is four times larger than Honolulu. No wonder virtually every environmental group in Hawaii opposes heavy rail despite the city’s false claims that it would be a 鈥榞reen鈥� project.鈥�

As stated in our website, our letter head, and on every press release we send out, and the common mission of all our supporters, is:

鈥渢o keep elevated rail out of our city.鈥�

We could have added these words to the half sentence you chose to call false,

鈥淣o wonder virtually every RELEVANT environmental group in Hawaii opposes ELEVATED heavy rail THROUGH TOWN.鈥�

We had already made it clear in the op/ed that, 鈥渨e are challenging the process by which the city chose elevated heavy rail over alternatives that would reduce traffic and protect the environment.鈥�

There are only four environmental groups on O鈥榓hu that one can reasonably call relevant on the rail issue.

It is unreasonable to include in your survey those environmental groups who do not take positions on such issues. These include Nature Conservancy, Surfrider Foundation, Makai Society, Conservation Council of Hawai鈥榠, and Earthjustice.

It is equally unreasonable to include groups who are not generally considered 鈥渆nvironmental,鈥� such as Kanu Hawai鈥榠 and Historic Hawai鈥榠 Foundation.

Nor is it reasonable to include any whose focused mission does not include the rail project, such as the Defend O鈥榓hu Coalition.

That leaves four environmental groups still on your list. It is not a coincidence that, other than Historic Hawai鈥榠鈥檚 generally critical comments on historic properties, these four organizations were the only ones on your list to submit comments on the EIS.

Two of them you admit are opposed, Hawai鈥榠鈥檚 Thousand Friends and Life of the Land. One you say took no position, Outdoor Circle, and one who you say favors rail, Sierra Club.

You conclude that the Outdoor Circle is not opposed to the current rail project despite their having written the following statement,

鈥淲e consequently are united in our opposition to the construction of an elevated heavy-rail system through historic downtown Honolulu and strongly urge consideration of a less destructive and more neighborhood friendly system.鈥�

We believe that a reasonable person could consider that as opposition to the proposed system.

We used the expression 鈥渧irtually every鈥� because the Sierra Club has equivocated on the city鈥檚 proposed project. For example, here鈥檚 one of its comments on the rail project from the Draft EIS,

鈥淲hy is the entire transit route elevated? Where geography permits, the transit route should be placed at ground level to reduce cost of construction, energy consumption during construction, and impacts to view planes.鈥�

It would not be unreasonable to describe that as some degree of opposition to the proposed elevated project, but again, we said 鈥渧irtually every鈥� rather than 鈥渆very鈥� precisely because of the Sierra Club鈥檚 mixed messages on the proposed elevated rail project. They evidently find difficulty in not deferring to their national organization鈥檚 pro-rail mission.

Environmental groups generally are not opposed to all rail transit projects. In fact, the Honolulu project is possibly the only one that environmental groups DO oppose. This unusual position is what makes their opposition to the proposed elevated rail project so important and why reasonable people should pay attention to the reasons for their opposition.

Your characterization of our statement as false, is itself false.

The post Rail Foes Decry ‘Hatchet Job’ Fact Checks – Part 1 appeared first on 天美视频.