I was quite sorry to see Howard Dicus misrepresenting the history and status of Honolulu’s rail project and taking an overtly biased stance towards anything other than the Hannemann’s administration’s party line.
Howard’s comments came in a blog entry on Sunday in which he dismisses the alternative plan developed by a consultant hired by Kamehameha Schools as “second guessing” by a mainland consultant intent on derailing rail.
Howard is usually good at sticking with the facts.
In this case he is way off base and misrepresents key facts.
First, he dismisses the Kamehameha proposal as “late”, with the line “already planned and ready for groundbreaking”.
Actually, the Honolulu system is only at that stage because the Hannemann administration has ignored its responsibility, and its prior commitment, to fully explore key alternatives, including the type of light-rail system that the Kamehameha plan incorporporates.
Honolulu had a draft environmental impact completed and previously had been liberal with its advice that questions about specifics should be deferred until this EIS draft was completed.
But after it was completed, the city rejected any suggested alternatives as “too late”.
The timeline of the “too early then, too late now” trick was spelled out here in an April entry.
Instead of letting the study of alternatives inform the final choices, the city secretly made its final choices and then trying to simply make the EIS come out right by confirming the decisions, even if that requires ignoring obvious alternatives and, like Howard, misstating facts.
Howard tries to place critics of the city’s all elevated system into three pidgeon holes, those who don’t like the look of the elevated stations, self-interested land owners, and intransigent rail opponents.
That’s a wholly biased view if I’ve ever heard one.
I’ve talked to professional planners who have devoted their lives to keeping Honolulu a great place to live, including former top city and UH planners, who are tearing their hair out over the stupidity of decisions being made from a planning perspective.
Howard unfairly trivializes critics by reducing their argument to “they won’t like the way elevated stations look”. But the criticism is much deeper than that, based on how structures create and shape human interactions, economic interactions, and other kinds of human activity.
It isn’t just the “look” of those elevated stations, it’s the kinds of people interactions they create or prevent.
The local AIA has tried to lay this out and has done a good job of it. If Howard wants to ignore the arguments, that’s one thing. But to trivialize and mischaracterize their substance is neither fair nor a service to his readers.
Howard suggests that no one will notice the elevated rail tracks because we already have “elevated highways that divide the community more than a rail line ever could.”
In some ways, that’s true. A freeway is more of a physical barrier. However, in terms of precious views, a major part of our shoreline protection laws, we don’t have an elevated freeway through the heart of downtown, or along the waterfront past Aloha Tower, or through the Kakaako corridor and beyond to Waikiki.
Howard argues that allowing a real review of alternatives at this point in time will create costly delays. But that’s how the process is supposed to work–study alternatives, then make selections, and then proceed with engineering.
Hannemann’s administration has done it all backwards. First make selections, then study a very narrow range of less-than-viable alternatives, and at the same time launch the engineering and put proposals out for bid.
It looks like the city was cribbing from the Superferry playbook before it proved to be so disastrous. Now they’re way out ahead of the process and trying to tell us that there’s nothing to do but push ahead.
That’s an invitation to further disaster.
Costs of delay? Sure, there will be some, but considering both the significantly lower construction costs of the light-rail alternative, and the reduced time for construction, we could could still come out well ahead.
I believe that Howard Dicus got it right.
1) Our community has publicly discussing rail since at least 2006. Now that we are three months from groundbreaking, Kamehameha School suddenly steps forward with a plan that essentially puts us back to square one? I’m not buying it. I am also highly skeptical becauase the school is a major landowner looking out for its assets, not for our community. If we have learned one thing about Kamehameha School the landowner, it is that the bottom line comes first.
2) How in the world could decisions have been made in secret? This is one of the most scrutinized projects in recent memory, particularly by the media and the endless criticisms of opponents like Charles Djou. I’m not buying that somehow a critical decision was slipped by everyone.
3) A comparison to the Superferry is unfair and biased. The Superferry, run by a mainland investors, tried every trick in the book to avoid doing an EIS. In contrast the rail project’s EIS has played out in public view from day 1, and has been subject to all kinds of federal and state laws. Another reason to dismiss the Superferry comparison — it was the favored project of the governor, who used her influence to help. But with the rail project, she has been, at best, lukewarm and usually icy cold.
4) Again, it is unfair to cite anonymous UH planners and former city planners who are “tearing their hair out” about rail. I’m sure there are also planners who are excited about what elevated rail can do for our island, from improving traffic to getting cars off the road to new, pedestrian friendly development around stations.
5) I am told that alternatives were studied in documents called the Alternatives Analysis. Including light rail, including tunnels, including other alternatives. The City Council even held hearings on it.
Ian calling Howard or anyone bias?? Really?? A case of the pot calling the kettle black if I ever heard one.
Right on, Ian. I think you have pegged this just right.
I have had serious concerns about this project from the beginning, but felt the simplistic, “pro-rail/anti-rail” debate was excluding people like me who were concerned about the scale of the project and its low ridership projections.
Once the referendum was settled, I had understood there would be time to debate heavy rail vs. light rail, but Mufi appears determined to build the whatever system creates the largest contracts and the most jobs for the builging trades, rather than worry about trivial concerns like visual blight.
As someone who took course in planning at the UH and has maintained friendship with planners, I gotta echo your “anonymous” hairpulling sources. From a planning perspective (as opposed to a campaign contribution generating perspective) Mufi’s train stinks.
(1) rlb_hawaii: Altho I disagree on the merits, you make some good points except: (a) you don’t answer the “too early then, too late now” device by which the final form of the project was, indeed, preselected by the Mayor; and (b) the comparison to Superferry has nothing to do with the Governor; it has everything to do with a chief executive (in this case, the Mayor) pre-ordaining the outcome of a process in a way that is most advantageous to his own self-interests.
CB1: Evidence, arguments based thereon, or just name-calling?
BTW, I voted for rail and used, frequently, above/below grade light rail while living in Boston and San Francisco, cities that rejoiced when ill-considered eyesore transit obstacles dividing their downtowns from their waterfronts were torn down.
Agree with Ian. Howard’s comments are out of line and misrepresent the situation.
I have a yearly bus pass & use it. I’d love to have another alternative in mass transit, but this particular rail system won’t be it. It’s a planning nightmare and will be an implementation disaster if it actually goes forward in its current form.
The AIA, KS, and others *have* been trying to participate in the planning process but were ignored, bypassed, or excluded by the City at all points when they could have been included. Given the chicanery & double-dealing they’ve engaged in over the past 2-3 years,, Mufi, the TSA & others deserve a big, fat lawsuit over NEPA violations; I hope that they get sued in their personal capacities as well.
Ohiaforest3400, I can’t speak to the claims of “too early/too late” by few architects because I don’t know what really happened.
Another commented said that Kamehameha Schools was shut out of the rail process.With the schools’ resources, I have a hard time seeing it shut out of anything if they really wanted a say. The rail has played out so publicly with so many individuals and groups adding their two cents, is it reasonable for the state’s richest, most influential landowner to make that claim?
As for the EIS, I think there is a difference. The superferry was a private entity funding its own small kine EIS. The rail project is funded at least in part by the federal government. That means the Feds have a stake in the EIS. Given that, I don’t see how the city could cut corners on the EIS and not have the Feds notice.
I voted for rail under the impression that the format was still up for discussion. I think that it is possible that elevated rail might be the best choice for some parts of Honolulu, but does it have to be all the same? I want a clear public debate over alternatives first. What’s the rush? (Groundbreaking before campaign season starts?)
I’m in the same boat. I voted for rail. I love the modern rail systems in cities we’ve visiting on the mainland. But we shouldn’t be prematurely closing off alternatives and ramming ahead the most politically expedient plan.
Thanks for the comments, from you, Ian, and everyone. I did indeed simplify the opposition by describing the aesthetic opponents as people who don’t think elevated rail will look pretty. In the architectural community there is some at least partly justified angst about projects like the Minneapolis Skywalk and something smaller but similar in Arlington, Va. – I’ve walked both – which seemed like good ideas at the time but later were seen by some as removing people from street level to the detriment of the city. I’m ambiguous on this… for example, I think it would be swell if we could lower Nimitz at Aloha Tower so downtowners could walk to shops and restaurants at lunchtime without crossing traffic…
Howard is getting close to my position with his comment on lowering Nimitz near Aloha Tower.
Had the community been allowed a planning process, we might have that and more. We might have areas for outdoor seating and eating, we might have planned our living/shopping/working spaces including parks, etc. And we would have chosen the appropriate transportation system to go with it.
What we are getting is Developer Oriented Transit. We can’t have Nimitz lowered at the bottom of Bishop street. Maybe a train down below at that point also would have been nice, but no one is asking us. We can’t have it because we are literally being railroaded.
I predict a rebellion, at least in Waikiki, where the community will not want their views spoiled with an elevated train. So will the mayor at that time shove it down people’s throats, or just shrug and say “sorry about that” and skip extending the system to Waikiki after all? There’s not very much money to be made in that segment compared with the opposite end, where developers will make a killing as the value of currently under- or un-improved land skyrockets.
And with the increased value goes increased political contributions, of course.