How time flies. I “knew” it was Wednesday because the crew arrived at 5:30 a.m. to pick up our trash. But my brain still let a “Tuesday” headline into the original version of this entry. An early morning short-circuit!

There was a lot of traintosterone at Blaisdell Center yesterday at the city’s rain transit symposium, which wasn’t designed to explore the serious issues but rather to serve as a pep rally for Mufi’s transit team.

It’s a shame, though, because the speakers flown in at substantial public expense had quite a wealth of experience, most with transit systems using exactly the more flexible type of technology that Honolulu is refusing to even consider as a theoretical option in its environmental impact statement.

That’s right. Among the cities represented were Denver, Charlotte, Seattle, and Phoenix, all of which use flexible light rail trains that can run on elevated tracks or, when appropriate, at ground level or even in tunnels.

But for some reason Mufi is adamant that we’re going to ram through a different, most costly, and more intrusive type of train.

It would have been very interesting to free up the speakers present yesterday to talk about this decision.

I would have wanted to ask each one: “Do you think that Honolulu should at least consider the kind of flexible light rail technology that your city has chosen?”

I would have been very interested to hear the answer.

In any case, that opportunity was lost. It’s a shame. While Mayor Hannemann says that he’s confident that the right choices have been made, his insistence on avoiding a real discussion of alternatives conveys a very different message, perhaps a fear that some of those alternatives would be persuasive. But why should that be threatening if it moves the rail project forward? Again, I don’t know.

There was some useful discussion of elevated systems vs. those running at ground level. Some of the cities run their trains on the ground on tracks in protected coridors, some on the street in traffic. Most have at least some sections on elevated tracks.

There seemed to be agreement that street level access is popular with the people in surrounding communities but management is much more difficult because of the disruption of street life and business while construction is ongoing. So there are tradeoffs in trying to keep the train on the ground.

On the other hand, in response to a question about the feasibility of using tunnels in Honolulu, one of the speakers said the issue is cost. If it costs $1 to be at ground level, and an elevated track costs $4, going to a tunnel system would run $9-$15.

I wonder if that 4-1 cost ratio of above-ground to street level is really in the ballpark? If so, no wonder our projected cost is so much higher than mainland systems have been.

Noted: The League of Women Voters of Honolulu devoted a portion of their June newsletter to the rail issue.

The day was also interesting for providing a glimpse at the vendors lining up to bid on parts of the project. Check out this consortium which boasts its own Honolulu web site.

And, of course, keep in mind that none of these companies have lobbyists registered with the city, and most never have. How is that possible? I don’t know.

Here are a few more documents to prowl through. First, yesterday’s motion for a temporary restraining order filed by the Hawaii State Teachers Association and United Public Workers in the latest move in their attempt to derail the Lingle furlough plan, along with their motion to bring a San Francisco law firm into the case on behalf of the unions.

Then a few tidbits from the Hawaii Superferry bankruptcy case: The State of Hawaii’s motion to move the case back to the islands, a copy of the Superferry’s security agreement with the Federal Maritime Administration, and an affidavit by the corporate secretary filed for the opening bankruptcy hearing spelling out the company’s financial structure.

For those following the cases, these source documents will be interesting.