Phil Craig, the consultant who prepared the alternative rail study for Kamehameha Schools, spelled out in a recent email the reasons he believes the city’s rail project is vulnerable to legal challenge.
I’m taking the liberty of quoting him at length.
I suggest a careful read of the Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for High Capacity Transportation Improvements in the Leeward Corridor of Honolulu, HI, as published in the Federal Register, Volume 72, No. 50, pages 12254 to 12257, Thursday, March 15, 2007. For your convenience and those of others copied on this message, I am attaching a copy, which I used as one of the appendices to my light rail transit report to Kamehameha Schools.
This notice, placed in the Federal Register by the United States Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration and by the City and County of Honolulu, specifically stated under V. Alternatives, Fixed Guideway Systems (page 12256):
” The draft EIS would consider five distinct transit technologies: Light trail [sic] transit, rapid rail transit, rubber-tired guided vehicles, a magnetic levitation system, and a monorail system.”
In contrast with the above, the DEIS prepared by CCH, and upon which a 45-day public comment period (ending on February 6, 2009) was held after its approval by Region 9 of the Federal Transit Administration, considered only one transit technology, rapid rail transit [the all-elevated automated light metro] with three routing variations: via HNL Airport, via Salt Lake Boulevard, and via both the Airport and Salt Lake Boulevard.
Simply stated, the DEIS did not conform to the Notice of Intent published in the Federal Register. This was brought to the attention of USDOT’s most senior officials by the late Councilmember Duke Bainum and his colleague, Charles Djou in their June 2, 2009 letter. To date, however, both CCH and USDOT/FTA have chosen to ignore that fact as they attempt to “railroad” the HHCTC Project through the environmental review process (no doubt encouraged to do so by certain members of Hawai’i’s Congressional Delegation).
It is my understanding of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the agency regulations implementing it that it is mandatory that parties responsible for preparing, reviewing and approving an Environmental Impact Statement must adhere to that which was published in the Federal Register.
Inasmuch as the USDOT/FTA and CCH failed to comply with the published intent of the DEIS, it is my belief that this deficiency alone is sufficient grounds for a successful legal action in the Federal Courts that, if pursued, will result in setting aside any Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) or Record of Decision (ROD) based upon it published or approved by the Federal Transit Administration. The end result would be that construction of any part of the Honolulu High Capacity Transit Project, as currently constituted, would be enjoined for failure to comply with NEPA.
While there are other significant areas in which the DEIS is defective, I hope that this fundamental and glaring lapse of process does not pass unnoticed by those concerned with the future of the Island of O’ahu.
Craig has also spelled out why it is not “too late” to consider more flexible light rail technology, as the Hannemann Administration claims.
The HHCTC Project is only in a conceptual engineering phase; preliminary engineering is yet to begin, let alone final engineering. If the City Administration were to issue an addendum to its Request for Proposals seeking a Design, Build, Operate and Maintain (DBOM) Contractor calling for the use of low-floor light rail vehicles (instead of high-floor light metro cars) with rolling stock maintenance and storage facilities to match, and allowed an additional 90 days to allow its three bidders (AnsaldoBreda, Bombardier and the Japanese consortium) to revise their proposals for the initial East Kapolei to Peal Highlands segment, Notice to Proceed still could be issued to the successful bidder by February/March 2010 instead of November/December 2009 as currently proclaimed to be possible.
Please note that all three of these companies have light rail vehicles in their catalogs that would be suitable for use in Honolulu. Indeed, were the City Administration willing to revise the DBOM Contract and reopen the bidding, it is probable that firms like Alstom and Siemens that dropped out and others like KinkiSharyo of Japan and Hyundai/Rotem of South Korea that chose not to enter the competition – which also could provide suitable vehicles – would reconsider their previous positions and expand the competition for this work.
The only other significant revision to the proposed contracts would be to require that the height of the high-level platforms of the planned elevated station be lowered to fourteen inches (14″) above top-of-rail to match the floor height of low-floor light rail vehicles. The major impact of this change would be to result in shorter rises in mezzanine or street to platform rises of escalator, elevator and stairways. Station designs also are preliminary at this point – to something changing also would not delay completion of the project by four-to-five years.
And why should we take Craig seriously?
You can make your own assessment of his credentials as an experienced rail planner and consultant, which appear to me to be impressive.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Sigh. I suppose the pattern can be traced back to the Hawaiian and haole royal families, and popular resentment of their arbitrary actions. But, to me, the peoples of Hawaii are so trussed up in the web of mutual suspicion, resulting from endless cycles of regulation and circumvention of regulation, that they’re about to lose their footing and topple into the deep blue Pacific, leaving the islands to what’s left of the native wildlife.
As if the bickering over elevated or light rail weren’t frustrating enough, now we have someone from from the East Coast who has just dipped his toe into the rail issue pronouncing a lawsuit and roomfuls of lawyers mucking up rail.
My perspective is this: we blew it in the 1990s when the City Council turned its back on rail. As Ian has pointed out, that rail system was elevated, just like this one. Since then, our island and particularly the core of Honolulu, Kalihi, Pearl City and Waipahu — all along the route — has gotten more urbanized, we have way more cars on the road and traffic has gotten much suckier. If an elevated rail system worked then, why wouldn’t it work now? And please don’t trot out the tired horse about how mainland cities have rail that is elevated and then goes on the ground and so should we. As we like to say when it comes to our culture, our food and our racial diversity, we aren’t like mainland cities. Our island geography is more like Thailand or Japan than Phoenix or Seattle. And Thailand and Japan have elevated rail.
Cut to today. Mufi took up the rail banner. The City Council backed him and their votes approved the elevated rail system we are looking at today. Thanks to a carpetbombing of the rail issue the media last year, this rail system was on people’s minds when we voted for rail last year. And there is a couple of years worth of planning, engineering going into elevated rail.
Plus the jobs created by rail construction are desperately needed. Revenues are falling, people are having their hours cut back, teachers are being furloughed. We need to do stem the tide cuz a tourism rebound is a looooong way off from what I can tell.
Enough frustration. Let’s do this. Let’s build the frickin’ rail system.
We made the following comment on the recent Star-Bulletin article (http://www.starbulletin.com/editorials/20091001_All-elevated_rail_will_be_costly_inflexible_and_ugly.html) on light rail:
——-
The solution to Honolulu’s transit issue is NOT light rail. Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) is also elevated, but at much LESS cost in terms of not only money (1/5th to 1/10th the expense, or about $30 million/mile), but also with less visual intrusion and a much smaller footprint. Many PRT vehicles on multiple interconnected guideway loops can carry the anticipated ridership (computer models will prove this) with far more flexibility.
PRT can operate 24/7/36 without drivers providing point-to-point non-stop private rides averaging over 30mph. PRT’s all electric as well, and emission-free. Any number of “offline” PRT stations can be used on the system with no decrease in throughput.
PRT fosters public/private partnerships as well — imagine that a hotel or big box retailer can fund their own station, and even their own vehicles for guest use, thus reducing the overall expense of publicly funding the system.
PRT’s been long proven on the mainland, and has implementations underway now in England and the middle east. Testing of very sophisticated, computerized systems have been completed with safety approvals obtained in Sweden.
Our firm has tried to explain this to your AIA group, but they’ve refused to comment on our analysis or even return our phone calls. There’s more on PRT at http://www.prtstrategies.com .
——-
Elevated light rail makes no more sense than at-grade light rail for this application. A different approach, as we recommend, should be encouraged, with bidding opened up again for different ideas based on newer technology.
Adhering to a strict linear alignment is nonsense — different technology as we’ve proposed can be routed anywhere practical, to serve both your residents and “bread and butter” tourists. And of course, the amount of money either light rail or streetcar alternative will cost is simply infeasible in this fiscal climate.
There are better alternatives on the Honolulu page of our website: http://www.prtstrategies.com.
rlb_hawaii // Oct 9, 2009 at 6:35 am wrote:
“As if the bickering over elevated or light rail weren’t frustrating enough, now we have someone from from the East Coast who has just dipped his toe into the rail issue pronouncing a lawsuit and roomfuls of lawyers mucking up rail.”
My response to his criticism of this “someone from the East Coast” is that we all live in what is supposed to be a nation of laws that extends not only from “Sea to Shining Sea” but to wherever the American flag flies. And that includes the beautiful Island of O’ahu.
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 is one of those laws and must be followed whether in my native New Jersey or in Hawai’i. My report to Kamehameha Schools and my commentary quoted on Ian Lind Online raises the issue of whether or not failure by the City and County of Honolulu and the Federal Transit Administration to adhere to what they told the nation, including the people of Honolulu, in a Notice of Intent published in the Federal Register on Thursday, March 15, 2007, would be addressed in the DEIS for the Honolulu High Capacity Transit Corridor Project was legally binding; I believe that issue is likely to come before the Federal Courts and will be decided against the parties that prepared and approved publishing the DEIS.
The underlying question, as uncomfortable as it may be for the advocates of an all-elevated railway may be, is “Why bother to publish anything in the Federal Register if what it says is to happen can be ignored at will?” Does convenience and expediency for some trump the rule of law?
Philip G. Craig
Transportation Consultant
Upper Montclair, New Jersey
Thank goodness Mr. Craig is not a lawyer or an engineer or his words might mean something.
I only approved the comment by Publius808 because of it’s ambiguity.
It could be tongue in cheek.
If it were simply an ad hominem attack, I would have deleted it.
-Ian
Can anyone say “Superferry”?
Whether any of the rail supporters (I am one, in the general sense) care to acknowledge it, the history of NEPA jurisprudence suggests that the DEIS is indeed vulnerable on the “technical” grounds stated. And I put “technical” in quotes because failure to do an EIS in accordance with the Federtal Register notice effectively preordained the substantive outcome.
I just can’t understand why, if the mayor and other elevated rail proponents are so convinced they are right, they didn’t defend that position on the merits in the EIS. It’s just an invitation to litigation by rail opponents, including those who oppose it for the wrong reasons.
“Our island geography is more like Thailand or Japan than Phoenix or Seattle. And Thailand and Japan have elevated rail.”
I lived in Japan 15 years, and there are certainly some elevated rail lines (in my experience, most are monorails). However, Japan also has plenty of street-level trains, including those that run alongside traffic. Most major urban areas also have underground trains (subways) and it is not uncommon for a single line to be at different elevations (including underground, at grade and elevated) in different places.
All elevated might be the best solution for Honolulu, but refusal to look seriously at alternatives is short-sighted and narrow-minded at best. Why be so stubborn about it?
“the amoeba” wrote : “I suppose the pattern can be traced back to the Hawaiian and haole royal families, and popular resentment of their arbitrary actions. ”
The current City adminstration has pattern of arbitrary action. Threats have been made by City staff to locally-based architectural firms and NGO’s concerning issues related to the rail project, as well as, parkland plans being developed by the City.
Our current hapa-haole Mayor has a long history of imperial action, learned from one of his mentors, Frank Fasi. He is now considering uniting all the Islands under his rule.
The environmental process for the rail project has been micromanaged by those at the highest levels of City government. Unless Mr. Craig’s warnings are heeded , the rail project will have the same fate as the Superferry.
Mufi and crew have been very vocal about all the federal tax dollars that this project will bring to Hawaii.
If you don’t want ‘someone from the East Coast’ chiming in, don’t ask for people from the East Coast to pay for it. Its their tax money too.
I am not taking a public position on this project, but has anybody bothered to read the Federal Register entry linked to in this article as:
http://ilind.net/misc%20/2009/federalregister.pdf
It says: “Alternatives proposed to be considered in the draft EIS include No Build and Two Fixed Guideway Transit alternatives.” (pp. 12254-12255).
Additional detail on page 12256 under “V. Alternatives” does not match the quote offered by Kamehameha Schools consultant.
Ian Lind, I thought you were a more careful and meticulous reporter than this!
Here’s the relevant portion of the detailed section, “V. Alternatives” taken directly from the Federal Register online rather than from the copy this morning:
I see. It includes the Kamehameha consultant’s quote in a wider context. Looks like this issue is headed for the courts!
This link should clarify terminology.
Scroll down to “heavy rail” and “light rail.”
http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/public/download/BestPractice175
The alternative proposed by the City is a “heavy rail” system.
Nothing like the source documents themselves to straighten this one out.
Not only does the FR language explicitly refer to part of the route being “at grade” but it also uses the term “light trail [sic] transit” which by the Vanouver definition includes “at grade”: “A transit system, generally at Grade, which runs on dedicated rail which may be on a protected or shared Right-of-Way.” (http://vancouver.ca/engsvcs/transport/plan/1997report/glossary.htm)
Finally, the FR itself says “comments on reducing the range of technologies under consideration are encouraged.” In other words, the proponents of an all-elevated system are encouraged to explain why at-grade or mostly at-grade technologies should be eliminated from consideration. Instead, the City just blew the alternatives off.
We’ve had a Ruler, not a Governor, the past seven years. We don’t need another one, who has acted like a Ruler instead of a Mayor, to take her place.
My comment was not an attack on the person. It was a failed attempt at sarcasm.
My point is that Mr. Craig has no expertise to give the opinions and conclusions that he has arrived at. If offered as a layperson’s opinion, then so be it. But shouldn’t we, as reasonable people, give more weight to the opinions of the engineers, architects, planners, and financial experts (local, federal, and 3rd party reviewed) who came up with the ultimate plan?
There is a difference between what someone might prefer and what is practicable given the myriad considerations that weigh on a project’s design.
Firms like ours would appreciate any fair opportunity to participate in the reconsideration of the technology choice for this transit project. We advocate Personal Rapid Transit (PRT).
PRT would be an excellent choice for transit in Honolulu:
• It fosters public/private partnerships, e.g. hotels, shopping centers, big box retailers, apartment/condo complexes and ordinary office buildings can be funding station portals built into their structures or above their parking lots for direct access by users, customers and guests.
• As station portals are designed “offline”, as many as are feasible and affordable can be placed anywhere on the network without lengthening ride times.
• PRT is immediately useful as its elevated guideway is built in interconnected loops – that is, it need NOT be a linear alignment and then only useful after miles of expensive tracks are built. A single guideway loop with just two stations can be productive right away and still be expanded upon. PRT is built in a network that can serve users all over the city, not just along a linear path.
• PRT networks are easily extended onto private or special properties as secure 24/7/365 “collector/di¬tributor” systems, e.g. for your college campuses, the airport and military bases.
• PRT is completely electrified, emitting no GHGs or pollution. Guideway is also suitable for solar collection to partly power the system, or for selling power back to your electric utility.
• Compared to rail, PRT is dramatically LESS EXPENSIVE – about one fifth to one tenth its cost.
• PRT would become “an attraction of its own” – potentially drawing visitors to the island to examine it and use it for hotel airport transfers and touring between venues. It will attract a middle-class demographic due to its privacy, and be able to operate without drivers 24/7/365.
PRT could also mean JOBS for Oahu. It’s very feasible that certain PRT vendors might gain your business by offering to assemble vehicles there, and potentially assemble guideway (track and pylon structure are manufactured by offshore plants and then quickly transported to the implementation, reducing construction time). As new, state-of-the-art technology, PRT will need to be tested and marketed as a solution for the island — this means more job opportunities and creates a draw from anywhere else where PRT is being evaluated. With manufactured guideway designed and shipped from offshore, an installation could occur with vehicles operational in a neighborhood in a matter of days.
It’s important to appreciate that PRT can be engineered, routed, and vehicles produced in quantity to handle the same ridership that’s projected for light rail. By deliberately starting small, and attracting private participation for station portals (and even owned/leased vehicles), the network can be funded from both sectors and grown to match ridership capacity equivalent or better than traditional “mass transit”. The misinformed will attack PRT’s small vehicle and assume that system capacity is limited – but this can be easily disproven with computer modeling customized for your specific routing and ridership scenarios. ”Networkability” flattens the passenger load over a broader area and then is more accessible to an even larger user base.
We invite you to visit the Honolulu page on our website where we’ve published our response to the AIA’s at-grade recommendation (they would not communicate with us). We believe an elevated solution is much more preferable in order to separate PRT from surface traffic, cause absolutely no additional congestion and eliminate potential accidents, injuries and fatalities.
Unlike your proposed rail system, PRT is a much lighter weight design and is far less visually impactful. It can operate in non-traditional right-of-way, like alleys and drainage channels, to better hide it from view. Its stations can be built into structures. We emphasize that PRT’s built in loops — single unidirectional guideways that are just as useful as dual train tracks. We’ve collected information on our website which also illustrates that at-grade light rail can be very dangerous – e.g. Long Beach’s Blue Line to LA has been involved in over 90 fatalities over its 20 years of operation. The new Phoenix system suffered 51 accidents in 52 weeks of operation last year.
Again, please pay us a visit at http://www.prtstrategies.com/honolulu.html.