All aboard the Superferry Express!
While most news media focused on Honolulu Mayor Hannemann’s announcement of a labor agreement that will prevent strikes during the construction phase of Honolulu’s proposed rail system, Star-Bulletin reporter Gary Kubota jumped on the more important news of the signing of the first phase construction contract.
Signing the contract was a calculated political move by Mayor Hannemann to forestall any legislative raid on the excise tax revenues held in the city’s special transit fund, according to Kubota’s story.
But the rail EIS is still undergoing federal review, and by signing the contract before a final Environmental Impact Statement has been approved and a so-called “Record of Decision” received, the rail project could become ineligible for otherwise available federal funding.
Although the Star-Bulletin story does not mention the federal funding issue directly, it does warn that Hannemann’s wild rush ahead does risk a Superferry-like outcome.
But Hannemann is putting the rail on a fast track, even though the environmental impact statement for the project still has not received state and federal approval.
Hannemann said he is hoping to break ground for construction in January, and he has not received any indication there is a problem with the city’s environmental impact statement. He said he would emphasize one point to those reviewing the document: “People want this project and they want it now.”
State Sen. Colleen Hanabusa said state and federal officials review the environmental impact statement based on law and whether it provides enough information to make a decision and not on politics.
“It’s not wise to belittle a process that’s very much a part of our law,” she said.
Hanabusa said whether one supports or opposes rail, people do not want to be in the same situation as the Hawaii Superferry, a project halted due to the lack of an adequate environmental impact statement.
What is that?
“People want this project and they want it now.”
Was there an “or else!” threat implied there? I’m not at all clear what the mayor thinks he was saying.
Time to look for some additional clarification of the legal implications on the possibility of federal funding of proceeding before a Record of Decision has been received.
By the way, I spent some time looking for more info on the bids for this contract and didn’t see them in the city’s system.
![[text]](http://ilind.net/images_2009/bid_results.jpg)
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Before we rush to judge, let’s remember a coupla things. First, people voted for rail City Charter amendment last year, which sent a clear signal to city lawmakers that people want rail. Even anti-rail leopards like Charles Djou have changed their spots a bit. Djou says repeatedly that he’ll follow the will of the people, even tho he wastes no opportunity to talk stink about rail.
Second, while it’s fashionable to compare any EIS to the Superferry fiasco, there are some key differences. The Superferry was a private company that did everything in its power to avoid an EIS. Rail is a public infrastructure project and the EIS has played out across the news, blogosphere, etc, for more than a year. Heck, the entire rail/mass transit thing has played out in the news for more than three years.
Third, what makes you think the city would do anything to jeopardize federal funding? Why do you think they would have made this move without consulting with and getting the approval of the feds? The feds have approved the airport route (and thank the transit gods it’s going to the airport), the finances, the early engineering. From what I’ve read, the feds have also overseen pretty much the whole environmental review, since this is a federally funded infrastructure program.
The first comment was written by a City Rail consultant.
“Signing the contract was a calculated political move by Mayor Hannemann to forestall any legislative raid on the excise tax revenues held in the city’s special transit fund, according to Kubota.”
Is that really what Kubota wrote? Or is that your interpretation of the facts and comments he reported? There’s a difference.
Well, here’s what Gary reported:
Yes, in my book, that is clearly a intentional (=calculated) political move with a specific purpose.
the Ka Makana Alii mall, the Hoopili development, UH West Oahu — all of these, along with a serious rebound in the economy, need to come together for rail to make any financial sense
this is high risk — the danger is that we are on course to suffer all the problems of southern california including the inability to fund our basic needs
You won’t find the bid results in the city website, even though it’s required by law, because they are trying to hide the defective bid from Kiewit until the 5 day bid protest deadline passes.
@rlb_hawaii:
Did you see the letter from the federal Historic Preservation Advisory Council to the FTA that Ian posted here two or three weeks ago? If not, here is the money — as in Federal funding — quote:
“Section 106 consultation must be complete before FTA may authorize the letting of contracts or the release of funds for this undertaking. The formation of any binding commitments related to implementation of the project prior to the conclusion of consultation may compromise our ability to endorse a PA [Programmatic Agreement] as well as compromise your ability to complete the Section 106 process. We will look to FTA to affirm that no such actions have taken place before we consider execution of a PA.”
If Section 106 consultation hasn’t been completed, then it sure looks like the City HAS jeopardized federal funding for the rail.
“You won’t find the bid results in the city website, even though it’s required by law, because they are trying to hide the defective bid from Kiewit until the 5 day bid protest deadline passes.”
Ian….what the…??
Re: Hawaiian’s comment. No, I am not a rail consultant. I hope we don’t start slinging personal attacks in this forum.
wlsc makes a fair point, although none of know the status of that process. Last I read, the City Council gave its okay on the agreement.
The City Council is not in the driver’s seat on this matter. The Preservation Advisory Council is.
The FTA needs the Advisory Council’s agreement on the PA in order to authorize contracts or release funding. If the City has already let contracts (which is what the Kiewit thing sounds like to me) AND the consultation for the PA isn’t finished, the FTA is between a rock and a very hard place indeed. What do they do – tell the City to void the Kiewit contract (and any others, like the mystery items Ian mentions) or stop the whole thing & bail out, resulting in no FTA money for the rail?
This isn’t trivial, people. Those of you who want this train should be riding herd on the City full time to make sure they don’t blow it, as it looks like they’re going to do. Unfortunately, you may be too late.
Your statement is based on the condition IF the consultation for the PA isn’t finished. Do you know whether this is true or not? And then you conclude “you may be too late.” Well, do you know for a fact whether this is true or not?
I expected more than pure conjecture in this blog!
As of the October 29, 2009 letter that Ian posted here, consultation was nowhere near finished. Some key parties seemed to be very far apart. While much could have been accomplished in the meantime, I somehow doubt that’s the case. Judging from Mufi’s past behavior, I’m sure that if the PA had been finalized or signed by all parties, we’d be hearing about it right, left & center in all available media outlets.
Too late? Those of you who want the rail had better hope it isn’t but since we’ve had no confirmation that the Section 106 process has been completed, to the satisfaction of its key participants, letting out contracts now may force the Historic Advisory Council to issue a finding of foreclosure on the undertaking. Not a good thing.
I have not taken a position on rail. My questions to wlsc was to find out if his/her statements were factual or not. The response he/she gave (see below, without opportunity to reply) tells me that he/she is guessing, based on circumstantial evidence. For example, he/she cites a letter posted on October 29, or three whole weeks ago! His/her guess is that nothing substantial has happened since then, but this does not help me understand the true situation. Ergo, we’ll have to wait and see.
Re: wlsc. I agree that the Programmatic Agreement (such a poetic name!) is important. My point was that the last report about it was postitve news (ie City Council approval)
Tthere has been a lot of positive news overall about rail. As a rail supporter, I appreciate that. I hope that readers of this blog don’t interpret one ‘could’ identified in this blog as proof positive thT rail is going down the tubes. Cuz there is no evidence of that as far as I can see.
I predict that Hannemann like Lingle will end up looking the fool for this act. Hawai’i certainly does not need anymore fools as Governor. Thank you very much for your diligence.
@ rlb_Hawaii: Good response and thank you for setting the record straight. Its sad to see opposition place a chaotic spin on something as important as rail transit to stop the project, try to cause doubt among residents, or scare people into thinking that this project is going the same route as the Hawaii SuperFerry.
For a balanced perspective, people should read entries at http://www.Yes2Rail.BlogSpot.com
Saw this and thought of you: http://blog.peernews.com/
Regarding the EIS and conultation process completion issue(s), I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that the first contract is subject to those conditions, such that it either terminates if the process is not successfully completed or, perhaps, does not take effect until successful completion occurs. This is like a contract to buy a house subject to an inspection or other similar contingencies. I’m sure a legislative raid of the fund is not one of the contingencies; that would permit the raid and prevent the City and the contracvtor from taking legal action agaionst the State.
Hanabusa said “It’s not wise to belittle a process that’s very much a part of our law”?
And that “whether one supports or opposes rail, people do not want to be in the same situation as the Hawaii Superferry, a project halted due to the lack of an adequate environmental impact statement.”
EXCUSE ME, but that little special session special accommodation to special interests with special legislation belittled that process in a BIG way! And it blew up in the legislature’s face just the way the failure to do an EIS in the first place blew up in Lingle’s face! These people have no face left to save!
Does it occur to anyone else that the talent needed to successfully complete this very complicated and complex project simply doesn’t exist in Hawaii? Some populations are simply not large enough to have enough skilled people. Political success is no indicator of competence to handle more sophisticated activities. The local political elites [“political” in both senses—partisan [i.e. my peeps] and policy [i.e. ideological] failure to successfully pull off any complicated project over the last century [the earliest seems to have been the Alawai Canal, but I’m no Hawai’i historian and welcome being corrected and having other failures pointed out] seems to be good evidence of a congenital inability.
The local political elites want to manage something they do not have the skill set to manage. Even worse, they don’t recognized they don’t have the skill set. That necessarily results in disasters, financial, economic, environmental, social.
I feel ill every time I read about the rail for Oahu. There is absolutely nothing appealing about the idea.
Let me suggest Mufi is not pushing this through early simply to make it a fait acompli. He is also expediting the contracts to maximize his ability to wring campaign contributions from those who want in on the contracts.
When I watched his half hour informercial on Rail, it quickly dispelled any lingering doubts I had about Mufi running for Gov. When he said he was going to advance by a YEAR contracts for Phase II, I interpreted that as confirming his desire to get the contributions NOW, when they can do the most good for his campaign, instead of waiting to November 2010, when he will lose his leverage over contractors, engineers and architects other captive donors.