Kevin Dayton had a story in yesterday’s Star-Advertiser looking ahead to the first open-court skirmish in the lawsuit challenging the adequacy of the city’s environmental review of the rail project (“Court fight may decide if rail stays on track“).
The overall message seemed to be that the lawsuit is just a delaying tactic by rail opponents, and that other worthy projects have been derailed by delays.
THE RAIL OPPONENTS’ approach mirrors efforts that have killed off a number of ambitious, high-profile projects across the state. Examples include the Hawaii Superferry inter-island ferry project, the Hokulia luxury residential development in Kona and the Outrigger telescopes project atop Mauna Kea on Hawaii island.
Environmentalists, Native Hawaiian groups and other opponents of each of those projects demonstrated that if work can be stalled or stopped by administrative or court appeals, the public or private financing for the projects can evaporate.
In each of those cases, the delays and loss of financing proved fatal to the project.
Sounds like DBEDT diretor Richard Lim’s attitude has rubbed off on the Star-Advertiser, along with his misstatement of history of those projects.
I’m not familiar with the ins and outs of the telescope project, but both the Superferry and the Hokulia projects were blocked by court finding that proponents had broken the law.
In the case of the Superferry, they tried to do an end run around environmental law. And a state judge ruled what was perhaps obvious to everyone, that Hokulia was a luxury urban development masquerading as an agricultural subdivision to skirt the approval process.
Both projects fell due to their own missteps.
Back to Dayton’s story for a minute.
It properly notes that the lawsuit alleges the city failed to consider viable alternatives, including both alternative technologies and alternative routes.
But it doesn’t mention the most viable option–a flexible light rail system capable of running on raised platforms where necessary, but also able to operate at street level for maximum convenience to riders. Light rail systems make up the vast majority of all urban rail systems built in the U.S. and globally since the 1980s, when Mayor Frank Fasi first pushed essentially the same plan the city is now on the verge of building.
Earlier, I tried to figure out what had happened to the light rail alternative which was supported by a committee of professional architects, and why it wasn’t considered among the options studied in the EIS. I tried to trace the issue through the various stages of the environmental process, and had to conclude that the light rail alternative had simply been dismissed without comment or explanation. A political rather than a technical decision, I have to presume, because it would have presented a very formidable and considerably less expensive alternative than the elevated train pushed by the city. I would recommend re-reading that entry using the link above.
Here’s another document that gives a preview of what will soon be argued in court. This is the plaintiffs’ argument against the city’s first attempt to have the case thrown out (“Plaintiffs’ opposition to defendants’ motion for judgement on the pleadings,” filed 9/27/2011). It’s an easy way to see the basic points of contention.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The Star Advertiser reported: “Supporters of rail often speak of the project as if it is a done deal, a view that was underscored by Mayor Peter Carlisle in a recent radio talk show -Can’t stop the momentum”.
As opponents have predicted the ploy, the city is behaving as if everything is a done deal. It spent millions in removing trees and putting workers to shove dirt.
This is crazy and Peter Carlisle is out of his mind. Once he became mayor, he became the biggest sucker on Oahu. Given the Feds may pay $1.55 Billion, Oahu taxpayers still have to pony up the rest of the $5.5 BILLION. This on top of sewer, infrastructure and so on.
I hope we have some decent akamai judges left.
http://www.HonoluluTraffic.com I like this site.
I also applaud Judge Walter Heen, Governor Ben Cayetano, Professor Randy Roth and businessman Cliff Slater concern for Oahu’s fiscal future.
That article also leads me to conclude Toru is going turn in an excellent performance in the role of Edward Smith.
Which Edward Smith?
Melbourne, Australia is a city of 4 million people and has a superb light rail system which is actually an attraction for visitors. Consideration of aesthetics and visitor appeal seems to have been ignored by the City which is arrogant foolishness since our economy rests on the beauty of Honolulu and Oahu. We sell our scenery, and to add a heavy rail scar to our many other aesthetic derelictions is incomprehensible.
The reason why bureaucrats like can act arrogant is because there is no accountability.
They can mess up thousands of lives, destroy this island and laugh all the way to the bank because their heads will not roll. The only thing left is to bachi these bureaucrats.
This is government totally out of control!
I found Dayton’s take not just ironic but hillarious. He points to the most egregious examples of abuse of development/EIS process in recent Hawai`i history making the point that the way the EIS for rail was done may be the downfall of it too.
The incompetence of the elites that have governed the Islands since the u.s. invasion and occupation of 1893 is evidenced in many [arguably most] large capital projects. Am I being unfair to suggest that the Ala Wai Canal is simply the largest and most permanent example that should be used as a textbook on why the elites haven’t sufficient skill [or ethics for that matter] to be allowed to govern?
Ian, please visit my blog for photographs (in the right-hand column) of other cities’ experiences with at-grade light rail systems. Re the “flexible” adjective, a rail system with any part of it running at ground level must inflexibly use drivers to drive the trains. Those systems are slower, less safe, less reliable and therefore less attractive to potential riders, meaning they’re also less successful. For the record, I’m a paid consultant on this project — not that it negates anything I’ve just written.
Doug Carlson, as a consultant paid for by taxpayers, can you pls answer the following:
1. What is your expertise?
2. What is your role in this project?
3. How much have you been paid thus far?
4. Who hired you?
5. Why you do think you were hired and not someone else?
6. Which politician have you worked for in the past?
7. How long do you anticipate being hired on this job?
All irrelevant, EL. Would you care to take a crack at the substance of what I wrote? Or do you get bogged down in the “paid consultant” sideshow?
I’ll answer that: Yes, you do.
It is very relevant.
I am a taxpayer and you are paid on the taxpayer’s dime.
I would like you to answer the above-mentioned few basic questions.
What have you got to hide?
Not to mention that Phoenix’s ground level light rail system has hit a car about once every week according to one report I recall. But don’t take my word for it, see http://knowledgebase.findlaw.com/kb/2009/Jul/32730.html
That is the principal reason that the decision was made to elevate the system.
As to whether it is light or heavy, the proposed system is certainly not the heavy train like the BART line in SFO or the commuter trains that run down to Stanford/San Jose. It is a relatively light train similar to the elevated train that is successfully operating in Vancouver, B.C.
The city calls the system it intends to build “light metro.” As you note, it’s not heavy, and it’s not the traditional style of light rail, which is slow, unreliable, accident-prone ground-level transit.
Yes, Phoenix’s system had 52 accidents during its first year of operation. Houston has had many; search YouTube for “Metro’s Greatest Hits.”
Those who call for at-grade rail to be built here haven’t thought it through much. EL, you’re invited to rebut these remarks if you’d like to try.
You are a paid consultant. It’s proper for you to tell us a bit about yourself; who you are and what your background is. It’s not a side-show. It will either establish your credibility or it will not.
Please answer my questions mentioned above.
Then, I’ll continue figuring out whether you are a media consultant or engineer or what.
EL, the favorite refuge of people who don’t have a cogent argument in a debatable issue is to get personal — make it about the person rather than the ideas. You can ask your questions until your fingers bleed, but what you’re apparently unable to do is talk issues. In just a couple comments here under Ian’s post I’ve given you and others a feast of issues with which you’re invited to discuss, and all you can do is make it personal. Your conduct suggests you’re not able to discuss them or are unwilling to. You’re invited to read my blog and take issue with what you find there.
Not so fast, Doug.
I think its your position as a very well paid rail consultant does create at least the appearance of a conflict of interest. You are paid to be pro-rail and bring others along to that viewpoint.
You believe the conflict isn’t real because your views are unaffected.
So do most people snared in their own conflicts.
That doesn’t mean that its unreasonable, or unduly personal, for others to raise the issue and keep it in mind when evaluating your public arguments.
When you take the money, you can’t avoid the questions. Simple.
Ian, I concur with your reasoning most of the time.
But you are too nice to say Doug Carlson’s “position as a well paid rail consultant does create the appearance of a conflict of interest.”
It is more than the appearance a conflict of interest.
IT IS conflict of interest.
I’m a taxpayer and Doug Carlson is paid on the taxpayers’ dime. I have the right to know how much he’s paid to be an embedded PR agent for rail in media forum like yours and Civil Beat.
My questions to Doug Carlson are not a side-show, distraction, personal or because I’m too stupid to discuss the issues.
I don’t ask to see Doug Carlson’s bank statements or his credit score. I’m asking basic questions that a tax payer is entitled to know.
I don’t buy into his generic PR cope-out – running away from salient questions by hiding behind vain excuses.
Where in heaven is the “conflict,” Ian? What is conflicted? “Snared in my conflict? WTH? I declare my allegiance to rail as a paid consultant. Because I express an opinion contrary to yours, that’s a conflict!? Please be specific in your response to my bafflement.
There is no conflict. And so far, there is no response from you to the substance of my comments that “conflict” with your views on at-grade light-rail transit. It looks like you and EL are in the same can’t-go-there boat.
Here’s a definition of “conflict of interest” from BusinessDictionary.com.
In this case, you have disclosed being a paid consultant doing public relations work in support of rail. A well paid consultant, by all accounts.
At the same time, you are holding yourself out as an “independent” evaluator of the rail project in comments here and on your blog.
A classic conflict of interest which certainly has “the potential to undermine the impartiality” of your views because of your financial stake in the rail project.
What’s so hard to understand about that?
Lopaka,
If that really was the reason, please let me know where in the EIS this is discussed, please reference a section and paragraph number.
I agree with Gene.
The question isn’t what’s on Doug Carlson’s blog, or what Lopaka thinks is correct.
The point of the original post was clear–where was the full consideration of light rail in the EIS evaluation of alternatives.
Section, page and paragraph # please!
Quote from my blog’s header: “If you’re put off that I’m a paid communications consultant on the project and started this blog SPECIFICALLY TO ADVANCE IT (emphasis added), you probably don’t want to read any further.”
You say I’m an “independent evaluator of the rail project.” You say I’m “impartial.” That’s you, Ian. I’ve never said those things. You’re writing fiction!
Again….please respond to my specific comments about the inadequacies of your preferred mode, at-grade transit.
I’ll repeat. Your comments aren’t what’s important. There’s lots of room for debate on rail, but that’s not what’s behind this particular thread.
What’s important, in light of the pending lawsuit, is what is in the EIS.
If the plaintiffs are correct, then key alternatives, including light rail, were not properly assessed in the EIS process.
When I tried to track back through the EIS documents last year, I found light rail mentioned as a viable alternative, but it seemed to then disappear without comment.
It was not one of the alternatives given careful attention.
And if these alternatives weren’t addressed, then it would appear that their challenge has the potential to succeed legally.
Enough said.
Let’s be clear before you rush to “what’s behind this particular thread,” Ian. Acknowledge for me and everyone else reading this thread that I am not in a conflict of interest when I transparently say I’m a paid consultant and then express opinions that support rail. Do me at least that courtesy after you have charged me with something that is offensive. Do that much, and I’ll get to your thread in due course.
Here’s what I see as a problem, Doug. I think Ian is taking at face value your claims of “hey I’m just a guy who supports rails and likes to comment on other people people’s blogs how great it is. It is a complete coincidence that I am also highly paid by taxpayers to convince the taxpayers that this rail project isn’t a horrible idea.”
I’m sure that if you had been hired by high-fructose corn syrup or tobacco tobacco interests, you’d be on some other guy’s blog going on about how awesome HFCS is or how harmless cigarettes are.
I am glad to see that after YEARS of pretending to be “just a guy who thinks thinks this rail plan is the best idea ever” that you are FINALLY attaching a disclaimer that explains that your thoughts on the awesomeness of this current rail nightmare are on par with how much the working girls on Hotel St say I am really handsome as I walk past.
At neighborhood Board meetings, the definition of rail is a moving target. From the Kaka’ako NB minutes:
“Pat Lee of the Honolulu High Capacity Transit Corridor Project reported the following:
There was a question whether Honolulu’s system will be a heavy or light rail system. It will be neither, and is in a category called “light metro” found in cities like Vancouver, Canada and Copenhagen, Denmark.
Honolulu’s system will be an elevated electric, steel-wheel “light metro” train system, using 2 to 4 cars each and capable of carrying more than 400 passengers, with frequent service. Honolulu’s rail will carry more passengers than typical light rail systems, travel at higher speeds and will not be powered by overhead electrical wires called catenaries. Light rail generally has a lower passenger capacity and lower speed than heavy rail and metro systems, and is powered by overhead electrical wires.
On the other hand, heavy rail typically uses 6 to 8 cars per train, carries much more passengers, travels longer distances and has less frequent service. Honolulu’s rail stations will have 240 foot long station platforms and are much smaller than heavy rail systems. For example, the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) has up to 10-car trains and 700-foot station platforms and Washington Metro has up to 8-car trains and 600-foot station platforms. “
And there goes the last shred hope for future federal funding for any Hawaii transportation project. They’ll never take us seriously again, and rightly not, which ultimately will end up costing taxpayers like me a hell of a lot more than rail. But most of that will be dumped on the next generation, so who cares, right?
We’ll just stick with our proud, rabidly car-centric local culture, and enjoy the benefits of rail when we visit modern, forward-thinking, municipalities on the U.S. mainland, in Europe and in Asia.
Side note: Interesting that so many rail detractors harp on it being “heavy” (because all those fossil-fuel-sucking trucks and SUVS Hawaii residents insist on driving 11 miles to their office jobs are virtually weightless, dontcha know!). That and the whole “choo-choo” nonsense they disingenuously spout, as if modern trains have overall-clad engineers shoveling coal into into 1850s-era locomotives. If you can’t persuade your audience with facts, the obvious strategy is to lie. It’s easy to vilify a caricature, after all.
I’m glad I ride a motorcycle and drive a tiny car with a manual transmission. I don’t even look at gas prices.
I also take note that not a single person commented on the FACT that Carlson mentioned about the number of accidents at grade rail has had in Pheonix.
I looked at the issue of accidents back in January 2010.
http://ilind.net/2010/01/20/washing-lobbyist-coordinates-d-c-fundraiser-for-kirk-caldwell-and-a-look-at-rail-accident-statistics/
Yes, there are accidents with light rail. Here’s what I wrote back then:
And, to risk repeating myself, the place where these issues needed to be considered was in the EIS. At least that’s the argument made in the pending lawsuit.
And I commented on your statistical review sometime back when, Ian. Throw all the stats you want, at-grade rail kills and injures people. Imagine the outcome in highly dense, advanced-aged Honolulu.
You’ll find all the cogent issues discussed in the FEIS.
Okay.
First you dismiss arguments as less than substantive.
Then, when I refer to federal statistics, you appear to say that statistics don’t count.
Go figure.
Statistics do count, Ian. 52 accidents in the first 52 weeks in Phoenix. An accident BEFORE the Newport, VA system even opened for business in August, and more since then. Eleven accidents in Salt Lake City this year, seven involving pedestrians, five fatalities! These are statistics that matter to people — not some comparison of various kinds of heavy, light, metro, whatever rail.
Please stop dodging my comments about your at-grade transit preference. Start by responding to just one issue — safety.
Bro, Ian, you are getting tooooo personal! LOL.
EL — still waiting for your to comment on anything substantive.
All forms of transportation kill and injure people, and from what I have read light rail in general is no more or less dangerous than buses. But is there a passionate outcry against buses? Or cars? Or motorcycles?
The real issues — that is, the original issues before this smokescreen about safety was invented to justify an elevated system — are speed and capacity.
For instance, the rail system in Portland, Oregon is something like 50 miles long (25 miles east from downtown Portland, 25 miles west). It’s been described as “50 miles to nowhere” because, being at-grade, it is actually slower than buses. In contrast, having an elevated system with a train leaving each station every two minutes (as envisioned by Honolulu) is vastly faster than at-grade and hence has a greater capacity. Also, being elevated means that the cars can be larger — in the case of Honolulu, not as large as heavy-rail system, but larger than typical light-rail systems (I’ve heard the proposed system described as ‘hybrid’).
This also improves the prospects of Transit Oriented Development — that is, of people living in apartment buildings next to rail stations and using that for their commute to work downtown (although they will use their cars in off-peak hours, which is perfectly fine for the purposes of limiting congestion). Basically, TOD never really happened in Portland along those “50 miles to nowhere”. Portland’s system seems like rail for the sake of rail, seemingly born out of a provincial inferiority complex and a need to present a politically “progressive” face to the world.
Now, light rail in Portland does have it’s success stories, at least from what I’ve read. There is a 5-mile spur that goes north of downtown Portland to the Willamette River, and there is abundant TOD along that line, with all sorts of apartment buildings and restaurants and shopping malls.
And if we did want a light-rail system in Honolulu with that kind of TOD, it might make sense to build that in a five-mile radius around downtown Honolulu and perhaps in Kapolei to help foster high-density urbanization in those areas.
But if one wants a commuter solution for traffic problems deep into west Oahu, that calls for something more than light rail. Hence the elevated ‘medium’-rail project.
But then, of course, this raises a different set of questions and problems.
But none of these questions and problems include traffic safety issues.
Traffic safety issues in this case are a red herring or obfuscation that are raised by the likes of Doug Carlson because they are paid very handsomely with taxpayer funds to do things like that.
Of course, the point about modern light rail is that it can operate on elevated guideways as well as at ground level. I would guess elevated from Ewa to Iwilei would work, then dropping down to grade through town for ease of use.
No reason for a forced choice here.
I guess that might be true that a light-rail system could be both elevated and at-grade at different points.
But for a “high-capacity transit corridor”, the City seemed to have opted for the biggest thing it could think of without much research or thinking or debate.
In the City’s old website on the rail project (it seems to have been revamped, and I have not browsed through it), all of the examples of successful light-rail project (provided by a link to a federal website) are those of short at-grade light-rail spurs built around Central Business Districts.
The TOD in those areas seems comprised mainly of four- or five-story structures.
But to have a “high capacity” system utilizing heavy rail run by computer with trains leaving stations every two minutes, the TOD itself might need to be “high capacity”.
This would include the kind of 600-foot buildings that everyone who comments on this blog seems to hate.
People who live in suburbs and rural areas hate traffic, but they don’t want to live in apartments; if they wanted to live in apartments, they would be living in them already. These people create sprawl and traffic even while they gripe about it.
Maybe only the dead complain when they’re killed by an at-grade train? Seriously?
If Mufi Hanneman and Honolulu had ever actually considered that might have come up. Sadly they never did.
The issue is the adequacy of the city’s environmental review of the rail project and whether they actually considered other alternatives as the law says they had to do.
The fact that you are beginning your comment with “Doug Carlson say” instead of the “EIS said….” highlights this point.
Fully agree, Ian. Light rail was never given a real look. I have a few general misgivings about rail in general (particularly ridership estimates), but the fact that Mufi pushed through the most expensive option possible takes things waaaay over the edge for me. I could support an at-grade light rail with a reasonable price tag, but not this political and physical monstrosity.
I’ve used the at-grade rail systems in downtown San Jose and Portland.
Because they are at-grade, it is relatively easy and inexpensive to have many stops. That allows those trains to provide very useful intra-town transportation, which the elevated system planned for here will not provide. So people who need to get around during the day, e.g., lawyers who need to travel between their office and court, will likely choose to drive to work and within town during the day, rather than use the train to get to work.
Since Mr. Carlson is joining in as the paid City consultant here, perhaps he can answer the mystery of this post:
“The point of the original post was clear–where was the full consideration of light rail in the EIS evaluation of alternatives.”
As Mr. Carlson requested, let’s focus on the issues and not each other. Perhaps he can answer and shed some light on how that was evaluated and dismissed.
I’ll refer you to the project’s website: http://honolulutransit.org The Alternatives Analysis and FEIS are there in all their complete detail. If you haven’t taken the time to read those documents, you might want to go there. That’s a reasonable suggestion; I don’t get the impression that people who comment at this blog want to be spoon-fed.
I will refer you to
http://www.HonoluluTraffic.com
and I’m not a lurking PR consultant handsomely paid by taxpayers.
And while you’re there, be sure to check out all the special interests behind Cliff’s monotonous noise machine.
http://www.honolulutraffic.com/whoweare.htm
Nice try. Big Difference between rail proponents and rail opponents.
Cliff Slater’s special interests will not saddle taxpayers with a $5.5 BILLION price tag. The people named have not profited from this $5.5 Billion gravy train.
This rail is a big scam.
But Cliff’s special interests will gladly saddle taxpayers with a lack of modern transportation options just so they can protect their lock on the lucrative taxi and tour bus runs to and from the airport, sell more cars, avoid paying taxes on a rail service they won’t personally use because they’re ‘above’ public transportation, etc. etc. etc.
Nice try though.
How do I “Like” comments like this one by Latka?
Doug Carlson, I’m still patiently waiting for your answers to my questions. Let’s not get too distracted.
1. What is your expertise?
2. What is your role in this rail project?
3. How much have you been paid thus far?
4. Who hired you?
5. Why you do think you were hired and not someone else?
6. Which politician have you worked for in the past?
7. How long do you anticipate being hired on this job?
Doug–I’ve been through the alternatives analysis trying to figure out what happened to light rail, as I traced in substantial detail in the post referenced earlier.
If I missed the detailed assessment of the light rail alternative which you seem to think is there, you can take this opportunity to enlighten me, and I would appreciate it.
Your vague reference to the documents isn’t helpful.
I don’t think the request for a specific citation should be dismissed as being “spoon fed.”
Ian, I’ll endeavor to do what you request and will speak with people much more familiar with the details of those documents than I am.I’ll get back to you.
While you are at it, check the NEPA requisites and the city’s failure to comply too.
What people who are much more familiar with the details of those documents? Please share their names when you report back. So what exactly is your motive in all this?
Ian, detailed discussions of alignment and technology options were considered during the Alternatives Analysis process and can be found in the Alternatives Screening Memo, October 24, 2006 and the Detailed Definition of Alternatives, November 1, 2006. These documents were referenced in the Alternatives Analysis Report, DTS, 2006b and DTS, 2006a, respectively. Copies of these reports can be found on Docushare, Departmental Communications 2006, D-0900C (06) and D-0900B (06), respectively.
Ian,
When you referenced your “research” regarding the number of accidents in Phoenix why did you make the leap to “fatal” accidents. I believe Doug’s stats referenced ALL accidents which tells a more accurate story. Your blog, your spin??
There are different sets of data in those references.