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.
When the at-grade light rail in Santa Clara County, CA, first started operations, there were a lot of collisions between trains and cars/trucks because some drivers didn’t understand the traffic flow and traffic signals. My recollection is they were relatively minor, in the sense that there was no injury or death resulting from those collisions. Over time, the frequency of those collisions dropped precipitously.
When we talked to the Portland folks about the design of their system, they stressed that they managed to get Federal support for a blended system. In the core city from Lloyd’s Center through to the west edge of the urban center they ran the Max like a super trolley (Ian’s preferred light rail). However, outside the urban area, the Max runs on old rail tracks that have protected right of ways that do not cross streets. On those stretches, the Max does get up to pretty good speed. However, in the city, because it is running on the streets, it has to stop for lights and must have on-board operators to make sure that jaywalkers or daredevil car operators don’t get run down. As a result, through the City, the Max is not faster than getting around by car.
I only used the Portland system a few times over a couple of days, but I don’t think a blanket statement that getting around using their rail system isn’t faster than by car is accurate, or more importantly, would be accurate for downtown Honolulu.
When you factor in things like the search for parking, driving through parking structures, and possibly longer waits in cars than in the train at traffic signals, it is quite conceivable that there are many situations in which the train may still be faster than car.
Good placement of train stops, e.g., at popular destinations with limited parking, can maximize the number of cases in which the train is faster than car. A limited number of elevated stops would minimize this.
Nice try Doug. It’s not in the EIS and given your position is disturbing that you don’t know that. The EIS considered alternatives to rail, but not alternative forms of rail. The heavy rail steel wheel was selected outside of the EIS process by a technical selection commitee, of which Panos was the lone dissenting member(he wanted rubber tires).
Btw, if you want to know where I got this information, look on your website.
It’s a highly informative website, given your job, I suggest you spend a evening familiarizing yourself with its contents, unless of course you are too busy shilling your nonsense.
This snarky comment is typical of the louder anti-railers. Doug, kudos to you for staying classy in the face of these schoolyard tactics.
Guess Panos lost out among the experts. Do I have that right?
Doug,
What’s the point of debating you if you on the facts of an issue when you just make stuff up ? The simple fact is people have been trying to engage you on the issue and you have failed miserably to respond. Maybe you should respond to EL questions, you might do better.
Doug Carlson // Nov 22, 2011 at 6:27 pm
EL — still waiting for your to comment on anything substantive.
——————————
There was no reply link to this Doug Carlson’s cop-out technique. So, I’m posting here.
I’ve seen too many PR engaged in this pattern of distraction. They want to cherry-pick to manipulate the conversation. They start to disparage others or hide behind excuses about getting too personal. I’m not buying this shibai.
Answer my basic background questions.
First things first.
If Doug Carlson won’t answer my basic questions, he has zilt credibility.
Cite something I’ve made up, Gene.
One thing that I forgot to mention is that this rail system is going to be fully automated, so a dedicated track would be necessary for that, and in the geography of the west side of Oahu, that would require an elevated system.
All along, proponents of the rail system have said that the rail would not be automated, but it is. Talk about at-grade car accidents is part of the obfuscation to divert attention from this. I expect that this is because the labor unions would be concerned about cutting out drivers from the system. But replacing bus drivers after their 2003 strike with an automated transportation system was always a primary objective.
This sounds logical on paper, but displacing the bus system with a $6 billion rail system with its own maintenance needs and that will be high tech and “buggy” is sort of impractical. Also, it’s out in the low-rise suburbs, and unless there is extensive Transit Oriented Development, the system would not get optimal use. Indeed, there are no real plans by developers to build apartments along the route because residents are expressing no real interest in living in apartments next to train stations. So now the City plans on hiring MORE bus drivers and expanding the bus system to feed the rail system. That is an absurdity in itself because the system was supposed to cut back on the rising cost of bus drivers. But what makes this really absurd is that feeder buses are no substitute for TOD. The system will go largely unused as planned.
Like scatter-brained caterers, in order to avoid spending money on bottled water, they bought the most expensive whiskey. But now it turns out that they will have to also buy water in greater quantities than they would have in the first place because they now believe their clients need water with their whiskey. Moreover, it turns out that they will be serving teetotalers.
Vehicle Debates – that’s all these are. Just none of these oddly doomed vehicles are helpful for anything except transport, already expertly solved by anyone taking to a bus back seat with a book, and soon with wi-fi.
What is heavily looming but forever ignored-into-denial in this red state is a Culture Debate, never even considered in these sort of unfocused Occupy Fixed Rail “debates.”
Note Nancy, half-way up this page in the first live comment on November 22 (at 6:53 am), who so vividly pepper-sprays the “proud, rabidly car-centric local culture.”
“Rabidly” – now that certainly is personal.
It’s always personal if you disagree with it. Our culture IS rabidly car-centric, to the point where we not only want to drive our cars everywhere, but we insist that others do, too. Oahu residents are hostile toward alternative means of transit (bicycles, motorcycles, pedestrians, etc.). It’s bizarre.
Doug,
That the light rail vs heavy rail was done as part of the EIS. It wasn’t. That was the original subject that you keep trying to change.
And so Carlson never “got back to you” on the “alternative” issue after trying to “paper” you with a “find it yourself” link and then admitting that HE couldn’t find it… typical.
Also I liked Ian’s ultimate quote about people with conflicts of interest- that “it doosn’t influence what I think and say” is what everyone with a conflict says…
Let’s just hope that when the city shows up in court, they have a better set of arguments on this point. b/c the are going to need it.
else, to quote Mr. Roth, “the court will finally order the city to do a ‘real’ study of the various transit alternatives”. Many claim this action will kill the project forever.
Popping your balloon fun, Andy. Here’s what I posted elsewhere on this page:
“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.”
And since Ian hasn’t done me the courtesy of withdrawing his “conflict of interest” charge, please enlighten me from her perch on Kauai about how an avowed and declared allegiance to the rail project becomes a conflict of interest when I support it here in comments. I’m beginning to think some people don’t understand the concept.
Doug,
There you go again….
Nice attempt at misdirection, but those documents don’t compare at-grade rail to elevated rail. Read’em. They compare a fixed guideway alternative(coul be elevated, could be at grade) to three other straw man alternatives, but never addresses the differences between elevated and at-grade.
It wasn’t until the final EIS was issued that some language was added to section 2.1 to make it look like at grade was studied when it wasn’t. In fact the text added to the final EIS is just somebody unsupported, unsubstantiated opinions.
So your point is that, although Doug can document the discussion about elevated vs. surface level transit did take place, that because you can’t find mention of that in the EIS is somehow a validation of your position that the City did not evaluate whether the transit should run on an elevated guideway or at ground level?
My understanding is that the Hannemann administration did make a decision that the system should be elevated because of the efficiency of not having to fight with surface traffic and the ability to use remote operators and automated systems which would not be possible if operating at the surface level, and Council agreed with that argument and voted for an elevated system. Is it your argument that an EIS should have been done for that decision?
Quote from another post in this discussion
“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.”
I’m not sure which kind of rail I’d choose if I had to, but here’s something the above quote brings to mind.
Lots of the time, when approached by members of the public with concerns or criticisms about rail, the reply you will get from our government officials is that their rail plan was approved by the FTA, supported by the FTA, praised by the FTA, etc. etc. Their argument seems to be that the FTA has such expertise that their endorsement should automatically overcome many if not most objections that have been raised regarding Honolulu’s rail project.
Being that tax dollars continue to be spent on the rail project to this day, it appears that the, “We’re right because the FTA agrees with us,” line has served backers of elevated rail well.
My question to whoever: Were the rail transit systems mentioned in the quote above, for example, the accident-a-week line in Phoenix and the Salt Lake City system with five fatalities, were these accident-prone rail transit systems built with or without FTA approval and guidance?
I’d like to get a better handle on just how much “FTA approval” is really worth.
Doug, I’ve posted some thoughts on some advantages of at-grade rail vs. elevated. I’m interested in your comments.
But while that will, hopefully, make for interesting discussion, let’s not lose sight of the question of whether the EIS adequately addressed all viable options. I can conceive that this could lead to another decision reminiscent of the Superferry.