City Councilmember Duke Bainum warned last week that the city’s rush to begin construction of the proposed rail transit system coupled with its insistence on a train running on an elevated concrete guideway for its entire distance “will create a Superferry-Like legal limbo for the rail project”.

Bainum pointed to choices made by the city even before the draft environmental impact statement was released for public comment.

The technology has already been selected. Despite denials, the public has been misled into thinking the technology hasn’t been chosen yet. The City has chosen an elevated, above-grade technology for the entire route. If you don’t believe me, read the requests for proposals they’ve issued for the guideway and the core system already – terminology such as “high floor”, “high vehicle platform” and “power contact rail” are signals that the City is NOT looking for a flexible technology. By choosing an elevated fixed guideway, the City is severely limiting it’s choices of how and where it can expand the route – if it can even be afforded.

Documents support the view that Mayor Mufi Hannemann’s administration selected a particular rail technology and refused to discuss alternatives as much as a year before its own environmental impact study, including an assessment of environmental costs and potential alternatives, was prepared and released for public comment.

The early decision on technology may have short-circuited the process required by federal environmental protection laws.

In early 2007, when the Honolulu Chapter of the American Institute of Architects publicly expressed its concerns about the visual impact of an elevated rail system through central Honolulu, it was told that the observations were premature and to come back later.

According to a February 23, 2007 story in Pacific Business News, the city’s top planner responded to AIA’s concerns by saying “it’s too early in the process for architects to get involved.”

But when the AIA wrote to Mayor Hannemann in December 2007, again expressing its concerns about the visual impact of the concrete guideway, Mayor Hannemann responded with a “kiss off” letter, rejecting their concerns as “11th hour opposition” that was too late to be considered seriously.

Hannemann’s letter, addressed to then-AIA President Peter Vincent, was copied to the group’s officers and board of directors. It has recently been circulating as evidence of the city’s apparent bad-faith.

During an AIA-sponsored panel last week, transportation consultant Phil Craig directed attention to the city’s own Federal Register notice spelling out the process to be followed, and noted that it promised to assess the light rail alternative. That assessment was never done.

In addition, the city officially advised that comments on a preferred alternative should be deferred until after the EIS was completed, while behind the scenes that decision had been made by the administration.

The city’s official “Intent to prepare an environmental impact statement“, appeared in the Federal Register on March 15, 2007. It discussed the initial “scoping” process, in which interested individuals and organizations were asked to comment on issues and alternatives to be included in the EIS.

Specifically, the city’s Federal Register notice stated:

Comments on the alternatives should propose alternatives that would satisfy the purpose and need at less cost or with greater effectiveness or less environmental or community impact and were not previously studied and eliminated for good cause. At this time, comments should focus on the scope of the NEPA review and should not state a preference for a particular alternative. The best opportunity for that type of input will be after the release of the draft EIS. (emphasis added)

But by the time the draft EIS was made public in November 2008, the administration was not listening to comments.

As Wayne Yoshioka, the city’s Director of Transportation Services, said told AIA last week: “With all due respect, the decision has been made.”

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency also criticized the failure of the draft EIS to consider the alternative of the kind of light rail system backed by AIA.

In a February 12, 2009 letter to the Federal Transit Administration, the EPA wrote:

…we have remaining questions about why light rail or bus rapid transit in an exclusive right-of-way were not considered as reasonable alternatives in the DEIS. Additional information should be included in the FEIS (final environmental impact statement) explaining why these technologies were not considered to be reasonable alternatives and were therefore not reviewed in the DEIS.

Craig also predicted the city’s project could have trouble meeting Federal Transit Administration criteria “because it will cost too much in comparison with the predicted ridership levels and high environmental damage,” a concern echoed by Bainum in his comments.