Tag Archives: Honolulu rail project

Round and round we go in search of the missing light rail alternative

34 Replies

Full circle.

That’s where the discussion of rail has come since Monday’s entry (“What happened to the light rail alternative (redux)?“), which in turn linked back to a March 2010 entry with the same focus.

The point of both posts was to question why light rail wasn’t considered for use in Honolulu, although it has been by far the most prevalent type of urban rail transit built in the past three decades, both in the US and internationally. It has been the choice of most city planners and transit analysts. But not here. The question–why?

Enter Doug Carlson, a self-described communications consultant paid “specifically” to advance the city’s rail project.

In a series of comments, Doug said the light rail issue hadn’t been ignored. In response to questions, he wrote:

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.

This prompted more comments seeking specific citations.

Doug agreed to check in with “people much more familiar with the details of those documents than I am.”

Fair enough. This is what he reported back:

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.

At this point I’ll toss Doug’s challenge back to him: “If you haven’t taken the time to read those documents, you might want to go there.”

Those documents are precisely where I started and why I asked the question about the disappearance of light rail.

Back in the March 2010 (link above), I wrote:

Beginning in the fall of 2005, the city did the preliminary screening of alternatives that RLB refers to, and published the “Alternatives Screening Memo” in October 2006. Several different alternatives were rated. Light rail was called “a strongly recommended technology“.

Recommendation – Light Rail is a strongly recommended technology for alternatives with limited portions of mixed traffic and predominately exclusive right-of-way, although the transition between the two types of service will pose technical challenges (power collection and visual impact). This technology is also recommended for analysis for alternatives with exclusive right-of-way.”

The alternatives screening memo concluded by recommending that light rail should be included among several technologies to be further considered.

But when the Alternatives Screening Report followed just a month later, several technologies had been dropped after further consideration, and just four alternatives were included in the analysis.

No Build

Transportation System Management

Managed Lane

Fixed Guideway

Light rail was not neither rejected nor included for any additional analysis. It was essentially ignored….

Check the documents Doug refers to. I did.

I searched “Alternatives Analysis Detailed Definition of Alternatives Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project” for the term “light rail.” The term appears only three times, twice in one paragraph. You can easily replicate the search.

A broad range of technologies was considered for application to this alternative, including light rail transit, personal rapid transit, automated people mover, monorail, magnetic levitation (maglev), commuter rail, and emerging technologies that are still in the development stage. Through a screening process, seven transit technologies were selected and will be considered as possible options. Those seven potential technologies include: conventional bus, guided bus, light rail, people mover, monorail, maglev and rapid rail.

Nothing more in this document, although light rail was still an option at that point.

The second document is titled, “Alternatives Screening Memo Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project.”

Here light rail (LRT) gets slightly more discussion, with the conclusion that it is “highly recommended.”

Light Rail Vehicle – This technology primarily provides the Mixed Traffic and Limited Mixed Traffic types of transit service. It can also provide exclusive right-of-way type of transit service.

Advantages – This technology had advantages in maneuverability, costs (at-grade only), environmental, supplier competition and accessibility. The technology scored highly overall for moderate and high speed operations in both mixed traffic and exclusive right- of-way.

Disadvantages – This technology scored only moderately in performance in mixed traffic services. If the technology is to transition from mixed traffic to exclusive right-of-way along an alignment, there are technical issues (power collection, visual impact) that will be challenging.

Recommendation – Light Rail is a strongly recommended technology for alternatives with limited portions of mixed traffic and predominately exclusive right-of-way, although the transition between the two types of service will pose technical challenges (power collection and visual impact). This technology is also recommended for analysis for alternatives with exclusive right-of-way.

But that’s as far as it goes.

After that, as far as I can tell it just disappears.

Parsons Brinckerhoff, which prepared the alternatives analysis, was well qualified to produce a study of the pros and cons of light rail. They’ve produced similar assessments for light rail projects in many cities across the country. What seems clear to me is that the client–the city–must have discouraged any real examination of light rail because, I would suggest, it would have been too obvious an alternative.

And, given the mindset of city officials, any serious examination of alternatives would have been seen as delaying the process and threatening the ability to apply for federal funds while Senator Inouye was in such a key position in the appropriations process. That’s just an educated guess on my part.

In any case, despite nearly 80 comments and lots of fire and brimstone on all sides, we still face that nagging question raised on Monday. Where did the city’s analysis of alternatives provide a detailed assessment of light rail? It doesn’t appear to be where Doug and those he consulted expected to find it. If it was evaluated seriously, where do we find that evaluation? If it wasn’t, then we’ve still got that “why not?” question to address.

And since light rail would likely be considerably less expensive, quicker to get built and running, and less visually intrusive, among other potential advantages, it deserved to be taken seriously.

But personally, I’m going to take a break and start the turkey roasting.

Following the money behind the latest rail lawsuit

21 Replies

Once again, I noticed the mainstream reporting on the federal lawsuit filed last week challenging the environmental impact statement for the Honolulu rail project didn’t include links to the complaint itself. Hawaii News Now had the only story I saw that linked to a copy of the 56-page complaint. It linked to the copy posted on the HonoluluTraffic.com web site. My apologies in advance if I missed other stories that included a link to the court document.

In any case, here’s my own link to the complaint, downloaded from the federal court’s PACER records system.

HonoluluTraffic.com is the lead plaintiff, identified as “a Hawaii non-profit corporation.” Cliff Slater, president of the group, is quoted as saying they have already raised over $100,000 to fund the lawsuit. That raised my curiosity.

I’ll say at the front end that I agree with the contention that the city failed to perform a credible analysis of alternatives to an elevated fixed rail system, but I’m still curious about HonoluluTraffic.com.

According to the state’s business registration web site, HonoluluTraffic.com was formed in 2003 as Sensible Traffic Alternatives and Resources, Ltd, and used a registered trade name, HonoluluTraffic.com. The group formally changed its name to HonoluluTraffic.com on March 22, 2011 and cancelled the associated trade name. Officers listed on its most recent annual report are Cliff Slater, president/director; Garry Smith, secretary/director, and Rosalie Slater, treasurer/director.

Although registered with DCCA as a nonprofit organization since 2003, neither HonoluluTraffic.com nor Sensible Traffic Alternatives and Resources is on the Attorney General’s list of registered charitable organizations. Similarly, there is no record of the groups on the list maintained by Guidestar.org of nonprofit organizations registered with the IRS.

Now I see that there’s a note soliciting contributions on HonoluluTraffic.com:

To help fund our lawsuit please make a tax-deductible donation to SBH Foundation Rail Fund, 6600 Kalanianaole Hwy, Suite 212, Honolulu HI 96825

State business registration records show the Small Business Hawaii Entrepreneurial Education Foundation is headed by GOP Senator Sam Slom. It lists its purpose: “To promote and provide entrepreneurial information, training, education and scholarships through publications, radio and television, public meetings, conferences, seminars, and an interactive website in Hawaii.

I could not find the SBH Entrepreneurial Education Foundation, a 501(c)(3) organization, on the AG’s list.

State business registration records show Small Business Hawaii is a trade name registered by the Small Business Association of Hawaii, a “membership business association.”

According to the group’s web site, it changed its name to Smart Business Hawaii in 2009. However, it is still registered with the state as “Small Business Hawaii.” Smart Business Hawaii is not registered as an organization or trade name.

Monday reading: The first two rail-related lawsuits

13 Replies

Two recent cases are the first to be filed relating to Honolulu’s rail project.

The first, filed by the Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation, is relatively straightforward. It argues that state law regarding burials and historic resources requires an inventory to be done where burials can be expected to be found. And the law also requires that this be done before decisions are made so that the information can be taken into account in a timely fashion.

Here’s a link to the full complaint.

The legal argument appears to hinge on one point. The lawsuit argues that the rail project can’t be arbitrarily divided into segments or construction phases in order to delay or defer the required archaeological survey until well after construction is started on the project.

The complaint argues that all four phases “are connected and part of a single project,” and none of the individual phases “has independent utility.”

The failure to complete a survey of burials along the route is a clear violation of law, according to the complaint.

The second lawsuit challenges city contracting policies for the rail project. Here’s the link to the full 51-page complaint, some of which is taken up with listings of rail contracts.

It’s a bit technical, but also straightforward. State procurement law originally allowed contracts to be awarded even if fewer that three bids were received. The law was later amended to delete this provision, making it clear that a minimum of three bids are required. However, city rules were never updated to reflect the amendments to the law, and some city contracts, including lucrative rail contracts, have been awarded without the legally required competition.

The lawsuit argues that the city does not have the authority to issue rules that are contrary to state law.

It cites a 2005 city audit.

“…our audit reveals that certain sole source, emergency, and professional services purchases approved by the city have either violated the state procurement code or city policies. THere are indications of a pervasive level of procurement code violations. ANti-competitive practices are contrary to law and costly to taxpayers.”

I have a feeling Mayor Carlisle’s bravado (“We’re confident we can successfully address these arguments in court”) is going to be seriously challenged in these two cases.

NJ Governor rethinking planned $8.7 billion train tunnel…could it happen here?

16 Replies

New Jersey’s Republican governor is reportedly considering pulling the plug on a long-planned $8.7 billion transit tunnel, despite 20 years of planning and $6 billion in federal and state funding commitments, according to a New York Times story yesterday.

The tunnel, which was scheduled to be completed in 2017, was designed to double the capacity for passengers traveling between Manhattan and New Jersey. Its planners have said that it would create 6,000 construction jobs, reduce congestion and pollution and spur $660 million in annual economic activity in the metropolitan area. Without it, they said, the region must rely on a century-old, two-track tunnel from New Jersey to Pennsylvania Station in New York that is already nearing capacity.

A Bloomberg news update says the cancelation will be announced at a press conference this afternoon.

The latest move follows a temporary moratorium on state spending for the project imposed last month.

You have to wonder whether Gov. Lingle, who is open about her national Republican aspirations, may find political benefit in following suit.