Final EIS Appendix A Part 3

Status : Initial Action Needed
Creation Date : 12/29/2008
Creator Affiliation :
First Name : Ben
Last Name : Ramelb
Business/Organization : Retired Civil Engineer
Address : 1 148 Ala Lilikoi St
Alternative Preference :
Apt./Suite No. :
City : HON
State : HI
Zip Code : 96818
Email : ramelbbOO1@hawaii.rr.com
Telephone :
Telephone Extension :
Add to Maiiing List : Both
Submission Method : Website
Other Submission Method :
Submission Date :

Submission Content/Notes : 29 December, 2008
To:
Mr. Wayne Yoshioka
Director Department of Transportation Services
City and Courlty of Honolulu
650 South King St. 3rd Floor
Honolulu
HI 96813
FAX: (808) 587-6080

Subject: Comment on Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
"Honolulu High-capacitytransit corridor Project: tssue - Scope of Work
reduced in DEIS from scope stipulated in 2006 Notice of lntent
Fact:
The project scope outlined in the 2006 Notice of lntent (Not) agreement
between the Federal Transit Administration and the City and County of
Honolulu is violated. The NO1 explicitly mentions a fixed guideway from
Kapolei to the UH. The DElS fixed guide way starts well outs~de Kapolel
and ends at Ala Moana Shopping Center. The 34 miles have become 20
miles in the DEiS.
Discussion:
The DElS reduces the project scope as stated in the Notice of lntent
NOI) dated 7 Dec 2007 reference (a), which states:
'The Federa, Transit Administration (FTA] and the City and County of
Honolulu, Department of Transportation Servlces (DTS) intend to
prepare an EIS (and Alternative Analysis (AA)) on a proposal by the City
and County of HonoIulu to implement transit improvementsthat
potentially include high-capacity transit service in a 25-mile travel
corridor between Kapolei and the University of Hawaii at Manoa and
Waikiki."
Discussion:
The City's 2006 Alternatives Analysis states that "The primary project
study area is the travel corridor between Kapolei and the University of
tlawai'i at Manoa.
The DElS covers a fixed guideway route of 20 miles from Kapolei to Ala
Moana Center. The Draft Environmental impact of the fixed guideway
is limited to only the 20 miles rather than the full 34 miles from Kalaeloa
to Waikiki and UN Manoa.
Conclusion:
The project scope outlined in the 2006 Notice of lntent (N01) agreement
between the Federal Transit Administration and the City and County of
HonotuIu is vioiated.
Recommendation:

It is strongly recommended that the project scope contained in the DEIS
be expanded to include a rail route to both Waikiki and to UH Manoa.
Respectfully,
Ben Ramelb P.E.
1148 Ala Lilikoi St
Honolulu, HI
96818

Reference (a):
[Federal Register: December 7, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 234)]
[Notices]
[Page 72871-728731 From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCIO:fr07de05-1371
Copy to:
1) Mr. Ted Matley
FTA Region IX
201 Mission St. Suite f 650
San Francisco, CA 94105
FAX 415-744-2726
Governor Linda tingle
Hawaii State Capitol
415 S 8eretania St. 5th Floor
Honolulu, HI 96813
FAX (808) 586-0006
3)Honolulu City Council Members
FAX (808) 867-5011

-------------..--..-
First Name : Ben
Last Name : Ramelb
Address : f 148 Ala Lilikoi St
Apt.lSuite No. :
City : HON
State : HI
Zip Code : 96818
Ernail : ramelbbOO1Qhawaii.rr.com
Telephone :
Add to Mailing List : Both
Submission Date :

Submission ContentlNotes : 29 December, 2008
To:
Mr. Wayne Yoshioka
City and County of Honolulu
Honolulu
HI 96813
FAX: (808) 587-6080
"Honolulu High-capacity transit corridor Project", Issue : The DEIS
incorrectly excludes Managed Lanes and other alternatives
Discussion: DEIS Chapter 2 summarizes alternatives considered for the
Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project. The alternatives
considered were chosen primarily by the Alternative Analysis published
in 2006.
The AA was flawed because it failed t i include several transit
alternatives, each with the capability to substantially reduce or eliminate
the traffic congestion on H-1 at Pearl City and Middle St. merge in year
2030, As shown on Table 3-12 of the AA and DEIS Table 3-12, All rail
aiternatives result in worse traffic congestion on H-1 AFTER any rail
alternative is built and operating.
The fact that rail wilt worsen congestion on H-1 after spending a
minimum of $6.2 Billion for the Rail alternative, it is totally unacceptable
to the Oahu taxpayer to continue to face worse traffic congestion on H-1
which is the single, primary reason for building a "mass transit system".
As a minimum, the OElS should include the following additional
alternatives:
Four alternatives should be assessed:
1) BRT transit system as proposed by the Harris Administration. The
BRT route downtown should be limited to King and Beretanla Streets
and exclude Dillingham Blvd and Kapiolani Blvd.
2) Managed Lane (reversible) as proposed by Professor Panos. .
Prevedouros Study, 'Transportation Afternatives Analysis for M~t~gating
Traffic Congestion between Leeward Oahu and Honolululu" which
shows the 11 mite three-lane cost estimate to be $900 million which is in
line with the $320 million Tampa three-lane reversible transitway.
3) Former mayoral candidate Ann Kobayashi's proposal for a 15 mile
EzWay. See
http:/lwww.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/200810 15/NEWS01/8 0 5039
2/1001
4) Build two elevated highway bypasses around the H-1 bottlenecks at H-
1/H-2 merge and at Middle St. merge. The bypasses include: a) a 4
mile, three-lane reversible elevated highway (Kamehameha Flyover)
over the Kamehameha Hwy median beween the H-I/H-2 merge and the
H-1 Viaduct at Aloha Stadium and b) a 3 mile, three-lane reversible

elevated hwy (Nimitz Flyover) over the Nimitz Hwy median between the
H-IViaduct at Keehi Lagoon Drive and Hotel StIAlakea St./ Halekauwila
StIAla Moana Blvd. An onloff ramp to Waikamilo Rd from the Nimitz
bypass would reduce the number of lanes from three to two between
Waikamilo Rd and Iwilei. See attachment for more information on HOV
flyovers.
Conclusion: The above four transit alternatives meet the goals and
objectives of the Honolulu General Plan and Oahu Regional
Transportation Plan and therefore should be includes for consideration
for Oahu Mass Transit system in the West Oahu corridor.
Recommendation: Include the above four alternatives in the DEIS.
Respectfully,
Ben Ramelb P.E.
1148 Ala Lilikoi St.
Honolulu HI 96818
Copy to:
1) Mr. Ted Matley
FTA Region IX
201 Mission St. Suite 1650
FAX 415-744-2726
2) Governor Linda Lingle
415 S Beretania St. 5th Floor
Honolulu, HI 96813
FAX (808) 586-0006
3) Honolulu City Council Members
FAX (808) 867-501 1

Attachment - Description of Nimitz and Kamehameha HOV Flyovers
Nimitz Flyover, Reversible HOV:
The Nimitz HOV Flyover is a 3-mile reversible, elevated, three-lane
structure over the Nimitz Highway median from the Airport Viaduct at
Keehi Lagoon to Hotel Street and Alakea StJHalekauwila St. The
Flyover would be built similar to the Tampa Elevated three-lane
Reversible HOV as described in-
http://www.tollroadsnews,com/node/l72 .
One of the three lanes would exit the Flyover at Waikamilo Rd. to
provide access to job centers in Kalihi, resulting in the Flyover having
only two lanes entering downtown. The downtown terminal connections
from the Nimitz HOV Flyover include an elevated busway from lwilei to
Hotel Street and a single lane underpass to both Alakea SffHalekauwila
Streets. These connections are described in a Managed Lane Study

"Transportation Alternatives Analysis for Mitigating Traffic congestion
between Leeward Oahu and Honolulu". The fult report is available at
www.eng.hawaii.edu/-panos/UHCS.pdf.
The initial 2005 cost for the 10 mile Tampa Reversible was $320 million
or $32 Million per highway mile, however, a geotechnical design error
increased the cost to $420 million or $42 million per mife. Using a
geographic and escalation factor of 100 percent, the 3-mile Nimitz HOV
Flyover at $60 to $80 million per mile would cost $180 million to $240
million.
The "Nimitz Flyover" has an approved Final Environmental Impact
Statement which allows for early construction.
Kamehameha Flyover, Reversible HOV:
The Kamehameha HOV Flyover is a 3-mile reversible, elevated, three-
lane structure over the median of Kamehameha Highway from the H-
t/H-2 merge at the Waiawa fnterchange to the Airport Viaduct just
diamond head of the Aloha Stadium. The Flyover would be built similar
to the Tampa Elevated three-lane Reversible HOV as described in-
http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/l72 .
The Kamehameha Flyover would be connected to H-I, H-2,
Kamehameha Highway and Farrington Highway at the west end and to
the Airoort Viaduct at the east end. These connections are described in
a an aged Lane Study "Transportation Alternatives Analysis for
Mitiaatina Traffic conaestion between Leeward Oahu and Honolulu". The
full TeporT is availablevat www.eng.hawaii.edu/-panos/UHCS.pdf.
increased the cost to $420 million or $42 million per mile. Using a
geographic and escalation factor of 100 percent, the 4-mile
Kamehameha HOV Flyover at $60 to $80 million per mile would cost
between $240 million to $320 million.
-
The Oraft Environmental lmpact Statement (DEIS) Honolulu High-
Capacity Transit Corridor Project Nov 2008 , shows the rail route over
Kamehameha Highway between Pearl City and Aloha Stadium which
could conflict with the proposed three-lane "Kamehameha Ftyover" route
outlined above. I f the rail is built, it is suggested that both the
Kamehameha Hiahwav "Flvover" and the Rail be built within the
elevated ~ a m e h i m e h a i g h w a y
~ corridor. In this case, only a two-lane
"Kamehameha Flvover" is needed (instead of three-lanes) to be built
alongside and parallel to the Rail trinsit. The rail with a capacity of 6,000
commuters per hour and the two-lane "Kamehameha Flyover", with a
capacity of 4,000 vehicles per hour, should be adequate to substantjally
reduce the bottleneck at the H-IM-2 merge and the traffic congestion on
H-1 between Pearl City and Aloha Stadium.

--"."."---.--".----
First Name : Ben ,

Last Name : Ramelb
Busines~lOrganization : Retired Civil Engineer
Address : 1148 Ala Lilikoi St
Apt.fSuite No. :
City : HON
State : H
Zip Code : 96818
Email : rameIbb001 Q hawaii.rr.com
Telephone :
Submission Method : WePsite
Submission Date :

To:
Mr. Wayne Yoshioka
Honolulu
HI 96813
FAX: (808) 587-6080
"Honolulu High-capacity transit corridor Project", Issue : The DElS
unjustly excludes Managed Lanes and other alternatives
Discussion:
DElS Chapter 2 evaluates only "No build and Sfeel Wheel Rail Transit"
alternatives identified by the 2006 City Alternative Analysis. The AA
intentionally assigned flawed information to the Managed Lanes
Alternative (MLA) to eliminate the MLA from further consideration for
Oahu's Mass Transit system. The flawed information is further
displayed in Honolulutransit.com which makes a comparison of Mass
Transit Options including the MLA (aka HOT) and is shown below.
Honolulutransit.com provides a chart to compare the Mass Transit
o tions and concludes that Steel Wheel Rail Transit is the best option.
~ [ eMass Transit Options included:
1) Steel Wheel Rail Transit (SWRT)
2) Rubber Tire Fixed Guideway (RTFG)
3) Elevated "HOT" Toll roads or Managed Lanes (HOT)
Comparison of Options (see chart in www.honolulutransit.comRAQ
under "Why was steel wheel Technology chosen for Honolulu?"
A) Lowest construction cost: SWRT - YES ; RTFG'- NO ;HOT NO.
B) Lowest Cost to maintain and operate: SWRT - YES ; RTFG - NO ;
-
HOT - NO.
C) Qualifies for federal transit funding: SWRT -YES ; RTFG -YES ;
HOT - NO.
-
D) Highest Passenger Capacity: SWRT YES ; RTFG -YES ;HOT -
NO.
~)f~lectric-powered, run on wind, solar, H-power: SWRT YES ;
-
RTFG YES ; HOT - NO.
can -
F Liahtest construction irnoact on communitv: SWRT- YES : RTFG -
f
Y'EsI HOT - NO.
G) Greatest relief of traffic congestion: SWRT - YES ;RTFG -YES ;
. .- . . - - .
HOT- NO.
H) Lowest operating noise levels: SWRT - YES ; RTFG - NO ; HOT -
. --.
Nn
I) Most proven transit sofution: SWRT -YES ; RTFG - NO ; HOT - NO.
There are comparison flaws between HOT and SWRT or RTFG in each
of the above topics. However, the major flawed comparisons are found
in comparisons "A", "D", and '%" as explained below.
-
Discussion of Comparison A) (Rail has) Lowest construction Cost:

The capital cost estimate for the 30 mile SWRT in the Alternative
Analysis (Table 5-1 ) is $5.5 Billion for Kamokiia to Waikiki or $1 83
million per mile (rail includes 20 c four story rail stations, 180 land
acquisition and power substations at each rail station). The Alternative
Analysis assigns a capital cost estimate for 11 mile HOT two-lane
reversible highway from Waikele to lwilei at $2.57 Billion or $233 million
per mile (HOT has zero bus stations and zero power substations).
The AA-assigned capital cost estimate for the HOT reversible at $233
per mile is grossly incorrect based on several factors:
a) The Oahu Regional Transportation Plan (ORTP 2030) link
http:lloahumpo.orglortp/OATP2O3O/OMPOORepoFlNALpdf shows
the State Project No. 52 - 2.2 mile Nimitz two-lane elevated flyover at
$250 million (State DOT cost Estimate) or $1 13 million per mite.
b) The 10 mile Tampa three-lane elevated expressway
http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/l72 cost $420 million or $42 million
per mile.
c) The AA assigned cost estimate for the HOT reversible would conclude
that the HOT would cost twice as much per lane mile as H-3, the most
expensive highway because it had to bore two tunnels through the
Koolaus.
d) Professor Panos Prevedouros study "Transportation Alternative
Analysis for Mitigating traffic Congestion between Leeward Oahu and
Honolulu" March 2008, shows a cost estimate for a three lane, 11 mile
elevated Managed Lane For $900 million or $81 million per mile. The
Managed Lane facility is similar in construction to the Tampa three lane
elevated reversible. f he full report is available at
Conclusion: It is concluded that the AA-assigned capital cost estimate
for the HOT reversible at $233 per mile is grossly incorrect and that a
three-lane reversible HOT or managed lane is estimated to cost not
more than $80 mijlion per mile or $880 million for 11 miles from the H-
1/H-2 merge to downtown Hotel Street.
--.-------------."---"-"--"-----."-*--
-
Discussion of Comparison D) (Rail has) Highest Passenger Capacity:
Numbers from Table 3-12 of city 2006 Nov Alternative Analysis ($10
million report):
Rail only: The rail has a peak passenger capacity of 6,000 commuters
per hour (2,000 seated, 4,000 standees) based on 300 commuters per
train group at 3 minute intervals. Also see honolulutransit.com~FAQ
"What is Honolulu Rail Transit?" for rail commuter capacity.
HOT or Managed Lane: The HOT will have three lanes, each lane has a
capacity of 2000 vph. For three lanes, the vehicular capacity is 6000
vehicles per hour. The HOT person capacity is calculated thus:
Projected use of the HOT during peak hour includes:
200 express buses w/-50 pns = 10,000 pns
500 HOV5 (carpool) = 2,500 pns
500 vanpool (-5pns = 2,500 pns.
Remaining excess capacity available for low occupancy vehicles:
6,000 vph minus (200 -t. 500 + 500) = 4,800 vph. 4,800 low occupancy
vehicles

Average persons per vehicle = 1.2 pns per vehicle
4,800 vehicles with 1.2 pns = 5700 pns
Summary: HOT persons capacity = 10,000 + 2,500 +2,500 .c 5,700 = -
20,700 pns
Conclusion: Rail carries 6,000 commuters per hour while a three-lane
HOT or Managed Lane carries about 20,000 commuters per hour.
Managed Lane Alternative carries over three times the commuter
capacity of rail.
-----."-""----------.--""-------".-*.--.---.--"----
-
Comparison G) (Rail provides) Greatest relief of traffic congestion:
Numbers from Table 3-12 of city 2006 Nov Alternative Analysis ($1 0
million report):
Rail only: The rail has a peak passenger capacity of 6,000 commuters
per hour (2,000 seated, 4,000 standees) based on 300 commuters per
train group at 3 minute intervals,
H-1 only: rated capacity = 9,500 vehicles per hour (equivalent 15,400
commuters per hour)
H-1 forecast yr 2030 traffic load = 17,500 vehicles per hour per City AA
Table 3-12 (or 8,000 vph overload = 9,600 commuters per hour)
Managed Lane three-Lane HOV Reversible Flyover: capacity = 6,000
high occupancy vehicles per hour (equivalent 21,600 commuters per
hour). Capacity based on HOV use on Flyover by 200 express buses
per peak hour, car pools, van pools, green cars and HOV2. (50 pns per
express bus and 5800 vph at avge 2 pns per vehicle).
Year 2030 commuter load by City AA Report = Rail (6000) + H-1
overload (9,600) c H-1 capacity (15,400) = 31,000 commuters.
2030 Load = 31,000 commuters per hour
Rail + H-1 = 21,400 commuters per hour
Managed Lane HOV + H-I = 37,000 commuters per hour
Conclusion: Rail does not have sufficient commuter capacity which will
cause 9,600 commuters to be stuck in gridlock on H-1 or stuck at rail
stations (especially at stations between Waipahu and Kalihi). Managed
Lane HOV Alternative will eliminate congestion and bottlenecks on H-I.
Overall Conclusion and Recommendation:
It is concluded that the Managed Lane (three-Lane HOT) Alternative was
erroneously discarded for further evaluation in the Alternative Analysls
and thereforeit is recommended that the ManagedLane (Three-Lane
elevated HOT) must be reinstated into the DElS for consideration as a
viable Mass Transit Alternative.
Respectfully,
Ben Rarnelb P.E.

Honolufu HI 96818
Copy to:
11 Mr. Ted Matlev
FTA Region IX *
FAX 415-744-2726
415 S Seretania St. 5th Floor
Honolulu, HI 96813
FAX (808) 586-0006
3) tdonolulu City Councii Members
FAX (808) 867-5011

--.-.-----.--------
First Name : Ben
Last Name : Ramelb
BusinesslOrganization : Retired Civil Engineer
Apt./Suite No. :
City : HON
State : Hi
Zip Code : 96818
Email : rarnelbbOO1@t?awaii.rr.com
Telephone :
Submission Date :

To:
Mr. Wayne Yoshioka
Honolulu
HI 96813
FAX: (808) 587-6080
Subject: Comment on Oraft Environmental Impact Statement ( D E B )
"Honolulu High-capacity transit corridor Project", Issue : The DElS
shows Summary of Alternative Analysis Findings which contains inflated
Capital cost for Managed Lane Alternative (MLA)
Fact:
DElS Chapter 2, Table 2-1 sh0ws.a Summary of Alternative Analysis
Findings including Type of alternat~ve Total Capital cost for each
and
alternative:
Alternative Total Capital Cost
- 2030 No Build $600 million
- 2030 Transp. Sys. Mgmt $856 million
- 2030 Managed Lane (MLA) $3.6 to $4.7 Billion (two-lanes, I 1 miles)
- 2020 Fixed Guidewav $4.1 to $6.1 Billion (28 miles)
, .
isc cuss ion:
Table 2-1 shows total capital cost information for the Managed Lane
Alternative (MLA) of $3.6 to $4.7 Billion or $327 Million to $427 million
per mile over 11 miles.
The AA-assigned capital cost estimate for the Managed Lane Alternative
(Two-lane elevated reversible hwy) is grossly incorrect based on several
factors:
a) The Oahu Regional Transportation Plan (ORTP 2030) link
http:/loahumpo.org/ortp/ORTP2030/OMPO~Report~FINAL.pdf shows
the State Project No. 52 - 2.2 mile Nimitz two-lane elevated flyover at
$250 million (State DOT cost Estimate) or $1 13 million per mile.
b) The 10 mile Tampa three-lane elevated expressway
http:/lwww.tollroadsnews.com/node/i72 cost $420 million or $42 million
per mile.
c) The AA assigned cost estimate for the HOT reversible would conclude
that the HOT would cost twice as much per lane mite as M-3, the most
Koolaus.
d) Professor Panos Prevedouros study "Transportation Alternative
Honolulu" March 2008, shows a cost estimate for a three-lane, 11 mile
eievated Managed Lane for $900 million or $81 million per mile. The
elevated reversible. The full report is available at

Conclusion: It is concluded that the AA-assigned capital cost estimate
for the HOT reversible at $327 Millio? to $427 million per mile i grossly
s
incorrect and that a three-lane reversible MLA is estimated to cost not
more than $80 million per mile or $880 million for 11 miles from the H-
IIH-2 merge to downtown Hotel Street.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the DElS show a revised lower cost for the
Managed Lane Alternative (Elevated three-Lane reversible), including
Table 2-1, as depicted in www.eng.hawaii.edul-panos/UHCS.pdf, and
that the MLA be reinstated into the DElS for consideration as a viable
Mass Transit Alternative.
Respectfully,
Ben Ramelb P.E.
Honolulu HI 96818
Copy to:
1) Mr. Ted Matley
FTA Region IX
FAX 4 15-744-2726
Honolulu, HI 96813
FAX (808) 586-0006
FAX (808) 867-5011

First Name : Ben
Last Name : Ramelb
BusinessfOrganization : Retired Civil Engineer
AptJSuite No. :
City : HON
State : HI
Zip Code : 968 18
Email : ramelbb0010 hawaii.rr.com
Telephone :
Submission Date :

Submission ContentiNotes : 29 December, 2008
To:
Mr. Wayne Yoshioka
Honolulu
HI 96813
FAX: (808) 587-6080
"Honolulu High-capacitytransit corridor Project", Issue :The DElS must
expand Mass transit alternatives for evaluation as required by law
".
Discussion: The Alternative Analysis and DElS failed to provide .. an
assessment of a wide range of public transportation alternatives ..."
andfor "... sufficient informationto enable the Secretary to make the
findings of project justification ..."as required by statute.
Furthermore, the City, Parsons Brinkerhoff (PB) and the Federal Transit
Authority failed to "Rigorouslv explore and obiectivelv evaluate all
reasonable alternatives," and "Devote substantial treatment to each
alternative considered in detail includina the D ~ O D O S ~ ~ so that
action
reviewers may evaluate their cornparatbe merits," as required by the
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Sec. 1502.14.
For example, the Managed Lane Alternative (MLA) in the Alternative
Analysis (AA) established a capital cost estimate for 11 mile MLA two-
lane reversible highway from Waikele to lwilei at $2.57 Biilion or $233
million per mile. The 2006 AA did not consider the fact that the Tampa
three-lane, 10 mile, elevated expressway was built for $420 million or
$42 million per mile. See Tampa
http://www.tollroadsnews.comlnode/l72 . Had the city AA PB consultant
reviewed the Tampa Reversible Expressway actual constructioncost,
the AA would have assigned a Capital cost estimate for the two-fane
MLA at no more than $80 million per mile instead of $233 million per
mile.
There are alternatives other than fixed guideway which the AA should
have considered knowing that Mayor Mufi Hannemann have, for over
two years, ~nsisted the people of West Oahu wanted traffic
that
congestion on H-1 be sotved and they wanted a solution NOW! The PB
consultants should have identified the congestion problem from West
and Central Oahu to be the two major "H-1 bottlenecks" which are at the
H-1fH-2 merge and at the Middle Street merge. The PB consultants
should then have identified transit alternatives to eliminate the two
bottlenecks. Instead, P 8 proceeded to support the more expensive $6.0
c rail transit as the most cost effective transit solution. The final PB
prepared AA indicates that the $6.e Billion rail transit WORSENS the
congestion at the two bottlenecksas shown on AA table 3-12 which
shows that traffic OVERLOAD on H-1 after rail is built will increase from
1,500 vehicles per hour overload to 8,000 vph overload!
PB, with their expertise, should have had the ability to know that the first

low-cost alternative to eliminate the H-1 bottlenecks is to build a three-
lane, three-mile elevated reversible "Nimitz HOV Flyover" from the
Airport ViaducVKeehi Lagoon Drive to downtown Hotel Street and
Alakea Street. This Nimitz flyover will easily eliminate the Middle Street
bottleneck tor less than $300 million, details can be found in a 2008
study www.eng.hawaii.edu/-panos/UHCS.pdf. Furthermore, this
project is identified as State Project as Number 52 in the Oahu Regional
Transportation Plan (ORTP 2030) and a Final E S was approved during
I
the Ben Cayetano Administration.
PB could have also easily identified that a similar "Kamehameha
Flyover", a 4-mile, three-lane elevated reversible HOV over
Kamehameha Hwy median between the H-1/H-2 merge and the Airpori
Viaduct east of Aloha Stadium. This Kamehameha Flyover has the
capacity to eliminate the H-1/H-2 traffic bottleneck because it would
have 3 lanes of one-way HOV traffic during peak period. The capacity
evaluation for the Kam flyover follows:
million report):
Rail only: capacity = 6000 commuters per peak hour (equivalent 5000
vehicles per peak hour.)
commuters per hour
Managed Lane three-Lane HOV Reversible Kamehameha Flyover:
capacity = 6,000 high occupancy vehicles per hour (equivalent 21,600
commuters per hour). Capacity based on HOV use on Kamehameha
Flyover by 200 express buses per peak hour, car pools, van pools,
green cars and HOV2. (50 pns per express bus and 5800 vph at avge 2
pns per vehicle).
Year 2030 commuter load by Cit AA Report = Rail (6000) + H-1
overload (9.600) + H-1 capacity fi5,400) = 31.000 commuters.
Managed Lane HOV + H-1 = 37,000 commuters per hour
Lane HOV Alternative will eliminate congestion and bottlenecks on H-1.
The PI3 consultants should have been aware of the $ 0 mile Tampa three
lane elevated, reversible expressway which was built and completed in
year 2005 for $420 million or $42 million per mile! tf the PB consultants
applied a 100 percent escalation and geographic cost factor and
increase the cost to $80 million per mile for the MLA evaluated in the
Alternative Analysis, the cost for the 4 mile long Kamehameha Flyover
(MLA reversible three lane) and 3 mile Nimitz Flyover (MLA reversible
three lane) would have cost of $320 million and $240 million
respectively, much lower than the $2.57 Billion assigned to the MLA
alternative in the AA.

Conclusion:
The Alternative analysis is wrong in excluding the MLA for further
consideration, due to capital cost issues, as a viable alternative for mass
transit for the West Oahu Corridor.
Recommendation:
The DElS must reinstate the MLA Alternative which is an 1i mile, three-
lane elevated HOV transitway from the H-1/H-2 merge to Hotel Street
and Afakea StreetlHalekauwilaStreet as described in
www.eng.hawaii.edu/+anoslUHCS.pdf. The Managed Lane alternative
should be considered as two options: HOT Lane and as a HOV hwy
limited to HOV vehicles and "green cars - hybrid or electric vehictes".
Respectfully,
Ben Ramelb P.E.
1148 Ala Ulikoi St.
Honofufu HI 96818
Copy to:
1f Mr. Ted Matley
FTA Region IX
FAX 4 15-744-2726
4 5 S Beretania St. 5th Floor
f
Honolulu, HI 96813
FAX (808) 586-0006
FAX (808) 867-50 1f

First Name : 8en
Last Name : Rarnelb
~iternative Preference :
Apt./Suite No. :
City : HON
State : H
I
Zip Code : 96818
Email : ramelbb0010hawaii.rr.com
Teiephone :
other Submission Method :
Submission Date :

Submission ContenVNotes : 29 December, 2008
To:
Mr. Wayne Yoshioka
Honolulu
HI 96813
FAX: (808) 587-6080
"Honolulu High-capacity transit corridor Project", Issue The DEIS
shows the Managed Lane Alternative (MLA) was rejected by the
Alternative Analysis for unjustified reasons
Fact:
The DEIS Table 2-2 "Alternatives and Technologies Considered but
rejected" states that the MLA was rejected by the Alternative anafysis
because " M U would not have supported Honolulu General Plan;
minimal impact to vehicle miles traveled and vehicles hours of delay"
Discussion:
1) A portion of the Honolulu General Plan is shown below and taken
from :http:Nhonoluiudpp.org/planning/GeneralPIan/GPPreambe.pdf
"Purpose of the Honolulu General Plan -
The General Plan for the City and County of Honolulu is a written
commitment by the City and County government to a future for the
lsland of Oahu which it considers desirable and attainable. The Plan is a
statement of the long-range social, economic, environmental, and design
objectives for the general welfare and prosperity of the people of Oahu
and is a statement of broad policies which facilitate the attainment of the
objectives of the Plan.
The General Plan is a guide for all ievels of government, private
enterprise, neighborhood and
citizen groups, organizations, and individual citizens in eleven areas of
concern:
{I) population;
(2) economic activity;
(3) the natural environment;
(4) housing,
(5) transportation and utilities
(6) etc."
2) A 10 mite, elevated Managed Lane {reversibie three lanes) was built
in Tampa for $420 million or $42 million per mile. Evaluation of a similar
11 mile, three-lane reversible MLA on Oahu would cost $900 million (
www.eng.hawaii.edu/-panoslUHCS.pdf ) and would have the capabiPty
to eliminate the two major
H-l traffic bottlenecks at H-1/H-2 merge and at the Middle Street merge.
Elimination of the two major H-1 bottlenecks by the MLA would comply
with the Honolulu General Plan as it relates to the General Plan

objective , 'Transportation and Utilities". The Traffic Capacity Analysis
below shows that the MLA will have the capacity to eliminate the
bottlenecks while the rail does not. Conversely, the $6.0 Billion steel
wheel fixed guideway alternative will cause a severe vehicular traffic
overload at the two H-I bottlenecks in the capacity analysis below and
will not support the Honolulu General Plan.
3) Moreover, by removing the two major H-1 bottlenecks, the MLA would
substantially reduce the "vehicle miles traveled and vehicles hours of
delay" as compared with the steel wheel fixed guideway SINCE THE
Fixed guideway would result in severe traffic overload on H-I in year
2030 (see capacity analysis below).
4) The single, most important goal for mass transit is to eliminate or
substantiaify reduce traffic congestion. The MLA meets this goal while
the fixed guideway does not.
Mass Transit Options Traffic Capacity Analysis:
million report):
Rail only: capacity = 6000 commuters per peak hour (equivalent 5000
commuters per hour
Managed Lane three-Lane HOV Reversible Kamehameha Flyover:
capacity = 6,000 high occupancy vehicles per hour (equivalent 21,600
commuters per hour). Capacity based on HOV use on Kamehameha
Flyovet by 200 express buses per peak hour, car pools, van pools,
green cars and HOV2. (50 pns per express bus and 5800 vph at avge 2
pns per vehicle).
overload (9,600) .t H-I capacity (15,400) = 31,000 commuters.
2030 toad = 31,000 commuters per hour
Managed Lane HOV c H-1 = 37,000 commuters per hour
Finding: Fixed Guideway does not have sufficient commuter capacity
which wit1 cause 9,600 commuters to be stuck in gridlock on H-1 or stuck
at rail stations (especially at stations between Waipahu and Kalihi).
Managed Lane Alternative (HOV) will eliminate congestion and
bottlenecks on H-1.
Conclusion:
The Alternative Analysis is wrong by rejecting the MLA because when
compared with the fixed guideway alternative, the MLA will remove H-1
Traffic bottlenecks and will support Honolulu General Plan and will
substantially reduce vehicles miles traveled and substantially reduce
vehicies hours of delay.

Recommendation:
It is recommended that a three-lane MLA be reinstated into the DElS for
further consideration as a viable mass transit locally preferred alternative
(LPA).
Respectfully,
Ben Ramelb P.E.
Honolulu HI 96818
Copy to:
I f Mr. Ted Matley
FTA Region (X
FAX 415-744-2726
Honolulu, HI 96813
FAX (808) 586-0006

FAX (808) 867-5011

. . . .
. . - 1 - . . .
- - . - ""1_ I
I

Status : initial Action Needed
Creation Date : 1212912008
First Name : Ben
Last Name : Ramelb
BusinesdOrganization : Retired Civil Engineer
Apt./Suite No. :
City : HON
State : HI
Zip Code : 96818
Emaif : ramelbb001 Q hawaii.rr.com
Telephone :
Submission Date : 12/29/2008

To:
Mr. Wayne Yoshioka
Honolulu
HI 96813
FAX: (808) 587-6080
Subject: Comment on Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEiS)
"Honolulu High-capacity transit corridor Project", Issue : The DEIS and
Alternative Analysis lacks a wide range of alternatives
Discussion:
The Alternative Analysis and DElS failed to provide "... an assessment
of a wide range of public transportation alternatives,.."and/or "...
sufficient information to enable the Secretary to make the findings of
project justification ..." as required by statute.
In addition, we believe that you will find that the City, Pi3 and FTA failed
to, "Rigorously expfore and objectively evaluate all reasonable
alternatives," and Devote substantial treatment to each alternative
considered in detail including the proposed action so that reviewers may
evaluate their comparative merits," as required by the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) Sec. 1502.14.
Four alternatives should be assessed:
1) B R f transit system as proposed by the Harris Administration. The
BRT route downtown should be limited to King and Beretania Streets
and exclude Dillingham Blvd and Kapiolani Blvd.
2) Managed Lane (reversible) as proposed by Professor Panos
Prevedouros Study, "Transportation Alternatives Analysis for Mitigating
Traffic Congestion between Leeward Oahu and Honolulu" which shows
I
the I mile three-lane cost estimate to be $900 million which is in line
'with the $320 million Tampa three-lane reversible transitway.
EzWay. See
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/articte/2OO8 1015/NEWSOl/81015039
2 1 00 1
'1
1/H-2 merge and at Middle St. merge. The bypasses include: a) a 4
mile, three-Iane reversible elevated hwy over the Kamehameha Hwy
median between the H-1/H-2 merge and the H-1 Viaduct at Aloha
Stadium and b) a 3 mile, three-lane reversible elevated hwy over the
Nimitz Hwy median between the H-1 Viaduct at Keehi Lagoon Drive and
Hotel SUAlakea St./ Halekauwila St/Ala Moana Blvd. An ontoff rainp to
Waikamilo Rd from the Nimitz bypass would reduce the number of lanes
from three to two between Waikamilo Rd and Iwilei. See attachment for
more information on HOV Flyovers.
Recommendation: Include the above four alternatives in the DEIS.

Respectfully,
Ben Ramelb P.E.
t 148 Ala Lilikoi St.
Honolulu HI 96818
Copy to:
1) Mr. Ted Matley
FTA Region IX
20 1 Mission St. Suite 1650
FAX 4 1 5-744-2726
Honolulu, HI 96813
FAX (808) 586-0006
FAX (808) 867-5011

Attachment -Description of Nimitz and Kamehameha HOV Flyovers
Keehi Lagoon to Hotel Street and Atakea StIHalekauwila St. The
Ftyover would be built similar to the Tampa Elevated three-lane
Reversible HOW as described in-
http://www.tollroadsnews.cornlnodell72 .
Hotel Street and a single lane underpass to both Aiakea SttHalekauwila
between LeewardOahu and Honolulu". The full report is available at
geographic and escalation factor of 100 percent, the 3-mile Nimitz WOV
million.
Statement which allows for early constfuction.

1/H-2 merge at the Waiawa Interchange to the Airport Viaduct just
to the Tampa Elevated three-lane ReversibIe WOV as described in-
http://www.tollroadsnews.comlnodell72 .
The Kamehameha Flyover would be connected to H-1 , H-2,
Kamehameha Highwa and Farrington Highway at the west end and to
tl
the Airport Viaduct at t e east end. These connections are described in
a Managed Lane Study "Transportation Alternatives Analysis for
Mitigating Traffic congestion between Leeward Oahu and Honolulu". The
full report is available at www.eng.hawaii.edu/-panos/UHCS.pdf.
-
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Honolulu High-
could conflict with the proposed three-lane "Kamehameha Flyover" route
outlined above. If the rail is built, it is suggested that both the
Kamehameha Highway uFlyovet' and the Rail be built within the
elevated Kamehameha Highway corridor. In this case, only a two-lane
"Kamehameha Flyover" is needed (instead of three-lanes) to be built
alongside and parallel to the Rail transit. The rail with a capacity of 6,000
capacity of 4,000 vehicles per hour, should be adequate to substantially
reduce the bottleneck at the H-IIH-2 merge and the traffic congestion on
H-1 between Pearl City and Afoha Stadium.

-.-".-...--------...-
First Name : Ben
Last Name : Ramelb
AptJSuite No. :
City :
State :
Zip Code :
Email :
Telephone :
Submission Date :

To:
Mr. Wayne Yoshioka
Honolulu
HI 96813
FAX: (808) 587-6080
"Honolulu High-capacity transit corridor Project", Issue : The Alternative
Analysis evaluation of the Managed Lane Alternative was flawed which
caused the MLA to be excluded from further consideration in the DElS
Discussion:
The Alternative Analysis rigged the specifications and analysis of the
Managed Lane Alternative . DElS Chapter 2 summarizes alternatives
considered for the Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project. The
alternatives considered were chosen primarily by the Alternative
Analysis published in 2006.
The AA was flawed because it failed to include several transit
alternatives, each with a capability to substantially reduce or eliminate
the traffic congestion bottlenecks on H-1 at Pearl City and Middle St.
merge in year 2030. As shown on Table 3-12 of the AA and DElS Table
3-12, all rail alfernatjves result in worse traffic congestion on H-1 AFTER
any rail alternative is built and operating.
The fact that rail wilt worsen congestion on H-1 after spending a
minimum of $6.2 Billion for the Rail alternative, it is totally unacceptable
to the Oahu taxpayer to continue to face worse traffic congestion on H-I.
The single and most important reason for building a "mass transit
system" is to substantially reduce or eliminate traffic congestion". The
AA and DEIS fails to include this most important purpose and need for
mass transit and therefore the AA and DElS must be revised to include,
as a need, to substantially reduce or eliminate traffic congestion.
Accordingly, as a minimum, the DElS should include the following four
additional alternatives for assessment on environmental impact:
I ) BRT transit system as proposed by the Harris Administration. The
BRT route downtown should be limited to King and Beretania Streets
which can accommodate a BRT system and exclude Diltingham Blvd
and Kapiolani Blvd which are too narrow to accommodate a BRT
system.
2) Managed Lane (reversible) as proposed by Professor Panos
Prevedouros Study, "Transportation Alternatives Analysis for Mitigating
Traffic Congestion between Leeward Oahu and Honolulu" published
March 2008, which shows the 11 mile three-lane cost estimate to be
$900 million which is in line with the $320 million Tampa three-lane
reversible transit way.

EzWay. See
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2008105/N EWS01/81015039
211001
llH-2 merge and at Middle St. merge. The bypasses include: a) a 4
mile, three-lane reversible elevated hwy over the Kamehameha Hwy
median between the H-1/H-2 merge and the H-1 Viaduct at Aloha
Stadium and b) a 3 mile, three-lane reversible elevated hwy over the
Nimitz Hwy median between the H-1 Viaduct at Keehi Lagoon Drive and
Hotel StfAlakea St./ Halekauwlla St/Ala Moana Blvd. An on/off ramp to
Waikamilo Rd from the Nimitz bypass would reduce the number of lanes
from three to two between Waikamilo Rd and Iwilei. See attachment for
more information on HOV Ftyovers.
Recommendation: include the above four alternatives in the DEIS.
Respectfully,
Ben Ramelb P.E.
Honolulu HI 96828
Copy to:
1) Mr. Ted Matley
FTA Region IX
FAX 415-744-2726
Honolulu, HI 96813
FAX (808) 588-0006
FAX {808) 867-5011

Attachment - Description of Nimitz and Kamehameha HOV Fiyovers
Nimitz Fiyovef, Reversible HOV:
Keehi Lagoon to Hotel Street and Alakea St/Halekauwila St. The
http:Nwww.tollroadsnews.com/nodell72 .
One of the three lanes would exit the FIyover at Waikamilo Rd. to
provide access to job centers in Kafihi, resulting in the Flyover having

Hotel Street and a single lane underpass to both Alakea StIHalekauwila
between Leeward Oahu and Honofulu". The full report is available at
www.eng.hawaii.edul-panos/UHCS.pdf,
geographic and escalation factor of 100 percent, the Smile Nimitz HOV
Flyover at $60 ta $80 million per mile would cost $180 million to $240
million.
lane structure over the median of Karnehameha Highway from the H-
The Kamehameha Flyover would be connected to H-1, H-2,
the Airport Viaduct at the east end. These connections are described in
geographic and escalation factor of 100 percent, the &-mile
Kamehameha MOV Flyover at $60 to $80 mirlion per mile would cost
-
could conflict with the proposed three-iane "KarnehamehaFlyover" route
Kamehameha Highway "Flyover" and the Rail be built within the
"Karnehameha Flyover" is needed (instead of three-lanes) to be built
alongside and pafaliel to the Rail transit. The rail with a capacity of 6,000
capacity of 4,000 vehicles per hour, should be adequate to substantially
reduce the bottleneck at the H-1/H-2 merge and the traffic congestion on

*".,*.--.-------.-

First Name : Ben
Last Name : Ramelb
Apt./Suite No. :
City :
State :
Zip Code :
Email :
Telephone :
Add to Mailing List : 80th
Submission Date :

To:
Mr. Wayne Yoshioka
Honolulu
H 96813
I
FAX: (808) 587-6080
Subject: Comment on Draft Environmental impact Statement (DEIS)
"Honolulu High-capacitytransit corridor Project", Issue : City Alternative
Analysis (AA) incorrectly inflates Managed Lane Alternative (MLA) cost
of $2.6 Billion which wrongly excludes MLA from further transit
consideration in the DEiS
facts:
I) 2006 Alternative Analysis show 14 mile, two lane elevated MLA
capital cost at $2.6 Billion or $185 Million per mile.
2) AA shows 20 mile Rail to Ala Moana Shopping Center cost at $3.7
Billion or $1 80 million per mile.
3) Wayne Yoshioka, on Ofelo 22 July 2008, 19 minutes into video,
http://www.honotulutransit.orglvideo/?id=9, stated " $3.7 Billion includes
$1.0 Billion contingency". Thus the 20 mile Rail cost estimate, without
contingency, is $2.7 Billion or $135 million per mile.
4) The Rail project includes 180 +land acquisitions, 20 miles elevated
structure, nineteen, four-story or higher raii stations., electric substations
at each rail station, steel rails and the heavy copper lines to convey the
hi h electrical load, escalators, elevators, and
o~ce/bathrooms/roadways/parking facilities at each rail station
Conversely, the MLA will have zero rail stations on the entire 1i mile
lenoth.
5)' ?he ORTP 2030 link
http:lloahumpo.org/ottp/ORTP2030/OMPO~ReportFINAL.pdf
Shows the 2.2 mile Nimitz two lane elevated flvover at $250 million
(State DOT cost Estimate) or $1 13 million per inile.
6) The 10 mite Tampa three-lane elevated
http:/lwww.tollroadsnews.com/node/l72 cost $420 million or $42 miilion
per mile.
7) The MLA would cost twice as much per lane mile as H-3, the most
Koolaus.
8) Professor Panos Prevedouros study "TransportationAlternative
Honolulu'' March 2008, shows a cost estimate for a three lane, 1f mile
elevated Managed Lane for $900 million or $81 million per mile. The
elevated reversible. The fulf report is avaiiable at
Discussion:

a) The city AA discarded the MLA because of high cost and that it would
not solve traffic congestion.
b) The DElS does not include the MLA because it was discarded by the
AA from further consideration.
c) The cost estimates above show that the MLA would cost not more
than $900 miltion based on the similar Tampa three lane reversible.
Even is the MLA were to use the State of Hawaii's estimate in the ORTP,
the 1I mile MLA would cost $113 million per mile or $1.2 Billion.
d) If the two lane elevated MLA uses the elevated rail cost at $135
million per mile, the MLA would cost $1.5 Billion, far less than the AA
estimate of $2.6 Billion.
Conclusion:
The AA cost estimate for the MLA at $2.6 Billion is incorrect and should
be revised to Iess than $1.0 Billion. Further, the MLA should be
restudied within the DElS process if the DElS is to comply with NEPA.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), in
conjunction with the USDOT, require the FTA and the CITY re-assess
the MLA in the €IS process. City and FTA re-study the MLA as an 1 1
mile, three-lane elevated reversible transit way within the DElS process
if the DElS is to'comply with NEPA.
Respectfully,
Ben Ramelb P.E.
1148 Ala Lilikoi St
Honolulu, HI
968

Copy to:
1) Mr. Ted Matley
FTA Region IX
20 1 Mission St, Suite 1650
FAX 4 15-744-2726
1
Honolulu, HI 96813
FAX (808) 586-0006
FAX (808) 867-5011

Creator Affifiation :
First Name : Ben
Last Name : Ramelb
Address : 1148 Ala Lifikoi St
Apt./Suite No. :
City : HON
State : HI
Zip Code : 96818
Email : ramelbb001Q hawaii.rr.com
Telephone :
Add to Mailing tist : Both

To:
Mr. Wayne Yoshioka
Honotulu
HI 96813
FAX: (808) 587-6080
"HonoIulu High-capacitytransit corridor Project", Issue: The purpose and
goals for the Honoiulu High-capacityTransit Corridor Project Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) are not consistent with those of
the Oahu Regional Transportation Plan 2030 (ORTP 2030).
Facts:
a) The ORTP 2030 states that its purpose is to provide a long-term
vision document that outlines transportation goals, objectives, and
policies for Oahu. The ORTP 2030 goals and objectives are listed in the
discussion section below.
b) The ORTP 2030 document also identifies specific highway and transit
projects that are designed to improve safety, reduce congestion, and
Increase mobility for Oahu's residents and visitors. This regional
planning document is required by a number of state and federal
mandates and requirements which include the Transportation Equity Act
for the 2f st Century CTEA 21"). These requirements are mandated by
the Federal Department of Transportation as a means of verifying the
eligibility of metropolitan areas for Federal funds earmarked for surface
transportation systems.
c) DEIS para. 1.7 states "The purpose of the Honolulu High-capacity
Transit corridor is to provide high-capacity rapid transit in the
transportation corridor.......... specified in the ORTP 2030."
as
d) DEIS para. 1.8 - States that there are several needs for transit
improvements in the transit corridor: (1) improve corridor mobility, (2)
lmprove corridor travel reliability, (3) Improve access to planned
development to support city policy to develop a second urban center,
and (4) Improve transportation equity.
Discussion:
a) GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR THE 2030 OAHU REGIONAL
T~ANSPORTATIONPLAN, October 2004
http:Noahumpo.orglortplmedia/GoalsObjectvesO4 1022final.pdf
Transportation Services System Goal:
Develop and maintain Oahu's islandwide transportation system to
ensure efficient, safe,
convenient and economical movement of people and goods.
Objectives:
81 increase peak-periodperson-carrying capacities on Oahu's
transportation network.
#2 Provide efficient. convenient and cost-effective transit service to
Oahu citizens.
#3 Encourage the availability of adequate public and private services

between Waikiki, the
airport and other tourist destinations.
M Promote intermodal efficiency of harbor terminal facilities, airport
terminal facilities and
land transportation systems.
#5 Ensure that no person shall, on the grounds of race, color, gender,
age, income,
disability, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied
the benefits of,
or be subjected to discrimination in transportation services as provided
for under current
federal, state, and local legislation.
#6 Ensure user and community safety and security in the physical
design and operation of
transportation facilities.
#7 Ensure that Oahu's transportation system is planned, designed,
constructed and
operated in an integrated and cost-effective manner.
#8 Enhance the performance and efficiencyof Oahu's transportation
system through the
use of operation management strategies, such as Intelligent
Transportation System
(ITS), Transportation System Management (TSM) and Transportation
Demand
Management (TDM).
#9 Enhance the integration and connectivity of the regional
trans ortation system.
110 Bromate planning, design and construction of transportation
facilities and systems to
support economic development and vitality.
#I 1 Provide major rehabilitation/renewaVmodernizationof facilities in
sufficient magnitude to
ensure continued effective operation.

2030 ORTP Planning Study 2 Goals and Objectives
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR THE 2030 OAHU REGIONAL
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Environment and Quality of Life System Goal:
Develop and maintain Oahu's transportation system in a manner that
maintains environmental
quality and community cohesiveness.
Objectives:
#I 2 Develop and maintain Oahu's transportation system to meet or
exceed noise, air and
water quality standards set forth by federal, state and local agencies.
#I 3 Encourage energy conservation in transportation.
#14 Preserve Oahu's cultural integrity and sensitive natural resources,
including beaches,
scenic beauty, and sea and mountain vistas.
#I 5 Develop and maintain afternative transportation facilities, including
bikeways,
walkways and other environmentally-friendly elements which can be

safely integrated
with other transport modes.
#I6 Develop a travel demand management system for Oahu that
o~timizes of
use
transportation resourcesby encouraging programs to increase transit
ridership,
increase ridesharing on Oahu, reduce single occupancy vehicle travel,
and reduce
auto dependency.
#I 7 Minimize disruption of existing neighborhoods from construction of
the transportation
system.
#18 Ensure that transportation facility design and maintenance are
compatible with the
existing and planned physical and social character of new and existing
developments.
#I 9 Maintain and upgrade existing facilities and design future
transportation facilities in a
manner that is aestheticafly pleasing and incorporates landscaping, tree
planting, and
public safety.
#20 Develop transportation contingency plans for energy shortages,
natural and manmade
disasters and other emergencies that would impact the transportation
system.
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Land Use and Transportation Integration System Goal:
integrates land use and
transportation.
Objectives:
#21 Maintain and develop the transportation system to reinforce Oahu's
planned
population distribution and land use development policies expressed in
the City's
Development Plans through coordinated efforts of the public and private
sectors.
#22 Encourage innovation in planning, design and maintenance of
transportation
services and facilities.
#23 Encourage the implementation of land use development policies
that support
efficient use of the transportation system via reduced vehicular
tripmaking and
vehicle miles traveled.
b) DElS purpose stated in paragraph 1.7 is not found in the ORTP goals
and objectives listed above.
c) DElS Needs paragraph 1.8 are not found in the ORTP goals and
objectives listed above.

d) The single most important non-complianceof the DEIS with the ORTP
2030 is Ohjective No. 2 where the ORTP Objective No. 2 is to provide a
transportation system that is "COST EFFECTIVE. The reason that Rail
is NOT cost effective is that: (1) Rail will cost $6.8Billion but will still not
eliminate the major H-f bottlenecks at the H-1JM-2 merge and at the
Middle Street merge. In fact, the Raii will increase the vehicular
overload on H-1 from the present 11,000vph to 17,500vehicles per
hour on the 9,500vph capacity H-I Freeway at Kalauao. The rail
alternative must be compared with Professor Prevedouros' $900 million
11 mile,Managed Three-Lane HOV Alternative explained in
www.eng.hawaii.edu/-panos/UHCS.pdf. The Managed Three-Lane
HOV Alternative eliminates the two H-I bottlenecks at Pearl City and at
Middle Street merge and should be considered "cost effective" by any
definition
Conclusion: The purpose and goals tor the Honolulu High-capacity
Transit Corridor Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
do not conform with ORTP 2030 objective No. 2 with regard to rail being
cost effective.
Recommendation: Reinstate the 11 mile Managed Lane HOV
Alternative into the DEIS for evaluation as a transit system in terms of
cost effectiveness and the potential to eliminate the H-l bottlenecks at
H-1/H-2 merge and at the Middle St. merge.
Respectfully,
Ben Ramelb P.E.
1f 48 Afa Cilikoi S
t
Honolulu, I-tl
96818
Copy to:
1) Mr. Ted Matley
FTA Region IX
0
FAS( 4 5-744-2726
1
2)Governor Linda Lingle
415 S Beretania St. 5th Roor
Honolulu, HI 96813
FAX (808) 586-0006
FAX (808)867-5011

---------.--.-.--...
Status : lnitiat Action Needed
First Name : Ben
Last Name : Ramelb
Alternative Preference:
Apt.1Suite No. :
City :
State :
Zip Code :
Email :
Telephone :
Submission Date :

To:
Mr. Wayne Yoshioka
Honolulu
HI 96813
FAX: (808) 587-6080
"Honolulu High-capacity transit corridor Project", Issue :The purpose
and goals for the Honolulu High-capacity Transit Corridor Project Draft
Environmental tmpact Statement (DEIS) do not conform with those of
the Oahu Regional Transportation Plan 2030 (ORTP 2030).
Facts:
a) The ORTP 2030 states that its purpose is to provide a long-term
vision document that outlines transportation goals, objectives, and
policies for Oahu. The ORTP 2030 goals and objectives are listed in the
discussion section below.
b) The ORTP 2030 document also identifies specific highway and transit
projects that are designed to improve safety, reduce congestion, and
increase mobility for Oahu's residents and visitors. This regional
planning document is required by a number of state and federal
mandates and requirements which include the Transportation EquityAct
for the 21st Century ('TEA 21"). These requirements are mandated by
the Federal Department of Transportation as a means of verifying the
eligibility of metropolitan areas for Federal funds earmarked for surface
transportation systems.
c) DEIS para. 1.7 states "The purpose of the Honolulu High-capacity
Transit corridor is to provide high-capacity rapid transit in the
.
transportation corridor......, ..as specified in the ORTP 2030."
d) DEIS para. 1.8 -States that there are several needs for transit
improvements in the transit corridor: (1) improve corridor mobility, (2)
Improve corridor travel reliability, (3) Improve access to planned
development to support city policy to develop a second urban center,
and (4) Improve transportation equity.
Discussion:
a) GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR THE 2030 OAHU REGIONAL
TRANSPORTATtON PLAN. October 2004

Transportation Services System Goal:
Develop and maintain Oahu's islandwide transportation system to
ensure efficient, safe,
convenient and economical movement of people and goods.
Objectives:
#I Increase peak-period person-carrying capacities on Oahu's
transportation network. NO.
#2 Provide efficient, convenient and cost-effectivetransit service to
Oahu citizens. NO
#3 Encourage the availability of adequate public and private services

between Waikiki, the
airport and other tourist destinations. NO
#4 Promote intermodal efficiency of harbor terminal facilities, airport
terminal facilities and
land transportation systems.
#5 Ensure that no person shall, on the grounds of race, color, gender,
age, income,
disability, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied
the benefits of,
or be subjected to discrimination in transportation services as provided
for under current
federal, state, and local legislation.
#6 Ensure user and community safety and security in the physical
design and operation of
transportation facilities.
#7 Ensure that Oahu's transportation system is planned, designed,
constructed and
operated in an integrated and cost-effective manner. NO
#8 Enhance the performance and efficiency of Oahu's transportation
system through the
use of operation management strategies, such as Intelligent
Transoortation Svstem
(l~~),'~ransport&tion System Management (TSM) and Transportation
Demand
~ a n a ~ e m e(TDM).
nt
#9 Enhance the integration and connectivity of the regional
transportation system. NO
#I0 Promote planning, design and construction of transportation
facilities and systems to
support economic development and vitality. NO
#I 1 Provide major rehabilitation/renewal/modernization facilities in
of
sufficient magnitude to
ensure continued effectiveoperation. NO

TRANSPORTAT[ON PLAN
Environment and Quality of Life System Goal:
maintains environmental
quality and community cohesiveness.
Objectives:
#I2Develop and maintain Oahu's transportation system to meet or
exceed noise, air and
water quality standards set forth by federal, state and local agencies.
NO
#13 Encourage energy conservationin transportation. NO
- .
#14 Preserve Oahu's cultural intearitv and sensitive natural resources,
includina beaches.
scenic Geauty, and sea and mountain vistas. NO
#15 Develop and maintain alternative transportation facilities, including
bikeways,

walkways and other environmentally-friendlyelements which can be
safely integrated
with other transport modes. NO
#16 Develop a travel demand management system for Oahu that
optimizes use of
transportation resources by encouraging programs to increase transit
ridership,
increase ridesharing on Oahu, reduce single occupancy vehicle travel,
and reduce
auto dependency. NO
#I 7 Minimize disruption of existing neighborhoods from construction of
the trans~ortation
system. NO
#I 8 Ensure that transportation facility design and maintenance are
compatible with the
existing and planned physical and social character of new and existing
developments. NO
#19 Maintain and upgrade existing facilities and design future
transportation facilities-in a
manner that is aesthetrcafly pleasing and incorporates fandscaping, tree
planting, and
public safety. NO
#20 Develop transportation contingency plans for energy shortages,
natural and manmade
disasters and other emergencies that would impact the transportation
system. NO
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Land Use and Transportation Integration System Goal:
Develop and maintain Oahurstransportation system in a manner that
integrates land use and
transportation.
Objectives:
#21 Maintain and develop the transportation system to reinforce Oahu's
planned
population distribution and land use development policies expressed in
the City's
Development Plans through coordinated efforts of the public and private
sectors. NO
#22 Encourage innovation in planning, design and maintenance of
transportation
services and facilities. NO
#23 Encourage the implementation of land use development policies
that support
efficient use of the transportation system via reduced vehicular
tripmaking and
vehicle miles traveled. NO
Findings:
The DElS purpose and needs stated in paragraphs 1.7 and 1.8 do not

conform with many ORTP 2030 Goals and Objectives noted above for
one or more reasons:
( I ) Rail transit will result in a net DECREASE in peak-period person-
carrying capacities on Oahu'stransportation network,
(2) The $6.8 Billion rail is not cost effective because rail will still not
eliminate the major H-1 bottlenecks at the H-IIH-2 merge and at the
Middle Street merge. In fact, the Rail will increase the vehicular
overload on H-1 from the present 11,000 vph to 17,500 vehicles per
hour on the 9,500 vph capacity H-1 Freeway at Kalauao ,
(3) Rail transit will not service Waikiki,
(4) The rail transportation system is not cost effective because it does
not allow express buses to run in a corridor paratlet to the rail route to
reduce congestion on H-1 during peak hour,
(5) Rail will not provide relief to increased congestion on H-1 at the H-
IM-1merge and at Middle St. merge by year 2030. Therefore, rail will
not enhance the integration and connectivity of the regional
transportation system; will not promote planning, design and
construction of transportation facilities and systems to support economic
development and vitality; and will not provide major
rehabilitation/renewallmodernization facilities in sufficient magnitude
of
to ensure continued effective operation.
(6) Rail will cause more vehicles to be stuck in gridlock on H-1 and will
therefore exceed noise, air and water quality standards set forth by
federal, state and local agencies and energy conservation in
transportation because rail will result in 8.000 vehicles per hour being
stuck in gridlock on H-1 during the am peak period.
(7) The elevated rail located downtown be a visual blight downtown and
will not preserve Oahu's cultural integrity and sensitive natural
resources, including beaches,
scenic beauty, and sea and mountain vistas.
(8) The rail route on Salt Lake Blvd and Oillingham Blvd instead of the H-
IViaduct and Nimitt Highway will maximize disruption of existing
neighborhoods from construction of the transportation system.
Conclusion:
The elevated rail will cause severe traffic conaestion on H-1 durina Deak
hour, will force more vehicles to be stuck in gadlock causing worse '
pollution, less reliability for many commuters at the rail station waiting for
commuter room on the fully loaded train and will cause a visual blight
downtown.
Recommendation:
The DElS must add more transit alternatives such as:
1) an elevated HOV three-lane transit way from Waikele to downtown
Hotel and Alakea Sts as described in Professor Panos Prevedouros
Report "Transportation Alternatives Analysis for Mitigating Traffic
Congestion between Leeward Oahu and Honolulu, Mar 2008." The full
report is available at www.eng.hawaii.edu/-panos/UHCS.pdf.
2) 8RT proposed by former Mayor Harris in early 2002 Oor 2003.
3) Build two separate, three-lane Flyovers, Nimitt and Kamehameha
(between Waiawa Interchange and Halawa Interchange). Note that the

two Ryovers has the capacity to eliminate the bottlenecks on H-1 as
shown below ("Transit Alternatives Traffic Capacity").

Transit Atternatives Traffic Capacity
million report): (Rail DElS contains insufficient information to determine
extent of congestion on H-1 and other highways at Kalauao (Pearl City).
Rail only: capacity = 6000 commuters per peak hour
commuters per hour (some commuters are on express buses)
H-1 forecast yr 2030 traffic load = 17.500 vehicles per hour per City AA
Table 3-12 (or 8,000 vph overload (on H-I) = 9,600 commuters per hour)
Managed Three-lane HOV Reversible Flyover: capacity = 6,000 high
occupancy vehicles per hour (equivalent 21,600 commuters per hour).
Capacity based on HOV use on Flyover by 200 express buses per peak
hour, car pools, van pools, green cars and HOV2 or HOV3. (commuter
capacity = 50 pns per express bus plus 5,800 vph at avge 2 pns per
vehicle).
overload (9,600) + H-I capacity (15,400) = 31,000 commuters.
Rail + H-i = 21,400 commuters per hour
Managed Lane HOV + H-l = 37,000 commuters per hour
Lane HOV Flyover Alternative will eliminate congestion and bottlenecks
on H-I.
Respectfully,
Ben Ramelb P.E.
1 148 Ala Lilikoi St
Honolulu, HI
96818

Copy to:

I ) Mr. Ted Matley
FTA Region IX
201 Mission St. Suite '1650
FAX 415-744-2726
2) Governor Linda LingIe
Honolulu, HI 96813
FAX (808) 586-0006
FAX (808) 867-5011

First Name : Ben
Last Name : Ramelb
BusinessfOrganiration : Retired Civil Engineer
AptJSuite No. :
City : HON
State : Ht
Zip Code : 96818
Email : ramelbbOOI Qhawaii.rr,com
Teiephone :
Submission Date :

Submission ContentINotes : 29 December, 2008
To:
Mr. Wayne Yoshioka
Director Departmentof Transportation Services
Honolulu
HI96813
FAX: (808) 587-6080
Subject: Comment on Draft EnvironmentalImpact Statement (DEIS)
"Honolulu High-capacity transit corridor Project",
Issue : The DElS lacks goal to eliminate or substantially reduce traffic
congestion
Discussion:
DElS Section 1.8 cites needs for Transit improvementsbut does not
include the single and most important reason for building mass transit:
To provide TRAFFIC RELIEF during peak hour. The city cit Alternative
Analysis and DElS show that rail transit, despife costing over $6.0
billion, will not provide traffic relief. In fact, after rail is built and operating,
The AA shows that the traffic overload on H-1 (capacity - 9,500 vehicles
per hour) at Kalauao will rise from the present 11,000 vph to f 7,400 vphl
Therefore rail should NOT be considered as a candidate for Oahu mass
transit because it does not accomplish the "MISSION" of mass transit.
ALL other reasons for building rail transit are secondary and do NOT
justify spending at least $6.0 Billion of taxpayers dollars.
I have read the City's Alternative Analysis and UH Professor Panos
Prevedouros Study "TransportationAlternative Analysis for Mitigating
Traffic Congestion between Leeward Oahu and ,Honolulu." The HOT
Lanes outlined in the Professor's study will provide a separate express
highway to bypass the known traffic bottlenecks at Pearf City and at
Middle Street and will reduce H-1congestion by 35 percent. HOT will
cost of less than $900 Million (Tampa built a similar 10 mile three-lane
HOT for $320 million in 2005.
Another' option is to buifd two Flyover bypasses around the two major H-
1 bottlenecks described as follows:
Keehi Lagoon to Hotel Street and Alakea StMalekauwila St. The
http://www.toilroadsnews.com/node/l72 .

Hotel Street and a single lane underpass to both Alakea St/Hafekauwila
"Transportation Alternatives Anafysis for Mitigating Traffic congestion
between Leeward Oahu and Honolulu". The full report is available at
www.eng.hawaii.edu/-panoslUHCS.pdf.
million.
The Kamehameha MOV Flyover is a 4-mile reversible, elevated, three-
diamond head of the Atoha Stadium. The Flyover should be built similar
http://www.'tollroadsnews.com/node/l72 .
The Kameharneha Flvover should be connected to H-I. H-2.
Mitigating Traffic congestion between Leeward Oahu and Honolulu", The
or $32 Miltion per highway mile, however, a geotechnical design error
-
Kamehameha Hiahwav "Flvover" and the Rail be built within the
elevated Kamehgmeha Highway corridor. In this case, only a two-lane
"Kamehameha Flvover" is needed (instead of three-lanes) to be built
alongside and paiallel to the Rail transit. The rail with a capacity of 6,000
commuters per hour and the two-lane "Karneharneha Flyover", with a
capacity of 4.000 vehicles per hour, should be adequate to substantially
reduce the bottleneck at the H-IRI-2 merge and the traffic congestion on
Conclusion:
The Kamehameha and Nimitz Flyovers are cost effective alternatives for
mass transit.
Recommendation:
Include the Kamehameha Flyover and Nimitz Flyover Alternatives for

mass transit consideration in the DEIS.

Respectfully,
Ben Ramelb P.E.
Honolulu HI 96818
Copy to:
1) Mr. Ted Matlev
F?A Region IX
FAX 4 15-744-2726
Honolulu, H 96813
I
FAX (808) 586-0006
FAX (808) 867-5011

" .- "- 1 - . .. _
". - . - - 1-.1

First Name : Ben
Last Name : Rarnelb
BusinesdOrganization: Retired Civil Engineer
Address : 1148 Ala Ulikoi St
Apt./Suite No. :
City : HON
State : Mf
Zip Code : 96818
Email : ramelbbOO1Q hawaii.rr.com
Tetephone :
Other Submission Methad :
Submission Date :

To:
Mr. Wayne Yoshioka
Honolulu
HI 96813
FAX: (808) 587-6080
"Honolulu High-capacitytransit corridor Project", issue : DElS does not
include Managed Lane alternative as stated in the Notice of Intent (NOl)
Fact:
DElS Table 3-20 provides existing traffic volumes but does not provide
forecasted volumes with resultant Level of Service (LOS) for each
specific highway.
NEPA violation: The DEIS lacks the Managed Lane Alternative (MLA)
as stated in the Notice of Intent (NOI) dated 7 Dec 2007 (reference (a),
which states:
"The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the City and County of .
Honolulu, Department of Transportation Services (DTS) intend to
prepare an EIS (and Alternative Analysis (AA)) on a proposal by the City
and County of Honolulu to implement transit improvements that
potentially include high-capacity transit service in a 25-mile travel
Waikiki. Alternatives proposed to be considered in the AA and draft EIS
include No Build, Transportation System Management, Managed Lanes,
and Fixed Guideway Transit. Other transit alternatives may be identified
during the scoping process."
Rationale: The process used by the City & County of Honolulu (City) for
assessing the Managed Lane Afternative (MLA) in the City's Alternatives
Analysis (AA) was flawed.
a) A similar length Managed Lane, reversible three-lane transit way was
built for $320 million in Tampa in year 2005, while the City AA estimated
the similar MLA to cost $2.6 Billion,
b) Professor Panos Prevedouros published a study for Managed Lanes
(reversible) in March 2008, " Transportation Alternatives Analysis for
Mitigating Traffic Congestion between Leeward Oahu and Honolululu"
which shows the 11 mile three-lane cost estimate to be $900 million
which is in line with the $320 milfion Tampa three-lane reversible
transitway. The professor believes the Plan's costs are accurate based
on cost estimate spreadsheet analysis received from a local heavy
construction estimation expert is $818,634,000 in 2008 dollars. Again,
this estimate is more in line with the Tampa Transit way estimate and
refutes the AA estimate of $2.6 Billion. The AA estimate disqualified the
Managed Lane Alternative to be inferior to the Rail Alternative which

cost $3.7 Billion.

c) 2008 Mayoral Candidate Ann Kobayashi, using the Professor's 4 ear
Managed Lane study and the former Mayor Harris Administration 6 T
Study, proposed a similar Managed Lane 15-mile fixed guideway which
d
is estimated at $1.2 Billion. The estimate is similar to the 11 mile
Managed Lane and which should have been used in the AA rather than
$2.6 Billion.
d) Parsons Brinkerhoff (PB) and the City proposed that automobiles
with two or more occupants should be allowed toll free on the MLA. This
made the current contraflow zipper lane untenable and thus provided the
rationale for removing it. The net result was that the additional two lane
advantage that the MLA offered to the Corridor was reduced to one lane.
They failed
to publish their assessment of the option of having all autos pay a toll,
which would have
resulted in the ripper lane and the two-lane advantage being retained.
And they failed to
analyze MLA options with higher occupancy thresholds, such as three
through five
occupants.
e) PB and the City added unnecessary costs to the project by proposing
a I &mile facility
while not testing the viability of shorter I0 to 12-mile versions.
f ) PB and the City inflated MLA operating costs to make the project
appear uncompetitive with the Fixed Guideway Alternative. Just two
examples are a) the projection of a totally unnecessary 5,400parking
stalls for the MLA, and b) saddling the MLA with inflated bus
operating costs.
g) P8 and the City engineered the ingress and egress ramps in a way
that could only result in heavy traffic congestion at these points. In fact,
the MLA has exivoff ramps along its route for access to job centers other
than downtown Honolulu.
h) PB and the City grossly inffatedthe capital costs of the MLA with the
result that, if
correct, it would be twice the cost per lane mile of any highway ever built
in the U.S.
In his letter to the City and copied to FTA, Dr. Panos Prevedouros,
Professor of Traffic
Engineering at the University of Hawaii, Chair of the Transportation
Research Board's Highway
Micro-simulationsCommittee and a member of the Task Force,
commented, "the most egregious
violation of FTA's rules on alternative specification and analysis was the
deliberate underengineeringof the Managed Lanes Alternative to a
degree that brings ridicule to prevailing planning and engineering ,
principles."

i) The 11 mile, elevated MLA, with three lanes as proposed by Professor
Prevedouros, has the future commuter capacity to eliminate the two H-1
bottlenecks at Pearl City and at Middle Street merge. The Rail,
according to the AA, table 3-12, will resuft in 17,500 vehicles per hour
on ti-1 (H-1 full capacity = 9,500 vph) because the Rail cannot
accommodate the full commuter demand in year 2030.

Conclusion: The City's AA wrongly estimated the cost of the Managed
Lane alternative and the MLA capacity to eliminate the H-1 bottlenecks
on H-1,
Recommendation: It is requested that the Managed Lane Alternative as
proposed by Ann Kobayashi's EzWay proposal or the Professor
Prevedouros Managed Lane Study be reinstated into the Honolulu's
Transit Corridor Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Respectfully,
Ben Ramelb P.E.
1148 Ala Lilikoi St
Honolulu, HI
96818

Reference (a):
[Federal Register: December (Volume Number
[Notices]
[Page 72871-728731From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr07de05-1371

Copy to:
1) Mr. Ted Matley
FTA Region IX
San Francisco, CA 94 105
FAX 415-744-2726
Honolulu, HI 96813
FAX (808) 586-0006
FAX (808) 867-5011

- , . - - - - - 1 - _
. " - - - - " - - - _I

First Name : Ben
Last Name : Ramelb
Apt.iSuite No. :
City : HON
State : Hi
Zip Code : 96818
Ernaif : ramelbb001@hawaii.rr.com
Telephone :
Submission Date :

To:
Mr. Wayne Yoshioka
Honolulu
HI 96813
FAX: (808) 587-6080
"Honolulu High-capacitytransit corridor Project", Issue : The purpose
and needs statement of the project in the DEE is flawed because it does
not comply with the Notice of lntent (NOI) dated 7 Nov 2005.
Discussion: DEIS page 1-19 states" The purpose of the Honolulu High
Capacity transit Corridor Project is to provide high capacity rapid transit
in the highly congested east-west transportation corridor between
Kapolei and UH Manoa."
The NO1 states that the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the
City and County of Honolulu, Department of Transportation Services
(DTSf intend to prepare an EIS (and Alternative Analysis (AA)) on a
proposal by the City and County of Honolulu to implement transit
improvements that potentially include high-capacity transit service in a
25-mile travel
Waikiki.
The DElS does not comply with the purpose because the DElS does not
include a route assessment to Waikiki and to UH Manoa.
Conclusion: The purpose and needs statement of the project in the
DElS is flawed because the DElS does not include a route assessment
to Waikiki and to UH Manoa consistent with Notice of lntent (Not)dated
7 Nov 2005.

Recommendation: Include an environmentai impact statement for the
full route to include all environmental impacts from Kaelaeloa to UH
Manoa, to Ala Moana Shopping Center and to Waikiki.

Ben Ramelb P.E.
1148 Ala tilikoi St
Honolulu, HI
968 18
Copy to:
1) Mr. Ted Matley

FTA Region IX
FAX 415-744-2726
Honolulu, MI 96813
FAX (808) 586-0006
FAX (808) 867-5011

--"..-.*"-.-----.--__.
First Name : Ben
Last Name : Ramelb
BusinessIQrganization: Retired Civil Engineer
Apt-/Suite No. :
City :
State :
Zip Code :
Email :
Telephone :
Tetephone Extension :
Submission Date :

To:
Mr. Wayne Yoshioka
Honolulu
HI 96813
FAX: (808) 587-6080
"Honolulu High-capacity transit corridor Project", Issue : Rail will worsen
net transit transportation in West Oahu Corridor despite fact that Raill
wilt cost over $6 Billion
Fact: The 7 December 2005 Notice of Intent states "The Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) and the City and County of Honolulu,
Department of Transportation Services (DTS) intend to prepare an EIS
(and Alternative Analysis (AA)) on a proposal by the City and County of
Honolulu to implement transit improvements that potentially include high-
capacity transit service in a 25-mile travel corridor between Kapolei and
the University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Discussion:
I ) The City Alternative Analysis , Table 3-12, shows that there will still
be 17,500 vehicles per hour in 2030 on the H-1 (full rated capacity =
9,500 vehicles per hour) at Pearl City AFTER the $7.0 Billion Rail is built
and operating.
2) The DElS Screenline Volumes for the 2030 Salt Lake Build
Alternative is shown on Table 3-20, page 3-38.
a) With the Salt Lake Build Alternative AT Screen line "D":
-
- Kalauao Koko Head bound :Observed (forecast) Volume AM Peak =
18,910 vehicles per hour (vph) ) - Reference: DElS Table 3-20.
- Facility 2030 Capacity - AM Peak = 14, 650 vph - Reference: Table 3-
12 Alternative Analysis.
Result: There will be 4,260 vph above the facility (H-
1+HOV+ZippercKamc Moanalua) capacity at Kalauao which indicates a
Level of Service (LOS) F AFTER the Salt Lake Rail is built. This
conclusion is consistent with the conclusion using the numbers from the
City's Alternative analysis report. With rail, the above numbers show
congestion will WORSEN after the $7.0 Billion Full build out Rail is
completed.
bf With the Salt Lake Build Alternative AT Screen line "F":
- Kapaiama Canal Koko Head bound : Observed (forecast) Volume -
AM Peak = 20,760 vehicles per hour (vph) ) - Reference: Table 3-20.
-
- Facility 2030 Capacity - AM Peak = 15,300 vph Reference: Table 3-
12 Alternative Analysis

Result: The traific volume will be 5,460 vph above the facility (Nimitz,
Dillingham, North King, H-1, School St) capacity at Kapalama Canal
which indicates a Level of Service (LOS) F AFTER the Salt Lake rail is
built. This conclusion i consistent with the conc~usion
s using the
numbers from the City's Alternative analysis report. With rail, the above
numbers show congestion will WORSEN after the $6.0 Billion Full build
out Rail is completed.
Conclusion: The AA and OEfS fail in showing that Rail is a cost effective
transit improvement because traffic congestion on H-1 will worsen from
the current 11,000 vph to 17,500 vph in year 2030 (Alternative Analysis
Table 3-12) despite building the $6.0 Billion Rail.

Recommendation: Delete Rail transit because it fails to provide ''transit
improvements" and instead results in worse traffic congestion on H-1
after the $6.0 Billion rail is built and operating. Consider other cost
effective solutions to efiminate traffic congestion on H-1.
Respectfully,
Ben Rarnelb P.E.
1148 Ala Lilikoi St
Honolulu, Hl
96818
Copy to:
1 Mr. Ted Matlev
f i Region IX
~ .
FAX 4 15-744-2726
Honolulu, Ht 96813
FAX (808) 586-0006
FAX (808) 867-5011

~.-.~-l--.~~~."l..""._I

First Name : Ben
Last Name : Ramelb
BusinesslOrganization: Retired Civil Engineer
Apt./Suite No. :
City : HON
State : HI
Zip Code : 96818
Email : ramelbbOO1 Q hawaii.rr.com
Telephone :
Tefephone Extension :
Submission Date :

Submission ContenffNotes : 29 December, 2008
To:
Mr. Wayne Yoshioka
Honolulu
HI 96813
FAX: (808) 587-6080
Subject: Comment on Draft Environmental impact Statement (DEIS)
"Honolulu High-capacitytransit corridor Project", Issue : False and
misleading DEIS statement on "Improve Corridor Mobility".
Fact:
Para. 1.8, pg. 1-20 states that transit improvements are needed to
improve corridor mobility "because motorists and transit users
experience substantial traffic congestion and delay at most times of the
day.....
Average speeds on the H-1 Freeway are currently less than 20
mph.... and will degrade even further by 2030."
Discussion:
The 2006 Alternative Analysis and DEIS propose Rail transit be built
which will worsen traffic congestion on H-1 after the Rail is built. The
City Alternative Analysis , Table 3-12, shows that there will still be
17,500 vehicles per hour in 2030 on the H-1 (full rated capacity = 9,500
vehicles per hour) at Pearl City AFTER the $7.0 Billion Rail is built and
operating.
The DEIS Screenline Volumes for the 2030 Salt Lake Buitd Alternative
Table 3-20. shows that with the Salt Lake Build Alternative AT Screen
fine "0":
- Kalauao Koko Head bound : Observed (forecast) Volume - AM Peak =
18,910 vehicles per hour (vph).
- Facility 2030 Capacity - AM Peak = 14,650 vph - Reference: Table 3-
Result: There will be 4,260 vph above the facility (H-1 + HOV + Zipper +
Kam+ Moanalua) capacity at Kalauao which indicates a Level of Service
(LOS) F AFTER the Salt Lake Rail is built. This conclusion js consistent
with the conclusion using the numbers from the City's Alternative
analysis report. With, rail, the above numbers show congestion will
WORSEN after the $7.0 Billion Full buiid out Rail is completed.
The $7.0 Billion Steel wheel on steel rail transit system is NOT a cost
effective means of providing improved mobility. A fully-elevated, steel-
wheel rail transit system can move only 6,000 commuters (4000
standees, 2000 seated) per hour during peak travel periods while the
2030 commuter demand for RAIL will reach 15,600 commuters per hour,
according to Table 3-12 of the Alternative Analysis. Similarly, Table 3-
20 of the DEIS shows traffic overload on H-1 during peak travel periods,

Conclusion: The $7.0 Billion Steel Rail is not cost effective to
substantially reduce or eliminate the bottlenecks on H-1 and will
REDUCE MOBILITY which is contrary to the goal of the DEIS.

Recommendation: Reject the Steel Wheel on Steel Rail transit system
and select other more cost effective transit systems which will improve
mobility. Cost effective transit systems which will have the capacity to
eliminate H-1 congestion include Managed Lane Alternative, BRT,
EzWay or two highway bypasses around the H-1 bottlenecks at Pearl
City and at Middle Street merge.
Respectfully,
Ben Ramelb P.E.
1148 AIa Lilikoi St
Honolulu, HI
96818

1 Mr. Ted Matfey
F A Region IX
FAX 4 15-744-2726
2) Governor Linda tingle
Honolulu, HI 96813
FAX (808) 586-0006
FAX (808) 867-5011

First Name : Ben
Last Name : Ramelb
BusinesslOrganization: Retired Civil Engineer
Apt.lSuite No. :
City : HON
State : Wt
Zip Code : 96818
Email : ramelbb001 @ hawaii.rr.com
Telephone :
Submission Date :

To:
Mr. Wayne Yoshioka
Honolulu
H 96813
I
FAX: (808)587-6080
Subject: Comment on'~raft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
"Honolulu High-capacity transit corridor Project", Issue False and
misleading DEIS statement on Corridor Travel Reliability.
Fact:
Para. 1.8.2, pg. 1-20 states that "As more roadways become more
congested.... because of traffic accidents or heavy rain..... a need exists
to provide a more reliable transit system."
Discussion:
A fully-elevated, steel-wheel on steel rail transit system can move only
6,000commuters (4000standees, 2000 seated) per hour during peak
travel periods while the 2030 commuter demand for RAIL will reach
15,600commuters per hour, according to Table 3-12 of the Alternative
Analysis.
Commuter demand of 15,600commuters per hour in year 2030 is
calculated thus:
City AA, Table 3-12shows year 2030 forecast volume of 17,500 vph on
H-l(full rated capacity = 9,500vph) with the rail built and operating.
Therefore, there is an overload on H-1 Freeway of 8,000vph = 9,600
commuters per hour that needs to get on the $7.0 Billion Rail transit
which already carries 6,000commuters per hour.
The EzWay or Managed Lane alternatives have the capacity to
accommodate the total 2030 demand. The Managed Lanes or EzWay
will each have three lanes, each lane has a capacity of 2000 vph. For
three lanes, the vehicular capacity is 6000 vehicles per hour. The
Managed Lane Alternative person capacity is calculated thus:
Projected use of the HOT during peak hour includes:
200 express buses w/-50 pns = 10,000pns
500 WOV5 (carpool) = 2,500pns
500 vanpool (-5pns) = 2,500pns.
Remaining excess capacity available for tow occupancy green vehicles:
6,000vph minus (200+ 500 + 500)= 4,800vph. 4,800low occupancy
vehicles
Average persons per vehicle = 1 2 pns per vehicle
.
4,800vehicles with 1 2pns = 5700 pns
.
Summary: Managed Lane persons capacity = 10,000+ 2,500+2,500+
-
5,700= 20,700pns

Conclusion:
There will be 9,600 + 6,000 = 15,600 commuters per hour that must get
on the train during peak travel period. However, 9.600 commuters per
hour will NOT be able to board the train because the train has
insufficientcommuter capacity dur~ng peak travel period. Therefore, the
train cannot be considered a RELIABLE form of transit because it has
insufficient commuter capacity.
Recommendation: Rail Transit should be eliminated as the preferred
alterative because it does not meet the test of Travel Reliability. The
DElS should include cost effective transit systems which will have the
capacity to eliminate H-I congestion include Managed Lane Alternative,
BRT, EzWay or two highway bypasses around the H-I bottlenecks at
Pearl City and at Middle Street merge.

Respectfully,
Ben Ramelb P.E.
1148 Ala Liiikoi St
Honolulu, HI
96818
Copy to:
1) Mr. Ted Matley
FTA Reaion IX
201 ~ i s z i o n Suite 1650
St.
FAX 4 15-744-2726
Honolulu, HI 96813
FAX (808) 586-0006
FAX (808) 867-5011

First Name : Ben
Last Name : Ramelb
Address : 1148 Ata Lilikoi St
Atternative Preference :
Apt./Suite No. :
City : HON
State : HI
t i p Code : 96818
Ernail : ramelbb0016hawaii.rr.com
Telephone :
Telephone Exfertsion :
Submission Date :

Submission ContentfNotes : 29 December, 2008
To:
Mr. Wayne Yoshioka
City and County of Hono(ulu
Honolulu
HI 96813
FAX: (808) 587-6080
"Honolulu High-capacity transit corridor Project", Issue : DElS
incorrectly compares rail alternatives with No-Build Alternatives.
Discussion:
DElS pg. 4-1 states "In this document, the No Build Alternative serves as
an environmental baseline to which the impacts of other alternatives are
compared."
The DElS contains only rail alternatives and a "No-build" alternative
which wrongfulty draws conc~usions detrimental to the environment.
There are other low-cost alternatives considered superior in providing
traffic relief and cost which were wrongfully deleted or not included in the
DElS and Alternative Analysis.
These cost effective transit alternatives inciude an 11 mile Managed
Lane, a I 5 Mile EzWay, a BRT fixed Guideway and two highway
bypasses around the bottlenecks at Pearl City and at Middle Street
Merge. All of these alternatives would cost no more than $1.2 Billion
and would eliminate the bottlenecks at Pearl City and at Mlddte Street
Merge.
Conversely, the Steel wheel on steel rail alternatives included in the
DElS ALL cost no less than $6.28 Billion (Table 6-2 DEIS). Moreover,
after the $6.28 Billion Rail is built and operating, traffic congestion on H-
1 will worsen a s shown on table 3-12 of the Alternative Analysis and on
DEIS Table 3-20. The AA shows 17,500 vehicles per hour on the H-1
freeway (rated full capacity = 9,500 vph). The DElS Table 3-20 shows
there will be 4,200 vph above the vehicle capacity of the highway
facilities heading Koko Head bound during the morning peak period.
Conclusion: If the DElS Rail alternatives are compared with the other
transit alternatives including Managed Lanes, EzWay, BRT, and bypass
highways, each rail alternative would be inferior to the "other" transit
alternatives, both in terms of cost effectiveness and for providing traffic
relief.

Recommendation:
The OElS must add more transit alternatives such as BRT,Managed
Lane, EzWay, and two bypass highways, into the DElS which can then
be compared with the rail alternatives to arrive at a more logical locally

preferred alternative (LPA):
1) an elevated HOV three-lane transit way from Waikele to downtown
Hotel and Alakea Sts as described in Professor Panos Prevedouros
Report "Transportation Alternatives Analysis for MitigatingTraffic
Congestion between Leeward Oahu and Honolulu, Mar 2008." The full
report is available at www.eng.hawaii.edu/-panos/UHCS.pdf.
2) 8RT proposed by former Mayor Harris in early 2002 O r 2003.
o
3) Build two separate, ihree-lane Flyovers, Nimitz and Kamehameha
(between Waiawa Interchange and Halawa Interchange). Note that the
two Flyovers have the capacity to eliminate the bottlenecks on H-1.
Respectfully,
Ben Ramelb P.E.
1148 Ala Lilikoi St
Honolulu, HI
96818
Copy to:
1) Mr. Ted Matley
FTA Reaion IX
201 ~ i s s i o n Suite 1650
St.
San Francisco. CA 94105
FAX 415-744-2726
Hawaii State Capitoj
Honolulu, HI 96813
FAX (808)586-0006
3) Honotulu City Council Members
FAX (808)867-5011

..""..---------.--"-
First Name : Ben
Last Name : Ramelb
Apt./Suite No. :
City : HON
State : HI
Zip Code : 96818
Email : ramelbbOO1@hawaii.rr.com
Telephone :
Add to Maifing List : Both
Submission Date :

To:
Mr. Wayne Yoshioka
Honolulu
HI 96813
FAX: (808) 587-6080
"Honolulu High-capacity transit corridor Project", Issue :DEIS should
compare environmental impacts between Rail and Managed Lane
Alternative
Discussion:
DEIS pg. 4-1 states "In this document, the No Build Alternative serves as
compared." The DEIS and AA should compare environmental impacts
between Rail and Managed Lane Alternative as follows:
A comparison of Managed Lane Alternative versus Rail:
Cost:
Rail - $6.0 c Billion
-
Managed Lane Less than $1.0 Billion (Similar length Tampa reversible
three lane elevated expressway cost $320 million in year 2005)
Length of new elevated fixed guideway:
-
Rail 28 miles. Kapolei, Farrington Hwy to Waipahu, Kamehameha Hwy
to
Aiea, Salt Lake Blvd, Mapunapuna, Oillingham, Nimitz, Halekauwila,
Kapiolani, Kona (Ala Moana Shopping Center), Kapiolani, Kalakaua,
Kuhio (Waikiki); Kapiolanl,
University Ave. (U.H. Manoa).
Managed Lane - I Miles. Over Kam Hwy median (H-1/H-2 Merge to
I
Pearl Harbor), alongside (mauka) H-1 Viaduct to Keehi Lagoon, over
Nimitz hwy to lwilei thence to Hotel
Street and underpass to Alakea St and Halekauwila Street. Use King
and Beretania (couplet) on grade.
Traffic congestion:
Rail -Alternative Analysis Table 3-12 shows 17,500 vph on W-1 (full
rated capacity =9,500 vph) at Kalauao. Rail will worsen traffic
congestion on H-I. 9,600 commuters per hour will be stuck in gridlock
on H-1 during am peak hour or delayed in catching mostly fully loaded
train cars at train stations.
Managed Lane - Will reduce congestion on H-f by 35 percent and has
the traffic capacity to eiiminate
H-1 bottlenecks at Pearl City and at Middle St. merge..
Stations:

-
Rail Will have 34 four-story or higher rail stations
-
Managed Lane Zero bus stations.
Rail Stops:
-
Rail Minimum 19 rail s t o ~ s
outside of Honolulu.
Managed Lane - Zero bus stops between community transit center and
Honolulu
Transfers:
Rail -At least two transfers, home to bus to rait to another bus in town)
Manaaed Lane - None. Bus will travel directlv from communitv to

Travel time:
Rail - will not reduce travel time due to required transfers (bus to rail to
bus).
Managed Lane - reduce travel time by 34 percent in automobife and bus
travel
times along the Leeward Corridor from current levels.
Bypass Road
Rail - Railway not availabte for highway bypass due to accident on H-l
Managed Lane - Reversible highway available 2417.
Land Acquisition
Rail - Much acquisition needed for Rail stations, vehicular parking lots
and rail yards.
Managed Lane - Land required for busyard in Kapolei.
Funding
Rail - GET taxes plus property tax. Fed fund unlikely because Feds
recently cut rail funds for Wash. DC to Dulles Airport.
Managed Lane - funded by Feds FHWA, FTA and municipal bonds.
GET funds coutd be made available with change in law.
Visuat Blight
Rail -Will be an 28 mile elevated environmental blight on Honolulu.
Elevated tracks will be ugly, running through downtown and eventually
Waikiki, defacing our beautiful city and damaging our tourist industry.
Managed Lane - 1I mile elevated outside of Honolulu only.
Air polfution
Rail is not Green. Rail uses more energy per passenger mile than our
buses or cars. Trains will continue at f 0 minute schedule during non-
peak hours with few passengers. Rail will not eliminate H-1 bottlenecks
at Pearl City which will cause 8000 vehicles per hour stuck in gridlock on
H-1 resulting in greater pollution than MLA.
Managed Lane - Has capacity to eliminate H-1 bottlenecks thereby
reducing air poltution relative to rail.
Travel Speed
-
Rail i slow, averaging 25 mph with 19 rail stops outside of Honolulu.
s
There are no express trains.

-
Managed Lane Non-stop 55 mph travel between each community and
job destinations from Pearl Harbor and downtown .

Conclusion: I f the DEIS Rail alternatives are compared with the other
transit alternatives including Managed Lanes, EzWay, BRT, and bypass
highways, each rail alternative would be inferior to the "other" transit
alternatives, both in terms of cost effectiveness and for providing traffic
relief.
Recommendation: The DEIS should include cost effective transit
systems which will have the capacity to eliminate H-1 congestion include
Managed Lane Alternative, BRT, EzWay or two highway bypasses
around the H-1 bottlenecksat Pearl City and at Middle Street merge.
These alternatives can then be compared with the rail alternatives to
arrive at a more logical preferred alternative.
Respectfully,
Ben Ramefb P.E.
1148 Ala Lilikoi St
Honolulu, HI
968 18
Copy to:
? ) Mr. Ted Matlev
F?A Region IX *
FAX 415-744-2726
2) Governor linda Lingle
Honolulu, HI 96813
FAX (808) 586-0006
FAX (808) 867-5011

----------.----.---.-.
First Name : Ben
Last Name : Ramelb
BusinessfOrganization: Retired Civil Engineer
Address : I 148 Ala tilikoi St
Apt.lSuite No. :
City : HON
State : HI
Zip Code : 968 18
Ernail : ramelbb001 Q hawaii.rr.com
Telephone :
Submission Date :

Submission ContenffNotes : 29 December. 2008

&: Wayne Yoshioka
Honolulu
HI 96813
FAX: (808) 587-6080
"Honolulu High-capacity transit corridor Project", Issue : False and
misleading DElS statement to Improve Transportation Equity
Discussion:
Para. 1.8.4, pg. 1-21 states that "Equity is about fair distribution of
resources so that no group carries an unfair burden of the negative
environmental, social or economic impacts or receives and unfair o f
share o benefits. Many tow-income and minority workers who commute
to work in the PUC Development Plan area lie in the corridor outside of
the urban core and thus rely heavily an transit availability. As more
....
roadways become more congested because of traffic accidents or
....
heavy rain. a need exists to provide a more reliable transit system."
Discussion:
A fully-elevated, steel-wheel on steel rail transit system can move only
6,000 commuters (4000 standees, 2000 seated) per hour during peak
travel periods while the 2030 commuter demand for RAIL will reach
15,600 commuters per hour, according to Table 3-12 of the Alternative
Analysis.
Train commuter demand of 15,600 commuters per hour in year 2030 is
cakulated thus:
City AA, Table 3-12 shows year 2030 forecast volume of 17,500 vph on
H-1 (full rated capacity = 9,500 vph) with the rail built and operating.
Therefore, there is a commuter overtoad on H-1 Freeway of 8,000 vph =
9,600 commuters per hour. The total commuter load in 2030 = H-1
commuter overload plus 6,000 commuters on the Rail = 15,600
commuters per hour during peak.
The EzWay or Managed Lane alternatives each has the capacity to
accommodate the total yr 2030 demand. The Managed Lanes or
EzWay will each have elevated, reversible, three lanes each lane has a
capacity of 2000 vph. For three lanes, the vehicular capacity is 6000
vehicles per hour. The Managed Lane Alternative person capacity is
calculated thus:
Projected use of the HOT during peaK hour includes:
200 express buses w/-50 pns = 10,000 pns
500 HOV5 (carpod) = 2,500 pns
500 vanpool (-5pns) = 2,500 pns.

Remaining excess capacity available for low occupancy green vehicles:
6,000 vph minus (200 + 500 + 500) = 4,800 vph. 4,800 low occupancy
vehicles
Average persons er vehicle = 1.2 pns per vehicle
4,800 vehicles witR 1.2 pns = 5700 pns
Summary: Managed Lane persons capacity = 10,000 c 2,500 -I-2,500 e
-
5,700 = 20,700 pns
Conclusion:
There will be 9,600 + 6,000 = 15,600 commuters per hour that must get
on the train during peak travel period. However, 9.600 commuters per
hour will NOT be able to board the train because the train has
insufficientcommuter capacity during peak travel period. Therefore, the
train cannot be considered as a form transit which provides
transportation equity to many low-income and minority workers who
commute to work in the PUC Development Plan area. Rail will impose
an environmental injustice to low-income and minority commuters.
Recommendation: Rail Transit should be eliminated as the preferred
alterative because it does not meet the test of improving transportation
equity. The DE1S should include cost effective transit systems which will
have the capacity to eliminate H-I congestion include Managed Lane
Alternative, BRT, EzWay or two highway bypasses around the H-1
bottlenecks at Pearl City and at Middle Street merge. These alternatives
can then be compared with the rail alternatives to arrive at a more logical
preferred alternative.

Respectfully,
Ben Ramelb P.E.
1 148 Ala Liiikoi St
Honolulu, HI
96818
Copy to:
1) Mr. Ted Matley
FTA Flegion IX
FAX 415-744-2726
Honolulu, HI 96813
FAX (808) 586-0006
FAX (808) 867-5017

--*-..--------.------
First Name : Ben
Last Name : Rameib
Apt./Suite No. :
City : HON
State : HI
Zip Code : 96818
Emaii : ramelbb00t 0hawaii.rr.com
Telephone :
Tefephone Extension :

Submission ContenttNotes : 29 December, 2008
To:
Mr. Wayne Yoshioka
Honolulu
HI 96813
FAX: (808) 587-6080
"Honolulu High-capacitytransit corridor Project", Issue : DEIS should
compare environmental baselinesbetween Rail and other low-cost
transit alternatives such as Managed Lanes, BRT, Ezway and No-build
Discussion:
DEIS pg. 4-1 states "In this document, the No Build Alternative serves as
compared."
The DElS contains only rail alternatives and a "No-build" alternative
which draws wrong or biased conclus~ons with respect to the
environment. There are other low-cost alternatives considered superior
in providing traffic relief and cost which were wrongfully deleted or not
included in the DElS and Alternative Analysis.
Other cost effective transit alternatives include a) an 11 mile elevated
three-lane reversible Managed Lane, b) a 15 Mile elevated, three-lane
reversible EzWay, c) a BRT fixed Guideway and d) two elevated, three-
lane, reversible highway bypasses around the bott4enecks at Pearl City
and at Middle Street Merge. Each of these alternatives would cost less
no more than $1.2 Billion and each has the traffic capacity to eliminate
the H-1 bottlenecks at Pearl City and at Middle Street Merge.
Conversely, each of the steel wheel fixed guideway alternatives included
in the DEIS cost no less than $6.28 Billion (Table 6-2 DEIS). Moreover,
after the $6.28 Billion Rail is built and operating, traffic congestion on H-
i will worsen as shown on table 3-12 of the Alternative Analysis and on
DElS Table 3-20. The AA year 2030 shows 17,500 vehicles per hour
on the H-1 freeway (rated full capacity = 9,500 vph). The DElS yr 2030
Table 3-20 shows there will be 4,200 vph above the vehicle capacity of
the highway facilities heading Koko Head bound during the morning
peak period.
Conclusion: It the DElS Rail alternatives are compared with the other
transit alternatives including Managed Lanes, EzWay, BRT, or two
FI overs, each steel wheel fixed guideway alternative would be totally
in&rior, both in terms o cost effectivenessand for providingWafh rehef.
f
Recommendation: lnclude a wide range of alternatives as required by
law. The DEIS should include cost effective transit systems which will

have the capacity to eliminate H-1 congestion include Managed Lane
Alternative, BRT, EzWay of two highway bypasses around the H-I
bottlenecks at Pearl City and at Middle Street merge. These alternatives
can then be compared with the rail alternatives to arrive at a more logical
preferred alternative.
Respectfully,
Ben Rarnelb P.E.
1148 Ala Lilikoi St
Honolulu, HI
96818
Copy to:
1) Mr. Ted Matley
FTA Region IX
San Francisco. CA 94 105
FAX 4 15-744-2726
Honolulu, HI 96813
FAX (808) 586-0006
FAX (808) 867-501 1

-"*.----.-."-----I.-

First Name : Ben
Last Name : Ramelb
Apt./Suite No. :
City :
State :
Zip Code :
Email :
Telephone :
Submission Date :

To:
Mr. Wayne Yoshioka
Director Department of Transportatian Services
650 South King St. 3rd Ftoor
Honolulu
HI 96813
FAX: (808) 587-6080
"Honolulu Hicrh-ca~acitv
transit corridor Proiect". Issue : DEIS traffic
analysis proides incomplete information re'sulting in arriving at wrong
DEIS findings
Fact:
DEJS Table 3-20 provides existing traffic volumes but does not provide
forecasted volumes with resultant Level of Service (LOS) each
for
specific highway.
Discussion:
DEIS Table 3-20 lists a general "facility" highway serving each
transportation corridor. This does not provide sufficient informationto
determine which specific highway will continue to have congestion after
the transit alternative is completed and operating. Each "facilityu should
be broken down further, i.e. 'Kalauao Koko Head bound " should ~nclude
H-1 Fwy, M-1 Fwy (HOV), H-1 Fwy (Zipper), Moanalua, Kamehameha
Hwy with appropriate traffic volumes, present and forecast, and Level of
Service for each transit alternative.
The 2006 Alternative Analysis and DEIS show that congestion on H-I at
Kalauao Kohohead bound and at Kapalama Canal will continue to be at
Level of Sewice "F"after the steel where fixed alternative is built and
operating. Despite this, continued congestion, the Aiternative Analysis,
and the DEIS accepts, that the steel wheel fixed guideway is the
recommended alternative. This conclusion is totally in error because
both the AA and DEIS do not sufficiently provide traffic voiumes, level of
service and specific highways to arrive at a reasonable conclusion. The
fact that rail will worsen congestion alone is enough to disqualify rail as
the preferred transit alternative.
The City Alternative Analysis, Table 3-12, shows that there will still be
17,500 vehicles per hour in 2030 on the H-1 (fult rated capacity = 9,500
operating.
The DEIS Screenline Volumes for the 2030 Salt Lake Build Alternative
Table 3-20, shows that with the Salt Lake Build Alternative AT Screen
line "0" :
- -
Kalauao Koko Head bound : Observed (forecast) Volume AM Peak =
- - -
Facility 2030 Capacity AM Peak = 14, 650 vph Reference: Table 3-

12 Alternative Analysis,
Result: There will be 4,260 vph above the facility capacity (H-1 .c HOV +
Zipper + Kam+ Moanalua) at Kalauao which indicates a Level of Service
(LOS) F AFTER the S l lake Rail is built. This conclusion is consistent
at
analysis report. With rail, the above numbers show congestion will
WORSEN after the $7.0 Billion full build-out Rail is completed.
Conclusion: The DEIS traffic analysis provides incomplete information
resulting in arriving at wrong conclusions. Specifically, the detailed
Alternative Analysis Table 3-12 and DEIS Table 3-20 show that a rail
alternative "worsens" traffic congestion on most highways which rejects
the findings that Rail will "improve mobifity, reliabifity, equity and reduced
travel times.
Recommendation: 1 ) Revise DEE Table 3-20 and other appropriate
tables and narrative to include the three-lane reversible MLA, the three-
lane EzWay, BRT and two separate Flyovers over Kamehameha
Highway and Nimitz Highway and 2) Provide a higher level of detailed
analysis which will be similar or better than that provided in the
Alternative Analysis Table 3-12.
Respectfully,
Ben Ramelb P.E.
1148 Ala tilikoi St
Honolulu, HI
96818

San Francisco. CA 9411
FAX 415-744-2726
Honolulu, HI 96813
FAX (808) 586-0006
FAX (808)867-501 1

First Name : Ben
Last Name : Ramelb
f3usinesslQrganization : Retired Civil Engineer
Apt./Suite No. :
City : HON
State : HI
Zip Code : 96818
Email : ramelbb001Q hawaii.rr.Com
Telephone :
Submission Date :

To:
Mr. Wayne Yoshioka
Honolulu
Hi 96813
FAX: (808) 587-6080
Subject: Comment on Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DElS)
"Honolulu High-capacitytransit corridor ProjecP, Issue: DElS Summary
of findings on Transportation Conditions and Effects is incorrect
Fact:
DElS Summary of findings on Transportation Conditions and Effects,
page 3-53, are not consistent with Table 3-20 which indicate that with
rail built and operating, traffic congestion on H-1 and other highways will
WORSEN.
Discussion:
The summary on existing conditions states, inter alia, that:
- "increasing traffic congestion and constrained transit operating
conditions have reduced system reliability and mobility for all travelers."
- Reliability of transit has worsened....Reliability is at level of service "F".
The summary on Effects of the "Build Alternatives" state that transit
service mobility, reliability, equity and access to new development would
improve (if is buiit)," This summary is totally false because the 2006
rail
Alternative Analysis Table 3-12 and DElS Table 3-20 show that Rail
Transit, ifbuilt, will result in WORSE traffic congestion on H-1 and other
highways to level of service "F" in year 2030.
The City Alternative Analysis, Table 3-12, shows that there will still be
17,500 vehicles per hour in 2030 on the H-1 (fulf rated capacity = 9,500
operating.
Result: There will be an 8,000 vph overload on H-1 after Rail is built
which will worsen traffic congestion on H-1 resulting in a level of service
"F".
The DElS Screenline Volumes for the 2030 Salt Lake Build Alternative
Table 3-20, shows that with the Salt Lake Build Alternative AT Screen
line " D :
- Kalauao Koko Head bound : Observed (forecast) Volume - AM Peak =
- -
- Facility 2030 Capacity AM Peak = 14, 650 vph Reference: Table 3-
Result: There will be 4,260 vph above the facility capacity (H-1 + HOV +
Zipper -r- Kam+ Moanalua) at Kalauao which indicates a Level of Service
(LOS) F AFTER the Salt Lake Rail is built. This conclusion is consistent

analysis report. With rail, the above numbers show congestion wilt
The above discussion refutes the DEIS statement that the "Effects of
the Build alternatives" will: Improve service mobility, reliabily, equity,
and access to new development; improve travel times, and improve
operating efficiency because after the $6.0 Billion Rail is built,
congestion on H-1 and other highways will WORSEN.

Conclusion: The DElS Table 3-20 and AA Table 3-12 show that traffic on
H-1 and other highways will result in worse traffic congestion in year
2030 AFTER Rail is built and therefore rejects the summary finding that
Rail will "improve mobility, reliability, equity and reduced travel times.
Recommendation: it is recommended that :
I) Revise the summary of findings on Transportation Conditionsand
Effects to be consistent with the finding that Rail will NOT improve
mobility, reliability, equity and access to new development,
2) Revise DElS Table 3-20 and other appropriate tables and narrative
to: indicate that Traffic on H-1 will worsen and provide a higher levei of
detailed analysis which will be similar to that provided in the Alternative
Analysis Tabie 3-12,
3) state that traffic with rail will have a net result of worse traffic
congestion on H-t at the H-1IH-2 merge and at the Middle Street merge
and
4) include in the DElS other cost-effective transit alternativessuch as an
II-mile three-lane reversible MLA for evaluation and comparison with
the No Build alternative and the rail alternatives.
Respectfully,
8en Ramelb P.E.
1148 Ala Lilikoi St
Honolulu, HI
96818
Copy to:
1) Mr. Ted Matley
FTA Region IX
FAX 4 15-744-2726
Honolulu, HI 96813
FAX (808) 586-0006
FAX (808) 867-501 1

-------"---"-"""

First Name : Ben
Last Name : Ramelb
BusinessiOrganixation: Retired Civif Engineer
Address : 1 148 Afa Lilikoi St
AptJSuite No. :
City : HON
State : HI
Zip Code : 96818
Ernail : rarneIbbO0-iQhawaii.rr.com
Telephone :
Submission Date :

To :
Mr. Wayne Yoshioka
-
650 South Kina St. 3rd Floor
Honolulu
HI 96813
FAX: (808) 587-6080
"Honolulu High-capacity transit corridor Project", Issue: DElS traffic
analysis provides incomplete information
Fact:
DElS Table 3-12 shows existing and 2030 traffic volumes for No Build
Alternative
DElS Table 3-20 provides forecasted traffic volumes but do not show
resultant Level of Service (10s) each highway (facility) Corridor.
for
Discussion:
DElS Table 1-3 and Table 3-20 are incomplete because a) lane
designations are too generalized, b) each highway lacks level of service
information, and c) lacks sufficient non-rail alternatives, i.e. Managed
Lane, BRT, EzWay.
Specific Highway and lane designations should be specific. "Facility"
highways serving each transportation corridor should be broken down
further, i.e. "Kalauao Koko Head bound "should be broken down into H-
IFwy, H-I Hwy (HOV), H-I Fwy (Zipper), Moanalua, Kamehameha Hwy
with appropriate traffic volumes, present and forecast, and Level of
Service for each transit alternative.
The 2006 Alternative Analysis and DEIS concludes that Rail transit will
"help reduce congestion" which is very misleading because while rail will
HELP in reducing future congestion, the NET future traffic congestion
on H-1 will substantially INCREASE, primarily because rail will not have
the commuter capacity to transport the net future commuter demand in
year 2030. For example, the City Alternative Analysis, Table 3-12,
shows that there will still be 17,500 vehicles per hour in 2030 on the H-1
full rated capacity = 9,500 vehicles per hour) at Pearl City AFTER the
b 6.0 Billion Rail is built and operating.
The DEIS Screenline Volumes for the 2030 Salt Lake Build Alternative
Table 3-20, shows that with the Salt Lake Buifd Alternative AT Screen
line "DM:
-
- Kalauao Koko Head bound : Observed (forecast) Volume AM Peak =
-
- Facility 2030 Capacity AM Peak = 14, 650 vph - Reference: Table 3-

Result: Results from DElS Table 3-20 show that there will be 4,260 vph
above the facility capacity (H-1 + HOV ..Zipper c Kam+ Moanalua) at
I
Kalauao which indicates a Level of Service (LOS) F AFTER the Salt
Lake Rail is built. This conclusion is consistent with the conclusion using
the numbers from the City's Alternative analysis report. With rail, the
above numbers show congestion will WORSEN after the $6.0 Billion full
build-out Rail is completed. Therefore, the DEIS Table 3-20showing a
positive change in congestion is MISLEADING because the NET change
in traffic congestion will WORSEN.
For example, the forecasted volume for Kalauao Koko Mead bound A,M.
Peak Hour is 18,950 vph while the rated full capacity of the "facility" is
14,650 vph (reference: AA table 3-12for facility including H-1 Fwy, H-1
Hwy (HOV), H-1 Fwy (Zipper), Moanalua, Kamehameha Hwy . There
will be 4,260 vehicles per hour above the facility rated capacity resulting
in a LOS "F". This would contradict the findings on DElS page 3-53
where mobility, reliability and equity would DECREASE rather than
increase.
This makes it all the more reason to include a an 11- mile, elevated,
three lane reversible Managed Lane Alternative, a transit system which
is lower in cost than rail and will have the capacity to eliminate the LOF
"F" on the H-1 freeway.
Conclusion: The DElS traffic analysis provides incomplete information
resulting in arriving at wrong conciusions. Specifically, the detailed
Alternative Analysis Table 3-12and DElS Table 3-20 show "net result"
that a rail alternative "worsens" traffic congestion on most highways
which rejects the findings that Rail will "improve mobility, reliability,
equity and reduced travel times.
Recommendation: It is recommended that 1) the DElS Table 3-20 and
other appropriate tables and narrative be revised to indicate that Traffic
on H-1 will worsen , provide a higher level of detailed analysis which will
be similar to that provided in the Alternative Analysis Table 3-12, 2) state
that traffic with rail will have a net result of worse traffic congestion on H-
1 at the H-1/H-2 merge and at the Middle Street merge and 3) that other
low cost-effective transit alternatives be included in the DElS for
evaluation and comparison with the No Build alternative and the rail
alternatives.
Respectfuly,
Ben Ramelb P.E.
1 f 48 Ala Lilikoi St
Honolulu, MI
96818
Copy to:
1) Mr. Ted Matley
FTA Region IX

FAX 415-744-2726
Honolulu, HI 96813
FAX (808) 586-0006
FAX (808) 867-5011

"....^.,l.-"-l..*-"~"~."-

First Name : Ben
Last Name : Rametb
AptJSuite No. :
City :
State :
Zip Code :
Email :
Telephone :
Submission Date :

Submission ContentfNotes : 29 December, 2008
To:
Mr. Wayne Yoshioka
Honolulu
HI 96813
FAX: (808) 587-6080

"Honolulu High-capacity transit corridor Project",
Issue: DElS traffic analysis on Air Quality is incomplete
Fact:
DEIS paragraph 4.8.1 methodology states "Air Quality effects predicted
to result from the Project's operation are based on the anticipated
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and average network speed for each
alternative."
Discussion:
1) City AA, Table 3-12 shows year 2030 forecast volume of 17,500 vph
=
on H-l(full rated ca~acitv 9.500 voh) after the Rail is built and
operatihg. Therefoie, thkre is a comniuter overload on H-1 Freeway of
8,000 vph.
Result: There will be an 8,000 vph overload on H-1 after Rail is built
which will worsen traffic congestion on H-1 resulting in a level of service
"F". These 8,000 vehicles will cause major pollution because the Train
cannot carry the full commuter demand for yr 2030. = 9,600 commuters
per hour.
2) The DElS Screenline Volumes for the 2030 Salt take Build
Alternative Table 3-20. shows that with the Salt Lake Build Afternative
AT Screen line "DM :
- -
Kalauao Koko Head bound: Observed (forecast) Volume AM Peak =
- Facility 2030 Capacity -AM Peak = 14, 650 vph - Reference: Table 3-
Result: There will be 4,260 vph above the facility capacity (H-1 + H0V +
Zipper + Karn Hwy -I- Moanalua) at Kalauao which indicates a Level of
Service (LOS) F AFTER the Salt Lake Rail is built. These 4,260
vehicles will cause major pollution because the Train cannot carry the
full commuter demand for yr 2030.
Both AA Table 3-12 and DElS Table 3-20 show that traffic congestion on
H-1 will WORSEN after the $6.0 Billion Rail is built and operating.
DElS Table 4-12 , 2030 Regional Pollutant Burdens, do not include the
pollutants discharged by 8,000 vehicles per hour (equivalent 9,600
commuters per hour) per the AA or 4,260 vph per the DEIS which will

be gridlocked on H-1 Freeway because the low-capacity train cannot
accommodate the 2030 commuter demand.
A three lane Managed Lane reversible will substantially eliminate traffic
overload on H-1 during peak travel periods thus:
- Numbersfrom Table 3-12 of city 2006 Nov Alternative Analysis ($10
million report):
- Rail only: capacity = 6000 commuters per peak hour (equivalent 5000
- H-1 only: rated capacity = 9,500 vehicles per hour (equivalent 15,400
commuters per hour
- H-1 forecast yr 2030 traffic load = 17,500 vehicles per hour per City AA
Managed Lane three-Lane HOV Reversible Flyover: capacity = 6,000
per peak hour, car pools, van poots, green cars and HOV2. (50 pns per
express bus and 5800 vph at avge 2 pns per vehicle).
Year 2030 commuter load by Cit AA Report = Rail (6000) + H-1
overload (9,600) t. H-1 capacity h5.400) = 31.000 commuters.
Managed Lane HOV -1- H-1 = 37,000 commuters per hour
Finding: Rail does not have sufficient commuter capacity which will
cause 9,600 commuters to be stuck in gridlock on H-l or stuck at rail
Lane HOV Alternative will eliminate congestion and bottlenecks on H-f .

Conclusion:
DElS Pollutant conclusions on Table 4-1 2 for the Airport and Salt Lake
alternatives are incorrect because they do not include pollutants
discharged by the additional 8,000 (4,260) vehicles per hour gridfocked
on H-1 according to Table 3-12 of the AA and Table 3-20 of the DEIS.
Recommendation: Revise the DEIS findings regarding Pollutant
Burdens based on inclusion of the 8,000vph (or 4,260 vph) "overload on
H-1" during peak periods.
Respectfully,
Ben Ramelb P.E.
I 148 Ala Lilikoi St
Honolulu, HI
96818
Copy to:
1) Mr. Ted Matley

FTA Region IX
.FAX 415-744-2726
2)Governor Linda Lingle
Honolulu, HI 96813
FAX (808) 586-0006
FAX (808) 867-5011

.----.-------..--.-..
First Name : Ben
Last Name : Ramelb
Address : 1 148 Ata Lilikoi St
Apt./Suite No. :
City : HON
State : Hi
Zip Code : 96818
Email : ramelbbOO1Qhawaii.rr.com
Telephone ':
Add to Mailing List : . Both
Submission Date :

To:
Mr. Wayne Yoshioka
650 South King St, 3rd Floor
Honolulu
HI 96813
FAX: (808) 587-6080
Subject: Comment on Draft Environmental lmpact Statement (DEIS)
"Honolulu High-capacity transit corridor Project", Issue: DElS provides
misleading information on Managed Lane Alternative (MLA)
Fact:
DEIS page 2-5, paragraph 4, states 'The Managed Lane AIternative
would have generated the greatesf amount of air pollution, required the
greatest amount of energy for transportation..,."
Discussion:
1) Table 3-12 of the Alternative Analysis, a.m. peak hour Screenline
Volume at Kalauao, shows that traffic volume on H-1 (full rated capacity
9,500 vph) rises from the current 11,000 vph to 17,400 vph in 2030 after
the $6.0 Billion Rail is built and operating. Conclusion: After
expenditure of $6.0 BilRon for rail, traffic overload on H-1 will increase
from 1,500 vph to nearly 8,000 vph and will not eliminate the traffic
bottlenecks at the H-1/H-2 merge and at the Middle Street merge.
21 The three-lane MLA has the ca~acitv eliminate the two maior H-1
* , to
bottlenecks:
From Table 3-f 2 of citv 2006 Nov Alternative Analvsis:
- Rail only: capacity ='6000 commuters per peak hour (equivalent 5000
- H-1 oniv: rated caoacifv = 9.500 vehicles oer hour (eauivatent 15.400
< . . .
commuteis per houi
- H-1 forecast yr 2030 traffic load = 17,500 vehicles per hour per City
AA Table 3-12 (or 8,000 vph overload = 9,600 commuters per hour)
- Managed Lane three-Lane HOV Reversible Flyover: capacity = 6,000
per peak hour, car pools, van pools, green cars and HOV2. (50 pns per
express bus and 5800 vph at avge two persons per vehicle).
- Year 2030 commuter load by City AA Report = Rail (6000) + H-1
overload (9,600) t. H-1 capacity (15,400) = 31,000 commuters.
Managed Lane HOV e H-1 = 37,000 commuters per hour
Based on above calculations, rail does not have sufficient commuter
capacity which will cause 9,600 commuters to be stuck in gridlock on H-
1 or stuck at rail stations (especially at stations between Waipahu and

Kalihi). Managed Lane HOV Alternative will eliminate congestion and
bottlenecks on H-I.
3) Rail will result in causing 17,400 vph to be stuck in gridlock on H-1
and will thus cause more pollution and more gas used by commuters.
Conversely, the MLA will eliminate traffic gridlock on H-1, create more
efficient commuter travel and will therefore cause less pollution and
energy use than rail transit.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the DEIS be revised throughout to indicate that
the'MLA causes less pollution and energy use than rail transit and that
the Managed Lane Alternative be reinstated into the DElS for further
consideration as the locally preferred alternative.
Respectfully,
Ben Rarnelb P.E.
1148 Ala Lilikoi St
Honolulu, HI
96818
Copy to:
1) Mr. Ted Matley
FTA Region i X
FAX 4 15-744-2726
Honolulu, HI 96813
FAX (808)'586-0006
3) Honolulu City Councit Members
FAX (808) 867-501f

---""..*-""."------.-
First Name : Ben
Last Name : Rarnelb
BusinessiOrganiz.atian: Retired Civil Engineer
AptJSuite No. :
City : HON
State : H
I
Zip Code : 96818
Email : ramelbb00T @ hawaii.rr.com
Telephone :
Submission Date :

To:
Mr. Wayne Yoshioka
Honolulu
HI 96813
FAX: (808) 587-6080
"Honolulu High-capacity transit corridor Project", Issue: DElS traffic
analysis shows traffic Congestion could cost Oahu jobs
Fact:
. The City Alternative Analysis, Table 3-12, shows that there will still be
17,500 vehicles per hour in 2030 on the H-1 (full rated capacity = 9,500
operating.
Result: With rail, the above numbers show congestion will WORSEN
after the $6.2 Billion Minimum operable Segment Rail is completed.
The DElS Screenline Volumes for the 2030 Salt Lake Build Alternative
Table 3-20, shows that with the Salt Lake Build Alternative at Screen
line "D" :
- -
Kalaoao Koko Head bound : Observed (forecast) Volume AM Peak =
- -
-
Facility 2030 Capacity AM Peak = 14, 650 vph Reference: Table 3-
Result: There will be 4,260 vph above the facility capacity (H-1 + HOV c
Zipper + Kamc Moanalua) at Kalauao which indicates a Level of Service
(LOS) F AFTER the Salt Lake Rail is built. This conclusion is consistent
analysis report. With rail, the above numbers show congestion will
Discussion:
Traffic congestion could cost state jobs. See
http://www.ajc.com:8O/metro/content/metro/stories/2008/11/13/transport
ation~study~iraffic~economy.htmI
'Transportation woes couid cost Georgia 320,000 potential jobs and
$51 5 billion in economic benefits over the next 20 years ifthe state
sticks to ''continued traffic congestion or business as usual," according to
a new state report. Traffic jams and the tack of access to reliable
transportation in metro Atlanta will increasingly limit the number of jobs
people can commute to, and the number of potential workers an
employer can expect to attract, according to the study presented to the
state Transportation Board."
Rail will worsen traffic congestion according to City and County of
Honolulu DElS Table 3-20 and AA table 3-12.
Conclusion: The traffic analysis included in the detailed Alternative

Analysis Table 3-12 and DElS Tabfe 3-20 show that a rail alternative
'ivorsens" traffic congestion on most highways which could cost Oahu
jobs.
Recommendation: Include additional cost-effective mass transit
aiternatives which will substantially reduce or eliminate traffic congestion
in the West Oahu Traffic Corridor. These alternatives include BRT,11
mile three-lane Managed Lane, elevated three-lane, 15 mile EzWay and
two highway bypasses around the bottlenecks at Pearl City and at
Middle street. Each of these alternatives are estimated to cost less than
$1.2 Billion, much less than the $6.2 Billion Rail Alternatives which will
worsen traffic congestion.
Respectfully,
Ben Rarnelb P,E.
1148 Ala Lillkol St
Honolulu, HI
96818
Copy to:
I ) Mr. Ted Matley
FTA Region IX
FAX 4 15-744-2726
Honolulu, HI 96813
FAX (808) 586-0006
FAX (808) 867-5011

-----------**"".,"-

First Name : Ben
Last Name : Ramelb
Afternative Preference :
Apt./Suite No. :
City : HON
State : HI
Zip Code : 96818
Email : rarnelbbOO1@hawaii.rr.com
Telephone :
Add to Mailing Ust : Both
Submission Date :

Submission ContentNotes : 29 December, 2008

&: Wayne Yoshioka
Honolulu
HI 96813
FAX: (808) 587-6080

"Honolulu High-capacity transit corridor Project", Issue- Project
Construction Phasing will not provide early traffic relief
Fact:
The rail project construction phasing is proposed in four phases as
discussed on DEIS page 2-38 and as shown on Figure 2-44 as follows:
- East Kapolei to Pearl Highlands (First Construction Phase)
- Pearl Highlands to Aloha Stadium (Second Construction Phase)
- Aloha Stadium to Middle Street (Third Construction Phase)
- Middle Street to Ala Moana Shopping Center (Fourth and final
Construction Phase)
Discussion:
The primary purpose of any mass transit system is to provide traffic relief
and to provide relief in the near term, The major West and Central Oahu
traffic bottlenecks are at the Middle Street merge and at the H-1/H2
merge. Construction phases for the rail should be prioritized to reduce
the traffic bottlenecks at these two locations. Therefore, the project
construction phasing shown above should be reversed:
- Middle Street to Ala Moana Shopping Center (First Construction
Phase)
- Aloha Stadium to Middle Street (Second Construction Phase)
--Pearl Highlands to Aloha Stadium (Third Construction Phase)
East Kapolei to Pearl Highlands (Fourth Construction Phase)
This revised project phasing is logical because:
a) The Middle Street to Ala Moana Shopping Center first phase will
provide early traffic relief to the Middle Street bottle neck.
b) The funding source for the entire 20 mile segment is not guaranteed,
recognizing that the General Excise Tax is not meeting projections in
revenue due to the expected long term siumping economy. The
taxoaver will not tolerate anv increase in , .
rail'fuhd shortfall.
.
DroDertv tax or GET to fund anv
c) The funding amount from the Federal Transit Authority is not
guaranteed.
d) If rail funds are delayed, providing traffic relief to the traffic
bottlenecks on H-I will be delayed.

e) Each phase for rail will provide the maximum bang for the dollar. The
rail will be completely be useable and serve the most number of
commuters as each phase is completed. Conversely, the Kapolei to
Pearl Highlands would serve very few commuters as most commuters
will be destined for east of Pearl Harbor and beyond in the easterly
direction.
Vehicle Maintenance and Storage Facility for each construction phase
can be temporarily established to support each construction phase as
modified:
a) For the Middle Street phase, some 40 acres could be obtained along
Lagoon Drive to include portions of Keehi Lagoon Park, Airport vacant
areas and commercial businesses including Used Car Lots. At least 10
acres for park and ride can be acquired in the airport area alongside
Aolele Street and Lagoon Drive.
b) For the Aloha Stadium phase, portions of the Aloha Stadium Parking
lot can be temporarily used for the Storage Facility and temp facilities for
vehicle maintenance.
c) For the Pearl Highlands Phase, a 43-acre vacant site near Leeward
Community College is available (DEIS figure 2-42).
d) A 41-acre site is identifiedfor the Kapolei phase {DEIS figure 2-41).
Conclusion:
Construction of the Middle Street to Ala Moana Phase as a first prioity is
consistent with providing near-term traffic relief, will initially sewe the
most number of commuters, will be completely useable and cost
effective, and will not force the taxpayer to pay more taxes to fund
additionai rail segments should rail funding sources not achieve revenue
projections.
Recommendation:
The DEIS should reverse the construction project phasing as discussed
above starting with the Middle Street to Ala Moana Shopping Center as
the First Phase.
Respectfully,
Ben Ramelb P.E.
1148 Ala Lilikoi St
Honolulu, HI
96818
Copy to:
1) Mr. Ted Matley
FTA Region IX
FAX 4 15-744-2726
Honolulu, 11 96813
1

FAX (808) 586-0006
FAX (808) 867-5011

--.-.,.-.-----.----
First Name : Ben
Last Name : Rarnetb
Address : 1148 Ala tilikoi St
Apt./Suite No. :
City : HON
State : HI
Zip Code : 96818
Ernail : ramelbbOO1Qhawaii.rr.com
Telephone :
Submission Date :

Submission ContentMotes : 29 December, 2008
To:
Mr. Wayne Yoshioka
Honolulu
Hi 96813
FAX: (808) 587-6080

"Honolulu High-capacity transit corridor Project", Issue: Displacement of
Homes and Churches should be minimized
Fact:
The DEIS Table 2-6 and Figure 2-20 shows the park and ride facility at
Pearl Highlands to be 11 acres and 1600 vehicular parking spaces. The
11 acres "Banana Patch* contain several family homes, farmland and
church facilities which have been in existence for 30 to 60 years.
Discussion:
It would be considered an environmental injustice to displace the many
families on the 11 acre property because there are better alternatives to
the 11 acre Park-and-Ride facility.
Figure 2-42 shows a 43-acre vacant adjacent to the Leeward
Community College (LCC site), The DEIS states that this 43 acre LCC
site is reserved for potential use for a Vehicle Maintenance and Storage
Area (VMSA). Since only one VMSA is needed for the rail project,. there
are three alternative sites for the VMSA:
1) At the Honolulu Airport east end, some 40 acres could be acquired
along Lagoon Drive and Aolele Street to include portions of Keehi
Laaoon Park. Airport vacant areas and commercial businesses includina -
~ u a g e tCar ~ e n i a l
2) Portions of the Aloha Stadium Parking fot can be used for the VMSA.
Multi-stow vehicular parkina structures could be buiit to accommodate
the loss i i sports events paiking.
3) A41-acre site for VMSA is identified in Kapolei (DEIS figure 2-41).
A further alternative is to reduce the size of the VMSA at the 43-acre
LCC site by splitting the VMSA facility between the LCC site and one of
the other alternative sites mentioned above.. This area reduction will
allow the reservation of 10 to 15 acres for a park and ride facility on the
LCC site.
The best alternative is to dedicate the entire vacant 43-acre LCC site for
a 23-acre Transit Oriented Development (TOD) and a 20-acre Park-
and-ride facility for 3,000 vehicles for rail commuters.

Conclusion:
a) The use of the LCC site for Park and Ride instead of the 11-acre
"Banana Patch " site will eliminate the need to dis~lace several families,
farm land and church facilities.
b) There are alternative sites for VMSA facilities other than the LCC site.
c) The LCC site provides a greater amount of parking spaces for rail
commuters.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the LCC site be used for a 23-acre Transit
Oriented Development (TOR) and a 20-acre Park-and-ride facility for
3,000 veh~des rail commuters.
for

Respectfully,
Ben Ramelb P.E.
1148 Ala Lilikoi St
Honolulu, HI
96818
Copy to:
Mr. Ted Matlev
FTA Region IX-
FAX 415-744-2726
Governor Linda Lingle
Hawaii State Capitol .
4?5 S Beretania St. 5th Floor
Honolulu, HI 96813
FAX (808) 586-0006
Honolulu City Council Members
FAX (808) 867-5011

.","..--1..-.Lll----

First Name : Ben
Last Name : Ramefb
BusinesslOrganization:
AptJSuite No, :
City :
State :
Zip Code :
Email :
Telephone :
Add to Mailing List : 80th
Submission Date :

To:
Mr. Wayne'Yoshioka
City and County of Hondulu
Honolulu
HI 96813
FAX: (808) 587-6080
"Honolulu High-capacity transit corridor Project", Issue: Land Acquisition
should be minimized by routing the fixed guideway over Nimitz Highway
instead of over Dillingham Boulevard.
Fact:
Numerous land acquisitions are required to build the fixed guideway
along Dillingham Blvd which will cause disruption to businessess, homes
and increase traffic congestion on Dillingham Blvd.
A fixed guideway route over Nimitz Highway instead of along Dillingham
Blvd will cause less disruption and result in lower cost for the project.
it is noted that the Oahu Regional Transportation Plan (ORTP) 2030
shows a two lane Nimitz Flyover over the median of Nimitz Highway
which could conflict with the proposed fixed guideway over Nimitz
Highway. tf the Nimitz Flyover is built, it is suggested that both the
Nimitz "Flyover" and the fixed guideway be built within the elevated
Nimitz Highway right of way corridor. In this case, the two-lane "Nimitz
HOV Flyover (reversible)" can be built alongside and parallel to the fixed
guideway transit. The fixed guideway with a capacity of 6,000
commuters per hour and the two-lane "Nimitz Flyover", with a capacity of
4,000 vehicles per hour, should be adequate to substantially reduce the
bottleneck at the Middle Street Merge and on Oillingham Blvd between
Keehi Lagoon and downtown Hotel Street.
The Nimitz Flyover (reversible) should be connected to the Airport
Viaduct at Keehi Lagoon to Alakea StreetMalekauwila St via an
underpass and to Hotel Street Mall via an elevated busway. These
connections are described in a Managed Lane Study "Transportation
Alternatives Analysis for Mitigating Traffic congestion between Leeward
Oahu and Honolulun.The full report is avaitable at
increased the cost to $420 million or $42 miliion per mile. Using a
Reversible Flyover at $60 to $80 million per mile would cost between
$180 million to $240 million.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the fixed guideway ropte be over Nimitz Highway
instead of Dillingham Blvd to minimize disruptron of homes and

businesses and minimize traffic congestion along Oillingham Blvd.

Respectfully,
Ben Ramelb P.E.
1148 Ala Lilikoi St
Honolulu, XI
96818
Copy to:
Mr. Ted Matley
FTA Region IX
Sari Francisco, CA 94105
FAX 415-744-2726
Honolulu, HI 96813
FAX (808) 586-0005
FAX (808) 867-501 t

First Name : Ben
Last Name : Ramelb
Atternative Preference :
Apt./Suite No. :
City : Honolutu
State : HI
Zip Code : 9681 8
Email : ramelbb001Qhawaii.rr.com
Telephone :
Submission Date :

To:
Mr. Wayne Yoshioka
Director Department ol Transportation Services
Honolulu
HI 96813
FAX: (808) 587-6080

"Honolulu High-capacity transit corridor Project", Issue: Fixed Guide
way Alternative is not Cost Effective because it does not provide traffic
relief despite its cost of at least $6.0 Billion
Facts:
Table 3-12 of the 2006 Alternative Analysis shows that the a.m. Koko
Head Bound at Kalauao Stream traffic volume on H-I Freeway (volume
capacity = 9,500 vph) will increase from 10,960 vehicles per hour to
17,209 vph in year 2030. This congestion will increase after the $6.0
Billion Fixed guideway is built and operating. This raises the question:
Why build a $6.0 Billion rail if it does not eliminated or substantially
reduce the congestion on H-1 at Kalauao Stream? The very high cost of
the rail is certainly not cost effective if it does not reduce the congestion
on H-1 at the H-IIH-2 merge and at the H-1 middle Street merge during
the a.m Koko Head bound peak hour traffic.
Discussion:
A combination of a new Kamehameha Flyover at a cost of $320 million
and a Nimitz Flyover at a cost of $240 million is cost effective which will
eliminate the congestion on H-I at Kalauao Stream and at Middle Street
merge and is a superior alternative to the fixed guideway.
The Kamehameha HOV Flyover (Reversible) is a 3-mile reversible,
elevated, three-lane structure over the median of Kamehameha Highway
from the H-11H-2 merge at the Waiawa Interchange to the Airport
Viaduct just east of the Aloha Stadium. The Flyover would be built
similar to the Tampa Elevated three-lane Reversible HOV as described
in- http:l/www.tollroadsnews.com/node/l72 .
The Kamehameha Flyover would be connected to H-1, H-2,
a Managed Lane Study "TransportationAlternatives Analysis for
between $240 million to $320 milllon.
The Kamehameha Three-Lane HOV Reversible Flyover has a capacity
of 6,000 high occupancy vehicles per hour (equivalent 21,600

commuters per hour). This capacity is based on HOV use on Flyover by
200 express buses per peak hour, car pools, van pools, green cars and
HOV2. (50 pns per express bus and 5800 vph at avge 2 pns per
vehicle).
There is a projected 8,000 vph overload on H-1 during am peak at
Kalauao Stream per Table 3-12 of the Alternative Analysis. This 8,000
vph overload equates to 9,600 commuters per hour. Therefore, the
three-lane Kamehameha Flyover (cap = 21,600 commuters) has ample
capacity to accommodate the H-1 overload (9,600 commuters).
-
outlined above. if the rail is built, it is suggested that both the
Kamehameha Highway "Flyover" and the Rail be built within the
"Kamehameha Flyover" is needed (instead of three-lanes) to be built
alongside and parailel to the Rail transit. The rail with a capacity of 6,000
capacity of 4,000 vehicies per hour, should be adequate to substantialfy
reduce the bottleneck at the H-IIH-2 merge and the traffic congestion on
H-1 between Pearl City and AIoha Stadium.
Nirnitz Flyover, Reversible HOV:
Keehi Lagoon to Hotel Street and Alakea St/Halekauwila St. The
only two lanes entering downtown, The downtown terminal connections
Hotel Street and a single lane underpass to both Alakea St/Halekauwila
between Leeward Oahu and Ho~oIuIu*. The full report is available at
www.eng. hawaii.edu/-panos/UHCS.pdf .
million.
Conclusion:
The $6.0 Billion Fixed guideway rail is NOT cost effective because it
does not eliminate the congestion at the H-1/H-2 merge and at the H-1
Middle Street merge while the $320 million Kamehameha Flyover and
$240 million Nimitz Flyover are very cost effective because both have

lower construction cost as compared with the Fixed rail guideway.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that DElS include a Kamehameha Flyover (reversible
three lane elevated) and a Nimitz Flyover (reversible three lane
elevated) as a transit Alternative to provide traffic relief.
Respectfully,
Ben Ramelb P.E.
1148 Ala Lilikoi St
Honolulu, HI
96818
Copy to:
Mr. Ted Matley
FTA Region iX
FAX 415-744-2726
Honolulu, HI 96813
FAX (808) 586-0006
Honolulu City Councif Members
FAX (808) 867-5011

-----------.--
Creator Affiliation : Other
First Name : Ben
Last Name : Ramelb
Business/Organization :
Apt.lSuite No. :
City : Honolulu
State : HI
Zip Code : 96818
Email : ramelbb001 Qhawaii.rr.com
Telephone :
Submission Date :

Submission ContenffNotes : 29 December, 2008
To:
Mr. Wayne Yoshioka
Honolulu
HI 96813
FAX: (808) 587-6080
"Honolulu High-capacity transit corridor Project", Issue: Land Acquisition
should be minimized by routing the fixed guideway over Nimitz Highway
instead of over Dillingham Boulevard.
Fact:
Numerous land acquisitions are required to build the fixed guideway
along Dillingham Blvd which wilf cause disruption to businessess, homes
and increase traffic congestion on Dillingham Blvd.
A fixed guideway route over Nimitz Highway instead of along Dillingham
Blvd will cause less disruption and result in lower cost for the project.
It is noted that the Oahu Regional Transportation Plan (ORTP) 2030
shows a two lane Nimitz Flyover over the median of Nimitz Highway
which could conflict with the proposed fixed guideway over Nimitz
Highway. If the Nimitz Flyover is built, it is suggested that both the
Nimitz "Flyover" and the fixed guideway be built within the elevated
Nimitz Highway right of way corridor. In this case, the two-lane "Nlmitz
HOV Flyover (reversible)" can be built alongside and parallel to the fixed
guideway transit. The fixed guideway with a capacity of 6,000
commuters per hour and the two-lane "Nimitz Flyover",with a capacity of
4,000 vehicles per hour, should be adequate to substantially reduce the
bottleneck at the Middle Street Merge and on Dillingham Blvd between
Keehi Lagoon and downtown Hotel Street.
The Nimitz Flyover (reversible) should be connected to the Airport
Viaduct at Keehi Lagoon to Alakea Street/Halekauwila St via an
underpass and to Hotel Street Mall via an elevated busway. These
connections are described in a Managed Lane Study "Transportation
Alternatives Analysis for Mitigating Traffic congestion between Leeward
Oahu and Honolulu". The full report is available at
increased the cost to $420 million or $42 miltion per mile. Using a
geographic and escalation factor of 100 percent, the Smile Nirnitz HOV
Reversible Flyover at $60 to $80 million per mile woufd cost between
$1 80 million to $240 million.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the fixed guideway route be over Nimitz Highway
instead of Dillingham Blvd to minimize dismption of homes and

businesses and minimize traffic congestion along Diilingham Blvd.

Respectfully,
Ben Ramelb P.E.
1148 Ala Lilikoi St
Honolulu, HI
96818
Copy to:
Mr. Ted Matley
FTA Region IX
FAX 415-744-2726
Governor Linda tingle
Honolulu, HI 96813
FAX (808) 586-0006
FAX (808) 867-5011

Creation Date : 212/2009
First Name : Ben
Last Name : Ramelb
BusinesslOrganization :
AptstsuiteNo. :
City : Honolulu
State : HI
Zip Code : 96818
Ernail : rarnelbb001@hawaii.rr.com
Telephone :

To :
Mr. Wayne Yoshioka
-
Honoluiu
HI 96813
FAX: (808) 587-6080

"Honolulu High-capacity transit corridor Project", Issue: Displacement of
Homes and Churches should be minimized
Fact: I

The DEIS Table 2-6 and Figure 2-20 shows the park and ride facility at
Pearl Highlands to be I acres and 1600 vehicular parking spaces. The
I
I 1 acres "Banana Patch" contain several family homes, farmland and
church facilities which have been in existence for 30 to 60 years.
Discussion:
It would be considered an environmental injustice to displace the many
families on the 11 acre property because there are better alternatives to
the 11 acre Park-and-Ride facility.
Figure 2-42 shows a 43acre vacant adjacent to the Leeward
Community College (LCCsite). The DEIS states that this 43 acre LCC
site is reserved for potential use for a Vehicle Maintenance and Storage
Area (VMSA). Since only one VMSA is needed for the rail project, there
are three alternative sites for the VMSA:
1) At the Honolulu Airport east end, some 40 acres could be acquired
along Lagoon Drive and Aolele Street to include portions of Keehi
Lagoon Park, Airport vacant areas and commercial businesses includinn -
Buaget Car Rental
2) Portions of the Aloha Stadium Parking lot can be used for the VMSA,
Multi-story vehicular parking structures c6uld be built to accommodate
the loss in sports events parking.
3) A 41-acre site for VMSA is identified in Kapoiei (DEIS figure 2-41).
A further alternative is to reduce the size of the VMSA at the 43-acre
LCC site by splitting the VMSA facility between the LCC site and one of
the other alternative sites mentioned above.. This area reduction will
allow the reservation of 10 to 15 acres for a park and ride facility on the
LCC site.
The best alternative is to dedicate the entire vacant 43-acre LCC site for
a 23-acre Transit Oriented Development (TOD) and a 20-acre Park-
and-ride facility for 3,000 vehicles for rail commuters.

A -. -- - - - - . -
* .- . - - - - -- -

First Name : Ben
Last Name : Ramelb
Address ; 1148 Ala Liiikoi St
Apt./Suite No. :
City : Honolulu
State : HI
Zip Code : 96818
Email : rarnelbbOO1Q hawaii.rr,com
Telephone :
Submission Date :

To:
Mr. Wayne Yoshioka
Honolulu
HI 96813
FAX: (808) 587-6080

"Honolulu High-capacity transit corridor ProjecY, Issue- Project
Construction Phasing will not provide early traffic relief
Fact:
The rail project construction phasing is proposed in four phases as
discussed on DEIS page 2-38 and as shown on Figure 2-44 as follows:
- East Kapoiei to Pearl Highlands (First Construction Phase)
-- Aloha Highlands toMiddle Street (Third Construction Phase)
Pearl
Stadium to
Aloha Stadium (Second Construction Phase)
- Middle Street to Ala Moana Shopping Center (Fourth and final
Construction Phase)
Discussion:
The primary purpose of any mass transit system is to provide traffic relief
and to provide relief in the near term. The major West and Central Oahu
traffic bottlenecks are at the Middle Street merge and at the H-1lH2
merge. Constructionphases for the rail shouid be prioritized to reduce,
the traffic bottlenecks at these two locations. Therefore, the project
construction phasing shown above should be reversed:
- Middle Street to Ala Moana Shopping Center (First Construction
Phase)
Aloha Stadium to Middle Street (Second Construction Phase)
- Pearl Highlands to Aloha Stadium (Third Construction Phase)
- East Kapolei to Pearl Highlands (Fourth Construction Phase)
This revised project phasing is logical because:
a) The Middle Street to Ala Moana Shopping Center first phase will
provide early traffic relief to the Middle Street bottle neck.
b) The funding source for the entire 20 mile segment is not guaranteed,
recognizing that the General Excise Tax is not meeting projectionsin
revenue due to the expected long term slumping economy. The
taxpayer will not tolerate any increase in property tax or GET to fund any
rail fund shortfall.
cl The fundina amount from the Federal Transit Authoritv is not
guaranteed. "
d) If rail funds are delayed, providing traffic relief to the traffic
bottlenecks on H-1 will be delayed.

e) Each phase for rail will provide the maximum bang for the dollar. The
rail will be completely be useable and serve the most number of
commuters as each phase is completed. Conversely, the Kapolei to
Pearl Highlands would serve very few commuters as most commuters
will be destined for east of Pearl Harbor and beyond in the easterly
direction.
Vehicle Maintenance and Storage Facility for each construction phase
can be temporarily established to support each constructionphase as
modified:
a) For the Middle Street phase, some 40 acres could be obtained along
Lagoon Drive to include portions of Keehi Lagoon Park, Airport vacant
areas and commercial businesses including Used Car Lots. At least 10
acres for park and ride can be acquired in the airport area alongside
Aoiele Street and Lagoon Drive.
b) For the Aloha Stadium phase, portions of the Aloha Stadium Parking
lot can be temporarily used for the Storage Facility and temp facilities for
vehicle maintenance.
c) For the Pearl Hightands Phase, a 43-acre vacant site near Leeward
Community College is available (DEIS figure 2-42).
d) A 41-acre site is identified for the Kapotei phase (DEIS figure 2-4f ).
Conclusion:
Construction of the Middle Street to Ala Moana Phase as a first priority is
consistent with providing near-term traffic relief, wilt initially serve the
most number of commuters, will be completely useable and cost
effective, and will not force the taxpayer to pay more taxes to fund
additional rail segments should rail funding sources not achieve revenue
projections.
Recommendation:
The DEIS should reverse the construction project phasing as discussed
above starting with the Middle Street to Ala Moana Shopping Center as
the First Phase.
Respectfully,
Ben Ramelb P.E.
1148 Ala Lilikoi St
Honolulu, HI
96818
C o w to:
1) ~ r Ted Matley
.
FTA Region IX
FAX 415-744-2726
Honolulu, HI 96813

3221 Ala Kima St. Apt.6

Mr. Mufi HanriernaDn
Ilonolulu HaIe
530 S. King Street
Honolulu, Ell 96813

Dear Mr. Mu£i Hannema~

Hi my name is Jayson and I go to Moanalua High School. I anl doing a project for a book
called Fahrenheit 45 1, which asks us to identify an issue and take a public stance on it. I
chose the public rail transit issue that we have here in Oahu. O r morning and afternoon
u
traffic is a problem here in Oahu, and with the rail it is said to r e d m the amount of
tl-afFic.

Even thottgh it was agreed to continue on with the project and build the rail transit,there
are many peopb who opposed this decision. t also disagree with the project of building a
railtransit here in Oahu. I agree that the transit system would help alleviate the morning
and ahexmoon traffic we have, and the money saving because of the gas prices, but I am
skeptical of the amount of people who will acbIly ride the rail. It was said that the rail
will only improve &atYic congestion by 3 percent. That is not a big number. You are an
excellent mayor of tlsis state, but I believe you are going to fast into this project. Fist of
all, this project is very costly. In 2006 the price was three billion dollars. Now this year it
has rose to five. Five billion dollars is a lot of money to spend; why not spend it on our
education? With a tax created to pay off the rail transit, it creates more weight on our
shoulders financially especiatly for people who are in bad situations right now. Oahu is a
very small island. The rail would make things much more crowded and the fact that
businesses and houses wilf have to move doesn't sound fair. With a transit system here on
Oahu, it would ruin the view of Oahu. It would be less consided a paradise. I believe we
should stop this project and look more into it,

Maybe this project will help our traffic problem in the future but I am @ & s ttransit
.. ? . .

system here on Oahu. There are many reasons why it's a bad idea but fia @ur decision
and I hope you make the right one. 'ikink you for taking a part o f yo$f3)8e tq read my
. .
Ietter.

oanalua High School Student)

Property Management & Leasing
-
Pacific Guardian Center Makai Tower
733 Bishop Strcet, Suite I820
Honolulu, Hi 96813 tcl: (608) sss-s8oo fax: (8061 599-5806

Relt Managcment
Ec Rtscarch LLC
PROPCRlY MANAQEMSW
DMSION

February 6,2009

YlA REGULAR A N . CERTfFIEDMAIL,
RETURN RECEIPT ILFOUESTBD

Wayne Yoshioka
Director
Department of Transportation Services
650 S. King St., 3d Floor
Honolulu, Hawaii
96813

Re: Comment on I-XonoIuluRail Transit Draft Environmet~tal
hpact Statement

Dear Mr. Yoshioka:

I am Vice President-Pacific Region, for Reit Management & Research, LLC,the propmty
manager for HHRPT Properties Trust ("WRPT").Through its affiliated companies, HRPT owns
the Mapunapuna hdustrial Subdivision, including the property bounded by Ntua Street, Nimitz
Highway, Puuloa Road, and Pukoloa Street, shown on Figure 2-7 of the Honolulu High-Capacity
Transit Conidor Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("Draft E S ) HrCPT
I".
appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIS.

HRPT understands that on January 28,2009, the Honolulu City Council by resolution
voted to change the route of the initial segment of the Honolulu rail transit project From the Sdt
Lake Alternative to the Airport Alternative. 'HRPT strongly supports the rail transit project, and
is not advocating any specific route at this time. Based upon the Draft EIS and the City
Council's action, HRPT understands fhat the City Council in its discretion may in the firture add
a Salt Lake "spur" to fhe project or otherwise amend the route to it~clude Lake arid
Salt
Mapunapuna. Should the route be changed to pass through Mapunapuna, HRPT believes a
trmsit station in Mapunapuna wodd increase system ridership and provide substantial benefits
and development opportunities for the surrounding community, businesses and their employees
and customers, and tbe landowners of the property. IiRPT therefore respectfully requests that at
the appropriate time the City Department of Transportation Services ("DTS") study, place, and
construct a transit station in Mapnnapuna, if the route is subsequently amended to include a spur
or other alignment through Mapunapuna. In that regard, HRPT respectfully requests that DTS
consider the following:

1. Technical Feasibilitv of Transit Station i Mapuna~una-HRPT understands that
n
initially thete were some questions as to whether a transit station in Mapunapuna was technically
feasible, and that was one of the reasons why a Mapunapuna station was not proposed in the
OJ'icc Lacat&lls:
.
Albuqu~rqac,NM Aastin, IX Kansas Ciry, KS + Los An~clcs,CA Miri,reupolis, MN Newran, MA Philrdclphin, PA Son Diego, CA 0 Symcusc. NY Woshlnpron, DC

Draft EIS for t e Salt Lake Alternative. To address those questions, HRPT retained URS Corp.
h
("URS") analyze the feasibility of a Mapunapuna transit station. URS has been involved in
to
the design and engineering for numerous transit projects around the country, including systems
in Portland, Seattle, and Sari Diego, For their analysis, engineers £?om URS'Portland oEce
reviewed conceptual engineering level track plans, profile drawings, and baokground information
for the Ifonolulu project, and communicated with the Honolulu project lead engineer.

Attached as Exhibit 1 please see a December 24,2008 opinion letter from Bob Post,
senior transit engineer and vice president of URS. Mr. Post writes in relevant part:

Based upon (014 reviews and our own work on similar projects utilizing similar transit
technology it is our conclusion that a station could be added to the alignment in the
vicinity of Pukoloa and Ahua Streets in the Mapunapuna area. We do not believe making
the suggested design changes would result in a negative impact on tlie project operations
or ride quality. Although the addition of a station in this area would add some time to tlie
overall travel h e , the impact is lessened in this particular case due to the grades and
curves in this segment of the corridor that would already result irr reduced speeds.

Based on industry standards, URS concluded that with relatively minor adjustments to the
proposed track alignment there are at least three viable options for a transit station in
Mapunapuna. As shown on the alignment plans prepared by URS stnd attached as Exhibit 2, the
three potential locations are (I) Option A: Intersection of Pdcoloa and Ahua streets, ewa-rnakai
side, flat grade; (2) Option B Intersection of Pukoloa and Ahua streets, ewa-makai side, 1
:
percent grade; and (3) Option C: Intersection of Pukoloa and Ahua streets, diamond head-mauka
side. Of the three options, Option C is pa.rticularIy promising, as it is immediatelyadjacent to a
large Iot that will become vacant and available in the near future, and would be ideal for transit-
oriented development and other amenities to enhance transit ridership..

&tion A: Intersection of Pukoloa and Ahua streets..ewa-makai side. flat wade:
In this option, the -4% proposed grade for the track profile would be changed to -5%, which
URS considers a reasonable grade for a modern transit vehicle. The -5% grade would Wansitiorl
through a 500 foot vertical curve (beginning at station 1117-k33)to a 0% grade, and then back to
tl~eoriginallyproposed 4% grade on the diamond head side of MoanaIua Stream. The modified
profile would allow a station platform to be located on the ewa side of the intersection of
Pukuloa Street and M~ua r e , on a zero percent grade and horizontal tangent. The top of rail
S et
t
elevation would be about 37 feet above existing ground. Since this option would not modify the
horizontat alignment, the general structure footpriat would be unchanged except for widening in
the station area.

of
Option 3: Jiters~tion Pukuloa and Ahua streets, ewa-makai side, 1 Dercent
&:e This option would use the same horizontal alignment and station location as Option A,
but rather dlan a flat grade a 1% grade would be introduced, which would match back into the
original profile sooner and help shorten the transit station structure. Sllorteniug the structure
would likely result in some cost savings. URS does not believe the proposed 1% longitudinal
slope would be a problem for construction, operations or passenger loading.

O~tion Intersection of Pukuloa and Ahua streets. diamond head-rnauka side:
C:
This option could use either of the previous two vertical alignments. The difference would be to
reduce the radius of the horizontal curve at Ahua Street to 810 feet, effectively lengthening the

adjacent tangents and enabling a station location approximately 150 to 200 feet further to the
east. The elevated transit station would span over Ahua Street md allow access f o ground
rm
level on both sides of the street, the diamond head side being the existing 7.75-acre "auto
auction" lot site. The proposed smaIler curve radius would match the original radius proposed at
the next curve to the south. Although the smaller radius would slightly lower the potential
operating speed through the curve, the presence of a platform would likely be the limiting factor
in terms of speed on this section of track in any event.

2. Potential Benefits of a Transit Station in Mauunapuna-Today, many employees
of ~a~unapuna%sinesseshave to p ~ on the street, sometimesblocks away fkom where they
k
work. Potential customers are discouraged from even coming to Mapunapuna, because of the
congestion and lack of parking. Having a transit station in Mapunapuna would provide a
convenient and inexpensive way for both employees and customers to get to and firom
Mapunapuna, and make Mapunapuna a better place to work and do business.

Furthermore, a transit stop in Mapunapuna would draw riders fiom nearby residential
wmmunities in Moanalua, Tripler, and east Salt Lake, who otherwise would not have convenient
access to the transit system with the stations proposed in the Draft EIS, The aeriaI view of
Figure 2-7 of the Draft EIS shows the substantial geographical "gap" between the proposed Ala
Lilikoi and Middle Street stations on the Salt Lake Alternative, and 4 of the additional homes
1
that would be served by a Mnpunapuna station. Given the thousands of residents in those
communities; the approximately 21,000 people who work at approximately 1,100 businesses in
or around Mapunapuna; and the hundreds if not tl~ousaids business customers who visit
of
Mapunapuna every day, KRI'T believes that a transit station in Mapunapuna would additionally
draw at least if not more than the 1,500 or so daily riders projected for the AIa Lilikoi and
Middle Street stations on Figure 3-12 of the Draft EIS.

Finally, a transit station in Mapunapuna would provide exciting opportunities for transit
oriented development, particularly on the 7.75-acre lot near the corner of Ahua and Pukoloa
streets that will become open and available for deve1opment in the next few years. Transit
oriented deveIopment would bring new amenities, services, and vitality to Mapunapuna,
benefiting not only existing but also future businesses and residents in the area.

We look forward to the possibility of working with and assisting the City to develop a
transit station in Mapunapuna, should the transit route be amended to include a spur or other
alignment through Salt Lake and Mapwapuna in the h b e .

Brad Leach

Mr. Bradford C. W h
Vice F-cesident - Pacific Region
Reit Mhagement & Research LLC
733 Bishop Street, Suite 1820
HonoluIu, HI 96813

IRE: Station Feasibility In Mapunapuna
Dear Mr. h c h ,

As we have communicated previously, URS has conducted a review of the Honolulu High
Capacity Transit Corrjdor in the Mapunapuna area to deternine the technical feas~bility of
adding a station to the planned Sonolulu High-Capacity Transit project. We have reviewed the
project design documents provided to us by Reit Management & Researc11. We have dso
reviewed the generally accepted industry design standards for horizontat and vertical .curves and
track grades in station areas for similar projects. Based on ihe above reviews and our own w r ok
on silailar projects.utilizhg similar transit technology it is our conclusion that a station could be
added to the alignment in the vicinity of the itztersection of Pukoloa and Ahua Sresin the
tet
Mapunapu~a area, We do not believe making the suggested design changes would result in a
negative impact on the project operations or ride quality. Althougb the addition of a station in
this area would add some time to the overall corridor travel t m ,t e impact is lessened in this
ie h
particular case due to the grades and curves in this segment of the conidor that would already
result in reduced operating speeds.

White the dmwings previously provided by URS illustrate options that would allow for the
additiou of astation in the Mapunapuna area and meet generally applied industry standards, we
do acksow1edge that hdividud jurisdictions implementing rail transit projects can establish
criteria that are more restrictive than the general industry practices.

BobPost .
Vice President

URS Corporation
iil SW Columbia, Sulte S O 0
Portland. OR 9720t5850
Tot: 503.222.7200
Fex: 503.222.4292

Michael P. Rethmun
47-140 Heno Place
Kane'uhe, Huwui'i 96 744-5608

i December 28,2008
Mr. Wayne Yoshioka,
Director, Dept. of Transportation Services
650 South King Street
I
Honolulu, HI 968 13
II Aloha Mr. Yoshioka:
j
RE: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for proposed Oahu train
ttansit system
Please include my cornments/questions among those regarding the EIS
now underway.
Although I believe that there are a few good reasons to build an elevated
rail rransit.system on Oahu as well as plenty of good economic, cultural
and esthetic reasons not to build it, please consider and answer the
following questions:
1) What happens when the electricity fiiils island-wide for 10-20 hours
as has happened twice in the past two years? Will hundreds or
thousands of folks find themselves trapped on trains? Will there be
a police or other quick-response force devoted specifically devoted
to the transit system crime or mechanical failures as exist
elsewhere? Is this need budgeted?
2) If the system has backup power capabilities, have these been
included in the budget:and are these facilities part of the EIS?
3) Even with no blackouts, how/where/when will Oahu generate the
additional elecrriciry needed to power the trains? (It's my
understanding thar Oahu already faces problems associated with
meeting its peak-load electrical demands.) -+
5
r ,
a
Thanks for considering and answering these pertinent questic@%
"c:?
'
-
,

ek)
3

-
2.;,
Sincerely, z3+
o OI Cp
=?ye B
6? @443z%m - / .
a K
6
a
: 7
2.3
4 m .. m
I/,
u €2
239 - 7 9 7 ~

Page I of 1

Agcaoili, Jennifer
From: Mary Reuter [rnaryrr@hawaii.edu]
Sent; Wednesday, November 26,2008 8:29 AM
To: Mayor Mufi Hannemann
Subject: Transportation, Rail and Bike

Dear Mayor Hannemm,

I am a citizen of Moiili'ili, an elementary school teacher, and a journalism student at UH interested in
writing an article about the bike situation here in Honolulu.

I read a quote where you said " Tl~e experience of other cities demonstrates that transit systems spur growth,
particularlyin &e areas surrounding the transit:stations. We hope that new housing, particukrlyaffordablehousing,
dspring up along the transit route. We want businesses and leLure activities to bc amacted to these hubs. We want
to create an environment that suppons open space and stimulates wdking and bicycliig, rather than driving. We want
to create neighborhoods where people can live, wok, ancl raise their families."

I support rail, mainly because I born in Washington DC where I used the metro daily. Now that I Iive in
Honolulu, I bike everywhere.

When I read this quote, and that you want to create an environment that supports open spaces and
stimulates walking and bicycling rather than driving. As a bicyclist I find it very difficult to navigate
outside of the designated bike routes, lanes, and paths. I can get to the University of Hawaii at Manoa
from my home with ease (at least once I cross Kapiolani and get on UN'versity ave) but I can't go down
Kapiolani Boulevard or to Ala Moana with out riding on the sidewalk. I don't even see big strong guys
ridinig their bikes on the street down Kapiolani Boulevard.

1read recently about a proposed Bike Share program by Momentum in the Honolulu Advertiser. If a
Bike Share program is instdled around the TOD areas, will more designated bike routes be established?
How do you feel about more designated bike routes, especially in areas such as Kapiolani Boulevard and
Waikiki, where currently I can think of only the Ala tVai and the area around the zoo?

Bicycling is certainly among the most sustainable ways to travel, and a fantastic way to enjoy the
beautifir1 weather of our Hawaii.

I would hate to see tourist fatali& increase because they're being hit by cars while riding their bikes.
What do you think about this issue?

Coilcemed Citizen,
Mary Renee Reuter

-----Original Message-----
From: Ted.Matley@dot.gov [mailto:Ted.Matley@dot.gov]
Sent: Sunday, February 08,2009 4:14 PM
To: Miyamoto, Faith
Subject: FW: Draft Environmental impact Statement (EIS) for Honolulu HCTP

From: WCOASTJOHN@aol.com [mailto:WCOASTJOHN@aol.com]
Sent: Fri 2/6/2009 5:06 PM
To: wyosioka@honolulu.gov
Cc: Matley, Ted <FTA>
Subject: Draft Environmental impact Statement (EIS) for Honolulu HCTP

The Draft Environment Impact Statement fot the city's rail transit project is unacceptable because it is written soley for a
steel wheel on steel rail system.
There are other forms of tixed rail that may be better and more cost-effective than steel wheels. Please rewrite the EIS to
cover the other technologies, such as monorail and maglev, to ensure that the city can and will obtain the best and latest
technology at the best price. Unlike the continental US States we don't have a rail system to add to we are starting from
scratch, so why not try and get the best for the buck?

Very respectfully.
John Ridings

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES

CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU
650 SOUTH KING STREET, 3RD FLOOR
HONOLULU, HAWAII 96813
Phone: (808) 768-8305 Fax: (808) 768-4730 Internet: www.honolulu.gov

MUFI HANNEMANN WAYNE Y. YOSHIOKA
MAYOR DIRECTOR

SHARON ANN THOM
DEPUlY DIRECTOR

May 21,2010 RTI 0109-336313

Mr. John Ridings
wcoastiohn@aol.com

Dear Mr. Ridings:

Subject: Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project
Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

The U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the City
and County of Honolulu Department of Transportation Services (DTS) issued a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project.
This letter is in response to substantive comments received on the Draft EIS during the
comment period, which concluded on February 6, 2009. The Final EIS identifies the Airport
Alternative as the Project and is the focus of this document. The selection of the Airport
Alternative as the Preferred Alternative was made by the City to comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations that state that the Final EIS shall identify the
Preferred Alternative (23 CFR § 771.125 (a)(l)). This selection was based on consideration of
the benefits of each alternative studied in the Draft EIS, public and agency comments on the
Draft EIS, and City Council action under Resolution 08-261 identifying the Airport Alternative as
the Project to be the focus of the Final EIS. The selection is described in Chapter 2 of the Final
EIS. The Final EIS also includes additional information and analyses, as well as minor revisions
to the Project that were made to address comments received from agencies and the public on
the Draft EIS. The following paragraph addresses comments regarding the above-referenced
submittal:

In parallel with the alignment analysis, a five-member panel appointed by the City
Council and the Mayor considered the performance, cost, and reliability of the five proposed
technologies for the fixed guideway system. The panel twice accepted public comment as part
of the review. By a four-to-one vote, the panel selected steel wheel operating on steel rail as the
technology for the Project evaluated in the Final EIS. The four panel members selected steel-
wheel technology because it is mature, proven, safe, reliable, economical, and non-proprietary.
Proprietary technologies, meaning those technologies that would have required all future
purchases of vehicles or equipment to be from a single manufacturer, were eliminated because
none of the proprietary technologies offered substantial proven performance, cost, and reliability
benefits compared to steel wheel operating on steel rail. Selecting a proprietary technology also
would have precluded a competitive bidding process, likely resulting in increased overall project
costs.

Mr. John Ridings
Page 2

The FTA and DTS appreciate your interest in the Project. The Final EIS has been issued
in conjunction with the distribution of this letter. You may view the Final EIS on the Project
website at www.honolulutransit.orq. You may request a DVD of the Final EIS and additional
content through the "Contact Us" tab on the website or by calling the Project hotline at 566-2299.
Issuance of the Record of Decision under NEPA and acceptance of the Final EIS by the
Governor of the State of Hawaii are the next anticipated actions and will conclude the
environmental review process for this Project.

Ve tr ly yours,

flF 9
WAYNE Y. YOSHIOKA
Director

RECORD # 525 DETAILS

First Name : ROBERT
Last Name : RODMAN
Address : 1867 KAAIO'O DR.
Apt.lSuite No. : 306
City : HONOLULU
State : H
I
Zip Code : 96815
Email : rodmanhi Qjuno.com
Telephone : 949-2497
Submission Date :

Submission ContenUNotes : COMMENTS ON HONOLULU'S MASS TRANSIT DRAFT EIS
February 6, 2009
The Draft EIS has several glaring deficiencies. Some of them are:
A. Too many stations, many of them amateurishly placed two or less
blocks from each other.
B. No public restrooms are shown in the proposed station drawings nor
are there any shown cost provisions in the budget section to adequately
maintain the necessary public restrooms.
C. Lack of any mention of security provisions and costs at stations.
D. No provision in the stations for a by-pass line for EXPRESS trains.
E. Noise levels of steel wheeled technology in upper floors of towers
missing.
F. Noise levels and properties impacted along the Project Corridor in
Convention Center, Waikiki and UH areas is missing.
G. Visually sensitive Viewpoints within Project Corridor for Convention
Center, Waikiki and UH areas missing or what is shown is totally
deceptive and unacceptable.
H. Park and Ride facilities are too small and missing for Ala Moana Area.
I. Dillingham Blvd Project Corridor unworkable as it fails to consider
equipment space needed by HECO to maintain very tall HECO
Transmission Power lines.
J. EIS fails to consider the possibility of using the large room in the area
of the track's support structure-bridge as a revenue producing area to
place urban utilities.
K. Locations of Potential Impacts to Ongoing Hazardous Materials
Operations missing discussion of Convention Center, Waikiki and UH
areas.
L. Historic Properties in areas of Convention Center, Waikiki and UH not
covered.
M. Alternative Routings to avoid Historic Properties does not cover areas
around Convention Center, Waikiki and UH.

A. TOO MANY STATIONS, MANY OF THEM AMATEURISHLY PLACED
FOUR OR LESS BLOCKS FROM EACH OTHER.
The stations are placed too close together. Professionally designed
mass transit systems locate their stations 1.5 to 3 to 4 miles apart. For
example, the proposed Chinatown and Downtown and Civic Center
Stations are all located within 6 blocks, all three of them! This is absurd.
One MAJOR Station for this compact area will be more than sufficient fat
least initially - until more funds become available for all the un-
necessary extra stations. People will walk blocks if they know that they
are going to get a fast ride home. This might get some of those very
obese people to start walking a short distance everyday and improve
their health.
Station construction costs are the highest cost items per unit in the
project.
Honolulu needs the entire system built including Waikiki and UH to gain

any relief from gridlock on the freeway, and if the number of stations -
initially - are limited to 10 MAJOR Stations, there will be enough in the
proposed budget to build the entire line.
Page 2-24 in the Draft EIS discusses the bus system "modifified to
coordinate with fixed Guideway System . . . certain local routes would be
rerouted . . . as feeder buses to provide frequent and reliable
connections to the nearest fixed guideway station."
And, continues on page 2-36, "Enhanced bus service between the
Terminal Stations."
Eliminate the 'nice to have' proposed stations and build the 10 'must
have' stations, at least initially.
B. No public restrooms shown in the proposed stations nor cost
provisions to adequately maintain them.
Draft EIS, page 2-22, Figure 2-11 and Figure 2-12 show platform station
configurationswith a concourse. No restroom facilities are shown.
Restrooms in each station are a must for the numbers of people using
this system. There seems to be no consideration in the financial section
for the professional maintenance and up keep of these many public
restrooms.
C. Lack of any mention of security provisions and costs at stations.
There is no mention of the security needs for each station, nor the costs
of maintaining security at each station (another reason to limit the
number of stations).

D. No provision in the stations for a by-pass line for EXPRESS trains.
Figures 2-11 and 2-12 show no provision for a center 'by-pass' track for
EXPRESS trains.
E. Noise levels of steel wheeled technology in upper floors of towers
missing.
There is no discussion on how much the three foot high barriers are
going to AMPLIFY the noise of the steel wheels of the trains and reflect
this AMPLIFIED noise upwards to thousands of residents in towers the
Glideway passes. This is needed.
F. Noise levels and properties impacted along the Project Corridor in
Convention Center, Waikiki and UH areas is missing.
Noise levels in the areas of the Convention Center, Waikiki and UH are
totally missing. These must be added to the EIS. See Table 4-16 on
page 4-100.
G. Visually sensitive Viewpoints within Project Corridor for Convention

deceptive and unacceptable.
Visually sensitive Viewpoints within Project Corridor for Convention
deceptive and unacceptable, see Figure 4-16.

H. Park and Ride facilities are too small and missing for Ala Moana Area.
Park and Ride facilities along the entire proposed Corridor are too small
or are missing altogether - Ala Moana, Convention Center, Waikiki, UH
area stations.
I. Dillingham Blvd Project Corridor unworkable as it fails to consider
equipment space needed by HECO to maintain very tall HECO
Transmission Power lines.
On page 4-63, Table 4-10, HECO's high power transmission lines along
Dillingham Blvd are mentioned but there is no discussion there or any
where else in the Draft EIS on the problem HECO will have servicing
those lines as the Projects Guideway is in the way of the mechanical lifts
HECO uses to lift workers up to maintain these very tall poles and power
lines.
This Table 4-10 also fails to show the potential Visual Effects of View
lines at Ala Moana, Convention Center, Waikiki and UH. These areas
must be shown too.
J. EIS fails to consider the possibility of using the large room in the area
of the track's support structure-bridge as a revenue producing area to
place urban utilities.
Page 2-20, Figures 2-1 1, and 2-12 show cross sections of the proposed
Guideway structure and station configurations. Under the top of the
guideway's support structure, as shown in the drawings, which top
-
supports the train tracks, is a room - inside the support structure which
room could easily be divided up lengthwise and leased. The leases
could be to:
? HECO for High Power Transmission Lines into Waikiki,
? Honolulu Department of Environmental Services for back-up force
mains, and also
? phone and
? Cable transmission lines.

These leases would provide extra income to build and maintain the
Guideway System.
Putting the community's utilities in the Guideway's support room would
save the utilities huge construction costs of digging up our streets for
years to put all these new and necessary utll~t~es underground. Those
savings could be put into the building costs of the Guideway System.
By doing this the community would greatly benefit by not having our

streets and roads dug up for years to lay all these new under ground
utilities.

K. Locations of Potential Impacts to Ongoing Hazardous Materials
Operations missing discussion of Convention Center, Waikiki and UH
areas.
Figure 4-43 doesn't show any discussion for the Convention Center,
Waikiki and UH areas. This must be included.
L. Historic Properties in areas of Convention Center, Waikiki and UH not
covered.
These areas must be included in this discussion.
M. Alternative Routings to avoid Historic Properties does not cover areas
around Convention Center, Waikiki and UH.
These areas must be included in this discussion in the Draft EIS.
Thank you for your consideration of these important topics and
omissions in the proposed Draft EIS for this Project. If you have any
questions please call me at 949-2497.
Robert Rodman
Reply Requested : Yes
Submission Type : Draft EIS Comment
FOlA (Freedom of
Information Request)
Request :
FOlA Referral Date :
FOlA Response Date :

First Name : robert
Last Name : rodman
Address : 1867 Kaio'o Dr
Apt./Suite No. : 306
City : Honolulu
State : HI
Zip Code : 96815
Email : rodmanhiQjuno.com
Submission Date :

Submission ContentlNotes : RE: Draft EIS for Honolulu Transit Corridor Project
Missing in the section about ridership is any data about ridership if
Waikiki and UH are included in the initial phase of the project. This data
needs to be included so we can compare the various build options.
If the number of stations are limited to the top 8 ridership stations with
one station at each end with a total of 1.0MAJOR stations initially, I think
there is enough in the budget to build the entire proposed Glideway
System, including Waikiki and UH.
Also missing from the Proposed Draft EIS are alternate Glideway
routings for the Convention Center, Waikiki, UH areas.
Historical properties, such as the Ala Wai Canal Kalakaua Avenue
Bridge and the Kalakaua Avenue median (with its beautiful line of
Mahogany Trees) just Diamond Head of the Ala Wai Canal make the
proposed alignment of the Waikiki Glideway unworkable.
The Draft EIS should also show this alternate routing through Waikiki to
UH:
WAlKlKl ROUTING ALTERNATIVE ONE
from the Ala Moana Station:
Diamond Head on Kona Street, then Diamond Head across Atkanson St
and along the towers, across the Ala Wai Canal, transiting Lapeepee
Street and Hobron Lane, over HECO's power station and low-rise,
across Ala Moana Blvd., across Fort DeRussy and Kalakaua Avenue
and down Kuhio Avenue, across the Beach Walk Pumping Station and
down either the two small streets that pass through Waikiki between
Kalakaua and Kuhio Avenues (going through building which are built
over these streets -via condemnation for the right-of-way), then down
Liliuokulani Avenue, across the Ala Wai Canal, across the Golf Course
and up University Avenue to UH.
Because there is one line from UH to Waikiki (instead of two ends - one
starting at UH and one starting in Waikiki which would cut the start trains
to every 12 to 15 minutes), this routing has the advantage of a train
leaving the stations at both UH and Waikiki every 6 minutes instead of
every 12-15 minutes (people are encouraged to take the train if they
don't have to wait and wait at the station every time they want to use it
and UH and Waikiki will be the heavest used stations on the System).
WAlKlKl ROUTING ALTERNATIVE TWO
Another alternative routing through Waikiki could be from Kona Street,
cross Atkinson Street, pass the towers, and turn along the Convention
Center side of the Ala Wai Canal and follow it up to Olohana Street, and
cross the Ala Wai Canal and pass into Waikiki on wide Olohana, cross
Kuhio Avenue, proceed up Duke's Lane to the International Market
Place and curve over and pass through the International Market Place
and behind the Kaiulani Hotel and on up Prince Edward Street and then
turn Malka on Liliuokulani Avenue, cross the Ala Wai Canal, over the
Golf Course and up University to the UH.

Please include these alternative routing options in the Draft EIS.
If there are questions please call me at 949-2497. I've lived in Waikiki
for 38 years and the traffic gridlock we experience here is tremendous.
20,000 Waikiki workers spend hours every day caught in traffic due to
the gridlock and are not able to spend time with their children as a result.
Waikiki needs to be on the initial build of this system.
robert rodman

------.---------.------
First Name : ROBERT
Last Name : RODMAN
Address : 1867 KAIO'O DR
City : HONOLULU
State : HI
Zip Code : 96815
Email : RODMANHIQJUNO.COM
Submission ContentlNotes : The number of stations should be cut to the bare mini~num because they
will become another abode of the homeless mentally 111 which now
inhabit our bus stops. Daily we see such individuals who sit on the bus
stop benches while a stream of urine runs down to the concrete under
-
them while they sit above. These same individuals who - it is easy for
anyone to see - live in the same garments for months or years, are seen
sitting on the cloth seats on the buses we ride (which cloth seats
obviously have never been wet washed since the buses were delivered
new to the city).
With this in mind, I can find no mention of scrubable seats planned for
the trains in this system in the €IS.
Further, I can find no mention of any plans to keep the station
concourses and platforms described starting on page 2-20 and shown in
Figures 2-11 & 2-12 clear of homeless campers, or businesses and
portable travel desks and chairs which daily now are allowed to block
Waikiki's sidewalks near the Market Place.
These issues need to be addressed in the Draft EIS for this Transit
Project.

Creation Date : 1211 312008
First Name : Nancy and Errol
Last Name : Rubin
Address : 594 Alihi Place
Apt.lSuite No. :
City : Kailua
State : HI
Zip Code : 96734
Email : nsrubin@aloha.net
Telephone :
Add to Mailing List : None
Submission Date : 1211312008
Submission ContentlNotes : Dear Friends,
We are very much in favor of adding the airport connection immediately
and to start phase one of building from Pearl City to Honolulu proper.
Thank you for receiving our imput.
Much aloha,
Nancy and Errol Rubin

----------------------
First Name : Bill
Last Name : Russell
Business/Organization : Retired, U.S. Secret Service, Wash., D.C.
Address : 94-309 Puuwepa P~acem
Apt./Suite No. :
City : Mililani
State : HI
Zip Code : .96789
Email : foxiejrtl Qaol.com
Add to Mailing List : Email
Submission Date :

Submission Content/Notes : I don't think the rail system will be widely used, because it will take us
too long to get to get where we want to go, and because of the problems
with graffiti and vehicle break-ins at the stations.
Time:
If we have to take a bus to get to a station, then take another bus when
we get off the train, and the train will make 19 or 21 stops in 20 miles, all
that will consume too much time.
Break-ins at the stations:
Oahu is famous for vehicle break-ins and grafitti. Costly security
measures will be needed at each of the 19 or 21 stations and on each
train.
The total cost for building and maintaining and providing for security for
rail is way too much for the benefits gained.
I watched the debates.
Prof. Prevadouros was right. There are other mass transit systems
which are better, less costly, and will get us where we want to go fasterl,
than rail.
Mahalo

First Name : Carolynn
Last Name : Ruth
BusinesslOrganization : Public Storage
Address : 701 Western Avenue
Apt.lSuite No. :
City : Glendale
State : CA
Zip Code : 91201
Email : cruthQpublicstorage.com
Telephone :
Add t o Mailing List : None
Submission ContentlNotes : Public Storage owns the property at 989 Kamehameha Hwy in Pearl City
(the Property).
It is Public Storage's understanding, as of February 2, 2009, that no
portion of the Property at will be acquired for this project.
Provided no portion of the Property is taking and the project
improvements do not negatively affect the Property, Public Storage has
no objections to a project that will improve traffic flow in the area.
Negative impacts would include, but are not limited to, over-steepening
of the Property's driveway slope, interference with proper drainage from
the Property, decreasing turning radii such that truck access is restricted
or difficult, or impeding visibility of the Property.
Carolynn Ruth
Real Estate Paralegal
Public Storage
701 Western Avenue
Glendale, CA 91201-2349
Tel: 818.244.8080 x i 410
Fax: 818.543.7341
Email: cruthQ publicstorage.com

------.--*------------

First Name : Gerald
Last Name : Sakamura
BusinesslOrganization : resident
Address : 99-844 Hulumanu St.
Apt.lSuite No. :
City : Aiea
State : HI
Zip Code : 96701
Email : sakinancyQ hawaii.rr.com
Submission ContentINotes : I think that the most benefit we can achieve would be to start from
downtown out to the Airport and beyond Pearlridge and UH west. If
there comes a time where cost might stop or long delay the project, we
could use whatever is made and start service from wherever the project
is stalled. It would be the optimum way to gain usage of whatever is
already made, whatever the delayed portion would be. And at the same
time, be an example of what the completion would be like. Thank you for
the opportunity to input my opinion.

Creation Date : 1M 312009
First Name : stanley
Last Name : sakurna
BusinessIOrganization :
Address : 45-757 Hilinai St.
Apt.lSuite No. :
City : Kaneohe
State : HI
Zip Code : 96744
Email : s.sakurnaQ hawaiiantel.net
Telephone :
Add t o Mailing List : . Both
Submission ContentlNotes : I understand taxes will increase. By what amount?

Record Date : 1111212008
First Name : Keith
Last Name : Sasaki
Business/Organization : Dependable Hawaiian Express
Address : 1130 N.Nimik Highway
Apt./Suite No. : C-105
City : Honolulu
State : HI
Zip Code : 96817
Email : keith.sasaki@dhx.com
Submission Content/Notes : I would like like to know if you have already decided on how to bring in
the necessary freight to build this project. Iwork for a major freight
forwarder and would be interested in assisting in this venture.
Keith Sasaki

----------------.--..-
First Name : Andrew
Last Name : Sataraka
BusinesslOrganization: Good Samaritan Church
Address : 99-545 Opukea St.
Apt.lSuite No. :
City : Aiea
State : HI
Zip Code : 96701
Email :
Add to Mailing List : Standard
Submission ContentINotes : The plan for a Rail Transit is the best thing will ever happen to Oahu

RECORD # 343 DETAILS
-----------------------
First Name : Elizabeth
Business/Organization : Good Samaritan
Apt./Suite No. :
City : Aiea
State : HI
Zip Code : 96701
Email : liz@hawaiifoodbank.org
Telephone : 808-561-5695
Submission Content/Notes : This is a great idea that the Rail Transit is planned to be build. Honolulu
needs it now
Reply Requested :
FOIA (Freedom of
Request :
FOIA Referral Date :
FOIA Response Date :

----------------------
Creation Date : 1 /7/2009
First Name : Epaferoti
BusinesslOrganization : Good Samaritan Church
Address : P.0 Box 31029
Apt.lSuite No. :
City : Honolulu
State : HI
Zip Code : 96820
Email :
Telephone :
Submission ContentlNotes : Rail Transit is the way to go. Our people need to save time and money
from sitting in traffic and buying gas sitting in traffic

l------l-----------_I_

First Name : lsakara
Address : 94-027 Waipahu Depot St
Apt.1Suite No. :
City : Waipahu
State : HI
Zip Code : 96797
Email : satarakafamiIyQyahoo.com
Telephone : 808-781-6760
Submission ContentlNotes : I believe our city definitely need the Rail Transit now and for the future.

-------.---------------
First Name : lsakara Nathan
Apt.lSuite No. :
City : Aiea
State : HI
Zip Code : 96701
Email : n-sataraka @Yahoo.com
Submission ContentINotes : Please build the Rail now

First Name : Kaiserlyn
AptJSuite No. :
City : Aiea
State : Hi
Zip Code : 96701
Email : gsc-hawaii Q yahoo.com
Telephone : 808-953-8907
Submission ContentINotes : I fully support the Mayor and the Rail Transit

----------------------
First Name : Samuel
Business/Organization : Good Samaritan Church
Apt./Suite No. :
City : Aiea
State : HI
Zip Code : 96701
Email : tanusataraka Q yahoo.com
Telephone : 808-699-1205
Submission ContenffNotes : Go Mayor and do the right thing

------.-------.-------
First Name : Tracie
AptJSuite No. :
City : Aiea
State : Hi
Zip Code : 96701
Email : gsc-hawaii Q yahoo.com
Telephone : 808-693-5926
Submission Date : 01107/2009
Submission ContentJNotes : I totally agree with the mayor, we need to build the Rail Transit

Lane 0. Sato
607 North IGng Street #126A
~onolulu, Hawaii 968 17
Phone: 808-220-1 108

Mr. Wayne Y. Yoshioka, Director
650 South King Street, 3'* Floor
Honoluiu, Hawaii 96813

Thank whoever for wasting more of our tax dollars by sending out this piece of garbage of a
plan Maybe this letter will convince whoever is behind this project that someone is making 3
big mistake with this proposed rail system project. This is not going to totally solve the
immediate traffic problem on this island, in fact, it is going to make it worse. Please take into
consideration the following, which it seems, no one wants to address, which makes me believe
that this whole rail thing is just to line a segment of the populations pockets with a lot of money.

The simple solution to this problem is to understand what is truly at stake here. Take into
account the following aspects that are being grossly and negligently under looked:

1. The bus system really works h e . The real problem is too many cars on the island congesting
limited major East-West thoroughfares, not lack of mass transit.

2. If the rail project begins, you think you got gridlock i~ow, wait until construction.hitsthe
just
inner city. People will be cursing the project every day they spend an extra two plus hours
creeping inch by inch in traffic, burning gas and this will'not be just a one or two year project.
And what about when there is. a major traffic incident on H-I, the sail does not offer any
.
solutions to that.

3. The tracks will not be extended into the upper lying areas so, you wodd have to plan for an
extra hour or two just to get to and fkom the stations, ~vhikhmeins you will not or hardly ever
use it. And, even if it is decided to extend to upper lying areas, can you imagine the gridlock
during construction then?

4. Like the poll says, this will only benefit a handful of people, 'mainly the one's who are to
profit.

5. A more zidvantageous solution is to build a causeway from Waianae to Waimanalo over the
water spanning the entire Southern Coast wd later, if necessary, continue around the island, or,
construCting a fieeway along the mountain ranges. Afcer pitching this idea with engineers at the
town hall meeting at the Blaisdell, they said "no problem, in engineering we can build anything".

The major consideration for this idea is that H-I desperately needs a major East-West alternate
route. For those of you thinking this would be an eye sore to the coastline or the mountain
ranges consider this: If built properly, it would probably enhance the view and in reality is one
I
j of two sensible solutions. We need to give up something and giving up the causeway or freeway

1 project to rail would tragically be the wrong choice for the majority if not all of Oahu
inhabitants. We must not allow the Offices of the Mayor and their constituents to perpetrate this
i
1 masochistic behavior on the futurk of this State.

6. The Offices of the ~ a ~ o r , atheir constituents have jumped into this project without carefbl
nd
consideration of all practicallreasonable solutions and are drooling. at the potential for lining their
pockets with a very hasty and ill thought out plan. Look at it this way, they can still line their
pockets with the causeway/fieeway project which is the smarter solution.

So, to reeas, the main problem is too many cars on the island Gith no alteruate East-West
free~vav relief, not lack of mass transit. This is the major point here. The bus system would-
work fine w t fewer cars jamming limited traffic signaled East-West thoroughfares. As a fellow
ih
I . taxpayer, please be sensible and come to this realization. If built with a well planned scheme, ,

1
j this would benefit Oahu and relieve major traffic stress for years to come. Any other idea would
be inviting seriously di~e'economic, political and social consequences for the future of our keiki
and the State.

1hope you can convince the Mayor and his constituents to re-evaluate. I personally prefer the
mountain range solution as this would allow cutoffs to service both sides of tlie island. Either the
causeway or the mountain range construction solutions would not severely impair the day to day
business operations of the island as the rail project will. Please take this into strong
consideration and at least present this to whoever is trying to ram this down our throats. If you
cannot provide a favorable response to this issue then do not bother responding. I will assume
that you also sold out.

Mr. Matley, if it is within your power, please fmd a way to save the people of Oahu's future
by overturning/disapprovingthis stupendously horrific project. You are one of the last
aud probably only resorts left to stop this hastily irrationd and ill eoncei~ed'~rojcct.

Lane 0. Sato

Cc: Mr. Ted Matiey
FTA Region I X
20l"Mission Street, Suite 1650
San Francisco, California 94105

----------------------
Status : Action Pending
First Name : Charles
Last Name : Scott
BusinesslOrganization : Citizen
Address : 566 Ahina Street
Apt.lSuite No. :
City : Honolulu
State : HI
Zip Code : 96816
Ernail : cscott Q aloha.com
Submission ContenffNotes : I think it is ridiculous for a city the size of Honolulu to attempt this
project- it is too costly for the size of our city. Already, annual property
tax collections for the past several years have increased several
hundred per cent greater than ability of people to pay (cost of living
increase). For example, r.p. tax collections for fiscal year 2007-08
increased 23.4% while cost of living went up 4.9%!!!The three previous
years the increases were similar. (Tax Foundation of Hawaii figures).
How can we possibly take on the high coast of building & maintaining
the rail system???? It is all about City politics and satisfying the
unions!!!!

January 30,2009
Mr. Wayne Yoshioka
650 So. King St., 3rd Floo'r
Honolulu, H I 96813

Mr. Ted Matley
U.S. Department o f Transportation
Federal Transit Administration - Region I X
201 Mission St., 3rd Floor

;
i I Re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed Mass Transit

Messps. ~ ~ i t $ ,&d..M$fley.;
~ k a . : -' .'
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .-.- . . . I .

.. .. . . : : ..
.' . ...
.I:-.. ...
. ...'
. . :..: :
;
:
,
_ .
. ....... : . .. ., .,::..::.;:
. _
. . : . .. . . . .. .,:. . .-'." . ..... .! . . . . .. . . ...... .
. ' : . ?
.
As 'an o.f p+r'
oe
! iy
i f and.$ i:usise&.&+: 1232 Rifd S$:'in ~ e m t r ~ l : - . K ~ k a ~ ~ ~ ; j d i ~ . j i ~ . i l ; i i
apparent t h a t the Honolulu High Capacity Transit will have a very direct and
substantial impact on our immediate area, and greatly influence our ability t o
continue operating at this location. There are foor'areas where t h e DEIS has
insufficient information regarding t h e impact t o our business and t h e Kakaako
community:
1 The impact of Mass Transit on the narrow streets in Central Kakaako,
.
specifically Halekauwila St. and Kona St.
2. The design flaw which is referred t o in t h e DEIS as t h e " t h i r d rail",
which will "eventually" go o ~ e r ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a nthe...:...:.: L-.- ~ ~ a. - .
University of Hawaii Manoa and Waikiki.
3. Mass Transit displacing many small light industrial businesses in Kakaako
t h a t ul-timately will n o t be able t o find a replacement location t o service
their current customer base.
4. The cost of t h e Honolulu High Capacity Transit and t h e City and County
of Honolulu's ability t o properly fund and pay for building and op,erations in
.the current'financial situation.' . . . . . . . ....... . ... ... . .:.
.
.: . A
.,.*
;.

. . . ,.:- . . . . . . .: . : ; .. ... .. ... . . . .:.. . .. z . : , . . : ; ... ..: ;. .. :,,., ; ,:.. ;, - .:: ". . ....
:..: . . . .. ....,, . 8
&

1 kana St., a t &%vide. betkeen 'Piik6i:,aiid.P.ensacola St; rind .Halekauwi:l@!Sf 50'
.
'
; .:at
wide, will be dramatically impacted during construction and after completion of t h e
Ho.nolulu'High Capacity Transit. None of this is addressed completely in the DEIS.

Hawaii Office: I1 Kona 5 t m e 4 Honolulu, HI 96814 re!: (808)
2
22 .
591-2921 Fax: (808)597-8101
California Ofii'ce: 1 0 Blrnlingham Drive, Suite 250 0.CardiFF by t h e 5ea, CA 92007 Tei: (760)634-7624
6-mrii: info@scotthatvaii.cotn websit.6: wiw/..scottharvaii.con,

There wit1 be a loss of parking, especially on Kona St., t o accommodate t h e bridge
supports rather thah a center column, and access to our building will be,blocked.
Kona St. between Piikoi and Pensacola, will also be adversely affected by the
possible "third rail" t h a t will need t o tie planned for with wider column supports
during the initial construction, necessitating a wider footprint and additional
property acquisitions. This was not made public until after the election t o approve
Mass Transit.
Kona St. is t h e main access f o r cars t o go from Ala Moana t o t h e Ward area,
and building the rail down Kona S .would make an already stressed situation even
t.
worse. What will the City do t o alleviate this problem during and a f t e r
construction? Access to our building and others on Kona St. is already a problem
with the current level of traffic on one of Kakaako's narrowest street-s, a problem
t h a t has not been addressed in the DELS. Relocating t h e route t o Kapiolani Blvd.
would clean up what is now a circuitous route through a highly dense Central
Kakaako and lessen t h e impact t o an already stressed infrastructure.

2. Prior t o the election in 2008, t h e City and County of Honolulu proudly proclaimed
t h a t t h e Honolulu High Capacity Transit wauld go from Kapolei t o t h e University o f
Hawaii Manoa and with a spur t o Waikiki. There was never a mention o f t h e line
stopping a t the Ala Moana Shopping Center with a station 40' high, and a single
t h i r d rail eventxally being built t o d0.a f lyover of the Nordstrom extension a t the
Mall at.100' high, continuing past t h e center. The D E I S does not address how the
city plans on accomplishing this with a station a t 40' and another a t 100'. How will
riders make the transfer? How will t h e rail cars wind their way past t h e shopping
center through t h e various high rise buildings past Nordstrom toward Waikiki? I s
t h e 5% grade t h e train will have t o climb from Pensacola to t h e station a t
Nordstrom too steep? What will be the effect regarding noise f o r those
businesses and condos in the immediate area?
This is a fatal design flaw t h a t could be addressed with a route change t o
Kapiolani Blvd. if t h e City and County of h'onolulu truly wanted t o go t o t h e
University of Hawaii Manoa and Waikiki, something t h e voters thought They would
be getting with a vote for rail.

3. Kakaako is the last light industrial area in Central Honolulu, home t o thousands
o f small businesses serving t h e main population center of t h e City and County o f
Honolulu. This is where mast of t h e displaced properties will come from if rail is
.built and if there is no route change. What will be t h e steps the City takes t o
mitigate the effect on those businesses t o relocate elsewhere? Where will the
customers that frequent these businesses go if rail goes through Central Kakaako?
I s the'current infrastructure adequate t o accommodate t h e proposed transit
oriented development t h e City wants TO implement should rail become a reality?

Who will pay f o r the improvements t o the infrastructure when Kakaako is currently
mostly unimproved? What i t h e position of t h e City and County of Honolulu vis a
s
vis the HCDA, whi.ch controls Kakaako Mauka for the State when it comes to
improvements and zoning? This should be spelled out in t h e DEIS and is not. A
change of route to Kapiolani Blvd. or King St. would make more sense, preserving
the Central Kakaako area t o serve the residents of Honolulu.

4. Considering the current economic situation t h e City and County of Honolulu is in
with a shrinking property t a x base and declining revenue from The General Excise
Tax, how will this Honolulu High Capacity Transit be paid f o r and operated? There
will never be sufficient passengers of rail t o pay for i t s operation, as well as
continu.ing to operate the bus t h a t would be required as a feeder f o r the rail line.
Can t h e City and County of Honolulu depend on the federal government to continue
t o cover any shortage in operating costs? Has the City been open about the
necessity for o property tax increase To pay for the added costs, and how accurate
are the City's projections t o operate rail? The General Excise Tax income is set t o
run out in 2022, and t h e revenue stream is currently under projections and
shrinking each month with t h e economic downturn in Hawaii, where will t h e City
makeup this shortage? was t h i s economic downturn anticipated in the DEIS, and
shouldn't the City be required t o address this in a supplemental O E I S prior t o
startup?
Will t h e State of Hawaii's new plans for Traffic mitigation on the W 1 freeway
going .east t o reduce the bottleneck a t Middle Street, and t h e plans t o have a
flyover on Nimitz Hwy affect rider ship f o r the Honolulu High Capacity Transit and
thus impact toll box revenue? Will this make obsolete t h e figures on usage t h e City
used in t h e current OEIS,and thus change t h e feasibility of Mass Transit f o r
Honolulu?

The only solution is t o have a supplemental draft environmental impact statement
t h a t would address these and many other concerns and questions regarding t h e
feasibility of Mass Transit for Honolulu. The current DEIS is so vague on so many
issues, and t h e City's lack of timely disclosures makes it difficult t o understand the
feasibility for a project of this magnitude in t h e City and County of Honolulu. Also,
it is disingenuous for the City t o place any credence in the vote t o approve rail when
it was not open about t h e specifics of t h e rail plan until a f t e r t h e election. Had the
voters known about these four issues and others would it s t i l l have been approved?

February 5,2009

Via Ensail: wvoshioka~,honoluiu.aov Regular Mail
anci
Mr. Wayne Y, Yoshioka, Director
City and County of Honol~~lu
650 South King Street, 3rdFloor
I-Ionolulu, I-Iawaii 968 13

RE: I-Iouolulu T-Iigh Capacity Transit Corridor Project
Draft Envi~nninental Imvact Statenient/Section 4(0 Evaluation_

Dear Mr. Yosl~ioka:

Servco Pacific Inc. ('Servco") is the landowner of the following parcels of real
psopel-ty (in Waipati~i Kakaako):
and

Waipahu: TMK: (1) 9-4-0 15-0 14
(1) 9-4-015-015
(1) 9-4-0 15-022
(1) 9-4-0 19-055
(1) 9-4-019-06 1 (11'11th ownership interest)

Kakaalco: TMK: (1) 2- 1-03 1-030

which are located adjacent to the contemplated Honolulu High Capacity Transit route
(the "Project"). Servco has for many years operated automotive facilities at both
locations. 11 addition, the current ConceptuaI Right of Way Plcms show that a portion of
1
one of the Waipahu parcels (TMIC: 1-9-4-019-061) and the KakaaIco parcel are both
designated for partial acquisition as part of the Project.

Consequently, the planned Project has an immediate, direct, and material impact
on Servco. Therefore we submit the following comtnenrs based on our review of the
Draft Environtnental Impact Statement for the Honolulu High Capacity Transit Corridor
Project datecl Novenlber 2008.

In general, we are concerned about the adverse impact on our customers,
employees, busilless activities, and automotive facilities which will be caused by the
planned construction activities, noise, dust, realigned traffic flow, and modified vehicular
access into the Servco propelties as work progresses along the Project route in the

Hawaii Guarn California
Automotive Products. Instlrance Sewices
Cons~lmer Products Investments

MI.. Wayne Y . Yosllioka, Director'
Department of Transportatio~l Services
Fcbl.uary 5,2009
Page 2

vicinity of the Servco properties. The Draft EIS states that prior to con~mencement of
construction, the contractor will be required to develop a plan to reduce economic'

hardship for existing businesses dong the project alignment during construction
activities. However, the clraft EIS does not address whether the neighborhood businesses
will be informed by the City or the Contsactor on constswtion activities near their
properties and if these businesses would be affordecl m opportiulity to pal-ticipate aild
provide input into that plan prior to its adoption into the construction contract. Servco
also understands that the Project will likely be collstrircted in lllultiple phases and
therefore feels that plan to address and seduce eco~~onlic hardship along the Project
alignment should be developed, reviewed and commented on by the neighborhood
businesses in phases matched up to the actual construction schedule. Servco feels it is
vital .for both the Contractor and City to effectively communicate the Project's ongoing
construction work and schedule on a regular and weekly basis in order to mitigate and
miniinize hardships to these neighborhood businesses so unanticipated problems can be
addressed promptly and effectively. 1 1 our view, the opportullity to submit our input and
1
comments to the Contractor anct City on how our operations may be affected by the
Project's construction work and the Cotltractor's mitigation plan is essential. This will
allow us a reasonable opportunity to plan our bi~siaess activities on the Servco properties
in anticipation of the construction period and the disruption it will irievitably create.

The Servco properties which will be impacted by the Project are (a) Servco Aido
Leeward CLSAL"), which inclt~desan automotive showrootn, service and parts facility,
fronting Farrillgton Highway at Waipah~i Depot Street, ancl an open parking lot (TMK: 1-
9-4-019-061) (the "Wfl@nltrtPro,uet$y"), and (b) Motor Imports ("hf.), a service and
parts facility located in Kaltaako on the corner of South Street and I-Ialeka~rwilaStreet
(the "Souflt Sfreef Property"), Thc Project will i ~ i n Servco's SAL dealership along
by
Farrington I-Iigl~way,and the Waipahu Transit Station will be located 011 one of the
Waipahu parcel that Servco has an owneilship interest. Motor Ilnports in Kaltaako will be
affected by the construction of the Civic Center Station near and 011 a portion of the South
Street Property. Our comnients regarding these specific properties are provided below.

1. Due to the 30-feet high fixed guideways in the vicinity of the Waipahu
Transit Station the visibility of our SAL dealership will be greatly
reduced. Automotive dealerships value high visibility, street frontage, and
convenient street access to attract customers for its vehicles for sale and to
provicle conveniel~taccess to service area for vehicIes and parts for its
customners.

2. The planned Waipahu 'Tmasit Station on Farrington Highway is ill close
proximity to our SAL operation, and construction activities will inlpilct

Mr. Waync Y. Yoshioka, Director
Departnlent of Transportation Sel.vices
February 5,2009
Page 3

traffic flow in both directions. I11 addition, there is The Oahu Regional
Transportation Plan 2030 wlzich includes the Farrington 1-ligl~way
widening project to relieve traffic congestion between Golf Course Road
and Fort Weaver Road. What is the schedule for these projects? Will
construction be phased in such a manner that these projects will not
overlap? Will the City be coordinating the Farri~zgton I-Iiglzway work with
the State? Will the City be retailling a consulta~~t a traffic study for the
for
ilnpact of the Project on the Project's routes?

3. The water table in the Waipahu area is high. What is the potential impact
on the susrounding structures clue to displacelne~lt groundwater during
of
drilling and itzstallation of the foundation for the light rail system and
associated tramit stations?

4. There are overhead and underground utility lines along Fansington
Highway and the cross streets. Will SAL's utility service be disrupted
when tlzese utility lines along Farrington Hwy are relocatecl?

5
: As noted above, Servco has a one-eleventh (Ill 1"') ownership in I'MK: 1-
9-4-019-061 in Waipahu. The City has plans for partial acquisitioil of this
property. If trafEc is rerouted to the cross streets of Awalu and
Mokultaua, this will illcrease the vehicle traffic to the back of ThlIC:
1-9-4-0 19-0'55 which is wholly owned by Servco. As a laudowner and
busil~ess operator, how will we be kept informed of changes and activities
affecting both parcels?

B. South Street Property:

1. Servco operates a parts and service facility on the South Street Property
(TMK: 1-2-1-03 1-030). Autonzotive service operations are very land
iutensive. Pursuant to the Co~zceptualRight-of-Way Plans the City plans
to acquire a portion of the South Street Property f?om Servco for the Civic
Center Station. According to the Draft EIS, a land area of approximately
40 feet in width by 300 feet in length will be actcquired. The proposecl
acquisition would involve the taking o the land and building housing our
f
existing service bays and facilities, reduce the existing paved area for
customer parking and adversely affect the existing South Street entry and
exit into the South Street Property. The Draft EIS does not adequately
co~lsider possible d d e d cost to the City's accluisition of a postiotl of the
a
South Skeet Property associated with coordinating the relocation of the
service bays and facilities and reconfiguration of the South Street Psopelty

Mr. Wayne Y. Yoshioke, Director
Department oETranspostation Serviccs
Febma~y 2009
5,
Page 4

so as to lninilnize disruptiotl with the ongoing business activities on the
South Street Property.

2. The Draft EIS does not aclequately consider whether it: is feasible for tlle
Servco automotive business to continue in a reconfigured set up on the
South Street Property after the taking of a portion of the South Street
Property, and thus whether tlle City would have to acquire the entirety of
the South Street Property and not just a portion thereof as currently
contemplated in the Conceptual Right-of- '-WayPlan,

3. The Draft EIS does not appear to adequately consider the alternative of
designing and building the Civic Center Transit Station on the vacant
parcel of land located on the rnakai side of Halekauwila Street. Such ail
alternative could greatly mininlize and initigate the adverse impact on the
existing Setvco a~rtomotivefacilities on South Street discussed in 13.1
above.

4. The existing buildings on tlze property are older. We are concerned with
how pile driving may affect the structural integrity of the buildings ancl the
calibrated readings of automotive equipment used in Servco's nutolnotive
service business. Has consideration been given to alternatives that may be
available to initigate such impact?

5. Sinlilar to the Waipahu Property, the water table in Kakaako is also very
high. The Draft EIS does not indicate or adequately address how water
displacemei~t will be handled so as to protect and preserve the structural
integrity of the stnwtures on the South Street Property.

6. Sfreet parking in the Kakaako area is inadequate at present. We are
concerned that the influx of construction workers into the area drlring the
course of the Project will make a bad situation even worse, as Servco
employees, construction workers, and customers of neighborllood busitless
will all be vying to use the aaIready limited number of parking stalls in
Kakaako. This problem will be co~npoundedby lane closures and traffic
circulation changes. The Draft EIS does not address how these problems
will be mitigated or addressed? Will there be a traffic study on the impact
of the Project for t i e Civic Center Transit Station and Halekauwila Street
route?

As noted above partial land acquisition is planned for two Servco parcels, 'TMKs
1-9-4-0 19-061 (Waipahu) and 1-2-1-03 1-030 (Kakat~ko). The Draft EIS provides

M . W q n e Y. Yoshioka, Director
r
Depaitlncnt of Trl.anspol.tation Services
Febrtrary 5,2009
Page 5

ins~lfficientinformation on the acqnisition process a ~ l dproced~~se, including without
limitation, its timing and manner of determining coinpensation to affected landowner.

In the process of finalizing its Environmental Imnpact Statement for the Honolulu
High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project, we ask that the City & County of I-Ionolnlu
pl.udently address and respond to ouls questions and collcerns.

Sincerely,

SERVCO PACIFIC INC.

Carol K. Lam (B)
Senior Vice President

cc: Ms. I<ntherine P u a n ~
Kealoha, Director
Office of Envirollmental Quality Control
235 South Beretania Strcet, Suite 702
Honolulu, Hawaii 968 13
Via Email: oeac@,doh.hatvaii.~ov Regulns Mail
and

Mr. Tetl Matley
FTA Region IX
201 Mission Street, Suite 1650
San Francisco, CA 94 I05
Via Enlail: ted.n~atlev@,fca.dol.aov and Regular Mail

---.-----.-.-----------
First Name : Corey
Last Name : Shibata
BusinesslOrganization : citizen of Honolulu
Address : 1304 Naulu Place
Apt./Suite No. :
City : Honolulu
State : HI
Zip Code : 96818
Email : bata-7770hotmaif.com
Telephone : 422- 1981
Submission Date :

Submission ContentINotes : I submit the following comments:
The Salt Lake route should be used because:
1. It will get more working citizens off the road since it will run through a
high density population,
2. The airport track can be added later. Residents will not use the
transit to the airport since they have so much to carry.
3. Tourists from the airport won't even use the transrt until the Waikiki
track is constructed.
4. Rush hour traffic M-F are mostly single person vehicles. Tour buses
and taxis are insignificant.
5. Rush hour traffic on Sat are mostly residents. Tour buses and taxis
are insignificant.
The route should run East from Kapolei to Fort Weaver Rd and up to
Farrington Hwy because:
1. Again the route would run through a high populated area.
2. With the transit running past LCC, HCC, and UH Manoa there is no
need to build a West Oahu College. If West Oahu College is built, then
they can provide their own shuttles like UH.
More Stops from Ewa to Kalihi Should be Built because:
1. It will promote more ridership (closer walkinglbiking distance to
stations).
2. There are a lot of businesses in Waipahu, Pearl City, and
Mapunapuna where citizens will go to work.
Construction Schedule need to be fast tracked (build outwards from
stations) because:
1. If cost is an issue, then it should be built asap.
.,
2. riders hi^ won't be sianificant until the downtown tracks are
completed.
3. The economy needs help now. Not 10 years from now.

1 -
wzgge3i;ions x:ld complaints arc?confideieial. Yy includi;ig ,
$ow acme, i+dyess sad a GcgUrns pb,~?oire
numbs!-;
I we w3 able t o rt?sp<::o:oi'; you, if nr<:;7ssar~?
r tfi ! ;
':hanks Rji- hk?$?i:;g ~3 YC:?~:? ~'c):,I better. j
I
i
i . @%
%
; Haa;lnei?*=; Mziyiyr I ..
! . - i,:i~ad Cotin<yof 'iioaohtla . i

SIEIPRA CLUB
O'ahu Group
P.O. Box 2577, HonoIuIu, H 96803
I
tel: 808.537.9029

February 6,2008

Mr. Wayne Y. Yoshioka
Acting Director
Department of Transportation Setvices
City and County of Honohlu
650 South King Street, 3d Floor
I-ionolulu, 11 96813
-1

Mr. Brennon Morioka, Director
Departmenr of Transportation S e ~ c e s
650 South King Street, 3rd Floor
WonoIulu, Hawai'i 96813

Mr. Ted Matley
FTA Region IX
20 1 Mission Street, Suite 1650

Ms. Katheri~~e Puana Kedoha, Director
Office of Environmental Quality Control
Deparunent of Health
State of Hawvai'i
235 South Betetania Street, Suite 702
Honolulu, Hawai'i 96813

Honolulu High Capacity Transit Corridor Project
Dxaft Erivironmental Impact Statement
Comments

Aloha:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sierra Club Oahu Group is in general favor of the
proposed transit project, but offers the following questions and comments that we feel would
strengthen the EIS and, ultimately, provide a better project for Oahu's citizens.

Connectivity

The figures in Chapter 2 do a nice job of illustrating station layouts and entry points: The Ct
iy
and County need to provide maps that illustrate how peopIe get to those entrances. These maps
should consider a radius of %-mile from the station. They should clearly indicate sid'Ewalk

Sierra Club Tiansit Draft EIS Comments Page 2

and bikelane connectivity to the stations. Infrastructure improvements to provide this
connectiviry should be part of the project, or at the very least a high priority of the City and
Coutity. The City and County has a mandate to improve walkability and bikeability in the city.
Providing good connections to this transit system would go a long way to achieving that.

Will bikes, surfboards and luggage be allowed on the train? W l there be any restrictions on time
il
of day (i.e. not aUowed during commute hours)?What is the size Limitation?

What pedestxian and bicycIe amenities will be designed and built in or near rransit stations?

Aesthetics and Viewpianes

?he DEXS provides a thorough discussion on the visual impacts of the project, but provides little
in the way of mitigating measures. hlany other states uuiize attractive concrete an to soften the
impact of large highway structures. In addition to softening the visual impact, this strategy also
appears to greatly inhibit grafitti. Walls in Arizona and Colorado are effective. In many Iocdes,
Local artists design motifs &at are incorporated in concrete surfaces. See the following link for
examples: l~~c~.//u~~rt~.cc~ncrecec~c~ork.co~n/~nn~:. u.allb,l>tln
t.xd(.)!rl>/co~crere

Why is the entire uansit route elevared? Where geography permits, the transit route should be
placed at ground level to reduce cost of construction, energy consumption during construction,
and impacts to view planes.

Agricultural land

Prime, unique, and statewide itnpottant lands are, by definition, of agricultural importance. Land
with such classification is significant, not negligible, regardless of acreage. To trivialize the
conversion of such lands on the grounds that only a small amount of it wiU be sacdficed is not
acceptable. Conversion of such lar~ds according to the KISH system that defines these
is,
classifications, irreversible and therefore not a decision that should he taken lightly or trivialized
because of scale.

Once the rail transit route is in place, it is expected that development will occur along the route,
and this Transit-Oriented Development wiU almost certainly affect important agricultural Iands. In
order for the f n l EIS for rail transit to accurately and completely examine the environmental
ia
impacts to agricultural lands, the project must include agricdmral Iands adjacent to project
construction boundaues. 'The RnaI E S should include a detailed discussion and mitigation plan
X
f r negative environmental impacts to agricultural land affected by this project including an
o
analysis of alternative routes to preserve prime, unique, and/or statewide important agricultural
land. If these agriculturai tands are part of a planned development corridor, the ESS should
describe how City and County planning and zoning measures assure that important agricultural
Iands outside the planned development corridor are preserved.

The transit system should have a terminus in Waipahu, rather than East Kapolei, and extend into
W a i h i and/or up to UH MIinoa instead of extending to East Kapolei where the majority of
agricultural lands exist

Sierra Club Transit Draft 'EIS Comments Page 3

f i r Quality

According to the DEIS, the methodology for projecting future air quality as a resuIt of the various
project alternatives is based on anticipated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and average network
speed for each alternative. The data given in the DEIS indicates &at all Build Alternatives yield
better air quality than the No Build alternative, which may not be true. Better air quality would
otlly occur if the proposed rail transit system replaces enough cars on the road such that its
emissions are less than the collecdve cmissions of the cars it replaces. ?%e EIS shouId discuss the
possibility that the offset may not occur, and discuss measures of mitigation.

Energy

The Project should make every effort t maximize operating efficiency. 'rhe final EIS should also
o
give more consideration as to the feasibility of integratingalternative energy tcchnoiogies into the
project as well as an analysis of potential energy conservation measures such as opting to build
sections of the route ac ground Ievel rather than elevated where feasible.

What are the plans (if my) to run rail on renewable sources of energy @dm oil not induded)?

What assumptions regarding ridership, VMT, etc. were made in determining the energy savings of
each Build Alternative rchdve to the No Build Alternative?

Errors

Margins of error for a I data, as well as a fist of assumptions made, shouId be provided for clarity.
L

Cost

Will fares be subsidized to encourage ridership? If so, what is the target group for those
subsidized fares?
What percent o f the cost o f rail (construction, maintenance and interest paid on bonds) is
expected to be paid with fares? What if fares do not meet this percentage? Will fares andlor
taxes be raised? By how much?

Sierra CIub Transit Draft EIS Comments Page 4

Please send comment responses to:

Sierra Club, O'ahu Group
A'IT3I: Randy Cbing
1040 Richards St,, Room 306
Honolulu, HI 96813

Kim Kido
Otl beharfcfthe .Ciem Ckb, 0 Oir Grot@

First Name : Charles W
Last Name : Smith
Address : 4476 Kolohala Street
Apt.lSuite No. :
City : Honolulu
State : HI
Zip Code : 96816
Email : cwxQ hawaiiantel.net
Telephone : 808-735-21 73
Submission Date : I210812008
Submission ContentlNotes : Oahu taxpayers cannot afford this huge extra debt for steel rail. Hawaii's
financial situation is in a dangerous crash.

Creation Date : 1124l2009
First Name : Daniel C
Last Name : Smith
Address : 1816 Dole St.
City : Honolulu
State : HI
Zip Code : 96822
Email : dancsmithQ rocketrnail.com
Telephone : 808-951-4632
Submission Date : 01124l2009
Submission ContentlNotes : I have reviewed the Draft EIS. Although I am neither a transportation
expert nor environmental expert, the Draft EIS makes sense. The costs
--
and benefits -- economic and social look to be realistically stated.
I have experienced the mass transit systems in New York, Atlanta,
Paris, Sydney and the San Francisco Bay Area where I grew up. In
those areas is clear that efficient mass transit contributes greatly to good
quality of life. '
While I am disappointed that the Honolulu rail system will not initially go
to Waikiki, UH Manoa and more places in the Eva Plain, the system is a
good start. I applaud the political leadership that recognized that the
perfect is the enemy of the good. It appears to me that the big risk in
new mass transit is not being ambitious enough. Witness the cost of the
BART extension to the San Francisco Airport versus the cost had it been
in the original plan.
I am pleased that the Honolulu Airport route appears to be on the way
to adoption. I say that not just because I work at the airport, but
especially because the airport route will also better serve the airport
industrial area and Pearl Harbor which as inportant "industry."
Let's get on with it!

Garry P. Smith
91-321 Pupu Place
Ewa Beach, Hi 96706

City Dept. of Transportation
Attn: DElS Comments

--2-$ Mr. Wayne Yoshioka
650 South King Street Third Floor
Honolulu, Hi 96813

DearSir,

Please accept this as a comment concerningthe DElS on the proposed Rail Transit System being
considered by the City and County of Honolulu.

1 The DElS shows that the proposed system bypasses the most heavily congested area on the
.
Leeward Coast-Ewa Beach. The purported purpose of the entire rail system is to provide an
alternative for commuters coming from congested areas. The beginningof the rail system is
more than 3.7 miles from Ewa Beach requiring us to drive or bus over heavily congested Ft.
Weaver Rd. or the yet to be built North/South road. During peak traffic hours it can take 45
minutes to drive from Ewa Beach to HI Freeway, even with the widening of Ft. Weaver ~ ' dand .
buildingof North/South Rd. it will take 30 minutes from Ewa Beach (end of Ft. Weaver Rd.) to
the train station. Development in Ewa Beach will be far greater than in Kapolei or Waipahu yet
these communities have their own station. Why does the DEIS not make provisions for
includinga station in the heartof the trafnc congestion making us wait 15-20 years for a Phase It
that might not ever be built?

2. The DElS discloses that a train station is being built in a vacant field that has been bought by
developer D R Horton to develop an 11,000 home community called Hoopili. The station is
expected to provide significant enhancements to this developers project at great cost to the city
and federal governments. Why is the city giving preference to a developer io,assignin&tation
.-
to this location while ignoring developments all ready built or in immediate $ e ~ f
W73
transportation services? 2 %
%S
m
,.-
:
-
Thank you for your response to my comments.
s--Gi
. 0
-
-a
.-.
-
Frr

h-
e
"
.-
0. Ul 3
-

3
r
C1
a
4 . .
<
m
4a a
;;
;
.I)
td.

--------.-------------
First Name : kenny
Last Name : smith
Business/Organization : none
Address : 3178 t st
Apt./Suite No. :
City : sacramento
State : CA
Zip Code : 95816
Email : kenny2154Qatt.net
Telephone :
Submission ContentlNotes : did you ever look at the bay area of BART system?
,
if you did not see the system you need to look at theres ok please. you
will like it.
FOlA (Freedom of
Request :

First Name : kenny
Last Name : smith
Business/Organization : none
Address : 3178 "T" st
Apt./Suite No. :
City : sacramento
State : CA
Zip Code : 95816
Email : kenny2154Qatt.net
Telephone :
Submission Date : 011 912009
1
Submission ContentINotes : i just wish you can be a little bit more open with me when it comes to the
service you are trying to start up on oahu hi.
FOlA (Freedom of
Request :
FOIA Referral Date :

--------------------.--
First Name : kenny
Last Name : smith
Address : 3178 tst
Apt./Suite No. : ,
City : sacramento
State : CA
Zip Code : 95816
Email : kenny21540att.net
Telephone :
Submission ContentJNotes : i just looked at the honolulu advertiser paper did not have much in it
about the plan. so what is going on over there? any way. so is the air
port route is a go?. see the paper did not say much about it. so what is
going on. is the salt lake route on hold?. do get back to me with some
answer and you could send me your paper on the rail please. i like it.
FOlA (Freedom of
Request :


. .

I MUFl HANNEMANN
MAYOR
WAYNE Y. YOSHIOKA
DIRECTOR

SHARON ANN THOM
DEPUTY DIRECTOR

May 21,2010

Mr. Kenny Smith
3178 T Street
Sacramento, California 95816

Dear Mr. Smith:


Preferred Alternative (23 CFR § 771.I25 (a)(l)). This selection was based on consideration of
the Draft EIS. The following paragraphs address comments regarding the above-referenced
submittal:

In answer to your comments, the Airport Alternative from East Kapolei to Ala Moana
Center has been selected as the Preferred Alternative. The identification of the Airport
Alternative as the Preferred Alternative was made by the City to comply with FTAJsNEPA
regulations that state that the Final EIS should focus on the Preferred Alternative (23 CFR §
771.125 (a)(l)). This selection was based on consideration of the benefits of each alternative,
public input on the Draft EIS, and City Council Resolution 08-261 identifying the Airport
Alternative as the Project. The selection of the Airport Alternative is described in Chapter 2 of
this Final N S . The discussion of the alternatives considered is included in Chapter 2 of this
Final EIS and the Alternatives Analysis. As discussed in Section 3.4.2 of this Final EIS, the
Airport Alternative will carry the most passengers with I 16,000 daily passengers and 282,500
daily trips in 2030, thereby resulting in the greatest transit-user benefits. The Airport Alternative
will also result in the fewest vehicle miles traveled and vehicle hours of delay, as well as provide

Mr. Kenny Smith
Page 2

access to major employment areas, including Honolulu International Airport, that will have
substantially greater ridership than the other alternatives considered.

The Project has logical termini at East Kapolei and Ala Moana Center and independent
utility from any extensions that may be constructed in the future. The proposed future
extensions to West Kapolei, Salt Lake Boulevard, Waikiki, and UH Manoa are discussed in the
cumulative impacts sections of Chapters 3 and 4 of the Final EIS. The future extensions are not
part of this Project; thus, they are not required to be evaluated under Chapter 343 of the Hawaii
Revised Statutes and NEPA. Under NEPA, environmental analysis is only required when there
is a proposed action by a Federal agency. Here, because the future extensions are not
proposed for implementation at this time, they are not part of the Project studied in this Final EIS.
It would be premature to undertake an environmental analysis of the extensions (beyond the
cumulative impacts analysis) because they are not part of the proposed action to be taken by
the City and FTA. If the future extensions are proposed for implementation in the future,
environmental analysis of the extensions and appropriate alternatives will be undertaken at that
time. A copy of the Final EIS has been included with this letter. In addition, copies are available
on the project website at www.honolulutransit.org.

The FTA and DTS appreciate your interest in the Project. The Final EIS, a copy of which
is included in the enclosed DVD, has been issued in conjunction with the distribution of this
letter. Issuance of the Record of Decision under NEPA and acceptance of the Final EIS by the

WAYNE Y. YOSHIOKA
Director

Enclosure

---.-------------------
First Name : MIKE
Last Name : smith
Address : 103 kahako street
Apt.lSuite No. : B
City : kailua
State : HI
Zip Code : 96734
Email : poolguy@hawaii.rr.com
Submission ContenVNotes : I read, a few weeks ago, of a suggestion to start the rail system in Pearl
City and develop it to down town. This would give the fastest traffic relief
and return on the investment. Believe this idear was nixed because the
maintenance yard will be located at the west end of the track in Kapolei.
A thaught would be to still start and fully develop the system, Pearl City
to down town, while symultaneously develop the yard and track only
from Kapolei to Pearl City. Have cake and eat it too!

December 5,2008

To: Mr. Wayne Yoshioka, City director of transportation
From: Pam Smith, 91-321Pupu Place, ewa beach 96706
i
Iwant to make a comment on the Draft environmental Impact
statement up for public review at this time. Iwould like this
comment to be answered.

Ch
My comment is that with the* h a t e and national economy
sputtering and tax revenues being reduced dramatically the
original funding for the rail system won't be enough to now build
it. Property taxes are going to go down so the city can't tap into
ttiat. The state won't raise the Get another 542% so where i the
s
i
i city going to get the difference between the origlnal GET revenue
i and the new forecasted lower revenue?
1
In t h b same area, if property taxes go down because valuations
have gone down,.how wifi the city pay for the operating and
maintenance expenses on thSs system which will be substantial?
Please respond with your answers:

.Pam Smith

i
P.O. Box 2242
i
i
j Ewa Beach, H 96706
i * -
i
4 A&
.R
I



.

MUFl HANNEMANN WAYNE Y. YOSHlOKA
MAYOR DIRECTOR

SHARON ANN THOM
DEPUTY DIRECTOR

May 21,2010

Ms. Pam Smith
P.O. Box 2242
Ewa Beach, Hawaii 96706

Dear Ms. Smith:

Comments Received on the Draft Environmental lmpact Statement

submittal:

Section 6.3 of the Final EIS describes the financial resources anticipated to be needed to
pay for the capital cost of the Project and the City's overall public transportation system. Capital
costs of the Project, including finance charges, are expected to be fully paid for by a combination
of FTA Section 5307 and FTA Section 5309 New Starts Funds from the Federal government and
revenues from the County General Excise and Use Tax Surcharge levied from 2007 through
2022 on Oahu. The analysis takes the current economic downturn into account. Section 6.4 of
the Final EIS describes the funding sources to pay for ongoing operations and maintenance
costs associated with maintaining the transit system in a state of good repair. Operating and
maintenance costs will be paid for from the same sources currently used for TheBus: Federal
funding, fare revenues, and subsidies from the City's General and Highway Funds. Section 4.19
of the Final EIS discusses the potential indirect economic effects of new development and
redevelopment near the Project alignment and around stations.

Ms. Pam Smith
Page 2


Director

Enclosure

Rev. & M s Sanluel M. Srnith and Family
r.
P. 0. Box 101.5
Kailua, H1 !Xi7341015 ... , . ..,
808-230-8683 or cel35 1-2753 ..
.a
-@
November 27,2008 ;Rev & M Samuel M;Smifh.&Family
r
s
,$P:0. BOX1015
URGENT URGENT URGENT iKallua, HI96734U. 9.A.

Mayor M f Hannemann
ui
t i o i i : i l ~ ~ Haie
l~~
em~ll:InfoBupwsy-pubL.ta~arg 3'
WEE: h ~ ~ ~ . f o l l o w e r 5 0 ~ ~ ~ 9 o h r I s t . o r g

530 S. King St.
Honolulu, HI 968 13
Dear Mayor Hannemann:

TMS is to certiufy to you that EMINENT DOMAIN SUITS ARE UNNECESSARY,
A MAJOR WASTE OF TIME AND TAXPAYER MONEY.
I SHALL volunteer to assist every homeowner and business affected by the proposed EMXNENT
DOMAIN to provide right-of-way for your elevated rail system and to testify in court to SFQ-%P
plans
for such an elevated system.
You know that I have been urging 'MASS TRANSlT NOW since 1983 and did all i could to hetp
I
influence voters to vote FOR the steel-on-steel mil system. NOW,will work TWICE AS H [
m
to get you, Mayor Mnfi, and City Council to reconsider the ONLY LOGICA1L AND
-
COMMON SENSE SYSTEM for the 21st Century I00 % UNDERGROUND steel
on steel RAIL. I will also be bringing pressure to bear from the State Legislature and
from Washington. I have already contacted Senator jlnouye who,1am sure doubtless
voted for funding for the Washington DC UNDERGROUND metro system, and I am
urging him to tie Federal funding to UNDERGROUND construction similar to that of the
Chunnel. (Please visit .
11ttp:llww w.affordableworldt~;tvelandtours.com/hc~nolulu~sens~transir/ho~~ol~~~ucumn~,onse~~setra.
sithtrnf.)

1 am told, the State of Hawaii may already have used such equipment as was used in the Chunttel in
building the H-3tunnels and may still own it.
In past correspondence, i[ have already given you well over 20 SOLD, Valid reasons why
UNDERGROUND will be less expensive and because only Environmentai Impact studiesfstatements,
which would need little modification f o your already existing one, and the signing of right-of-way
rm
agreements w t the State and construction contractors, construction could begin even by the end of this
ih
December. If you insist on present elevated routing, Eminent Domain Iawsuits and related court
injunctions can delay even the signing of conmcts for at least many months and possibly several years.
This, of course, will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional costs between a#oeey feesand
illcreased land value, to say nothing of the cost to commuters who will have yet a longer wait for
significanttmiXc congestion relid . .. ,
. .

Every argument AGAINST UNDERGROW RAILda;l ~ a s i beanswered by citing the
~y
many insrnces in which mass transit and even maj-or rail'tunnel's aie beneaththe water table, irmore
earthquake prone zones than Oahu; bored through even granite rock (which is MUCH harder than lava!)
a's we11 as through clay and softer rock.
The technology of a huge machine like bored the Chunnel makes arguments about the construction

problems of the lo& sewer system, which uses surface construction methods and is relatively shaltow
totally nonsense. Likewise, reference to the "Big Dig" fiasco in Boston, where surface dig and refill
methods were used is not an option. At the VERY BUSTEST TRAFFIC HOUR, the Chunnel-type
boring/tunnel building equipment could be boring 40 or SO feet below the highway or street and nobody
would even know that their stop and go surface traffic was immediately above the actively boring
equipment
I do agree that although your proposed elevated rail system doesn't look too bad as an eyesore, wd
would certGin1y get people from Point A to Point B far faster and cheaper than by their own cars, even
factoring in the taxes to build the system. I would love to show you my copy of the History Channel's
Modern Marvels; The Chunrtel [bn;slston.aetv.com/ht1nI/product/ind~'?id427391 DVD so
you can see for yourself how practical the underground system would be.
I will not here take the time to revisit the many reasons for m E R G R O U W AS AGAINST
ELEVATED OR SURFACE, NOR THE REASONS WE URGENTLY NEED MASS TRANSIT NOW.
I am leaving most of those reasons as previously mailed to you below. 1 will also be mailing copies of
this letter to you to a11 possible news media in an effort to raise public consciousness of how many delays
and how much additional costs the elevated or surface routing would cause and the tot4 practicality of
building entirely underground, as well as several safety factors in which UNDERGROUND is safer.
For a better Honolulu for everyone,

llune 15,2008 letter is below and includes most of October 25,2006 letter.
On October 25,2006. I wrote the below letter to you and you responded and even sent me and my family
a Thanksgiving greeting. You also had the Trattsit Study people send me a great and well-done DVD
about the urgency of the need for Mass Transit ASAP. I therefore invested in a copy of the History
Channel's Modem Marvels: The Chunnel ~ ~ L L ~ Z E
'DVD which I had intended to get into the hands of then Transportation Chair Nestor Garcia, but
somehow never seemed to be able to get it to him.
However, I would rather fight AGAINST the above ground rail than see the city make that major
mistake. i KAYE SIICNED THE STOP RAIL NOW petition BUT I WILL DO ALL I CAN TO GET a
YES vor:e c 5UILD.a.n fiNiPPPRGIFbF1lFNeE system.
o rail
And I call your attention to the MAJOR money being spent by someone to advertise AGAINST ANY
rail and ask WHO WOULD SPEND THAii' MIND fZF PXOFiEY TO STOP RAILd?Now who will
benefit from stopping Rail? Petroteam interests, Automobiie dealers, Parking lot operat.ors,Garage
Mechanics. Now Insurance companies will of course seem neutral in the matter, but because higher
accident rates will justify higher premiums, they might also benefit by stopping rail.
PIease kook at the advantages I have already listed in my October 25,2006 letter below and factor in one
more thing that I had not thought about before. IF' i4 la8 PEWCEMT UNl'lEfSGFtBPiifWI)S'PrSTKM
WERE TO BE BrllE'1' THERE xWOULBBE 3dANY TKK)USA.WDS 43F CIJHIC Y'AMfP:S OF Si8.I;
T4b SAFE%.,VEXTENT 'THE SBORT!;LfNE LFpl rk PLANN'ED 31,84;ATfON ANT) TM:"t'F' E,rh,NPP
€:OU'd..;D'f:f$fl:PP' 2 E SOLD AS Wfi.'TE3~RFRONPIr'
3 PRQIBiERTX';'I?{) CIFFS'fiX MUCH OF'TFTE CC'PS'I'
OF BZflLDENC;Tf'l-IE RAfL SY$TEM.
And again, in June 2008,I remind you that the construction tie-ups of an above ground system would
make present traffic tie-ups look like nothing.
I also remind you of land acquisition costs if you do not build beneath existing roadways using
EXISTING equipment that can operate there with NO DISRUPTION of the traffic above. You will have
costly and divisive cn!brenl:d ~ m i ~ isuits to file for above ground rights of way, court delays and again,
rz
who will benefit? Petrolenm interests, Antomokrile c1ei1iars, Bae.king lot operators, so of coursre they

are willing to spend RIG MONEY to stop r i and %YOU,Mayor, do not we my argument.linked
al
to those showing the necessity of Mass Transit that were on the DVD you had the Transit Study
people send me, the MISINFORMATION people will both get the issue on the Ballot, but will also get
rail voted down. What a tragedy for ]EVERYONE!
Please. Mayor, I beg of you, reconsider and reevaluate 100 percent UNDERGROUND steel on steel rail.
If you persist in the above ground FOOLISHNESS, I will SADLY be adding my voice to the ANTI Rail
voices. I believe that at the rate it is now going, the petition will get more than enough signatures to get
the issue on the baflot and with the misinformation already being promoted, it will lose. Who is paying
the '%oluntwrs" stand outside Post Offices and other public places with petitions? I believe it is
to
the PctroIei~n~ inri.e:rests,;4atoznohllc dcaler's,lPa:'icingtot aperat.ors, etc.
Sincerely, ,A

October letter~follows:
On the 8:00 AM news on KHON TV2,a member of the Kakaako Neighborhood Board correctly and
wisely spoke to the issue of the horrendous traffic tie-ups on Kapiolani Boulevard as a result of sewer
work and lane closures. I wonder that neither you nor others involved in planning the URGENTLY
NEEDED Mass Transit System have glibly overlooked this aspect of building an above ground m t o er
systein. lEquipment is already in storage that has been tested and very successfully used to build the
"ChunneI" between England and France and the BART in California's San Francisco Bay Area. The
BART in particular has also already been tested by earthquake, so the evidence is clear that above ground
Metro proponents' argument about water, rock and earthquake hazards to the undergrouund system is a
smokescreen.
I have previously contacted you on this subject and gave 17 good, valid, common-sense reasons for
MASS TRANSlT NOW. J.f I repeat a few from this new angle please forgive me. (I would welcome n
face-to-face debate on the issue before City Council and the media.)
! While I URGENTLY support Mass Transit, I equally or with even greater emphasis OPPOSE an above
I ground system for the following reasons in order of importance:
I

i 1. kfASSIVE traffic tie-ups during construction that are unavoidable for this type of construction.
2. Delays caused by battles over eminent domain rights and causes to acquire the necessary rights-of
way.
3. Cost of right of way acquisition.
of
4. The already protested blockage of portio~~s Oahu scenery by the additional structures.
Benefits of the UNDERGROUND system are:
1. Construction machinery is avaiIabIe capable of boring the tunnels, creating a steel-reinforced concrete
tunnel tube with D I S R U P T I O N OF S m A C E T R m C or buildings above. Spoil dirt is
hauled out at the ends and concrete, steel and other materials needed by the machine are hauled in from
the ends.
2. AND 3. No lory court battles over Etninent Dornain rights because virtually all needed right of way
already exists beneath present highways, streets and roads. Only terminals or stations might require
acquisition of land. Costs for hiring professional tunnel builders and their machinery easily offset by
I LACK OF LAND ACQUISITION COST.
4. No permanent above ground structures obstructing tourist (or our) view of our Native Oahu beauty.

Please do not overlook the URGENT need folks in the entire Leeward area have for MASS TRANSIT
NOW!!! But at the same time, please don't overlook the awful gridlock of traffic that buiding an above
ground system will unavoidably create. As I have pointed out before, 'EVERY taxpayer in Leeward Oahu
has ALREADY paid FAR more in fuel costs, lost time and vehicle repair and vehicle replacement than
the relatively small proposed tax increase that would have already had Mass Transit in place if
misguided voters had not rejected the option several years ago.
Finally, our State and Oahu leaders are coming close to agreement that we really DO need MASS
TRANSIT NOW.The widening of existing highways and addition of zipper lanes is almost counter
productive as more land is gobbled and the tire1 consumption and lost time situation is only slightly
affected. What about the High Speed Ferry proposal to zoom people from Barbers Point or wherever else
in that area that sucl~ landing is decided upon. That is still subject to closing if storm conditions arise,
a
making an even more problematic situation for Leeward residents on such days as people planning to use
the ferry suddenly discover at the last minute that they will either have to drive, call a cab or catch a bus.
This, I think, is something those pushing for the ferry boat idea seem to forget.
And if a Disneyland style monorail is built, consideration must be given to the disruption of traff~c during
the construction phase. This, in addition to the fact that it cannot help but at least partially block scenic
views. And, since the VAST majority of those most urgently needing MASS TRANSIT NOW are
residents needing to get to work on t m ,they have seen the sights and simply want to leave home as late
ie
as possible to arrive at work on time and return home or whatever else they must do with the least lost
time commuting from their workp~acc home, the UNDERGROUND rail system makes the MOST
to
SENSE With modem technology, tunnel boting machines such as built the England to France Chunnel
and other similar equipment now in storage awaiting a time and place to be used again can easily build
earthquake resistant and waterproof systems with only minimal surface supporf minimal traffic
disruption, no need for additional land, since they can be boilt beneath existing freeways and other
rights-of-way.
For any who question the practicality of and the advantages to the UNDERGROUND mass transit
systems for the unique conditions and needs of Oahu and Honolulu, I suggest you secure copies of the
titles, Modern Marvels: Tunnels [http:llstore.aerv.c0m/ht1~~1/pr0d1~~t/inde~.fInl?i=122l. I] or Modem
Marvels: The Chunnel [~;//store.aetv.cc11n/ht1n1/pf0ducclindex.jhtm['?id~27]Modem Marvels:
and
The City Beneath Our Feet ~ s t o r e , a e t v i ~ ~ ~ u c t / i ~ ~ d e x . . i l . t ~ ~ I ?These= 4order ~ .
i c I in ~ 2 8
of their significance to Honolulu. Or, I can loan you my copy.
I would welcome a face-to-face debate on the issue before City Council and the media.

copy to All News Media,

Ft' J )4. '1/ J ~3 :c uJijj-,
I3 .iJ!j 3 d :: 1' gfi]
-.
% '$&)?jsz
' 'a,?. ' ,&SF>:]'%]:[
A:" : t.+.$
- ." . , '

REV,. & M R S . SAMUEL M..SMITH & F A M l L Y
P. 0 Box 1015
KAILUA, H 96734-10t5 U .S. A.
I . RE(3EtVE[]
(808) 230.8683 PHONE OR F A X

December 5,2008 1008 DEC -8 A 9 2b
City Councilman Charles D'jou
Honolulu Hale CITY CTjUHCtl-
530 S, King St..
If9Mf)LtiL.U. HAWAII
Honolulu, HI 96813
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813..
Dear Councilman D'Jou:
I watched your comments on the rail system start point being more sensible &om down-
town outward and if they insist on the DUMB elevated system, you are completely rsight..
More from the standpoint of tr*c being heaviest in the downtown and outward area and
daily getting worse on average, though than from having it available for use because until
a certain length of trackage is in place there is no r e d value to puttingtrains on the trac k
and running them.,
But, since you have public exposure, maye I can show you the common sense that the en-
tire system should be underground,,I have between 20 and 25 good, strong, valid reasons
why it MUST be built entirely or almost entirely UNDERGROUND..
I am too busy to take the time at the moment to separate and reorganize the letters with
the facts into a more concise form, but if you will read the reasons that follow and which I
have already been pushing for since 1983, you wiU see that a great deal of both time and
money can be saved and a much better; more safe and secure system achieved..Please note
on the envelope and on my web page the Washington DC underground rail system,.
Before you begin to make excuses why UNDERGROUND won't work for Honolulu, be
aware that I answer EVERY objection to underground and show they are based on misin-
formation..A totally Modern Marvel technology which has already been used and for which
the equipment is available, would begin at the outer ends and work toward the middle BE-
NEATH existing City and State rights of way and could be actively working 50 or so feet
below the busiest fkeeway at the busiest hour without traffic above having any idea what
was below them..
It w l be to your own benefit and the benefit of every resident of Oahu who commutes fre-
il
quently, whether fYom Windward of Leeward, because traffic congestion.costs everyone on
the island time, fuel and wages, to say nothing of time at home with families or just "kick-
ing back.,"
Plain common sense will tell you what. I am pointing out is correct and the only sensible
wa.y to really solve the problem.,

Rev.. & Mrs. Samuel M. Smith and Family
P. 0.. 1015
Box
Kailua, H196734-1015
808-230-8683 or cel351-2753
November 27,2008

URGENT URGENT URGENT
Mayor Mufi Hannemann
Honolulu Hale
530 S. King S t
Honolulu, HI %813
Dear Mayor Hannemann:

This is to certiufy to you that EMINENT DOMAIN SUITS ARE UNNECESSARY,
A MAJOR WASTE OF TIME AND TAXPAYER MONEY.
f SHALL volnnteer to ssist every homeowner and business affected by the proposed EMINENT
DOMAIN to provide right-of-way for your elevated *ailsystem acid to testify in court to STOP plans
fbs such an elevated system..
You know that I have been urging MASS TUNSIT NOW since 1983 and did all I could to help
influence voters to vote FOR the steeI-on-steel rail system.,NOW,1 will work TWICE AS HARD
to get you, Mayor Mufi, and City Council to reconsider the ONLY LOGICAL AND
COMMON SENSE SYSTEM for the 21st Century - 100 % UNDERGROUND steel
on steel RAIL. I will also be b~ingingpressure to bear from the State Legislature and
from Washington. I have already contacted Senator Inouye who, I am sure doubtless
voted for funding for the Washington DC UNDERGROUND metro system, and I am
urging h m to tie Federal funding to UNDERGROUND construction similar to that of' the
i
Chunnel. (Please visit
htto:/lwww.aff~rclabieworlcltravelanciroi~r~s.comihoi~olulucommon~en
si
-.- t . U )

I am told, the State of Hawaii may already have used such equipment as was used in the Chunnel in
building the H-3 tunnels and may still own it.
In past co~~espondence, I have already given you well over 20 SOLID, Valid reasons why
UNDERGROUND will be less expensive and because only &viromental Impact smdieststatements,
which would need little modification from your already existing one, and the signing of tight-of-way
agreements with the State and constr~uction contractors, construction could begin even by the end of this
December; If you insist on present elevated routing, Eminent Domain lawsuits and related court
injunctions can delay even the signing of contracts for at least many months and possibly several years.
This, of course, will cost hitncireds of thousands of dollars in additional costs behveen attorney fees and
increased land value, to say nothing of the cost to commuters who.will have yet a longer* wait for
significant tsaffic congestion relief.

Every a~rgUment
AGAINST UNDERGROUND RAIL can easily be answered by citing the
many instances in which mass transit and even major rail tunnels ase beneath the water table, in more
earthquake prone zones than Oahu, bored through even granite rock (which is MUCH harder than lava!)
as well as through clay and softer rock.
The techno1og.y of'a huge machine like bored the Chunnel makes arguments about the construction

problems of the local sewer system, which uses surface construction methods and i s relatively shallow
totally nonsense..Likewise, reference to the "Big Dig" fiasco in Boston, where surfkce dig and refill
methods were used is not an option..At the VERY BUSIEST TRAFFIC 'HOUR, the Chunnel-type
boring/tunnel building equipment could be boring 40 or 50 feet below the highway or street and nobody
would even know that their stop and go surface t r i i c was immediately above the actively boring
equipment.
I do agree that although your proposed elevated rail system doesn't look too bad as an eyesore, and
would certainly get people from Point A to Point B far faster and cheaper than by their own cars, even
factoring in the taxes to build the s,ystem..I would love to show you my copy of the Histoly Channel's
Modern Marvels: The Chunnel [h~p:~/store.ae'~.v.co1n/ht'1nliproci~~t/i1clexjhtml'?id=42739] DVD so
you can see for yourself how practical the underground system would be.
I will not here take the time to revisit the many reasons for W E R G K O W D AS AGAINST
ELEVATED OR SURFACE, NOR THE WASONS WE URGENTLY NEED MASS TRANSIT NOW..
I am leaving most of those reasons as previously mailed to you below.. I will also be mailing copies of'
this letter to you to all possible news media in an effort to raise public consciousness of how many delays
and how much additional costs the elevated or surface routing would cause and the totaI ptacticality of
building entirely underground, as well as several safety factors in which UNDERGROUND is safer..
For a better. Honolulu for everyone,

Samuel M.. Smith
.June 15,2008 letter is below and includes most of' October 25,2006 letter-
On October 25,2006, I wrote the below letter to you and you responded and even sent me and my family
a Thanksgiving greeting..You also had the Transit Study people send me a great and well-done DVD
about the urgency of the need for Mass Transit ASAP. I therefore invested jn a copy of the History
Channel's Modern Marvels: The Chunnel [http:/!~t~z.aet~~.com/html/~r0d~~t/inde.jtmli=273~j
DVD which X had intended to get into the hands of then T~ansportation Chair Nestor Garcia, but
somehow never seemed to be able to get it to h m
i.
However, I would rather fight AGAINST the above ground rail than see the city make that major
mistake. I HAVE SIGNED THE STOP RAIL NOW petition RUT I WILT4 DO ALL I CAN TO GET a
YES vote to BU1L.D an UNDI%XkGROWD system..
rail
And I call your attention to the MAJOR money being spent by someone to advertise AGAINST AlYY
rail and ask WHO WOULD SPIEPJD T - W f KIND OF MONEY TO STOP RAIL? Now who will
benefit from stopping Rail? &troEeum interests, Automobile dealer's, Parlring lot operators, Garage
Pvlechanics..Now insurance companies will of course seem neutrai in the matter., but because higher
accident rates will justify higher premiums, they might also benefit by stopping rail.
Please look at the advantages I have already listed in my October 25,2006 letter below and factor in one
more thing that I had not thought about before. IF A I00 PERCENT UNDERGROUND SYSTEM
WERE TO BE BUILT THERE Vr8ULDBE MANY THOUSANDS OF CUBIC YARDS OF FILL
TO SAFELY EXTENT THE SHORELINE IN A PLANNED LOCATION AND THAT LAND
COULD THEN BE SOLD AS WATERFRONT PROPERTY TO OFFSET IMUCI-I OF THE COST
OF BUILDING THB RAIL SYSTZM..
And again, in .June 2008, I remind you that the construction tie-ups of an above ground system would
make present traffic tie-ups look like nothing..
I also remind you of land acquisition costs if you do not build beneath existing roadways using
EXISTING equipment that can operate there with NO DISRUFTION of the traffic above.. You will have
costly and divisive elilinnzt c10nzrri;i suits to file for above ground rights of way, court delays and again,
who will benefit? Petroleurtl interests, Arriornobi2e dcnIersyParking lot operators, so of coursre they

are willing to spend BIG MONEY to stop rail and if YOU, Mayor, do not use my arguments linked
to those showing the necessity of Mass Transit that were on the DVD you had the Transit Study
people send me, the MlSMFORMATION people will both get the issue on the Ballot, but will also get
sail voted down..What a tragedy for EVERYONE!
Please, Mayor, I beg of you, reconsider and reevaluate 100 percent U N D E R G R O W steel on steel rail.
LF you persist in the above ground FOOLISHNESS,I will SADLY be adding my voice to the ANTl Rail
voices.. I believe that at the late it is now going, the petition wilI get more than enough signatures to get
the issue on the ballot and with the misinformation already being promoted, it will lose..Who is paying
the "volunteels" to s a d outside Post Offices and other.public places with petitions? 1 believe it is
the Petroleum interests, Automobile dealers, Parktng lot operators, etc..
Sincerely,

Rev..Samuel M. Smith
October letter fbiiows:
On the 8:00 AM news on KHON TV2, a member of'the Kakaako Neighborhood Board correctly and
wisely spoke to the issue of the horrendous tr&c tie-ups on Kapiolani Boulevard as a result of sewer
work and lane closures. I wonder that neither you nor others involved in planning the URGENTLY
NEEDED MassTransit System have glibly overlooked this aspect of building an above ground metro
system. Equipment is already in storkage has been tested and very successfully used to build the
that
ccChunnel''between England and France and the BART in California's San Francisco Bay Area..The
BART in particular has also aIready been tested by earthquake, so the evidence is clear that above &round
metro proponents' argument about water, rock and earthquake hazards to the undergrouund system is a
smokescreen..
I have previously contacted you on this subject and gave 17 good, valid, common-sense reasons for
MASS TRANSIT NOW. If1 repeat a few from this new angle please forgive me., ( would welcome a
I
face-to-face debate on the issue before City Council and the media.)
While I URGENTLY suppo~.t Mass Transit, 1 equally or with even greater emphasis OPPOSE an above
ground system fbr the following reasons in order of importance;
1..MASSIVE Wit tie-ups during consttuction that are unavoidable for this type of construction.
2.. Delays caused by battles over eminent domain rights and causes to acquire the necessary rights-of
way..
3.. Cost of' right of way acquisition..
4..The already protested blockage o portions of Oahu scenery by the additional sqcrures..
f
Benefits of' the UNDERGROUND s,ystem are:
I . Construction machinery is available capable af boring the tunnels, creating a steel-reinfbrced concrete
tunnel tube w t 80 DXSRmION OF SURFACE TRAF'flC or buildings above. Spoil dirt is
ih
hauled out at the ends and concrete, steel and other materials needed by the machine are hauled in from
the ends..
2. AND 3. No long court battles over Eminent Donwin rights because virtually all needed right of way
already exists beneath present highways, streets and roads. Only te~minals stations might require
or.
acquisition of' land.. Costs for. hiring rofessionai tunnel builders and their machinery easily offset by
LACK OF LAND ACQUISITIOPSCOST.
4..No permanent above ground strvctures obstructing tourist (or our) view of our Native Oahu beauty.

. '
.

Please do not overlook the URGENT need folks in the e n k e Leewar.d area have for MASS TRANSIT
NOW!!! But at the same time, please don't overlook the awful gridlock of kraffic that buiding an above
ground system wilt unavoidably create..As I have pointed out before, EVERY taxpayer in Leeward Oahu
has ALREADY paid FAR more in fuel costs, lost time and vehicle repair and vehicle replacement than
the relatively small proposed tax increase that would have aiready had Mass Transit in place if
misguided voters had not rejected the option several years ago..
Finally, our.State and O h leaden are coming close to agreement that we ~eally need MASS
au DO
TRANSIT NOW.. The widening of existing highways and addition of zipper I'ules is almost counter
productive as more land is gobbled and the fuel consumption and Iost time situation is only slightly
affected..What about the High Speed Ferry proposal to zoom people from Barbers Point or wherever else
in that area that such a landing is decided upon. That is still subject to closing if storm conditions arise,
making an even more psobIematic situation for Leeward residents on such days as people planning to use
the feny suddenly discover at the last minute that they will either have to drive, call a cab or catch a bus.
This, I think; is something those pushing fox the ferry boat idea seem to forget..
And if'a Disneyland style monorail is built, consideration must be given to the disruption of' traffic during
the construction phase. This, in addition to the fact that it cannot help but at least partially block scenic
views. And, since the VAST majority of those most urgently needing MASS TRANSIT NOW are
residents needing to get to work on time, they have seen the sights and simply want to leave home as late
as possible to arrjve at work on time and return home or whatever else they must do w t the least Iost
ih
time commuting from their workplace to home, the UNDERGROUND rail system makes the MOST
SENSE. With modern technology, tunnei boring machines such as built the England to France Chunnd
and other simiIar equipment now in storage awaiting a time and place to be used again can easily build
earthquake resistant and waterproof systems with only minimal surface support, minimal M i c
diszuption, no need for additional land, since they can be built beneath existing freeways and other
rights-of-way.
For any who question the practicality of and the advantages to the UNDERGROUND mass transit
systems for the unique conditions and needs of O h and Honolulu, I suggest you secure copies of the
au
titles, Modern Marvels: Tunnels [~//sror-e.aetv.~0m/htn~1i~1oa1~~t/i~idc~.jh11~1I?id=l U or Modern
Marvels: The Chunnel ~ h t r v : l i s t o ~ e , a e t v . c o 1 ~ ~ ! i 1 ~ ~ ~ 1 1 / ~ r 0 d c 1 ~ t l i n ~ x . , l tModern Marvels:
and m l ? i d = ~ ]
The City Beneath Our Feet ~ n ~ t t ~ : i ~ s t o ~ e . a e t v .o c lm l ~ ! i~ d e s , i h ~ 8 8 ] . .These in or.der
or c o u c t ~ n
of their significance to Honolulu Or, I can loan you my copy.
I would welcome a face-to-face debate on the issue before City Council and the media..

Rev. Samuel M.Smith
c0p.y to A11 News Media,

Status : Initial Action ~ e e d e d
First Name : Linda
Last Name : Soll
Address : 606 Hunakai St
Apt.lSuite No. :
City : Honolulu
State : HI
Zip Code : 96816
Email : IsollQ hawaii.rr.com
Telephone :
Submission ContentINotes : Please build the Pearl City to downtown rail first. That segment will
actually be used. If the Kapolei to Pearl City segment is built first, and
we don't have funds to complete the downtown route, we would be left
with a RAIL TO NOWHERE that no one would use.
Thank you,
Linda Soll

-----.----------------
First Name : Christian
Last Name : Sorli
Address : P 0 Box 1083
Apt.lSuite No. :
City : Kailua
State : HI
Zip Code : 96734
Email : christiansorliQgmail.com
Telephone : 808-262-2262
Submission ContenVNotes : 1 feel that the Honolulu Transit is one of the best transit projects for
Oahu. We are only 20 years too late. We need to move forward quickly
to make up for all the lost time. We need to meet with other large cities
(ex: Portland) to discuss their pros and cons during their development
and operations.
We need to focus on moving the masses of people that overflow the H I
and H2. That is our purpose.
Keeping in mind that any mistakes we make today will cost much more
to correct tomorrow. So let's petition input from other cities to make sure
we limit any possible mistakes during planning and development.
Christian Sorli

---------------------
First Name : Marilyn
Last Name : Stassen-McLaughlin
BusinesslOrganization : Retired teacher
Address : 4300 Waialae Ave.
Alternative Preference : Airport
Apt.lSuite No. : 203-8
City : Honolulu
State : HI
Zip Code : 96816
Email : macnnelQ lava.net
Telephone : 808732-7605
Submission ContentJNotes : I support "Rail," but I feel strongly the route should be along Nimitz to the
airport, via Pearl Harbor. It's senseless to go through Salt Lake. The
airport route would be a convenience residents and tourists alike. We
must plan for therail to UH, also.1 see little sense with Salt Lake. Even if
it's more expensive, please select the airport route.

.----------------------
First Name : Dennis
Last Name : Callan
BusinesslOrganization : Stop Rail Now
Address : 1011 Prospect St.
City : Honolulu
State : HI
Zip Code : 96822
Email : callan@ha'waii.rr.com
Submission Date :

Submission ContentINotes : Draft EIS comments regarding Honolulu Rail Transit
Submitted Feb. 6, 2009 by Dennis Callan, co-chair, Stop Rail Now
1011 Prospect St., #702, Honolulu, HI 96822
phone 528-4411 email callan@hawaii.rr.com
Please address each Daraaraph s~ecificallv.and ex~lain whv vou aaree
or disagree.
At the beginning, let me explain that the following document represents
a listing of most of the major objections our organization has raised
about Honolulu's proposed rail system. While our statements may not
specifically refer to particular sections of the EIS, they are all relevant to
the big picture of rail, its supposed advantages, its true problems, and
the alternatives, and are thus relevant to EIS considerations.
Our concerns have now taken on even greater urgency considering the
nation's economic crisis. How has your financial projection changed as
a result of these events which transpired subse uent to your initial
planning? How can we pay for rail, upwards of 1 5 billion of local money,
when the state and county are running deficits and the public has lost
uncounted billions in home equity and personal savings? Are there not
pressing social needs we must fund? Will the state's new highway
improvement plan provide a larger, more effective solution than rail?
Was the state's new highway improvement plan considered in your
studies? If the state's plan were fully implemented how would it affect
your numbers about traffic congestion projections? Is it more important
to build rail or should state workers be forced to work an additional 10
years before retirement as has just been suggested by the Speaker of
the House?
Most grievous of all the many EIS deficiencies listed below is your lack
of proper study of the HOT lane alternative. Why was your AA study so
superficial and biased?
Because the following issues are so major and have not been properly
addressed in your draft EIS, we ask that a supplement EIS be created
that will fully deal with these issues. Merely revising your draft is not
sufficient. We need a major new study.
In the days before the Nov. 4 election the city made claims that the draft
EIS showed that traffic would be reduced by up to 30% by rail, giving the
public the misleading impression there would be a reduction from today's
levels. Is this what vou meant? If not, how could vou be so flaarant in
trying to mislead and misdirect the voters days before the e~ectbn?
Where in the draft EIS is there anv substantiation for those claims?
SECTION 1:
Why rail transit never improves traffic congestion and why relief must
come from highway options, such as HOT lanes
1. Since the advent of the Model-T, followed by the first suburban
shopping center in 1923, and then the incredible expansion of suburbs
after World War II, we have radically changed our means of getting to
work. Not only getting there, but also what we do on the way there - and
on the way back. We take our children to school, go for exercise, or go
8
sho ping and we no longer shop downtown.
2. or do we shop at the small local store, but in supermarkets, and
lately, even more distant big box stores like Costco. Our children are in
larger, more distant, schools whether public or private, and most of us
drive them there.

3. As we move to the suburbs from town, say, Kaimuki to Mililani, we
find that bus service is now every hour instead of every few minutes, and
so we use it less.
4. We have always valued our time but now, because of increasing
incomes, our time is more valuable than it used to be. Accordingly, it
plays a bigger role in the decision about how we commute.
5. These are some of the factors that have altered the way we live, and
why the percentage of commuters using public transportation has
declined every decade since the U.S. Census began measuring it in
1960.
6. It is not that we are in love with our automobiles; it is that we value our
time.
7. This is the principal reason that public transportation's share of
commuters is declining on Oahu, the mainland, Europe and virtually
everywhere else. This share is critical.
8. To hold rush hour traffic congestion on Oahu in 2012 at year 2000
levels we would have to keep the number of those commuters who are
driving to work in 2012 the same as the year 2000. Given the state's
forecast of a 10 percent increase in all commuters for 2000-2012, we
would have the result shown in the lower table. As you can see, it tells
us that, all else being equal; we would have to double the percentage of
commuters using public transportation. How likely is that?
9. Before we go on, let's get our terms straight. We must use
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA's or metro areas) rather than cities.
It is useless to discuss the city of San Francisco without including
Oakland and all the other cities that are contiguous to it. And that is why
the federal government's data is usually about metro areas, for example,
the San Francisco MSA. Similarly, the city of Portland does not run its
public transportation but rather Trimet, the three county contiguous area.
San Diego's transit is run by SANDAG, the San Diego Association of
Governments.
10. Further, we must discuss combined bus and rail transit use because
we cannot, in any sensible way, separate them; the use of one without
the other is not reliable. For example, Vancouver, Canada, and many
other cities offer passes for bus and rail combined and so there is no
accurate data about who is using what. In discussing commuting, the
most relevant statistics are those of the U.S. Census and the U.S.
Department of Transportation and that is what we use here. We also use
the nationally recognized Texas Transportation Institute studies on traffic
congestion.
11. U.S. metro areas essentially stopped building rail lines around 1920
as rail transit ridership peaked and the first serious and reliable bus
service appeared. ~ r o m point on until the 1970% hundreds of U.S.
that
cities removed their streetcar lines and substituted motor buses because
it was so much less expensive.
12. Then starting in the 1970s, U.S. transit agencies projected significant
increases in public transportation commuting by re-instating rail transit. It
did not work out that way.
13. What happened was that of the 15 metropolitan areas with new rail
transit, only one managed to increase the percentage of commuters
using public transportation during the 1980 to 2000 period. That was
San Diego and it only managed an increase from 3.3 percent to 3.4
percent - hardly earth shattering - all others declined.
,

14.Note that outside of the New York metro area, the percentage of
commuters using public transit is very small; nationally those commuting
by automobile are twenty times greater than those using transit.
15.This is why, as we see with the earlier Honolulu example, any
significant population growth results in new drivers totally overwhelming
new transit users. Without major increases in this percentage, new
drivers will always overwhelm new transit users.
1 .Nationally, 13 million more commuters resulted in 13 million more
6
drivers and a slight decrease in transit commuters.
17.The Texas Transportation institute recently divided U.S. metro areas
into four groups according to population size with the following results:
1 .Very Large: 1 1 metro areas with over 3 million population all with rail
8
lines except Houston - it had the least increase in traffic congestion of
the group.
19.Large: 27 metro areas with 1 to 3 million population, half with rail
lines. Aside from those areas with little or no commuter growth, the four
best performers had no rail lines.
20.Medium: 30 metro areas with 1 2 to 1 million population including
1
Honolulu. Only Salt Lake City had rail and they had the third worst
showing of the 30.
21.Small: less than 1 2 million, none with rail lines.
1
22.This meant that all U.S. metro areas with significant increases in
commuters saw a dramatic worsening of traffic congestion - rail transit
had made no difference.
23.Everyone agrees that we have a traffic congestion problem and that
the worst on Oahu is that found on the freeways and highways along the
Leeward Corridor.
24.However, since rail transit has done nothing to relieve traffic
congestion in any other U.S. city, it begs the question, what makes
anyone think it will do it here?
25. Instead, we believe that the new high-tech High Occupancy Toll
lanes (HOT lanes) have shown such promise and such public
acceptance that they may be a far preferable alternative.
26.Our proposal is for a two-lane reversible, elevated HOT lane
highway between the H11H2 merge near Waikele and Pier 1 near Hilo
6
Hatties.
27. Buses and vanpools would have priority and travel free, other
vehicles would pay a toll that would be collected electronically by way of
a pre-paid smart card, as is quite commonplace on the mainland today.
As on the San Diego 1-15 HOT lanes, the toll price would be dynamically
calculated every few minutes to keep the lanes full, but free flowing.
28.One of the more surprising outcomes of implementing HOT lanes is
that they are popular with motorists across all income groups. Even
those who use them rarely favor them because it is an option they can
use in an emergency.
29.A single highway lane with free-flowing non-stop traffic carries up to
2,000vehicles per hour and with two lanes that means removing 4,000
vehicles from the existing freeway, or 25 percent of the rush hour traffic
now using that corridor.
30.Our projection of the HOT lanes traffic of around 4,000vehicles does
not have to be calculated since we know that rush-hour highways are
always fully used; we only have to project the toll price that will keep the
HOT lanes full but free-flowing. Judging from San Diego's 1-15and

Orange County's SR-91 the average cost will be about $4.50 under
normal circumstances and up to $7.75 for special periods such as Friday
evenings.
31. A major advantage of HOT lanes is that traffic travels at
uncongested freeway speeds of 60mph whereas rail transit can only
average 22.5 mph because of stops every half mile. The HOT lane
speed enables buses to make two trips in the time it now takes to make
one. Further, buses on HOT lanes may travel door-to-door whereas rail
nearly always requires transfers. HOT lanes offer both motorists and bus
riders a choice of avoiding traffic congestion. The regular freeway is still
there and available for free with less congestion than before.
32. The last issue is that of cost. The Mayor and DOT have been using
$2.6 billion for a Kapolei to lwilei first segment. We have added 15
percent per mile for the difficulty of in-town construction and going over
H-1 at University Avenue, and that adds $1 billion to the cost. Since the
federal funding has a practical limit of $0.5 billion that will leave $3.1
billion for local funding as shown in the table below.
33. The 112 percent increase in the G.E. Tax does not come close to
funding this system, especially considering annual losses of $59 million
and making sufficient allowance for bond interest. Our calculations show
that in the out years the revenues from the tax will barely cover the
operating losses and bond interest leaving little or nothing for capital
repayment. In addition, there has been no consideration for cost
overruns.
34. When one considers that this rail transit project would entail a local
per capita cost five times greater than any other rail system in the U.S.,
even after allowing for inflation, that alone should give us pause, even if
we are under the mistaken impression that a rail system would have
benefits.
35. On the other hand, the 10-mile long elevated HOT lanes would have
a total cost of $1 billion, or $100 million a mile. Rail proponents have
said that we cannot build it for that price and that it is too wide to use
pedestal construction. The earlier rendering shows the Tampa
Expressway now under construction which uses pedestal construction
and is three lanes wide. Even though it is 30 percent wider than our
proposal, it will open this June 2006 at a cost of $52 million a mile.
Consultants at the 2002 Governor's Conference on ReversibleTollways
had initially calculated the cost at $70 million per mile and later added
$30 million for unforeseen problems and other cost overruns.
36. HOT lanes are eligible for the same federal fixed-guideway funding
as the rail proposal, which means that with $1 billion total cost and $500
million federal funding, it would only need $500 million in local funding,
there being little or no operating costs.
37. Of this $500 million, toll revenues of $20 million annually would pay
off $300 million over 25 years using five percent GO bonds. Another $1 3
million annually would pay off the remaining $200 million balance over
25 years. If we cannot find $13 million annually from city and state
budgets without raising taxes someone is not making an effort.
39. Rail has never improved traffic congestion anywhere,
40. We have a traffic problem - not a transit problem,
41. Tax-free HOT lanes give motorists a choice,
42. Tax-free HOT lanes outperform rail transit easily,
43. We can afford HOT lanes and we cannot afford rail.

Why did you not give proper consideration to the following? Please
address each statement specifically, and explain why you agree or
disagree.
Section 2
Alternative Solutions:
1. Staggering work and school hours
2. Implement 415 day work schedules (one week 4 days, next week 5
days, days off alternate)
3. Implement 4x10 work shifts (four 10 hr shifts 4 days)
4. Change UH class hours to not commence during peak rush hours;
possibly only lecture
5. courses before 10:OOam which are broadcast over the internet so
students can stay at home until after 9:OOam
6. Reversible elevated lanes on Nimitz viaduct. The State
Transportation Department has already made plans this project, which
would be very effective, improving existing traffic needs.
7. Decrease response time to roadway accidentsldebris
removallinvestigations
8. Incentives to businesses for home-based employment (which will
become more ubiquitous with technology)
9. Pay at the pump insurance
10. Require developers on the west side to build commercial and
industrial space equal to every residential space built
11. Develop a FUNCTIONING traffic management system that can
synchronize and control traffic lights to address problem areas. Install
more "smart" traffic lights that can read traffic flowlspeed.
12. Remove all unregistered cars, cars without insurance or safety
stickers from the roads
13. Employees that don't drive cars to work should be credited for not
requiring parking
14. stalls (most employers offer parking stalls for employees but DON'T
pay them $200+
15. month or more, which is the cost of parking in town, if they don't
need them)
16. Create a better urban plan with higher density housing in the urban
core and discourage continued suburban sprawl in suburbs. Change
Land Use Ordinance to allow grandfathering of existing higher-density
homes, to curb urban sprawl.
17. More dedicated HOV lanes.
18. Install traffic lights at freeway entrances
19. Expanded contraflow lanes (e.g. Dillingham)
20. Fix potholes which cause accidents, tire blowouts, and slow cars
down
21. Advanced tow truck deployment system for accidents and stalls
22. Install more bicycle lanes.
23. Free public parking for microcompact cars (e.g. Smart car, et al)
24. Tax credits for developers of commercial and industrial space in
West Oahu
25. Expanded carpooling program utilizing h brid and electric van
26. Build a REAL ferrv svstem (NOT THE AT)
27. Provide incentive; t d encourage use of electiic riding vehicles, such
as electric mopeds and electric-powered bicycles (e.g. "cages" or
lockers for parking)

28. More grade-separated underpasses at critical intersections.
29. More distance learning courses for colleges and high schools
30. Raise parking rates for government workers to market rates
Section 3 BRT Success
Why would these success stories not apply to Honolulu? Please
address each paragraph specifically.
1. While early adopters of bus rapid transit, such as Curitiba (whose
system opened in 1974), Pittsburgh (1977), and Ottawa (1983), have
shown that BRT is an effective transit mode, it is only over the last
decade and a half that interest in BRT has skyrocketed to its current
level as its ability to serve lower-density neighborhoods and its cost
advantages over other modes have become better known. Today, BRT
systems operate in 19 countries on five continents, with many more
systems being constructed or planned. Interest in the mode has also
come from the federal level. Since 1999, when the Federal Transit
Administration launched a BRT demonstration program, BRT systems
have been implemented in Boston; Eugene-Springfield, Ore.; Santa
Clara County, Calif.; and are currently being implemented in Cleveland;
Hartford, Conn.;Houston; New York City; Westchester County; and other
places.
Las Vegas
2. In 2004, the Regional Transportation Commission of South Nevada
introduced MAX (Metropolitan Area Express), a BRT line acting as a
supplement to the heavily-used Route 113 bus line in Las Vegas. This
service incorporated architecturally pleasing stations, highcapacity
European buses with multiple doors, off-vehicle fare payment, dedicated
bus lanes on most of the route, signal priority, and level boarding at bus
stations. After six months, ridership on the corridor had increased by 25
percent (from 7,800 to 9,800 passengers per day), and 25 percent of
MAX riders said they were new to transit.37 MAX cut travel time on the
7.5-mile corridor in half (to 25 minutes) and gained a reputation for
reliability and convenience (as measured by passenger surveys).
Los Angeles
3. Los Angeles is often considered the city of the automobile, but it has
also engineered two successful experiments in bus rapid transit. In
2000, the city unveiled "Metro Rapid" bus service on two demonstration
corridors. Metro Rapid lines incorporated simple routes, frequent
service, signal priority, level boarding, and an aggressive branding and
marketing campaign; this "BRT-lite" (not incorporating dedicated lanes,
high-capacity buses, off-vehicle payment, or multiple-door boarding)
service improved travel time on both corridors by more than 20%,
increased ridership by about 40% (daily ridership on the two corridors
was 77,000 before Metro Rapid service began, and 107,400 after), and
was perceived by riders as "a quantum leap in service performance and
quality."38 About a third of the increase in ridership was from new transit
users. Los Angeles has since created additional Rapid corridors and will
have a total of 28 Rapid lines by 2008.
4. In 2005, Los Angeles opened the Orange Line, a full-fledged BRT
service which featured a dedicated busway, off-vehicle payment, and the
Metro Liner, a 60-foot bus that the LA Metropolitan Transit Authority bills
as "the most advanced transit vehicle ever introduced in North
America... the biggest leap in style and appearance our industry has

seen in 30 years." During preliminary studies, Los Angeles' MTA
projected 22,000 daily boardings on the 14-mile corridor by 2020. The
Orange Line averaged 21,828 daily weekday boardings in May 2006,
nearly meeting this prediction 14 years ahead of schedule.
TOD
5. In addition to providing commuters with an effective alternative to
driving, a cross-corridor transit system like bus rapid transit could afford
municipalities the opportunity to pursue transit-oriented development
(TOD). TOD is a land-use strategy whereby residential, office, and retail
development is concentrated around transit stations. The term also
refers to the developments themselves. TODs are t~picallv mixed-use,
walkable developments with higherthan average deisity. Compact
development oriented around transit stations has been proven to
increase transit ridership and increase real estate values around the
station.41 A com~rehensive assessment of TOD as Dracticed in the
United States identified many other benefits.42 rans sit-oriented
developments tend to command higher rents than comparable
developments not close to transit, yet are also natural locations for
affordable housing as residents of TODs do not need to own as many
automobiles or use them as often as non-TOD residents. TOD is
therefore a strategy that can both revitalize struggling neighborhoods
and attract development. Because transit-oriented developments are
denser and create less car use than non-TODs, a landuse strategy
focusinn on TODs preserves open space and reduces the cost of
infrastructure such'as roads arid sewage lines. Reduced car use means
reduced traffic conaestion and air pollution. Pro~onents TOD do not
of
claim that these beiefits magically appear through the creation of a
transit stop; rather, they accrue from the synergy between transit
access, mixed-use development, and density. Maximizing these benefits
requires careful design; there is no "one-size-fits-all" TOD blueprint.
Project for Public Spaces is one internationally known nonprofit which
focuses on what it calls "olacemakina." for examole. In addition. some
private developers specialize in buildng TODs. '
6. In Door market conditions. develo~ment less likelv to occur. But
is
when' market demand exists, land-use regulations and developer
incentives can focus growth around transit stations. For example, New
Jersey's Transit Village Initiative provides funding and technical
assistance to 19 designated "transit village" municipalities which engage
in TOD around NJ Transit rail and bus stations (see left). Boston's TOD-
supportive policies include a cap on downtown parking, a requirement
that plans for large developments include transportation mitigation, and
increased police presence around transit stations considered unsafe.44
In many municipalities, zoning regulations must be tweaked to allow for
mixed-use developments.
7. It has been argued that developers shy away from bus transitoriented
development because of buses' lack of permanence-unlike a rail line, a
bus route can be easily changed, hurting busi nesses built to take
advantage of proximity to transit. This criticism is not particularly relevant
to high-end, capital-intensive bus rapid transit systems. BRT may be
cheaper to implement than rail, but it still represents a sizeable
investment, particularly when dedicated busways are involved. A review
of the academic and government literature on bus rapid transit and
transit-oriented development concluded that "the argument that fixed rail

infrastructure has more magnitude and permanence compared to
busways is weak."
8. In Ottawa, transit-oriented development centered around BRT has
been wildly successful. Strong land-use controls have concentrated
commercial development around Ottawa's Transitway.46 Between 1988
and 1991 alone a billion Canadian dollars of development was built or in
the process of being built along the Transitway. Stations anchor office
parks, shopping malls, and mixed-use developments; one station is even
directly connected to a hospital. More evidence for bus transit-oriented
development comes from Pittsburgh's busway system. A 1996 analysis
of Pittsburgh's 9.1-mile East Busway found that between 1983 (when the
busway opened) and 1996, 59 new developments (including retail,
office, residential, and medical complexes) valued at $302 million had
been built within a 6-minute walk of busway stations.47 This was despite
terrain constraints which limited development opportunities, despite
declining population in the communities adjacent to the busway, and
despite the absence of Ottawa-style land-use planning.
9. The Port Authority of Allegheny County estimates that another $203
million in development occurred between 1996 and 2004.48 These are
not the only successes. Areas as far-flung and different as Seoul, Korea;
Curitiba, Brazil; and Boulder, Colorado have had success with bus-
centered TOD.50 It can happen here as well. At a recent land use
charette, the Regional Plan Association identified several spots in the
Rockland half of the Tappan Zee corridor that could support transit-
oriented development, including Nanuet, Airmont and Montebello, and
Suffern. The Westchester Department of Planning has identified
Tarrytown, White Plains, and Port Chester as areas primed for
downtown density increases. 51 The success of transit-oriented
developments depends on multiple factors, including political leadership,
government incentives, landuse regulations, the strength of the real
estate market, and the level of traffic congestion in the area (which
affects demand for transit-orientedliving).
10. But it cannot be overemphasized that one of the most critical factors
is the effectiveness of the transit system. Only when a transit system
effectively connects places does access to transit-the heart of the TOD
concept-become a valued commodity. And so the questlon of which
transit mode can best support TOD is inextricably linked to the question
of which transit mode is best suited to the development and commuting
.
patterns of a given area.
Section 4 HOT Lanes
Why would these success stories not apply to Honolulu? Please
address each paragraph specificall
1. Mark Murielio discussed the ~xcyisive Bus Lane (XBL) in New Y o h
City. He described the tunnels and bridges operated by the Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey, the operation of the Lincoln
Tunnel, and the XBL. He also highlighted recent studies examining
options for enhancing operation of the tunnel and increasing capacity.
2. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey operates a number of
bridges, tunnels, and terminals in the New York City area. These
facilities include the George Washington Bridge, the Bayonne Bridge,
the Goethals Bridge, the Holland Tunnel, and the Lincoln Tunnel.
3. The Lincoln tunnel serves the midtown corridor into and out of
Manhattan. The tunnel includes three tubes, each with two traffic lanes.

In the morning, two tubes, or four traffic lanes operate in-bound toward
Manhattan. In the midday, the middle tube operates with one lane in
each direction of travel, providing a total of three lanes inbound and ,
three lanes outbound. In the afternoon, two tubes or four traffic lanes,
operate outbound from Manhattan.
4. The XBL provides priority for buses approaching the Lincoln Tunnel in
the morning, inbound direction. The XBL is a contraflow lane for buses
only on 1-495. The XBL uses the inside lane of the westbound freeway
for buses. The cbnfiguration provides for three general-purpose lanes
and the XBL lane in the eastbound direction and two general-purpose
lanes in the westbound direction.
5. The XBL is the busiest bus lane in the U.S. Some 1,700 buses use
the lanes on a daily basis. These buses serve 62,000 weekday
commuters. The XBL serves more commuters to Midtown than PATH,
Ferries, or Penn Station commuter rail. The XBL saves commuters 15-
20 minutes each day compared to traveling in personal vehicles.
6. The Lincoln Tunnel and the XBL are significant parts of the mass
transit system in the New York City area. Buses carry nearly 80 percent
of ali trips through the Lincoln Tunnel during the 6:00 a.m.-to-10:OO a.m.
time period. The XBL alone carries over 50 percent of these commuters.
Approximately 55 percent of all bus commuters to the Manhattan CBD
arrlve via the Lincoln Tunnel.
7. The number of buses using the XBL has increased significantly over
the past 25 years. A number of operational improvements have been
made to deal with these increases and to enhance bus operations. A
new acceleration lane was added to help maintain travel speeds and
traffic flow at merge points. The acceleration lane helped increase
throughput of the XBL.
8. Capacity shortfalls have also been addressed with operational
changes to enhance efficiency. Examples of these operation changes
include prohibiting charter buses prior to 9:00 a.m. and prohibiting empty
buses at all times. Other examples include the requirement that all XBL
buses have E-Z Pass electronic toll payment tags and opening the XBL
15 minutes earlier.
9. Planning is also underway examining the long-term transportation
needs in the corridor. A range of options for the corridor are being
assessed in partnership with an array of partners. These partners
include federal, state, regional, and local agencies. Planning activities
include a simulation of the Lincoln Tunnel corridor, and XBL expansion
feasibility study, and a West Midtown bus parking and staging study.
Other efforts include the Lincoln Tunnel HOTlexpress bus lane options
study and the Lincoln Tunnel HOTIcommercialvehicle priority lane
options study.
10. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is sponsoring a study to
evaluate the feasibility of creating a second priority bus lane. The
objective of the study is to increase the passenger throughput of the
corridor and to enhance the reliability of the XBL. A full array of options
are being explored. These options include operational alternatives to
improve traffic flow and safety, physical alternatives for lane separation
and ramp connections, and capital options to expand capacity. Capital
options include the potential of widening the roadway, removing the
center piers in the tunnel, and an elevated roadway scheme. Very
limited right-of-way and the geometry of the existing facility provides

significant challenges for many of the options.
11. The FHWA's Value Pricing Pilot Program is sponsoring a study of
pricing options to manage demand on the XBL with HOT lanes. A
second XBL lane would be underutilized initially, so the study is
examining the potential to fill some of the available capacity with non-
bus HOVs or with non-HOV vehicles. The study is exploring pricing
options that balance traffic demand with non-HOVs. Stated preference
surveys of motorist are being conducted to help determine the tradeoffs
between price and LOS variables, including travel time savings and trip-
time reliability.
12. The Lincoln Tunnel HOT lane study will help quantify and address
concerns with potential lane conversion. The study will examine the LOS
and delay in the remaining two regular travel lanes. It will also assess
traffic queuing in the remaining regular travel lanes and the residual
impacts on the local street network. The study will consider the need to
balance demand for a new managed lane to ensure bus priority
treatment and effective capacity utilization.
13. The HOT commercial vehicle priority options study will explore the
potential for commercial vehicles to receive priority treatment in a new
special-use lane during the shoulders of the'morning peak-period. The
obiective of this studv is to find wavs to take advantage of the presence
of a separated lane fo create travei time advantagesand reliability
im~rovements small package and local deliverv trucks.
for
~h'e Evolution of Houst6n1sExEress Bus System -
14. Jeff Arndt discussed the evolution of the exmess bus services in
Houston associated with the development of the HOV lanes. He
described the initial bus services operated with the 1-45 contraflow HOV
lane demonstration project, the implementation of more extensive
services as the HOV lane system developed, and the integrated bus
system in operation today.
15. The 1-45 North contraflow lane demonstration project was
implemented in 1979. The bus service initiated with the contraflow lane
focused on downtown Houston. Bus service was constrained by very
limited access. There was no direct access to and from park-and-ride
lots, which limited service flexibility. The concept of premium service,
which included over-the-road coaches and other enhancements, was
initiated with the contraflow lane. This initial authorized vehicle lane
(AVL) concept with a focus on downtown Houston evolved into an HOV
systems approach.
16. Bus services were expanded as other HOV lanes were implemented.
The design of the HOV lanes included direct connector ramps from
major park-and-ride lots and transit centers. Service was expanded to
non-downtown destinations, such as Uptown and Greenway Plaza.
Direct service to these areas was provided from some park-and-ride lots,
while connecting service from downtown or other transit centers was
used in other cases.
17. The continued development of the HOV lane system provided more
flexibility in service. Direct non-CBD services continued to be expanded.
Commuter route connections at transit centers were also implemented.
In addition, a few two-way ramps were developed. Limited off-peak
service was provided on some routes.
18. The Houston experience highlights some lessons to be shared with
other areas. First, the 2+ occupancy level caused some of the HOV

lanes to become congested, degrading the travel time savings and trip-
time reliability for buses and bus riders. Second, the system changed
from trained and tested users to any traveler meeting the occupancy
requirement. Over time there has been some erosion of transit
incentives and vanpooling has diminished. Recently, there has been a
focus on new users. The QuickRide program, which allows two-person
carpools to use the 1-10 West and the US 290 HOV lanes during the 3+
period for a fee, has been in operation for approximately five years.
19. The current transit system in Houston represents a maturing service
network. Transit centers provide connections for shuttle services,
neighborhood circulation services, and commuter routes using the HOV
lanes. There is also a connection to MetroRail, the new LRT line.
20. Currently, some 104 miles of HOV lanes are in operation in six
freeway corridors in Houston. The system also includes 25 park-and-ride
lots and 17 transit centers. In December 2004, some 37,400 daily
vehicle trips were made on the HOV lanes accounting for approximately
116,000 person trips. A total of 32,415 parking spaces were available at
the park-and-ride lots, with approximately 17,126 parked vehicles on a
daily basis.
Bus Rapid Transit Studies in the State of Maryland
21. Robert Boot discussed BRT studies and projects in Maryland. He
described the main characteristicsof BRT, summarized current BRT
studies and projects in Maryland, and identified potential issues with
implementing BRT.
22. There are a number of factors influencing the consideration of BRT
in communities throughout the world. BRT has lower upfront costs than
other fixed guideway modes and can be implemented relatively quickly.
BRT provides the opportunity to take advantage of underutilized rights-
of-way. BRT provides operating flexibility and a way to increase transit
ridership in select corridors. Local busways can also use portions of the
dedicated BRT transitway.
23. BRT is being considered in Maryland to help respond to increases in
travel demand, limited resources, and transportation needs. The new
governor and his administration examined future transportation needs
and options. The study, Bus Rapid Transit: Flexibility by Design, Offering
Mobility Options for Maryland, completed by the Maryland Department of
Transportation (MDOT) notes that BRT combines the service and quality
of rail with the flexibility of buses.
24. The 2004 Maryland Transportation Plan focuses on the goals of
efficiency, mobility, safety and security, productivity and quality. The plan
includes numerous strategies for addressing mobility needs.
Consideration is given to BRT as a viable alternative to provide realistic
solutions to customer needs in corridors throughout the state. It includes
active consideration of BRT on managed highway lanes to lower vehicle-
related emissions and to improve regional air quality while providing
viable new transportation alternatives to Maryland's commuters.
25. BRT projects in Maryland include the Red Line in Baltimore, the
Green Line in Baltimore, the I-270lUS 15 Corridor, and the Bi-County
Transitway. Planning for the Red Line in Baltimore started in 2000. The
project originated from the first comprehensive planning effort in nearly
40 years. In March 2003, the Baltimore Region Transit Plan was
completed and adopted. The plan serves as a guide for the expansion of
the Baltimore transit system.

26. A number of issues had to be addressed with the Red Line project.
There was community sensitivity related to possible impacts on property
values and environmental concerns. Available right-of-way was limited in
many parts of the corridor. There were also concerns about operating
BRT in downtown Baltimore without taking an existing traffic lane.
27. The Green Line in Baltimore also originated from the 2003 Baltimore
Region Transit Plan. Potential issues with the Green Line included the
preservation of green space along the roadway, as an existing grass
median is the proposed location for the BRT. Determining potential
station locations and existing density and ridership are other potential
issues.
28. The Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT) is proposed in the I-270lUS 15
corridor. The corridor stretches from the Shady Grove Metro Station in
the south to Briggs Ford Road in the north. The corridor includes both
Montgomery and Frederick Counties. The CCT alignment was identified
in county master plans in the 1970s. In 1994, a Major Investment Study
(MIS) was initiated. Public meetings and workshops were held in 1995
through 1997 as part of this process. The MIS recommended
alternatives for a detailed planning study. Informational public workshops
were held in 2001 and focus arouD meetinas were conducted in 2001
and 2002. The Draft ~nviron6ental m ~ a c r ~ t a t e m(DEIS) was
~ ent
comoleted in 2002 and locationldesian ~ u b l i c
hearinas were held. Public
infohation meetings on express tolllafies (ETLs) were held in 2004 and
minimization options refinements were completed.
29. The 8i-County Transitway project was first identified in the
Montgomery County Feasibility Studies in the 1980s related to the
County's purchase of the Georgetown Branch railroad right-of-way. A
transitwayltrail was included in the County Master Plans. In 1996 the
MTA completed the Georgetown Branch Transitwayflrail MIS/DEIS and
the 2002 Capital BeltwayIPurple Line Study was conducted. Possible
issues with the Bi-County Transitway include potential community and
environmental impacts. The jurisdiction in the area has different
preferences. Connections with existing Metrorail service may also be a
concern.
30. There are some general issues that may need to be addressed with
all the BRT projects. The first issue is the public perception of buses,
which still seems to be lower than other transit modes. A second
potential issue is balancing a quality system with possible impacts,
including community impacts related to limited right-of-way. Third, there
may be a perception that BRT is not conducive to transit oriented
development. There may also be short-term and long-term
implementation concerns.
Virtual Exclusive Busways (VEBs)
31. Robert Poole described the virtual exclusive busway concept. He
reviewed the early development of HOV lanes, which included a major
focus on buses. He discussed how managed lanes and pricing can
provide a virtual exclusive busway. He recognized the assistance of Ted
Balaker of the Reason Foundation with the study and the presentation.
32. Value pricing makes it feasible to realize the promise of exclusive
busways by providing high-speed, high-frequency bus service that is
sustainable on a long-term basis. In the real world of limited funding,
however, there is a need to re-think how special-purpose lanes are
used.

33. Some HOV lanes began as busways. FHWNUMTA policy in the
1970s supported busways. There are only a few exclusive busways
today, however. These facilities include the Lincoln Tunnel XBL, the
Pittsburgh busways, the Miami busway, the Seattle bus tunnel, and
surface-street busways in Las Vegas and Orlando.
34. Concerns about low use with bus-only lanes led to allowing HOVs.
The Shirley Highway busway demonstration project started as buses,
vanpools, and 4+ HOVs in 1973. The occupancy requirement was
lowered to 3+ in 1989. The Los Angeles El Monte Busway on the San
Bernardino Freeway in Los Angeles was opened to 3+ carpools in 1976.
The 1-10 West HOV lane in Houston began with a carpool definition of
4c. This requirement was lowered to 3-1-and then to 2+. Nationwide, the
percentage of commuters who carpool has declined since 1980. The
lane miles of HOV facilities have increased during this same time period.
35. A significant percentage of carpools are formed with family
members. This trend was identified in Commuting in America 11. Recent
surveys in San Francisco, southern California, southeast Wisconsin, and
Minneapolis-St. Paul, indicate that family-based carpools account for
between 33 percent and 67 percent of total carpools.
36. It appears that vanpooling has been hurt by carpool preference. The
time-savings realized by HOVs is reduced when the lanes are filled with
2+ carpools. Also a larger time savings is needed to offset the time cost
of assembling a vanpool. Vanpooling is a highly cost-effective mode.
The cost recovery ratio of vanpools sponsored by public transportation
agencies throughout the country range from a low of 30 percent to a
high of 117 percent. The overall average of nine vanpool programs was
80 percent. Vanpools are also energy-efficient. Vanpools have the
lowest British Thermal Unit (BTU) per passenger mile of transit modes
and personal automobiles.
37. BRT in HOV lanes is not sustainable. At the 2+ vehicle-occupancy
level HOV lanes become congested and travel time savings and trip time
reliability to transit is lost. There may not be enough demand at a 3+
vehicle-occupancy level and an HOV lane may suffer from the empty-
lane syndrome. There is no way to fine tune occupancy as you cannot
have a 2.7 vehicle-occupancy requirement.
38. Value pricing offers precise control. The 1-15 HOT lane uses quasi-
real-time variable pricing. The 91 Express Lanes use a fine-tuned rate
schedule, with periodic adjustments. The Express Lanes carry 49
percent of peak traffic with 33 percent of the lane capacity. Both facilities
offer reliable high speeds during rush hours.
39. The virtual exclusive busway (VEB) concept would use value-priced
lanes or networks. Pre-defined capacity would be reserved for buses
and super-HOVs. The remaining capacity would be sold through value
oricina.
40.~n example of VEB capacity highlights how the concept would work.
First. the caoacitv of a lane is aooroximatelv 1.700 vehicles oer lane oer
hour. ~econ'd, space would be ailocated for 60 buses per hour, which is
the equivalent of 120 personal vehicles an hour. The remaining available
capacity in the lane is 1,580 vehicles an hour. A percentage of this
capacity would be allocated to vanpools and super-HOVs. The
remaining capacity would be allocated to paying customers.
41. The managed lanes project on 1-10 West in Houston provides a VEB
prototype. The project represents a partnership among Houston

METRO, TxDOT, and HCTRA. The four new managed lanes in the
center of the expanded freeway will use value pricing. HCTRA is helping
the fund the lanes and will operate them. METRO is guaranteed 65
buses and hour and 25 percent of capacity for buses and HOVs. A LOS
C will be maintained using pricing and occupancy controls.
42. The 1-10 West managed lanes highlight the benefits to transit of this
approach. Although METRO will not receive any toll revenues, it will be
able to operate 65 buses an hour, which is above current service levels.
FTA approval was granted based on maintaining a LOS C. A 3+
occupancy requirement will be used for carpools to travel for free. All of
these elements are covered in a MOU. A VEB can facilitate region-wide
express busIBRT service. A regional network would require construction
of new lanes and flyovers. These major capital costs would be paid out
of toll revenues.
43. A VEB network provides a cost-effective approach. The cost of a
500-lane-mile VEB network has been estimated at $2 billion-to-$3 billion
in the Reason Foundation studies. In comparison, FTA data indicates
the cost of a 250 route-mile light rail s stem is $31 billion and the cost of
a 250 route-mile heavy rail system is $38 billion. In addition, the VEB
guideway would not depend on FTA funding.
44. Managed lanes are being considered in a number of metropolitan
areas through the country. Some changes in policies are needed for
VEB networks. First, there must be clear FTA policy approving HOV to
HOT conversions. Second, managed lanes need to be defined as
"guideways" in Section 5302 of Title 49. Third, VEB or VEB networks
need to be considered an alternative in new starts evaluations. Finally,
VEBs should be made eligible for New Starts funding for buses, stations,
and park-and-ride facilities.
45. Exclusive busways are key to competitive express busIBRT.
Exclusive busways are too costly and are wasteful of capacity. VEB is
feasible with value pricing and with agency cooperation. VEB can
provide a win-win situation for transit agencies, motorists, and state
departments of transportation.
Section 5 Why buses are better
Please address each paragraph specifically, and explain why you agree
or disagree.
1. There's a missing factor in the formula pushing a 5-billion dollar rail
system into our suburbs, and this traffic solution is doomed to fail without
it. The simple truth is that a rail transit system requires a dense
residential pattern to make it work, which we do not have on Oahu. This
crucial relationship between transportation and land use has not yet
been properly addressed.
2. The often-cited description of Honolulu conjured up by rail proponents
as a dense, linear city ideal for rail is a myth. Our biggest transit
problem is that Oahu's settlement pattern of single-family homes in
suburban subdivisions is too dispersed for rail to be effective. If we build
the rail line and don't change the way we build new housing this system
will be a colossal disaster. How many people right now live within
walking distance of any likely stations? Not nearly enough to support rail
rapid transit.
3. When you look around the world at successful rail transit systems you
see they are in cities with medium and high density housing where
people can walk to the station and then walk to their work place at the

other end. A global trend in city planning is creation of the urban village,
both in the city center and in the fringes with construction of new towns.
Such increased housing density could enhance quality of life by
developing a village atmosphere and supporting our need for close-knit
communities where people interact, unlike today's isolated
neighborhoods. Shops, restaurants, entertainment, jobs, schools, mass
transit, and other enjoyable urban amenities would be easily accessed in
a more dense community if it is properly planned.
4. There is a causal relationship between our problems of unaffordable
housing and congested traffic, because we have spent years building
the wrong kind of homes in the wrong places, covering our landscape
with big, expensive houses, generating suburban sprawl that has
produced tremendous traffic problems. These unattended problems will
only grow worse if we are distracted with an ineffective, fixed rail
pipedream. Jumping into a rail commitment at this point is just not going
to work.
5. Consider how someone living in a single-family suburban home would
have to get to work on rail: walk to a bus stop, wait for the bus, ride to
the rail, walk to the platform, wait, board, ride, walk from the rail to
another bus stop, wait, board, ride, walk to work; then do the same thing
in reverse going home. Who is going to put up with this? Most who are
supporting rail probably would not ride it -- but hope in vain that others
will, to make more room on the roads for the rest of us.
6. There are better transportation alternatives which could provide faster
relief and perhaps eventuallv evolve into a rail svstem. One obvious
strategy is to vastly expand our bus system. We need more buses,
exclusive lanes, frequent service, additional routes, express lines, better
connections and lower fares. Our present bus system'is often claimed
to be one of the nation's best, which is another myth that stands in the
way of true solutions. It can be drastically improved.
7. Extensive road construction will be needed, including some elevated
busways, bus stations,
8. underpasses at busy intersections, more use of contrafiow and other
management improvements. In the future, if bus utilization grows heavy
enough, this system of elevated structures and exclusive bus lanes
could be converted to rail, which would ultimately have more capacity;
but it would be a mistake to attempt a transition directly to rail at this
point when we are not yet ready.
9. Why not just build the rail now along with the higher density housing
to go with it? That would be nice if we could trust the brilliance of our
politicians and private land developers to do the right thing, but with their
sorry record of land use planning we must not be gullible. This new kind
of housing approach needs to be demonstrated with real results and in
the meantime it can be supported with an expanded bus system which
can evolve into rail transit.
10. Unfortunately, our misguided state legislature passed a flawed bill
last session that prohibits expenditures of new transit revenues on road
improvements. How can the city now tell us with a straight face that all
transportation alternatives are currently being given fair consideration?
This state legislation could be changed, but given past performance, the
outlook is bleak.
11. Our former mayor was probably on the right track with his BRT plans
using modern buses driving on exclusive lanes and circulating in existing

streets. A well-planned bus service could pick you up near home, bring
you to a bus station where one transfer would put you on a bus that is
going close to the final destination, riding on exclusive lanes that will be
free from traffic. Commuters could also drive to transit stations at
regional shopping malls, park for the day and catch an express bus
direct to their destination. The whole island can benefit from this
approach rather than one narrow leeward corridor. Another promising
technology is creation of high-occupancy toll lanes, but the city studies
are also ignoring this option.
12. At the same time we can be preparing ourselves for a.future rail
system by building new housing in well-planned, medium and high-
density apartments -- which can be affordable and very beautiful when
done right. Clustered villages can be created with a mix of townhouses
and highrise apartments that could support neighborhood shopping,
entertainment and other urban amenities. These clusters could be
developed in the urban core as well as carefully-selected regions of the
island. It can happen, but it will require a serious community dialogue
and basic transformation in the way we build housing, requiring a
prohibitionon most new single-family houses and adive government
involvement in consolidatinq small private parcels for larger planned
'
communities through aggressive use of eminent domain:
13. Let's not be railroaded into paying for a premature, expensive rail
system that will take forever to build at great inconvenience and won't
work. At this time and for the foreseeable future rail is a luxury that we
are not ready for and cannot afford. Imagine ten years of disruptive
construction for a massive elevated train that hardlv anvone in our
lifetimes is going to use, leaving the rest of us stuck in gridlock and our
children permanently unable to find affordable housing. We can do
better.
Section 6 Rail Will Fail: HOT Lanes are Better.
or disagree.
1. ENVIRONMENT: An elevated train running through the heart of our
city would be an environmental blight on Honolulu. Elevated tracks
would be ugly, running through downtown and eventually Waikiki,
defacing our beautiful city and damaging our tourist industry. The
elevated guide-way will destroy views for tourists and residents, along
the way. Managed Lanes would also be elevated through part of the
Leeward corridor to avoid the bottlenecks, but would come down to
ground level in lwilei before reaching downtown, and would not cross the
heart of town as an elevated monster.
2. The city's own projection is for traffic to be far worse, with rail, than it
is today, so since rail will not solve the problem, why should we pay for
it, and what should we do instead? Yes, rail transit would have a
dedicated right-of-way above the congested traffic, but so would the
express bus system on a fixed guideway, or "HOT Lanes," (High-
occupancy and toll lanes) which can operate far more efficiently at lower
cost than rail, with a mix of express buses, carpools and toll-paying cars,
providing faster service from many originsdirectly,to many destinations.
Reversible HOT Lanes would be far superior to ra11 Oahu for all the
for
following reasons.
3. EXPRESS: Buses can utilize a guideway better than rail because
buses can pick people up in our dispersed communities and drive

directly onto the guideway, quickly reaching the destination non-stop and
without transfer. Buses do not need stations on the guideway, for they
would use regional bus stations that people could easily get to. Train
stations will not have such versatile access and will not be close to our
dis ersed, existing residences.
4. !PEED: Trains stops at every station along the line, like riding an
elevator up a 30-story building and stopping at every floor. The city's
official speed estimate for Honolulu rail service is an average of 23 mph,
which is far less than the 60 mph an express bus can expect on an
exclusive elevated lane. Because of higher speed and fewer transfers,
bus will attract more riders than rail and more effectively reduce traffic
congestion. With this higher bus ridership, the cost per rider of bus
. -
would be lower than rail. which will undoubtedlv fail to attract anv larae
number of users.
5. TRANSFERS: Rail riders would have to transfer manv times on the
daily round-trip, as in this likely journey: a) travel from Kome to a bus
stop, wait for the bus, b) ride the bus, c) walk from the bus to rail, wait
for the train, d) ride the rail, e) walk from rail to bus, wait for the bus, f).
ride the bus, g) walk to reach destination. Then returning, everyth~ng is
in reverse: h) walk to bus stop, wait for bus, I) ride bus to rail, j) walk
from bus to train, wait for train, k) ride train, I) walk from rail to bus, then
wait for the bus, m) ride bus, n) travel from bus stop to home. (14 travel
segments, including 4 transfers) Studies have shown that people hate
to transfer.
6. CONGESTION: Rail service will do nothing to reduce traffic
congestion: the city study shows that current over-capacity on H-1 peak
hours is 6%, and by 2030 over capacity will be at 31% with the rail in
place. Buses and vanpools on free-flowing HOT lanes could reduce
traffic by 20-25 percent. The city's own studies show rail would only
remove 2% of trips from the roads.
7. UTILIZATION: Extra space on the fixed guideway can be used by
other vehicles, particularly vanpools and car-pools. If there is available
space, some additional vehicles can pay tolls (collected electronically,
without cars having to stop) and the tolls can pay for much or all of the
transit system. The amount of traffic would be regulated to allow
maximum capacity without congestion, enabling full utilization of the
guideway space unlike rail, whose expensive tracks would be empty
most of the time. We will get the most bang for our buck.
8. CAPACITY: Surprisingly, an exclusive bus lane can easily carry more
passengers than a rail line. Five-hundred buses an hour, carrying 25,000
seated passengers, enter the New York City main bus station daily on
one dedicated bus lane. The maximum capacity estimated for Honolulu's
proposed rail is 10,000 people per hour. A good bus lane has a
maximum capacity of 1,000 buses an hour, carrying 50,000 seated
passengers! High-capacity busways on dedicated lanes operate in
Newark, Los Angeles, San Diego, Washington, D.C., Curitiba, Bogota,
Brisbane, Ottawa, Port-of-Spain and elsewhere, as this technology gains
increasing traction.
9. UNIONS: Unionized rail workers can hold the city hostage as shown
by recent metro strikes in Paris, London and New York. Bus unions
don't have as much leverage because people can ride private buses,
use carpools, pay tolls and still drive the HOT lanes. Rail service is
provided by a monopoly, while a busway could carry buses of different

companies providing competitive service. Rail construction is by non-bid
single-source contract, vulnerable to political manipulation, unlike road-
building which is open to many bidders.
10. BREAKDOWNS: Busways can be built more quickly than rail and
can readily be repaired in an emergency. Rail structures cannot rapidly
be replaced or repaired if damaged. Buses and other vehicles can drive
around a disabled bus. All trains come to a halt if there is a disabled train
on the track. Busways-HOT can accommodate emergency vehicles and
provide an evacuationlalternate route in the event of another September
5th "Black Tuesday" freeway closure.
11. COST: The price of constructing the rail system is astronomical,
probably reaching $6 billion b the time all the cost over-runs are paid
for, compared with less than & billion for elevated HOT Lanes, despite
the city's absurd claim of nearly $3 billion for "managed lanes." A similar
system in Tampa was built for $300 million. Rail would end up costing
each family of four about $24,000, even though only a few percent of the
population would ever use it. We estimate construction cost per rider at
$120,000 with daily operational subsidy of $15. The Federal
Government Accountability Office has compared operating costs, and
the majority of cities have lower operating costs for their Bus Rapid
Transit systems than for their light rail systems. HOT Lanes also save
money by making better of our existing streets as feeder lanes for high-
capacity buses, plus we benefit from free labor and equipment supplied
by drivers of HOV vehicles and toll-paying autos. Buses can be more
easily replaced as technology improves. There are hybrid and natural
gas buses whereas rail hogs electricity, involves large energy
transmission loses and will require construction of a new electrical power
plant.
12. QUALITY: Some people assume buses provide inferior service, but
buses of any quality can readily be bought: Luxury buses can be offered
for those who prefer to pay more, less-expensive ones for those who
prefer to save money. The main quality consideration for commuters is
the time it takes to make the journey -- buses are quicker and easier
than rail, plus you are more likely to get a seat rather than stand.
13. TOLLS: Critics claim that toll roads set up a system geared to those
who can afford the tolls, and ignore those who cannot. Federal surveys
show that in the places with HOT lanes the public approves of them
across all income groups. Those with lower incomes approve of them
because a) it reduces traffic congestion on nearby freeways at no cost to
those not using HOT lanes, and b) it provides reliability to make those
important appointments, which we all have regardless of income. If you
are running late, paying $4 to jump on the HOT lanes and get there on
time can easily be worth it. Without HOT Lanes, travelers will pay a toll
anyway for a ticket if they ride a rail, or in wasted time if they drive stuck
in congested freeway lanes. Affordable express bus service will be
enhanced.
14. CARS: Some charge that HOT lanes encourage rather than
discourage car use, but HOT lanes are not freeways and their toll
charges do not encourage auto travel. Adding a lane will not increase
the number of cars on the road, for that is controlled by the number of
jobs at destinations --just like adding a maternity hospital does not
increase the number of babies, it just makes it easier for them to arrive.
HOT Lanes are primarily mass transit for express buses and carpools,

which will lure drivers away from single-occupant cars.
15. DENSITY: Rail transit relies on high-density residential patterns to
support it, with most riders living in high-rise apartments along the route,
while the HOT lane can be easily reached by people living in more
dispersed communities like we have on Oahu. Rail planners envision
social engineering on a grand .scale to force new housing into dense
"TOD" patterns near stations (Transit Oriented Development). Such rail
stations are maanets for crime. We do not have this densitv alona the
proposed route,-nor do we have the population size. The smalles'i
American citv with heavv rail. Cleveland. has twice our ~o~ulation.
Increased re'sidential dehsities can make sense for the enbironment, but
they can be better supported by a well-planned bus system that will
allow more flexible distribution of settlements. In this way communities
can grow in a natural way with different densities in various locations,
increasing the opportunities for affordable housing and mixed-use '

neighborhoods with shops and jobs nearby, rather than congested
housing along one narrow rail line. Rail lines are fixed and cannot
respond to changes in employment and land use, whereas bus service
can be rerouted and shifted over time to corresoond with Oahu's
changing transportation needs.
16. BIASED STUDIES: The citv's Alternatives Analvsis failed to orovide
any examination of the HOT ~ a h e alternative, only {aguely consibering
'managed lanes" with a superficial and biased approach: The projected
costs were grossly exaggerated, provided no access ramps along the
route, included 6,200 unnecessary arking stalls, offered dubious
ridership forecasts, had excessive 56 toll, removed the existing HOV
1
zipper lane, resulting in a net of only one new lane, and then added the
burden of stations on the buswav - but no stations are reauired.
17. POLITICS: Unfortunately the city administration is completely close-
minded about this critical issue and is determined to ~ u s rail at all
h
costs. The city administration's biased EIS process is giving no
consideration to the HOT Lane option. The city has pretended to listen
to the public with superficial community meetings, biased transit
symposiums and rigged advisory panels, but all these phony efforts
have been a farce that were selling rail and manipulating public opinion
rather than honestly listening to alternative viewpoints.
Section 7 transit debate
or disagree.
1. There is no room on the ground to relieve the Leeward situation -- if
you don't accept elevated you are out of the discussion. Buses can
utilize this guideway better than rail because: buses can pick people up
in our dispersed communities and drive directly onto the guideway
without transfer. An expanded bus system would utilize regional bus
stations, mostly in existing shoppinglparking areas, that people could get
to by a) driving, b) walking, c) shuttle bus, d) bicycle or moped. Train
stations will not have such versatile access modes, nor will they be as
close to our dispersed, existing residences.
2. Modern, express 3-piece articulated buses can carry 150 people.
Again, as below, it comes down to ridership -- the bus reaches out to
more places so will attract more riders, rail will fail due to lack of

customers, so that rail driver who could be pulling 300 people is stuck on
empty, especially in off-peak hours. Bicycles can be easily
accommodated on board.
3. Oahu needs considerable provision of new services, based on
regional bus stations people can reach as detailed above, and from
those stations there will be express buses which drive in from the suburb
mixed with reasonable traffic, then enter the guideway at the HI-H2
merge in Waipahu, flying over the congestion non-stop! Please look at
the proposed travel times projected for rail-they are worse than driving
through the congestion. Don't project current bus conditions into our
future, which will be a much different system.
4. The express bus can reach town without stopping every mile at a
station, 10 miles in 10 minutes, much faster than rail.---
5. These new buses will be a different mode altogether because they will
have true express lanes, so don't compare it to the present situation.
Bus = 10 minutes; rail = 60 minutes, Check the city's alternative
analysis charts.
6. The biggest rail handicap is transfers. A) leave home, b) travel to rail
by bus - no-one lives in walking distance of proposed stations, which will
have no parking c) walk from bus to rail station d) ride rail e) depart rall
station and ~robablv transfer again to reach destination. Then in the
afternoon, f) g) h) i)-j) do the same things again to get home.-
7. The big problems are the walk, the climb, the walk, the wait, the walk,
etc.
8. Cost difference is a major factor. $6 billion for rail versus $2 billion for
bus guideway construction. Look to Tampa, which built a &mile 3-lane,
elevated viaduct for 300 million last year. This is not rocket science. It is
just possible that tolls could pay for the whole thing.
9. Many other communities are building HOT lanes for bus, vanpools
and toll-paying cars, but comparisons with other places is very
misleading and therefore, dangerous. While we can learn many genera!
principles from studying other places, dlrect equation with cities such as
Vancouver, which is often pointed to by our Council and Administration
as a model for us, are inappropriate because we are unique and must
deal with our special situation in our own way. For example, population
in greater Vancouver metropolitan area is 2.1 million people and
skyrocketing along at 6.5% annual growth, compared to . million in
9
Honolulu, growing at only .7% annually. Furthermore, Vancouver is a
leader in "smart growth" with major development of high density housing
downtown to the point where nearly as many commuters leave
downtown in the morning as arrive.
10. Operational costs that theoretically tip in favor of rail assume that rail
succeeds in attracting customers, which I seriously doubt - whereas
express buses can, and those bus service levels can be easily adjusted
to meet demands, unlike rail where the empty trains must keep on
rolling, throwing good money after bad.
11. The old BRT was a ridiculous plan, taking away existing lanes for
buses from a city that already is last in the nation for lanes per-caplta.
BRT was preposterous. Don't compare our current proposals to Harris,
or to anywhere else, Those arguments ring hollow and suggest you
have no real case if you have to go after straw men.

12. Of course, you realize our electricity comes from fossil fuels,
petroleum no less. The rail will be an energy hog, requiring power 20
hours every day. Bus and HOV vehicles are evolving as we speak, soon
running on alternative fuels. BTU per-capita of rail versus car is
surprisingly close, and with new technology, free-flowing autos will soon
pass rail in efficiency -- and again, a well-planned bus system of the type
we are suggesting will run energy circles around the empty train. When
the bus or vehicle is not in use, zero energy and emissions. Rail, all the
time, empty, stopped, or going, is burning and polluting.
13. In addition, there are many other arguments for a HOT lane
guideway. It can be utilized by vanpools and carpools. It can also be
used by cars paying tolls to help fund it, perhaps only in the early years
while HOV occupancy builds. After 5 or 10 years, if HOV service
demands, cars could be excluded, but in the meantime tolls have helped
pay for the system. All these vehicles can be properly dispersed at the
town end with adequate off-ramps and some new parking facilities
(connected to work places by shuttle service).
14. Sensible urban planning can devise a settlement pattern of new
housing built in medium densities, new towns, that will encourage use of
bus transit. Rail, on the hand, would seem to require high-density, high-
rise, air-conditioned, expensive, un-Hawaiian housing, the so-called
TOD, transit oriented development, which has not been working out well
in several mainland communities, including Portland.
15. Getting people to use rail requires major social engineering,
changing people's behavior and housing preferences, which is nearly
impossible. This new generation of rail riders would either have to live
walking distance from a station, in expensive, high-density clusters, or
get to the train via transfer, and transfer again at destination. The
psychological cost of time spent during transfer is much higher than that
of time spent sitting in a vehicle. Less social engineering is needed to
get people onto an effective bus or vanpool system, because it can pick
them up closer to existing homes and get them to destinations with
fewer transfers. New housing of transit-friendly medium density will be
more acceatable to . e o o l e
~ . than air-conditioned. ex~ensive.
. . crowded
skyscraper! condos.
Section 8 Citv Mvths on Rail Transit These are resDonses to aublic
statements made by city officials:
or disagree.
1. This memo presents a rebuttal to various incorrect statements made
by Honolulu government officials about the supposed advantages of rail.
Our basic complaint is that the city keeps claiming rail would better serve
our community than alternatives, such as HOT Lanes (High Occupancy
and Toll Lanes), using incorrect information that misleads the public.
2. Main myths "Rail, if you compare it to a busway or a bus system, is
head and shoulders above something like that (busway) in terms of 1.
speed, 2, capacity, 3. reliability, 4. safety, 5&6.capital cost, even,
operating and maintenance costs, 7.pollution, there's no comparison,
there's no comparison. 8. Honolulu needs to move, I would say, 200 to
300 thousand people a day and only one kind of system would do it and
that's a high-speed, high-capacity, rail system and that is why I am so in

favor of it."
3. Speed? The city's alternatives analysis shows that for the 19 miles
from Kapolei to Downtown it's going to take 65 minutes by train. That's
20 miles per hour. He's saying 19 miles in 65 minutes. The alternatives
analysis, that's the official assessment of what it will take with the rail
line. Trains stop at every station, which is like elevators in thirty-story
buildings stopping at every floor. This makes the trains quite slow. For
example, from Kapolei to Downtown, a distance of 19 miles, the journey
by train is forecast by the City's Alternatives Analysis
http://www. honolulutransit.com/more~info/library/files/Alterntives~Analysi
S-Chapter3fo-End.pdf )
(page 3-1 1) to take 49 minutes if you drive to the station or 65 minutes if
you walklbus to the station
http://www.honoluIutransit.com/more~info/library/files/Alterntives~Analysi
S-Chapter3-to-End.pdf This agrees with federal government data
showing urban transit trains averaging only 23.5 mph. There is no
"whoosh" with trains. On the other hand, buses on uncongested High-
Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes will average 60 mph and then 15-20 mph in
normal traffic. It does not take much of the journey to be done on the
HOT lanes to get an average speed far higher than a train.
4. The capacity of the projected rail line is 6,000 riders per hour in the
peak direction with an ability to expand that to 10,000 per hour
maximum. We can compare that to New Jersey's 1-495 single bus lane
carrying 32,600 passengers per hour. In the face of that, it is ridiculous
to discuss a two-lane HOT lanes facility, giving priority to buses, not
having the capacity of a rail line. The Parson Corp. HOV Facilities
Manual says of rail and busways that, "Both modes can serve the
person carrying capacity needs of about any corridor in North America."
During the non-peak hours there'll be too much capacity if it's a rail.
You'll have a 300-person vehicle rumbling through mostly empty every
6-10 minutes, whereas a common express bus can be coming through
using far less energy and even more frequently or less frequently, as
needed. www.honolulutraffic.com/passperhour.htm
5. Myth 3: Reliability? The biggest problem with rail transit is strikes (and
suicides). Strikes are a major headache for rail transit users in the
mainland because every so often they go on strike. They'll be out days
on end. It takes them so much longer to get ridership back up to where it
was after a strike. If you were to put in a rail system, whatever union is
controlling the train is going to have an immense amount of power over
the city. When a rail car breaks down the entire system will cease
functioning, perhaps for days, causing major inconvenience.
6. Myth 4: Safety? Gangs, graffiti and crime around train stations. It's a
magnet for this kind of stuff. Safe? All rail systems have to have transit
police. Vancouver, San Francisco, Washington, etc...rail systems have
transit police. We don't have transit police on our bus system. Are police
accounted for in the alternatives analysis as part of the budget? No,
they're not mentioned. We've brought that up. It's an issue. It's
expensive. When they put in the blue (rail) line in LA the eventual bill
turned out to be millions of dollars a year to put in a sufficient transit
police in place to hold the crime down.
7. Myth 5: Costs? Saying that the capital cost is less than the HOT lanes
option (High Occupancy Toll) is also absurd. It's really laughable to say

that a simple, elevated highway built by the lowest bidder is going to cost
more per mile than a non-bid, elevated rail line with trains, computers,
transformer stations. Each station is 270 feet long, 50 feet wide with
elevators, escalators, stairs and generators to pull the train to the closest
station so that the people don't get stranded between stations in a power
outage. There can be no comparison. How can they be so off on the
cost? Well, they have consultants who boast about being cMythnt-
focused. In other words, they'll do whatever the cMythnt wants them to
do. And the cMythnt wants them to show that HOT lanes are not
competitive with rail.
8. Myth 6: The city has exaggerated the cost for HOT lanes to $2.6
BILLION. A comparable facility, the Tampa Expressway cost $400
million. When you've got a facility built for 400 million you cannot justify
one for 9 times that amount in Honolulu. The 400 million dollar one in
Tampa - how long is it? About 12 miles but it's 3 lanes wide. The one
that we propose is 2 lanes wide. The cost per mile of rail in Honolulu is
estimated by the City to be the same as the Washington, D.C. Dulles
extension. But the cost of a reversible expressway for HOT lanes is
estimated by the City to be over five (5) times the actual built cost of an
already built system in Tampa, Florida!
9. Myth 7 : Pollution? When cars are traveling at uncongested speeds, the
pollution emissions are far less than on congested freeways. Speed up
the auto traffic and we will get far less pollution.
http://www.itre.ncsu.edu/lTREmain/research/documents/Emission~~Red
uction-TrafficMngt.pdf
10. Efficient express buses that circulate in communities then drive onto
HOT Lanes would attract more riders than rail, further reducing
automobile usage and congestion.
11. Myth 8: 250,000 riders? Currently, 7% of Oahu trips are by public
transit. This would need to triple, to 20% to reach 250,000 riders, which
has never happened anywhere in the U.S. or Canada. Nationally transit
ridership share has been going down, way down, not up. At present only
about 75,000 people per day use transit.2. It would mean increasing
transit users by 300 percent when the population is only forecast to
increase by 28 percent for 2005 to 2030. This means increasing transit's
market share by 260 percent. Bearing in mind that no metro area in the
country has increased the percentage of commuters using transit over
any 20 years of Census taking Where is he getting his numbers?
(ftp://ftp.abag.ca.gov/pub/mtc/census200O/JTW~Trends/PDF/FullRepo~.
pdf ) (p. 4-9).
12. Myth 9: Energy? "Rail is better in terms of the energy
consumption."Well-managedHOT Lanes can have a lower "carbon
footprint" generating less carbon dioxide, than rail. Bus riders will use a
high-occupancy lane going non-stop at 60 mph. Cars on HOT lanes will
go faster and take less time on the road. Cars on existing highways will
benefit from reduced congestion. Everybody goes faster. Two HOT
Lanes carry as many vehicles as four lanes of regular, congested traffic.
HOT lanes do not get congested, so the traffic is free-flowing and more
efficient. Energy use at 20mph is 25 percent greater than at 55-60 mph.
See http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/driveHabits.shtml for U.S. Dept. of
Energy data. Construction of the rail line and huge stations would take
an immense amount of energy.

13. Myth 10: Electricity? All of Honolulu's electricity is generated by
burning petroleum, by far the highest level in the country, and yet the
city's cost estimates for rail do not even include the expense of building
a new power plant, let alone plans for one that runs on some new, un-
named technology. Battery-poweredcars in the future will be charged
overnight when electricity costs are at a a minimum, but rail would draw
massive power during existing peak periods. The rail system will require
huge amounts of electricity 20 hours every day, even if it is running
empty. Each station will require its own emergency generator.
14. Myth 1I: Vancouver Skytrain is running a profit: "Last year it made
2.72 million dollars."
A profit? Vancouver's Skytrain is integrated financially with their buses,
ferries, and other elements of public transportation. Fare revenues for
Skytrain cannot be calculated since one ticket allows transfers between
trains and buses. Their financial report does not break out separate fare
revenues for Skytrain. Total subsidies for Translink were $236.7 million
in 2006. Any talk of Skytrain making a profit is absurd.
15. Myth 12: in Vancouver "last year car usage decreased by 5 billion
kilometers (because of Skytrain)."The number of automobiles is actually
increasing by 20,000 per year. This automobile growth is creating
gridlock on Greater Vancouver's road network, which has had no
significant improvements since the 1980s. In Vancouver, rising
congestion reduces quality of life and increases costs. Population has
grown by 750,000 people in the Vancouver region over the past 20
years and is anticipated to grow to over three million by 2031. With a
rapidly growing population twice our size, concentrated in well-planned
urban densities, Vancouver makes a very poor comparison. Greater
Vancouver residents consistently rate transportation as the number one
issue in the region.
16. Myth 13: No bus system can recover all its costs. Where do we
start? Buenos Aires' 15,000 buses are privately-owned and profitable.
Atlantic City's 190 19passenger buses are privately owned and
profitable. Source.
http://www.specialtyretail.neVissues/january99/acretaiI.htm Not only are
Hong Kong's buses profitable and so are those of the rest of China.
Source. http:/lwwwl .cei.gov.cn/ce/doc/cen3/200501201828.htm
Throughout Asia and South America profitable bus systems abound. It is
only through political choice that our bus system is subsidized by $140
million annually. In 1971 our bus system was profitable, but then the City
took it over and began operating all kinds of unprofitable routes such as
a trip completely around the island for $2.
http://www.honolulutraffic.com/PickrelI~xv.pdf
17. Myth 14 "Let's take Pittsburgh. They did both, an elevated busway
and a light rail system. They projected 50,000 passengers a day for the
busway. Their actual ridership today after seven years is 9,500 - one fifth
of what they projected." The Federal Transit Administration's website
shows that Pittsburgh's busways carry 52,000 riders per day - more than
twice as much as carried by light rail. Source:
http://www.fta.dot.gov/printer~friendly/research~4289.htmI
18. "For the light rail system they (Pittsburgh) projected 30,000
passengers. Last year it was up to 27,000 riders, up 9.4 percent from the
year before. So people are actually moving from buses to rail."
19. Pittsburgh light rail makes its forecast? The official ridership forecast

was 90,500 riders per average weekday versus the actual ridership
achieved of 30,600 - 66 percent less than forecast. Last year the riders
were not up to 27,000 but rather down to 23,200, a significant decline
from the 30,600 achieved in 1989. (Source:
http://www.apta.com/research/stats/ridership/riderep/documents/06q4lr.p
df) National Transit Data Program. If we review the disaggregated
ridership data for Pittsburgh from 1996, the earMythst available from
APTA, to 2004, the last official data, we find that bus ridership declined
slightly less than rail ridership during this period. More importantly, the
U.S. Census shows that in 1980, before Pittsburgh built its new rail lines
and busways, 106,200 Pittsburgh workers commuted using public
transportation. That declined to 65,500 by the 2000 Census. This data
is contained in the U.S. Department of Transportation report, Urban Rail
Transit Proiects: Forecast versus Actual Ridershir, and Cost iDOT-T-91-
04), which shows the forecast (Source: National rans sit ~ a t Program at
a
http://www.apta.com/research/stats/ridership/riderep/documents/06q4lr.p
d f As for busways: Source:
http://www.~a.dot.gov/printer~friendly/research4289.htmlMoving from
buses to rail? Source: http://www.apta.com/research/stats/ridership/
Source: Journey to Work Trends in the U.S. & its Major Metropolitan
Areas. (FHWA-EP-03-058)page 4-9.
20. Myth 16: "the public transit use is actually a 30% increase since
1995"
21. But the broad picture, according to U.S. Census data, shows that
from 1990 to 2000 there was a decline in people using transit to
commute.
22. Myth 17: "We think the new (rail) riders is gonna be in the
neighborhood of 30-40,000 riders."
23. This claim is based on ridership forecast by the consulting firm,
Parsons Brinkerhoff, whose previous forecast for Honolulu were wildly
inaccurate, grossly overestimating increases in bus riders when in reality
we have seen ridership decreases.
24. Myth 18: There is a balance of spending for various transportation
projects in the coming decades: "we're going to be spending about 3 112
billion dollars in the next 25 years on highway improvements as well."
25. But what kind of balance is this, spending nearly 200% more ($6
Billion) for a rail project that might carry at best 10% of our riders?
26. Myth 19: "We're projecting in some areas commute times to increase
to three hours one-way."
27. This is another scare tactic. The city's own Alternative Analysis
shows that the worst commute in the year 2030 if nothing is done, the
no-build option, from Waianae to UH Manoa, would be 105 minutes,
40% less than Okino's preposterous statement.
28. Myth 20: "In 1990 we did a...study which shows that even with a
busway you'd have 60% of the people transferring....It doesn't reduce
transfers, it doesn't reduce transfers."
29. This is another red herring. The 1990 busway survey was done as
part of the EIS for the 1992 rail proposal, so again, the mayor talked to
his cMythnt-focused planning company and told them to make rail look
good and buses look bad. They came up with a grossly-over
engineered busway designed with elevated stations on it and no ramps

coming down to the ground, so of course riders would have to transfer in
such a poorly-designedsystem. But there is no need for bus stations up
on an elevated busway. Instead, these bus stations belong in the
community at ground level, perhaps at existing shopping centers and
other busy gathering spots. One of the great advantages of an express
bus system is that is will take riders from origin to destination with few if
any transfers.
30. Myth 21: Busways studied. Unfortunately the city has never included
adequate busway ramps in its biased alternative analysis, yet has the
nerve to criticize an engineer who has done such studies. Ramps are an
important issue that illustrate the advantage of HOT lanes over the
railroad. R ~ ~ alona a auidewav allow buses to drive on or off and
D s
directly bring passen@rskhere they are going without a transfer.
BEYOND THE MYTHS: PROBLEMS WITH PROCESS and
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING:
31. The city administration is following dangerous, backwards planning
techniques by proceeding with Preliminary Engineering before the
technology has been chosen and before the Environmental Impact
Study has been done. Early in the process the Locally Preferred
Alternative was determined by the City Council to be a "Fixed Guideway"
without specifying what technology will travel on the guideway. It could
be express bus, as some Councilmembers are advocating, or rail, or.
something else.
32. The city's planning procedure is essentially backwards, conducting
preliminary engineering before the EIS is done. Why did we spend
millions on preliminary engineering before the environmental impact
statement is approved? We are spending a lot of public money without
really knowing what the system is and if the system fits. The normal
next step after the alternative analysis, which has been partly concluded,
is the EIS. Once you have an EIS that is approved and signed by the
Governor, the Mayor and the Federal government, then you go into
preliminary engineering. If for some reason we reject the EIS, the
preliminary engineering could be useless. Thrown out the window.
33. All of the above present serious concerns for Oahu taxpayers, who
deserve true information, because we are the ones who would pay for it
-- the largest public project in the history of Hawaii by far, costing the
typical family of four about $24,000 to build and many more dollars to
operate and maintain. Unfortunately the proposed rail would do little if
anything to solve our traffic problems, but there are much better options.
Contrary to what the Mayor publicly declares, rail is not a "done deal."
34. Our position is that we should instead build a new elevated structure
for HOT lanes from the Leeward side that would be used by a mix of
express buses and carpools that ride free, along with some toll-paying
automobiles. The city has consistently failed to study HOT Lanes as an
alternative, despite their many advantages, which include lower costs
and much more efficiency than rail.
Section 9 Rail Transit Daily Journey Segments
Please address each statement specifically, and explain why you agree
or disagree.
1. TRAIN TRANSFERS and WAITING: Transit studies have shown that
people hate to transfer and wait. Rail riders would have to transfer

many times and stand around waiting on their daily round-trip, which
would typically need 20 total daily segments:
2. go to a bus stop
3. wait for the bus
4. ride a bus to the rail
5. walk to the platform
6. wait for train
7. ride the rail making many stops
8. walk from the rail to another bus stop
9. wait
10. ride a bus
11. walk to work;
a. same problems coming home.
12. Even if we grant that some commuters can walk to work from the
end station, they still require 14 daily segments.
13. Those workers using a spur line to the airport will still have 20
segments in this typical scenario: add to the 14 segments above the 6
extra rft segments for an airport worker on the newly-proposed spur: 1)
walk to connecting train 2) wait for train (up to 15 minutes wait) 3) ride
-
train, same in reverse.
14. On the other hand, express bus riders do not need many segments:
Travel to a regional bus station, wait, ride non-stop to destination, walk
to work. 4 components, same coming home.
15. Regarding tourist use of rail: what tourist would ever haul their
baggage so far -- to a train, walk a few blocks in a shopping mall to
transfer to some trolley, then walk several blocks in Waikiki to their
hotel? This mayor is spinning a fantasy right out of Alice in Wonderland.
Section 10 Please address each paragraph specifically, and explain
why you agree or disagree.
Busway systems have the following advantages:
1. Buses do not need stations on the busway, as they can collect and
deposit.
passengers close the origins and destinations of their trips, without
passengers having to change modes.
2. Soace between buses can be used bv other vehicles, . . ~articularlv
taxis'and
car-oools. If these vehicles Dav tolls (which can be collected
a ,

elect'ronica~l~,
without cars having to stop) the tolls can pay for much or all of the
transit
system.
3. Rail service is provided by a monopoly, generally unionized. A
buswav can
- --, -
-
carry buses of different companies providing competitive service. That
unionized rail staff can cause problems is evident from the current rail
strike in Paris.
4. Bus systems have superior carrying capacity. Five-hundred buses an
hour.
carrying 25,000 seated passengers, enter the New York City main bus
station
daily on one dedicated bus lane. And a good traffic lane can
accommodate over
1,000 buses an hour, carrying 50,000 seated passengers! Rail services

cannot
accommodate such high traffic volumes without forcing passengers to
stand.
5. Rail services generally stop at each station along the line. Buses
utilizing a busway can travel non-stop from passenger origin to
destination.
This gives bus service a superiority in door-to-door speed.
6. Busways are robust and can quickly be repaired in an emergency.
Rail
.
structures cannot quickly be replaced or repaired if damaged.
7. The main disadvantage of all-bus systems is their low cost, so people
assume
they give inferior service. But buses of any quality can readily be bought:
Luxury buses for those who prefer to pay for luxury, less-expensive
ones
for those who prefer to save money. High-capacity busways on
dedicated lanes
operate in Curitiba, Bogota, Brisbane, Ottawa, and Port-of-Spain.
Section 11 Comparisons
or disagree.
HOT Lanes
Rail
DESCRIPTION
1. 10 mile, elevated 3-lane, reversible, high occupancy highway from
the HI-H2 merge to the lwilei edge of downtown, for express bus,
carpool and some toll-paying cars.
2. 28-mile elevated train running from Kapolei eventually to UH Manoa,
with 25 stations, some of them 80 feet above ground.
COST
3. Less than $1 billion. Some of this will be paid by the federal
government, some by tolls, with less than half by taxpayers.
4. More than $6 billion. This amounts to $24,000 for each family of four
on Oahu. There is no guarantee of federal funds.
TRAFFIC CONGESTION
5. HOT Lanes will reduce congestion on H I by up to 35%. Many drivers
will use the new lanes and more commuters will be attracted by high-
speed express buses.
6. City official studies show that future traffic congestion with rail will be
far worse than it is today, increasing from the current 15% overload to
80% in 2030.
ENERGY SAVINGS
7. HOT Lanes will be more efficient, reducina traffic conaestion and
energy consumption, encouraging idership iin energy-saving carpools
and express buses. New cars will get much better mileage, while the
train will never improve.
8. Rail transit uses more energy per passenger mile than the average
automobile according to the U.S. Dept. of Energy. For most of the 20
hours a day they run, trains are nearly empty. With rail, autos will be
stuck in gridlock, wasting gas.
ENVIRONMENT

9. HOT Lanes would only extend for 10 miles along existing highways,
such as Kamehameha Highway in Aiea and Nimitz Highway, not through
- .
residential neighborhoods.
10. An elevated train would be an ugly, noisy intrusion running for 34
. -
miles throuah our neiahborhoods (imaaine elevated tracks down Kuhio
Ave, ruining ~ a i k i k i ) . ~
RIDERSHIP & CAPACITY
- - -

11. An expanded express bus system would attract many more riders.
Total passenger capacity would be at least twice as high as rail.
12. With rail transit ridership will only increase by 2%. This is a
ridiculously small increase, costing us about $600,000 for each new
rider.
CONVENIENCE
13. Express bus riders: 1) Travel to a regional bus station, 2) wait, 3)
ride non-stop to destination (avg speed 50 mph), 4) waik to work. Same
coming home. Commuters in cars and carpool~would have total
convenience and personal control over their daily travels.
14. Rail riders would need up to 20 daily journey segments: 1) go from
home to bus s t o ~ wait for bus 3) ride bus to rail 4)walk to ~latform
2) 5)
wait for train 6) ribe ;ail making many stops 7) walk from rail to bus stop '
8) wait 9) ride bus 10) walk to work; 11-20) same coming home.
LAND DEVELOPMENT
15. HOT Lanes support expanded bus mass transit that will encourage
good land use planning with low-rise, medium density communities that
would be efficient and very livable. At the same time these lanes
provide support for existing housing on most of Oahu, not just a narrow
concentrated corridor where few people currently live.
16. Rail will supposedly create high density development around
stations, protecting the rest of the island. Such utopian schemes have
not been happening with mainland rail systems, and even if they did
occur, do we want to force our future population to live in high-rise, air-
conditioned buildings crowded along a Leeward corridor?

TAX INCREASE
17. No further tax hikes. $1 billion for HOT Lanes will be paid by a
combination of federal funds, tolls, and some loca taxes, much less than
public funds for rail.
18. The recent 112 percent excise tax increase will not be nearly enough
to pay these huge bills, so property taxes will likely increase by 40% and
more.
Section 12 The city's Alternative Analysis of Managed Lanes was faulty
in several serious ways:
or disagree.
-The city estimated Managed Lanes would cost $2.6 Billion despite the
fact that a similar system was built in Tampa Bay for $320 million in
2005.
-They removed the existing zipper lane, resulting in a net gain of just one
new lane rather than the 2 or 3 lanes we are proposing.
-They included bus stations on the lanes, which are totally unnecessary
and would add considerable expense.

-They failed to include access ramps along the route so vehicles can
enter and exit. Instead they just dropped all the vehicles to street level
downtown at a traffic light with no management plan.
Section 13 cost in other places
or disagree.
How can you justify such high costs compared to other places?
Light rail costs in comparison to population size in various metro areas:
Cost population Per capita cost
Dallas $1,067,000,000 5,222,000 $204
Denver $358,000,000 2,582,000 $139
Portland $1,643,000,000 2,265,000 $725
Sacramento $307,000,000 1,797,000 $1 71
Salt Lake $376,000.000 1,334,000 $282
St. Louis $464,000,000 2,604,000 $178
Pittsburgh $1,051,000,000 2,571,000 $409
Honolulu $6,400,000,000 940,000 $6,809
We would be the smallest metro area with a rail line and the most
expensive. Portland spent the money, has bad congestion, running rail
on what had been roads and existing rail beds, and still only 30% of their
transit riders use rail the rest are in buses. Share of transit ridership in
Portland remained flat from 1980 to 2000.
Section 14 Best Traffic Fix
or disagree.
1. Traffic congestion for Leeward drivers is so horrible that people are
desperate for anything that sounds like a solution. Rail has been
pushed so hard and so often by the city that it seems like it should work,
but unfortunately, rail would do next to nothing to solve the problem
while wasting our precious resources. Here are some highlights of the
major alternative to rail, which has received very little coverage in the
media.
2. The best solution both to solve the traffic problem and encourage
extensive use of mass transit is to construct a ten-mile elevated
guideway for express buses, carpools, and perhaps some toll-paying
cars. This guideway would leapfrog over the current choke-point
between the Leeward bottleneck created at the H I -H2 merge and
downtown, and it would come down to street level in Iwilei, not run
through the heart of our city as an elevated bli ht like rail. It would
provide a simple, elegant solution, cost under $1 billion and likely
produce a 35% reduction in traffic while transporting many more people
than a rail line.
3. Managed lanes, also called HOT Lanes, will not dump more cars into
downtown as rail-supportersfalsely claim, because the main focus is
bus and carpool, thereby reducing auto traffic, with several ramps along
the route that dlstr~bute veh~cles destinat~ons
to other than downtown.
With this bypass, existing streets can handle the added express buses.
4. This approach would be better and conserve more energy than a train
for several reasons:

5. Rail is an energy hog, with energy consumption per passenger about
the same as the average new car, based on studies by the federal
government. (for more details see our web site: www.stoprailnow.com)
6. Cars and buses are becoming increasingly energy efficient, soon to
run on batteries that will be inexpensively recharged overnight when
electrical demand is low, while rail is an old technology already at its
maximum energy efficiency level and will place heavy demand on
electricity during peak periods.
7. HOT lanes will produce tremendous improvements in the bus system
at a fraction of the cost of rail, result in a much greater use of mass
transit, take cars off the road and benefit everyone.
8. An expanded bus system makes better use of the existing 500 bus
stops and adds true express service for ALL COMMUNITIES, while
encouraging environmentally-friendly,medium-density development.
9. These lanes do not need to run elevated for 30 miles through the
heart of downtown, Waikiki and residential neighborhoods, so they will
not create urban blight like rail would.
10. Any commuter on this island could easily travel a short distance to
an express bus stop and board a modern vehicle (not today's bus) that
features comfortable seats, wi-fi, coffee service, and most importantly,
rapid, non-stop delivery to destinations. This efficiency and flexibility
cannot be achieved with a rigid, linear rail line going to Kapolei.
Leeward commuters will benefit most of all from this express bus
system, reaching town in 30 minutes instead of the 60-minute rail
journey requiring multiple transfers.
11. An enhanced bus system would benefit everybody except lobbyists
for the construction industry and land-development. How often have we
heard about the tremendous financial gains that will result from
concentrated development around train stations, along with the massive
up-zoning for high-density apartments that most of us don't want to live
... .
in?
12. The people of Oahu share common ground with our organization: we
want to reduce congestion, encourage mass transit, make other traffic
improvements and encourage wise land use development with adequate
housing for our future needs. Rail contributes nothing to our common
needs, hopes and dreams.
13. Rail would be too expensive, not effective, ugly, and prevent us from
developing real solutions. Rail would increase the number of commuters
using transit by only 1.3% while morning congestion on H-1 will grow
53% in the next 20 years, according to the city's own studies reported by
Sean Hao (Adv. 7/15). With a likely $6 billion price tag, that pencils out
to an expense of nearly $750,000 for EACH new transit rider, costing
every Oahu family of four about $24,000.
14. In addition, rail would directly serve only the tiny fraction of Oahu's
population that is within walking distance from its few proposed Leeward
stations -- neighborhoods which currently are sparsely populated. Why
does rail have public support at all? Well, the city has been spending
millions of dollars for propaganda to mislead the public, leaving us
largely uninformed about the pitfalls of rail or the advantages of non-rail
alternatives.
15. We are all too familiar with the dilemma: thousands of commuters
heading into the sun each morning on the H-1 which is full. And then
again, in the afternoon heading back into the sun on H-1 which is full. It

is frustrating, it wastes gas and time every day. West Oahu and Central
Oahu cannot be served by one freeway which is already full at rush
hour. If this freeway is blocked, there are no alternatives. What about
our ambulances, civil defense vehicles, and all the commercial vehicles
that are also stuck?
16. New elevated lanes address these problems. It is a pity that rail
does not.
-end-

---.-------------------
First Name : J
Last Name : Such
Address :
Apt./Suite No. :
City :
State :
Zip Code :
Email :
Telephone :
Submission Date :

Submission ContenffNotes : The reason so few have input at this stage is because our voices will not
be heard. This administration is arrogant and a bully and has
demonstrated this from day one regarding the rail. Mufi's "my way or the
highway" prevails and no amount of discussion will change that. That is
why he did not get my vote or ever will for that matter. The rail cost is too
expensive for the few taxpayers of this island. No one in their correct
mind has ever started a rail system from its' farthest point out in the
hopes it would someday reach the city. Absolutely amazing and
ridiculous. The mayors' reply? "There are too many potential lawsuits in
Waikiki" and so these will magically disappear by starting at the opposite
end? Zero logic, zero sense. No connection to the airport? Again, what
modern city did not connect their rail to the airport and/or train stations?
Now this administration has gained full control over the bidding, so as in
the beginning, all of the mayor's friends, family, and campaign
contributors will get the contracts and we the taxpayers will foot the bill.
It smells of corruotion. This boondoaale will not be comoleted on time
nor on budget nor do Hawaii's workzys have the training, talent, or desire
to build this with aualitv. It took DOT 12 months to identifv one sinale
buried cable near'peail Harbor
-
that cost an additional $I million dollars to the taxpayers. One cable, one
year. By comparison, St. Paul MN rebuilt their massive multilane bridge
over the Mississippi in 13 months.
Here, 12 months just to identify one cable. At that rate this rail should be
...
done by the next century. Track record? Look at H-3 I believe that
short stretch of highway took 37 years. Not exactly speedy construction
histories for Hawaii. Electricity?
How is this administration going to keep the electric cables in the ground
when according to DOT, they presently cannot figure out how to keep
the wiring for the lighting for H1 in the ground. It is going on 3 years now
and H I is still dark. Is the rail going to sit for 3 years too without electric
while DOT does nothing? And you wonder why no one bothers giving
you folks input...what would be the point? What is needed is an in depth
Federal investigation and oversight into this Administration, its' bidding
processes, and the rail planning or lack of it. There is no other label for
this project than boondoggle. Period.

--------.-.------------
First Name : SL
Last Name : SUEN
BusinesslOrganization : HlNG HANG TRADING GROUP LLC
Address : 1021 SMITH ST.
City : HON
State : HI
Zip Code : 96817
Email : S-SUENSQYAHOO.COM
Telephone : 5366422
Submission Date :
Submission ContentINotes : PROVIDING MORE MAP DETAILS AND DESCRIPTIONS ON EACH
ALTERNATIVE OF SALT LAKE ROUTE AND AIRPORT ROUTE FOR
THlS PROPOSED RAIL TRANSIT SYSTEM ON THlS ISLAND
COMMUNITY. HAVE THANKSGIVING.

.----------------------
First Name : Hurshae
Last Name : Summons
BusinesslO'rganization: military contractor
Address : po box 1090
Apt.lSuite No. :
City : Pearl City
State : HI
Zip Code : 96782
Email : Schaesan Q hotmail.com
Telephone : 808-4283549
Submission Date : 12/3112008
Submission ContentfNotes : I thought about it for quite some time and considered input from friends,
neighbors, and strangers. This project should have been started years
ago. There remains a problem, the route is impractical, it should be
changed before time and money are wasted.
Thousands of commuters travel from areas like Waianae and Kahuku
travel as far a Honolulu to work. The routes should at least start in these
locations and end a ~ractical transit area outside of Honolulu where a
major "Bus" depot is:
Another idea is to connect Ewa Beach to Honolulu.(build a &%#$?A
bridge) If national security is an issue then at least ask the ~overnment.
All they can say is no.

----------------------
First Name : karen
Last Name : sunahara-teruya
Address : 94-537 Holaniku St.
Apt.lSuite No. :
City : Mililani
State : HI
Zip Code : 96789
Email :
Telephone : 808-341-9864
Submission ContenffNotes : I have been commuting from Mililani to town for the last 25 years.
Although I am against the rail and voted accordingly, if the City does
move forward, I believe that the first segment should NOT be from
Kapolai to Waipahu. This is the most stupidest thinking I have seen yet.
What were the transportation planners thinking!!! The route should be
from the center core Honolulu outward. For there to be any significant
impact in the early stages, it is to take traffic out of the Pearl City to
honolulu segment. How the planners cannot think of this logical aspect
is astounding! What will the Kapolei to Waipahu segment buy us, when
everyone is trying to get into town? Do you expect the leeward folks to
ride the rail from Kapolei to Waipahu and then catch the BUS into town?
Come on, where is the logical thinking on this. Lets do whats right and
not do the stupid thing just because it was planned that way. The City
should think smarter with our tax dollars.

----------------------
First Name : Ron
Last Name : Suwa
Address : 94-1050 Pulelo Street
Apt.lSuite No. :
City : Waipahu
State : HI
Zip Code : 96797
Email : rmsuwa@gmail.com
Telephone :
Submission Content/Notes : I think the first section of the rail should be between Pearl City and
Honolulu. i also favor Pearl HarborIAirport versus Salt Lake.

First Name : Ted
Last Name : Taheny
Address : 85-1053 Piliuka way
Apt./Suite No. :
City : Waianae
State : HI
Zip Code : 96792
Email : ttaheny Q khon.com
Submission ContenffNotes : 1 would like to ride my bicycle to the train, take it on the train into town,
and ride it from the station to work... provided you make allowances for
bicycles on the trains. Please include this in your plans.
Thank You



.

MUFl HANNEMANN WAYNE Y. YOSHIOKA
MAYOR DIRECTOR

SHARON ANN THOM
DEPUTY DIRECTOR

May 21,2010
Mr. Ted Taheny
85-1053 Piliuka Way
Waianae, Hawaii 96792

Dear Mr. Taheny:


Environmental lmpact Statement (EIS) for the Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project.
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations that state that the Final EIS shall indentify the
Preferred Alternative (23 CFR 5 771.I25 (a)(l)). This selection was based on consideration of
submittal:

As stated in Chapter 3 of the Final EIS, each station will have facilities for parking
bicycles. Bicycles will also be allowed on trains, as regulated by a bicycle policy. This policy will
be determined at a later time prior to the opening of the fixed guideway system.


Director

Enclosure

First Name : Paulette A.
Last Name : Tam
Business/Organization : concerned resident
Address : P 0 Box 4787
AptJSuite No. :
City : Kaneohe
State : HI
Zip Code : 96744
Email : ptam1861Q yahoo.com
Submission ContentINotes : Aloha,
Even though I do not live on the leeward side of Oahu, I support the
Draft EIS in its entirety and feel the steel on steel rail transit system
should be built as soon as possible from Kapolei through the airport to
Ala Moana Center.
I can see myself catching the bus to Ala Moana Center and riding the rail
transit to Kapolei and back in the event I get a job or move out to that
area.
Thank you for your time.
Aloha.
~auleite Tam
A.
concerned Kaneohe resident and former Kaneohe Neighborhood
Member 1989-2006.

----------------------
First Name : Candice
Last Name : Tan
Address : 324 I.LIMAN0 Street
Apt.lSuite No. :
City : Kailua
State : H1
Zip Code : 96734
Email : cleetan@hawaii.rr.com
Submission ContentINotes : Yes, let's do it.
.i
There has been enough arguing and complaining. d 9
Let's get this thing started!It's going to cost a lot of money, but we have.,! ..
"
a lot of people to share the cost. '2
B
.I
g

b
P
3
I
I
3
$
s
BI
1B
B

I
. .. . I
. . .- . ..., : .. .

First Name : Rock
Last Name : Tang
Address : 1448 Young Street
Apt.iSuite No. : 603
City : Honolulu
'State : HI
Zip Code : 96814
Email : rocktangQ excite.com
Telephone :
Submission ContentlNotes : Kudos to re-evaluatingthe Airport route. Given that we have 4.5 million
visitors a year to Honolulu and numerous resident trips, it seem intuitive
that we should proceed with an airport to Waikiki route. Let's build
something our transit savvy guests (Japanese visitors especially) will
want to use and make their trips more enjoyable and make them more
likely to return.

First Name : Earl
Last Name : Tanioka
Business/Organization : Retired Police Officer
Address : 827-1 Ala Lilikoi St.
Apt.lSuite No. : Apt#l
City : Honolulu
State : HI
Zip Code : 96818
Email : taniokae002Qhawaii.rr.com
Telephone : 808-833-3260
Submission ContenffNotes : Common Sense: Most traffic are people going to work or students going
to school. Why then would you go through Salt Lake when more people
work along the airport route and Nimitz Hwy. Salt Lake is more
residential and very little business. Plus that area is too congested for
building a superstructure like rail. C&C haven't even finished the
widening of Salt Lake Blvd and Puuloa Rd.

COMMENTS OF MARK TAYLOR ON
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL W A C T STATEMENT
FOR HONOLULU RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT
December 9,2008

Thank you for the opportunity-tosubmit colnments on the Draft EIS for the Honolulu Rail Transit
. . Project. My name is Mark Taylor. I reside in the Salt'Lale neighborhood of Honolulu and served from
1993 to 2007 as an elected member of the Aliamanu-Salt Lake-Foster Village Neighborhood Board.

I have three comments on the Draft EIS,

First, the opening paragraph of section 6.4.2 of the Draft EIS (entitled "Project Cash Flow") states that
both the "Salt Lake and Airport Alternatives would be financially feasible." Yet this same paragraph
states that the Airport Alternative would require $1.4 bilIion in Federal funding, and that the FTA "has
not been approached to consider the $1.4 billion for the Aiiport Alternative."
. .

Given that there isno indication that Federal funding i t the $1.4 billion level will even be considered by
the FTA, how can the Draft EIS slate conclusively that the Airport Alternative is "financially feasibIe"?
Unless and until the FTA indicates in writing that it is willing to consider providing $1.4 billion, the EIS
should state that the Airport Alternative has not been sltown to be financially feasible. To do otherwise
is misleading and invites a fiscally imprudent policy decision on the initial transit alignment.

Second, Table 7-2 of the Draft EIS (entitled "Effectiveness of Alternatives in Inlproving Corridor
Mobility") co~ltains
figures that appear questionable, if not incorrect.

The table indicates that Transit Ridership in 2030 will be only I% higher for the Airport Altemative
than for the Salt Lake Alternative. Y t it also indicates that Transit User Bellefits will be 5% higher
e,
I .. for the Airporl Alternative than for the Salt Lake Alternative. This significant inconsistency shouId
be either corrected or fully explained.

The Airport Alternative's purported 5% advantage in Transit User Benefits equates to reduced travel
time for all transit users of 800,000 hours per year compared to the Salt Lake Alternative. Yet, the
Draft EIS indicates the Airport raiI route actually takes longer to travcrsc than the Salt Lake rail route.
In fact, assuming half of projected daily rail trips in 2030 include the portion of the system between
Aloha Stadium and Middle Street, the Airport Alternative will increase travel time for rail users by
over 500,000 hours per year'. How can the Airport Alternative decfease travel time for nll transit
users by 800,000 hours per year when it increases travel time for rail transit users by 500,000 hours
per year? Again, this significant inconsistency should be either corrected or fully expiained.

Third, Table 7-7 of the Draft EIS (entitled "Cost-effectiveness of the Build Alternatives") indicates the
Salt Lake Alternative is more cost-effective than the Airport Alternative, but onIy by a sinall margin.
The figures in this table are derived by dividing the cost of the system undei each build alternative by
the number of hours of'hansit: User Benefits it produces. Therefore, if in fact there are atiy revisions to
the Transit User Benefits in Table 7-2 in light ofthe discrepancies identified above, Table 7-7 should
also be revised to reflect the impact on the relative cost-ef'fectiveness of each buiId alternative.

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment.

'90,000 projected daily trips ~nultiplied ! , multiplied by 2 minutes longer per trip, multiplied by 365 days per year, divided by 60
by 4
minutes per hour, equals 547,500 hours.

A Leaderless Rail to Nowhere

Mufi says his electric train set is bettar than Ann's Lego-bus-bridge,a bridge that creates an bus-excluvsive
new H4, like H3 with no exits, from Ewa to Downtown. When will our elected leaders give us leadership
with insight, rather than propose compromised eitherlor choices on the issue of transportation?

Dean Uchida in last Sunday's opinion piece (Star-Bulletin, p. E3) states, "the underlying Issue Is growth,
not traffic." More specifically, it's land use, not traffic.

What makes the issue so compromised resultsfrom the tact that the O'ahu land holders come in two main
categories: (f).lndividual ownership in fee simple and (2) Trust ownership held exclusively by trustees for
the common use of others (Federal Lands) andlor parceled out for individual use through leaseholds
(Kamehameha Schools Trust, O.H.A., Public Lands). The first relates to lands that most would call, "private
property" where the owners can sell it, like any other commodity to anyone else they please. The second
form of land holding in lob, consists of property held in common for the benefit of a group of people and
cannot be privatised to individuals by sale except under circumstances defined In the trust.
Nine percent of the level, arable land in the state of Hawai'i remains in the control of the Kamehameha
Schoolsr Trust (The heir of Bernice,Bishop'sconveyance of all the "Royal Lands" to the benefit of the native
Hawaiian peopfes and their descendants.) Add to this the Office of Hawaiian Affairs lands, and those held
by the State and the City and County of Honolulu, we can see that much, if not most all of the land in
Hawai'i is held as a public trust for everyone or for all Hawaiian descendants and their ohanascollectively.
Therefore, in no small measure, the common good of the Hawaiian people and the other citizens of the
State and City and County of Honolulu should determine the optimal form of public transportation. Instead,
they shift its cost to the tax base and declare it a universal benefit to all residents.

What confuses the matter are the large royal tracts of land that king's conveyed to relativesor retainers for
exceptionat service to the crown.

Unlike Mr. Bishop, who re-conveyed all of the remaining Royal Lands into a trust for the benefitof the
native Hawaiians upon his wife's death and returned to live out his remaining years in San Francisco,
others did not follow his example.

The beneficiariesof the CampbeIl Estate, for example, who had intermarried and became descendants of
Prince Kuhio, held on to their large West O'ahu land holdings in a trust until 2007 when it was converted in
a private family-owned corporation.
When it became no longer profitable to cultivate sugar cane and pineappleon these plantation plots, the
beneficiariessought to make the most of their privatised inheritance by converting the lands into residential
housing sites. They pulled out the cash crops and planted individual fee simple single famlly homes that
created a huge cash return and the suburban sprawl we now see from Waipahu to Kapolei.
To get past the federal lands held exclusively by the U.S. military in Pearl Harbor and south from Wahiawa,
a narrow corridor of concrete was paved, and then expanded into the H I freeway. Access to West O'ahu
was assured. Developmentcould move forward.

With the admission of Hawai'i in the United States as a state, the large landed estates became anomalies
in the fee simple world o U.S. real estate. With thedeath of James Campbell's last surviving daughter,
f
Beatrice Wrigley in 1987. the estate had twenty years, according to Campbell's will, to dissolve the trust
and redistribute itself to Its surviving heirs. The Campbell Estate thus expired in 2007. Rather than kill "the
goose that laid the golden eggs." it was incorporated into the James Campbell Co. LLC. Most of the
beneficiaries, thirty-one family members, became shareholders in the new company. Now the problem
compounds. The new company secured $645 million in debt financing In 2007 to create the new company
and to fund its future investments.

From 1987to 2007 the rush was on t develop more residential housing leaving it to the new owners to
o
create the infrastructure as the needs arose. Now the company faces a cloudy financial picture given the
collapse of the national financial system and the freezing of credit for housing. They hold a lot of debt with

a reduced income srream and a large chunk of undeveloped land that must be sold to have value.

s" -7
-7
To cover its maturing debts and to protect its developed assets in a depressed housing market devoid of

I
easy credit, the company wlll probably have to sell a lot of raw land to just cover its current debt obligations

L
in an attempt to realize its master development plan. The free market may cause ttle re-conveyance of
these privatized lands to those who still have the cash and the duty to serve the cornmon good: the
Kamehameha Schools' Trust, the O.H.A., and the State of Hawai'i (We can buy Turtle Bay, can't we?) and
the Clty and County of Honolulu (How much do we plan to pay for rail right-a-ways?).
J
Let the market set the price and, therefore, the tax rate on the land. With a little patlence and with regular
purchases, these four agencies should be able to acquire large tracts of undeveloped land in West O'ahu
by 2010. The general public should be rewarded wlth acombined total of thousands of acres of new lands
that can be converted to agricultural use and greater food independence (if not total self-sufficiency)
without having to use the right of eminent domain to acquire them. (Energy independenceis not our only
common need.)

Now, all this raises the question: What would our transportation system look like given these new
circumstances;

I . We have a lot of West O'ahu homeowners llving in devalued homes wlth special needs
that we need to accommodate.

2 We need to design a diversified crop and fruit tree development that can
.
yield three harvests annually for all available lands.

3. We need to bring workers directly-non-stop--to their places of work at tow
cost and reduce road traffic congestion.

4. East O'ahu homeowners also suffer from unmet transportation and
infrastructure needs as West O'ahu, we must identify and equitably resolve
these urban dysfunctions.

Rather than explain and expand on my own perspectives. ho.wever, I want my elected and wanna-be
leaders to focus on and to respond to these four areas of concern. If they cannot: Do Not Vote for them.

If you are as frustrated as I am by the ineptitude to act Insightfullyand to resolve pressing social needs,
may be you and I should start talking with our friends and neighbors to craft our own solutions and cause
out elected leaders to follow our lead.

2008, as it turned out, is a Jubilee Year. Those with Integrity, ethical insight and compassion for strangers
will be rewarded whenever their proposals practically and for the better resolve some of our most c~frently
compromised needs.
We should do that and not try to say an electric train solves these problems nor a non-stop bus ride to
Downtown makes life better for all in O'ahu. IPS inadequate leadership on a rail.

Robert Teflander
2015 Ala Wai Blvd. #8c
Honolulu, HI 96815-2002
808-946-9974

CHRISTMAS 2008

Married at 30; still together at 70.

After the completion of thecondo remodel--an even more trying joint-venture--we pulled ourselves
together and set off to celebrate our 40th wedding anniversary where it all began, This time, we returned
to visit persons and places as members of the senior generation: Tlme had not stood still.

At the end of May, we left Lars (341, our youngest son, the Academy of Art guard, in Honolulu and
commenced our two-month odyssey into our shared past. We started with our most recent memories
among friends in Petaluma, CA; ctassmates at Princeton, NJ, and former roommates in the Washington.
D.C. area. Then back to Europe and our families' orlgins.

First, to Paris, our honeymoon destination, among friends and family and on to Holland among Dutch
friends and Feldbrugge cousins. (Breaking the pattern, we made a five-day detour among strangersto
Prague.)

We picked up the family trail again in Sweden among theTellander family cousins before returning to
Boston where Erik (37), our oldest son, the architect pNm. Rawn, Boston], picked us up and drove to his
"new" (1801 A.D.) colonlal manse on the Common in Amherst ,NH. Here we got reacquainted with our
grandchildren, Maja .(5)and Nils (3) and our daughter-in-law, Lisa (37) and her visiting Housman
parents, Ted and Margaret (Cape Cod), and sister, Karen (Singapore). (All of these members of our
immed.lale and extended family will be corning to Honoiulu for this Christmas and NEW year.)

We flew from New York City in separate airplanes: Marlise to Honolufu and Bob to Los Angeles, CA to
visit his brother, Jack (75), his nursing home in Santa Monica, CA and then home to Honolulu.
in

To see glimpses of what we saw, come visit us i Hawaii so you can show us what we missed while
n
we were away from,you. Let's have a happy NEW year! With all those we still know and love.

From: ~ed.~atley@dot:gov
[mailto:Ted.Matley@dot.gov]
Sent:.Thursday, January 22,2009 1 3 PM
:9
To: Miyamoto, Faith
Subject: FW: Honolulu City Rail Proposal

--
-- - -
- --
-
: From: Suzanne Teller [mailto:suzantell@earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, December 29,2008 4:49 PM
To: Matley, Ted <mA>
Subject: Honolulu City Rail Proposal

i City and County of Honolulu
I Honolulu Hale, 3rd Floor
I
i Honolulu,HI96313
I

Dear Wayne Yoshioka:

Thank you for taking time to read this taxpayer's view of the City's rail
proposal.
1 As you know, this heavy rail project is the most controversial project
I ..
ever undertaken in Honolulu since Hawaii became a State. And when a
I
i
1 project is so controversial and costly (inspite of a maneuvered vote of
i approval) it will be plagued by unalterable problems and cost overruns
FOREVER.

This Island is a fragile eco-system that should not be completely
covered over in cement or it will die. The heavy rail system is designed

to do just that. Each mile of it will lead an unending plethora of cement
structures from one end of the route to the other. This is not right for
people, land, animals, flora and fauna, or LIFE ITSELF ON THIS
ISLAND.

'; A light rail system would suffice and not be as obtn~sive, controversial,
: costly or destructive. Please do not bail out the unions at the expense of
our fragile eco-
system Fifty years of living here tells me heavy rail is not right at all.

1 UA MAU KE EA 0 K A 'AINA I KA PONO. (The life of the land is
preserved in righteousness.)

Very truly yours,

Suzanne Teller
(Mrs. Albert Teller)

i Mrs.AlbertTeller
1541 Kalakaua Ave. # 1510
;
i
Honolulu,HI96826
I
I

.- - ---- -- --
.
From: Ted.Matley@dot.gov [mailto:Ted.Matley@dot.gov]
Sent: Thursday, January 22,2009 1:42 PM
To: Miyamoto, Faith
Subject: W: No Subject

- -- -- ---
From: BakiProp@aol.com [mailto:BakiProp@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 11,2008 1243 AM
To: Matley, Ted <FTA>
Subject: No Subject

Sir

State of Honolulu, is taxing us right and left DooMe k i n g . I-ligher taxes, killing small businesses. Tourism is dried up. Waikiki
beaches, Hotels are empty. Where will we get the Money to pay for this elephant called the Rail Transit? It will die a thousand
.death not it will take I5 years to built it. Just like the Boston Beautification.

Not now. Please.

Robert Thomas

Make your life easier with all your friends, emaii, and favorite sites in one place. Try it now.
(http:/lwww.aol.corn/?optin=new-dp&ici~comOOOOOOlO)

--------em---*---------

First Name : Daniel-W.
Last Name : Tiedge
BusinessIOrganization : University of Bremen, Germany
Address : Carl-Severing-Str. 28
Apt./Suite No. :
City : Bremen, Germany
State : HI
Zip Code : 28329
Email : danitedgeQ aol.com
Telephone : +49-177-7781239
Submission Date :

Submission ContentlNotes : Dear Sir or Madam,
I am a 23-year old student writing you from Bremen, Germany, where I
studdy geography at the local university.
I think it is excellent that the Honolulu rail transit project has been
approved by the voters.
I lived and went to high school (McKinley) in Honolulu for a total of 1,5
years. So I am well aware of the traffic problems the city and residents
have to face everyday.
Being an experienced rail-rider and a fan of rail-based mass-transit, I
strongly believe that bringing rail transit to Oahu will be a successful
project.
This Christmas I will be in Honolulu for a period of three weeks. And my
question is now, if is any opportunity to some volunteer-work at your
agency while I am there.
That would be a great way for me to gain some experience abroad as
plan to make my living later on by promoting and planning rail-based
transit in the US.
And may be you could even benefit from me being an experienced rail-
rider.
Mahalo for taking the time to read my message.
Your sincerely
Daniel Tiedge

From: Djou, Charles
Sent: Tuesday, December 09,2008 9:47 AM
To: Matsuda, Sylvia
Subject: FW: RAIL PHASING

Please add to DEIS comments

Charles K. Djou
Councilmember, District IV (Waikiki, East Honolulu)
Honolulu City Council
530 South King Street, Suite 202
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Phone: (808) 768-5004
Fax: (808) 550-6689
Emai!: &uu@!!onolulu qov
Web: WWGV hono!uI~.aovt~oun~iIid4

From: Steve Timpson [mailto:stimpson@hav~iii.rr..com]
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 11:43 AM
To: Djou, Charles
Subject: RAIL PHASING

Charles.

Thank you for looking into the logic of the currently announced phasing of the rail. The only logic supporting
constructing the first phase of the rail in the country is to make available jobs sooner than would be if work starts
in town. Think of it as to who would be using a system that starts in Ewa and ends in Aeia? People are not going
to drive to Ewa, leave their cars there, ride the rail to Aeia, and them take some other means to travel into town,
which will mean that the ridership counts will be way down, which then fuels the fire from people not favoring rapid
transit about stopping future phases since nobody is using the system
San Francisco, and all the other cities that have built rapid transit systems all sequence the phasing to start in
town and then extend the system into the suburbs as use increases Al! these locations have done so even
though the downtown section is more difficult and costly

Please continue to pursue the re-phasing as it just does not make any sense

Thanks

Steve Timpson
Goto Construction
216-9525



MAYOR DIRECTOR

SHARON ANN THOM
DEPUTY DIRECTOR

May 21,2010

Mr. Steve Timpson
stimpson@hawaii.rr.com

Dear Mr. Timpson:


submittal:

As described in Section 2.5.10 of the Final EIS, to support phased opening of the
system, the first construction phase must be connected to a maintenance and storage facility,
which requires considerable land. The first phase of the Project must be connected to the
maintenance and storage facility because, in addition to maintenance of equipment and ongoing
operations, the maintenance and storage facility houses the main control center for the entire
Project, and the required testing and operation of the system could not be completed without
access to it. No location has been identified closer to Downtown with sufficient available land to
construct a maintenance and storage facility. The Project will be constructed in phases to
accomplish the following:

Match the anticipated schedule for right-of-way acquisition and utility relocations

Mr. Steve Timps~n
Page 2

Reduce the time that each area will experience traffic and community
disturbances

Allow for multiple construction contracts with smaller contract size to promote
more competitive bidding

Match the rate of construction to what can be maintained with local workforce and
resources

Balance expenditure of funds to minimize borrowing

The portion of the corridor Ewa of Pearl Highlands is less developed than the areas Koko
Head. Right-of-way can be obtained more quickly; therefore, overall project construction can
begin earlier, resulting in lower total construction costs. Construction is planned to continue
uninterrupted Koko Head from Pearl Highlands to Aloha Stadium, then Kalihi, and finally to Ala
Moana Center.

The FTA and DTS appreciate your interest in the Project. The Final EIS has been issued
in conjunction with the distribution of this letter. You may view the Final EIS on the Project
website at www.honolulutransit.org. You may request a DVD of the Final EIS and additional
content through the "Contact Us" tab on the website or by calling the Project hotline at 566-2299.
Issuance of the Record of Decision under NEPA and acceptance of the Final EIS by the

Very tr ~ly
yours,

d8
-
WAYNE Y. Y O S H I O ~ ~ ~
Director
,

------.----------------
First Name : James
Last Name : Tokishi
Address :
AptJSuite No. :
City :
State : HI
Zip Code : 96816
Email : j.tokishiQgmail.com
Telephone :
Submission ContenVNotes : My concern regarding the DElS is that there is no updated revenue
information. In 2006, the economy was strong, and Parsons
Brinckerhoff used three numbers, a "conservative" estimate, and two
fifteen-year projections using information from the Hawaii Council on
Revenues, despite the CoR only making predictions for a few years in
the future.
In the two years (2007, 2008) following the release of the Alternatives
Analysis, the 0.5% GET transit tax has not met even the lowest revenue
forecasts, shown in table 5-4 in the AA. Despite this, the DElS uses the
middle forecast to estimate the total revenue available to the rail project.
Even in 2007, before the economic downturn of 2008, revenues were far
below their predicted values. It seems clear both that the original
estimates were far too optimistic, and that the projections need to be
reevaluated due to the current economic climate.

First Name : Barbara
Last Name : Tom
BusinesslOrganization : Retired-prev wl State
Address : 753 Kalanipuu St
Apt.lSuite No. :
City : Honolulu
State : HI
Zip Code : 96825

Submission ContenttNotes : Do you really think rail will cost only 4.8 Billion? I expect my
grandchildren will pay dearly and will not benefit since they will not be
riders and will not work in construction or food service, which 1 envision
to be the main jobs created.
How many City projects have corn in on time and in budget? What is the
usual cost overrun? Do you expect cost over estimates for Rail?
I voted againt rail because I think it is too costly but I don't know what the
answer is to traffic. By the way, I suspect your estimate of the fix to
traffic is way over because I don't think rail will ease traffic except in rush
hour and only for the residents of Kapolei and Ewa beach - otherwise
the train will be empty and there isn't much traffic then anyway.

-----.----------------
Creation Date : 11I2512008
First Name : L.
Last Name : Tomita
Address : 94-870 Lumiauau St
Apt./Suite No. : A203
City : Waipahu
State : HI
Zip Code : 96797
Email : tomits@kahala.net
Telephone :
Submission Date : 11I2512008
Submission ContenVNotes : 1. initial route: UH Manoa & Kalaeloa. extension: Ala Moana SC. don't
see Ala Moana SC workerslshoppers at the H-1IH-2 merge at 5 am.
2. why the love affair with Salt Lake? wouldn't more people benefit with
an airport route?
regarding 1. & 2, above: thought the whole rail idea was to serve the
greatest good. the greatest good don't live in Salt Lake. do your
homework!
3. too much focus on initial cost. how much is it going to cost for
upkeep? the C & C of HNL can't even fill potholes. how are we going to
pay for rail maintenance?

Status : Action Completed
First Name : Matthew
Last Name : Toyama
Address :
Apt./Suite No. :
City :
State :
Zip Code :
Email :
Telephone :
Submission Date :

Submission ContentINotes : Election Day is Coming up and I've taken my time to make my decision.
Right now I'm very much against Rail Transit because, based on both
Stop Rail and Support Rail advertisements, I believe that the people in
charge of the project have no clue what they're really doing.
This mainly stems from the fact that the Support Rail advertisements
don't address some of the more serious issues, such as space usage
and environmental concerns. All the Support Rail advertisements (As
well as their website) really say is "Anti-Rail Protesters are wrong
because Rail technology works in Seattle".
After reviewing this site I've gotten a much clearer image of what the Rail
project will be like. I approve of the idea of using elevated railways, that
beina the onlv ~ractical wav I believe it will work. However I am verv.
concerned about how you plan on integrating more eco-friendly
alternative energy sources into the project itself.
Many Advertisements claim that Rail will reduce our dependence on
foreign oil because it will run on electricity, and claim that it will.use
solar, wind, and biofuel. However all sources I've been able to locate
don't say HOW the alternative energy sources will be integrated.
As this is the case, I must assume that they will not infact be integrated
and the rail system will have to rely on HECO who, as I understand it,
still generate the majority of Hawaii's Electricity through traditional Oil
Burning means. Am Iwrong?
I'm also curious as to:
-Whv vou have not made the s~ecifics
coniidered available to the public.
-.
about the Rail Technoloav beina"

-How we can be sure that the government is going to promptly enact any
promises they make.
-Why you are planning to break ground in 2009, possibly before you are
approved to receive funding.
-Where the money is going to come from if construction begins in 2009
and we can only get government funding by 201 1.

RECORD #208 DETAIL
--------------------------
Status : In Process
Record Date : 12/20/2008
First Name : Paul
Last Name : Tse
Address : 155 N. Beretania St.
City : Honolulu
State : HI
Zip Code : 96817
Email : ptse189@yahoo.com
Telephone :
Submission Content/Notes : I have several suggestions for the rail transit system. It's better to start
the first phrase from downtown honolulu to Pearl CIty first. I heard that
the rail system will be intergrated with TheBus , TheBoat. Hybrid buses
will also be use in this project instead of diesel buses. The reason why is
that the buses will reduce greenhouse gases.

-------------.------
First Name : Veronica
Last Name : Tuia
Address : P.0 Box 31029
Apt./Suite No. :
City : Honolulu
State : HI
Zip Code : 96820
Email :
Telephone :
Submission ContentlNotes : Can we start now? Thanks



.

MAYOR DIRECTOR

SHARON ANN THOM
DEPUPl DIRECTOR

May 21,201 0

Ms. Veronica Tuia
P.O. Box 31029

Dear Ms. Tuia:

Comments Received on the Draft Environmental lmpact Statement

Preferred Alternative (23 CFR § 771.125 (a)(l)). This selection was based on consideration of
submittal:

While each of the alternatives includes trade-offs between benefits and impacts, the
Airport Alternative from East Kapolei to Ala Moana Center has been selected as the Preferred
Alternative. The identification of the Airport Alternative as the Preferred Alternative was made by
the City to comply with FTAJsNEPA regulations that state that the Final EIS should focus on the
Preferred Alternative (23 CFR 5 771.125 (a)(l)). This selection was based on consideration of
the benefits of each alternative, public input on the Draft EIS, and City Council Resolution 08-
261 identifying the Airport Alternative as the Project. The selection of the Airport Alternative is
described in Chapter 2 of this Final EIS. The discussion of the alternatives considered is
included in Chapter 2 of this Final EIS and the Alternatives Analysis. As discussed in Section
3.4.2 of this Final EIS, the Airport Alternative will carry the most passengers with I 16,000 daily
passengers and 282,500 daily trips in 2030, thereby resulting in the greatest transit-user
benefifs. The Airport Alternative will also result in the fewest vehicle miles traveled and vehicle

??IS. Jeronica Tulz
Page 2

hours of delay, as well as provide access to major employment areas, including Honolulu
International Airport, that will have substantially greater ridership than the other alternatives
considered. The Project is proceeding as quickly as practical, as illustrated in the schedule
presented in Chapter 2 of the Final EIS.


Very tr ly yours,

dv2M
WAYNE Y. Y ~ S H I O ~
Director

Enclosure

. . .. ..
. The purpose of the DEIS is to provide the C t , County, the FTA, and the public w t
i yand ih
the'informationnecessary to m,ake an informed decision, based.on a full and bpen .
,malvsisof costs,benefits, and environmental impacts of alternatives considered.
Howsver, it seems.thatiqsome respects, 'the DEISis aimed at convincing the pubic md
. . . .
t e FTA of the benefits of the Project, rather than infdrm the public.'
h
. .
One-example'is the cog-e-ectiveness of the project. TheFTA7scost-effectiveness
in .
index is a ratio formed by addine, an alternative's annualized,capitaZ cost to its year 2030
, overating and maintenance cost, and t e total is divided by user benefits''; in hours
h
saved. 'The key criteria for deterniining the cost-effective index k k annualized'cosi-ofthe
project, riderghip estimates, and the time benefits realized by the riders.
-.
h y proposed New Startsprojectreceiving less than a '"Medium" cost-effectiveness
index rating wiUnot be recommended for fund'ing by the FTA. The threshold befween a
rating of "Mediumi' and "Mediu&-LO$' is $22.99 per userbknefit expressed in dobars
; per hour of user benefit.

In the ~lterhatiives
Analysis, the cost-effectiveness index for the 20-mile alignment from
East Kapolei to Ala M o m Center is stated as.$21;34; aid.for the full project fiom West
KapoleCto UH Manoa virith an extension to Waikiki as $27.05. Thus, the 20-mile
segment meets the threshold of $22.99, but the fullproject does not ,.
City ordinance 07-001 recommend@ the North-South Road,Aifportoption as the' . ' '

preferred &Urn operational segment w S ) for sever& reasons, one of whicb being
. .thatthe cost-effectivenessindex of $22.56 is below FTAYsthreshold:

. .
Now, i the DEIS, the cost-effectivenessindex has markedly improved to a point that is
n
. . .. '
significantly below the FTA threshold of $22.99: $17.53 for'the Salt Lake Alternative,
$17;78 for the Airport Alternative, and $22.86 for the combined Salt Lake/Airport
ASte~tive.. Information for the 1 1project with exte&ions is conspicuously absent in
1 '

. -the DEIS although it was available in the AA.
.
? .

i
:. We know that the capital cost and O&M costs have not reduced, SO that the only
I explanationis that the user bench have increaseid significantly. If one digs hther into
. the DEIS; you will find fhe following statement: "'Research indicates that positive
; -
i
attributes (both perceived and real) are associated with the use of a fixed guideway .
system, which make the system more attractive.than. general'bustransit. These benefits
include such things as improved dety, security, .visibility, em; of use, comf~rt, and '

1 reliability. These.factors&'attributes are not captured by the standard travei dqmmd .
1 . ' forecasting process, To account for tbese attributes in.this user benefit analysis, FTA has
approved an additional factor e s of in-vehicle h e . The . ,
:.

. .

. .

factor was in&porated for.riderstaking the fixed guideway only. A.5.5-minute savings
of in-vehicle time was incorporated fo'r riders'taking feeder buses to,thefixed guideway."
. ,

13ssi&.llywhat this indicates is that 145 &nutes issubtracted from every guideway t i rp
made, md 5.5 minutes &om every feeder-bus trip to end up with the '%mea'benefittfor
guideway tripsthat is now.artificiallymore favorable. Assuming -90,000 &ed
g~deway e.achday, fe.d.by-63,000 bus trips, this. fudge factor adds up to a 22,000-.
trips .
,hourtime credit for fixed guideway use and a 6,000-him time medi'tfor feeder-bus use
.
..... for a btal credit of 28,000 hours each day of user benefit . .or over 5 million hours
w year of '"user benefit". Although the DEIS does not say so out rightly, this is
h ,. .
probably a major factor inthe much lower cost-effectivenessindex

Thus, it seems that the City and ~arsom Brhkerhoff, with or without coIIilsion by the
FTA has decided to apply a new subjective measure to the detenninatiofiof "user
. . in
Genefits'",which is not-incorporated the transit models. The appEcation of this chatlge '

is never clearly ixplained in the DEIS m any of the publicly available supporti.ng
- references.
s .

TI& issue a t h e exclusion of the complete project (MOS wt all extensions).iionithe
ih
. cost-effectiveiiess analysis need to be s c r u ~ thoroughly by the FTA,
d . .

Richard W. Ubersax, Ph.D.
4 1- 1013 Laumilo Street
Waimanalo, HI 96795

February 5,2009

To: Mr. Wayne Y. Yoshioka
Honolulu, HI 968 13

CC: Mr. Ted Matley
FTA Region IX

RE: General Comments on DEIS

Dear Mr. Yoshioka:

I am by no means an expert on transportation planning and engineering, but as an R&D director
(now retired) in a multibillion-dollar high-tech company, do have considerable experience ia
evaluating complex and risky technology projects, including evaluation of alternative
technoIogies and approaches, assessing technical feasibility of proposed approaches, and
evaluating outcome probabilities and economic risks. Surprisingly, the principles and
methodologies for evaluating the Honolulu rail transit project are very similar. In both cases an
informed decision to proceed (or not) is based on reliable input (existing and projected) and
obiective analysis based on experience, good iudment. and benchmarking against comparable
projects. After initiation of approved projects, similar methodologies are applied to measure
progress as new information (results) becomes available.
Based on my analysis of the DEE and supporting documentation, and researching project history
and benchmark information, I have serious reservations about whether the City has made an
objective evaluation of all of the alternatives against the key criteria, but rather has conducted the
process and presented data and analysis to achieve a predetermined result. The magnitude of the
cost of the project and the long-tem implications that the wrong choice will have'on the
aesthetic, environmental, economic, and social welfare of the community is cause to pause and
reassess the validity of the whole process.
Each Administration has had its own "pet" transit program (just look at the history over the last
20 years), which has resulted in vacillation and delay in moving forward. This has created chaos
in the selection process and conf~~sion among the people. The current Administration (and
Council) terminated the past Administration's BRT project within days of attaining office and
instantly the current program was elevated to the top of the agenda.

I think we all recognize the need for an efficient and cost-effective transit system for the island
of Oahu, but we must resist emotional or predetermined decisions and political agendas to
dominate the process - rather than a pristinely objective process.
The following examples and discussion are meant to show where I believe there are flaws in the
process, data, interpretation of the data, and arguments in favor of the case. There are numerous
other examples I could use, but for lack of time and brevity, I have focused on the ones
presented. Please tale this discourse constructively, even though it may appear highly critical.
Please contact me with any questions.

Respectfully yours,

R~-Aw l u w
Richard W. Ubersax

P.S.: I have also sent you an electronic copy in .pdf format.

The purpose of the DEIS is to provide the City and County of Honolulu, the FTA, and the p~lblic
with information necessary to male an informed decision, based on a full and open analvsis of
-- and environmental impacts of all of the alternatives considered. This project is
costs, benefits,
probably one of the most complex and costly projects ever undertaken in the state of Hawaii; so
it is critical for the City administrators and the p~lblic have s~lfficient objective
to and
information to make informedjudgments about the various aspects of the project, distill the
information to assess the merits of potential alternatives, and determine how it will affect the
island and their personal lives. However, it seems that in some respects, the DEIS is aimed at
convincing the pubic (and the FTA) of the benefits of the "Project", rather than to objectively
inform about both the benefits and downsides.
The DEIS and the accompanying Technical Reports certainly contain a plethora of information,
but there are many areas where important information is missing or difficult to find, where
significant changes have been made from the Alternatives Analysis without s~lfficient
explanation, where the validity of data is in serious doubt, and where decisions and choices have
been made and rationalized with incredulous explanation. As a result, the credibility of the
entire document and process is compromised.
The Administration, FTA, and Oahu taxpayers should be wary of spending over $5 billion on a
Project that has been selected on the basis bias, questionable data and judgment, where the risks
have not been fully evaluated, and where significant impacts have been summarily dismissed.
In its present form, the DEIS does not meet the criteria set forth in the first sentence of this page.
In fact, the City should step back, assess whether they have objectively met all of the criteria and
requirements of NEPA and SAFTEA-LU, make the appropriate modifications to ensure
compliance, inform the public of their intentions and plan, and then move forward. It is better to
take the time now rather than regret unintended consequences in the future.
The following discussion is meant to provide examples where - based on my interpretation and
analysis of the information provided in the DEIS, s~~pporting references, and other
doc~unentation developed throughout the process - I find that incomplete or ambiguous data has
been presented, inappropriate conclusions have been drawn, and/or questionable decisions made.

A. Selection and Evaluation of Alternatives
The DEIS defines the "Projecty' as a fixed guideway transit system from East Kapolei to Ala
Moana Center. Planned extensions are anticipated to West Kapolei, UH Manoa, and Waikiki.
The Locally Prefened Alternative selected by City Coimcil includes the Project and the planned
extensions. The DEIS considers the following "four" alternatives:
I) No-Build Alternative and
2) Build between East Kapolei and Ala Moana Center, with three variations:
a) Salt Lake Alternative
b) Aimort Alternative
c) Salt Lake + Airport Alternative combined
Actually, these distill to two alternatives - No Build and m. The three "Build" alte~natives
described in the DEIS are so similar in terms of environmental impact, benefits accrued, and
economics that they cannot be truly classified as distinctly different alternatives; to the skeptic, it
appears that they were structured as distinct alternatives in the DEIS to satisfy the legal

requirement of due diligence for the selection and evaluation among all reasonable alternatives.
If they were truly distinct, City Council would never have been able to make the switch from the
Salt Lake Alternative to the Airport Alternative by a simple Council vote without considerable
public input.
It is clearly stated in 40CFR1502.14:
The Environmental Impact statement "shouldpresent the environmental impacts of theproposal
and the alternatives in comparativeform, thzrs sharply defning the isszres andproviding a clear
basisfor choice among options by the decision maker and the public. In this section agencies
shall:
(a) Riaorouslv explore and obiectivelv evalztate all reasonable alternatives, and for alternatives
that were elirninateclfvom detailed study, briefly disczrss the reasonsfor their having been
eliminated.
(b) Devote szrbstantial treatment to each alternative considered in detail inclzrding the proposed
action so that reviewers may evalztate their comparative merits.
(c) Include reasonable alternatives not within the izrrisdiction o f the lead aaencv.
(d) Include the alternative of no action.
(e) Ident15 the agency'spreferred alternative or alternatives, ifone or more exists, in the dvaft
statement and identifjr such alternative in thefinal statement zinless another law prohibits the
e~pression stlch a preference.
of
@I Inclzrde appropriate mitigation measures not already inclzrded in the proposed action or
,
alternatives. "
It is clear that since reincarnation of rail transit in 2005, there has been bias towards steel-on-
steel rail as the preferred transit mode; other potentially viable alternatives have not been
considered seriously, or they have been systematically eliminated during preliminary evaluation.
The Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) from Kapolei to UH Manoa with an extension to
Waikiki was selected because the end-points make sense and the route passes through the highly
populated east-west corridor where traffic relief is badly needed. When it was realized that the
cost of this route was significantly higher than the City could afford, the expedient solution was
simply to shorten the route, with the intent to complete the LPA at a later time. Other
alternatives, which could be as equally effective - and perhaps lower-cost - appear to have been
summarily dismissed without comprehensive, objective evaluation. The explanation of why
alternatives were not feasible was based on flawed analysis and on the argument that they did not
meet FTA or State criteria for funding. In reality, there are alternative federal funding sources,
and the State could easily amend HI3 1309 to accommodate other Alternatives. It is clear that the
political will was - and continues to be -focused on rail (note restrictions in HB 1309 for
counties with population of greater than 500,000), and thus has limited the scope of selection of
Alternatives.
The current design of the fixed guideway kill cause irreparable disruption of views through and
across its path; it would ruin the aesthetics neigl~borhoods important historical sites. These
and
visual impacts would be impossible to mitigate. The noise of trains passing every 1.5 to 5
minutes will be physically and emotionally distressing, especially during night-time hours along
tight corridors. The FTA guidelines are for exterior noise, and do not consider the open window
and door lifestyle of our residents. lMany of the receptor sites evaluated in the DEIS would shift

from "no impact" to "moderate impact", or from "moderate impact" to "severe impact" if the
criteria were adjusted for our lifestyle. The assessment in the DEIS downplays the severity of
noise impacts by not considering L,, for instantaneous noise as recommended by FTA
guidelines. At present, there are no City or State statutes that regulate noise from mobile
sources. Hawaii HAR 11-46 [not HAR 11-16] regulates stationary noise sources. It is
imperative that such statutes be legislated to protect the peaceful environment to which we are
accustomed.
All things considered, we need to step back and objectively evaluate alternatives that could be
more cost-effective than elevated rail and could bring lesser environmental impact along its path.
The following are examples that should be considered:
a) A more environmentallv-friendly rail svstem. The greatest concerns with an elevated
guideway, steel-on-steel rail system is the high cost of the elevated guideway (-3-4 times
that of at-grade systems) and significant visual, aesthetic, and noise impacts along the
guideway. A potential solution would be to build the system at grade through rural areas
where possible for lower cost, and through sensitive urban areas (where noise, visual, and
aesthetic impacts are problematical), to build at-grade or underground. Fixed Guideway
Alternative 4a (Kapolei ParkwayIKamokila BoulevardSaIt Lake Boulevard/King
StreetfHotelStreetIAlakea StreeUKapi'olani Boulevard/UH Manoa) from the Alternatives
Screening Memo, October 24, 2006 apparently attempted to do this but was eliminated
from consideration late in the evaluation process. It (or optimizations thereof) should be
revisited, and perhaps with shortened routes (e.g., an MOS from East Kapolei to Ala
Moana Center) for greater affordability.
This alternative would be expected to have lesser noise and visual impacts east of Iwilei
Road since it descends to grade on Hotel Street and goes ~mderground Alakea Street to
at
Waimanu Street. The cost of this alternative is expected to be less than or comparable to
the DEIS Salt Lake Alternative.

b) A bus r a ~ i d
transit (BRT) system similar to that described in the "Primaly Corridor
TransportationProject" FEIS, July 2003 and "HonoltrluBRT Project Evalzration ",
January 2006. The system began operation in November 2004, but was discontinued in
June 2005, supposedly due to poor performance (and coincidental with change in City
administration).
A conclusion of the 2006 "Evaluation" report is: "Greater benejts in terms of improving
ridership, customer satisfaction, capital and operating cost eflectiveness, transit stpportive
land use, and environmental qttnlity may be possible with more signiJcant investments in
dedicated running ways, advanced vehicles, stations, ITS elements, andfare collection. "
BRT has been proven successful in many U.S. and foreign cities, and could be s~~ccessful
in Honolulu if given the chance. This aIternative should be revived and given the
necessaty planning and engineering resources to make an objective evaluation.
c) A BRT 1 Managed Lane Alternative (MLA) hybrid, similar to the EZ-Way proposal by
Professor Panos Prevedouros and Councilwoman Ann Kobayashi during her mayoral
campaign. A major deficiency in the evaluation of the 1WA in the Alternatives Analysis is
that the design developed by the City did not provide sufficient egress points along the
route to enable uncongested flow at exit ramps. This was a major reason for its dismissal
from fiuther consideration. However, it is anticipated that with improved design to

overcome this deficiency, the EZ- Way proposal would ascend to become a viable
alternative.

All of the above alternatives would be expected to lessen the environmental impacts that a fixed-
guideway elevated system will bring to the highly populated urban center of Honolulu.
Finally on the point of objectivity versus political will: the City Administration, City Council,
and entire selection process have lost credibility over the Salt Lake Alternative versus Airport
Alternative debacle. The initial selection of the Salt Lake Alternative was politically motivated;
the change to the Airport Alternative was proposed the week after the election. The net result is
that the whole process is now tainted. Let's take the appropriate steps to restore that credibility
by giving all potentiallv viable alternatives an objective assessment. Yes, it will delay the
project; but we "can not afford not to do it".

B. Transit User Benefits and Cost Effectiveness of the Proiect
a) User Benefits:
This is an area where major change has been made in the DEIS versus the AA without
sufficient explanation. To most readers of the DEIS, the change probably went unnoticed
because of how the DEIS is structured.
"Transit user beneJits represent the amozrnt of transit travel-time savings a user wozild
experience with a given transit alternative compared to the No Build Alternative. "(DEIS p. 3-
36).
Table 3-19 lists the transit-time savings for various transit markets for the three Build
Alternatives compared to the No Build Alternative. These represent future projections
calculated by the travel demand-forecasting model. The model predicts that the time saved
each day for users of the Project will be approximately 50,000 hours per day or 15-16 million
hours per year.
During the period between the AA and DEIS, the FTA allowed an additional benefit to transit
users - again expressed in terms of time saved (Federal Register Vol. 72, No. 106. June 4,
2007):
"FTA adopts asfinal its proposal to allow project sponsors that seek to introduce a new
transit mode to an area to claim credits (implemented through what is commonly called a
mode specific constant)for the tisev benefits cazised b y attribzttes o f that mode bevond the
travel time and cost measures cztrrentlv available in the local travel model. FTA will
continue to work closely with sponsors ofprojects that have calibrated mode-spec%
constants to ensure that they are using constants that are generally consistent with the
methods and values permitted for sponsors ofprojects which are new to an area. "
"FTA will assign creditsfor characteristics in three categories: (I) Gzlideway-like
characteristics (equivalent to a maximzlm of eiaht minutes of travel time savings); (2) span of
good service (iy to three minutes); and (3) passenger amenities (up to fozv minutes). Further,
FTA will define a discount of z l p to ZOpercent on the weiaht auplied to time spent on the
transit vehick These credits and discount are applied to the calczllation of user benefits only;
ridershipforecasts will not be affected. "

This was superficially disclosed in the DEIS on p. 3-36:
"Research indicates that positive attributes (both perceived and real) are associated with the
w e of a fixed gzrideway system, which make the system more attractive than general bus
transit. These benefits inclzide szich things as improved safety, seczrrity, visibility, ease of use,
comfort, and reliability. Thesefactors or attributes are not captzrred by the standard travel
demandforecasting process. To accountfor these attributes in this zrser benejt analysis, FTA
has approved an additionalfactor eqzrivalent to a 14.5 -minzrte savings of in-vehicle time. The
factor was incorporatedfor riders taking thejxedgziideway only. A 5.5 -minzlte savings of in-
vehicle time was incorporatedfor riders takingfeeder buses to the fuced guideway. "
Basically what this indicates is that 14.5 minutes is credited to every guideway trip made, and
5.5 minutes to every feeder-bus trip, to end up with an inflated "time" benefit for guideway
trips. These "savings" are then multiplied by ridership estimates. Assuming -90,000 fixed
guideway trips each day [Table 3-18], fed by -63,000 bus trips, this additional factor adds up
to a 22,000-hour time credit for fixed guideway use and a 6,000-hour time credit for feeder-
bus use - for a total credit of 28,000 hours each dav of user benefit - or over 8.6 million
hours each year. The total user benefit has now increased 56% to approximately 78,000 hours
each day. This total amount is nowhere disclosed in the DEIS or Technical Reports. At first
' glance, this might appear as an innocuous adjustment; but it becomes significant in the
calculation of the "Cost-Effectiveness Index" - one of the most significant criteria in the
FDA's rating of the Project versus competing projects.
The mode-specific constants are intended to be applied to account for attributes (such as
safety, security, reliability, ease of use, etc.) above and beyond the time-savings predicted in
the local travel model. However, these factors are subjective and arbitrary, unless they can be
validated versus other operating transit systems. The derivation of the values in the DElS are
not explained at all, so appear to be strictly arbitrary values, or values negotiated with FTA.
A full and open analysis is certainly missing, and needs to be included: What data supports
the claim that trains are safer than other modes? Users of the Project will need to make more
transfers than with the No-Build Alternative; does this really improve ease of use?
The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority reports that the incidence of crime is
approximately three times greater for train transport than bus:

Crime rate per MiIlion Riders
Rail
ParkingLot
:-tTF
2004

4.28
0.60
1
2005

3.55 ,
2006
1.65 T T 6 9
3.97
0 . 6 8 1- 0.79
-
I
1
2007
2.17
4.38
0.79
/,
1
2008
2.7~
4.40
0.95
1
Reference: http://www.wmata.com/about~metroI~ansit~pofice/mtpd~crime~stats03.cfm
Thus, if one assumes a similar trend in HonoIulu, the modal-specific constant adjustment for
"safety" should be zero or negative. The point is that the modal-specific constants use in the
analysis need to be thoroughly explained in the DEIS.

b) Cost-Effectiveness Index:
According to the DEIS (p. 7-9): "Cost-effectivenessis one of the key criteria that FTA zlses to
evaluate projects proposed for Section 5309 New Starts funding. The FTA 's cost effectiveness

index is a ratioformed by adding an alternative's nnnzralized capital cost to its year 2030
operating and maintenance cost, and the total is divided bv zrser benefits", in hozrrs saved.
Further "The cost-effectiveness indicesfor the Bziild Alternatives compared to the baseline
fall within the "medium" range established by FTA for its New Starts ratings, which, along
with other considerations, & czrrrentlv reqzrired to gzralifi.for New Starts fimdinn. " The key
criteriafor determining the cost-effective index are annzialized cost of the project, ridership
estimates, and the time beneJits realized by the riders.
Any proposed New Starts project receiving less than a "Mediumyycost-effectiveness index
rating will not be recommended for funding by the FTA. The tlueshold between a rating of
"Medium" and "Medium-Low" is $22.99 per user benefit expressed in dollars per hour of user
benefit.
According to the Alternatives Analysis, the cost-effectiveness index for the 20-mile alignment
from East Kapolei to Ala Moana Center is $21.34; and for the full project from West Kapolei
to UH Manoa with an extension to Waikiki as $27.05. Thus, the full project would not meet
the threshold requirement of $22.99, but the 20-mile alignment would.
City ordinance 07-001 defined a Locally Preferred Alternative for a fixed guideway transit
system and authorized development of a minimum operable segment (MOS). The North-
South RoadIAirport option was recommended by Council in the ordinance for several seasons,
one of which being that the cost-effectiveness index of $22.56 was below FTAYs threshold for
receiving the necessaly "Medi~~m" better cost-effectiveness rating needed to qualify for
or
FTA's recommendation for funding. Note again that the threshold is $22.99.
Now, in the DEIS, the cost-effectiveness index has markedly improved to a point that is
significantly below the FTA threshold of $22.99: $17.53 for the Salt Lake Alternative, $17.78
for the Airport Alternative, and $22.86 for the combined Salt LakeIAirport Alternative (DEIS
Table 7-7). Information for the full project with extensions is not available in the DEIS.
We know that the capital cost and O&M costs have not reduced (perhaps have increased
slightly), so that the only explanation is that the user benefits have increased significantlv. As
discussed above, the user benefits have increased significantly because of application of the
subjective "mode-specific" time adjustment to the actual time saved. Thus, if one adds the
annzlalized capital cost to its year 2030 operating and maintenance costs, and divides the total
by the user benefits (in hours saved), the result is a number that is significantly less than
reported in the AA; e.g. $21.34 in the AA (20-mile alignment) versus $17.53 in the DEIS
(Salt Lake Alternative).
The application of this change is never clearly explained in the DEIS nor any of the
supporting references. In fact, the level of detail in the DEIS on the Cost-effectiveness Index
is restricted to Table 7-7. This certainly does not meet the requirement of a full and open
analysis so that the public is able to make an informed decision. To the contrary, the City has
disguised and concealed this information so that it is difficult to comprehend how Cost-
effectiveness Index was calculated.
There is a disclaimer to the validity of the Cost-effectiveness Index calculations in the DEIS
as follows:
"FTA is czrrrently reviewing the estimates madefor ridership and zrser benefits, operating and
nzaintenance costs, and capital costsfor the BuildAlter.izatives. Ifthese reszrlts hold z through
p

s~~bseqtlenf
phases ofpi*oject development, along with other FTA considerations, the Project wozrld be
in the competitive range forfirndng consideration. " (DEIS p. 7-9)
It is imperative that this whole area be scrutinized by the FTA, so that the merits of the project
are accurately determined prior to issuance of an ROD.
It is also noteworthy that the City has not included any discussion of the Cost-effectiveness
Index of the Full Project as was done in the AA. One can surmise that it would be
significantly higher than for the Project, and was intentionally excluded since it still might
exceed the FTA threshold of $22.99 (my estimation is that it would be between $22 and $24).
One final note on Cost-effectiveness Index: Since the Honolulu Project utilizes an elevated
guideway along the entire length it would be expected to cost 3 to 4 times as much as an "at-
grade" system. Operations and Maintenance costs are expected to be.higher than an at-grade
system beca~~se the higher infrastructure cost. User benefits (time saved) are expected to be
of
the same as any rail transit system of similar size. Thus, with the significantly higher cost of
the elevated system, it is difficult to rationalize how the Honolulu Project could have a Cost-
effectiveness Index that is competitive with other projects on the FTA docket.
The discussion in the DEIS needs be expanded to elaborate the derivation of User Benefits
data and Cost-effectiveness Index - in detail at least as extensive as in the Alternatives
Analysis. The dramatic red~lction the Cost-effectiveness Index reposted in the DEIS versus
in
in the AA needs comprehensive explanation, and how this change will influence the FTA7s
evaluation of the Project. The FTA should explain how this project could be competitive with
other projects with respect to this important rating criterion, considering its extremely high
capital cost.

C. Validitv of Model Predictions and Interpretation:
Many of the conclusions drawn throughout the evaluation process are based on predictive transit
and traffic models commonly ~ ~ s for such evaluations. They are commonly used by most large
ed
cities for transit planning, and are usually tailored for the specific city or area. It is impossible
for the layman to understand the operation of these models and their inputs and outputs (e.g.,
screenline analysis, vehicle miles traveled, vehicle hours traveled, vehicle hours of delay, transit
ridership, transit time saved, etc), so we must rely on what is reported by the users of the models.
In the DEIS, these model predictions are reported as the gospel truth; the results are not reported
as ranges, but as specific values; no probabilities are assigned concerning the confidence of the
values reported. It is unreasonable that we should be expected to accept these predictions at face
value. At a minimum, the DEIS should at least disclose that there is uncertainty around
predictive model outputs, and report a of probable output values that reflects the range of
reasonable inputs into the model, and assign a probability of confidence to the values or ranges
reported. Within the DEIS and supporting references, the discussion around cofi~dence level or
uncertainty around the values is conspicuously absent.
The disparity between model predictions and actual transit ridership validates the need to report
model predictions as ranges or to assign confidence probabilities. For the majority of rail transit
systems put into operation within the last 30 years, actual ridership has not met ridership
predictions; a few have exceeded prediction. For many of these cases, actual ridership might fall
within a predicted range, and thus give greater credibility to the entire process.

The "Honolzrh High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Alternatives Analysis Travel Demand
Forecasting Results Reuort" (RTD 20084 October 2008) addresses changes made in the Travel
Demand model, but does not address validation of the model. In fact the Report is el~lsive in
describing details. For example in the section on Adjustment of the Mode Choice Model, it says
"The mode choice model ~vas re-calibrated aspart of the Drnft EISprocess; however, the details
of it are not disczissed in this report" (p. 1-3). Regarding calibration and validation of the model,
the Report states: "The 2005 model was calibrated as a restilt of all of the changes discussed.
Calibration Target Valtres were assigned and applied to the model. Details regarding the
calibration and validation process, inclzrding the spec@ Calibration Target Values, can be
fozrnd in the Honolulzi High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Travel Forecasting Methodology
Report (RTD 2006)" (p. 1-5).
There are several examples from the DEIS that prompt one to question the validity of these
models or whether the data is being reported accurately:
a) Ridership model:
DEIS Table 3-17 shows Fixed Guideway ridership for the three Alternatives. It seems
inconsistent that ridership for the "Airport & Salt Lake" Alternative (92,7 10 daily boardings)
is less than for the "Air Port" Alternative (95,3 10). One would certainly think that the Airport
& Salt Lake Alternative, with one additional station than the Airport Alternative, would have
greater ridership than the Airport Alternative alone. Perhaps there is good rationale for this,
but it is certainly not disclosed in the DEIS.
It is also curious that the data in Tables 4-2 1,4-22, and 4-23 of the Travel Demand
Forecasting Restilts Report (RTD 2008t) are significantly greater than reported in the DEIS
(although the data in Appendix A of the Forecasting Results Report (RTD 2008t) are the
same).

DEIS RTD 2008t RTD 2008t
Table 3- 17 Tables 4-2 1. 22-23 Appendix A
Salt Lake: 87,570 102,174 87,571
Airport: 95,3 10 120,231 95,305
SL&AP 92,710 108,179 92,707
Perhaps there are explanations (that are not obvious to the reader) for this "curious" data, but
they are not discussed in the DEIS or Technical report (RTD 2008t).
Side note: As a point of reporting accuracy, there is obviously a gross error in Table 4-1 1 of the
Travel Demand Forecasting Resz~lts Report (total AM peak hour voluine of 93,4 10 appears to be off
of -10). Perhaps the wrong spreadsheet was inserted. - - I

b) Calculation and Interpretation of Conpestion Data:
The Oahzr MPO Travel Demand Forecasting Model is the primary tool for predicting future
traffic patterns and transportation-relatedeffects. The tables below show data extracted from
the DEIS for Vehicle Miles Traveled per day (VMTId), Vehicle Hours Traveled per day
(VHTId), and Vehicle Hours of Delay per day (VHD/d). A primary measure of traffic
congestion in the DEIS (and AA) is based on "Vehicle Hours of Delay" (VHD) for each

transportation scenario. It is not clear from the DEIS how VHD is calculated in the model;
nonetheless, if we take the data at face value, the following can be concluded:
- In 2030, if the Project were not built, VHD would be 43.2% greater than in 2007 (even
with planned roadway improvements); e.g., "congestion" would be 43.2% greater.
- In the build scenarios, congestion in 2030 would be 10.8-13.5% greater than today
- In the build scenarios, congestion in 2030 would be 20.8-22.6% less than the 2030 No
Build scenario.

From DEIS Tables 3-9 and 3-14
O/
O Change From 2007

2007 1 581 000
1 334 000 74 000
2030 no-Build 13 583 000 415000 106000 17.3% 24.3% 43.2% .
2030 Salt Lake 13.1% 15.3% 13.5%
2030 Airport 13.0% 15.3% 10.8%
2030 80th 13 103 000 386 000 83 000 13.1% 15.6% 12.2%

From AA Table 3-10

2005
2030
2030
2030
2030
no-Build
20-Mile
MLA Rev
MLA* Rev
I I
Similar data is presented in the AA (below).

dv
M
;
11,206,000
13 971 000
13 539 000
14,034,000
14,050,000
VHT[d
305 000
395 000-
376 000
397,000
387 000
57
82
73
82
72
000
000
500
500
500
ml24.7%
20.8%
25.2%
25.4%
% change from 2005

29.5%
23.3%
30.1%
26.9%
43.9%
28.9%
44.7%
27.2%

% Change from No Build
VMT/d VHTId VHD/d
2030 20-Mile -- -3.1% 1
-4.8% 1
-10.4%
2030 MLA Reverse -- +O.S0/o 1
+0.5% 1
+0.6%

2030 MLA* Rev --
-- 1 0.6% I -2.0% 1 -11.6% 1
* IMLAi.eversib/e case with H-I zipper in place (estinzateco
Comparing the DEIS data with the AA data, the following differences stand out:
- VHD for the 2030 No Build case in the DEIS is 29% greater than the 2030 No Build case in
the AA (106,000/82000); although VHD for the 2030 Build cases are only -13% greater than
for the 2030 20-mile alternative in the AA (-83,000173,500).

- Existing condition (2005 or 2007) VHD is 30% greater in the DEIS than in the AA, althougll
VMT is only 3% greater. One would think that the increase in VHD would be i n ~ ~ c h
smaller
for a 3% increase in cars on the road (VMT).
Ultimately the Build Alternatives provide congestion relief (improvement in VHD) when
compared with the No Build Alternatives of 10.4% in the AA and -21-23% in the DEIS.. ...or to
put it in the Administration's words: "a 100% improvement in congestion." Lacking good
explanation in the DEIS, this sudden improvement is difficult to rationalize or understand. The
impression that was left with the public is that the benefits of the Build Alternatives are much
greater than previously anticipated -just what the Administration intended. Nothing was said
about the accuracy or calibration of the models as a possible explanation.
The underlying uncertainty is whether the travel models are providing reliable data. Predictive
models calculate future conditions based on the model's algorithms (mathematical manipulations
via equations) and input data (including from other models). Algorithms can be optimized to try
to better suit local conditions. Overall, getting a predictive model to male accurate predictions
(validated) is an extremely difficult undertaking. If the assumptions that go into the model are
not validated, the accuracy of the o~~tputt be in question. An obvious validation point lies in
can
the comparison of 2005 traffic data (actually measured existing condition) with that predicted for
2007. Unfortunately, I do not believe that "actual" 2007 data has been gathered, and thus,
validation is not possible.
To demonstrate the point that it is an easy matter to achieve an entirely different outcome from
small, and explainable differences in input data, I have added an "new" alternative into the AA
Alternatives evaluation: a Managed Lane Alternative with the reversible lane option, but using
the H- 1 zipper lane as an added lane (H- 1 zipper was not used for the reversible MLA option). I
have assumed a reduction in daily delay of 10,000 hours; which is equivalent to a 2.4-minute
savings for each of the 250,000 cars that would benefit from this option. This option is included
at the bottom of the above table (in gray font). Isn't it amazing that this option reduces
congestion 11.6% versus 10.4% for the 20-mile AA Build Alternative! If I had access to the
model, I could just as easily have ccoptimized" inputs and algorithms to get a similar result.
The main point in this example is that even small differences in model predictions can influence
data used in making key decisions. In this case, the MLA Alternative looks considerably better
than originally portrayed in the AA. Is the congestion relief quoted in the DEIS really 100%
greater than in the AA? Certainly not; it is only 12% better (23% minus 11%).....or maybe not
even that.. ...I really do not know because the accuracy of the model has not been validated!
The magnitude of this Project requires that the City demonstrate through substantive assessment
and analysis that all of the information used in the evaluation and selection of alternatives is
accurate and can be validated within reasonable confidence levels.

D. Project Risks and Uncertainties
Section 6.5 of the DEIS (Risks and Uncertainties) is designed to explain the financial "risks"
associated with the Project; but in reality, it is more a compilation of "uncertainties" rather than a
comprehensive analysis of the risks and potential consequences of these uncertainties, and a plan
to mitigate their impacts on the Project. As a result, the reader (and thus general public) is

unaware of the impact these financial uncertainties could have on the Project and on the financial
stability of the City.
With respect to FTA's "Risk Analysis Melhodologies and Procedzrres", June 2004, it appears
that the City has completed the first two "Prepare" and "Identify" steps of the risk analysis
process, but has neglected to "Quantify" or "Assess" the magnitude of the risks, or established a
plan to "Mitigate7'the risks). Rather, the City has reserved a large "contingency" in the Project
budget to cover the risks and uncertainties. The FTA discourages this approach, and suggests
that a comprehensive risk analysis is a tool for better communication and more cost-effective
project management, and thus minimizes the need for large contingencies.
The risk assessment should anticipate the following events and a plan to mitigate their
consequences:
- GET surcharge fund plus New Starts funding is not sufficient to meet Pro-iect capital costs
[including interest costs). Right now there is no assurance that the GET revenues will meet
the anticipated $4.054 Billion, or New Starts funding will meet expectations. The DEIS
states that additional fimnding would be possible to filnd the capital needs of the Project, but
does not specifically identify the source except by reference to "complemented by local
assistance" (Section 6.2.2). Does this mean local taxes (State and City) will increase to
cover the gap? Will the GET be extended beyond 2022? Will funds be transferred from
the General and Highway funds (at the expense of other infrastructure projects)? Will the
project be stopped short of Ala Moana Center? How will the Extensions be financed?
The City needs to be more specific in defining sources of additional fimnds, and if in the
form of General Revenue Bonds or cbborrowed" from other City funds, how they will be
repaid.
- Fare revenues are not sufficient to cover 27 to 33% of O&M costs or total transit subsidies
exceed 15% of General and Highway fimnd revenues. What will be the source of additional
funds?
- Coastl-uction delays or stoppage by discovery of Archaeolo$cal and Cultural Resources;
construction irnvediments caused bv concerned proups. Vil-tually every major construction
project on Oahu has been either stopped or significantly delayed because of anticipated or
act~~al.discove~yof Archaeological Resources. There will be no exception for this project.
The City should expect construction delays of uncertain length. The impact of this
scenario needs to be addressed in the financial Risk Analysis.
- Overatinn risks. In addition to those mentioned in the DElS there is a risk that speeds will
have to be reduced or headways extended for a variety of seasons: e.g., longer stops needed
at stations, too noisy in sensitive residential neighborhoods. This will have a definite
impact on cost. The financial implications of these situations on operating costs andlor
cost of mitigation need to be assessed.

A major concern of many residents is the impact that cost over-runs (either capital or
operational) will have on quality-of-life programs for the benefit of the general public, such as:
parks, recreational facilities, road quality. This concern extends to the impact that higher taxes
will have on disposable income, and thus quality-of-life on a daily basis for each individual and
family.

FTA guidelines indicate that a comprehensive Risk Analysis has the potential to increase
efficiency and reduce project costs. It is imperative the risks associated with this Project be
addressed in much greater detail in the SEIS or FEIS.

E. Economic Impact
The DEIS must meet the requirements of both Federal and State EIS standards. It is clear from
Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 343 that the DEIS should disclose "the environmental efiects of
a proposed action, effects of a proposed action on the economic welfare, social welfare, and
czilturalpractices of the cornmzrnity and State, effcts o f the economic activities arising out of the
proposed action, menszires proposed to minimize adverse effects, and alternatives to the action
and their eizvironmental effects. "
Section 4.2 of the DEIS (EconomicActivity) assesses the impact of the Project on specific
economic elements in the study corridor, but fails to consider the more global economic impacts
on the economic welfare nnd social welfnve of the community (island of Oahu) either in this
section or in cum~~lativeeffects. It covers the impact on employment, and the positive and
negative impacts the Project will have on property values and tax revenues for properties near
the guideway. But it fails to address the Project's impact on property taxes for all property
owners on Oahu.
It also fails to assess the impact that capital costs of the Project will have on the long-term
economic andsocial welfare of the people, or on other infrastructure projects (e.g., roads,
sewers, parks) and social programs. Financing of the Project capital cost via the GET surcharge
costs each individual on Oahu -$125-150 each year (-$500-600 per family) and will continue
for 16 years through 2022. In total, each family will contribute -$20K (YOE $s) towards the
capital cost of the project. The 0.5% GET surcharge has already impacted the lives of many
residents, and could impact many more because of the economic downturn in the local and
national economy. The GET is a regressive tax and th~ls impacts the economic (and social)
welfare of lower-income families more than higher-income families. There is no mention of
these effects in the DEIS or supporting references.
Any shortfalls in Operating and Maintenance costs are "asszrmed to befilnded throzigh City
szibsidiesfrom its General and Highway Funds" (DEIS p. 6-10). Today, Operating and
Maintenance subsidies represent -10% of the County's General Fund (which is 70% funded by
property tax revenues) and are expected to increase to 14-15% in 20 18 (DEIS Fig. 6.3). This
translates to an increase of -$40M to $50M (2008 $), or -$44 to $55 for each resident each year
(-$I70 to 220 per family), which will be have to be funded by an increase in property tax of -5
to 6% (despite the Administration's denial that there will be a need to increase property taxes for
this purpose).

Note to correct misstatement in DEIS: To rationalize the curve in Figure 6-3 (resulting in a concomitant
lower O&M cost as % of General Fund since 2002), it is stated in the DEIS, p.6-7, that "City revenzres
have increased, as a reszrlt of large increases in real estate valzres on O'ahu ....". This is a statement
that the City has used repeatedly to rationalize why real estate taxes (revenues) have increased
dra~natically over the past five years. The coroIla~y this statement must also apply: City revenzres will
to
decrease as a reszrlt in decreases in real estate value. But this corollary will prove to be incorrect
because of Citv statute. In realitv. real estate revenues have increased because of increases in the City's
operating budget (and thus need f i r additional revenues) proposed by the Administration and approvkd by
City Council; real property taxes, according to the City's ROH Sec. 8-1 1. I, are determined by the product
of real propertv values times the tax rate - and not real property values alone. In fact if real property
values decreased during the same period, statute requires that the tax rate increase to provide sufficient
revenue to support the budget.
The City's share of project cost of $4.2 billion (YOE) will be irretrievably lost fiom other
projects (e.g., sewer repair and maintenance, sewage facility upgrades, H-power waste-to-energy
expansion, landfill expansion/relocation, road repair and maintenance, etc.), and the community
may not have the resources to fund both the Project and these other necessary projects. There
should be no dispute that the Project will have a significant impact on the economic and social
welfare of residents of Oah~l.It is critical that the EIS evaluate these impacts.

F. Omission of Extensions from detaited discussion in the DEIS
The thesis on the first page of this discourse is amplified by the omission of the three "planned
extensions" (to West Kapolei, University of Hawaii at Manoa, and Waikiki) from detailed
analysis and discussion in the DEIS. The extensions are covered su~perficially "cumulative"
as
effects; even though the latter two extensions have greater potential impact on the environment
(and cost) than the defined "Project" (Minimum Operable Segment). The Locally Preferred
Alternative should not have been segmented into the "Project" plus three extensions for this EIS,
but evaluated in its entirety. To cover the extensions as "cumu1ative" effectives does injustice to
the process and the public. The use of the term "First Project" to describe the "Projecty' indicates
fill1 intention to complete the Locally Preferred Alternative at some point. Admittedly, inclusion
of the extensions might change the overall conclusions of the DEIS - which is all the more
season for including them.

G. Air Oualitv (Section 4.8)
This section compares "regional [Oahu] mobile source pollutant burdens" for the three Build
Alternates and the No Build
"Air qzrality effectspredicted to ~.eszrltfi.om Project's operation are based on the anticipated vehicle
the
miles trclveled (VMT) and average network speed for each alternative. " (p. 4-94)
"lfthe electricity used to operate any one of the Bzrild Alternatives is generated by combustion, this may
prodzlce additional emissions. However, these emissions wozrld be offset in whole orpart by the
reductions generated by reduced VMT. Fzrrthermore, power plant emissions may be much more easily
controlled than einissionsfroin individzral mrtomobiles. " (p. 4-95)
These two statements indicate that pollution burdens of the four Alternatives have been
calculated based solely on VMT, and that pollution caused by generation of electricity used by
the Project is not included. The most audacious and ludicrous statement is that "powerplant

emissions may be mzrch more easily controlled than emissions from individual automobiles." At
the present time there is no cost-effective process to do this, and none is foreseen in the
immediate future.
To the best of my knowledge, electricity fi-om the project will come from HECO; 90% of whose
energy comes from combtstion of fossil fuels and trash. It is unlikely that this situation will
change significantly in the fuhlre. If one considers this additional pollution source, the pollution
generated by all four Alternatives is essentially the same, making the following statement false:
"It is anticipated that the Project ~.voiclc/redzrce
regionalpolltrtant emissions by between 3.2 to 4.0
percent (varying by Build Alternative) compared to the No Bzrild Alternative (Tnble 4 -12)".(p. 4-95)
In addition, the analysis does not reflect or even consider the impact of improved automobile
efficiency (which is guaranteed to happen).

H. Downtown Station Location (a curious situation)
The Dillingham Transportation Building is one of the most architecturally and historically
significant buildings in downtown Honolulu; it is on the Hawaii Register of Historic Places. Yet,
the current plan is to locate the entrance to the Downtown Station in full view of (and partially
encroaching into) the building's courtyard. Several alternatives have been considered, but ail
have been dismissed for a variety of reasons.
However, one of the alternatives requires comment. The "Fort Street" location would move the
whole station in the Ewa direction to Fort Street with an entrance at either Walker Park or the
Fort Street Mall on the mauka side of Nimitz and an entrance in Irwin Memorial Park on the
makai side. A modification to this plan would be to place the mauka entrance Kolco Head side of
Walker Park on private TMK parcel 21013006. This alternative would completely avoid
affecting the Dillingham Transportation Building and Walker Park. What is most interesting in
the DEIS are the explanations on why this location is not feasible:
"However, this station location would require a 250-foot curve radius to maintain a mininzzrm distance
between the edge of the station platform and end of czrrve. A 250-foot ctirve radizu is szrbstantially less
than the Project S design criteria of 500feet. Such a tight radius wozrld necessitate reducing speeds to 5
to 10 miles per hozir, which is substantially below the Project's design speed of 30 miles per hozrr. This .
wozrld result in increased tmvel tinge and a szrbstarztial decrease in riser benefits." (p. 5-34) First, the
current design radius is 600 feet, and with only slight changes in alignment on Nimitz Avenue, a
radius of 500 feet could be maintained. Secondly, this curve is right at the entrancelexit to the
station, and all trains should be going less than 10 miles per hour at that point.
2dditionally, placing an entrance makai of Nimitz Highway wozild impact Section -40-protected Irwin
Memorial Park, and a rnar~lca entrance ~voztld
block either the Fort Street Mall or Walker Park, another
Section 4 0 resotrrce. " As discussed above locating the entrance on private property on the maulca
side of Nimitz eliminates the 4(f) concern there, and even though location of the makai entrance
in Irwin Park represents a 4(f) impact, it lzas less historical and architectural significance than
locating it next to the Dillingham Transportation Building.
Thus, this location seems to be pretty attractive. One wonders what the real reason is for
locating the station in front of the Dillingham Transportation Building with an entrance in the
adjacent courtyard.

Richard W. Ubersax, Ph.D.
41- 1013 Laumilo Street
Waimanalo, HI 96795

February 5,2009

To: Mr. Wayne Y. Yoshioka
Honolulu, HI 968 13

CC: Mr. Ted Matley
FTA Region I X
San Francisco, CA 94 105

Comments on Draft EIS Chapter 4.9 [Noise and Vibration) and Technical Report RTD 2008f
(Honohrh High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Noise and Vibration Technical Report, October 2008)

Dear Mr. Yoshioka:
I have broken my comments into three separate areas with respect to Chapter on Noise:
I. The DEIS and Technical Report do not meet the full-disclosure requirements specified in FTA's
"Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment" Manual (FTA-VA-90-1003-06, May 2006).
It is imperative that modifications to the DEIS be made or included in a SupplementaryEIS to
satisfy these requirements.
11. The noise impact criteria methodology used in the DEIS does not adequately address noise
impacts for all situations along the guideway. The City should review each of the areas cited in
these comments and address them accordingly in the Final EIS or SEIS.
111. Lack of accountability for operating within noise standards. Since there are no City or State
statutes for regulation of noise from mobile sources, objectionable noise from Project operation
will be difficult control. It is imperative that appropriate statutes be adopted prior to start-up of
any segment of the First Project.
Each of these areas is discussed 11 detail below. If you have any questions, please feel 6.ee
1
to contact me by phone or email.

Respectfi~llyyours,
R L - Lw PL-+
. lu ~
Richard W. Ubersax

P.S.: I have also sent an electronic copy to you via email.

CONCLUSION:
It will be evident from the discussion that follows that the DEIS has not adequately analyzed noise
along the guideway and has grossly underestimated the impact that noise generated by the Project
will have on the quality of life of residents living close to the guideway. The DEIS "Summary of
Environmental Effects" (DEIS Table 4-1) relating to noise indicates that there will be numerous
"Moderate Impact" locations along the guideway, and that "nofeasible and reasonable mitigation
is available to reduce modemte noise impacts that remain ". The number of impacted sites would
be much higher, and the level of impact would be more severe if the assessment:
a) followed the guidelines and recommendations in the FTA "Transit Noise and Vibration Impact
Assessment" Manual
b) considered the open door and window lifestyle of our people, and
c) extended the sh~dy include the instantaneous noise from each passing train
to
The ultimate message one gets from the DEIS is that there will be objectionable noise - although
grossly understated - and that the City expects us to live with it or deal with it later. The time to
deal with it is now, and not later.
It is understandable that the City has tried to gloss over the negatives of the Project; but it is
unacceptable to push the Project forward while knowing the problems - and expect the people to
accept it. If there is no way to mitigate the impact of noise (or other environmental effects) along
sections of the guideway, a new design or route needs to be devised. Anything less is a gross
injustice to the people. None of the three Build Alternatives is acceptable in their current form.

I. The DEIS and accorn~anvinpTechnical R e ~ o r do not satisfv the "fuI1 disclosure"
t
requirements of NEPA. .

Although the DEIS and Technical Report RTD 2008f provide much useful information on the
fi~ndamentals noise generation, measurement, assessment criteria, impacts, and mitigation, they
of
do not provide all of the information recommended by the FTA in the "Transit Noise and Vibration
Impact Assessment" Manual (FTA-VA-90- 1003-06, May 2006).
With respect to recommendations provided in the FTA Manual:

A. General
"To be effective, the noise and vibration analysis mzist bepresented to the uziblic in a clear, vet
comurehensive manner. The mass of technical dafa and information necessary to withstand scrzitiny in the
environmental review process must be doczimented in a wav that remains intelligible to the public.
Jtistification for all asszi~nptions
zued in the analvsis. such as selection o f reuresentative measurement sites
and all baseline conditions, mzlst be presented for review. " (FTA Manual page 13- 1)
Although the Tecl~nical Report provides significantly greater detail than the DEIS, it does not
provide sufficient detail to withstand "scrutiny" by the informed reader. There are remaining
questions regarding the protocol used for determining existing noise, estimating project noise,
evaluating noise impact at specific locations, and validation of mitigation measures.

There is also concern about the Project's planned extensions to UI-I Manoa and Waikiki not being
covered in detail in the DEIS.
The Technical Report addresses this issue in the Preface:
"Therefore, thefoczrs of the DIY$ EIS is on the "First Project, " ajilndable approximately 20-mile section
between East Kapolei and Ala Moana Center. The First Project is identijled as "the Project" for the pzrrpose
of the Draft EIS.
This technical report doczrtnents the detailed analysis completedfor the Fzrll Project, which inclzldes the
planned extensions, related trnnsit stations, and constrzrctionphasing. The planned extensions and related
constrzrctionplanning have not beenfirlly evalzlated in the Draft EIS and are qzlalitatively disczrssed in the
C~rmzrlative Effects section of the Draft EIS as a foreseeablefirhrre project(s). Oncefilnding is ident$edfor
these extensions, afirll environmental evafz[ationwill be completed in a separate environmental stzrdy (or
studies), as appropriate. "
The extensions are an integral part of the ORTP 2030 plan and should be assessed with the same
degree of detail in the DEIS as the thee Project "alternatives" (Salt Lake alternative, Airport
Alternative, and Airpost & Salt Lake alternative), especially since the noise impacts of these
extensions are expected to be greater and more difficult to mitigate than for the Project. The fact
that the DEIS uses the term "First Project" as a descriptor for the "Project" fully indicates that the
City's intent is to complete the Full Project, and thus the extensions should be treated with the same
level of detail in the DEIS as the Project.

B. Existing Noise
"Meas~rrement procedz[resshozrld befirlly described. Tables of measzrrement instrtrments shozrld include
manzrfact~rrer,tvoe. serial nzrrnber and date o f most recent calibration by azlthorized testing laboratory.
Measzlrement ueriods, inclzrdinw time o f dav and length o f time at each site shozrld be shown to demonstrate
adeazlate reuresentation o f the ambient conditions. The measurement data shozrld be presented in well
organizedform in tables andfigzrres. " (FTA Manual p. 13-2)
Neither the DEIS nor Technical Report adequately describe details of the methods used for
measuring the ambient sound levels at each receptor site. The following information should be
included:
- detailed description of measurement instruments and calibration documentation
- precise location of receptor sites (exact coordinates including elevation); location of identified
sensitive sites relative to each receptor site (including elevation); location of sensitive sites
relative to guideway
- precise time of measurement including day of week, time of day, length of time
- assumptions made in calc~~lations L,,,,, Leg,Ldn,etc.
of
- unusual occurrences and treatment thereof

C. Prediction of Future Project Noise
"The prediction model zrsed for estimatinn filtzrre project conditions shotrld be filllv described and
referenced. Any changes or extensions to the models recommended in this mantra1 shozrld bejirlly described
so that the validity of the adjzrstrnents can be confirmed. Specific data zrsed as inpzrt to the models shozlld be
-Computed levels shozrld be tabzllated and illzrstrated bv contozrrs, cross-sections or shaded mapping. It
listed.

is important to illtistrate noise/vibration impacts with base maps at a scale with enoziwh detail to provide
location referencefor the reader. " (FTA Manual p. 13-2)
Neither the DEIS nor Technical Report describe the metl~odology used for estimating project noise.
The following information should be included:
- detailed description of prediction model, and if different from that recommended in FTA-VA-
90- 1003-06, the justification for deviation; any adjustments to the model should be described in
detail.
- specific data used as input to the model should be described including:
source reference noise level (unmitigated and mitigated) with supporting details (i.e., vehicle
configuration, vehicle speed); details of mitigation techniques and comprehensive
justification of mitigated levels (i.e., effect of skirts and parapet wall independently, and
combined effect)
- tabulated results for each specific receptor (and relevant impacted sensitive sites) with all
assumptions disclosed
- precise distance between receptor and source
- location of receptors (and sensitive sites) relative to source (i.e., distance above/below source)
It is not clear from the DEIS or Technical Report whether the noise impact of vehicIes on opposite
tracks are treated the same, or whether converging trains are treated. The distance of the train from
the receptor, and mitigation by the intervening parapet wall (and thus the noise impact) will be
different depending on train direction. This situation should be analyzed and treated appropriately
(with explanation) in the FEISITechnical Report.
Similarly, the DEIS and Technical Report do not address the impact of reflection of sound energy at
locations where the guideway traverses in close proximity to buildings on both sides (e.g.,
Halekauwila Street, etc., UH Manoa extension, Waikiki extension). If it is determined that
reflection is inconsequential, it should be stated with appropriatejustification. If not, it should be
addressed in the assessment.
The.DEIS and Technical Report depict noise impact data as distinct individual points along the
guideway at ground-floor elevations (except in locations that included buildings of four or more
stories). In the FTA manual, it is recommended that impacts be presented in the form contour
maps. It would be highly desirable to represent these contours as a function of distance from the
guideway as well as overlays to represent elevations above and below the guideway. The maps
should be presented in a scale with enough detail to precisely determine distance of each contour
line from the guideway. A format similar to DEIS Appendix A would be acceptable, but at 1" =
100' scale).

D. Mitigation
"The nzitigation section of the technical report should begin with a szrmmnry of all treatments considered,
even ifsotne are not carried tofinal consideration. Final candidate mitig-ation treatments should be
considered seuaratelv with description of thefeatzrres of the treatment, costs, expected benefit in redzicing
impacts, locations where the benefit woirld be realized and discussion ofpracticality of implementing
alternative treatments. With respect to noise impacts, enozigh infornzatioa is to be inclzrded to allow the
project sponsor and FTA to reach decisions on mitigation prior to issuance of thejinal environnzental
document. " (FTA Manual p. 13-3)

The project already includes an integrated noise-blocicing 3'-high parapet wall on each side of the
guideway and a system specification for vehicles with wheel skirts. The parapet wall is expected to
reduce noise at or below track level, and the skirts to reduce noise at or above track level. Each data
point in the DEIS represents the noise impact with the wall and skirt mitigation measures in place;
while Appendix A of the Technical Report, provides project noise impacts with and without these
mitigation measures. From Appendix A, it is clear that project noise would be "severe" or
"moderate" at most receptor sites without the prescribed mitigation measures. Since the proposed
mitigation methods provide only an estimate of achlal noise attenuation, it is possible that many of
the sites listed as "no impact" could achlally be "moderate impact" and sites listed as "moderate
impact'' could actually be "severe impact".
In situations where noise-sensitive sites exist above the guideway, additional mitigation measures
might be needed because of reflection from the guideway surface and lower eff~ciency the of
parapet walls. These sites should be identified and additional mitigation measures identified. The
DEIS and Technical Report address this issue to some degree, but it would be highly desirable to
include specific recommendations and supporting data to support the recommendations.
The FTA Manual recommends that a summary of "all" treatments considered. Although the
Technical Report meiltions two additional measures, there are numerous others available (such as
an additional wall on the centerline of the guideway). These should be described in detail (along
with the benefit expected).
The ETA Manual discusses operational restrictions as a means to mitigate noise, but does not
impose them because of their impact on system efficiencies, economics, etc.
"Two changes in operations that can mitigate noise are the lowering of speed and the redtrction of nighttime
(1Opm to 7 a t ) operations. Because noise from most transit vehicles depends on speed, a reduction of speed
reszrlts in lower noise levels. The eflect can be considerable. For example, the speed dependency of steel-
wheel/steel-rail systems for L,, and LC[, Table 6-4) reszilts in a 6 dB redzrctionfor a halvingof the speed.
(see
Complete elimination of nighttime operations has a strong effect on reducing the LC/,,, becazlse nighttime
noise is increased by 10 decibels when calczrlating Ld,,. " (FTA Manual p.6-4 1).
The City should anticipate reducing speed in'noise-sensitive areas (below the 45 mph initially
planned), and incorporate this scenario in the financial risk analysis section of the DEIS.
The maximum acceptable limits for project noise should be specified in the FDIS (or SEIS), along
the length of the guideway (depending on noise impact sensitivity). Shortly after commencement of
system operation, detailed measurements should be made to ensure compliance with these limits.
To further ensure that noise from the project is within acceptable limits, City Council (or if
necessary, State Legislature) should legislate noise limits along the guideway. Prior to
issuance of the FEIS, a written commitment from the City (or State) should be made to pass
legislation prior to start up of the project that specifies maximum noise allowed at residential
building setbacks and requires a reduction in speed if Project noise level exceeds specification
until other mitigation measures can be implemented.

1 . The DEIS noise impact criteria methodologiv does not adequatelv address noise impacts in
1
all situations:
A. FTA criteria underestimate actual noise impact by use of Ldn the Leq
or
The FTA criteria incorporate average noise measurements and de-emphasize short-term noise
occurrences. However, in some cases, the use of L,,,, or the maximum noise recorded over a short
time interval, is a more meaningful measure of unacceptable noise level, as explained in the FTA
Manual:
The assessment of noise inpact in this manual utilizes either the Ldr,or the Leq descriptor. As such, in
determining impact it is not necessary to determine and tabulate the maxiazlm levels (L,,,,J. However, it is
often desirable to include campzitations of L,,,, in environrnental doczlmerzts, particzrlarly for railprojects,
because the noise from an individual train pass by is quite distingziishablefiom the existing background
noise. The L,, is also the descriptor used in vehicle specifications. Becazrse L,,,, reuresents the sound level
heard dzlrina a transportation vehicle pass by. people can relate this metric with other noise experienced in
the environment. Particzrlarly with rail transitprojects, it is representative of whatpeople hear at any
particular instant and can be measured with a sound level meter. " "Thus, although & is not used in this
manual as a basisfor assessing noise impact, it can provide people with a more complete description of the
noise effects of a proposedproject and shozlld be reported in environmental documents. " (FTA Manual p.6-
29)
'Ylthozrgh the maximum noise level (L,,,,J is not used in this nranzlal as the basis for the noise impact
criteria for transit projects, it is a zuejrl metric forproviding a,fitller zwtderstanding of the noise impactfrom
some transit operations. Suecificallv. rail transit characteristicallv urodzlces hiah intermittent noise levels,
which mav be ~Mectionable dependina on the distance fiom the alignment. Thus, it is recommended that
L , ,information Be urovided in environmental doczrments to szppletnent the noise itnpact assessment and&
,,
help satisfv the "fillldisclostrre" requirements o f NEPA. "(FTA Manual p. 3-9)
This is an especially critical issue in residential areas that are in close proximity to the guideway
(el00 feet). In many cases, transit vehicles will pass well within 100 feet, and in some cases as
close as 30 feet of windows in residential areas. In these situations, L,, would be a more
meaningful noise descriptor.
In Hawaii's tropical climate, it is often necessary to keep windows and doors open for personal
comfort since many residences do not have air conditioning. In this case, the actual noise of the
passing train, L,, , is the best measure for judging the real-life impact of the event. Although the
FTA noise impact classification might be "No Impact" or "Moderate Impact", affected residents
will perceive it as being "Severe Impact". Air conditioning as a mitigation measure would not be
accepted by the tropical cultwe, and would increase the electrical burden of the public.
Neither the DEIS nor Technical Report address this issue even though many residential properties
will be severely affected. It is imperative that these issues be addressed in the FEIS or SEIS.

B. FTA criteria underestimate actual noise impact by applying criteria "outside" of
residential building locations
"For residential land zue, the noise criteria are to be applied outside the building locations at noise-
sensitive areas withji-equent hzrman use including outdoor patios, decks, pools, and play areas. If none, the
criteria shozrld be applied near building doors and windows. " (FTA Manual p. 3- 10)

As discussed above, the nature of the climate and lifestyle require windows and doors to be open, in
some cases year-ro~uld. In typical residential construction (double-pane windows and doors), noise
can be mitigated by as much as 25 dB; but in Hawaii, with doors and windows open most of the
time, the actnal noise can be much louder than indicated by the FTA criteria, and thus, although
classified as "No Impact" or "Moderate Impact", should actually be classified as "Moderate
Impact" or "Severe Impact".
Neither the DEIS nor Technical Report address this issue even though many residential properties
will be adversely affected. It is imperative it be addressed in the FEIS or SEIS.

C FTA criteria underestimate actual noise impact by referencing to ambient noise
.
The FTA criteria for proiect noise impact is based on average project noise levels compared to
average background (ambient) noise levels: higher project noise is petmitted at higher ambient
noise levels. However, in many cases, the absolute total noise level (sum of ambient and project)
should be used to establish the impact of the project on noise severity as described in the FTA
Manual:
"Ambient levels above 65 dB (Lh) are considered "normallv zmnsatisfactow " for residential land zrse bv the
Department o f Hozrsina and Urban Development. Thzrs there is a stronner need for mitigation $'a project is
proposed in ail area czrrrentlv exueriencinp high noise levels born szrrface transportation. An example would
be a project where additional commzrter tracks are added to a very busy rail corridor. Ifthis project were
placed in n less noisy environment, the impact assessment [nightshow a Severe Impact, but when the project
is overlaid on an misting noisy environment, the reszrlt cotllc! be Moderate Impact or, possibly, No Imnact.
However, in this sitzration the new cumulative noise environment may be very objectionable becazrse people
will not be compartmentalizing the existing noise versus the new noise and reacting only to the new noise.
this circumstance irnpacts ureclicted in the Moderate ranae shozrld be treated as i f they were Severe. (FTA
Manual p. 3-12)
In the FEIS or SEIS, every receptor site should be assessed to determine how application of this
criterion would affect the noise impact rating.

D FTA criteria underestimate actual noise impact by time averaging technique
.
Ambient Ld, is averaged over the full 24-hour day, and remains the same whether the Project is
operating or not. Noise generated by the Project (Ldn)is also a 24-hour average, but the Project is
not expected to operate during the nighttime hours of midnight to 4 AM. During this period, project
noise is "zero", so the calculated Project Ld, is lower than if trains were running through the night.
This calculated Ld, could result in a reduction in noise impact from "Severe Impact" to "Moderate
Impact" (or "Moderate Impact" to "No Impact") even though the instantaneous impact (L,,,,,) for
each train passing is the same, independent of pass-by frequency.
The same effect would be realized if the frequency of passing a specific receptor site were to be
reduced, e.g., by increasing headway. Illustrative of this concept is in the comparison of common
receptor sites along the Salt Lake Alterative versus the Salt Lake &Airport Alternative. The
frequency of passing trains along Salt Lake Blvd for the Salt Lake & Airport Alternative will be
one-half of that for the Salt Lake Alternative. Thus, the calculated project noise levels (Ldn)for
receptors along Salt Lake Blvd for the Salt Lake & Airport Alternative are significantly lower than

for the Salt Lake Alternative. The consequence is that the five high-rise apartments along Salt Lake
Blvd (receptors 0 and 16) are reduced in noise impact from "Moderate" to "No Impact" in the Salt
Lake & Airport Alternative, even though the actual noise from each passing train is the same in
either case.
These factors should be explained in the FEIS or SEIS so that the general public - especially those
living close to the guideway- has a fuller understanding of the adverse impacts of the Project.

111. Accountability
At the present time, there are no State or County statutes for regulation of noise resulting from
transit operations on the guideway. Witl~out these statutes, it is virtually impossible for residents to
force mitigation through legal channels. The City has no incentive for mitigation; in fact, it has a
disincentive in that any mitigation will result in higher capital and/or operating cost. It is imperative
that such statutes be enacted (with full involvement of the public) prior to commencement of
service. Such legislation shoudd require reduction in speed as an interim mitigation measure until
permanent physical mitigation can be implemented.
( (Note: HAR 1 1-46is the correct statute for stationary noise listed on DEIS p. 4-98, and not 11-16) 1
it is unsettling that the City and its consultants have not addressed the noise issue - or other
potential negative impacts of the project - more seriously; nor considered the reaction of the public
after implementation. It's as if the attih~de to forge ahead and face the consequences later. For a
is
project that has such a large e~lvironmental economic impact, this is behavior is irresponsible,
and
and should be accounted for.

FAX NO. :EBB 538 6761 Feb. 06 2009 11 :06PJI P!
;

Xa It possible to eolve traffic congestion and keep Honolulu
beautiful?
I believe t11a.tin the very near ktwe that newer technology wil:l maice use of
rail obseletc; that new technology use will make vekicl.es cleaner and
environ.mentallyf~iondl.ier mil, Just look at how tcc.hnology bas
than
improved our quality of life by making things run better and mare
efficiently. Electric autos, hydrogen he1 cell powered magnet guided buses
and rho sky tran using meglev will change the way we travel and p.rotect our
environme.nr.FossiI f i e 1 use in Hawaii drop significantly and be sup.planted
by the creation of energy usixlg natural sources o f energy found in
abundance here aided by the efforts of the federal government and.our
governor.

Mass transportation using the Phileas magnetic guided bus for example uses
GPS andmagnets embedded in roads to guide buses 0.0 collcise path like
a
rail automnticdly without need for steering. The bus will open with wide
doors with its platform level with the curb height and within inch ofthe
curb to allow for wheelchair and children tram access with.out stepping into
the stmet or need to climb stairs like conventional buses. This vehicle is
current1.y being road tested by Caltran in California and is predi.cted one day
to be operationai in California and Oregon. It has been operational since
2004 in Deamatk and is being used in Turkey. Japan atrd South.Korea we
also cons.ideringusing this bus. This same bus company came lo present
this technology to the city council, but was prevented from doing so by the
pro-sail council,

Governor LindaLi.ngle has given permission for a private company based in.
Califomin to bring elecnic cars to Hawaii and bc the first state in use this
technology. It is her goal to make Hawaii 40% energy sufficient by 2030
a13d.eventually an energy exporte.r, using Hawaii's natural resources of wind,
ocean (wave cnergy and thermal energy), geothe.md, and solar energies.
We need th,c Governor to help provide trafEc relief for H-1. Which i.s under
the State's jurisdiction. The Governor believes that a non biased pmlel
should assess whether rail is cost effective and the best solution available.

7:h.eskytran is experimental vehicle that m.erits consideration .for use in
.FTonoli~lu. offers the potential of moving single passengers in small pods
It
traveSin.g via a sky grid using meglev technology for propulsion. This
system is currelttly being tested in L.A, and has seems to have fh.e potentia1

FQX 11.10. :808 538 6761 Feb. 06 2009 11:klWfl

of moving peopJ.e intracity and between cities. Like the meglev rRi1 it has
the ability to G v e people rapidly over Iong distances, This system uses
commonly used materials found i all locales and easily assembled and cost
n
eRecrive, The grid system appears to be small and visually uns)btrusive.

FHOFl :M I CHREL UECHI MD FRX NO. :808 538 6761 Feh. 06 2009 11 :07PM P4

What is wrong with tall?
.envision de1a.y~
I especially eastward of Iwilei where Hawaiian burial sites
or iwi,.will alter rail's route and result in prolonged construction dalays
affecting btlsinesscs and tmfic. The visual blig.ht of rail in downtown
H.onolul.u, especially tho huge station on Bishop Street will be not only be an
eye so.re but a remin.der of thc asinine short sightedness of our city planners
as the heavy rail screeches on during the day and late into the night.
Rail is old,technology and hindered by extrenlely high capital costs and
maintenance costs which will be the responsibility of our res.idcots for
generations. What will happen when the obsolete rail needs parts for repair?
What happens to the white elephant if funds run out? What happens if there
j.3 poor .ridership arid we can no longer afford upkeep? What happens to rail
and stations wl~en become perfect places for druggies, for graffiti
tI1ey
artists, pan I~andl.ers, women of the night to conduct their business? Ow
city's mai.ntenmce o f infrastructure is so poor, one has to wonder how the
city will m.anagemaintaining the rail.

The added. expenditure of this costly project that will only increase traffic
congestion to our already congested city streets wid not provide traffic relief
,for our leeward and ccntral Oahu commuters should be put to rest, Rail will
not only be a detriment to our environ~nent be a detriment to our q~~ality
but
of life. By ushg the moneys ,for rail we will W e r neglect ou:r (1) aging
sewers that arc leaking " brown waste" that contaminates our beaches during
h.ea.vy rains, (2)secondary treatment plants that continue to dump
improperly rret~ted sewage into our ocean, (3) waste management, (4)
landfill. and (5) "pot hole" roads and freeways, Our parks and recreational
facilities dso reflect our city's neglect of taking care of city property.
We wander how this city will be able to manage a complex rail system when
it has ,proven to bc woefully incompetent in managing its infrastructure.

FROM :MICHREL UECH l I4D FOX EIO. :608 538 6761 Feb. 06 2009 I 1:07PM PS

How wwsrr the public duped into chooslag rail?
The current city administration fiom its inception choose not to use public
d.eliberat.i.o.nto discuss rail alternatives, I have attended almost all. of tltc
com~nunity outreac,h meetings and can testify that there was no meaningfill
j.ntercourso between the pro rail city appointed panelists and the o,ppositio.n
group. :Prom the inception the City administration had chosen to run1 rail
down our throats with no consideration for any meaningfi11 d.eliberation with
the public, An. advertisement extravaganza by tho Mayor using taxpayers
.m.oney,some 3 milliorn plus dollars, to dupe the public into believing ill the
merits of rail allowed rail to narrowly defeat no rail in. the general election.
The mayor sta.r:edthat the feds mandated that the city promote :rail through
advertisements.. An inquiry by Hawaii Reporter proved this to be untrue.
The Mayor used taxpayers money under a false premise. The Mayor also
stated that he would. stop the actions of StopRailNow, a citizens group
formed to allow the people to vote on whether to choose rail. The citizens
right to use initiative as prescribed by the City Charter was being publically
attacked by the Mayor. These are examples of the Mayor's heavy hand in
promoting only rail md nothing else.

As a result of the dictatorial, n.on democratic ,unreslrj.cted whims of the city
administration and a non bid rail process that proceeded withor1.tany
oversight we end up with a rail project that according to the rail propaganda
will be solely :lhan.ced by fcderal and state .5% excise tax, Nothin.8 could
be further from the truth as the price tag of rail has been increasing
expon.enI:iaI.f.y price &om 2.7 billion in 2004 to 5.3 billion in 2008
in
(Advertiser and Strtr Bulletin newspapapers 1212008).
To add to the insult rail was never intended to solve t r f l ~ congestion on
c
our orrly major highway H-1. Congestion will worsen by 70% by 2030).

As a physician we use a phrase called curb side consultation to seek
sojutions to problems, I fmd that the most prudent way to reach a reasonable
solution to any problem is to consult with others, better yet with otl~.lers
that
have o,pinio.nsdifferent than mine to learn of new teachings and technology
for my patients well being. We are trained to defend our position until
someone else h.as a better solution. We then work with the better solution
and bury the older obsolete method or system. We should bury rail, for
there are many more better solutions.

FROr'i :MICHREL UECHI MD FRX NO. :808 538 6761 Feb. 06 2009 11: 08PM PC

Summary
With the recent state's highway modernization project which will
sign.i.ficantlyreduce commute time, as well as be constructed much sooner
and wi.th significantly less cost to the public, tl~e
introduction of rail, which
by comparison is definitely a very poor alternative.

February 6,2009

Mr. Ted MatIcy
U. S. Department of Transpo~.tation
Federal Transit Administration- Region IX
201 Mission Street, Suite 1650

Department of Transportation Sowices
City and County of Honoiulu
, 630 South King Street, 3d Floor
Honolulu, HI 96813

Re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DE1S)IScction 4(f) XvaIuation for the
Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project
Dear Messrs. Matley and Yoshioka:

UltraSystems Environmental (UltraSystems) was refained by Kamehameha Schools (KS) to conduct an
independent review of the subject DEIS arid companion technical reports, and to prepare the following findings and
comments. (KS is preparing its own comments and sending them in a separate letter.) UItraSystcms is one of the
leading environmental planning and consulting firms in the western United States, and has extensive experience in
preparing technical studies and environmental documents. Its services include environmental analyses, air and
noise impact studies, transportation, biology and wetlands, Phase I and 11 aivironmentai site assessments,
hazardous materials management, and land use studies.

UltraSystems has a distinguished track record in preparing high-quality envirollmentat documents for residential,
commercial, industrial, institutional, transit, transportation, and infrastructure-related projects for public and private
sector clients tiuooghout California and the western United States. Each of our six principals brings more than 30
years of experience in the preparation and peer review of environmental documents.

Besides reviewing the DEIS, UltraSystems reviewed the guidance provided by the Federal Transit Administration
on preparing project Environrncntal Impact statements;' the XonoIulu High-Capaci~Pansit Corridor Project
AIternatives Analysis Report, .City and County ofHonolulu; fkwaii Revised Statutes, Chapter 343 (Environmental
Impact Statements), Hawaii Revised Statutes, Chapter 344 (State Environmaltal Policy); and the City and County
of Honolulu Land Use Ordinance to gain a better understanding of the plqnning process being followed on the
proposed Project and the local land use rules and regulations that will come into play on lands impacted by the
Project.

' 'Wational Environmental Policy Act." Federal Transit Administration - Pkming & Environmental
(www.fta.dot.gov(printer-fiiendly/~lanninget1vironment~225.html).
Corporate Office - Orange County
16431 ScientificWay
Irvine, CA 92618-4355
Telephone: 949.788.4900 Facsimile: 949.788.4901
Website: www.ultfasysterns.com

The following comments summarize Project-related issues and questions that UltraSysterns identitied during its
investigations. For your ease in consideration of the comments, they are organized into nine topics. The
presentation of each topic includes a general comment, followed by specific concerns.

A. Transportation

The Honolulu Iiigh-Capacity Transit Corridor project may create significant construction and operational traffic,
roadway and parking impacts on adjacent KS-owned land that have not been adequately quantified and the
proposed mitigation measures lack specificity or evidence that they will effectively reduce impacts to property
owners and businesses.

Concern #A-I: Planned Parking Appears to be Insufficient and May Rcsidt i "Spillover" lo Adjncent
n
CommercialProperties

The proposed Peari Highlands Station would have a 1,600-space park-and-ride facility @EIS, Page 2-27).
Should additional parking be needed in the future, will sufficient space be available to expand the park-and
parking is provided, those driving to this station will be forced to seek parking
ride lot? If insi~fficient
elsewhere.

Dedicated kiss-and-ride pullouts (passenger drop off) or parking spaces are planned at many stations to
facilitate drop-off and pick-up (DEIS, Page 2-36). No additional parking is shown For the Kapalama
Station (DEIS, Page 2-3 1, Figure 2-3 1). Given that there appear to be no residences within the standard
quarter-mile walking radius, it,is reasonable to assume that riders will drive to this station-and need
parking--or that few riders are expected at this station because it may be easier to simply drive into town
from there. Please confirm if this station is intended to have fewer than average riders. If it is expected to
have average per-station ridership, then please explain how parking demand will be handled if the City
plans on drawing many riders from this area. If off-street parking is planned for this station, then please
provide the parking report for public review. If off-street parking is not planned for this station, then please
provide a report explaining the reasons for the expected low ridership at this station-and which stations
are expected to carry the heavier rider loads. When showing the heavier rider loads please include in the
report the number of riders expected there and the number of parking spaces required. Also, if people do
end up riding from this station and parking, please provide a written plan showing how they will be
accomlnodated so as to not have a negative impact on comlnerciai tenants near this station.

Twenty-six off-street parking spaces would be lost on Dillingham Boulevard between McNeill Street and
Waiakamilo Road due to fixed guideway column placement in the median (Transportation Technicat
Report, Table 5-54, page 5-1 14). Commercial properties a few blocks west of the proposed Kapaima
transit station will be affected.

Ten off-street parking spaces would be lost on DiIlingham Boulevard between Waiakamilo Road and
Kohou Street due to fixed guideway column placement on the side (Transportation Technical Report, Table
5-54, page 5-1 14). The loss of off-street parking could impact customer and employee parking at
Waiakarnilo Shopping Center and buildings on both sides of Dillingham. (KS-owned land is on both sides
of this section - McNeill to Kollou). What impact would the loss of these off-street parking spaces have on
the commercial uses along Dillingham Boulevard?

For the Kaka'ako station, I6 on-street Mauka and 22 on-street Makai parking spaces worlid bc lost on
Halekauwila Street between Keawe Street and Coral Street due to fixed guideway column placement on the
side (Transporntion Technical Report, Table 5-54, page 5-1 14; see also DEIS Page 2-32, Figure 2-35).
Please describe the impact from the loss of these on-street parking spaces on businesses located on KS-

owned properties and where those spaces could be replaced? This site is likely to be an a.m. net destinatiotl
station more likely to have less parking demand than a net ride generating station.

The Transportation Technical Report states that park-and-ride usage would be free (Section 5.6.2, page S-
86). It is a common experience throughout California that parking at transit statiotis is underestimated, and
consequently, additional parking is often required after the initial construction, to mcet the increased
demand. This was certainly the case at UltraSystems' home base of Irvine, California, where a three-story
parking garage was recently built for the Irvine AmtrakMetrolink statio~~, the capacity of the original
after
surface parking lot was exceeded. Based on this premise, land for more parking would likely have to be
acquired. The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEXS) for the Project should address the question of
how the construction and maintenance costs for these additional facilities would be paid for. The FEIS'
cash flow and budget should address this.

The following additional mitigation measures for parking impacts should be included in the FEIS:

V
' The foundations of parking garages for transit and bus patron parking shall be designed and constructed
so rhat additional floors could be added as needed in the future.

4 Where parking structures are not planned to be built, enough land shall be acquired by the City and
County of Ho~~olulu that surface lots can be expanded as necessary to handle future increases in
so
parking requirements. It wilI be less costly to reserve the land now, rather than when the demand
becomes acute.

Concern #A-2: Efirnination or Narrowing ofExistirrg Trajfic Lnnes M y Resirit in Snfely Probfeitts
a
In some cases, widening the existing street median to accommodate the columns for the fixed guideway
would require reducing lane widths slightly. Table 3-21 (Column Placement Effects on Streets and
Highways - page 3-39 of the DEIS) shows where columns would be placed and tlie new widths of traffic
latxes on certain street segments. However, with only one exception, the table does not report the widths of
the traffic lanes under the No BuiId ~lternative.' Tl~erefore,the extent of change in lane widths is not
known. Althougii the transportation technical report reports historical accident rates, it and the DEIS are
silent on the issue of impacts of lane width changes on road safety. UItraSystems requests that a fully
on
documented analysis of the effect (if any) of lane width redr~ction traffic accident rates be included
in the FEIS.

The FEIS should address the issue that the narrower lanes are likely to affect the operation of larger
vehicles such as semi trucks and buses and create safety hazards. Operating large vehicles in 10 foot wide
lanes may create an unreaso~iablerisk of automobile accidents in these lanes and of risk to people and
business near these rights-of-way.

A!ong three street segmcznts (Dillingham from McNeiIl to Waiakamilo, I-Xalekauwila from Keawe to Coral,
and Halekauwila from Punchbowl to South Street), sidewalks will be narrowed by one to five feet (DEIS,
Table 5-57). NBrrowed sidewalks can reduce bicycle and pedestrian safety, as sidewalk users would be
moved closer to automobile traffic.

hfomation on existing lane widths is also lacking in the transportation technical report.

3

Concern #A3: The impacls on .traffic near the park-and-ride facility at the Pearl Highlands Statiott mcly Hot be
sufficiently mitigated by rlle mensuresproposed in the DBIS.

Table 3-22 (Effects on Traffic near Park-and-Ride Lots - 2030 No Build and Build Alternatives) shows that the
level of service (LOS) will remain at F for two intersections near the Pearl Highlands Station under the No Build
and Build Alternatives. At a third intersection (Farrington Highway and Waiawa Street), the p.m. peak hour ZX>S
will deciine from D under the No Build Alternative to F under the Build Alternatives. Except for one instance
(p.m. peak hour at Kamehameha Highway and Kuala Street), delays at all the intersection will be greater under the
Build Alternative than under the No Build Altenlative. According to the DEB, potential mitigation measures
include widening existing roads, signalizing intersections, and "other treatments." This raises some questions that
need answering in the FEIS:

What is the approximate amount of mitigation (in seco~~ds delay, for example) that would be expected
of
from road widening and signatizing intersections?

The term "other treatments" is too vague; what are some of them, and how effective would they be?

Could the incorporation of feeder buses in the project design provide additional mitigation?

B, Safety and Security
Construction and operation of the transit project will create significant safety and security problems at the proposed
Pearlridge Center, Kapalma and Kakacako transit stations to be constructed near of adjacent to KS-owned lands.
I t is not ctear from the DEXS how these problems wo~lldbe addressed. Project safety features should be
reviewed to determine whether they are adequate to eusurc the safety o f transit passengers at thesestations.

C. Land Use
Construction and operation of the transit project will impact a number of KS-owned lands near or adjaceilt to the
Pearlridge Center and Kapalama stations and along Dillingi~am Boulevard, particularly in the Dillingham Plaza
Area. The reduction in the size of KS owned parcels in these areas may result in the creation of existing, non-
conforming uses that may hinder hture redevelopmentof these lands.

Concern #C-1: The loss of ten feet of land in front of commercial properties along Dillingham Bortlcvard,
pruticufarIy in the lrrea of DifIinghnin Pfnza, will make land trses non-conforming and hinder
ftiture redevefopmcnt,

The loss of 10 feet of land in front o f KS commercial-use properties will result in the loss of most of the
landscaped area in front of these businesses and a number of existing mature street trees that are required
by the City and County of Honolulu Land Use ~rdinance.~ Existing sidewalks in these areas will also be
removed, with the sidewalks being moved back to the new.edge o f Dillinghaln Boulevard. This will result
in a sidewalWlandscape area adjacent to the remaining businesses on these lands. B is assumed at this time
that the loss of required lot size and landscaping wilt make all of these lots lion-conforming, and subject to
the constraints prescribed by Section 2 1-4.1 10 (Nonconformities) of the Ordinance. Tl~is may make the
redeveloprnent of the commercial land uses on KS properties more dificult if these uses have to be brou&lt
up to the current City's current Land Use Ordinance at the time that they a e developed. The FWS sliodd
address this question and resolve it by more than providing perpetual variances, since this is also a matter
of lost business opportunities caused by the impact of the Project.

See Sections 21-3.1 10-1 (Business uses and devcloptrient standards), 21-3.120-2 (Business mixed use district uses and
developn~entstandards), and 2 1-4.70 (Landscaping and screening).

Loss of land along Dillingham Boulevard may also impact the landscaping for off-street parking, the size of
parking spaces and the loading areas for the commercial uses along this street. These changes may make
these lots non-conforming due to the lack of adequate landscaping for parking and loading areasV4Again,
fiture redevelopment of the commercial use along Dillingham Boulevard may be impacted, with these lots
and uses considered. This is a particular concern for the Boulevard Sairnin Restaurant (1425 Dillingham
BouIevard), which has only twelve parking spaces, two of which potentialiy will be lost due to the
widening of Dillingham Boulevard.

Concern #G2: The DEIS'jocus on the impncts of full acquisiiion of properlies (Le., change in land use, need
for relocalion)fails fo ackltow~edge impncls ofpartial acq~kitions.
the

The DEIS notes (page 4-20) that "Based on the relatively small nlunber of parcels affected by full acquisition, rhe
effects on different types of land uses in the study corridor would be minimal. No mitigation measures would be
needed." As documented in the Lond Use Technical Report (Pages 4-9 through 4-15), KS expressed its concern
that the proposed Project's Iand acquisitions, including muItiple partial acquisitions, may limit KS' abiliiy to
maximize the development potentiaI of its properties.

Concern #C-3: The DEIS fails to consider sufficieenfly the inlpncfs of the Project on docurnerrfed futirre
deueioprnenfs.

The Land Use Technical Report's discussion of transit station Iand use impacts (pages 5-2 to 5-11)
acknowledges that KS owns many properties near the proposed Kalihi, Kapalama, Kaka'ako, and Mo'ili'ili
stations and has major redevelopment plans when current leases expire. The potential impacts of the
proposed transit project on these tlocumented plans for redcveIopment are not analyzed in either the
Technical Report or the DEIS. This is a serious deficiency, which should be corrected in the FEIS.

Table A-17 of the Land U e Technical Report, which summarizes land use issues associated with the
proposed Kalihi transit station, states that the City would "coordinate with Kamehameha Schools regarding
redevelopment plans." The City should address these issues with KS prior to completion of the FEIS.
Until such co.ordination is concluded, the City cannot claim that it has mitigated specific land use issues at
least with respect to communities where KS owns substantial acreage at or near the proposed rail line.

Table A-18 of the Land Use Technical Report, which summarizes land use issues associated with the
proposed Kapalatna station, acknowledges that ''Kamehameha Schools owns much property wesr of'
Honolulu Community College (HCC), and that "redevelopme~~lt possibilities exist a few blocks east and
west." Section 3 of Table A-18, under Rejinements to Plans to Improve TOD, states that "Coordination
with Honolulu Community College (HCC) will be necessary to create strong pedestrian connection to
College buildings to enhance ridership." To not include coordinatiou with Kamehameha Schools is a
serious deficiency. X(S owns over 105acres of land in Kapalama aud has ownership of land on either
side ofDillingharn from Waikamilo Road to Koltou.

Table A-28 of the Land Use Technical Report, which summarizes land use issues associated with the
proposed Mo'ili'ili station, acknowledges that KS is concerned rhat the height of the station will be at the
6h story of its planned building. The table also states that the City needs to coordinate with KS so the
station and KS' plans "are compatible, particularly regarding pedestrian facilities." Therefore, it is
requested that the following mitigation measure be included in the FEIS:

See Ct and County of Honolulu Land Use Ordinance, Sections 2 1-6.10 though 2 1-6.140.
iy

- --

The City and County of HonoluIu shall coordinate with KS on the latter's plans to redevelop
its lands near the Mo'ili'iXi station in regards to the station's pedestrian facilities.
Construction of this station shall not begin until this coordination has been completed and the
appropriate pedestrian facilities have been included in the station's design.

D. ~ i s n a ~ ~ e s t h e t i c s / ~ Treest
tree

Construction of the transit project will create visual impacts on a number ofKS-owned lands. It will also result in
the removal of a number of significant street trees and other ornamental vegetation on KS lands, which will
diminish the value of KS property and create significant aesthetic impacts due to changes in perception of KS
property, loss of shade, screening from adjacent: land uses, etc. Operation of the transit project will also create
visual impacts on a number of KS tenants who will have views of the transit way and transit support columns.

Concern #D-1: The Visual artddesthetic Resources Technical Report does not coltfain siq'j'?cicienl detail on tlre
evaluation ofimpacts by '%iewergroups.

The Visual and Aesthetics Resources Technical Report utilized the methodoIogy of ttte Federal Highway
Administration's [FHWA's) Yisrral Impact Assessmenffor Highvay ~ r o j e c ~ for the proposed project since it is a
s:
linear transportation facility comparable to a highway, has a similar range of issues, and because the F1;Q has not:
issued comparable guidance. The FHWA guidelines (Page 7) state:

"The major components of this process include establishing the visual environment of the project, assessing
the visual resources of the project area, and identifying viewer response to tliose resources. These
components define tllc existing conditions, We can then assess the resource change that would be
introduced by the projectand the associated viewer response; these allow us to determine the degree of
visual impact."

The Vi~uul and Aesthetics Resources Technical Report (Page 3-2), discusses how viewer groups have been
categorized (i.e. residents, commuter, etc.) and indicates that viewer response to change is impacted by viewer
exposure and viewer sensitivity. However, the analysis provided in Section 5.0 (Consequences) of the tecl~nical
report contains few to no details regarding user goup exposure to project alternatives for different user groups,
including such factors as locatio~hduration, and distance. Please provide additional clarification regarding
viewer exposure and viewer sensitivity for the selected view points.

Concern #D-2: Numerous RS properties located adJacent to, or near the proposed f x guideway system and
i&
stations wo~Cd
have their views impacted.

The Build Alternatives wonld have an elevated guideway and elevated stations tlnougl~out study corridor. The
the
support columns would range from 3 to 8 feet in diameter. All stations would have similar design elemeuts,
platforms that would be between 270 and 300 feet Long, and a minimum of I0 feet wide. The Station height would
be about 20 feet taller than the guideway. "As a result, the stations would be dominant visual e1ernents.h their
settings and would noticeably change views. Systems elemer~tsfor all technologies being considered would
introduce new visual elements that may contrast with the existing environment's scale and character" (DEIS,Pages
4-93,6-1 arid 6-2).

The Visual atld Aesthetics Resources Technical Report (Page 6-1) recommends that, as a mitigation
measure, project design should "incorporate elements of the Design Language Pattern Book being
developed by the Project Team." KS would like to be consulted during development of the patten1 book t o
help ensure that new stations and landscaping are compatible with existing land uses adjacent to the transit
project. Therefore, it is requested that the following mitigation measlire be included in the FEN:

'Publication No. FHWA Hi-88-054.

The City and County of Honolulu shall consult with KS in the development of the pattern
book that will be used in designing stations and landscaping,

Page 6-1 of the Visua! and Aesthetics Resources Technical Report notes that impacts associated with the Build
Alternative could include:

Removal or relocation of Exceptional Trees;
Changes in the settings of historic or cultural sites or Section 4(f) resources;
Alteration of mauka-makai views;
Introduction of project components that are out of scale or character with their setting;
Moderate to high viewer response to project changes;
Infroduction of new light sources in sensitive areas; aitd
Inconsistency with policy documents.

Views of the Pearlridge and Kapalama stations from KS properties are of particular concern. Tenants of KS-
owned lands near or adjacent to these stations will see stations looming over them. In addition, the stations may
create shading problems on adjacent lands.

Concern #D-3: The mnitigation meas~rres visual effects lack specz@cs.
for

FNIWA's visual impact assessment guidelines state, "To be relevant, visual mitigation rneasutes must address the
specific visual impacts or problems caused by project alternatives." The currently proposed mitigation in the DEIS
(Page 4-93) is very general and lacks specifics as to how the mitigation measures would reduce or minimize
specific visual impacts. The discussion of mitigation fails to provide a nexus as to how mitigation would address
the specific visual impacts from the proposed project. In addition, the mitigation identified in the Draft EIS does
not indicate any measures to mitigate construction-related visual impacts. However, the Yiszral and Aesthetics
Resources Technical Report does provide greater detail regarding principles to minimize, reduce, or mitigate
impacts, including those related to construction. The FEIS should include no less than the following measures:

The City and County of Honolulu shall integrate transit-oriented development policies and principles with
station designs, in consultation with developers and City, County, and State agencies before any station
designs are completed;
The City and County of Honolulu shall, in the FEIS, include a copy of the Design Language Pattern Book
being developed by the Project Team and incorporate the applicable elements of the Design Language
Pattern Book into the design of transit stations and landscaping;
The City and County of HonoluIu shail ensure that the final project design is aesthetically appropriate-as
well as being functionai;
The City and County of l-fonolulu shall consult with the communities surrounding each station for input on
station design elements and shall reach an agreement with all stakeholders before finalizing the station
design;
The City and County of Fronolulu shall create a project design that is appropiate in scale and character to
its setting;
The City and County of Honolulu shall incorporate project design components that help create a humall-
scale and pedestrian-friendly environment;
The City and County of Honolulu shall use project design features with materials and shapes that fit the
topography and visual setting;
The City and County of Honolulu shall look for opportunities to use materials that minimize the potential
for vandalism;

The City and County of Honolulu shall look for opportunities to use materials that reflect the Hawaii~n
culture;
The City and County of Honolulu shall retain or replace existing street trees along sidewalks and in
medians, and plant new vegetation to help soften the visual appearance of project elements (e.g., stations,
guideway columns, and TPSSs);
The City and County of Honolulu shall use source shielding in exterior lighting at stations and ancillary
facilities such as the maintenance and storage facility and park-and-ride lots, to ensure that light sources
(such as bulbs) would not be directly visible from residences, streets, and highways, and to limit spillover
light and glare in residential areas;
The City and County of Honolulu shall work with relevant adjacent land owners and developers to
integrate project elements with area redevelopment plans as appropriate, particularly at stations; and
Consbuction-related mitigation shall include the following:
o Rernoving visibly obtrusive erosion-control devices (e.g., silt fences, plastic ground cover, and
straw bales) as soon as an area has been stabilized;
o Replacing street trees and other vegetation that must be removed with appropriately sized
vegetation;
o Keeping roadways as clean as possible by using street sweepers arid wheel washers to minimize
of'site tracking;
o During dry periods, applying water to exposed soils to minimize airborne sediment;
o Properly maintaining construction equipment to minimize unnecessary exhaust; and
o Locating stockpile areas in less visibly-sensitive areas and, wherever possible, placing them in
areas that are not visible fram the road, or by residents and businesses.

The FEIS should provide site-specific mitigation measures for non-high-rise arena due to relatively higher
visual impacts in order to adequately mitigate such impacts. This is particulariy itnportanf for the
Pearlridge and Kapalama stations, which would be developed near or adjacent to ICS-owned Iands.

Cottcerr~#D-4: Xlte mitigation measuresfor removal ofsfreeffrees are vague 4rzd inadequate,

The DEIS indicates that numerous street trees that would be pruned, removed, or transplanted as a result of any of
the Buitd Alternatives. Of particular concern is the number of street trees that rvould be removed, including the 28
"notable" true kamani trees along Dillingham Boulevard, and how their removat would be mitigated. The
mitigation provided on page 4-138 of the DEIS is vague and lacks specifics on this matter. Should street tree work
such as pruning, removal or transplanting, not be done correctly, trees may become disfigured or die, creating a
significant aesthetic impact on the project area, along with a need for correctivemeasures and their attendant costs.

According to the DEIS, effects on street trees would be mitigated by transplanting existing trees or planting
new ones. While relocating a street tree would retain the tree, the relocation of that tree would change its
original environment. Therefore, more specific mitigation for areas to which existing trees would be
relocated or removed is needed to ensure that these locations are appropriately mitigated. Specifically,
areas adjacent to andlor near KS properties requiring tree relocation or removal should be
adequateiy mitigated.

What would happen in cases where the transplanted tree dies, as not all the proposed tree relocations may
be si~ccessful? The mitigation on page 4-138 of the DEIS does not prescribe any post-transplant
monitoring of relocated trees, nor does it provide any provisions for relocated trees that do not survive the
transplant process.

The DEIS contains little information on how mitigation would be determined in cases where tree removal
would be required. As indicated on page 4-138 of the DEB, "To mitigate any substantial effects in the
areas that require removal, special attention would be given to developing landscape plans so that new

plantings would provide similar advantages to the community. If new plantings would not offer equitable
mitigation (e.g., older mature trees that are removed), additional younger trees could be planted that would,
in time, develop similar benefits." Would younger trees be planted at a 1:l ratio but older more mature
trees at a higher ratio? Based on the information provided in the Draft EIS,it is unclear as to what criteria
would be used to determine adequate quantities of new plantings to mitigate tree removal. The mitigation
measures also do not indicate any monitoring of new platdngs, or identify provisions should any of the
new plantings die.

E. Noise and Vibration
The noise and vibration impact analysis in the DEIS and associated technical report is not adequately documented
and does not address potentially important impacts upon comniercial properties.

Concern #E-I: The noise analysis i no: adequate& documented
s

Neither the DEIS nor the supporting technical report discusses the method by which noise levels due to the Project
were calculated. It is likely that methods prescribed in FTA's Tra~rsit Noise and Vibratjotz Impact Assessment
manual6were used. Furthennore, the assumptions used to estimate noise attenuation due to the parapet wall and the
wheel skirts for receptors higher than the guideway are not reported The noise analysis in the FEIS needs to be
fully documented and the assumptions and caIcuIations uecd to be provided in an appendix, so that they [nay
be checked.

Concern #E-2: The noise analysis does not addresspotential intpacts upon corntnerciat I ~ n d
uses.

The DEIS uses the aforementioned FTA guidance's noise impact criteria as the standard against which to evaluate
noise exposures due to the Project. The FTA criteria apply only for exposures to three categories of "sensitive"
receptors. Category I includes land uses where quiet i s essential, such as outdoor amphitl~eaters recording
and
studios. Category 2 includes residences and other places where people sleep. Category 3 is for "institutional land
uses with primarily daytime and evening use," including schools, libraries, theaters, churches, historical sites, and
parks, None of these category definitions includes, explicitly or implicitly, commercial operations. Furthennore,
Hawaii State and local plans and regulatioi~s not have standards for exposure of commercial receptors to transit
do
noise. For this reason, the DEIS analysis did not consider impacts to commercial receptors. However, noise
impacts to commercial receptors may be important in certain cases, This fact is recognized, for example, by the
State of California in its General Plan ~uidelines,' which include ranges of acceptable exposures for "office
buildings, business commercial and professional" land uses. It is requested that the FEIS consider the issue of
noise impacts upon commercial land uses.

Concern #E-3: The discwsion o mitigation fttemuresfor noise impacts to sensftiye receptors higher than the
f
guideway is inadequate.

The noise analysis conducted for the DEIS found that "moderate" impacts (as defined by the Federal Transit
Administration) would occur at several sensitive receptor locations, including some residences that are at higher
elevations than the guideway (DEIS, Table 4-16). The DEIS does not specify any mitigation measures. Instead it
says that "measures to reduce noise levels above the track elevation ...
would be evaluated during preliminary
engineering of the Project. Once the Project is operating, noise levels will be measured to determine the actual
extent of project noise impacts." (DEIS, 4-101 and 4-107) The nearIy complete deferral of the description of
pp.
mitigation measures to the project engineering design stage is not acceptable under NEPA. Although it is true that
Project design information is needed to determine the best mitigation measure for each predicted impact, it is

U. S. Depamnent of Transportation. 2006. Federal Transit Administration. Transit Nohe and Vibration Impact
Assessnrenf. FTA-VA-90-1003-06. May.
State of California, General Plan Guidelines. Governor's Office of Planning and Research, Sacrarncnto, California (2003).

UltraSys terns
sovlconmenral~manr~rm~~~l~~~l~nhI~~y

possible now to present at Ieast a list of mitigation options that can reduce exposures to 45 or 50 dBA Ldn or below.
A list of mirigation options should be included in the FEXS.

F. Construction Impacts

Construction of the transit project will create a number of impacts on KS lands along the transit corridor including
interruption andlor temporary loss of access to businesses, potential temporary loss of utilities to businesses,
temporary and/or permanent loss of on and off-street parking at KS businesses.

Concern #F-1:The DEIS does not adeqrraiely address lefi-iurtr closures on Fnrrittgiott Highway in Waipahu
during construction.

The DEIS (Page 4-153) states that left-turn lanes on Farrington Highway in Waipahu would be closed during
construction. There are KS owned properties at the intersection of Farrington Highway and Waipahu Depot Road.
The DEIS does not discuss the impact of the lane closures on traffic levels of the surrounding roads. It is befieved
that tnotorists will avoid the lane closure by using other alternate routes. The FEIS should include an analysis of
the impacts on local businesses and KS tenants created by the closure of left-turn lanes on Farrington Highway in
the Waipahu area, including the impacts of by-pass traffic. Mitigation, if necessary, should also be included in this
analysis and included in the FEIS.

Concern #F-2:Proposed measuresfor rnaintainirrg auto access fo residences and businesses during all phases
of cottstruction need to be n~nde
more specific. Additional measures are rteeded

The ten mitigation measures to reduce adverse ecanomic hardships for existing businesses along the project
alignment during construction activities that are listed on page 4-154 of the DEIS should be included in the
Maintenance of T r a f c (MOT)Plan that would be developed by the Project construction contractor prior to
construction of the Project. However, as currently written in the DEIS, these measures are very vague and do
not clearly indicate who will be responsible for impbmenting them. These measures should be revised to be
no less than the following-and be iucluded in the project FEIS:

The City and County of Honolulu, in concert with the project construction contractors, shall ensure by any
necessary tneans that access to businesses in the project area shall be maintained during project
construction activities.
The City and County of Honolulu shall develop a public involvement plan prior to the beginning of project
constructio~~ inform business owners of the project construction schedule and activities throughout the
to
project construction phase.
The City and County of Honolulu shall initiate public information campaigns to reassure people that .
businesses are open during project construction activities to encoorage their continued patronage
throughout the project construction phase.
The City and County of Honolulu shall minimize the extent and number of businesses, jobs, and access
affected during.project construction, by any means deemed feasible, throughout the project construction
phase.
The City and County of FIonoluiu, to the extent practicable, shall coordinate the timing of temporary
facility closures to minimize impacts to business activities in the project area - especially those related to
seasonal or high sales periods.
The City and County of I-Ionolulu shall minimize, as practical, the duration of modified or lost access to
businesses in the project area, throughout the project construction phase.
The City and County of Iiotiolulu shall provide sigr~age,lighting, or other information to indicate that
businesses in the project area are open throughout the project construction phase.

The City and County of Honolulu shall provide public information (e.g., press releases or newsletters)
regarding construction activities and ongoing business activities, including advertisements in print and on
television and radio on the Island of O'ahu during the project cor~struction
period,
The City and County of EIonolulu shaH coordinate with the project constntction contractors the phasing of
construction in each project construction area so as to maintain access to individual businesses for
pedestrians, bicyclists, passenger vehicles, and trucks during business hours and important business
seasons, throughout the project construction phase.
The City and County of Hotlolulu, in concert with the project contractor, shall provide advance notice if
utilities would be disrupted, during regular business hours and schedule major utility shuboffs during non-
business Ilours.

The following additional mitigation measures to reduce this Project's impact on business nccess should bc
included in the Project FEIS.

Prior to and during construction of the East Kapolei-Ala Moana Center Segment, the FTA and the City and
County of Honolulu, Transportation Services, Rapid Transit Division (RTD) shall contact and interview
individual businesses potentially affected by construction activities, and maintain appropriate records.
Interviews wit11 commercial establish~nents provide ETA and RTD staff knowledge and understanding
will
of how these businesses cany out their work, and will identify business usage, delivery, and shipping
patterns and critical times of the day and year for business activities. Data gathered 6om these interviews
will also assist the FTA and RTD as it works with the City & County of Honolulu Department of Facility
Maintenance to develop the Worksite Traffic Control plans. Among other elements, .these plans will
identify alternate access routes to maintain critical business activities.

The FTA aid RTD shall establish a "Public Affairs Program" that will be responsible for implementing the
following actions:

J Convey construction information to the community in a timely manner so as to minimize the potential
disruption to businesses.

J Develop a process that will enable the community to "speak" to the FTA and RTD during construction
that includes a specific mechanism for responding to community concerns in a timely manner.
J All ETA and RTD responses to community concerns shall be coordinated with thc construction team,

r The FTA and RTD shall work with community residents, elected officials, local businesses, and
community organizations to tailor the mitigation program to meet community needs in an East Kapolei-Ala
Moana Center Segment Business Disruption Mitigation Plan (BDMP) prepared by FTA and RTD staff
prior to the commencement of constructio~~ activities. A copy of the East Kapolei-Ala Moana Center
Segment BDMP shall be placed in the East Kapolei-Ala Moana Center Project Knforination Field Office for
public viewing. FTA and RTD shall inform the public of its progress in implementing the measures
identified through a quarterly program of auditing, monitoring, and reporting. A quarterly status report shall
be made available to the public. FTA and RTD shall appoint a staff person to work directIy with the public
to resolve construction-reIated problems.

The following mitigation measures should be minimum elements of tlie E ~ sKapolei-Ala Moana Center BDMP:
t

I. It may be necessary to temporarily relocate immediately aflected owners and occupants of businesses or
provide a rent subsidy if, for example, access to the business could nut be maintained or the business could
not be operated in a nomaf manner. These options shall be explored by FTA and RTD staff if the need
arises.

2. During construction of the project, FTA and RTD staff shall establish a project information field office
located along the East Kapolei-Ala Moana Center Segment. The field office, in conjunction with other
FTA and RTD staff, will serve tnultiple purposes, including:

Respond to and address community and business needs during the construction period,
J Respond to complaints lodged by the public and construotiou claims,
J Allow FTA and RTD to participate in local events in an effort to promote public awareness of the
project,
J Manage construction-related matters pertaining to the public,
J Notify property owners, residences, and businesses of major construction activities,
J Provide literature to the public and press,
J Promote and provide presentations on the project via FTA and RTD's Speaker Bureau,
J Respond to phone inquiries,
J Coordinate business outreach programs,
J Schedule promotional displays, and
4 Participate in community committees.

3. The project information offices shall be open various days of the work week for the duration of the
construction period. A schedule shall be developed before project construction begins, shall be included in
the East Kapolei-Ala Moana Center Segment Business Disruption Plan and shall be reported in the
quarterly Mitigation Measures Status Report provided to the FTA.

4. An information and voice mail telephone line shall be available to provide community members and
businesses the opportunity to express their views regarding construction. Calls received shalI be reviewed
by FTA and RTD staff and will, as appropriate, be forwarded to the necessary party for action (e.g., utility
company, fire department, Resident Engineer in charge of construction operations), Information available
froin the telephone line shall include current project schedule, dates for upcoming community meetings,
notice of co~utruction impacts, individual problem solving, construction complaints, and general
information.

5. The FTA and RTD shall provide multilingual advertisetnetlts for local print and radio for affected
businesses, throughout the project construction phase. In addition, a multilingual constructian update shall
be available regularly throughout the community at least once a quarter. The languages for translation shall
include, but not be limited to, English, Hawaiian, Tagalog, Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Ilokano, and
Spanish,

6. The FTA and RTD shall provide affected businesses with the support needed to implement promotions to
help maintain their customary level of business throughout the project construction phase.

7. The FTA and RTD shall work with establishments affected by the East Kapolei-Ala Moana Center
Segment construction activities. Appropriate signage shail be developed and displayed by the FTA and
RTD to direct both pedestrian and vehicular traffic to businesses via alternate routes.
8. 'Traffic management pians to maintain access to all businesses shalt be prepared for all project construction
areas.

9. Contractors shall clean work areas daily for the duration of the project construction phase.

10. Provisions shall be contained in project construction contracts to require the maintenance of driveway
access to businesses to the extent feasible.

1 1. To the extent feasible, in the East Kapolei-Ala Moana Center project segment, concrete decking along the
cut-and-cover segments s11all be installed flush with the existing street or sidewalk levels.

Wherever feasible, sidewalks shall be maintained at their current widths during project construction.
Where a sidewalk must be temporarily narrowed during construction (e.g., deck installation), it shall be
restored to its CUITeht width during the majority of the construction period. Each sidewalk design will be of
good quality and be approved by the FTA and RTD Resident Engineer prior to construction. Handicapped
access shall be maintained during construction where feasible. If handicapped access is not feasible during
project construction, then alternative handicapped access shall be provided as necessary or signs indicating
that such access is temporarily unavailable shall be displayed. Handicapped access that is temporarily
closed due to particular project construction activities shall be reopened as soon as possible after those
constniction activities have been completed.

13. Construction site fencing shall be of good quality, capable of supporting the accidental application of the
weight of an adult without collapse or major deformation. Fence designs or samples shall be submitted to
the FTA and RTD Resident Engineer for approval prior to installation. Where major boulevards must be
fenced, business owners shaII be offered the opportunity to request covered walkways in lieu of chain-link
fencing. Where covered walkways or solid surface fences are installed, a program shall be implemented to
allow for art work (e-g., by local students) on the surface(s). Where used, chain link fences shall have slats
that will be maintained in good repair.

14. The project construction site shall be maintained in a neat manner, with all trash collectcd daily, all wood
and pipes stacked neatly, and ali small parts stored in closed containers.

Concern WF-3: A detailed SafeQ and Securfg Plan lirrrfng cottstruction i needed
s
The DEIS (Page 4- 155) states, "...During development of the Construction Safety and Security plans, measures
would be identified to minimize effects on communities and their resources that address specific consequences
anticipated at each location with the various communities, as well as ensure the safety of the public and
environment." ttowever, no measures are described in the DEIS. The FEIS should include a detailed Safety and
Security Plan that fully explains measures that will be taken to minimize the Project's effects on communities, their
resources and how the safety of the public will be ensured during Project Cot~struction activities.

For exarnplc:

Assuming each contractor has its own construction st~ppliessecurity force, please show where the costs for
such security are estimated.
Each contractor should prepare and implement a security plan to minimize risks of creating an attractive
nuisance and of theft of material and equipment-especially dangerous construction equipment.

Concern W-k Does the Honol~tluPolice Department Itnve adequate resources to control trnffic during .
cortstructiun ?

The DEIS ((Page 4-155) also states that police services couId be used to control and direct traffic. How would this
impact Honolulu Police Department (I-IPD) resources? Can HPD provide the necessary staff! What would be the
impact on higher priority law enforcement activities if IQD is used to tnanage traffic cont~olthroughout
construction? The FEIS should include an maiysis of existing staffing levels of the I-1PD and their ability to
provide staff to control and direct traffic during project construction activities and how this impacts overalI staffing
at HPD for other law enforcement activities.

-..--. -..- ----
-.- -----...----.--- ..-- -
Concern #F-5:Electric power and/or telephone service may be lost during construction.

There might be an unanticipated loss of powerltelephane service to commercial properties should an unknown
power or telephone line be severed during project construction activities. What assurances can be given that this
will not occur and what recourse for damages will be provided should a power or telephone outage occur?

Concert##F-6: Will s u f m n t vertical clearartce be available alor~g Billingham Boulevard in the DilIingi~ant
Plaza area to provide to cotrstruct the elevated transit way?

The DElS does not address whether sufficient clearance is currently available along Ditlingharn Boulevard in the
Dillingham Plaza area to provide for enough space to construct the elevated transit way. Diilingham Boulevard in
this area is very narrow. How can cranes safely operate in this area without hitting high voltage power lines that
are located on both sides of this street?

Concern #F-7:Proposed mitigation tnemures fit a r polEution during construction should be made more
i
spectjk

The control measures for air quality listed on Page 4-157 of the DEIS should be revised and expanded as foIlows:

Minimize land disturbance in any one area by project construction activities.
Use watering trucks on exposed soil surfaces to minimize dust from project construction areas at least twice
a day. Watering may be required more often if any visible plume of dust drifts off any project construction
site.
Use low-emission construction equipment when feasible.
Cover all loads when hauling soil from project wnstnrction sites.
Cover soil stockpiles if exposed for more than seven days at a time.
Use windbreaks to prevent accidental dust pollution, especially when construction activities are located
near sensitive uses (hospitals, schools or residential areas) or near commercial areas.
Limit the number of project construction vehicle paths and stabitize temporary roads with water or soil
binders.
Maintain stabilized project construction area ingresslegrcss areas.
Wash or clean trucks prior to leaving project construction sites. Install wheel washers if necessary. Soii
tracked onto streets adjacent to construction sites shall be swept once a day to remove soil tracked onto
them by project construction or delivery vehicles.
Minimize unnecessary vehicular activities, and limit vehicle traific to 15 miles per hour on project
construction haul roads.

Concern #F-8: Proposed m i f i g ~ t i o ~
mensuresfor tzoise during construction shoutd be made more spectpc.

Project conshvction noise will temporarily impact existing land uses on KS owned properties. Therefore, it is
requested that the noise measures listed 011 page.4-158.of the DEIS be modified as follows in the project FEIS:

Develop a project monitoring plan with noise limits consistent with the construction contractor's noise
permit.
Conshwct temporary noise barriers or curtains to shield sensitive noise receptors from project construction
activities.
e Q u i p project construction equipment engines with adequate mufflers and intake silencers.
Strategically place stationary equipment, such as compressors and generators as far away from sensitive
noise receptors (hospitals, schools and singlelmultiple famiIy residences) as possible.

G. Indirect and Cumulative Effects
UltraSystems does not believe that the transit project DEIS adequately analyzes the Project's indirect and
cumulative impacts on KS-owned lands along the transit corridor.

The DEIS lacks tm adequate discussion in regards to the cumulative impact of parking around transit stations and
its effect on available area parking. Given that Transit Oriented Development projects will be underway near
transit stations, parking could be an issue and should be discussed in the Project FEIS. KS properties may be
affected by the placement of parking near stations. If parking needs are underestimated, then parking will have to
be increased at a later time to accommodate the additional parking spaces needed. Since the Pearlridge and
Kapalama stations are near or adjacent to KS-owned properties, the planned parking and potential future expansion
of parking could impact KS-owned properties and additional full or partial takes may be needed. These cumulative
impacts should be discussed in the Project FEIS.

H. Section 4(f) Analysis

The Boulevard Saimin Restaurant, a cuItural resource, is located on KS-owned property fionting on Dillingham
Boulevard. The Boulevard Saimin parcel would be affected by the widening of Dillingham Boulevard (by
approximately 10 feet) to accommodate the fixed guideway in the median in Dillingham Boulevard. A total of 696
square feet of parking area would be necessary to allow for the construction of the Project on this street. This take
o f a parking area qualifies as a direct use under Section 4(f). The City's acquisition of a portion of the parking area
at the Restaurant will not only have impacts on the Restaurant parking, but also parking rhat is used For those
patronizing the many stores that are co-located in the hvo-story building that houses the Restaurant. It appears that
two of the twelve parking spaces provided for restaurant patrons will be lost as a result of the widening of
Dillingl~am Boulevard. What provisions can be made to compensate for the lost parking spaces that wouid bc
taken as a result of the land take? If sufficient parking cannot be provided on or off the building site, will
the whole building need to be taken, resulting in the toss of the Restaurant and the other busincssu housed
in this building?

I. General Comments on Project Mitigation Measures
UltraSystems' general comment on the mitigation measures included in thc Project DEIS is that many of these
measures are so vague that it will be dimcult to implement them. To remedy this problem, a stand-alone mitigation
monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) should be prepared for the proposed as part of the FEIS. The MMRP
would include the following:

All the mitigation measures included in the FEIS;

t When these measures are to be implemented (e.g. during Project planning and desiflroject
construction/duringProject operation;

t Who is responsible to see that these measures are implemented; and

A place for a City and County of Honolulu staff member to sign-off that the measure has been completed.

UltraSystems believes that the City and County of Honolulu should appoil~ta monitor or monitors whose
responsibility would be to ensure that the MMIUP is being implemented as project construction takes place. This
could be a City/County staff member. The CityICounty staff member could work with the Project Construction
Contractor to implement Project mitigation measures. A report should be prepared armually on the status of the
Mh4X.P and what measures were implemented, including evidence that tliey were implemented (copies of required

permits etc.); changes to measures that wers implemented; and what measures were nor implemented and why they
were not. The status report on the MMRP would be presented to the Honolulu City Council annually for approval.

Ultrasystems has found that for mitigation measures to be implemented they must be located in a stand-alone
document and be easiIy understandable by all parties responsible for their implementation, A commitment by a
public agency is also necessary to implement all project mitigation measures, with foilow up by elected ~ E c i a l to
s
see that the MMIZP has been implemented.

Sllould you have any questions concerning UltraSysfems' comments in this letter on the DEIS, please call me or
Bob Rusby, UltraSystems Senior Project Manager, at your convenience at 949-7884900 or email Bob at
rrusby@ultrasystems.com.

Sincerely,

ULTRASYSTEMS ENVJORONMENTAL MCORPORATED

Betsy A. Lindsay, PresidenffCEO

cc: Mike Dang, Kamehameha Schools
Director, Planning & Development Division

--.---------------.----
First Name : Mark
Last Name : van der Leest
Address : 3031 New Brighton Gardens SE
Apt.lSuite No. :
City : Calgary
State : CA
Zip Code : 92234
Email : mvdleestQ shaw.ca
Telephone : 403-284-1171
Submission ContentlNotes : I've been a Rail Traffic Controller in Calgary, Alberta, Canada (home of
North America's busiest and most successful light rail transit system) for
4 years. I think that this Rail project can be a great success and really
make a positive change for Honolulu. I'm interested in the development
of the system, and keeping informed so 1 know when I can apply for a
job and help develop a system from the ground up.

---------------------
First Name : Steven
Last Name : Vaspra
BusinessIOrganization : Individual
Address : 67-055 Kaioe PI
AptJSuite No. :
City : Waialua
State : HI
Zip Code : 96791
Email : vasprasOO1 Q hawaii.rr.com
Submission ContentJNotes : I am definitely for the Rail project and prefer the airport route starting
from Kapolei!
I am born, raised and live in Waialua and have made the commute into
Honolulu for 44years (I am 59) for school, work and I still commute into
Honolulu for work. I have seen, and experienced, the traffic nightmare
get worse over the years. With the developement of the second city in
Kapolei, the traffice has gotten, is getting, and will get even worse.
Councilman Djou is an idiot and Kobayashi and Dela Cruz (our
councilman!) aren't far behind.
Steve Vaspra
Waialua, Oahu, Hi

Mr. fed Matley Mr. Wayne Y. Yoshloka
FTA Region 1X Departmentof Transportation
201 Mission Street, Suite 1650 City and County of Honolulu
San Francisco, CA 94105 650 South Klng Street, 31d Floor
Honolulu, Hawai'i 96813

RE: Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project (Draft EIS)

Thank you for the chance to comment. As a property owner o n Oahu, I supporr rhe general
concept presented. I wilf rely not only on experiences gained from a career as a transpartation engineer,
but my current status as the interim chair of the Hawai'i County Transportation Commission and a
proponent for balanced transportation, smart growth and more [ivable communities to offer additional
comments and recommendations.

As one of several transportation alternatives that would be acceptable solutions for the
Honolulu environment, this decision will guide us how to prioritize all of our transportationoptions. The
future remains shrouded and it Is truly impossible to determine form the study alone how successful the
transit system will become. It will, however, be substantial enough that the government, residents, and
visitors wifl have ttte resources and ability to steer the system towards ultimate success.

The project as proposed will also help determine how we allocate our valuable and limited
energy resources. This may be just as crucial of a decision. Sustainable energy systems wifl play an
increasing role in our island State. Fixed generation from natural or renewable resources will likely play
an important role. When fuel sources and generators are not required o n board, energy consumption
and capacity improve.

This project will also provide us with lifestyle opportunities and options on how we as residents
and guests choose to move around. Balanclng our time and how productively we use ft are important
considerations for all of- us. How w@ access our transportation options are also important &nsiderat&
that will impact our lifestyles, In light of the above comments, t offer the following
consideration during planning, design, and construction.

'v
"
.r
r 0

RECOMMENDATIONS:
6

-
FIRST. IncTudIng direct access to Honolulu International Airport is absotrltely essential. This is one of the
largest origins and destlnations in the State. This is our primary Hnk to the mainland and international
markets. It is also a critical portal for interisland travel fulfilling commuting, medical, recreational, and
personal needs.

SECOND. Construction must start from the Ala Moana end. This is already a major transit terminal and
is an existing TOD providing direct access.to shopping, accommodations, recreation, and the convention
center. This wauld also he the physical foundation to advance the ptanning forward an both additional
routes. If financial, environmental, or unknown setbacks occur, a viable transit'core remains available.

THIRD. The design must include considerations for accomtnodating utilities and other facilities.
Mounting points and potential loadings shoufd be incorporated in the design to avoid unnecessary
future costs and dlsruptions. The upfront costs would be minor. The large support structure could also
carry electric lines, street lighting, communications, architectura1lighting, and even replacement water
lines. Perhaps the most desirable facility that could be added in the future is an elevated bikeway.
Bicyclist would benefit from the same conditions as elevated transit, no intersections. Bicycle usage is
increasing and a bikeway would provide additional commuting options, transit access, and a very unique
tourism attraction, unparalleled in the world.

Additional Copy:

Director
Office of EnvironmentalQuality Control
235 South Beretania Street, Suite 702
Honolulu, HI 96813

Return Address:

77-6526 ffo'olaupa'i St
Kailua Kona, H 96740
I

---------------.------
First Name : Mary
Last Name : Warren
Address : 60 N. Nimitz Highway
Apt.1Suite No. : 1604
City : Honolulu
State : HI
Zip Code : 96817
Email : ralphie-2000Q hotmail.com
Submission ContentlNotes : I find it appalling that you will still consider this rail systen with our
economy so bad and the GET collection is low. Insteadof breaking up
our island, I have never seen anyone try to close one lane for more
busses to be able to bypass the traffic during peak hours. This would
eliminate the danger of crazy cars cutting off busses and would give
riders a faster ride to their destinations. We are on a beautiful island and
ruining its beauty with a rail system is the most ridiculous thing I have
ever heard of. Having additional jobs for these union workers and our
county go into bankruptcy is STUPID!!! With the gas high I already see
a cut in cars on the road. People love their cars and to cut down the
roads they can drive on is STUPID! Unless you stop more cars from
coming in, drivers will drive. The little ridership on this rail doesn't
warrant the expense in building it or maintaining it. Both the state and
county are cutting back in the budgets. We have much more pressing
problems in this state and county. Wasting billions on rail instead of
focusing on getting solar energy going in county and state offices or
giving more to the education of our young is a much better way to spend
our monies.

First Name : richard
Last Name : wasnich
Business/Organization: kaa limited partnership
Address : 401 kamakee st
City : honolulu
State : HI
Zip Code : 96814
Email : rwasnichQ gmail.com
Telephone : 808 398 2631
Submission ContenffNotes : 1. I am a strong supporter of rail transit.
2. 1 understand the rationale for starting construction in Kapolei, related
to space for a
base yard.
3. However I think the citv should do whatever required to start at Ala
Moana and work out towards Ewa.
4. First, there will be income from the core traffic, which will not result
from Kapolei to Waipahu.
5. Second, if funding or other obstacles occur (perhaps I should say
WHEN, not IF), we will have a usable system.
6. Third, when Pearl City is reached, there will be a significant impact on
traffic from Ewa, which will build and sustain the political support needed
for this multi-year project.

Max H. Watson
1777 Ala Moana Blvd., Apt. 1808
Honolulu, HI 96815
December 18,2008

Dept. of Transportation Services
650 S. King St., 3* Floor
Honolulu, HI 96813

Dear Dot:

The draft EIS is another step toward bankruptsy. No one has coinpletdy explained who
is going to pay for this white elephant and how long our great grandchildren will have to
pay for but never ride.

Serious budget cuts are now going on. What has hdppened to common s~nse?
Bottom fine: Billions of tax dollars down a rat hole w i e our sewer systems deteriorate
hl
and other needs await funding. This will be Hawaii's % i Dig"
' Bg

Sincerely yours,

Max I-I. Watson
Tax Payer

Copy to:
The I-Ionorable Linda Lingle
The Honolulu Advertiser
The Star Bulletin
The 'Honolulu City Council
Pacific Business News

-----------.-.-------
First Name : Claudia
Last Name : Webster
Address : 14 Aulike St., #305
Apt.1Suite No. : 305
City : Kailua
State : HI
Zip Code : 96734
Email : clwswim@hawaii.rr.com
Telephone : 808-262-6243
Submission ContenffNotes : Yes, I am in favor of the proposed rail system. I would think it more
practical to start in downtown Honolulu and build out rather than starting
in the west and building in.
I lived in Portland, Oregon for 30 years. During that time the MAX
lightrail system was built and expanded. It is a wonderful addition to city
transportation. I remember when it was started in downtown as I was
working there. It was a mess, but we all survived. And over the years
additional spurs have been added. So from my experience in Portland
and riding light rail in other cities I enthusiastically support light rail.
Claudia L. Webster--have lived in Kailua for almost 2 years now.

First Name : Dan
Last Name : Weissmann
Address : 3932 Spencer St
Apt./Suite No. :
City : Keller
State : TX
Zip Code : 76248
Email : stripteesQverizon.net
Telephone : 214-226-4439
Submission ContentJNotes : Hi. I am working on a research project and have a question, Can you tell
me why you decided not to build your future rail system partially or
completely underground? The costs of an elevated system seem to be
about the same, and with land at a premium, this at first glance seems
like a more logical choice.
Thanks,
Dan

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONSERVICES

Phone: (808) 768-8305 Fax: (808) 7684730. Internet: www.honolulu.gov

MAYOR DIRECTOR

SHARON ANN THOM
DEPUTY DIRECTOR

May 21,201 0
Mr. Dan Weissmann
3932 Spencer Street
Keller, Texas 76248

Dear Mr. Weissmann:


submittal:

As documented in the Alternatives Analysis cost estimate, the cost of an underground
system would have been substantially greater than that for an elevated system.


Director

Enclosure

First Name : Susan
Last Name : Werner
Address : 2017 Lelehuna PI
Apt./Suite No. :
City : Haiku
State : HI
Zip Code : 96708
Email : wernersOO2Qhawaii.rr.com
Telephone :
Add t o Mailing List : Email
Submission ContenVNotes : I would like to express my strong support for the rail line to include a
stop at the airport. As a neighbor island resident who visits Oahu
occasionally, it would mean a lot to me to be able to get to either Kapolei
or to the Ala Moana Shopping center directly from the airport, without
having to rent a car or take a taxi, both of which would add an additional
vehicle to the traffic.
I am disappointed that a more modern bullet-train type of system was
not chosen instead of steel rail, but I consider steel rail better than no
rail. Honlulu could have used this opportunity to step into the 21st
Century of transportation; a bullet-trainor similar technological system
could also be a tourist attraction as well as transportation for residents.
But I support the plan as long as it includes a stop at the airport.

Alan E Wickens
KO Olina Fairways
92- 537Aliinui Drive # E
7
Kapoiei, Hawaii 96707-2230

3 December 2008

Wayne Yoshioka
Director of Transportation Services
650 South King Street, 3'F'Floor
I-tonolulu, HI 96813

Re: Professor Prevedouros' Letter in the 2 Dec 2008 Star Bulletin (enclosed)

Dear Mr. Yoshioka,

The referenced letter poses sMeen points which should be answered by your Department. I
anticipate your respanse in the Star Bulletin.

In addition to the Professors' points would you also tell us where the rail yard and
maintenance shops witl be located? Will the yard and shops require additional
condemnations? Also, will HECO be the sole provider of power or wilt there be a dedicated
power source? If there is a dedicated power source (or perhaps a back-up source) will it be
dependent upon fossil fuel? Wilt the rail cars have batteries so that they can "creep"t0 the
next station in case of loss of primary power?

. Sincerely,

I
I
I Cc: Councilman Apo
Star Bulletin
I

: :Makesure you get
the rail system you want
head structure, the continuous
hlgh current exposure and the
intermittent nolse and vlbra-
tlon aftect the learning end-
ronment? Would It be prudent
to relocate these schools?
>> Does rall.Ht our Hawallan
sense of place? How was the
impact to tourism and local
quallty of Ilfe by tilarge.ele-.
vated stnicture through town
'PLACE
.' "been assessed?
panos hUgd0ir,& .' >> Does the DEISaddresstht!
- - affected .vistas and scenervi '
Are the aesthetics of the st&
Regardless of whether you ture and each. station ex.
are for or agalnst rall, the Draft plalned and presented
Environmental Impact State adequately?
ment (DEIS) Is the document , What will happen In the
z
that should provide answen.to event of a hurricane? WII1 the
all reasonable Impacts. Does tiiln operate7,Llght rall in
It? Here is a sample of ques- Houston was shtit down for 10
ttons: days due to HurricaneRe '
1 'The bus routes wlll
, >>.BARTIn the Bay Area
'change. What happens toybur uses rall cars made of alu-
route? What'happens to ex- mlnum to combat corrosion; Is
press buses? . the city's posltion that c m
>>.lanesMlI be taken away, slon Is not an issue?
. - .sanetemporarfly for~construc- r> It'appears that general ex-
tlon and sorite permaliently. cise tax surcharge.proceeds
'

. Where are those lane clus~ires for rall wlll be much lower than
and what's thelr dlirattoh? Are expected for at least four years
'there traffic ieroutlngplans? .In a row. How Is thls deftcit g+
>> Will blkes, surfboards or lng to be made up?
luggage be allowed on the >= If ridership turns out to
traln? M a t a b u t large !terns be much lower than forecast,
purchased at a blg box re- then what? tf the cltyis forced
taller? What's the slze Iinilta- .to 1jroWde [ree traln rldes Uki!
tion? In Puerto RLco, how is the
2, Will there be washrooms shortfall golng to be covered7
a t the stations? How about >s I there a detailed plan for
s
convenience stores, vendlng the effect of rall constructlon
machines? W1 the pIatforms .on watef, sewer, gas' dnd elec-
11
have seats7 How maiy? trlc utlIltlea?Wlll there be dls-
>> The p l h calls for Aloun .'iuptiannq of se,Mce? Does the
farms.torelocate. Is that possi- .,bud.get cowkatl tlike?
,bIe? Where w I they go?
U I urge youto revfew the D$&
>> Stwerupgrades In Kallua :and seek answers to the gues-
and Kapfolani'led to the.loss of tibns that a r e Important to
businesses and ]obs..Are de- you. Wrlte to the clw-director
tails prirvtded about slrnllar ef- of transpoi-tatlon with your
. fects during theconstmctlon questlons and co.ncems and
of-theratl? - send coples to the Clty Council
sr Ralt conshuctlon Involves and the governor.
unlque sklils and certlflcati~n~ Regerdless of whether you
that Hawat1construction work- want rall or not, if the city
us do not have..How will thls bullds the rall system, then
. bejz.The'clty has declared Mat way that satlslles Is done In a
addressed? make sure that It
your needs
a parcel needs t o be con-.
of
-
lit many cases only.%portion and concerns. .
demned Can the businwur-. masD. Aewdaunzs is a '
vive wlth th.e remaining pmkssorof&msporfufi~ .,
portlon? Isn't thls mandatory endineerlmat,!he Unfve~siiy of
downslzkig andfewerJpbe? - ~ & a l i ~ & o ~e mn an - a
ss There are'16 schools adla- unsui:cessLIcampaign ii,r
cent to the route.~Wllthe oirep. mrryorasan nnti*ail candidate.

February 2,2009

650 South King Street, 3rdFloor

RE: Draft Environmental Impact Statement [DEIS]

Dear Sir or Madam:

As CPA's, we support and affordable traffic solutions for the City and County of.Honolulu. We find
several flaws regarding funding for the proposed rail project currently estimated to cost $5.5 billion for the
airport route adopted on January 28, 2009 and summarized in Section 6 of the Draft Environmental lmpact
Statement [DEIS]. We believe these flaws are of such magnitudes that not only will this project be neither
viable nor affordable; this project will jeopardize our City and County's financial health and sustainability.

How realistic are the funding assumptions?

The basis for funding the proposed rail system is a 1/2% excise surcharge assessed on county transactions from
fanuary 1,2007 to December 31,2021. Using the City's figures provided in Section 6 of the DEIS, this
surcharge needs to generate a minimum o f $4.1 billion. The cash flow statement of the DEIS includes
surcharge tax collections through 2023, two years past the 2021 collection expiration date provided by law.
When the taxes for the additional two years are deleted from the City's projection, the required collections are
short by 5473.5 million [Exhibit A].

The collections from January 2007 to December 2008, total $294 million, substantially below the City's
projections. It would require a minimum tax growth rate of 9.46% every year for thirteen [I31years [Exhibit
61. Based on the Honolulu's economic history and the current global economy, this growth rate is
unattainable.

What do the economists say?

The Council on Revenues [the economic board that provide forecasts of tax revenues to the Governor and
State Legislators] issued new tax collection forecasts on January 12,2009[Exhibit C.] The forecast for growth
in Hawaii tax revenues for 2009 through 2015 are -3.1%, 1 , 3.5%,5.3%, 6%) 6.5%) and 6.5%. Using these
%
forecasts, it would require an increase, compounded annually; in collections o f 25.29% from 2016 to 2021
[Exhibit Dl. These forecasts do not include the additional cost for borrowing funds due to the shortfall in
surcharge tax collections. This rate of required growth in tax collections is unattainable based on our
economic history.

The funding should be based on the economic realities and reasonable factors:

1 2007 and 2008: The actual surcharge collections
.
2 2009 through 2015: The Council on Revenues forecasts
.
3. 2016 through 2021: Using a 6.5% growth rate of collections

Based on the above assumptions, the City will experience a $1.26 billion shortfall by the year 2021 [Exhibit El.

Department of Transportation Service
February 2,2009
Page 2 o f 2

How much will the federal government contribute?

The DElS estimates this rail project will cost approximately $5.5 billion, with $1.4 billion to be provided by the
U.S. Department of Transportation. The federal funds are to be paid through their "New Starts" grants in the
amount $200 million per year for seven [7] consecutive years. The 2009 budget for "new starts" is $1.475
billion for 30 grants that were selected from mass transit program applications from municipalities nationwide.
The average grant is $47 million with two-thirds 12/31 of the grants going to cities with populations averaging
5.4 times the size of Honolulu. The average grant for smaller cities such as Honolulu is $23.5 million. There is
great competition for these grants. The DElS assumption that Honolulu will successfully obtain 1/7 of the
country's mass transit budget for seven consecutive years is unrealistic and not viable.

What are the risks?

Honolulu could have a rail system that is never completed. With no monies available to complete the
project, the useless concrete pillars will be a monument to an irresponsible act that will mar our
landscape for years to come.

Honolulu's credit rating couid plummet resulting in higher unbudgeted costs for interest on borrowed
funds.

Residents could face tax increases to pay for the shortage that will put undue economic pressure on
them and future generations.

Honolulu could be bankrupt due to all the debt that even future generations cannot service.

The City and County of Honolulu has a duty to its residents and taxpayers to act appropriately and prudently
when committing our resources to traffic solutions. The solutions must be viable and affordable. We await
your response to our concerns.

Very truly yours,

/
Janet I Jensen, CPA
. Kathleen S. Meier, CPA
728 Elepaio Street 629 Palawiki Street
Honolulu, Hawaii 96816 Kailua, Hawaii 96734
Telephone: 808.735.3797 Telephone: 808.263.8884
Facsimile: 808.734.0189 ? . Facsimile: 808.263.8842
Email: ji@mansotre.com " . ,Email: kmeier-cpaChawaii:rr.com
....
' -. ..
6. Jeannie Hedberg, CPA Joe Wikoff CPA, Wikoff Combs & Co., LLC
415 South Street #3502 1001 Bishop Street, ASB Tower, Suite 2760
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Telephone: 808.546-1122 Telephone: 808.791.1430
Email: hedberscoa@aol.com Facsimile: 808.791.1440
Email: Joe@wiknffcombsc~a.com
David Latham, CPA
735 Bishop Street, Ste 432
Telephone: 808.521.5064
Facsimile: 808.521.5065
Email: dave@davidelathamc~a.com

-*---.----.------------

First Name : C. E.
Last Name : Willson
Address : 225 Queen St.
Apt.lSuite No. : 7F
City : Honolulu
State : HI
Zip Code : 96813
Email : willsonc001 Q hawaii.rr.com
Telephone :
Submission Date :

Submission ContenVNotes : Noise Impacts:
It is unclear if you are using Cylindrical or Point Sources for noise
calculations. Distance attenuation is significantly different for each (point
source is 6dB per doubling, vs 3dB cylindrical). A train passing by a
residence is cylindrical source. Please clarify this in the document. (The
equivalent "sound of a leaf-blower" is not pleasant at 4 am.)
Where to start I MOS
The Draft EIS makes it clear that that the majority of ridership will be
between home and school or work, and the vast majority of this is in the
urban core between Waikiki and Pearl City, with the downtown area
being the most common destination, and one which has severe parking
limitations. So clearly, this is the area which would have the most
ridership and should be built first, but the need to have space for a
baseyard sways the development toward the Ewa end, where the
intention is to spend years constructing a segment which is almost
useless as a stand-along.
Please discuss the areas which would generate the most immediate
usage (and revenue).
Please discuss economic collapse considerations, and how a partially-
built rail system (e.g., East Kapolei to Waipahu) would be used if
construction were to be halted rf the project ran out of money.
Please discuss the minimum segment which could operate as stand-
along (e.g., Airport, downtown, and Ala Moana)
Please discuss the most fiscally cautious build-out which would allow
operation of working segments, considering both dedicated (rail) options
and flexible (elevated guideway for multi-purpose vehicles, which could
accommodate bus-type vehicles and could allow conversion to rail once
the complete system is in place.
Alternatives Analysis
The public needs to be fully informed about the possible alternatives
before proceeding, and the most attractive and realistic alternative was
intentionally excluded from consideration, which makes the draft EIS
unacceptable. Panos (and others) have provided articulate arguments
for a drive-on, drive-off elevated guideway which provides multiple
benefits.
The system could bus-oriented and at-grade from Waianae or Haleiwa
or Laie and then drive up on to the elevated guideway segment to
bypass central corridor I downtown congestion, and continue at grade
from Ala Moana to Waikiki or UH, which are the most heavily accessed
end eastern end points. This means a sinqle route from these origin and
destination points can be easily managed,-and express routes over such
distances. Whv is this not considered?
Such a systein would also allow door-to-door service for Handivan
(ADA) service for the disabled and elderly, for emergency vehicles
(ambulance, fire, police, rapid-response, military, etc.)
The risk assessment should consider that thrs elevated roadway is not
locked into one single technology, and even if the transit system fails
completely, this system can be used by any busses,and competing
technologies.
Failure Modes and Downtime

An esseential part of the discussion is failure modes. How could this
go down?
An elevated rail system is inherently a brittle technology, and if a
segment of line goes down, the system could be totally out of
commission. We are also proposing TOD to get people into car-free
lifestyles, so people need to be able to feel they can rely on the system.
We need a serious discussion of worker strikes, seismic events,
terrorism, power failures, cost over-runs leading to the bankrupcy of the
system, and other issues which could lead to a failure of the system.
That is, a complete risk assessment for this and competing technologies.
(Please do not say "that can't happen"; things do happen. Cost over-
runs are extremely common, and this could become embroiled in lengthy
litigation over cultural resources or burials, etc. (Look up 'The Big Dig"
for Boston's example ....)
What else can we get for our money?
The scenic vistas from many segments of an elevated guideway will be
breathtaking.
Imagine the value of utilizing the service access route on the elevated
guideway as a cross-town, no intersections bicycle route. People would
want to bicycle to work. lmagine using this so you could walk or run
across town without fear of traffic, with a breeze blowing across you, and
clean air to breathe above the street-level traffic.
lmagine using this to get tourists to scenic areas at off-peak times.
lmagine using this to get visitors swiftly to and from the airport, seeing
panoramic vistas from the Waianae mountains to Diamond Head along
the way, instead of the freeway or Nimitz industrial corridor.
lmagine using this for a segment of the Honolulu Marathon, or bike
races, or triathalons. lmagine Wide World of Sports following the
leaders on live TV, with the beauty of the south O'ahu coastline behind
them. Talk about massive free advertising for tourism! What wonderful
events to run in the winter, when football season is over, and we can get
TV coverage for beautiful Hawai'i weather while mainlanders are
snowed in.
lmagine being able to rent a bicycle with a credit card swipe at transit
stations and conveniently bike to wherever you want to go, and then
relock it in the rental station closest to your destination, saving time,
carrying items you purchased along the way - all without ever needing
to own a bicycle.
lmagine a day off when the clouds are rolling toward your beach, so you
hop on a train and pick up a bicycle to get to a sunny beach on the other
side of the island.
This investment is something we will be using and paying for for over 50
years, perhaps 100. Please take your time and get this right, as it will
shape the development of this island for generations.
Thank you for considering these options.

Chang, Deanna
.-- --.-- ---?---"
-- ---- --.--" .--..-.~----*---& --.-. --
..---- "--. -*..--..-.--..
From: Leonard Wlthington, Jr [makikistop@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, November 21,20084:43 PM
. To: Chang, Deanna
Subject: PLEASE SUBMITT' TO RECORD
3
P

1 Thanks for taking my call. Testimony forthcoming
:
i To the committee on Transportation and Pztblic Works
November 15,2008

. SALT LAKE VS AIRPORT ROUTE (REAL SERVICE TO REAL COMMUTER
I USERS)

; I wish you would listen to the Salt LakelAli'manu/Foster Village neighborhood board
1 members testimony. They have spent a lot of effort to work with Romy C

i
History
For 18 years (1977 to 1996) I was a resident of Salt Lake. Back in the 70' and 80'
1 Councilperson Donna 'Mercado Kim vastly improved the bus line # 12 (Presently the
; #3.) Due to these great improvements, the MoanaludSalt Lake/Ali'amanu communities
I improved real service to real commuter users. I have used mass transit for 14 years now.
i
/ The service is excellent.
Airport~icltam/PearlHarbor History
We've always had poor bus service to this area. Only Nirnitz and Karn highway service
is used. Bus #19 to AirporVHickam travels every hour To enter EIicltam the rider must
have a US Government ID on the bus. Bus #9 provides hourly service to Nimitz Gate
only (Big deal). Bus #9 goes on the base only during the regular commute hours and
must also have a Government ID.
i
I The W0 and #42, plus the Kam highway routes go by the airport and Pearl Harbor,
2
/ provide spotty airport visitor bus service. Luggage service on all busses is discouraged
/ (restricted). Will visitors with luggage be allowed on hub and spoke bus service from Ala
; Moana Shopping Center to Waikiki hotels?
1 Market Analysis
1really think the survey which says that 7,000 more riders will use the Airport Route is
i
'

flawed. I would think the Salt Lake col~idor would be 7,000 more ridership than the

Airport route. Customers from Halawa Heights, Red I-Iill, Foster Village, Moanalua
Valley, Salt 1 a . eand Ma'punapuna would utilize the liub and spolce bus service to the
Salt Lake Blvd rail coi-ridor. They will not drive to Pearl arbor or Damon Track
(Airport) areas. What makes the high speed rail work is high speed between telminals
and limited stops. I really think 19 stops are too many.

;
i
If you are going to have a hub and spoke bus service with ''park and ride" facilities at the
i stations, you can cut back 5 - 6 stops, so that the 40 minute ride becomes a 30 or 35
i
! minute commute to the bus transfer stations. Start to stop xxxxx Kapolei to AMC

Remember Express.Route A. The original UH (Sinclair Library) to Kalihi Transit Center
provided limited stops, every 10 minutes. This system worked real well. They then
; added the Waipahu h a 1 destination and put stops at McCully Kamakee, Kokea, Gulick
streets slowing the service down. That really screwed up the A Express Route. Once
/ again we need limited stops and high speed. The new rail rbute would be fiom Aloha
.: Stadium to Iwilei is much faster than the airport.

. .
; Be real when it comes to moving the masses with speed
.. The successful mass transit systems should move all customers with speed. Why else
: have an expensive system. Proven good service will change most car riders to consider
alternative forms of transportation,
1
/ Leonard Withington, Jr.
I 1326 Piikoi Street #202
I Honolulu, HI 968 14
i e-mail makikistop@y_ahoo.com.
1 (808) 535-9779
j

First Name : Taryn
Last Name : Wong
Address :
Apt./Suite No. :
City :
State : HI
Zip Code : 96744
Email : kerotw24Q hotmail.com
Telephone :
Add to Mailing List : Ernail
Submission ContentINotes : I am totally against the rail system. It is too expensive, will take too long
to build, and will ruin our island. Hawaii does not even allow billboard
signs and they want to put a rail up across our skyline? What are we
going to do about traffic NOW until the year 2030? This is not a
federally funded project, so how is Hawaii going to pay for this?
Shouldn't we use the state money for our public schools?

---------------------
First Name : thomas
Last Name : wong
Address : 47-549 hui iwa street
Apt.lSuite No. :
City : kaneohe
State : HI
Zip Code : 96744
Email : yonomosekiQ yahoo.com
Telephone : 510-261-8313
Submission Date :

Submission ContentINotes : To Whom It May Concern:
My concerns for the transit project are not so much with the rail itself, but
rather the effects the rail will have on mixed-income development in its
surrounding areas.
It is my understandingthat government officials are looking to Hope VI -
projects to model our own mixed income redevelopment. In places like
Oakland, Seattle, and across the country, this mixed income
redevelopment has been paired with transit rail development. In
Oakland for example, every station stop has become a site for mixed
income redevelopment.
This has impacted low income residents in nearby areas tremendously.
Oakland Coliseums mixed income development displaced 178 families,
and only 4 families returned. This is consistent with Hope Vl national
statistics.
So I'd like to know what steps are being taken by the transit project to
insure that this doesn't become the case on Oahu, especially in high-
density areas like Kalihi-Palama. I urge you to cons~der these solutions:
1. Remove barriers for low-income residents to return to housing near
the rail redevelopments
2. Ban no-fault evictions and criminal history disqualifications in areas
near the rail
3. Ensure that the timing of the rail is not disruptive to existing residents
4. Ensure case management and social services attached to relocatron
counseling
5. Guarantee no net loss of affordable housing units in areas near the
rail
6. Maintain rental affordability at current levels in areas near the rail
7. Ensure family and culturally appropriate amenities in all
redevelopments connected to the rail

First Name : Betty
Last Name : Wood
Address : 1980 Halekoa Drive
Apt./Suite No. :
City : Honolulu
State : HI
Zip Code : 96821
Email :
Telephone :
Submission Date : 0 /22/2009
1
Submission ContentINotes : I support the development of rapid transit for Honolulu.
In my opinion:
I the train should connect to the airport.
.
2 construction start with the Pearl City to Honolulu segment and then
.
build out, You'll get more riders immediately.
3. all stations should have elevators or ramps for wheel chairs and bikes.
4. all trains should have bike storage areas.
5. all new transit oriented development zoning changes should support
pedestrian and bike access.
Good luck.

Department of Transportation- 12/8/08
650 South KING Street, 3rd Floor]
Honolulu, HI 96813
Dear Mayor of Honolulu: 12/6/08
It is time that the State took a position on
the economic feasibility of rail rapid transit.
The bill for elevated transit became law
without the signature of the Govenor.
The public vote on rail was close. and
forecast future dissension. Subsequently,
the visitor count has gone down, while the
estimated cost of rail transit has gone up.
The State has the responsibility to consider
the impact of these developments on the
future of rail transit, and to report to the

pu bllic,
The Govenor must take a position on the
economic feasibility of rail transit before he
can sign the draft Environmental Impact
Statement into law. Please tell him so,
orally or in writing, and that the former
State Director of Transportation for
Govenors Burns and Ariyoshi said so.
j
j
i I have been a Democrat for 99.8years
Sincerely,

--------------.-.-----
First Name : Michelle
Last Name : Yamaguchi
Address : 956 Hunakai St.
Apt./Suite No. :
City : Honolulu
State : HI
Zip Code : 96816
Email : raedeyQ rnsn.com
Telephone : 808.732.0046
Submission ContentINotes : Please tell me it's not true that the first leg of the transit to be built will
run from Kapolei to Ewa/Ewa Beach. That would be silly and ridiculous.

First Name : Earl
Last Name : Yamasaki
Address : 859 Papalalo Place
Apt./Suite No. :
City : Honolulu
State : HI
Zip Code : 96825
Email : earlyamasaki Q hotmail.com
submission ContentINotes : Instead of building a rail, we should use the funds for education, fixing,
improving roads and higher capacity or more buses to make lt more
convenient for riders.
Why gamble and spend so much money for rail without knowing the
results. What if you don't have the desired results? You are stuck with a
white elephant. Get more buses on the routes and make it so convenient
that people will gladly ride it. If it does not work you won't have a white
elephant to deal with. Residents on Oahu are very used to convenience
and they won't ride the rail if they have to run errands or drop their
children off at school, etc.
We need to invest in our keiki and give them the chance to succeed. Fix
our terrible roads.
Please give this some thought. Mahalo.

First Name : Kenneth
Last Name : Yoshida
Address : 1516 Hoolehua Street
Apt./Suite No. :
City : Pearl City
State : HI
Zip Code : 96782
Email : kkyoshidQjuno.com
Telephone : 808-455-9442
Submission ContentJNotes : I have a compromise route which includes part of the Salt Lake and
Airport routes.
Have the route continue from Pearl CitylAiea to the Aloha Stadium (park
& ride) then onto Bougainville Drive and Radford Drive to the Pearl
Harbor Naval Base.
Then onto Nimitz and the Airport.

------.----------------
First Name : Ken
Last Name : Yoshida
Address : 1516 Hoolehua Street
Alternative Preference : Neither
Apt./Suite No. :
City : Pearl City
State : HI
Zip Code : 96782
Email : kkyoshidQjuno.com
Telephone : 808-455-9442
Submission ContentINotes : Here is a compromise route.
Have the rail continue from Pearl CityIAiea on the Salt Lake route with a
stop at Aloha Stadium (park & ride).
Then onto Bouganville with at stop at the old Costco (park & ride).
Then onto Radford Drive and continue on the airport route with at stop at
Pearl Harbor.
I submitted this compromise route on 11117/08 via email and have yet to
receive a response or acknowledgement.
Iwould appreciate a confirmation when you receive my email.
Mahalo,
Ken Yoshida


... .. .....,.,,
---a-

. .
..A..A.
nuNuLuLu, n f i v v n l l ZOO 1 3
Phone: (808) 768-8305 Fax: (808) 768-4730 Internet:www.honolulu.gov

MAYOR DIRECTOR

SHARON ANN THOM
DEPUTY DIRECTOR

May 21,201 0

Mr. Kenneth Yoshida
1516 Hoolehua Street
Pearl City, Hawaii 96782

Dear Mr. Yoshida:


submittal:

Several alignments were considered during the Alternatives Analysis, including an
alignment serving both the Airport and Salt Lake areas. Challenging issues associated with
directly serving the Airport, including crossing U.S. Department of the Navy property and
crossing the H-I Freeway, made such options impractical. Also, crossing Navy property was
rejected by the Navy.


Mr. Kenneth Yoshida
Page 2


Very truly yours, n

Director

Enclosure

Creation Date : 11I1212008
First Name : josalyne
Last Name :
Address :
Apt./Suite No. :
City :
State : HI
Zip Code : 96814
Email :
Telephone :
Submission ContentlNotes : I think routing the initial rail line to the Airport instead of through Salt
Lake is unwise. I would imagine that riders going tolfrom the airport
would have luggage/baggage,so traveling by rail (or other public
transportation) would be cumbersome and difficult, and people would be
less willing to take public transportation to the Airport. (For instance,
whenever I travel to New York City, Boston, or Washington, DC, I never
take the subwayrr/metro from the airport because with luggage it is just
too much of a hassle!) I believe a route through Salt Lake would be more
beneficial initially to service the numerous resildents there, and
expansions to include the (more expensive) Airport route could be
decided at a later time.

First Name :
Last Name :

Address :
AptJSuite No. :
City :
'State : HI
Zip Code : 96816
Email :
Telephone :
Submission ContentINotes : I believe the rail route should extend to the airport. It doesn't make
sense to build the rail if it doesn't include an airport stop. If it's going to
(finally) be done, it should be done right. And the state should help
finance the project since they will benefit from the rail, especially if it
extends to the airport.

------*----------------

First Name :
Last Name :
Address :
Apt.lSuite No. :
City : Honolulu
State : HI
Zip Code : 96815
Email : mar-fsi Q hotrnail.com
Telephone :
Submission ContentJNotes : The referndum passed, so take the time to plan the most critical and
cost efficient lineslstations for the economic and environmental health of
Honolulu. Include the airport, UH - Manoa, and Waikiki in the first
tranche of construction. The taxpayers will reap the best return for their
investments in terms of ridership and increased tourist dollars. The
allure of rapid transit from the POE (airport) to the final destination
(Waikiki) for visitors can not be underestimated. A spur to UH - Manoa
is also a no-brainer. Students crave fast, affordable transportation, with
the benefit of no parking hassles. Build this transit system the right way
- from the start!

First Name :
Last Name :
BusinessIOrganization:
Address :
Apt.1Suite No. :
City :
State : HI
Zip Code : 96818
Email :
Telephone :
Submission ContentINotes : I voted against rail but since we have to move ahead let's do it right and
go the airport route. It's a no- brainer, more riders and revenue. Salt
Lake make very little sense at all.

First Name :
Last Name :

Address :
AptJSuite No. :
City :
State : HI
Zip Code : 96778

Telephone :
Submission ContentINotes : My Opinion: Ten years from now when the keiki's grow up and the
populace has grown the problem will be the same as it is now. When I
see the island chain on the map, it looks like a big band-aid. Change the
driving age? Limit the no. of cars per familly? This deal is all about
money and jobs to keep Hawaii fluid not about alleviating the traffic
problem. If the rail absorbs 22% of the traffic now, what is the
percentage for ten years from now? My guess is it will be ground hog
day.

-----.-----------------
First Name :
Last Name :
Address : 2345 Ala Wai Blvd
City : Honolulu
State : HI
Zip Code : 96815
Email :
Telephone :
Submission ContentlNotes : I am heavily in favor of an initial rail route which services the airport. The
importance of solid connections between HNL and the rest of the island
.cannot be overstated.

--..-----.-.--.-------
First Name : Steven
Last Name :
Address :
Apt.lSuite No. :
City :
State : HI
Zip Code : 96814
Email : kokohead7kQ hawaiiantel.net
Telephone :
Submission ContentINotes : Question: What changes will be made to the Country Express bus route
after the rail is operational?
I currently take the C Express bus from Ala Moana shopping center to
Kapolei transit center and back. One bus takes me all the way (23-24
miles one way). The rail will not take me all the way. If I have to use
(transfer) to/from The Bus once or even twice, the total commute time
one way would take me longer when you factor in the additional waiting
and transferring which I do not have now.
I would like a reply. Mahalo.

First Name : '

Last Name :

Address :
Apt.lSuite No. :
City :
State :
Zip Code :

Telephone :
Submission Content/Notes : I agree with Charles Djou. I would like to see the rail route moved to the
airport &the first segment start in Honolulu & move up to either Aloha
Stadium or Pearl Ridge. Also, it is critical that you locate the changing
station in the most convinient & safest parts of the community or the only
people who will be using the rail .will be low income & homeless.

------.---------
First Name : Daren
Last Name : D
Address :
Apt.lSuite No. :
City :
State : WA
Zip Code : 00000
Email : cooldsterQ hotmail.com
Telephone :
Submission ContentINotes : Hawaii has a very strong natural tropical and green environment. Why
would you opt for conventional trains elevated when a monorail is the
most suitable technology for such beautiful settlng? Just take a look at
Okinawa's monorail.

----------------------
First Name :
Last Name :
Address :
Apt-/Suite No. :
City :
State : HI
Zip Code : 96816
Email : jhrn2450yahoo.com
Telephone :
Submission Date : 0 1/02/2009

Submission ContentlNotes : For the rail system to actually achieve its stated purpose of alleviating
traffic from the West side, the main line MUST include in its initial build
stops at Oahu's 2 major employers (Pearl Harbor & Waikiki) and 2 major
destinations (Airport & Ala Moana Center). However, the current plan
only includes Ala Moana Center. So you're not actually moving the
people to where they actually want to go. And you're not actually going
to take that many cars off the road.
The same thing goes for the continuing argument that UH Manoa needs
to be connected by rail. First, you'd take more cars off the road at much
less expense by actually building UH West, which has been waiting for a
permanent campus since the 1970s.
Secondly, by 2030, we will no longer actually need to move people to
the universities. We'll be able to move the universities into people's living
rooms. In fact, UH already has a instructional telecommunication
network linking students at other campuses to UH Manoa.
Likewise, closing the State government's Mililani telecommuting center --
instead of opening new ones in other communities -- was equally short-
sighted and backward-thinking. Some people actually need to show up
at work -- (like Pearl Harbor and Waikiki). But work that CAN be done
offsite SHOULD be done offsite. THAT would take more cars off the
road than any train would. But, again, the government is still trying to
move people to their jobs instead of moving their jobs to the people.
We're already living in the Information Age. So why does it seem like our
planning is still being done by cavemen?
I don't have a problem with building a rail system. While it's not a perfect
or complete solution, 1 still think it's a good start. I just have a problem
with being stupid about it.
The "Locally Preferred Alternative" (the Salt Lake route), which doesn't
include Pearl Harbor, the airport and Waikiki, will not achieve your stated
goal of reducing traffic from the West side. Which begs the question, just
which "locals" actually "preferred" this alternative? And what is your
TRUE objective here?

-.------.-------------
First Name :
Last Name :
Address :
Apt.lSuite No. :
City :
State : HI
Zip Code : 96744
Email :
Telephone :
Submission ContentlNotes : We can't afford rail at this time. I am totally opposed to it.

First Name : J
Last Name : C
BusinesslOrganization : Bruce
Address: . 46090 Konohiki S
t
Apt./Suite No. :
City : Kaneohe
State : HI
Zip Code : 96744
Email : mizoleilaQ hotmail.com
Telephone :
Submission ContenUNotes : Elevated steel on steel is a bad choice. It will be an eyesore. it's too
expensive. Please, wait a decade and see what the world is like; then
we'll see about rail.

These are just a list of some concerns over the City & County of Honolulu's proposed Ught Rail
Transit system. Many of these have been mentioned in various discussions, but none of the answers
have been adequately answered by the City Transportation Director, Mayor, nor the Council.

1 Building costs are understated, future increases in construction, labor, and material costs are not
.
reported nor mentioned. Also, some of the City's plans for the terminals/terminus are
incomplete, missing substructures, rails, handi-access, etc. Was this to artilicially deflate the
reportable costs? If so the City's entire plan i flawed;and Fraudulent.
s
2. No mentlon Is made of a turn-around or depot. There will undoubtedly be a maintenance yard or
some related facility to take the tram down for repairs. This is not mentioned.
3. The Administration has made repeated assurances that the pmject will be done with minimal
impact to neighboring areas, residents, businesses. This cannot be the case. Building and
construction guidelines are very specific, requiring x amount of relief space, and will require
shutdown OF adjoining lots, propertles, streets and roads.
4. Many of the people who realized their properties will be (eventually) condemned via eminent
domain are under the absolutely mistaken impression that they will be receiving the (at future
time) full market value (frnv) of their properties. This is not the case. Research into the City's
sojourns Into exercising eminent domain muscle teveals that they set aside a lump sum amount,
to be paid to defendants served with the Order Putting Plaintiff In Possession (i.e. C t ) Wording
iy.
is usually like this: "The sum of $m,xxxdeposited with the Chief Clerk of this Court by the
..."
Plaintiff as estimated just compensation Usually the award is a few pennies on the dollar of
the actual value of the condemed and claimed property. The defendant usually has no recourse.
Waianae residents were notified last July that they were losing portions of their property, after
construction. had already begun for the emergency access road.
5. Regarding property, it Is likely the rail system will negatively affect property values. Cities have
trended that property values drop near an existing commuter or rail line. The noise negates, for
most people, the benefit of proximity to a transit line. Many cities found that rail ridership
decreased, in favor of buses, bicycles, and scooters.
6. I personally believe most people would favor a scooter over Inconvenienceof driving to a depot
yard and park their car with thousands of others, to catch a rail to work,
7. The liespan of a typical rail system is about 30 years. Thereafter, i must be 100% wholly
t
replaced at full value at that future Ume. ICs simply a matter of infrastructure breakdown.
8. The lifespan of a typical tram system (fight rail) is about 15 years. Thereafter, it must be 100%
wholly replaced, or efse repaired to the point where it's economically unfeasibfe.
9. The mathematics of the Clty's plan to take 50,000 drivers aff the road is not practical nor
possible. Let's assume the City is extremely aggressive and forward-thinking in their planning.
Let's say they build two rail systems, one that begins in point A (Kapolei area) and the other
begins in point 6 (Downtown). Let's say there are 12 cars to a train (no longer considered light
rail), each holdlng 200 passengers, which is 2,400 passengers total capacity per train, going a
single way, or 4,800 passengers for the entire system. Let's say the trains will cross each other
in the middle, so there is always a train going and corning in both directions. I n order to meet
the Administration's goal to take an approximate 50,000 drivers off the road at that future time,
the trains will have to travel about 77 miles per hour, nonstop, in order to make the approximate
10 round trips each train will have to make, in an hours' time. This ovenimplffied math problem
underlies the fatal flaw in the plan. The City's plan for light rail does not have the capacity for
4,800 total passengers at any given time. This would be rush hour in the morning, from S:30AM
to 8:30AM, and 3:30PM to 6:30PM. It is not mathematically possible to do it with the above
configuration, nor with the Cl' proposed version, which is much smatter passenger capacity.
iys
This may be decried by the Administration as "Mickey Mouse Math" but the figures cannot be
doubted. The rail will not accornpflsh what it is envisioned to.
10. The City's proposed 6,000+ jobs to diredly or indirectly support the rail system, operations,
maintenance, support services, administration, and vendor services, is not economically
sustainable. The vendors have the best bet, at least people will stop on the way to buy coffee,

Page I o f 3

pastries, morning paper, etc. But wait, they can't because the system has to run without stops
to make its rush hour quotas.
11. The City's Transportation Department has in effed given their current employees a potential for
higher-payingand more executive jobs, "fresh" and new. The current employees are capped
where they are at, but the Rapid Transit Division (the most expensive and largest Dlvision by
staff and dollars) Is a way for them to move up. See their presentation here:
http://www.honolulu.gov/dts/dtsf fy2008+operatlng~tb~dget+req~est~df scroll down to
If you
page 7, you wlll see "Rapid Transit Division", 35 proposed executive and admlnlstrativesupport
positions, costing a whopping $2,338,644 in staff costs, dwarfing their next largest Division by
over $500,000, but has only 1 posltlon more. This indicates that, given civii service positions and
current pay scales, these are much higher and more executive positions, possibly (POSSIBLY)
created this way by the Transportation Department to give thelr currently celling'd staff
someplace to go, and retlre happily with a healthy retirement pay.
12. No amount of ridership fees could make up the construction, maintenance, and daily operations
costs of the entire rail system. Notwlthstandhgthe payroll costs. The majority of the costs will
become personnel-related, such as 41+% fringe rate, irnmedfate salaries plus vacation payouts
and other benefits. Throw in maintenance? That's also a personnel cost, with OT attached, at
City & County rates. You know, 12 maintenanceworkers scheduled to perform upkeep, each
files OT requests, however oniy 1or 2 actually do majority of the work. A recent audit faund
many road crews operate in this fashion. However the audit was for City internal use oniy.
13. No amount of taxes can make up the total cost plus ongoing upkeep. The burden on the
taxpayers of the state would be astronomical, i could not possibly be estimated.
t
14, People who voted "YES" did not realize, they were not really indebtlng themselves, but their
progeny, to a lifetime of debt service to rhfs system. It cannot possibly be completed before,
say, 2025 or 2030, when most of those who voted will be at or nearing retirement, and it wll no
longer make a difference for them. Many people simply jumped on the bandwagon without
really thlnkrng things through.
15. A mised rail system lumbering many stories above buildings and 1-2 storey homes and
apartments In the proposed areas would ruin not just the overall landscape, but many people's
enjoyment of the vlew looking out not to the ocean, but the SKY.
16. The Administration's claim is that If they get this project going now, they can jumpstart the
state's economy and provide much-neededjobs through construction. This is short-term a truth,
however if there exists no money to begin with, and the Councll on Revenue's forecast shows a
current year deficit, with factors of debt in the out-years, where is the funding golng to come
from? It reminds me of a very ambitious building projed In Downtown, that sat for many years
until another investor came by. Only the Federal Gov't can deflclt spend. How can you
ambitiously plan alternate and future routes (as the Council is debating now) without having any
up-front dlrect revenues, investor venture capltal, bond interest, or other form of monies on hand
to even "break ground"?
17. Construction costs are years away, when materials, labor, and rates will be much higher. Final
completion costs can be many times the $5 Billion thrown in front of the hapless public. And,
once construction beglns, final completion can be upwards of 20 years away, including the
various legal battles and hurdles the City will no doubt face, In balding hundreds of home and
landowners, businesses, and action groups. It will be unprecedented in our State's history, and '
will likely bring embarassment to us nationally.
18. Speaking of attention, i t is likely that people will prefer (as they do now) places such as Tahltl,
Fiji, Thailand, and New Zealand, over Oahu anyway. Many tourists surveyed by the HTA recently
said they'd never tome back if the beaches eroded, What happens if (i.e. by the year 2030) the
beach in Waikikl is a memory, hotels are literally flooded, AND there Is a lumbering, leviathan,
hulking, clackety, metallic silver worm snaking its way through Downtown? Realistically, do you
think any tourists would come to Honolulu, except to use it as a springboard from the Mainland
USA to their exotic destination in the far Pacific or Asia?
1 .Other states that the Administration quoted as having successful rail systems have something
9
that Hawaii will never have, regardless of how much development we want ta create - land
-
space. I f anything, Hawaii due to current erosion - can do nothing but lose land space, at least
Page 2 o f 3

in Honolulu County. I n order for the rail to be plopped down, people who are already there have
to make way, As our proud and defiant mayor has proclaimed in various ways, "...anyone
opposing this will have to just get out of the way,.!' The first time he said it on N, we passed it
off to his frustration and lack of self-control. Thereafter, it is a clear indication of absolute
superciliousness, self-love, and hubris which I do not ever recall seeing in any of our recent
-
mayors of my memory. The sign of a bad publican is to - even modestly threaten to shove it
down the peoples' collective throats when his way is challenged, and his personal progress
slowed.
20. The Administration does not inform the public of the following: Chicago Mass Transit (Chicago
Transit Authority), one of the original models for an earlier proposed transit system, is bankrupt,
I f not yet, pretty darn near. The cost of doing buslness has long overrun the intake due to
ridership, which has decreased over the last 30 years. Even their bus ridership is down, largely
due to increased crime In poverty-stricken areas near the center of town. Unfortunately for us,
Pearl City h Mllilani are becoming what Kallhi and Liliha have long been our native slum.
21, Sound is a pressure wave that eminates radially outward from its source, decreasing as the
inverse square of that distance the listener is from It. The City's contention that erecting short
wails, combined with the raised platform, will decrease noise to a minimal level, is preposterous
beyond laughable. Any system, even a rolling wheeled vehicle, creates a signiFiant amount of
noise, and particularly at night. Anyone who lives near the University or along the H-1 between
McCully through Pearl City knows this. Even if it is no louder than a small grass whip, it will be
noticed, and people will be driven out. I used to live in a small apartment on Thurston Avenue in
-
Makikl, and the simple act of the bus rolling at 11at night was enough to jolt this young child at
-
that time awake from a light sleep,
22. A research paper by Randal OToole from the Cato Institute, "Daes Rail Transit Save Energy or
Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions?'(http://ww.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-61S5pdf) asserts that the
following woutd be more cost-effective and reduce greenhouse emissions than rail transit:
-Powering buses with hybrid-electrlcmotors, biofuels, and non-fossil sourced electricity
-Concentrating the major load of bus service to heavy-load routes, and smaller buses for off-peak
and lower demand areas
-Building new tol systems and coordinating traMc signais to relieve highway congestion that
cantrlbutes to the waste of over 3 bifllon gallons of fuel annually
-Encourage people to purchase fud-efficient cars. Get 1 of commuters to switch to hybrid cars
%
costs less and saves more energy than trying to get 1%to swltch to public transit, and most of
those keeping their cars. After ail, the rail only runs on one side of the island.
23. This same research paper by Mr. OToole reveals the average light rail system of those studied,
requires over 4,000 WU and generates almost ,7 pounds of C02 PER PASSENGER MILE. To
traverse the estimated 26-30 mile rail stretch, one way per trip (not per day) would require an
-
average of 104,000 - 120,000 B7U in energy and generate 18 21 pounds of CO2, more
than average of city buses running for one hour.
24. This same research paper asserts that the mere construction, over many years, of the system
itself, would generate more COZ and cost more in energy and fuel consumption, than the rail,
and may "never be recovered by the savings (of constructing the rail in the first place).
25. Due to Homeland Security regulations involving public transportation, the City.& County would
have to establish, and intmrate into the Honolulu Police Department, a separate Honolutu Rapid
Transit Police force, ar else dlvert current - or future - officers to that duty. Security screens may
be necessary at depots as welt, adding to delays (but wait, they can't stop right?).
26, The Administration claims that the economy will be stimulated, looking at (i.e.) Denver, Portland,
and San Jose light rail development, don't realize that those systems were supported by farge tax
or other subsidies, something dramatically lacking in Hawali's economy. Even the current tax
collected for transit is far short of proposed levels they would have to be at for the system to be
a reality.
27. Finally, no mention is made as to whether this light rail system can accommodate passengers
(I.@. the airport) with large luggage, or whether stowage space is or can be provided for
from
safety, comfort, and security of others?

Page 3 o f 3

First Name :
Last Name :
Address :
Apt./Suite No. :
City :
State :
Zip Code :
Ernail :
Telephone :
Submission ContenttNotes : I have no been a fan of Charles Djou, but Iagree with him that
construction on the rail project should begin in town. It is folly for us to
begin it in West Oahu. Based on letters that have been published in the
newspapers as well, there doesn't seem to be much disagreement on
this issue. 1 can understand that construction will cause a lot more
headaches in town than it will in West Oahu, but it is just common sense
to start the construction in town, The rail will not be needed in West
Oahu if it never gets to town and rail will definitely be a waste of
taxpayer's money then!

. . .
February 3,2009 ,
. .

M .Ted Matley
r " ;)
' .,, '. Mr. T&G.YQS~~~P , ..+ j+.e;
FTA Region LX Department'of Trwspoaat~on Services". OJ*(
f ''
201 Mission St., Ste. 1650 City and County of Honolulu +
San Amcjsw, CA 94105 650 So. King St., 3* Floor
Honolulu, HI 968 13
Subject: High Capacity-Rmsi&C!orridor Project
o~olqlu
at;#^&^^ ~ ~ 3 ~ i f ' i t f i i h ..> . .
, .Y
.
'-

Draft EnvironmentaI impact Statementk4Q Evaluation
November 2008

Rear Messrs. Matley and Yoshioka:

As long time residents of the AIa Moana-Sheridan neighborhood, we read with interest
the Draft EIS for Honolulu's Hg Capacity Transit project dated November 2008.
ih
! y q !..,J&)i
'3 > p p 3
We participated in the City and County of Nonolulu's preparation of the draft Sheridan
community plan in 2006, and appreciated how the vision is consistentwith the City and County
of Honolulu's Primary Urban Center Development Plan's designationof the Sheriden and
Kaheka neighborhoods as In-TownResidential Neighborhoods. Xn Ala Moana-Sheridan, over
20% of the population is over 65 years old, and the proportion of elderly is steadily increasing
(Draft Ala Moana-Sheridan Community Plan, 2 0 ) " Ln light of this fact, the 2006 draft fIan
06.
discusses how public roads and facilities in and around our neighborhood need to bs more
pedestsim friendly to the elderly, genera pedestrians and bicyclists. Therefore, we rcviewed the
Transit DEIS for a description and analysis of how acccss to the T r a i t Corridor Project would
be pedestrian friendly for the Ala-Moana-Shcridan neighborhoods.

Instead, we found the Transit Corridor Project DEIS to be heading in the opposite
direction m k n the area more congested with traffic and in turn creating a more rushed
aig
environment. The DEB directly comments that the proposed TOD in the area will change the
feel of the area, presu~nably
making it more urban, "Because Kaka'ako has been designated a
redeveiopment area, changes in Imd uses to TOD is likely, which may result in a change in
...
character along the alignment, especiaily near stations (DEIS, p. 4-45). While we understand
change is inevitable*the Transit DEIS does not even discuss basic project features such as access
to the Ala Moms Wansit station for the afYected neighborhood, Since safe and secure pedestrian
access to and from the Ala Moana tramsit station is not discussed or analyzed in the Transit
DEIS, wc assume no design studies or even serious considerationhas been devoted to this, the
City and County of Honolulu's major public infrastructureproject.

Please revise and expand the Transit DEIS to include detailed descriptions and analyses
of the range of pedestrian and bicycle access ways to and f m the Ala Moana station. If no
consideration has yet been devoted to this project dement for the Ala Moana-Sheridan
community, we submit the DEIS is deficient and i s not yet a complete Draft EIS.

Sincerely,

Doris Nakamwa, 650 Sheridan Street PH,Honolulu, HI 96814

! G .~ ~ d & $ g7M ~wi b 5 7 . vs*
&*
& *
-9 E
d
46&1qL

Ft-@(F
&A$-[ address) 79
-(address, dJB &
S *(@794+Fv

cc: CouncilmemberDuke Bainum, District 5
Senator Carol Fukunaga, District 11
Representative Tom Brower, District 23
Congressmember Neil Abercrombir:
Fkpkd %wed*, ~ 3 + 6 & 2 8

February 3,2009 , . .. . ..
. ..

Mr. Ted Matley i' &,,
' . ' . ,Mr.W ~ I Y I ( ~ . Y Q S ~ ~ -~ ~
2 .
FTA Region XX
201 Mission St., Ste, 1650
Departmentof Transportation ~crvic&s".'
City and County of Wonoiulu
.'f[
.
''
San Francisco, CA 94105 650 So. King St., 3fi Floor
Honolulu, HI 96813
Subject:
% .
;b( ; .-j
.
Drafi Environmental Impact StatemenV4(f) Evaluation
November 2008

As tong time residents of the Ala Moana-Sheridan neighborhood, we read with interest
the Draft EIS for Honolutu's High Capacity Transit project dated November 2508.
5 iswi2
;b i.+B>i
We pafticipated in the City and County of Honolulu's preparation of the draft Sheridan
community plan in 2006, and appreciated how the vision is consistent w t the City and County
ih
of Honolulu's Primary U b n Center Development P a ' designationof the Sheridan and
ra lns
Krtheka neighborhoods as In-Town Residential Neighborhoods, 3n Aia Moana-Sheridan, over
20% of the population is over 65 years old, and the proportion of elderly is steadily increasing
(Draft Ala Moana-Sheridan Community Plan,2 0 ) " In light of this fact, the 2006 draft Plan
06.
discusses how public roads and facilities in md around our neighborhood need to be more
pedestrian friendly to the elderly, general pedeslims and bicyclists. Therefore, we reviewed the
Transit DEB for a description and analysis of how access to the Transit Corridor Project would
be pedestrian friendly for Ule Ala-Moana-Sheridanneighborhoods.

Instead, we found the Transit Corridor Project DEIS to be heading in tbe opposite
direction making the area more congested wt traffic and in turn creating a more rushed
ih
environment. The DEB directly comments that the proposed TOD i the area will change the
n
fee! of the area, presumably making it more urban, "Because Kaka'alro has been designated a
redevelopment area, changes in land uses to TUD is likely, which may result in a change in
character along the alignment, especially near stations.. .(DEXS, p 4-45]. While we understand
change is inevibble, rhe Transit DEIS does not even discuss basic project features such as acccss
to the Ala Moma transit station for the affwted neighborhood. Since safe and secure pedestrian
access to and from the Ala Moana vansit station is not discussed or analyzed in the Transit
DBIS, we assume no design studies or even serious considerationhas been devoted to this, the
City and County of Honolulu's major public infrastructureproject.

Please revise and expand the Transit DEIS to include detaiIed descriptions and analyses
of the range of pedestrian and bicycle access ways to and from the Ala Moana station. If no
consideration has yet been devoted to this project element for the Ala Moana-Sheridan
community, we submit the DEIS is deficient and is not yet a complete Draft EIS.

Sincerely,

Doris Nakamura, 650 Sheridan Street PH,Honolulu, H 96814
I
hb;k b ~ , & @ ~ & i L t ST* 4 ~ ~ 1 9
&
4 k ,
*
3-

___(address) - 7 t ? p G+
si : i
s
b - ? G L . -( a d b s ) 719 a Sj- 9Mte
(address) dJD &
A S~~RJP
@'fl@l

cc: Councilmember W e Bainum, District 5
Congressmember Neil Abercrombie
g ~ p k *Wqds, 'i33KcCZg
t

Mr. Ted Matley ' :2 .,. . . .Mr. vayrie.~~shj<kzi'?.S?-C; ,,+
' ,
ETA Region U :
( Departmenfof Transportation Saviccij"" :.rl A ''
201 Mission St,, Ste. 1.0
65 City and County of HonoXulu 4

San Francisco, CA 94105 650 So. King St., 3* Floor
XXonolulu, HI 96813
Subject:
8a'cw ..( ; ...>
..
Draft EnvironmentaI Impact Staternent/4(f)Evaluation
November 2008

As long t m residents of the Ala Moana-Sheridan neighborhood, we read with interest
ie
the Draft El$ for Honolulu's High Capacity Txansit project dated November 2008.
<?& jb Q@+ !&$
,.
We pafiicipatd in the City and County of Honolulu's preparation of the draft Sheridan
community plan in 2006, and appreciated how the vision is consistent w t the City and County
ih
of X-Ionolulu's Primary Urban Center Development Plan's designationof the Sheridan and
Kafieka neighborhoods as In-TownResidential Neighborhoods. In Ala Moana-Sheridan, over
20% of the population is over 65 years dd,and the proportion of elderly is steadily increasing
(Draft Ala Moana-Sheridan Community P a , 0 6 . I light of this fact, the 2006 draft Plan
l n 20)" n
discusses how public roads and facilities in and around our neighborhood need to be more
pedestrian friendly to the elderly, general pedestrians and bicyclists, Therefore, we reviewed the
Transit DEIS for a description and'analysisof how access to the Transit Corridor Project would
be pedestrian friendly for the Ala-Moana-Sheridan neighborhoods.

Instead, we found the Transit Cotridor Project DEIS to be heading in the opposite
direction making the area more congested with traffic and in turn creating a more rushed
environment, The DEB directly comments that the proposed TOD in the area will change i i ~ e
feel of the area, presumably making it more urban, "Because Kaka'ako has been designated a
redevelopment area, changes in land uses to TOD is likely, which may result in a change in
character along the alignment, especially near stations.. .(DEB, p,4-45), While we understand
change is inevitable, the Transit DEIS does not even discuss basic project features such as access
to the Ala Moana transit station for the affected neighborhood. Since safe and secure pedestrian
access to and from the Ala Moana transit station is not discussed or analyzed in the Transit
DEIS, we assume no design studies or even serious consideration has beal devoted to this, the
City and County of Honolulu's major public infras~uctwe project.

Please revise and expand the Transit ZZEIS to include detailed descriptions and analyses
of the rage of pedestrian and bicycle access ways to and from the A t Moana station. If no
consideration has yet been devoted to this project element for the Ala Moana-Sheridan
community, we submit fhe DEB is deficient and is not yet a compbte Draft EJS.

Sinc~ely,
Doris Nakamura, 650 Sheridan Street PH,Honolulu, H 96814
I
b%dh@~&il.~ 4 6 ~ 9
$7.
'(* hL"i& *-

( a d d n ~ 7 ~~ : )m$2
' ~ i FS&
f -9 9 6 6
j
&%.(
A-- address) 7+
)trk,-( address) dJP &
A @t@7 d p ~ g
9

cc: Councilmember Duke Bainum, District S
Congressmember Neil Abercrombic
gepKa4 W s d e , ~3bie*Z%


650 SOUTH KING STREET. 3RD FLOOR

.

MAYOR DIRECTOR

SHARON ANN THOM
DEPUTY DIRECTOR

May 21,201 0

Resident
650 Sheridan Street, # I 07

Dear Resident:


the Draft EIS. The following paragraphs address comments regarding the above-referenced
submittal:

Many pedestrians currently use the network of sidewalks in the Ala Moana-Sheridan
neighborhood. The pedestrian volume in the neighborhood will continue to grow with or without
the Project. Those walking to the station from surrounding areas will use the existing network of
sidewalks. As stated in Section 2.5.5 of the Final EIS, design criteria developed for stations
place highest emphasis on walk and bicycle access. Pedestrian access to stations, including
accessible routes, shall be given first priority for reasons of safety.

It is estimated that most passengers using this station will transfer to or from buses
directly on Kona Street. Those walking to the station from surrounding areas will use the
existing network of sidewalks. Bicyclists will access the station via existing streets and/or
sidewalks in the area. The station will be designed to accommodate the expected volume of
pedestrians and will provide parking for bicycles.

Resident
Page 2

As indicated in Section 4.6.3 of the Final EIS, ongoing coordination efforts with the public
will help develop design measures to enhance the interface between the transit system and the
surrounding community. The extent, nature, and location of these design measures will be
determined in Final Design through these coordination efforts.


Very tryly yours,

d~ M
9
WAY EY. YOS
Director
OKA

Enclosure

Appendix F
Public Hearing Transcripts

June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement


Draft Environmental Impact

Statement/Section 4 (f) Evaluation

Public Meeting and Hearing

December 6, 2008
Kapolei Hale

1000 Uluohia Street
Kapolei, Hawaii

9:00 a.m. - 11:OO a.m.

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT

0F

PUBLIC HEARING

BEFORE: ELSIE TERADA, CSR NO. 437
Certified Shorthand Reporter

I N D E X
Page

OPENING COMMENTS:

By Hearing Officer Toru Hamayasu

SPEAKERS :
Representative Kimberly Pine
District 43
415 South Beretania Street, Room 317

Rodlyn Brown 9
85-303 Kohai Place

Frank Genadio
92-1370 Kikaha Street
Kapolei, Hawaii 96707

Michael Golojuch, Jr. 14
92-954 Makakilo Drive, #71

Michael Golojuch 15
Makakilo/Kapolei/Honokai Hale Neighborhood Board
Vice Chairman and Transportation Chairman
(Address not provided)

Pat Patterson 17
AARP and Concerned Elders of Waianae
84-755 Ala Mahiku Street, #72-A

Tesha Malama 19
Hawaii Community Development Authority, Kalaeloa
District
91-818 Lawalu Place


John Higgins
91-503 Pupu Street

(continued)

Sharon E. Har 23
Public Safety and Military Affairs Vice Chair
40th District - Kapolei, Makakilo, Royal Kunia,
Kalaeloa
House of Representatives
415 South Beretania Street, Room 313

Rosita Sipirok-Siregr 26
92-1179 Palahia Street, #I02

HEARING OFFICER HAMAYASTJ: Good morning. I'm
Toru Hamayasu, the 2nd Deputy Director of the City
and County of Honolulu, Department of
Transportation Services. I am the hearing officer
for this public hearing for the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for the Honolulu
High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project.
The purpose of this public hearing is to
collect comments related to the proposed transit
project regarding the Draft EIS; Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act process;
Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of
Transportation Act; Right-of-way acquisition; and
floodplains affected by the project.
Public input can be made in four ways:
1) Public spoken testimony to me here,
in the Public Hearing Room.
2) If you do not wish to speak in
public, an individual spoken testimony for the
record can be made to the hearing recorder, who is

near the Public Involvement station in the Project
Information Area.
3) Written testimony may be deposited
in the black comment box at the meeting, delivered
to the Department of Transportation Services
office, or mailed or faxed [ (808)523-4730] to DTS
by January 7, 2009.
4) And finally, testimony can be
submitted online by January 7, 2009, at
www.honolulutransit.org.
All comments and responses will be
included in the Final EIS. Revisions to the EIS
will be made as appropriate, based on comments.
The hearing procedures are as follows:
1. Elected and public officials will be
heard first. Persons desiring to testify should
register at the entrance to the hearing room, and
will be called in order of registration.
2. Any individual may appear and speak
for him or herself, or if duly authorized, for any
local civic group, organization, club or
association, subject to the rules provided herein.
Speakers should give their name and address. If
representing a group, this information should also
be given.

3. Speakers must limit their statements
to three minutes. Additional prepared statements
or literature, pertaining to the project, may be
submitted at this hearing or by 4:30 p.m., January
7, 2009 to Department of Transportation Services.
These statements will be made part of the official
record if they include a legible name and address.
4. For these hearings, all statements,
oral or written, should be directed to the hearing
officer and must be related to the subject matter
of the hearing.
5. Each person speaking before the
audience must do so at the floor microphone. We
will call testifiers in groups of three to
facilitate orderly progress. Please ensure you
are in the hearing area at the time your name is
called. A court stenographer will record and
transcribe the hearing proceedings. If required,
I will announce any other specific rules governing
this hearing.
6. As part of this public hearing
process, the Honolulu Rail Transit Project Team is
not allowed to respond to any questions or
concerns raised by the speaker. The Project Team
will be available to address your questions in the

Project Information Area outside of this hearing
venue.
It is now 9:07 a.m. At this time, I
would like to begin the public testimony. The
first testifier, I think you were given No. 1,
Testifier, please come to the microphone.
-000-

REPRESENTATIVE KIMBERLY PINE: Good morning.
I am Representative Kimberly Pine, and I represent
District 43, Ewa Beach, at the State Capitol, in
the House of Representatives. First, I'm excited
to be here. I'm glad that the voters have spoken
and we can now move on to the real thing, so thank
you for having me here. We will have more
thorough written documentation of our comments
before the January 7th deadline, but I first do
want to express some feelings brought to me by
some Ewa residents. We do feel strongly that the
route should go to the airport, and that that
shouldn't be changed, so we hope that that does
happen. In our private poll, we discovered that

about 25 percent of the citizens in my district do
work at Pearl Harbor, and so that does not include
those that work at the airport, so it will
increase the number of people using the facility
if the route goes to the airport.
According to what we have reviewed so far --
we're still reading that 400-page document, but we
do not see anything defined in terms of baggage
use. If we do change the route to the airport, we
should include something that's more defined that
would allow people to bring multiple baggage.
Also, we did not see in the document that we read
so far, that there is nothing to accommodate
bicycles, and so we really believe to encourage
all types of connectivity, that that should be
more thoroughly defined. Definitely, we believe
that there should be a more thorough planning in
terms of the connectivity with the colleges.
Definitely, U.H. West Oahu is in there, and we're
definitely pushing for the U.H. Manoa connection.
In terms of emergency evacuation procedures,
my district is concerned about something being
more defined in terms of power failure and
evacuation procedures for safety reasons. But
that's it for now. Thank you so much for having

me, and we will have a written document to you
very shortly. Mahalo.
-000-

HEARING OFFICER HAMAYASU: Please, No. 2.
RODLYN BROWN: My name is Rodlyn Brown, and
I'm from Waianae. First thing is, I am in favor
of the train. But being from Waianae, with one
road, we have a very difficult time getting here
or getting home. Yesterday, it took the people
two hours to get from Kapolei to Waianae, after
the roads had been cleared of construction work.
So if this group wants to help and have our
support from the Waianae Coast, they have to do
something about the second road out of Waianae.

There is no alternative. We are the only location
on the entire island that has no way in or out,
except for Farrington Highway.
And we need to get to the train just like
everybody else does, and we are supportive of the
train, in every way, but we need this group to be
supportive of us. So if you would please consider
the fact that federal funds are for all the
people, not some of the people, and that more and
more residents are coming to Kapolei and Makakilo,
and from Kapolei, all the way to Makaha, and our
commute just from Kapolei, home, two hours now,
three hours next year, six hours out of our day,
every day, please, please, support our needs, as
we will support yours. Thank you.
-000-
HEARING OFFICER HAMAYASU: No. 3, please step
up, and if No. 4 person can come forward and take
the seat.
FRANK GENADIO: Frank Genadio, Makakilo. The
city administration has apparently taken the
selection of the transit technology from the City
Council, which killed the ballot question for a
fixed guideway, instead passed one with steel
wheels wording. Approval of steel wheels on the

ballot does not eliminate other suppliers from the
competition, but the EIS brushes off three
technologies by using a recommendation from a
so-called expert panel. This limiting of
alternatives was referred to in the state's review
of the EIS as troubling.
I am here to support the HSST urban
mag-lev system. EIS Chapter 02 covers
Alternatives Considered. In Section 2.1.3,
magnetic levitation is listed as a proprietary
system unproven in the U.S. Because it is not in
the U.S., does not make it unproven. Using this
rationale would leave us still traveling in
covered wagons. The Federal Transit
Administration calls the HSST a mature technology,
and the system has been in highly reliable revenue
service in Japan since early 2005.
The EIS states that "none of the
proprietary technologies offered substantial
proven performance, cost, and reliability benefits
compared to steel wheel operating on steel rail."
For the mag-lev, that statement is false. It is
faster, much quieter, and safer because of its
wrap-around-the-beam configuration. Its guideway
is 20 percent cheaper to build. This is important

when one examines guideway length for the three
alternatives and compares costs in Chapter 06 with
expected sources of funds.
The city has funding for a 20-mile MOS,
but in Section 2.2.2 shows a combined airport and
Salt Lake alternative of 25 miles. This not only
places the project over projected budgets, but
excludes any extension to the UH-Manoa campus.
Personally, I favor the airport routing, over Salt
Lake. If, however, the HSST were to win the
transit competition, it could satisfy most
requirements.
If labor and materials planned for the
MOS were applied to the mag-lev, five added miles
of guideway could be built within the MOS budget
anb timelines, accommodating an airport alignment,
extension to UH-Manoa, and spurs into Salt Lake,
as well as Waikiki. The only way to take
advantage of such costs savings is to ensure that
guideway specifications are left open.
Figure 2-9 shows a guideway of 28 to
32 feet, as well as a wall for noise mitigation.
The HSST uses two beams with open space between
the beams and a cross-section of 21 feet, with no
need for noise walls. The mag-lev's narrower

guideway -- (3-minute time limit) -- coupled with
the much lower sound level of the system, will
result in less impact on homes and businesses
along the route. Figure 2-9 should be deleted and
kept. . .
HEARING OFFICER HAMAYASU: Please summarize.
FRANK GENADIO: I just have a couple.
HEARING OFFICER HAMAYASU: Okay.
FRANK GENADIO: . . . should be deleted and kept
out of the REP.
O&M costs also for mag-lev,
$12-to-18 million less per year than the steel
wheel. Prevent the mag-lev from competing and we
pay more for what may be an inferior system. If
the city is so certain that steel on steel is
superior, modify this EIS appropriately and keep
specifications general enough to enable all
suppliers to have a chance. After I testified to
Council the other day, someone came up to me and
said that adding . . .
FRANK GENADIO: I just have the one sentence.
HEARING OFFICER HAMAYASU: Go on.
FRANK GENADIO: . . . adding $1.5 million to EIS,
that's one 36,000th of the cost of the project.

This would be money well spent. Thank you.
-000-

HEARING OFFICER HAMAYASU: Please, No. 4, step
forward.
MICHAEL GOLOJUCH, JR.: Michael Golojuch, Jr.,

Makakilo resident. I'm here today to testify in
favor of the steel on steel rail, with the airport
route. It doesn't make any sense that we would
not have included the airport in the first time
around. We know Romy Cachola used his little
power, got what we wanted and now he's -- then he
decided that he didn't really want to support
rail. So I do come out here today to ask that we
do move forward, we do move forward with keeping
it in the original, starting off in Kapolei and
moving forward. By building it and starting in
Pearl City, you are going to displace more people,
you are going to cause more people to lose their
homes and businesses quickly, without giving them
chance to really relocate. It doesn't make any
sense. We could start off by building the base
yard here, on Kapolei, where there's plenty of
space and we can move forward. That's basically
it. Thank you.
-000-

HEARING OFFICER HAMAYASU: No. 5.

MICHAEL GOLOJUCH: Good morning. I'm Michael
Golojuch. I am the Vice Chair and the
Transportation Chair of the
Makakilo/Kapolei/Honokai Hale Neighborhood Board.
We support the rail system and we support the MOS,
with the airport route. Eventually, we would like
to see the rail system expanded, but we know we
gotta get the MOS built first, 'cause we want it
to go to U.H. I'd like to see it go to Waianae
and I'd like to see it go to other locations, too.
And some day, I would like to go to the U.H. game
by getting on the bus, coming down, getting on the
rail, then getting off by the stadium.
We really believe that we need this
system. There are some things -- Maeda Timson,
the Chair, could not be here because she's on a
trip. We will be submitting written testimony, as
well as just my verbal support today. As an
individual, I know it's important to get this
done. It's important to start with Kapolei, where
there's less problems, to start, and get it going
and moving it fast, and finding out where there
may be problems in the construction, so by the
time it gets through Waipahu, Pearl City, et
cetera, and through town, that will be done. Plus

we'll have the base yard. We have the area, and
the lands are already being designated from the
Draft EIS for that, and we won't have to disturb,
as previously mentioned, as many residents and/or
businesses to get that first segment built up, in
the Kapolei area. And I strongly support that,
and don't let the political part get in there for
people running for different offices just to use
this now as another pay, getting their ploys.
So, again, support the system, and on
specifics and things, and as mentioned, there is a
need for people to carry luggage. Maybe not a lot
of luggage 'cause I really see the people going by
the airport, the business people coming in and not
more than tourists, but there still needs to be
that capability for both to use the rail system.
Thank you.

HEARING OFFICER HAMAYASU: No. 6. Do you have
the name of the person?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: She cancelled.
HEARING OFFICER HAMAYASU: Okay. No. 7?
No. 8, please step forward and take the
seat in the front.
PAT PATTERSON: Aloha. I'm Pat Patterson from
Makaha Valley, a member of AARP and of Concerned
Elders of Waianae. I have three issues. First of
all, I really resent all my taxpayer money that
was spent on the slick stuff to get people to vote
for the rail steel on steel. I think the vote was
so close, that it should not have been counted
yea.
No. 2. I really respect Jim Brewer and
Renee Ing for having gone to Europe and tried out
the Phileas Magnet-Rail, brought back and shown on
Olelo, how wonderful that is, with the bus-train
moving only on magnets in the pavement. That
would be very, very inexpensive, would be done
quickly, would use a lot of our workers and be
much more compatible with our island.

And No. 3. If you really want rail, why
don't you restore the old OR&L, all the way to
Kaena Point, and give the Waianae-Makaha residents
access to what's going to be way beyond, and we
are people who have to work in town. We really
need something. The 93 bus is wonderful, the
country express is good as far as it goes, but
think about restoring OR&L, all the way to the end
of the island on the southwest end. Mahalo.
-000-

TESHA MALAMA: My name is Tesha Malama. I am
an Ewa Beach resident and also responsible for the
Kalaeloa District. I am speaking in favor of the
rail project, the minimum operating segment, and
also with the alignment through to the airport.
As an Ewa Beach resident, if we had the leadership
and commitment to do these types of projects 10
years ago for the widening of Fort Weaver Road,
and 15 years ago, to bring in the North-South
Road, we would not be in the hell we live in now,
in Ewa Beach. This rail project will add to the
multi-motor approach that we need, as a county, to
move people around this entire island. I think
one of the integral parts of the rail will be how
TheBus system links up to the rail centers and
getting the community involved in planning the
rail center points.
And so we need, No. 1, the infrastructure
money that it's going to bring in, so people have

immediate jobs during this time of the economic
system. Being responsible for Kalaeloa, I need to
have that type of commitment and funding that it
will bring into the district. As we build out
Kalaeloa, access for Ewa Beach residents to the
rail center will be less than five minutes from
every household in Ewa Beach. We need everything,
we need it now, and I say whoever is going to get
on the rail late, they should really move aside,
so we can get this project done. Thank you.
-000-

JOHN HIGGINS: Good morning. My name is John
Higgins, I'm an Ewa Beach resident. I'm here to
support the rail system and going through the
airport route. I think that we should have a firm
commitment on federal money. I know that that's
been given to us, but in speaking to people next
door, there was no. indication of when the federal
money would actually come, and with the economic
situation the way it is, I think we should have a
firm commitment from the next administration in
Washington, that we're going to get this money.
Now, we got great senators, and congressmen, and
Democratic president, which would bow to having us
get the money, but we need a firm commitment.
That money, if the federal money doesn't come,
this project will stop dead in its tracks.

The other thing is, too, that the people
that we see in the newspaper, talking about this
project, Charles Djou, Romy Cachola, and the Mayor
or one of his representatives are not here. They
should be at every single one of these things for
the two hours thereon to speak to the people.
They've been spending millions of dollars to
promote this, which I agree with, it should be
done. But these politicians should be here to
answer questions, to talk to us and let us talk to
them. And that's my statement. Thank you.
-000-

REPRESENTATIVE SHARON HAR: Thank you. Good
morning. I'm Representative Sharon Har. I am the
State Representative for the 40th District, which
is comprised of Kapolei, Makakilo, Royal Kunia,
and Kalaeloa. I am one of those politicians who
is here today, and while the rail is not a State
issue, it is a City and County issue. I do know
that we have the firm commitment of our Mayor, as
well as our council representatives on this side
of the island. We do have the Mayor's
representatives here, but I am here on behalf of
myself as a private citizen and representative of
Kapolei.
First of all, as the Chair of the 2007

Interim Task Force on Smart Growth Development, I
am an ardent supporter of the rail's first
segment, beginning here, in East Kapolei. Because
one of the basic principles of smart growth
development is transit-oriented development. With
all the development that we have occurring out
here in our great new city and on the west side of
the island, you must have transit beginning here,
so that we can build smart growth projects. Smart
growth projects basically incorporate transit
around them, and it's one of the most effective
tools to prevent urban sprawl. And that is my
biggest concern, as we continue to develop on this
side of the island. If government has decided
that all of the development is going to happen on
the west side of the island, then we must build
under the principles of smart growth development,
and transit-oriented development is one of the
basic ten principles of smart growth.
Secondly, one of the issues that came up
in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, was
the fact that the two proposed base yards are
located on the Leeward side of Oahu. In order for
the transit to be developed, you have to have a
base yard. And if the two proposed sites are out

here, then, accordingly, you have to have the
beginning segments out here, where the base yards
are located.
Finally, my last point is that, again, to
begin out on the west side of the island is
imperative because you have to have construction
in an area that's relatively undeveloped. There
is so much built, you can't develop anymore in
Aiea or in the urban core. It makes sense to
build out here, when you have relatively least
amount of development, and then as we build more
houses, we build around transit, so that, again,
we're promoting the principles of smart growth.
So, I do have copies of my testimony, as
well. I thank you for this opportunity to
testify.
-000-

ROSITA SIPIROK-SIREGR: Good morning, panel.
My name is Rosita, and I am a resident of
Makakilo. I'm here to testify just as a regular
resident who has been catching the bus every day
for 20 years. My concern is not really that I'm
going to miss my express bus, but it takes only 30
minutes from Kapolei, Makakilo to Dillingham, and
it takes 25 minutes from Dillingham to downtown.
So I would support the first, the new idea of

starting the system in downtown because if
something ever happened, at least it will
alleviate the traffic in downtown first, and not
stuck here in the middle of the island. That's my
first concern.
My second concern is, is the system going
to have an express system during the rush hours,
during the morning and in the afternoon? Thank
you.
-000-

HEARING OFFICER HAMAYASU: No. 12. That's it?
Is anybody else present who would like to
provide a comment on the project issue?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Can I ask questions?
HEARING OFFICER HAMAYASU: If there are
questions, there are people in the next room.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Can I make an
additional comment?
HEARING OFFICER HAMAYASU: I'm sorry, no. You
can submit your written testimony later, with
additional comments.
With nobody else interested in providing
comment, I conclude this hearing at 9:31. Thank
you for your time and interest in the Project.
(Session concluded at 9:31 a.m.)

STATE OF HAWAII )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HONOLULU )

I, Elsie Terada, Certified Shorthand
Reporter, Certificate No. 437, for the State of
Hawaii, hereby certify:
I am the person that stenographically

recorded the proceedings.
The foregoing transcript is a true record
of said proceedings.
Dated this 26th day of December, 2008, in
Honolulu, Hawaii.

ELSIE TERADA, CSR NO. 437
Notary Public, State of Hawaii
My Commission Expires: 4-07-2010


Statement/Section 4 ( f ) Evaluation


December 8, 2008

Neal S. Blaisdell Exhibition Hall

777 Ward Avenue

Honolulu, Hawaii
6:30 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.


OE

PUBLIC HEARING

BEFORE: ELSIE TERADA, CSR NO. 4 3 7

I N D E X
Page

OPENING COMMENTS:


SPEAKERS :
Bob Loy 8
(Na Leo Pohai, The Outdoor Circle)
1314 South King Street, Suite 306

Fred Abe 11
855 Makahiki Way, #301

John Kato 13
910 Pumehana Street, Apt. G

Sidney Char 14
American Institute of Architects, Honolulu Chapter
119 Merchant Street, Suite 402

Ralph Bruinsslot, AIA
P.O. Box 4151

Herb Rothouse 19
1910 Ala Moana Boulevard

Leslie A. Among 21
Waikiki Neighborhood Board, District 9
1720 Ala Moana Boulevard, El03

Richard Ubersax

41-1013 Laumilo Street

(continued)
Chris Dolph
400 Hobron Lane
Honolulu. Hawaii 96815

Steve Scott
1212 Kona Street

Bryan Hoernig
1211 Kona Street

Terry Conlan 32
1535 Punahou Street, #704

Amy Kimura 34
1310 Heulu Street, #I002

Tom Heinrich, Chair
Manoa Neighborhood Board, No. 7
2426 Armstrong Street
Honolulu, Hawaii 96822-1932

Charles Carole 40
1310 Heulu Street, #I002

Philip Blackman 41
1676 Ala Moana Boulevard, #406

Scott Wilson 44
3524 Woodlawn Drive

James R. McManus
860 Halekauwila Street, #2708

Mike Uechi
98-111 Kaahele Place
Aiea, Hawaii 96701

(continued)
Michelle Matson
3931 Gail Street

Katherine T. Kupukaa
95-685 Makaunulau Street
Mililani, Hawaii 96789

Bart Travaglio
400 Hobron Lane, #3506

Kevin Killeen 58
1750 Kalakaua Avenue, #3-3179

Gary O'Donnell 60
P.O. Box 31041
Honolulu, Hawaii 96820-1041

Richard Kawano 62
1420 Victoria Street, #803

Eve Anderson
P.O. Box 25550

Robert Crone
218 Kuupua Street
Kailua, Hawaii 96734

HEARING OFFICER HAMAYASU: Good evening. I am
Toru Hamayasu, the 2nd Deputy Director of the City
and County of Honolulu Department of
Transportation Services. I am the hearing officer
for this public hearing for the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for the Honolulu
project, including the Draft EIS; Section 106 of
National Historic Preservation Act process;
Section 4 (f) of the U. S. Department of
Transportation Act; Right-of-way acquisition; and
floodplains affected by the project.
1. Public spoken testimony to me here,
in the Public Hearing Room.

2. If you do not wish to speak in
public, an individual spoken testimony for the
record can be made to the hearing recorder, who is
near the Public Involvement station in the Project
Information Area.
3. Written testimony may be deposited in
the black comment box at the meeting, delivered to
the Department of Transportation Services office,
or mailed or faxed [(808)523-47301 to DTS by
January 7, 2009.
And finally, 4. Testimony can be
submitted online by January 7, 2009 at
included in the Final EIS. Revisions to the EIS
will be made as appropriate, based on comments.
The hearing procedures are as follows:
register at the entrance to the hearing room.
Names will be called in the order of the
registration.
local civic group, organization, club or

association, subject to the rules provided herein.
Speakers should give their name and address. If
representing a group, this information should also
be given.
to three minutes. When the red light appears,
there is one minute remaining for speaker's
statement. When the buzzer sounds, the three
minutes' period is over. Additional prepared
statements or literature, pertaining to the
project, may be submitted at this hearing by
4:30 p.m., January 7, 2009 to Department of
Transportation Services. These statements will be
made part of the official record if they include a
legible name and address.
oral or written, should be directed to the Hearing
Officer and must be related to the subject matter
of the hearing.
5. Each person speaking before the
audience must do so at the floor microphone.
Please ensure you are in the hearing area at the
time your name is called. A court stenographer
will record and transcribe the hearing
proceedings. If required, I will announce any

other specific rules governing this hearing.
process, the Honolulu Rail Transit Project Team is
not allowed to respond to any questions or
concerns raised by the speaker. The Project Team
will be available to address your questions in the
Project Information Area outside this hearing
venue.
It is now 6:14. At this time, I would
like to begin the public testimony. The first
testifier is Mr. Bob Loy, followed by Mr. Fred Abe
and John Kato.
-000-

BOB LOY: My name is Bob Loy. I am testifying
on behalf of Na Leo Pohai, the public policy
affiliate of The Outdoor Circle, Honolulu, Hawaii.
The Honolulu transit project is destined to become
the singlemost visually dominant, intrusive,
obstructive, and destructive construction project
in the history of Hawaii. While its ability to
ease traffic problems on Oahu has been the subject
of lengthy debate. Its negative impact on the

visual environment of this island is beyond any
denial, and is virtually immeasurable.
I'm going to take you on a trip along the
route, and I'm going to use as the words of the
impacts, words that had been taken directly from
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. It will
change the open and end of all character of the
Ewa Plain, substantially change views in Salt Lake
city because of the size of the station and the
rail line, obstruct views of East Lot in Pearl
Harbor, in Pearl City. In Kahili, the dominant
features will be -- the views of this project will
be the dominant features down Dillingham
Boulevard. In Chinatown, it becomes an esthetic
disaster. The blocked makai views and will be out
of character with the pedestrian-oriented
environment in one of the most historic and
sensitive neighborhoods on the island. Passing
through and going to downtown, it will be the
dominant feature of the views on Nimitz Highway.
It will contrast substantially with the pedestrian
character in the streetscape and substantially
affect the visual setting of Dillingham
Transportation Building in Irwin Park. It will
block makai views for numerous residents.

Overall, visual effects would be high.
Going through and down towards Ala Moana
Center, blocked views in the 4th and 5th floor
residences, increased light and glare on
upper-story residences. Throughout this part of
the city, the project will block protected
mauka-makai views of the Koolau mountains, Waianae
mountains, Pacific Ocean, Honolulu Harbor, Diamond
Head, Punchbowl, and Aliamanu Craters. Overall,
the effects will be high.
But for all the destructive and negative
impacts on view plains spelled out in the DEIS,
there are virtually no details about how these
substantial damages will be mitigated. The
document contains broad promises of designing
various elements to minimize negative visual
effects. The lack of specific descriptions of how
to overcome the visual misery that will be heaped
upon the Oahu landscape, leaves our organization
with little confidence that damage to the visual
environment can or will be mitigated as the
project moves forward.
We also have great concerns about the
trees, particularly the kamani trees on Dillingham
Boulevard and the monkey-pod trees on Kapiolani

(3-minute limit).
BOB LOY: That's the end. Thank you.
-000-

HEARING OFFICER HAMAYASU: Thank you.
Next, Mr. Fred Abe, John Kato, and Sidney
Char.
FRED ABE: My name is Fred Abe. I'm an

inactive attorney. I was born in Honolulu, and I
lived in Makaha from 1971 to 2007. I will never
catch the transit if I was still living in Makaha.
The transit does not address the basic problem.
The basic problem is to eliminate 50 percent of
the commuters that go to and from work, and I'm
proposing instead, that all buses be used, and I'm
talking about the whole island, not just 20 miles
from Kapolei to Honolulu. All buses will be free
during that three-hour period in the morning and
in the afternoon.
2. The electric buses instead of
diesels. And the reason for that, every bus
should be enough so that everybody has a seat,
whether you're catching the bus in Kahuku, Kailua,
Waimanalo, even Hawaii Kai and Kapolei. Right
now, between H-1 and the H-2, the Mililani group,
including the people from Wahiawa and those from
Mililani, if they can catch a bus and free
air-condition and they have a seat, I think we can
have the people address -- might be able to
divorce themselves from riding the cars.
Financially, I think it would work.
According to the Honolulu Advertiser of
November 23, 2008, it says that we cost 525 buses.

I think we can get a thousand buses on the road,
and only during that peak three hours in the
morning and three hours in the afternoon. It
takes $160 million to operate the buses now, of
which the City and County subsidized it by
130 million. I'm suggesting that we will spend
maybe 200 million, and instead of an annual
subsidy of 130 -- (3-minute limit) -- now, I have
more testimony, but the basic thing is how we can
get the 50 percent of the cars off of the road.
That's the conclusion, and I think it can be done.
Thank you.
-000-

HEARING OFFICER HAMAYASU: Next is John Kato.
JOHN KATO: My name is John Kato, and I'm
speaking as a private citizen. I'm a former chair
of McCully/Moilili Neighborhood Board No. 8, and
I'm speaking in favor of the fixed rail system. I
believe the fixed rail system will be a benefit to
the members of the community. I believe that a
common nature of a transit rail development will
be of great use for the people in the community
who are property owners. In any rate, that
concludes my presentation.
-000-

HEARING OFFICER HAMAYASU: Next speaker is
Sidney Char, followed by Ralph Bruinsslot and Herb
Rothouse.
SIDNEY CHAR: Good evening. My name is Sidney
Char. I'm the current president of the American
Institute of Architects, Honolulu Chapter, and my
comments, here, represents the majority viewpoint
of our membership and our Transit Task Force. We
have submitted written testimony, but I will
highlight some of the key points of the testimony.
First of all, for the record, we support
the concept and the implementation of a fixed
guideway system of the steel-on-steel rail.
However, we believe that the Draft EIS does not
address several points of concern for us.
Firstly, integration of social and
economic approach of resources, we believe that
stronger community-planning objective should be
described to create better and desirable living
communities, such as they did in Portland, Salt
Lake, and Sacramento. We believe that the Draft
EIS focuses primarily heavily on just the
transportation aspects of this system. We believe
that the Draft EIS does not respond to Honolulu's

Primary Urban Center Development Planning, which
mandates that guidelines to preserve the
mauka-makai view corridors along major collector
streets be preserved. We believe that the
elevated structures along Nimitz include historic
Chinatown and even going up into Manoa violates
that policy. Mitigation of the negative impacts
of our panoramic mountain and ocean waterfront
views are not well explained or adequately
illustrated. Other major cities such as San
Francisco and Boston have removed such large
similar structures on their waterfront, and even
Seattle is considering and exploring ways of
taking down their Alaskan viaduct.
Secondly, the AIA advocates creation of
safe, healthy, and easily accessible environments
for the transit passengers. We believe that the
EIS has not described how to mitigate undesirable
environments under the elevated guideway areas.
Third, the AIA promotes sustainable
planning, design, and operation of transit
systems. And we note that the Draft EIS says it
will take over seven times the energy to construct
the elevated guideway as compared to an at-grade
system. We believe that the life cycle cost of

the comparison of the elevated system to an
at-grade system should be explored. We are not
convinced that the elevated system is the most
cost effective (3-minute limit).
Lastly, the AIA urges the city to
consider a more flexible rail technology, which
will allow transit to be at grade, below grade, or
above grade, as conditions require. Flexibility
will allow us to be more easily adaptable --
SIDNEY CHAR: Thank you.
-000-

HEARING OFFICER HAMAYASU: Ralph Bruinsslot,
followed by Herb Rothouse and Leslie Among.
RALPH BRUINSSLOT: I'm Ralph Bruinsslot, a
licensed architect in Hawaii. I totally endorse
what the AIA has put forth as their guidelines. I
would like to share with and put on record my
experience of living in San Francisco and working
in San Francisco, and watching them build a raised
highway along the waterfront, later to abandon it
and tear it down. I actually worked with my
window facing where they were part of the freeway
that they were tearing down, and with the cost, it
had to exceed three times the cost of putting it
up. And that was because of the outrage of the
citizens of San Francisco, to the visual damage
that it did on the waterfront.
Now, they have replaced that with an
on-grade transit system. They've developed that
area very effectively, and the combination of
ferries from the outside lined area coming in, I

watched it. I lived in Sonoma County and Marin
County, and it started out 45 minutes,
35 miles, now it's two hours, if you can get there
in two hours. So the mitigation they have taken
is ferries, transit, and trying to move the
transit system on up a hundred miles north of
San Francisco. So it would be my encouragement to
pay very close attention to the esthetics of
installing above-grade transit system wherever
possible, where it's feasible, it works, but when
you're talking about downtown and areas that are
very sensitive to structures, the backlash could
be tremendous. Thank you.
-000-

HEARING OFFICER HAMAYASU: Next is Herb
Rothouse, followed by Leslie Among, and Richard
Ubersax.
HERB ROTHOUSE: Thank you. My name is Herb
Rothouse, retired, and I live in Waikiki. The
first speaker and the second speaker, I agree
with, entirely, and I support their premise. I
was against the rail from the very beginning, for
several reasons. I won't go into all the reasons,
but I will address two things. Number one, the
cost. I compare to what happened in Washington,
D.C. recently, where a visitor said, who was
opened up to Congress, originally budgeted for
300-, end up costing almost 800 million. So I
doubt very much the figures that we have been
given, first 3 and a half billion for the rail,
4 billion for the rail, it would come no surprise
to me if it ends up at 8 billion. I just cannot

trust government figures when it comes to
estimates of projects, they've never been on the
mark so far.
Secondly, great deal of money has been
spent so far, many people here may realize
already, close to $100 million, I understand from
what I read in The Advertiser, has been spent on
consultants and attorneys for this program. $100
million dollars. When I think of TheBus system,
which certainly needs help, as the second speaker
pointed out, if you look on Route 14, on Kapahulu,
the bus runs one bus an hour. One an hour. On
the 23 route, that runs one bus an hour.
$100 million on consultants, and yet we have a bus
system that runs one bus an hour? I mean, that's
a disgrace. That's a disgrace, absolute disgrace.
You want to yet people off the roads?
Well, how are you going to get them off the roads,
when you don't have adequate buses? You look at
the TV in the morning shows H-1 highway, where are
the buses? You could double, double the number of
buses we have, with the money spent on
consultants, bringing in the bus service to areas
that get no service whatsoever, right now, and
increasing where it's one an hour, make it three

an hour. You want people to give up, not use
their cars? Well, provide proper bus service,
frequently, available, and people will not use
their cars like they do. That's all I have to
say. Thank you.
-000-

HEARING OFFICER HAMAYASU: Next is Leslie
Among, followed by Richard Ubersax and Chris
Dolph .
LESLIE AMONG: Aloha and good evening. My
name is Leslie Among. I'm with the Waikiki
Neighborhood Board, District 9. Recently, our
board has voted against the mass transit, but the
election that people have spoken and most of the
people showed that they want the mass transit. I
ask, as a neighborhood board member, that we have
a responsible EIS draft for the residents and the
people of Waikiki. And as far as the route, it
leads from Ala Moana, down towards McCully, down

Kapiolani and then it turns off to University
Avenue, the residents in that district have come
down and spoken to some of the members on our
board, and fear that the space and
infrastructures, that doesn't provide the room for
the transit.
Recently, I proposed an idea on the
board, with some of the engineers that came and
were so gracious to come and address some of the
issues of the transit, that the route be changed
and be put alongside the Ala Wai Canal, as it
snakes its way toward the golf course, to the
Manoa and Palolo Streams. As it snakes it up that
way, it will go all the way up to the U.H. campus,
by Kalele Road, in back of where the U.H. baseball
field is. This looks like a very responsible
place to put up mass transit, in the light of
issues such as eminent domain, litigations, and
people being displaced by the project, some have
opposed.
What I ask is a more responsible
approach, and I do believe that the propose I told
to my board and to the engineers that night, that
a good route for the transit wou1.d be from Ala
Moana, and to snake its way, up the Ala Wai Canal,

on the mauka side, and make its way up the Palolo
Stream and the Manoa Stream. There will be less
mishaps with eminent domain issues and people
being misplaced, as I said, and I really feel
that, you know, the inconvenience is on a lot of
the people that are living there. I know some
people feel like the inconvenience is on the
project, on the other side, but I happen to feel
that there should be a common ground where that
would be a great route to take.
And to add another note to that,
recently, Hard Rock Cafe has moved into Waikiki,
so the Hard Rock property will be available maybe
for a station on the gateway of Waikiki for the
mass transit, or some stop or something, that
property should be available (3-minute limit).
Thank you so much. In closing, I just
would like to say, we're looking for a responsible
approach to this EIS, and the capacity and the
effects it will have on the people in our
districts in Waikiki and there, on University
Avenue, and McCully area and the U.H. Thank you
so much.
-000-

HEARING OFFICER HAMAYASU: Okay. Richard
Ubersax, followed by Chris Dolph and Steve Scott.
RICHARD UBERSAX: My name is Richard Ubersax.
The purpose of the DEIS is to provide the City and
County, the ETA, and the public with the
information necessary to make an informed

decision, based on a full and open analysis of
costs, benefits, and environmental impacts of the
alternatives considered. However, it seems that
in some respects, the DEIS is aimed at convincing
the public and the FTA of the benefits of the
Project, rather than inform the public completely.
One example is in the cost-effectiveness
of the project. The ETA'S cost-effectiveness
index is a ratio formed by adding an alternative's
annualized capital cost to its year 2030 operating
and maintenance cost, and the total is divided by
user benefits, in hour saves.
Any proposed New Starts project receiving
less than a "Medium" cost-effectiveness index
rating will not be recommended for funding by the
ETA. The threshold between a rating of "Medium"
and "Medium-Low" is $22.99 for user benefit
expressed in dollars per hour of user benefit.
In the Alternatives Analysis, the
cost-effectiveness index for the 20-mile alignment
from East Kapolei to Ala Moana Center is stated as
$21.34; and for the full project from West Kapolei
to UH Manoa with an extension to Waikiki as
$27.05. Thus, the 20-mile segment meets the
threshold of $22.99, but the full project does

City ordinance 07-001 recommended the
North-South Road/Airport option as the preferred
minimum operational segment for several reasons,
one of which being that the cost-effectiveness
index of $22.56 is below the FTA's threshold of
$22.99.
Now, in the DEIS, the cost-effectiveness
index has markedly improved to a point that is
significantly below the ETA threshold of $22.99:
$17.53 for the Salt Lake Alternative, $17.78 for
the Airport Alternative, $22.86 for the combined
Salt Lake/Airport Alternative. Information for
the full project with extensions is conspicuously
absent in the DEIS although it was available in
the AA.
We know that the capital cost and
operational and maintenance costs have not
reduced, so that the only explanation is that the
user benefits have increased significantly
(3-minute limit).
In conclusion, this issue of user
benefits and the exclusion and the conspicuous
absence of including the three extensions in the
overall analysis need to be scrutinized thoroughly

by the FTA. Thank you.
-000-

HEARING OFFICER HAMAYASU: Chris Dolph, Steve

Scott, followed by Bryan Hoernig.
CHRIS DOLPH: Hi, my name is Chris Dolph from
Waikiki. My concern is, basically, during this
tough economic times, whether it's really wise for
us to be spending so much money on a project, that
it is the most expensive project the state has
taken on. We already have in effect, HOV lanes,
carpool lanes, contraflow lanes, and I was
wondering what's the possibility of us using those
also as toll lanes. Many people have had
experience with toll lanes and how they alleviate
traffic. This would generate money for the state
instead of spending money. I'm concerned about
how our tax will be used, and the people who would
be utilizing the toll lanes are, well, I see them
as being the people who need it; and the people
who don't need it, would not have to pay for this
expensive project.
I'm a total fan of what this fellow is
suggesting here, increasing the buses, the bus
routes, and I'd like to see some initiative in
encouraging people to use the public transit, and
I love that suggestion about making them free
during these rush hour times. A previous
testimony that I had heard was of one lady who was

speaking about she won't even be able to ride the
transit unless she gets on the bus to get to the
transit, and then get off the transit and ride
another bus to the destination. Just staying on
the bus the entire way would work. I think it's a
great system. Even though I do have a car now, my
wife and I chose to live for five years without a
car, here in Honolulu, and TheBus system worked
great for us. If it were improved, I could easily
go back to living without a car. So that's it.
Thank you.
-000-

HEARING OFFICER HAMAYASU: Next is Steve
Scott, followed by Bryan Hoernig, and Terry
Conlan.
STEVE SCOTT: Hi, I'm Steve Scott, with Scott
Hawaii. We have property on Kona Street. I have
a couple points that, for me, are a concern. The
first is, as the mass transit goes through
Kakaako, it goes through a very dense area with
regards to property, with regards to businesses,
and it's going to impact, especially on Kona
Street, almost every property from Queen Street
all the way to Piikoi. My biggest concern there,
is just the cost. Just in that one corner of
Pensacola and Kona Street, you have approximately
$25 million, which is, I understand it would be
about one-quarter of the total land acquisition on
one corner.
So my big problem is, all of the
projections that the city had with regard to land
acquisitions have to be totally inadequate. I've
read in the EIS, that you have about 95 to $100
million allocated. How can you possibly spend on

one corner, $25 million?
The second concern I have, is with
regards to the route, as it goes down Kona Street.
In the EIS when it first came out, prior to the
election, there was never any notification that
this was not going to go past Ala Moana Center.
Right now, that I just saw, there was an
engineering drawing, only, that shows a third rail
that's going to go over Nordstrom. The
existing -- the initial construction was going to
end, dead-end into Ala Moana Building, at 40 feet.
Then they plan on putting a third rail, one line
that is going to go over supposedly Nordstrom
there. When that goes in, you're taking more
property. The route is going to be wider and
you're going to take more property than you need
to, initially.
So why wasn't this in the alternatives
analysis? Why wasn't this made known to the
public? Basically, you're telling, by what you've
put on the EIS, the Draft EIS, that you're not
going to build past Ala Moana, because there's no
way that you can build one rail, one line that
goes over Ala Moana and that's going to serve the
U.H. and Waikiki. This was never made known to

anyone prior to just a couple weeks ago, when the
city came out with the Draft EIS, and even then,
this drawing wasn't on that. So the city and
Parsons & Brinckerhoff have been totally
disingenuous with regards to making all this
information available so that people can make an
informed decision from vote prior to the general
election in November. Thank you.
-000-

HEARING OFFICER HAMAYASU: Bryan Hoernig,
Terry ConLan, Amy Kimura.
BRYAN HOERNIG: Good evening. My name is
Bryan Hoernig, and I also own a property on Kona
Street. On Kona Street, like Mr. Scott says, is
very dense and is displaying a lot of people. By
condemning what I'm in now on a condemnation list,
at this point, by just condemning my property,
you're not just condemning my property. You're
condemning by business, my livelihood, and that of
my employees. I can only pray at this point, that
you guys can reconsider how many people you are
going to be displacing by this transit system.
I don't understand why we are put on late
notice of this. I mean, it's just like coming

home tonight and saying, well, we got a note,
here, and it says that we're not going to be able
to own our property anymore, you're just going to
be thrown out. And that's how I felt about it. I
didn't get any notice, I didn't get anything. All
I got was a letter that says I'm on a condemnation
list. So I'm put on notice that I don't have a
business anymore, I don't have - - you know, for my
employees and everything else, and I think it's
been handled very poorly. Thank you.
-000-
HEARING OFFICER HAMAYASU: Terry Conlan, Amy
Kimura, and Tom Heinrich.
TERRY CONLAN: Good evening. My name is
Terrence Conlan, and I'm speaking as a private
citizen. It's obvious that a lot of work has been
done on this, so far. It's also obvious that
there is tremendous amount of work yet to be done.
One of the biggest criticisms I have of this
study, is that it does not contain a defined
measurable criteria for ultimately evaluating the
success or failure of this project. It has a lot
of general statements but nothing really
measurable. So when we get to the end, we won't
know if we made it or not.

I agree with Councilman Djou, that we
need to start at either Salt Lake or the stadium,
and come to town, so that we can begin generating
revenue immediately, to help fund the rest of the
system and begin to pay off the initial costs. If
we start at Kapolei, it will be a long time before
we get any money back.
I think we should use the Oahu rail line,
which the state already owns, instead of trying to
buy up new property. Everyone who lives along
that corridor has always known that there was a
rail right-of-way there, and their properties
reflect that.
I do not believe that there are enough
park-and-rides except in Kapolei, where there may
be too many. If we want people to use this
system, we have to provide park-and-rides that are
convenient for them to drive their cars to the
stations, in addition to those riding the bus.
I also question whether or not this rail
system has any plans to allow people to bring
luggage with them. If we're going to go to the
airport and service the airport, then we have to
provide for a way for them to transport their
luggage; otherwise, it will do them no go.

Finally, I think that the EIS has a long
ways to go. There are a lot of questions that
haven't been answered, and a lot more work needs
to go into that. Thank you.
-000-

HEARING OFFICER HAMAYASU: Amy Kimura, Tom
Heinrich, followed by Charles Carole.
AMY KIMURA: Good evening. I'm Amy Kimura. I
testify tonight as an ordinary citizen who rides
public transit wherever I've lived and traveled
and who likes it, for the most part. I enjoyed
commuting on the subways in New York City and
Japan. As a traveler, I've ridden on trains and
buses in Europe, Canada, and the United States. I
list these because many people think everyone who
is against the proposed Honolulu rail dislikes
mass transit, rail in particular. On the

contrary, rail in the places that I've used them
has been fast, convenient, efficient, and usually
reasonably priced. But the populations served by
them have been from two times to more than ten
times Honolulu's population and could more easily
support their operation and maintenance.
One place it was not so reasonably priced
was Vancouver, Canada. The SkyTrain was clean,
convenient, and efficient, but way more expensive
than Honolulu's bus system. A monthly adult pass
cost $73 to $136, depending on the number of zones
covered. That's about two to three times the $40
cost here. What would that do to
transit-dependent riders here, people with no
auto?
In Vancouver, the monthly pass for
seniors is $42, more than the yearly cost of $30
for seniors in Honolulu. What would that kind of
cost do to seniors on limited and moderate
incomes? For students, monthly passes in
Vancouver are also $42, twice as much as the
$20-a-month charged by TheBus.
Transit-dependent adult riders, the
elderly and children will be greatly affected.
Will the city be willing and able to greatly

increase its subsidy of transit to keep down the
prices of the transit passes for them? If not,
how will that affect the quality of life of
seniors of moderate or limited means? How about
families of low, moderate, and even middle
incomes? If not, how will that attract motorists
out of their cars and onto the fixed guideway? If
yes, how will that affect property tax rates for
everyone?
If commuter passes increase in price, the
choice riders are TheBus, those who have an
available vehicle to ride but choose to ride
TheBus, will likely choose to abandon commuting on
public transit in favor of their car, adding to
congestion.
Mahalo for giving me this opportunity to
comment. In the future, more notice would be
appreciated (3-minute limit). I received this
newsletter announcing this hearing three days ago,
on Friday, December 5th. Thank you.
-000-

HEARING OFFICER HAMAYASU: Tom Heinrich,
followed by Charles Carole and Bobbie Slater.
TOM HEINRICH: Thank you, Mr. Hamayasu. My
name is Tom Heinrich, and I'm chair of the Manoa
Neighborhood Board, and I'd like to summarize
several main points of discussion that both our

neighborhood board, as well as the McCully/Moilili
Neighborhood Board have engaged in for some time.
I note especially that while the Ala Moana Center
to University of Hawaii at Manoa area would be a
Phase 2 or subsequent development, this is a time
to address these, of course, in the Draft EIS.
Generally speaking, first, of course, is
the effect on University Avenue, particularly by
what I'll just call an overhead viaduct. There
are other alternatives that do need to be looked
at. If that general route is continued to be
considered from Ala Moana Center to the
university, whether it's Eisenberg or Coolidge
Streets, or even going as far as Market City, to
use Market City as a different node and a route of
connection to the University of Hawaii at Manoa
campus.
A major concern as well, is, what should
be a unified element of transportation and
architecture may become, in fact, again, a most
divisive element, as H-1 has served in the 3M,
~cCully/Moilili/Manoa area.
Secondly, is, of course, great concern
over what I'll call the Varsity station near
Puck's Alley, and I especially hold that architect

Scott Wilson and others will provide illustrations
of what that station at this time would look like,
even outside of the context of transit-oriented
development.
Thirdly, is the absolute necessity of
coordinating with the existing Primary Urban
Center Development Plan, as well as the other
T.O.D. initiatives, both in looking at potential
other routes, as I mentioned a moment ago, but
also in coordination with the land owners,
particularly Kamehameha Schools and the University
of Hawaii.
Another main point is that we absolutely
have to work with coordination opportunities with
the State Department of Transportation concerning
the H-1 Freeway and University Avenue interchange
area. This is a critical area in which other
grade changes. In order to facilitate pedestrian,
bicycle, and auto movements in addition to the
potential of having rail transit, need to be
coordinated, especially in order to avoid a
so-called fly-over far above the H-1 Freeway
itself (3-minute limit).
And lastly, the main point that many have
brought up, is that if the project in fact is

built, that it must end up directly serving the
UH-Manoa campus and not stop short, makai of H-1,
but connect to at least to Dole Street and the
Quarry parking structure area. Thank you.
-000-

HEARING OFFICER HAMAYASU: Charles Carole,

Bobbie Slater, Philip Blackman.
CHARLES CAROLE: Charles Carole. I'm speaking
as a private citizen. The DEIS does not present
the impacts of the future bus routes and also the
number of buses on these routes between Kalihi and
Kahala.
Second, the EIS uses the DBEDT 2030
population series, which is much higher than the
DBEDT's 2035 population, issued in January of
2008. For example, in 2010, the population
projection, based on the 2030 series, is 952,000.
In the 2035, it's been reduced to 932,000, 20,000
less. Presently, the July lst, '07 estimate by
the U.S. Bureau of the Census is 905,000. This
will have an effect both on the ridership and the
cost. Also, our present economic situation, which
we will have hyperinflation and devaluation of a
dollar, is not taken into effect at all. This
will also result in our tourism, people coming in,
and also the use of the airport. 5 think a

supplementary EIS should be prepared to answer our
concerns. Thank you.
-000-

HEARING OFFICER HAMAYASU: Bobbie Slater,
Philip Blackman, followed by Scott Wilson.
Bobbie Slater, she's not here. Philip
Blackman.
PHILIP BLACKMAN: Thank you. My name is
Philip Blackman. I've participated in a number of
the hearings at the City Council level regarding
this, over the last several years. What I have
not seen in the Environmental Impact Statement
that I believe ought to be there, is a clear
statement of what has not been studied and what is
not necessary i n the EIS, but that is being left
.
to the City Council and to the state government to
be considering during the construction and during
the implementation.
As a specific example, I was told that
there isn't attention given to the impact on the
taxpayer for the federal system that will have to
be put in place to take all the folks that might
go on to the Navy base without cars, that's really
the intention of bringing and justifying bringing
the rail to the airport location. I'll have to
come from across Nimitz, find a way that currently
have been accommodated by having hundreds,

literally thousands of cars coming each day and
finding their own place at Pearl Harbor. To
replace that with a shuttle system is a major
expense. Just because it can be put in a
different budget category, doesn't mean it
shouldn't be made visible to people that are
ultimately paying it from their tax dollars.
Also, the FTA, I believe, requires the
new system to accommodate the same demographic,
the same kind of service that's being given by
TheBus, which currently remains the bus services.
50 percent of the people on the bus don't have a
driver's license. If that's the same percentage
that's going to be attracted to the rail ridership
to meet the best standards for approval by the
FTA, we'll have a problem because it's not going
to have but a 50 percent impact on any reduction
and congestion.
Also, with the lack of an impact and
congestion was made a larger issue, the mayor and
the city emphasized transit-orient development.
In speaking to the support staff outside, they say
that's beyond the purview of the EIS, yet
something that was so well bound with the whole
idea of we should have it, it was almost like take

this piece of candy and call it transit-oriented
development, realize that it could not occur
without the rail, and now we're told that it's not
something that is being considered (3-minute
limit) as its various impacts by the EIS.
So what's not in here, I'm asking to be
at least listed very clearly for our policy
makers, for our City Council, so they can
recognize that it's being pushed on to them and
not part of the EIS. Thank you.
-000-

HEARING OFFICER HAMAYASU: Scott Wilson.
James McManus, followed by Mike Uechi.
SCOTT WILSON: Good evening. My name is Scott
Wilson. I am an architect and planner in private
practice. I have two comments regarding this
DEIS. First of all, the overall project is
supposedly being evaluated, and it should include
the segments to the University of Hawaii in Manoa
and to the Diamond Head end of Waikiki, since
these are part of the system. The environmental
impact of these segments on their respected
neighborhood is not addressed at all, in the DEIS.
For example, I want to show you a simulation that
was done by Urban Advantage, of Berkeley. This is
a vendor that has been hired in the past by the
city, to do simulations of our urban city. This
is of the King and University station. There's
obviously an enormous impact on the neighborhood,
with this proposed system, yet it is not covered

at all by the DEIS.
I would urge that the Environmental
Impact Statement should cover all impacts of the
system in its completed form, and it is not
sufficient to start the project with a partial
EIS. For this reason, I would say that this
document is incomplete and should be rejected at
this time. It should be returned to its authors,
with the instructions to include impacts caused by
all project segments.
Second comment. Section 4.7.3 is
entitled "Environmental Consequences and
Mitigation." This section consists of a number of
photo simulations and a table of visual effects.
There i s no mention of the actual ground level
.
environment, which will result, by necessity, from
the imposition of a 30-to-50-foot-wide swathe of
concrete overhead. As we all know, the
environment under a freeway overpass or off-ramp
is a degraded one, always in shadow, noisy, dirty,
blighted. I would submit that this DEIS is
incomplete, on the grounds that it does not
contain adequate analysis of the ground level
environment which will be created by this project.
Thank you.

HEARING OFFICER HAMAYASU: James McManus, Mike
Uechi, and Michelle Matson.
JAMES McMANUS: My name is James McManus.
Good evening, everybody. I moved here in January
of 1989, and I've been looking to help induce rail
to be brought to Honolulu, because Honolulu is a
very beautiful, blessed place. And I use the
transit system and the bus system, which is very
good. And lot of people have a fear about the bus
system being hurt. It's not. The bus system
would be complemented by the rail. And I really
feel that the rail should go forward here.
I know by listening here tonight, there's
a lot of impact problems with property owners and

businesses. But just like any other community,
and I come from New York, I know a lot of business
people that were put out, because we have in the
federal level, what they call right-of-way. And,
you know, that's what happens as progress goes on.
And since I've been here, I've seen where the City
Council at one time, because of Renee Mancho, our
transit money went to Oregon, and they have a rail
system up and running on our money that we could
have had. And Abercrombie went way out of his way
to get it, now he's done it again, and I don't
think we should blow this one, because Honolulu is
going to need it, and it needs it now.
Because all you need is one accident on
the Long Island expressway -- excuse me, that's
where I used to live -- and it becomes a parking
lot. And you're going to have that on the H-1.
And even in the local streets, like Ward Avenue, I
never saw so much traffic. And, you know, it's
building up so big and to the point where it's
going to choke itself. And mass transit is an
asset to this community, if it takes it. But it
has to do the right thing to the people that live
here, and this is the people who try to help as
many people as it can to make it work, because

some people are going to get hurt, unfortunately.
But that's transit. It goes in every community
across the country, and I really feel Honolulu,
the time is now, you have to do it, because in the
last debate they had about the last thing with the
transit, the students in University of Hawaii were
begging to please start it at the university and
work out, but they were denied in that.
Now (3-minute limit), I just say to the
committee here, that, please, try and make it
work, because if it fails this time, Honolulu is
in for a real problem of traffic. Thank you. I
appreciate it.
-000-
HEARING OFFICER HAMAYASU: Mike Uechi,
Michelle Matson, Katherine Kupukaa.
MIKE UECHI: Thank you very much. My name is
Mike Uechi, I'm a practicing physician.
Yesterday, I was pleased to read the Honolulu Rail
Transit, the street pamphlet that was passed out
in the newspaper, and the first thing they
addressed was, how does rail transit help reduce
traffic congestion. So it says here, that by
2030, an addition of 750,000 more daily trips are
expected on Oahu's roads. That impacts H-1

because I believe in 2030, we're going to be over
capacity by 81 percent.
But the thing that blew me away, was the
fact that they announced that rail will reduce
traffic by 11 percent. So just my simple math, we
were over capacity by 81 percent, and you reduce
it by 11 percent. So when you're stuck in
traffic, by 81 percent and you reduce it by
11 percent, and paying $6 billion and you're still
stuck in traffic, that's a significant problem, so
my question is, what happens in 2030, when the
people in the Leeward corridor and also the
Central Oahu corridor are still stuck in traffic,
except worse in 2030. So we need to be addressing
%he problem right now, before the situation
happens.
The second thing about this Honolulu rail
is, how do we expect to pay for it? From what I
understand, we don't have a penny yet from the
federal government, and the first penny is going
to arrive in 2011, which is three years from now.
So when you say we got guaranteed 925 million in
the kitty, and we don't have a penny right now,
what happens when that money is no longer present?
Who is going to guarantee that we're going to have

anywhere close to 1.2 billion that you expect?
Secondly, since we are in a recession
right now, what happens when we don't have the
revenues that are backup of excise tax? What
happens when both of these source of revenues
don't pan out? I'm going to ask the question,
what happens, then, when we cannot afford to pay
it? The only source of revenue we have right now
is property taxes, and if we don't have income,
that's where we're going to have more trouble.
Thank you very much.
-000-

HEARING OFFICER HAMAYASU: Michelle Matson,
Katherine Kupukaa, and Bart Travaglio.
MICHELLE MATSON: Good evening. My name is
Michelle Matson, and I guess you could say I have
a family interest in a historic property deeded to
the state, in trust, in care of the public trust,
along the proposed route of this vehement blight.

One of the most significant adverse
impacts of the proposed elevated steel-on-steel
heavy rail system is the irreparable blight, it
will implant through the vital heart of downtown
Honolulu, the Waterfront and beyond. This
obtrusive blight will impact four protected
registered historic sites along the proposed
Waterfront route, specifically Aloha Tower, Irwin
Park, the Dillingham Transportation Building, and
Mother Waldron Park.
Because of the city's requirement for
federal funding for the proposed elevated rail
project, there must be compliance with Section 106
of the National Historic Preservation Act and
Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation
Act. It will. therefore be taken into account that
such elevated infrastructure blight would be,
quote, visually incompatible and block the view of
the historic resource; that is, the scale of the
infrastructure would overwhelm the resource's
historic appearance, and would cause the loss of
integrity of setting, feeling and association of
these historic sites. The historic view planes to
the harbor from Bishop Street and the Chinatown
Historic District will be similarly impacted.

It would therefore be a fatal mistake for
Honolulu's future if the city forces the intrusion
of elevated transit blight on the Honolulu
Waterfront and the mauka-makai harbor views. If
the Downtown Honolulu Waterfront is allowed to be
impacted by the fatal mistake of elevated guideway
structure, the vital visual, and indeed historic,
character and integrity of the waterfront
centerpiece of downtown and the harbor entrance to
Honolulu will be lost. One only needs to consider
the blight created by the Embarcadero Freeway
along the San Francisco Waterfront, and the
universal public elation when it was torn down.
It is time that the City and County of Honolulu
learns by the mistakes of others before it is too
late.
The city also proposes to slam the
elevated heavy rail route through Kaka'ako
adjacent to another registered historic site,
Mother Waldron Park on Halekauwila Street,
diminishing its historic character and integrity,
and usefulness and attraction as a vital
recreational open space for today's growing
population. The revised Kaka'ako Mauka master
plan designates Halekauwila Street and its

extension to Kamake'e Street as a significant
promenade street, a pedestrian-friendly boulevard
with wide tree-lined sidewalks and new human-scale
residential neighborhood (3-minute limit).
In conclusion, there are very serious
public concerns surrounding the city's disregard
and neglect of the significant adverse impacts of
an elevated transit route along the Honolulu
Waterfront specific to the historic sites. This
badly planned project cannot be allowed to
overshadow and overpower these significant
historic sites or destroy the visual character and
integrity of the vital Downtown Waterfront. Thank
you.
-000-

HEARING OFFICER HAMAYASU: Katherine Kupukaa,

Bart Travaglio, followed by Kevin Killeen.
KATHERINE KUPUKAA: Good evening. I'm
Katherine Kupukaa, and my choice is to don't
build, only because the most viable alternative
was HOT lanes, and that was eliminated in the
alternative analysis. I guess the authors of the
Environmental Impact Statement didn't realize how
Kamehameha Highway is the only highway from
Central and Leeward Oahu, other than the freeway,
and during peak hours, the three lanes going
westbound in the afternoon is just jam packed,
also buses going, taking the right-hand lane, so I
can't see you would remove two lanes in the
medial, to make way for this train track.
What citizens are frustrated and
complaining about, is the congestion, and this
will not eliminate the traffic congestion that is,
you know, currently going on, on the H-1 Freeway.
And for the past couple months I've been catching
the bus, but you can't -- the bus -- for instance,
today, I caught the bus from Mililani, and the bus
was half an hour late, so we had to get off the
bus on Alapai Street and catch another bus, and so
I was supposed to be here by six o'clock. And so
my frustration is that, in Mililani, I have to

walk half a mile to the bus stop. If I were to
catch the train, I would catch the No. 52 and go
all the way to Leeward Community College to catch
a train. I don't think you people who don't catch
the bus realize that you have to wait half an hour
here, half an hour there. Like today, I caught
the bus in the morning and I could accomplish only
two of my errands, but I just have to go home
because I had to be here tonight to testify.
There are other concerns that I have, and
I brought this up at the last transit meeting, and
till this date, it was never answered. I posed
the question of the bus ridership from Leeward
Oahu to Ala Moana Shopping Center (3-minute
limit), because why are we building this train if
there aren't -- there's not going to be the
ridership going from Leeward and Central Oahu to.
Ala Moana Shopping Center, and even to the
University of Hawaii. This is my concern anyway.
Thank you.
-000-

HEARING OFFICER HAMAYASU: Bart Travaglio,
followed by Kevin Killeen and Gary OTDonnell.
BART TRAVAGLIO: Good evening. My name is
Bart Travaglio, and I've been very fortunate to be
employed with the travel business here in Hawaii
for the last 35 years. I spent a lot of time on
motor coaches. I don't think enough service has
been given to a bus service, an adequate bus
service and one that runs efficiently.
I'd like to pose this question to you:
How many of you people have come here tonight on
the bus? That person, how many will ride the
train?
On this island, people don't ride trains.
I spend on a bus with 50 people. I apologize for
the exhaust, but our perfect footprint,
individually, is rather small. But, I look at the
road, on the freeway during the middle of the peak
hours. One person in a car. One person in a car.
I travel the other way, two people in the HOV
lane.
You want an answer to your system, try

making the bus more efficient. It will be much
more economical. The new buses they could bring
in, don't make them like the city buses. Put them
like the passenger buses that I take to work.
Fifty seats, comfortable. You get on the bus, you
could do work on the way into our office, and you
go home. Problem is, people don't just go to
their office. From their office, they go here,
they go there, they go here, they go there, they
do it on the way in, they do it on the way out.
They're going to be doing the same, when you spend
a billion dollars on a train.
It's not in the mind of the people here
to take it, but if you make it convenient, it
could work. If you put 50 buses more out there,
that whole 50 people, and you put the buses in the
HOV lane with 50 people on them instead of two,
it could work. If you make your system designed
so the timing is as effective as it is in
Switzerland, people will know the buses are going
to be here. And for the other people that said
this, and it's just the frustration, buses will
work, and you gotta give 'em a chance. And when
you bring the new buses in, you power them with
propane. There's tons of it, and it's cheap.

Your cost of your train, electric, how are you
going to produce the electric? Our best hope for
something like that, is to get one of the retired
nuclear subs, put them in Pearl Harbor and furnish
the electricity for this site. That's actually
our best hope. Okay? But, otherwise, you gotta
make the electricity to power the train (3-minute
limit). Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. I
appreciate your listening.
-000-

HEARING OFFICER HAMAYASU: Kevin Killeen,
followed by Gary OIDonnell.
KEVIN KILLEEN: Hi. My name is Kevin Killeen,
and I agree with guys who say there's no best
service. Improve the first-rate bus service. I'm
also concerned about the propaganda that's used,
the claim that the traffic will be reduced, future
congestion. Because the media is a little bit
lazy, they reprint stuff like that a couple days
before the election, and I think people should
realize traffic is going to be a lot worse.
And the other propaganda claiming that
the Sierra Club endorses the train, that might be
true that they had a national report, but the
local Sierra Club said they support it if certain
conditions are met. They wanted the at-grade
level. They wanted downtown service, U.H. service

first, and they wanted it done in light rail, not
heavy rail. So I believe the executive board of
the Sierra Club notified DTS that they don't have
a position of supporting the rail. And I see that
they're still implying that in these brochures
that they're handing out, so, I don't blame DTS.
That's the contractors that you have, working for
you. But I'd appreciate it if they made it clear
that traffic is going to be worse with the rail,
and that Sierra Club did not endorse the rail.
Thank you.
-000-

HEARING OFFICER HAMAYASU: Gary O'Donnell.
GARY O'DONNELL: Aloha. I'm Gary O'Donnell.
I have a master's in urban design from Pratt
Institute, and I have lived and worked in Honolulu
since 1985. Overall, I support the system and I
thank you for your work on the EIS. However, I
would support a different system over the route
chosen, such as Vineyard Boulevard. This would
help address some of the issues with going past
historic sites, and the downtown area, and
Chinatown, and it would also alleviate some of the
issues of the visual impact along the Waterfront.
I think there should be a secondary
system, on-grade, that will take people with more
stops in the inner cities, such as on Hotel

Street. And since we are a tourist destination
and we get a large part of economy from tourism,
we should have it go to the airport first, rather
than Salt Lake, and I would prefer that we start
this system in the downtown area.
I understand one of the problems is
getting 40 acres of land near the downtown area,
where the construction lay-down area. I would
suggest taking a look at Shafter Flats, if you
haven't done so already, or possibly swapping out
the park along Lagoon Drive there, as you
approach, come out under the viaduct on Nimitz.
Basically, we're not going to have enough
room to put all the cars on the road in 50 years
from now. Population keeps growing, the way it
has in the of the last 50 years. And the cost,
the $4 billion, when I hear about the hundreds of
billions of dollars being spent in Washington,
D.C., it's really a small amount, even if it went
to $8 billion, I would still support the rail, and
thank you very much. I appreciate your time and
your effort on this.
-000-

HEARING OFFICER HAMAYASU: Thank you. That's
the end of the registered speakers. Is anyone
else present who would like to provide a comment
on the project issues?
If you haven't signed in to present your
testimony, then please state your full name and
address, for the record. Anyone else? I'm sorry,
you already -- yes, of course, please. You wish
to testify?
RICHARD KAWANO: Yes.
HEARING OFFICER HAMAYASU: Please step to the
mike. Name and address, please, for the record.

RICHARD KAWANO: Richard Kawano, and my
address is 1420 Victoria Street, 803. I'd like to
speak in support of the project. I've lived here
since '64. I have concerns. I've listened to the
people who have concerns about the cost, but I
voted for it during the election, as the majority
of us did, and I do believe it's necessary, it's
not a magic bullet, I know it's not going to solve
all the problems, but with the traffic congestion,
with the population that's going to be going on,
we need to give the people a fair alternative.
And President-elect Obama is talking about large
infrastructure problems and you gotta look at it
from the economic point of view. You know, less
tourists are coming here, we're going to be
impacted by that, and they're talking nationally
about major infrastructure improvements across the
country, and as an economic stimulus for a lot of
these areas that are being severely impacted by
unemployment and those things there, so it will
be -- I think it's going to be good for the
economy. I think it will have a positive impact
on transit time for people who have to come in
from Kapolei, all those houses out there.
I live right here in town. I'll never be

using it, but I still think, as a community, we
need to support this thing, not just -- and then
we've built H-3. So I do strongly support the
project, and I hope it gets started. The sooner
we get this started, the less expensive it will be
for all us taxpayers. And, finally, this needs to
be done with excellent management. This project
needs to come in on time and on budget, you know,
in the worst-case scenario, if it takes
significantly longer and if it ends up double or
triple, like H-3 did. So the opponents have to be
listened to, and their concerns have to be
addressed. Thank you very much.
-000-

HEARING OFFICER HAMAYASU: I'll call for more
testimony, not previously testified people, but
any who haven't done? Yes, please step up.
Please, your name and address, for the
record.
EVE ANDERSON: Good evening. I'm Eve
Anderson. My address is P.O. Box 25550, Honolulu,
96825. I'm concerned that the public, general
public that's concerned about this project hasn't

had time and will not have time to read the
document. I just picked up one tonight. I'm
wondering if there is a possibility for you to
push the deadline out to, let's say, February 7th?
Let everybody get through the Christmas holidays
and New year's and things.
And I'd really like to have you, as our
expert, to go on T.V. and talk about the document.
You can do maybe five presentations, take them
section by section so more people can understand
it, 'cause there ain't gonna be very many people
in the general community that will get a document,
or go to the library, or sit in front of a
computer for 400-and-some pages worth. I know
during the earlier times, you had a lot of ads on
T.V. and radio, and doing all this to inform the
people, so I think it would be very time and money
well spent if you or somebody who designate an
expert to discuss this document that's huge, so
that's my concern.
-000-

HEARING OFFICER HAMAYASU: Anybody else wish
to testify?
With nobody else interested is providing
the testimony or comments, I conclude this
hearing.
Go ahead.
ROBERT CRONE: My name is Robert Crone. My

address is 218 Kuupua Street, in Kailua. First, I
want to say that I support the position of the
American Institute of Architects. I think in
addition to the oral testimony given, there are
some very good information in their written
testimony that we should take heed of. The point
that I would like to bring out today, is that
Honolulu, according to the U.S. Census, is the
52nd largest city in the United States, as far as
metropolitan population, and 47th largest city
with relationship to its urban population. Unlike
some literature that was put out in relation to
the transit, there are no cities smaller than
Honolulu that built rail transit systems. All the
cities are larger than Honolulu.
The third rail systems, like we're
contemplating here, which does not allow at-grade,
have been built by maybe cities in the top 12
cities in the country. All the cities between
that point and where we are down in No. 50, have
built light rail systems. They built systems that
have overhead wires rather than the third rail,
which allows them to be overhead at-grade or
underground. And they've all put them primarily
at-grade, with some places overhead or underground

or they needed to, in order to pass freeways and
things like that.
I think it's physically and totally
irresponsible for us to think that, as the 52nd
largest city in the country, our population can
afford to support a system of this kind, of a
grade separated system and the extra expense. The
at-grade system is much more economical and why
it's been chosen by approximately 20 cities,
between the 12th largest and the 50th largest.
I think that regarding the construction,
regarding the operation of it, and regarding the
maintenance of it, these are going to be financial
burdens that our community is going to have for
many, many years, and we are burdening ourselves,
our children and our grandchildren with this
thing, and I think that in the future, it would
just always be seen as something that,
financially, bankrupt has been noted. Thank you.
HEARING OFFICER HAMAYASU: Anyone else wish to
testify?
With nobody else interested in providing
comment, I conclude this hearing at 7:29. Thank
you for your time and interest in the project.
-000-

STATE OF HAWAII )
) SS



Honolulu, Hawaii.



Statement/Section 4(f) Evaluation

December 9, 2008

Salt Lake District Park

1159 Ala Lilikoi Place

Honolulu, Hawaii

6:30 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.

OF

PRIVATE TESTIMONIALS


I N D E X
Page

SPEAKERS :
Bob Kilthau
1310 Haloa Drive

Herbert T.C. Loo
1569 Onipaa Street

Lennard Pepper
1352 Olino Street

Ruth Boyett
4336 Laakea Street

Dennis Egge
2920 Ala Ilima Street, # 7 0 3

Kenneth Tsumoto
3434 Ala Ilima Street

BOB KILTHAU: We're residents of Foster
Village, and we think that the Salt Lake route is
pretty dumb because it's going to go by all the
schools, Makalapa Elementary, Radford High School,
and it's not going to help people in Foster
Village. It's just going to make noise for us,
and while they're building it, it's going to cause
a lot of trouble for traffic to get in and out of
Foster Village, and we think it should go along
Kam Highway, so it goes by the Pearl Harbor
Complex, and the Hickam Air Force Base, and the
airport. That makes a lot more sense to me.
Oh, yeah, I said the schools. Yeah,
Radford High School and Makalapa Elementary School
are going to be bothered by this thing, during the
building and, also, it's going to be making a lot
of noise for those schools, when the trains go
through. And it makes a lot more sense to use Kam
Highway. That's where the people -- I've talked
to several people who work at Pearl Harbor, they
said they'd rather have it go to Pearl Harbor,
along Kam Highway. That's about it.
-000-

HERBERT T.C. LOO: I'd like to testify that
this project should have been built many years
ago, and it is a sad situation when we still have
these few people bringing up this "if" and "or"
about this particular project, which is long
overdue. Of course, probably a lot of them
haven't traveled to see other parts of the world,
to see how the transit of people moving around by
the millions are using this type of
transportation, economically, safe, and, best of
all, you get there in the least amount of time.
And I say that we should proceed with this, with
the fastest means possible and get it done, and
then you'll know and appreciate what a real
transit system is like.
I lived in New York City for seven years,
and you'd just imagine if they didn't have the
subway there. Boy, a million people travel on
that every day, and it's a snap. Just think if we
had this 20 years ago, boy, everybody would be
less humbug with this traffic mess that we have

now. That's my testimony and I hope we get this
thing built as soon as possible.
-000-

LENNARD PEPPER: I will not duplicate much of
what I testified in public. However, in order to
make sure that certain important things get
recorded, I'd like to say that in the EIS, I think
it's in 1-6, there were some major facilities left
out. These include the Bougainville industrial
area, which is an area of both retail and
wholesale facilities, and we'll have a Target, as
of March of next year. The Moanalua Shopping
Center, the Stadium Marketplace -- the Pearl
Harbor commissary and the Public Work Center,
those are both military -- so those are left out.
In addition, I feel that the document
itself is kind of static and does not recognize
many changes which will occur in this community by
2030. It is an aging community, it is a community
that will become poorer because the infrastructure
is aging. In fact, Foster Village was begun in

1957, so it will be 80 years old, roughly
80 years old by 2030. Salt Lake, I think, was
started over 30 years ago. It will be an aging
infrastructure and an aging population. They, the
aging population, will need public transportation.
The document also does not recognize
changes which I anticipate in the public school
system. There are five public schools along the
route, at least two of them high schools. They
are likely to become magnet schools by 2030,
schools which specialize in one particular kind of
instruction; for example, drama or English, and
kids from all over the city will be coming to
those schools because they will specialize in that
particular function. They'll need public
transportation. This is all in conjunction with
my support for the Salt Lake route.
In addition to that, the EIS does not
seem to have, at least the part I read, does not
have clear indication of what the feeder system,
the feeder bus system is going to look like. I
think that's an important thing that should be
included in the final EIS.
It also is not very clear about the
property acquisitions which will be necessary. It

was my understanding that many properties would
require only a very small strip of land be taken.
When the opponents talk about this Salt Lake
route, they talk as if it's going to be the whole
property is going to be taken instead of, say,
three feet or two feet from a yard, or carport or
something.
The other thing that I guess I did not
make as firmly as I should have, during the public
testimony, was that the Salt Lake route enables a
seven-day-a-week system serving the population.
Going to church, going to Aunty, going to soccer
games. Whereas the airport route is basically a
five-day-a-week, "go to work and come home"
system.
Something I said in the public hearing,
when we were talking about starting this whole
thing, was taken sort of as a joke, but it wasn't
meant as a joke. One of the social benefits of
this thing would be getting drunks off the road.
Some people who like to drink to excess will take
the public transportation rather than drive drunk,
and I think that's a valuable and important social
benefit.
So, in summary, the social benefits of

the system are not adequately dealt with, in the
EIS, as far as I'm concerned, and they matter at
least as much as getting people to work and at
least as much as the cost of the system. That
will do it. Thank you.
-000-

RUTH BOYETT: I think a static lane would look
much nicer to go down Kam Highway and Nimitz. I
think the view would be much nicer. I live on
Salt Lake Boulevard. I don't want to have it pass
on my front yard. That's all.
-000-

DENNIS EGGE: I believe that we should build
out from Ala Moana Center or the Honolulu
Convention Center area out to Middle Street, to
take care of all the congestion in town. And from
that point, west, I think things can be taken care
of by existing TheBus and surface transportation,
but I think things really get jammed up, the
closer you get into town. Like one guy tonight
said, what used to be a ten-minute ride from Salt
Lake to Queen's Hospital is now 90 minutes. So we
won't be able to tolerate that much longer. If

the Mayor would consider building out from Ala
Moana Center, shopping center area, which is a
major transit-oriented development at the moment,
out to the Middle Street terminal, then I think
they will have something. Thank you.
-000-

KENNETH TSUMOTO: They should get one
committee and just vote on it, you know, and
include a monorail one place. If they already
agreed on Salt Lake, then why are they going over
and over again? You know what I'm saying? Just
get one panel of people just to decide it.
Instead of going to -- you know what I'm saying - -
going to one place to, basically, another place,
that, I cannot see. Because remember what
happened to the Aloha Stadium and the lawsuit?

The engineers were suing the Aloha Stadium, and
the engineers on their side always answered the
question. But when the other side bring up the
question, famous answer, "I don't remember." So
what I'm just saying is that this is the same
thing what's happening now. So, you know, that's
the ball game.
-000-

STATE OF HAWAII )
) SS.


Honolulu, Hawaii.


Public Hearing, December 9, 2008 1





December 9, 2008

Salt Lake District Park

1159 Ala Lilikoi Place

Salt Lake, Hawaii

6:00 - 8:00 p.m.


OF

PUBLIC HEARING

BEFORE: NANCY P. BLANKENSHIP, CSR NO. 459


RALPH ROSENBERG COURT R E P O R T E R S , I N C .
H o n o l u l u , Hawaii (808) 524-2090

Public Hearinq, December 9 , 2008 2

I N D E X

Page
OPENING COMMENTS:
By Hearing Officer Toru Hamayasu 3

Michael Burton

Robert Webb

Douglas Torres

T. K. Chun

Thomas Strout

Tony Soon

Doug Pyle

Maurice Morita

Janice Soon Fah

Len Pepper
1352 Olina Street
Salt Lake, Hawaii

Mark Taylor
3427 Ala Hinalo Street
Salt Lake, Hawaii

Ben Remmell (phonetic spelling)

Michael Uechi

Frank Genadio

Renee Ing
p.0. Box 23094

Mark Takai

Herbert Loo

Scott (no last name given)

RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC.

Honolulu, Hawaii 1808) 524-2090


1 HEARING OFFICER HAMAYASU: Good Evening,

18:04:17 2 I am Toru Hamayasu, the Second Deputy Director of the

3 City and County of Honolulu Department of

4 Transportation Services. I am the hearing officer for

this public hearing for the Draft Environmental Impact

Statement for the Honolulu High-Capacity Transit

Corridor Project.


coI.lect comments related to the proposed transit

project regarding: the draft EIS; Section 106 of the

National Historic Preservation Act process; Section

4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act;

18:04:59 13 right-of-way acquisition; and floodplains affected by

14 the project.

15 Public input can be made in four ways:

16 1) public spoken testimony to me here in the pubiic

17 hearing room; 2 ) if you do not wish to speak in

18 public, an individual spoken testimony for the record

19 can be made to the hearing recorder who is near the

20 public involvement station in the public information

21 area; 3) written testimony may be deposited in the

18:05:27 22 black comment box at the meeting, delivered to the

23 Department of Transportation Services office, or

24 mailed or faxed (808) 523-4730 to DTS by January 7,

25 2009; and finally, 4) testimony can be submitted


Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 524-2090


online by January 7, 2009 at www.honolulutransit.org.


included in the Final EIS. Revisions to the EIS will

be made as appropriate based on comments. The hearing

procedures are as follows:



register at the entrance to the hearing room, and will

be called in order of registration.


for him or herself, or if duly authorized for any

local civic group, organization, club or association,

subject to the rules provided herein. Speakers should

give their name. If representing a group, this

informat.ion should also be given.


to three minutes. Additional prepared statements or

literature pertaining to the project may be submitted

at this hearing or by 4:30 p.m., January 7, 2009 to

Department of Transportation Services. These

statements will be made part of the official record if

they include a legible name and address.



officer and must be related to the subject matter of


Honolulu, Hawaii ( 8 0 8 ) 524-2090

Public Hearing, December 9, 2008

1 the hearing

2 5. Each person speaking before the

18:07:28 3 audience must do so at the floor microphone. We will

4 call testifiers in groups of three to facilitate

5 orderly progress. Please ensure you are in the

6 hearing room at the time your name is called. A court

7 stenographer will. record and transcribe the hearing

8 proceedings. If required, I will announce any other

specific rules governing this hearing.


process, the Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Project

team is not aLlowed to respond to any questions or

concerns raised by the speaker. The project team will

be available to address your questions in the project

information area outside of this hearing venue.

It is now 6:09 p.m. At this time I would


testifier is Michael Burton followed by Robert Webb

and Douglas Torres.

MR. BURTON: Hi. Good evening. I just

wanted to --

HEARING OFFICER HAMAYASU: Please state

23 your name first

24

25

RALPH ROSENBERG COURT R E P O R T E R S , I N C
Honolulu, H a w a i i (808) 524-2090


MR. BURTON: My name is Michael Burton.

I live here in the community. I work at the airport.

Okay. I just wanted to say that I do support the rail

project, however, the latest discussions that I've

been hearing was changing the route, and I think it's

a waste of public's money to route the rail down from

Pearl Harbor toward the airport. My rationale is

because that it's bypassing densely populated

neighborhoods, such as Foster Village here at Salt

Lake, and I think public's money cou1.d be better used

by routing it down Salt Lake rather than going toward

the airport.

Secondly, in that route toward the

airport you're going to be int-ruding on a lot of

military property, which means you're going to have to

get third-party permitting and whatever that process

might be to get the okay to build your infrastructure

on their property. And, therefore, I think it's going

to be -- that's going to create a lot of delays in the

forward motion of this project.

Routing it down Salt Lake, because it is

a lot of city and county land along that Salt Lake

route there will be very little prob1.ems as far as

intruding on personal property and federal property

and what have you in that area. Like I said, it will


Honolulu, H a w a i i ( 8 0 8 ) 524-2090


1 benefit the Foster Village community as well as Salt

2 Lake community. That's it.

3 HEARING OFFICER HAMAYASU: Thank you.

4 Next speaker is Robert Webb.

5

6

7


1 MR. WEBB: First I would like to thank

2 you for allowing me to express my viewpoint on the

18:ll:OO 3 issue.

4 HEARING OFFICER HAMAYASU: Please state

your name first.

MR. WEBB: My name is Robert Webb. I'm a

28-year resident of Salt Lake.

I Robert Webb oppose the Salt Lake route

for the following reasons:

Number one, I feel very strongly the

schools that would be involved are the Radford High,

Aliamanu elementary and middle schools should not be

uprooted in any way, shape or form. I feel the
students should not encounter any difficulty in their

learning when a link is being built and when it's open

for service. And for the same reason I feel the Salt

Lake Library should not be touched, okay.

Thirdly, I -- you might think I'm a
little paranoid or what, but I don't care. I think

that if we have a substation in a highly, densely

populated area, we are going to have a real social

problem on our hands and that is a lot of homeless

people will take shelter at a substation, and I'll be

dammed if some of our kids are getting woo'd by types

like that and they might get involved in some kind of



illicit activity like drug pushing, et cetera,

et cetera. Okay.

I also feel strongly that despite the

overcrowdings of parking in the Aliamanu district it

is doubtful there will be enough people that abandon

their driving to utilize the rail. I'm sure that it

can be argued. The rail may be still an option for

those who are currently obtaining bus service

presently. I can see that segment of the population

which would favor the rail here in Salt Lake.

I also feel strongly that I -- excuse

me -- that many people who probably - - and don't feel

insulted when I say a thing like this - - many people

who probably have not lived for an extensive period of

time on the mainland or in foreign countries don't

know the experience of being too close to steel wheel

on steel rail. It can get pretty noisy, although

studies have been shown to show that it shouldn't be a

problem, but I still have my doubts about decibel

levels and the impact on people and what connection it

might have with sleep deprivation.

And I feel last but not least because of

the noise level and condemnation of residential and

business property --
(Buzzer sounds.)


Public Hearing, December 9, 2 0 0 8 10

1 HEARING OFFICER HAMAYASU: Please

2 summarize.

3 MR. WEBB: Okay. In conclusion, I feel

4 that the Salt Lake linkage would create more

18:13:57 5 disruption to the quality of life and incur more

6 social cost than what the community j s willing to
.

7 bear. Thank you.

8 HEARING OFFICER HAMAYASU: Next speaker

9 is Douglas Torres followed by T. K. Chun and Thomas

10 Strout.

11

12

13

14

15

16

I.7
18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

RALPH ROSENBERG COURT R E P O R T E R S , INC


MR. TORRES: My name is Doug Torres, and

I'm a resident of Salt Lake Boulevard. We, the

residents and community of Salt Lake Boulevard are

against the rail down Salt Lake Boulevard. As

indicated, there will be only two stations along the

Salt Lake Boulevard, one at the stadium and one at Ala

Lilikoi Street.

Almost the entire length of the boulevard

it's only for rail to pass through; no stops. tlow can

the people who voted for it justify all the homes and

lives that will be affected by this rail, passing

above 400 times a day? How is it going to affect the

students of Makalapa Elementary, Radford High School,

Aliamanu Elementary seeing, hearing, feeling 20 times

per hour during peak hours? How do you think it 1oi1.l

affect the quality of life of those who live on Salt

Lake Boulevard?

The Council has voted 7 to 1 in favor of

changing the rail from Salt Lake back to the original

route to the airport. You have voted for the rail

down the boulevard. Now, feel how it feels to be

deceived, disappointed and frustrated that things can

get. When the rail route has changed from the airport

to Salt Lake Boulevard by Councilmember Cachola, we,

the residents of the boulevard, could not believe this



was happening. Our frustration and disappointment has

been with us for a long time. He has sold our quality

of life for a vote and for his vision. A good

community leader takes care of his community but will

not sacrifice other communities for the betterment of

his. A good representative will make sure of this,

but in both cases this is not to be. His vision is

the same vision that Salt Lake Boulevard starts and

ends at Ala Lilikoi Street. You call this tunnel

vision. It starts at Aloha Stadium, passes Halawa

Estates Shopping Center, Stadium Mall, Foster Village,

Makalapa Elementary, Radford High School and the park,

Aliamanu and the Naval Mousing and Aliamanu

Elementary. All these communities and residents are

not seen in his vision or they were and are to be

sacrificed.

We have a second chance and we must take

advantages of this. With our eyes wide open we must

first remember we live in the best location on this

island which is called central. Every location is in

driving distance. Yes, we will not give up our cars.

And we also have so many different ways to get to our

destination and to our home. We will be the last

place on this island to give up our cars, because we

live in the best location, which is central.



1 This does not mean that we give up rail.

18:16:57 2 Our hope is Councilmember Cachola and our community

3 leaders must have an open mind and take a good look at

4 the airport route. The advantage is ours because of

5 the location we live and the location for the rail

station.

(Buzzer sounds.)

Living in a central location would give

us the best of three ways to travel, the rail, our

buses and most of all our cars. I hope that you not

only heard what I have to say but that you listened to

the words I have to say, because the families, friends

along the boulevard --

HEARING OFFICER HAMAYASU: Please

15 summarize.

16 MR. TORRES: -- wili. not lose the second

17 chance we have to move the rail back to the airport.

18 (Applause.)


20 T. K. Chun followed by Thomas Strout.

21

22

23

24

25

RALPH ROSENBERG COURT R E P O R T E R S , INC.
H o n o l u l u , Hawaii ( 8 0 8 ) 524-2090


MR. CHUN: My name is T. K. Chun. I'm a

retired engineer. I live in Pacific Heights area. I

missed the hearing last night because of the Christmas

party. I support the rail transit system and I vote

for it. Good engineering should start with the

critical area. We shouldn't start from way up in the

Kapolei area. We should start from Waipahu to the

downtown area. That's the critical area. And we

9 should do it now. It's probably going to take us more

than ten years.

I'll tell you a little story. I was

the -- I went to the first public hearing in 1963 for

H3. It took us 30 years to build it. So I hope we

can buiid this maybe in ten years or less, because in

other countries they build it in four or five years,

so 3 hope I can ride it before I die, before 1 kick

the bucket. I'm 74 years old and I helped build H3,

so it took us -- it took us 30 years to do H3. I hope

we don't take another 30 years to get our mass transit

system.

Thank you.

(Applause.)

HEARING OFFICER HAMAYASU: The next

24 speaker is Thomas Strout followed by Tony Soon and

18:19:27 25 Doug Pyle.



MR. STROUT: Hello, my name is Tom

Strout. I'm a resident of the Salt Lake area. I'm

just curious as to why they think the airport would be

more advantageous and more efficient to draw in money

as opposed to the Salt Lake alignment. The reason

being, the employment distribution in the airport,

Hickham, Pearl Harbor area, according to your DEIS

ranks sixth and the Salt Lake employment ranks seventh

so there's not much of a difference there, but the

population difference between the airport versus Salt

Lake, airport ranks 23rd; Salt Lake ranks sixth. And

by the year 2030 airport is going to rank 24th and

Salt Lake is going to rank 9th.

Now, of these rankings, the bigger

population is this side of the stadium, you know.

When you look at the drafts you have in your DEIS, it

just did not make much sense when there's such iittle

effect out that way. Now, come closer to 2030, yeah,

you'll have a greater amount of people out that way,

but how many of them travel all the way into town?

Some of them only come halfway. The traffic problem

is the downtown corridor. If we relieve the traffic

there, it makes it simplified and easier for everybody

coming from the other side of the island, you know.

That's what I think we should try and look at how we



1 really want to spend the money.

2 Besides the airport route is going to be

3 more costly. It's going to take longer for that route

4 to go from one destination to another. And it just

5 doesn't -- you know, they're going to put a longer

6 delay on getting this thing built and we need to get

7 the thing started.

8 Thank you.


18:2.1:28 10 is Tony Soon, followed by Doug Pyle and Maurice

11. Morita.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


1 MR. SOON: Hi. My name is Tony Soon and

2 I live in the Salt Lake area. I voted for the rail,

3 because it was going through Salt Lake. I feel it's

4 fraudulent what the city council are trying to do at

5 this time. Trying to rob us of something equivalentto

6 a birthright that we should be having for all our

7 children and grandchildren. .

8 I have two sets of comments that I would

18:21:59 9 like to make tonight and one is on the DEIS, and I

10 didn't really read the DEIS in great detail, but here

11 are a synopsis of some of the things which I found

12 which was wrong.

13 First of all, the DGIS refers to the Salt

14 Lake route as an alternate. When, in fact, it was the

15 only route that was considered for the vote. I think

16 that was wrong. The other thing is that the DEIS

17 makes a skewed assumption that there has been no

10:22:29 18 population growth in the year 2030 for the Salt Lake

19 area, whereas they took the other areas into

20 consideration.

21 The other thing that the DEIS

22 contemplated was who was the rail supposed to serve,

23 and according to them, according to their DEIS report,

24 it says it is for people with limited income and an

25 aging population. That's the people of Salt Lake. I


H o n o l u l u , Hawaii ( 8 0 8 ) 524-2090


think by bypassing the people of Salt Lake, they would

be robbing these older people and younger people,

younger residents, of this opportunity of being able

to enjoy the benefits of being on the rail.

Then the DEIS also makes reference to the

transportation equity and what that means is it's a

fair distribution of resources so that no other group,

no group, carries an unfair burden or receives an

unfair share of the benefits. When they route the

rail down by the airport, what they're doing is that

they're robbing the people of Salt Lake of this

opportunity.

And here are my personal comments on

this. I would say the people of Salt Lake are aging,

and they have many children, a lot of younger

residents and they're really :low income and they need

to be on the rail. The other thing again is there is

this fallacy that is being passed around that the rail

must go to the airport. Well, I lived in the City of

Toronto, which is nearly 4 million people. The subway

does not go to the airport. The subway stops five

miles away from the airport and there's a bus that

takes the tourists to the airport. The other thing

that you need to remember is that can you imagine a

tourist spending thousands of dollars coming to Hawaii


Honolulu. Hawaii ( 8 0 8 ) 524-2090


1 and leaving $20 tips and $100 tips and then all of a

2 sudden cannot find $30 so they can take a taxi. It's

utterly ridiculous.

The other thing I'm worried about is that

Salt Lake --

(Buzzer sounds.)

MR. STROUT: -- this report was made by

three people, which includes the military, and I think

somehow because the military is south of Nimitz, I

can't help but be very suspicious about this report.

Thank you.

HEARING OFFICER HAMAYASU: Next speaker

is Doug Pyle followed by Maurice Morita.


MR. PYLE: Hello. I don't know if

there's a particular format for introducing ourselves.

Doug Pyle. I live in downtown. I have family here in

Salt Lake and I also have -- as chair of the

democratic party's labor caucus. The democratic party

of Hawaii's labor caucus which supports rail, the

democratic party supports rail in general, as passed

by a resolution at the convention last spring.

The labor caucus has had a lot of talk

about it in terms of jobs and its value along those

1-ines and so I strongly support getting rail underway,

both for the jobs it would recreate in construction as

well as the economic stimulus it would provide, and

given the economy in Hawaii and nationwide that's even

more important to get this going soon.

Ideally both routes would be - - are great

and should be built. The question is which first, and

it does -- there's - - I wouldn't say that our caucus

has a consensus, but there is agreement that there

should be as early as possible start. The community

did vote on the package, so there's an advantage to

starting with Salt Lake, and some suggestions - - I

don't know how much flexibility there is still in

design, but perhaps if the Salt Lake route were built

first, there could be a less expensive, say, light



rail or tram off to the airport, such as other cities

have. I've taken the one in San Francisco, as an

example.

And another consideration is that along

the route are several important destinations. We also

need boarding points in dense population areas, where

workers, shoppers can board to get to the destination.

Salt Lake has a very dense population and so it

deserves its own station. And one consideration is

connecting through Camp Catlin Road. That would be --
that's right next to government housing, so it may

be -- there may be property that could be used for

developing, for example, a spur off to the airport and

Pearl Harbor

I don't want to take up any more time

than is allotted and I just wanted to be brief and say

that the Democratic Party in general and certainly the

labor caucus that I chair supports the construction of

rail.

Thank you.

HEARING OFFICER HAMAYASU: Next speaker

Maurice Morita.

H o n o l u l u , Hawaii ( 8 0 8 ) 524-2090


1 MR. MORITA: Hi. My name is Maurice

2 Morita and I live in South Salt Lake, and I hold

3 different hats. I also am the vice chair for the

4 neighborhood board 18 for Salt Lake, Aliamanu and

5 Foster Village and I also work for the Hawaii State

6 Teachers Association who supports the rail, too. Not

7 the route, but the rail.

8 I do feel for the people that live on

18:27:59 9 Salt Lake. We have some staff and some friends that

10 do live on Salt Lake, and they always tell me because

11 they know that I support the rail that I'm sorry, but

12 I oppose the rail, and the reason why they oppose the

13 rail is because they don't want it through their

14 backyard. And that's the problem that we have is

15 prisons, rubbish dumps; nobody wants it in their

16 backyard so the City Council sometimes doesn't know

17 where to build or put those things. And it's hard.

1.8:28:27 18 So we send the prisoners to Texas. Unfortunately, we

19 can't send people away.

20 But I think the rail is for the future

21 and I -- and, like I said, I do understand the people

22 that live on Salt Lake Boulevard, you know, for years

23 and the way they feel, but to me I think we need the

24 rail to come through Salt Lake for various reasons

25 that these folks have said.



1 As far as the schools go, they do take a

2 sound test to see if there's too much noise, and if

3 there is too much noise, then the Department of

18:28:59 4 Education usually will put air conditioners in the

5 classroom. So that would be a plus for the schools to

6 have air in the classroom, like all the other state

7 offices and county offices are all air conditioned.

8 Even the prison have air conditioners, but the schools

9 don't have -- you know, some do, but not all. That

would be a plus for the schools there that is on the

site.

And then the other reasons that were

given about why the rail. should come through Salt Lake

is we do have an aging group here and there's a Lot of

people that work in downtown, so I think that it would

be advantageous for us. In talking to you, Toru, it

could cost less to do a spur from Salt Lake to the

18 airport than versus from the airport to South Salt

19 Lake. So I think we would save a lot of money if we

20 go to Salt Lake first and then do a spur to the

21 airport when it decides to go to Waikiki, because

22 they're not going to Waikiki on the first round.

23 Thank you.


18:30:00 25 is Janice Soon Fah.


H o n o l u l u , Hawaii (808) 524-2090


MS. FAH: My name is Janice Soon Fah and

I'm a resident of Salt Lake. I'm also a teacher at

the Department of Education. I went out to exercise

my vote in the full knowledge that my vote would be

honored, and I think the Salt Lake vote carried the

rail. And I think we betrayed the trust of voters and

we will lead to more apathy in voter turnout if we do

not honor this vote that the Salt Lake residents made.

As far as concerns by the residents, I

think as the residents who are concerned that this is

going to create unsightly trains in their backyards,

if they were to look at the route, the route follows

Salt Lake Boulevard, and if they're familiar with the

rail systems - - I lived in Toronto for 26 years before

moving here to Hawaii, and I've lived here for 12

years, and actually the light rapid transit in Toronto

drives along some of the most prestigious

neighborhoods and it is so quiet, it is so clean, it

is so efficient that people who formerly would drive

their cars bumper to bumper into downtown Toronto will

hop on that train and be in downtown in 30 minutes.

They can read their newspapers, they can relax and

they can actually enjoy the commute.

As a Salt Lake resident, I work in

Kapolei, so I have a lot riding on this rail



1 development, because I can see where a lot of young

2 teachers who live in central district now will be able

3 to offer their services in Leeward district where we

4 have a demand for highly qualified teachers to teach

5 in our struggling schools in the Leeward district.

18:31:58 6 Okay. Z also understood from the

7 information that was provided that no homeowner

8 property will have to be acquired, at least not their

9 entire home, which is what some people may fear; that

10 it will infringe on their property and their property

11 will be acquired, but because it's going to be an

12 aboveground rail, what will happen is most of the

13 run - - most of the operations will be above ground and

14 they will just need land space to locate the elevators

18:32:28 15 that wi1.l take the commuters to the ground level. So

16 I think if we familiarize ourselves with the rail and

17 what it's going to offer our community, we, the Salt

18 Lake residents, will fight those politicians who at

19 first opposed the rail and now that the vote has been

20 carried for the rail are striving to influence that

21 decision to move it to the airport. I say we go for

22 Salt Lake and the airport or we go with the voters who

23 voted for Salt Lake.

24 Thank you.




18:33:00 1 That concludes the preregistered

2 speakers. Now, is anyone else present who would like

3 to provide a comment on the project issues? If you

4 have not signed to register, please state your full

5 name and address.

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


1 MR. PEPPER: My name is Len Pepper. I

2 live at 1352 Olino Street which is in Foster Village.

18:33:29 3 I am in favor of the Salt Lake route. I think that

4 the EIS is a good document and now I'm going to

5 proceed to crab about it

6 There are some things missing, which I

7 think have import as far as deciding which alignment

8 to use. In 1 - - I think it's in 1-6, there is a list

9 of activity centers. That list does not include the

18:33:58 10 Moanalua Shopping Center. It does not include the

11 Stadium Marketplace. It did not include the

12 Bouganville industrial area where we have got, for

13 example, both wholesale and retail outlets and we have

14 got a Target coming, I think, in March. It does not

15 include the commissary area. It does not include the

16 military public works center.

18:34:29 17 It's a fairly static document. It does

18 not - - i . gives a lot of statistical information about
t

19 what it's going to be like in 2030, but it doesn't

20 look at what the community is really going to look

21 like and what the people are going to be like in 2030.

22 In my judgment it is an aging community, Foster

23 Village, for example, was begun in 1957 and so by 2030

18:34:56 24 it's going to be about 80 years old. The Salt Lake

25 area will - - is also -- is about 30 years old at this

RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS. INC.


point. The infrastructure will be aging, the

population will be aging. It is likely to be poorer

than it is now. Therefore, there is need for

considerable assistance from public transportation.

There are five schools, along the route.

Makalapa School, Radford High School, Aliamanu

Elementary, Aliamanu Intermediate and Moanalua High

School.. Again, in my vision of 2030, there will be

magnet schools and other attractions which will bring

people to those schools from other areas. Those kids

will need public transportation.

In addition, the document seems to talk

mostly about a five-day-a-week bring people to work

and bring them back from work, but there's a lot of

social benefit to be derived seven days a week from a

public transportation system, and I hope that those

things will be taken into account.

If there are other things, I'll give them

to the public steno. Thank you.

HEARING OFFICER HAMAYASU: Is there

anyone else that wishes to testify?

Please state your full name and address

for the record.


MR. TAYLOR: Hello. My name is Mark

Taylor and I'm a resident of 3427 Ala Hinalo Street in

Salt Lake.

I'm just here to speak in favor of the

Salt Lake alignment. I've already provided written

testimony so I'm not going to repeat what's in that in

this oral statement. I'm just going to highlight one

item, which is in the Draft EIS which has to do with

the cost of the airport alternative versus the Salt

Lake alternative. The draft says in Section 6.4.2

that both the Salt Lake and airport alternatives would

be financially feasible and yet that same paragraph

says that the airport alternative would require $1.4

billion in federal funding from the Federal Transit

Administration. The document also says, though, that

the ETA has not been approached to consider the 1.4

billion for the airport alternative. They've only

agreed to consider 1.2 billion. I don't really quite

understand how the EIS can state categorically that

the airport alternative is financially feasible if the

FTA has not been approached for funding that's

required to construct it.

I think the reality is that this project

is hovering on the very cliff of affordability, and if

we go to the airport route and a couple of hundred



1 million dollars in additional costs we're putting all

18:37:59 2 the taxpayers in this room at risk of potentially

3 having their property taxes raised to cover the

4 shortfall, because if the ETA doesn't pay for it and

5 the excise tax doesn't pay for it, all of you will be

6 paying for it with higher property taxes.

7 I would also point out that Draft EIS

8 does say that the Salt Lake route is the most cost

9 effective route. It provides in the terms of the

10 amount of dollars we're spending in benefit per dollar

18:38:25 11 a higher efficiency return than the airport route

12 does. So simply from the standpoint of fiscal

13 prudence, the Salt Lake route should continue as the

14 preferred route for the transit system.

15 'Thank you.

16

1.7

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


MR. REMMELL (phonetic): My name is Ben

Remmell. I'm a professional engineer and master

planner. And I'd like to comment on two things, which

is the project phasing, which is Chapter 2 of the

Draft Environmental Impact Statement, and it says that

the first phase would be from Kapolei to Waipahu, and

I totally disagree with that, because it would - - if

we run out of money, the general excise tax is not

providing the money that we need. We need to build it

to eliminate t.he bottlenecks at Middle Street and

Pearl City, so the first phases shou1.d be from Aloha

Stadium to downtown and that's what I recommend for

the DAS to consider in the project phasing.

The second point 1 want to make is that

the single and most important reason for building mass

transit is to eliminate traffic congestion. Rail

simply does not do that, despite spending $7 billion.

The City's alternative analysis show that the current

2,000 vehicles per hour at Pearl City, which is now

congested, will increase to 8,000 vehicles per hour

after the $7 billion rail is built. What we need is

an alternative solution which the alternative analysis

discarded fraudulently. And I suggest we need to

build a Nimitz flyover and a Kam flyover, both of

which would be three lanes over the Kam highway and



Nimitz which will eliminate the bottlenecks at the

Pearl City Hl/H2/Middle Street merge for less than $1

billion and that's what the DEIS must and should

include.

That's what I recommend.

(Applause)

HEARING OFFICER HAMAYASU: Anyone else

wishing to testify?

RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC


MR. UECHI: My name is Mike Uechi. I'm a

physician. It's really interested to read the -- this
pamphlet put out by the City at taxpayers' money, The

Honolulu Rail Transit, and one of the questions they

ask is how would property owners along the route be

affected, and it states here that while some

residential and commercial properties must be acquired

in ful.1, most of the right-of-way acquisitions

required are for portions of individual parcels.

Now, does that mean that if part of the rail post, the

support, goes through part of a property Like say

through the living room, that you pay for that portion

of the land and let the person live in the rest of the

land? That's the part that I really don't understand.

What does portions mean? Does it mean a little bit of

thing that's not attached to the home or business, and

that's the only portion you're going to pay for.

The other question I have is that while

construction of rail goes on and let's say there's a

delay and another delay and another delay while

properties that are being sold or leased are abandoned

by property owners, what's going to happen to the cost

of construction? What's going to happen to the

community that's involved when this rail gets stalled

for any reason at all, whether there's problems with


Honolulu, Hawaii 1808) 5 2 4 - 2 0 9 0


1 finding burial sites along the City properties or

2 whether you run out of money or any type of thing that

3 will stall the development while it's going on right

4 now? And that's the type of questions I would like to

5 ask you guys right now, because I think these are the

6 questions the community needs to know before we

7 actually start the rail.

18:42:59 8 That's all I have to say.

9 HEARING OFFICER HAMAYASU: Any other

10 person wishing to speak?

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

1.8

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


1 MR. GENADIO: My name is Frank Genadio.

2 You have my address. I'm from Kapolei. I thought

3 that you could only testify once, but when Dr. Uechi

4 came up, I realized I could testify again. I've been

5 following the hearings. In Kapolei I tried to make

l8:43:28 6 the point that the Draft EIS brushed off other

7 technologies. I happen to be a proponent of something
8 called the HSST urban magnetic levitation system.

9 Those of you who are concerned about the cost should

10 be aware that the rnaglift guideway would be built at

I1 least 20 percent cheaper. The guideway construction

12 would accommodate 25.3 miles for the 20 mile cost

18:43:59 13 reflected in the Draft EIS. In other words, we could

14 have an extension into Salt Lake from the airport

15 route, we could also have an extension to UH Manoa

16 whose students have been left out of this entirely,

17 and we could even have a spur into Waikiki.

18 It also happens to be at least twice as

19 quiet as steel wheels on steel rail and its guideway

20 is much less obtrusive and will require much less

18:44:28 21 impact on property. Thank you.

22 (Applause.)

23 HEARING OFFICER HAMAYASU: Another

24 speaker.

25


MS. ING: Yes. My name is Renee Ing. My

address is P.O. Box 23094, Honolulu 96823. I'd like

to talk about another technology that was not included

in the EIS despite words to the effect that everything

was studied, and I think it should be studied.

Phileas magnetic guided -- magnet guided, not magnet
levitation. A similar system was funded in San

Francisco and someplace in Oregon by the FTA in 2007

and that means it could be funded for here. It is 1.5

billion compared to 5 and 6 billion. It's 1.5 billion

for the Kapolei to UH route. It can be built with

just plain old -- our plain old GET money. You don't

even need New Starts money. But on top of that it can

be quiet running through Salt Lake. Not only can you

go cut and cover, you cut a mini tunnel underneath the

boulevard, cover it so that Salt Lake Boulevard

continues to run, but you cut and cover a tunnel

underneath.

On top of that if you had to, you

could -- because it's a Prius-like vehicle, it's very,

very quiet and it will be of hydrogen fuel cells in a

few years and on top of that it does this thing called

running silent. It can be -- the noise can be cut for

a little bit while it's going through the residential

areas. That's the noise problem.



The second problem that we have been

hearing a lot about it that if the route that's

constructed now, actually if it were for steel rail, I

think it's a pretty good route, but the problem is

there are other technologies. Phileas can go around a

lot of these places that are going to be intersected

by a steel train, Phileas will not cut through them,

it will simply go around them, because it is very,

very flexible. So I would really hope that the City

administration will study the Phileas system and the

urban maglift that Mr. Genadio was talking about in

the EIS. The FTA usually says it expects

municipalities to study a broad range of modes of

technology, not just one. So it's not something that

Monolulu will be -- you know, it would be unusual. for

Honolulu to do this. Other municipalities studied a

lot of different ways of technology before they

choose, and to give them the chance to submit a

request for proposal.

Thank you.


who wishes to testify? If nobody else is interested

in providing their comments, I conclude the hearing at

6:48 p.m. Thank you for your time and interest in

the project.



18:47:52 1 MR. TAKAI: I signed up.

2 HEARING OFFICER HAMAYASU: I'm reopening

3 the hearing.

4

5

6
7


MR. TAKAI: My name is Mark Takai. I'm a

state representative, representing the communities of

Aiea and Pearl City. Tonight I speak as the chairman

of the Kamehameha Highway improvements task force and

for those of you who are unfamiliar with our task

force, it's comprised of all the elected officials in

the Aiea, Pearl City and Salt Lake areas. It also

consists of t.he Aiea, Pearl City and Salt Lake, Foster

Village neighborhood boards. In addition to that, it

includes some of the significant stakeholders along

the Kamehameha Highway corridor in Aiea/Pearl City.

The corridor for us begins on Center

Drive on the east side and goes all the way for about

5.5 miles to the end of Kamehameha Highway on the

Pearl City side, which is a little bit past Sam's

Club.

We've been working at improvements along

this corridor for about three years, and we try to

meet quarterly. Two years ago when this issue came

up, we took a position as a task force, and I just

wanted to mention -- and we sent it in a few times and

I've testified in front of the Council a number of

times, but I wanted to put this in the record. A

couple of things that the City as you move down this

path should be considering.



1 The first one is about 20 years ago there

2 was a compromise made by the City and Hawaiian

3 Electric to underground the 48 kilavolt lines on the

4 mauka side of the viaduct, but to construct the 138KV

18:49:57 5 lines that are the huge super structures, the huge

6 metal poles that run the entire length of the

7 corridor, and I do believe it goes up Salt Lake

8 Boulevard as well. Our task force recommends that the

9 City consider incorporating the 138KV and all of the

10 other utilities down that corridor into the mass

11 transit super structure. It's a small price for our

12 community to -- I mean, it's a big price for our

1.8:50:28 13 community to have the train coming through our

14 corridor and I think it's a small price for the users

15 and for the City to incorporate those utility lines

16 within the super structure.

17 The second one is we spent a lot of money

18 and a lot of time planning for aesthetic improvements

19 up and down the corridor. In fact, we hired -- the

20 State hired Parsons Brinckerhoff and in that

21 consulting contract we have set aside some funds to

18:50:59 22 hire an architectural engineer --
23 (Buzzer sounds.)

24 -- who has spent a lot of time designing

25 motifs and everything. So we would like to request as



1 you move forward that you consider working with us,

2 especially in our corridor, but also working with

3 other communities as you design the way these super

4 structures look and the way the medians look

5 throughout our communities.

6 I'll be sending written comments in

7 later. Thank you.

8 HEARING OFFICER HAMAYASU: There's no

18:51:28 9 other speaker. Wait. Wait. Are there any other

10 speakers before I open 30 second round?

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, I N C .


1 MR. LOO: My name is Herbert Loo. I'm a

retired master sergeant, retired in 1966. When I was

drafted in 1945, I took my first train ride from

Iwilei up to Schofield. Too bad they don't still have

that train line. I'm here to support the rail

transit, because in my travels in New York City, seven

years there, you see billions of people traveling on

the subway, terrific transportation. Just think if

they didn't have that type of transportation, just

think if we had that transportation 20 years ago. We

are so backwards here it's pitiful. Build it right

18:52:29 12 away, as soon as possible. Thank you.

13 (Applause.)

14 HEARING OFFICER HAMAYASU: Anyone else

15 wishing to testify? I thought there was somebody

16 there. No. Yeah.

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

H o n o l u l u , Hawaii ( 8 0 8 ) 524-2090


SCOTT: My name is Scott. I live here in

the Salt Lake area. I'm born and raised here in

Hawaii. I've seen a lot of stuff growing up here as a

kid. I've seen how when I was a little kid I could go

to Queen's with my dad, when he used to work there, in

ten minutes. Nowadays if you're not on the road

before 6:00 in the morning to get past Middle Street,

you'll be lucky to take an hour and a half. That's

five, seven miles, and it's not getting any better.

St's only getting worse. There's no perfect solution

with mass transit, but if we don't do something with

this rail and get something going, regardless of what

medium we use, whether it be steel on steel, magnetic

or otherwise, ten years from now to try and figure out

something, then it's going to be too late.

The other thing, too, we have got to look

in the smart sense. You know, picking these routes

and stuff is great, but we have got to link one end of

the island to the other, because if there's a bad

wreck or something like that, traffic and everything

around here comes to a halt. Also, through the

airport. We have got to get some efficiency into how

we get around here. The smart thing would be is

whatever route we pick, think of the long term as far

as linking the new university in Kapolei out there to



1 the universities and work down in town and also

2 allowing for the business people and other people who

3 travel light to go through the airport, because the

4 ability to build a super structure there is easy.

5 Look at the parking structures they've got going up.

6 It's not an eyesore and it makes it more centralized,

7 especially being all of this is part of the Department

18:54:30 8 of Transportation.

So, we have got to do something now. Not

talk about it, think about it, maybe build it in 20

years, like the H3. Obviously the H3 works. In other

places around the world they use rail on rail, DART,

BART. It all works. But we need to implement it now

before it's almost too late.

Thank you.

HEARING OFFICER HAMAYASU: Anyone who

17 hasn't spoken wish to speak? Okay. I'm going to give

l8:54:57 18 this gentleman another chance

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


1 MR. PYLE: Thank you. Doug Pyle. I

2 spoke earlier on behalf of an organization I chaired

3 and I want an opportunity to add a few personal items

4 of testimony. Two points, one would be the --
5 everybody who lives or has family like I do in Salt

6 Lake knows how the congestion really jams up right at

7 the convergence where H l and Red Hill and the on-ramp

here below 'Tripler all come together, and rail would

be a great alternative for this community in

particular to be able to have -- to get out of that

mess and get to their destinations, and I think that's

an advantage that the airport route does not have.

Although in the long run I think the airport route

would be real valuable to a1.so have, perhaps as a

spur.

And secondly, and I think it's very

important, I haven't seen the City doing this yet -- I
hope it will -- look at rail as being one part of an

integrated transit plan, including pedestrian/bicycle

and just -- I grew up in Portland, Oregon which won

awards for planning comprehensively. It has rail, but

it has a bus mall that is pedestrian/bus only, no

23 cars. Fareless Square, which is extremely successful.

18:56:26 24 People can park their cars, park and ride, and if

25 they're downtown, they ride any of the modes of



1 transportation for free, and then go home. The

2 traffic flows wonderfully there because they planned
3 in a comprehensive way, and I hope the City wi1.l do

4 that, too.

5 One final. point when I just noticed that

6 no other hands were going up, I remembered hearing at

7 one of the hearings was reportedly had low turnout,

8 and even though perhaps there's on1.y a few people that

9 testified, I think the record should show that this

10 room is over full and there's standing room and in the

11 parking lot it was real hard for me to find a spot.

1.8:57:00 12 There's a lot of interest here in Salt Lake certainly,

13 I assume in support, but certainly a great deal of

14 interest in this, so I didn't want that to go unnoted,

15 the turnout.

16 Thank you.

17 HEARING OFFICER NAMAYASU: Okay. Again,

18 I'd like to open up for a person who didn't testify

19 already. If not, okay. Go ahead.

20

21

22

23

24

25


MR. SOON: Tony Soon here again. It is

said that the airport route is going to cost $200

million more. The reality is I can assure you it's

probably going to be more like half a billion. Where

is that money going to come from? I do not know. You

know right now the City is under duress in trying to

meet the EPA standards for a secondary waste water

treatment plant. That's going to be $1.5 billion.

That 200 - - supposedly $200 million can go toward a

10 down payment on getting this fixed.

11 We also have the existing (inaudible)

12 carriers down there that all. need to be repaired.

13 That's another $300 million that's going to take

14 basically. And then they talk about a $5 million

1.5 annual operational cost in perpetuity, meaning for my

18:58:25 16 lifetime and my grandkids lifetime and that $5 million

17 could go toward building a homeless shelter, maybe two

18 homeless shelters every year, or it could go toward

1.9 fixing schools or it could go toward fixing over

20 20,000 potholes a year. Every year we can just fix

21 these potholes, 20,000 of them.

22 So I think by putting the routes south of

23 the Nimitz down by the airport way, which is a

24 blighted area of town, I think it's stupidity, and

18:58:59 25 because most of the people who live south of Nimitz



are military and most of them drive and, of course,

they get gas for half price or, okay, two-thirds of

what we pay for it and you do need your car with a

sticker on it to be able to enter into the military

compounds. So trust me, they're still going to be

driving. Now what happens after 5:00 on this route?

It's going to totally deserted. And my opinion to the

City is that maybe what we need is a wiki-wiki system

that will. serve that area and maybe at 6:00 we just

cut it off. Why are we going to have a route running

down to the airport with nobody sitting on it except

people going back to Kapolei? Is it not for everybody

in Ronolulu? Why just only people in Kapolei.

Thank you.

HEARING OFFICER HAMAYASU: Anyone else?

Okay. Sf nobody else is interested in speaking or

providing their comments, I'm concluding this hearing

again at 7:00.

Thank you for coming.

(Hearing concluded at 7:00 p.m.)


STATE OF HAWAII )


I, Nancy P. Blankenship, Certified Shorthand

Reporter, in and for the State of Hawaii, certify that

the foregoing proceedings were reported

stenographically by me at the time and place

indicated.

Given under my hand on this the 29th day of

December, 2008.

Nancy P. Blankenship, CSR 44459

RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS, INC

L... AMERICAS, INC.
pi3
. . J





December 1 0 , 2008
Filipino Community Center

Waipahu, Hawaii

6:00 p.m. - 6:29 p.m.


0F

PUBLIC HEARING

BEFORE: BARBARA ACOBA, CSR N o . 4 1 2 , RPR


-

RALPH ROSENBERG COURT REPORTERS

T O R U HAMAYASU: Good evening. I'm Toru

Hamayasu, the 2nd Deputy Director of the City and County

of Honolulu Department of Transportation Services. I am

the Hearing Officer for this public hearing for the

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Honolulu


T h e purpose of this public hearing is to

collect comments related t o the proposed transit project

regarding the draft EIS, Section 106 of the National

Historic Preservation Act process, Section 4(f) of the

U . S . Department of Transportation Act, r i g h t - o f - w a y

acquisition, and floodplains affected by the project.

Public input can be made in four ways. Public

spoken testimony to me here in the public hearing room.

If you do not wish to speak in the public, an individual

spoken testimony for the record can be made to the

hearing recorder, who is near the Public Involvement

Station in the Project Information Area next door.

Written testimony may be deposited into the black

comment box at this meeting or delivered to the

Department of Transportation Services office or mailed

or faxed (808) 523-4730 to DTS b y January 7th, 2009.

And finally, testimony can be submitted online by

January 7th, 2 0 0 9 , at www.honolulutransit.org.

All comments and responses will be included in


the final EIS. Revisions t o the EIS will be made as

appropriate, based on comments.

The hearing procedures are a s follows: One,

elected and public officials will be heard first.

Persons desiring to testify should register at the

entrance to the hearing room and will be called in order

of registration.

Any individual may appear and speak for him or

herself, or if duly authorized, for any local civic

group, organization, club o r association, subject to the

rules provided herein. Speakers should give their name.

If representing a group, this information should also be
given.

Speakers must limit their statements to 3

minutes. Additional prepared statements o r literature

pertaining t o the project may b e submitted at this

hearing or by 4 : 3 0 p . m . , January 7 t h , 2009, to

Department of Transportation Services. These statements

will be made part of the official record if they include

a legible name and address.

For these hearings, all statements, oral or

written, should be directed t o the Hearing Officer and

must be related to the subject matter of the hearing.

Each person speaking before the audience must

do s o at the floor microphone. We will call testifiers


in groups of three to facilitate orderly progress.

Please ensure y o u are in the hearing area at the time

your name is called. A court stenographer will record

and transcribe the hearing proceedings. If required, I

will announce any of the specific rules governing this

hearing.

As part of this public hearing process, the

Honolulu Rail Transit Project Team is not allowed to

respond to any questions or concerns raised b y the

speaker. The Project Team will be available t o address

your questions in the Project Information Area outside

of this hearing venue.

It is now 6 : 1 4 . At this time, I would like to

begin the public testimony. The first testifier is

Frank Genadio, followed by Young Kim, and Scott Miguel.
- - - Ooo- - -


FRANK GENADIO: Frank Genadio of Kapolei. You

have my address from a previous testimony. My remarks
are directed t o the attempted EIS to eliminate a

technology that is not steel wheels o n steel rails. The

City Council fumbled away its chances to place the right

question o n the November ballot, leaving us with a

t a k e - i t - o r - l e a v e - i t choice for steel.

Actually, the Council should have placed two

questions o n the ballot. First would be: D o you

support a fixed-rail transit system fox Oahu? The

second would b e : If you answered " y e s , " d o you favor a

fair and open competition among all four types of rail

technologies?

For those of you not familiar with what the

Federal Transit Administration considers rail, it is not

just steel wheels, but includes rubber tire on concrete,

conventional monorail, and elevated magnetic levitation,

the system I favor.

Based o n responses t o the City's request for

information, there would be 10 technology suppliers,

including five that do not propose steel-on-steel.

Figure 29 of the EIS shows a solid structure that is 28

to 32 feet across as a bridge needed for steel wheel

systems. T h e H S S (inaudible) maglev guideway in

comparison would be only 2 1 feet across, including open


space between the beams on which the levitated train

would ride. Picture the difference on Farrington

Highway a n d the lessened impact on homes and businesses.

And also consider the fact that the maglev is at least

twice as quiet a s steel-on-steel without any need for

s t e e l ' s noise mitigation measures.

Those of you with children or grandchildren in

five to nine years might be interested in knowing that

the EIS project for a 20-mile steel wheel bridge would

cover at least 25 miles of guideway for the maglev.

using the same amount of labor and materials in the

current plan, that is n o loss of jobs o r decrease sales

of steel and concrete, this would enable extension of

the guideway t o the U . H . Manoa campus within the time

line for the initial system. Since U . H . West Oahu will

have limited curriculum, reaching Manoa is important to

future college students from this area.

T h e first maglev - - the HSS (inaudible) maglev
is not only faster and much quieter and cheaper to

develop than steel-on-steel, it would also will be

somewhere between $12 and 18 million per year cheaper to

operate and maintain because of (inaudible) running.

Cost to modify the EIS t o accommodate other technologies

is a drop i n the bucket of the p l a n ' s estimated

$7 billion budget.

Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 5 2 4 - 2 0 9 0

I ' m suggesting that t h i s EIS be delayed and

reworked and that the start of preliminary engineering

either b e deferred or that the study cover all

t e c h n o l o g i e s that met t h e C i t y ' s initial requirements.

Mahalo.

TORU HAMAYASU: Next speaker is Young Kim.
- - -000---


YOUNG KIM: Good evening. My name is Young
Kim. I came h e r e , this is my second time around to mass

transit development plan. First one was i n the late

'80s, early '90 timeframe with Rene Mansho. At that

time, 1 was able to convince the City Council not t o

develop the rail transit. And this time, my second time

around, majority have expressed a willingness to build a

transit, s o I'm for it, but the plan organization little

bit askewed or disorganized.

I lived in Japan for first 14 years and I
enjoyed the mass transit system in Japan. Core area had

all the transit system, but a s the population increased,

number of train route have tremendously increased beyond

the Tokyo perimeter. When I left town, we had only one

subway. Now I think there's nine t o 11 different subway

going all over T o k y o .

My question to y o u is: Where is this storage
area and maintenance facility s o that the mass transit

have to begin from Leeward side? And I just found out

from the other side there is a map showing that the

Leeward Community College area is one. That's great.

So why not build from there toward the core destination

area? That way y o u can - - as soon a s y o u open i t , y o u

can use it for the ridership toward the airport.

T h e r e ' s more people working around the airport, Hickam,


Pearl Harbor area than any other place. Extend it to

downtown and t o the U . H . Manoa and Waikiki. You have

better chance of success than try to do the Leeward from

Kapolei t o Waipahu. Thank y o u .

TORU HAMAYASU: Next speaker is Scott Miguel,

followed by Michael Burton.
- - - 000- - -

- -


1 SCOTT MIGUEL: Good evening, everyone. I'm
Scott Miguel. I supported this back in the ' 9 0 s when

the (inaudible). The question I have i s : What do you

tell the grandchildren that will have t o pay for the

system that y o u say the prices have changed from what's

gonna be built to what's not gonna be built? And what's

bugging me is, why change and why proofread the EIS

report from the Federal Government when it doesn't have

> to be proofread? By now probably realize I didn't vote

) for i t , but why proofread it when it was already done

right b y the U . S . Government? What were y o u hiding from

the people? Because I feel that there's a lot of people

out there that s a y , what are y o u gonna tell your mom and

p a ' s generation of young kids, h e y , you're gonna have to

pay for something that maybe is gonna be used in ~ i e a ,

a s a senator is proposing right n o w . Charles Djou is

proposing Aiea to town. What's wrong with that? You

promised the people of Kapolei something? Yeah, it's

sad that five, maybe 10 people showed u p , but what do

y o u tell the younger generation when we get older, it

was promised to me. Why wasn't it done then? There is

n o answers for a lot of things.

T h a t ' s why tonight I ' m hoping you can enlighten

me s o maybe I can believe something like t h i s , because I

have to believe. I don't believe it's possible. You


guys come up with different solutions, different way,

different solutions. Did you guys really have a plan?

Are you guys coordinating with the different agencies?

Are you guys pulling the (inaudible), because when you

guys are building this, there's a lot of places you guys

gotta touch; a lot of different companies you guys gotta

work with. I s there a coordination o r is there anything

that the City has, because so far the people haven't

been told everything.
TORU HAMAYASU: Next speaker is Michael Burton.
- - - 000- -
-


I1 MICHAEL BURTON: H i , I'm Michael Burton and I

just wanted to say that I do support the rail system. I
I
1 do see i t ' s a necessary utility for the people who do

travel into downtown to work. However, I'm also a

resident of Salt Lake, and I just want t o put my point

across.

One, Congressman Chachula is saying something

about starting the project i n , say, Aiea, and I agree

with that because, after all, the Kapolei area is kind

of desolate at this point and with the perspective of us

running out of money through - - i n the project, because

there hasn't been a hundred percent guarantee, that's a

wise decision.

Outside of that, I disagree with him with

changing the route from Pearl Harbor - - t o change the

route from the Salt Lake route instead of going down

Pearl Harbor. I believe that the Pearl Harbor route is

a waste of time and misuse of p e o p l e ' s money, the

public's money, because i t ' s bypassing populated areas

such a s Salt Lake, Foster Village, and the industrial

area right around the Bougainville area a n d , of course,

i t ' s gonna hit Salt Lake, but I feel that if the rail is

routed where the public can take advantage of it, where

i t ' s convenient, y o u know, would b e better use of the

public's money. And t h a t ' s all I really have to say.


1 Thank you.

2 TORU HAMAYASU: The next speaker is Natlynn

3 Cunningham.

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


NATLYNN CUNNINGHAM: Hi. I ' m Natlynn

Cunningham, and I live in the Royal Kunia area. I do

not support the current rail system and do support the

alternative currently being recommended to start closer

t o town from t h e Aiea/Salt Lake area. I believe that

would generate more income while it's being built and

support more ridership.

My question to y o u , as I ' m a budget officer and

for many y e a r s , I'm looking at the Federal money that we

have not secured y e t , that w e ' r e gonna g o and secure in

2010. Suppose that we get i t . The cost of the rail

will - - historically costs have tripled, quadrupled. So

instead of costing $5 billion, it may cost u s

$15 billion or $20 billion by the time i t ' s ready to be

done. Where is the rest of that money gonna come from?

How much is the Government support, the Federal

Government?
As I understand, the maintenance will be paid

from the C i t y ' s pot. Does anybody here think that we

can afford to maintain the rail? Can we? I mean, every

time we hit a pothole, I think people should think about

it. Maintenance of the rail is way beyond what this

city can support, and I don't want to see my children

and my grandchildren have to leave Hawaii because the

taxes are too high and they c a n ' t afford to live here.

Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 5 2 4 - 2 0 9 0

1 I t ' s already expensive. I mean, the future of our local

2 people will be threatened by additional taxes. Thank
3 you.

i T O R U HAMAYASU: Next speaker is Eric Minton.

> - - - 000---
,
1

i

I

I

Honolulu, Hawaii (808) 5 2 4 -2090

ERIC MINTON: Aloha. I ' m not really

comfortable on this side of the microphone, but I am in

support of a mass transit. I ' m in favor of all forms of

mass transit. I understand one thing Mayor Hannemann

said, and I k n o w he's right, steel-on-steel will be

cheaper to maintain. But steel-on-steel is such a

heavier train, and I have tried t o get an answer from

the various committees, what will the difference in

construction costs be compared to the other forms

against the maintenance?

I have had had a n opportunity to ride trains in

many, many cities. I went to high school in New York

City. I went t o college in L.A. Business has taken me

to Toronto and Montreal, all cities that have all kinds

of varieties. My favorite system, which I really wish

we were considering, is the monorail. It's the

smallest, lightest structure. It blocks the last

community, y o u know, last line, stuff like that. It's

cheapest to b u i l d .

But w e ' d better not do what we did, what, 20

years ago and shoot ourselves in the foot, because if we

don't get some form of really mass transit, we'll go no

place. The island will die. It h a s t o happen, a better

transit system. I live 30 miles from this room. It

took me an hour and 20 minutes to get here. I figured


it would only take 4 0 , and t h a t ' s after calling up the

offices to get directions to get h e r e . I d o n ' t know

where this area is. The meetings closer to me are all

on work days.

So anyway, that's what I'm saying. I really

hope that we look more at the monorail, but we cannot

say n o . Thank y o u .

T O R U HAMAYASU: Thank y o u . That's the last of

the registered speakers. Is there anyone else present

who would like t o provide a comment o n the project

issues? You sure? With nobody else interested in

providing a comment, I conclude this hearing at 6 : 2 9 .

Thank y o u for your time and interest in this project.

(Meeting concluded at 6:29 p . m . )


C E R T I F I C A T E

STATE OF HAWAII )

CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU )

I , BARBARA ACOBA, Certified Shorthand

Reporter and Notary Public, State of Hawaii, do

hereby certify:

That on Wednesday, December 1 0 , 2008, at

6 : 0 0 p . m . , the foregoing Public Meeting was taken down

by me in machine shorthand and was thereafter reduced to

typewriting under my supervision; that the foregoing

represents, to the best of my ability, a true and

correct transcript of the proceedings had in the

foregoing matter.

I further certify that I am not an attorney

for any of the parties hereto, n o r in any way concerned

with the cause.

Dated this 19th day of December, 2008,

in Honolulu, Hawaii.

BARBARA ACOBA, CSR NO. 412

Notary public, State of Hawaii

My Commission Exp: 1 0 - 2 2 - 2 0 1 2




Statement/Section 4 (f) Evaluation

December 10, 2008
Filipino Community Center

94-428 Mokuola Street
Waipahu, Hawaii

6:30 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.


0F

PRIVATE TESTIMONIALS


I N D E X
Page

SPEAKERS :
Glenn Oamilda 3
91-1179 Puamaeole Street, #24V

Michael Burton
2889 Ala Ilima Street, #16A

GLENN OAMILDA: I'm opposed to the rail, as it
is, the proposed city, simply because, No. 1, it's
not environmentally friendly. In other words,
it's concrete in the sky. And the highest point
on that rail, the way they got it designed, is
about a seven-story building, the highest point,
80 feet. So I don't think that's environmental
friendly. Plus, the condemnation, the city
condemnation for people in Waipahu especially,
where I'm from, and especially in Ewa Beach, I
think it's going to do harm to the elders and the
old people that have accustomed to living in this
kind of environment.
And the other thing, too, where the rail
is going to start from, east Kapolei, it's ag.
land. And I think that's No. 1 priority where we
should preserve agriculture land. So that's where
the start is going to be. Plus, not only that,
the Ewa development plans does not call for a
transit. The Ewa development plan does not call
for a transit, a rail transit in the second city
on the Ewa Plains, so that's why I'm opposed to
it. Plus, I don't think it will relieve traffic.
By 2030, they said it's going to be only 20

percent reduction, 20 or 23 percent, and I think
that's a small number. I think that's really a
small number to be dumping all that money into a
system that's going to be eventually borne on the
public, the cost is going to be borne on the
public.
The other thing, too, is the maintenance
of that system, I don't think the public is ready
to maintain that system for the longevity of the
rail, in perpetuity. And I don't think that's
fair to have the public bear the cost of the rail.
So those are the three things, and I'm
really opposed to, No. 1, again, is the cost; No.
2, is the environment; and No. 3, I don't think it
will relieve traffic, you know, but what the
alternative designation mitigation said it will,
it would deter the traffic, I don't think that's a
fair assessment.
Plus, in this economic downturn, I think
the money should be wisely spent on our roads and
our sewer. The EPA has fined the city a billion
dollars to upgrade the system, the sewer system,
to complete the total secondary treatment, and the
city have reneged on that idea. And of course the
roads, the roads are critical to the communities.

So those are the other things that I totally
oppose to the rail. So, that's it.
I was born and raised in Waipahu, and I
now live in Ewa Beach.
-000-
MICHAEL BURTON: Well, first off, I just
wanted to say that I do support the rail, and I
think it's a necessary utility, you know, coming
in from the corridor of Kapolei to downtown and
onward to U.H. I was listening to a lot of talk
radio in regards to changes that Councilman Djou
was recommending, and he did say that he wanted to
see the rail start, the project start somewhere in
Pearl City-Aiea rather than all the way out by
Kapolei, and I think that's a wise part, a wise
insight on his part, because it's a better use of
public's money. The reason why, is because from
Pearl City going into town, that's where you pick
up the majority of the riders. So with that,
you'll get higher usage out of it, and as you
build that portion and going into town, after you
complete that, and hopefully you don't run out of
money in the process because nothing has been a
hundred percent guaranteed, after that portion is
completed, then we can go back and finish the

Kapolei and phase of the operation.
The one thing I was in objection to, was,
is routing of the rail through Pearl Harbor to the
airport. I feel that it should go through Salt
Lake, and the reason why, is because there's a
dense population of people in the Salt Lake area
and along that route, that can take better
advantage of the rail, if was stopped,
conveniently adjusted for them, to meet their
needs.
One of the things that I did notice in
the Salt Lake route, is that there's only one
stop, at Aliamanu, I believe that's what it is,
Aliamanu-Salt Lake, that stop right there.
Whereas the Pearl Harbor route has three. Now, in
my opinion, if they decide to go with the Salt
Lake route rather than the Pearl Harbor route,
could one of those stops, the Arizona Memorial
stop, be transferred over to Salt Lake, somewhere
in between, I think it's Radford High School,
Foster Village, put a stop right over there,
that's the Bougainville industrial area, and then
continue on to Salt Lake and then onward? Because
that whole Foster Village is kind of left out,
it's just passed over, with the rail, and I think

with a stop in that area, it will better support
the whole rail system.
-000-

STATE OF HAWAII )
) ss.

Honolulu. Hawaii.






December 11, 2008

Bishop Museum

1525 Bernice Street

Honolulu, Hawaii

6:00 - 8:00 p.m.


OF

PUBLIC HEARING

BEFORE: NANCY P. BLANKENSHIP, CSR NO. 459


RALPH ROSENBERG COURT R E P O R T E R S , INC.
Honolulu, H a w a i i (808) 524-2090


I N D E X

Page

OPENING COMMENTS:


SPEAKERS :

Arnold E. Widder
1888 Kalakaua Ave., 81105
Honolulu 96815
979-2007

Robert Wong
4530 Waikui St
Honolulu 96821
robertdwa@hawaii.rr.com

Russell Holman
P. 0. Box 1201
Honolulu, Hawaii


HEARING OFFICER HAMAYASU: Good evening,

I am Toru Hamayasu, the Second Deputy Director of the

City and County of Honolulu Department of

Transportation Services. I am the hearing officer of

this public hearing for the Draft Environmental Impact

Statement for the Honolulu High-Capacity Transit

Corridor Project.



project regarding: the draft EIS; Section 106 of the

National Historic Preservation Act process; Section

4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act;

right-of-way acquisition; and floodplains affected by

the project.


1) Public spoken testimony to me here in the public

hearing room; 2) if you do not wish to speak in

public, an individual spoken testimony for the record

can be made to the hearing recorder who is near the

public involvement station in the public information

area across the hallway; 3) written testimony may be

deposited in the black comment box at this meeting,

delivered to the Department of Transportation Services

office, or mailed or faxed (808) 523-4730 to DTS by

January 7, 2009; and finally, 4 testimony can be


Honolulu, H a w a i i (808) 5 2 4 - 2 0 9 0


submitted online by January 7, 2009 at



included in the Final EIS. Revisions to the EIS will

be made as appropriate based on comments. The hearing

procedures are as follows:



register at the entrance to the hearing room, and will

be called in order of registration.



local civic group, organization, club or association,

subject to the rules provided herein. Speakers should

give their name. If representing a group, this

information should also be given.


to three minutes. Additional prepared statements or

literature pertaining to the project may be submitted

at this hearing or by 4:30 p.m., January 7, 2009 to

Department of Transportation Services. These

statements will be made part of the official record if

they include a legible name and address.





1 officer and must be related to the subject matter of

2 the hearing.

3 5. Each person speaking before the

18:07:28 4 audience must do so at the floor microphone. We will

5 call testifiers in groups of three to facilitate

6 orderly progress. Please ensure you are in the

7 hearing room at the time your name is called. A court

8 stenographer will record and transcribe the hearing

9 proceedings. If required, I will announce any other

specific rules governing this hearing.


process, the Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Project

team is not allowed to respond to any questions or

concerns raised by the speaker. The project team will

be available to address your questions in the project

information area outside of this hearing venue.

It is now 6:05 p.m. At this time T would


testifier is Arnold Widder followed by Robert Wong.

RALPH ROSENBERG COURT R E P O R T E R S , I N C


MR. WIDDER: Mr. Hamayasu, since --
number 1, since the EIS draft concluded that the rail

could --
HEARING OFFICER HAMAYASU: Please state

your name for the record.

MR. WIDDER: Arnold E. Widder,

W-I-D-D-E-R.


MR. WLDDER: Number one since the EIS

draft concluded that the rail would cut traffic by

only 1 percent and since there couldn't be a worse

time to burden local. taxpayers with probable increases

to excise taxes to pay our billions of dollars of

steel rail debt, I'm still against the rail system.

15 I'm concerned that the expensive media advertising of

18:05:30 16 how great t.he rail system was overwhelmed the voters.

17 Number two, a vote was taken and seems to

18 be irrevocable, however, I pray that the airport and

19 UH will. be placed back into the original plans and

20 Salt Lake will become the spur. The only reason why

21 Salt Lake was submitted was because the Salt Lake

22 Councilmember coerced the mayor to adopt it or lose

23 the steel rail system that the majority of

18:05:58 24 councilmembers did not originally want.

25 Number three, has anybody publicly showed



1 concern that if Hawaiian bones are found in the

2 pathways that it would greatly slow down the process.

3 Number four, the Honolulu mayor is

4 presently trying to get millions of dollars for very

5 worthy public works projects. If the federal

6 government gives Honolulu a major funding for our

7 rail, I believe they will give us far less for our

18:06:29 8 other community work projects which will probably go

9 to other needy citizens.

10 Thank you.

To other needy cities.

HEARING OFFICER HAMAYASU: I'm sorry,

13 would you like to state that so that she can hear it?

14 MR. WIDDER: 1 think I said citizens. I

15 meant cities, to go to other needy cities.

16 1.IEARING OFFICER HAMAYASU: The next

17 speak, Robert Wong.

18

19

20

2 I.

22

23

24

25

Honolulu, H a w a i i ( 8 0 8 ) 524-2090


MR. WONG: Good evening. That was fast.

Thank you for the opportunity to listen to my

comments. I appreciate everybody's work in putting
all this information together. It's quite staggering.

I did attend one town meeting with the mayor, so I'm a

little bit informed but not quite totally. I've lived

in New York City for almost ten years and I used the

metro NTA, New Jersey transit path, metro north, and I

have a degree in quality control, so I think it's -- I

don't have actual experience in urban planning or

transportation industry, but my theory kind of helped

me formulate my thoughts.

The mayor said that the system would be

mostly built at elevation versus at grade as a result

of public consensus, and they didn't want to sacrifice

the existing lane or two to locate the train tracks,

and he also signaled that the system would have to

work with the bus authority in order to execute a

smooth process getting people to and from the trains.

I have two concerns that I would like to address.

Based on what I've read in the newspapers

and the web site, the total cost of the project seems

to generate a lot of conflict, and I hear people

saying that it's cost prohibitive versus the City

government's position that the costs are manageable.



1 In any event, there's -- the amount of information is

2 way too much, I think, for the normal citizen to

3 process and digest. I would like to see a greater

4 portion of the system be built at grade to bring the

5 costs down and with the assumption that building it at

18:08:58 6 grade is going to be more cost effective.

7 A kind of contingent benefit, as I see

8 it, to that using city or state roadways, particul~arly

9 where four to six lanes exist in the same direction.

10 So if you brought that down to two or three, you're

18:09:28 1 1 going to force more cars off of the road.
. Of course,

12 this is a consensus issue as well as a fiscal one, but

13 I hope there can be some kind of compromise.

14 The second thing is a little more

15 important, and I - -

(Buzzer sounds.)

HEARING OFFICER NAMAYASU: Please

18 summarize.

19 MR. WONG: 1'11 send them in.

20 Thank you.

21 HEARING OFFICER 1,lAMAYASU: That's the end

22 of the registered speakers. Anyone else who would

18:lO:OO 23 like to provide comments on project issues?

24 Please step forward, state your name and

25 address for the record.



MR. HOLMAN: My name is Russell Holman

and I have a P. 0 Box, 1201, Honolulu, Hawaii.
. I'm a

transportation consultant. I'm sorry for not being

prepared to have a written testimony, but I have a few

concerns regarding the infrastructure needs since we

are at the Bishop Museum today I'm more concerned

about the alignment going through Dillingham. As you

look at it, I notice there's a lot of utility poles in

the corridor, some of these KV lines and all that.

But in the process I know there is a lot of median

work to be done when you're doing the fixed guide rail

construction. Somehow if they can put those utility

lines and telephone lines underground like some of

these places like east Honolulu, I think that can

beautify in terms of beautification of this

neighborhood as well. Because when you're riding the

bird's eye view in the fixed rail, you don't want to

see all of these telephone lines, you know, with wires

all the other stuff. And overall with the alignment

if they can somehow get the utility lines as well and

bring it underground, I think that might beautify the

riders as well and the infrastructure needs.

Thank you.


wish to testify? Do you want to check outside,



1 Patrick?

2 With nobody else interested in providing

3 comments, I conclude this hearing at 6:12 p.m.

4 Thank you for your time and interest for

5 the project.

6 (Hearing concluded at 6:12 p.m.)

7

8

9

10

1 I.
.

12

13

14

15

I. 6
17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


STATE OF HAWAII )


I, Nancy P. Blankenship, Certified Shorthand

Reporter, in and for the State of Hawaii, certify that

the foregoing proceedings were reported

stenographically by me at the time and place

indicated.

Given under my hand on this the 29th day of

December, 2008.

Nancy P. Blankenship, CSR 8 4 5 9


Final EIS Appendix A Part 3

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Final EIS Appendix A Part 3 (20)

More from Honolulu Civil Beat (20)

Final EIS Appendix A Part 3