Final EIS Appendix part 2

conflict of interest. At worst it is evidence of political corruption. In any case the
project seems tainted from the get-go.

Frank Genadio

I believe I am already on your mailing list; adding e-mail and telephone contact data.
I will probably attend both the Blaisdell and Kapolei meetings, and will delay
providing an input until after those meetings. One theme I will propose in advance is
that it is time to "think out of the box." Too many projects in recent years have failed
to meet needs because of limited expectations.

Frank Genadio

Comments on High Capacity Transit Project Written comments were submitted by
me at both public meetings (Blaisdell and Kapolei). The purpose of this submission
is to expand upon those comments as well as provide additional thoughts. The
“bullets” in the following list pertain primarily to a rapid transit rail system and are
covered in depth below. — Three tracks, not two, are necessary to accommodate
rush hour express service. — Keep the system elevated on fixed guideways. —
Transit centers, rather than just stations, are needed at express stops. — Limiting the
scope and technology of the system will ensure its inability to attract commuters. —
Innovative costing methods are needed to avoid major subsidization of the rail
system. — Some form of transit and power authority should develop and operate the
system. Number of Tracks: Contractor responses to questions during the public
meetings never mentioned anything more than two tracks. Other comments indicated
20-22 stops between Kapolei and Manoa. Driving commuters will never be lured
from their privately owned vehicles (POVs) if the transit system cannot provide
express service for commuters beyond 5-6 miles of downtown Honolulu. Assuming
Alternative 4D is implemented (which would be my choice of those offered—
although I would prefer a “mixing and matching” of all alternatives to develop the
best route), express service terminals are recommended for Kapolei, UH-West Oahu,
Pearl City or Aiea, downtown Honolulu, UH-Manoa, and Waikiki. The third track
will be eastbound in the morning, westbound in the evening. That express track does
not necessarily have to follow the local stops routing (e.g., Kapolei to UH-West Oahu
and downtown to UH-Manoa almost “as the crow flies”). Elevated Guideway: Plans
for grade level track anywhere in the system should be dropped—even through
downtown Honolulu. There should be no interference with vehicular traffic
anywhere. One of the contractors even mentioned grade level on the Ewa Plain where
there is no development; he apparently is not aware of how that area will be built up
in coming years. Grade level track through downtown will slow the system and
deter, for example, students and faculty movement between the two UH campuses. It
also is highly unlikely that grade level track can be compatible with a monorail
system—leaving the city with no option other than light rail unless there are
“disconnects,” further slowing commuting times. Transit Centers: Four transit
centers are suggested for the initial rail system, at Kapolei, UH-West Oahu, Pearl
City or Aiea, and UH-Manoa. Eminent domain condemnation should be avoided as

Scoping Report Appendix C PageC-37
Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project 501

much as possible. For example, the Kapolei hub could actually be built in the open
space of the northwest corner of Kalaeloa and the UH-West Oahu hub could be on
the east side of the North-South Road, across from the campus. These centers should
cover many acres at each location and include bus feeder stations, large retail stores,
supermarkets, restaurants and pubs, movie theaters, a newsstand, a post office, an
efficient recycling center, and extremely large, secure, no-fee parking lots (e.g., for
Kapolei, perhaps 20,000 parking stalls, with convenient moving walkways into the
transit center and rail station). Some stations, such as downtown and Waikiki, have
no need to operate as centers because of nearby retail and other amenities; however,
most stations should have a suitable number of secure parking spaces to lure POV
drivers who would be unlikely to use bus feeder services. No-fee parking should be
limited to (perhaps) 15 hours, to encourage use of both the rail system and the center
facilities but discourage abuse of offered free parking; smart card (window sticker)
technology can log each vehicle in and out and apply charges for overtime. Digital
imaging on exit also can discourage car thieves. Rail system expansion to the
Wahiawa-Mililani area will require a new transit center, perhaps in the currently open
area east of Wheeler Army Airfield, with express service into the mainline through
Pearl City. System Scope and Technology: This is the time to think “bigger and
better” on a fixed-rail system for Oahu. Critics already are citing contractor
statements that a rail system will not end traffic congestion on Oahu. While their
arguments may be specious (i.e., never mentioning how much worse traffic
conditions would be in some metropolitan areas if major transit systems did not
exist), they find a ready audience in those trying to repeal the general excise tax
(GET) increase and “de-rail” rapid transit. There even is a current effort underway to
repeal the GET increase. Grade level creates obvious problems and light rail is too
slow for express runs. The goal is to get drivers out of their cars, not give them
reasons to avoid mass transit. A first class system will be elevated, on fixed
guideways, and capable of speeds up to 120 miles per hour. Drivers and bus riders
heading for the Kapolei transit center, taking anywhere from ten to 30 minutes to get
there, should be guaranteed a wait of no longer than ten minutes in the station and a
less than 20-minute express ride into downtown. Drivers in stop-and-go morning
traffic on H-1 can be lured from their POVs after watching the monorail express glide
silently by above them and disappear from sight in seconds. Do it right and they will
ride. I have seen comments on not taking chances on new technology, and am aware
of problems such as vibrations with magnetic levitation (mag-lev) monorail;
however, is it naive to assume that such problems can be overcome in the years
remaining before starting system development? Why not aim for a system that local
residents will point to with pride and be eager to use? One advantage of monorails is
the elimination of need for train operators. Organized labor will reap many benefits
during construction of the system; operation of all aspects of the completed system
must be union free and “immune” from strikes. I am aware of differences in cost
among rail systems; costing is addressed in the next paragraph. Innovative Costing:
Regardless of the system implemented—even bus—mass transit is typically
subsidized by taxpayers. It is doubtful that a system here, even light rail, can operate
on “fare box” receipts as has been done in Vancouver. It also is essential to keep
fares relatively low to attract sufficient “ridership” that equates to system success.

Page C-38 Appendix C Scoping Report

Perhaps others have addressed advertising on the rail cars; my preference would be
for Hawaiian theme designs on the exterior, with actual advertising done through
digital readouts in car interiors. Such income will be relatively small compared to
system costs. Retail leases should be sufficient to cover both operating and security
costs of the transit centers and stations; not much above that can be expected. To
make up the difference between fare receipts and operating costs, the governing rail
authority should be authorized by the city to develop and control alternative energy
sources that power the system and also be able to sell excess electric power to the
Hawaiian Electric Company (HECO). Every transit center and station can be
completely covered with solar panels feeding the system power grid. Transit centers
will be large enough to also incorporate power generating windmills; for esthetic
purposes, they can be stored into the sides and corners of the structure and
“telescoped” up to operate between dusk and dawn. Every form of alternative energy
should be explored for direct power to the system, back-up, and production for sale,
to include hydrogen and nitrogen fuel cells, wave power, and even hydroelectric
power. With state and city support—and condemnation where required—systems can
be developed that will feed the rail system grid and storage system. Finally, the time
has come for the United States to reconsider its long-time aversion to nuclear power.
Federal, state, and city cooperation is needed to develop on Oahu the nation’s first
new nuclear power plant. Its location in, for example, Lualualei on the military
reservation will make it the nation’s best guarded system and allow for extremely
reasonable electric costs on the Waianae Coast (as compensation for “hosting” the
plant) along with a sharing of power to military installations and the rail system grid.
Negotiations can then be pursued with HECO for the sale of excess power, with all
proceeds going into operating costs for rail. The system will not compete with
HECO; instead, it will supply electricity to the company at costs competitive with
electricity generated from fossil fuels. Power and Transit Authority: An
incorporated entity operating Oahu’s rail and power supplement system must not be
controlled by the Honolulu City Council. The role of council members should be one
of review and oversight. Despite misgivings about another governmental bureaucratic
organization, it is probably necessary to form an Oahu Power and Transit Authority
(OPTA). Ideally, members would be elected and would be residents of districts
served by the rail system. More practically—at least initially—perhaps one
Authority member each would be appointed by the governor, mayor, City Council,
State Senate, and State Legislature, with only senators and representatives from
Oahu legislative districts permitted to vote. Authority members would be paid at
senior civil service rates and elect their own chairperson. The powers and
responsibilities assigned to OPTA will undoubtedly be the subject of considerable
debate (e.g., eminent domain, contracting, revenue and general obligation bonds,
hiring and firing, leasing of retail space, etc.). It is suggested that the AA process
include examination of the charters of other transit authorities and boards in the
United States and that a recommendation for OPTA’s make-up be included in the
final document. If OPTA proves to be a successful enterprise, its expansion into a
state entity (HAPTA?) could be considered as the intrastate ferry system is
implemented. All state legislators could participate in the appointment of HAPTA
members, with the mayors of Maui, Hawaii, and Kauai given the authority to appoint


one member each and the governor allowed a second appointee (to maintain an odd
number on the board, expanding from five to nine). Power sources from the neighbor
islands (e.g., hydroelectric, geothermal) could be worked into the power grid for sale
to HECO to boost revenue and fund transit projects on the other islands. Those of us
who believe in mass (and rapid) transit as the only viable alternative to total gridlock
on Oahu will be eagerly awaiting the recommendations from your study. I wish you
all the best in your deliberations. Aloha. Frank Genadio 92-1370 Kikaha Street
Kapolei, HI 96707 672-9170 genadiof001@hawaii.rr.com

Ikeda George

1. Considering that a large number of shoppers, visitors, and residents would like
access to the Ward center area and that major Kakaako projects are being planned, it
is my concern that an alternative route on Ala Moana Boulevard was not considered
that could serve that area and still serve Ala Moana Center as a hub for connecting
bus riders. 2. Scoping meetings are important but projected ridership should also be
assessed. What would be the response if residents were polled as to whether they
would actually use mass-transit regardless of the mode? Leeward residents might
very well favor mass transit in the hopes that someone else might use it thus allowing
themselves the freedom to use the car at their own convenience. Not enough is being
said about the acknowledment of planners that traffic would not really be
signficantly alleviated by the mass transit system. HOV lanes and other road traffic
solutions would still have to be implemented. Do the drivers really understand this
point? 3. Try using focus groups to get some real concerns aired. Scoping meetings
are just informational. Focus groups based on a sampling of the general population
might give the city and county government a more realistic feedback on a number of
issues.

Jack and Janet Gillmar

We do think that a "high capacity transit corridor" has been needed in Honolulu for
some time, so we are glad to see the city is considering this project. However, we are
disturbed at the prospect of rail transit lines being forced onto the existing fabric of
central Honolulu streets such as King, Beretania, and Kapiolani. We strongly urge
you to instead add rail transit to the H-1 corridor to UH with bus feeders to Waikiki
and Ala Moana and Kahala Malls. Pylons could be put down the median strip,
using the center 2 lanes for construction at night. Stations would be below H-1 or
above depending on whether the freeway is above or below the adjacent ground level
of the city.

Dane Gonsalves

After reviewing the alternatives presented yesterday at the scoping meeting, I am
overwhellmingly supportive of rail transit, specifically Maglev. I believe in addition
to being fast and reliable, maglev will (no pun intended) propel our city into a new
era. I dislike the fact that light rail runs on noisy steel rails and uses ugly overhead
wires. Monorails are novel, but they are slower than the other two technologies. In


order to make a mass transit system work well for our city, we need to be sure that
our system will be competitive with vehicle traffic in terms of speed. The only way
more people will be willing to give up their cars is if there is a definate time saving
alternative to driving. Obviously any grade-seperated alternative would achieve just
that during rush-hour traffic, but what about weekends, holidays, evenings, etc.?
These are things that need to be considered as well as moving people around M-F, 9-
5. It was kind of sad to see only 2-3 people around my age, 24, actively participating
in last night's scoping process. Most of the folks my age will be ready to settle down
with their families by 2030, there should be some outreach to the younger
generations, since they will be the primary riders and caretakers of the system in the
future. I did, however, see a plethora of senoir citizens at the forum, most of them
worried about how much money the system would cost. I found this somewhat ironic,
I highly doubt they would be alive in 2030, why we're they so outspoken? You don't
have to pay taxes when you die. Where's the input from those who will be effected
by this the most, the teens & 20-somethings? There seriously needs to be some
investment made in educating the city's youth. We will be running the show after the
Mufi Hanneman's and Rod Hiraga's retire. In 15 years, I will be paying the taxes to
subsidize the expense of running a train, not today's Tutu who's in her 90s. Please
consider some type of youth outreach...because right now, most of those folks in that
particular demographic could seriously care less.

Robert Gould

I support an elevated fixed rail system (to reduce the ground level footprint and grade
crossings) IF such a system serves Kapolei, Ewa Beach, the airport terminal building
(directly, not via a spur line, and with platforms that allow luggage to be wheeled
onto the train), downtown (where it could be tunneled if necessary), Waikiki (by spur
if necessary), the UH, AND EAST HONOLULU all the way to Hawaii Kai. It should
also eventually extend up the Waianae coast and central Oahu to the North Shore,
and beyond Hawaii Kai to Kaneohe. I realize that anything beyond UH and Kapolei
would have to be future extensions.

Jeannette Goya Johnson

Oahu needs a mass transit system. I strongly favor monorail. Freeways & even some
primary/secondary roads are clogged at peak traffic hours, which hours have
increased as population & no. of cars increased. Is it reasonable to spend 1 1/2 hrs. to
travel 15 miles?! Island space is finite, cars are not. More freeways will simply
engender more cars. It is a known fact that a new highway is obsolete by the time it is
built! This is also an emotional issue. We all want a car to transport us wherever &
whenever we wish. The loudest dissenters are probably those who do not want to
change old habits and/or do not care enough for the quality of life for future
generations. And perhaps most loud against mass transit will be the voices and
lobbies of the automobile and related industries. They stand to lose a lot of money! I
also think we should all help pay for this system,, regardless of where we live. We
are all a part of all the islands. The health & happiness of one affects all others. This


is not a new idea; eg.,we all pay taxes that go to schools, single or childless, and we
pay taxes to help the poor. This is not an either-or issue. I believe a monorail system
and good maintenance of the present highway system will enhance all lives and help
keep our island beautiful. All things considered, our leaders in government should
listen to the voice of the people, but also not be afraid to think and act for the unheard
voices of future generations. Thank you. I appreciate this opportunity to 'vent.'

Robert Green

Because of the ever-increasing problems with gas costs and heavy traffic congestion,
the project should address the need for adequate road shoulders to allow for usage of
roadways by bicycles. 2005 has been a record year for bicycle sales, and this is due
in no small part to increasing usage of bicycles for daily transportation, and this is a
trend which will continue in the years to come. By addressing this issue during the
project, we can avoid costly retroactive measures in the future, and by offering more
viable alternatives to auto commuting, the automobile traffic volume will also be
mitigated.

h hakoda

HOLOHOLO A TRAFFIC MEDIATION PLAN IN LIEU OF AN OAHU LIGHT
RAIL SYSTEM I. INTRODUCTION This position paper submits a fiscally
sound and practical alternative in opposition to a multi million dollar light rail
system that is predicted by some members of the community to lack the ridership
that will alleviate the traffic mess on Oahu. Already there are allegations of political
favoritism in the awarding by the city administration of a $10 million dollar light rail
feasibility study. Bigger controversies exist in the funding of the light rail system. It
has been estimated that a planned general excise tax increase will result in the
average taxpayer on Oahu paying about $600.00 more each year in taxes. Also, there
have been claims that the Governor faces a conflict between taking action to reduce
the more than 70,000 new motor vehicles that enter Hawaii each year or doing
nothing by being partial to family relations who own one of the biggest new car
dealerships in Hawaii. Underlying these issues is the concern by residents and
business owners that the projected path of the rail line will end up in having homes
and shops displaced. This paper is segmented into five phases that will take the
reader through a gradient of traffic mediation measures starting with minimal impact
to the driving public and ending with major impositions on the driving public. II.
HOLOHOLO – PHASES I to V PHASE I Reversing the Contra Flow Lanes There
are contra flow lanes that exist during the morning rush hour, but are absent in the
opposite direction during the afternoon rush hour. The traffic planners have instituted
a misguided priority for getting people to downtown Honolulu when it is equally
important to timely send them to the suburbs whether to get the people home or to
work in the greater Honolulu area. For example, the traffic jam on H-1 heading west
in leeward Oahu during the afternoon rush hour is catastrophic. There are contra
flow lanes heading east in the morning, but not west in the afternoon during
weekdays. PHASE II Maximizing Public Transportation From Mondays to


Fridays, with the exception of designated holidays, for two or more hours during the
peak morning and afternoon traffic congestion, all public transportation will be free
of charge, except for certain buses on each route that will be wi-fi equipped and
passengers boarding them will be charged a nominal fee. PHASE III Institution of a
Fee to Purchase a New Motor Vehicle All purchasers of new motor vehicles will be
required to either pay a special fee or submit a City and County certificate
evidencing disposal of a motor vehicle. PHASE IV Mandatory Impoundment of
Illegally Operated Motor Vehicles All motor vehicles that are cited for an expired
safety check, an expired motor vehicle license or lack of evidence of insurance will
be impounded at the owner’s expense until proper documentation is obtained.
Additionally, all operators of impounded vehicles will be fined and sanctioned.
PHASE V Restriction of Motor Vehicles During Peak Hours on Weekdays During
two or more peak hours in the morning and in the afternoon on weekdays (except
designated holidays), only the following motor vehicles will be allowed to be
operated on freeways and highways within the City and County of Honolulu: 1. All
public transportation motor vehicles 2. All government motor vehicles deemed
essential 3. All commercial motor vehicles deemed essential 4. All privately owned
motor vehicles deemed essential 5. All privately owned motor vehicles with the last
digit on the license plates coinciding with an odd or even numbered day of the week
that the vehicle is being driven. For example, a motor vehicle with a license plate
ending in an odd number can be driven on an odd numbered calendar day. Vanity
plates are considered an odd number. III. REVENUE REPLACEMENT All
costs to implement, operate and enforce mandates outlined in Phases I through V will
be recovered from motor vehicle fees and penalties imposed through ordinances and
statutes enacted to implement actions described in Phases III, IV and V. IV.
SUMMARY The Holoholo traffic mediation plan offers a low cost alternative with a
minimal public impact compared to the monstrous light rail system that is destined to
be fraught with huge cost overruns and low commuter participation. Holoholo offers
a chance to avoid bankrupting the City and County of Honolulu by implementing a
reasonable and economical alternative. For more informationor or to sponsor or to
volunteer to promote the HOLOHOLO plan , contact H. Hakoda Email:
mahjong8@yahoo.com Ph. 808 348-3068
__________________________________________________

Tony Hall

Waikiki must be served by high speed rapid transit. As the primary area in which
tourists stay, rapid transit into and out of Waikiki will allow tourist dollars to spread
out the city and be a critical component to reaching economic self-sufficiency for the
system. Also, not continuing the system to the KCC campus, Kahala Mall and back
through Kaimuki/UH is another critical omission. Hawaii already is a mecca for
students and not properly serving UH's campus at KCC, Chaminade, and the primary
UH campus and its environs is another critical area that must be addessed in
planning for the system. Above all, the creation of the proposed high speed transit
system must take into account who will be served. Tourists and students are 2 groups
that would eagerly embrace use of the system and forgo the need to have their own


car, rental or owned. Here again is an important factor in the system's success,
reducing the level of car traffic. I strongly urge you to look into serving thes core
areas of the city with the high speed system as well as the makiki area.

Arleen Hama

I live in Waipio Gentry so one would think I would want to get on the rail to Kalihi,
avoiding the worsening traffic problems. I don't believe that the rail is the answer to
our traffic problems. The ridership won't be enough to pay for itself. Those that will
ride it will be those already riding the bus. I wouldn't give up my car (freedom) and
neither would all the drivers with multiple jobs or transporting kids all over the place.
Thanks

Gerhard Hamm

Quit the Boondoggle Now! It will make Muffi Hanneman a one-time mayor—which
could be a good thing—and leave the Honolulu taxpayer with an annual bill the likes
of which they haven’t seen yet, and surely cannot afford. The debt will be unbearable
while accomplishing little if any in terms of improving traffic flow. Write off the
$10 Million consulting fee to bad judgment and go on improving traffic in other
ways. There are lots of them and they can be developed at a fraction of the rail cost.
Aloha, Gerhard C. Hamm 373-1930 GCH.Hawaii@Verizon.net

Curtis Harada

I am against any elevated trains and especially alternative 4b for the following
reasons: 1. negative impact on surrounding businesses 2. increase in loitering and
criminal and drug activity 3. negative impact on our scenic beauty 4: excessive cost.
Also I would like to know the daily cost per rider in the best and worst cases. And
whether it would be more effective to pay public transit users (BUS patrons) directly
rather that to build a system which will be a financial drain on Honolulu for decades
to come. I believe that there is an economic solution that is better that an
infrastructure solution. For instance, if you paid each BUS patron $5 per day to use
the bus, you could potentially remove 10,000 cars from the roads on weekdays for
$250,000 per week. Assuming that it was done for 9 months (excluding summer), it
would cost $10 million per year. The cost to finance a system that costs $1billion at a
5% borrowing cost will be $50M per year. Use creative thinking and seek federal
money for this common sense approach. Avoid building a rail system and you will
not leave a negative finanacial legacy for our children.

Victoria Hart

It is critical that whatever mass transit system is implemented (I am thinking
particularly of rail, though) accommodate BICYCLES. The most important and
easiest way to do this is to provide a way for passengers to bring a bicycle on board -
- as we can currently do with the bicycle racks on The Bus. It is also important for
secured, highly-visible, well-lit bicycle racks to be provided at station stops. Lastly, it


would be a great improvement to incorporate bike paths alongside or underneath the
constructed transit that are also highly visible and well lit. As a parting general
comment, I would like to implore you to include bicyclists in any transportation
planning. Oahu has such high potential to be bicycle-friendly with small-scale cities
and good year-round weather. But unfortunately the infrastructure remains lacking. I
grew up in Mililani and only started bicycling when I moved to town a couple years
ago. I was pleasantly surprised at how quickly I could get around in compact-sized
Honolulu. However, I am also dismayed by streets that don't have room for us and the
lack of driver education regarding bicycles. I sincerely believe that if the
infrastructure was made to be more bicycle-safe and friendly, many more people
would consider this as a viable transportation option.

Ann Hartman

I am glad that there is acknowledgement of the enomity of the growing traffic
problems from Kapolei to the UH Manoa campus. I currently prefer a rail system of
some kind, but am open to hearing options. The only option I am not open to is the
"No build alternative." I also think that short term relief also is necessary and must be
part of the plan. For example, given the fact that this document acknowledges that
transportation alternatives need to reach all the way to UH Manoa, I don't understand
why they do not do so now. Why are there no express busses between Kapolei, Ewa
or Millilani that go directly to the University and the surrounding private high
schools and colleges? These could run only in peak times in the mornings and
afternoons. Also, efforts to bring more professional employment to Kapolei and Ewa
is necessary for any successful transit program. Additional transportation routes
between Ewa and Kapolei, around Ewa and Ewa Beach, and between Ewa and Pearl
City also are needed. Thank you for collecting comments. I look forward to being
involved in this process.

Hitoshi Hattori

Can you believe that people in Hawaii is spending 2 to 3 hours in traffic everyday? I
live in Waikiki, but it still takes me 40 minutes to go buy office supply sometimes (If
there is no traffic, normally it will take 10 to 15 minutes) That is crazy!! Simply
People in Hawaii, have NO choice!! Without driving, you can not go anywhere. So
people have to drive willingly or unwillingly. Of course, if more people drive their
cars, it will cause traffic jam. Then, how about the city bus? The city bus is good but
every time they stop at the bus stop, they will block the traffic. With proper amount
of traffic, the bus is very useful but not when there is a major traffic jam. How many
buses are on the road? You know that will stop the traffic. Then how about expanding
the size of the road? Yes they have been and are working on lots of the roads but just
impossible for them to expand every single road .Hawaii is growing and it will get
worse for sure. So now do you know what to do? Yes we have to make a choice,
Mass transit. That is the only solution we have to fix traffic jam and we must act now
for our future. Also mass transit is good for many other reasons besides solving the
traffic jam... First, mass transit will create economical benefits. By having a mass


transit, people in Hawaii have a choice, not to drive. Lots of people do not have to
buy car and pay for expensive insurance and gas. Many parents do not have to take
kids to school everyday. Mass transit will never stuck in traffic. It will get you to the
destination on time, work or school. Also while in the train, you can read books or
sleeping. You do not have to get irritated, worry about if you can make your
appointment on time or leave early to consider traffic jam. No more Hawaiian time.
You do not have to make lame excuse for being late to the meeting. gSorry I am
late because of the traffic. That is very bad excuse and rude to the business partners.
With mass transit, you could have spent your time more wisely, like being with your
family or sleeping longer. Secondly, every station has more business opportunity.
Now because of the zoning, place you can have business is very limited and lots of
business owners end up paying very high rent because of limited area. If we have
more stations, we can create more business district where people can more chance to
have business and avoid super high rent like Waikiki. This is not only good for
owners but also for more jobs available for more people in Hawaii. Thirdly, tourism
is very important for Hawaii. Without tourism, many people will lose their jobs. Do
you want to give tourists bad image about Hawaii about stucking in the traffic after
their long fright. Also their time of stay in Hawaii is very limited. Who want to spend
their precious time in traffic? Also they can have time efficient tour or trip in Hawaii.
Also environmental issue, very simple answer. Less traffic or driving is less
pollution. It creates less traffic accident. Less DUI, people can drink and go home
without taking risk. That is good for everybody in Hawaii. I know there might be
some negative issue about mass transit. But If Hawaii wants to grow more, we have
to make some changes. We are not small city any more. Just we have to think why
big city has good mass transit system. Most importantly, our time in life is limited,
who wants to spend two three hours in traffic every day. Do you know what you can
do with that time and money involved( gas, insurance...)?? Many things! Do not
waste your time any more.

Marjorie Hawkins

By all means bulld a metro/rail. The city is on a one line layout anyway, and
goodness knows it's congested enough to need relief. I live in DC for 10 years and
used the metro system regularly. It was convenient and well- used and appreciated.
Here in HI, I don't own a car (by choice) and often think that the opposition to a
metro system mainly comes from the people who seem to belong to the "let them eat
cake" group. You know, those whose income relieves them from ordinary hassles
and have no interest in the common and greater good for the city. Marjorie Hawkins

Rick Hayashi

I am a Hawaii resident currently living in LA. I am planning on moving back to
Honolulu soon and am very interested in the mass transit project.


Aaron Hebshi

Light rail is the most appealing idea to connect Kapolei with
Downtown/UHM/Waikiki area. Incoroporating bicycles into this transit scenario will
greatly increase the effective area served by light rail. Specifically: - bicycles should
be allowed on the train so a passenger can bike easily to his/her final destination after
dismounting the train. - safe, secured bicycle parking should be provided at all
transit stops. Bicycle theft is a huge deterrent to increased bicycle use on this island -
bicycle paths should be incorporated into the right of way, either along-side if the
train runs along the ground, or underneath an elevated train. Mahalo for your

D. J. Henderson

My perspective is as a 40-year-resident, 30-year-commuter from Kailua to Manoa.
Kapolei commuters can't wait for the perfect solution; they need relief "last year"!
Could not using MANY more buses on a greatly increased service frequency help?
The advantage is that additional buses could be put into service faster than any of the
alternatives that require new construction. For commuters, service frequency is key;
it has to be better than it is now. That's why many of us who would prefer to leave
the driving to others (and read/study/work/sleep) on the way to the office have gone
back to driving ourselves and wasting gas, time, parking space, and Hawaii's clean
air. (But I loved taking the bus from Kailua to Manoa for 3 years! )

June Higaki

Alterntive #3 Managed Lanes offers the most sensible, flexible alternatie which
would be used more widely than fixed rail. 1) It affords an alternate route in the
event of emergency, or accident which necessitate closing of the freeway. We have
had several instances in the past few years which required closing of the freeway.
This severely cripples half of the island; no one can get anywhere in the central Oahu
area. If there is a disaster or emergency requiring freeway closure how would goods
and services be transported without alternative routes? Fixed rail systems cannot
afford any flexibiity. It would be under utilized during off peak hours. 2) A viable
managed lanes system would operate diamond head bound in the morning and ewa
bound in the afternoon, and provide alternatives when freeway closure is necessary.
3) When UH is not in session, traffic is not a problem. Why are we banging our
heads against the wall, creating a monstrosity of a fixed rail system which would be
too expensive to build and maintain, when we can alleviate a great part of the
problem by moving the traffic in another direction. Move Honolulu Community
College out to Kapolei; swap the property for somethng in Kapolei where most of
our industrial trades are located anyway. Move part of Manoa campus operations to a
West Oahu Campus; there isn't enough parking or housing at Manoa to accomodate
further growth. 3) Kakaako development is further congesting the area. 4) How
much will rail cost? Who would ride it? Why would anyone ride it if they are not
riding the bus now? It would probably cost more and be more inconvenient than
riding the bus now. How much will it cost to maintain? What will happen to this
monstrosity during off peak hours? Who will be left paying for this if ridership does


not meet projections? The evaluation process, should, at a minimum be sending
surveys to every household in the areas affected, asking for opinions and to survey
traffic patterns, times, schedules, and preferred alternatives. Government should also
be doing more to address alternatives by offering businesses incentives to encourage
telecommuting, staggered hours, and by doing it themselves.

David Hiple

As a UH professor and long-time Honolulu resident, I am thrilled to see this process
moving forward. I am committed to viable public transportation for our city. I,
myself, commute by bicycle to my workplace at UH; we must reduce the number of
cars on our island. I strongly support plan 3 or 4. We must do this right with a
comprehensive lightrail system from Ewa to UHM. The route must include stops at
the airport, downtown, and UHM. I particularly endorse plans 4B and 4D, including
a spur line from Ala Moana/convention center to Kapahulu via Kuhio. To be
successful, the rail network must service Waikiki/Kapahulu where residents and
tourists are densely concentrated. Full speed ahead. Let's do this. Thank you. Dr.
David V. Hiple, UHM

Anthony Ho

Why bother, if it is not going to relieve traffic congestion? Your answer tells me you
haven't look all the technology and design creativity available before settling on the
three options provided. By the way, why did you hire the same consulting firm who
gave us H-3, which did nothing for Honolulu's traffic problems? Was owning a
vehicle a problem for Oahu residents? Are you solving for problems that do not exist?
Try solving problem that does exist. Higher traffic congestions not only a frustration
for Oahu residents but increases auto accidents and traffic fatalities. The key is to
take vehicles off the road both buses and cars. If it takes the same time for a person
on the rail than riding on a bus, why bother? 23 stops are too many. Have you ever
thought off multiple lines rather than one "catch all" line? What about one line from
Wahiawa, through Mililani, Pearl City, Pearlridge, Downtown and then to UH. The
entire rout shouldn't take more than 20 minutes. Another from Ewa through Pearl
City (transfer station with the first line), Downtown, Ala Moana Center and Waikiki.
A third line can go from Waikele, through Waipahu, Pearl City(transfer station with
line #2), through Pearlridge (transfer station with line #1) and work the mountain
side through Aiea/Halawa, Tripler, Kam School, Liliha, all the way to Manoa Valley.
All of these lines should just have major stops. The key is transfer a large amount of
people from Mililani, Ewa, and Waipahu to downtown and UH in a relatively short
amount of time without them being on the road. The mass transit system should be
attractive to all people within proximity to a station, not only those who could not
afford a vehicle. Also, the best technological option is probably magnetic levitation
(MagLev) trains. MagLev offers low noise level, ease of construction, low-emission,
1/3 of the energy cost of other solutions, and offers the speed to accomplish the
mission. A mass transit system that overcomes traffic congestion re-vitalizes a
community. Imagine, Mililani students making it to UH in 20 minutes even during


peak traffic hours. Shoppers leaving their cars at Pearlridge and hopping from
Pearlridge to Ala Moana and back in minutes. Residents taking a walk to a train
station for exercise and ride the rail, saving money on gas and maintenance on their
cars. Schools near a station and do field trips on the rail, saving money on bus rentals.
If design with the correct vision, the mass transit system will relieve traffic
congestions, increase commerce, and promote an active healthy lifestyle for Oahu
residents. If Oahu will continue to grow, then you need something that
overwhelmingly solves traffic problems now and has a chance to tackle traffic
problems in the future! I do not want my tax dollars to spend on a flop, but I feel
there is nothing I can do to change that right now. Honolulu continues to be a city
which falls short in serving its people. So much so that it doesn’t even know what the
problem is. I almost fell out of my chair when I read that your solutions will not
relieve traffic congestion. Mayor Mufi Hanneman, in his radio message announcing
the Mass Transit Public Hearings said: "Let's solve our traffic problems now!” Well,
I guess that was just "lip service".

Ed Ho

I am for traffic relief, but I don't know if transit is the answer. I don't know what
would be the right answer. My input to add to your request would be alternate routes
other than the 1 and only 1 main highway from Waianae until the H1/H2 merge.
Unless they take every city off ramp starting with Kapolei that connects to Ewa. But
what happens if its between Waianae and Kapolei? We need more routes out of
Waianae to Downtown. Why does Kaneohe have 5 different routes to town and only
1 for Waianae? It doesn't connect to any other alternate route which ends a little pass
Yokohama. I have family who live in Kapolei that leave at 4am just to arrive on time
to work and school in Kalihi. What's going to happen when they close the freeway
because of a death or fire. Doesn't that mean the rail would get stuck somewhere
before or after the fire or death also? Are they going to stay idol in the middle of the
freeway for hours with passengers on there not able to leave or use the restroom or
have enough air should the vehicle engine need to be turned off for some reason?
That becomes a health issue. Why is the City doing the planning of something the
STATE should be responsible for. My understanding is state is responsible for the
"MAIN" roads while the city is every other roads. The city roads get backed up
because the MAIN Highway is backed up. You should look at alternate routes out
of Waianae first than, move onto other public transit issues. Most of the cities that
you are comparing Hawaii too, but the rail before they built their cities. So everthing
was built around their transportation. Also, they have surrounding states that visit
and use the transportation. We live in the middle of the ocean where we only rely on
residents and tourist. So if another 911 happens, we are left high and dry with
expensive toys. Paul Hoffman I would like to receive information on the estimated
demand for the corridor and the rationale for the elimination of PRT. We are
currently conducting a study on PRT and current technical capabilities. Our results,
soon to be published, indicate the technology has sufficient capacity and speed for
many applications, including elements of your study. It is still an emerging
technology but may be a near-term option for you to consider.


Michael Hofmann

I strongly support a sensible, island-wide transportation plan that enhances our
quality of life in a manner that is environmentally sustainable and consistent with our
unique sense of place. Recognizing that Oahu's traffic problems are closely
intertwined with land use, I strongly support the establishment of strictly-enforced
urban growth boundaries to protect the remaining agricultural and conservation lands
on Oàhu, and the revitalization of existing urban centers to focus future growth in
currently developed areas. Additionally, I believe that Oahu's transit solution lies not
with one technology or mode of transit, but a mix of transportation alternatives to
meet the diverse needs of Oàhu residents and the mixed topography and density of
the island. In addition I support a comprehensive mass transportation policy and
system that: 1. Coordinates with land use planning by: a. establishing firm,
strictly-enforced urban growth boundaries; b. revitalizing established urbanized areas
to focus new growth where infrastructure and access to jobs, shopping, services and
recreation already exist; c. encouraging mixed use developments at transit hubs; d.
requiring developers to bear responsibility for necessary expansion of infrastructure
(roads, sewers, etc.); and e. promoting communities where walking and biking are
the preferred modes of transport. 2. Create multiple modes of transportation, such as:
a. a major rapid transit artery using Light Rail or Monorail or Bus Rapid Transit; b.
shuttle Buses from rapid transit bs/centers/stops; c. van and car pools; d. bikeways
(including bicycle-only corridors and ancillary bicycle facilities, such as bike
lockers); and e. walking. 3. Discourage single-occupant automobile travel by: a.
expanding "High Occupancy Vehicle" lanes; b. investigating the use of congestion
pricing and automated tollways on heavily congested highway routes and applying
revenue generated through this means to subsidize public transit; and c. limiting the
amount of land dedicated to parking in the primary urban core. 4. Reduce "rush
hour" congestion by: a. encouraging development of a true "Second City" at Kapolei;
b. subsidizing monthly transit passes for government employees and encouraging
private companies to do the same for their employees; c. requiring that businesses
provide free parking to employees or offer an equivalent monetary amount or
alternative to those who chose not to drive; d. encouraging telecommuting (full or
part-time) and providing various levels of tax incentives to businesses that offer
telecommuting; and e. encouraging flexible work hours. 5. Service, in a practical
and convenient manner, such major destinations as the airport, University of Hawaiì
at Manoa, and Waikiki. 6. Make public transportation accessible and affordable to all
residents by: a. ensuring that the public transit includes assistance devices for the
elderly and handicapped; and b. subsidizing fares to ensure public transit is an
affordable option for all.

Michael P. Holden

l. Yes - A rapid transit system is necessary. I think that the Fixed-Guidway ("C" in
the Advertiser) that goes through Eva is the best; however, I don't think that a tunnel
near the shoreline would be a mistake because of the possibility of busting the
Aquafer/Water system. 2. The real problem is that there are TOO MANY CARS.


Many cars in Oahu are not insured, do not meet safety/appearance standards, motorist
do not have a driver's liscense, or the drivers should not be allowed to drive because
of blatant disobedience of the law. (ie. Not observing traffic signs, signals. Not
driving the Speed limits, Police not enforcing the laws, Judges not Backing- up the
Police to enforce the laws, politicians who are afraid of making the public mad about
enforcement and the possibility of they will lose thier office/job.) 3. Possibile
solutions (1) State Inspection Stations that would be the only agency that would be
authorized to issue driver's plates. (2) Before you can purchase a car one would half
to show proof of a registered parking space -- this is an Island. (3) Having 200-300
police stoping all traffic on H-1 and 10 miles malka & makai too inspect all cars for
Safety and adhearance to regulation requirements. 4. Once the number of quilified
drivers and cars were manageable a fixed rail transit systed should be built with
parking at termnals, bus links to near public centers, and the system could eventually
expand to USE middle tunnel of the Koolau mountains as a rail extensions to and
from the Windward side. 5. Illegal cars should be confiscted, owners licensed taken,
owners fined and strict encforcement of laws, including disposal of the cars. Since
the Auto Dealers bring-in the car. they and the owners should be liable for its
disposal. 6. The contracts for the transportation system construction and maintence
should be by lottery, because this would eliminate political corruption. Thank you
for the opportunity to express my ideas. Respectfully Submitted, Michael P. Holden

Thomas Hoover

I support a fixed rail transit system for Oahu, and Kapolei to Manoa is where the first
leg should be built. But to really work, a system must eventually extend island wide -
- Waianae to Hawaii Kai with spurs to central Oahu and the Windward side. When
an opportunity presents itself, the city should secure rights of way for an expanded
system. Kim Hunter A QUIET rapid transit train is very important to Hawaii and
should concentrate on connecting the Waianae Coast to downtown and UH with
stops in Waikiki and the airport

Joshua Hvidding

1-Mtg Announcements-Use the Freeway Sign System to announce it and do it on a
radio station. 2-Short Term plans- a-The Zipper lane in the afternoon is good b-
Replace Freeway/Highway medians with Zipper lane medians. 3-Long-Term plans-I
like Alt 4c or 4d in the scoping information package 4-What happen to the previous
Ferry Project?

Lloyd Ignacio

I believe that the main purpose of the "second city" at Kapolei was to move
population and traffic congestion from Honolulu to West Oahu. Well that certainly is
NOT happening. This whole "second city" thing was just a ploy by real estate
developers to get the land re-zoned for their own profit, not the betterment of the
community. The way to reduce traffic coming out of Kapolei and West Oahu is to
move businesses and jobs out there. We can start with moving City Hall and the


State offices. Set the example. Don't be the problem. Yes, some improvement to the
transportation corridor is needed but lets also try to attack the root of the problem.

David Imaye

What is being done to reduce traffic congestion today? On-street parking is prohibited
on some streets during rush hours. When are we going to realize that on street
parking contributes to traffic congestion? Reduce traffic congestion now by
instituting a permanent ban of on-street parking.

Darrell Ing

Commuters need an incentive to leave their cars at home when going to work. The
system should be convenient to access, avoid automobile traffic snarls, and
inexpensive/free. The funds generated by the increase in general excise taxes should
be used to expand and subsidize fares on the existing bus system. Past policy has
addressed increased costs by increasing fares, thus discouraging ridership and
reducing revenues. In the private sector, business is generated by recreasing prices -
holding a sale. No system - bus, rail, or otherwise - will solve the traffic problem if
no one rides it.

Ronald Ishida

I object to a project that will not reduce traffic congestion but cost the taxpayer a
fixed half percent increase in sales tax. With the increase in real property taxes and
this half percent increase, the city government is out of control. Where is the
alternative for HOT lanes? Also, unless proven otherwise, I feel that the ridership for
the new transportation system will overwhelmingly come from existing bus ridership.
People driving cars value the convenience of having a car. Note the relatively low
participation of the van pool. People have to drive kids to school and to sports
practice and do errands. Large impact projects should be put to vote by the
taxpayers before even reaching this point. andrew jackson 1. it seem these planes as
published in the Star bullitin on 12/12/05 focuse mainly on getting people into town,
but this seems myopic at best. The plan should be able to move poeple in both
dierctions at any time with equal ease. 2. Tha plan should include thebus or a
reworked version of thebus, as a hub and spoke off of the Train stations. ie most of
the bus routes would run solely to Train/ transit staitons where riders would transfer
to or from the trains. 3. parking at the trainstations should be at a maxamuim so
people could park and ride.

Mark James

Dear Honerable Rod Tam, You really need to insist that before any decisions are
made, or votes taken, reasonable cost and benefit information is provided to the
public. The Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project has a huge impact on
our island City. We need realistic cost and benefits info to give informed feedback


in scoping sessions. Thank you, Mark James, CC: Vicki Gaynor, City Plannung
Commission

Mark James

I have been a resident of Oahu since moving here as a child in 1960. I have followed
various rapid transit issues for many years. I agree very much with the views
expressed in the Advertiser on Jan.3, 2006 regarding the lack of actual costs and
benefits to the various proposals and routes. From what I know by research and
discussions with prominent citizens of Honolulu, this process may be more correctly
called "shibai", (Japanese for faleshood), instead of "shenanigans" as mentioned in
the article. The issues of true costs, and true benefits need to be properly addressed.
The Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project should not be approved until
these issues are made clear to the public. Sincerely, Mark R James, 2911 Pacific Hts
Rd. Honolulu, HI 96813 CC: Honorable Rod Tam, City Council.

Ed Johnson

I have some comments, that I feel are valuable input, but I hesitate to waste my time,
unless I can be assured that my comments will be reviewed by appropriate
government officials(Mayor Hanneman, DOT, et. al) as well, an online forum
dedicated to the public being able to comment upon each other's input needs to be
developed immediately. Merely developing a comment and supplying it without
feedback is a waste of the public's time....develop this website so that we, the public
can develop our comments and respond to each other...that way, government
officials can review the public comments, as we develop the content. Regards, Ed
Johnson

Ed Johnson

First, I would like to say thanks to Faith Miamoto (I hope I spelled your name
right...)for returning my call today and listening to my concerns regarding this
website. And, before I bore you further, with my comments, I want to wish all of you
Happy Holidays and, especially Merry Christmas....hoping for smiles...:) Now, for
my input: I know there are a lot of smart, educated, well-travelled people in Hawaii.
Many of these folks could provide strong dialogue, for your review, if they only had
a public forum to exchange ideas...that is why I asked for a place to add public
exchange of ideas on this forum...otherwise, our comments feel like they're going into
a "dark hole", but without comment from others, with similar or opposing ideas...
So, here goes: I love the idea of "light rail", as an alternative for transportation. I
believe it is necessary, as part of an overall transportation plan for the future.
However, I will probably oppose the issue, because we seem to be focusing on this
issue as a "fix", rather than part of a total plan. What Honolulu needs is an overall
look at how to change/fix the city, which would include the addition of a "light rail"
as a part of DOT. The overall picture for Honolulu, should include looking at other
"model cities" and see how they tackeled their problems. When looking at the city
map of streets, it appears that Honolulu grew without any forethought for


transportation planning, whatsoever. Streets run probably in the same direction, as
when they were originally built. There doesn't seem to have been much thought to
planning "boulevards", whereby cars could smoothly travel, without street lights
etc...as well, the streets run haphazardly in every imaginable direction, including
curves that shouldn't exist. If we look at our Washington, D.C., we see a network of
boulevards trending outward from the federal buildings and monuments...it is
complimented with a "beltway" around the city, and its magnificent subway/rail
lines...yes, it's busy...but, people get around...a great model is Indianapolis,
IN...architecturally planned, from the beginning, to resemble the "spokes of a
wheel." At the city center stands a "Soldiers and Sailors" monument. A circle(large
roundabout" goes around the monument. Around the circle are historic buildings, and
a downtown mall, that rises vertically...a main train station is nearby...from the
"monument circle", the city streets go outbound, in all directions, resembling the
spokes of a large wheel. These boulevards lead commuters from downtown to their
home neighborhoods, without having to drive through everyone else's neighborhoods.
At various distances away from the city center are other boulevards that connect the
outgoing spokes. Further out is an interstate belt, encircling the city, with branches
that go downtown, as well, as connecting to other major cities(Chicago, St Louis,
Louisville, etc.) Indianapolis is a big city, but it's much easier to get around than
Honolulu. There are many other "model cities" to look at. Frankfurt, Germany, and
many other European cities are built so that you depart your flight at the airport, go
down an escalator to the main train station, with connections taking you anywhere
else in Europe. Sydney, Australia has a light rail/train network that goes underground,
at the city center, where it meets with ferries. People commute by train, bus, or ferry
to downtown. They get on elevators and go vertically to their places of work...and, it
does work, quite efficiently...Seattle is similar, without light-rail. But, it has the best
public bus system that I've ever ridden. Literally, workers can get on a bus, in any
outlying Seattle neighborhood, and ride to the city center, where the bus goes
underground with stops at all major employment areas of the downtown...you can
literally get off the bus, under the city of Seattle, and walk directly into the main
Nordstrom store and downtown vertical malls, or the Benroya Hall(for concerts), or
the local Chinatown, or the Seattle Mariners and Seahawks stadiums, etc. It's an
amazing system. All of these places, and many other municipalities have succeeded
with transportation problems, because they have been willing to redesign their city
transportation services, and include rail transportation as one part of the total
solution. So far, I haven't seen our current "High Capacity Transit Corridor Project"
addressed as one piece of a puzzle to overhaul our entire transportation network for
Oahu. In smaller "tourist destinations" in Europe, they sometimes ban auto traffic in
downtown areas. There are many ideas that should be addressed, not just choices
for a "high capacity transit corridor." So, after all of the above, here are a few of the
redesign ideas that I propose. Before approving the "high capacity transit corridor", I
suggest we take a hard look at all of the following: (1) Reduce the number of
vehicles on the islands. Too many of them end up as heaps of junk along the roads,
simply because we do not have adequate controls in place. There are island nations
around the world, whereby vehicles are strictly controlled. Bermuda, for example, if
my memory is correct, controls its vehicles with a strict "one on, one off" policy...in


other words, whenever a new vehicle is brought in, one must first leave. That keeps
the abandoned vehicles off the roadway. How do we do that? Implement policies to
strictly control the # of vehicles that each person/family is allowed to possess, to
include rentals. If someone wants to buy a new car, they must have a contract to
dispose of the older car. This must be done by controlling the car dealerships, so that
they become the responsible ambassadors of this policy. (2) Redesign our city,
architecturally, so that boulevards flow, in straight lines, from city center, to all
outlying neighborhoods. Imminent domain must be considered. (3) Go underground
with "thebus" in the downtown area. Consider a tunnel like Seattle, whereby workers
could ride the bus and get off under the city, and go vertically to work places. This
would eliminate heavy downtown traffic. (4) Restrict the "tourist busses" to fewer
pickup/dropoff points. There are way too many tour busses running around empty in
the streets. (5) Require "thebus", and tour operators, such as Roberts, large trucks
and limos to drive only in the right lane on the freeways. Too often, I see
bus/truck/limo drivers hogging the left(passing lane), as if they own the territory...too
many of them use their size to their advantage to force their way through passenger
cars. (6) Increase police radar/traffic control units on our streets, with the sole
function of enforcing traffic offenders to change their habits. (7) Make laws for
talking on cell phones, applying make-up, etc, while driving to be punishable, not
only with fines, but with public service. Three violations, lose your license for 3
years. (8) Make stricter annual inspections of vehicles, so that we can keep the
polluters and vehicles that need maintenance off the roads. (9) Put cameras in traffic
lights. This system has been in place for over 30 years in Europe. I know, because I
had to pay a ticket that way, for running a caution light. People here have forgotten
what a caution light is for. (10) Make a large part of downtown Honolulu "off
limits" to regular automobile traffic. In other words, Honolulu could straighten its
downtown streets, thru imminent domain, and make many current streets into
pedestrian walkways thru parks...How?...go underground with "thebus"....allow a
"tourist bus" lane underground for tour operators...allow taxis, limos, delivery trucks
to deliver/pick-up along certain routes...follow all of this with "light rail" to connect
the corridor to Kapolei, as depicted. I like the "light rail corridor" idea, but not until
we address all of these other ideas, as parts of the puzzle to "rebuild" Honolulu"s
transportation system in total. Before you laugh all of my ideas off the table, just
remember, other big cities have tackled similar problems...think like Sydney, or
Seattle, or... It's time for Honolulu to THINK BIG...Honolulu is no longer a long
cruise line ride from the mainland and other nations...Big jets, with big spending
tourists could be coming here from everywhere...we must THINK BIG, in order to
plan for the future..."light rail" could be a piece of that puzzle. Need any more BIG
IDEAS...let's think about building Honolulu into the "sports capital of the
world."...Have you seen what the Olympics did for Sydney? THINK BIG!!! THINK
OLYMPICS, and Summer Sports Training Capital of the World."... Remember the
slogan..."If you build it, they will come."....Big money spenders, from all over the
world...if we build it... Thank you for your time. Regards and Merry Christmas, Ed
Johnson


Ed Johnson

I've read all the information that you've presented to the public. I am very much
interested in providing my input, however, I would also like to read the input of other
citizens. This should be an open forum for discussion. The citizens of Hawaii should
be able to read each other's opinions and provide their own opinions for review. That
would make it truly a public opinion. As it is now, you have a very nice website for
people to read, and you have presented all current facts, as we know them. You even
provide this space for you to send you my thoughts. But, where will my thoughts go?
You don't provide a place for my thoughts to be posted, for others to review. And, I
cannot see the emails that others have provided to you. So, how can this be a valid,
transparent public opinion survey? I have some very valid comments that I would
like to submit. But, I would like to see them appear in print, somewhere on this
website. As well, I would like to see the comments of others, and the opportunity for
all of us to reply to each other. Is that an impossible task? I don't think so. Can you
make it happen? I hope so. Since we are quickly approaching the Jan 9 deadline for
comments, I would like to see this happen today. Since I already know that you will
not comply, I will be writing similar comments to the Advertiser. As well, I will be
contacting the local TV stations, and sending a formal complaint to the Mayor's
office. Thank you for your time. Regards, Ed Johnson

Pearl Johnson

I think construction of a new exclusive right-or-way transit facility costs too much
and will not relieve traffic congestion in any meaningful way. Given the low
ridership likely, federal funds will probably not be available. Even if they were, the
cost to be shouldered by Oahu taxpayers is still too much. I think bus service should
be improved, with exclusive lanes or sharing High-Occupancy/Toll lanes. Lowering
bus fares drastically would probably cost less than the debt service and maintenance
of a rail system. I would like to see the figures for debt service made public for
every cost estimate, at several interest rates. These would be "hard" figures as
opposed to estimates of maintenance.

Teddy Kamai

A short note, I lived and worked in Japan for 10 years and just recently returned back
to Hawaii. Why don't the Hawaii transportation, State, Federal and C&C
administration take a closer look at the subway and rail system Japan have been
using for years. It's so amazing on how Japan moves a million passengers everyday.
Suggestion, you either go underground (subway) or above the current H-1 and H-2
with the rail transit system. Mahalo's and Aloha, Concerned Driver

Clifford Kanda

1. The North King Street bus routes are heavily used. Please select an alignment that
includes North King Street. 2. Please provide estimated mass transit system
individual rider fee to use the system. A fee greater than the current bus rider fee will


reduce the number of riders. 3. Please provide bus arrival information system such as
the "Where's My Bus" system. This will greatly improve the overall experience of
using a mass transit system. 4. Please provide detail on feeder bus route alignment
and frequency along with operating costs. 5. The construction of the mass transit
system will have an impact on the population density and business type/mix in the
area of the transit line. Please provide an analysis of what the neighborhoods along
the alignment will look like ten years and twenty years after the transit line is
operational. 6. Please provide an analysis of the impact of the various alternatives
along the corridors that will be built. For example, if a rail type alternative is
selected, population densities near the stations will increase over time and with that,
property values and crime.

Brian Kawabe

Traffic fixes: Too immediately improve traffic flow through key corridors and
neighbor hoods without adding free lanes I propose the following. Aiea/Pearlcity:
Kam Hwy one way east, termination and start points need to be considered to
accomodate the existing road way however from Home depot east lanes would turn
east bound only and terminate and around aloha stadium area. Moanalua would then
become an west bound one way again the termination and beginning points need to
be reviewed to accomodate the change, begin would start at aiea shopping center and
possibly terminate at waimano home road. That being done all feeder perpendicular
streets need to be re routed one way makai or mauka. The flow of traffic and the
traffic light sequencing will now ensure an option to the full freeway. In town,
Nimitz Ala Moana would become one way east, Nimitz beginning at sand Island
acces all the way to Waikiki, creating a new high capacity one way road way all the
way through town and waikiki. Kapiolani would be west bound, eliminating the
killer traffic intersections. Beginning of one way would have to be determined and
all cross streets must become one way. These would be lower cost and high yield
otions, it will also eliminate some of the high traffic accident spots due to elimination
off high traffic left turns. Busses would be given dedicated lanes as well as
dedicated lanes for trucks/busses could be assigned to eliminate reckless passing of
vehicles. It may also help in crosswalk managment and save some lives as traffic
flow will now only be one way. Fixes could be implemented now rather than 7 years
or more Toll areas could now be added to the freeway for peak traffic and to
distribute traffic. More money can be dedicated to additional one way streets in
other areas with modified transit systems due to the extra road way for dedicated
transit systems. There is enough exisiting road way if we manage the flow and one
way movement will helpt that. A transit system is still needed however due to the
time frame and the need for funding and changing people behavior, the one way
option and toll impediments will bring income and change drive behavior now rather
then when the transit system launches. Change behavior must be implented now to
ensure the success of a transit system. Other toll options could likely be considered.
A one way bypass road through ewa, reversing morning and afternoon with toll
feature. It is my belief the one way option can be implemented now and be utilize to


smooth out traffic, decrease traffic accident hot spots, add to pedestrian safety,
change drive behavior. Brian Kawabe

Rick Kazman

While I fully support mass transportation, I urge you to consider some provision for
bike lanes in any transportation plan. Hawaii has an ideal climate for biking and yet
few people choose bikes for their transportation; I commute daily but I seldom see
others doing likewise. Bikes are efficient, contribute to good health, and are
ecologically friendly. Compare Hawaii with the Netherlands: relatively cold and wet,
and yet it has the highest per capita usage of bikes in the world (see
http://www.ibike.org/library/statistics.htm). Why? Because it is flat and, more
importantly, it has a network of bike paths that are dedicated and therefore safe for
the cyclist. Living, as we do, in a country that is increasingly overweight and
increasingly consuming an insupportable amount of non-renewable resources, we
need to send a message that there are good, safe alternatives to driving in passenger
cars. Investing in an infrastructure for bike (or multiple-use) lanes will send just such
a message.

Susan Kelley

I have read about the 4 choices for fixed rail. I cannot believe that an option that does
not go through Ewa Beach could even be considered. At today's Honolulu Advertiser
(12-18-05) quoted: "Transportation officials have said before that a mass transit
project most likely will not reduce congestion on O'ahu roadways. Even with
development of a mass transit system, traffic congestion and delays on O'ahu's
roadways are expected to increase dramatically in the next 25 years because of
continuing growth, especially in the 'Ewa Plain area." And since the City and State
have allowed the ridiculous amount of growth to occur in Ewa, I strongly feel that a
route through Ewa Beach needs to be the route chosen if the city/state is serious
about actually helping the traffic situation. All involved should spend one week
AM/PM driving out of/into Ewa Beach to see the enormity of the problem. The
people in Ewa Beach will not drive in masses to Kapolei to catch the rail and should
not have to...it should go through Ewa Beach since this area is bursting and the
city/state continue to allow it to grow with no traffic solution. Regarding the other 3
plans which do not involve rail, I do not see a big change adding more buses.
Perhaps more roadways would help. Thank you for considering my comments.
Sincerely, Susan Kelley

William Kibby

On any proposed Waikiki spur route, please consider designing it as a one-way loop
with Inbound tracks along the main hotel corridor, turning around at the Waikiki
Shell- Zoo area and Outbound returning along the scenic Ala Wai. There is less
visual impact with a single overhead track. The distance is not so great as to be an
inconvenience and many Tourists as will as commuters will be customers of the


service because it will have a nice view. Sydney Austrailia's Monorail is a prime
example.

Mitchell Kimura

Dear Sir/ Madame: In way of a brief introduction, I was born and raised here, went to
private and public school, am a college graduate, majored in science, travelled
throughout the world, lived on the mainland for over seven years and have lived in
Japan for over seven years. Though I live in east Honolulu PRESENTLY, that could
change at any time and I am as concerned about transportation as anyone else. While
living on the mainland (mid-west, west and east coasts) and Japan I have concluded
one thing: The infrastructure in Japan is superior to that of the US, for any given city.
When I went to Germany, I felt the same compared to southern europe countries. It
didn't really matter what kind of city or the geographical features, etc.... Generally
speaking, I firmly believe one can say that the Japanese and Germans are very good
at building infrastructure. My point is this: Can we all admit that even our best
efforts are not good enough and just copy or, better yet, HIRE a team of Japanese or
Germans and have them assess everything and tell us what to do? Why do we think
we can do better than German or Japanese engineers? Isn't a rail line going to last for
years and shouldn't we get it built right the first time? Isn't the problem of moving
people from A to B efficiently a universal one and wouldn't you want the best in the
world to solve it for you? Now it is true we know Hawaii better than anyone else.
And this is not Japan or Germany. And though they have great systems, they don't
always look the nicest. Etc., etc. But I think you would do everyone a disservice by
not asking Japanese or Germans to even just take a look at our problem. Japan is like
Hawaii: mountains, ocean, and people living inbetween. If you live there you know
they build/ repair roads/ tunnels in a fraction of the time we do. They construct train
lines within years. They have a variety of trains at varying speeds. They have bus
schedules on all stops. They usually have route maps of bus lines at major bus stops.
The buses come and go on schedule, despite traffic conditions--it's taken into account
on the schedule! The trains are usually on time to within ten seconds--even in harsh
weather conditions. How about the the Singapore system? Singapore has a climate
similar to Hawaii's. They have good driver-less trains.... Anyway, I could write a
lot/more, but I honestly doubt anything I am saying will 1) be heard & 2) make a
difference because I know how stick-in-the-mud you are, we all are, because Hawaii
people are like that. It would be great if you could prove me wrong, but I really
really doubt that anyone in charge there can, will, or wants to do anything
differently. Thank you for reading this, however. Sincerely, Mitchell Kimura

Paul Kimura

The main line of the mass transit system should go down King street with feeder
buses connecting the makai/mauka streets. King St. has the largest capacity and is
one way.This would be in my opinion the best route through the town area.


Clyde Kobatake

You shouldn't need people's address unless you intend to creat opposing factions.
What's important is will it be functional and feasible? You must be ethical by truly
caring for what's best for all, not who is going to make the money such as the
construction industry. Yes construction will help the economy in the short term but
not the long term if a system is a money loser. The biggest problem I have as you
already can tell, is that I do not trust government and its related special interest.
Therefore, I am in favor a system that is less costly such as improvements to our
current bus system even if it was free from certain areas like Kapolei and Ewa. If they
don't ride a free bus, what makes you think they will ride a fix rail? You must know
who will truly ride a fixed guideway rather than just people's verbal say so. The cost
will be so prohibitive if built and there will be no turning back if proved to be not
feasible. Then what? Seattle, the prime example used by proponents of the fixed
guideway has voted against any extention of the current system because of its cost.
Can we learn from this or do we do the smoke and mirror dance again. Yes, I want
your reply, but something other than generic; come to the meeting; can't be specific;
etc. Aloha, Clyde

craig kobayashi

Mass transit sounds great but at what cost? My question has always been "How many
riders will use the system?" According to the City's best estimate during the last
transit attempt during Fasi's administration only 2% of cars would be removed from
the H-1 at a cost of $2 bil. That's only 2 cars out of a 100 that would be removed.
Cost far outweighed benefits at the time. I ask once again," What % of cars will be
removed from the H-1 Freeway?" If ridership is high then I would be for it. Here are
some alternatives in place of or in addition to fixed rail: 1) So called Makai Viaduct
running eastbound from the airport along Nimitz, Ala Moana, Atkinson, Kapiolani
connecting back to the H-1 at Waialae. This bypass freeway would reduce traffic the
most. It would not only relieve the current H-1 but also cut down traffic substantially
on streets going north & south between Nimitz & the H-1. If esthetics is not a
problem this alternative would work best for traffic. People hate to give up their car.
They expect everybody else to do so. 2) Ferry System. Have given my area
Reprsentative Mark Takai several aerial photos of areas in Pearl Harbor that would be
feasible to use existing piers. Piers exist in West, Middle & East Lochs, Waipio &
Pearl City Peninsulas. Cost would be minimal. With the Navy's permission parking
lots would be built next to the pier. Ferries already exist from the commercial tour
boats that can be used to run between Pearl Harbor & Aloha Tower & Kewalo Basin.
If feasible Ko Olina & Hawaii Kai can possibly be added. Parking lots are relatively
inexpensive, boats already exist, & no enroute infrastructure (ocean) needs to built.
3) Expansion of bus system. Also free bus can be considered during am & pm rush
hours. 4) Expansion of Car Pools. 5) Elevated lanes above H-1. Main question:
ridership stats? Background: B.S Civil Engineering Captain-Hawaiian
Airlines


Arkie Koehl

Today's Advertiser article refers readers to this site "to see details of the proposed
transit alternatives." But there are none that I can find. The article had more
information than your web site. Why have a web site if it contains no useful
information?

Brett Kurashige

I was disappointed that the City's consultants did not include more specific
information on costs, expected ridership, expected transit time from point A to point
B among competing proposals,including the HOT lane proposal. This lack of critical
information gives the impression that the City's rail proposal is the only one being
actually considered by Mayor Hanneman. Given Mayor Hanneman's continual lament
that the the previous Mayor has saddled the City with an enormous debt burden, and
the fact that Mayor Hanneman already increased our City fees and taxes by a large
percentage (and is looking to increase our excise tax by 12.5 percent!), it makes no
sense that Mayor Hanneman is pulling out all the stops for an inflexible fixed rail
system that will saddle the City with enormous debt and transit bureaucracy for
generations to come (dwarfing whatever debt was incurred by former Mayor Harris
administration) without thoroughly exploring viable transit alternatives that are
projected to be much less costly, much more flexible, and actually have a track record
of success worldwide at reducing traffic congestion. We needed an honest debate on
the facts and projected estimates, and an unbiased look at various approach to the
transit problem. So far, we did not get that, and all the City's PR spin won't change
this reality.

Joshua Lake

After reviewing the Scoping meeting documents it is clear that managed lanes and
increased bus fleets will only mildly reduce traffic in comparison to a large capacity
rail technology. If car ownership and usage is not curbed in the near future Oahu's
roadways will be severely compromised by the ratio of its users. A solution that will
exist independent of current roadway system is the only logical step. Of the current
technologies for consideration, a few outstanding factors should be consider (among
a lot of other things too). Construction - Building alternative transportation, in
Oahu's case, is reactive to the ever increasing traffic congestion through the corridor.
Choosing a technology that will take years to implement is not a solution. Oahu's
needs a solution 'yesterday', and any choice that encourages slow progress will not be
in Hawaii's best interest. Noise pollution – The solution should be sensitive to the
overall lower decible levels of the islands. Braking and hydraulic operation of steel
trains can produce high decibel noise that can travel long distances. Noise pollution
by any medium to large scale transit system will be harder to disguise than the visual
aesthetic of electric lines and rails. Anyone not familiar with rapid transit systems
will be overnight critics by all the mechanical noise made by rail. Aesthetics –
Visual clutter of rail lines throughout the city corridor is a moot point with the
hundreds of buildings, roadways, bridges, over passes, and electrical power lines that


currently clutter the skyline. The inherent 'value' of the structure is enough to justify
it's existence among aging obsolete buildings of the Oahu landscape. Intelligent
Architecture and Design is the strongest asset for the success of any large scale
technology into an environment. Certain technologies (Light rail) add enormous
visual clutter to the pedestrian areas by guide wires while others absorb huge
amounts of property for general operation (rapid rail). Flexibility - Because of the
limited space on Oahu, choosing a rail system that would integrate into urban centers
as transparently as possible. Single rail technologies would be the only contender
small and flexible enough to fit into densely populated areas with minimal
displacement of current structures and dwellings. Shopping Malls and urban centers
would be a logical direction for mapping routes along the corridor. Also, rail
technology will be able to avoid traditional traffic areas, giving riders a much more
attractive viewpoint. The Experience - Is the chosen technology able to service the
entire island? Will there be more developmental roadblocks as the program matures?
Is the technology able to give users a perspective never seen before of the island? The
addition of an efficient alternative transportation system which can connect parts of
the island previously disconnected would be a huge boon to small businesses.
Selected Transportation Technology (in order) 1. Mag Lev Monorail 2. Monorail 3.
Light Rail 4. People Mover Route selection Route 4d seems to reflect a logical path
based on the inclusion of the Airport and possible connection near Waikiki. But none
of the proposed paths seem to meet the majority of the communities needs. Placing
paths directly through high traffic areas may cause more issues during construction
than business owners and residents care to deal with. Placing the rail off center of
popular destinations will allow for comfortable growth and reduction of bottle
necking currently happening with foot and automobile traffic. Coast line paths along
Iwilei, Downtown and Kakaako can allow for easier implementation into the city
rather than directly through Downtown and City Hall area. General Feedback
Keeping the rail above ground / off grade would allow for 'life' to be less distributed
by the construction and additional traffic created by large vehicle movement.
Underground sections will only add to the schedule of an already 'overdue' solution.
Pedestrian friendly vs. Automobile friendly The current (or past) City Government
does not promote citizens to walk or take alternative transportation. The city itself is
not designed to encourage casual walking to nearby destinations. By providing more
bike lanes and wider sidewalks within city centers could provide a low cost solution
to unneeded traffic congestion. I hope my perspective assists in anyway possible,
please keep me informed of any further opportunity to help. Regards, J. Lake

Russell Lake

Having lived at various areas of this island (Kahala, Manoa, Hawaii Kai, downtown,
Waipahu, & Kahaluu) and having worked at jobs that took me to all areas of this
island (BWS, C&C Land Survey, & HFD) I have personally witnessed the changes
over last 49 years. One very important thing I think that needs to be addressed is the
time that each of the alternatives will take to build if chosen. Also what is the
captabily for upgrades (additions to system, etc.) of these alternatives.


Larry Lamberth

I think I am already on the mailing list for all documentation, but would appreciate a
check to confirm. I have reviewed the Scoping Information Package. In general, I
have followed and been involved with the Transit System proposals since the early
1980's and have had the same conclusion since then. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR
THE PROJECT: Based on 1) the Island configuration, 2) the projected housing
growth areas being towards the Ewa plain (which are now coming true), 3) the
importance of quality education for our children, 4) the growth in business
opportunities and tourism particularly in the Waikiki and related areas, 5) and the
limited traffic alternatives for moving high volumes of traffic and citizens, we need
to move forward with a separated grade, relatively high volume transit system.
Following are some additional thoughts regarding the items mentioned above: Item
1) The Island has a narrow corridor that is ideal for a single major line transit system
- rather than being spread out in all directions. In future as growth may warrant, the
system could be expanded in only a few different directions, rather than an
"unlimited spoke" configuration. Those directions would be to a) Hawaii Kai; b)
Windward - possibly with a separate branches for Kaneohe branch and Kailua
(Kailua branch may eventially connect around the end of the island to Hawaii Kai,
but that may never be feasible); c) Central Oahu (Mililani, Wahiawa and North
Shore); and d) Nanakuli and Waianae. Item 2) Traffic density has continued to grow
on the Ewa side of the island due to the high volume construction of new homes
(which has been necessary for our population) with very limited ability to affect
significant change in the transit infrastructure (highways & major thoroughfares) due
to realistic limited land availability and funding. Item 3) The traffic congestion
problem has been further amplified due to the location of the Main Campuses of our
only major Universities (UH & HPU) and their associated commuting environment
being located in downtown Honolulu and Manoa. In addition, with the perceived and
actual deficiencies in the Public Education system, more and more parents (at least
those that can manage to fund it) have been sending or wanting to send their children
to the better equipped private schools, many of which, if not most, also being located
in the Downtown/Eastern Honolulu areas. Item 4) With the growth in tourism in
conjunction with the cost of housing, more and more of the service employees for
that industry will be living in the direction of the Ewa plain and trying to commute to
the Waikiki area. Additionally, with traffic congestion increasing, more and more of
our tourists will be inclined to use an effective public transportation system. With the
volume of tourists we are now experiencing, think of the possible congestion
increases associated with the project growth in tourism numbers. If for no other
reason, a viable transit system from the airport to Waikiki may be a real plus in
helping control our traffic problems. In Munich, when the new airport was built, the
city decided to run a transit system line (S-Bahn) between the airport and downtown
- it is really a good means to move large numbers of people between those points.
Item 5) Although the H-1 and other existing "highways" carry a high volume of
traffic, they will not be able to keep up with the projected traffic projections without
major enhancements beyond "zipper" lanes and short lane "additions". Those
enhancements would have to include not only significantly more additional lanes, but


also major changes in city streets and infrastructure to allow traffic to enter the
freeway and then to exit once the destination is reached without creating blockage.
SPECIFIC ISSUES TO BE EVALUATED: Technology - Everyone always wants
the latest "gee whiz" technology for their systems, but it is not always the best
alternative. Unknown costs can be uncovered and the systems just may not work "as
advertised". For this reason, all of the technical solutions need to be evaluated with
this in mind. There are numerous rail and track systems that have been proven with
millions of miles of realiability. In addition, proven technologies can provide cost
savings as a lot of the R&D costs have been recovered. Appearance - This will be a
new, somewhat modern system and should look the part. A big "box" on wheels
running in a concrete guideway just may not be acceptable to our citizens.
Consideration should be given to the aesthetics of the system including the actual
transit vehicles (swept/wind tunnel designs vs. flat front "cars"), the size of the
guideway/track so as to minimize the visual impact of the "rails" between stations,
and the weight of the vehicles so as to maximize the spans between supports.
Tunnels, At Grade, Elevated Analysis - Wherever they occur, At Grade systems do
and will create problems with traffic flow and potential safety issues with people
trying to cross "tracks" (look at the number of citizens killed each year crossing out
of marked crosswalks). Tunnels have huge expenses (including time, disruption and
costs) associated with construction, and on-going maintenance can be more
complicated due to the additional infrastructure needing maintenance (tunnel walls &
ceilings, pumps, lighting, etc.). Elevated systems "rails/tracks" can be minimal in
size, easier to maintain (without disruption to other traffic), and if using a modular
approach, should be easier and less disruptive to build. In evaluating the above, the
"monorail" type of system would seem to be a good fit. The "cars" can be
streamlined (modern looking) and modular (can change "train" lengths and capacities
easily). The technology is "known" and both effective manual and automated
controls have been around for years. The "track" or "rail" is relatively small in size
and has the additional benefit of having the power source included in it's design (no
extra overhead wires). Whether conventional direct drive (rubber tires or steel
wheels), or maglev is selected - the technology would fit a modern, effective form
factor of a monorail type system. Route Evaluation - In determining the final route,
consideration needs to be given not only to the end points of the system (actually
initial system as it may "grow" in the future), but the served areas in between. Based
on the guidelines for the initial proposed system, the end points are defined as being
Kapolei and UH. In serving these areas, the commuting publics needs have to be
determined and analyzed to ensure optimum usage and viability of a system. In
addition to our residential communities, it would seem appropriate to give a strong
consideration for handling traffic between the Airport and Waikiki, and to serve the
Military bases centrally located near the airport. Both Pearl Harbor and Hickam AB
employee many of our citizens and meeting their transportation needs could have a
very positive impact on traffic congestion reduction. With a viable "people mover" at
the airport, which would require the State of Hawaii funding, much of the congestion
currently caused by tour buses, taxis, and luggage transporters could be reduced. And,
the experience for the tourist would be enhanced by ensuring a smooth, comfortable
ride between Waikiki and the Airport. In considering tourism and shopping, the Ship


Terminal and Aloha Tower seem to be viable as a station location - or at least for a
station nearby. With all of the new "towers" that are being built along the corridor
from downtown to Ala Moana Shopping Center, we should probably give strong
consideration to a route that would include stations serving these major urban
housing centers. Station Access and Parking facilities - The transit plan or concept is
to move as many people as possible between East Honolulu (University/Waikiki) and
the Central and West Oahu areas on a daily basis. This means that facilities for
Accessing the system need to be in Kapolei, Waipahu, Pearl City, Aiea, Pearl
Harbor/Hickam (if possible), the Airport, Salt Lake, Kalihi, downtown Honolulu,
Ala Moana Blvd, Ala Moana Shopping Center/Convention Center, Waikiki, and UH.
Probability of needing more than one station at some of the above is highly likely.
Access to these stations should be by coordinated bus routes, walking and
automobile (both "kiss & ride" and Parking). In the outlying areas, from Salt Lake
and further west (at least), there needs to be ample parking spaces planned into each
Station complex to allow for riders to get to the system by car as the bus routes are
much expanded in the western Oahu areas due to the physical area each route must
cover. PROPOSING ALTERNATIVE THAT MAY BE LESS COSTLY, MORE
EFFECTIVE, FEWER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Once the route is selected,
significant effort needs to be channeled in engineering solutions that would 1)
minimize disruption in traffic during the construction process, 2) simplify
construction and 3) minimize costs. I would suggest a route and design that would
allow for maximum elevated construction. The elevated construction technologies, if
properly applied, would allow for building the track/rail system in a modular fashion.
The piers or "supports" could be built individually in place or remotely, and the
"spans" could be built at an "offsite" construction area (similar to the H-3 modules).
The spans could then be transported to the site and lifted in place and "bolted"
together. This would minimize construction time and cost by allowing the use of re-
usable forms at the "off-site" locations and at the same time minimize traffic
disruption as the process of bolting a pre-fabricated span in place should be
considerably shorter than trying to form and pour in place. An added benefit may be
fewer environmental impacts as compared to an at grade or tunnel system since the
"impacts" would potentially be where the piers/support columns are placed. The
general "concept" of an elevated system over most of the route is assumed to be
given so that the environmental assessment of the elevated span would be only one
issue vs. a continuous issue if the "guideway" were located on or below grade.
Additionally, if an elevated system is used, the stations could be on a smaller
"footprint" since the elevated line could be located above the passenger services
(shops, ticket counters, service areas, etc.), entrances, and exits. Unless the station is
in an "outlying" area with parking requirements, the stations could be designed so as
to not require much more land area than the "right of way" required for the
guideways. Also, could reduce environmental impact issues. Although there is no
request for the "preferred" project routing at this time, it does seem that the 4d
solution would meet most of the system requirements. There is room for
improvement (isn't there always), and some of the routing might be revised to handle
more of the concerns and needs, but this route does ensure service to many of the key
areas discussed above. Please accept my apologies for such a long input, but I hope


it will assist in your evaluation and moving to the next step in the process. I would
appreciate being advised of the progress of the system and remain available should
you have any questions or wish to discuss any of the above. Mahalo, Larry
Lamberth, PE

Kathy Lawton

I agree that traffic is a big problem, but the outrageous expensive of this fixed type of
transportation just doesn't make sense. There will never be enough riders to pay for
the up-keep much less pay for the entire system, which will leave the city with an
insurmontable debt, of which it already has more than it seems to be able to handle.
Example: deteriorating schools, parks. Take care of them before commiting more
money on a BIG WHITE ELEPHANT!

Larry Lee

I am writing to oppose mass transit, especially any rail system. I am 56 years old and
have lived on Oahu my whole life. For the past year and a half, I have been reading
the daily newspaper’s Letters and Commentary. It seems that 9 out of 10 letters are
opposed to mass transit. Those who oppose it give rational reasons for their position.
Those few who favor mass transit, including comments by the mayor and
Abercrombie, do not have cogent arguments. Their arguments are based upon
emotion and manufactured fear. Supporters admit that a rail system will NOT solve
our current traffic problems. In fact, as I recall, the last study that was done in the
early 1990’s concluded that a rail system would reduce traffic by less than 1%. So,
why are we even considering spending a least $3 billion dollars to build and
hundreds of millions of dollar each year thereafter on a system that won’t reduce
traffic??!! I fail to see the logic or rationale. I. THE SUPPORTERS’ CASE
Supporters of mass transit keep saying that it will provide commuters with an
“alternative” means of transportation. $3 billion plus is too much just to have an
“alternative.” It’s actually laughable except that our politicians seem dead set on
railroading the project down our throats. If you want an alternative, how about
helicopter service? It’ll be much cheaper. It can be stopped or reduced during off
peak periods, with a direct reduction in operational cost. It can be easily and cheaply
discontinued when and if it is determined to be an ineffective or underused project.
The same can’t be said for mass transit. You might think helicopters is a ridiculous
idea, but no more so than spending billions on a mass transit system just to have an
“alternative.” The supporters’ argument that some of the cost will be covered by
federal dollars and tourist paying our inflated excise tax is fantasy and a deceptive
argument. For one, federal dollars is not free money. It is still our money. Secondly,
federal money is only a carrot our politicians (particularly Abercrombie) are using to
entice our city to jump into a bottomless financial pit. I have no doubt that mass
transit lobbyists have their greasy fingers in this effort. Once the project is approved
and on its way, the feds will gradually reduce any grants or contribution and leave the
city to pay more and more in the future. Look at federal funding for education,
environment, highway, Medicare and social security. These and other more


important programs have all been reduced over the years by the feds. Do you really
think we can depend on the feds in the long run to help finance our “nice to have” but
not “need to have” rail project? Of course not. Abercrombie’s claim that we will lose
federal money if the city didn’t approve the excise tax increase to show that the city
is serious about mass transit was only to create a sense of urgency. First of all,
nothing is forever (except for death and taxes) and even if the federal funds were
“lost” in 2005, it wouldn’t be lost forever. Politicians and politics change,
economics, and world and national events and opinions change. If Hawaii really
wanted federal money for some mass transit in the future, it will probably be there,
somewhere. However, by dangling the federal carrot, the city took the bait and is now
on the hook. It was enough to give the supporters an excuse to push the project onto
the public. Saying that tourist will pay for a large part of the cost is also deceptive.
Yes, we may have had a banner tourist year last year, but not long ago we were
dying for tourist. Tourism is a fickle industry. Any terrorist attack, airline strike,
hurricane, SARS like disease or scare, rescission in the east or on the mainland, etc.,
will have a devastating effect on tourism. As in the past, it can take years for the
local economy and tourism to recover. There is also more competition for the tourist
dollar from other destinations. Thus, tourism is not a guaranteed cash cow. Will the
ongoing cost for mass transit stop when tourism and our economy are down? Who
will pick up the slack? The politicians who railroaded the project? The mass transit
industry who is pushing the project? No, we taxpayers will be stuck with ever
increasing taxes. Like our “world class” convention center, rust bucket stadium,
road paving machine, dredging barge, medical school, etc., our politicians are willing
to spend our tax money just to have bragging rights for some new “world class” toy.
Once they are built or bought, the public gets stuck with a white elephant that
doesn’t match the political hipe or is not sustainable without public bailout and
maintanence becomes a hidden nightmare. Other “alternative” plans have been tried
in the past. The most recent being the ferry from Barber’s Point. Even when rides
were offered for free, it couldn’t generate enough riders to survive. Other past efforts
including the “hydrofoil” in the 1960’s etc., have all failed. The argument that the
project will create jobs is very short sighted. Much of the work will require
specialized knowledge and skill which probably means a non-local contractor and
technicians. Locals will be used for some of the work, but the work will last a few
years while the public will be stuck with the tab for the rest of the foreseeable future.
The new jobs created are unnecessary. If the same money is spent to fix our schools,
roads, sewers, harbors, water system, parks, libraries, etc., there would be plenty of
work for years. New jobs can be created by hiring more teachers, librarians, police
and firemen, DLNR workers, harbor security/police, parks and maintenance crews,
government auditors, etc. There is no shortage of job possibilities if government is
willing to spend the kind of money it wants to waste on a pipe dream. II. WHY I
AM AGAINST MASS TRANSIT The reasons presented in opposition to mass
transit, to me, make good sense and are more convincing. 1) Historically, locally
and nationally speaking, cost estimates given by government for projects have always
been unrealistically low. Once the project is approved, the costs escalates
tremendously. I see nothing to suggest this pattern will not happen with mass transit.
2) If it is admitted that mass transit will not significantly reduce traffic, what’s the


sense of wasting our hard earned money? Why burden taxpayers will higher taxes,
and subject taxpayers to inevitable tax increases for generations just to say there is an
“alternative”? 3) We don’t even know how much it will cost to maintain and operate
mass transit. What will the riding cost to users be? People can’t even afford the $2.00
one-way bus fare. Will mass transit cost more to ride? Probably “yes,” and by much
more than $2.00. It’ll be cheaper to drive. 4) Locals simply don’t go straight to work
from home and return directly home after work. Most people have to take their
children to schools in town in the morning and pick them up after work; go grocery
shopping and other shopping after work; go to second jobs, meetings, classes, take
children to sports and various lessons, go to exercise classes, socialize after work; etc.
People need their cars for this. After getting dropped off somewhere by train, no one
has the time or inclination to walk to and wait at a bus stop in order to take their
young children to school and then catch the bus to work. The same is true after work.
By the time a person has to catch the bus for all the errands after work and then catch
the train home, it will be late at night. Parents would not allow their children to either
ride the train or catch the bus alone to go to school or to after school activities. As a
practical matter, the system is not conducive to our local life-style. This is especially
true in Kapolei and the rest of west Oahu where there will be a concentration of
active young families with young children. 5) The fact that people will have to catch
the bus from the train station to get anywhere not within a short walking distance
will mean additional cost to the rider. Thus, paying for a train ride and multiple bus
fares. This fact alone, makes using mass transit impractical. If bus fare was free to
train users, there is still the problem of the time and effort it takes to catch the bus.
Free bus fare simply means higher cost to run the mass transit system. The bus cost
will either have to be paid as part of the mass transit cost, or taxpayers will have to
directly pay more to subsidize the “free” rides. Our bus system can’t support itself
now, how can it do so if rides are free or if the bus system has to be greatly increased
to accommodate mass transit? More over, the likely users of mass transit will be the
few who now use the bus. Thus, one public system will be stealing the riders from
another. The public will be stuck subsidizing two non-self sustaining transportation
systems. 6) Where will people in west Oahu park their cars to catch the train to
town? Will there be a parking fee? If, so that’s another discouraging cost to the rider.
What kind of security will there be for the cars all day and for riders who return to
their cars after dark? Who’s going to pay for the security? One complaint about the
last ferry system is that cars were vandalized while parked for the ferry ride. How far
will the parking lot be from the station and how large will the lot be? If not close to
the station, or if the lot is large, how will people get to their cars? Shuttle buses?
Costs for the shuttle buses? Walking in the dark alone to your car?—If so, I wouldn’t
let my wife or children use the train. 7) How much will security on the train and
stations cost? Punks are naturally going to be attracted and will victimize riders and
vandalize the stations. It’s common on the mainland and other places with stations
and subways. Security will have to be 24 hours at the stations, whether open for
business or not. Witness our schools, parks and public restrooms. Just one mugging
incident and people will avoid using the system. Have a terrorist incident, or even just
some crazy doing something stupid, will keep riders away. Thus, security will have
to be a top priority. Can we afford it? Will the government have the internal fortitude


to continually pay the high cost for top security even when rider ship is low and/or
when there is pressure to cut costs? Look at our schools, libraries, police force, roads,
sewers, etc., which are much higher priorities and yet are neglected and short changed
yearly. Do you really think security will be maintained at the necessary level. I
seriously don’t. That’s political reality and human nature. 8) The traffic is bad only
during rush hours. The rest of the time, traffic moves at a good pace. Traffic is even
better when school is out. Thus, does it make sense to spend so much money just to
address rush hour-school time traffic? Instead, why not address the root problems
which are rush hour and school sessions. Also, since mass transit will not make any
noticeable difference in the traffic anyway, the root problems are really the issue. 9)
Over development is really the problem and not traffic. Where ever you allow over
development, there will be congestion. Address the problem of over development, not
the symptom. 10) Those who say they support mass transit really mean that they
support other people using mass transit so that they can drive in less traffic. These
people are wishful dreamers. 11) With mass transit as an excuse for further
development in west Oahu, local traffic in west Oahu will get worst, especially after
work and on weekends. 12) Construction of mass transit will disrupt and displace
thousands of people and businesses. Look what happened with the Nimitz
Highway/Freeway work. It lasted for years and businesses suffered for years. Many
went out of business. Condemnation will not fully compensate the landowners who
must move. In Hawaii, land is too costly for government to pay fair market value
rather than conservative appraised values. Also, land cannot be replaced with similar
property because land is unique. 13) The auto industry spends hundreds of millions
of dollars each year to convince the public to buy and drive cars and other vehicles.
How can government compete to convince drivers to give up the convenience and
joy of driving? Will government spends millions of tax dollars on campaigns to get
people to give up their cars? It’ll have to, if it hopes to gain any appreciable number
of riders. Even if it tries, people will want their cars and drive them. 14) Have a
public vote on mass transit so we can see if the majority of the public really wants
mass transit. I can live with mass transit if an honest vote shows that more than 50%
of the people want it. But, it’s hard to swallow something that is being forced down
your throat by politicians. 15) The current mass transit project is admittedly only the
beginning. Further lines are planned for the future. It’s said that future lines/routes
will be needed to make mass transit more attractive and effective. Since nothing is
certain and it is certainly not a given that government will have the political will or
money to complete any or all of the necessary future lines, what if we get stuck with
just the initial line? Now we’ll have a partial system that will be incomplete and
inefficient. It will not serve enough people or routes to make it worth while or
practical. How easy does government think it will be to convince the public that
routes to the Manoa campus and to Waikiki should be built. Unlike going from west
Oahu to downtown, going from downtown to Manoa and Waikiki will involve a
much denser population through prime real estate. This means disruption and
displacement of a lot more people, homes and businesses at a much higher cost.
Objections over the sight and blight of the system running through largely residential
and small business areas will also be significant. I seriously doubt that future
politicians will be able to pull it off. Perhaps our current politicians feel that once the


initial leg is built, they can strong arm the public into approving the future routes
with the argument that the routes are needed to make mass transit work and without
the future routes, the taxpayers’ cost to maintain and operate the initial system will
get worst because the existing system is too small to attract the necessary riders to
make it feasible. Now, that’s bootstrapping at its best! III. MY GUESS AS TO
WHY POLITICIANS FAVOR MASS TRANSIT I don’t understand the rationale
behind our politicians’ push for mass transit, given the realities and cost. The only
reasons I can speculate on are: a) They want something to brag about during their
political reign. To give the appearance that they are “doing something” to address the
congestion. b) They want bragging rights to tell the world that Hawaii/Oahu is a
modern city with “world class” mass transportation. It’s like the family who has a
new shiny luxury car parked in the driveway for all to see, but the roof of the house
is falling in, the plumbing is stopped up, the water is polluted from lead pipes and
grunge, the walls are termite eaten, the stove doesn’t work and the windows are
broken. But hey, we do have a nice shiny toy in the driveway. Why do politicians
always have to have a “world-class” or “state of the art” something new that we can’t
afford. Why can’t we just have something adequate, that works, and that we can
easily afford? Is it because the latter is not fancy or exciting enough?? c) The
“alternative” argument is an excuse for government and developers to further over
develop west Oahu. With mass transit, the government and developers will argue that
more development is possible because there is mass transit to take care of the traffic
concerns. And, if residents don’t use mass transit and traffic gets worst, government
and developers will blame the residents for not using the system. That’s the only way
the “alternative” argument makes any sense. After all, if they really believe mass
transit will make a difference, why isn’t it proposed for east Oahu, where the traffic
is equally bad, if not worst during rush hour? The reason is that there is not as much
room left for development in east Oahu, as compared to the potential in west Oahu.
Thus, there is no need for an excuse to develop east Oahu. d) Government and
developers want mass transit so they can further develop west Oahu, as well as,
along the route and at station sites. Developers are working with politicians to see
their (developers’) dream come true. c) Mass transit developers and contractors see
easy money. They’ll do the work and take their money. d) I hope this is not true, but
given the political realities of today, some politicians may have hidden agendas that
will benefit themselves, family, friends and/or clients. There’ll be lots of money
involved and a lot of development at and around the stations. Many people will profit
at the expense of others and the public. When was the last time you heard that a large
public project didn't involve abuse, waste, favoritism and/or questionable payouts?
IV. ALTERNATIVES TO MASS TRANSIT So, what can be done instead of an
expensive mass transit project? How about the following: 1) Create a real “second
city” in west Oahu. Move either the state government or city government there.
Increase incentives for more businesses in West Oahu. This will keep more residents
in the area and create more “contra” flowing traffic during the rush hours. 2)
Develop and maintain more schools in west Oahu. Invest enough money in the
schools (statewide) so that the schools provide quality education so people don’t feel
the need to send their children to private schools in town or to public schools in other
districts. 3) Stagger school times, including the U.H. so they don’t collide with the


rush hour. 4) Encourage more staggered or different work hours. Especially for
government. 5) Develop a true west campus for the U.H., so students don’t have to
drive into town or back and forth. 6) Stop development of luxury homes and condos.
They do not benefit the local public. They only attract more wealthy non-residents
into the area, adding unnecessarily to the population and congestion. 7) Better
planning before development is allowed. The secondary roads in west Oahu are
already inadequate. Mass transit will not help the secondary road traffic. It will get
worst, if more development is allowed because of the mass transit excuse. 8)
Improve and increase bus service. Next to private cars and taxis, the bus is the most
convenient means of transportation. They can go more places than mass transit. They
can take you closer to more destinations than mass transit. It’s cheaper to maintain
and operate than mass transit, even if the price of fuel increases. (Mass transit cost
will remain higher, even when people aren’t riding.) Bus is more flexible and routes
can be changed to suit the demands of the rider ship. If the routes of mass transit
proves unpopular or inconvenient now or in the future, the routes can’t be changed
without prohibitive cost. Security is cheaper and easier with buses. Buses can use
existing roads. 9) Have more and safer bicycle and moped paths to encourage other
forms of transportation. 10) Traffic congestion is a direct result of population
growth. Not only is mass transit not going to reduce traffic, it will make matters
worst because it will serve as an excuse to allow more growth and development. With
or without mass transit, the traffic will get worst as the population grows and,
eventually, it will reach a point where more people will leave Oahu because of the
congestion and others will tolerate it and stay. As long as the population issue is
ignored, traffic will worsen and people will continue to complain. Government should
address the population problem and encourage smaller families and not encourage
new residents, e.g., by allowing luxury developments that only non-residents can
afford, or constantly seeking a greater military presence, or encouraging the image
that Hawaii is a great place to visit and stay. Like Oregon’s Governor McCall did in
the 1970’s, he encouraged people to visit Oregon, spend their money, but not to stay.
It was the philosophy of the entire state at the time. There were even Oregon
postcards showing visitors returning home with webbed feet or rusted bodies to
discourage new residents. That’s not to say that Hawaii should do likewise, but the
point is that at least Oregon recognized the problem early and tried to do something
about it.

Guy Leopard

The project should include the following: 1. Analysis of WHERE significant amount
of people are traveling To and From. a. PHNSY. Employs about 7,000 people. It's a
major hub of AM/PM traffic. It should have a station. 2. PH and Hickam. 3. The
Airport. 4. Pearl Ridge and Ala Moana Malls. 5. Downtown. 6. Aloha Stadium. 7.
Waikiki. The project shall fail if we DON'T properly take into account WHERE
people travel most often daily and whenever, from and to. Lastly, it appears the
project is totally forgetting Central Oahu (Mililani, Waipio, Wahiawa) and the North
Shore. Don't forget the Koa Ridge community comming on line in 2008. The vast
amount of traffic going EAST is from BOTH the Ewa Plain AND Central Oahu.


Project Rules. Recommend no eating, drinking, chewing gum, smoking, etc on the
rail, bus. Keep it clean will result in higher participation and lower maintenance
costs. Dress code. Require at a minimum shoes, shorts and shirt. Hopefully some
significant decision makers will read this email and it won't go into the circular file.
Mahalo and aloha, Guy L Leopard Jr leopardg001@hawaii.rr.com

Gary Li

I had a cursory look at some of the Scoping Presentation information and here are my
thoughts: 1- Since I live on Young Street (Section VII) I think I like Alternative 4c
of the Fixed Guideway Alternative best, proposed South King alignment. The next
step is for the project team to decide on whether it will be a street-level rail or up on
an elevated platform, and how (or if) it would blend into the environment. 2- I
recommend that future plans consider extending the rail lines to Kaimuki, especially
the city municipal parking lot located at Waialae Ave., Sierra Dr., and Koko Head
Ave. As a Honolulu Advertiser article dated December 18 2005 (page A37) explains,
there seems to be a very high number of popular businesses in those two blocks. My
family would love to patronize Happy Day Restaurant more often but can not stand
the horrendous parking -- which seems to last all day and night. I'd love to see the
parking lot replaced with a rail station; thus without a place to park people will be
more willing to find other means of transportation to that business district. 4- Transit
Technologies board: I would not like any kind of buses if they use diesel and other
polluting fossil fuels. Rapid rail and monorail seem more suitable for much larger
cities of several million. I like the People Movers and Light Rail, but I have mixed
feelings on the Maglev technology that merits further study. What is important to me
is that trains of various sizes are available (flexibility in case of emergencies or
population growth) and reducing noise and visual disruption as much as possible.
What I definitely do not want are loud trains that clatter and whine at all hours like in
New York and Chicago right outside residential buildings. Personal anecdote: my
relatives live in north Hong Kong island and I visit them often, three times in the past
6 years. I'm most impressed with their reliable multi-tiered transportation system.
There are trams, double-decker buses, 32 person mini-buses, a fast and clean
subway, not to mention hotel shuttles and taxicabs. Sadly most of Honolulu's
transportation options appear tourist-centered such as trolleys, tour buses and The
Bus (which is clean but not especially on-time).

Michael Lilly

I am against this project as proposed; it's a waste of taxpayers dollars. There are
feasible alternatives at less cost that would be more effective and carry more
passengers than a fixed rail system from essentially one point to another. Why not a
toll alternative along the existing corridors? But you aren't even considering that as an
alternative.


Robert Linczer

I have just returned from a 16 day vacation to New Zealand and Australia. Major
cities in these countries have a fised rail and or mono rail transit system. All of which
are relieving traffic congestion. As a frequent user of the H-1 and Kamehameha
Highway and frequently being caught up in the traffic congestion on both
thoroughfares, a rapid transit system is an absolute necessity. We have a natutural
corridor from Kapolei to hawaii Kai. Lets do it

Nikki Love

Looking forward to seeing transit here! I just wanted to suggest the following
additions to the purpose and need: - Changing demographics -- Honolulu's rapidly
aging population. Transit will be very important for helping our many elderly
citizens get around town independently. - New development in-town (eg. Kakaako) -
- transit as a way to promote mixed use smart growth -- make living within the urban
core more attractive. Good luck!!

Bob Loy

Aren't you required by State law to reply to each and every comment received during
this process? Mahalo.

Robert Loy

January 4, 2006 Aloha, Thank you for the opportunity to provide input into this
important public project. Based upon the information presented at the scoping
meetings, The Outdoor Circle submits the following comments: Historic Review All
mature trees potentially impacted by the project should be assessed-- particularly
those over 50 years old. Visual Diamond Head must be specified as a landmark that
must be considered...not simply lumped-in with "others." The EIS must address
visual impacts of transit stations, power sources, all infrastructure and construction.
Financing Options More information is needed on the scope of possible advertising
and what, if any, enabling law changes would be necessary. Process How can a
preferred alternative be selected before knowing the environmental impacts of all
primary proposals? Public Involvement Why no open forums during scoping? The
methods you are using limit public discussion and interaction. A community
consensus cannot possibly be reached solely by individuals submitting written
comments. It appears the process was devised to prevent public discussion, to block
confrontation, and to avoid having transit planners/government officials publicly
respond to inquiries. Alternative 4B What will a Kapiolani Park station facility look
like? What will be the elements of such a station and where would it be constructed?
Overall Visual Impacts Our organization watches after Hawaii's scenic environment.
We are deeply concerned about the potential loss of view planes from any transit
system and the infrastructure that supports it. We insist that the EIS include detailed
descriptions and assessments of the lost view planes, the value of those view planes
and the mitigation for their loss to the Transit Project. Consulted Party We request to


be named as an official "consulted party" in this endeavor. Response to Comments
Our interpretation of the State of Hawaii Office of Environmental Quality rules is
that the box on the online comment form asking whether the commenting party
"...would like a reply." is irrelevant. It does not release the City and/or its
contractors from responding to every comment received during the public comment
periods required under State and Federal law. OEQC rules require that individuals
receive a response to their comments. This matter was challenged and adjudicated by
the Environmental Council on May 12, 2004. In a memo dated 10/19/04, OEQC
specifically states that a proposed rule regarding "comment bombing" and the
previous amendment of HAR Section 11-200-22(d) be rescinded. Therefore, the box
that implies people can waive their right to a response is inappropriate and violates
OEQC rules. Please respond to these and all future comments provided by our
organization, as required. Bob Loy Director of Environmental Programs The
Outdoor Circle 1314 South King Street, Suite 306 Honolulu, Hawaii 96814 (808)
593-0300

Heather Lum

I oppose the development of a rapid transit system for the following reasons: 1)
People will not give up the independence of their cars--they just hope others will. 2)
The maintenance costs will be overwhelming to the taxpayers. 3) The technology
will be outdated before it is even built. 4) Viable alternatives, such as reconfiguring
freeway ramps, have not been exhausted. The bottom line is that we live on an
island. There is a limit to the amount of development and growth that can be
sustained. There is a limit to how many cars we can continue to import. Unless
changes are made to curb the rampant overdevelopment and excesses, we will
completely lose the quality of life that we have enjoyed here. Building rapid transit is
not going to solve the real issues here.

Walter Mahr

Years ago, when I owned an advertising agency and handled the advertising for a
major weight loss center, I learned that the problem was not taking off the
weight...the problem was keeping off the weight. The same thing is true with this
transit system. The initial cost will be much higher than anyone has anticipated but,
the real cost will be the upkeep, maintenance and total cost of running the system
once it gets going. Needless to say, the only way to pay for that is to let the other guy
pay for it. Who? The other guy...meaning all the tourists will visit our island. I can't
believe you folks are not including a stop at the airport and several stops in Waikiki.
An airport entrance to the system could have a higher fee than other stops and that fee
will certainly cover a substantial part of the cost of running the system. In other
words, let the tourists pay a major part of the bill. It's the only way to not bleed the
rest of us to death. Thanks.


Tesha Malama

1. Cultural Impact - Utilize a reputable consultant familiar and sensitive to the native
hawaiian culture in regards to gathering rights, artifacts, potential impacts, etc. 2.
Visual impact of the actual people mover. Incorporate ALOHA feel, look, etc. 3.
Select a route that will include Ewa Beach, Kalaeloa, Kapolei to downtown, with a
plan to include spurs to nanakuli and mililani. 4. Select the less evasive routes to
minimize current impacts. (ie. use North-South instead of Ft. Weaver)

Sally Jo Manea

Regardless of the rail corridor selected, it is vitally important to consider pedestrian
and cycling safety for all transit users; that is, adequate pedestrian and cycle-friendly
access at all stops and park-and ride facilities. Ideally, a separate and safe pedestrian-
cycle commuter path from Kapolei to UH would provide a long term solution to both
traffic congestion as well as health problems of obesity. Until single use vehicle
drivers get out of their cars and ride mass transit or self propelled transit, traffic
congestion will grow and grow. Everyone yells about the impossibility of paying for
such a dream, but it is reality in forward thinking communities such as Vancouver
Island (Galloping Goose Trail).

JON MAR

I REALLY DON'T BELIEVE MANY PEOPLE WILL UTILIZE THE TRANSIT
SYSTEM AND IF IT IS UTILIZED, I'LL APPEAR THAT HAWAII ISN'T THAT
CONGESTED WITH TRAFFIC ENCOURAGING VISITORS TO LIVE HERE.
LET TRAFFIC CONGESTION DISCOURAGE OTHERS FROM WANTING TO
LIVE HERE AND POSSIBLY OTHERS TO MOVE BACK HOME.

John Marrack

I am a retired CPA from a major international CPA firm. I believe the cost/benefit
analysis to any of the rail projects is essential. And, an honest cost/benefit analysis
should include realistic ridership estimates and realistic future employee and
maintenance costs. I believe such an analysis would conclude that no rail project is
cost effective for Hawaii. I am also upset that our government leaders are afraid to
make the difficult desicions that would truly make Kapolei a 2nd city and thus lessen
our one way traffic congestion. Such previously discussed ideas as 1) Move
government offices to Kapolei and 2) move the University of Hawaii to West Oahu
would greatly help traffic patterns and flow. Thank you for listening, John
Marraack

ian mckay

My route choices: 1.7 or 1.6 - whichever would serve more (actual) riders 2.3 or 2.2
3.3 4.11 or 4.6 - accessibility to airport is must 5.3 6.13 or 6.16 7.11 or 7.9 8.7 -
access convention center/waikiki to/from airport is a must Additionally - the


environmental considerations (including sight-lines) must not be overstated, as the
gross impacts of increasing auto/truck/bus traffic is exponentially higher, in all
aspects!

Mark McMahon

The traffic in this city is seriously a problem. And most of that is from 1 or 2 people
in cars. There are several things that could be done to improve conditions: * invest
in bike lanes by widening streets, especially around UH-Manoa, for a couple of miles
-- would help encourage students to take a bike rather than a car because they fear
the roads; * a high-speed rail line, or (is it possible?) subway line, between E-W ends
of HNL; * encourage telecommuting to all business, especially UH/EWC; *
subsidizing monthly transit passes for government employees and encouraging
private companies to do the same for their employees... Thanks for listening... Good
Luck!

jeff merz

The 12/13 scoping meeting was not well designed for public input. A presentation is
in order. As to the designs, the corridor that extends THROUGH Waikiki down
Kuhio is imperative, if this light rail is to work. The light rail must extend to UH,
Waikiki, downtown with an eventual spur to the airport terminal. These four
destinations must all be connected or traffic will not be relieved.

Craig Meyers

I am totally against the any type of rail mass transit system. My main concern lies not
so much with the initial costs, which will far exceed any estimates as has been shown
time after time, particularly in Hawaii (H-3), but with the costs that are going to be
required to subsidize any type of rail system once it is completed. There is not going
to be the ridership to sustain the cost, and to compare Oahu to places such as New
York, D.C. and San Francisco is insane. There are millions of people living in those
areas, you are talking about building a system to assist a population of a couple
hundred thousand people on the leeward coast. There are going to be two periods of
ridership each day, during the morning and evening rush hours, other than that there
will be minimal ridership. What is there to ride out to if you are heading in the Ewa
direction? Another concern of mine is where folks are going to park in order to use
any type of rail system. You are going to require large parking garages on non-
existent land space, and if you charge fees for the garages, then people are just going
to drive any way. The bottom line is that the vast majority of people are not going to
leave their cars at home. They are spoiled after decades of having their cars available
and no rail system is going to change that. Most importantly, the cost to build the
system, coupled with the cost to subsidize it once it's completed, is going to cripple
Hawaii taxpayers forever.


Darin Mijo

I think the costs of constructing a fixed rail system exceeds the potential benefits.
The construction of a fixed rail system will have a profound impact on the future of
Hawaii. Do we want to continue to promote our island as a beautiful and romantic
place where you can have a unique multicultural experience filled with excitement
and fun? Or are we going to become a place that operates and looks like any other
major city in the United States full of concrete and high-rise buildings? A fixed rail
system would definitely not help to promote Hawaii as a unique and beautiful place.
I hope our elected leaders are thinking about things like this when they are proposing
such ideas like a fixed rail system. Our tourism industry will definitely take a hit by
building this. Yes, it would help transport tourists from Waikiki to Waikele, but at
what cost. Several tourists (Japanese and American) that I spoke to were
disappointed that they saw a McDonalds on the island. Imagine what kind of
impression a fixed rail system will have on tourists (what about a fixed rail system
filled with graffiti - a fixed rail system would be another canvas for vandals)! I guess
thats why so many of the tourists are now skipping Oahu and only going to Maui and
Kauai. A concern of mine is usage. Do we know how many people will actually use
the fixed rail system? From my experience, local people (and even tourists) like their
freedom and autonomy. They like to go and run at the park, fish, surf, work out, etc.
after work. I would think usage will not be sufficient enough to justify the costs of
constructing a fixed rail system. Here's just a suggestion that I hope someone will
consider. Rather than investing millions and millions of dollars into an enormous
project that will cost millions more every year to maintain, why not try and "re-
route" the traffic. With the significant increase in housing and development of the Ko
Olina hotels on the west side of the island, why not offer significant income tax
credits for businesses that move their operations to Kapolei - or Mililani Tech Park
(more employees, larger income tax credit)? This will help reduce the amount of
people making the drive from the west side to downtown. The moves will also spur
business and activity that would generate tax revenues for the State. The city should
ask the State to speed up any plans to improve UH's west Oahu campus. The west
Oahu campus should be developed into a top notch facility that can accommodate
significant enrollment. It should also be marketed accordingly. Ask the students
attending the Manoa campus what it would take for them to attend the west Oahu
campus and develop accordingly. Why not pour millions of dollars into an
educational and research facility that develops our youth (and attract students from
outside the state) and possibly bring in outside grant monies? I live in Kaneohe, but
I have driven in rush hour traffic to and from downtown and Pearl City many times.
Its horrible. Something needs to be done. A fixed rail system may be an answer. But
the costs and losses that come with it (not just the monetary ones) will jeopardize
Hawaii's future as being that special place that people from all over the world save
their money for years to come have spend their vacation. Please do not build a fixed
rail system. There are other alternatives.


gary miller

We've seen no cost and benefit information on any of these alternatives; this
information must be available before any judgement can be made on the alternatives.
When this information is available, ask for input from the public then.

Bob Minugh

I plan on attending the December meeting to get more info. The plans on this website,
are a good start, but there is insufficient info and data, to make an educated selection.
What are the projected population and traffic patterns? What are the advantages and
disadvantages of each option? Para 1.2.2 states the "current" travel time. Put a date
on that data, say Nov05 vs the word current. 40 - 60 minutes travel time from Kapolei
to Downtown sounds like old data. Last year backups were typically to Weikele
shopping center. This year it is typically back to Kunia on ramp (even radio traffic
reports are now saying "backed up to Kunia, as usual"). I travel from Kapolei to
Hickam, with no stalls or accidents I leave at 0630 and arrive at 0725 (55 minutes).
Do the terminals take into account future expansion east, west and towards Mililani?
If population growth is projected to increase in Ewa, it looks like it would make
sence to run the rail along Ft Weaver Rd. If population growth will move east and
west of North/South Rd, then the rail should run along North/South Rd. One question
you can either answer by email or at the meeting is past,present and projected
cars/hour, during peak travel times, merging at Kunia (from Kapolei and from Ewa)
and merging at H1/H2 (from H1 and from H2). It doesn't seem right for H1 to back
up to Kapolei during bad traffic days, while there is no back up on Ft Weaver. At
Kunia H1 narrows from 3 lanes to 2, while the Ewa on ramp is 3 lanes wide. Thanks
for keeping the community informed. Bob Minugh

Eric Miyasato

Could an elevated rail be placed within the Ala Wai Canal and use part of the Ala
Wai Golf Course as a Main Transit Station? The space above the Ala Wai Canal is
large, open and unused. It borders the Hawaii Convention Center and runs parallel to
Waikiki.

Henry Mochida

Although no rail system is self sufficient, Oahu does not have a dense enough
population, and the system may not significantly reduce traffic (because there is an
indepence of driving that many locals depend on and the costs of driving vs. mass
transit are not severe enough) I SUPPORT RAIL. Because rail represents a more
social benefit that provides those economically challenged the option of greater
mobility, hence job opportunities, school options, government participation, medical
choices, etc. In essence the rail will create a better social environment for Oahu's
population increasing access and transportation ability, with the additional benefits of
reducing traffic, adding economic growth at areas of rail stops (with shops and


commerce), as well as promoting pedestrian activity and health. Henry I. Mochida
Master's candidate in the Department of Urban & Regional

Guy Monahan

Public transportation is a losing activity in almost all cities in our country from
ridership to financial observation. If our city is so different, then explain to me how
our current public transportation system is: financially independent of subsidy;
enticing new customers; and improving safety and conveinence. Fact is, it is not.
And don't argue that we have no other solution but to throw more money and
resources at the problem by building "light rail", because city ordinances have
created a climate that disallows competition with "The Bus". One immediate solution
would be to allow private competitors curb access at bus stops and discontinued
subsidy of "The Bus" fares. wilfred morales fix rail or elevated links should begin at
kapolei lead into honolulu core. bus routes should feed into transit system,
integrating bus and rail. an initial route across pearl harbor, hickam, keehi lagoon and
to sand island; linking to downtown by bridge would be truly rapid and allow bus
service to flow outward to current honolulu bus routes. a second route destinating to
aloha stadium bus connection postponing a manoa link if at all.

Steven Morgan

I haven't heard how any of the options will impact current and future trafic
congestion. I consider that the only reason to proceed with this kind of a project Give
us the facts on projected ridership for each project and the cost. Please!

Roy Morita

I like plan 2 the best. I think that any rail system to be totally useless and expensive
beyond words. The main fault with any rail system on Oahu is that the ridership will
be mostly moving in only one direction during the majority of the operational period.
In the morning most riders will be travelling from the Leeward coast to Honolulu and
in the mid-afternoon to the evenings they'll be going in the opposite direction. To be
cost effective there would have to be at least a 40-50% ridership going in the
opposite direction as the main flow of riders. There has to be more jobs in the
Kapolei/Leeward coast area to justify this increase in riders going to this area in the
mornings. Just at the top of my head I would estimate that around 40 thousand jobs
would be required over what we have now. There is no 2nd Urban area in Kapolei
because the emphasis is on single-family housing. There isn't room to create the
amount of jobs required to increase ridership in a rail system to this area. Unless we
move most of the State government and the UH system plus re-open the Barbers
Point Naval Station to some branch of the military there won't be any new jobs save a
few high tech positions and some low paying retail entry positions. Sorry, I got
carried away. What this boils down to is there will not be enough continuous
ridership to justify runnig a full scale rail system. The cost to the rider therefore will
be high (My estimate is around $8.00 roundtrip based on an advanced purchase of a
monthly or longer pass) and the cost to the public to support this rail system would be


around 80 to 170 million dollars (2006 dollars) per year depending on the operating
schedule for this system. This is only my personal guess/estimate not based on actual
figures. Oh, and I estimate it would take about 10 years to complete the proposed rail
route (minimum) based on how long the local governments really usually take when
they say how long they think it's going to take. Thanks for reading this. I ride the bus
to and from work at the UH from Aiea every work day and if a rail system is built
would not probably ride it cause I would still live too far (1 to 2 miles) from any
access point. Caio!

Jeremy Morrow

With Roberts bus fees for my son to go from Aiea to Iolani, and gas costs to pick him
up after sports, we estimate we currently spend about $1,775/year just getting my son
to/from school. Each day we also have to add to the traffic congestion in the
afternoon by driving all the way down to near Waikiki (Iolani), then driving all the
way back home. What a difference light rail would have made! I would not have to
drive at all, and my son might have a 20 minute ride home! So City Council member
Djou's concern about a $400/person increase in taxes are NOTHING compared to
what we spend and the time we invest now. We also look forward to the day when
we can travel to Ala Moana or Waikiki without driving or having the hassle/expense
of finding parking down there. I also hate it when I see all the people having to
stand outside in the morning dark, waiting for too slow buses, just so they can get to
work on time downtown or in Waikiki. Rail would improve their lives. So yes, we
strongly support light rail, and are strongly against any solution (more buses) that
does not include rail. I do support feeder routes, like the one to Waikiki, and perhaps
feeder routes elsewhere that make sense. One key to a successful project, however, is
plenty of secure PARKING at each station! If you can't leave your car at the station,
how could you possibly take the train? And please don't be afraid of using
condemnation powers to acquire enough land for the routes, stations, and ENOUGH
PARKING. This is for Hawaii's future, and will improve everyone's daily lives.

Richard Morse

[This may be comment 1 of 3 from me--thank you] For those who are considering a '
bus solution' as an option to a 'fixed rail solution' ( i.e. Alternatives 1,2 or 3 from
Environmental Impact Statement Notice.--Nov. 2005) Please refer to the following
URL: http://www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_newslog001.htm#GEN_20041216 which
may be accessed by typing " Light Rail Now! NewsLog 2004" .into your browser
window. This website contains about 38 short articles about rail projects in various
cities. Thirty-seven of these are success stories (or success stories in the making).
One of these, however, is a rather negative account of the Honolulu experience. The
gist of this article is: 'No improvements in a bus system can compare with the benefits
of a train.' Here I have coppied the beginning and last paragraph of this article; while
omitting most of the body: 18 December 2004 Honolulu "BRT" service slammed
for poor ridership We're strongly in favor of Quality Bus improvements, but the
ongoing campaign to hype better bus service as "Bus Rapid Transit", and to claim it's


"just like light rail, but cheaper", is nothing short of a fraud, and counterproductive to
winning public support for transit. A good case in point, and current object lesson, is
the recently inaugurated "BRT" scheme in Honolulu, hawked by its promoters as
"much cheaper and more flexible than rail, ....." However, the Honolulu experience
appears to underscore the contention of many transit supporters that merely
repackaging Quality Bus service as "rapid transit", and hawking it with claims that
"it's light rail on rubber tires" and "just like rail, but cheaper", is a deceptive ploy
whose promises fall far short of rendering the benefits and achievements of true rail
transit, either light rail or rapid transit. Once again – you get what you pay for. [My
comment: Although this article is somewhat harsh, I would tend to concur with its
basics. I have had oppertunity to ride trains in various cities and find that they are
reliable, punctual and (if I may add) "fun to ride." (The 'fun' part should not be under-
rated because that leads to increased ridership. I think tourists will ride it for that
reason alone...locals too.) Within my experience, sometimes trains have very few
riders; while at other times, they're packed. That, I think, is the general nature of
public transit.]

Richard Morse

IN SUPPORT FOR FIXED GUIDE WAY ALTERNATIVE 4-d, WITH DIRECT
LINE TO HONOLULU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT. I would strongly urge the
planners to run the rail-line directly directly to the airport; with a stop at the inter-
island terminal and 2 or 3 stops at the international terminal. (This, as apposed to the
shuttle from Kamehameha Highway option.) By way of argument, I will ask the
planners to please image the year 2018. It's 4:00 in the afternoon; Freeway traffic is
all but gridlock. You are rushing to to meet a 4:20 check-in time for a flight
somewhere. You've decided that the The Train is your best bet for getting there on
time. You have two parcels of baggage and your six-year old daughter in tow. Now I
ask, would you prefer to: A) ...transfer two bags of luggage and your daughter to a
shuttle at Kam Highway--(a shuttle which you are not sure will be there when you
reach the transfer station; and which, itself, may be delayed in the traffic.) And then
transfer all again at the terminal? Or... B) ...know exactly when you and your child
are arriving at the terminal and transfer you bags only once? I would prefer (B); if
only that it would be less stressful The Portland light rail, for example, goes directly
to the airport. I have ridden it from the city to the airport once; and can testify that it
is very convenient.

Richard Morse

"In some cities, the urban rail system is so comprehensive and efficient that the
majority of city residents go without an automobile. London, New York City, Paris,
Seoul and Tokyo have the most extensive and convenient metro systems in the
world." --(From Wikipedia article on "Rapid Transit".)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_transit Below is a condensed, partial list of cities
throughout the world with electric-rail public transport. Some of these are simply
cross-town trams; while others represent elaborate networks--employing some


combination of monorail, light rail, high speed trains etc. This list does not include
the extensive railways that transverse nations or entire continents. The earliest urban
railway was the London Underground ("The Tube")--first opened in 1863--(converted
to electric power in 1890.) Since then, electric rail transport has become the mark of
a modern urban civilization in countries all around the world. Now, 143 years after
the original opening of "The Tube", the city of Honolulu struggles through the
planning stages of a single rail line that will run less than half-way across a tiny
island. Historically, the planning of urban rail transport usually involves a good deal
of necessary controversy. Such controversy, of course, is a healthy aspect of
democratic process; which serves, hopefully, to satisfy the greatest number of people
and interests--and, ultimately, benifits the whole community. However...without
pointing fingers at any particular persons or events, I would venture to suggest that
the political climate in Hawaii has, in the past, had a tendency to forestall the
creation of rail, mass-transit alternative for the people of Honolulu. I feel justified,
then, in requesting that Representatives, on all levels of Government, make an extra
effort to act in concert in bringing about this important addition to the island of
Oahu. I also ask that they envision themselves riding a free-rail system that flies past
traffic as if it wasn't there; whose guide-ways complement both the urban and rural
skyline or landscape; whose ports and stations are pleasant architectural
enhancements--inside and out-- reflecting, in their design, the heritage of the islands;
whose vehicles are state-of-the-art--quiet and safe and comfortable; whose attraction
for ridership will generate commerce in many, many ways; whose presence in the
community will be a source of pride for generations to come. Let's add Honolulu to
this list of cities with electric rail mass transit systems: Asia, including Caucasus
(Armenia) Yerevan, (Azerbaijan) Baku, (China) Beijing, Guangzhou, Nanjing,
Shanghai, Shenzhen, Tianjin, Wuhan, Hong Kong, Tbilisi, (India) Bangalore,
Calcutta, Chennai, Delhi, Hyderabad, Mumbai, Thane, (Israel) Haifa, Tel Aviv, (Iran)
Isfahan, Karaj, Mashhad, Shiraz, Tabriz, Tehran, (Japan) Chiba, Fukuoka,
Hiroshima, Kamakura< Kawasaki, Kitakyushu, Kobe, Komaki, Kyoto, Nagoya,
Naha, Osaka(4), Saitama, Sakura, Sappora, Sendai, Tokyo(10), Yokohama(3)
(Kazakhstan) Almaty, ( Korea) Pyongyang, Busan, Daegu, Daejeon, Incheon, Seoul,
(Malaysia) Kuala Lumpur(4), Penang, (Philippines) Manila(2)...Singapore. Bangkok,
Chain Mai, Kaohsiung, Taipei, (Turkey) Adana, Ankara, Bursa, Izmir, (Uzbekistan)
Tashkent Europe, excluding the Caucasus Vienna, Minsk, Antwerp, Brussels,
Charleroi, Sofia, Prague, Copenhagen, Helsinki, Lille, Lyon, Marseille, Paris,
Rennes, Toulouse, Berlin, Bielefeld, Bochum, Cologne/Bonn, Dortmund,
Dusseldorf, Essen/Mulheim, Frankfurt, Hanover, Hamburg, Munich, Nuremberg,
Stuttgart, Wuppertal, Athens, Thessaloniki, Budapest, Bologna, Brescia, Catania,
Genoa, Milan, Naples, Rome, Tunn, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Oslo, Warsaw,
Coimbra, Lisbon, Porto, Margem Sul, Bucharest, Chelyabinsk, Kazan, Krasnoyarsk,
Moscow(2), Nizhny Novgorod, Omsk, Samara, Saint Petersburg, Ufa, Yekaterinburg,
Barcelona, Bilbao, Madrid, Palama de Mallorca, Seville, Valencia, Stockholm,
Lausanne, Istanbul, Dnipropetrovsk, Donetsk, Kharkov, Kiev, Glasgow, London(2),
Newcastle upon Tyne North America and Mexico (Canada) Calgory, Edmonton,
Montreal, Ottawa, Toranto, Vancouver (United States) Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston,
Buffalo, Chicago, Cincinnati, Detroit, Fort Worth, Jacksonville, Las Vegas, Los


Angeles(2), Miami, Morgantown, NewYork(3), Orlando, Philadelphia(3), Pittsburgh,
San Francisco Bay Area(2) San Juan- (Puerto Rico), Washington DC, Portland(2),
Sioux City, Seattle. (Mexico) Guadalajara, Mexico City, Monterrey South America
Buenos Aires, Belo Horizonte, Brasilia, Porto Alegre, Recife, Rio de Janeiro, Sao
Paulo, Santiago de Chile, Valparaiso, Medellin, Lima, Caracas, Los Teques,
Maracaibo, Valencia. Africa Cairo __ Information from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rapid_transit_systems#Africa

Jim Moylan

Greatly support FIXED-GUIDEWAY ALTERNATIVE - C: Fort Weaver Road/
Farrington Highway/ Kamehameha Highway/ Dillingham Boulevard/ Ka‘aahi Street/
Beretania Street/ King Street/ Kai‘ali‘u Street Alignment. This is the only option
available that includes a highly congested Ewa area, with thousands of home
building permit approved. The building of North South Road and widing of Ft.
Weaver road does not resolve the congestion. That is why I greatly support
alternative C. Merry Christmas!

Johnson Mukaida

You know what? I don't think that the mass transit is going to work. People might
ride it for a while but it will not last. People are too lazy to catch the transit system
and walk to their jobs or wherever they have to go. People in Hawaii is too used to
driving.

Marc Myer

Seems someone is putting the cart before the horse. People are anxious to alleviate
traffic congestion, yet the current options are unattractive to commuters. Why?
Because the TheBus does not currently meet commuters’ needs. Is this a deliberate
attempt to increase demand for light rail? It's looking that way. I have contacted
TheBus several times to inquire about planned improvements to schedules, routes,
etc, and have not yet been even properly responded to. Given the immense amount of
money required to build a rail system, why no concurrent improvements to TheBus,
which would cost relatively little? Where are TheBus’ proposed improvements? I
live on the Windward side and commute to the Stadium area. After eight years of the
H3 freeway’s operation, did you know that TheBus still does not have a single route
that uses the H3? Are you aware that no significant improvements to the Windward
route have been made in years? Thousands of commuters per hour use the H3; many
would welcome TheBus as an alternative. A commuter from the Windward side is
forced to change buses at School Street/Likelike in order to arrive in the Pearl
City/Pearl Harbor area, resulting in a commute delay of an hour. A short commute in
a car via the H3 takes nearly an extra hour by TheBus, making it useless for
Windward riders. TheBus is claiming poor ridership, yet they make no effort to
evaluate demand, or make a serious attempt at improvements. I’ll support light rail
once I’m satisfied everything else has been seriously tried. Clearly TheBus’
management needs some oversight.


Seichi Nagai

I agree with the need and purpose of the project. ALL traffic to Leeward Oahu passes
through Pearl City and impacts me. The Pearl Harbor bridge or tunnel alternative
interests me very much because it provides a true alternate corridor for automobiles.
The operational and security concerns I'm sure can be negotiated like the Coronado
bridge in San Diego Harbor or the Aqualine in Tokyo Bay. The security concerns that
appear to be the major obstacle are of a personal and subjective nature that is masked
by national security. If this concern is looked and discussed with open and objective
minds, they will see that security can be maintained and the project will serve the
community better than any rail or bus system.

Nancy Nagamine

1. The fixed rail option is NOT a good one. It will not serve enough people, and many
will not be able to use it.. There will need to be busses to carry people from the many
valleys and outlying neighborhoods. The windward side, Hawaii Kai, and many
other neighborhoods would not be served by a fixed line. BUSSES are much more
versatile and can go where the people are. This is why many fixed rail lines are no
longer in existence today (including on Oahu!).In a city of multi millions of people I
can see it working but not here. 2. Where is the cost/benefit analysis of the different
options? 3. The schools are really the problem. If it were not for the multitude of
private school kids being shuffled all over the island there would not be such
congestion. Notice how little traffic there is when school is out? 4. Why not move
businesses and government offices to where the people are rather than vice versa. 5.
Where are the cost analysis and these options in this program? 6.Who is really
benefitting from all of this? The unions certainly must be for this various fixed rail
options. This will be a windfall for many unions while the taxpayer suffers. 7.
LONG term, say 50 years from now, what will the fixed rail option look like? Will it
rust? How will it be maintained? What will the tourists think? We will ruin our
island with the fixed rail option. The key to the future is VERSATILITY. A fixed rail
is NOT versitile!

nobu nakamoto

I would like to comment on the High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project, but find it
very difficult to do so because there is very little meaningful information available
on your website, So, first of all, I’d like to suggest you increase the information
presented on your website, keeping in mind that it is not possible for many of us to
attend your meetings: 1. For your alternative routes, please include information on
specific destinations that will be served by each route, as well as which won’t be
served. Here’s some destinations that I think are important, and whose inclusion or
exclusion will affect the desirability of each route. I’m sure there are many other
important destinations that should be included as well. a. Kapolei Hale b. UH-West
O’ahu c. St. Francis West d. Leeward Community College e. Pearlridge Shopping
Center/Pali Momi Medical Center f. Aloha Stadium g. Pearl Harbor h. Kaiser
Moanalua i. Airport j. Honolulu Community College/Iwilei k. Downtown l. Queen’s


Hospital/Legislature m. Honolulu Hale n. Ward Centers o. Blaisdell Center/Straub p.
Ala Moana/Wal-Mart q. Punahou r. Kapi’olani Medical Center s. UH-Manoa t.
Kaimuki u. Waikiki v. Kapi’olani Community College 2. Cost information for each
route will also affect the desirability of the routes. I believe your Proposed Purpose
and Need is missing something important, specifically, providing for the
transportation needs of senior citizens. Our eldest baby boomers will be approaching
70 years old by the time this system is operational, and having an alternative to
driving that provides seniors with transportational independence will greatly increase
their quality of life. It will also make it easier for those seniors with deteriorating
physical capabilities to give up driving before they become a danger to others on the
road. Note that seniors, many of whom will be retired, will have different
transportational needs than those commuting to and from work or school. Seniors
also tend to be wheelchair users at a higher rate than the general population.
Something else totally missing from scoping information is any recognition of the
fact that mass transit systems are inherently incomplete transportation systems. They
only take people from one transit stop to another, and most people will still have to
find a way between the transit stop and their starting point or destination. Without
addressing these ‘last mile’ needs, the success of any mass transit system in attracting
riders will be greatly limited, so the system plan must address this issue. Last-mile
solutions could be divided into three general categories: those provided by
individuals, those provided by private industry, and those provided by public entities.
Individual-provided last mile solutions include walking, bicycles, motorized and non-
motorized scooters (including the seated, motorized scooters marketed primarily to
senior citizens), skateboards, motorized bicycles, and motorized and non-motorized
wheelchairs. Your mass transit proposal should include information of how these
types of solutions will be accommodated, for example: Will there be bike racks, and
will they be severely limited, as with the racks on TheBus? Will skateboards and
scooters be allowed? How will wheelchairs and seated scooters be accommodated?
Will there be secure lockers available at the transit stations for storage of bikes,
scooters, etc.? In my opinion, the mass transit system should accommodate and
encourage a complete range of individual-provided last-mile solutions, including all
of the above, and be flexible enough to accommodate any emerging solutions, such
as the opportunity presented recently by the great popularity of scooters. They will
be the lowest cost, and frequently the most convenient to the user (no need to wait
again), of all last-mile solutions. Private industry-provided last mile solutions
include taxis and shuttles. I would guess, for example, that if a transit stop is built a
mile or two from the Waikele Outlet Center, the Center will want to send their trolley
to the transit stop. Employers may arrange shuttles to pick up and drop off
employees, perhaps in lieu of providing parking. In order for these to be viable, the
transit stations must have pickup/dropoff points available. The Pearlridge monorail is
another example of a private industry-provided solution. Public entity-provided
solutions would include local bus routes and PRT (Personal Rapid Transit). PRT also
can be implemented in a public/private partnership. For example, the basic PRT
infrastructure could be put up by the County, but private companies could be allowed
to add stops and spurs to the system at their expense, with a contribution to operating
costs. That could be made more attractive to private entities with incentives such as


waiving or reducing parking mandates if they have a PRT stop. I also noticed on the
slide about transit technologies dropped from further studies that short station
spacing is envisioned for the corridor. I suggest you reconsider this, especially for
initial phases. Stations obviously cost a lot of money to build as well as for the land
under them, and short station spacing also means more stops and slower transit. I
think it would be wiser to spend that money on a longer system with fewer stops, and
facilitating and encouraging ‘last-mile’ solutions that extend beyond a mile, to 2 to 3
miles. If you do decide to go ahead with short station spacing, I suggest you start
with a longer system with longer station spacing initially, and infill stations later, as
opposed to initially building a short system will all the stops, and lengthening the
system later. Thanks for your time. Please be responsible with our tax dollars.
Nobu Nakamoto Nobun13@yahoo.com 484-1417

Elizabeth Nelson

I don't think tying up highways and byways with construction for the next 10 or so
years is the solution to our traffic problems. We need an immediate solution. I think
we should concentrate on building our bus system, large buses and small, going all
over, at all times. I think more people would ride the bus if it were more accessible. I
tried to get a bus to Kaneohe on a Friday night and was told the last bus goes from
Honolulu to Kaneohe at 9:30PM. That is ridiculous. Thank you. Robert Nickel It's
time for Honolulu to proceed on some form of Alternative 4C. Some portions of
elevated and underground alignments are necessary. Neil Niino To be equally fair for
alternative modes of transportation, the bike lane should connect, be sufficiently
wide, clean, and maintained for riders. We live in a environment where bicycles can
truly be a alternative form of transport due to our weather and not the mention the
many riders in Hawaii. However, these great ideas were never supported. I have a
suggestion, rather than creating and maintaining a million dollar fountain (or similar
items), move this money in to creating proper bike lanes and you will not need to
raise money for this activity.

BYRON OGATA

An underground transit system is out of the question and the only alternative is street
level or elevated system. Why not combine an elevated and street level system. The
elevated portion would be where little or no scenic value will be lost. I've lived in or
visited countries with elevated and underground transit systems and the
inconvenience caused during construction seemed like a very long time (6 to 8 years)
but soon after completion of the transit system, people found it to be a blessing and
wondered why their city government waited so long building a transit system. The
majority of the people in Hawaii support a new transit system and the people that
complain are in the minority group. Usually the minority group complain the most or
the loudest and usually we do not hear from the silent majority. Like any major
construction project, consideration for future expansion have to be included in the
overall transit system plans. After 45 years as a federal employee, I've seen a lot of


money wasted during expansion projects because the original plan did not allow for
future upgrading or expansion.

Dexter Okada

The No Build, the TSM, the Managed Lanes, and the Fixed-Guideway should not be
alternatives. A combination of the No Build, the TSM, and the Managed Lanes
should be used to develop a new bus system(NBS) that would emulate the Fixed-
Guideway system(FGS). Once the FGS is built, there is no turning back. If the
ridership does not materialize, Honolulu will be stuck with a $3billion+ white
elephant that will cost us $++++ to maintain. If the chosen route does not work, then
all the businesses and landowners along the route that suffered during construction
would have suffered in vain. The ridership number from the NBS would give a
better indication of what the ridership would be for a FGS. The route of the NBS can
be easily changed to determine which is the best route. Steps to develop the NBS:
In the morning: 1. Substantially increase the number of express buses coming from
the different areas of West Oahu(Leeward Coast, Ewa, Kapolei, Makakilo,Waipahu,
Pearl City, Mililani,etc.) 2. Restrict the zipper lane for only the express buses. 3.
Instead of the current merging of the zipper lane with the regular Nimitz traffic just
before Hilo Hattie, extend the zipper lane on the mauka side of Hilo Hattie all the
way to the River Street bridge. 4. The buses can then go up River Street to King
Street and then down to Alapai. 5. Alapai would be the hub. 6. From Alapai
expresses buses would go to different areas of Honolulu(Kalihi, Kaimuki, UH,
Punahou, Iolani, Waikiki, Kakaako, etc.) In the afternoon: 1. All the town buses
would go to the Alapai hub. 2. Expresses buses to West Oahu would then go makai
on Alapai then makai on South Street then on to Ala Moan Boulevard. 3. An
afternoon zipper lane or bus lane only has to be designed. As the ridership warrants,
the NBS can be tweaked to more closely emulate the FGS. Such as having a zipper
or bus only lane in both directions 24 hours. If the ridership numbers for the NBS
does not work out, then for sure , the ridership numbers for FGS will not work out.
But we will not be stuck paying for a white elephant. And since the NBS would use
existing roadways, businesses will not have to suffer through construction.

Mary Oliver

Rail is WAY too EXPENSIVE, we just can't afford it. You have to be a MEGA city
to make it work and Honolulu will never be NYC or Hong Kong. It is also UGLY!
Unfortunately, we are a spread out commuter city and love our cars. If people didn't
use the free ferry from Kapolei they will not use the bus. I still think ferries to
downtown or Ala Moana might be an option with trolleys leaving frequently from
there.

Dirk Omine

The state should save its money on this Mass Transit Project. Don't get me wrong, I
am a firm believer in mass transit and have used the Bart System in San Fransisco
extensively. The Bart System is very well set-up and trully works! Our island would


really benifit a system like the Bart but we simply can't afford it! The proposed
system now is a "Joke" and waste of money for all residents of Hawaii! Light Rail
you say? We need a state of the art system like the Bart to be successful and
benificial to us. The biggest problem is, we don't have enough money to fund such a
project, and neither do we have the space for it! We need a system that runs from
Kapolei - airport, thru down-town honolulu and Waikiki, and extends to Kahala Mall
via UH manoa. Also, we need a branch that runs from Kaneohe's windward mall to
town. That should cover 2/3 of Hawaii's people and give drivers an option to use
mass transit. With the route from the Airport to Waikiki, tourist can also benifit using
mass transit. As a Hawaii resident all my life this would be the only way I'd support
Mass Transit's plan 100%. We had our chance a decade ago but choose the H3
freeway instead. In Saturday's comment section "Mike Rethman" said it best on why
mass transit will not work here- THE REAL COST! City Council members should
read his article which really makes sense! Consultation for this project has already
cost 10million dollars! Our state always has a problem of realizing the true cost of
any project. This one should be in the billions of dollars for it to work because
anything else like a light rail system is just a waste of time and money... Worst case
senerio being, no one will use it! So who's really benifiting from this project???

Lori Ott

I will submit any survey or comment to help the effort of bringing rapid, mass transit
to Oahu, whether this be in the form of light rail, an elevated track or monorail. I
have lived in several cities that have great mass transit, for. ex. Tokyo, Boston and
Chicago and relied heavily on these systems not only to get to work, but also as a
way to avoid Christmas shopping traffic, or enjoy big events like baseball games,
concerts and fireworks. People who say they don't support mass transit because they
will not use it are like people who say their tax dollars shouldn't pay for public
education because they don't have children. Both arguments are silly since the service
provided benefits all, not just those who use them. Reducing the number of cars on
the road on the Leeward side of the island (and maybe the Windward side one day) is
overdue. Mass transit provides a reliable way of getting to and from town, on a
predictable schedule with only a rail pass to pay, versus gas, insurance, car
maintenance and the amount of time spent sitting on the H1 staring at the stadium or
the cars around you.

Kiyomi Oyama

Of the alternatives presented Dec.13, 4c seemed the best if modified some. Non-
builds should not be an option. Route preferences: Kapolei Pkwy - North South Rd
- Farrington Hwy* - Kamehameha Hwy - H1 (airport) - Camp Catlin Rd.- Pukaloa -
Middle St. - Dillingham* - Downtown tunnel Queen/Berretania loop - S.King/Kona
loop - branches to UH & Waikiki. *Notes: 1. extended service to Ft.Weaver Rd. or
possibly a loop between Kapolei and Ft.Weaver Rd should also be explored. 2.
improve access (bus, pedestrian) from Kalihi to the Dillingham line.


William Paik

HHUA Mission - To influence public policy and opinion for quality highways,
promoting safety, congestin relief and freedom of mobility. Traffic congestion
requires traffic solutions: a comprehensive attack on bottlenecks and gridlock. Our
people need a relief thru the leeward corridor. We need a system to deal not only with
automobiles but commercial vehicles as well.

malcolm palmer

Sirs: this entire project is a boondoggle! it will go down in history as "Mufi's Folly"
(who will be nowhere to be found when this mess spends all our money and does
nothing to alleviate traffic congestion). this will be the hawaii equivalent of the
boston 'big dig':cost overruns, more and more taxes, shoddy union workmanship, not
to mention the backroom good old boys deals (already started), state and C&C
employee embezzlement, cheating, and inefficiency. stop it now!!!

Arza Patterson

I prefer the Monorail system due to its flexibility on where it can be placed and the
speed it can safely operate at. It will be above cars, pedestians, bikes,animals,etc, and
should be the safest "fast" system. It is also a proven technology, so there should be
fewer bugs to work out.

keith patterson

How anyone ina ll honesty can ask for a tax increase and approval of a plan BEFORE
presenting that plan and fairly detailed costs and estimated revenue is totally beyond
me. With a project of this magnitude "trust us, we wont get it wrong" isnt good
enough. You wouldn't get away with such foolishness in the private sector but of
course you have a captive audience in the public sector. Roll on the next election.

David Paulson

I am very supportive of a fixed rail project on Oahu. However, I would like to stress
the need to make the project bike friendly, meaning: (1) incorporate bike storage
facilities at all stops; (2) allow bikes on the trains so that commuters can bike to the
stop and then continue on to their desination once departing the train; and (3)
incorporate bike paths along the route to provide a cheap and easy alternative method
of commuting for bicyclers. Furthermore, I am slightly disheartened to see that none
of the proposed routes go by the airport. This is a great opportunity to provide an
alternative route for residents and tourists to go to the airport and avoid hefty parking
fees. Please think about all the islands' constituents, not merely those commuting
from ewa. Oahu can become a city that isn't dependent on cars. Right now, we are
no where close to that. I strongly support this project. Thankyou.


Richard Personius

This is a great project. Please include me on your distribution list so that I may stay
informed. I would also like to be notified of any events or happenings going on in
relation to the proximity of the projects projected railway path. Mahalo, Rich

Carol Philips

Please do not obstruct view planes. Aloha, Carol Philips

Susan Phillips

Absolutely no fixed rail. Expand the existing bus system with long distance point to
point in designated lanes. Have hub and spoke system with frequent mini buses to
key locations - within neighborhoods, to job locations (UH, Ala Moana, hospitals,
Waikiki, Pearl Harbor, etc.) ABSOLUTELY NO FIXED RAIL.

bill plum

How much will it cost to build? How many riders per day will use it? How much will
it cost to operate each year?

bill plum

I went to the public information forum at the Blaisdale and found it amazing that with
all the studies that have been done, there was no data for review that discussed the
cost of the project or issues such as the cost per person. If fact, one individual I asked
indicated that the city had "no idea" what it would cost. Not even a rough range. I
find that amazing given the years the project has been in the works and the detail
incuded in the studies that have been done. I was given statements like "You really
can't put a price on the value of a project like this." Do the city staffers live in a
dream world? Please answer: 1) What is the estimated cost of the project to build and
to run?; 2) How many people are estimated to ride it each day?; and 3) How many of
those people is it estimated already ride the bus?.

Sue Powell

You must include Ewa Beach (all down Ft. Weaver Rd) in any plan you decide on.
There's essentially only one way out of Ewa Beach in the morning -- along the very
congested, 4-lane Ft. Weaver Road. Trying to get out via Kapolei is just as congested
so that's not a good option. The express buses are packed so it's obvious that many
are already choosing mass transit. It takes 30-40 min. to go the 5 miles from Ocean
Point to the freeway entrance. Hundreds of new homes are being right now built with
land being developed for hundreds more in the next few years. There MUST be
additional means of getting out of the area. The afternoons are just as bad trying to
get back down Ft. Weaver Rd. Please include us in your plans. Plans that call for us
to have to get to Kapolei or Waipahu to catch the "new transit" won't really help us


much. The train (or whatever) must begin down in the area near North Rd. Thank
you.

Lee Prochaska

Mass transit rail is definitely needed in order to provide an alternative to driving cars.
Please choose a futuristic- looking monorail design, that's elevated (providing great
scenic views), and features the quietest technology possible. As far as the route, it
looks to me like your Fixed-Guideway Alternative - D plan would be the best. There
should be plenty of parking garages built, and many city workers should be required
to utilize the new monorail system. Plans should also consider expanding the system
to both Mililani and Hawaii Kai at some future point in time.

Greg Puppione

I think any new rail system needs to include mililani and the new koa ridge
communities in its planning process. there should be a short rail system that connects
those communities to the major rail system, or a bus shuttle service with its own lane
that makes the connection to the main line. i think an underground system will not
work b/c of the risk of flooding. i support a rail system and hope to see one soon.
also, why isn't anyone talking about limiting the number of cars on the island? when
will enough be enough?

Richard Quinn

Rail transit is needed for quality of life enhancements to Honolulu. It cannot and
should not be put into the context of "reducing congestion". Congestion will remain
regardless of how many lanes we could reasonably add to our highways. With
greater freeway capacity, our major streets through town would become grid locked,
expanding the problem and reducing quality of life. We need rail as an alternative to
congestion, not as a cure. I believe that the main opposition to a rail concept is being
crafted in a miss-guided fear that rail transit will hurt private transportation business.
The private transportation industry in Hawaii is rabidly opposed to rail. Private
transportation lobbyists intentionally frame the argument against rail in terms of its
limited alleviation of traffic congestion and in terms of its needed subsidization. Both
arguments fail. We need to subsidize rail because we will all benefit from it,
regardless of if we personally use it or not. As one example, the fact that an employee
of a restaurant can get to work by rail means that the restaurant owner has a wider
pool of employees. That makes his business more viable. That benefits me as a
patron of the restaurant. A good rail system, linking Ewa to Waikiki, means a
greater percentage of people in Honolulu will not own cars (to save expense), and
that will benefit private transportation, as it will greatly increase the use of taxis for
the occasional personal need of those who don’t have cars but need to get to special
destinations directly (such as a doctor’s appointment). A good rail system will
enable Honolulu to better compete with other tourist destinations, such as Las Vegas.
When tourists know they can get around easily, it becomes a more attractive
destination. A healthy and competitive tourist industry in Honolulu helps private


transportation companies here, as well as all other businesses related to tourism. A
good rail system in Honolulu will enable the elderly, the handicapped, the teenagers,
all those who can’t drive, and those that just don’t want to have to drive, an
alternative means of mobility. That benefits us as a community.

Judah Raquinio

Everyone on this island chooses to drive. Tax the driver! It's a no brainer. Create an
alternative transit route that serves a majority of the commuter population. Mililani
and Aiea for starts. Run a tram from Mililani straight through Kam to Downtown
through Kapiolani and hit the UH. Then raise the tax for motor vehicle drivers. Do
not raise the tax for everyone. That is only going to oppress hardworking people. We
are stretched enough. I cannot stress enough the importance of leaving the airport out
for now, we need to service all of the people that service the tourist industry on this
one. Robert Rau A rail system will likely be NEVER BE WORTH THE COST AND
DISRUPTION. It shoud be considered ONLY after ALL OTHER ALTERNATIVES
have been explored to reduce the number of cars on the roads, and then ONLY after
EXACTING COST AND BENEFIT ANALYSIS. To date, the City and County has
not adequately explored alternatives nor does it have meaningful cost and benefit
figures. PLEASE let us not make another horrible MISTAKE! Thank you. Robert
Rau Attorney at Law (ret'd.) 30 year Honolulu resident

Dane Robertson

I don't think you should make the air transit system becasue i think it will cause air
pollution and more problems for Hawaii. Also i think you should save the money for
things more important, i dont know what but there are things more important than an
air transit system. The reason i think you shouldnt make the air transit system is
because people can wait for the traffic to go through, if their late they should leave
earlier, its not the cities fault that there is traffic, well its the lights' fault, but its the
drivers' fault that the traffic is building up. Thats what i think, its just one persons
opinion. You dont have to listen to it if you dont want to. Sincerly, Dane

John Rogers

This project will impact the residents of OAHU for generations to come and should
be executed in a manner that ensures its success and viability. I attended the
presentation at Kapolei and was very impressed however; I thought the following
issues need more attention: 1. The transit system should not produce any Carbon
Dioxide in its operation therefore alternative sources of energy should be used to
supply electrical power and incorporated into its design. Photo voltaic and / or fuel
cell technologies should be considered. Distributive power generation is the way of
the future. The City would be remiss in its obligation to its citizens if it did not build
a system that would be mostly independent of the petroleum based power generation
system. 2. At the Kapolei presentation facilitators were unable to answer questions
about the power consumption of the various technologies presented. Please include
this information in future presentations. 3. As it seems that much of the transit line


would be built above grade consideration should be given to include bike paths that
parallel as much of the route as possible. It would also be important to be able to
store bicycles on or in the transit vehicle. 4. Ewa Beach, Ewa, and Kapolei
(including UH West) will require service of the transit system therefore elements of
options 4b and 4c should be incorporated. I think it is important to include Fort
Weaver Road and Kapolei Parkway / North South Road routes. I believe that if using
the transit system required a person to shuttle to a transit station when starting their
journey they will be less likely to use it. Especially with the traffic congestion on
Fort Weaver it would be difficult to estimate the added time required to catch a
shuttle to the transit station.

Max Rogers

I support fixed rail transit. Be sure to include the needs of bicycle commuters on the
rail system, which include: (1) providing safe secured bike parking at all transit
stops;(2) providing a means for commuters to take their bikes onto the train so when
they get off, they can easily ride to their ultimate destination, effectively increasing
the area serviced by the transit; and (3) incorporating bike paths along side or
underneath the rail system to maximize the potential of the physical space required
for a rail system.

David Rolf

Testimony by the Hawaii Automobile Dealers Association Presented at the public
hearing on transit alternatives 5 to 8 p.m. Tuesday, December 13, 2006 Blaisdell
Center The Hawaii Automobile Dealers Association thanks you for the opportunity
to comment on the Alternative Analysis Planning process which seeks relief of the
traffic congestion problem in the Leeward corridor. HADA is speaking on behalf of
motorists—the new car customers who purchase the products we sell. It should be
noted that all of the Alternatives proposed will not significantly affect new car
sales—so our efforts here are on behalf of the motoring public. We believe the
current “F rated” level of service in the corridor can be corrected to a “C” level of
service. Correcting the traffic congestion problem, however, depends on the
Alternative selected, and it appears that three of the Alternatives proposed, could
make the traffic problem worse. One, however, will relieve traffic congestion and
offer Luxury SkyCars for commuters seeking convenience and upscale services. This
Alternative will also offer Half Price Busses (HPB), for those seeking economy
fares, and allow tollpaying motorists the opportunity to access the elevated fixed
guideway. Rail is problematic because it will operate in a “rail trough” that is too
narrow. When the scope of the traffic problem is correctly analyzed for Leeward and
Central Oahu one sees a wide plain of commuters that must be served. Rail is
primarily useful in serving “vertical” population densities like New York, Tokyo,
and Hong Kong. The primary reason for rail’s inadequacy in serving spread out
single- family home communities is that commuters in these homes do not want to
walk more than a quarter mile to get to or from a rail station--that’s a four-football-
field walk. The problem with the rail Alternatives proposed, is that that not one rail


track covers enough population density in the quarter-mile from the stations to keep
from developing the “empty train syndrome” for lack of ridership. Commuters, living
more than a quarter mile from the tracks, for example, must first wait for a bus, or
drive their cars down to the train station and pay for parking then wait to board a
relatively slow 22-mph commuter train. The managed lanes Alternative, however,
allows vehicles from the entire service plane area (including Mililani, Central Oahu,
upper Waipahu, upper Pearl City, upper Aiea, parts of Ewa, Nanikuli, Waianae, and
upper Kalihi Valley) to access a speedy alternative. This Alternative has the added
advantage of being the ONLY proposed alternative that offers a Waikiki leg. We
are fortunate, in that when considering rail, that we can look at the “successful”
model of Salt Lake—a city with much single-family home development like the
Leeward corridor. The Utah City’s 15- mile line Salt Lake to Sandy line with 2.3-
mile university spur is a total of 17.3 miles….very similar to the proposed 18-mile
Kapolei to UH route. The Salt Lake train runs at an average 24 mph. Similar to the
HADA- projected 22 mph for the Hawaii train (which, of course doesn’t take into
account the trip to the train, any parking necessary, and the average wait time
between trains when making comparisons of travel times). The “successful” Salt
Lake train carries only 28,000 passengers a day. Because it was built at grade with
much on existing rights-of-way, their train cost $300 million. If ours (any of the rail
Alternatives) were as “successful” as Salt Lake’s we’d serve the same 28,000
passengers daily, but our train would cost $3 billion. If one takes a current cost of
money on the $3 billion Hawaii rail, the proposal has annual money costs of $150
million and if operating costs total another $150 million a year, Hawaii’s rail costs
would be $300 million each year. If we were to be as “successful” as Salt Lake, each
“passenger” would represent an expenditure of 30-dollars-per- passenger. Since
28,000 passengers won’t much dent the 229,000 number that travel the Leeward
corridor each day, a number that may climb to 300,000 before the train could be
built, Hawaii’s solution to traffic congestion will require something different. The
elevated fixed guideways described for the “managed lanes” alternative would allow
Luxury SkyCars to follow a laserlight path on the roadway, creating spacing and even
speed. Future personal car technology may even take advantage of this capability.
These new, clean-running personal vehicles, may use hydrogen. It’s a wonderful
vision. One that moves traffic congestion from an “F level” to a reasonable C at most
times and occasional, tolerable D. But the train, continues to give us “F” and it
seems, we can do better than that. Respectfully submitted, David H. Rolf Hawaii
Automobile Dealers Association 1100 Alakea St. Suite 2601 Honolulu, Hawaii
96813 Tel: 808 593-0031 Fax: 808 593-0569 Email: drolf@hawaiidealer.com

David Rolf

Leeward Corridor Transportation Plan Comments A futuristic alternative to the
current proposals The transportation plan for Oahu’s Leeward corridor must have a
scope that includes reduction of traffic congestion along this busy corridor. Ease of
travel is what everyone in the corridor wants. The current transportation alternatives
being proposed, however, project a defeatist gloom about future traffic congestion
and only offer transportation alternatives that are less-than-convenient in their


current configurations. A solution that should be considered is San Bernadino’s sbX
futuristic fixed guideway transit system, which is like an aboveground subway with
multiple stations. Such a system, with its “futuristic flyers” is cost-efficient and could
be modified to also serve the hard-to-access heights in the Leeward area as well as
provide service to many other suburban areas, downtown, UH, and Waikiki. For
many commuters, it could prove ultra-convenient; no transfers would be required.
These thousands of commuters would enjoy speedy, air-conditioned, easy on/easy off
transportation service from home to work. The cost would be less than half of the
proposed transportation systems in the current list of alternatives, and would require
no additional taxes. The current alternatives, in final form, will likely require even a
larger increase in the general excise tax which is soon to begin, to the growing
consternation of many taxpayers since no reduction in the intolerable Leeward traffic
congestion is projected. The traffic congestion in the corridor is currently rated “F.”
The traffic solution, however, is to provide workable choices for commuters:
including the futuristic flyer transportation system with its modified 3- lane fixed-
guideway / tollway fly-over -- that also carries toll-paying vehicular traffic, freeing
up the current roadways. Let’s fix the “F” level traffic problem with a solution, not
settle for defeatist gloom. Respectfully submitted, THE HAWAII AUTOMOBILE
DEALERS ASSOCIATION Contact: David H. Rolf, executive director 1100 Alakea
St. Suite 2601 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Tel: 808 593-0031 Fax: 808 593- 0569
Email: drolf@hawaiidealer.com

Theresa Rudacille

The proposal is nothing more than a dog and pony show. Where are the cost figures?
Where are the actual designs and projected timelines? Where are the documented
studies about ridership? This project should be halted immediately and defunded. At
this point, the project is nothing more than an excuse for tax increases.

Lehua rupisan

I would want a rail transit at all in oahu .a better idea is just to have the bus have the
own lanes and another idea is . some of the bus is packed to the max we should get
new big bus for thebus company and other stuff and if not even people ride that route
we should put it on another one . combine . ( really want to help out oahu with the
bus transit system ) I have a really good idea with the bus system in plan .

Gareth Sakakida

Although Hawaii Transportation Association is on the mailing list, our organization
would like to request a presentation as part of the public outreach process.

Gary Sato

We keep stating that, when in Hawaii make use of the sunshine and enjoy the outdoor
activities and sceneries but we don't allow for a "safe" method to explore these
venues. I say "safe" because when you're riding your bike and then all of a sudden


the bike lane ends without you knowing, that's not "safe". As we vie for the next
generation of Japanese tourists, we've got to remember that they, unlike their parents
like to explore on their own with different methods of transportation. Have you
noticed more Japanese in odd places? This gives them a sense of freedom and
accomplishment that events like the Honolulu Marathon, Century Bike Ride and
Honolulu Triathlon have seen, providing majority sponsorship and participant
support. I'd like to see Hawaii as a totally outdoor friendly State, taking advantage of
our beautiful, free weather and allow tourist and locals a safe and complete bike path
around our islands. I have hopes that Mayor Hanneman has a good vision and
supports this and am confident that it will happen in his term

Pauline Sato

I was not able to attend any of the scoping meetings so my knowledge is limited.
However, I support the alternative to build a rail system. The other alternatives do
not seem adequate enough to handle the traffic we will have on Oahu. I don't have a
preference for a particular route at this point but it would make most sense to build
the route where it would be convenient to get on/off and displace/disturb as few
residences/businesses as possible. Also, special care must be made so that native and
endangered species and habitats are not disturbed.

John Scarry

The monorail is the only sensable solution. It is above ground on pilings taking up
less area at ground level. This allows for commuter parking lots at highway
connection points. People will not have the closed in and trapped feelings
experianced in busses and cars or ground level trains. It gives a great view which will
encourage locals and visitors to ride just for the view bringing in more money. Also I
believe that it should funded with a tax free municipal bond issue allowing residents
to have an ownership interest which will make them want to use it and encourage
others to use it. Also all the tax payers will benefit by not breaking the budget causing
a need for tax increases. This public money savings could be put toward fixing the
schools and increasing teachers pay so we can attract and retain more good teachers.
This isn't rocket science, it's plain ordinary common sense. Come on people we can
do this and we will all benefit.

Marsha Schweitzer

To project funding sources, add charitable contributions. I think billionaires around
the world would love to give $1 million or more to get a car named after them (or
after their company, or in memory of someone). I have experienced several transit
systems around the world -- bus, train, light rail -- and my favorite is rail, esp. the
Washington DC Metro. I like it so much that when I go there, I stay in outliying
Maryland or Virginia so I can spend more time riding the Metro. The quality of the
stations is the key -- large, not claustrophobic, clean, with newstands, coffee stands,
artwork and sculpture, even live musicians. The Star-Trek-like blinking lights
announcing the arrival of the trains is the best. If Honolulu's transit system is


designed carefully with these quailty issues in mind, it could be a major tourist
attraction and even a money-maker. Give price incentives to Honolulu residents and
those riding during non-peak hours. There is no question that such a quality system
would be jammed with riders from the first day. When they built H-1, people said no
one would use it. Look at it now.

Karen Sender

Oahu has one of the best bus systems in the country. Has a study been done
comparing the long range costs of enhancing the bus system (something that can
happen how and in the future) vs. a high-impact, high-cost, not be available until
years down-the-line system? I think that buses should be free, frequent, clean, and
convenient. Let's start with our successes and build on them.

g. shaffer

i read today's article to opinions on the rail (12/29/05 Advertiser). i've lived many
years in boston and years in central california. on had a wonderful subway & public
transit, while the other was very spread out and you needed your own car for
everything. what i've noticed here are the number of parents who feel they must take
their kids personally to school and usher them around to every activity - that's a lot of
traffic. i've also noticed a high number of vehicles with young people 'cruising'
around...in boston, they did that on the subway because there's no parking. perhaps,
that would happen here, too (which would remove more cars from the roadway).
folks here all are 'busy'...lot's of shopping, etc. it's important to everyone to have their
own car for their own needs. if it could be presented in a manner that would appeal to
the average person the benefits of a rail system- if it could be proven they would not
be standing for 45 min waiting in the rain for the next ride; if it could be proven that
it would be cost effective as well as time efficient (i read somewhere recently it will
only save 10 min on a rider's commute...that's not so good), if there are not numerous
hoops to get through just to get to the pick up and drop off terminals, if...well, you
see? folks don't know the beauty of a rail system- can you send everyone to boston
for 1 week? then they'd get it. i'd love to see minimal cars, less concrete & parking
lots, more people walking, cleaner air, quieter streets...it could work here, but people
need to know it will. it's a very expensive 'if'.

Jennifer Shishido

I agree with purpose and needs. Traffic congestion is a serious problem. State needs
to address issue (as per Economic Momentum Commission) in order to ensure strong
economy, diversification, and quality of life for citizens. Alternatives: (1) No Built
is NOT a viable alternative, and neither is TSM. Bus in managed lane is too little too
late. Strongly recommend Fixed Guideway. Good examples abound nationwide - SF
BART, DC Metro, Chicago El, at first ridership was down - but gradually increases.
Even Atlanta's system is good. Keys are Fast, Reliable, Safe, Clean. Fast - frequent
trains (people don't mind standing), Reliable - better than the bus right now, Safe -
gotta be safe, and Clean - no urine smells, no winos, no litter. Routes: Prefer 4a - the


simplest - straight lines - looks like it will provide the fastest ride. Feeder buses can
serve Ewa and other communities. Probably best to reduce noise through bedroom
communities. Don't like 4b - system goes through downtown - prefer 4a with
underground component. 4c is ok too. No problems with termination points. Note:
feeder buses must also be frequent. If someone has to go through a lot of hassle to get
to the Fixed Guideway system - they will give up. PS: dont' make the trains too cold
like the buses - everyone has to sit away from the windows (where the air comes out)
because they freeze otherwise.

Gerald Siegel

partly reports earlier msg this day. Of basic scoping designs and corridor, alternative
4d with Waikiki spur seems most attractive. But note, none of the alternatives
presented provide any rough indication of where the stations will be located nor any
connection via bus routes to the interchanges. It is my view that even at scoping
stage, this would be a strong enhancement to the total project public acceptance of
such a massive venture. Mahalo for the opportunity to comment. Gerald
Siegel,former Vice Chair, NB No 25 (retired/resident in Mililani Town)

Gerald Siegel

Strongly favr a fixed guideway, grade separated light rail or fixed rail system. To
include as a use incentive, a mass transit bus intersect from Mililani Town and other
high density places in Central Oahu where I live. I would use this system as a means
of retiree transportation to both the Central Business District and to Manoa (for
Continuing Ed classes). Both of us were involved in the planning committees for
Waiawa interchange in the aborted 1992 project. Could not make your info mts but
have a fair idea of the alternatives via Neighborhood Board presentations per Parson
Brinckerhoff Outreach. Am a firm supporter of getting something going. But to
include firm plan for the bus connections to H2 commuters....

Scott Siegfried

I believe several options need to be looked into that will help the overall traffic
situation. Some form of transit system, along with HOT lanes and the idea tunnel
from Ewa, all need to be looked at seriously and implemented. One item will not do
it all. What needs to be looked at is the timing of completion for these various ideas.
Whichever can be done the fastest, should be looked at first, and then work
backwards. If mass transit of rail is going to take until 2020 for completion, and
HOT lanes can be completed by 2010, then the HOT lane needs to be implemented
while the other transit is being worked on. To wait for one system, when multiple
options are going to be needed anyway, is futile. My other concern in this process
has been the dismissal of the HOT lane idea from the beginning. When Mayor Mufi
Hanneman takes out an editorial a few months ago to portray the HOT lanes
negatively, before any form of data collection or public survey, one questions the real
process here. The mayor seems set on one form of transit, no matter the results of the


data collection process. It concerns me that we may be dealing with someones
political legacy as opposed to what is most important, public interest.

Edgar Silva, Jr

DO NOT LET THIS PROJECT STALL AGAIN!!!!!!!!!! I would like to see a light
rail system installed. I care more about how it functions than how it looks. It's a
trade-off that we should be willing to make. Bus stops need to be placed at each
station. If the station is big enough, or in select stations, some parking for cars,
motorcycles bicycles and mopeds should also be provided, (for a small fee of course)
Racks should be made available to lock and secure bicycles and mopeds (included in
the fee). A private concern should be hired to manage all aspects the system. The
government should definitely NOT be involved with the care and maintenance of the
system. Rates should be based on a set profit margin for the private concern, and
break even for the city. This should not be a profit cow for the city. In addition to
this, more bike/moded lanes should be added city-wide. Freeways should be re-
stripped to add a lane for 2 wheeled vehicles of 125cc or higher. I truly believe more
people would utilize 2 wheeled vehicles if they had their own lane on the freeways,
(it only needs to be wide enough for 1 vehicle, i.e., a third the size of a normal car
lane). A trade-off could be implemented by making it mandatory to wear a helmet if
utilizing the two wheel vehicle lane, and no passing allowed. WIN-WIN for the
environment, energy use, congestion and safety.

Rosita Sipirok-Sirear

Greetings: Having lived in Singapore for many years, the following is my opinion.
Singapore and Oahu are almost the same size except in the population count.
Singapore has approx. 3 million people and Oahu has approx. 800,000 people. -- 1/4
of Singapore's population. Therefore, it should not be that difficult to manage people
movement. Before the Metro was built in Singapore, they have good bus system as
well as TheBus system and they stilll do. But, in addition and in order to alleviate
the traffic jam, they have CBD (Central Business District) toll. Those who enter the
CBD area during rush hours, have to pay fee. I believe it is $5.00. As far as car
goes, they also charge 200% on car duty. If your car is more than 10 years old, you
have to pay special permit to operate it, hence minimize the break-down cars on the
freeway causing traffic jam. What the Singapore government is doing is not to ban
people from buying cars, but to slow down the purchase of cars. If you notice in
Oahu, one house can have 4, 5, 6 cars and this is what is causing the traffic jam!! Too
many cars. I think we can cut cost by having tolls around the clock with higher
charge during rush hours. This can be done electronically as has been done in
Australia. It is also done by private companies. The other think we can do is to
upgrade the bus system -- at least temporarily. Build a secure park and ride in
Kapolei. This way, people from Waianae/Nanakuli area can also park their cars in
Kapolei then catch the bus to town instead of driving all the way. There is NO place
for parking for people coming from Waianae/Nanakuli, therefore they prefer to drive
to town. This can be alleviated somewhat by having park and ride in Kapolei. For


your information, I am the owner of two cars but catch the bus daily to work
downtown. I also enjoy catching the bus on weekends. My car is there for
"emergency" and to take me to the bus stop. Considering that the transmit system
will take at least ten years or more to finish, I do believe my suggestion is one to be
considered, at least for immediate relief. Thank you.

Jim Slavish

After looking at all th einformation available i Have come to the conclusion that the
fixed rail cannot under any circumstances be economoically feasible. When you look
a land acquisition costs, security, cost of the cars, maintenance and the fact that it
will not alleviate traffic, few will use it and their fare will no come close to paying
the cost. Why does the city continue aftere all these years to pursue a dead end
solution to the problem? Let's try other alternatives first rather than the most
expensive.

Paul Smith

The presentation gave me zero hard information upon which I could base a decision
to support such a large expenditure. For example, there is no way I can judge if
highway (H1 and H2) traffic will be reduced in 10 years when whatever is decided is
in place and working. Without a clear commitment on the benefits (not a promise but
a commitment) I would not spend $2 or $3 billion dollars of taxpayer money. My
comment is stop the work on this project until you can show clear results.

Thomas Soteros-McNamara

It would appear that no one alternative captures the best potential mix of residential
areas and workplaces. The fixed guideway I believe is the best alternative of various
modes. However, it is likely that from Kapolei, there should be as few stop as
possible (as most people will drive to them anyway) until Pearlridge. Once there, the
route should make sure to have easy access to Pearlridge, Aloha Stadium, the Airport,
Naval Command, and if possible Tripler. A tunnel may prove helpful in downtown.
Further east, the guideway should pass close to Ala Moana before heading up north
to UH. The fewer at-grade crossings throughout the alignment, the better.

wilfred Souza

Changing civil servant work & school hours (high school and on) to 9-5:30 or 10-
6:30 would have deep impact on traffic at the lowest cost to all. If leaders were able
to lead. I place most of the rush hour traffic blame on HGEA.

Wilfred Souza

Change Civil Servant, High School & UH hours to 9-5:30 or 10-6:30. Highest impact
on traffic and actually serve public.Can't be done, then put rail issue on ballot then
allow voters decide rails fate.


Andrew Speese

Please explain why the eastern terminus of the proposed system is planned for U.of
H. It would seem logical that it should go to Hawaii Kai, especially since the
Kalanianaole Hwy. corridor is the only way in or out. There are just too many people
and cars in East Honolulu to ignore. People cannot be counted on to take the bus or
drive to the University from E. Honolulu in order to use the system. Entirely too
much hassle and wasted time. As for me, I live in Kailua. Don't count on me to make
much use of the system. Nevertheless, my taxes will be contributing to it as much as
the next guy's and I want it to be a success. I feel failing to acknowledge the
ridership potential of E. Honolulu is a mistake, and you should revisit the scope of the
project. Thanks for the opportunity to express my opinion.

jonathan st.thomas

you know what the new mayor of honolulu said:as long as he is in the mayor's office
NO BUS RAPID TRANSIT WHATSOEVER !!!! so there are 2 other choices:light
rail transit or historic trolley rail transit and remember THE FEDERAL TRANSIT
ADMINISTRATION is saying NO to $1,000,000,000.00+proposed rail projects so
the proposed light rail project or historic trolley rail project will have to be THE
BARE BONES DOUBLE TRACK TYPE that will serve the communities they
would run in.don't mention anything about bus rapid transit to the mayor of honolulu
or the governor of hawaii unless you have a billionaire who is willing to build and run
a bus rapid transit system with his or her money,that is a bus rapid transit system
with it's own bus lanes or busways to run on.here are 4 websites with information on
bus rapid transit.wikipedia the free encyclopedia has BRT info at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_rapid_transit and there are 3 cities with bus rapid
transit proposals:the euclid corridor silver line of cleveland,ohio at
www.euclidtransit.org [please watch the video],the long island transportation plan
2000 at www.litp2000.com/index.html [please watch the video] and the metropolitan
affairs coalition speedlink website [detroit,mich. at www.mac-
web.org/Speedlink/SpeedlinkPage.htm [click onto the video link at the bottom of the
page].good luck!!

Elizabeth M. Stack

Dear Sirs: I am opposed to any adverse impact that the proposed Transit Project may
cause in Honolulu's Historic Chinatown. It does not appear (to me), that proper
consideration is being given to the "secondary" effects that WILL be a result of this
project; and may be brushed aside in the rush to glory. Sincerely, Elizabeth M.
Stack

Lee Stack

I oppose any mass transit project that would involve major construction, excavation,
vibration, or otherwise negatively impact irreplaceable buildings in the historic
Chinatown district (this goes for elevated transitways as well). The area is a


designated national historic district many of whose buildings are constructed of
unreinforced masonry and built on silt beds. Furthermore, I attended the scoping
meeting and did not see anything about costs and benefits of this proposed project. It
has also been admitted that this project would not relieve traffic congestion. Then
why is it being promoted? I strongly oppose a frivolous transit project that would not
help to alleviate traffic congestion. Expanded bus service (maybe conversion of some
routes to electric bus service) sounds more feasible. I think that the dollars collected
from a hike in the excise tax would be better spent to repair the aging sewage system
and stem the repeated sewage spills.

Linda Starr

PROPOSAL: The preferred alignment's Leeward terminus for the selected mass
transit system should be moved from Kapolei further out to Ko'Olina. REASONS:
1. To provide transit alternative to the historically under-served communities of
Makaha, Maile, and Nanakuli. 2. To provide transit alternative to locals and
for tourists to get to the following attractions: a. The World Class Aquarium at
Ko'Olina b. Paradise Cove Luau c. Hawaiian Adventure Water Park.

ross stephenson

1. the fixed line should go to Ewa Beach 2. the Puuloa segment should go Diamond
Head of the Stadium, pass the Arizona Memorial, the entrances to Pearl Harbor and
Hickam, the the Airport. 3. The University stop should be in front of Hawaii Hall,
not the lower campus. 4. The system should allow future extensions into Waikiki and
Hawaii Kai. 5. Preferably underground to lessen disruption -- perhaps a landowner
incentive to

Richard Sullivan

Light rail does not make economic sense for Honolulu. There will not be sufficient
ridership in this population to offset operating costs and retire construction bonds.
Commitment to rail will saddle Honolulu with an inflexable expensive transportation
mode. Buses on a dedicated right-of-ways (busways) excluding other vehicle types
is less costly, can be implemented in a shorter time, and offers more flexibity. Buses
cost much less than rail cars and can be replaced when technology improves. Buses
can also be powered from overhear electrific lines (such as in San Francisco) if
pollution is an issue. Busway stations can be raised platforms so expensive
"knealing" buses and buses fitted with lifts are not required to provide wheelchair
access (this system is used in Curitiba Brazil). Buses (except those operating off
overhead electric lines- unless they are dual mode) are more flexible because they
can operate both on a busway or on city streets. Buses can pick up passengers on
local streets then move rapidly to destinations along the dedicated busway. Routing
can be altered as demand changes.


Richard Sullivan

This is an addendum to my previous comments supporting a dedicated busway
system. In addition to the points I made in that communication, I add the following:
1. Buses can accommodate much tighter horizontal and vertical curves than rail
transit resulting in more right-of-way selection options. 2. Honolulu already owns the
rolling stock for a bus way system. 3. Infrastructure for servicing a bus fleet already
exists in Honolulu, a rail system would require creating one from scratch. 4.
Existing freeway lanes SHOULD be used as dedicated bus lanes. When express
buses go speeding past while stuck in traffic perhaps drivers will recognize there is a
better alternative to driving. 5. MUCH more must be done to encourage bicycle
commuting in Honolulu (I am a bike communter using the bus in inclimate weather),
especially within a ten mile radius of downtown (or Kapolei) 6. For those who bus
into downtown (or Kapolei) a fleet of small electric vehicles can be made available
through a debit card arrangement. The city of Turin Italy has pioneered this idea.
Rich Sullivan

A Tabar

Aloha e Mahalo to the Project Planners., ie., Parsons, and for allowing coments from
residents I attended scoping presentation in Honolulu. Thanks again for all the work
completed so far. My comments are not in any priority unless individually noted. It
is vital to have a scoping meeting in Waikiki. I observed no plans to include one now
or in the near future. The alternatives presented give a clear impression after viewing
all charts and materials that the fixed rail alternative is preferred by the planners.
None of the plans document how vehicular traffic in the corridor will deline or be
reduced under each of the alternative plans. The argument that other smaller/larger
metro areas on the mainland and foreign countries already have "a train", implies
Honolulu is behind the times. Honolulu is a special place and deserves better respect.
Not too many seniors were in attendance. I believe they will not participate in large
numbers as all the future forecast numbers is interpreted "as why should I care as I
will not be around then." I did not see associated expensed or monetary figures
associated with each plan. Very disappointing. Overall conclusion, more input is
needed by local residents and kamainas from all areas of O'ahu.

Ira Tagawa

Traffic in the leeward area continues to get worse with more and more development.
An efficient mass transit system is necessary to help relieve the congestion during
peak hours. Reliable and proven technology that is easy to maintain, such as light
rail, should be used to meet our needs. We do not need a sophisticated system that
would be expensive to maintain. The rail system should also be easily accessible,
with convenient feeder systems, parking garages, and stations with restrooms,
automated ticket vending machines and convenience stores. Something like the El in
Chicago would fit our needs. Once again, don't buy expensive technology that may
present problems in the future (a good example is Aloha Stadium, where maintenance


costs greatly exceed the original construction costs). Thank you for allowing citizen
input.

Carol Mae Takahashi

I see the horrible traffic jams going into town from the No.West side each time there's
an accident and traffic is backed up on Kamehameha Hwy., and or the H1 and H2.
There are no other alternatives at this time for us who live more than 5 miles from
town (Honolulu). It is very important that we implement this "light rail system" or
something compararble ASAP. Things are only getting worse as we sit on ideas that
will surely make life better for most of the citizens of Oahu, as well as the
environement. Thank yu for listening. From a concerned citizen. Aloha, CArol Mae
Takahashi

JAMES TAKEMOTO

I drive from Pearl Ridge to downtown about four times a year. I leave Pearl Ridge
between 8:30 and 9:00 a.m. I get on the H-1 and get off at Nimitz. I see moderate
traffic. I have never seen "gridlock". I get to downtown in about a half hour. I dont
think we need a rail mass transit system.

glen tanaka

I vote for the lowest cost rail that has the lowest cost repair with the best warranty for
repair and maintenance. I love the levitation rail though, so wish I could see the
costs for that. The route I prefer is on Kapiolani Blvd. since King street is one way,
in case we want to go the opposite direction when we get off the train!

Glen Tanaka

The rail should go along TWO way streets in case ground travel requires a bus from
the rail. Thanks, Glen

Chad Taniguchi

1. Bike and pedestrian paths should be budgeted and planned alongside, parallel to,
and intersecting with the transit path. We need to make it convenient for people to
use transit by walking and biking to transit. We also need to allow people the option
of biking or walking instead of taking transit. It is not physiclaly difficult to
commute up to 25 miles each way, but the path must be safe and convenient. Our
island will be healthier, safer, and use less oil energy if this is done. The study should
factor in the cost and benefits of the complementary bike and pedestrian paths. 2.
Space on transit for bikes to be transported is necessary. Secure, covered parking for
bikes at transit stops should be planned and installed. There are such installations in
Portland, Seattle, and other cities. I can get you the information. 3.Others and I am
willing to put in time and energy to provide information that will help make biking


and walking integral components of the transit system. I bike commute to and from
Kailua to Honolulu daily, using the bus when necessary.

Justin Tanoue

I support a monorail, or some sort of fixed, elevated rail. It will have exclusive right
of way and provide world- class views for users, which will encourage people to
ride!!! By providing a rail/bus combo pass, everyone who uses The Bus will ride in
addition to all of the new riders. If you have to pay seperately for Bus/Rail, then less
people will ride from my experience in Las Vegas.

Brian Taylor

To Whom it may concern, Let me begin by offering some context for my comments
to follow. I am the Director of the UCLA Institute of Transportation Studies and a
Visiting Scholar during 2005-06 at the University of Hawaii. I have published
extensively on public transit patronage and finance. I have followed this planning
process carefully since moving to Honolulu last summer and am disappointed, albeit
not surprised, to see so many of the mistakes made in other cities being repeated here
in Honolulu. Accordingly, I offer you here several comments and suggestions on
improving this planning process: 1. Are you aware of the clearly documented track
record of forecasts in studies like this one that have consistently UNDERestimated
actual costs and consistently OVERestimated actual patronage? I recommend that all
those involved with this project review the following refereed scholarly publications
on this topic: Flyvbjerg, Bent, Mette Skamris Holm, and Soren L. Buhl. 2005. "How
(In)accurate Are Demand Forecasts in Public Works Projects? The Case of
Transportation," Journal of the American Planning Association, 71(2): 131-146.
Flyvbjerg, Bent, Mette Skamris Holm, and Soren Buhl. 2002. “Underestimating
Costs in Public Works Projects: Error or Lie?” Journal of the American Planning
Association, 68(3): 279-295. Kain, John F. 1990. “Deception in Dallas: Strategic
Misrepresentation in Rail Transit Promotion and Evaluation,” Journal of the
American Planning Association, 56(2): 184-196. Pickrell, D. 1992. "A desire named
streetcar: Fantasy and fact in rail transit planning," Journal of the American Planning
Association 58(2):158-176. Wachs, M. 1986. “Technique versus advocacy in
forecasting: A study of rail rapid transit,” Urban Resources, 4(1): 23-30. What
specific actions have/will the planners and consultants involved in this planning
process take(n) to insure that the natural optimism and advocacy of those involved in
the planning processes like this one will not allow the widely documented biases in
cost and patronage forecasting to be repeated in this case? What assurances can you
offer that the oft-observed pattern elsewhere that, once a particular fixed-guideway
project has been selected, estimates of costs subsequently go up, while patronage
estimates go down so that, by the time the project opens, it can be declared a success
relative to the final, substantially more conservative forecasts? Will the consultant
agree to publish an analysis AFTER the project is ultimately opened comparing their
cost and patronage estimates AT THE TIME THE PROJECT WAS SELECTED
(and not with the later, post-selection revised estimates) with the actual costs and


patronage? 2. Given both the documented history of bias and the obvious uncertainty
in any travel forecasting exercise, I recommend that the consultants calculate and
report 95% confidence intervals around all forecasts presented to decision makers.
While decision makers may crave single point estimates, it is professionally
irresponsible to present such estimates in a climate of such uncertainty. Should the
consultant choose to do the professionally responsible thing and present all estimates
with these confidence intervals, it will make it quite clear to decision makers just
how wide the possible range of outcomes is, and just how speculative these estimates
are. This, of course, exposes the consultants as less expert than imagined by those
who hire them, and thus may be an uncomfortable thing to do. But doing so is not
unprecedented, and including such intervals in the planning process will increase
both its transparency and honesty. 3. Linked trips are harder to count, but a much
better metric of transit use. Converting modified grid transit networks around new
trunk-line transit service can create a misleading picture of increased patronage if
unlinked trips (or boardings) are used as the measure. If the new trunk-line, feeder-
bus service substantially increases the number of transfers, the total number of
unlinked trips (which are easy to count and most often reported) can go up
substantially, while the total number of linked trips may actually go down. I
recommend that throughout only linked trips be used as a measure of performance. 4.
Transportation sales taxes are regressive with respect to both income and
transportation use. That is, they disproportionately burden both poor households
relative to wealthy households, and residents who travel little relative to those who
travel a lot. I request that your analysis of the alternatives in this process include
consideration of income and spatial distribution of tax costs and ridership benefits --
i.e. who will be paying for this project, and who will be benefited from it (by both
income of residential location). See: Garrett, Mark and Brian Taylor. 1999.
“Reconsidering Social Equity in Public Transit,” Berkeley Planning Journal, 13: 6-
27. 5. As any self-respecting economist will tell you, expenditures of subsidy dollars
on building and operating any transit system DO NOT increase economic activity or
wealth, rather they are transfers that must consider both the diminution of economic
activity and wealth by those from whom the subsidy dollars are collected. To present
such expenditures as economic growth is simply misleading. And I am afraid that this
has been done in this process. There is an enormous literature on this topic; I refer
you to a couple of items here: Halperin, Libby G. 2005. The Benefits and Costs of
Highway and Transit Investments: Highlights of an Expert Panel. GAO-05-423SP.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Accountability Office. Taylor, Brian D. and
Kelly Samples. 2002. “Jobs, Jobs, Jobs: Political Perceptions, Economic Reality, and
Capital Bias in U.S. Transit Subsidy Policy,” Public Works Management and Policy
Journal, 6(4): 250-263. 6. Even in a spatially- constrained city like Honolulu,
corridors are a misleading way to conceive of urban travel. Mapping origins and
destinations of a sample of trips will clearly show that, even if most trips are
conducted partly in major corridors, they usually begin and/or end away from areas
of concentrated activity. This explains why flexible automobiles have proven so
popular. Thus, congested corridors can present a misleading picture of the potential
for high- capacity, fixed-route solutions. The public transit patronage literature is
quite clear that network-wide improvements generally outperform any improvements


made to a single line or corridor, and improvements in out-of-vehicle travel time
outperform improvements to in-vehicle travel time. By excluding consideration of
even the most basic network-wide improvements from your analysis, you by
definition exclude more cost- effective alternatives from your analysis. To wit:
system-wide real-time monitoring of bus location and speed can significantly reduce
vehicle bunching and, thus, increase schedule adherence. When combined with real-
time “next bus” information at the busiest 20% or so of the stops system-wide, the
effect on traveler perceptions is to substantially reduce the perceived burden of out-
of-vehicle travel times and, thus, increase patronage system- wide. Further, off-peak
hour and direction fare discounts can substantially increase patronage on parts of the
system that already have excess capacity, thereby increasing patronage at very low
cost. I submit that such network-wide improvements, which have been shown in the
research to increase patronage, are likely to be excluded from this alternatives study
on the pretext that they are outside of the scope of this analysis, but actually because
they are likely to substantially outperform any of the analyses to be considered in this
study. Do you intend to exclude such low-cost, easy-to-estimate network-wide
improvements from your analysis? If so, on what grounds? 7. The transit patronage
literature is also quite clear that the two most important factors explaining transit use
are (1) the relative proportion and spatial concentration of households with low
number of registered vehicles to licensed drivers (termed “auto deficit households,”
these are most often in low income areas), and (2) trips made to or from areas where
parking is limited and priced. Given this, how do the planners of this study intend to
emphasize serving low-income, auto-deficit households and promote (politically
unpopular but unquestionably effective) policies to limit the amount and increase the
price of parking? 8. Most, though not all, previous studies of transit corridor
alternatives have excluded capital costs from estimates of cost- effectiveness,
presumably on the logic that earmarked capital subsidies from federal, state, and
regional governments are dedicated and, thus, “free” (see the Li & Taylor article
below). This is, from the perspective of the taxpayer, an unsupportable position. I
recommend that the consultants and planners involved in this exercise estimate fully-
allocated and amortized capital and operating costs in all of their estimates to
facilitate apples-to-apples comparisons (see the Taylor, Garrett, and Iseki article
below): Li, Jianling and Brian D. Taylor. 1998. “Outlay Rates and the Politics of
Capital versus Operating Subsidies in Federal Transit Finance,” Transportation
Research Record, 1618: 78-86. Taylor, Brian D., Mark Garrett, and Hiroyuki Iseki.
2000. “Measuring Cost Variability in the Provision of Transit Service,” Journal of
the Transportation Research Board, 1735: 101-112. 9. I must take issue with the
claim by Lawrence Spurgeon in the 3 January 2006 Advertiser commentary that
“There are some who mistakenly believe that these meetings were a time for making
decisions. Not so.” Deciding what alternatives to include and exclude from any
analysis are among the most important decisions in any planning process. While it is
absolutely essential to include public participation at every step along the way, the
planners in this process (assuming that many of them are members of the American
Institute of Certified Planners) have a professional responsibility to include viable
alternatives – like HOT lanes, RapidBus networks, road and parking pricing options,
and marginal-cost approaches to fare-setting, and network-wide service


improvements like those I describe above – even if such alternatives are not popular
with elected officials and community members when first vetted in an informal way.
As such alternatives have been shown the research literature to be very cost effective
and likely to outperform many of the alternatives being considered in this process,
attitudes toward them are likely to change when subsequent analyses reveal their
relative effectiveness. To exclude such obviously viable alternatives from
consideration at this point is to “make a decision” to stack the deck in favor capital-
intensive, cost-ineffective, albeit politically popular transit corridor options. Thus, I
respectfully disagree with Mr. Spurgeon that decisions are not being made; important
ones ARE being made, and in the absence of good information. 10. Finally, in the
interests of full disclosure, I should note that several of my former students from the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and UCLA now work or have worked
for one division or another in the Parsons family, mostly in southern California, the
San Francisco Bay Area, and in New York. I don’t believe that any of my former
students are involved in this project, though I don’t know for sure. Respectfully
Submitted, Brian D. Taylor, AICP Visiting Scholar University of Hawai’i at Manoa

Lawson Teshima

I believe the exits from the highways need to be fixed first before anything
construction of rail, hot lanes, etc. For example, H1 Eastbound, Vineyard and/or
Ward on ramps should be closed during the mornings. Need improvement on
Vineyard off ramps from H1 and Punchbowl to eliminate stoplights on Vineyard as
much as possible. Need a passover for Nimitz and Sand Island Access Road.
Waikamilo and Ward Avenue stoplights need to be resynchronized. H1 Westbound
in evening needs a second cut-off lane for Waipahu exit. High occupany lanes
should be on he right side of highway instead of left (or off-ramp from left side like
H1 to Nimitz) to avoid need to cross over so many lanes twice (on and off).

Bob Thompson

Aloha Dedicated cycling/pedestrian lanes would not only make these modes of
transportation safer, but would increase the mix of transportation, reducing the
dependency of auto-only movement. All it would take is 3 feet of pavement-just a
slightly wider shoulder. As an aside, my hometown always ran a campaign titled
"Save 3 miles a day" to promote fewer & combined auto trips. This could be tied into
bike & pedestrian use in Hawaii to combat congestion, promote a healthier living &
reduce oil usage. Who could say no to this? Thank you for your time, Sincerely, Bob
Thompson

David Thompson

Limit the amount of vehicles allowed into Hawaii. Begin with one car on, one car
off. HOT lanes work. Take the 1/2 per cent tax increase and do a free bus service.
Insurance pay at the pump. No rail system will work well. No parking for rail riders.
There are too many families with both working adults going in different directions


every weekday morning. The cost to build and maintain rail will have a tremendous
negative financial affect on future generations. Aloha, David Thompson

Summer Thomson

We do not need a Rail. It's not feesible for Leeward people. We would still need to
drive our cars to a parking area, pay, find a way to Rail. That's another extra
transportation cost. I'm for more buses to go into residential areas to pick up
passengers. This way we don't need to walk to far out to the main roads or worry
what to do with our cars.

monico tiongco

Honolulu/Oahu is in dire need of an alternate transit system. Just make it happen, it
does not matter, light rail, monorail or magnetic levitation, but not more buses; the
bus system is clogging up the streets causing more traffic (most of them do not even
have any riders). We are all getting so frustrated with the amount of time we have to
drive to and from work considering that this is one of the the least populated
city/island in America. Politicians ... let your conscience be your guide!

Rudolph Tolentino

Driving is my occupation, my commute & work hrs. spent on our highways is avg.
13-15 six days a wk. I take great pride on my professional knowledge of every inch
of highway here on oahu, especially honolulu. If interested please contact me for
detailed info. Our quality of life is being threatened due to time spent in our personal
vehicles getting from point A to B. At least 90 or more min. reduction in our daily
commute will get the public to appreciate the system you choose. Aloha Rudy
Tolentino ( CDL Driver 25 yrs.)

Dennis Tsuruda

I am in favor of a fixed guideway system as I have had a favorable experience using
the rail system in San Diego. The only problem I have with the routes that are
suggested is that they miss many key locations that could increase useability.
Although the system is designed for locals it would be wise to accommodate visitors
also. Visitors will enhance the system by using the system during off peak hours to
get to key locations such as Aloha Stadium, Pearlridge, Waikele Shops, Ala Moana,
etc. It is very important that you consider putting stations at key locations similar to
San Diego. San Diego's trolley goes to Petco Park, the convention center, and other
key shopping destinations (Old Town, Fashion Valley Mall, etc). It does function
well to bring in the worker to downtown San Diego but I've noticed that during the
day the key ridership is visitors and school children on excursions. Let's keep an
open mind and include all aspects to make this system as functional and successful as
possible.


RICHARD TUDOR

I BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD CONTINUE TO DEVELOP THE ALREADY
EXTENSIVE AND EXCELLENT BUS SYSTEM. THE BUS SYSTEM IS
"FLEXIBLE" AND CAN CHANGE ROUTES WHEN NEEDED. WE NEED TO
DEVELOP A "24 HR" SYSTEM, WITH TRANSIT POLICE TO KEEP ORDER,
AND TO DEVELOP A "JITNEY" SYSTEM TO DELIVER PASSENGERS TO
BUS STATIONS ON MAJOR THOROUGHFARES. JITNEYS COULD RUN UP
AND DOWN THE MOUNTAIN ROADS TO THE VARIOUS DEVELOPMENTS(
LIKE NEW TOWN OR ROYAL SUMMIT) , OR THE COMMUNITIES AND
DEVELOPMENTS ON THE MOUNTAIN SIDES IN EAST HONOLULU AND
THE WINDWARD SIDE. THE JITNEYS COULD BE FINANCED BY
"SUBSCRIPTIONS" OR MONTHLY FEES--AND COULD BE "RADIO
CONTROLLED' TO RESPOND TO THE " TRANSPORTATION DEMAND" OF
THE SUBSCRIBERS. THE JITNEYS COULD BE A PRIVATELY RUN SYSTEM,
WITH A "FRANCHISE" TO PROVIDE SERVICE TO SPECIFIC
AREAS.PERHAPS THE TAXI DRIVERS MIGHT MAKE IT WORK!! THIS TO
WOULD NEED TO BE A 24 HOUR SYSTEM. THE RAIL SYSTEM WILL
REQUIRE PARKING LOTS, AND THERE WILL BE TRAFFIC JAMS GETTING
TO AND FROM THE STATIONS---HOW DO YOU GET THERE?? VIA CAR OR
BUS!!--AND THE RAIL SYSTEM WILL HAVE "NO FLEXIBILITY"!! AS WELL
AS COSTING A FORTUNE!! WE NEED TO GET CARS OFF THE STREETS,
AND HAVE A VISION OF AN OAHU "WITHOUT PRIVATE AUTOMOBILES".
IT CAN BE DONE, IF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION IS "GOOD ENOUGH"---
RAISE THE GASOLINE TAX ---MAKE BASIC PUBLIC TRASPORTATION
"FREE"--TO BOTH RESIDENTS AND TOURISTS!! WE NEED TO HAVE A
"MAJOR CHANGE" TO OUR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM----I DRIVE
BECAUSE I "HAVE TO ", NOT BECAUSE I "WANT TO"!! THE AVERAGE
RESIDENT HAS NO REAL IDEA HOW MUCH THEY ACTUALLY SPEND ON
THE CARE AND FEEDING OF AN AUTOMOBILE.

Lawrence Uchima

How much will it cost each taxpayer in the State of Hawaii to build, operate, and
maintain the mass transit system that is being proposed? Whatever happened to the
Pearl Harbor tunnel proposal? It would divert traffic away from the H1-H2 merge.
How about a ferry system from ewa beach to downtown Honolulu? We need to
create more incentives for people not to drive their cars.

Lawrence Uchima

Continuation from previous email. Are there sufficient stops along the route to make
it convenient for people to take the transit. Will there be buses along the stops to
serve the people's final destination.


MELVIN UESATO

I think the rail system would be good for us, take some traffic off. And I hope they're
able to do all, what you call it, research or whatever that they have to do, and I hope
they do it in a -- I want them to do it fast, not take till, like it says, to 2030. My hope
is it's done earlier 'cause we need the relief right now, especially with 'Ewa Beach
and Kapolei growing really fast. Also, if they can right now, temporarily, try to put
more express buses 'cause it does help in the morning and afternoon. I know during
the day you really don't need all those buses because everyone's at work or at school.
But that would be right now temporarily. Thank you.

Eva Uran

We definitely need fully developed bike paths on Youngs St. all the way from
Pensacola (as well) till Eisenberg, and also from intersection of Date and Kapiolani
until where the bike path starts (two blocks east). Bike paths are the best investment
in solving gridlock as safety concerns prevent many would be bikers to bicycle
(people told me personally they are too scared of traffic). The time is now when there
is enough money, no excuse to delay any longer!

Joey Viernes

The federal funding which would be allocated for partial funding for a mass transit
system in Hawaii, I thought was to be only used for just that, mass transit. No new
contruction for roads or existing bus systems will be allowed to receive federal
funding, Is this true. And if its true, would the only choice really be rail? So are we
just deciding what type of rail we will use?

Joey Viernes

To whom it may concern, I speak as a private citizen, a private citizen that just so
happens to drive a city bus. By the words of your own people during the scoping
meetings, " a rail system will not help in reducing traffic on our freeways". It will be
an alternative to sitting in traffic. OK, I can understand that, but then you have Mayor
Hanneman giving an interview to the Advertiser about rail saying it will get cars of
the road. Which is it? First I have a problem with a multi billion dollar alternative
that know one seems to know how much its going to take to subsidize its yearly
operation. I mean we are talking about initial buildings cost. Second, Rail and bus
service will need to be funded yearly. more tax money. Third, guaranteed cost
overuns. We all know the history of Honolulu's so called experts. Moreover,
politicians keep harping on its for the future of Hawaii, well we should have thought
about our future 25 years ago. Traffic is here now. Are we committed to really go
after real traffic solutions. It seems as if we have rail, and dont get me wrong rail is
the choice of our politicians, we are settling on the most expensive part of so called
traffic relief. When I wrote a comment prior to the scoping meetings and did not get
a response, my only thought was same old same old non-responsive government
rhetoric. Finally, is building bus only lanes an option at all. I would think this would


be cheaper to do, plus it would give more options and flexibility than fixed rail. Just
wondering,

Marie Wagner

The scoping document is too detailed and voluminous for the general public to digest.
We need to see a side by side comparison of the benefits/costs/disadvantages of each
alternative to make an informed and intelligent decision. Would you be able to
provide this? As this will be a gargantuan project in cost, duration, and long-term
consequences, I would like to see less costly and permanent alternatives pursued
initially, such as using the waterways, maximizing the efficiency and convenience of
the bus service, monetary incentives for carpooling, increasing the minimum driving
age and providing many more express jitneys/buses from the Kapolei area into
Honolulu. In short, I DO NOT SUPPORT RAIL TRANSIT at this time and am
completely against it being pursued until and unless we, the public, are part of a
completely transparent evaluation process, uncontaminated by personal, union or
political interests. With no specific plan or cost/benefit analysis, it is impossible to
judge the merits of this project.

Helen Walker

The Bus route (the fourth feature) seems to be less intrusive on the environment and I
favor that means of transportation. The monorail or any form of transportation that
invades the air space is visually unsightly and you're just adding more cement. We
are running out open air space, especially in Honolulu.

Richard Wallis

1. Most importantly, I do not believe the new transit system, in whatever version is
built, will be effective unless the transit time between Leeward Oahu and downtown
is less than current times. If it still takes an hour to hour and a half or more on the
new system to get from Kapolei to downtown why would anyone get out of their car?
I suggest that the number of stations that the train/bus stops at be minimized to reduce
the transit time. One reason I do not ride The Bus is because currently it seems to
stop every 150-200 feet. For instance, on King street between McCully and Isenberg,
The Bus stops four times. The most frustrating is it stops in front of McDonalds, then
Long's Drugs at Old Stadium Park, then in front of First Hawaiian Bank; every stop
within sight of each other. Another example, when I was active duty in the Navy and
before I got my car, it took over an hour and a half to ride The Bus from Pearl
Harbor to Ala Moana, a distance of approximately 11 miles. That works out to a little
over seven miles an hour! Now, if the number of stations is reduced, the bus system
would need to be modified into a "hub and spoke" system to feed the stations. 2. As
to the alignment, what about Ewa Beach and Mililani/Wahiawa? After the initial
sections are built then spur lines could be added to Ewa Beach, Mililani and
eventually Wahiawa. This would only work if the core sections could handle the
additional traffic, but I think this should be seriously considered. Also in this regard,
why stop at University or Kapolei? Though it would have a major impact, long term


plans should be considered for extending the line out to eventually Hawaii Kai and
Waianae.

Ann & Frank White

The transit system must accomplish 6-goals, at minimum: 1. Relieve traffic
congestion; 2. Serve all commuters not just West Oahu/Honolulu; 3. Save commuter-
time and reduce aggravation; 4. Reduce travel expense; 5. Reduce/eliminate parking
and parking expense; 6. Cost and function at minimum to taxpayers. Forget about
rail transit and starting a system from scratch. We need to build-on what we have ie.
highways, streets and busses. We need to: --Enhance and expand the bus system; --
Add various-size busses---maybe hydrogen- powered, energy efficient, non-polluting;
---Neighborhood vans to feed bus-stops; ---Dedicated lanes for busses only; ---Easy
parking at bus stops, where available; ---Use tihe tax money to make busses free!

Robert Windisch

1. "No build" or adding buses to the existing system will not solve the problem of
heavy traffic. People who don't use the bus now will likely not use it then. Traveling
time will not be reduced and pollution will increase. 2. HOT lanes will not reduce
traffic but will spread it out. Traffic congestion might be reduced and communting
time slightly decreased. Hot lanes should be used exclusively for buses, van pools,
and multi-person carpools. Single drivers should continue to use the existing travel
routes. 3. The high-capacity transit project is the best solution to existing problems.
Of the 4 alternatives I believe that 4C with some modification would be the best
route. From Kapolei to Saratoga Ave., up Geieger to Fort Weaver and to Waipahu
would serve the greatest amount of people and reduce the most traffic in the shortest
amount of time. A, B, and D which would serve the possible West Oahu campus of
UH and avoid Campbell and Ewa would not aleviate much traffic. Most college
students already commute by public transportation plus the college population comes
nowhere near the population of Campbell Industrial Park, Barbers Point, Ewa and
Waipahu. Service to the planned campus could be added in the future if feasible or
served by an additional, cheaper bus route. However, alternative 4C should be
modified to eliminate the Beretania St. route and approach closer to the downtown
area as Alternative 4D before heading to Manoa. There must also be service to the
airport and Ala Moana with an additional spur line to serve Waikiki and the hotels.
The point of the new transit project is to reduce traffic on our highways and lessen
commuting time. Therefore the system must serve the areas with the highest
population and the greatest concentration of people.

Dexter Wong

I believe that if a rail alternative is chosen it should be completely grade-separated for
speed. Mixing with traffic would only slow it down. Possible models might be a
monorail (like Seattle or Las Vegas) or Vancouver's Skytrain. Tunnels should be
avoided if possible to keep down costs and disruption.


Michael Woo

Honolulu is long overdue for a high-capacity transit system. However, lets not be
short sighted and under provide for the needs of all. The system should also include
Ala Moana, Waikiki and all the way out to Hawaii Kai in East Honolulu. No
tunneling should be done as it is too costly not only in engineering, building and
maintainence but also in unforseen emergencies due to quirks in Mother Nature's
weather conditions. Raised guideways for a monorail system seems to be the answer
thats least invasive on the existing infrastructure. Its very important that as many
people, including tourists, be given the option to utilize this new transportation
system. In this way, all our streets would be free of gridlock and not only those from
Kapolei to downtown

Michael Woo

Although I've never rode the bus, I would definitely use a fast and high-capacity
transit system if it came out to East Oahu (Hawaii Kai).

Betty Wood

The transit system should have: 1. parking at transit stations 2.service to the airport 3.
taxi services at transit stations 4. conncecting neighborhood bus service (with
frequent neighborhood buses) 5. free transfer between buses and trains 6. urban
statins should incorporate neighborhood shopping services (groceries, dry cleaners,
food service, etc)

Klaus Wyrtki

Before any commitment is made about mass transit it is absolutely necessary that the
public is fully informed about: 1.The cost of the project 2. the financing of the
project 3. the annual operating cost 4.The impact on the city and or state Budget We
need full disclosure and a complete cost/benefit analysis Aloha Klaus Wyrtki

Jon Yamaguchi

Enough already with the plans, we should have had this built in 1990. Please make it
go to to airport, UH and Waikiki - and allow bikes on the train like the mainland. But
not up in the air. Trains on the ground or underground. Trains up ing he air will make
the streets look dark like the train in Manila. With things getting more crowded here
- there is only so much land for cars or people. If there are more roads then less land
for housing ... and then have to go leeward side to live and the long car/bus ride.
Mahalo JY

harry yoshida

I favor a people mover rail system such as can be found in Bangkok Thailand in
conjunction with improvement of our existing bus system for areas that would not be


serviced by the rail system. The system in use in Bangkok would be ideal for
Honolulu. Have you studied the system in Bangkok? Also, there needs to be a rail
route that would service Waianae and Wahiawa/Mililani as part of the first phase of
the system. Alternatives 1 and 2 are losers. Packing more buses on our already
crowded roads/highways would be like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Mae Yoshino

I am definitely against a fixed rail system in Honolulu. I have lived in Honolulu for
60 years and driving for 35 years. I am against taking any lanes away from autos
because it will make traffic worse. University Avenue (to U of H) will be more
congested if any of the present lanes are used only for a fixed rail system. Definitely
against what was proposed for the B.R.T. (UGH!) I feel this way about any of the city
streets. Any improvement in transit would have to consider who would be using it.
Many times, especially in families with children attending school or babysitters or
activies, parents and adult children working in different areas, probably will continue
to use their cars--in case of young children, there is the safety factor where parents
want to make sure their children reach their destination safely. I am in favor of
running more buses at the peak times (schools, UH, community colleges, work),
perhaps scheduling more express buses to colleges, downtown, Waikiki, and other
dense locations in Honolulu. I feel our present bus system is very good; it could
improve by scheduling more buses during the peak periods. In regards to traffic
from Leeward or Central Oahu to/from Honolulu: When I did live in Village Park
(Kunia) and Waipio Gentry for a total of 3 years, we had young children we had to
drop off to/from school and we worked in town, so I don't think I would have used a
transit system. When I looked in the alternatives which were presented at the
meetings, only the 2 bus alternatives were there; all other alternatives were blank. I
would have liked to comment on the other alternatives and it should have been
available to us. Although I don't have a specific question, I would like to have an
acknowledgment that this comment has been received.

Rodney Yoshizawa

I have received the Office of The Mayor's Honolulu News Special Edition and still
wonder whatever happened to the "studies" that the local governments have
conducted throughout Honolulu. These were sessions that my wife and I attended
several times and we the citizens had discussed and even offered some alternatives to
help alleviate Honolulu's traffic problems. One major proposal which seemed to be
quite obvious to many of the panel and citizens was to reroute some of the traffic by
changing the traffic flow. As was presented at our sessions, we Americans drive on
the RIGHT-HAND SIDE of the roadways. As such, it is much easier and safer to
make RIGHT TURNS, rather than Left Turns. The group therefore suggested having
the traffic in Honolulu flow CLOCKWISE, starting at Beretania and King Streets in
the Iwilei area, to King and Waialae in Market City, then along Kapiolani Boulevard
to King and South Streets, then along King Street to the start, at Iwilei, where King
and Bertania meet. The section of King Street from South Street to University


Avenue also was recommended to be TWO-WAY, which would effectively give you
two minor CLOCKWISE CIRCLES to handle the localized traffic along that
corridor. South Street was suggested to be made TWO-WAY between King Street
and Kinau Streets, to complete the two minor CLOCKWISE CIRCLES. Punchbowl
Street was to be ONE-WAY Makai, from Vineyard to Nimitz, to handle traffic from
East and West getting off the Freeways, going into Downtown Honolulu.
Keeaumoku and Pensacola Streets were supposed to be reversed to handle Egress
from and Ingress onto H-1 Freeway, Westbound. That way, the traffic turning to, and
from, Ala Moana Center, which is a major bottleneck of traffic, would be able to
flow more freely. Also recommended was for the Right Lane of H- 1, Westbound
from Keeaumoku, to connect to the left lane of the Ramp leading to the Vineyard
viaduct. It was supposed to be slowly sloping up to meet the Vineyard viaduct, going
Westbound. Part of this proposal was also dropping the elevation of the short H-1
ON-RAMP from Pensacola, Westbound, to allow the necessary clearance for
vehicles going under the proposed new H-1 Vineyard OFF-Ramp. Other street
realignments could be made as deemed necessary. This was one of the biggest
schemes that the task force felt would truly help alleviate Honolulu's traffic
congestion problems. We were asked to participate in a couple of this kind of "study"
and wonder if this is just "blowing smoke"! We surely don't want our local
governments' traffic experts working overtime for nothing! Perhaps our new City and
County Government and State Government will take action instead of doing so many
studies that go nowhere. Other than the task force's proposed new ramp from H-1 to
Vineyard, it would seem relatively inexpensive to institute the changes suggested by
the study group. Regarding the High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project, other than
changing some people's view channels, it would seem that a corridor along the South
side, over or under the waterways of Honolulu Harbor, then North of Honolulu
Airport, and South of H-1, and finally across, or under, the channel of Pearl Harbor to
the former Barbers' Point would be the most direct and efficient route for the
commuters from West Oahu. This would probably provide the best balance in
redirecting the traffic, not only from the Second City area but also for people from
Central Oahu, should there be a tie-up along the present H-1 Freeway between Pearl
City and Downtown Honolulu. A Park and Ride, large capacity parking lot,
somewhere in the Barbers' Point area would help diminish the amount of vehicles
coming into town. Also, has any consideration been given to having a Toll System to
help minimize traffic into the downtown business area? This would help commuters
seriously consider alternate means of transportation, i.e., the Bus or whatever other
transit system is eventually instituted. Thank you for allowing input, again, into this
really sensitive issue. True, many people will object for personal reasons. However,
when they look at the broader picture, they should realize that some sacrifices need
to be made for the sake of resolving the traffic congestion situation.

stephen yuen

It would be great if the initial link would be a series of tracks running from either
Kapolei shopping center to Kahala mall. Then as time progresses,work on a
windward bound like to Kane'ohe via Kalihi valley along side the Likelike Hwy.


This way not only will long time residents will use it,but visitors as well When fees
are intiated,there is for bus.But the higher fee would be for rail. I like the draft
statement.Keep up the good work

Robert Yumol

I support the fixed guideway alternative. I think the goal should be to get people out
of vehicles. I've seen how rail systems in Boston and San Francisco aid in daily
commutes and would be very excited to see some sort of fixed rail system happen in
Honolulu. Thanks for listening, -Robert (RJ) Yumol


Appendix D Scoping Meeting Written Comments

Scoping Report Appendix D Page D-1

Page D-2 Appendix D Scoping Report

December 13, 2005 Scoping Meeting (Neal Blaisdell
Center)
Written comments received during the scoping meetings have been organized by the
date of the meeting. The comments are presented in alphabetical order by the
author’s name. The complete written comments follow the list of authors. The
addresses of individual authors have been obscured to protect their privacy.

List of Comment Authors
Anonymous Jim Hayes
Anonymous Howard Hoddich
Anonymous Robert Hughes
Anonymous Jan Ishihara
Anonymous Gregory James Kauwe
Karen Awana Amy Kimura
Joan Bennett Paul Kimura
Dave Bourgoin Sherman Kwock
Robin Brandt Alexandra Lake
Liane Briggs Henry Lee
Made Brunner Ray Leonard
April Cadiz Bob Loy
S. Cain Frank Mak
Ian Capps Paul Mattes
Shawn Carbrey Helen McCune
Stan Dalber Jay McWilliams
Joe Davis, Sr. Mel
Solray Duncan George Melenka
Frank Genadio Mark Mesler
Megan Giles Marilyn Michaels
Mike Goluich Ted Miller
Jerry Greer Sandy Moneymaker
Frederick Gross Donn Motooka

Stanley Hamada Daisy Murai

M. Hashimoto L. Muraoka

Reid Hayashi Maureen Muraoka


List of Comment Authors (continued)
Robert Nickel Charles Scott
Christine Olah Troy Seffrood
William Pelzer Frank Smith
Richard Port Scott Snider
Rodolfo Ramos Jessica Spurrier
Will Rich Debbie Stelmach
David Rolf Annie Stevens
Ann Ruby Mike Uechi
Norman Sakamoto David Webre
Lane Sato Pablo Wegesend
Rod Schultz Richard Weimer


December 14, 2005 Scoping Meeting (Kapolei Middle
School)
Written comments received during the scoping meetings have been organized by the
date of the meeting. The comments are presented in alphabetical order by the
author’s name. The complete written comments follow the list of authors. The
addresses of individual authors have been obscured to protect their privacy.

List of Comment Authors
Anonymous Daniel Mueller
Anonymous Gregory Mueller
Harold Asato Anita Mueller
Mattew Bio Dean Muramoto
James Boyer Colleen Neely
Charlie Bracken James Pacopaco
David Bremer Kimberly Pine
Margaret Byrne Douglas Pratner
Charlie Chang Dave Rae
C. Chong Roy Reyes
John Claucherty John Rogers
CC Curry Brian Shiro
Dan Davidson Holli Shiro
Jack Epstein Curtis Takano
John Flores Charlene Tarr
Judy Flores Mark Taylor
Frank Genadio John Thomas
James Grenbel T. Lei Torres
Robert Hartsfield Larry Vaughan
Frank Hayashida Marien Vaughan
Larry Howard Mo Wearstler
Dana Jones Robert Willing
Stan and Roberta Jones Vernon Wong
William K. Darrell Yagodich
Leonard Kama P. Young
Adrian Lau Beverly Yow
David Lemon Ernie Yow
Jessica Lomaoang Paul Zavada
David Mercil


Appendix E Scoping Meeting Oral Comments

Scoping Report Appendix E Page E-1

December 13, 2005 Scoping Meeting (Neal Blaisdell
Center)
List of Speakers
Eve Anderson
Pablo Wegesend
Jan Bappe
Chad Taniguchi
James Nakano
Linda Starr

Ian Capps
Richard Port
Sherman Kwock
Richard Kane
Dale Evans
Lane O. Sato
Amy Kimura
Jayson Chun
Katherine Kupuka`A

Transcript of Oral Comments

HONOLULU HIGH-CAPACITY TRANSIT CORRIDOR PROJECT
PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING COMMENT
Neal S. Blaisdell Center, Pikake Room
777 Ward Avenue
Honolulu, Hawaii 96814
Tuesday, December 13, 5-8 p.m.

BEFORE: ELSIE TERADA, CSR NO. 437
Certified Shorthand Reporter

Eve Anderson

I understand the state apparently is only
talking about this light-rail thing, but we have to
also look at a fly-over asphalt roadway over the
freeway, then the bus, express bus will come from all
the different points coming right to town. They
off-load their people right downtown and then the other
shuttle bus will take them to the offices.


If we use the other suggestion was asphalt, buses,
and then people could pay a toll fee and ride on
top, but if we do that, it will be jammed with people
on top, the buses would get stuck, and when you get to
the other end in Honolulu, it's like a funnel, because
you got Nimitz and all the other highways that are
jammed, now you got the top.

So this fly-over has to be only used by the
express buses, and they can come from all the different
spots starting at 6:00 in the morning, so the people
there don't have to get up at 3:00 in the morning and
get in their cars and sit in that traffic. They can
come in, in the bus, if it didn't have any traffic,
would come shooting right in, then turn around and go
back. During the rest of the day, the schedule can be
altered, maybe the bus goes every hour, I don't know.

But also, the emergency vehicles can use
this. When there are massive accidents on the freeway
like we see and it's tied up for five hours, the police
can route people onto it. If there's a big event at
the Aloha Stadium, people coming from both sides could
get on this bus and shoot right out. So it gives us a
lot of flexibility.

If we do the light-rail or whatever they're
going to call it, we have to buy a whole new
technology, pay for the buses, because that's still
going to go, and then pay for a whole new technology,
and I don't think enough people are going to ride that.

So if we keep the buses rubber-tired, they
will clearly run back and forth, and then after rush
hour, the taxis can use it going to the airport. You
know, I'm going home and I see an ambulance trying to
get through rush-hour traffic, they can't do it, but
they could scoot on and then fly over right to
downtown.

So I hope they consider that. I know
apparently the state, not state law, but the resolution
or whatever they pass, it's asking for only the
light-rail, but I think our team has to also look
closely at a fly-over asphalt, maybe three lanes above
the freeway shooting right through.


Now, the students can get off downtown and
get right on the bus going to the University of Hawaii,
the buses that we already have on the surface streets.
It will be like a terminal, so other buses could come
and then go right to Waikiki. So this shuttle bus
would only come along the whole corridor down, and it
would fly in. It would take 45 minutes for a ride
instead of the two hours of traffic, five hours, you
know, when there is an accident. Nobody is talking
about that.

Cliff Slater is talking about paying a toll,
so anybody could ride it, but the more traffic we put
on it, then it just gets clogged up again. And if
we're going to get the buses and cars to off-load in
Honolulu, everybody will be stopped, you know, it won't
make it any faster.

So in order for people to ride it, they have
to know they can get up in the morning and get to the
bus terminal at, say, 6:00 or 7:00, and they'll be in
town at eight o'clock for their meeting, you know,
one-hour ride or 45-minute ride; and the first runs
would start way out, and then another bus would start
at the next, Waipahu or Pearlridge, you know, so people
from those valleys could just get on that bus. They
don't have to wait for the Ewa bus to come up and pick
them up, and then the people running this would then
fix the schedules.

It wouldn't run every ten minutes, but during
the rush hour, afternoon and morning, in the morning it
could be, I don't know how many lanes, I'm saying three
lanes. Two lanes could go to town if there's that much
traffic, and one go out, and then reverse it. See,
what Cliff Slater is saying, everything going to town
in the morning, and then noon, everything goes out, but
some people want to go the other way.

So anyway, I don't hear anybody talking about
it and I really would like them to look at it, even
though that's not on their game plan. Thank you.

Pablo Wegesend


My main concern with building the light-rail
project is that you got to move people out of the way,
to make room for the light-rail, to make room for the
light-rail stations. So, like, who is going to be
forced out of the way to make room for it? Could be
homes, could be businesses, and it will cause a lot of
unnecessary trauma and lot of resentment among people
who are being forced to move out of the way, to make
room for a light-rail and light-rail stations.

And it's also a special concern to me because
I live right near U.H., and if they plan to build a
light-rail station near U.H., so, would I have to move,
and will it cause a lot of inconvenience for me and my
neighbors? And for moving, like it's going to be
hectic just to find a new place to live. So it's going
to cause a lot of unnecessary problems. That's all I
have to say.

Jan Bappe

Well, mainly, I just want to say if they're
going to do it, do it right, in the first place, not
add things later. They have studied this enough for
years, and they have gone around the United States and
Europe, even, to study mass transit. And I'm saying
this because one of the men over there was saying that
we'll add things later. Like there's already the need
to go to Mililani, because many there do work in town
and every day they face that traffic jam, and on the
radio they talk about it, at meetings they talk about
it.

I just think all those corridors that they
think the potential is there, should be considered
right now, not five years down the line, ten years
until things get worse and worse, because that's what
they've done with the bus, they wait until the problem
occurs, big problem, and then they will try to resolve
it. You know, they could have prevented it.

I rode the bus. I moved here in 1948. Out
of those about 27 years, I rode the bus off and on
between cars and whatnot. And it's improved a lot.


With our suggestions, even, they didn't pay any
attention. They knew there was a complaint and need,
but they're down in the office, where they don't have
to deal with us. I hope they will listen to the people
as much as they possibly can.

Chad Taniguchi

No matter what alternative is chosen, there
needs to be safer bicycle and pedestrian pathways. I'd
like to see those pathways alongside the main line,
more parallel to it, so that people have an alternative
that if they don't want to ride whatever mass transit
is there, they can walk along that corridor safely and
they can bike along that corridor safely.

It's really not that far for a biker to make
the whole trip because they're just physically
bicycling it, but the difficulty for a bicyclist is not
the physical terrain but the cars and the traffic
lights, and the danger that comes with that. So if
this safe alternative can be provided at the same time
that this thing is built, then it's going to have a
long-term impact and, you know, it doesn't take much to
maintain a bike and pedestrian path. It's not like
cars, which wear out pavement, the bicyclists and
walkers are really light on the pavement.

And the other thing is, to get bike paths and
walkways from the neighborhoods to the main transit so
that if people want to get from their home to the main
transit station, then they have an easier way to get
there by walking or biking also.

And finally, on the transit system itself,
they need equipment to hold bicycles so that bicyclists
can ride the transit from one point to another, get
off, take their bike off and then go wherever they want to go.

I'd like to see the study cost out the
alternative of having bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly
facilities so that you can compare how much providing
the bike- and pedestrian-friendly facilities will be,
in contrast to the main line.


If we can do this now, that is, make bicycle-
and pedestrian-friendly facilities, then no matter
which alternative is chosen, you're going to provide
for people to exercise, use less fuel, and enjoy their
lives better.

James Nakano

How I'm addressing this is, first, these are
all saying a hundred percent growth in the Ewa side and
deviating traffic coming from the Ewa side, they
haven't pulled enough people from the west side and
Mililani area, why they're coming into town. Are they
students or do they work for the government, what
specifically are the reasons why.

My proposition is to have satellite offices
in the Ewa Beach area, on the west side area, and
giving tax breaks from the state or federally to
companies, to have satellite offices out there as well
as universities or schools. Also, in providing
flexible hours for state officials or state workers,
that they're able to stagnate the time when coming into
town.

By offering tax breaks to companies, I think
it's going to give them financial incentive for them to
open offices out there. Every one of the alternatives
is raising somehow taxes to people that aren't
affected; Kailua, North Shore. They have to pay for
this, any of these rapid transit ideas.

I do see that traffic does need to be
alleviated with alternative means, but instead of
financially spending billions of dollars into these
rapid systems, why don't we just develop into that
area, and people don't have to go, they can go opposite
way of traffic coming from Mililani or Salt Lake area,
they can drive into the Ewa Beach, Waianae area for
their businesses, University of Hawaii, if they have
their satellite school there. These are all
opportunities just for government people there. People
can make choices if they want to go to U.H. or stay on
the west side.


The other thing is I saw the population
growth, it says there was a hundred percent growth in
the Ewa Beach area or Waianae area, but what's the
population right now? Is it 200,000, 100,000, what?
That area is still so undeveloped in certain areas.

I'm thinking instead of giving it to a lot of
the hotels, start giving it to businesses where they
can make actual economic development, you know,
possible prosperity for people over there. It
alleviates gas problems for people driving, because lot
of these rapid transit systems, I don't think people
will use. I mean, the bus is a perfect example. It's
not a perfect system, but it's not a mass system at
all, by any means, for a lot of people, especially
those who are paying $2 a ride.

That's kind of what I wanted to say, just to
have at least a tax break, satellite offices on the
west side.

Linda Starr

My name is Linda Starr. I've been involved
in traffic issues since 1987. Actually, I worked for
Department of Transportation from 1971 to 1979. And my
concern is that we have to find out why people get into
their cars. There's a saying that people are in love
with their cars, we have to find out why they have this
love affair with their cars. I did an informal survey,
and I found out that people on the Leeward Coast get
into their car because, first, they have to get to
work, but after work, they want to go to Ala Moana
Shopping Center, and then after that, they want to go
to Ala Moana Beach Park, okay?

What it is, is on the Leeward side, they
don't have any structured shopping centers. They have
a dozen strip malls, so the person has to know which
strip mall to go to, park their car, buy it, get back
into their car, go to another strip mall, buy what they
want, get back into their car, go to another strip
mall, eat their dinner, get back into their car, go to
another strip mall, and go to a theatre. Very
inconvenient. They'd rather get in their car once,


park their car once, Ala Moana Shopping Center, and
then do whatever it is that they want, do shopping, you
know, or dining.

And then on the weekends, there is no
family-oriented beach park. All the good beaches on
the Leeward side are taken up by the private sector, by
the Ihilani hotel, by Paradise Cove, by the military,
by the state, by the water park. There is no good
recreation for families. In order for a community to
be a second community, not only do we have to have a
place where people work and live, but work, live, play,
go to good schools.

Right now, for the last 50 years, the Leeward
side has what you would call the plantation image, the
blue-collar image, and people want to be in the middle
class.

The Legislature needs to spend the money or
the D.O.E. needs to spend the money so that the schools
on the Leeward Coast are given the comparable share as
downtown or East Honolulu. When they do the survey of
broken-down schools, they're almost all Leeward
schools.

Also, the transportation, the transportation
roads, they're all minimally qualified roads. There's
no median dividers with landscaping. When they need
road-widening, they just add more lanes with concrete
barriers, if that. Lot of times the only thing
dividing oncoming traffic is the magic yellow line, and
as a result we have head-on collisions, we have
pedestrian deaths. We have the minimum construction of
roads. Whereas as you go into town, Waikiki, Kahala,
East Honolulu, you have enhanced roads, you have wide
sidewalks, you have landscaped medians, you have
paradise. Whereas you live on the Leeward side, where
60 percent of the people are, all they have is a
concrete jungle and not much more.

So, in summary, instead of just looking at
traffic, find out is it the cause or the effect, you
know. So I think it's just the effect, find out what
the real cause is that causes the traffic that causes
people to have to get on the road. In order for a


second city to be viable, the second city must
incorporate the whole family concept of living,
working, worship, school, play, entertainment.

My involvement with transportation issues
came to a peak during the 1991 Kalanianaole Highway
widening project. I was involved in testifying before
City Council when State D.O.T. was applying for their
S.M.A. for the project. My testimony essentially said
thank you D.O.T., but no thank you. Originally what
they wanted was they wanted six lanes of road with no
median barriers. So what I did is I came up with three
sketches showing how the right-of-way that was acquired
could be redesigned to incorporate landscape medians
and landscape shoulders.

And after about a year of testifying, the
City Council finally gave conditional approval to State
D.O.T., and at that time, the director, Ed Harada,
approached me and said, "I like what the D.O.T. is
coming up with," because, in essence, they took my
three sketches and they combined it to come up with
what you see on Kalanianaole, East Honolulu today.

BEFORE: JOY C. TAHARA, RPR, CSR 408
Notary Public, State of Hawai`i

Ian Capps

I've lived in Hawai`i now for four years. My wife was
born in Waipahu and went to UH before travelling around the
world. And we met in New York.

Both of us, and particularly myself, have lived in
major world cities and U.S. cities all my life for many years
and months at a time. And there is no major city in this world
that I know that has succeeded without some form of rapid
transit service.

Honolulu is now the 11th largest city in the country
and is growing at a fast rate in a very narrow congested area.
It has no chance of surviving as a viable expansion city unless
it has a fixed rapid transit system.

Every city which has tried to solve the problem,


starting with London, by increasing the highway system, even
when there is space, has discovered that the new highway is
out-of-date by the time that it's built. At the moment, there
is very little space to build new highways in Honolulu. The
time to commute about 10 miles into the city is often more than
an hour, which is worse than any other major city.

There is no space, and there will be no solution by
simply expanding the highway system or even altering it to allow
rapid limited access highways for bus systems and paying
travelers, paying motorists.

If a fixed rapid transit system is put in place, then
the road system can be managed in order to maximize on the rapid
lanes and the bus service and all systems of people-carrying
will improve. You understood me, right?

My personal experience favors a light system which is
environmentally and, in terms of consumption of energy, as
efficient as possible which probably means using monorail or
magnetic levitation systems. The magnetic levitation systems;
you know about that because it's all around here, isn't it?

The congestion on the highways at the moment, and the
future congestion that will occur, is going to reduce the
productivity of the city's workers by more than the cost of
introducing a fixed rapid transit system, in my mind. Let's
leave it at that.

You can add at the end, this is all based on personal
experience, over 60 years -- London, New York, San Francisco,
Miami, Paris, Rio, San Paulo, Beirut, Hong Kong, and Sydney and
Tokyo. I've lived in all those places. Thank you very much.
Good luck with everything.

Richard Port

Now that the decision has been made to proceed on the
master plan for transportation on O'ahu, the O'ahu Metropolitan
Planning Organization must be visionary in its effort to come up
with a plan whose execution will not be out-of-date by the time
it is implemented. The Honolulu Advertiser made this same point
recently in an article entitled, "[Here's] How to Derail Transit
Plans This Time Around." OMPO must look at its proposals in


terms of how the plan and the planners will be perceived
50 years from now.

I spent much of this summer in Boston, and I think
that when OMPO looks to the West Coast or Asia, you may be
looking in all the wrong places for a solution. Boston has not
only put its rail system underground, it has just eliminated its
elevated superhighway and placed all its inbound traffic
underground, leaving room for 28 acres of parks and green space
where the highway used to be.

Like Honolulu, Boston's underground is in very close
proximity to the Atlantic Ocean. And in some places, is
actually in the Atlantic Ocean. In one location, the transit
system is only 10 feet below the underground highway.

In discussing the practicality of placing O'ahu's new
transportation system underground from Middle Street to Kahala
with two engineers and a geologist, they have told me that
Honolulu's transit system can be placed underground. Therefore,
I would urge OMPO to at least bring to Hawai`i one of the
planners and one of the project managers from Boston to discuss
how Honolulu could build an underground transportation system.

What are the alternatives? Place our new
transportation system on-grade and you will eliminate present or
future traffic lanes. Elevate our new transportation system
above ground level and you will reduce site claims and create
another downtown Chicago, reducing Honolulu's attractiveness for
our visitors and locals alike.

A person travelling between Middle Street and Kahala
underground with four or five stops in-between will make the
entire route in 10 to 12 minutes. Each stop can be under a
major area of our city. For example, Bishop Street, Ala Moana
Shopping Center, UH Manoa, Kaimuki, with a separate spur to
Waikiki. This is very similar to Boston's system which has been
built under skyscrapers. This can be combined with an
interconnected bus system similar to New York City.

I hope that, at the very least, OMPO will look
seriously at the alternative I have suggested, bring in to
Honolulu Boston's experts and provide cost estimates for
decision-makers to review. And I thank you very much for this
opportunity to testify.


Sherman Kwock

My family's owned property in the Kapi'olani area
since the 1930s and one of the line routes, or three of the line
routes, actually, go along Kapi'olani and turn up University
Avenue. I'm concerned that when the routes start taking shape,
that the amount of property that they're gonna have to condemn
will probably include our property, you know, 'cause it makes an
up-turn in that area. So that was our main concern; it would
displace us, take away property that's been in our family for
generations.

It doesn't make sense if, in later years, that the
thing doesn't have that much ridership and our family gets
displaced or, you know, our property gets taken away from us.
So it would seem like it kinda wipe that out, something that
maybe, actually, if they can put it on the taxpayers.
That's all.

Richard Kane

First of all, I'm here representing the Pacific
Resource Partnership, which is the market recovery arm of the
Hawai`i Carpenters Union. And Pacific Resource Partnership
supports this whole idea of mass transit, and more specifically,
the light rail concept of this mass transit.

We do, however, have several concerns about the
presentation here and some of the information that may not have
been presented. Let me say the good thing right away. There's
not one mention of congestion which is a measurement that should
not be used. It was not mentioned and that's something that's
very positive.

Some of the other measurements that might have been
included, but were not, we included reliability as a
measurement. But they did not include, on this board here,
headway as a measurement. And there are differences in the two;
headway would be very important in terms of the frequency of the
service.

When you choose between the three alternatives,
especially the light rail and all the rest, some of these
things, like the mass transit, make no mention of grade


separating. And I spoke to one of the representatives. He
says, well, we're looking at either exclusive lanes or grade
separations. And I think that distinction should be made known
because I think that exclusive lanes might unduly influence
pedestrian traffic; whereas grade separated overheads may not.
So those are the things.

One of the project goals also concern me. Although
this is inherently a transit conversation right now, when they
talk about what they're looking for, is they're looking for
Smart Growth. Smart Growth can exist with or without transit.
This is a transit-associated growth and so it should be termed a
transit-oriented development, which is more the correct term.

I spoke to a specialist again, and he feels the terms
are interchangeable. But I think there are important
distinctions to be made. That's pretty much my comment. That
was very painless.

Dale Evans

First of all, as to this meeting, I'm disappointed
because I think that, given that 10 million and the amount of
time that will be spent on it, I think that it would have been
more productive and helpful for it to be interactive. In other
words, talking and talking out instead of just there's no
dialogue. They cannot know what I'm thinking without being able
to question me. And I cannot understand what they have
presented which was supposed to be a study of alternatives or an
analysis of different alternatives, and so I'm disappointed
that, uh, the public or the community or stakeholders.

We are a stakeholder. Our company has been in
business since 1938. We are a paratransit operator. We are a
paratransit service; and therefore, we are what FTA defines as a
stakeholder. And the general law requires input and
participation by stakeholders, the private sector. Our company
is a privately-owned small business, woman-owned, a paratransit
service company since 1938.

I have several questions. What is the problem? What
is the city trying to sell us? What is the project purpose?
What the goals and objectives and assumptions are?

And so I feel, I believe that one of the assumptions


was that we were going to improve our transportation and
traffic. And my sense of what has been presented is that we
will be worse off. The people of Honolulu have to understand
that we will have worse traffic congestion, just like they have
in Portland.

It troubles me that this is more about passengers than
about the movements of -- the diverse uses of roads and the
different transportation needs of users. Users are not only
passengers. Users can be businesses. It could be deliveries,
freight deliveries. It could be motorists. It could be
truckers. It could be people. And it could be people who are
not able to ride the bus but need to go door-to-door, because
they are too young, too old, too infirmed, too demented, to ride
transit. So, to me, this is not a challenge for transit as far
as a challenge to meet diverse user needs.

I was reading the project purpose, and they have
defined the project purpose as to provide improved person
mobility in the highly congested east-west corridor. But that's
not the problem. That's not the purpose. The purpose is to
relieve traffic congestion so that you can move, you can serve
diverse transportation needs better and more efficiently and
quicker. So I question the person mobility statement.

It also says that the purpose is to provide reliable
public transportation services in the corridor. But what about
the other services that are used in the corridor, such as
freight, motorists, paratransits, the vast, vast array of uses?

And then it says the purpose is to serve areas
designated for urban growth. I'm puzzled by that because we
have existing needs that are not being met. They don't even
mention existing needs.

And then the project would provide an alternative to
private automobile travel. But what do we do with the motorists
today, the people who are using the roads today? I mean, I'm
just baffled. This is not the way that I think transportation
service companies look at transportation. I'm just baffled why
engineers and consultants look at the transportation business
this way. I'm very puzzled.

And so I feel that they have summarily dismissed the
alternatives that have been talked about. I believe that the
managed lanes they are suggesting is nothing more than like


Hotel Street transit mall, one lane in each direction only for
buses. Even though they say, oh, we're gonna have transit buses
and we're gonna have paratransit -- and oh, we're gonna charge
toll for motorists that fill in the empty spaces; but during
peaks, there's no empty spaces on Fort Street. And they're
talking about spending all this money for something that's not
gonna improve traffic.

So I'm questioning whether these people are truly
doing an alternative analysis. There is only one alternative
that they are producing, and it's a nonexisting alternative
today. They're not talking about all the existing modes today.
They're talking about a nonexisting mode for tomorrow which may
or may not happen.

I think that why traffic congestion is a problem is
because public safety and security are compromised due to poor
roads, insufficient capacity that lead to accidents, injuries,
death, loss of property, loss of business, income, and loss of
job opportunities and loss of quality of life. And I believe
that the public safety, the quality of life need requires that
we be able to address the traffic congestion that we have today
or else we're gonna end up worse. So that's about it.

Lane O. Sato

I would like to say I'm surprised that no one has
considered putting a two-lane highway in both directions, run
along the South Shore of O'ahu from Wai'anae to Waimanalo and
further on to the North Shore if necessary. It seems to me the
main problem is too many automobiles on the island. That's
nothing to do with mass transit, buses, rails, or whatever else
there is.

I don't think people can give up on their cars. You
know, there's over a million automobiles on the island. That's
not gonna change. So, to me, the best solution for this problem
is to run the two-highway along the South Shore. Of course
you're gonna have people complaining about ruining the view and
whatnot, but I think they could build it far enough outside
where it won't affect the natural, for the surfing or, you know,
stuff like that.

The other reason I suggest this is because in Florida,
they have a lot of causeways that stretches for miles and high


enough to let big ships underneath, and it hasn't seemed to fail
in areas that they have these causeways. Also in Louisiana,
across Lake Pontchartrain, they have two-lane highways that
stretch for 40 miles across the lake from the main land to that
peninsula thing of Louisiana, and that hasn't been affected by
any natural disaster, hurricane, or anything. It's still there.
They still use it. If they can do some kind of engineering feat
like that up there, I don't see why we cannot consider doing
that over here.

That's basically it. But the main thrust is too many
automobiles on the island. I don't think people gonna give up
on that, driving their cars. So it's mainly to alleviate
traffic from the land and divert it somewhere else.

Amy Kimura

Well, I want to suggest that a lot of these
charts -- which aren't in the handout we got tonight – be
included on the web site quickly and not just before the
deadline. But if it's submitted in the next week or so, it
would give us more time to look at before we submit our comments
because you need the charts in order to understand some of the
reports that we got tonight. But I know they cannot provide us
with these kinds of huge charts, but if they had it on the web
site, we could look at it ourselves in color. That's all.

Jayson Chun

Please make any technology used quiet and safe. I
know people can get hit by light rail trains going by and cars
can get hit as well. So please consider something that runs
separate from traffic.

One more, then I guess. I already submitted my
written, so. It's going to be please consider servicing any new
UH West O'ahu campus and tying it to 'Ewa Beach and Kapolei
community so it's easy to access. That's it. Thank you very
much.

Katherine Kupuka`A


I don't like any of the -- anyway, I'm against a fixed
rail system. I guess the best solution would be to enhance the
bus system. I don't believe that they should even think of
having a rail system going from Kapolei all the way to UH when
there is a bus system that goes to UH and I see the bus not even
filled with passengers, right, at times when I seen the bus
going from, let's see, the transit system in Kalihi all the way
to UH. I don't see it filled with students or, you know, people
who would travel to the UH.

Another thing is we have the UH West O`ahu being
constructed in Kapolei. Why would we need a rail system going
from Kapolei to UH? It is too expensive. Anyway, that's about
it.


December 14, 2005 Scoping Meeting (Kapolei Middle
School)
List of Speakers
Leonard L. Kama
Maeda Timpson
David Lemon
Delta Westcot
Senator Brian Kanno
Dana Jones
Senator Will Espero
"CC" Curry
John Claucherty
Dan Mita
Charlie Bracken
Linda Young
Terry Slattery
Paul Zavada
Catharine Lo

Jo Ann Abrazado
Alan R. Gano
David Mercil
Glenn Oamilda
Ed Alakea
Ann Freed
Melvin Uesato
Richard Mori
Dick Porier
Clarence Nishihara
Irvin Sugimoto

Transcript of Oral Comments
HONOLULU HIGH-CAPACITY TRANSIT CORRIDOR PROJECT
PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING COMMENT
Kapolei Middle School Cafeteria
91-5335 Kapolei Parkway
Kapolei, Hawaii 96707
Wednesday, December 14, 7-9 p.m.

BEFORE: ELSIE TERADA, CSR NO. 437
Certified Shorthand Reporter


Leonard L. Kama

I had one concern, and my concern is why
Waianae is not part of this transit. According to your
board over there, it shows that Waianae has 80 or more
percent of job, heavy traffic. And several years back,
we tried Navatek over here. They tried to run them out
of Kapolei, whereas we shuttled the bus from Waianae to
over here, at the harbor, and from there they ran into
town. But when they had an accident, they shut down
the road.

So my concern is that if you get something
like this, and if they looking for heavy traffic,
people, especially working people, and kids going to
school on the west coast side, from Makaha all the way
down, you have a density of people there compared to
what they have on top of the road right now. That is
one concern.

The other concern is why they don't bring the
university down over here, the west university they
said was going to be here so long ago, but we neva get
'em yet. And then we cut one portion of the traffic
going to town, especially the kids that are going to
the university. Lot of them decided instead of going
to the university, end up at Leeward College, but that
is over-jammed, and that is filled up in no time, so
the rest that get stuck, gotta go all the way to U.H.

If you really want to take people off of the road, and
especially for the school kids, I mean, that's one
option, by that coming out of here, which was promised
back in the '90s.

And the other concern is who decided the
route of where this transit is going to go? And I
understand because this is a second city, that's why
there was one other option why they chose Kapolei going
through. Has anybody thought about since they tried it
by sea, they know that there is no traffic out there.

What about running, if they do run this rail
thing, why not running something like that in the
commercial that they've been showing on T.V.? If you
look at it real good, you'll find that the transits


running right next to the bridge, by the water, and if
they can do that, it will actually cut the thing, the
traveling space in half. Instead of going around the
bay, you can go from Kapolei straight to Honolulu, and
it might interfere with the airlines, but they have
that all over the world, train tracks and airlines. I
mean, just looking and observing, this is my comments.

And the last one is why the mayor not here.
He was on NBC last night. I remember when he was here
when he wanted to get in, and the community was all for
him. But it's kind of disappointing that he's not
here. If he's not showing any interest in this, and I
looked at it, the bus isn't doing a great job right
now, but that's another problem that they have. Thank
you very much.

Maeda Timpson

Looking at all the different options, I'm not
totally happy with any one in particular, but what I
would like to see is a possibility of getting Ewa Beach
into the mix, so it will be Kapolei, West Oahu. I
mean, you have to do West Oahu. It would be foolish to
not have one of the options going through West Oahu.
So I think we need Kapolei, West Oahu, and Ewa Beach,
because those, unless you cover all of them, the other
community surrounding will still have all of the
traffic roads.

But as a neighborhood board, we totally
supported this whole transit project, and we're going
to follow it pretty close and want to be supportive of
it and do whatever it takes to come out and have our
say, but we really would like to see if we can add
everyone in.

So Option B is good. We could sort of live
with D, but my first choice would be to have it all,
you know, Kapolei, Ewa Beach, and U.H./West Oahu.


David Lemon

I'm very concerned that we're not driving the
whole concept to eliminating automobiles, so driving to
the train station does not eliminate automobiles, it
just means I park it in a different place. So the
design concepts other than the TSM Alternative 2 is the
only one talking about feeder bus service. But we need
to design the whole concept to get rid of automobiles
on the island, so that I don't have to drive anywhere,
that the system supports my transportation needs
locally as well as for commuter traffic.

So when I don't have to go to a shopping
center, I don't have to get in my car, I can eliminate
the car, but I need feeder service between my home and
my shopping center and those other attractions other
than commuting to and from work.

So right now, 40 or 50 percent of us are in
retirement ages and we don't need to commute to work,
how are you providing transportation services to
support the local community's needs from home to
shopping centers, from home to my food stores, to home
to my sports attractions without having to get involved
in a long transit to commuter rail service to Manoa? I
don't go to Manoa, I don't need transportation in
Manoa. I do need transportation to Foodland.

Make sure it's included in all the
transportation studies so that we can get rid of
automobiles and we provide local support for local
transportation needs and connect with the longer
transportation in the mass transit system.

Delta Westcot

I just want to say that it's important that
since we are now paying extra taxes, that this one
alternative and preferably the simplest alternative be
implemented in order that we can have something.
Because we have done six different studies over the
last 20 years or so, and nothing has eventuated out of
all these studies. Huge waste of the taxpayer money,
and I want something to happen so that we have some


kind of rail that even if it's just a simple system to
start with, that takes people from Kapolei to U.H., to
Waikiki and back, and it needs to happen this time.

Because we're now paying more taxes for it.
I'm not going to pay taxes for surveys that never have
any product. Why should I? The sooner we do it, the
better; otherwise, I'm going to be dead. I'm already
old. I've been waiting 20 years. I want it so I can
use it.

Senator Brian Kanno

Well, first of all, I think that one of the
most important things is to have the route go to or
along U.H./West Oahu site. I think, and then, of
course, we'd like a stop that serves Kapolei well.
Looking at the options, I don't see one that is really
optimum at this point.

And I think one of the other things that I
wanted to see, if possible, was, could there be an
alignment that serves U.H./West Oahu along with the
Fort Weaver corridor? I think that Kapolei, being the
secondary urban center for the city, for the island,
I'd like there to be more community discussion about
the routing in the Kapolei portion by the Kapolei
community because the route, I think, is going to
really determine the future growth for our area and
it's going to have a huge impact on everyone's life,
and so besides this meeting and then public meeting
next year, I would like to see a community effort. I
don't know if it will be by these organizers or it will
be a community-based effort to have further discussion.
And I would hate for the decision to be made by people
from outside of our community about what the route is,
in our community specifically, and so I don't know what
the process is, but by looking at the four routes, I
don't see one that's ideal, and I would like there to
be the maximum amount of community participation in
determining the route in this area.

Dana Jones


I'm from Atlanta, Georgia, and I lived
through 25 years of putting our mass transit systems
in. It doesn't work. People don't use it because it
doesn't stop at the right places, and where it does
stop, there is no parking available. Parking, to get
on the transit system, is anywhere from 5 to 15 dollars
a day, plus the $2 to get on the transit system one
way, and then $2 to get back to your car.

So if you're going to do this, you need to
have parking available, you need to have kids who ride
available, which you don't even have available for your
bus system at this point. So, there's nowhere to park,
catch the bus, if you wanted to take the bus into town.
On a catch-22, you gotta have space to put the cars
that are going to catch the transit system.

Atlanta has sold all their parking lots, so
no one no longer uses the rapid transit system because
there's nowhere to park, to get on it. So I know that
taking my mother in the bus systems here in town, I
can't take her to the bus stop at Kapolei and park and
wait for the bus to come, with her in the car. I have
to let her off at the corner, she has to walk across
the street, across traffic to catch the bus. There's
nowhere to park, so that's the main, huge problem with
the land and it's going to be a problem here.

I like the idea of the toll roads, those
work. Four hundred in Atlanta works much better than
MARTA works in Atlanta, and it's good revenue for the
city, and everybody pays for it that lives in the
outlying areas and they're the ones that use it the
most, so they should pay for it.

Senator Will Espero

I believe that there is a strong, strong need
for an elevated rail system for Oahu. The system
should have been built 10, 15 years ago.
Unfortunately, we didn't have the political will then,
and now is the time. For the last 10, 20 years,
traffic on Oahu has gotten much worse, particularly for
those of us who live in West Oahu and Central Oahu.
With government directing growth and development to


this area, more people are moving out here and having
to drive in, or some people, they do think it's a
crisis at this stage.

A rail system will not alleviate traffic. We
will always have traffic, but it will give people
another option, which they currently do not have. With
the rail system, you won't have to worry about traffic
accidents on the highway, stalled vehicles, debris on
the road, inclement weather that slows down traffic.
You're looking at a system that should run, should be
fully automated and would run smoothly, consistently,
on time, and provide that alternative for those that
don't want to use their cars.

There are several options here, and I believe
the route going down Fort Weaver Road is a strong
contender, as well as the one going down north/south
road, and that would connect to U.H. West Oahu, that's
also a very good route for the people in West Oahu.

But it definitely must go to downtown,
Waikiki, U.H. Manoa, maybe as far as Kahala Mall, and
on our side here, up to Mililani, go through
to build this as the transportation system for the
future, for our future generations.

What will we be using 50 years from now, a
hundred years from now, we expect more cars on our
roads where we'll have something that the people will
be able to use. Projections also show that in 25 years
we're going to have an additional 250,000 people living
on Oahu, and where are those people going to live?
West Oahu and Central Oahu.

So we need this now, we needed it yesterday,
and I'm willing to work with our mayor and council to
make certain we do this right, and that we do build a
system that will help us economically and deal with our
transportation problems and give our residents a system
that they will use and be proud of.

"CC" Curry

CC Curry, Interagency Coordination Councils,


Voting Agency with the Citizen Advisory Committee,
Division of OMPO.

We really, really strongly prefer the 4C
corridor, the one that includes Ewa, Fort Weaver Road,
because the most logical reason on the planet, it's the
highest growth on the whole island, it speaks for
itself, that it has the most gridlock and has to have
the future transportation infrastructure more than any
other corridor alternative.

In addition to the 4C alternative, we want to
make sure that the $5.2 million, which both Alaska and
Hawaii received 5.2 million every single year because
they're not in the continental United States. So the
5.2 for the Wikiwiki ferry was only used for the
Wikiwiki ferry one year, and all the other times it's
being diverted to the airport.

So in addition to the 4C corridor choice, we
want the Wikikiwiki ferry returned, which is already
funded. It's not a matter of getting money or asking
for money. We just don't want the money that's funded
or it diverted to other purposes. We want it to go in
addition to the monorail, and that's what we prefer is
monorail over any other type of rail.

4C corridor, Wikiwiki ferry, and paratransit.
They're in noncompliance, we've got a federal
noncompliance award against Handi-Van, but yet they're
not improving, and it's not money again. It's just
internal improvements or paratransit, which is Catholic
elderly van, which is also getting federal money.

Hand-Cab, all the different paratransit, Malama Lima,
but Handi-Van is in the worst shape of all and needs
the most improvement.


John Claucherty

We need the train. It's foolish not to put
up a train system in Honolulu. If you want this to be
a real city, if you want a Chinese corporation to
invest here and make some other industry besides
military and tourism, then build the train. The
capacity of Honolulu has met, that's why we built the
Kapolei in the first place. We were foolish not to
involve engineers at the time and lay out a long-term
plan. There's however many thousands of acres of cane
field out here, we open it up to building
neighborhoods, and the neighborhoods are going to get
built.

Okay. So let's act like we have learned our
lesson and build the train. Okay? I'm a commuter. I
live in Makakilo, I work in Halawa Heights. If I leave
at four o'clock in the morning to go stand watch, it
takes me 20 minutes, maybe 22 minutes to drive in the
gate at Camp Smith. If I leave at 5:30, it's a
lottery, absolute lottery. If it's raining, there's no
way I'm making it to work on time, because there's
going to be a wrecked vehicle, there's going to be a
stalled vehicle on the H-1, and it's going to be backed
up, all the way back by Fort Weaver Road.

So, personal opinions. If I was married
still, and we had two vehicles, living out in Makakilo,
and I'm going to drive downtown to work, and she's
going to want to be able to go to the grocery store and
whatnot, feed the kid, right? If you build the train,
if I can ride the train to work every day, my family
doesn't have to have the expense of the second vehicle,
right? If you build the train, my vehicle is left at
home or my wife has got the vehicle, and I go downtown,
and if 30,000 of my best friends are doing exactly the
same thing, then there's 30,000 less vehicles downtown.
The capacity of parking downtown, right?

Dan Mita

After looking at all of these displays, I've
come to the conclusion that they haven't really looked
at the basic problem, the basic problem being that


there's too many cars on Oahu. And seems to me they
need to find out, go to each driver and get their
feedback on what it will take the driver to get out of
his car and leave it at home and catch some form of
public transportation.

And I think the first, probably one of the
answer is convenience. It has to be convenient to them
to be able to go to a bus stop or whatever, catch the
bus, go to some terminal point, which they talk about,
and try and get that expressway into town or wherever
they want to go to.

So, seems me that if they can find an answer
in all the different areas on what it will take the
drivers from those areas to use the public
transportation system instead of the cars, then I think
that that will result. It would cost money, I'm sure,
but at the same time it won't cost as much as the rail
system, I don't think.

And as long as they keep up the bus system,
sure a lot of people are willing to leave their cars at
home, use it only for weekends maybe, but at least
during the rush-hour going to work, they can catch the
public system. So there really needs to be that study,
I think.

Charlie Bracken

We have an absolute need to change the very
nature of personal travel away from private cars. You
have to build a fixed rail, whether it's on the ground
or elevated or we use the tunnel, because cars take too
much energy, too much government service, and they
waste too much time, and more and more of that in the
future. And also because of the smog from cars, we'll
soon look like every mainland city with brown skies.

Right now, all the children in this whole
city, the whole island, all they know is the family car
or waiting for the bus. We have to build an
alternative for them, so that they have a future
without a crowd that seems to be growing in all
directions right now.


Honolulu is the only international city
without rapid transit. New York City, Boston, London,
Paris, Hong Kong, Tokyo, they all have them. And
Honolulu, as we are without a rapid transit, is a poor
little sister, and it's really sad that we have taken
such a long time to get to this point, and I hope we do
this right away.

And also, think about how pretty the view is,
from an elevated rail. I've been on some other places
like in Seattle, Chicago, and Los Angeles, and every
time it's elevated, it's the most wonderful view, and
Honolulu has some of the best scenery in the whole
world. Even just a short distance up in the air, it
will be such a beautiful view and people will ride this
just for fun. Thanks.

Linda Young

Personally, I believe that we need a rapid
rail system from the Leeward side going into town, and
then going into a light-rail when we're in the downtown
area. I believe that we could start in the Kapolei
area, it has to hit Ewa Beach, and it also has to hit
West Oahu campus that's coming up on this end. And
then once you get the main thoroughfare going, then you
can add spurs on, like bringing in the people in from
Nanakuli and adding that on to the Kapolei route, and
then also going up central, you need to go up to Waipio
and Mililani area.

So another alternative, other than the plans
that it's showing going up through Kapolei and up
through Waipahu and Pearl City, is to run straight
along the bottom and go right in from Kapolei into the
Kalihi/downtown area, that would be another ride. So
then you get the people from the Leeward side not even
going into Pearl City and Aiea, and not even hitting
and making more traffic for the people there. So
that's another alternative that might be considered.

Terry Slattery


I'm a commuter riding the bus, and I would
look at the alternatives proposed, 1 and 2, as being no
different at all from what the conditions are now, so I
almost view them as if you're satisfied with the
options now, then you don't have to do all the rest of
the work. From my perspective, I call them throw-away
options. Maybe somebody would see value in them, but I
don't.

And the issue with No. 2 in particular is
that we have the means now to implement what it's
suggesting, and we're not doing it because the system
isn't disciplined, isn't resourced properly, and isn't
managed in the refined way that it needs to, to allow
it to be a feasible option.

So I come in and say to myself, we really
only have three in the multiple options of four, I
guess that those are multiple considerations but pretty
much out of the same design. So I'm not really sure
it's useful to project there's four alternatives, but I
don't, as a person that does the commuting, think there
is.

The other one is I wonder how they measure,
and I'm going to use the term called "the psychological
effect." If they put a route, let's say up Fort Weaver
Road, and lot of people are sitting in their car and
the transit system is passing them by, the effect that
that would have of moving people from cars to the
transit system versus having it along lanes that are
less trafficked, because some of these pattern showed
in areas that are not very heavily trafficked, and the
enticement is kind of lost to get people to use it.

So, in that regard, I wonder if they do
measure that, and whether that, then, has potential to
be considered a factor or an element of analysis in the
system.


Paul Zavada

Well, I wrote down my comments and I put them
in the suggestion box, and I wrote them down before I
came here, but I guess this stuff has been going on the
radio and on the T.V., and I moved here from
Washington, D.C., with my wife, so we pretty much come
from the capital of traffic. And we lived there our
whole lives, so we've seen all the changes they've made
throughout the years and all the corrections that
they've had to make for growth. And one of the biggest
things I see here, talking amongst my friends and
amongst other people, is the lack of forward-looking
thought here in Hawaii as far as designing anything,
and the way that they're going to collect the funds for
it, I see a lack of that, too.

I mean, I keep hearing about tax the residents
when there's a lot of alternatives. They could put
like a kamaaina rate and leave the tax rate the way it
is, and make like a seven and a half percent sales tax
for visitors, and you have to show proof like with a
license or some sort of military I.D., or whatever it
is, show proof of residency here in Hawaii to get the
normal sales rate; otherwise, you pay the seven and a
half percent sales tax. They should put a surcharge on
every airline ticket being sold, everybody coming in
here, every hotel room being rented out.

I think that they could also do some things
with just the regular roads here. There's a couple
roads, one being Fort Weaver Road, where it's a
nightmare in the morning, and I've called the
Department of Transportation and they said they've done
studies and it doesn't warrant any change. I mean, I
don't know who's doing the studies or how they did the
studies because it's insane. Every morning I'll get to
the two main lights, and it takes me 45 minutes to get
not even a mile on Fort Weaver Road.

And the way it's designed is you have the
traffic coming from the side roads, they just keep
flowing, keep flowing, and the people going this way,
you know, you sit there and you see the light and it
turns green, and you wait and you don't move, and it
turns red, and it turns green, and it turns red, and


finally, after about the tenth light, you get through
it.

They should put over-/underpasses all the way
down Fort Weaver, all the way to the end, so that the
side roads coming this way don't have to wait for
anything, no lights, and the traffic going this way can
constantly flow in and out and then just have
off-ramps, you know, when you need to get off on
whatever side ramps they are.

I also think that they should bring the rail
or whatever they're going to use, as far as the
high-capacity transit, all the way or something to get
the people from, you know, down Fort Weaver to the main
line. Whether it's more buses or whatever, just don't
make it so people have to get in their car and drive to
the main line, park in a parking lot, because it's
going to take them just as long to get down Fort Weaver
Road.

And I think another thing they need to do
here is education on just some of the drivers, in
general. I mean, you see all over the country these
commercials that governments put out for safe driving
or for aggressive drivers and how they're going to
crack down on aggressive drivers, and maybe if they did
a little education and maybe some aerial shots and
showing how people here constantly drive in the left
lane, and they drive slow in the left lane, and they
don't get over.

I mean, if you really read the law, it says
the left lane is to be used for passing and then you're
supposed to get back over. Nobody does that, and none
of the police officers here do anything about trying to
enforce that law.

So, I mean, some education, some T.V.
commercials, some radio, you know, somehow educate the
people that, look, when you're rolling down the road,
get out of the left lane, and if someone comes up
behind you, let them go. Don't stop them. Your job is
not to stop them. If they're speeding, let them speed,
let them go, you know. You're only causing more
problems by stopping, and then you cause the situations


of aggressive drivers, or a guy trying to whip out of a
lane to whip around you, to whip back in front of you,
when you could just simply get over and get out of th
left lane.

I mean, if you look at an aerial shot, we
took a helicopter ride, and you can see a group of cars
going down the highway, you know, when it's not solid
traffic, and you'll see like 50 cars driving and
they're all over the lanes, rather than getting over,
use the left lane, get over and then continue going,
and you use the left lane as a passing lane.

Over in Europe, when people come up on the
back of you, they flash their lights, you get out of
at fault for it.

And so I think that that's another thing they
need to do here, is some education to get the people to
get out of the left lane, because someone told me that
in Japan, the left lane is actually the slow lane. So
I don't know if that's funneling over from Asia somehow
to the island or what the deal is, but I've been all
over the country, and people here drive in the left
lane, you know, 45, 50 miles an hour, like no other
place I've been in my life, so, those are some of my
things.

And I think that they should put a rail
system however they choose, whether it's train,
magnetic, whatever, and I think they should put it all
the way around the island. It would be nice for
somebody to go to, like, Waikiki, and get on the train,
go to the North Shore with his towel, get off, go to
the beach, get back on the train, go back to his hotel,
you know, then go out to dinner in Waikiki and not have
to sit in three hours worth of traffic at Haleiwa on a
weekend.

I mean, it's absurd that we're one of the
states in the United States, it's one of the most
sought-after places to visit, and we can't get with
modernizing this. I've already had two people come
here from the traffic capital of the world and say
they're never coming here again because it's so
backwards-thinking here and the traffic is so insane,


that they spent more time in their cars in traffic than
they did actually getting to have a vacation. I mean,
so when you have people coming here, to the best place
in the world and saying that, I mean, something needs
to change. That's all I got.

Catharine Lo

So my comment is that I would like them to
include in their analysis of the different alternatives
which options will be the most effective in relieving
congestion not only in the short term but in the long
term, because from what I've been hearing, none of
these alternatives is really going to get rid of the
traffic. So I'd like for them to consider at least
which one has the best possibility or would eliminate
the most traffic. And I think it should be made clear
that just because we implement any of these systems,
that traffic is not going to go away, and I think it's
important for people to understand that.

BEFORE: JOY C. TAHARA, RPR, CSR 408
Notary Public, State of Hawaiì

Jo Ann Abrazado

I was thinking like if they're gonna do, like a rail
system, instead of putting a rail system, would they be
considering redoing the railroad tracks that go from Wai'anae to
Pearlridge? And with that in mind, maybe what they can do is in
Waiànae areas, instead of making a park-and-ride in Kapolei,
make it in Wai'anae and have them catch the rail system to
Pearlridge and then catch the monorail from there to town. That
way the traffic coming from Waiànae and out from here won't be
as heavy. You know?

And just even now, traffic is so terrible – by
3 o'clock when the kids get out of school. You know? And to
get to the store, you gotta get there before 3:00. It takes you
half an hour to get out if you're stuck -- or more.

But if they use the -- because I feel the railroad
system is still there, why not just improve it, get a better


railroad, or what you call that, a caboose or whatever, the
cabin, and maybe that way people don't have to drive to Wai`anae
to town.

And if they put a parking lot at the end with
security, I think people will feel much better because there's
one in Kunia, nobody uses it because there's no security. You
know. And that area is known for being hit with vandalism.

So if they do that kind of configuration, I think
traffic will be much, much lighter. 'Cause now they want people
to come from town to come to Kapolei, right? So it's gonna be
even worse. But I think if this railway system be used, it
won't maybe cost so much as to make the rail all the way down
that way. That's it.

Alan R. Gano

I commuted from Waikiki to the airport before and then
from Makakilo to the airport. And I know how bad the traffic
has gotten, especially in the Leeward corridor over the last 30
years plus.

I really feel that we need a fixed rail mass transit.
But I would also consider buses with dedicated lanes both on
major arterials and on the freeway. The only thing is the labor
request for buses would be much higher since your fixed rail is
usually automated.

The only better thing I'd see about buses is that
you'd have dedicated bus lanes which would actually take away
lanes for vehicles which would force more people on the
ridership on the bus mass transit.

But if we do go into fixed rail, I'm in favor of a
route starting at Kapolei and maybe even by the time they're
ready to build it, up to Ko Olina and going down Farrington
Highway and Kam. Highway and Nimitz, with local trains and
express trains. You have to have enough stops for local trains,
and they have to have stops right near the gates at Hickam and
Pearl Harbor and the airport so that you can get a lot of the
people working at the military base, then the military people on
it.

Then I'd like to see it continued through Kalihi and


Downtown and then spurs off to Waikiki and up to the university,
with the university spur eventually going Kaimuki and Kahala
Mall and eventually all the way to Hawaii Kai.

The most important thing though is if we go some type
of fixed rail magnetic levitation, we've got to make it cost
effective and we've got to conserve energy. Also the stations,
the land that the stations are at, we've gotta try and use city,
county, or state land so we don't have to buy land.

The stations should also generate electricity by wind
power and solar. They have to provide their own electricity.
The system itself should kickback electricity since anything
using kinetic energy can make electricity.

I also feel that the stations should have shopping
centers. The larger ones and even the smaller ones, those
should be revenue producing. So we're trying to cut down any
deficits, hefty operating deficits, to a minimum. And I think
that can be done.

Basically, at this time that's about it. But I think
fixed rail is probably gonna be more acceptable than the express
local buses feeding into the dedicated lanes. In other words,
if they're expanding Fort Weaver Road to three lanes, one of
those lanes, the curb lane, would be buses only. You'd have to
have fly-overs under the freeway. The left lane on the freeway
would be buses only. So you'd be taking away traffic. I say
that would increase ridership.

But I think fixed rail will get heavier ridership than
people realize. When it takes you somewhere in-between 2 3/4 to
3 1/2 times as long to go on your own private vehicle as it does
fixed rail, that's about the point where people start using the
fixed rail. And it would also be a cost economy measure for
families. A lot of two-car families would be one-car families
when you have fixed rail.

So I think it is necessary and I hope it's completed
in my lifetime.
David Mercil

I have a couple of suggestions. The first one I have
is that when we build this rail line, I think that we should
have a sort of a dual train system. One would be a local train
that would make many stops so it would be flexible and be able


to pick up the most amount of people. And the other line would
be more of an express. It would only make a few stops and it
would be much faster. That way people would be able to easily
get to a nearby station, ride the local train to the nearest
major stop, and then transfer over to the express train and ride
the majority of the distance into, say, town or wherever they
need to go.

I think if we build that in such a way, it would make
it very easy for people to ride the train into a point where
they might be willing to get out of their cars and actually ride
the thing.

They use this kind of system in Japan. I've ridden it
over there and it seems to work very well. I think we should do
some research in the Tokyo area and see exactly what would work
best for Hawai`i 'cause it seems that there's a lot of
similarities between the two areas if you look at 'em, honestly.

My other suggestion is basically to build the entire
length of the rail system on a separate grade from the traffic.
I haven't seen too much of what their plans are right now, but I
think it's very important that the trains, their cars, or the
buses or whatever -- I shouldn't say buses, just trains – that
they don't share the lanes of traffic because, for one, it's
gonna slow everything down. People are just gonna get in the
way of each other. You run the risk of having accidents, some
of which would be deadly. If you look into the Los Angeles Blue
Line, I'm sure you'll see a lot incidents where people have
tried to beat the trains and have gotten killed because of it.

I think if we build the system on, say, an elevated
grade or, say, below grade, then we could also build it in a way
where it would be automated. And I think automating a train so
there's no operator would have some great benefits because you
eliminate the possibility of driver error or operator error, and
you also make it more economical because that's one less salary
you have to pay for every train in service. It also gives you
the option of having more trains because it'll cost less just
because of less operators.

In one country, in Singapore, I notice that in the
subway stations, they had sort of like elevator doors so people
couldn't fall into the tracks, say, in the path of an
approaching train, and it made it a little safer. I think that
was also good for security, to keep people from wandering off


down the tunnels. I don't know if they're gonna build a subway
or an elevated train, but I think it's something we should
consider, at least for the Downtown areas.

My final comment is I think when they build this
thing, they need to make it bicycle-friendly. I think this is
important because there's no way you're gonna able to create
enough stops to service anybody. And I think that if a lot of
people go and have to get in their cars and drive to a train
station, they're just gonna drive all the way to work anyway.

If you make the trains bicycle-friendly, then people
will be more likely to be able to ride a bike to the station.
And if you can carry that bike on the train with ease, then
you'll probably get a few more riders that way.

I think a good example of a bicycle-friendly train
would be the San Diego Coaster which has a lower deck and I've
even seen where they have bicycle racks on the lower deck where
you park your bike and then you walk upstairs for a comfortable
seat into work each day or wherever you're going.

I think a bad idea and a good example of a train that
is not bicycle-friendly would be the San Diego Trolley.
Although they allow bikes on these trains, it's very difficult
to negotiate and get your bike on the train. The entrance to
the trolley is very narrow and you have to negotiate a set of
stairs, and then you kind of have to hold on to your bike in a
very cramped car. I think they should avoid this kind of system
just in general. That's all I have to say.

Glenn Oamilda

I think I mentioned this. I've been involved with the
community for about 25 years, 'Ewa Beach community. And ever
since they came up with the second city, the community had great
input into it. And it's been rolling along all this time until
government got involved. I think now that government has gotten
involved, it's like the horse before the cart -- or the cart
before the horse.

I've been considering that government move the
planning process along in this Kapolei area, the 'Ewa region. I
think there's not enough planning has been done in this area,
where businesses, moving of people, tax credit, tax incentive to


businesses to move out here, I think there's not enough adequate
planning done.

I think the alternatives, the Honolulu High-Capacity
Transit Corridor Project, I think it's, to me, I think it's no
confidence. I've heard it in the past that we gotta use the
money, we gotta take the money the federal government is
offering us and move with the project. I think that's wrong. I
think you put a false confidence into the people in this area
that you have a plan. And I don't think they have a plan.

There have been alternatives in the past that have
never worked, like the ferry system, like carpooling,
park-and-ride. It hasn't worked because the trend is to move
people back to town. If you're gonna create a second city, I
think there's gotta be a planning sufficiently enough until we
all exhaust it. Then we can say let's have an alternative.

Furthermore, I think an alternative in this case,
where the fallout from this project will be a tremendous impact
on the senior citizens and the landscape of Hawai`i, the rail
transit. And the blight on the environment and the landscape, I
think, really would be affected.

If this project is to work, I think we gotta make a
concerted effort to get people out of cars. I think, in
Hawai`i, people love their cars. There's a romance with cars.
I think if you don't get people out of cars, this project is not
gonna work and because we saw it in the past.

You can't give people alternatives for a project this
big. I think they gotta consider no-drive zones down in the
civic center, no-drive zones, no-park zones. I think you gotta
limit cars if this project is gonna work, and I don't think they
have an inkling or an idea that there's, you know, things like
that that gotta be considered.

I think the money is being wasted if they continually
push people back to town. It's not gonna work. If government
constantly dictates what the plans are and try to push it on the
communities, I think we gonna run into a lot of trouble, a lot
of waste of money, and a lot of frustrations.

So lastly, if we don't consider alternatives and the
need for more planning in this area, I think it's just gonna be
forced down the community's throat and it's not gonna be


successful at all. So thank you. I think I said enough, right?

I think the idea of planning before you have the
money, I think it's a good idea. But in this situation, I think
they want the money first. They went after the money first and
now we gotta start planning. Because the money, they all say
the money is there. You know, let's not squander the money.

So I think that's it. I think I better go home.

Ed Alakea

I was talking to the guy out there. I was trying to
get him, you know. You have various ways of getting this
transportation system improved. That's what his is all about,
trying to improve the mass transit.

My question to him is, how you going get the people
out of the car to ride something that runs either fixed rail or
a better bus system, you know, all this other things that you
trying to get the transportation improvement? I think they
trying to push for the fixed rail. How you going to get the
people out of the car?

I give you a good example. I worked quite some time
in Downtown Honolulu. I drove my car from here to all the way
down to Richards Street. It cost me about 40 bucks a week for
gas. But now with the price of gas, I think that has elevated
to almost hundred dollars up. And I have to pay for parking.
At that time they used to charge us $150 a month for parking.
And you know how much that gonna be a year for parking Downtown.
The other one, the city parking, you gotta pay your quarters,
and hour or two hours run out and get quarters.

So at that time -- I'm not a rocket scientist, but I
could figure I'm wasting a lot of money, bringing my car to
work, paying for parking. And the city has a perfect express
bus run from Makakilo to Downtown. And at that time it would
cost us only $40 for a bus pass for a month. So we used to save
on parking, save on gas. I used to ride the bus; it was very
comfortable. You were delivered right to where I wanted to go.
I can leave home right where I wanted to go without any problem.

And I used to look at all these people riding in the
car. Some of them are working. I hear them grumble; they going


raise the parking fee. Well, I cannot stop at the store, I
gotta go all the way home, get my car and then go to the store.
So I see their logic in the sense of it really does not make
sense. I'd rather leave my car home and go shopping maybe once
a week and then save my car usage and maintenance and all that.

And then I say if you're gonna put in a mass transit,
what's wrong with routing a route that runs from here, Campbell
Industrial Park straight to 'Ewa Beach, Iroquois Point, tunnels
or bridge, draw-kine, over Pearl Harbor entrance on to Hickam?
Hickam, there's an area, there's an old road you call Ke`ehi
Lagoon Drive, it used to run all the way into Hickam.

And you have the reef runway which already has a
tunnel. Cars go under that -- it just has to be made bigger –
all the way and come out, you know, from here, go all the way
into town and get out at Lagoon Drive and then merge with the
rest of the traffic up there. That, I think, we move the track
from 'Ewa; at least some from Makakilo, Wai'anae, all use that.

Now if there's an emergency -- let's say you put a
drawbridge over Pearl Harbor and the navy needs to move ships in
and out because of war or whatever, we always can put signals
out "drawbridge down" and then those of us use the old route.

But at least we have that 'cause we're not at war right now, in
a sense. So we should be able to use that area during peak
traffic hours to move traffic eastbound and then in the evenings
westbound, get 'em out of town and they can use that route to
come over, bypass all that congestion by the stadium and all
that. You know.

He say to talk to you. And I don't know how far this
is going. I wanted to write it down, but I figure I get hard
time explaining what I'm trying to say.

Because two things bothers me. If they don't pick the
right transit route, they try to utilize some other route that's
not comparable, you still gonna get the same congestion because
you cannot get the people out of their car. You going say this
is now much better, you can travel faster. They still going use
the car.

I found way back in 19, what, '92, right after I work
Downtown. So '92 we already had traffic. Ride the bus;
cheaper. I save money. I save my car. I have money in the


pocket. I could give my son $40 to go spend. Or whatever, buy
new clothes or whatever.

So I see all this. And, you know, we have young
people living, middle-aged people that have children, some are
going private schools, and I can see them dropping 'em off, like
Punahou, St. Louis, before they go to work, whatever, private
schools. Except I think the only ones that I see is Kam School
on buses. Not all the private schools.

So you save a lot of -- with the price of gas
nowadays, good to get them. I cannot understand why they cannot
get the people out of the cars. That's the easiest thing to get
to, you know, to our city, our regular rapid transit that we
have now. That's all I have.

Ann Freed

I'm on Neighborhood Board 25, and I represent the
Mililani area, Neighborhood Board 25. So I just want to make
sure that whatever transit system is in place considers
park-and-rides, a sufficient number, I would say probably three
or four park-and-rides along the H-2/Kamehameha Highway corridor
to make sure that people on the North Shore and below can marry
up with the transit system easily.

Right now, it doesn't sound like there's pretty much
thought to that, people thinking only light rail. Well, yeah,
down the road or maybe not. Let's pray that the population
doesn't get that big up there. I hope it never does. But
that's okay.

The other thing is -- and I understand that this
project is not planning to build bike paths. But I would like to
highly encourage and I will encourage our legislators to
consider building bike paths that run along these same corridors
and to really work very hard to make sure that bikes can get on
whatever type of transit is ultimately put it place.

And having said that, I think it's essential that we
have some type of rapid transit, whatever it is, that is the
best economically noise-wise and is in the realm of possibility
in considering having to buy property and neighborhood
objections, not-in-my-backyard phenomena. Whatever they can do,
I think it's essential that we do it because I don't want to see


O`ahu turned into one vast parking lot. That's not what I moved
here for.

Oh, yes. Again, this is not related to the transit
project, but certainly will be related to city and state
regulations. And that is, I think there should be very high
taxes on second automobiles once this is built. I think we
should consider down the road a ban on certain types of
automobiles on this island, including large trucks, except for
commercial vehicles. I think there should be a ban on
commercial vehicles within certain parts of the center of
Honolulu and Waikiki, commercial traffic only, as they do in
Europe.

And then I guess the last thing is I think the
military should be approached and asked to pass regulations that
limit the numbers of vehicles soldiers, sailors, airmen, and the
marine corps are allowed to bring here as a part of their PCS
move. That's all.

Melvin Uesato

I think the rail system would be good for us, take
some traffic off. And I hope they're able to do all, what you
call it, research or whatever that they have to do, and I hope
they do it in a -- I want them to do it fast, not take till,
like it says, to 2030. My hope is it's done earlier 'cause we
need the relief right now, especially with 'Ewa Beach and
Kapolei growing really fast.

Also, if they can right now, temporarily, try to put
more express buses 'cause it does help in the morning and
afternoon. I know during the day you really don't need all
those buses because everyone's at work or at school. But that
would be right now temporarily. Thank you.

Richard Mori

They shouldn't make it, what you call that, ground
level systems because you getting 340 deaths every year in the
U.S. from train wrecks that the cars have gone over. So it
should be elevated all the way into town. I think they should
put a magnet system where they said they can build it in three
years and it's the same cost and you getting a higher speed,


less noise, and it's gonna be built faster.

And then the hub-and-spoke system for Kalaeloa should
have the stations with free parking and security and then you
can add stores or retail nearby and have all the buses come in,
the circulators come in to drop the people off from all the bus
stops and have the bus circulators running more frequently
during rush hour. So the city has to plan now to order smaller
buses for more frequent runs and the planning for the bus
drivers 'cause you're not going get as much express bus drivers
but more circulator drivers. So just using anticipated
5 percent usage of 300,000 people in Leeward and Central area,
I'm guessing they should maybe plan for 5,000 people per hour
during rush hour going from Kalaeloa into UH on that system.

And they also said there should also -- because they
have the planning now from the studies that they've done in the
next 25 years of 250,000 additional people in the Leeward and
Central area -- they should make the stations also expandable to
accommodate the anticipated growth.

They should also keep the number of stations down to a
minimum to lower cost and increase the speed of the trains going
into town. So the main, I guess, Kalaeloa parking and
maintenance yard should be maybe about 50 acres in that corner,
that north corner of Kalaeloa.

And about 2,000 parking spaces with provisions for
kiss-and-rides and park-and-rides and security, retail. That's
one stop. West O`ahu College, Stop No. 2. Renton Road and Fort
Weaver, No. 3, the vacant lot. Leeward Community College.
Aloha Stadium. Airport. Iwilei. Ala Moana. And UH. That's it.


Dick Porier

Basically, the problems with the project corridor,
okay, the corridor does not show a spur and extension to
Mililani. I think it must do that, not necessarily to have a
rail system up there, but to have some kind of access to where
the rail system is going to be. In order to do that, we've got
to change the project definition and geographic demarcation
'cause otherwise it's gonna be planned as an afterthought like
the last time. The last time we would go to Leeward college and
nobody had any idea how people in Central Oàhu were gonna get
down there.

And we gotta look at things, like a dedicated bus way
from the area so the bus can bring the people down to the
station in order they can catch everything. It's extremely
important.

It's a matter of funding 'cause a lot of money is
gonna go into the corridor and a lot of money we're gonna use is
supposed to be island-wide widening, right? And so if we're a
part of that, then more money can go into buses as well as rail,
etc.

So the bottom line is we gotta plan that spur now.
The planning for that spur should be included as part of the
rail alignment. And the reason for this is that the City and
County's planning policy on growth originally is supposed to go
to 'Ewa. You know, Kapolei's the second city.

Then under the Harris administration, that changed.
So now central Oàhu is just an important. Although they call
it a community plan, it's not. It's a development plan. By the
year 2030, there will be just as many people in Central Oàhu as
in 'Ewa. So therefore, you gotta service them in terms of
coming up with a transportation solution 'cause what was
originally was supposed to be an urban or rural fringe area is
gonna be a bona fide development area.
That's it.

Senator Clarence Nishihara

I guess my comment would be on that alignment where it
passes Leeward Community College, currently there is no
secondary access road that goes along that area where I guess is


the dump storage area, which would be where, if you do the
alignment and you need to do the rail system through that area,
that having that secondary access road is of paramount
importance. So in terms of, I guess, multimodal use of the area
running through that area, that I think if this goes forward
using the rail system, that that should be considered in its
construction planning to build that second access road if it
doesn't occur before then.

What don't they increase the accessibility to the area
to the college and also what they need to do, do the repairs, or
whatever else they need to do for the trains when they're
running back and forth.

Something else about the system that we had. I notice
that in the computerized visual rendition of it, they stop as
you approach toward Pearl City where the twin towers are. You
don't have anything further beyond that. So I'm not sure if
it's because it cost more money to produce going forward into,
like, town so they didn't go any further than that in terms of
its production. But I thought that it would at least go on
through to Pearl City and then maybe around the Pearl Harbor, I
thought, at least a visual representation.

Also in the visuals that they have on the large
charts, they essentially knock off about 2 to 4 miles off the
route, because where it ends in Waipahu, it picks up again,
you're already in town or along Nimitz, I think,
Dillingham/Nimitz. So there's a huge section that's not in on
the map and I'm not sure why they don't put it on. Maybe
because they don't plan to do any stops along the way between
those two areas, I don't know. But it doesn't show up. It's
kind of conspicuously blank.

In some systems, like in Portland, I think you can
ride the bus and the rail, or I think they use it
interchangeably. But will that be the case where you have the
hub-and-spoke system connected to the rail system? What's the
integration between how they do the fares? What system they
would use to determine how you get on or off? Would it be like
a plastic card? Would it be like a paper ticket like you get on
the bus?

And also to coordinate the buses so that when they
arrive there at the station, it's within that period when the
trains are gonna leave. So you wouldn't want guys to get there


to the station and find that they've gotta wait awhile because
they missed the bus when they do the routing. But I'm sure that
they gotta figure that out too, the routing.

The cost factors; I noticed on some of them, they
include tunneling, some don't. So if cost is a factor and when
they do the tunneling, then would they reroute through the area
because the cost might be too high or the opposition to go
aboveground might be too high? It might be a combination of
both which also could affect the routing. But if the choice is
between if you go with rail, one of the four choices, or is this
gonna be a modification of somewhere of the four, a fifth choice
would be made, according to this process, I'm not sure.

I think the last one, which has four options for rail,
would be still rail. The other two are basically leave it
alone, nothing. The other one was using buses. The other one
is more high occupancy buses. If they go with more buses, that
money that was -- well, the tax that was passed, the half a
percent excise tax for the city to use, could they still use
that if they did one exclusively working with buses? They said
they could, but.

Because I know when the legislature did it, they were
thinking more rail. I know they left it to the counties to
decide. But with the, I guess, with the other counties, if they
decide to pick up the half a percent, they had more latitude
because of what they could do. I think they pretty much decided
that the other counties couldn't do rail anyway. They'd have to
do buses or something because of their tax collections for their
automobiles.

But I think it was a great presentation and I think
the turnout is pretty good considering the night what it is and
the people generally here are interested about it. Looks like
had a lot of ordinary citizens who are interested in it, not
people who work for an agency or whatever. As the case, a lot
of times you have these, you have a lot of, they either work for
the one who's presenting it or they have some other interest
that's related to that. So this is nice, I thought.

I think it's a good representation for the public.
But thank you.


Irvin Sugimoto

In a nutshell, my concern is that nobody has been able
to give me any ideas as to the cost of any mass transit system.
And there is so much -- you know, I mean, all of this is for
naught if the cost is going to be so ridiculous that we can't
afford it. But I think the first thing that we ought to do is
try to figure out what this is gonna cost. They can't tell me
all the lands they have to purchase and -- well, that's my
concern.

The other concern I have is that it's just one linear
line. They have proposals as to how it's going to feed off, but
the bus system, they can't even get the bus system to function
efficiently as it is right now. What makes them think that an
expanded bus system to service this line is going to be
successful?

Time savings. Unless you live directly on the line, I
don't anticipate anybody being able to save time. I think that
anybody who lives off the line, when they find out that they
need to get into their car, whatever, and get down to the
station, wait for the train or whatever system comes by, get
off, and then they need to go another two miles to get to their
workplace or destination and then reverse the process, will find
that jumping in the car is going to be quicker than trying to
make all the stops. I just don't see it as an efficient system.
It's very limited in its usage.

People in Hawaii especially, our needs are just --.
It's the population base also. I don't think it's big enough to
make this. If we had a larger population base, I think that
maybe it might be worth the dollars that's going to be spent.
But the population base isn't large enough to justify the cost
that's going to be involved.

Somebody needs to come up and start telling the public
how much this is really going to cost. From all my
conversations with all these people that I'd spoken to, nobody
wants to make any educated guess. They're afraid to try to
project anything, to try to project the cost. It's ridiculous.
They need to address the issue. They need to address that
issue.

I think that the best alternative is an elevated
system that will service buses and automobiles, probably over


Kamehameha Highway, to alleviate the traffic over the existing
H-1. And make it open; it should be at least a four-lane raised
highway system rather than just two lanes as they propose. The
cost of doing four lanes is probably not going to be that much
more than doing two lanes. And if they build only two lanes, we
all know that as soon as they're built, people are going to say
why only two lanes. But I think an elevated system would allow
people the use of their vehicles. It might be the best thing
right now.

An inexpensive immediate solution to the congestion on
H-1 along the Pearl City corridor is to do a contraflow lane on
Kam. Highway because Nimitz Highway has proven to be, has just
been so successful. I think we need to apply the same, just do
the same thing to Kamehameha Highway and that will alleviate the
bottlenecks that exist in H-1 right now.

But what I'm saying is that there are immediate
solutions. We're into traffic every day. There are immediate
solutions. They did that Nimitz Highway so quickly and so
inexpensively, why can't they do Kam. Highway? And it's worked.
It's worked tremendously. But that's an immediate solution.
This thing is going to take decades. Decades. Okay.


Appendix F Scoping Telephone Comments

Scoping Report Appendix F Page F-1

Page F-2 Appendix F Scoping Report

Anonymous
12-4-05
In the long run, it’s going to cost a lot more than you think. Look at Seattle and some
of these places that have had it, it’s getting so expensive to keep it up that they’re
worried about what they’re going to do. Don’t look at now but also look at the future
and how it’s going to affect the people then.

Patricia Bruce
12-9-05
I am very much against the mass transit. I think it’s a waste of money. The bus
system is a tremendous thing. The local people don’t want to ride it and I don’t think
they will ride the mass transit. They won’t park their car and get out, they want their
cars but if you need more transportation put a few more bus lines in. It would be a lot
cheaper and a lot better and the buses are not in the way of the cars, it’s the cars in the
way of the buses.

Patti Bruce
12-13-05
I’m in complete support of the mono rail system which would pass through highly
density populated areas like the malls where people could exit and board.

Michelle Campos
12-30-05
The rail should run in the middle of the H-1 Freeway and should be as quiet as
possible.

Carolyn Crandall
12-4-05
You have 2 votes for the electronic express bus and managed lanes alternative.

Darryl Lambert
12-4-05
The train absolutely must come through Ewa Beach. People from Ewa Beach are
taking the back roads to Kapolei because the Kapolei flows that much better.
Currently, the most houses being built on the island are in Ewa Beach. Please focus
on an Ewa Beach stop.

Scoping Report Appendix F Page F-3

Barney Smith
12-4-05
I’d like to know about East Oahu. Are we going to have anything out in Hawaii Kai?
That area needs a transportation system as well. Thank you.

M. Utleg
12-29-05
I am opposing it (rail/transit system) and am totally against having one in Hawaii
because for number one, the reason would be of the monies spent should be used for
better things like safety in the road meaning like there are lots of racing and a lot of
accidents on the streets now so I don’t know how this would solve it. It will probably
be okay if it wasn’t in such a small place like this but Hawaii is such a small place if
you’re comparing it to places that have transit systems like in the mainland or other
countries. Also, the monies should be used on other things like building more drug
rehab places to make a Hawaii a nice drug free place and very loving community
instead of mass transit which won’t really help everybody

Page F-4 Appendix F Scoping Report

2007 Scoping Report

821

National Environmental Policy Act
Scoping Report
Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project

May 30, 2007

Prepared for:
City and County of Honolulu

Prepared by:
Parsons Brinckerhoff

823

Table of Contents
Section Page

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1-1

CHAPTER 2 OUTREACH EFFORTS ................................................................................... 2-1

CHAPTER 3 NOTICE OF INTENT ....................................................................................... 3-1
Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for High-Capacity Transit Improvements in the
Leeward Corridor of Honolulu, Hawai‘i ........................................................................................................3-1
Supplementary Information ............................................................................................................................3-2

CHAPTER 4 AGENCY SCOPING ......................................................................................... 4-1
Notification of Agency Scoping Meeting...........................................................................................................4-1
Summary of Agency Scoping Meeting..............................................................................................................4-1
Agency Scoping Questions and Responses .......................................................................................................4-1

CHAPTER 5 PUBLIC SCOPING............................................................................................ 5-1
Clarification of the Scoping Process .................................................................................................................5-1
Summary of Public Comments..........................................................................................................................5-1
Substantive Comments on Purpose and Need, Alternatives, and Scope of Analysis....................................5-2
Comments Related to Purpose and Need ........................................................................................................5-2
Comments Related to Alternatives..................................................................................................................5-2
Comments Related to Scope of Analysis ........................................................................................................5-4

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................. 6-1

APPENDIX A SCOPING COMMENTS................................................................................ A-1
Appendix A-1: Agency NEPA Scoping Comments........................................................................................A-3
Appendix A-2: Organization NEPA Scoping Comments............................................................................A-31
Appendix A-3: Business NEPA Scoping Comments..................................................................................A-149
Appendix A-4: Public NEPA Scoping Comments .....................................................................................A-163

List of Tables
Table Page
Table 4-1. Agencies Invited to be Participating Agencies and their Status................................ 4-2
Table 4-2. Agency Scoping Meeting Additional Invited Participants........................................ 4-3

NEPA Scoping Report Table of Contents Page i

Chapter 1 Introduction
The City and County of Honolulu Department of Transportation Services (DTS), in
cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration
(FTA), will be preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate
alternatives that would provide high-capacity transit service on O‘ahu. The primary
project study area is the travel corridor between Kapolei and the University of Hawai‘i at
M!noa (UH M!noa).
The notice of intent to prepare the EIS appeared in the Federal Register on March 15,
2007. The EIS will be prepared to satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and its implementing regulations and Chapter 343 of the
Hawai‘i Revised Statutes. The FTA and DTS requested public and interagency input on
the purpose of and needs to be addressed by the project, the alternatives to be considered,
and the scope of the NEPA EIS for the project, including the environmental and
community impacts to be evaluated. The scoping comment period under NEPA officially
began on the date of the Federal Register publication and closed on April 12, 2007.
Scoping activities related to the Hawai‘i Revised Statutes Chapter 343 process were
completed in December 2005 and January 2006. Those activities are summarized in the
Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Scoping Report dated April 6, 2006.
Comments and issues raised during the Chapter 343 scoping process that have not
already been addressed during the planning Alternatives Analysis for the project will be
addressed in the Environmental Impact Statement, in addition to issues noted during the
NEPA scoping process.
DTS completed a planning Alternatives Analysis in October 2006 that evaluated the four
following alternatives to provide high-capacity transit service in the travel corridor
between Kapolei and UH M!noa:
! No Build
! Transportation System Management
! Express Buses operating in Managed Lanes
! Fixed Guideway Transit System
After review of the Alternatives Analysis Report and consideration of public comments,
the City and County of Honolulu Council selected a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA)
on December 22, 2006. The decision was signed into law by the Mayor on January 6,
2007, becoming Ordinance 07-001, selected a fixed guideway transit system extending
from Kapolei to UH M!noa with a connection to Waik"k". The ordinance authorizes the
City to proceed to planning and engineering of a fixed guideway project within these
limits and following the alignment defined in the ordinance. Also, the First Project was
directed to be fiscally constrained to anticipated funding sources. City Council
Resolution 07-039 defined the First Project as extending from East Kapolei to Ala Moana
Center via Salt Lake Boulevard.

NEPA Scoping Report Chapter 1 Page 1-1

All interested individuals and organizations, and federal, state, and local agencies were
invited to comment on the purpose of and needs to be addressed by the project; the
alternatives, including the modes and technologies to be evaluated and the alignments
and termination points to be considered; and the environmental, social, and economic
impacts to be analyzed. An opportunity to express a preference for a particular
alternative will be available after the release of the draft EIS, which compares various
alternatives.
Public scoping meetings were announced in the notice of intent and were held at two
locations within the study corridor. A third public meeting to provide information and
collect comments was added at the public’s request. The meetings were conducted in an
open-house format that presented the purpose of and needs for the project, proposed
project alternatives, and the scope of analysis to be included in the EIS. The meetings
allowed members of the public to ask questions of project staff and provided an
opportunity for the public to present either written testimony or oral testimony, recorded
by court reporters.
The first scoping meeting was held at Kapolei Hale at 1000 Uluohia Street, Honolulu, HI
96707 on March 28, 2007, from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. and was attended by
approximately 40 people. The second meeting was held at McKinley High School at
1039 South King Street, Honolulu, HI 96814 on March 29, 2007, from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00
p.m. and was attended by approximately 75 people. The third meeting was held at Salt
Lake Elementary School at 1131 Ala Liliko‘i Street, Honolulu, HI 96818 on April 3,
2007, from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. and was attended by approximately 25 people.
The public scoping meetings were supplemented with an agency scoping meeting
targeted to those Federal, State, and County agencies potentially interested in the project.
The agency scoping meeting was held at Honolulu Hale, Mission Memorial Auditorium
at 550 South King Street, Honolulu, HI 96813 on March 28, 2007, from 10:00 a.m. to
12:00 p.m. and was attended by approximately 20 individuals from agencies and utility
companies.
Following closure of the public scoping process, continued public outreach activities will
include meetings with interested parties or groups. The project website,
www.honolulutransit.org, will be periodically updated to reflect the project’s current
status. Additional opportunities for public participation will be announced through
mailings, notices, advertisements, and press releases. Anyone may be placed on the
project mailing list by registering on the website at www.honolulutransit.org or by calling
(808) 566-2299.

Page 1-2 Chapter 1 NEPA Scoping Report

Chapter 2 Outreach Efforts
The project scoping meetings were publicized through newsletter mailings, website and
phone-line information, newspaper advertisements, and news service coverage. No
requests were received for materials or presentations in any language except English.
Newsletters were mailed to approximately 15,000 addresses.
Legal advertisements were placed in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin on March 16, 21, 22, and
23, 2007.
The Scoping Meetings received substantial media notice and coverage, including stories
on local television news and in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin.
The project website was updated on March 15, 2007, with the scoping information
package and meeting notices. The website also provided a form to submit scoping
comments.


Chapter 3 Notice of Intent
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Transit Administration
Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for High-Capacity Transit
Improvements in the Leeward Corridor of Honolulu, Hawai‘i
AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
SUMMARY: The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the City and County of
Honolulu, Department of Transportation Services (DTS) intend to prepare an EIS on a
proposal by the City and County of Honolulu to implement a fixed-guideway transit
system in the corridor between Kapolei and the University of Hawai‘i at M!noa with a
branch to Waik"k". Alternatives proposed to be considered in the draft EIS include No
Build and two Fixed Guideway Transit alternatives.
The EIS will be prepared to satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and its implementing regulations. The FTA and DTS request
public and interagency input on the purpose and need to be addressed by the project, the
alternatives to be considered in the EIS, and the environmental and community impacts
to be evaluated.
DATES: Scoping Comments Due Date: Written comments on the scope of the NEPA
review, including the project’s purpose and need, the alternatives to be considered, and
the related impacts to be assessed, should be sent to DTS by April 12, 2007. See
ADDRESSES below.
Scoping Meetings: Meetings to accept comments on the scope of the EIS will be held on
March 28 and 29, 2007 at the locations given in ADDRESSES below. On March 28,
2007, the public scoping meeting will begin at 6:30 p.m. and continue until 9:00 p.m. or
until all who wish to provide oral comments have been given the opportunity. The
meeting on March 29, 2007, will begin at 5:00 p.m. and continue until 8:00 p.m. or until
all who wish to provide oral comments have been given the opportunity. The locations
are accessible to people with disabilities. A court reporter will record oral comments.
Forms will be provided on which to submit written comments. Project staff will be
available at the meeting to informally discuss the EIS scope and the proposed project.
Governmental agencies will be invited to a separate scoping meeting to be held during
business hours. Further project information will be available at the scoping meetings and
may also be obtained by calling (808) 566-2299, by downloading from
www.honolulutransit.org, or by e-mailing info@honolulutransit.org.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on the scope of the EIS, including the project’s
purpose and need, the alternatives to be considered, and the related impacts to be
assessed, should be sent to the Department of Transportation Services, City and County


of Honolulu, 650 South King Street, 3rd Floor, Honolulu, HI, 96813, Attention: Honolulu
High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project, or by the internet at www.honolulutransit.org.
The scoping meetings will be held at Kapolei Hale at 1000 Uluohia Street, Kapolei, HI
96707 on March 28, 2007, from 6:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. and at McKinley High School at
1039 South King Street, Honolulu, HI 96814 on March 29, 2007, from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00
p.m.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Donna Turchie, Federal Transit
Administration, Region IX, 201 Mission Street, Room 1650, San Francisco, CA, 94105,
Phone: (415) 744-2737, Fax: (415) 744-2726.

Supplementary Information

I. Background
On December 7, 2005, FTA and DTS issued a notice of intent to prepare an Alternatives
Analysis followed by a separate EIS. The DTS has now completed the planning
Alternatives Analysis and, together with FTA, is proceeding with the NEPA review
initiated through this scoping notice.
The planning Alternatives Analysis, conducted in accordance with 49 United States Code
(U.S.C.) §5309 as amended by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144),
evaluated transit alternatives in the corridor from Kapolei to the University of Hawai‘i at
M!noa and to Waik"k". Four alternatives were studied, including No Build,
Transportation System Management, Bus operating in a Managed Lane, and Fixed
Guideway Transit. Fixed Guideway Transit was selected as the Locally Preferred
Alternative. The planning Alternatives Analysis is available on the project’s Web site at
www.honolulutransit.org. The Honolulu City Council has established a fixed-guideway
transit system connecting Kapolei and University of Hawai‘i at M!noa, with a branch to
Waik"k", as the locally preferred alternative. The O‘ahu Metropolitan Planning
Organization (OMPO) has included construction of a rail transit system between Kapolei
and the University of Hawai‘i at M!noa and Waik"k" in the 2030 O‘ahu Regional
Transportation Plan, April 2006.

II. Scoping
The FTA and DTS invite all interested individuals and organizations, and Federal, State,
and local governmental agencies and Native Hawaiian organizations, to comment on the
project’s purpose and need, the alternatives to be considered in the EIS, and the impacts
to be evaluated. During the scoping process, comments on the proposed statement of
purpose and need should address its completeness and adequacy. Comments on the
alternatives should propose alternatives that would satisfy the purpose and need at less
cost or with greater effectiveness or less environmental or community impact and were
not previously studied and eliminated for good cause. At this time, comments should
focus on the scope of the NEPA review and should not state a preference for a particular
alternative. The best opportunity for that type of input will be after the release of the
draft EIS.


Following the scoping process, public outreach activities with interested parties or groups
will continue throughout the duration of work on the EIS. The project Web site,
www.honolulutransit.org, will be updated periodically to reflect the status of the project.
Additional opportunities for public participation will be announced through mailings,
notices, advertisements, and press releases. Those wishing to be placed on the project
mailing list may do so by registering on the Web site at www.honolulutransit.org, or by
calling (808) 566-2299.

III. Description of Study Area
The proposed project study area is the travel corridor between Kapolei and the University
of Hawai‘i at M!noa (UH M!noa) and Waik"k". This narrow, linear corridor is confined
by the Wai‘anae and Ko‘olau mountain ranges to the north (mauka direction) and the
ocean to the south (makai direction). The corridor includes the majority of housing and
employment on O‘ahu. The 2000 census indicates that 876,200 people live on O‘ahu.
Of this number, over 552,000 people, or 63 percent, live within the corridor between
Kapolei and M!noa/Waik"k". This area is projected to absorb 69 percent of the
population growth projected to occur on O‘ahu between 2000 and 2030, resulting in an
expected corridor population of 776,000 by 2030. Over the next twenty-three years, the
‘Ewa/Kapolei area is projected to have the highest rate of housing and employment
growth on O‘ahu. The ‘Ewa/Kapolei area is developing as a “second city” to
complement downtown Honolulu. The housing and employment growth in ‘Ewa is
identified in the General Plan for the City and County of Honolulu.

IV. Purpose and Need
The purpose of the Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project is to provide high-
capacity, high-speed transit in the highly congested east-west transportation corridor
between Kapolei and the University of Hawai‘i at M!noa, as specified in the 2030 O‘ahu
Regional Transportation Plan (ORTP). The project is intended to provide faster, more
reliable public transportation services in the corridor than those currently operating in
mixed-flow traffic, to provide basic mobility in areas of the corridor where people of
limited income live, and to serve rapidly developing areas of the corridor. The project
would also provide an alternative to private automobile travel and improve transit
linkages within the corridor. Implementation of the project, in conjunction with other
improvements included in the ORTP, would moderate anticipated traffic congestion in
the corridor. The project also supports the goals of the O‘ahu General Plan and the
ORTP by serving areas designated for urban growth.
The existing transportation infrastructure in the corridor between Kapolei and UH M!noa
is overburdened handling current levels of travel demand. Motorists and transit users
experience substantial traffic congestion and delay at most times of the day, both on
weekdays and on weekends. Average weekday peak-period speeds on the H-1 Freeway
are currently less than 20 mph in many places and will degrade even further by 2030.
Transit vehicles are caught in the same congestion. Travelers on O‘ahu’s roadways
currently experience 51,000 vehicle hours of delay, a measure of how much time is lost
daily by travelers stuck in traffic, on a typical weekday. This measure of delay is
projected to increase to more than 71,000 daily vehicle hours of delay by 2030, assuming


implementation of all of the planned improvements listed in the ORTP (except for a fixed
guideway system). Without these improvements, the ORTP indicates that daily vehicle-
hours of delay could increase to as much as 326,000 vehicle hours.
Currently, motorists traveling from West O‘ahu to Downtown Honolulu experience
highly-congested traffic conditions during the a.m. peak period. By 2030, after including
all of the planned roadway improvements in the ORTP, the level of congestion and travel
time are projected to increase further. Average bus speeds in the corridor have been
decreasing steadily as congestion has increased. “TheBus” travel times are projected to
increase substantially through 2030. Within the urban core, most major arterial streets
will experience increasing peak-period congestion, including Ala Moana Boulevard,
Dillingham Boulevard, Kal!kaua Avenue, Kapi‘olani Boulevard, King Street, and Nimitz
Highway. Expansion of the roadway system between Kapolei and UH M!noa is
constrained by physical barriers and by dense urban neighborhoods that abut many
existing roadways. Given the current and increasing levels of congestion, a need exists to
offer an alternative way to travel within the corridor independent of current and projected
highway congestion.
As roadways become more congested, they become more susceptible to substantial
delays caused by incidents, such as traffic accidents or heavy rain. Even a single driver
unexpectedly braking can have a ripple effect delaying hundreds of cars. Because of the
operating conditions in the study corridor, current travel times are not reliable for either
transit or automobile trips. To get to their destination on time, travelers must allow extra
time in their schedules to account for the uncertainty of travel time. This lack of
predictability is inefficient and results in lost productivity. Because the bus system
primarily operates in mixed-traffic, transit users experience the same level of travel time
uncertainty as automobile users. A need exists to reduce transit travel times and provide
a more reliable transit system.
Consistent with the General Plan for the City and County of Honolulu, the highest
population growth rates for the island are projected in the ‘Ewa Development Plan area
(comprised of the ‘Ewa, Kapolei and Makakilo communities), which is expected to grow
by 170 percent between 2000 and 2030. This growth represents nearly 50 percent of the
total growth projected for the entire island. The more rural areas of Wai‘anae, Wahiaw!,
North Shore, Waim!nalo, and East Honolulu will have much lower population growth of
between zero and 16 percent if infrastructure policies support the planned growth in the
‘Ewa Development Plan area. Kapolei, which is developing as a “second city” to
Downtown Honolulu, is projected to grow by nearly 600 percent to 81,100 people, the
‘Ewa neighborhood by 100 percent, and Makakilo by 125 percent between 2000 and
2030. Accessibility to the overall ‘Ewa Development Plan area is currently severely
impaired by the congested roadway network, which will only get worse in the future.
This area is less likely to develop as planned unless it is accessible to Downtown and
other parts of O‘ahu; therefore, the ‘Ewa, Kapolei, and Makakilo area needs improved
accessibility to support its future growth as planned.
Many lower-income and minority workers live in the corridor outside of the urban core
and commute to work in the Primary Urban Center Development Plan area. Many lower-
income workers also rely on transit because of its affordability. In addition, daily parking


costs in Downtown Honolulu are among the highest in the United States, further limiting
this population’s access to Downtown. Improvements to transit capacity and reliability
will serve all transportation system users, including moderate- and low-income
populations.

V. Alternatives
The alternatives proposed for evaluation in the EIS were developed through a planning
Alternatives Analysis that resulted in selection of a Fixed Guideway Transit Alternative
as the locally preferred alternative (LPA). FTA and DTS propose to consider the
following alternatives:
! Future No Build Alternative, which would include existing transit and highway
facilities and planned transportation projects (excluding the proposed project)
anticipated to be operational by the year 2030. Bus service levels consistent with
existing transit service policies is assumed for all areas within the project corridor
under the Future No Build Alternative.
! Fixed Guideway Alternatives, which would include the construction and
operation of a fixed guideway transit system in the corridor between Kapolei and
UH M!noa with a branch to Waik"k". The draft EIS would consider five distinct
transit technologies: light rail transit, rapid rail transit, rubber-tired guided
vehicles, a magnetic levitation system, and a monorail system. Comments on
reducing the range of technologies under consideration are encouraged. The draft
EIS also would consider two alignment alternatives. Both alignment alternatives
would operate, for the most part, on a transit-guideway structure elevated above
the roadway, with some sections at grade. Both alignment alternatives generally
follow the route: North-South Road to Farrington Highway/Kamehameha
Highway to Salt Lake Boulevard to Dillingham Boulevard to Nimitz
Highway/Halekauwila Street. Both alignment alternatives would have a future
extension from downtown Honolulu to UH M!noa with a future branch to
Waik"k", and a future extension at the Wai‘anae (western) end to Kalaeloa
Boulevard in Kapolei. The second alignment alternative would have an
additional loop created by a fork in the alignment at Aloha Stadium to serve
Honolulu International Airport that would rejoin the main alignment in the
vicinity of the Middle Street Transit Center. The first construction phase for
either of the Fixed Guideway Alternatives is currently expected to begin in the
vicinity of the planned University of Hawai‘i West O‘ahu campus and extend to
Ala Moana Center via Salt Lake Boulevard. The Build Alternatives also include
the construction of a vehicle maintenance facility, transit stations and ancillary
facilities such as park-and-ride lots and traction-power substations, and the
modification and expansion of bus service to maximize overall efficiency of
transit operation.
Other reasonable alternatives suggested during the scoping process may be added if they
were not previously evaluated and eliminated for good cause on the basis of the
Alternatives Analysis and are consistent with the project’s purpose and need. The
planning Alternatives Analysis is available for public and agency review on the project


Web site at www.honolulutransit.org. It is also available for inspection at the project
office by calling (808) 566-2299 or by e-mailing info@honolulutransit.org.

VI. Probable Effects
The EIS will evaluate and fully disclose the environmental consequences of the
construction and operation of a fixed guideway transit system on O‘ahu. The EIS will
evaluate the impacts of all reasonable alternatives on land use, zoning, residential and
business displacements, parklands, economic development, community disruptions,
environmental justice, aesthetics, noise, wildlife, vegetation, endangered species,
farmland, water quality, wetlands, waterways, floodplains, hazardous waste materials,
and cultural, historic, and archaeological resources. To ensure that all significant issues
related to this proposed action are identified and addressed, scoping comments and
suggestions on more specific issues of environmental or community impact are invited
from all interested parties. Comments and questions should be directed to the DTS as
noted in the ADDRESSES section above.

VII. FTA Procedures
The EIS will be prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEPA), as amended, and its implementing regulations by the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) and by the FTA and Federal
Highway Administration (“Environmental Impact and Related Procedures” at 23 CFR
part 771). In accordance with FTA regulation and policy, the NEPA process will also
address the requirements of other applicable environmental laws, regulations, and
executive orders, including, but not limited to: Federal transit laws [49 USC 5301(e),
5323(b), and 5324(b)], Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Section
4(f) (“Protection of Public Lands”) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act (49
U.S.C. §303), Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and the Executive Orders on
Environmental Justice, Floodplain Management, and Protection of Wetlands.

Dated: March 12, 2007

_____________________________
Leslie T. Rogers
Regional Administrator


Chapter 4 Agency Scoping
Notification of Agency Scoping Meeting
The agency scoping meeting was held to provide an opportunity for those agencies
potentially interested in the project, or having relevant expertise pertaining to the project,
to have input at an early stage. Invitation letters were sent between March 16 and March
19, 2007, to Federal, State and County agencies and utility companies that had either
participated in prior transit planning efforts on O‘ahu or had responsibilities or expertise
that were considered to play a role in the current transit planning program. Under the
provisions of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) Section 6002, a coordination plan and an invitation to
participate in the project were sent to the agencies listed in Table 4-1. Other parties that
received invitations to the agency scoping meeting are shown in Table 4-2. Twenty
individuals from the agencies noted in Table 4-1 and Table 4-2 attended the meeting.

Summary of Agency Scoping Meeting
The agency scoping meeting was held from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on March 28 2007,
at Honolulu Hale, Mission Memorial Auditorium. Twenty agencies and utility
companies attended the scoping meeting. Table 4-1 and Table 4-2 provide information
about the agencies invited to the scoping meeting, those who attended, those who
provided scoping input, and those who requested further consultation.
The meeting was recorded on a digital audio recorder, and notes of the discussions were
taken. The meeting was moderated by the director of DTS and the project consulting
team, and the presentation included the meeting purpose, introduction to the project,
alternatives under consideration, planning process overview and schedule, and plans for
public scoping. DTS stated that comments pertaining to purpose and need, alternatives,
and scope of analysis would be particularly useful at this time.
Following the presentation, questions were requested. The subsequent discussion and
written comments received from the agencies are summarized below.

Agency Scoping Questions and Responses
Questions were asked at the meeting related to three topics: right-of-way, air clearances,
and security. The U.S. Army requested additional information and further consultation
related to transit right-of-way needs across Fort Shafter military property. Subsequent to
the meeting, a set of more detailed plans was sent to the U.S. Army Garrison-Hawai‘i
Department of Public Works.


Table 4-1. Agencies Invited to be Participating Agencies and their Status
Cooperating Participating Attended Provided
Agency Agency Scoping Scoping
Agency Invitation Invitation Meeting Comment
U.S. Department of Defense (U.S. Army Corps of
X X X
Engineers)
U.S. Department of Defense (U.S. Army Garrison-
X X
Hawai‘i)
U.S. Department of Defense (U.S. Naval Base
X
Pearl Harbor)
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (U.S.
X
Coast Guard – 14th Coast Guard District)
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal
X
Highway Administration
State of Hawai‘i, Department of Transportation X X
U.S. Department of Agriculture (Natural
X
Resources Conservation Service)
U.S. Department of the Interior (Fish and Wildlife
X
Service)
U.S. Department of the Interior (National Park
X
Service)
U.S. Department of the Interior (U.S. Geological
Survey Pacific Island Ecosystems Research X
Center)
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal
X X X
Aviation Administration
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency X
U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency X
State of Hawai‘i Department of Accounting and
X X
General Services
State of Hawai‘i Department of Business,
X
Economic Development, and Tourism
State of Hawai‘i Department of Defense X
State of Hawai‘i Department of Education X X
State of Hawai‘i, Department of Hawaiian Home
X *
Lands
State of Hawai‘i Department of Health X X
State of Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural
X
Resources
State of Hawai‘i, Department of Land and Natural
X
Resources (State Historic Preservation Division)
State of Hawai‘I, Hawai‘i Community Development
X X *
Authority
State of Hawai‘i, Office of Environmental Quality
X
Control
State of Hawai‘i Office of Hawaiian Affairs X
State of Hawai‘i University of Hawai‘i X X
O‘ahu Metropolitan Planning Organization X X
* Agency did not submit individual comment, but did sign the East Kapolei Developers’
comment letter.


Table 4-2. Agency Scoping Meeting Additional Invited Participants
Attended Provided
Scoping Scoping
Agency Meeting Comment
U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Army Garrison-Hawai‘i – Department of
X
Public Works
U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Corps of Engineers – Pacific Ocean
Division
U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Corps of Engineers – Honolulu District
U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Air Force – 15th CES Hickam AFB
State of Hawai‘i, Department of Transportation – Highways Division
State of Hawai‘i, Department of Transportation – Harbors Division
State of Hawai‘i, Department of Transportation – Airports Division
State of Hawai‘i Department of Health – Office of Planning
State of Hawai‘i Department of Health – Solid and Hazardous Waste Branch
State of Hawai‘i Department of Health – Noise, Radiation and Indoor Air
Quality Branch
State of Hawai‘i Department of Health – Clean Water Branch
State of Hawai‘i Department of Health – Clean Air Branch
State of Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources – State Parks
Division
State of Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources – Land Division
State of Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources – Commission
on Water Resource Management
State of Hawai‘i Department of Business, Economic Development, and
Tourism – Strategic and Industries Division
State of Hawai‘i Department of Business, Economic Development, and
Tourism – Office of Planning
Aloha Tower Development Corporation X
Legislative Reference Bureau
State of Hawai‘i University of Hawai‘i at M!noa X
State of Hawai‘i University of Hawai‘i at M!noa – Hamilton Library
State of Hawai‘i University of Hawai‘i at M!noa – Water Resources
Research Center
State of Hawai‘i University of Hawai‘i – Facilities, Grounds, and Safety
State of Hawai‘i University of Hawai‘i – Environmental Center
State of Hawai‘i University of Hawai‘i West O‘ahu X *
Leeward Community College X
Honolulu Community College X
Honolulu Board of Water Supply
The Gas Company
Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc. X
Hawaiian Telecom
Oceanic Time Warner Cable
* Agency did not submit individual comment, but did sign the East Kapolei Developers’
comment letter.
The FAA asked if runway clearance airspace limits had been checked for the airport
alignment. They were told that the limits would be checked. Later review of project
plans and Honolulu International Airport restrictions showed that the plans allow for
sufficient clearances.


One subject of questions was related to security planning. FTA requires a security plan,
which will be developed during system design and operational planning.
In its written comments, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers informed the City that a
permit may be required from the Corps to construct the project. Coordination will
continue with the Corps to ensure that permitting requirements are met. Comments in
other areas included the suggested change of the purpose and need to remove the
reference to high-speed. The FTA and DTS believe that transit travel times comparable
or better than driving times in the corridor are integral to the purpose of the project.
Substantially slower transit travel times would be detrimental to the purpose of the
project; therefore, the reference to transit speed remains in the Purpose and Need for the
project.
The Corps’ concerns about independent utility are noted; it is because of these concerns
that the project being evaluated in the EIS includes not only the First Project, but also
anticipated future extensions, to avoid artificial segmentation of the project in the
decision-making process.
The Corps concerns related to aquatic resources and recommendations for data collection
and impact analysis are appreciated and further coordination will be completed during
preparation of the EIS.
The State of Hawai‘i Department of Transportation commented on two areas. One
comment was that an alternative including an airport alignment should be included in the
EIS. In response to this comment, a third build alternative is being added to the draft EIS
that evaluates the airport alignment exclusively. Second, they requested evaluation of
traffic impacts to State highways. Traffic conditions will be one of the elements
evaluated during the EIS process.
Written comments received from agencies are provided in Appendix A-1.


Chapter 5 Public Scoping
Clarification of the Scoping Process
A number of commenters expressed confusion about the scoping process. First, the
scoping process completed in January 2006 solicited comments on the project’s
Environmental Impact Preparation Notice (EISPN) and the purpose and need,
alternatives, and scope of analysis for the Alternatives Analysis and the follow-on EIS.
As stated in the Notice of Intent issued on March 15, 2007, that Notice of Intent
superceded the one published on December 5, 2005.
As required by SAFETEA-LU Section 6002, input from the public has been sought
regarding both the purpose and need, and the alternatives being evaluated. This input
was initially sought during the planning Alternatives Analysis scoping period, and
changes were made to the purpose and need at that time as documented in the Honolulu
High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Scoping Report dated April 6, 2006. The
purpose and need was further refined after completion of the Honolulu High-Capacity
Transit Project Alternatives Analysis Report and selection of the Locally Preferred
Alternative; therefore, the public was again asked to provide comments on the purpose
and need during the NEPA scoping period.
Scoping meetings are not intended to be public hearings to express preferences about a
project. As stated in the Notice of Intent, comments should focus on the scope of the
NEPA review and should not state a preference for a particular alternative. The scoping
meetings were designed to maximize the potential to collect information pertinent to the
completion of the EIS, while minimizing the demands on the public’s time spent listening
to information not relevant to their concerns or to the scoping process.

Summary of Public Comments
During the NEPA scoping comment period, 104 comment submissions were received via
mail, the website, and the scoping meetings. Comments received from local
organizations are provided in Appendix A-2, comments from businesses are in Appendix
A-3, and comments received from the general public are provided in Appendix A-4.
Correspondence that only requested placement on the mailing list are not included in this
report. Comments that focus on a preference for alternatives that have previously been
evaluated and eliminated from consideration are included in the appendices to this report
but are neither summarized nor considered. No new alternatives to a fixed-guideway
transit system that would meet the project’s purpose and need and that were not
previously considered and eliminated were identified during the scoping process.
Information on previously considered alternatives is available in the Honolulu High-
Capacity Transit Project Alternatives Analysis Report. Questions pertaining to the
selection of the Fixed Guideway Alternative as the Locally Preferred Alternative relative
to other alternatives evaluated were addressed in the Honolulu High-Capacity Transit
Project Summary of City Council Hearings Testimony, and are not repeated in this report.


Likewise, comments on taxation that are not specific to the financial plan for the project
and the decision making process by the City Council, as established in the City Charter,
are neither summarized nor considered in this report, but have been included in the
appendices. Similarly, comments focused on the O‘ahu 2030 Regional Transportation
Plan, highway operation, and ferry service are outside of the scope and authority of the
transit project and are not addressed.
Comments that relate to process, presentation materials, and website design have been
included in the appendices, as well as reviewed and considered, but are not summarized
or responded to in this report.
The majority of comments received related to a preference for one of the alternatives or a
proposed modification to one of the alternatives.

Substantive Comments on Purpose and Need, Alternatives,
and Scope of Analysis
Comments Related to Purpose and Need
Comments were received that the purpose and need statement should be expanded to
address traffic congestion and highway capacity for private automobiles. The Honolulu
High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project is evaluating one aspect of island-wide
transportation needs in coordination with the OMPO, which is responsible for integrated
transportation planning. The Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project analysis
is meant to evaluate project alternatives that may be constructed within the authorization
of Act 247, enacted by the Hawai‘i State Legislature in 2005. The act prohibits the
construction of a non-transit project with the authorized excise-tax surcharge. Projects
with the purpose of providing roadway mobility for automobiles and commercial vehicles
are not fundable by Act 247; therefore, they will not be added to the purpose of the
Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project. All projects relating to commercial or
private automobile mobility included in the O‘ahu 2030 Regional Transportation Plan
were included in all alternatives evaluated in the Alternatives Analysis process and will
be included in all alternatives evaluated in the EIS. The purpose of the project reflects
that a high-capacity transit system would reduce congestion compared to the No Build
Alternative, but cannot be expected to reduce congestion to the extent that automobile
traffic would flow freely in the corridor at all times.

Comments Related to Alternatives
The majority of substantive public comments related specifically to the proposed
alternatives. Several comments suggested reconsideration of previously eliminated
alternatives. Comments and questions on this topic reflected issues already addressed in
the Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Summary of City Council
Hearings Testimony, and are not repeated in this report.
Several comments were received on which portion of the Locally Preferred Alternative
should be constructed first. The most-frequent suggestion was that the airport alignment
should be constructed as opposed to the Salt Lake Boulevard alignment. In response to


this comment, a third build alternative is being added to the draft EIS that evaluates the
airport alignment exclusively. Suggestions also were made to construct the sections to
UH M!noa and Waik"k" prior to other portions of the corridor. These issues were
addressed during City Council selection of the First Project. First, no sites are available
in the Koko Head end of the study corridor to provide a required maintenance and
storage facility. Second, the Koko Head end of the corridor, without the complementary
benefits provided by including the ‘Ewa end of the corridor, has a higher cost per user
benefit than the proposed First Project; therefore, transit riders would receive fewer
benefits from UH M!noa and Waik"k" service than from the proposed First Project at the
same fixed construction cost. Both UH M!noa and Waik"k" service are included in all
fixed guideway alternatives that will be evaluated in the EIS.
One comment suggested providing additional bus service with either school buses or
private vehicles. These options represent variations on the Transportation System
Management Alternative evaluated in the Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor
Project Alternatives Analysis Report. They would provide additional bus capacity using
different vehicles or limited only to certain times of day compared to what was evaluated
in the Transportation System Management Alternative, but would not differ structurally
from that alternative. These options would not provide substantial benefit compared to
the Transportation System Management Alternative already evaluated; therefore, they are
not being advanced for analysis in the EIS.
Comments relating to station location, design, and community integration will be
considered during preliminary engineering and their environmental effects addressed in
the EIS. These comments include such issues as parking availability, station access, and
bus transfer facilities.
Comments were received in favor of monorail, light rail, and rapid rail. Selecting a
technology that allows for a narrow low-profile guideway was suggested. No
information was received that would eliminate one or more of the transit technologies
currently under consideration.
Several comments suggested policy changes related to the relocation of jobs at the
University of Hawai‘i, limiting car ownership, changing development patterns through
tax incentives, restricting parking, mandating carpools, congestion pricing, requiring all
students to bus to school, restricting deliveries to nighttime hours, and limiting the
number of people who may move to O‘ahu. These proposals and other policies
mentioned are outside the purpose of providing a high-capacity transit system.
Several commenters suggested shifting the Wai‘anae end of the corridor into ‘Ewa. An
alignment on Fort Weaver Road was evaluated, documented, and eliminated in the
Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Alternatives Analysis Report.
Extending the First Project further Wai‘anae by one additional station also was
suggested. This will be considered during preliminary engineering if a funding source is
identified to provide the additional station and guideway.
One commenter suggested shifting the Kona Street alignment to Kapi’olani Boulevard.
These alignments were previously reviewed early in the Alternatives Analysis phase, and


Kapi’olani Boulevard was eliminated because of the lack of space for column placement,
lack of suitable space for stations without substantial property acquisition, and the greater
distance to bus transfers at Ala Moana Center.
One commenter suggested a High Speed Bus Alternative that would include aspects of
both the Managed Lane Alternative that was eliminated during the planning alternatives
analysis process and the Fixed Guideway Alternative. The concept was to construct an
elevated roadway for the extent of the Fixed Guideway Alignment, provide wide passing
zones at stations, and several access ramps. This alternative would be more costly and
have more severe impacts to many elements of the environment because of its increased
width, both for the entire length of the system as compared to the Fixed Guideway
Alternative and substantial width approaching 100 feet at stations. These impacts would
be similar to those of the Two-Direction Managed Lane Alternative described in the
Alternatives Analysis but would extend for the entire length of the corridor from Kapolei
to UH M!noa. Substantial right-of-way would be required to accommodate the structure
through urban Honolulu. In addition, right-of-way would be required for the additional
proposed ramps. While the system could provide some additional transit user benefit by
reducing the number of passenger transfers between the bus and fixed guideway system,
this small benefit would be greatly off-set by the significant impacts of the alternative;
therefore, the alternative is not being advanced for analysis in the EIS.

Comments Related to Scope of Analysis
A wide range of issues was identified for consideration in the analysis. No comments
were received identifying previously unknown resources or hazards located along the
proposed alignments of any of the alternatives. One commenter noted two sites on the
National Register of Historic Places that were already identified during preparation of the
Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Project Historic and Archaeological Technical Report
to support the Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Project Alternatives Analysis Report.
Aesthetics and views were widely mentioned, including the effects of an elevated system,
impacts on trees, and effects of advertising on the visual environment. Other concerns
were raised about construction impacts and project phasing, noise impacts, right-of-way
requirements and displacements, economic impacts, air quality, community connectivity,
energy consumption and conservation options, emergency services and public safety,
service to elderly and disadvantaged populations, natural resources, natural hazards,
effects on land use and zoning, utility relocations, maintenance of traffic, and impacts to
parks and recreational facilities. The identified topics of concern will all be evaluated in
the EIS. Other issues of concern that were identified, but are not directly related to
impacts on the environment, are the future financial and transportation performance of
the system. As project development continues, the Honolulu High-Capacity Transit
Project Financial Plan and Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Project Transportation
Impact Report will be revised and summarized in the EIS.


Chapter 6 Conclusions
The goals of the scoping process were to establish the purpose of and the needs for the
Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project, identify the alternatives that should be
evaluated for the project, and determine the scope of the analysis that will be conducted
to support the EIS.
A purpose and need, list of alternatives, and list of topics to be evaluated that emerged
from the planning Alternatives Analysis process were presented to the public and other
interested parties. The comments received from members of the public and consulted
agencies resulted in an addition to the alternatives being evaluated. A third fixed
guideway alternative that would directly serve Honolulu International Airport will be
included in the EIS.
Comments on transit technologies for the Fixed Guideway Alternatives (Alternatives 2
and 3) were reviewed; however, no information was received that would eliminate one or
more of the transit technologies currently under consideration.
Comments received on the scope of the environmental analysis included concerns about
such topics as noise, environmental justice, visual impacts, natural resources, energy, and
displacements. The EIS will evaluate the effects of each alternative on each of the
elements of the environment listed in the Comments Related to Scope of Analysis section
in Chapter 5 of this report. The analysis will follow applicable U.S. Department of
Transportation guidelines. Appropriate mitigation measures will be evaluated during
preparation of the EIS.


Appendix A Scoping Comments

NEPA Scoping Report Appendix A Page A-1

Page A-2 Appendix A NEPA Scoping Report

Appendix A-1: Agency NEPA Scoping Comments


Appendix A-2: Organization NEPA Scoping Comments


Web Site Comment
www.honolulutransit.org

3/22/2007

FROM:
Michelle Matson
Waikiki Area Residents Association
3931 Gail Street
Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96815
MSMatson@hawaii.rr.com

COMMENT:
The instructions for your scoping process are very confusing in your newsletter, especially
regarding "alternatives" as used in the context of route alignments, and then as technologies, and
then "alignments (routes)" again. Which "alternatives" apply to which comment category in b)
below?

The city's transit newsletter at http://www.honolulutransit.org states the following regarding the
EIS: "The EIS WILL BE PREPARED to meet both state and federal requirements. On the
federal level, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and its implementing
regulations are applicable. On the State level relevant law is found in Chapter 343 of the Hawaii
Revised Statutes. "Two transit routes are proposed for analysis in the EIS. BOTH
ALTERNATIVES encompass the full transit corridor described in the LPA, going from West
Kapolei to the University of Hawaii at Manoa, and Waikiki. BOTH ALTERNATIVES also
include the First Project (Minimum Operating Segment?) between East Kapolei and Ala Moana
Center. ONE ALTERNATIVE follows Salt Lake Boulevard between Aloha Stadium and Middle
Street, while THE OTHER ALTERNATIVE includes both Salt Lake Boulevard and Airport
alignments..... "The public is invited to comment on the following: a) The purpose of and needs
to be addressed by THE PROJECT; b) THE ALTERNATIVES (alternative routes as above, or
alternative technologies?), including the technologies, to be evaluated; c) ALIGNMENTS
(ROUTES) and termination points (West Kapolei, East Kapolei, Ala Moana Center, UH Manoa,
Waikiki?) to be considered; and d) The environmental, social and economic impacts to be
analyzed (per HRS 343?)." What is also strange, and appears somewhat deceiving to the reader
and confusing to the public, is that this same newsletter notes, "The SCOPING ACTIVITIES
RELATED TO Hawaii Revised Statutes CHAPTER 343 process WERE COMPLETED between
December 2005 and January 2006." (EIS law HRS 343 specific to d) above, on which the public
is invited to comment for the purposes of this scoping process?) When reading this, some
members of the public are now made to believe that the invited scoping comments will be strictly
limited to the apparently still-pending Salt Lake and/or Airport route segment question. (EIS
definition: "Environmental impact statement" or "statement" means an informational document
prepared in compliance with the rules adopted under section 343-6 and which discloses the
environmental effects of a proposed action, effects of a proposed action on the economic welfare,
social welfare, and cultural practices of the community and State, effects of the economic
activities arising out of the proposed action, measures proposed to minimize adverse effects, and
alternatives to the action and their environmental effects.) Please clarify exactly what it is for
which you are inviting public comments.

879

Web Site Comment
www.honolulutransit.org

3/30/2007

FROM:
Dexter Okada
Kaka'ako Business and Landowners Association
P.O.Box 898
Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96808
dexter.okada@uokada.com, 597-1102

COMMENT:
My name is Dexter Okada. My small family business has been in Kaka’ako for over fifty years. I
also represent Kaka’ako Business and Landowners Association. Our basic mantra is community
input. In other words, we want to have a voice in determining the future of our community not
just commenting at scoping meetings.

In the central Kaka’ako area, there are many small properties. On these properties are small
businesses. Many of these small business are light industrial or service businesses that serve
communities from downtown out to East Oahu and to the windward side. The economic impacts
of the route and the resulting transit oriented developments could have a tragic impact on these
small businesses and small properties. Eminent domain is a frightening phrase for small property
owners. Hawaii Community Development Authority is currently revising their Mauka Plan and
Rules to help the small businesses and small property owners in Kaka’ako. Will the transit
project undermine this effort? It is often said that small business is the backbone of Hawai’i’s
economy. Will the transit project be another burden placed on the backs of the small businesses
in Kaka’ako?

880

From: Liu, Rouen [mailto:rouen.liu@heco.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 3:06 PM
To: Nalani E. Dahl
Subject: High Capacity Transit Corridor Project EIS process - comments from Hawaiian Electric Company

Thank you for allowing Hawaiian Electric Company (HECO) to be a part of the planning
process.

In the EIS, please identify and address the following:
1) energy (electrical power) requirements for the various alternatives;
2) facilities necessary to meet energy requirements;
3) costs associated with meeting energy requirements;
4) existing utilities that will require relocation and the associated costs;
5) permits and approvals needed to meet energy requirements and necessary existing
utility relocations; and
6) emergency generation to temporarily power the system as well as emergency fuel
storage, emergency generator emissions, and noise.

Please note that HECO's work and associated costs related to the transit may be
subject to approval by the State Public Utilities Commission. For this and
other planning reasons, HECO would prefer to coordinate and plan for electrical needs
or relocation as soon as practical.

Rouen Liu
Project Administrator
Hawaiian Electric Company

This message was also entered via the internet at www.honolulutransit.org as instructed in page 1-3 of
the scoping information package. Due by April 13, 2007

886

HONOLULUTRAFFIC.COM
SEEKING COST-EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS TO TRAFFIC CONGESTION

March 18, 2007

Ms. Donna Turchie
Federal Transit Administration, Region IX
201 Mission Street, Room 1650
San Francisco, CA 94105

Dear Ms. Turchie:
Elimination of Managed Lanes from Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project
We object to your failure to include a Managed Lane Alternative (MLA) in your Notice of Intent
(NOI) of March 15, 2007, and ask that the notice be amended to include an MLA, and then be
republished. We would also like you to clarify the reasons for having two NOIs in effect
concurrently.

The double NOI issue.
Neither the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) nor the City and County of Honolulu (City) has
made any attempt to clarify why FTA issued a second NOI. While the NOI of December 7, 2005,
initiated the NEPA process, the NOI of March 15, 2007, informs us that the NEPA review is
“initiated through this scoping notice.” Does this mean the old NOI is cancelled? Have we not been
in the NEPA process since December 2005?
We also see from the new Scoping Information Package that scoping under HRS 343 was
completed in 2005 and that this new scoping is only to satisfy NEPA. However, the NOI of
December 5, 2005 and the Scoping Report of April 6, 2006, both discussed the scoping at that time
being done under NEPA. We realize that you may not be deliberately confusing the issue, but the
result is the same.
Further, we did not receive any response to Honolulutraffic.com’s 13 pages of specific comments1
dated January 9, 2006, until February 22, 2007, and even then it was, for the most part, the usual
Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) boiler plate with few of the specifics addressed. Assumedly, this aspect
of the NEPA process does not require “public involvement.”

MLA denied fair and equitable treatment
The MLA was denied fair and equitable treatment in the Alternatives Analysis (AA) by the City
and County of Honolulu (City) and Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB). As a direct and intended result, the
MLA was unjustly eliminated — not for "good cause" but rather for political cause. We submit that
this was a blatant violation of the spirit and intent of the regulations that govern the environmental
process; we further submit that only by reinstating MLA into your Notice of Intent and the Scoping
process, can Honolulu aspire to reducing its traffic congestion. The following supports these
claims.
Excessive MLA capital cost projection
PB projects initial costs of $2.6 billion for the two-lane reversible elevated Managed Lanes
Alternative (MLA) in addition to bus costs (AA, p. 5-2).

1
Attached to covering email as Scoping_comments_3.pdf
3105 Pacific Hts Rd Honolulu HI 96813 ! phone 808·285·7799! fax 808·545·4495! email: info@honolulutraffic.com

892

To put that projected cost in perspective, it is seven times the cost of Tampa’s comparable new ten-
mile three-lane elevated reversible expressway and 50 percent greater than the cost of the H-3
highway – even allowing for inflation. At such a cost the MLA would replace H-3 as America’s
costliest highway, despite H-3 being twice the size, built over difficult terrain, and with extensive
tunneling.
The soft costs alone for the MLA are projected at $549 million,2 which is 30 percent more than the
cost of the entire Tampa Expressway, including the $120 million overrun error by URS Corp.
Since we lack sufficient details about the MLA, what may well be driving up the cost are the 5,200
parking stalls (AA, p. 3-8) built into the project, which are almost entirely unnecessary. We have
failed to find any significant parking associated with an MLA elsewhere in the country.
To bolster our stand on PB's exaggerating capital costs for the MLA, we have attached comments
by Dr. Martin Stone, AICP, Planning Director of the Tampa Expressway Authority, who says, in
this detailed four page letter that,
“It is completely dishonest to say the elevated HOT lane in your transit alternatives analysis is similar
to our elevated reversible lanes. And, it is this dishonesty that results in your HOT lanes costing $2.6
billion instead of the less than $1 billion that a true copy of our project would cost.”3
During the AA process, the City Council appointed a Transit Advisory Task Force to assist them in
evaluating the AA. It consisted of six politically-connected people whose views could be relied
upon to support the City's agenda, and Dr. Panos Prevedouros, Professor of Traffic Engineering at
the University of Hawaii, whose views are based on engineering and science, and not politics.
The Chairman appointed two members to a Technical Review Subcommittee to review
construction costs. One had been a long time employee of the state DOT and the other was the
recently retired Director of Honolulu’s City Department of Transportation Services (DTS).
After their first report to the Task Force, we asked them who they had contacted since there needed
to be a reconciliation of the Tampa Expressway cost (less the design error) of $320 million and the
PB estimate of $2.6 billion for the MLA. They told us they had only talked to PB, but had been
assured that the costs were accurate.
We pushed for a consultation with the Tampa Expressway Authority and especially with PCL
Construction, Inc., since they had built the Tampa Expressway, the Hawaii Convention Center, and
maintained offices in both Tampa and Honolulu and would be familiar with the costs and
construction difficulties in both cities. One of the subcommittee members made a phone call to
Tampa; no one contacted PCL. The subcommittee report is attached to the covering email; the lack
of due diligence warranted by a multi-billion dollar project is quite evident, and may reflect a
breach of the fiduciary duty to investigate and verify the facts and take the necessary steps
commensurate with the amounts involved.
After consulting with many industry professionals, we have projected a cost of $900 million for the
MLA, including a 25 percent allowance for cost overruns. This is still more than twice the cost of
the Tampa Expressway. At $900 million, the MLA would surely have been the LPA, and that is the
reason, we submit, for the exaggerated capital cost estimates by PB.
Excessive operating cost
The high operating cost for the MLA is mainly caused by the large number of buses projected for
it. The following bus fleet data is taken from the AA, table 2-1, and the daily trips data from the
AA, table 3-7. The percentages shown are calculated from these data.

2
Capital Costing Memorandum, App. A, Alternative 3.
3
Attached to covering email as stoneTampa.doc.

893

% change in buses % change in trips
thous
Bus from from from trips from from from
Alternative Fleet exist NB TSM daily exist NB TSM
Existing 525 0.0% N/A N/A 178.4 0.0% N/A N/A
NB 614 17.0% 0.0% N/A 232.1 30.1% 0.0% N/A
TSM 765 45.7% 24.6% 0.0% 243.1 36.3% 4.7% 0.0%
MLA 906 72.6% 47.6% 18.4% 244.4 37.0% 5.3% 0.5%
Rail-Halek 540 2.9% -12.1% -29.4% 294.1 64.9% 26.7% 21.0%

Note that the MLA is projected to have a bus fleet nearly 50 percent greater than the No-build
alternative, yet gain only five percent more trips. This small increase is projected despite the MLA
offering bus users the advantage of a congestion free ride from the Leeward end of the corridor to
downtown.
The 906 buses projected are far too many buses for the projected MLA ridership. It should be
anticipated that more riders per bus would be achieved by the MLA option in the Corridor since
buses using the MLA would be operating at far higher speeds than either the No-Build or the TSM
and thus able to make more trips per bus; the round trip can be made by returning on the relatively
uncongested freeway.

Insufficient ridership projected for the MLA
The MLA should project significantly more riders than the No-Build or TSM Alternatives since it
will offer potential bus riders a significant time savings of 16 minutes versus automobile travel on
the regular freeway. Currently, buses take 39 minutes to travel 13 miles at 20mph on the regular
freeway.
If we assume that the number of cars removed from the freeway by the MLA will decrease travel
times by 25 percent then buses (and cars) on the regular freeway will take 29 minutes to traverse
the 13 miles. Buses on the MLA will take 13 minutes and will offer a significant and enticing 16
minute time savings to some motorists to switch to buses.

Killing the MLA advantage
The AA version of the MLA allowing free passage to HOV-2s significantly reduces the advantages
of the MLA over rail transit.
To add insult, PB said in a letter to us that “A two-lane reversible option for the Managed Lanes
Alternative, matching what you have proposed, has been added to the range of alternatives being
evaluated in the Alternatives Analysis.” 4
What we actually proposed was a 10-13 mile facility and in our comments on the original Scoping
wrote, “On the HOT lanes, buses and vanpools would have priority and travel free, other vehicles
would pay a toll ...”5 What resulted was a 16-mile facility, unnecessarily lengthened to presumably
drive up costs, with HOVs allowed free.

4
Letter signed by Mr. Melvin Kaku, DTS Director to me on 2/26/2007 by Mr. Lawrence Spurgeon of PB and dated
6/20/2006. It refers to “AA and Chapter 343 Scoping of the Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project.”
5
Scoping Report, Appendix B. page 46 of 100.

894

First, allowing HOV-2s at no charge on the MLA means that the zipper lane will no longer be
needed. Thus, PB added the 2-lane MLA and deleted the HOV zipper lane, thereby reducing the
two-lane gain to a single lane gain.
Second, this policy greatly increases the costs of policing the MLA as staff attempt to determine
whether or not autos have the requisite number of automobile occupants. On the other hand, pre-
registered buses and vanpools would be outfitted with transponders signifying their legitimacy and
will take little policing.
Third, this policy reduces the revenues available to fund the project, thus necessitating a tax
increase.

Insufficient ingress/egress options provided for MLA
The rail transit alternative in the AA presently has five different alignment options that have
survived the process to date. The reversible MLA, on the other hand, has only one.
PB should have also examined five options for the MLA alternative. They should have considered
the three-lane option as built by the Tampa Expressway since it offers a 50 percent greater lane
capacity at only a 20 percent increase in cost. They should also have considered both two and three
lane options in combination with more options for ingress/egress along the lines suggested by Dr.
Prevedouros.6

MLA should never be at Level of Service (LOS) D
For some reason PB is showing the MLA option operating at LOS B to D in the morning peak
hour. Since dynamically priced MLAs are operated to keep them congestion free, we do not
understand why they should not be LOS B, or better, at all times.

FTA funding will likely be allowed
PB says that the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) New Starts funds cannot be used for the
MLA Alternative (AA, p. 6-10). However, the FTA has been revising its policies on MLAs such as
the recent one allowing funding for HOT lane conversions from existing HOV lanes. While FTA’s
policy still holds that HOT lanes built de novo cannot be funded with New Starts funds, it places
the policy in conflict with recent changes in FTA policy favoring variably-priced lanes.
One might reasonably expect that an MLA that met certain conditions, such as giving buses and
other high occupancy vehicles priority over automobiles, would, in time, be eligible for New Starts
Funds and therefore should be studied further in the Environmental Impact Statement process.

PB has under-engineered the MLA
Professor Prevdouros examined the MLA from an engineering perspective and submitted his report
to the Transit Advisory Task Force. He finds PB’s treatment of the MLA significantly lacking and
concludes,
“Based on substantial evidence of ML being under-engineered, its performance statistics of are not
representative of what a new 2-lane reversible expressway can do for this corridor … In short, the ML
provides extensive regional traffic management possibilities, none of which were explored.” 7

6
A Design for a HOT Expressway and Other Traffic Relief Projects for Oahu,
7
Attached to covering email as Panos_TATF_final_report.doc

895

FTA gives no weight to traffic congestion reduction
“… in current evaluations of proposed New Starts projects, FTA considers directly only those user
benefits derived directly from changes in transit service characteristics.”8
At the Pearl Ridge screenline, the only freeway is H-1 and for the peak period inbound provides
five regular lanes, a zipper lane and an HOV lane.
A properly defined MLA would provide an additional two lanes to the above. More importantly, it
would be the equivalent of four new lanes since the MLA is a more efficient conveyer of vehicles.
As shown in the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Congestion Primer,9
Vehicle “throughput” on a freeway is the number of vehicles that get through over a short period such
as an hour ... The number of vehicles that get through per hour can drop by as much as 50 percent
when severe congestion sets in … each variably priced lane in the median of State Route 91 in Orange
County, California, carries twice as many vehicles per lane as the free lanes during the hour with
heaviest traffic. Pricing has allowed twice as many vehicles to be served per lane at three to four times
the speed on the free lanes.
Therefore the two lanes of the MLA would take the equivalent of four lanes of traffic off of the H-1
freeway, providing significant traffic relief in the Corridor.
We do not understand why this is not being taken into account by FTA. In announcing a war on
traffic congestion as the new policy, Secretary Mineta announced that,
Transportation congestion is not a fact of life. It is not a scientific mystery, an uncontrollable force, or
the insurmountable fate of the American people. Rather, congestion results from poor policy choices
and a failure to separate and embrace solutions that are effective from those that are not.
He concluded the policy announcement by declaring that,
The Administration’s objective must be to reduce congestion, not simply to slow its increase.
Congestion is not an insurmountable problem … The Federal Government’s most important role is to
establish mechanisms to ensure that the right investments get made … We must end the era of
complacency about congestion. The National Strategy to Reduce Congestion on America’s
Transportation Network provides the framework for government officials, the private sector, and
most importantly, the citizen-user, to take the necessary steps to make today’s congestion a thing of
the past. (original emphasis)
Furthermore, SAFETEA-LU states that, “… the Secretary shall analyze, evaluate, and consider …
factors such as … congestion relief.”
Is this policy meaningless? Does it only impact the Secretary’s office and have no meaning to
FTA?
Traffic congestion reduction is critically important to Oahu citizens and the bias shown by the AA
against the MLA needs to be addressed.
For example, Professor Prevedouros states that simply using the AA, table 3-5, AM inbound, as the
basis for calculations, and a) allowing for a three-lane variant of the MLA, and b) reinstating the
zipper lane, that far lower congestion would exist on the H-1 regular lanes in 2030 than existed for
actual conditions in 2003 even given the AA’s highly questionable population forecasts.

8
http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/Discussion_1_CE_Allowances.doc
9
US DOT Congestion Primer

896

Summary:
The foregoing are the most important points about the bias exhibited towards the MLA by the City
and PB, its “client-focused” consultant.
A disinterested reviewer could only conclude that, at the hands of the City and PB, the MLA has
not been accorded fair treatment and that the MLA should be reinstated into the Scoping process —
preferably with the MLA study being performed by another, more taxpayer-focused consultant.

Sincerely,
HONOLULUTRAFFIC.COM

Cliff Slater, Chair

Atts:
cc: Mr. Tyler Duvall
Mr. David Horner
Mr. Ron Fisher
Mr. James Ryan
Mr. Ray Sukys
Mr. Melvin Kaku

897

Seeking cost-effective ways to improve traffic congestion in Honolulu

January 9, 2006

Acting Director Alfred Tanaka
Department of Transportation Services
City and County of Honolulu
650 S. King Street, 3rd Floor
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

Dear Mr. Tanaka:

Comments on the December 2005 Scoping Meetings

The Scoping Meeting conducted by Parsons Brinckerhoff and the City and County
of Honolulu Department of Transportation Services (DTS) on December 13, 2005,
provided insufficient information, both at the meeting and at the
www.honolulutransit.com website, for the public to understand the cost-effectiveness
of the alternatives.
While Parsons Brinckerhoff and DTS showed that the “Development of Initial Set of
Alternatives” emerged from “Technical Methods” and “Evaluation Measures,” i they
refused to disclose the quantitative data that they developed during this process thus
denying full public access to key decisions.
For significant public involvement as specified by the Federal Transit Administration
(FTA), the public must have some rudimentary understanding of the costs and
benefits of each of the alternatives considered — both those accepted and those
rejected.
The costs must include capital and operating costs. The benefits and disbenefits must
include forecast travel time changes, patronage and traffic congestion impacts. Only
with this information can the public be truly involved in the process.
In short, the ‘system planning’ process has failed to follow the FTA process, as
follows:
A. The projected capital costs, operating costs, financing, travel times, patronage
and traffic congestion for the alternatives have not been available.
B. The process has failed to define adequately the specific transportation
problems let alone evaluate how each alternative addresses them.
C. The level of effort exerted in developing the alternatives has been
insufficient.
D. The public has not been involved to the extent required by the FTA.

3105 Pacific Heights Rd Honolulu Hawaii 96813 Ph: 808-285-7799 email: info@honolulutraffic.com
898

A. The projected cost effectiveness data have not been available to the public.
“During systems planning, the analysis of alternatives focuses on identifying fatal flaws and
a preliminary analysis of cost-effectiveness … Three types of information are particularly
important for evaluating cost-effectiveness: transit patronage, capital cost, and operating and
maintenance cost.” Procedures and Technical Methods for Transit Project Planning
(PTMTPP). Part I. p. 2-9. (emphasis added)
“When local officials seek [FTA] approval to initiate alternatives analysis, the results of
system planning studies are used by [FTA] to decide whether to participate in further detailed
study of guideway alternatives in the corridor. Much of the information needed to make these
decisions should be available in reports produced during the system planning phase.”
PTMTPP, Part I, p. 2-12. (emphasis added)
“These definitions [of alternatives] are sufficient to address such general concerns as ranges
of costs, ridership potential and financial feasibility. More basically, they provide the
information necessary for decisionmakers and other stakeholders to confirm that no
reasonable alternative (in terms of meeting corridor needs) is being excluded from the
analysis, as well as understand the magnitude of the costs and benefits associated with the
various options for improving conditions in the corridor.” Additional Guidance on Local
Initiation of Alternatives Analysis Planning Studies (emphasis added)
The documentation required in the ‘systems planning’ ii process concerning public
transit patronage data, capital cost and operating and maintenance costs, as required
by the FTA has been either withheld from the public or not developed at all.
During the Scoping Meeting, we asked Mr. Hamayasu for cost data for the
alternatives and he told us that the City did not have any. Since cost estimates are at
the bedrock of scoping decisions it seemed strange that they were not available. This
was especially true since Parsons Brinckerhoff had eliminated the reversible High-
OccupancyToll (HOT) lanes proposal on the grounds of “cost and funding
concerns.” iii
Subsequent to the Scoping Meeting, Mr. Gordon Lum, Executive Director of the
Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization (OMPO) told us that the capital costs
developed by their consultant were $2.5 billion each for both the reversible HOT
lanes proposal, from Waipahu to the Keehi Interchange (±12 miles), and also the
elevated heavy rail line from Kapolei to the University of Hawaii (UH) (±25 miles).
We asked to see the working for those calculations but Mr. Lum told us that their
consultants, Kaku Associates, had only given them the number; there was no backup
for it. He also said OMPO subsequently conveyed these projected costs to both DTS
and the Hawaii State Department of Transportation (HDOT) and both had found
them reasonable.
Failing any other explanation, we have to assume that Parsons Brinckerhoff and DTS
used the OMPO costs in eliminating the reversible HOT lanes from the Alternatives
Analysis.
The capital costs cited by OMPO are unreasonable. These costs, on a per mile basis,
amount to $100 million per mile for the heavy rail line and $200 million per mile for
the HOT lanes.

899

OMPO, HDOT, DTS and Parsons Brinckerhoff, would have us believe that a simple
elevated two-lane highway (HOT lanes is merely the operating method) put out to
bid would cost twice as much as a non-bid heavy rail line with all its attendant
equipment, rolling stock, trains, and massive stations each with escalators, elevators,
and stairs.
The Tampa, Florida, three-lane elevated highway due to open shortly costs $46
million per mile and that includes an expensive error by a contractor. The public
authority responsible for it estimates they could duplicate it for $28 million per
mile. iv Even allowing for Hawaii’s politically induced high costs that tend to double
Mainland prices, it still does not come close to the OMPO estimate of $200 million
per mile.
No travel time comparisons are available. Since travel time is a major determinant of
patronage forecasts and since HOT lanes may well offer a much faster journey for
both autos and buses this information should have been available.
Patronage forecasts for the various alternatives are not available. Mr. Hamayasu told
us during the meeting that while OMPO had developed ridership data for the rail,
they had not shared it with DTS. We find this troubling since Mr. Hamayasu is Vice-
Chair of OMPO’s Technical Advisory Committee (TAC).
OMPO told us that while they had developed ridership forecasts for the various
alternatives they would not show us the working of the calculations. We appealed
this refusal to the Hawaii Office of Information Practices and OMPO now admits
that their consultant’s forecasts were “intuitive” and therefore there was no working
paper to show us. v
We had asked for the working paper since the 360,000± daily rail ridership shown on
their Strategic Planning Concepts chart (p. 6) for the Kapolei to University of Hawaii
(UH) rail alternative would be an 80 percent increase over current ridership and a 50
percent increase in per capita ridership by 2030.
No Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) that has built a rail line in modern times has
experienced an increase in the percentage of commuters using public transportation
in a similar 20-year period, 1980-2000.vi We, therefore, find the ridership forecast
preposterous failing a detailed, and credible, explanation.
The financing plan is not available.
“The system planning phase produces a considerable amount of information that will later be
used in alternatives analysis. This includes … An analysis of the region’s financial capacity
to provide planned improvements … and the capacity of the existing revenue base to meet
future transit financial requirements.” PTMTTP, Part I, page 2-2.
“It is important that system planning consider such questions … ‘When compared with lower
cost alternatives, are the added benefits of the project greater than the added costs?’”
PTMTTP, Part I, page 2-5.
How can this question possibly be answered without quantifying the costs and
benefits?

900

The financing plan needs to show the impacts of the one-half percent General Excise
tax increase. Mayor Hanneman had originally asked for a full one percent when he
was advocating the $2.7 billion Kapolei to Iwilei line. vii Since then his plan has
extended to UH and Waikiki but the state legislature cut the tax increase in half. This
would only fund a third of the heavy rail alternative; the public needs to know the
correct amount of the future taxes they will face.
Traffic congestion estimates are not available. Since HOT lanes promise to move far
more cars off the Oahu’s highways than would a rail line, it is imperative that the
city make the preliminary estimates available to the public.
Funding problems insufficiently explained. Mr. Hamayasu told us that one of the
reasons the reversible HOT lanes was eliminated was because of “funding concerns”
and that was because FTA had told him that they would not fund HOT lanes. We
asked him if he had such an opinion in writing and he said he had not. Since FTA
officials have told us that, while they would have to see the precise plans for such a
HOT lanes project, if it provided priority and uncongested travel for buses, they
believed they would.
In any case, the FTA does not require that funding be in place in order to analyze the
alternatives. If it did, it would have to reject the rail alternatives since the half-
percent increase in the State General Excise Tax does not begin to cover the capital
and operating costs. In addition, the 1992 Rail Plan had no funding in place at any
time during the whole process.
B. The process has failed to define adequately the specific transportation problems
let alone evaluate how each alternative addresses them.
“I. 2. Systems Planning. … sets a proper foundation for moving forward into alternatives
analysis … system planning serves as the first phase of the five-phased process for
developing fixed guideway mass transit projects.” PTMTTP, Part I, page 2-1.
“This analysis includes the identification of specific transportation problems in the corridor;
the definition of reasonable alternative strategies to address these problems; the development
of forecasts for these alternatives in terms of environmental, transportation, and financial
impacts; and an evaluation of how each alternative addresses transportation problems, goals,
and objectives in the corridor.” PTMTTP, Part I, 1.2.
“The key principal in the identification of alternatives is that they directly address the stated
transportation problem in the corridor ...” PTMTPP, Part II. 2. p. 3.
The scoping information package merely discusses “improved person-mobility” and
“improved mobility for travelers facing increasingly severe traffic congestion.” viii
This is misleading information to give to the public. It implies that the process is
about reducing traffic congestion when it is clear — with some careful reading —
that it is about getting people out of cars and into public transportation. However,
Parsons Brinckerhoff does not tell the public that that is their explicit purpose.
Neither do they tell the public that no other MSA has managed to reduce the market
share of commuters using automobiles. ix
If the transportation problem is defined as one of insufficient “person mobility” then
one set of alternatives may be preferable, usually centered on public transportation.
If on the other hand, Parsons Brinckerhoff were to define the problem as the public

901

understands it, “excessive traffic congestion hampering the movement of autos and
goods vehicles,” then another set of alternatives will be preferred, centering around
highways.
If we had a public transportation problem, we would not have had a significant
decline in the per capita use of it during the past 20 years — from 96 rides per capita
of population to 77 just before the strike. To make it worse this 20 percent decline
occurred during a period when we increased the bus fleet by 20 percent. (State Data
Books 1991 & 2004)
Conversely, during this same period, Oahu has had a 27 percent increase in
registered vehicles with an increase of only a minuscule 2.2 miles of new freeways,
from 86.3 to 88.5 miles — a 2.7 percent increase. (State Data Books 1991 & 2004.)
Hawaii has the fewest urban miles of highway of any state in the U.S. because
highway construction has not kept pace with residential growth. No Metropolitan
Statistical Area (metro area) in the U.S. has reduced traffic congestion by improving
public transportation. We can only reduce it by increasing highway facilities and
improving highway management and the Texas Transportation Institute concurs in
that as follows:
“The difference between lane-mile increases and traffic growth compares the change in
supply and demand. If roadway capacity has been added at the same rate as travel, the deficit
will be zero.” 2005 Urban Mobility Report. Texas Transportation Institute.
In addition, Parsons Brinckerhoff has not addressed the negative effects on our
economy of the high cost of delivering goods on congested highways. They have
ignored national, state and city formal transportation goals as follows:
“Advance accessible, efficient, intermodal transportation for the movement of people and
goods.” Federal Transportation Policy.
“To create a transportation system which will enable people and goods to move safely,
efficiently, and at reasonable cost.” City and County of Honolulu, General Plan for the City
and County of Honolulu
“To provide for the safe, economic, efficient, and convenient movement of people and
goods.” State of Hawaii, Hawaii State Plan
Rail transit does absolutely nothing for the movement of goods “safely, efficiently,
and at reasonable cost.” Parsons Brinckerhoff has entirely overlooked that goods
move by roads on Oahu, while admitting — only when asked — that building a rail
line will not reduce traffic congestion. x
This community needs a definition of the transportation problem with which
everyone can agree and that is without doubt going to be ‘traffic congestion.’
Honolulu does not have a public transportation problem; it has a traffic congestion
problem. This is the problem that Parsons Brinckerhoff and DTS need to address.

902

C. The alternatives are inadequate and the “level of effort” exerted in developing
them insufficient.
“There's small choice in rotten apples.”
This line from Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew is, appropriately, the opening
line in the FTA’s introduction to Evaluation of the Alternatives. xi
Each prior rail transit effort in Honolulu from the 1970s on has suffered from the
same problem; the range of alternatives studied was inadequate and deliberately so.
Disinterested experts have all commented on it.
"Finally, the most serious deficiency of analyses done to date is the failure to devise and
evaluate meaningful alternatives to HART. The so-called "alternatives analysis" is seriously
deficient and the bus alternative considered in them can only be considered as "straw men."
Dr. John Kain, Chair of Harvard’s Economics Department. 1978.xii
"In particular, what is lacking is a serious investigation of several viable dedicated busway
options." Dr. Robert Cervero, Professor of Urban and Regional Planning, UC-Berkeley.
1991. xiii
Many more examples are available from experts’ critiques of the 1990 Alternatives
Analysis both on line and at the Honolulu Municipal Library. xiv
The reversible two-lane HOT lanes should be reinstated as an alternative.
Our proposal is for a two-lane reversible, elevated HOT lane highway between the
H1/H2 merge near Waikele and Pier 16 near Hilo Hatties. This kind of HOT lanes
approach has also been termed Virtual Exclusive Busway (VEB) and Bus/Rapid
Transit. HOT lanes projects already in place elsewhere have demonstrated the
viability of such an alternative.xv
During the 2002 Governor’s Conference on Transitways, Mr. Mike Schneider,
executive vice-president of Parsons Brinckerhoff, told the conference that the
reversible tollway proposal giving buses and vanpools priority at no charge was the
way the city should have planned its now defunct bus/rapid transit (BRT) program.
Interestingly, a month prior to the conference, Parsons Brinckerhoff prepared and
released the state final environmental impact statement for the BRT declaring that:
“The light rail transit alternative was dropped because subsequent analyses revealed that
Bus/Rapid Transit using electric-powered vehicles could accomplish virtually all of the
objectives of light rail transit at substantially less cost.”xvi
On the HOT lanes, 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 I-15 HOT lanes, computers would dynamically calculate the
toll price every few minutes to keep the lanes full, but free flowing.
One of the more surprising outcomes of implementing HOT lanes has been that they
are popular with motorists across all income groups. Even those who use them
rarely, still favor them because it is an option they can use when the need warrants
it. xvii

903

A single highway lane with free-flowing non-stop traffic carries up to 2,000 vehicles
per hour and with two lanes that means removing 4,000 vehicles from the existing
freeway, or 25 percent of the current rush hour traffic using that corridor.

Our projection of the HOT lanes traffic of around 4,000 vehicles does not have to be
calculated since we know that rush-hour highways are always fully used; it is only
the toll price that that needs to be forecast.
Judging from San Diego’s I-15 and 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. xviii
HOT lanes may well offer a much faster journey for buses in comparison to trains.
The total trip from Mililani to UH is an example:
! Neither the rail line nor the HOT lanes will be going to Mililani, and so from
Mililani to the H1/H2 merge, both rail and HOT lanes alternatives will take
the same time by bus. At the H1/H2 merge, the train option would always
require a transfer whereas the buses on HOT lanes may not.
! Buses on the 10-12 miles of HOT lanes traveling at 55-60 mph (SkyBuses?)
to Pier 16 will take half as much time as trains on the heavy rail line.
! Pier 16 to UH is 4.2 miles and we anticipate that trains would take half as
much time as buses for this much shorter distance.

904

However, the time savings for the buses on HOT lanes will not be offset by the time
lost by the bus alternative on the shorter in-town leg. The net result of the time taken
for these two journeys would be that HOT lanes would still offer a faster journey
than trains and, in addition, not mar the city’s residential areas with an overhead rail
line.
The major advantages of HOT lanes are:
! Traffic can travel at uncongested freeway speeds of 60mph whereas rail
transit can only average 22.5 mph because of stops averaging every half
mile. xix
! 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 freeways will still be available and with less congestion than
before since some 4,000 cars per hour will have been removed from them.
! Express buses using the HOT lanes can return on the far less congested
regular freeway in the opposite direction and the HOT lane speed will enable
buses to make two trips in the time it now takes to make one.
Options for the HOT lanes proposal that need further study are:
! The feasibility of a three-lane section from the H1/H2 merge to the Pearl
Harbor area and then continuing on to Pier 16 as two lanes. This could
service the considerable traffic that terminates at Pearl Harbor, Honolulu
Airport, the Airport Industrial area, and the Mapunapuna industrial area. The
three-lane version could still be of pedestal construction similar to the new
Tampa, Florida, Expressway.
! The utility of extending the Ewa end of the HOT lanes further beyond the
H1/H2 merge.
Most importantly, HOT lanes meet the requirements needed to maximize public
transportation use explained by Dr. Melvin Webber, now Emeritus Professor of
Urban Planning, UC-Berkeley in Honolulu 20 years ago,
"Commuters choose among available transport modes mostly on the basis of comparative
money costs and time costs of the total commute trip, door-to-door. Other attributes, such as
comfort and privacy, are trivial as compared with expenditures of dollars and minutes.
Commuters charge up the time spent in waiting for and getting into a vehicle at several times
the rate they apply to travel inside a moving vehicle. This means that the closer a vehicle
comes to both a commuter's house and workplace, the more likely he is to use that vehicle
rather than some other. It also means that the fewer the number of transfers between vehicles,
the better" xx
As we have detailed in this letter, the level of effort in data development so far has
been insufficient to justify the elimination of the HOT lanes alternative.

905

“The system planning effort should recognize the difference between the foregoing of
precision and the sacrifice of accuracy in the technical work, so that estimates of costs and
impacts, while coarse, are at least approximate indicators of the potential merits of the
alternatives. The level of effort must be designed so that additional effort would not result in
the choice of a different preferred alternative.” PTMTPP, Part II, 2.2, p. 2. [emphasis added]
Parsons Brinckerhoff has substituted, in place of the reversible HOT lanes, a
Managed Lanes Alternative, a two-lane elevated highway with one lane in each
direction. This has been designed to fail the alternatives analysis process. As U-C
Berkeley’s Professor Robert Cervero said of the 1992 choice of rail, “it is less a
reflection on the work of [Parsons Brinckerhoff] and more an outcome of pressures
exerted by various political and special interest groups.” xxi
This Managed Lane Alternative, for which there appears to be no precedent, is a
“straw man” designed to make the rail transit line look good in comparison.
Professor Kain has written extensively about such tactics, “Nearly all, if not all,
assessments of rail transit systems have used costly and poorly designed all-bus
alternatives to make the proposed rail systems appear better than they are.” xxii
Instead, we believe that the new high-tech HOT lanes have shown such promise and
such public — though not political — acceptance that they may be a far preferable
alternative.
D. The public has not been involved to the extent required by FTA.
“The goal of this [joint FTA/FHWA] policy statement is to aggressively support proactive
public involvement at all stages of planning and project development. State departments of
transportation, metropolitan planning organizations, and transportation providers are required
to develop, with the public, effective involvement processes which are tailored to local
conditions. The performance standards for these proactive public involvement processes
include early and continuous involvement; reasonable public availability of technical and
other information; collaborative input on alternatives, evaluation criteria and mitigation
needs; open public meetings where matters related to Federal-aid highway and transit
programs are being considered; and open access to the decision-making process prior to
closure.” (emphasis added)
http://www.fta.dot.gov/grant_programs/transportation_planning/planning_environment/3854
_8227_ENG_HTML.htm
“The overall objective of an area's public involvement process is that it be proactive, provide
complete information, timely public notice, full public access to key decisions, and
opportunities for early and continuing involvement (23CFR450.212(a) and 450.316(b)(1)).”
(emphasis added) http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/pub_inv/q2.htm
Clearly, as can be seen from the foregoing, our state and local agencies have
hindered the public from getting access to information let alone granting “full public
access to key decisions.”
Further, the agencies are abetted in their endeavors by the ‘strategic
misrepresentations’ of our local and federal elected officials.
Far from “aggressively supporting proactive public involvement,” our elected
officials, who are part of the process, have acted contrary to FTA policy by
misleading the public about the prospects for rail transit in that:

906

! They continually allude to the idea that building rail transit will result in
traffic congestion relief when even Parsons Brinckerhoff xxiii says it will not
affect traffic congestion in addition to there being no evidence from any other
metro area that such is the case.xxiv
! They relentlessly use the term ‘light’ rail when, in reality, they are pushing a
‘heavy’ rail line. xxv
! They imply that the half-percent increase in the county General Excise Tax
will be sufficient to pay for rail. xxvi
The public frustration with the lack of information was evident from the coverage of
the scoping meetings by our newspapers. As the head of the Outdoor Circle’s
environmental committee said, “It seems to have been designed in a way to limit
public interaction” xxvii
The net result of Parsons Brinckerhoff and DTS’s outreach efforts is that the public
believes that a rail transit line will significantly reduce traffic congestion and that it
will only cost a half per cent increase in the GE tax. Neither the City nor DTS have
made any effort to dispel these myths.
Summary:
The culmination of the current process will be a request by DTS to advance into
alternatives analysis. FTA then “reviews this request and supporting technical
documentation to determine whether system planning requirements have been met
and that the threshold criteria for initiating alternatives analysis have been satisfied.”
(PTMTTP, Part I, page 2-12.)
Clearly, on the four counts enumerated here, the process is grossly flawed:
! Little, if any, quantitative information has been developed, let alone given to
the public.
! The transportation problem is inadequately defined and there has been no
evaluation of how the alternatives address specific transportation problems.
! The alternatives are insufficient and Parsons Brinckerhoff’s decision prior to
the Scoping Meeting to eliminate the reversible HOT lanes alternative was
completely unjustified. They made this decision without any disclosure of the
impacts of HOT lanes on traffic congestion, patronage, cost, or any other
quantitative details that would allow the public to understand the decision.
Nor did Parsons Brinckerhoff explain the selection criteria used in
eliminating HOT lanes — let alone the weighting of the criteria in the scoring
process.
! The process so far makes a mockery of “public involvement” as spelled out
in FTA guidance and as defined in the preamble to Hawaii’s Uniform
Information Practices Act:
[§92F-2] Purposes; rules of construction. In a democracy, the people are vested with the
ultimate decision-making power. Government agencies exist to aid the people in the
formation and conduct of public policy. Opening up the government processes to public

907

scrutiny and participation is the only viable and reasonable method of protecting the public's
interest. Therefore the legislature declares that it is the policy of this State that the formation
and conduct of public policy—the discussions, deliberations, decisions, and action of
government agencies—shall be conducted as openly as possible.
Accordingly, we believe that Parsons Brinckerhoff, OMPO, and DTS should revisit
the process leading up to the Scoping Meeting and redevelop the alternatives
according to FTA rules and guidance. Only then can our community have a Scoping
Meeting in which the public will be involved according to both the letter and spirit of
the law.
Sincerely,
HONOLULUTRAFFIC.COM

Cliff Slater
Chair
cc: Ms. Donna Turchie, Region IX, Federal Transit Administration
Mr. Toru Hamayasu, Chief Planner, Honolulu DTS

Endnotes:
i
Scoping Meeting, page 4.3.
ii “1.2.1 Systems Planning. Systems planning refers to the continuing, comprehensive, and
coordinated transportation planning process carried out by metropolitan planning organizations
- in cooperation with state Departments of Transportation, local transit operators, and affected
local governments - in urbanized areas throughout the country. This planning process results in
the development of long range multimodal transportation plans and short term improvement
programs, as well as a number of other transportation and air quality analyses.” Procedures
and Technical Methods for Transit Project Planning (PTMTPP), Part I, 1.”
iii Scoping Information package. December 5, 2005. page 3-1.
iv According to Braden Smith, CFO of Tampa-Hillsborough Expressway Authority (813) 272-
6740 the Tampa cost should have been $28 million a mile for the three-lane elevated highway
and not the $46 million a mile it is costing. An expensive error made by wrong assumptions
about the soil substrate by the designer caused the cost overrun.
v Letter from the Office of Information Practices to Slater and Lum.
vi http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ctpp/jtw/contents.htm
vii
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2005/Aug/22/ln/FP508220329.html
http://www.co.honolulu.hi.us/nco/nb18/05/18marmin.htm
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2003/Oct/28/ln/ln03a.html
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2005/Mar/22/ln/ln20p.html
http://starbulletin.com/2003/10/28/news/story2.html

908

viii
http://www.honolulutransit.org/pdfs/scoping_info.pdf
ix
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ctpp/jtw/contents.htm
x Honolulu Advertiser article, December 14, 2005.
xi
PTMTPP, Part II, Sec. 9.
xii Seminar on Urban Mass Transit (transcript). Office of the Legislative Auditor, State of
Hawaii. January 1978. Dr. John Kain, Chairman, Dept. of City and Regional Planning,
Harvard University.
xiii Quoted from “An Evaluation of the Honolulu Rapid Transit Development Project's Alternative
Analysis and Draft Environmental Impact Statement.” Hawaii Office of State Planning and
University of Hawaii. May 1990. Robert Cervero, Professor of Urban and Regional Planning at
the University of California, Berkeley, and a member of the Editorial Board, Journal of the
American Planning Association.
xiv An Evaluation of the Honolulu Rapid Transit Development Project's Alternative Analysis and
Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Hawaii Office of State Planning and University of
Hawaii.May 1990.
xv http://www.hhh.umn.edu/centers/slp/projects/conpric/index.htm
xvi State FEIS for the Bus/Rapid Transit Program, November 2002. Prepared by Parsons
Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas. p. 2-4.
xvii http://www.honolulutraffic.com/lexuslane.htm
xviii Orange County’s SR-91 lanes are not dynamically priced as are those of the San Diego I-15.
However, the SR-91 administrators try to emulate dynamic pricing with fixed prices which
allows us to examine what Hawaii prices might look like by time of day.
http://www.91expresslanes.com/tollschedules.asp
xix
http://www.honolulutraffic.com/railspeed.pdf
xx Dr. Melvin Webber, UC Berkeley. Address to the Governor's Conference on Videotex,
Transportation and Energy Conservation. Hawaii State Dept. of Planning and Economic
Development. July 1984.
xxi “An Evaluation of the Honolulu Rapid Transit Development Project's Alternative Analysis and
Draft Environmental Impact Statement.” Hawaii Office of State Planning and University of
Hawaii. May 1990.
xxii Kain, John F. “The Use of Straw Men in the Economic Evaluation of Rail Transport Projects.”
American Economic Review, Vol. 82, No. 2, Papers and Proceedings of the Hundred and
Fourth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association (May, 1992) , pp. 487-493.
xxiii
http://starbulletin.com/2005/12/14/news/story02.html
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2005/Dec/14/ln/FP512140342.html
xxiv This video of, Mayor Hanneman and Rep. Neil Abercrombie’s city hall “Traffic sucks!” rally
held on December 5th, 2005, typifies the grossly misleading statements emanating from our
elected officials.
http://mfile.akamai.com/12891/wmv/vod.ibsys.com/2005/0707/4695365.200k.asx
“Judging by how much traffic has worsened in just in the past few years, that's probably a
conservative prediction. The only way to prevent it is to act now to address the problem. Our

909

quality of life is at stake. Rail transit is a key element in the solution.” Congressman Neil
Abercrombie. Honolulu Advertiser. April 17, 2005
“Hannemann said the yet-to-be-determined form of transit would run from Kapolei to
downtown and the University of Hawai'i-Manoa. He said the system will help all parts of the
island, easing traffic overall because ‘there'll be less cars on the road.’”
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2005/May/12/ln/ln02p.html
Mayor’s Press Secretary: “Slater misrepresents just about everything Mayor Mufi Hannemann,
Transportation Services Director Ed Hirata and other supporters of transit have said, from the
timing of federal requirements to tax calculations, highway capacity and a rail system's
potential to ease traffic congestion.”
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2005/Aug/10/op/508100321.html
Transcript of Councilmember Barbara Marshall questioning U.S. Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-
Hawaii) http://hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?696a58e3-9a81-411e-b977-2688f5595685
“Mayor Mufi Hannemann chided Lingle at the rally and said the city needs a rail system to
alleviate increasing traffic congestion. U.S. Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, also blasted a
possible veto and said that he and the rest of Hawaii have had enough of the traffic problems.
He said commuters are fed up and don't need anymore "Lingle lanes" filled with traffic
congestion.” http://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2005/07/04/daily18.html?t=printable
xxv DTS and elected officials continually refer to “light rail” despite constant criticism from us and
others.
xxvi Half per cent will pay for about one-third of the projected rail line according to our
calculations. Mayor Hanneman originally asked for a full one percent at a time when he was
seeking a shorter $2.7 billion line from Kapolei to Iwilei. Now he plans extending it to UH and
Waikiki and the tax increase has been reduced to a half of one percent.
xxvii http://starbulletin.com/2005/12/14/news/story02.html
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2005/Dec/14/ln/FP512140342.html

910

TRANSIT ADVISORY TASK FORCE
do Honolulu City Council
530 S. King Street, Room 202
Honolulu, HI 96819
Phone: (808)523-4139

Report of the Transit Task Force Technical Review Subcommittee

Construction Cost

The purpose of this report is to:

1. Determine if the estimated costs for the construction of the Managed Lane and
Fixed Guideway Alternatives in the Alternatives Analysis Report for the Honolulu
High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project are reasonable for the purposes of the
report, and
2. Compare the estimated cost of the Managed Lane Alternative with the cost for
the construction of the high-occupancy toll lanes on the Tampa-Hillsborough
County Expressway.

In addition to the Alternatives Analysis Report, information was obtained from:
1. Toru Hamayasu, Department of Transportation Services
2. Clyde Shimizu, Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade and Douglas
3. Martin Stone, Tampa-Hillsborough County Expressway Authority
4. Paul Santo, Highways Division, Hawaii State DOT

Capital costs in the Alternatives Analysis Report for the construction of the Managed
Lane Alternative are estimated at $2.6 billion; capital costs of $3.6 billion are projected
for the 20-mile Alignment of the Fixed Guideway Alternative. The actual construction
cost reported for the Tampa high-occupancy toll lanes was $300 million for construction
(including both at-grade and elevated sections), plus $120 million to correct an
engineering error in the construction of foundations for some of the support piers.

Both the Managed Lane and the Fixed Guideway Alternatives estimates use the same
unit cost prices and cost calculation categories. These standardized cost categories are
prescribed by the Federal Transit Administration to facilitate review of project cost
information from all projects seeking Federal funding. The unit cost data (cost per cubic
yard of concrete, cost per ton of reinforcing steel, etc.) were obtained from the most
recent large-scale construction projects on Oahu, such as the construction of the
Waimalu section of the H-i highway viaduct widening, completed last year. DTS’
consultants, Parsons Brinckerhoff, also made use of the U.S. Navycs unit cost
construction cost data for Hawaii. Labor and other costs from the H-i Waimalu Viaduct
project were also used as inputs for Alternatives cost estimates. The cost per square
foot of the Waimalu Viaduct, about $500 per square foot, was considered but not relied
on because this work involved widening an existing elevated highway structure, which is
known to be more expensive than new construction. The Alternatives Analysis data

911
A-19

December 11,2006
Page 2 of 4

yield an estimated cost to construct elevated highway structures on Oahu at $330 per
square foot, and $390 per square foot in urban areas.

Construction costs for the elevated guideway needed for the Managed Lane Alternative
were calculated on the same basis as the construction costs for the guideway structure
for the Fixed Guideway Alternative. Both Alternatives are designed to meet AASHTO
design standards for elevated highway structures, as was the Tampa tollway. -As
previously stated, costs for both Alternatives were calculated using the same per-unit
cost elements (for concrete, steel, labor, etc.). Because the elevated structure for the
Managed Lane Alternative would be 36 feet wide for its two travel lanes, whereas the
structure for the fixed guideway would be only 26 feet wide, different diameter piers are
necessary for each (8 feet versus 6 feet in diameter). However, where the managed
lanes require only a single lane (e.g., an access/exit ramp), a 6 foot diameter support
pier would be used, similar to and costing the same as the piers used for the fixed
guideway. The span length between piers is 120 feet for both alternatives’ structures.
Portions of the structure for the fixed guideway will be significantly taller, 90 feet tall in
some places, than the Managed Lane structure.

Capital cost for the Fixed Guideway Alternative would be approximately the same as the
guideway cost for the Managed Lane if the following fixed-guideway-specific
adjustments were made: (1) Subtract vehicle costs, system infrastructure cost, cost for
downtown utilities relocation (the proposed Managed Lane Alternative does not reach
downtown, where most utilities relocation costs are incurred); (2) Adjust for construction
cost differences (e.g., structure width, different diameter piers); (3) Adjust for the Fixed
Guideway Alternative’s longer length and increased height.

Alternative lengths of the fixed guideway that could be built to fit budget limitations were
addressed with the Department of Transportations Services and its consultant. For
instance, $3 billion would build a system from UH at Manoa to Kaahumanu Street on
Kamehameha Highway; $3.2 billion dollars would reach Acacia Road at Kamehameha
Highway. If the Salt Lake Boulevard alignment were used, $3.2 billion would reach
Leeward Community College but would not reach the Navy Drum Storage Area, which
is planned for the fixed guideway storage and maintenance yard. An Ala Moana Center
to UH link is estimated to cost $540 million and Ala Moana Center to Waikiki link is $490
million. The Department of Transportation Services has not made a detailed analysis of
any Minimal Operating Segment (MOS) other than the 20-mile alignment discussed in
the Alternatives Analysis.

According to DTS, the Navy Drum Storage site is the site closest to downtown that is
feasible for the maintenance/vehicle storage yard, a necessity for a fixed guideway
system. DTS reportedly looked at other possible sites, including the former Costco site,
and rejected them because they were not large enough, or otherwise unacceptable.
The lack of a suitable yard site closer to downtown requires the fixed guideway to

912
A-20

December ii, 2006
Page 3 of4

extend at least to the Navy Drum Storage site in the Ewa direction, thereby limiting the
length of the 20 mile alternative guideway in the Koko Head direction.

The committee suggests that DTS reconsider the use of the Costco site as a
maintenance/storage facility, at least on a temporary basis. This would avoid having the
guideway end points dictated by the storage yard consideration. If the Costco site is not
large enough by itself, perhaps the Federal Department of Defense would consider
making available DOD-owned land adjacent to the Costco site, either on a temporary or
permanent basis. Alternatively, would a smaller yard be adequate for the first years of
fixed guideway operations, perhaps making use of unused running track for vehicle
storage and limited vehicle maintenance? We understand that the Miami heavy rail
system operated without a storage/maintenance facility for the first year or so after that
system opened, and instead made use of available track for off-peak vehicle storage
and maintenance.

Testimony before the Task Force has included repeated comparison of the actual cost
to construct a three lane partially elevated toll highway in Tampa, Florida versus
projected construction costs for necessary for the Managed Lane and Fixed Guideway
Alternatives. The following comparison of the costs for the Managed Lane Alternative
and the Tampa high-occupancy toll lanes is based on information obtained from the
Department of Transportation Services, the Tampa-Hillsborough County Expressway
Authority, and the Bridge Section of the Hawaii State Highways Division. The Managed
Lane Alternative is 15.8 miles long with two lanes, built entirely on elevated structures.
The Tampa high-occupancy toll (HOT) facility is 9.4 miles long, of which 4 miles is at
grade, and approximately 5.4 miles is built on elevated structures. The Tampa HOT
has three 12-foot lanes with two 10-foot shoulders, and is approximately 59 feet wide
and was completed in 2004. The Managed Lane Alternative (assuming reversible lanes
— both lanes operating Koko Head direction in the morning rush hour, and both lanes
operating Ewa in the evening) is 36 feet wide (two 12-foot lanes, one 10-foot shoulder
and one 2-foot shoulder).

Dr. Stone recommended that the proposed Managed Lane Alternative should be
widened to three lanes based on the experience of the Tampa Expressway Authority.
Further, the lanes should be reversible to gain the advantage of all three lanes in the
heavily traveled direction during morning and evening peak hours. He further stated
that there were insufficient access/exit ramps in the Honolulu proposal and expressed
the opinion that the additional lanes and access/exit ramps would not add substantially
to the cost of the project. In his view, he felt the cost estimate in the Alternatives
Analysis was far too high.

Paul Santo stated that there is a substantial difference in cost for bridge construction
between Hawaii and the mainland US. The State DOT Bridge Section presently uses
$400 to $500 per square foot for planning purposes and expects the price will continue
to rise and approach $1000 per square foot. By comparison, he said that most highway

913
A-21

December 11,2006
Page 4 of4

agencies on the mainland use $100 to $200 per square foot with some even below
$100. He believes the high cost in Hawaii is due to its location and the lack of
competition. For instance, there is only one precast concrete plant in Hawaii to produce
bridge girders. He understands some general contractors in Hawaii look to shipping
girders from the mainland as was done by the contractor for the Ford Island causeway
in Pearl Harbor. He further believes the cost for construction of the structures is
impacted by the additional cost of utility relocation where the alignment of the facility
follows existing rights-of-way, such as the Farrington Highway and Kamehameha
Highway corridor for both the Managed Lane and Fixed Guideway Alternatives. In
addition, construction costs are higher where work is accomplished within existing
highways with high traffic volumes whereas the Tampa HOT lanes were built within an
existing median, which appears to be nearly 30 feet wide.
Guideway construction cost estimates developed for the Alternatives Analysis are also
high compared to Tampa high-occupancy toIl lanes costs because the Alternative
Analysis’ projected costs include a 30% escalation for “soft costs” (engineering costs)
and a 25% escalation on all costs for contingencies. The Tampa HOT cost ($300
million) represents actual construction costs only (including 16% for actual engineering
costs), and was for a project that started in 2003. Clyde Shimizu pointed out that the
per square foot costs of H-3 viaducts in 1990 ($180) exceeded the Tampa tollway costs
incurred only a few years ago.

Since the Tampa tollway was built in the median of the existing expressway, there were
no rights-of-way costs incurred. Where the Fixed Guideway or Managed Lane are built
within existing State or City rights-of-way, land will be made available for the structures
at no cost to the project.

The Tampa high-occupancy toll lanes do not cover capital and operating costs through
HOT lanes tolls. Rather, the combined revenues from the expressway and the HOT
tollway are used to meet operating and capital costs. Tollway fees are expected to rise
from $1 to $1.50 next year. Bonds issued to finance construction of the original
expressway, which opened for revenue service in 1975, have now been largely paid off
or the debt refinanced, freeing up toll revenue from both the original expressway and
the HOT lanes to subsidize the HOT lanes’ construction costs.

In conclusion, the cost estimates for the Managed Lane and Fixed Guideways
Alternatives in the Alternatives Analysis Report are reasonable. Further, a valid
comparison of the costs for the Tampa tollway and the proposed Managed Lane cannot
be made without substantial adjustments for differences in construction unit costs.

914
A-22

From: Martin Stone, Ph.D., AICP
Director of Planning
Tampa-Hillsborough County Expressway Authority

To: The Honolulu Advertiser and other interested citizens of Honolulu

Recent comments in the Honolulu Advertiser by the chief planner of Honolulu call into question
the objectivity of the City and its consultants in their performance of a very expensive
transportation alternatives evaluation being mostly paid for by the federal government.

As the public official responsible for planning Tampa’s elevated Reversible Express Lanes
project, I am astonished that a Hawaiian public official would intentionally misrepresent the
facts associated with the cost and operation of our project – and how a similar HOT lane project
might provide true congestion relief for Honolulu at an affordable price.

Two weeks ago, three Honolulu City Council members visited Tampa to see our project and learn
the truth. Not only did they view the project close up but they also had the opportunity to meet the
people who conceived, financed, designed, and constructed the project. Chairman Donovan Del
Cruz and Councilmen Todd Apo and Charles Djou all had a chance to see first-hand the realities
of our project.

First, it is completely false to suggest that our project costs “skyrocketed” to $420 million from
the original $300 million estimate. The truth is that a design error by an engineer resulted in 155
bridge foundations being constructed smaller then they should have been. It cost $120 million
extra to properly reinforce those foundations. Had the licensed engineer designed the foundations
correctly, the additional concrete and steel required during the initial construction would have
cost only a few million more than the original contract price. But, to ensure that we are open and
honest about our project, we always include the additional $120 million and the reasons for it
when we show people our price tag. And, the original cost of the elevated portion of our project
(5.5 miles long) was less than $120 million of the total project. So, even with the foundation
reinforcements, the entire elevated part of our express lanes only cost about $240 million – that’s
less than $14 million per lane mile for 27.5 lane miles of elevated concrete segmental bridge
portion of the express lanes.

Your city’s non-accredited chief planner knows this. But it seems he does not want you to know.

It is also totally false that our elevated express lanes are only handling 4,000 trips a day. The
project is actually handling three times that much even though we are not in full operation
because we are still finishing the final construction punch-list. And, we made sure to build plenty
of additional capacity to accommodate future growth (it would have been irresponsible for us not
to have planned for the future too).

Your city’s non-accredited chief planner knows this too. He just does not want you to know.

And, to say that our project is not meeting its financial obligations and we are being “heavily
subsidized by revenues from other toll roads” is simply a lie. The Tampa Hillsborough County
Expressway Authority owns only one road – and our elevated Reversible Express Lanes are part
of that road. Our agency is completely self-funded. We operate with no tax dollars. All of our
funding comes from revenue bonds and loans that are paid back by the tolls we collect from our
customers. And, no other toll road subsidizes us. Last year (our 30th year of operation), the Lee
Roy Selmon Crosstown Expressway handled more than 34 million trips with annual revenues of

915

approximately $32 million. Within the past six years, the Authority refinanced all of the
expressway debt with two new series of revenue bonds to pay for the construction of the
Reversible Express Lanes project. Wall Street bond underwriters and sellers will not handle a
$400 million bond issue for an organization that cannot pay its debt. Anyone taking the time to
read the annual traffic and revenue reports published by the Expressway Authority auditors and
by the Florida Department of Transportation would know this. Under Florida’s Sunshine Law, all
of this financial information is available to anyone.

Apparently your non-accredited chief planner either didn’t do his homework or he is again
attempting to mislead you.

Actually, it’s worse that that. The intentional distortion of the financial condition of our toll road
is indicative of someone who desperately wants to manipulate public opinion in favor of a
preordained outcome. This type of dishonesty is not permitted by the canon of ethics of the
American Institute of Certified Planners, but then again, since your chief planner is not a
registered AICP member, he is not required to meet any professional planning standards of
objectivity in the public interest. However, he is a member of the American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE) and they have a well-defined Code of Ethics for their member’s activities.
ASCE Fundamental Principle #2 calls for engineers to uphold the integrity, honor and dignity of
the profession by “being honest and impartial and serving with fidelity the public…” and Canon
#3 says, “Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner … and
shall not participate in the dissemination of untrue, unfair or exaggerated statements regarding
engineering.”

The statements presented regarding our organization and our projects are all virtually untrue or
exaggerated.

The biggest dishonesty of all, however, is the claim by your chief planner and his hired guns that
our elevated project was used as the model for the HOT lane alternative they are using as a
comparison to the fixed rail system. It is completely dishonest to say the elevated HOT lane in
your transit alternatives analysis is similar to our elevated reversible lanes. And, it is this
dishonesty that results in your HOT lanes costing $2.6 billion instead of the less than $1 billion
that a true copy of our project would cost.

Remember, anyone wanting to control the outcome of the alternatives analysis to favor the train
would most certainly want to find a way to boost the cost of the elevated road concept.

Other than both being built on a bridge, there is virtually nothing the same in the design of the
two projects. Our bridge has three travel lanes. The Honolulu is only two lanes wide. Because of
its unique use of slip ramps for access, our project does not require any interchanges. Your HOT
lane alternative has a number of unnecessary and expensive interchanges. Your project also
includes a number of unnecessary and very expensive bus stations to be built on the elevated
HOT lane structure. Why would you need them? Buses pick you up in your community and use
the roadway for the trip. If the project were designed properly, buses would simply use the on &
off ramps to access local bus stops for passenger pickup and drop-off. These unnecessary bus
stations really boost the cost of the HOT lane alternative. And, the HOT lane alternative also
includes costly park & ride lots – another unnecessary component for this type of facility. All of
these unnecessary elements add over a billion dollars of cost to the HOT lanes and therefore make
the project look much less attractive.

916

And, the cost estimate to reproduce our elevated reversible lanes project in Honolulu was not
done on the back of an envelope. Our most recent project estimate (September, 2006) to
determine the insurance replacement cost for our bridge was computed by our Authority’s Chief
Financial Officer, a man with a total of 30 years experience financing transportation - 22 of which
were as the financial advisor to Florida’s Governor and CFO for the Florida Department of
Transportation Central Office. His estimate to build our 5.5 miles of bridge with today’s material
and labor costs is $175 million. Extending that to 14 miles in length for the Honolulu HOT lanes
alternative would bring the cost to $450 million. You can add any percentage you wish to
compensate for higher construction costs in Hawaii, but it is easy to see why this project should
not cost you more than $1 billion.

Your city’s chief planner knows this too. He has seen the cost estimates. He just doesn’t want you
to know.

Something else he doesn’t want you to know. All of the cars that would use the HOT lanes to get
to downtown are not new additional trips into the City. They represent a redistribution of the
same trips you would have based on your population and employment. The HOT lanes won’t
produce new trips. They simply would divert trips away from your existing congested highways
thus making the entire system work more efficiently. Growth in population, employment and
commercial development creates more trips. The HOT lane trips also don’t create more parking
problems in downtown Honolulu because they are the same cars that would be parking no matter
which roadway they use to get to the City. And, yes, anyone designing a new HOT lane will have
to solve how traffic can best move in and out of the City. This would not be accomplished by
dumping the traffic into only one location, but likely would involve multiple entrances and
solutions that could address other traffic problems as already suggested by the University of
Hawaii Civil Engineering department. New gateway entrances into Honolulu would also provide
opportunities for new private investment within your downtown.

Prior to opening our express lanes, the average 10-mile trip in the morning peak-hour took over
thirty minutes. Since we opened for interim operations, we have achieved a 50% split in the peak-
hours between our new Reversible Express Lanes and our existing expressway lanes. This has
resulted in a complete balancing of our traffic between our upper and lower lanes with no
congestion for any of our customers and an average trip time of 10 minutes for the 10 miles for
everyone. The express lanes are already handling enough traffic volume in our morning peak
hours to equal having an extra lane constructed on our Interstate into downtown Tampa (about
2,000 per lane per hour).

In addition, the elevated reversible expressway has been so successful that it is attracting 2,000
additional daily trips away from other non-tolled parallel roads. City of Tampa traffic managers
report that all three parallel non-tolled roads are operating better in the peak hour because of
diversions to our new express lanes. We couldn’t be more pleased with the project -- it is doing
exactly what we thought it would -- providing a safe, reliable, convenient, stress-free trip for
people driving into and out of our city every day during what used to be terrible traffic congestion
within our corridor. And, our local transit agency is reporting a 20% increase in ridership on the
express bus routes on our facility within less than three months.

Oh, by the way, the toll is presently $1.00 for the entire trip on the express lanes. However, we
will be raising tolls next year to $1.50. Now about the toll increase. Our agency normally raises
its tolls about once every 8-10 years to keep up with the rising costs associated with inflation.
Our last increase raised our tolls from $.75 to $1.00 for electronic toll customers in 1999. Our

917

finance plan, established many years ago for our agency, identified next year’s toll rate to go to
$1.50 for electronic customers as a part of our standard toll rate policy.

Are we using the money to pay the debt service for this project as well as our operating cost? Of
course we are. That’s how toll roads work. We build the road today for our needs today and
tomorrow with money that we borrow and then pay back over time, just like the mortgage on
your house. We get an asset with a useful life of 75-100 years - and we get to use that asset
immediately to address our problems today and in the future - and we pay for it as we use it. And,
when we reach positive cash flow on a project, we typically use that money to finance even more
transportation projects. That is a financial approach long ago adopted by the State of Florida. In
fact, every new highway built in our State during the past 15 years has been built by a toll agency,
because, just like Hawaii, virtually all of our fuel taxes are dedicated to maintaining or improving
the existing road system.

We have thousands of people who vote with their pocketbooks every day to use our road. But, if
people don't want to pay for using our tollway, they don't have to. The key is they get to choose,
unlike projects that many people do not want – projects that benefit only a few but are paid for by
all through some general tax scheme. Toll roads are not forced on anyone. They serve those
willing to pay. But, the entire community benefits, including those who do not use the road,
because we improve traffic congestion by diverting traffic away from non-tolled highways and
streets.

If you were to build HOT lanes in Honolulu, your public and private transit providers and high
occupancy users would have a facility that will allow them to guarantee their arrival schedules.
Transit riders would receive reliable, efficient service and automobile drivers would be able to
take advantage of that capacity for a very reasonable price at their discretion. Those who decide
not to pay to use the HOT lanes would also benefit from the reduced congestion in the non-tolled
lanes. The elimination from non-tolled highways of traffic comprised of buses, taxis, vanpools
and carpools along with those auto drivers who decide to pay, will make things better for
everyone.

We think that's pretty terrific. Our customers think so too. And, if anyone on the City staff tells
you a different story, they are either sadly misinformed or they are intentionally falsifying the
facts to achieve a specific end.

918

Appendix A-3: Business NEPA Scoping Comments


Final EIS Appendix part 2

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Final EIS Appendix part 2 (20)

More from Honolulu Civil Beat (20)

Final EIS Appendix part 2