• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Final EIS Part 5
 

Final EIS Part 5

on

  • 3,546 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
3,546
Views on SlideShare
3,537
Embed Views
9

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0

1 Embed 9

http://static.slidesharecdn.com 9

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Final EIS Part 5 Final EIS Part 5 Document Transcript

    • e visual character and quality of both Sec- were few di erences between the Airport Alterna- tion 4(f) resources is de ned by their location tive and the Salt Lake Alternative alignments along the shoreline with unobstructed harbor in terms of uses of Section 4(f) properties (a er views. Given that, the location of the Project mitigation measures were identi ed and incorpo- elements are mauka of the future park and bike rated into the preliminary design). Section 4(f) use path, they would not change makai views nor cause would be identical, except where the two align- adverse visual impacts or diminish the Section 4(f) ments diverge in the center of the corridor between resources’ features or attributes. Use of and access Aloha Stadium and Kalihi. In this segment of to the future park and bike path will be maintained the corridor, it was determined that the Airport during construction of the maintenance and stor- Alternative will result in the least overall harm in age facility. erefore, temporary impacts during light of the statute’s preservation purpose. It will construction will be minimal, no permanent result in a de minimis impact at two recreational adverse physical impact will occur, and there will properties—Ke‘ehi Lagoon Beach Park and Aloha be no use under Section 4(f). Stadium. e Paci c War Memorial Site is a multi- use property that is being considered as a park with de minimis impact, and there will be no other 5.8 Least Overall Harm uses of Section 4(f) historic, park, or recreational e FTA may approve only the feasible and properties. e Salt Lake Alternative would require prudent alternative that causes the least overall substantially more land at Aloha Stadium, result- harm in light of the statute’s preservation purpose. ing in a direct use (not de minimis impact) and Two feasible and prudent alternatives (Airport either direct or de minimis impact use at Radford Alternative alignment and Salt Lake Alternative High School. alignment) that were evaluated in the Dra EIS are assessed in this section to determine which one e constructive use evaluation for the Airport results in least overall harm. e least overall harm Alternative, described in Section 5.6, determined is determined by balancing the following factors: that none of the other Section 4(f) properties in Ability to mitigate adverse impacts to each this segment will experience impairment severe Section 4(f) property enough to constitute constructive use from the Relative severity of harm, a er reasonable Project. mitigation to the Section 4(f) qualities Relative signi cance of each Section 4(f) Aloha Stadium property e Salt Lake Alternative would more severely Views of o cials with jurisdiction of each a ect Aloha Stadium. is alternative would Section 4(f) property use approximately 4.8 acres within two of the Degree that Purpose and Need is met stadium’s parking lots as well as adjacent land Magnitude of adverse impacts, a er reason- for the elevated guideway’s easement, the station able mitigation, to non-Section 4(f) properties plaza, and the connective concourse. Even with Substantial di erences in costs mitigation measures in place to reduce the size of the easement and station areas, this design would 5.8.1 Least Overall Harm Evaluation of the result in more than twice the amount of property Airport and Salt Lake Alternative taken than will result with the de minimis impact Alignments of the Airport Alternative. Under the Airport rough analysis presented in the Dra EIS and Alternative, approximately 2 acres will be required Section 4(f) evaluation, it was found that there for the station and guideway on the ‘Ewa edge of 5-70 CHAPTER 5 – Section 4(f) Evaluation
    • the parking areas, as well as a strip of land along Historic Properties on the Salt Lake Alternative Kamehameha Highway. is will use less of the e Salt Lake Alternative would also require minor stadium’s parking facilities. In accordance with property acquisition (0.01 acre) along the edge of 23 CFR 774.3(c)(1), the Salt Lake Alternative would the NRHP-eligible Radford High School property not be considered to have least overall harm. (from an existing parking lot) to accommodate widening of Salt Lake Boulevard for the guideway e views of o cials with jurisdiction over the median. e school complex consists of several Section 4(f) property were also considered. In a one- and two-story masonry buildings constructed letter dated September 8, 2008, DAGS, the agency between 1957 and 1968, some of which are oriented with jurisdiction over Aloha Stadium, considered toward Salt Lake Boulevard and others that face both alignments and indicated a preference for the inward toward the campus. e alignment would Airport Alternative, noting that “the impact on the be located approximately 25 feet mauka of the stadium would be further mitigated if the system property boundary and would be approximately ran past the airport…” 20 to 25 feet high. Ke`ehi Lagoon Beach Park e Salt Lake Alternative in this segment would While the Airport Alternative will require the use likely have an adverse e ect under Section 106 of a small area of Ke‘ehi Lagoon Beach Park, the based on impacts to the setting and feeling of the value of the park will be enhanced through mitiga- potential Salt Lake Duplexes Historic District on tion proposed by the City and approved by DPR, the mauka side of the roadway. e wood-frame the agency with jurisdiction over the property. houses were built in the 1950s as military resi- dences, and many feature hipped roofs. e district e Project will pass above approximately 1 acre is eligible for NRHP listing under Criterion A (for of park land. As described in Section 5.5.1, its role in the early development of Title IX housing DTS has designed the Project to minimize use and subsequent real estate development on O‘ahu) and with mitigation there will be a de minimis and Criterion C (as the largest concentration of impact on this park. A er mitigation, the Project duplexes in Honolulu). Since the alignment would will not harm the attributes and features that be approximately 75 feet makai of the district and qualify the park for protection under Section 4(f) be elevated 35 to 50 feet, visibility of the low-scale 23 CFR 774.3. buildings would be maintained at ground level under the guideway structure. e guideway would Paci c War Memorial Site be higher than most of the nearby trees and about e Airport Alternative will require the use of a as tall as the utility poles lining the street. is small area of this multi-use property, considered would not be considered a constructive use of this a park in this Section 4(f) evaluation. e Project property as the features that qualify for protection will pass above approximately 0.5 acre of parkland. under Section 4(f) would not be substantially As described in Section 5.5.1, the City has designed impaired. the Project to minimize use, and with mitigation there will be a de minimis impact on this property. e other historic properties along this segment With mitigation, the Project will not harm the of the Salt Lake Alternative were found to have no attributes and features that qualify the park for adverse e ect as a result of this alignment (‘Aiea protection under Section 4(f) 23 CFR 774.3. Cemetery, Āliamanu Pumping Station–Facility X-24/Quonset Hut Navy Public Works Center, and June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement 5-71
    • First Hawaiian Bank). As a result, they were not Street. e visual integrity of the NHL will not be evaluated for Section 4(f) use. adversely a ected, and the project elements will barely be visible in mauka views from the harbor 5.8.2 Differences in Environmental Impacts (Figure 4-42 in Chapter 4 of this Final EIS). e between Airport and Salt Lake Kamehameha Highway Bridge over Hālawa Stream Alternatives is historic, and its appearance will be changed by According to 23 CFR 774.3, the alternative having the guideway and support columns. e contrast in the least overall harm includes balancing the scale and character of the guideway and columns magnitude of any adverse impacts to properties will be a noticeable change, and visual e ects are not protected by Section 4(f). e Dra EIS had expected to range from moderate to signi cant previously determined that adverse impacts to (noted as a “high” level of visual impact in the other sensitive non-Section 4(f) properties would Dra EIS). In the area of Ke‘ehi Lagoon Beach be slightly greater with the Salt Lake Alternative Park, the alignment will run along the periphery than with the Airport Alternative with respect to of the park and closely follow the elevated Nimitz hazardous materials and noise. Highway and the H-1 Freeway. Views of Honolulu Harbor and the park are already obstructed by e Airport Alternative, as documented in this these elevated highways and will not be substan- Final EIS, will have slightly more displacements tially a ected. e Airport Alternative will not and acquisitions than the Airport Alternative block any protected views or vistas, although discussed in the Dra EIS. Some of these are the the Project will be visible in distant views of result of the re ned alignment near the airport Pearl Harbor, the Wai‘anae Mountain Range, as described above. Overall, for the entire Project and Downtown. e overall visual e ects for the there are two additional business displacements. Airport Alternative are expected to be of a lower ere will be slightly less air pollution, energy magnitude than with the Salt Lake Alternative. consumption, and water pollution because it will have the greatest reduction in vehicle miles trav- 5.8.3 Purpose and Need eled than the Salt Lake Alternative. e Dra EIS documented that of the three Build Alternatives evaluated, the Airport Alternative e Salt Lake Alternative would block protected will carry the most passengers, with 95,000 daily views and vistas along Bougainville Drive, Maluna passengers and 249,200 daily transit trips in 2030, Street, Wanaka Street, and Ala Liliko‘i Street where and provide the greatest transit-user bene ts they intersect with Salt Lake Boulevard. From the (Table 2-6 in Chapter 2 of this Final EIS). While Ala Liliko‘i Station to Pu‘uloa Road, the guideway these numbers have increased since the Dra EIS would also block views from fourth- and h- oor was published, the relative di erences among the windows of businesses and multi-story apartments alternatives would remain similar. e Airport and condominiums mauka of Salt Lake Boulevard. Alternative also will result in the fewest vehicle e locations of the protected views and vistas in miles traveled and vehicle hours of delay. It will the Salt Lake neighborhood area are shown on provide access to employment centers at Pearl Figure 4-18 (in Chapter 4 of this Final EIS). Harbor Naval Base and Honolulu International Airport and will have substantially greater rider- With the Airport Alternative, views of East Loch ship to those areas than the Salt Lake Alternative. and the Pearl Harbor NHL makai of the alignment erefore, the Airport Alternative better meets will be partially obstructed by the guideway and the Purpose and Need for the Project than the Salt columns in the residential area near Kohomua Lake Alternative [23 CFR 774.3 (c)(1)]. 5-72 CHAPTER 5 – Section 4(f) Evaluation
    • 5.9 Determination of Section 4(f) Use Considering the foregoing discussion of the Project’s use of Section 4(f) properties, there is no prudent avoidance alternative to the use of land from 12 historic properties. As described, the Project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to Section 4(f) properties resulting from use. In addition, the Project will have a de minimis impact on two historic and three recreational Sec- tion 4(f) properties. Measures to minimize harm, such as avoidance, minimization, mitigation, and enhancement measures, were committed to by the agencies with jurisdiction over these properties. FTA has coordinated with these agencies prior to making its de minimis determination. Finally, balancing all the factors discussed in Section 5.8, the Airport Alternative has been determined to cause the least overall harm in light of Section 4(f)’s preservation purpose. June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement 5-73
    • This page left intentionally blank 5-74 CHAPTER 5 – Section 4(f) Evaluation
    • 06 CHAPTER Cost and Financial Analysis is chapter presents estimates for capital and the City, the scal year begins on July 1 and ends operating and maintenance (O&M) costs for on June 30 (e.g., FY2009 is from July 1, 2008, to the Project. ese cost estimates are based on June 30, 2009). In this chapter, all year references engineering and operations analysis performed are to scal years. since the Dra EIS. is chapter, although not speci cally required by the National Environ- mental Policy Act (NEPA) or Hawai’i Chapter 6.1 Changes to this Chapter since 343, presents a nancing plan for the Project, as the Draft Environmental Impact required for all New Starts projects. Statement e nancial information in the Final EIS has been updated to re ect comments received during the Year-of-expenditure dollar (YOE $) cost estimates include Dra EIS review period, a 2009 base year, and the assumed in ation between today and the expected date of latest data available, including changes in eco- the expenditure. nomic conditions and project revenues and costs. In the case of project revenues, the general excise 2009 dollar cost estimates re ect prices in scal year (FY) 2009. and use tax (GET) surcharge amounts applied to the Project re ect a worsening of economic condi- tions since the Dra EIS was released. Federal is nancial analysis only considers costs, formula funds have been reallocated to take resources, and funding strategies associated with advantage of increased amounts projected to be public transit services provided by the City and apportioned to the City as a result of the Project. County of Honolulu (City). Unless otherwise Costs have been adjusted to re ect more re ned stated, costs and revenues in this chapter are levels of engineering, changing costs of materials, presented in scal year (FY) 2009 dollars and and escalation rates that have been di erentially year-of-expenditure dollars (YOE $). e forecast applied to the key cost drivers of the Project, such period referred to is between 2009 and 2030. For as cement, steel, and labor. Costs have also been June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement 6-1
    • revised to include the re nement of the alignment In this chapter, the cost estimates for speci c along Ualena Street as a result of con icts with items are based on typical construction practices runway clearances at Honolulu International and procedures on similar projects. Quantities Airport. e costs do not, however, re ect favor- are estimated based on anticipated operating able actual bids received for early phases of work. service plans (i.e., size and frequency of trains) and engineering performed to date. Estimated costs for each standard cost category were increased 6.2 Cost Estimate Methodology in accordance with FTA guidance for estimates 6.2.1 Capital Cost Methodology developed prior to PE, to account for unknown but e capital cost estimate is the total cost of imple- expected additional expenses. menting the Project. It is based on standard cost categories the Federal Transit Administration In ation was applied to the cost estimate based on (FTA) created in establishing a consistent format the Project’s implementation schedule. e speci c for reporting, estimating, and managing capital critical construction cost driver (e.g., cement, steel, costs for New Starts projects. e cost categories are labor) in ation rates were applied based on the used to show project costs in Table 6-1. is method local construction market conditions and recent allows for the summary of costs to be tracked during global trends in the price of each key commodity. the Project’s follow-on phases (i.e., Preliminary e derivation of the escalation rates is presented Engineering (PE), Final Design, and Construction). in the Cost Escalation Report prepared for the Project and included as an appendix to the Finan- cial Plan (RTD 2009n). Table 6-1 Capital Cost Estimate for the Project by Cost Category Airport Alignment Cost Categories (2009–2030) 2009 $M YOE $M Guideway construction 1,409 1,678 Station construction 306 389 Yard, shops, and support facilities 122 138 Sitework and special conditions 757 895 Systems 254 311 Right-of-way 157 159 Vehicles 341 399 Professional services 810 996 Unallocated contingency (project reserve) 125 149 Total Costs Excluding Finance Charges 4,281 5,115 Finance charges 302 398 Total Costs 4,583 5,513 Project cost (construction, vehicles, right-of-way, soft costs) 3,283 3,791 Contingency (allocated and unallocated) 998 1,329 6-2 CHAPTER 6 – Cost and Financial Analysis
    • 6.2.2 Operating and Maintenance Table 6-2 Overview of Transit Capital Expenditures Cost Methodology through 2030 (excluding nance charges) Fixed Guideway Operating and Maintenance 2009 $M YOE $M O&M costs for the Project were estimated using Project implementation 4,281 5,115 the rail transit system in Washington, D.C., and Rail rehabilitation, replacement, and making adjustments to re ect the Project’s pro- 121 124 purchase of railcars posed operating system characteristics. A sensitiv- TheBus and TheHandi-Van expansion ity analysis was conducted using similar transit 1,014 1,258 and replacement operations to con rm the results. Among the Total 5,416 6,497 systems used in the sensitivity comparison were Miami and Los Angeles. All costs were adjusted to re ect O‘ahu’s higher costs of goods and services, throughout the forecast period (2009 to 2030). Rail where appropriate. rehabilitation and replacement costs are expected to begin in 2028, 16 years a er initial construction TheBus and TheHandi-Van Operating activities are completed. and Maintenance eBus O&M costs were developed using existing Current bus service will be restructured and bus operations as the baseline, as well as the antici- expanded to support general growth in service. pated service levels once the Project becomes fully To support this, the number of buses operating operational. eBus O&M costing methodology is during peak periods is expected to grow from 439 also consistent with Section 4 of the FTA’s Procedures in FY2009 to 465 in FY2030. To comply with FTA’s and Technical Methods for Transit Project Planning 20-percent spare ratio policy, the total bus eet will (FTA 2008). increase from the current 531 buses to about 558 by FY2030. eHandi-Van eet is expected to grow from 166 vehicles in FY2009 to 185 in FY2030. 6.3 Capital Plan e capital plan presents project capital revenues Figure 6-1 summarizes capital costs for all transit and costs for the Project and the ongoing public travel modes through the forecast period. It transportation system. includes an expenditure for bus facilities that are not part of the Project, as programmed in the 6.3.1 Capital Costs O‘ahu Metropolitan Planning Organization’s e capital cost estimate of implementing the (O‘ahuMPO) FYs 2008–2011 Transportation Project is presented in Table 6-1. e capital cost Improvement Program (O‘ahuMPO 2008) estimate, excluding nance charges, is $4.3 billion and O‘ahu Regional Transportation Plan 2030 in FY2009 dollars and $5.1 billion in YOE $. ese (O‘ahuMPO 2007). cost estimates exclude amounts already incurred during FY2007 and FY2008, which are not included 6.3.2 Proposed Capital Funding Sources for in the New Starts cost estimate. the Project is section describes the various funding sources e estimates for system-wide, ongoing capital assumed for implementation of the Project and for expenditures, shown in Table 6-2, include ongoing the system’s ongoing capital needs. ese sources costs for replacing, rehabilitating, and main- include GET surcharge funds, FTA New Starts rev- taining capital assets (e.g., buses, rail vehicles, enues, and other Federal-assistance programs for and eHandi-Van) in a state of good repair capital needs, complemented by local assistance. June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement 6-3
    • 1,200 MILLIONS OF YEAR-OF-EXPENDITURE DOLLARS Project Capital Costs 1,000 TheHandi-Van Acquisitions Total Ongoing Bus CapEx Bus Acquisition Costs 800 Rail Rehabilitation and Replacement Additional Railcar Acquisition 600 400 200 ' 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 C I T Y F I SCAL Y EAR Figure 6-1 Total Agency-wide Capital Costs General Excise and Use Tax Surcharge basis for projects that have completed the pro- e local funding source for the Project is a gram’s procedural requirements and that meet dedicated 0.5-percent surcharge on the State of certain criteria speci ed in law and regulation. Hawai‘i’s GET. In 2005, the Hawai‘i State Legisla- e program is highly competitive. At this point, ture authorized counties to adopt this surcharge the City is in the process of addressing FTA for public transportation projects. Following this requirements, and indications are that the Project authorization, the City enacted Ordinance 05-027 will meet FTA criteria. However, FTA cannot establishing a 0.5-percent County surcharge on make a nal commitment to fund the Project the GET for business transactions on O‘ahu to be until a Full Funding Grant Agreement has been levied through December 31, 2022. is revenue is approved a er NEPA requirements have been met, to be exclusively used for the Project’s capital and/ the Project is approved for Final Design, and the or operating expenditures and could be used to New Starts Program is reauthorized by Congress back General Obligation (GO) Bonds as needed for as part of the Federal Surface Transportation the Project. GET surcharge revenues are estimated Funding Program. Current authorizing legislation to be $3,524 million (YOE $) through FY2023. expired but has been extended in anticipation of a new authorization in 2010, following which there FTA Section 5309 New Starts Program (49 USC 5309) could be changes in statute, regulations, policy, e City is seeking capital funds from FTA’s New and funding availability. Starts program, which provides funding for xed guideway transit projects and extensions. Under e City’s nancial analysis assumes that the current authorizing legislation, an annual appro- Project will receive $1.55 billion from this program priation is available nationwide on a discretionary between 2010 and 2019. To date, $35 million has 6-4 CHAPTER 6 – Cost and Financial Analysis
    • been appropriated by Congress for the Project. No private source of capital revenue was assumed An additional $55 million appropriation has been to fund the Project. Opportunities for joint proposed in the Federal budget for 2011. development or other forms of public-private partnerships could reduce City contributions or FTA Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Program could help fund construction of future extensions (49 USC 5307) of the Project. ese funds are distributed to the Honolulu and Kailua-Kāne‘ohe urbanized areas using a formula 6.3.3 Funding Sources for Ongoing set by law. e total amount of Section 5307 funds Capital Expenditures received by the City through FY2030, including Federal Assistance funds from the American Recovery and Reinvest- e City receives Federal assistance for ongoing ment Act (ARRA), will amount to approximately transit capital investments through various fund- $900 million (YOE $) of which approximately ing programs from the FTA. One of the conditions $305 million is proposed to be used for the Project for receiving most of these funds is that at least if other project funding sources or cost savings 20 percent of eligible expenses be paid with local do not cover the full capital cost. A portion of funds. e three main sources of Federal funds for the $900 million is attributable to the increased ongoing capital expenses are as follows: Section 5307 amount that will be distributed to • FTA Urbanized Area Formula Program the Honolulu urbanized area as a result of the (49 USC 5307)— of the $900 million avail- Project’s xed guideway route miles and other able from Section 5307 funds, another operating data. e statutory basis for Section approximately $325 million, including $20 5307, as for New Starts, expired at the end of the million in ARRA funds, will continue to previous Federal scal year (September 30, 2009) be used for ongoing capital needs. Activi- but has been extended in anticipation of a new ties eligible for Section 5307 funds include authorization in 2010; the formula and eligibility capital investments in rail and rail related requirements could change depending on this areas, bus and bus-related activities (e.g., future reauthorization. the replacement of rail vehicles and buses, overhaul of rail vehicles and buses, rebuilding City General Obligation Bonds of rail vehicles and buses, crime prevention e nancial analysis assumes that GO Bonds will and security equipment, and construction of be the main nancial instrument used by the City maintenance and passenger facilities). to provide nancial support for the Project. is • FTA Capital Investment Grants funding source will be required to bridge funding (49 USC 5309): Fixed Guideway Mod- gaps in any given year and will be repaid by the ernization Program—these funds are revenue sources described in previous sections. distributed using a formula speci ed by law. GO Bonds are direct obligations of the City, for Implementation of the Project will increase which its full faith and credit are pledged. City GO Fixed Guideway Modernization funds for debt will be issued from 2013 through 2019 and Honolulu because the formula is largely based repaid by 2023. Section 6.5, Cash Flow Analysis, on the number of xed guideway miles. Total provides further details on nancing assumptions Section 5309 Fixed Guideway Modernization for the Project. funding is expected to be approximately $102 million (YOE $) through FY2030. June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement 6-5
    • • FTA Capital Investment Grants 1. Private Funds—the City will look to the (49 USC 5309): Bus and Bus-related Equip- private sector to supplement project funds. ment and Facilities Capital Program—these A variety of mechanisms are potentially funds are distributed on a discretionary 80/20 available. is might include donations of (Federal/Local) matching basis. All bus-relat- right-of-way, contributions toward the cost ed elements of the Project are eligible for bus of building stations and other project com- capital funds. It is assumed that Honolulu’s ponents that directly bene t private entities bus capital local allocations between 2009 through transit-oriented development, or and 2030 will equal 35 percent of annual bus the creation of bene t assessment districts or and bus-related capital needs, well over the other value capture mechanisms around one local match required to qualify for the funds. or more stations. Total Section 5309 bus funding is expected to 2. Airport Funds—the decision to route the be $419 million (YOE $) through FY2030. Project to directly serve Honolulu Interna- tional Airport will bene t both airport pas- City General Obligation Bonds sengers and employees, but adds more than e City currently issues GO Bonds to nance $200 million to the Project’s capital cost. In ongoing transit capital expenses. is includes similar situations elsewhere in the U.S. (e.g., eBus and eHandi-Van purchases, construc- San Francisco, Portland, Minneapolis, and tion of facilities and transit centers, and other Northern Virginia), the responsible airport public transportation capital improvements. authorities have contributed sizable amounts e nancial analysis assumes that the City will toward the construction of rail projects. continue to use GO Bond proceeds to match Funds have come from Passenger Facility Federal contributions and fund ongoing system- Charges, Airport Improvement Program wide capital expenditures. is will correspond to (AIP) Funds, and general airport revenues. In approximately $571 million (YOE $) in GO Bond addition, the Federal Aviation Administra- proceeds through FY2030. tion reauthorization bill now being consid- ered by Congress could expand opportunities Other Potential Capital Sources to use Passenger Facility Charges for transit Based on the forecast GET surcharge revenues and projects serving airports. the assumed Federal funding level, the Project is 3. Reduction in State Retention of GET Sur- not expected to require any other source of funds; charge—the State has retained 10 percent of however, at this stage in the Project’s develop- the GET Surcharge collected on O‘ahu since ment, numerous risks and uncertainties exist that 2007. is amount is substantially more than can a ect the Project’s funding. ese risks are required for administration of the program. discussed in Section 6.6, Risks and Uncertain- If the retained portion can be reduced, ad- ties. Accordingly, the City recognizes the need ditional funds will ow to the rail program. to identify potential additional capital funding A reduction of the retention percentage to sources to enhance the strength and robustness of 5 percent would generate about $187 mil- this nancial analysis. lion in additional revenue over the time the surcharge is in e ect. is change would be e City has identi ed three potential sources of subject to action by the State Legislature. added capital funding to actively pursue as the Project moves forward: 6-6 CHAPTER 6 – Cost and Financial Analysis
    • 6.4 Operating and Maintenance Plan revenue service, until the entire alignment is is section discusses the data and unit costs used completed in FY2019. to calculate O&M needs and the sources and uses of operating funds through FY2030. 6.4.2 Operating and Maintenance Funding Sources 6.4.1 Operating and Maintenance Costs is section describes the range of O&M funding Figure 6-2 presents the projected O&M costs for sources anticipated. ese sources include FTA the City’s transit system, including the Project, Section 5307 funds for preventive maintenance, from FY2009 to FY2030. In the year FY2030 fare revenues, and contributions from the City’s YOE $, total O&M costs are projected to be General and Highway Funds. approximately $117 million or 31 percent higher with the Project than with the No Build Alterna- Fare Revenues tive, as shown in Table 6-3. Systemwide ridership is forecast to be approxi- mately 282,500 linked trips per day in 2030. e e xed guideway system’s operating costs are fare structure for the xed guideway is assumed anticipated to be about 26 percent of total O&M to follow the current bus fare structure, with free costs for the public transportation system in transfers between modes. is will yield farebox FY2030. O&M costs will increase in a step-like revenues ranging from $45 million in FY2009 to manner as operable segments are opened for $151 million (YOE $) in FY2030. 600 Total O&M Costs—TheHandi-Van Total O&M Costs—Fixed Guideway Total O&M Costs—TheBus 500 Total Fare Revenues MILLIONS OF YEAR-OF-EXPENDITURE DOLLARS 400 300 200 100 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 C I T Y F I SCAL Y EAR Figure 6-2 Systemwide Operating and Maintenance Costs June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement 6-7
    • Table 6-3 2030 Operating and Maintenance Costs by Alternative Difference from O&M Costs TheBus TheHandi-Van Fixed Guideway Total No Build (FY2030) 2009 $M YOE $M 2009 $M YOE $M 2009 $M YOE $M 2009 $M YOE $M 2009 $M YOE $M No Build Alternative 200 328 27 44 – – 227 372 – – Project 195 320 27 44 77 126 298 489 72 117 e average fare incorporated into the nancial is assumed to be used for capital needs (for rail analysis starts at $0.95, which includes the pro- capital and ongoing capital needs for both bus posed fare increase for FY2010. e growth in and rail) and about $270 million of that going to average fare from this point is shown as a “step preventive maintenance. function” with increases of approximately $0.33 in FY2015 and FY2023, which are based on the City’s City Contribution historical fare increases. Figure 6-2 shows the e City’s contribution to transit O&M is currently projected annual fare revenues (in YOE $). In 2001, funded using revenues from the General and the City Council adopted a resolution to adjust Highway Funds. e General Fund mainly com- fare levels so that the farebox recovery ratio (the prises real property tax revenues, but also includes ratio of annual fare revenues to annual O&M costs) revenues from a transient accommodations tax for eBus will be maintained between 27 and (transferred from the State), motor vehicle annual 33 percent in any given year. e assumed average registration fees, and a public service company fare discussed previously will result in a farebox tax. e Highway Fund consists of revenues from recovery ratio for the combined bus and xed the City fuel tax, the vehicle weight tax, and a guideway systems that follows the City’s resolution public utility franchise tax. General and Highway in most years, including 2030 when the ratio is Fund revenues were assumed to increase at an expected to equal about 30 percent. average rate of 2.7 percent per year by the State’s Department of Business, Economic Development Federal Funding and Tourism’s in ation forecast between 2009 and Section 5307 funds were rst applied to capital 2012. In ation in subsequent years is assumed needs, with the remainder used for preventive to be constant at 2.5 percent. In addition, a real maintenance. Based on historical trends, it is growth component is assumed based on historical assumed that a maximum of 20 percent of annual experience. Based on these assumptions, the total O&M expenditures will be associated with preven- amount of General and Highway Funds is forecast tive maintenance, and thus could be covered by to total approximately $33 billion between 2009 Section 5307 funds. and 2030. In FY2009, the Honolulu and Kailua-Kāne‘ohe Between FY1994 and FY2008, the transit subsidy urbanized areas were apportioned a combined has averaged 11 percent of the total Highway $31 million in Section 5307 formula funds by and General Fund revenues. Immediately a er FTA. As noted earlier, over the longer term, the 2003, City revenues increased as a result of large City’s nancial analysis assumes that it will receive increases in real estate values on O‘ahu, more approximately $900 million (YOE $) through quickly than O&M costs for eBus. is had FY2030 from this funding program and ARRA resulted in a transit subsidy below 10 percent funds, $630 million (including ARRA) of which for 2004 and 2005. Figure 6-3 shows that given 6-8 CHAPTER 6 – Cost and Financial Analysis
    • City's Operating Subsidy Share of General and Highway Fund Revenues 5307 Formula Funds Used for Preventive Maintenance Projected to go to Transit Operations (Millions of YOE Dollars) Total System Operating Revenue 100% 80% PERCENTAGE SHARE 60% 40% 20% 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 C I T Y F I SCAL Y EAR Figure 6-3 Transit System Operating Revenues and City Subsidy present economic conditions, this percentage is sources and the use of funds for the Project over likely to increase through FY2030, averaging 13.9 the forecast period. e Honolulu High-Capacity percent over the entire forecast period with the Transit Corridor Project Summary Cash Flow Project. While higher than the historical average, Tables (RTD 2009g) presents the year-by-year cash this increase is not unprecedented. In 2001, the ow for the Project. City spent approximately 15 percent of its General and Highway Fund revenues on transit (although 6.5.1 Financing Assumptions for the Project property taxes were not increased to pay for the is nancial analysis assumes that GET surcharge higher percentage), and the Project a ords substan- revenues will be the only source of funding tially more overall service than what was provided through FY2010 adding Federal Section 5307 at that time. formula funds and Section 5309 New Starts funds beginning in 2010. 6.5 Cash Flow Analysis In years when GET surcharge revenues and/or e cash ow analysis compares costs with rev- Federal funding are not su cient to meet the cash enues on a year-by-year basis, factoring in nanc- ow requirement to cover capital expenditures, a ing as necessary. Table 6-4 summarizes funding mix of City GO Bonds and short-term construction June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement 6-9
    • Table 6-4 Project Sources and Uses of Capital Funds (millions 6.5.2 Ongoing Capital Expenditure Cash Flow of YOE $) Systemwide ongoing capital expenditures include all necessary replacement, rehabilitation, and Sources of Funds FY2009–2030 improvements to the existing system ( eBus and Project beginning cash balance (FY2009) 154 eHandi-Van) as well as the Project. Funding Net GET surcharge revenues 3,524 sources used to pay for these capital expenses FTA Section 5309 New Starts 1,550 consist of discretionary and formula-based Federal FTA Section 5307 Formula Funds 305 funding programs (see Section 6.3.3 for descrip- (including $4m ARRA) tions of these programs). Any resulting funding Interest income on cash balance 11 gap is assumed to be bridged on an annual basis Total Sources Funds 5,544 with City GO Bonds, as is currently the case with Uses of Funds FY2009–2030 transit-related budgets. erefore, the resulting Capital cost 5,115 ongoing capital sources and uses will balance in Interest payment on long-term debt 359 any given year. Finance charges on short-term construction 20 nancing 6.5.3 Operating and Maintenance Expenditure Other nance charges 19 Cash Flow Project ending cash balance 31 O&M funds will be used for eBus and eHandi- Van as well as for the Project. Sources of O&M funds Total Uses Funds 5,544 include farebox revenues and Federal assistance for Source: Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Financial Plan preventive maintenance; any remaining funding requirements are assumed to be funded through borrowing will be used to bridge the funding gap. City contributions from its General and Highway e weighted average interest rate on long-term Funds. e resulting operating sources and use of debt is assumed to be 3.27 percent, which is consis- funds will balance in any given year. e Summary tent with the City’s current Standard & Poor’s AA Cash Flow Tables (RTD 2009g) includes year-by- nancial rating and based on rates as of April 8, year ongoing operating expenditure cash ows. 2009. All GO debt is assumed to mature in FY2023, corresponding to the last scal year of receipt of GET revenues. 6.6 Risks and Uncertainties e nancial analysis described in this chapter e total nance charges incurred for the Project and the sources and uses of funds are subject to a will be $398 million. Most of these nance charges number of risks and uncertainties. Some risks are will correspond to interest payments on GO project-speci c and others are related to macro- Bonds. e remainder will include nance charges level uncertainties a ected by the local and global related to the cost of issuance of GO Bonds and economies. Although this analysis has de ned a set short-term borrowing and the interest expense on of most likely scenarios based on the cost, revenue, short-term borrowing. funding, and nancing assumptions described, several operating and capital risks could materially Interest will be earned on any positive year-end cash a ect the nal nancial results. Uncertainties can balances, which has been calculated at a conservative be organized into the following major categories. 1 percent per year. Interest income is expected to generate $11 million for the Project (YOE $). 6-10 CHAPTER 6 – Cost and Financial Analysis
    • 6.6.1 Project Cost Risks 6.6.2 Economic and Financial Risks Changes in Project Scope In ation Most projects, especially large infrastructure proj- In ation is applied to both costs and revenues. ects such as this one, have uncertainties associated Project construction costs have been escalated with the de nition of the project. At this stage of using individual cost component rates that vary project planning, there are o en numerous deci- according to demand and supply at a global, sions and project re nements that will be made as regional, and local level, as well as the overall local the project design progresses. Assumptions may be economic environment. Commodity components revisited and con rmed or modi ed during New (cement, steel, and other critical construction Starts Preliminary Engineering and Final Design. materials) may be subject to similar uctuations in Scope changes may also result from the following: prices that could a ect project costs. Right-of-way • Physical barriers, such as unexpected utility costs are closely related to property values, and locations or groundwater labor rates will depend on the results of periodic • Community involvement contract negotiations. • Changes in political leadership • Budget constraints that lead to scope Interest Rates and Municipal Market Uncertainties reductions As in any capital project requiring the issuance of debt, the Project is subject to uncertainty around Changes in Project Schedule uctuations in interest rates. Variations in interest Scheduling delays, the availability of skilled labor, rates could a ect the interest earnings rate on cash vehicle delivery, and unforeseen construction chal- balances and the interest paid on any outstanding lenges can all lead to cost increases that may a ect debt, as well as the size of the debt requirements to the nancial plan for a project. Schedule changes nance the Project. Fluctuations in interest rates might result from project changes, local decision- are in uenced by a number of factors, including making processes, equipment malfunctions, and the credit rating of the bond issuer (the City) construction delays. As a project becomes more and market risks associated with local or global complex, tasks become larger and they o en nancial conditions. Variations in interest rates have more dependencies. Every task’s duration could also in uence the level of working capital is dependent on factors that can be outside of an and the ability to both operate existing service and agency’s control. undertake new initiatives. e choice between di erent procurement mecha- Credit Rating nisms may a ect phasing of the Project, as well as is nancial analysis assumes that the City’s the timing of capital outlays. Some e ciencies may credit quality will remain at its current Standard be gained from using an innovative procurement & Poor’s AA rating. Adverse economic conditions approach, such as design-build or design-build- or shi s in the City’s debt policies could a ect its operate-maintain. Depending on the general credit rating and increase the cost of borrowing approach that the City pursues, this procurement accordingly. Most importantly, the credit quality method could change at various milestones of the City is likely to be in uenced by the size of throughout the Project. the City’s capital program and its ability to remain below the current a ordability guidelines set by the City Council. June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement 6-11
    • Market Uncertainty have been in place for many years, through several As with any interest rate, the yield curves on debt authorization cycles, there is a possibility that assumed in the nancial analysis are subject to Congress will change direction in the next autho- global market conditions. Recent turmoil in the rization cycle. ey could increase or decrease the credit markets is a case in point and has prompted amount of funds available, impose new rules on the Federal Reserve to react with a series of interest project eligibility, or revise the criteria that are used rate cuts that in uence the market in general and to evaluate potential projects. e timing of new the nance cost for the Project in particular. is authorization legislation is also uncertain. uncertainty is further enhanced by the fact that, given baseline assumptions, the rst debt issuance e amount of the FTA contribution will be spelled for the Project capital expenditures is not expected out in a Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) to occur before 2012. Because it is assumed that the between FTA and the City. e FFGA will also City will continue to be able to issue bonds in the identify the amount to be made available each tax-exempt municipal marketplace, uncertainties year. Although history has shown that Congress about market factors must be evaluated. ultimately honors and appropriates the full amount identi ed in an FFGA, Congress could delay Based on the assumptions and analysis presented funding for the Project by reducing or delaying the in this Financial Plan, a 1.0 percent increase annual appropriations. Any delay could necessitate in interest rates is estimated to correspond to additional borrowing or schedule delays, poten- an increase in interest costs of approximately tially delaying funding authority or increasing the $130 million over the forecast period. Project’s capital cost. 6.6.3 Capital Revenues Other Federal Funding Opportunities GET—Scenario Based on Council on Revenues A number of proposals for increased funding for Growth Rates (Downside Risk) transit are being considered, either as part of the In the short term, GET surcharge revenues are reauthorization of SAFETEA-LU or other legisla- subject to uncertainties related to the magnitude tion. For example: and timing of the economic recovery on O‘ahu. • e National Surface Transportation Policy Over the longer term, GET surcharge revenues on and Revenue Study Commission recom- O‘ahu depend on a variety of underlying economic mended a signi cant increase in funding factors outside of the City’s control that may result and a restructuring of the FTA and FHWA in a higher or lower projection than the one used in programs. Its recommendations included this Final EIS. creation of a new Metropolitan Mobility Pro- gram, which would place increased emphasis Federal Funding: New Starts, 5307, 5309 Fixed on public transportation. Guideway Modernization—Reauthorization and • e ARRA of 2009 created new funding op- Appropriation Risk portunities for transit, including $100 million e Project assumes Federal funding participation in funding for Transit Investments for Green- through the Section 5307 Urbanized Area Pro- house Gas and Energy Reduction Grants, gram and the Section 5309 New Starts Program. as well as a new $1.5 billion multimodal Federal legislation that authorizes these programs discretionary program. ese new programs (SAFETEA-LU) expired at the end of September may be precursors to the next reauthoriza- 2009 but has been extended in anticipation of a tion of the surface transportation programs. new authorization in 2010. While these programs Grants under the multimodal discretionary 6-12 CHAPTER 6 – Cost and Financial Analysis
    • program will go to projects with a signi cant railcar, but the stations could present viable impact on the nation, a metropolitan area, or advertising locations. Based on FTA’s 2007 a region and may range up to $300 million. National Transit Database data, Honolulu Priority will be given to projects that can be receives approximately $0.006 per boarding, completed within three years, and funds must while some larger transit systems in the U.S. be obligated by September 30, 2011. receive 10 to 40 times that amount. • Congress is considering comprehensive cli- • Parking Revenues—demand for park-and- mate and energy legislation that would fund ride stations is forecast to be strong with the the expansion of environmentally friendly Project. Charging even a nominal amount modes of transportation, including transit. for daily parking could generate a signi cant Funding could be provided through new amount of revenue. Collected parking funds cap-and-trade legislation designed to reduce could be used for capital and operating costs greenhouse gas emissions. as parking fees could be bonded to o set the construction costs of the parking lots and Lower Amount of GET Surcharge Revenues Retained structure or revenues could be used to o set by the State operating costs of the parking facilities, such e enabling legislation for the County GET sur- as those incurred to pay for garage attendants charge speci es that 10 percent of GET surcharge and security personnel. revenues be retained by the State for administrative • Reduced Service Redundancies between and collection purposes. A decrease of this per- Bus and Rail Operations—the addition of centage from 10 to 5 percent would increase GET the Project to existing bus service will likely revenues by $183 million from FY2009 to FY2023. result in some overlap of service between bus and rail. While some bus service and route 6.6.4 Operating Revenues modi cations are planned as the Project is Fare Policy and Ridership implemented, there is a possibility to further Growth in transit ridership is subject to uncertain- modify existing bus service as rail ridership ties because the availability of alternate modes and increases. is would a ect ongoing bus eet riders’ price sensitivity could a ect ridership, at replacement cycles since fewer buses may least in the short-term. For purposes of this Final need to be replaced as more are removed EIS, the assumption is made that there will be free from service, thus a ecting O&M costs for transfers to and from the xed guideway service. the bus eet. Upside risks also exist and demand could be • Adjust City Highway Fund Revenues higher than expected. Although this would a ect (Vehicle Registration Fees, City Gas Tax)— fare revenues positively, it could also increase the the nancial analysis assumes revenues system’s level-of-service requirements. from the City’s General and Highway Funds will grow at historical real growth rates Other Potential Operating Sources plus general in ation. As a general purpose • Advertising and Other Nonfare Operat- local government, the City has the authority ing Revenues—expanding the advertising to raise other local tax revenues over and program could generate signi cantly more beyond the baseline growth rate assumed for than the approximately $400,000 received the General and Highway Fund revenues in by the City for bus advertisements. With the this nancial analysis. Both funds consist of introduction of rail service, not only will a variety of tax revenues, including property there be an ability to advertise within each taxes, but also include fuel tax and motor June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement 6-13
    • vehicle weight tax, which are the two largest costs, both negative and positive. ese include sources of revenues for the Highway Fund. station managers, labor productivity, fare collec- • FTA Formula Funds—Section 5307 funds tion systems, security, and salaries. ese costs are could become available following reautho- all accounted for in the operating cost estimates, rization or if GET revenues are higher than but are elements of the system that could result in expected (which would allow for a reduction uncertainties over time. in the use of 5307 funds for the Project’s capital needs). While Section 5307 funds A change in the bus vehicle eet allocation may also are used for capital purposes in priority, any reduce operating costs as well as a ect bus replace- remaining amount is allocated to operations ments costs. e City is reconsidering a policy to for preventive maintenance purposes. Uncer- move toward a eet in which all articulated buses tainties in the Capital Plan could also a ect are hybrids in favor of more economical, yet still the amount of Section 5307 funds used for environmentally friendly, clean diesel vehicles. operations and decrease the local amount of Changes to that policy may signi cantly a ect operating subsidy required. system operating costs as well as ongoing capital costs. A hybrid bus costs approximately $1 million 6.6.5 Operating Costs to replace, while a diesel bus costs approximately Operating Cost Escalation—Labor Cost, $650,000. However, hybrid buses are less expensive Energy Prices to operate and have operating cost savings of The nancial analysis assumes that operating approximately $5,000 per peak vehicle over similar expenditures will increase following general in a- diesel buses. tion. However, certain operating cost components may increase at a faster or slower rate depending on local conditions. Increases in labor costs are subject to local union bargaining agreements. is includes transit employee health care costs and fringe and other bene ts. Energy costs in Honolulu are highly driven by oil prices and, therefore, subject to the same volatility. e operating cost estimate in the nancial analysis assumes a 3 percent upward adjustment to electricity prices as compared to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), but this may be a conservative assump- tion if oil prices remain at their current relatively low levels. System Operations—Drivers, Station and Train Attendants The O&M cost methodology used the WMATA as a base for forecasting operating costs per station since this agency had the most relevant and avail- able data set. However, once the system is built and operational, there may be a number of uncertainties in station operations that could a ect operating 6-14 CHAPTER 6 – Cost and Financial Analysis
    • 07 CHAPTER Evaluation of the Project is chapter compares the Honolulu High- e evaluation measures used in this chapter Capacity Transit Corridor Project to the No Build re ect local goals for the Project (described in Alternative from several perspectives. Section 7.1, Chapter 1, Background, Purpose and Need) as well Changes to this Chapter since the Dra Environ- as FTA criteria for evaluating projects proposed mental Impact Statement, summarizes how this for funding under the Section 5309 New Starts chapter has changed since the Dra Environmen- program. FTA criteria that are meaningful to tal Impact Statement (EIS). Section 7.2, E ective- an analysis of the Project include user bene ts ness in Meeting Project Purpose and Need, draws and development potential (both measures of on information in prior chapters and summarizes e ectiveness) and the FTA’s cost-e ectiveness how well the Project meets its Purpose and Need. index. By including these criteria, this chapter Section 7.3, Transportation and Environmental ful lls Council on Environmental Quality regula- Consequences, discusses the Project’s potential tions (40 CFR 1502.23), which require that an EIS e ect on transportation and the environment. Sec- “indicate those considerations, including factors tion 7.4, Cost-e ectiveness, adds a cost perspective not related to environmental quality, which are to the e ectiveness comparison, to consider the likely to be relevant and important to a decision.” Project’s bene ts in justifying its capital and operating costs. Section 7.5, Financial Feasibility, looks at a ordability given available funding 7.1 Changes to this Chapter since sources. Section 7.6, New Starts Program, sum- the Draft Environmental Impact marizes the Project’s ratings in the Federal Transit Statement Administration (FTA) New Starts Program. is chapter has been updated to re ect the iden- Section 7.7, Important Trade-o s, is a discussion ti cation of the Airport Alternative as the Project of trade-o s to be made in implementing the and to re ect updated and additional analysis Project. e chapter concludes with Section 7.8, presented in the other chapters of this Final Unresolved Issues. EIS. Transportation data have been updated, as June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement 7-1
    • described in Chapter 3, Transportation. Section 7.6 relieve tra c congestion for drivers or improve has been added to document FTA’s approval of the mobility for transit riders compared to today. Project to enter the Preliminary Engineering phase Average travel times along major corridors would of the New Starts process. Section 7.7 has been increase. Locations farthest from employment modi ed to compare the Project to the No Build centers would experience the largest increase in Alternative. Section 7.8 has been added to address congestion, decline in mobility, and constrained unresolved issues related to the Project. access. e Project will substantially improve corri- dor mobility compared to the No Build Alternative. 7.2 Effectiveness in Meeting Project As shown in Table 7-2, vehicle miles traveled Purpose and Need (VMT), vehicle hours traveled (VHT), and vehicle Section 1.8, Need for Transit Improvements, hours of delay (VHD) would increase under the of this Final EIS describes four needs that the No Build Alternative compared to today. Vehicular Project is intended to meet. is section evalu- tra c volumes on major roadways would grow ates how well each alternative meets these needs, substantially between now and 2030. Increases based on the variety of measures of e ectiveness in a.m. peak-hour tra c across screenlines shown in Table 7-1. Several of these measures are would range from approximately 10 to 50 percent primarily intended to address local goals, while (Table 3-9 in Chapter 3). others are also factors considered in FTA New Starts evaluations. For eBus and eHandi-Van riders, these increases in highway congestion would directly 7.2.1 Improve Corridor Mobility a ect their mobility because travel times on buses Just as mobility and congestion have worsened would increase. For the No Build Alternative, over the years, conditions in 2030 will be worse transit would continue to operate in mixed tra c, than today. Despite implementation of the planned except on several short bus-only segments and $3 billion in roadway improvements identi ed in high-occupancy vehicle lanes on freeways. As in the O‘ahu Regional Transportation Plan 2030 shown in Figure 3-6 in Chapter 3, average transit (ORTP), the No Build Alternative still would not speed has dropped by approximately 10 percent Table 7-1 Project Goals and Objectives Goal Measure of Objective Improve corridor mobility • Transit ridership (daily linked trips) • Transit user bene ts • Corridor travel time • Vehicle miles of travel (VMT) • Vehicle hours of travel (VHT) • Vehicle hours of delay (VHD) Improve corridor travel reliability • Percent of transit trips using xed guideway • Percent of transit passenger miles in exclusive right-of-way Improve access to planned • Development within station area compared to existing amount of development development to support City policy to develop a second urban center Improve transportation equity • User bene ts to transit-dependent communities • Percent of project costs borne by communities of concern 7-2 CHAPTER 7 – Evaluation of the Project
    • Table 7-2 E ectiveness of Alternatives in Improving Corridor Mobility Alternative (2030) Measure 2007 Existing Conditions No Build Project Transit Travel Time (minutes) 121 minutes 93 minutes Wai`anae to UH Mānoa 128 minutes (1 transfer) (2 transfers) Kapolei to Ala Moana Center 101 minutes 105 minutes 59 minutes Transit Performance Transit ridership (daily linked trips) 184,700 226,300 282,500 Transit user bene ts (hours per year) n/a n/a 20,775,000 Highway Performance Daily islandwide vehicle miles traveled (VMT) 11,232,400 13,623,100 13,049,000 Daily islandwide vehicle hours traveled (VHT) 325,700 415,600 383,800 Daily islandwide vehicle hours of delay (VHD) 71,800 104,700 85,800 since 1984 (from 14.6 to 13.2 mph) and would decrease by 8 percent; and VHD will decrease by continue to decline through 2030 to approximately 18 percent. 12.7 mph under the No Build Alternative. 7.2.2 Improve Corridor Travel Reliability e Project will increase average transit speeds by With the No Build Alternative, travel reliability for approximately 25 percent compared to the 2030 No both drivers and transit riders would decrease by Build Alternative (Figure 3-6 in Chapter 3), leading 2030. Because delay on the system is not predict- to higher transit ridership and travel time savings able from one day to another, reliability for drivers for existing and new transit users. Transit travel would worsen. e large increase (46 percent) times between major destinations will decrease up in VHD that would occur with the No Build to 60 percent compared to the No Build Alterna- Alternative includes an element of unpredictability tive (Table 7-2). As transit becomes a faster, and that requires special accommodations in travel thus more attractive, travel choice, ridership will planning. Average travel times would increase increase. As shown in Table 7-2, transit ridership somewhat under the No Build Alternative, but will increase by approximately 56,200 trips per day the impact on reliability would be more dramatic, (25 percent) by 2030 with the Project compared especially in the morning. e reason is that driv- to the No Build Alternative, and transit users will ers are forced to allocate more time to account for save more than 20 million equivalent hours of the possibility that unexpected delays will occur. travel time per year by 2030. ese unknowns make it di cult to estimate a trip’s duration when scheduling appointments. Increases in transit ridership will bene t highway users as well by removing drivers from the road- All transit riders would experience similar ways through better transit service. e Project decreases in reliability under the No Build will reduce tra c congestion and improve mobility Alternative. Problems with turnbacks and sched- compared to the No Build Alternative (Table 7-2). ule adherence already plague the transit system. Daily VMT will decrease by 4 percent; VHT will ese reliability factors are expected to get worse June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement 7-3
    • in the future as the highway system becomes Although both of the alternatives are generally more congested. consistent with Local, District, and State plans, the Project best serves the areas of O‘ahu desig- With the Project, reliability for transit riders will nated for future growth and development. increase substantially as trips are moved from buses operating on streets in mixed tra c and Compared to the No Build Alternative, the Proj- congested freeways to the xed guideway, which ect will support a greater amount of development will provide a predictable travel time. Forty-three and redevelopment around stations by enhanc- percent of transit trips and transit passenger miles ing access and supplying a daily in ux of transit will be carried on an exclusive xed guideway riders and potential customers for businesses. that is not subject to tra c delay (Table 7-3). With the Project, approximately 60,000 additional With the Project, bus passengers will also realize residents and 27,000 new jobs will be located service reliability as a result of route restructuring within walking distance to project stations in that replaces long-haul bus routes with shorter 2030. As shown in Table 7-2, the “second city” local routes integrated with the xed guideway planned for Kapolei will experience transit travel system. Driver and bus transit reliability will also times to Ala Moana Center that are reduced by improve as a result of reduced congestion and delay 44 percent compared to the No Build Alterna- on the highway. tive. e improved transit conditions are further illustrated in Figure 7-1, which shows travel time Table 7-3 E ectiveness of Alternatives in Improving Corridor savings for the majority of transit users in ‘Ewa Travel Reliability and Central O‘ahu, which are areas planned for future development. Section 3.4.2 describes the 2007 Alternative (2030) Measure Existing travel time savings calculation. By providing Conditions No Build Project better transit access, the Kapolei area will be better Percent of transit trips able to grow and develop than it would be if it 0% 0% 43% carried on xed guideway remained isolated from the rest of the region by Percent of transit congested roadways. passenger miles in 1% 1% 43% exclusive right-of-way 7.2.4 Improve Transportation Equity Equity relates to the fair distribution of a project’s bene ts and impacts, so that no group would carry 7.2.3 Improve Access to Planned Development an unfair burden of a project’s negative environ- to Support City Policy to Develop a mental, social, or economic impacts or receive less Second Urban Center than a fair share of a project’s bene ts. is section A goal of the Project is to support urban devel- focuses on considering the following evaluation opment consistent with the City General Plan criteria: (DPP 2002a), which is the blueprint for future • Population segments bene ting from alterna- population and employment growth. By providing tive investments improved mobility and access, a xed guideway • Population segments paying for alternative transit facility can serve as a catalyst for shaping investments development patterns in a corridor. • Net bene ts by population segment, com- pared to needs 7-4 CHAPTER 7 – Evaluation of the Project
    • LEGEND Substantial Travel User Bene t Increase Medium Travel User Bene t Increase Small Travel User Bene t Increase Negligible Change Small Travel User Bene t Decrease Medium Travel User Bene t Decrease Substantial Travel User Bene t Decrease Unoccupied Communities of Concern Study Corridor Boundary The Project Figure 7-1 Communities of Concern and User Bene ts for the Project Compared to the No Build Alternative • Travel-time savings for transit-dependent within communities of concern will be located populations within one-half mile of a transit station in 2030. Approximately 35 percent of O‘ahu’s population e Project will provide transit travel-time currently lives in areas that have concentrations savings to approximately 61 percent of the of communities of concern. Communities of islandwide population in 2030 compared to the concern are de ned as concentrations of minority, No Build Alternative (Table 7-4). Of the 35 per- low-income, transit-dependent, and linguistically cent of the island’s population that resides in isolated households (Figure 7-1). areas containing concentrations of communities of concern, over half would realize a substantial e Project will provide service where the transit transit travel-time savings. e rest of the island’s need is greatest, connecting areas that have the high- population that resides in areas with concentra- est transit dependency, which includes communities tions of communities of concern will experience of concern. irty-six percent of the population little change in transit travel time as a result of the June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement 7-5
    • Table 7-4 Equity Comparison of 2030 Transit Travel-time Savings for the Project Compared to the No Build Alternative Percent of Percent of Population within Category Islandwide That will experience Within Communities Outside Communities Population of Concern of Concern 61% Travel-time savings compared to the No Build Alternative 34% 66% 39% Negligible travel-time change compared to the No Build Alternative 36% 64% 0% Travel-time increase compared to the No Build Alternative 0% 0% Project. None of the population will experience an most of which will not be replaced. Landowners increase in travel times. will be paid fair market value for the land, includ- ing lost parking spaces, which is consistent with Tourists pay approximately 30 percent of the General the requirements of the U.S. Uniform Relocation Excise and Use Tax (GET) surcharge collected, which Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies is the Project’s local funding source. e remain- Act. On-street parking spaces will generally not ing local transit investment costs are distributed be replaced; however, there is available parking throughout the island in proportion to how much nearby to accommodate drivers currently using each individual expends on goods and services. these spaces. e City will conduct surveys to determine the extent of spillover parking near e Project will substantially improve transporta- stations and implement mitigation strategies as tion equity compared to the No Build Alternative. needed. Potential strategies include the addition of Based on demographics within the study corridor, parking supply, parking restrictions, and shared the demand and need for public transit on O‘ahu parking arrangements. is greatest within the areas served by the Project (Figure 1-8 in Chapter 1). During the construction period, lanes will be closed for construction of the overhead guideway located in the median of existing roadways. 7.3 Transportation and Although the time to build these improvements Environmental Consequences will be kept as short as possible, one or more lanes e Project’s e ect on transportation and the in sections of major highways will be closed while environment would di er substantially from the columns are placed and the guideway erected. No Build Alternative. 7.3.2 Environmental Consequences 7.3.1 Transportation e Project will convert 160 acres of land to trans- e Project will have a positive e ect on transit portation use. is includes approximately 88 acres use within the study corridor, which will help of currently prime, unique, or important farmland. reduce delay in the transportation system as a However, all of this land is already planned for whole, regardless of travel mode (Table 7-2). conversion to non-farm use by other projects, including the Ho‘opili Development. e Project e Project will a ect parking availability, both will acquire land from 204 properties (Table 4-4 in during construction and permanently, once the Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis, Consequences, Project is complete and in operation. e Project and Mitigation). will remove approximately 865 parking spaces, 7-6 CHAPTER 7 – Evaluation of the Project
    • With mitigation, Project-generated noise will not transit facility. e baseline alternative includes all exceed the FTA impact criteria at any location. projects in the ORTP. Construction of the Project could encounter con- e cost-e ectiveness indices for the Project taminated soils. Six potentially contaminated sites compared to the baseline is within the “medium” will be acquired by the Project and other sites are range established by FTA for its New Starts ratings, near the Project. Any contamination encountered which, along with other considerations, is cur- during construction will be treated in accordance rently required to qualify for New Starts funding with Federal and State regulations. (Table 7-5). e Project will require removal of approximately Table 7-5 2030 Cost-e ectiveness of the Project 550 street trees and pruning of approximately 100 additional street trees. Approximately 55 percent Measure Project of the removed trees are anticipated to be able to Cost per hour of transportation be transplanted. $16.24 system user bene ts Archaeological resources and burials are antici- pated to be encountered. e area Koko Head of Moanalua Stream has the highest potential for 7.5 Financial Feasibility e ects to archaeological resources and burials. e 7.5.1 Measure of Capital Financial Feasibility Project will adversely a ect 33 historic resources. e primary source of capital for the Project is the GET surcharge revenue. is source will fund e Project will reduce air pollution, energy more than 70 percent of the cost of the Project. consumption, and water pollution compared to the e remainder of project funding will be from No Build Alternative. Federal transit sources, primarily from the Sec- tion 5309 New Starts program, supplemented as necessary by formula Section 5307 funds. While 7.4 Cost-effectiveness the nancial plan is balanced, any capital funding e cost-e ectiveness analysis considers whether shortfalls, including any shortfall on debt repay- the Project’s bene t would justify its capital and ment incurred from the issuance of bonds, would operating costs. need to be covered using additional revenues from other as-yet-unidenti ed sources. Possible sources Cost-e ectiveness is one of the key criteria that are listed in Section 6.3.3 of this Final EIS. e FTA uses to evaluate projects proposed for amount of other revenues required over and above Section 5309 New Starts funding. e FTA’s GET surcharge and New Starts revenues provides cost-e ectiveness index is a ratio formed by a measure of the relative nancial feasibility of the adding an alternative’s annualized capital cost Project. Operating costs for the transit system as to its year 2030 operating and maintenance cost a whole represent an average of 13.8 percent of the and dividing the total by user bene ts. Costs and City’s annual operating budget between 2019 and bene ts were both calculated compared to a New 2030 (Table 7-6). e Project represents approxi- Starts baseline alternative that represents the best mately 25 percent of that amount. that can be done to improve transit service in the study corridor without building a xed guideway June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement 7-7
    • Table 7-6 2030 Financial Feasibility investments. FTA documents the New Starts evalu- ation as part of the National Environmental Policy No Build Measure Alternative Project Act process, for which this EIS is being prepared. is section describes how FTA evaluates projects Other City revenues required for capital (million year-of-expenditure n/a $0 for its New Starts funding recommendations and dollars) provides the ratings for this Project. Section 5307 Average percentage of City formula allocation funds have been used for repair General and Highway Funds needed 12% 14% and replacement of buses. A portion of these for operating and maintenance funds will be dedicated to the Project to cover any shortfall a er the GET surcharge and New e Project is nancially feasible based on this Starts funding have been applied. Section 5307 measure because it would not require additional funds will increase as a result of implementation funding sources beyond the GET surcharge of the Project, which makes it a reasonable project revenues and Federal funds. funding option. 7.5.2 Measure of City Financial Contribution 7.6.1 Background for Operating and Maintenance Each year, FTA submits its Annual Report on New Fare revenues will need to be supplemented to Starts to Congress as a companion document to cover total future operating and maintenance costs. the annual budget submitted by the President. As with the current bus transit system, additional e report provides recommendations for the funding will be obtained through an allocation allocation of New Starts funds under Section 5309 from the City’s General and Highway Funds. of Title 49 of the United States Code. As required Between scal years 1994 and 2007, an average of by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, E cient, 11 percent of the total revenue from General and Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users Highway Funds revenues was spent on transit (the (SAFETEA-LU) (PL 2005), FTA uses the following maximum was 15 percent in 2001). A measure of project justi cation criteria to evaluate New Starts the relative operating nancial feasibility for the projects: mobility improvements, cost-e ective- Project is the City’s contribution to transit opera- ness, operating e ciencies, land use and economic tions as a percentage of total forecast General and development, environmental factors, and other Highway Funds revenues. factors. FTA must also consider the local nancial commitment for the proposed project. 7.5.3 Comparison of Alternatives e Project will be nancially feasible with the FTA reviews the project justi cation and local currently identi ed capital revenue sources. It nancial commitment criteria for each candidate will increase the total operating and maintenance project and assigns a rating for each criterion. subsidy from the City’s General and Highway For some of the project justi cation criteria, the Funds by about 2 percent. proposed project is compared against a baseline alternative. A candidate project is given an overall rating of “High,” “Medium-High,” “Medium,” 7.6 New Starts Program “Medium-Low,” or “Low” based on ratings e Section 5309 “New Starts” program is the Fed- assigned by FTA to each of the project justi cation eral government’s primary program for providing and local nancial commitment criteria described nancial support to locally planned, implemented, above. FTA will not recommend funding for and operated xed-guideway transit major capital projects that are rated “Medium-Low” or ”Low.” 7-8 CHAPTER 7 – Evaluation of the Project
    • A rating of “High,” “Medium-High,” or “Medium” to share of transit-dependent individuals in the does not automatically translate into a funding region (Table 7-7). recommendation, although the potential for receiv- ing New Starts funding is much greater. Table 7-7 Mobility Improvements (2030) Measure Project Project evaluation is an on-going process. FTA Number of transit trips using the Project 116,300 evaluation and rating occurs annually in support Increase in transit ridership 20% of budget recommendations presented in the Annual Report on New Starts and when projects User bene ts per project passenger mile 3.6 request FTA approval to enter into Preliminary Number of trips by transit-dependent riders using 18,600 the Project Engineering or Final Design. Consequently, as proposed New Starts projects proceed through the Transit-dependent user bene ts per project 3.1 passenger mile project development process, information concern- Share of user bene ts received by transit-dependent ing costs, bene ts, and impacts is re ned and the riders compared to share of transit-dependent 12.4% ratings updated to re ect new information. individuals in the region 7.6.2 Ratings for the Project FTA approved the Project’s entry into Prelimi- Cost-e ectiveness nary Engineering on October 16, 2009, giving e Project is rated “Medium” for cost-e ective- the Project an overall rating of “Medium,” which ness. e cost-e ectiveness rating considers the is su cient for the Project to be advanced in the incremental cost per hour of user bene ts and the Federal project development process and for the incremental cost per incremental passenger in 2030 Project to be recommended for Federal fund- (Table 7-8). ing. If these results hold up through subsequent phases of project development, along with other Table 7-8 Cost-e ectiveness (2030) FTA considerations, the Project will be in the competitive range for funding consideration. Measure Project Funding recommendations are made each year Incremental cost per hour of user bene ts $16.24 from among the projects that have completed Incremental cost per incremental passenger in 2030 $16.17 the planning and project development process, including the National Environmental Policy Act process. ese recommendations re ect the Operating E ciencies merits of the projects competing for available e Project is rated “Medium” for operating e - Federal funds at the time, as well as the availabil- ciency. e operating e ciencies rating considers ity of New Starts funding authorization. the ratio between the increase in passenger miles and the increase in operating and maintenance Mobility Improvements costs (Table 7-9). e mobility improvement rating considers the number of transit trips using the Project; user bene ts per project passenger mile; number of trips by transit-dependent riders using the Project; transit-dependent user bene ts per project passenger mile; and share of user bene ts received by transit-dependent riders compared June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement 7-9
    • Table 7-9 Operating E ciencies (2030) entire transit system. Fares and property and gas taxes support the system’s operating nancial plan Measure Project (Table 7-6). Cost per passenger mile (New Starts $0.41 baseline) Cost per passenger mile (Project) $0.34 7.7 Important Trade-offs Di erence in cost per passenger mile $0.07 cost savings In selecting the Airport Alternative for the Project, DTS considered the evaluation results presented in the Dra EIS, comments from agencies and the Land Use and Economic Development public, and City Council Resolution 08-261. e Project is rated “Medium” for Land Use and “Medium-High” for Economic Development. e is Final EIS evaluates the Project in comparison land use rating considers existing land use, transit- to the No Build Alternative. is trade-o analysis supportive plans and policies and performance and highlights the areas that are distinctly di erent impacts of policies (Table 7-10). between the No Build Alternative and the Project (Table 7-11). e Project will meet the project goals Table 7-10 Land Use and Economic Development (2030) and objectives identi ed in Chapter 1 of this Final EIS. e Project will improve corridor mobil- Measure Project ity, corridor travel reliability, access to planned Population in corridor 764,640 development to support City policy to develop a Employment in corridor 524,240 second urban center, and transportation equity. Corridor population as percentage of e Project will achieve the Purpose and Need in a 68% metropolitan area cost-e ective manner. Although implementation of Corridor employment as percentage of the Project will require a substantial investment, it 83% metropolitan area is nancially feasible. Corridor population density (persons per 5,054 square mile) Corridor employment density (persons per square mile) 3,465 7.8 Unresolved Issues As identi ed in Section 4.21, Anticipated Permits, Approvals, and Agreements, of this Final EIS, Environmental Bene ts several permits are still required for construction e Project is rated “Medium” for environmental of the Project. Many of the permits will be sought bene ts because O‘ahu is in attainment for all in the Final Design phase a er the Federal Record transportation-related air pollutants. of Decision has been issued. e permits may place additional conditions on the Project. Local Financial Commitment Overall the Project is rated “Medium” for local Federal funds from the Section 5309 New Starts nancial commitment. e GET surcharge that program have not been committed. ey will was enacted in 2005 provides a local funding be committed by FTA at completion of the Full- source that will cover more than 70 percent of funding Grant Agreement. total project costs. e combination of local tax revenue and Federal Section 5309 and 5307 funds will provide a stable capital nancing plan for the 7-10 CHAPTER 7 – Evaluation of the Project
    • Table 7-11 Trade-o s No Build Measure Project Alternative Goals and Objectives Improve corridor mobility ! Improve corridor travel reliability ! Improve access to planned development to support City policy to develop a ! second urban center Improve transportation equity ! Transportation Transit travel time ! Transit ridership ! Systemwide tra c congestion ! Environmental Displacements ! Visual and aesthetic conditions ! Air quality ! Noise – – Energy ! Water quality ! Historic resources ! Cultural resources ! Financial Financial feasibility – – Cost-e ectiveness ! ! = Causes least damage or best protects, preserves, or enhances resource. – = No di erence between alternatives. June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement 7-11
    • This page left intentionally blank 7-12 CHAPTER 7 – Evaluation of the Project
    • 08 CHAPTER Comments and Coordination Agencies, non-governmental groups, and the e requirements of Chapter 343 of the Hawai‘i public have been engaged throughout the plan- Revised Statutes (HRS) (HRS 2008) and imple- ning process for the Honolulu High-Capacity menting regulations contained in Title 11, Chap- Transit Corridor Project, as required by Federal ter 200 (HAR 1996a) of the Hawai‘i Administrative and State law. e National Environmental Policy Rules (HAR) also include consultation with Act (NEPA) (USC 1969) mandates agency and agencies, citizen groups, and concerned individuals public participation in de ning and evaluating during the Project. the impacts of the project alternatives. e Project has followed Section 6002 of the Safe, Account- NEPA and HRS Chapter 343 require that a Dra able, Flexible, E cient Transportation Equity Act: Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) provide full A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (PL 2005) disclosure of the environmental impacts associated guidance for federally funded projects. It has also with a proposed action. e agencies and the public followed U.S. Department of Transportation guide- were given a reasonable opportunity to comment lines for public participation, including Title VI on project planning documents. In accordance of e Civil Rights Act of 1964 (USC 1964c) and with Federal and State regulations, this Final EIS Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address includes the comments received on the Dra EIS Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and and responses to those comments (Appendix A, Low-Income Populations (USEO 1994). Comments Received on the Dra Environmental Impact Statement and Responses). Coordination activities required under the imple- menting regulations of Section 106 of 36 CFR 800, Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties, have also been implemented during the course of the Project. June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement 8-1
    • 8.1 Changes to this Chapter since and revised to re ect changes in the Project and the Draft Environmental Impact ensure that coordination is thorough, e ective, Statement and relevant. is chapter was updated to re ect the current list of cooperating agencies and Section 106 consult- 8.2.1 Public Outreach Techniques ing parties. Section 8.2, Public and Community To reach as many community members as possible, Outreach, was expanded to detail NEPA coordina- a wide variety of public involvement tools have tion. Section 8.5, Public Hearings, was updated, been used throughout the Project. Informational and a new Section 8.6, Dra EIS Comments, was materials produced on an ongoing basis include added to summarize the public comment period newsletters, fact sheets, brochures, media releases, on the Dra EIS. Section 8.7, Continuing Public public meeting announcements, and other relevant Involvement through Construction, was added to project handouts. At the conclusion of the Alterna- address that public involvement will be ongoing tives Analysis and Dra EIS phases, videos were through construction of the Project. produced highlighting the ndings. Complement- ing information sources include the project website Since the publication of the Dra EIS, the U. S. (honolulutransit.org), telephone information line Department of Defense (U.S. Army Corps of (808-566-2299), radio programs, and a monthly Engineers) and the U.S. Department of Homeland show on public access television. Security (U.S. Coast Guard—14th Coast Guard District) have each requested their status be Islandwide community updates were held during changed from cooperating agency to participating the course of the Project to share information agency. e U.S. Department of Defense (U.S. and gather input on signi cant milestone deci- Naval Base Pearl Harbor) and the U.S. Department sions. e Project maintains an active Speakers of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Bureau to provide informational presentations to (FAA) have requested status as cooperating agen- community groups, agencies, and organizations. cies. e FAA had been initially invited and was A full list of Speakers Bureau presentations is involved in the Project as a participating agency. included in Appendix G, Record of Public and Stakeholder Correspondence and Coordination. To date, more than 2,500 comments on the 8.2 Public and Community Outreach Project have been submitted through the website e Project’s public involvement e orts began and more than 600 have been received via the with the Project’s Alternatives Analysis phase telephone information line. in December 2005. Opportunities for public comment and information sharing will continue 8.2.2 Government and Other throughout the remainder of the Project, using the Agency Coordination now well-established network of existing civic and Government agencies that have an interest in community groups. and/or regulatory authority regarding the Project have been actively engaged. ese agencies were e Public Involvement Plan (PIP) developed for sent scoping information and requests to become the Alternatives Analysis and Dra EIS phase participating or cooperating agencies during the details public involvement strategies to be used environmental process. throughout the Project. Its fundamental goal is to engage, inform, and respond to the public. As Feedback was solicited from the following govern- the Project progresses, the PIP will be updated ment and other agencies through direct contact: 8-2 CHAPTER 8 – Comments and Coordination
    • • Elected o cials • U.S. Department of Defense (U.S. Army • Neighborhood boards Garrison–Hawai‘i) • e Transit Solutions Advisory Committee • U.S. Department of Defense (U.S. Naval Base during the Alternatives Analysis phase Pearl Harbor)—the Project will require the • Governmental agencies and stakeholders U.S. Navy’s approval related to a station on • Interested organizations U.S. Navy property • U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Appendix F, Record of Agency Correspondence Aviation Administration—the Federal Avia- and Coordination, includes a list of government tion Administration has regulatory oversight agencies and organizations contacted. jurisdiction at Honolulu International Airport and will need to approve the Airport Lead, Cooperating, and Participating Agencies Layout Plan changes as a result of the Project, e Council on Environmental Quality de nes use of airport revenue for the airport por- lead agency as the agency or agencies preparing or tion of the Project, and for the right-of-way taking primary responsibility for preparing an EIS. request for use of airport property. Lead agencies for the Project include the City and • U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal County of Honolulu Department of Transportation Highway Administration—the Project will Services (DTS) and the Federal Transit Adminis- require the Federal Highway Administration’s tration (FTA). DTS is the local transit agency, the approval related to crossing and accessing the designated recipient of project funds, and a co-lead interstate highway system agency with the FTA. e DTS Rapid Transit Divi- • State of Hawai‘i Department of Transporta- sion (RTD) is the entity tasked with development tion—the Project will require the State of and implementation of the Project. Hawai‘i Department of Transportation’s approval related to using state rights-of-way e Council on Environmental Quality de nes a cooperating agency as any Federal agency (other e FAA is a cooperating agency on this EIS, in than a lead agency) with jurisdiction by law or accordance with 40 CFR Part 1501.6(a)(1), since special expertise with respect to any environmen- it has special expertise and jurisdiction by law tal impacts that may be involved in a proposed to approve proposed development at Honolulu project or project alternative (40 CFR 1508.5). A International Airport. e FAA is assigned State or Local agency with similar quali cations responsibilities pursuant to 49 USC 40101 et seq., may, with agreement from the lead agencies, also for civil aviation and regulation of air commerce become a cooperating agency. in the interests of aviation safety and e ciency. As a cooperating agency on this EIS, FAA will Also, pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.3, “a cooperating use the EIS documentation to comply with its agency may adopt without recirculating the EIS own requirements under NEPA for Federal of a lead agency when, a er an independent actions. e FAA will also use the EIS to support review of the statement, the cooperating agency subsequent decisions and Federal actions, includ- concludes that its comments and suggestions ing unconditional approval of the portion of the have been satis ed.” Airport Layout Plan that depicts the Project, determination of eligibility for Federal assistance Cooperating agencies for the Project include under the Federal grant-in-aid program, approval the following: of an application to use Passenger Facility June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement 8-3
    • Charges, and approval to grant right-of-way at the • State of Hawai‘i, Hawai‘i Community Devel- airport to carry out the Project. opment Authority • State of Hawai‘i O ce of Environmental Participating agencies are those with an interest in Quality Control the Project. e standard for participating agency • State of Hawai‘i O ce of Hawaiian A airs status is broader than for cooperating agency status. • University of Hawai‘i According to SAFETEA-LU regulations, “any Fed- • O‘ahu Metropolitan Planning Organization eral, State, regional, and local government agency that may have an interest in the project should be Participating agencies were identi ed and invited invited to serve as participating agencies. Nongov- to participate at the start of the NEPA process. ernmental organizations and private entities cannot eir participation includes providing input to serve as participating agencies.” scoping, development of the Purpose and Need, and identi cation of potential e ects. Project For this Project, participating agencies include the scoping and issuance of the Dra EIS provided following: o cial comment periods for the public and partici- • U.S. Department of Defense (U.S. Army pating and cooperating agencies. Corps of Engineers) • U.S. Department of Agriculture (Natural e lead, cooperating, and participating agen- Resource Conservation Service) cies have worked cooperatively throughout the • U.S. Department of Homeland Security (U.S. Project’s environmental process, as required by Coast Guard—14th Coast Guard District) the SAFETEA-LU regulations described in this • U.S. Department of the Interior (Fish and chapter. During this process, their main goal is to Wildlife Service) ensure that all agency concerns are satisfactorily • U.S. Department of the Interior (National addressed and that the permit review and approval Park Service) process proceeds smoothly and expeditiously. • U.S. Department of the Interior (U.S. Geological Survey Paci c Island Ecosystems Table 8-1 summarizes the roles and responsi- Research Center) bilities of the Project’s lead, cooperating, and • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency participating agencies. Appendix F includes • U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency agency correspondence. • State of Hawai‘i Department of Accounting and General Services 8.2.3 Section 106 and Consulting • State of Hawai‘i Department of Business, Party Coordination Economic Development and Tourism e lead agency is responsible for complying with • State of Hawai‘i Department of Defense Section 106 of the National Historic Preserva- • State of Hawai‘i Department of Education tion Act. Section 106 requires the lead agency to • State of Hawai‘i Department of Hawaiian “accommodate historic preservation concerns Home Lands with the needs of Federal undertakings through • State of Hawai‘i Department of Health consultation among the agency o cial and other • State of Hawai‘i Department of Land and parties with an interest in the e ects of the under- Natural Resources taking on historic properties...” [36 CFR 800.1(a)]. • State of Hawai‘i Department of Land and Although other parties are consulted for their Natural Resources (State Historic Preserva- input, the Federal agency has the authority to make tion Division) all decisions. 8-4 CHAPTER 8 – Comments and Coordination
    • Table 8-1 Summary of Agency Roles and Responsibilities Agency Role Responsibility Designation Lead Primary responsibility: ensuring compliance with NEPA and Requests participation from other agencies; provides project preparing the environmental document. information; conducts eld reviews; holds scoping meet- ings; provides pre-draft and pre- nal documents; ensures documentation is adequate for project and related decisions; and makes nal decisions on key milestones. Cooperating Any Federal agency, other than a lead agency, that has Participates early in the NEPA process; participates in jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any developing the Purpose and Need and alternatives and in the environmental impact involved in a proposed project or scoping process; develops information and analysis; provides project alternative (may also be a State agency). sta support; attends joint eld reviews; participates in public involvement activities; reviews draft environmental documents; and provides comments. Participating Any Federal, State, Regional, or Local government agency that Participates in developing the Purpose and Need and may have an interest in a proposed project. Nongovernmental alternatives and identifying potential impacts during scoping organizations and private entities cannot serve as participat- and the Draft EIS. Briefed on the Project before issuance of the ing agencies. Draft EIS. Extensive e ort was made to identify, contact, and consider project e ects, and develop mitigation to consult with groups entitled to be consulting parties limit the adverse e ects of the Project: relating to archaeological, cultural, and historic • Advisory Council on Historic Preservation resources within the Area of Potential E ect • U.S. Navy (U.S. Naval Base Pearl Harbor) (APE). e purpose of consultation was to identify • Historic Hawai‘i Foundation archaeological, cultural, and historic resources • National Park Service and to discuss other issues relating to the Project’s • National Trust for Historic Preservation potential e ects on such resources. Information was • University of Hawai‘i Historic Preservation obtained from individuals and organizations likely Certi cate Program to have knowledge of potential resources in the • American Institute of Architects study corridor. A reasonable and good faith e ort • Hawai‘i Community Development Authority was made to identify Native Hawaiian organizations • O ce of Hawaiian A airs that might attach religious and cultural signi cance • O‘ahu Island Burial Council to historic properties in the APE, and they were • Hui Mālama I Nā Kupuna O Hawai‘i Nei given opportunities to discuss issues and concerns. • Royal Order of Kamehameha • e Ahahui Ka‘ahumanu In addition to consultation with the State His- • e Hale O Nā Ali‘i O Hawai‘i toric Preservation O cer (SHPO), the City also • e Daughters and Sons of Hawaiian consulted with organizations and agencies with Warriors concerns regarding archaeological, cultural, and • Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs—and 15 historic areas. is consultation included Hawaiian individual civic clubs civic clubs that may have an interest in the Project. Letters sent by the FTA initiated an ongoing con- Between July 28, 2009, and November 13, 2009, sultation process with the following groups (Sec- FTA and the City invited all consulting parties tion 106 consulting parties) to identify resources, to participate in a series of meetings to develop a Programmatic Agreement (PA) (see Section 4.16, June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement 8-5
    • Archaeological, Cultural, and Historic, and and closed on April 12, 2007. All interested Appendix H, Section 106 of the National Historic individuals and organizations and Federal, State, Preservation Act dra Programmatic Agreement). and Local agencies were invited to comment on e Section 106 signatories FTA, SHPO, and the Purpose of and Needs to be addressed by the ACHP, in coordination with the invited signato- Project; the alternatives, including the modes and ries, will nalize the dra PA. FTA will distribute technologies to be evaluated and the alignments the executed PA to the Section 106 consulting and termination points to be considered; and the parties and invite their signature as concurring environmental, social, and economic impacts to be parties to the PA. Appendix F includes Section 106 analyzed. An opportunity to express a preference correspondence. for a particular alternative was available a er the Dra EIS was released. Comments received are 8.2.4 HRS Chapter 343 Coordination contained in the Honolulu High Capacity Transit e EIS preparation notice for this Project was Corridor Project National Environmental Policy Act published in the Hawai‘i O ce of Environmental Scoping Report (DTS 2007) located in Appendix G. Quality Control’s (OEQC) Environmental Notice on December 8, 2005, thus beginning the 30-day A Notice of Availability of the Dra EIS was pub- comment period under HRS Chapter 343 for the lished in the Federal Register on November 21, Project. Comments received are contained in the 2008. Notice also appeared in the Environmental Honolulu High Capacity Transit Corridor Project Notice issued by OEQC in its November 23, Scoping Report (DTS 2006c) located in Appen- 2008, edition. e Dra EIS was circulated for a dix G. Written responses were prepared and sent 45-day review and comment period, which was to all commenters who provided either a mailing later extended until February 6, 2009, in response address or an e-mail address for responses. e to requests by members of the public. Informa- Dra EIS addressed comments and issues raised tion about cooperating and participating agencies during the EIS preparation notice comment period under NEPA are included earlier in this chapter. and issues noted during the NEPA scoping process A Notice of Availability of the Final EIS will be in 2007. published in the Federal Register. HRS Chapter 343, and its implementing regulations contained in HAR Section 11-200, require that 8.3 Community Outreach during the agencies, citizen groups, and concerned individu- Alternatives Analysis Phase als be consulted for input. Interested parties may Federal regulations (40 CFR 1501) require scoping request consulted party status to receive ongoing to follow publication of a Notice of Intent to project and coordination information. Downtown prepare an EIS and take place before the Dra Neighborhood Board No. 13 and the Outdoor Circle EIS is prepared. A public meeting was held during requested and were granted consulted party status the scoping process. Notice of this meeting was under HRS Chapter 343. Both parties have received published in the Federal Register, in local news- periodic updates on the Project. papers, and through other means of announcing public meetings. 8.2.5 NEPA Coordination e Notice of Intent to prepare the EIS appeared in An initial Notice of Intent was published for the the Federal Register on March 15, 2007. e scoping Project on December 5, 2005. Two public scoping comment period under NEPA o cially began meetings and one agency scoping meeting were on the date of the Federal Register publication held in December 2005. e rst public meeting 8-6 CHAPTER 8 – Comments and Coordination
    • was on December 13, 2005, at the Neal S. Blaisdell • University of Hawai‘i Center Pīkake Room at 777 Ward Avenue in • City and County of Honolulu Department of Downtown Honolulu from 5:00 to 8:00 p.m. e Design and Construction second public meeting was on December 14, 2005, • City and County of Honolulu Fire at the Kapolei Middle School Cafeteria at 91-5335 Department Kapolei Parkway in Kapolei, from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. • Downtown Neighborhood Board No. 13 Agencies, non-governmental groups, and the gen- • Hawaiian Electric Company eral public were given the opportunity to comment on the Project’s Purpose and Need, alternatives, Project personnel attended 104 neighborhood and other project issues. board meetings and 204 Speakers Bureau events during the Project’s Alternatives Analysis phase. e comment period for these scoping meetings ended on January 9, 2006. In all, 528 comments e Alternatives Analysis was completed in were received via mail, website, telephone, and at October 2006 and submitted to the City Council the meetings (requests to be placed on the mailing for use in its selection of a Locally Preferred list were not included in this total). Comments Alternative. Agency and public comments on the were grouped into three categories: Purpose and Alternatives Analysis were generally categorized as Need, alternatives, and scope of analysis. either supporting a speci c alternative or opposing the Project. Numerous other general comments e agency scoping meeting was on December 13, or questions did not directly support or oppose 2005, at the Neal S. Blaisdell Center Pīkake Room speci c options. at 777 Ward Avenue from 2:00 to 4:00 p.m. Invita- tion letters were mailed between December 5 and 7, 2005, to 87 Federal, State, and County 8.4 Community Outreach during agencies and to utility companies. is meeting the Project’s Preliminary was attended by 20 agencies and utility companies. Engineering/EIS Phase Comments were received from the following agen- Another series of public and agency scoping cies and utilities: meetings was held prior to beginning the Project’s • U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Preliminary Engineering (PE)/EIS phase. A Notice Aviation Administration of Intent was published on March 15, 2007, stating • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that this notice superseded the previous Notice of • U.S. National Park Service Intent published on December 5, 2005. • Hawai‘i Community Development Authority • State of Hawai‘i Department of Accounting Agencies, non-governmental groups, and the and General Services general public were again given the opportunity • State of Hawai‘i Department of Education to comment on the Project’s Purpose and Need, • State of Hawai‘i Department of Hawaiian alternatives, or other project issues. Coordination Home Lands is currently continuing with cooperating and • State of Hawai‘i Department of Land and participating agencies. Meetings with individual Natural Resources agencies have been held to discuss and nalize • State of Hawai‘i O ce of Environmental evaluation methods and project issues and to Quality Control collect project data. • O ce of Hawaiian A airs June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement 8-7
    • ree public scoping meetings were held in March Alternatives that was sent to all recipients of the and April 2007. e rst was on March 28, 2007, Dra EIS. at Kapolei Hale at 1000 Uluohia Street from 6 to 9 p.m. e second was on March 29, 2007, at 8.4.1 Community Station Design Workshops McKinley High School at 1039 South King Street e City is conducting a series of station design from 5 to 8 p.m. e third was on April 3, 2007, at workshops to solicit community and Section 106 Salt Lake Elementary School at 1131 Ala Liliko‘i consulting party input and ideas about station Street from 5 to 8 p.m. design elements and the interface between each station and the surrounding community. Each ere were 104 comments received via mail, web- station, or group of stations, is the topic of a series site, and telephone, and at scoping meetings. e of meetings. Comments received during the rst following types of comments were not included meeting or meetings are incorporated into a dra in this total: requests to be placed on the mailing design for presentation at the nal meeting. list, comments on alternatives already considered and/or eliminated from further consideration, Station design workshops began in April 2009 and comments on new alternatives considered previ- have been completed for the following stations: ously and eliminated, Council hearing comments `Ewa (East Kapolei and UH West O`ahu), Waipahu from the Alternatives Analysis phase, and taxa- (Ho‘opili, West Loch, and Waipahu Transit tion comments. Center), Leeward Community College, Pearlridge, and Pearl Highlands. Workshops will continue An agency scoping meeting was held on March 28, throughout the project corridor to support the 2007, at Honolulu Hale, Mission Memorial Audi- completion of PE. torium, 550 King Street from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. Twenty agencies attended. 8.4.2 Agency Coordination Cooperating agencies were o ered the opportunity e public involvement techniques used during the to be briefed on the Project and given an oppor- Alternatives Analysis phase continued throughout tunity to comment on a preliminary copy of the the PE/EIS phase. In addition to updating groups Dra EIS. Cooperating agencies were invited to and organizations on the Project’s progress, attend the Dra EIS public hearings. Participating additional presentations were made to new groups agencies received a copy of the Dra EIS for review and organizations. Project information was and comment and were invited to attend the Dra disseminated throughout the study corridor in the EIS public hearings. form of community updates, participation in Town Hall meetings, and informational displays. Project All cooperating agencies received a preliminary personnel have also attended neighborhood board copy of the Final EIS for review and comment meetings and have been available via radio call-in prior to its distribution. Cooperating agency shows. e Project website and hotline continue comments have been addressed in this Final EIS. to be updated and maintained. Approximately All participating agencies will receive a copy of 20 half-hour information shows about the Project the Final EIS and will receive noti cation when have been produced and broadcast on local ‘Ōlelo the Record of Decision is issued. e Final EIS is television. e Project also produced an interac- being distributed to everyone who was on the list tive DVD containing the Dra EIS, a 28-minute of recipients for the Dra EIS, along with all those movie summarizing important points of the Dra who provided comments on the Dra EIS. EIS, and a ythrough of the Airport and Salt Lake 8-8 CHAPTER 8 – Comments and Coordination
    • Agencies with permitting authority will continue 2 comment forms were placed into comment to be consulted during the permit application boxes. A written letter was also handed to a process. Permit applications will be submitted, court reporter as a comment. and data will be developed to support the needs • Monday, December 8, 2008, at Neal S. identi ed by permitting agencies. Blaisdell Center, Hawai‘i Suite, 777 Ward Avenue in Honolulu from 6 to 8 p.m. is hearing was attended by 79 individuals; 8.5 Public Hearings 26 testimonies were given and 10 comment As part of the NEPA and HRS Chapter 343 forms were placed into comment boxes. process, the Dra EIS was circulated for a • Tuesday, December 9, 2008, at Salt Lake Dis- 45-day review and comment period, which was trict Park, 1159 Ala Liliko‘i Place in Honolulu later extended. A Notice of Availability of the from 6 to 8 p.m. is hearing was attended by Dra EIS was published in the Federal Register 59 individuals; 25 testimonies were given and on November 23, 2008. Notice also appeared in 5 comment forms were placed into comment the Environmental Notice issued by OEQC in its boxes. November 23, 2008, edition. In December 2008, • Wednesday, December 10, 2008, at the the review and comment period was extended Filipino Community Center, 94-428 Mokuola until February 6, 2009, in response to requests by Street in Waipahu from 6 to 8 p.m. is members of the public. During this period, the hearing was attended by 45 individuals; document was made available to interested and 8 testimonies were given. No comment forms concerned parties, including residents, property were placed into the comment boxes. owners, community groups, the business com- • ursday, December 11, 2008, at Bishop munity, elected o cials, and public agencies, for Museum, 1525 Bernice Street in Honolulu public and agency comment. from 6 to 8 p.m. is hearing was attended by 11 individuals; 3 testimonies were given. No A series of ve public hearings was held during comment forms were placed into the com- the initial 45-day period to give interested par- ment boxes. ties an opportunity to submit comments on the Project and the analysis contained in the Dra EIS. Two rooms were used for all public hearings. One Attendance at the hearings was not required to room contained project information on display submit comments. All of the public hearings were boards, multi-media displays, copies of the Dra held in ADA-compliant locations, and the ability EIS, and comment boxes. Project sta were on to request special needs materials or personnel hand to interact with the public. Two secured com- was provided. Attendees were provided handouts, ment boxes were provided for those who wished including a schedule of the times and locations for to submit written comments. A court reporter was all hearings and a project information sheet. e also available in this area to transcribe comments comments received are addressed in this Final EIS. from the public. Public hearings were held at the following times e other room was the public hearing room and locations: where the public was invited to comment on the • Saturday, December 6, 2008, at Kapolei Project. Stationed in this room were the Public Hale, 1000 Uluohia Street in Kapolei from Hearing O cer and a court reporter for transcrip- 9 to 11 a.m. is hearing was attended by tions. Transcripts from all ve public hearings are 33 individuals; 11 testimonies were given and included in Appendix A. Individuals who wished June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement 8-9
    • to comment were provided three minutes to make Table 8-2 Common Comment Topics on the Draft EIS their statements. Topic Issues Alternatives considered Re-evaluation of alternatives All hearings were open to the public for the two- Grade-separation requirement hour time for which they were advertised. A er the Steel-wheel technology Public Hearing O cer closed the formal comment Selection of the Airport Alternative portion of the public hearing, individuals were able Planned extensions Evaluation of phasing to provide verbal comments to the court reporter Ridership and travel Modeling process stationed in the project information area or to forecasting Ridership forecast uncertainty place written comments into comment boxes. e Parking Loss of parking Public Hearing O cer remained on-site through- Spillover parking out the hearing in case a need arose to reconvene Tra c analysis Calculations formal testimony. Future conditions Visual Visual character Public hearings were advertised in major local Visual integration newspapers, on local radio and television, and in Noise Noise generated by Project ethnic and cultural newspapers in several lan- Cost and nancing Capital costs guages. e hearings were also announced through Operating costs Funding the Project’s website, hotline, newsletters, and a Construction phasing Order of construction postcard mailed to area residents. Construction e ects Tra c Access to businesses Acquisition and relocation Residences 8.6 Draft EIS Comments Businesses e Dra EIS was placed on the Project’s website on November 1, 2008. Comments received between this date and the issuance of the notice of avail- A discussion of the comments received for each of ability of the Dra EIS in the Federal Register on these topics follows in the subsections below. November 21, 2008, were included as Dra EIS comments. In total, 586 comment submissions Postcards were mailed to everyone on the Project’s were received via the following means: mailing list, and advertisements were placed in • Project website—276 local newspapers and on City buses concern- • Letter—175 ing the availability of the Dra EIS and how • Public hearing testimony—73 to comment. Individuals were able to provide • Public hearing comment form—20 (including comments through the Project’s website at www. two that were mailed in) honolulutransit.org, by attending a public hearing, • E-mail—41 or by mailing them to DTS or FTA. Copies of all • Fax—1 comments received, as well as copies of all response letters, are included in Appendix A. e majority of the comments received were related to the following topics: alternatives considered, 8.6.1 Alternatives Considered planned extensions, ridership and travel forecast- Several individuals commented on various aspects ing, parking, tra c analysis, visual, noise, cost of the alternatives considered. e most common and nancing, construction phasing, construction comments were related to re-evaluating alterna- e ects, and acquisition and relocation (Table 8-2). tives that were previously considered, speci cally 8-10 CHAPTER 8 – Comments and Coordination
    • that the system be grade-separated; selection of Chapter 2, Alternatives Considered, of this Final steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology; and selection EIS, total islandwide congestion as measured by of the Airport Alternative as the Project. vehicle hours of delay (VHD) would have increased with the Managed Lane Alternative as compared to Reevaluation of Alternatives the No Build Alternative. A more detailed response Bus-based transit and the Managed Lane Alterna- related to the Managed Lane Alternative is pro- tive were the topics of a number of comments. Both vided in Section 8.6.12. were evaluated during the Alternatives Analysis process as part of the Transportation System Man- Grade-separation Requirement agement (TSM) Alternative and the Managed Lane At-grade light-rail transit was suggested as an Alternative. Additional information was added to alternative to the Project in several comments. Section 2.2.2 of this Final EIS to clarify why these As explained in Section 2.2.2 of this Final EIS, alternatives performed poorly and were eliminated at-grade light-rail transit was considered during from further consideration. the Alternatives Analysis process. An at-grade light-rail transit option did not meet the Project’s e TSM Alternative, which was essentially the Purpose and Need. Although the at-grade light-rail bus-based alternative, did not perform at a level system could have reduced the visual impact of the comparable to the Fixed Guideway Alternative. Project and, in some locations, could reduce the is is because it would be subject to the same cost, it would have reduced the reliability, speed, roadway congestion as automobiles and would not safety, and expandability of the system. Also, it improve travel reliability. e analyses found that would have increased the cost of right-of-way the TSM Alternative would have improved transit acquisition because more land would have been travel times somewhat by reducing the amount of needed to maintain functioning roadways. An time riders would have to wait for a bus to arrive at-grade light-rail system would have increased at a bus stop; however, the TSM Alternative would congestion by removing at least two lanes of tra c have generated fewer hours of transit-user bene ts to place tracks at-grade and most likely would have than the Managed Lane and Fixed Guideway had a broader e ect on sensitive cultural resources Alternatives because most buses would still operate and burial sites along the corridor. More detail in in mixed tra c. response to questions about at-grade operation is presented in Section 8.6.13. e Managed Lane Alternative was fully evaluated in the Honolulu High Capacity Transit Corridor Steel-wheel Technology Project Alternatives Analysis Report (DTS 2006b) e selection of steel-wheel technology was and demonstrated to be less e ective than a Fixed questioned in several comments. e majority of Guideway Alternative. e Managed Lane facility individuals recommended magnetic levitation would have cost $2.6 billion in 2006 dollars (higher technology as an option. As explained in Sec- now). Transit reliability would not have been tion 2.2.3 of this Final EIS, technologies other improved except for express bus service opera- than steel wheel were eliminated because they are tion in the managed lanes. While this alternative proprietary technologies, meaning that selecting would have slightly reduced congestion on parallel one of those technologies would have required all highways, systemwide tra c congestion would future purchases of vehicles or equipment to be have been similar to the No Build Alternative from that same manufacturer. ese were elimi- as a result of increased tra c on arterials trying nated because none of the proprietary technologies to access the facility. As noted in Table 2-2 of o ered substantial proven performance, cost, and June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement 8-11
    • reliability bene ts compared to steel wheel operat- 8.6.2 Planned Extensions ing on steel rail, which is a technology that has Comments were received suggesting that the xed been in revenue operation around the world for guideway extensions, which are part of the Locally many decades. Preferred Alternative selected by the City Council, also should be examined in the EIS. ere were Commenters suggested that there are less impacts also comments asking that the Project be extended associated with noise, safety, and visual with mag- to the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa. netic levitation relative to steel-wheel technology. However, High Speed Surface Transport, a Japa- e planned extensions are discussed as future nese magnetic levitation technology, is unproven in foreseeable projects in the cumulative impacts sec- general use. ere is only a single operating urban tions of Chapter 3, Transportation, and Chapter 4, High Speed Surface Transport system in the world, Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Miti- with less than ve years of operations. e single gation, of this Final EIS. e extensions are not part operating system has a maximum speed of 100 of the Project as evaluated in this Final EIS because kilometers per hour (62 miles per hour), which is no funding has been identi ed for these portions similar to the maximum operating speeds of 50 to of the Locally Preferred Alternative. Because there 60 miles per hour common for steel-wheel systems. is no identi ed funding, no engineering design or While the system may be quieter, steel-wheel environmental evaluation could be completed at systems can be designed to match the noise level this time. e FTA will not be granting any New of magnetic levitation when in operation. ere is Starts approvals for the extensions of the elevated no speci c safety improvement from the traction rail system under the current project. design. e assumed visual bene ts for beam-track vehicles would not apply in the United States If funding is identi ed in the future, engineering because of requirements to include an emergency design and environmental analysis of the exten- egress walkway. Also, the smaller structures sions and the appropriate alternatives analysis will proposed in the comments would result in shorter be undertaken. e Project, as evaluated in this span-lengths, which increases the number of Final EIS, has logical termini and independent util- columns required and the number of views ity from any extensions that may be constructed in blocked by support structures. is would result the future. in higher costs. More details about the elimination of magnetic levitation technologies as an option is 8.6.3 Ridership/Travel Forecasting presented in Section 2.2.3 of this Final EIS. Various comments were received concerning the Project’s travel forecasting model. Among the Selection of the Airport Alternative concerns was the uncertainty of the results given Section 2.3, Alternatives Considered in the Dra the nature of the modeling process, the type of Environmental Impact Statement, of this Final model used in generating ridership information EIS summarizes the alternatives that were evalu- upon which the EIS information is based, and ated in the Dra EIS, and Section 2.4, Preferred experience with modeling results on other projects Alternative Identi cation Process, describes the around the country. City’s identi cation of the Airport Alternative as the Preferred Alternative for the Project, which Modeling Process was based on consideration of the bene ts of each In response to the comments, more information alternative, public input on the Dra EIS, and City about the modeling process was included in Council Resolution 08-261 (City 2008). this Final EIS. Regarding the model used for the 8-12 CHAPTER 8 – Comments and Coordination
    • Project, FTA determines the type of model, the and 2030). Based upon the model and these key modeling process, and the manner in which travel input assumptions, approximately 116,300 trips per forecasting is conducted for large transit projects. day are expected on the rapid transit system on an e structure and process used in modeling were average weekday in 2030. Since the Dra EIS was established by the FTA to ensure all projects published, the travel demand model was re ned submitted for funding consideration under the by adding an updated air passenger model and, Federal New Starts Program are presented on an through coordination with the FTA, de ning more equal footing. e FTA also de nes the way travel realistic drive access modes to project stations and forecasting is conducted to ensure ridership gures including a more comprehensive o -peak non- are realistic and to avoid past errors by other proj- home-based direct demand element based on travel ects where, in some cases, forecasts exceeded actual surveys in Honolulu. ridership performance by a substantial margin in the early years of some systems’ operations. Ridership Forecast Uncertainty Honolulu is the rst project in the country to Ridership forecasting today is much better than design and undertake such a detailed uncertainty it was just 10 years ago. Recent forecasts for new analysis of this type of forecast. FTA has worked systems using the improved modeling techniques closely with the Project’s travel forecasters and set forth by the FTA have been very accurate (e.g., provided extensive guidance during this e ort. A Phoenix, Salt Lake City). Still, there is also recogni- variety of factors were considered in the uncer- tion within FTA that forecasting by its nature tainty analysis, including the following variables: contains an element of uncertainty. e acknowl- • Variations in assumptions regarding the edgment of uncertainty is presented in Section 3.2, magnitude and distribution patterns of future Methodology, of this Final EIS with a reference growth in the ‘Ewa end of the corridor to the more detailed information available in the • e impact of various levels of investment in Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project highway infrastructure Travel Forecasting Results and Uncertainties Report • Expected frequency of service provided by (RTD 2009l). the rapid transit system • Park-and-ride behavior with the new system Regarding the modeling process for the Project, in place ridership projections for the forecast year of 2030 • Implications on ridership of vehicle and have been developed using a travel demand model passenger amenities provided by the new that is calibrated and validated to current year guideway vehicles conditions based on actual tra c counts and bus ridership. e model is based upon a set of e anticipated range for rapid transit system rid- realistic input assumptions regarding land use ership in 2030 is expected to be between 105,000 and demographic changes (City policy regarding to 130,000 trips per day bracketing the o cial where growth will be oriented over time and forecast of 116,300 trips a day used for all calcula- trends based on economic factors and population tions. Even at the low end, the cost-e ectiveness of changes) between now and 2030. e model is the Project is within New Starts funding thresh- also based on expected transportation levels of olds requirements. service on both the highway and public transit systems (based on current conditions and how 8.6.4 Parking they are likely to change over time given plans for A number of comments addressed the Project’s highway and transit improvement between now e ects on parking, including the loss of existing June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement 8-13
    • on-street and o -street parking supply, removal of Spillover Parking freight and/or passenger loading zones, and e ects Regarding the potential for spillover parking near relating to spillover parking near stations. stations, ridership forecasts indicate that a small number of passengers will park near stations Loss of Parking without designated park-and-ride facilities. Analy- Approximately 690 o -street and 175 on-street sis found that spillover parking will not a ect parking spaces will be removed to accommodate tra c in the area. However the existing parking the Project. O -street parking supply a ected by supply could be a ected. To address the e ects of the Project is scattered throughout the corridor and spillover parking on supply, the City will conduct is exclusively on private property. ese parking surveys prior to and again within six months a er spaces will be acquired to provide additional station opening to determine the extent of spillover rights-of-way needed to construct the guideway or parking and then implement mitigation strategies stations. Compensation to the a ected property as needed. Mitigation strategies include, but are not owners will comply with the requirements of the limited to, implementation of parking restrictions Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real and development of shared-parking arrangements. Property Acquisition Policies Act (CFR 1989a). e Follow-up surveys will be conducted by the City to City does not plan to generally replace all private, determine if the mitigation strategies are e ective, o -street parking removed for construction of the and additional mitigation measures will be imple- Project. However, the City will work with landown- mented by the City as needed. ers to replace parking as appropriate. 8.6.5 Traffic Analysis On-street parking a ected by the Project is concen- Comments were received questioning the use of the trated in three areas: near the Lagoon Drive and Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology Iwilei Stations and in Kaka‘ako along Halekauwila in evaluating tra c conditions under the No Build Street. Based on the results of parking utilization Alternative or the Project. e concern was that surveys conducted in June 2008, April 2009, and the HCM technique does not perform well under March 2010 for the Project, there is available park- saturated conditions. ere were also multiple ing nearby to accommodate motorists currently comments about tra c conditions becoming worse using the 175 on-street parking spaces that will be in the future, even with the Project. removed by the Project. erefore, these on-street parking spaces will generally not be replaced by the Calculations City. However, some new on-street parking spaces In response to these comments, the information will be created by construction of the Project in the provided regarding the use of the HCM methodol- general locations of lost spaces as streets are rebuilt ogy was expanded and more comprehensively following construction. explained. Despite the cited limitations of the HCM methodology, it works well under the One freight loading zone and two passenger conditions present in the Honolulu corridor. e loading zones will be a ected by the Project. e HCM methodology is used as a basic measure of loading zones will be temporarily removed or the quality of service on the highway system and relocated, and new loading zones will be installed as a gauge for where additional analysis is needed. once construction is complete. ere are few tra c impacts from the Project itself because tra c conditions are already di cult in some areas. For those locations that presented an identi able e ect based on the Project’s 8-14 CHAPTER 8 – Comments and Coordination
    • implementation, further analysis was completed EIS. In response to the viewer group’s responses, using more sophisticated modeling tools, such as received during the Dra EIS comment period, VISSIM, to develop micro-simulation models of further analysis of views and vistas was done and these critical areas. e application of this model- the visual e ects of several key views have been ing e ort provided insight into a broader area of reevaluated. e re nement resulted in revised rat- impact and allowed testing of mitigation options. ings from moderate to signi cant for Views 12, 14, and 15 (Table 4-9 in Chapter 4) in the Downtown Future Conditions area. e analysis of protected views and vistas was e Alternatives Analysis Report (DTS 2006b) provided in earlier technical documents; however, concludes that tra c conditions will worsen in this Final EIS more clearly describes the visual 2030 as a result of planned growth in the future e ects on these resources. no matter which alternative is built. On the other hand, based on the Alternatives Analysis, the only e overall conclusions of the Dra EIS have alternative that improves future tra c conditions not changed, but, through these re nements, the to a measurable degree compared to the No Build following clari cations have been made: Alternative is the Fixed Guideway Alternative. It • Viewpoint 12—visual impact rating re ned clearly shows superior results in terms of conges- to re ect that some views would be blocked tion reduction in comparison with other touted and to expressly point out the contrast of alternatives analyzed in the Alternatives Analysis. project elements with Chinatown’s historic character e information about the alternatives is pre- • Viewpoint 14—visual impact rating re ned sented in more detail in Section 2.2, Alternatives to re ect the bulk and scale of the guideway Screening and Selection Process, in this Final EIS. and columns being out of character with More information about the performance of the the pedestrian-oriented environment at this Dra EIS alternatives is presented in Section 2.3 viewpoint and in Chapter 3. • Viewpoint 15—visual impact rating re ned to re ect the bulk and scale of the station 8.6.6 Visual as well as the other elements noted in the roughout the Dra EIS review and comment Dra EIS period, many commented that visual changes associated with the project elements will result in e Dra EIS described several types of visual substantial visual e ects. Many comments received e ects, and the re nements re ect the same type of expressed concern that the elevated xed guideway visual e ects identi ed in the Dra EIS and shown transit system will adversely a ect O‘ahu’s unique in these viewpoints in the Dra EIS. e Dra EIS visual character by creating blight and degrading concluded that changes to some views, including views. In addition, commenters requested more protected views and vistas, would be unavoidable, information on how the project elements will be and the re nements con rmed this conclusion. integrated with their communities, especially in the areas around stations. Although mitigation measures will minimize many adverse visual e ects by providing visual ese commenters on view e ects are representa- bu ers and reducing visual contrasts between the tive of the various viewer groups that have been project elements and their surroundings, the Final considered in the visual and aesthetic conditions EIS acknowledges, as concluded in the Dra EIS, analysis presented in the Dra EIS and this Final that probable unavoidable adverse e ects, such as June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement 8-15
    • view blockage, cannot be mitigated and will be comment processes, many reviewers commented signi cant (noted as a “high” level of visual impact that the visual changes associated with the Project in the Dra EIS) in some areas. will be substantial. ese comments have been acknowledged in this Final EIS. Even with mitiga- Visual Character tion measures, some obstruction and changes to e island’s unique visual character and scenic views will result in signi cant unavoidable adverse beauty are essential components of the visual and e ects. ese e ects will be most noticeable where aesthetic assessment presented in the Dra EIS. the guideway and stations are nearby or in the is Final EIS includes more details on protected foreground of views. views and vistas, as well as potential visual e ects and mitigation. is analysis is included in the Protected views and vistas are view planes that Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project the City has determined are important to protect Visual and Aesthetics Resources Technical Report because of their scenic quality, scale, and promi- (RTD 2008e); visual e ects in the Dra EIS were nence within the visual environment. ese views based on this analysis, and it was added into the are developed through the City’s general, develop- Final EIS based on comments on the Dra EIS to ment, and community plans. ese plans guide expand and clarify the information. the adoption of zoning ordinances that regulate the use of land within demarcated zones and set As described in the Dra EIS, the Project will detailed standards for the height, bulk, size, and introduce a new linear visual element to the cor- location of buildings. ridor, and changes to some views will be signi cant and unavoidable. Some adverse visual e ects, Protected views and vistas, including mauka and such as view blockage, cannot be mitigated and makai views and views of prominent landmarks in will result in unavoidable adverse environmental the study corridor, are identi ed in City develop- e ects. ese e ects will be most noticeable where ment plans, including the ‘Ewa Development the guideway and stations are nearby or in the Plan (DPP 2000), the Central O‘ahu Sustainable foreground of views. Communities Plan (DPP 2002b), and the Primary Urban Center Development Plan (DPP 2004a). Although changes in visual resources or view e Project is supportive of the land use objectives planes and the viewer response will be signi cant included in these plans (Appendix J, Relationship in some areas, view changes are not likely to be to Land Use Plans, Policies, and Controls). Appen- obtrusive in wider vistas or regional panoramic dix J summarizes the Project’s relationship to State views where the project elements serve as smaller and City land use plans, polices, and controls for components of the larger landscape. the study corridor. e summary includes the relevant provisions of policy documents related to Visual Quality visual and aesthetic conditions. A viewer’s response to changes in view may vary with exposure and sensitivity and depend e City’s general urban design principles protect on the alignment orientation and the height of public views based on the type of view and are the guideway, stations, surrounding trees, and applicable to both public streets and public and buildings. Overall, the Project will be set in an private structures. Some protected views and vistas urban context where visual change is expected will change as a result of the Project, including and di erences in scales of structures are typi- public views along streets and highways, mauka- cal. However, through the Dra EIS review and makai view corridors, panoramic and signi cant 8-16 CHAPTER 8 – Comments and Coordination
    • landmark views from public places, views of locations in the corridor, sound-absorptive mate- natural features, heritage resources and other rial will be placed in the track bed to reduce noise landmarks, and view corridors between signi cant levels at nearby high-rise buildings. landmarks. e guideway and some stations will partially block mauka-makai public views from 8.6.8 Project Cost and Financing streets that intersect with the alignment. Many comments questioned the cost of the Project (both capital and operating costs) and the e Project will introduce a new linear visual City’s ability to fund the Project and obtain the element to the corridor and, as a result, changes anticipated Federal share of the funding. ere to some views will be unavoidable. Depending were concerns about the economy and the drop in on the degree of view obstruction or blockage, the 0.5-percent general excise and use tax (GET) some changes in view will be signi cant. Viewers’ surcharge collections that are dedicated to fund responses to these changes will vary with their the Project. exposure and sensitivity and depend on the align- ment orientation, guideway and station height, e funding of the Project relies on a combina- and height of surrounding trees and buildings. tion of Federal and Local funds. Costs have held View changes will be less notable in wider vista relatively steady over the past year as the economy or panoramic views where the project elements has slowed the rate of in ation of some of the key are smaller components of the larger landscape. cost drivers, such as steel and cement. e overall Generally, the project elements will not be domi- cost of the Project has not changed substantially nant features in these views. in year-of-expenditure (in ation-adjusted) dollars since the Dra EIS was published. 8.6.7 Noise Operational noise from the Project was a concern While there has been a reduction in the rate of to several commenters. e most common concern GET surcharge collections, the nancial plan was operating noise from the rail vehicles. continues to be balanced despite the reduction in revenues. is has been accomplished using a Section 4.10, Noise and Vibration, of this Final EIS higher Section 5309 New Starts allocation than provides a detailed noise analysis for the Project, shown in the Dra EIS (from $1.4 billion to including additional evaluation completed in $1.55 billion) and allocating to the Project some of response to comments on the Dra EIS and imple- the anticipated increases in Section 5307 formula mentation of recommended mitigation measures funds that will come to the City as a result of the in portions of the corridor that would experience Project. Section 6.3, Capital Plan, of this Final EIS noise impacts in the absence of such mitigation. addresses the way capital costs have been covered in the Project’s nancial analysis. e noise analysis follows current FTA guidance to use Ldn or Leq to evaluate noise impacts. e responses also reference how the nancial Figure 4-51 in Chapter 4 of this Final EIS, however, analysis addresses the uncertainties of the fund- does generally compare the Lmax noise levels. e ing forecast and provides for alternative funding project design includes a parapet wall that will options should they be needed to o set any addi- reduce noise along the guideway. No noise impacts tional shortfall in the primary revenue sources. are predicted for any schools along the study ese uncertainties and alternative funding corridor. Wheel skirts will reduce noise levels to options are presented in more detail in Section 6.6, below impact criteria in several locations. In three Risks and Uncertainties, of this Final EIS. June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement 8-17
    • Regarding operating and maintenance costs, the to Downtown with su cient available space to daily operation of the rapid transit system will construct a maintenance and storage facility. come from the same City sources currently used to pay for eBus and other elements of the public e Project is not a series of individual projects, but transportation system. e rapid transit system a single project that consists of a series of construc- will represent about 25 percent of the total transit tion phases that will accomplish the following: system’s annual cost and will add between 2 and • Match the anticipated schedule for right-of- 3 percent to the City’s annual operating budget. way acquisition and utility relocations is amount is within annual variability in • Reduce the time that each area will experi- budgeting and will not, by itself, cause a need to ence tra c and community disturbances increase property taxes or other fees. • Allow for multiple construction contracts with smaller contract size to promote more 8.6.9 Construction Phasing competitive bidding Many comments were received that questioned • Match the rate of construction to what can the phasing plan to begin construction toward the be maintained with the local workforce and ‘Ewa end of the line when most of the ridership is available nancial resources likely to be closer to Downtown. ere was also a • Balance expenditure of funds to minimize concern that if the Project began in Kapolei and borrowing funding was insu cient, the Project would never realize the anticipated bene t or would require e portion of the corridor in the ‘Ewa direction an increase in local funding to reach Downtown. of Pearl Highlands is less developed than the areas Downtown is the primary activity center in the in the Koko Head direction. Right-of-way can study corridor and getting to Downtown is of great be obtained more quickly at the ‘Ewa end of the interest among those who commented. Project; therefore, overall project construction can begin earlier, resulting in lower total construction ere are a number of reasons for starting con- costs. Construction is planned to continue uninter- struction at the ‘Ewa end of the line even though it rupted in the Koko Head direction from Pearl is acknowledged that ridership will not achieve its Highlands to Aloha Stadium, Kalihi, and nally to full potential until the Project reaches Downtown. Ala Moana Center. e Project starts at the ‘Ewa end for the following key reasons: access to the maintenance and storage 8.6.10 Construction facility, the ability to start the Project sooner saving A number of comments addressed the e ects of on costs, and improved ability to obtain the needed construction on tra c and access to businesses. rights-of-way. Construction-phase Tra c As described in Chapter 2, the Project will be Construction of the Project will a ect tra c with constructed in four phases over a nine-year period. temporary lane closures occurring throughout To support phased openings, the rst construction the day, including peak periods and at night. Both phase must have access to the maintenance and through lanes and turning lanes will be a ected storage facility, which requires more than 40 acres by these closures. In some cases, up to two travel of dedicated space. In addition to maintenance lanes will be closed at a time. Construction-related and storage of vehicles, the facility will serve as e ects on transportation will be mitigated through the location of the main operations center for the the implementation of a Maintenance of Tra c entire system. No location was identi ed closer (MOT) Plan and a Transit Mitigation Program to 8-18 CHAPTER 8 – Comments and Coordination
    • be prepared prior to construction. e construc- 8.6.11 Acquisitions and Relocations tion contractor will develop the MOT Plan using Various commenters inquired about acquisition of parameters developed by, and with approval of, the individual property or the acquisition and reloca- City or State of Hawai‘i Department of Transporta- tion process in general. Appendix C, Preliminary tion. e MOT Plan will address all phases of Right-of-Way Plans, of this Final EIS includes construction, and the construction contractor will a map and tables of all parcels from which the submit any proposed changes to the MOT Plan to Project would acquire property. the City for approval. e City has been coordinating with potentially Access to Businesses a ected property owners since October 2008. e Access to businesses in the Project area will be City will continue to work with individual prop- maintained throughout construction, although erty owners to provide relocation services. As there could be temporary changes to access and stated in Section 4.4.3 of this Final EIS, relocation movement during construction. In some locations, services will be provided to all a ected business le -turn lanes will be closed during construction, and residential property owners and tenants restricting access to right-turns only. Other streets without discrimination; and persons, businesses, may temporarily become one-way movements or or organizations that are displaced as part of the eliminate parking altogether during construction. Project will be treated fairly and equitably. Existing passenger or freight loading zones could be relocated for the duration of construction. ose from whom property is to be acquired will be treated according to the requirements of the e MOT Plan will address temporary e ects on Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real access to businesses during construction. Mitiga- Property Acquisition Policies Act (CFR 1989a). tion to reduce adverse economic hardships for It provides for purchase at fair market value and existing businesses may include, but is not limited includes relocation assistance to those a ected. e to, the following: Act requires that those in need of relocation must • Coordinate with nearby property owners and be placed in comparable quarters. businesses • Develop a public involvement plan prior to 8.6.12 Managed Lane Alternative construction A number of commenters stated that the alterna- • Provide public information to inform tives studied did not properly address other customers that businesses are open during options for the corridor. In particular, there was construction a concern that the Managed Lane Alternative was • Minimize extent and duration of e ects to not included in the Dra EIS as an alternative. business access • Provide signage, lighting, and information to e process of alternatives screening and selection indicate businesses are open is discussed in Chapter 2 and in Section 8.6.1. As • Provide public information on construction discussed, alternatives were developed through activity using print, television, and radio three general phases: (1) the FTA Alternatives media Analysis process; (2) the selection of a Locally Pre- • Phase construction to minimize tra c ferred Alternative; and (3) the NEPA scoping and disruption and maintain access to businesses Dra EIS process. e initial screening of alterna- • Provide advance notice of utility relocation tives is documented in the Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Alternatives Screening June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement 8-19
    • Memorandum (DTS 2006a) (Screening Memoran- other points ‘Ewa of Downtown, through to the dum). e subsequent FTA Alternatives Analysis University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa.” process is provided in the Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Alternatives Analysis e scoping process resulted in the revision of this Report (DTS 2006b) (Alternatives Analysis Report). proposed alternative. As discussed on page 6-1 of the Screening Memorandum: e initial screening process considered a wide range of alternatives, including “construction of a “Based on scoping comments, a second operational ‘managed’ two-lane elevated structure for transit option was included under the Managed Lane vehicles and potentially carpools, as well as single Alternative. e initial option proposed a two- occupant vehicles willing to pay a congestion-based lane grade-separated facility between Waiawa toll,” as described on page S-2 of the Screening Interchange and Iwilei which would operate as one Memorandum. e screening results for the Man- lane in each direction at all times of the day. e aged Lane Alternative are discussed on pages C-4 second option proposes similar infrastructure, but through C-5 of this report. e analysis found that it would operate as a reversible facility with two the transit mode share under the Managed Lane lanes traveling Koko Head during the morning Alternative would hold constant with the No Build peak period, and then reversing to travel ‘Ewa in Alternative; the automobile mode share would the PM peak period. Both operational options increase; and the bike and walk mode share would would include restructured and enhanced bus decrease. Vehicle hours traveled would decrease, operations by utilizing the managed lanes to while vehicle miles traveled would increase slightly. provide additional service between Kapolei and other points ‘Ewa of Downtown, and both would is initial screening process identi ed four alterna- be managed to maintain free- ow speeds for buses. tives that were presented at scoping meetings held Provided enough capacity exists, High-Occupancy to obtain public input. As described on page 5-2 of Vehicles (HOVs) and toll-paying single-occupant the Screening Memorandum, one of the alternatives vehicles would also be allowed to use the facility recommended for further evaluation was the Man- under either scenario; however, it is possible that aged Lane Alternative. e Managed Lane Alterna- under the initial option (one lane in each direc- tive originally was described as follows: tion), there would not be enough excess capacity to allow toll-paying single occupant vehicles and still “ e Managed Lane Alternative would include maintain reasonable speeds. Intermediate access construction of a two-lane grade-separated facil- points would be provided in the vicinity of Aloha ity between Waiawa Interchange and Iwilei for Stadium and the Ke‘ehi Interchange.” use by buses, para-transit vehicles and vanpool vehicles (see Figure 5-1). e lanes would be is alternative was further developed in the managed to maintain free- ow speeds for buses, Alternatives Analysis Report, with additional while simultaneously allowing High-Occupancy features added to maximize the performance of the Vehicles (HOVs) and variable pricing for toll- alternative, as discussed on page 2-4: paying single-occupant vehicles. Intermediate bus access points would be provided in the vicinity of “ e Two-direction Option would serve express Aloha Stadium and Middle Street. Bus operations buses operating in both directions during the utilizing the managed lanes would be restruc- entire day. e Reversible Option would serve tured to use the Managed Lane and enhanced to peak-direction bus service, while reverse-direction provide additional service between Kapolei and service would use H-1. Twenty-nine bus routes, 8-20 CHAPTER 8 – Comments and Coordination
    • with approximately 93 buses per hour, would for construction of the managed lanes. Transit use the managed lane facility during peak hours operating costs for the Managed Lane Alternative for either option. One limited-stop route and would range between approximately $251 and $261 one local route would continually operate in the million as a result of additional buses that would be managed lane. A total of 27 peak-period express put in service under that alternative. ese costs do routes would operate in the peak direction using not include the cost of maintaining the managed the managed lane facility. Of these, three are lane facility. Capital costs for the Fixed Guideway new express routes serving developing areas and Alternative, including bus system costs, would nine are new routes developed for exclusive use range between $5.2 and $6.1 billion for the Full- of the managed lane. e nine new managed lane corridor Alignments, of which $4.6 to $5.5 billion express bus system routes originate from Kalaeloa, would be for the xed guideway system. e costs Kapolei, or Central O‘ahu and terminate at the would be $4.2 billion for the 20-mile Alignment, of Alapa‘i Transit Center, Waikīkī, or UH Mānoa. which $3.6 billion would be for the xed guideway Other peak-period, local and limited-stop routes system. Operating costs for the Fixed Guideway follow a route similar to the current structure Alternative in 2030, in 2006 dollars, would be but will use the managed lane for the line-haul approximately $192 million. e total operating portion of the route. costs for the Fixed Guideway Alternative, including the bus and xed guideway, would range between “A toll structure has been developed that ensures approximately $248 and $256 million. that the managed lane facility would operate to maintain free- ow speeds for buses. To maintain e capital cost of the Managed Lane Alternative free- ow speeds in the Two-direction Option, it thus is potentially somewhat lower than the 20-mile may be necessary to charge tolls to manage the Fixed Guideway Alternative and signi cantly lower number of HOVs using the facility. For the Revers- than the Full-corridor Alternative. Operating costs ible Option, three-person HOVs would be allowed would be slightly higher. ese cost factors were to use the facility for free, while single-occupant considered in conjunction with other project goals and two-person HOVs would have to pay a toll.” in evaluating the alternatives. As discussed on page 3-8 of the Alternatives With respect to transit travel time bene t, the Analysis Report, the enhanced bus system would Managed Lane Alternative options would improve include an increased eet size, estimated at 321 some trips that were particularly well-served buses beyond the existing eet for the two- by the managed lanes. In general, the Managed direction managed lane facility and 381 buses for Lane Alternative would increase transit travel the reversible managed lane facility, to provide a times by increasing tra c on the overall roadway su cient eet to ensure that the alternative would system and creating more delay for buses. e H-1 function as planned. Freeway leading up to the managed lanes would become more congested because cars accessing e Alternatives Analysis Report estimated total the managed lanes would increase tra c volumes. capital and operating costs for the Managed Signi cant congestion would occur where the Lane Alternative. As discussed on page 2-16, managed lanes connect to Nimitz Highway at capital costs for the Managed Lane Alternative Paci c Street near Downtown. Much of the time were estimated to range between $3.6 and $4.7 saved in the managed lane itself would be negated billion, of which $2.6 to $3.8 billion would be by the time spent in congestion leading up to the June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement 8-21
    • managed lane, as well as exiting the lanes at their regional transportation planning. On page 6-13, Downtown terminus. Furthermore, areas that are the report concluded that the Fixed Guideway not directly served by the managed lane would Alternative, “best serves the areas of O‘ahu that are not experience much positive change from the No designated for future growth and development. It Build Alternative. As discussed on page 3-14, the is also the only alternative that is consistent with Alternatives Analysis Report found that, “although regional transportation system planning de ned the Managed Lane Alternative would provide in the 2030 O‘ahu Regional Transportation Plan some travel-time improvement for certain areas, it (OMPO 2006a).” has signi cant limitations with regard to improv- ing travel times or transit service for a broader e evaluation of alternatives inevitably involves customer base.” trade-o s. As stated on page 6-13 of the Alterna- tives Analysis Report, the “greatest trade-o As discussed on page 3-17, transit ridership would among the alternatives is between the transporta- increase only 5.3 to 6.4 percent over the No Build tion bene t provided and the cost to implement Alternative, a small increase compared both to alternatives. . . . e Managed Lane Alternative the cost of the Managed Lane Alternative and the provides slightly more bene t [than the Trans- increase that would result from the Fixed Guideway portation System Management (TSM) alternative, Alternative, which would increase transit ridership which had little e ect on tra c], but at a substan- by 21 percent for the 20-mile alignment. tial cost. While the Fixed Guideway Alternative would have the highest cost, it is also the only e volume of peak-hour vehicles in key areas alternative that would provide a substantial trans- would actually increase under the Managed Lane portation bene t, measured both by the bene t to Alternative compared to the No Build Alternative. transit users and in the reduction in congestion As discussed on page 3-27, the Fixed Guideway compared to the No Build Alternative.” Alternative would reduce the number of vehicles by 3 to 12 percent. e Alternatives Analysis ndings are sum- marized in Table 2-2 in Chapter 2 of this Final With respect to the goal of providing equitable EIS. e Managed Lane Alternative is discussed transportation solutions that meet the needs in Section 2.2.2 of this Final EIS. As stated in the of lower-income transit-dependent communi- Final EIS and supported by the lengthy analysis ties, the Alternatives Analysis Report observed that preceded the preparation of the Dra EIS, that the Managed Lane Alternative, “would not the Managed Lane Alternative was not pursued substantially improve service or access to transit because the Managed Lane Alternative would not for transit-dependent communities, as buses that have achieved project goals and objectives, would use existing HOV facilities would be routed to not result in substantially fewer environmental the managed lane facility but would continue to impacts, and would not be nancially feasible. For be a ected by congestion in other parts of their all of these reasons, it was not advanced to consid- routes. Arterial congestion would increase in the eration in the Dra EIS. study corridor with the Managed Lane Alterna- tive, making bus access to the managed lanes less Comments received about the Managed Lane reliable” (page 6-8). Alternative referenced in the Dra EIS suggested there were signi cant di erences between the e Alternatives Analysis Report also considered alternative studied in the Alternatives Analysis and consistency with existing land use planning and an ideal managed lane option. However, there was 8-22 CHAPTER 8 – Comments and Coordination
    • no substantial di erence between the alternatives Capital, and omas Square/Academy of Arts proposed in comments and those studied in the Special Design Districts. To minimize impacts Alternatives Analysis that would have resulted in on historic resources, visual aesthetics, and a di erent outcome. e primary concern raised surface tra c, the screening process considered about the Alternatives Analysis alternatives was 15 combinations of tunnel, at-grade, and elevated that they did not allow access other than at the alignments between Iwilei and Ward Avenue. Five beginning and end of the facility. at is a misun- di erent alignments through Downtown were derstanding of the Alternatives Analysis alterna- advanced for further analysis in the Alternatives tives. Both provided access at Aloha Stadium and Analysis, including an at-grade portion along Middle Street to allow connections to intermediate Hotel Street, a tunnel under King Street, and points along the corridor. Any additional access elevated guideways along Nimitz Highway and points would substantially increase the cost of the Queen Street. facility because of right-of-way and structure costs and would a ect the level-of-service provided by e Alternatives Analysis Report evaluated the the investment. alignment alternatives based on transportation bene ts, environmental and social impacts, and Also questioned in the comments was the provi- overall bene ts and cost considerations. e sion of a congestion pricing system that would report found that an at-grade alignment along make the facility available to single occupant Hotel Street would require the acquisition of more vehicles or those with two occupants at a cost that parcels and could a ect more burial sites than would rise during periods of high demand. In both any of the other alternatives. e alignment with cases, the Managed Lane Alternative evaluated a an at-grade operation Downtown and a tunnel pricing option, and the two-lane reversible alterna- through the Hawai‘i Capital Historic District tive description stated that, “A toll structure has (under King Street) was not selected because of been developed that ensures that the managed lane the environmental e ects, such as impacts to cul- facility would operate to maintain free- ow speeds tural resources, reduction of street capacity, and for buses” (Alternatives Analysis Report, page 2-4). property acquisition requirements of the at-grade While there may be some minor details of the and tunnel sections, would cost an additional proposed alternatives that di er from the Alterna- $300 million. Of the remaining elevated align- tives Analysis alternatives, the evaluation assesses ments that were studied, the Alternatives Analysis the concept fairly in the context of the Project’s concluded that an elevated alignment along Purpose and Need. Nimitz Highway would have less visual impacts than one along Queen Street because of its much 8.6.13 At-grade Alternatives wider right-of-way and location along the edge of Several comments have suggested that an at- the Hawai‘i Capital Historic District. grade alternative could reduce visual impacts, particularly Downtown. is response addresses e Project’s purpose is “to provide high-capacity the reasons why an at-grade alternative was not rapid transit” in the congested east-west travel included in the EIS. It may also be helpful to refer corridor. e need for the Project includes improv- to Section 2.2 of this Final EIS. ing corridor transit mobility and reliability. e at-grade alignment would not meet the Project’s e Screening Memorandum (DTS 2006a) recog- Purpose and Need because it could not satisfy the nized the visually sensitive areas in Kaka‘ako and mobility and reliability objectives of the Project. Downtown, including the Chinatown, Hawai‘i Some of the technical considerations associated June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement 8-23
    • with an at-grade versus elevated alignment signals in the delicately balanced signal through Downtown include the following: network in Downtown Honolulu. A three- • System Capacity and Speed— e short, minute cycle of tra c lights would a ect 200-foot (or less) blocks in Downtown Hono- tra c ow and capacity of cross-streets. lulu would permanently limit the system to Furthermore, there would be no option to two-car trains to prevent stopped trains from increase the capacity of the rail system by blocking vehicular tra c on cross-streets. reducing the headway to 90 seconds, which Under ideal operational circumstances, the would only exacerbate the signalization capacity of an at-grade system could reach problem. An at-grade system would require 4,000 passengers per hour per direction, removal of two or more existing tra c lanes assuming optimistic ve-minute headways. on a ected streets. is e ect is signi cant Based on travel forecasts, the Project should and would exacerbate congestion. Congestion support approximately 8,000 passengers in would not be isolated to streets that cross the peak hour per direction by 2030. More- the at-grade alignment but instead would over, the Project can be readily expanded spread throughout Downtown. e Final EIS to carry over 25,000 in each direction by shows that the Project’s impact on tra c will reducing the interval between trains (head- be isolated and minimal with the elevated way) to 90 seconds during the peak period. guideway, and in fact will reduce system-wide To reach a comparable system capacity, speed tra c delay by 18 percent compared to the and reliability, an at-grade alignment would No Build Alternative (Table 3-14 in Chapter require a fenced, segregated right-of-way that 3). at is because the elevated guideway will would eliminate all obstacles to the train’s not require removal of existing travel lanes, passage, such as vehicular, pedestrian, or and will provide an attractive, reliable travel bicycle crossings throughout Downtown. alternative. When tra c slows, or even stops Even with transit signal priority, at-grade due to congestion or incidents, the elevated speeds would be slower and less reliable than system will continue to operate without delay an elevated guideway. An at-grade system or interruption. would travel at slower speeds due to the shorter blocks, the tight and short radius An at-grade light rail system with continuous curves in places within the constrained and tracks in-street would create major impedi- congested Downtown street network, the ments to turning movements, many of which need to obey tra c regulations (e.g., tra c would have to be closed to eliminate a crash signals), and potential con icts with other hazard. Even where turning movements are at-grade activity, including cars, bicyclists, designed to be accommodated, at-grade sys- and pedestrians. ese e ects mean longer tems experience potential collision problems. travel times and far less reliability than a fully In addition, mixing at-grade xed guideway grade-separated system. None of these factors vehicles with cars, bicyclists, and pedestrians a ect an elevated rail system. e elevated presents a much higher potential for con icts rail can travel at its own speed any time of the compared to grade-separated conditions. day regardless of weather, tra c, or the need Where pedestrian and automobiles cross to let cross tra c proceed at intersections. the tracks in the street network, particularly • Mixed-Tra c Con icts—An at-grade system in areas of high activity (e.g., station areas operating with three-minute headways would or intersections), there is a risk of collisions prevent e ective coordination of tra c involving trains that does not exist with 8-24 CHAPTER 8 – Comments and Coordination
    • an elevated system. ere is evidence of not meet the Project’s Purpose and Need and does crashes between trains and cars and trains not, therefore, require additional analysis. and pedestrians on other at-grade systems throughout the country. is potential would be high in the Chinatown and Downtown 8.7 Continuing Public Involvement neighborhoods, where the number of pe- through Construction destrians is high and the aging population Public involvement activities will continue presents a particular risk. throughout the construction period. e City will • Construction Impacts and Cost—Con- work with businesses and residents prior to and structing an at-grade rail system could have during construction to provide information and more e ects than an elevated system in a address concerns about the construction process. number of ways. e wider and continuous e City will also continue the use of the Speakers footprint of an at-grade rail system compared Bureau, the project website (www.honolulutransit. to an elevated rail system (which touches the org), and the hotline. e City will also work with ground only at discrete column foundations, the community throughout the acquisition and power substations, and station accessways) relocation process. increases the potential of utility con icts and impacts to sensitive cultural resources. In e City will continue educational outreach to all addition, the extra roadway lanes used by an segments of the island. Cultural and ethnic groups, at-grade system would increase congestion or youth, elderly, special needs, and the accessibility require that additional businesses or homes challenged will be specially targeted. Lastly, the be taken to widen the roadway through City will actively engage the public in areas where Downtown. Additionally, the duration of community input could shape the rail system, short-term construction impacts to the com- including station design where appropriate. munity and environment with an at-grade system would be considerably greater than with an elevated system. Because of di ering 8.8 Accommodations for Minority, construction techniques, more lanes would Low-income, and Persons with need to be continuously closed for at-grade Disabilities construction and the closures would last All meetings were held in handicapped-accessible longer than with elevated construction. facilities in compliance with the Americans with is would result in a greater disruption to Disabilities Act. Every e ort was made to respond business and residential access, prolonged to members of the public who require a sign exposure to construction noise, and tra c language interpreter, an assisted learning system, impacts. a translator, or any other accommodations to facili- Because it is not feasible for an at-grade system tate participation in the transit planning process. through Downtown to move passengers rapidly and Every reasonable e ort was made to accommodate reliably without a signi cant detrimental e ect on individuals requiring assistance. other elements of the transportation system (e.g., highway and pedestrian systems, safety, reli- Executive Order 12898 requires that, as part of the ability), an at-grade system would have a negative environmental evaluation of the alternatives, the system-wide impact that would reduce ridership Project must address environmental justice issues. throughout the system. e at-grade system would To comply with this requirement, community demographics and socioeconomic impacts were June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement 8-25
    • carefully considered in analyzing the alternatives. rough the Speakers Bureau and literature e public participation process ensures “full and deliveries, a concerted e ort was made to reach out fair participation by potentially a ected communi- to local churches, elderly care facilities, and com- ties” throughout the duration of the Project. munity organizations that cater to these popula- tions. All organizations that previously received Particular attention was paid to reaching low- presentations were contacted with requests to income and minority populations that are tradi- conduct new presentations to provide updates on tionally underserved and underrepresented in the the Project’s progress. is e ort will continue public involvement process. Materials have been throughout construction of the Project. prepared in the major languages used on O‘ahu, and translators have been available upon request at meetings. Information was distributed through cultural organizations, ethnic associations, hous- ing associations, community development groups, and similar organizations. Community issues brought forth in community meetings, during stakeholder interviews, and at public workshops have been addressed as part of evaluating the project alternatives. e use of public involvement techniques to engage communities of concern consists of public infor- mation materials o ered via the project website, handed out at meetings or other community events, and provided through the Speakers Bureau program. To reach populations who do not speak and/or read English, information on how to obtain reading materials in their native languages was provided. An informational yer was developed in 11 languages (English, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Tagalog, Ilocano, Samoan, Spanish, Hawaiian, and Chuukese) and is updated as new project information is available. For these trans- lated materials, the major languages spoken on the island were selected. ese yers have been mailed to potential environmental justice neighborhoods, handed out in person, and provided to churches and community service organizations. As the Project has progressed, over 100 community service organizations have been included on the project mailing list. ese organizations have also been provided with appropriate translated yers to distribute to their communities. 8-26 CHAPTER 8 – Comments and Coordination
    • References AECOS 1991 AECOS, Inc. 1991. AECOS No. 661A. Survey of lower Waiawa Stream and impacts assessment for ood retention basis at the Waiawa Ridge development project. Prepared for Environmental Communications, Inc. AECOS 1992 AECOS, Inc. 1992. AECOS No. 722. Untitled report for 401 certi cation application for e Ewa Villages Development, City and County of Honolulu, Department of Housing and Community Development. Prepared for R. M. Towill Corp. AECOS 2005 AECOS, Inc. 2005. AECOS No. 1099. Reconnaissance survey of drainages at the proposed University of Hawai‘i West O‘ahu Campus, Kapolei, ‘Ewa District, O‘ahu. Prepared for Engineering Concepts, Inc. ADA 1990 One Hundred First Congress of the United States of America at the Second Session. 1990. Americans with disabilities act of 1990 (ADA). Ainley 1997 Ainley, D.G., T.C. Telfer, and M.H. Reynolds. 1997. Townsend’s and Newell’s Shearwater (Pu nus Auricularis). e birds of North America (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/ species/297 Al-Mosaind 1993 Al-Mosaind, M.A., K.J. Dueker, and J.G. Strathman. 1993. Light rail transit sta- tions and property values: A hedonic price approach. Portland, Oregon Center for Urban Studies. Preprint, Transportation Research Board. 72nd Annual Meeting. ASTM 2005 ASTM International. 2005. E1527-05. Standard practice for environmental site assessments—Phase I environmental site assessments process. C&C 2009 Castle & Cooke Hawai‘i. 2009. Koa Ridge. www.koaridge.com/ Caltrans 1983 California Department of Transportation Division of Engineering Services. 1983. Energy and transportation systems. CEQ 1997a Council on Environmental Quality, Executive O ce of the President. 1997. Considering cumulative e ects under the National Environmental Policy Act. CEQ 1997b Council on Environmental Quality, Executive O ce of the President. 1997. Environmental justice guidance under the National Environmental Policy Act. CFR 1978 Code of Federal Regulations. 1978. 40 CFR 1500 et seq. Council on environmen- tal quality. CFR 1986a Code of Federal Regulations. 1986. 33 CFR 328. De nition of waters of the United States. CFR 1986b Code of Federal Regulations. 1986. 33 CFR 329. De nition of navigable waters of the US. June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement
    • CFR 1986c Code of Federal Regulations. 1986. 33 CFR 325. Processing of Department of the Army permits. CFR 1987 Code of Federal Regulations. 1987. 23 CFR 771. Environmental impact and related procedures. CFR 1989a Code of Federal Regulations. 1989. 49 CFR 24. Uniform relocation assistance and real property acquisition for federal and federally assisted programs (Uni- form Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970). CFR 1989b Code of Federal Regulations. 1989. 36 CFR 800. Protection of historic and cultural properties. CFR 1989c Code of Federal Regulations. 1989. 36 CFR 1190. Minimum guidelines and requirements for accessible design. CFR 1992 Code of Federal Regulations. 1992. 40 CFR 130.8. Water quality report, as amended. CFR 1994 Code of Federal Regulations. 1990 (revised 1994). 28 CFR 36. ADA standards for accessible design. CFR 1995 Code of Frederal Regulations. 1995. 43 CFR 10. Native American graves protec- tion and repatriation regulations. CFR 1996a Code of Federal Regulations. 1996. 40 CFR 51. Requirements for preparation, adoption, and submittal of implementation plans. CFR 1996b Code of Federal Regulations. 1996. 40 CFR 230. Section 404(b)(1) guidelines for speci cation of disposal sites for dredged or ll material. CFR 1996c Code of Federal Regulations. 1996. 40 CFR 402. E uent guidelines and standards. CFR 1996d Code of Federal Regulations. 1996. 49 CFR 21. Nondiscrimination in federally- assisted programs of the Department of Transportation—E ectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. CFR 1999 Code of Federal Regulations. 1999. 23 CFR 650. Bridges, structures, and hydraulics. CFR 2000a Code of Federal Regulations. 2000. 29 CFR 1910. Occupational safety and health standards for general industry. CFR 2000b Code of Federal Regulations. 2000. 15 CFR 930. Federal consistency with approved coastal management programs. CFR 2003 Code of Federal Regulations. 2003. 29 CFR 1926. Safety and health regulations for construction. CFR 2004a Code of Federal Regulations. 2004. 36 CFR 800. Protection of historic properties. References
    • CFR 2004b Code of Federal Regulations. 2004. 36 CFR 1191. Americans with disabilities act (ADA) accessibility guidelines for buildings and facilities; architectural barriers act (ABA) accessibility guidelines. CFR 2005a Code of Federal Regulations. 2005. 49 CFR 633. Project management oversight. CFR 2005b Code of Federal Regulations. 2005. 40 CFR 93. Determining conformity of federal actions to state or federal implementation plans (Final Transportation Conformity Rule). CFR 2007 Code of Federal Regulations. Revised 2007. 36 CFR 60.4. National register of historic places: Criteria for evaluation. CFR 2008a Code of Federal Regulations. 2008. 23 CFR 774 et seq. Parks, recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites [Section 4(f)]. CFR 2008b Code of Federal Regulations. 2008. 33 CFR 332. Compensatory mitigation for losses of aquatic resources. Char 2003 Char, W.P. 2003. Botanical survey, University of Hawai‘i West O‘ahu, East Kapolei, ‘Ewa District, O‘ahu. Prepared for PBR Hawai‘i. Chiddix 2004 Chiddix, J., and M. Simpson. 2004. Next stop Honolulu! e story of the O‘ahu Railway and Land Company. Sugar Cane Press, Ltd., Honolulu, Hawai‘i. City 2001 City and County of Honolulu. 2001. Pearl Harbor historic trail master plan. Prepared by Belt Collins Hawai‘i. City 2007 City and County of Honolulu, City Council. 2007. Resolution 07-039, FD1(c). Approving the minimum operable segment (MOS) for the Honolulu High- Capacity Transit Corridor Project. City 2008 City and County of Honolulu. 2008. Resolution 08-261. Amending the mini- mum operable segment for the Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project. Colliers 2008 Colliers International. 2008. North America CBD parking rate survey. Cowardin 1979 Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classi cation of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. Prepared for U.S. Depart- ment of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Eng 2008 Eng, H. April 9, 2008. Revision to the ‘Ewa, Central O‘ahu, and Primary Urban Center public infrastructure maps for the Honolulu high-capacity transit corri- dor project (2008/PIM-1). Letter from Department of Planning and Permitting City and County of Honolulu. Dadey 1996 Dadey, K.A. March 31, 1996. North-south road corridor project, ‘Ewa, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i. Letter from operations branch, U.S. Army Engineer District, Honolulu. DBEDT 2003 State of Hawai‘i Department of Business, Economic Development and Tour- ism. 2003. e economic contribution of Waikīkī. DBEDT 2007 State of Hawai‘i Department of Business, Economic Development and Tour- ism. 2007. 2006 the State of Hawai‘i data book: A statistical abstract. June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement
    • DBEDT 2008 State of Hawai‘i Department of Business, Economic Development and Tour- ism. 2008. http://hawaii.gov/dbedt DBFS 1990 City and County of Honolulu Department of Budget and Fiscal Services. 1990. Revised Ordinances of Honolulu Chapter 8, Article 4, Section 8-4.2. Remission of taxes in cases of natural disasters. DBFS 2008 City and County of Honolulu Department of Budget and Fiscal Services Real Estate Property Division. 2008. Real estate tax rate tables. www.honolulu.gov/rpa/staterpt/2007_staterpt.htm DeBartolo 2009 DeBartolo Development. 2009. Ka Makana Ali‘i project. www.debartolodevelopment.com/ de Groot 2002 de Groot, R.S., M.A. Wilson, and R.M.J. Boumans. 2002. “A typology for the classi cation, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods, and services.” Ecological Economics 41. DHHL 2005 State of Hawai‘i Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. 2006. DHHL East Kapolei development, Kānehili. http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/publications/ news-releases/2009-news-releases/Kanehili_Blessing_NR_1-27-09. pdf/?searchterm=kanehili DHHL 2006 State of Hawai‘i Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. 2006. DHHL shopping center, City of Kapolei. http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2006/Sep/29/ bz/FP609290358.html DHHS 2005 State of Hawai‘i Department of Health and Human Services. December 2005. Public health assessment: Pearl Harbor Naval Complex, Pearl Harbor, Hawai‘i, EPA facility ID: HI4170090076. Disney 2008 Disney Vacation Club. 2008. Disney resort on O‘ahu. http://dvc.disney.go.com/ dvc/guest/about/pressRelease?id=HawaiianGroundBlessingGuestPressRelease DetailPage&bhcp=1 DLU 1987 City and County of Honolulu Department of Land Utilization. 1987. Coastal view study. DPP 1995 City and County of Honolulu Department of Planning and Permitting. 1995. Waipahu town plan. DPP 1998a City and County of Honolulu Department of Planning and Permitting. 1998. Waipahu livable communities initiative. DPP 1998b City and County of Honolulu Department of Planning and Permitting. 1998. Waipahu town plan. DPP 2000 City and County of Honolulu Department of Planning and Permitting. 1997 (revised 2000). ‘Ewa development plan. DPP 2002a City and County of Honolulu Department of Planning and Permitting. 1997 (amended 2002). City and County of Honolulu general plan (as amended). References
    • DPP 2002b City and County of Honolulu Department of Planning and Permitting. 2002. Central O‘ahu sustainable communities plan. DPP 2004a City and County of Honolulu Department of Planning and Permitting. 2004. Primary urban center development plan. DPP 2004b City and County of Honolulu Department of Planning and Permitting. 2004. ‘Aiea-Pearl City livable communities plan. DPP 2004c City and County of Honolulu Department of Planning and Permitting. 2004. ‘Kalihi-Pālama action plan. DPP 2006 City and County of Honolulu Department of Planning and Permitting. 2006. Makaīwa Hills environmental impact statement preparation notice. DPP 2009 City and County of Honolulu Department of Planning and Permitting. 2009. Waipahu neighborhood transit oriented development plan. DTS 1992 City and County of Honolulu Department of Transportation Services. 1992. Honolulu rapid transit development project FEIS. DTS 1998 City and County of Honolulu Department of Transportation Services. 1998. O‘ahu trans 2K islandwide mobility concept plan. DTS 1999 City and County of Honolulu Department of Transportation Services. 1999. Honolulu bicycle master plan. DTS 2003 City and County of Honolulu Department of Transportation Services. 2003. Final environmental impact statement primary corridor transportation project. In conjunction with the U.S. Federal Transit Administration. DTS 2006a City and County of Honolulu Department of Transportation Services. 2006. Honolulu high-capacity transit corridor project alternatives screening memorandum. DTS 2006b City and County of Honolulu Department of Transportation Services. 2006. Honolulu high-capacity transit corridor project alternatives analysis report. DTS 2006c City and County of Honolulu Department of Transportation Services. 2006. Honolulu high-capacity transit corridor project scoping report. DTS 2006d City and County of Honolulu Department of Transportation Services. 2006. Honolulu high-capacity transit corridor project revised nal operations and maintenance costing methodology report. DTS 2007 City and County of Honolulu Department of Transportation Services. 2007. Honolulu high-capacity transit corridor project National Environmental Policy Act scoping report. DTS 2009 City and County of Honolulu Department of Transportation Services. 2009. Wahiawa transit center & park and ride nal environmental assessment. EDR 2007 Environmental Data Resources, Inc. 2007. EDR data map environmental atlas. EPA 1971 Environmental Protection Agency. 1971. NTID 300.1. Noise from construction equipment and operations, building equipment and home appliances. June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement
    • EPA 2007 Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. EPA420-F-07-017. Control of hazard- ous air pollutants from mobile sources: nal rule to reduce mobile source air toxics. Erickson 2006 Erickson, T.A., and C.F. Puttock. 2006. Hawai‘i wetland eld guide. An ecologi- cal and identi cation guide to wetlands and wetland plants of the Hawaiian Islands. ISBN 1-57306-268-5 GAP Analyses: http://gapanalysis.nbii.gov/portal/ server.pt FHWA 1987a U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 1987. FHWA Section 4(f) policy paper. FHWA 1987b U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 1987. Technical advisory guidance for preparing and processing environmental and Section 4(f) document T6640.8A. FHWA 1992a U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 1992. Position paper: Secondary and cumulative impact assessment in the highway project development process. FHWA 1992b U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 1992. Volume 6, Chapter 7, Section 3, Subsection 2. Federal aid highway program manual. FHWA 1998 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 1998. Order 6640.23: FHWA actions to address environmental justice in minority populations and low-income populations. FHWA 2003 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 2003. Questions and answers regarding the consideration of indirect and cumulative impacts in the NEPA process. FHWA 2005 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 2005. FHWA Section 4(f) policy paper. FHWA/EPA 1984 Federal Highway Administration and Environmental Protection Agency. 1984. Sole source aquifer memorandum of understanding. Foote 1972 Foote, D.E., E.L. Hill, S. Nakamura, and F. Stevens. 1972. Soil survey of Islands of Kaua‘i, O‘ahu, Maui, Moloka‘i, and Lāna‘i, State of Hawai‘i. U.S. Depart- ment of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. FR 2008 Federal Register. April 2008. FR Doc. E8-6918. “Compensation mitigation for losses of aquatic resources; nal rule.” Federal Register, Vol. 73, No. 70, pp. 19594–19705. FTA 2000 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. 2000. Transit bene ts 2000 working papers: a public choice policy analysis. FTA 2003 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. 2003. Advancing major transit investments through planning and project development. References
    • FTA 2005 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, and Federal Highway Administration. 2005. Linking the transportation planning and national environmental policy act (NEPA) process. FTA 2006a U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. 2006. FTA-VA-90-1003-06. Transit noise and vibration impact assessment. FTA 2006b U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. 2006. SAFETEA-LU environmental review process nal guidance. FTA 2007 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. 2007. National transit database. www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/ FTA 2008 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. 2008. Procedures and technical methods for transit project planning (dra version 3). HAMP 2006 State of Hawai‘i. 2006 (accessed 2009). Hawai‘i airports modernization pro- gram. www.hawaiiairportsmodernization.com HAR 1996 Hawai‘i Administrative Rules. 1996. Title 13 Subtitle 13 Chapter 300 (HAR Chapter 13-13-300). Historic Preservation Division, rules of practice and procedure relating to burial sites and human remains. HAR 1996a Hawai‘i Administrative Rules. 1996. Title 11, Chapter 200 (HAR Chapter 11-200). Environmental impact statement rules. HAR 1996b Hawai‘i Administrative Rules. 1996. Title 11, Chapter 46 (HAR Chapter 11-46). Community noise control. HAR 1997 Hawai‘i Administrative Rules. 1997. Title 11, Chapter 451 (HAR Chapter 11-451). State contingency plan. State of Hawai‘i O ce of Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response. HAR 2002 Hawai‘i Administrative Rules. 2002. Title 13, Chapter 275 (HAR Chap- ter 13-275). Rules governing procedures for historic preservation review for governmental projects covered under Sections 6E-7 and 6E-8, Hawai‘i Revised Statutes. HAR 2003 Hawai‘i Administrative Rules. 2003. Title 11, Chapter 60.1 (HAR Chap- ter 11-60.1). Air pollution control. Haseko 2001 HASEKO (Ewa), Inc. 2001. Ocean Pointe nal supplemental environmental assessment. HCDA 2005 Hawai‘i Community Development Authority. 2005. Kaka‘ako community development district mauka area plan. HCDA 2006 Hawai‘i Community Development Authority. 2006. Kalaeloa master plan. HCDA 2008 Hawai‘i Community Development Authority. 2008. Kaiāulu ‘o Kaka‘ako master plan. HCDA 2009a Hawai‘i Community Development Authority. 2009. University of Hawai‘i John A. Burns school of medicine. http://hcdaweb.org/kakaako/projects/other/ university-of-hawaii-john-a-burns-school-of-medicine June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement
    • HCDA 2009b Hawai‘i Community Development Authority. 2009. Ward Village shops project. http://hcdaweb.org/kakaako/projects/private-sector-projects/ ward-village-shops-project-1 HCDA 2009c Hawai‘i Community Development Authority. 2009. Vanguard lo s project. http://hcdaweb.org/kakaako/projects/private-sector-projects/ vanguard-lo s-720-kapiolani-boulevard-project HCPSU 1990 Hawai‘i Cooperative Park Service Unit. 1990. R84. Hawaii stream assessment. A preliminary appraisal of Hawaii’s stream resources. Prepared for the State of Hawai‘i Commission on Water Resources Management. HDOA 2005 State of Hawai‘i Department of Agriculture. 2005. Act 183. Important agricul- tural lands (Farmland Preservation Act). HDOH 2004 State of Hawai‘i Department of Health, Environmental Planning O ce. 2004. Final 2004 list of impaired waters in Hawai‘i. HDOH 2008 State of Hawai‘i Department of Health. 2008. 2006 State of Hawai‘i water quality monitoring and assessment report: Integrated report to the U.S. Environ- mental Protection Agency and the U.S. Congress pursuant to Sections 303(d) and 305(b), Clean Water Act (PL 97-117). HDOT 1995a State of Hawai‘i Department of Transportation. 1995. e O‘ahu commercial harbors 2020 master plan. HDOT 1995b State of Hawai‘i Department of Transportation. 1995. Honolulu international airport layout plan. HDOT 1999 State of Hawai‘i Department of Transportation. 1999. Kalaeloa harbor 2020 master plan. HDOT 2002 State of Hawai‘i Department of Transportation. 2002. Hawai‘i statewide transportation plan. HDOT 2003 State of Hawai‘i Department of Transportation. 2003. Bike plan Hawai‘i master plan. HDOT 2004 State of Hawai‘i Department of Transportation. 2004. Habitat conservation plan for abutilon menziesii at Kapolei. HDOT 2009 State of Hawai‘i Department of Transportation. 2009. Honolulu international airport master plan update. HEC 2008 State of Hawai‘i Environmental Council. 2008. Hawai‘i environmental justic initiative report. HECO 2008 Personal Communication. February 5, 2008. Between Earlynne Oshiro, Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc., and Lawrence Spurgeon, Parsons Brinckerho . HHB 2000 State of Hawai‘i. House Bill No. 2895, H.D.1, passed by the 20th Legislature and approved by the Governor on April 26, 2000. National Environmental Policy Act: Section 106 and Act 50. References
    • HHFDC 1988 State of Hawai‘i Housing Finance and Development Corporation. 1988. Kapolei Village environmental impact statement. Hoku 2007 Hoku Scienti c, Inc. 2007. Kapolei sustainable energy park nal environmental impact statement. Horton 2008 D.R. Horton-Schuler Division. 2008. Ho‘opili nal environmental impact statement. Horton 2009 D.R. Horton-Schuler Division. 2009. Nanala at Mehana. http://drhorton.com/ corp/GetCommunity.do?dv=Y8&pr=42982 HRS 1971 Hawai‘i Revised Statutes. 1971. Chapter 113. Land acquisition policies for feder- ally assisted programs. HRS 1977 Hawai‘i Revised Statutes. 1977. Chapter 205A. Coastal zone management. HRS 1983 Hawai‘i Revised Statutes. 1983. Chapter 195D. Conservation of aquatic life, wildlife, and land plants. HRS 1988 Hawai‘i Revised Statutes. 1988. Chapter 6E-43. Prehistoric and historic burial sites. HRS 1989 Hawai‘i Revised Statutes. 1989. Chapter 368. Hawai‘i civil rights commission. HRS 1993a Hawai‘i Revised Statutes. 1993. Chapter 128E. Hawai‘i emergency planning and community right-to-know act. HRS 1993b Hawai‘i Revised Statutes. 1993. Chapter 101. Eminent domain. HRS 2003 Hawai‘i Revised Statutes. 2003. Section 201G-113. Housing and community development corporation of Hawai‘i. HRS 2002 Hawai‘i Revised Statutes. 2002. Section 103-50. Building design to consider needs of persons with disabilities. HRS 2005 Hawai‘i Revised Statutes. 2005. Chapter 247. County surcharge on state tax. HRS 2007 Hawai‘i Revised Statutes. 2007. Chapter 128D. Hawai‘i environmental response law. State of Hawai‘i O ce of Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response. HRS 2008 Hawai‘i Revised Statutes. 2008. Chapter 343. Environmental impact statements. HSC 2000 e Supreme Court of the State of Hawai‘i (HSC). Ka Pa‘akai o Ka ‘Āina v. Land Use Commission, 7 P.3d 1068 (Haw. 2000). HWJV 2006 Hawai‘i Wetlands Joint Venture, Adonia Henry, personal communication concerning wetland sites: Joint Ventures wetland GIS database shape le. e data was compiled from multiple sources, including the dra waterbird recov- ery plan, Shallenburger’s 1970s report, Miller et al publications on ecologically important sites for groundwater, and input from managers, biologists, and other interested parties throughout the state. It is a compilation of existing knowledge, but was not ground-truthed. June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement
    • ICNIRP 1998 International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. 1998. “Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic elds (up to 300 GHz).” Health Physics. 74(4):494-522. INRIX 2008 INRIX, Inc. 2008. INRIX® national tra c scorecard #38: Honolulu metropolitan area. http://scorecard.inrix.com IPCC 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, NY. Jovanis 1986 Jovanis, P., and H. Chang. 1986. “Modeling the relationship of accidents to miles traveled.” Transportation Research Record 1068. Landis 1995 Landis, J., R. Cervero, S. Guhathukurta, D. Loutzenheiser, and M. Zhang. 1995. Rail transit investments, real estate values, and land use change: A comparative analysis of ve California rail transit systems. Monograph 48, Institute of Urban and Regional Studies, University of California at Berkeley. Lewis-Workman 1997 Lewis-Workman, S., and D. Brod. 1997. “Measuring the neighborhood bene ts of rail transit accessibility.” Transportation Research Record 1576:147-153. Miles 1986 Miles, D.H. 1986. “White terns breeding on O`ahu, Hawai‘i.” ‘Elepaio: journal of the Hawai‘i Audubon Society. 46:171-175. MVE 2009 MVE Paci c. 2009. Halekauwila place. www.mve-paci c.com Navy 2000 Department of the Navy Paci c Division. 2000. Phase II remedial investigation: Ewa junction fuel drumming facility. NCHRP 1998 National Cooperative Highway Research Program. 1998. Report 403: Estimat- ing the indirect e ects of proposed transportation projects. NPS 1991 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 1991. National Register Bulletin 16. Guidelines for completing National Register of Historic Places forms. Interagency Resources Division, National Park Service. NRC 1999 National Academy of Sciences National Research Center. 1999. Final report of the committee to review the research activities completed under the Energy Policy Act of 1992. NRCS 2001 U.S. Department of Agriculture National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2001. Hawaii stream visual assessment protocol (version 1.0). NRCS 2009 U.S. Department of Agriculture National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2009. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm O‘ahuMPO 2004 O‘ahu Metropolitan Planning Organization. 2004. Environmental justice in the OMPO planning process: De ning environmental justice populations. O‘ahuMPO 2007 O‘ahu Metropolitan Planning Organization. 2006 (Amendment #1, 2007). O‘ahu regional transportation plan 2030. References
    • O‘ahuMPO 2008 O‘ahu Metropolitan Planning Organization. 2008. FYs 2008–2011 transporta- tion improvement program. OEQC 1997 State of Hawai‘i O ce of Environmental Quality Control. 1997. Guidelines for assessing cultural impacts. Oshiro 2008 Oshiro, Earlynne, Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc., and Lawrence Spurgeon, PB Americas, Inc. February 2008. Personal communication. OTPP 1967 O‘ahu Transportation Planning Program. 1967. O‘ahu transportation study. OTS 2006 Oahu Transit Services, Inc. 2006. Monthly schedule adherence reports. PL 1990 U.S. Public Law 101-549. 1990. Clean Air Act amendments of 1990. PL 2005 U.S. Public Law 109-59. 2005. 119 Stat 1144. Safe, accountable, exible, e cient transportation equity act: A legacy for users (SAFETEA-LU). PL 2009 U.S. Public Law 111-5. 2009. American recovery and reinvestment act of 2009 public transportation apportionments, allocations and grant program informa- tion (ARRA). Potter 1992 Potter, E.W., and B. Boland. 1992. Guidelines for evaluating and registering cemeteries and burial places. Prepared for U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Reed 1988 Reed, P.B.J. 1988. “National list of plant species that occur in wetlands: Hawaii (Region H).” USFWS, Biological Report 88(26.13). ROH 1978a Revised Ordinances of Honolulu. 1978. Chapter 21. Land use ordinance. ROH 1978b Revised Ordinances of Honolulu. 1978. Chapter 24. Development plans. ROH 1978c Revised Ordinances of Honolulu. 1978. Chapter 14, Article 12. Drainage, ood and pollution control. ROH 1978d Revised Ordinances of Honolulu. 1978. Chapter 14, Article 13. General provi- sions for grading, soil erosion and sediment control. ROH 1978e Revised Ordinances of Honolulu. 1978. Chapter 25, Article 3. Objectives and policies, review and procedural guidelines. ROH 1978f Revised Ordinances of Honolulu. 1978. Chapter 24, Section 1.4. General urban design principles and controls. ROH 1990 Revised Ordinances of Honolulu. 1990. Chapter 41, Article 13. Protective regulations for exceptional trees. ROH 2005 Revised Ordinances of Honolulu. 2005. Section 6-60, Ordinance 05-027. Transportation surcharge—use of funds. ROH 2007 Revised Ordinances of Honolulu. 2007. Section 6-60, Ordinance 07-001. Transportation surcharge—use of funds. ROH 2009 Revised Ordinances of Honolulu. 2009. Ordinance 09-4. Relating to transit- oriented development. June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement
    • RPA 2008 City and County of Honolulu Department of Budget and Fiscal Services, Real Property Assessment Division. February 2008. www.honolulu.gov/rpa/ staterpt/2007_staterpt.htm RTD 2008a City and County of Honolulu Department of Transportation Services, Rapid Transit Division. 2008. Honolulu high-capacity transit corridor project transpor- tation technical report. RTD 2008b City and County of Honolulu Department of Transportation Services, Rapid Transit Division. 2008. Honolulu high-capacity transit corridor project land use technical report. RTD 2008c City and County of Honolulu Department of Transportation Services, Rapid Transit Division. 2008. Honolulu high-capacity transit corridor project econom- ics technical report. RTD 2008d City and County of Honolulu Department of Transportation Services, Rapid Transit Division. 2008. Honolulu high-capacity transit corridor project neigh- borhoods and communities technical report. RTD 2008e City and County of Honolulu Department of Transportation Services, Rapid Transit Division. 2008. Honolulu high-capacity transit corridor project visual and aesthetics resources technical report. RTD 2008f City and County of Honolulu Department of Transportation Services, Rapid Transit Division. 2008. Honolulu high-capacity transit corridor project noise and vibration technical report. RTD 2008g City and County of Honolulu Department of Transportation Services, Rapid Transit Division. 2008. Honolulu high-capacity transit corridor project air qual- ity and energy technical report. RTD 2008h City and County of Honolulu Department of Transportation Services, Rapid Transit Division. 2008. Honolulu high-capacity transit corridor project electric and magnetic elds technical report. RTD 2008i City and County of Honolulu Department of Transportation Services, Rapid Transit Division. 2008. Honolulu high-capacity transit corridor project hazard- ous materials technical report. RTD 2008j City and County of Honolulu Department of Transportation Services, Rapid Transit Division. 2008. Honolulu high-capacity transit corridor project ecosys- tems and natural resources technical report. RTD 2008k City and County of Honolulu Department of Transportation Services, Rapid Transit Division. 2008. Honolulu high-capacity transit corridor project water resources technical report. RTD 2008l City and County of Honolulu Department of Transportation Services, Rapid Transit Division. 2008. Honolulu high-capacity transit corridor project street trees technical report. References
    • RTD 2008m City and County of Honolulu Department of Transportation Services, Rapid Transit Division. 2008. Honolulu high-capacity transit corridor project geology, soils, farmlands, and natural hazards technical report. RTD 2008n City and County of Honolulu Department of Transportation Services, Rapid Transit Division. 2008. Honolulu high-capacity transit corridor project archaeo- logical resources technical report. RTD 2008o City and County of Honolulu Department of Transportation Services, Rapid Transit Division. 2008. Honolulu high-capacity transit corridor project historic resources technical report. RTD 2008p City and County of Honolulu Department of Transportation Services, Rapid Transit Division. 2008. Honolulu high-capacity transit corridor project cultural resources technical report. RTD 2008q Not used in Final EIS. RTD 2008r City and County of Honolulu Department of Transportation Services, Rapid Transit Division. 2008. Bus eet maintenance plans. RTD 2008s City and County of Honolulu Department of Transportation Services, Rapid Transit Division. 2008. Honolulu high-capacity transit corridor project sum- mary cash ow tables. RTD 2008t City and County of Honolulu Department of Transportation Services Rapid Transit Division. 2008. Honolulu High-capacity transit corridor project travel forecasting results report. RTD 2008u City and County of Honolulu Department of Transportation Services, Rapid Transit Division. 2008. Honolulu high-capacity transit corridor project dra environmental impact statement/section 4(f) evaluation. RTD 2009a Not used in Final EIS. RTD 2009b City and County of Honolulu Department of Transportation Services, Rapid Transit Division. July 10, 2009. Honolulu high-capacity transit corridor project wetland and waters of the U.S. study. RTD 2009c City and County of Honolulu Department of Transportation Services, Rapid Transit Division. 2009. Honolulu high-capacity transit corridor project adden- dum 01 to the historic resources technical report. RTD 2009d City and County of Honolulu Department of Transportation Services, Rapid Transit Division. 2009. Honolulu high-capacity transit corridor project historic e ects report. RTD 2009e City and County of Honolulu Department of Transportation Services, Rapid Transit Division. 2009. Honolulu high-capacity transit corridor project adden- dum 01 to the cultural resources technical report. RTD 2009f City and County of Honolulu Department of Transportation Services, Rapid Transit Division. 2009. Honolulu high-capacity transit corridor project adden- dum 01 to the transportation technical report. June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement
    • RTD 2009g City and County of Honolulu Department of Transportation Services, Rapid Transit Division. 2009. Honolulu high-capacity transit corridor project summary cash ow tables. RTD 2009h City and County of Honolulu Department of Transportation Services, Rapid Transit Division. 2009. Honolulu high-capacity transit corridor project ecosys- tem function and values of wetland and waters of the U.S. RTD 2009i City and County of Honolulu Department of Transportation Services, Rapid Transit Division. 2009. Honolulu high-capacity transit corridor project adden- dum 02 to the transportation technical report. RTD 2009j City and County of Honolulu Department of Transportation Services, Rapid Transit Division. 2009. Honolulu high-capacity transit corridor project adden- dum 01 to the travel forecasting results report. RTD 2009k City and County of Honolulu Department of Transportation Services, Rapid Transit Division. 2009. Honolulu high-capacity transit corridor project model development, calibration, and validation report. RTD 2009l City and County of Honolulu Department of Transportation Services, Rapid Transit Division. 2009. Honolulu high-capacity transit corridor project travel forecasting results and uncertainties report. RTD 2009m City and County of Honolulu Department of Transportation Services, Rapid Transit Division. 2009. Floodplain evaluations at HHCTCP stream crossings. RTD 2009n City and County of Honolulu Department of Transportation Services, Rapid Transit Division. 2009. Honolulu high-capacity transit corridor project cost escalation forecast FY 2009-2019. RTD 2009o City and County of Honolulu Department of Transportation Services, Rapid Transit Division. 2009. Honolulu high-capacity transit corridor project compen- dium of design criteria. RTD 2010a City and County of Honolulu Department of Transportation Services, Rapid Transit Division. 2010. Honolulu high-capacity transit corridor project adden- dum 03 to the transportation technical report. RTD 2010b City and County of Honolulu Department of Transportation Services, Rapid Transit Division. 2010. Honolulu high-capacity transit corridor project adden- dum 01 to the noise and vibration technical report. RTD 2010c City and County of Honolulu Department of Transportation Services, Rapid Transit Division. June 1, 2010. Honolulu high-capacity transit corridor project wetland and waters of the U.S. study. Sherfy 1998 Sherfy, M., and W.R. Luce. 1998. Guidelines for evlauating and nominating properties that have achieved signi cance within the last y years. Prepared for U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. References
    • Stokes 2008 Stokes, R.J., J. MacDonald, G. Ridgeway. March 2008. “Estimating the e ects of light rail transit on health care costs.” Health & Place, Volume 14, Issue 1, 45-58. ompson 1983 ompson, B. June 1983. Historic bridge inventory, Island of O‘ahu. Prepared for the State of Hawai‘i Department of Transportation Highways Division. Timbol 1978 Timbol, A.S., and J.A. Maciolek. 1978. Stream channel modi cation in Hawaii. Part A: Statewide inventory of streams, habitat factors and associated biota. Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. TMG/TKG e MacNaughton Group & e Kobayashi Group. 2009. Kapolei Commons. www.thekapoleicommons.com/ TRB 2000 Transportation Research Board. 2000. Highway capacity manual. TRB 2003 Transportation Research Board (Transit Cooperative Research Program). 2003. Transit capacity and quality of service manual, 2nd edition. TSA 2007 e Salvation Army. 2007 (accessed 2009). e Salvation Army Ray and Joan Kroc corps community center. www1.usw.salvationarmy.org/usw/www_usw_ hawaii.nsf UH 2002a University of Hawai‘i. 2002. Enrollment data. UH 2002b University of Hawai‘i. 2002. University of Hawai‘i system strategic plan: Enter- ing the university’s second century, 2002-2010. UH 2005 University of Hawai‘i. 2005. Campus commuting data. USACE 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Technical Report Y-87-1. Wetlands delineation manual. USACE 1999 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1999. Wetlands of Pearl Harbor. USACE 2007 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2007. Jurisdictional determination form instruc- tional guidebook. USACE 2008 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Little Rock District stream method. www. swl.usace.army.mil/regulatory/permits/littlerockstreammitigation 03212008. doc (last visited August 7, 2009). USC 1899 United States Code. 1899. 33 USC 403 et seq. Navigation and navigable waters: Obstruction of navigable waters generally; wharves; piers, etc.; excavations and lling in (the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899). USC 1906 United States Code. 1906. 33 USC 1401 et seq. Navigation and navigable waters: Congressional nding, policy, and declaration of purpose (Bridge Act of 1906 [or] Act of March 23, 1906). USC 1918 United States Code. 1918. 16 USC 703-711. Migratory bird treaty act of 1918. USC 1946 United States Code. 1946. 33 USC 491-535. Navigation and navigable waters: Bridges over navigable waters (General Bridge Act of 1946). June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement
    • USC 1948a United States Code. 1948. 33 USC 1251-1387. Navigation and navigable waters: Water pollution prevention and control (Clean Water Act). USC 1948b United States Code. 1948. 33 USC 1344. Navigation and navigable waters: Permits for dredged or ll material. USC 1949 United States Code. 1949. 40 USC 484. Federal property and administrative services act of 1949, as amended (Federal Lands to Parks Program). USC 1964a United States Code. 1964. 49 USC 5307. Transportation: Urbanized area for- mula grants. USC 1964b United States Code. 1964. 49 USC 5309. Transportation: Capital investment grants. USC 1964c United States Code. 1964. 42 USC 2000e-16. e civil rights act of 1964. USC 1964d United States Code. 1964. 49 USC 1601 et seq. e urban mass transportation act of 1964. USC 1966a United States Code. 1966. 16 USC 470. National historic preservation act of 1966 (NHPA) (Section 106). USC 1966b United States Code. 1966. 49 USC 303. Department of Transportation Act— Policy on lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites [Section 4(f)]. USC 1966c United States Code. 1966. 23 USC 138. Preservation of parklands. USC 1969 United States Code. 1969. 42 USC 4321-4347. e national environmental policy act of 1969 (NEPA). USC 1972a United States Code. 1972. 16 USC 1361-1407. e marine mammal protection act of 1972 (MMPA). USC 1972b United States Code. 1972. 33 USC 1251 et seq (revised). Navigation and navi- gable waters: Water pollution prevention and control (Clean Water Act). USC 1972c United States Code. 1972. 16 USC 1451 et seq. Coastal zone management act of 1972 (CZMA). USC 1973 United States Code. 1973. 16 USC 1531-1544. e endangered species act of 1973. USC 1974 United States Code. 1974. 42 USC 300f et seq. e safe drinking water act of 1974 (SDWA). USC 1976 United States Code. 1976. 42 USC 6901 et seq. e resource conservation and recovery act of 1976. USC 1980 United States Code. 1980. 42 USC 103. Comprehensive environmental response— e compensation and liability act of 1980 (CERCLA). USC 1981 United States Code. 1981. 7 USC 4201-4209. Farmland protection policy act (FPPA). USC 1983 United States Code. 1983. 49 USC 303. Policy on lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites. References
    • USC 1986 United States Code. 1986. 42 USC 300 et seq. e emergency planning and community right to know act of 1986. USC 1990a United States Code. 1990. 16 USC 4601. Take pride in America program (TPIA). USC 1990b United States Code. 1990. 25 USC 3001 et seq. Native American graves protec- tion and repatriation act (NAGPRA). USC 1994 United States Code. 1994. 49 USC 5332. Mass transportation. USC 1995 United States Code. 1995. 16 USC 1531 et seq. Endangered species act, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. USC 2002 United States Code. 2002. 7 USC 136. Environmental pesticide control. USDA 1972 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1972. Hawai‘i soil surveys geographic. http://.soils.usda.gov USDA 2004 U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2004. 2002 census of agriculture. USDOE 2007 U.S. Department of Energy. 2007. ORNL-6978. Transportation energy data book: Edition 26. USDOI 1992 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 2009. Federal lands to parks program website. www.nps.gov/ p/ USDOI 1995 U.S. Department of the Interior. 1995. e Secretary of the Interior’s standards for the treatment of historic properties, 1995. www.nps.gov/history/local-law/ arch_stnds_8_2.htm USDOT 1979 U.S. Department of Transportation. 1979. Order 5650.2. Flood management and protection. USDOT 1997 U.S. Department of Transportation. 1997. Order 5610.2. USDOT order to address environmental justice in minority populations and low-income populations. USDOT 1998 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. 1998. Order 6640.23. FHWA actions to address environmental justice in minority populations and low-income populations. USEO 1977 U.S. Presidential Executive Order 11988. 1977. Floodplain management. USEO 1994 U.S. Presidential Executive Order 12898. 1994. Federal actions to address environmental justice in minority populations and low-income populations. USEO 2000 U.S. Presidential Executive Order 13166. 2000. Improving access to services for persons with limited English pro ciency. USFWS 1978 U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1978. National wetlands inventory maps. http://hawaii.gov/dbedt/gis/wetlnds.htm USFWS 1996 U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Recovery plan for marsilea villosa. June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement
    • USFWS 1998 U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Recovery plan for the Hawaiian hoary bat. USFWS 2005a U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Dra revised recovery plan for Hawaiian waterbirds. USFWS 2005b U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Dra revised recovery plan for Hawaiian waterbirds. Second dra of second revision. USFWS 2006 U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Revised recovery plan for Hawaiian forest birds. USFWS 2009 U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps. www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/mapper.html USGS 2009 U.S. Geological Survey. 2009. Surface water data for Hawai‘i. http://waterdata. usgs.gov/hi/nwis/sw VanderWerf 2001 VanderWerf, E.A., J.L. Rohrer, D.G. Smith, and M.D. Burt. 2001. “Current dis- tribution and abundance of the O‘ahu ‘Elepaio.” e Wilson Bulletin. 113:10-16. VanderWerf 2003 Vanderwerf, E.A. 2003. “Distribution, abundance, and breeding biology of white terns on O‘ahu, Hawai‘i.” e Wilson Bulletin. 115:258-262. WCP 2007 Wil Chee Planning, Inc., and AECOS. 2007. U.S. AECOS No. 1126B. Pearl Harbor wetlands inventory. Prepared for the U.S. Navy. Government Regulation Naming Conventions Example Full Designation 40 CFR 4.1(a) Code of Federal Regulations Title 40 Part 4 Section 1 Paragraph (a) 42 USC 4321 et seq. United States Code Title 42 Section 4321 and following section(s) 52 FR 8912 Federal Register Volume 52 Page 8912 PL 101-548 U.S. Public Law 101-548 USEO 12898 U.S. Presidential Executive Order 12898 HRS Chapter 368 Hawai‘i Revised Statute Chapter 368 HAR Section 11-200-1 Hawai‘i Administrative Rule Title 11 Chapter 200 Section 1 ROH Section 24-1.4 Revised Ordinances of Honolulu Chapter 24 Article 1 Section 4 References
    • List of Preparers & Federal Transit Administration Name Title Renee M. Marler, Esq Regional Counsel, Region IX Ted Matley Community Planner, FTA Region IX Raymond Sukys Director, Planning and Program Development, FTA Region IX Jim Ryan O ce of Planning Methods, FTA O ce of Planning and Environment Chris Van Wyk, Esq. Attorney – Advisor, FTA O ce of Chief Counsel Elizabeth Zelasko Environmental Protection Specialist, FTA O ce of Planning and Environment City and County of Honolulu Rapid Transit Division Years of Name Education Title/EIS Role Experience Judy A. Aranda B.A. and Masters, Planning, University of Transportation Planning and Land Use 32 Washington Kenneth Banao B.B.A., University of Hawai`i at Mānoa Transportation Forecasting 20 Sharon Greene B.A., Tufts University; M.C.P., Harvard Financial Oversight/Evaluation 35 University; M.S., Boston University; Certi cate Manager Program in Real Estate, University of California at San Diego Kenneth Hamayasu, P.E. B.S., Civil Engineering, University of Hawai`i at Second Deputy Director, Department 35 Mānoa; Professional Engineer, Hawai`i of Transportation Services/Project Executive Phyllis Kurio B.A., University of Hawai`i at Mānoa Transportation Planning and Grants 20 Management Faith Miyamoto B.A., University of California at Berkeley; Chief of Transportation Planning and 20 M.S., University of Hawai`i at Mānoa Environmental Studies Bruce Nagao B.F.A., University of Hawai`i at Mānoa Land Use Planning 30 Kahu Kaleo Patterson B.S., M.Div., D.Min, University of Hawai`i at Environmental and Cultural Planner 30 Mānoa Susan A. Robbins, AICP B.S., Education, Maryland State College; Chief of Environmental Planning and 29 M.S., Urban Planning, Columbia University EIS Lead Stephanie (Tesse) Roberts, P.E. B.S.C.E., Bucknell University; M.L.P., University Senior Transportation Planner 9.5 of Southern California Eric Rouse B.S., University of Rochester; M.S., University Financial Oversight/Senior Evaluator 14 of Texas Ryan Tam, AICP B.S. with Honors, Cornell University; M.U.P., Transportation Systems Planning 9 Harvard University; Ph.D., Urban and Regional Planning and S.M. Transportation, Massachu- setts Institute of Technology Patrick Williams B.A., English and Rhetoric & Communications, Final EIS Video Guide/Public Informa- 15 University of California at Davis tion Specialist June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement
    • Federal Aviation Administration Years of Name Education Title/EIS Role Experience David B. Kessler, AICP B.A., Geography; M.A., Physical Geography Regional Environmental Protection 27 Specialist, Airports Division, Western- Paci c Region Peter F. Ciesla B.S., Accounting; M.B.A., Finance Regional Environmental Protection 20 Specialist, Airports Division, Western- Paci c Region Steven Wong B.S., Mechanical Engineering Program Manager, Honolulu Airports 20 District O ce, Airports Division, Western-Paci c Region Consultant Sta Parsons Brinckerhoff Years of Name Education Title/EIS Role Experience Paul Anderson B.A., Cornell University, B.S. University of Maintenance of Tra c 12 Hawai`i at Mānoa Matthew Simon Bieschke B.S., Civil Engineering, M.S., Transportation Financial Planning Lead 11 and Urban Systems Engineering, and M.S., International Project Management and Finance, Washington University Art Borst, PE B.S., Civil Engineering, Fairleigh Dickenson Facilities Design Manager 35 University; M.S., Civil Engineering, Polytechnic Institute of New York Jason Bright M.S., Anthropology, University of Utah; B.S., Quality Control Review 14 Anthropology, Utah State University Kristin Carlson B.A., Environmental Studies, and B.A., Transportation Planner 2 Geography, George Washington University; Master of Urban and Environmental Planning, University of Virginia Veronica Chan B.A., Environmental Analysis and Design, Relocation and Displacements 5 University of California at Irvine Prajakta Chitre B.S., Georgetown University Financial Planner 5 Joanne Crowe, AICP B.A., Urban Studies, Wheaton College; M.S., Land Use Planner 30 Urban Planning, Hunter College William A. Davidson B.S., Civil Engineering, Iowa State University Travel Forecasting Lead 37 Theresa Dickerson B.S., Landscape Architecture, California State Social Impacts 20 Polytechnic University James M. Dunn, P.E. B.S., Civil Engineering, University of Santa Project Design Manager 42 Clara Donald J. Emerson B.S., Civil Engineering, Tufts University; Master Strategic Advisor 39 of Urban A airs, Virginia Tech Brianne Emery M.S., University of Utah Environmental Planner 2 List of Preparers
    • Malie Espin B.S., Natural Resources and Environmental Environmental Planner 0.5 Management, University of Hawai`i at Mānoa Tammy Evans Certi cation in Real Estate Administrative Support 4 Stephanie Foell B.S., Towson University; Master of Historic Supervising Architectural and 15 Preservation, University of Georgia Landscape Historian Melissa Foreman B.A., Economics, Southern Methodist Transportation Planning 5.5 University; M.S., Geographic Information Systems, University of Texas David Franck B.S., Civic Engineering, Ecole Spéciale Financial Analyst 3 des Travaux Publics (Paris, France); M.S., Transportation Systems Analysis and Planning, Northwestern University Heather Fujioka B.S., Mathematics, Willamette University; Travel Forecasting 11 M.S., Statistics, Oregon State University Rhett Fussell B.S. and M.C.E., Civil Engineering, North Travel Forecasting 12 Carolina State University Mark Garrity, AICP Bachelor of Architecture, Carnegie Mellon Transportation Planning Lead 17 University; Master of City Planning, University of Pennsylvania Peter Geiger B.S., Xavier University; M.S., Simon Fraser Environmental Planner 21 University Sharon Grader Graphic Design, Shoreline Community College; Graphic Designer 27 Writing Certi cate, University of Washington Rob Greene, B.S., Environmental Science, Paci c Western Acoustics/Vibration and Air Quality 30 INCE Board Certi ed University; Board Certi ed, Institute of Noise Program Manager/Quality Assurance Control Engineering of the USA (INCE) Dennis Haskell Bachelor of Architecture, University of Architecture Lead 40 Virginia; Master of Architecture, University of Pennsylvania James T. Hayes B.S., Earth and Planetary Science, and B.A., Hazardous Materials and Permitting 17 International Development, Washington University (in St. Louis) Allan Hodges, FAICP B.S., Community Development, Southern Land Use and Cumulative Impacts 42 Illinois University; Master of Urban Planning, Lead Michigan State University Steve Hogan B.S., Engineering, Harvey Mudd College; M.S., Project Planning Manager 32 Transportation (Civil), University of California at Berkeley; M.S., Administration, University of California at Irvine Thomas L. Jenkins B.S. and M.S., Civil Engineering, University of Technical Advisor 45 Kansas Kevin Keller B.A., Geography, California State University at Noise and Vibration Study 15 Fullerton Susan Killen, AICP B.A., Art, and B.A., Education, Seattle Univer- Quality Assurance 30 sity; M. Ed., Education, Central Washington State University June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement
    • Takahiko (Taka) Kimura B.S., University of California at Berkeley, M.S. Design Engineering 17 Stanford Ann L. Koby, AICP B.B.A., Lamar University Central U.S. Environmental Practice 30 Area Manager—Quality Review Eric Liberman, P.E. B.S., Civil Engineering, University of Mas- Conceptual Engineering Support 18 sachusetts at Amherst Michael Lieu B.S., Applied Ecology, University of California Noise Analysis and GIS Analysis 7 at Irvine Alice Lovegrove B.E., Engineering Science, and M.S., Air Quality Analysis 20 Environmental and Waste Management, State University of New York at Stony Brook Matthew F.K. McDaniel B.A., Hampden-Sydney College; M.A., Senior Historian/Architectural 10.5 Louisiana State University; M.H.P., University Historian of Georgia Pamela A. Murray B.S., Montana State Bozeman; M.P.S., Pratt Environmental Comments Coordinator 13 Institute Michael H. Omohundro B.A., Urban Studies, University of California, GIS and General Planning 2 San Diego; M.A. Candidate, Urban and Regional Planning, University of Hawai`i at Mānoa Helen Regan B.F.A., Media Arts and Animation, Art Institute Design Visualization Specialist 4 of Seattle Jan Reichelderfer B.S., Geology, University of Delaware; M.S., Water Resources and Geology 15 Geology, University of Illinois Ed Reynolds B.A., Journalism, Baylor University Technical Editor 24 Stephanie Roberts, AICP B.A., Geography, Bowling Green State Project Coordination 9 University; M.S., Urban Studies, Cleveland State University Andrea Rose B.A., Romance Linguistics with honors, Technical Editor 18 University of Washington Lawrence Sauve B.A., Political Science, and M.A., Architecture Transportation Planner 34 and Urban Planning, University of California at Los Angeles Mark H. Scheibe B.S., Civil Engineering, University of Santa Deputy Project Manager 36 Clara; M.S., Transportation Engineering, Northwestern University Esther Schwalb B.A., Barnard College; M.S., Pratt Institute Senior Supervising Planner/Section 28 4(f)/Section 6(f) Review John Sell B.S., Taylor University Waters Environmental Scientist 10 Clyde Shimizu B.S., Civil Engineering, University of Hawai`i Engineering design coordination 29 at Mānoa Bradford Ship B.S., Civil Engineering, Lafayette College; Economic Analyst 2 Master of Engineering Management, Dartmouth College Dorothy Skans B.A., Visual and Speech Communications, Document Production Specialist 40 University of Washington List of Preparers
    • Darrell Sommerlatt B.S., Pennsylvania State University; M.S., Environmental Planner/GIS and 3 University of Maryland Technical Reports Lawrence Spurgeon B.S., Industrial Engineering, University of Environmental Planning and EIS Lead 15 California at Berkeley; M.S.E., Environmental Engineering, University of Washington Mark Stewart Bachelor of Landscape Architecture and B.A., Visual and Aesthetic Resources and 21 Urban Planning, University of Washington Section 4(f) Edward Tadross B.A., Tulane University Air Quality Specialist 11 Geo Taylor A.A., Art and Animation, Art Institute of Senior Design Visualization Specialist 8 Seattle James R. Van Epps B.S., Civil Engineering with high honors, Project Manager 42 University of Illinois; M.S., Industrial Engineer- ing, Kansas State University Steven Wolf B.S., Mathematics, Long Island University Noise and Vibration Analysis 30 Kevin K.O. Wong, P.E. B.S., Civil Engineering, University of Hawai`i Right-of-way 34 Amy Zaref, AICP B.A., Environmental Studies, State University EIS Environmental Analysis, 27 of New York at Binghampton Consequences, and Mitigation Lisa Zeimer B.A., State University of New York at Bu alo; Senior Environmental Manager/ 25 Master of Urban Planning, University of Quality Review Michigan at Ann Arbor AECOS Consultants Years of Name Education Title/EIS Role Experience Eric B. Guinther B.S., Biology, University of the Paci c Wetland Scientist 30 Aukahi Years of Name Education Title/EIS Role Experience Lani Ma`a Lapilio B.A., University of Hawai`i at Mānoa; Cultural Report 20 Graduate Certi cate of Historic Preservation, University of Hawai`i at Mānoa; J.D. William S. Richardson School of Law Cultural Surveys Years of Name Education Title/EIS Role Experience Hal Hammatt B.A., University of Pennsylvania; M.A., Supervision 40 University of Edinburgh; Ph.D., Washington State Alex Hazlett B.A., University of California at Santa Barbara; Historian 5 M.A., University of Hawai`i at Mānoa; Ph.D., Texas A&M Todd McCurdy B.A., Indiana University of Pennsylvania; M.A., Editor 11 University of Memphis June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement
    • Matt McDermott B.A., Boston University; M.A., University of Firm Project Manager 20 Hawai`i at Mānoa Connie O’Hare B.A., University of Tennessee Historian 30 David Shideler B.S., University of Florida; B.A., M.P.H., M.A., Firm Project Manager 30 and A.B.D., University of Hawai`i at Mānoa Jon Tulchin B.A., University of Hawai`i at Mānoa Editor 5 Dahl Consulting, LLC Years of Name Education Title/EIS Role Experience Nālani E. Dahl B.A., Communication, University of Hawai`i Executive Producer, Final EIS Video 10 at Mānoa Guide/Public Information Manager Fehr and Peers Years of Name Education Title/EIS Role Experience Dick Kaku B.S., Civil Engineering, Cornell University; M.S., Firm Principal 36 Civil Engineering, University of California at Berkeley Jill Y. Liu B.S., Civil Engineering, National Taiwan Engineer 4 University; Master of Engineering Civil Engineering (Transportation Engineering Program), University of California at Berkeley John Muggridge Bachelor of Engineering, Mechanical and Firm Project Manager 11 Process Engineering, University of She eld; M.S., Transportation Planning and Engineer- ing, University of Leeds Hi-Tech Urban Solutions, Inc. (GIS and Geospatial Visualizations) Years of Name Education Title/EIS Role Experience David Logan Irick B.A., Geography, University of Washington 3D Animations, Interactive Graphics, 6 and Mapping Applications Harley Powers Parks B.A., Geography, University of California at 3D Animations, Interactive Graphics, 20 Santa Barbara and Mapping Applications Ku`iwalu Years of Name Education Title/EIS Role Experience Brian Cruz A.A., Liberal Arts, Big Ben Community College, Cultural Research Specialist (Subcon- 5 Germany; B.S., Business Management, sultant Ka`imipono Consulting) University of Phoenix Online Lynette Hiilani Cruz B.A., Paci c Island Studies, Hawai`i Paci c Anthropology (Subconsultant 10 University; M.A. and Ph.D., Anthropology, Ka`imipono Consulting) University of Hawai`i at Mānoa List of Preparers
    • Maria Ka`imipono Orr B.A., Archaeology, and M.A., Anthropology, Investigator, Ethnographer (Subcon- 20 University of Hawai`i at Mānoa sultant Ka`imipono Consulting) I`ini Patelesio B.A., Hawaiian Studies, University of Hawai`i Cultural Research Assistant 5 at Mānoa Lee + Elliott Years of Name Education Title/EIS Role Experience Theodore Barker B.S. and M.S., Industrial Engineering, West Maintenance Planner 38 Virginia University John Dexter B.S., Mechanical Engineering, General Motors Maintenance Planner 36 Institute Christopher Gambla B. S., Aviation Management, University of Operations Planning and Cost 20 Dubuque; M.S., Business Administration, Estimating Benedictine University Sebastian Gladney B.S., Civil Engineering, University of California Operations Analysis and Train 28 at Berkeley Performance Janice Li B.S., Industrial Engineering, University of Maintenance Planner 16 Washington; Master of Business Administra- tion, University of Delaware David D. Little, AICP B.A., Economics (Minor, Business Administra- Operations Analysis and Coordination 24 tion), University of New Hampshire; M.S., Transportation Engineering, University of California at Berkeley Maggie Picard B.S., Economics, University of Massachusetts Graphics and Planning 1 Dartmouth Nate Yemane B.S., Industrial and Systems Engineering, Operations Analysis and Route 4 Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Synchronizing University LKG-CMC Inc. Years of Name Education Title/EIS Role Experience Sean Egdamin AAS, Applied Science and Computer Graphics, Art Director/Graphic Designer 15 Denver Business College Lychee Productions, Inc. Years of Name Education Title/EIS Role Experience Laura Pennington B.A., Business Management, University of Executive Producer, Final EIS Video 30 Hawai`i at Mānoa Guide/Events and Media Manager June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement
    • MM Pictures, LLC Years of Name Education Title/EIS Role Experience Melanie Blades Course Work, Miami Dade College Producer, Final EIS Video Guide 30 Alan “AJ” Johnson Associates Degree, University of Alaska Director of Photography, Final EIS 30 Video Guide Andrew Magpoc Course Work, University of Wisconsin Director, Final EIS Video Guide 14 Oceanit Laboratories, Inc. Years of Name Education Title/EIS Role Experience Robert Bourke B.S., Zoology/Fisheries, Oregon State Environmental Scientist 25 University; M.S., Animal Sciences, University of Hawai`i Tobias Koehler B.S., University of California at Berkley; M.S., Botanist 5 Botany, University of Hawai`i Steve Nimz & Associates, LLC Years of Name Education Title/EIS Role Experience Steve M. Nimz Associate, Orchid Management Horticulture, Arborist 37 Michigan State University; Associate, Agriculture Science, Lake Michigan College; B.S., Tropical Agriculture, Economics, and Horticulture, University of Hawai`i at Mānoa Tom Yoneyama Years of Name Education Title/EIS Role Experience Tom Yoneyama B.A., English, University of Hawai`i at Mānoa Scriptwriter, Final EIS Video Guide 25 Weslin Consulting Services, Inc. Years of Name Education Title/EIS Role Experience Linda Frysztacki B.A., Liberal Studies, California State Transit Planning 29 University at Fullerton Wes Frysztacki, P.E. B.S. and M.S., Civil Engineering, Villinova Transportation Planning and Facilities 39 University; Certi cate, Professional Program in Urban Transportation, Carnegie-Mellon University List of Preparers
    • Yukie Ohashi Planning Consultants, LLC Years of Name Education Title/EIS Role Experience Tim Ohashi B.S., Wildlife Resources, University of Idaho; Wildlife Biologist 10 M.S., Wildlife Sciences, New Mexico State University Yukie Ohashi Bachelor of Fine Arts and Masters Candidate, Wetlands, Natural Resources Planner 19 Urban and Regional Planning, University of Hawai`i at Mānoa June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement
    • This page left intentionally blank List of Preparers
    • List of EIS Recipients All recipients included in this list will receive either a hard copy or electronic copy of the Final EIS. Category Contact Federal O cials Agencies U.S. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation U.S. Army Garrison-Hawai`i, Directorate of Public Works U.S. Army Garrison-Hawai`i, IMCON-Paci c U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Paci c Division U.S. Coast Guard, 14th Coast Guard District U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service U.S. Department of Agriculture, State Conservationist U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Paci c Area O ce U.S. Department of the Interior, District Chief U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, Paci c Islands Contact O ce U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, O ce of Federal Activities, EIS Filing Section U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, Federal Facilities Environmental Review Branch U.S. Federal Highway Administration U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Paci c Islands O ce U.S. General Services Administration, Region 9, Public Buildings Service U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Navy U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Paci c Division U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Station Pearl Harbor U.S. Postal Service U.S. District Court, District of Hawai`i Kevin S.C. Chang1 Helen Gillmor1 Mark M. Hanohano, U.S. Marshall1 Alan C. Kay1 Samuel P. King1 Leslie E. Kobayashi1 Barry M. Kurren1 Susan Oki Mollway1 J. Michael Seabright1 U.S. Congressional O cials U.S. Senators The Honorable Daniel K. Akaka The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye U.S. Representatives The Honorable Mazie Hirono The Honorable Charles K. Djou Final EIS recipients who did not receive the Draft EIS. 1 June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement
    • Category Contact State of Hawai`i O cials Governor The Honorable Linda Lingle Lt. Governor The Honorable James R. Aiona, Jr. State Senators The Honorable Robert Bunda The Honorable Suzanne Chun Oakland The Honorable Will Espero The Honorable Carol Fukunaga The Honorable Mike Gabbard The Honorable Brickwood Galuteria1 The Honorable Josh Green1 The Honorable Colleen Hanabusa The Honorable Clayton Hee The Honorable Fred Hemmings The Honorable David Y. Ige The Honorable Les Ihara, Jr. The Honorable Michelle Kidani1 The Honorable Donna Mercado Kim The Honorable Russell S. Kokubun The Honorable Clarence K. Nishihara The Honorable Norman Sakamoto The Honorable Sam Slom The Honorable Dwight Y. Takamine1 The Honorable Brian T. Taniguchi The Honorable Jill N. Tokuda The Honorable Shan S. Tsutsui Final EIS recipients who did not receive the Draft EIS. 1 List of EIS Recipients
    • Category Contact State House of Representatives The Honorable Henry J.C. Aquino1 The Honorable Karen Leinani Awana The Honorable Della Au Belatti The Honorable Lyla B. Berg1 The Honorable Tom Brower The Honorable Rida Cabanilla1 The Honorable Corrinne W.L. Ching1 The Honorable Pono Chong1 The Honorable Isaac W. Choy1 The Honorable Lynn Finnegan The Honorable Faye P. Hanohano1 The Honorable Sharon E. Har1 The Honorable Ken Ito1 The Honorable Jon Riki Karamatsu The Honorable Gilbert S.C. Keith-Agaran1 The Honorable Chris Lee1 The Honorable Marilyn B. Lee1 The Honorable Sylvia Luke1 The Honorable Michael Y. Magaoay1 The Honorable Joey Manahan The Honorable Barbara C. Marumoto The Honorable John M. Mizuno The Honorable Mark M. Nakashima1 The Honorable Scott Y. Nishimoto1 The Honorable Blake K. Oshiro The Honorable Marcus R. Oshiro1 The Honorable Kymberly Marcos Pine1 The Honorable Karl Rhoads The Honorable Scott K. Saiki1 The Honorable Calvin K.Y. Say The Honorable Maile S.L. Shimabukuro1 The Honorable Joseph M. Souki1 The Honorable Mark Takai1 The Honorable Roy M. Takumi1 The Honorable Cynthia Thielen The Honorable Glenn Wakai The Honorable Gene Ward The Honorable Jessica Wooley1 The Honorable Ryan I. Yamane1 The Honorable Lyle T. Yamashita1 Final EIS recipients who did not receive the Draft EIS. 1 June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement
    • Category Contact State of Hawai`i Agencies State Archives Department of Accounting & General Services Department of Agriculture Department of Budget & Finance Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism, Aloha Tower Development Corporation Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism, Hawai`i Housing Finance & Development Corporation Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism, Land Use Commission Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism, O ce of Planning Department of Defense Department of Education Department of Hawaiian Home Lands Department of Health, Disability and Communication Access Board Department of Health, Environmental Planning O ce Department of Health, O ce of Environmental Quality Control Department of Land & Natural Resources Department of Land & Natural Resources, Commission on Water Resource Management Department of Land & Natural Resources, O`ahu Island Burial Council Department of Land & Natural Resources, State Historic Preservation Division Department of Transportation Department of Transportation, Airports Division Hawai`i Community Development Authority Hawai`i State Civil Defense O`ahu Metropolitan Planning Organization O ce of Hawaiian A airs Commission on Transportation Laurence Balter Lester H. Fulcuda1 Ralph J.N.K. Hiatt1 Richard Houck1 William Lindermann Owen Miyamoto Kuuhaku Park Pete G. Pascua, Jr. John Ray1 John Romanowski Final EIS recipients who did not receive the Draft EIS. 1 List of EIS Recipients
    • Category Contact City and County of Honolulu Mayor The Honorable Mu Hannemann City Council The Honorable Ikaika Anderson1 The Honorable Todd Kala Apo The Honorable Romy Cachola The Honorable Donovan Dela Cruz The Honorable Lee Donohue1 The Honorable Nestor Garcia The Honorable Ann Kobayashi The Honorable Gary Okino The Honorable Rod Tam City Departments Board of Water Supply1 Department of Community Services Department of Customer Services, Municipal Library Department of Design and Construction Department of Environmental Services Department of Facility Maintenance Department of Parks and Recreation Department of Planning and Permitting1 Department of Transportation Services Honolulu Fire Department Honolulu Police Department Managing Director O ce Municipal Reference and Records Center Neighborhood Boards Hawai`i Kai Neighborhood Board No. 1 Kuli`ou`ou/Kalani Iki Neighborhood Board No. 2 Wai`alae/Kahala Neighborhood Board No. 3 Kaimukī Neighborhood Board No. 4 Diamond Head/Kapahulu/St. Louis Heights Neighborhood Board No. 5 Pālolo Neighborhood Board No. 6 Mānoa Neighborhood Board No. 7 McCully/Mō`ili`ili Neighborhood Board No. 8 Waikīkī Neighborhood Board No. 9 Makiki/Lower Punchbowl/Tantalus Neighborhood Board No. 10 Ala Moana/Kaka`ako Neighborhood Board No. 11 Nu`uanu/Punchbowl Neighborhood Board No. 12 Downtown Neighborhood Board No. 13 Liliha/Pu`unui/Al`Ewa/Kamehameha Heights Neighborhood Board No. 14 Kālihi/Pālama Neighborhood Board No. 15 Kālihi Valley Neighborhood Board No. 16 Āliamanu/Salt Lake Neighborhood Board No. 18 `Aiea Neighborhood Board No. 20 Pearl City Neighborhood Board No. 21 Waipahu Neighborhood Board No. 22 `Ewa Neighborhood Board No. 23 Final EIS recipients who did not receive the Draft EIS. 1 June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement
    • Category Contact Neighborhood Boards Wai`anae Coast Neighborhood Board No. 24 (continued) Mililani/Waipi`o/Melemanu Neighborhood Board No. 25 Wahiawa Neighborhood Board No. 26 North Shore Neighborhood Board No. 27 Ko`olauloa Neighborhood Board No. 28 Kahalu`u Neighborhood Board No. 29 Kāneohe Neighborhood Board No. 30 Kailua Neighborhood Board No. 31 Waimānalo Neighborhood Board No. 32 Makakilo/Kapolei Neighborhood Board No. 34 Mililani Mauka/Launani Valley Neighborhood Board No. 35 Naānākuli/Mā`ili Neighborhood Board No. 36 Other Colleges Hawai`i Paci c University Honolulu Community College Kapiolani Community College Leeward Community College University of Hawai`i–West O`ahu University of Hawai`i–Mānoa Libraries Hawai`i State Library, Hawai`i Documents Center Honolulu Municipal Reference and Records Center Legislative Reference Bureau University of Hawai`i at Mānoa, Hamilton Library, Hawaiian Collection `Aiea Public Library1 `Āina Haina Public Library Bond Memorial Public Library Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism Library `Ewa Beach Public and School Library Hana Public and School Library Hanapēpē Public Library Hawai`i Kai Public Library Hilo Public Library Hōlualoa Public Library Honoka`a Public Library Kāhili-Palama Public Library Kahuku Pubic and School Library Kahului Public Library (Maui Regional Library) Kailua Public Library Kailua-Kona Public Library Kaimukī Public Library Kalihi Public Library1 Kāne`ohe Public library Kapa`a Public Library Kapolei Public Library1 Kauai Community College Library Kea`au Public and School Library Kealakekua Public Library Final EIS recipients who did not receive the Draft EIS. 1 List of EIS Recipients
    • Category Contact Libraries Kīhei Public Library (continued) Kōloa Public and School Library Lāhainā Public Library Lāna`i Public and School Library Laupāhoehoe Public and School Library Library for the Blind and Physically Handicapped Līhu`e Public Library Liliha Public Library Makawao Public Library Makiki Community Library Mānoa Public Library Maui Community College Library McCully-Mō`ili`ili Public Library Mililani Public Library Moloka`i Public Library Mountain View Public and School Library Nā`ālehu Public Library Pāhala Public and School Library Pāhoa Public and School Library Pearl City Public Library Princeville Library Salt Lake-Moanalua Public Library Thelma Parker Memorial Public and School library University of Hawaii Library, Librarian Wahiawa Public Library Waialua Public Library Waianae Public Library Waikīkī-Kapahulu Public Library Wailuku Public Library Waimānalo Public and School Library Waimea Public library Waipahu Public Library Newspapers Honolulu Star Advertiser Utilities Hawaiian Electric Co.1 Hawaiian Telcom1 The Gas Co.1 Oceanic Time Warner Cable1 Final EIS recipients who did not receive the Draft EIS. 1 June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement
    • Category Contact Groups/Organizations Ahahui Siwila Hawai`i O Kapolei Hawaiian Civic Club Ali`i Pauahi Hawaiian Civic Club American Lung Association American Planning Association Association of Flight Attendants Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Local 627 Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, Local 1 Carpet Linoleum & Soft Tile Union, Local 1926 Cement and Concrete Products Industry of Hawai`i Conservation Council of Hawai`i Convention Center Authority District Council 50 Drywall Tapers Finishers LU 1944 EAH Housing Fil Am Courier Editorial Board Filipino Chamber of Commerce of Hawai`i Glaziers, Architectural Metal & Glassworkers, Local 188 Go Rail Go, Committee for Balanced Transportation Hawai`i Business Roundtable Hawai`i Government Employees Association Hawai`i State AFL-CIO Hawai`i State Teachers Association Hawaiian Civic Club of `Ewa-Pu`uloa Hawaiian Civic Club of Honolulu Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawa Hawai`i’s Thousand Friends International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 1186 International Longshore & Warehouse Union, Local 142 International Union of Elevator Constructors, Local 126 Iron Workers, Local 625 Kālihi-Palama Hawaiian Civic Club Ke`ehi Lagoon Memorial Organization King Kamehameha Hawaiian Civic Club Ko`olaupoko Hawaiian Civic Club Laborers’ International Union of North America, Local 368 Laird Christianson Advertising National Trust for Historic Preservation O`ahu Filipino Community Council Operative Plasterers’ & Cement Masons’ IA, Local 630 Paci c Business News Editorial Board Painters Union, Local 1791 Pearl City Shopping Center Pearl Harbor Hawaiian Civic Club Pearlridge Center Management O ce Plumbers & Fitters UA, Local Union 675 Prince Kūhiō Hawaiian Civic Club Princess Kai`ulani Hawaiian Civic Club Final EIS recipients who did not receive the Draft EIS. 1 List of EIS Recipients
    • Category Contact Groups/Organizations Royal Order of Kamehameha I (continued) Sheet Metal Workers IA, Local 293 The Garden Club of Honolulu United Public Workers United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers, Local 221 Urban Land Institute Hawai`i Wai`anae Hawaiian Civic Club Waldron Steamship Company Ward Centers Final EIS recipients who did not receive the Draft EIS. 1 Other Final Environmental Impact Statement Recipients Lois Abrams James, Boyer John Claucherty Jo Ann Abrazado Dan Boylan Don Clegg, Analytical Planning Consultants, Inc. Vicki Christine Absher Charlie Bracken Loring Colburn, CDR, U.S. Paci c Fleet, Pearl Shaun Ageno Robin Brandt Harbor Janice Akau David Bremer, Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers Guillermo Colon, OTS Inc., Conservation Council David Aki, Hawai`i Teamsters and Allied Local 1 of Hawai`i Workers, Local 996 Liane Briggs Nathan Crow Edgar Alakea Rodlyn Brown Merle Crow, Paci c Souvenir Group Justito Alcon Jeb P. Brown Irma Cunha Harlan Aliment Made Brunner C.C. Curry Ric Allen, American Lung Association J. David Bryant, Hawai`i Stevedores, Inc. Chris Dacus John Anderson Valentin Bueno Stanley Dalbec Mark Anderson Margaret Byrne Stan Dalber David Arakawa, Land Use Research Foundation April Cadiz Dennis Dang George T. Arizumi, Malama O Mānoa S. Cain Mike Dang Margaret Armstrong, Association of Flight Christine Camp, Avalon Group Gwen Deluze Attendants Ian Capps Howard Dicus David Atkin Shawn Carbrey David Dodge, Waikīkī Improvement Association Je ry Babb Marijane Carlos, Ala Wai Manor DoD James Donovan Mary Baker Charles H. Carole, Carpet Linoleum & Soft Tile Tyler Dos Santos-Tam Donnie Banquil Union Local 1926 Linda Douglas, Drywall Tapers & Finishers Local Clara Bantolina Don Carroll, Oceanic Time Warner Cable 1944 Jan Bappe Charles Carter, Cement & Concrete Products Rian Dubach Toni Baran, #1 Hawai`i Weddings Industry of Hawai`i Solray Duncan, EAH Housing, Elevator Construc- James Bassett, Kamehameha Schools Bishop Wendy Chan tors Local 126 Estate Robert Chang Arlene Ellis, League of Women Voters Mark Bauman Charlie Chang Stanton Enomoto, Hawai`i Community Bert Benevento Delwyn Ching, USAG-HI Development Authority Joan Bennett Meredith J. Ching, Alexander & Baldwin, Inc., Captain Edward Enos, Jr., Hawai`i Pilots Fred Berg, Hawai`i Developers’ Council Government & Community Relations Association Josh Berger, CB Richard Ellis Cecily Ann Ching, Building Owners & Managers Jack Epstein Darleen Binney Association Hawai`i Holly ERM Amy Blagri , AIA Honolulu Carleton Ching, Castle & Cooke Mariano Ermitanio Conrad W. Blankenzee Alvin Kealii Chock, The Arbors AOAO Je rey Esmond Patricia Blum, Eye of the Paci c SK Choi, University of Hawai`i at Mānoa, College Susan Estores Peggy Bobilin of Engineering Gary Everett W. Richard Boddy ,Wai`anae Coast Trans Lester Chong Charles M. Ferrell, Fil Am Courier Editorial Concerns Grp Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, David Choy Board, Filipino Chamber of Commerce of Local 627 Jayson Chun Hawai`i June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement
    • Other Final Environmental Impact Statement Recipients Sam Fisk Leslie Hokyo Laura Kodama, Leeward O`ahu Transportation Judy Flores Michael P. Holden Management Organization Gregory Foret, Benedictine Monastery Thomas Hoover Arkie Koehl, Ko`olau Poko Hawaiian Civic Club Adrian Franke Margarita Hopkins, Congress of Visayan Keith Kurahashi, Kusao & Kurahashi Ann Freed Organizations Brett Kurashige Wendy Fujimoto, Grassroot Institute of Hawai`i Larry Howard Naomi Kuwaye, Imanaka Kudo & Fujimoto, Len Fukukawa Robert Hughes Attorneys at Law Albert K. Fukushima, Pearl City Neighborhood Joshua Hvidding, IBEW Local Union 1186 Sherman Kwock, Laborers’ International Union Board No. 21 Lloyd Ignacio of North American Local 368 Donn Furushima George Ikeda Russell Lake Alan R. Gano David Imaye Joshua Lake, Airspace Workshop Jane Garcia Janet Inamine Alexandra Lake Rt. Rev. Wayne W. Gau, Celtic Evangelical Darrell Ing Adrian Lau Church Lance Inouye, Ralph S. Inouye Co., Ltd. Kathy Lawton Megan Giles Kathy Inouye Cassie Lee Janet Gilmar Aaron Isgar Larry Lee Steve Golden, The Gas Company Ronald Ishida Wendy Lee Mike Golojuch, Pālehua Community Association Jan Ishihara Henry Lee Mike Goluich Andrew Jackson, AIJ Design Robert H. Lee, Hawai`i Fire Fighters Association, Dane Gonsalves Mark James Local 1463 William S. Gonsalves, `Ewa Villages Home John Joaquin Rusty Leonard, Matson Terminals Owners Association C. Kaui Jocharon Ray Leonard Robert Gould Jeannette Goya Johnson Altilio Leonardi, Jr., Kapolei Chamber of Sherry Goya, Kaka`ako Improvement Ed Johnson Commerce Association Mike Jones, D.R. Horton, Schuler Division Leonard Leong, Royal Contracting Robert Green Dana Jones Guy Leopard Jerry Greer Stan and Roberta Jones Gary Li James Greubel Bob Jones Michael Lilly, Ning, Lilly & Jones Frederick Gross William Kalawao Robert Linczer, Robert E. Linczer Co. H. Hakoda Leonard Kama Catharine Lo Tony Hall Teddy Kamai Jessica Lomaoang Arleen Hama Cli ord Kanda Nikki Love Stanley Hamada Richard Kane, Paci c Resource Partnership Donald Lubitz Richard K Hanaoka Pace Kaneshige Heather Lum Mat Hara, Lester Chee Stadlbauer Brian Kawabe Maedene Lum Ken Harding Norman M. Kawachika, American Council of Major Phil Lum, Salvation Army, Hawaiian & Ruby Hargrave, Honolulu Community Action Engineering Companies of Hawai`i Paci c Islands Division Program Rick Kazman Debbie Luning, Gentry Homes Victoria Hart Susan Kelley Harold Lyau Ann Hartman Walker Kelly Tenari Maafala, State of Hawai`i Organization of Robert Harts eld Jon Khil Police O cers M. Hashimoto Rodney Kim, Sand Island Business Association Steve Madson, The Outdoor Circle Hitoshi Hattori, Silver Star Co., Ltd. Eric A. Kim, Korean Chamber of Commerce of Walter Mahr Marjorie Hawkins Hawai`i Frank Mak Reid Hayashi Eric Kim, Tower Engineering Hawai`i Tesha Malama, Hawai`i Community Develop- Frank Hayashida Taeyoung Kim, Environmental Communications, ment Authority, Kalaeloa District Jim Hayes Inc. Sally Jo Manea, Get Fit Kaua`i D.J. Henderson, HGEA Paul Kimura, Kaka`ako Improvement Associa- Jon Mar, Jon B. Mar Surfboards June Higaki tion, HCDA John F. Mathias, Jr., Hawai`i Bicycling League Brett Hill, Brett Hill Construction, Inc. Mitchell Kimura Michael Mazzone, Hawai`i Carpenters Union David Hiple Clyde Kobatake Helen McCune Ed Ho Juli Kobayashi, Hawai`i Local Technical Ian McKay Howard Hoddich Assistance Program Mark McMahon Paul Ho man, Booz Allen Hamilton Craig Kobayashi, Hawaiian Airlines George Melenka Michael Ho mann, Wormwood Research David Mercil List of EIS Recipients
    • Other Final Environmental Impact Statement Recipients Elizabeth Merritt, National Trust for Historic Malcolm Palmer Karen Shimizu, Servco Paci c Inc. Preservation Keith Patterson Brian Shiro Je Merz, Waikīkī Neighborhood Board Arza Patterson Holli Shiro Craig Meyers David Paulson, Pearl City Shopping Center, Brian Shiro Marilyn Michaels Pearlridge Center Management O ce Jennifer Shishido Darin Mijo William Pelzer Gerald & Carole Siegel, Neighborhood Board Je Mikulina, Sierra Club Lennard Pepper No. 25 Gary Miller Richard Personius, Silicon Methods, LLC Edgar Silva, Jr. Ted Miller Carol Philips Irwin Silver Bob Minugh Susan Phillips Rosita Sipirok-Sirear Dan Mita Bruce Plasch, Decision Analysts Hawai`i, Inc. Terry Slattery Eric Miyasato Bill Plum, Plumbers & Fitters Union Local 675 Jim Slavish Hondo Mizutani Dick Poirier Paul Smith Ron Mobley Richard Port Frank Smith Henry Mochida Ralph Portmore, AICP, Group 70 International Scott Snider Sandy Moneymaker Douglas Prather Mark Snyder, Gem of Hawai`i, Inc. Jade Moon Lee Prochaska, Pro Graphics Paci c Thomas Soteros-McNamara Ralph Moore, Hope Chapel Richard Quinn Wilfred Souza Steven Morgan John Radcli e, University of Hawai`i Profes- Andrew Speese Roy Morita sional Assembly Jessica Spurrier Jeremy Morrow David W. Rae, Estate of James Campbell Jonathan St. Thomas Richard Morse Dave Rae Elizabeth M. Stack, McCandless Honolulu Roger Morton, O`ahu Transit Services, Inc. Rodolfo Ramos Lee Stack Molly Mosher-Cates, MC Realty Advisors Judah Raquinio Linda Starr, Kuli`ou`ou Kalani Iki Neighborhood Donn Motooka Robert Rau Board Jim Moylan Will Rich Debbie Stelmach Daniel Mueller Dane Robertson Ross Stephenson Gregory Mueller John Rogers Annie Stevens Anita Mueller David Rolf William Stohler Dean Muramoto Ann Ruby Thomas J. Strout L. Muraoka Lehua Rupisan, Aloha anything Audrey Suga-Nakagawa, AARP Hawai`i Maureen Muraoka Sharene Saito-Tam, Haseko, Inc. Irvin Sugimoto Marc Myer Gareth Sakakida, Hawai`i Transportation Richard Sullivan Architects Hawai`i Ltd. Seichi Nagai Association Max Sword, Outrigger Hotels Nancy Nagamine Norman Sakamoto A. Tabar Nobu Nakamoto Monica Salter Ira Tagawa Karen Nakamura, Building Industry Association Pauline Sato Mitsuru Takahashi of Hawai`i Gary Sato, TriMoving-Triathlon & Cycling Club Carol Mae Takahashi Ruth Nakasone Lane Sato Dennis Takahashi Colleen Neely John Scarry Curtis Takano Elizabeth Nelson Dante Carpenter, Democratic Party of Hawai`i James Takemoto Robert Nickel Rod Schultz Jon Takemura Neil Niino Michael Schwartz A. Talat Glenn Nohara, Koga Engineering & Construc- Marsha Schweitzer, Musicians Association of Claire Tamamoto, `Aiea Community Association tion, Inc., O`ahu Filipino Community Council Hawai`i Katsumi Tanaka, E Noa Corporation Byron Ogata Charles Scott Glen Tanaka Leigh Okimoto Gordon Scruton, Construction Industry Legisla- Chad Taniguchi, Hawai`i Bicycling League Christine Olah tive Organization Justin Tanoue Mary Oliver, Honolulu Travel Association Troy Se rood Charlene Tarr Dirk Omine, Operative Plasterers’ & Cement Karen Sender Brian Taylor Masons’ IA Local 630 Gregg Serikaku,Plumbing & Mechanical Mark Taylor Lori Ott, IBM Contractors Association of Hawai`i John Thomas Kiyoi Oyama, Paci c Business News Editorial G. Sha er, Sheet Metal Workers IA Local 293 David Thompson, Mea Paci c Traders Board Kalene Shim, Chinatown Task Force Bob Thompson James Pacopac, Painters Union Local 1791 Howard M. Shima Summer Thomson June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement
    • Other Final Environmental Impact Statement Recipients Monico Tiongco Keith Vieria, Starwood Hotels E. Alvey Wright Robyn Titcomb, South Paci c Design Group Joey Viernes Klaus Wyrtki Rudolph Tolentino Marie Wagner, Waldron Steamship Company Darrell Yagodich Jim Tollefson, Chamber of Commerce of Hawai`i Richard Wallis Kyle Yamada, Tax Foundation of Hawai`i Kirk S. Tomita, Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc. Cade M. Watanabe, HERE Local 5 Hawai`i Roy Yonaoshi, West O`ahu Economic Develop- T. Lei Torres Craig Watase, Mark Development, Inc. ment Association Murray Towill, Hawai`i Hotel Association M. Wearstler Harry Yoshida Dennis Tsuruda Pablo Wegesend Dwight Yoshimura, Ala Moana Center Richard Tudor Richard Weimer Mae Yoshino Patricia Tummons Delta Westcot Rodney Yoshizawa Brian R. Turner, National Trust for Historic Ann and Frank White P. Young Preservation Robert Willing Linda Young Lawrence Uchima Bill Wilson, General Contractors Association of Pamela Young Stanley Uehara, United Public Workers Hawai`i Joy Young Eva Uran, Urban Land Institute Hawai`i Robert Windisch Beverly Yow Sara Van Der Wer Tami Witt Ernie Yow Larry Vaughan Donna Wong, Hawai`i’s Thousand Friends Robert Yumol Marie Vaughan Dexter Wong Paul Zavada Ronald J. Verga Vernon Wong Tony Vericella, Hawai`i Visitor & Convention Michael Woo Bureau Betty Wood Draft Environmental Impact Statement Commenters Abe, Frank Brezeale, Ernest Ching, Chauncey Advisory Council for Historic Preservation Brezeale, Jacquelyn Ching, Donna Agles, Deborah Brizdle, John Ching, Melissa Airhart, Robert Brower Ching, Randy Akana, Cree Brown, David Chu, Elaine Akana, Moses Brown, Rick (Hawai'i) Chu, Michael Alarcon, Renate Brown, Rick (Washington) Chun, Tit Kwong Alex Brown, Rodlyn Chun, Wayne American Institute of Architects, Sidney Char Bruinsslot, Ralph City Council Members American Planning Association Burbage, Lora Colon, Guillermo Among, Leslie Burger, Donald Conlan, Terrence Among, Leslie Burton, Michael Conlan, Terry Anderson, Eve Burton, Michael Corteway, Jack Anderson, Eve Cachola Crisostomo, Melissa Appleby, Ed Cady, Lyle Crowder, Liz Arakaki, Earl Calaro, Judee Culvyhouse, MJ Arakaki, Evelyn Campbell, Nancy Cunningham, Natlynn Au, Jane Caraang, Helito Custer, Jonathon Avenido, Mary Cargas, Jake Da, Chris Awana Carole, Charles Dahilig, Michael Baideme, Chuyang Castle & Cooke, Harry Saunders Darby, Ronald Barker, Audrey CBRE, Thomas Jivorsky, Kimberley Player Davis, Carol Batula, S Celshall, Emika Del Rio, Albert Blackman, Philip Chan, Bonnie Department of Accounting and General Services Bleecker, Nicholas Chang Department of Agriculture Board of Water Supply Chang, Charlie Department of Agriculture, National Resource Boyett, Ruth Chang, Homer Conservation Service Boyette, Joanna Chang, Robert Department of Budget & Finance Bremer, David Char, Sidney Department of Defense Brewer, Jim Charley's Taxi , Dale Evans List of EIS Recipients
    • Draft Environmental Impact Statement Commenters Department of Economic Development & FCH Enterprises, Paul Yokota, Zippy's, Waipahu Heinrich, Tom Tourism, Liu Federal Aviation Administration Higashide, Roy Department of Economic Development & Fekete, Steven Higgins, John Tourism, Mayer Fernandes, Stephanie Hinton, Lennette Department of Education, Kashiwai Fernandez, Eddielyn Historic Hawai'i Foundation , Kiersten Faulkner Department of Education, Kimura Ferrell, Charles Ho, Tony Department of Hawaiian Homelands Fire Department Ho, Wailani Department of Health Follmer, William Hodel, Daniel Department of Health, OEQC Ford Island Properties, Steve Colon Hoernig, Bryan Department of Homeland Security, Coast Guard Foret, Gregory Holman, Russell Department of Homeland Security, Federal Fowler, Robert Hong, Buzz Emergency Management Agency Friar, David Honolulutra c.com, Cli Slater Department of Land and Natural Resources Frith, Cynthia Hookano, Theresa (Central Paci c Bank) Department of the Army, Honolulu District Froelich, William Hooper, Paul Department of the Interior, National Park Fukunaga Huyler, Harry Service Fung, Kathleen Iaea, Sheree-Victoria Department of the Interior, National Park Fung, Leatrice Ikeda, Ken Service Furuhashi, Dexter Ing, Renee Department of the Interior, National Park Galuteria Ishii, Sean Service, Lentz Gano, Alan James, Bill Department of the Navy, Kitchens Garces, Ginalynn James, Mark Department of the Navy, Muilenburg Genadio, Frank Jansen, Chris Department of Transportation General Growth Properties Jansen, Sue Design & Construction General Services Administration Jarvis, Zoe Dicken, Joe General Services Administration, Neely Jensen Disability and Communication Access Board, Gillmar Johnson, Pearl Flemming Gillmore Johnston, John Disability and Communication Access Board, Golojuch, Michael Judd, Kaimi Wai Golojuch, Michael Jr. Kagawa, Brent District Court, District of Hawai'i–Mass Letter 1 Goo, Melissa (Moanalua High School Com- Kaka'ako Business & Landowners Association District Court, District of Hawai'i–Mass Letter 2 munity Council) Kamehameha Schools, Kirk Belsby Djou Good Samaritan Church of Jesus Christ, Kamis, Richard Dolph, Chris Elizabeth Sataraka Kammerer, David DR Horton, Schuler Division Grassroot Institute of HI, Jamie Story Kanemori, Ted Duarte, Dennis Groothuis, Krista Karamatsu E Noa Corporation, Tom Dinell Grounds, Gene Kato, John Ebey, Kathleen Ha, James Kawano, Richard Egge, Dennis Hackney, John Kay Environmental Protection Agency Haitsuka, Cary Keaton, Laura Environmental Services Hall, Sally Kerr, Anna Erickson, Aaron Hamm, Gerhard Kido, Kim Ernst, William Hamp, Cameron Killeen, Kevin Estep, William Handy, Earl Kilthau, Bob Facility Management Hanohano Kim, Jayne Faletogo, Imoa Hanohano Kim, Young Faletogo, Moeone Har, Representative Sharon Kimball, David Faualo, Asomaliu Hasenyager, Shirley Kimura, Amy Faualo, Manase Hawai'i Community Development Authority King FCH Enterprises, Paul Yokota, Zippy's, Hawai'i's Thousand Friends Kishimori, Phillip Dillingham Hawkins, Emily Kljajic, Dragan FCH Enterprises, Paul Yokota, Zippy's, Pearl City Hebshi, Aaron Kobayashi FCH Enterprises, Paul Yokota, Zippy's, Pearlridge HECO, Kirk Tomita Kot, Cory FCH Enterprises, Paul Yokota, Zippy's, Waiau Hedburg Kuhia Jr., Glenn FCH Enterprises, Paul Yokota, Zippy's, Waimalu Hedlund, Nancy Kupukaa, Katherine June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement
    • Draft Environmental Impact Statement Commenters Kupukaa, Katherine Michel, Cheri Paterson, Kirk Kuranishi, Sean Mick, Bryan Patterson, Pat Kurosawa, Jaime Miguel, Scott Pazaglia, Lance Kurren Miguel, Thomas Pearson, Bryan Lam, Jeremy Miho, Jane Pechauer, Janice Lamon, Matt Minton, Eric Pepper, Leonard Lantry, Robert Miranda, Ralph Pereira, Robert Latham Mist, Sally Pickard, Tom Latino, Frank Mitchell, J Pine, Representative Kimberly Laulu Jr., Leauma Miura, Jimbo Pineda, Bryan Le, Andrew Miyamoto, Hannah Planning & Permitting League of Women Voters of Honolulu, Piilani Miyashiro, Darin Plechaty, George Kaopuiki Molloway Police Department Leano, Faanati Mongold, David Pothul, Douglas Leano, Fidelia Moore, Kathleen Poyer, Daniel Leano, Nadia Mori, Richard Pyle, Doug Leano, Taulagi Morita, Maurice Ramelb, Ben Lee Moyen, Dale Reginaldo, Jayson Lee, Gilbert Murai, Daisy Reit Management & Research LLC, Brad Leach Legrand, Giancarlo Muramatsu, Byron Rethman, Michael Leong, Greg Murata, Y Reuter, Mary Life of the Land, Henry Curtis Naea, Samoa Rhoades Lin, Shirly Naea, Tulima Rhoads Lo, George (Bayez & Patel, Inc) Nagamine, Nancy Ridings, John Loder, Clint Nakamura, Doris Robert, Crone Lohr, Patricia Nakao Rodman, Robert Loo, Herbert T.C. Nakasone, Ruth Rothouse, Herb Lovejoy, Je Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation, Camille Rubin, Nancy and Errol Lowery, Hugh Kalama Russell, Bill Loy, Bob Neighborhood Boards Ruth, Carolynn (Public Storage) Luehring, Dave Nelson, Stanley Sakamura, Gerald Lum, Steven Neumann, Wolfgang Sakuma, Stanley Lum, Wendell Neville, Rachel (O'ahu Invasive Species Sasaki, Keith (Dependable Hawaiian Express) Lyman, A. Lono Committee) Sataraka, Andrew Lynch, Jerry Newman, C Sataraka, Epaferoti Maae, Brittany Nishimura, Karen Sataraka, Isakara MacQuoid, Sharon Oamilda, Glen Sataraka, Isakara Nathan Major, Beverly Oamilda, Glenn Sataraka, Kaiserlyn Malama, Tesha Oana, Arma Sataraka, Samuel Manahan Obatake, Jaimie Sataraka, Tracie Mapa, Christopher O'Donnell, Gary Sato, Lane Marrone, Robert O ce of Hawaiian A airs Scott Martinez Family Ogura, Daniel Scott Hawai'i, Steven Scott Matson, Michelle Okabe, Crysta Scott, Charles Matsuno, Tad Onishi, Gary Scott, Steve Matthews, Dan Ornellas, John Seabright Maulupe, Pepe Oshiro Servco Paci c Inc., Carol K. Lam Mayer, Irwin and Michelina Oshiro, Calvin Shibata, Corey McHenry, Robert Outdoor Circle, The-Bob Loy Shimamura, Karen McManus, James Pa, Florita Sierra Club, Kim Kido McWilliams, Jay Paci c Guardian Center, H. Brian Moore Sipirok-Siregr, Rosita Meier, Kathleen Pan glio, Monika Smith, Charles Melei, Aulama Parks & Recreation Smith, Daniel Melei, Taeotafe Parnell Smith, Garry Mercado, Cli ord Paterson, Geo rey Smith, Kenny List of EIS Recipients
    • Draft Environmental Impact Statement Commenters Smith, Mike Timpson, Steve Willson, CE Smith, Pam Tokioka Wilson, Scott Smith, Samuel Tokishi, James Withington Jr., Leonard Soll, Linda Tom, Barbara Wong, Robert Soon, Fah Janice Tomihama, Beatrice Wong, Taryn Soon, Tony Tomita, L Wong, Thomas Sorli, Christian Torres, Douglas Wood, Betty Stassen-McLaughlin, Marilyn Toyama, Matthew Wright, E. Alvey State Representatives and Senators–Mass Travaglio, Bart Yamaguchi, Michelle Letter 1 Tse, Paul Yamasaki, Earl State Representatives and Senators–Mass Tsumoto, Kenneth Yoshida, Kenneth Letter 2 Tuia, Veronica Stop Rail Now, Dennis Callan Ubersax, Richard Strout, Thomas Uechi, Mike Such, J UltraSystems, Betsy A. Lindsay Suen, SL University of Hawai'i, Gillmar Summons, Hurshae University of Hawai'i, Minnaii Sunahara-Teruya, Karen University of Hawai'i, Rappa Suwa, Ron van der Leest, Mark Taheny, Ted Vaspra, Steven Takai, Representative Mark Waikīkī Improvement Association, Egged Tam, Paulette Ward, Robert Tan, Candice Warren, Mary Tang, Rock Wasnich, Richard Tanioka, Earl Watson, Max Tanji, Alex Webb, Robert Taylor, Mark Webster, Claudia Tellander, Robert Weissmann, Dan Teller, Suzanne Werner, Susan Teshima Wickens, Alan Thomas, Robert Wicko Tiedge, Daniel Widder, Arnold June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement
    • This page left intentionally blank List of EIS Recipients
    • Index Topic Page(s) appear on Topic Page(s) appear on A cooperating agency 8-2 to 8-3 Acquisitions, Displacements, and 1-4, 4-9, 4-26, 4-38, 4-40, 4-41, crime 2-30, 4-44 Relocations 4-42, 4-47, 4-48 4-230; 5-37; 8-19 E Act 247 2-1 E Noa Corporation 3-13 Advancing Major Transit 4-9, 4-55, 4-113, 4-202, 4-206, Investments through Planning and employment 1-6, 1-9, 1-20 Project Development Executive Order 12898 4-48, 4-55; 8-24 air quality 4-216; 4-235 extensions 2-24, 2-46; 3-2, 3-75; 4-213, Aloha Stadium 2-4, 2-9, 2-32; 3-33, 3-40, 3-50, 4-219, 4-228; 8-12 3-63, 3-66; 4-36, 4-40,4-47, `Ewa Development Plan 1-6, 1-12, 1-22; 4-11, 4-21, 4-77, 4-94, 4-98, 4-107, 4-220; 4-215, 4-219 to 220 5-2; 5-14 to 17, 5-50, 5-58, 5-70 Alternatives Analysis 1-4; 2-1, 2-4; 4-173; 5-5 F Americans with Disabilities Act 2-29;4-50; 8-25 (ADA) Federal Aviation Administration 2-23; 6-6 (FAA) at-grade 2-2, 2-4, 2-6, 2-24; 4-209; 8-11 freight 3-25, 3-52, 3-69, 3-72 funding 1-3; 2-11, 2-13; 3-35; 6-3 B balanced cantilever construction 3-68 G best management practice (BMP) 4-146, 4-201, 4-203 General Use and Excise Tax 1-4; 6-3 bicycle 1-16; 2-43; 3-8, 3-15, 3-26, 3-28, Surcharge 3-45, 3-59, 3-70, 3-74 goals 1-21, 1-23 bus rapid transit (BRT) 2-4, 2-8 bus routes 2-9, 2-24, 2-43; 3-11, 3-13, 3-44, 3-47, 3-65, 3-72; 5-25; 7-4; 8-20 H Hawai`i Department of Transpor- 1-16; 2-23;4-9; 8-18 tation (HDOT) C hazardous waste, see waste 4-125, 4-130 Capital funding 6-3, 6-6; 7-7 high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) 1-13, 1-17 to 19; 3-18, 3-34; 8-20 City and County of Honolulu General 1-6; 4-11, 4-14 Plan Honolulu Area Rail Rapid Transit 1-3 (HART) Coastal View Study 4-60, 4-103 Honolulu Rapid Transit and Land 1-1 commercial space 4-11, 4-26 (HRT&L) Comprehensive Environmental 4-126 Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 L (CERCLA) Leadership in Energy and 2-45; 4-199 contamination 4-127, 4-168, 4-199 Environmental Design (LEED) June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement
    • Topic Page(s) appear on Topic Page(s) appear on Leeward O`ahu Transportation 1-17; 3-7, 3-13, 3-19, 3-51 P Management Association (LOTMA) park-and-ride 2-24, 2-44; 3-12, 3-45, 3-50, level of service (LOS) 1-1, 1-5; 2-4, 2-14, 2-46, 2-43 3-68, 3-73; 4-59, 4-121, 4-157, locally preferred alternative 4-46, 47, 53 to 56, 172; 7-5; 8-7 4-160 parking 1-16, 1-22; 2-44; 3-4, 3-25, 3-26, 3-48, 3-53 to 54, 3-62, 3-65; M 4-38; 5-15, 5-19; 7-6; 8-10, 8-13 Maintenance of Tra c (MOT) Plan 3-71; 8-18 e ect on existing supply 3-62, 3-69; 5-26, 5-65; 7-6; 8-13 magnetic elds 4-123 spillover 3-48, 3-62, 3-72; 8-13 Managed Lane Alternative 2-7 to 11; 4-169; 8-19, 8-21 participating agency 8-2 Mililani Trolley 3-13 pedestrian 1-16; 2-41; 3-25, 3-46, 3-58, Minority (race) 4-48 3-66, 3-69; 4-202; 5-39 Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) 4-111 phasing 2-43, 2-46; 4-200; 6-11 mobility 1-21; 2-9, 2-14; 7-2 construction 3-73; 8-18 poverty 4-49 N preliminary engineering (PE) 2-41; 5-6; 7-9 National Ambient Air Quality 4-109 Preliminary Engineering and 1-3 Standards (NAAQS) Evaluation Program (PEEP) I & II New Starts 2-2; 3-4, 3-36; 6-4, 6-12; 7-7 Primary Corridor Transportation 1-3; 2-4 Project Nimitz Flyover Project 2-9 Primary Urban Center (PUC) 1-6; 4-12, 4-66, 4-226; 8-16 Notice of Availability 8-6, 8-9 Development Plan Notice of Intent 1-4 to 5; 2-14 to 15; 8-6 to 7 public involvement plan (PIP) 4-199; 8-2 O opposition 1-3; 4-59 O`ahu Metropolitan Planning 1-3; 2-4; 3-5; 4-49; 6-3 outreach 2-41; 3-70; 4-49, 4-58, 4-199; Organization (O`ahuMPO) 8-2 O`ahu Railway and Land Company 1-1 purpose of the project 1-21 (OR&L) O`ahu Regional Transportation Plan 1-3, 1-21; 2-4; 3-5; 4-14; 7-2 2030 (ORTP) R O`ahu Trans 2K Islandwide Mobility 1-3 reverse commute 3-10, 3-31 Concept Plan ridership 2-29; 3-5, 3-12, 3-14, 3-40, 3-43, O`ahu Transit Services, Inc. 1-16 3-58; 6-7, 6-13; 7-3; 8-12 O`ahu Transportation Study 1-3 risks 6-6, 6-10 operating and maintenance (O&M) 6-3, 6-7, 6-10; 7-8 operating parameters 2-28 S safety and security 2-31, 2-42; 4-41, 4-45, 4-200 Scoping Report 1-5; 2-14; 8-5 Speakers Bureau 4-55; 8-2, 8-7, 8-24 Index
    • Topic Page(s) appear on Topic Page(s) appear on State Historic Preservation Division 2-7; 4-10 vehicle miles traveled (VMT) 2-8; 3-9, 3-28; 7-2 study area (corridor) 1-1, 1-5, 1-15 vehicle maintenance and storage 2-42, 2-46; 3-51, 3-63; 4-115, facility 4-197 visitors 1-9, 1-12, 1-21; 3-26, 3-39 T technology 2-16, 2-30; 8-11 temporary use 5-4 W Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 4-48 waste, see also hazardous waste 4-125, 4-130 1964 water 2-13; 4-141, 4-231 TheBoat 3-11 groundwater 4-146, 4-206, 4-209 to 210 TheBus 1-16; 6-3 TheHandi-Van 3-11, 3-31, 3-63, 6-3 tra c Maintenance of Tra c Plan 3-68; 4-41, 4-200; 8-18 Trans 2K Islandwide Mobility 1-3 Concept Plan transit center 3-12, 3-16, 3-27, 3-31, 3-44, 3-70; 4-39, 4-93, 4-161, 4-212 dependent households 1-20, 1-22; 3-30, 3-38 markets 1-12, 1-20 oriented development (TOD) 3-71; 4-21, 4-214, 4-217, Transit Mitigation Program 3-64, 3-67, 3-70; 8-18 (TMP) transportation Demand Management (TDM) 3-17 System Management (TSM) 2-7, 2-8, 2-13; 3-174-169; 8-10 trees 4-109, 4-141, 4-172, 4-204, 4-208, 4-232; 5-29; 8-16 trips 1-12, 1-21; 2-8, 2-19; 3-5, 3-8, 3-27, 3-40, 3-50; 7-3; 8-13 U Uniform Relocation Assistance and 3-54, 3-62; 4-26, 4-40, 4-58; Real Property Acquisition Policies 7-6; 8-13 Act. utilities 4-28, 4-37, 4-41, 4-202, 4-211, V vehicle hours of delay (VHD) 1-21; 2-8; 3-9, 3-28; 7-2; 8-11 vehicle hours traveled (VHT) 3-9, 3-28, 7-2; 8-19 June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement
    • This page left intentionally blank Index
    • www.honolulutransit.org • info@honolulutransit.org • (808) 566-2299