Final EIS Part 5

5-70 CHAPTER 5 – Section 4(f) Evaluation

!e visual character and quality of both Sec-tion#4(f) resources is de$ned by their location along the shoreline with unobstructed harbor views. Given that, the location of the Project elements are mauka of the future park and bike path, they would not change makai views nor cause adverse visual impacts or diminish the Section 4(f) resources’ features or attributes. Use of and access to the future park and bike path will be maintained during construction of the maintenance and stor-age facility. !erefore, temporary impacts during construction will be minimal, no permanent adverse physical impact will occur, and there will be no use under Section 4(f).

5.8 Least Overall Harm!e FTA may approve only the feasible and prudent alternative that causes the least overall harm in light of the statute’s preservation purpose. Two feasible and prudent alternatives (Airport Alternative alignment and Salt Lake Alternative alignment) that were evaluated in the Dra" EIS are assessed in this section to determine which one results in least overall harm. !e least overall harm is determined by balancing the following factors:

Ability to mitigate adverse impacts to each Section#4(f) propertyRelative severity of harm, a"er reasonable mitigation to the Section#4(f) qualitiesRelative signi$cance of each Section#4(f) propertyViews of o&cials with jurisdiction of each Section#4(f) propertyDegree that Purpose and Need is metMagnitude of adverse impacts, a"er reason-able mitigation, to non-Section#4(f) properties Substantial di'erences in costs

5.8.1 Least Overall Harm Evaluation of the Airport and Salt Lake Alternative Alignments

!rough analysis presented in the Dra" EIS and Section#4(f) evaluation, it was found that there

were few di'erences between the Airport Alterna-tive and the Salt Lake Alternative alignments in terms of uses of Section#4(f) properties (a"er mitigation measures were identi$ed and incorpo-rated into the preliminary design). Section#4(f) use would be identical, except where the two align-ments diverge in the center of the corridor between Aloha Stadium and Kalihi. In this segment of the corridor, it was determined that the Airport Alternative will result in the least overall harm in light of the statute’s preservation purpose. It will result in a de minimis impact at two recreational properties—Ke‘ehi Lagoon Beach Park and Aloha Stadium. !e Paci$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 uses of Section#4(f) historic, park, or recreational properties. !e Salt Lake Alternative would require substantially more land at Aloha Stadium, result-ing in a direct use (not de minimis impact) and either direct or de minimis impact use at Radford High School.

!e constructive use evaluation for the Airport Alternative, described in Section#5.6, determined that none of the other Section#4(f) properties in this segment will experience impairment severe enough to constitute constructive use from the Project.

Aloha Stadium!e Salt Lake Alternative would more severely a'ect Aloha Stadium. !is alternative would use approximately 4.8#acres within two of the stadium’s parking lots as well as adjacent land for the elevated guideway’s easement, the station plaza, and the connective concourse. Even with mitigation measures in place to reduce the size of the easement and station areas, this design would result in more than twice the amount of property taken than will result with the de minimis impact of the Airport Alternative. Under the Airport Alternative, approximately 2#acres will be required for the station and guideway on the ‘Ewa edge of

5-71June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement

the parking areas, as well as a strip of land along Kamehameha Highway. !is will use less of the stadium’s parking facilities. In accordance with 23#CFR 774.3(c)(1), the Salt Lake Alternative would not be considered to have least overall harm.

!e views of o&cials with jurisdiction over the Section#4(f) property were also considered. In a letter dated September 8, 2008, DAGS, the agency with jurisdiction over Aloha Stadium, considered both alignments and indicated a preference for the Airport Alternative, noting that “the impact on the stadium would be further mitigated if the system ran past the airport…”

Ke ehi Lagoon Beach ParkWhile the Airport Alternative will require the use of a small area of Ke‘ehi Lagoon Beach Park, the value of the park will be enhanced through mitiga-tion proposed by the City and approved by DPR, the agency with jurisdiction over the property.

!e Project will pass above approximately 1#acre of park land. As described in Section#5.5.1, DTS has designed the Project to minimize use and with mitigation there will be a de minimis impact on this park. A"er mitigation, the Project will not harm the attributes and features that qualify the park for protection under Section#4(f) 23#CFR#774.3.

Paci!c War Memorial Site!e Airport Alternative will require the use of a small area of this multi-use property, considered a park in this Section 4(f) evaluation. !e Project will pass above approximately 0.5 acre of parkland. As described in Section 5.5.1, the City has designed the Project to minimize use, and with mitigation there will be a de minimis impact on this property. With mitigation, the Project will not harm the attributes and features that qualify the park for protection under Section 4(f) 23 CFR 774.3.

Historic Properties on the Salt Lake Alternative!e Salt Lake Alternative would also require minor property acquisition (0.01#acre) along the edge of the NRHP-eligible Radford High School property (from an existing parking lot) to accommodate widening of Salt Lake Boulevard for the guideway median. !e school complex consists of several one- and two-story masonry buildings constructed between 1957 and 1968, some of which are oriented toward Salt Lake Boulevard and others that face inward toward the campus. !e alignment would be located approximately 25#feet mauka of the property boundary and would be approximately 20#to 25#feet high.

!e Salt Lake Alternative in this segment would likely have an adverse e'ect under Section#106 based on impacts to the setting and feeling of the potential Salt Lake Duplexes Historic District on the mauka side of the roadway. !e wood-frame houses were built in the 1950s as military resi-dences, and many feature hipped roofs. !e district is eligible for NRHP listing under Criterion#A (for its role in the early development of Title IX housing and subsequent real estate development on O‘ahu) and Criterion#C (as the largest concentration of duplexes in Honolulu). Since the alignment would be approximately 75#feet makai of the district and be elevated 35 to 50#feet, visibility of the low-scale buildings would be maintained at ground level under the guideway structure. !e guideway would be higher than most of the nearby trees and about as tall as the utility poles lining the street. !is would not be considered a constructive use of this property as the features that qualify for protection under Section#4(f) would not be substantially impaired.

!e other historic properties along this segment of the Salt Lake Alternative were found to have no adverse e'ect as a result of this alignment (‘Aiea Cemetery, +liamanu Pumping Station–Facility X-24/Quonset Hut Navy Public Works Center, and


First Hawaiian Bank). As a result, they were not evaluated for Section#4(f) use.

5.8.2 Di!erences in Environmental Impacts between Airport and Salt Lake Alternatives

According to 23 CFR 774.3, the alternative having the least overall harm includes balancing the magnitude of any adverse impacts to properties not protected by Section#4(f). !e Dra" EIS had previously determined that adverse impacts to other sensitive non-Section#4(f) properties would be slightly greater with the Salt Lake Alternative than with the Airport Alternative with respect to hazardous materials and noise.

!e Airport Alternative, as documented in this Final EIS, will have slightly more displacements and acquisitions than the Airport Alternative discussed in the Dra" EIS. Some of these are the result of the re$ned alignment near the airport as described above. Overall, for the entire Project there are two additional business displacements. !ere will be slightly less air pollution, energy consumption, and water pollution because it will have the greatest reduction in vehicle miles trav-eled than the Salt Lake Alternative.

!e Salt Lake Alternative would block protected views and vistas along Bougainville Drive, Maluna Street, Wanaka Street, and Ala Liliko‘i Street where they intersect with Salt Lake Boulevard. From the Ala Liliko‘i Station to Pu‘uloa Road, the guideway would also block views from fourth- and $"h-%oor windows of businesses and multi-story apartments and condominiums mauka of Salt Lake Boulevard. !e locations of the protected views and vistas in the Salt Lake neighborhood area are shown on Figure#4-18 (in Chapter 4 of this Final EIS).

With the Airport Alternative, views of East Loch and the Pearl Harbor NHL makai of the alignment will be partially obstructed by the guideway and columns in the residential area near Kohomua

Street. !e visual integrity of the NHL will not be adversely a'ected, and the project elements will barely be visible in mauka views from the harbor (Figure#4-42 in Chapter 4 of this Final EIS). !e Kamehameha Highway Bridge over H(lawa Stream is historic, and its appearance will be changed by the guideway and support columns. !e contrast in scale and character of the guideway and columns will be a noticeable change, and visual e'ects are expected to range from moderate to signi$cant (noted as a “high” level of visual impact in the Dra" EIS). In the area of Ke‘ehi Lagoon Beach Park, the alignment will run along the periphery of the park and closely follow the elevated Nimitz Highway and the H-1 Freeway. Views of Honolulu Harbor and the park are already obstructed by these elevated highways and will not be substan-tially a'ected. !e Airport Alternative will not block any protected views or vistas, although the Project will be visible in distant views of Pearl Harbor, the Wai‘anae Mountain Range, and Downtown. !e overall visual e'ects for the Airport Alternative are expected to be of a lower magnitude than with the Salt Lake Alternative.

5.8.3 Purpose and Need!e Dra" EIS documented that of the three Build Alternatives evaluated, the Airport Alternative will carry the most passengers, with 95,000 daily passengers and 249,200 daily transit trips in 2030, and provide the greatest transit-user bene$ts (Table#2-6 in Chapter#2 of this Final EIS). While these numbers have increased since the Dra" EIS was published, the relative di'erences among the alternatives would remain similar. !e Airport Alternative also will result in the fewest vehicle miles traveled and vehicle hours of delay. It will provide access to employment centers at Pearl Harbor Naval Base and Honolulu International Airport and will have substantially greater rider-ship to those areas than the Salt Lake Alternative. !erefore, the Airport Alternative better meets the Purpose and Need for the Project than the Salt Lake Alternative [23 CFR 774.3 (c)(1)].


5.9 Determination of Section 4(f) UseConsidering 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.


This page left intentionally blank

06

June 2010 Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Environmental Impact Statement

CHAPTER

!is chapter presents estimates for capital and operating and maintenance (O&M) costs for the Project. !ese cost estimates are based on engineering and operations analysis performed since the Dra" EIS. !is chapter, although not speci#cally required by the National Environ-mental Policy Act (NEPA) or Hawai’i Chapter 343, presents a #nancing plan for the Project, as required for all New Starts projects.

!is #nancial analysis only considers costs, resources, and funding strategies associated with public transit services provided by the City and County of Honolulu (City). Unless otherwise stated, costs and revenues in this chapter are presented in #scal year (FY) 2009 dollars and year-of-expenditure dollars (YOE$$). !e forecast period referred to is between 2009 and 2030. For

the City, the #scal year begins on July 1 and ends on June 30 (e.g., FY2009 is from July 1, 2008, to June$30, 2009). In this chapter, all year references are to #scal years.

6.1 Changes to this Chapter since the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

!e #nancial information in the Final EIS has been updated to re%ect comments received during the Dra" EIS review period, a 2009 base year, and the latest data available, including changes in eco-nomic conditions and project revenues and costs. In the case of project revenues, the general excise 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 formula funds have been reallocated to take advantage of increased amounts projected to be apportioned to the City as a result of the Project. Costs have been adjusted to re%ect more re#ned levels of engineering, changing costs of materials, and escalation rates that have been di&erentially applied to the key cost drivers of the Project, such as cement, steel, and labor. Costs have also been

Year-of-expenditure dollar (YOE $) cost estimates include assumed in!ation between today and the expected date of the expenditure. 2009 dollar cost estimates re!ect prices in "scal year (FY) 2009.

Cost and Financial Analysis

6-1

6-2 CHAPTER 6 – Cost and Financial Analysis

revised to include the re#nement of the alignment along Ualena Street as a result of con%icts with runway clearances at Honolulu International Airport. !e costs do not, however, re%ect favor-able actual bids received for early phases of work.

6.2 Cost Estimate Methodology 6.2.1 Capital Cost Methodology !e capital cost estimate is the total cost of imple-menting the Project. It is based on standard cost categories the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) created in establishing a consistent format for reporting, estimating, and managing capital costs for New Starts projects. !e cost categories are used to show project costs in Table 6-1. !is method allows for the summary of costs to be tracked during the Project’s follow-on phases (i.e., Preliminary Engineering (PE), Final Design, and Construction).

In this chapter, the cost estimates for speci#c items are based on typical construction practices and procedures on similar projects. Quantities are estimated based on anticipated operating service plans (i.e., size and frequency of trains) and engineering performed to date. Estimated costs for each standard cost category were increased in accordance with FTA guidance for estimates developed prior to PE, to account for unknown but expected additional expenses.

In%ation was applied to the cost estimate based on the Project’s implementation schedule. !e speci#c critical construction cost driver (e.g., cement, steel, labor) in%ation rates were applied based on the local construction market conditions and recent global trends in the price of each key commodity. !e derivation of the escalation rates is presented 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

Cost Categories (2009–2030)Airport Alignment

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


6.2.2 Operating and Maintenance Cost Methodology

Fixed Guideway Operating and Maintenance O&M costs for the Project were estimated using the rail transit system in Washington, D.C., and making adjustments to re%ect the Project’s pro-posed operating system characteristics. A sensitiv-ity analysis was conducted using similar transit operations to con#rm the results. Among the 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, where appropriate.

TheBus and TheHandi-Van Operating and Maintenance !eBus O&M costs were developed using existing bus operations as the baseline, as well as the antici-pated service levels once the Project becomes fully operational. !eBus O&M costing methodology is also consistent with Section 4 of the FTA’s Procedures and Technical Methods for Transit Project Planning (FTA$2008).

6.3 Capital Plan !e capital plan presents project capital revenues and costs for the Project and the ongoing public transportation system.

6.3.1 Capital Costs !e capital cost estimate of implementing the Project is presented in Table 6-1. !e capital cost estimate, excluding #nance charges, is $4.3 billion in FY2009 dollars and $5.1 billion in YOE$$. !ese cost estimates exclude amounts already incurred during FY2007 and FY2008, which are not included in the New Starts cost estimate.

!e estimates for system-wide, ongoing capital expenditures, shown in Table 6-2, include ongoing costs for replacing, rehabilitating, and main-taining capital assets (e.g., buses, rail vehicles, and !eHandi-Van) in a state of good repair

throughout the forecast period (2009 to 2030). Rail rehabilitation and replacement costs are expected to begin in 2028, 16 years a"er initial construction activities are completed.

Current bus service will be restructured and expanded to support general growth in service. To support this, the number of buses operating during peak periods is expected to grow from 439 in FY2009 to 465 in FY2030. To comply with FTA’s 20-percent spare ratio policy, the total bus %eet will 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.

Figure 6-1 summarizes capital costs for all transit travel modes through the forecast period. It includes an expenditure for bus facilities that are not part of the Project, as programmed in the O‘ahu Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (O‘ahuMPO) FYs 2008–2011 Transportation Improvement Program (O‘ahuMPO 2008) and O‘ahu Regional Transportation Plan 2030 (O‘ahuMPO$2007).

6.3.2 Proposed Capital Funding Sources for the Project

!is section describes the various funding sources assumed for implementation of the Project and for the system’s ongoing capital needs. !ese sources include GET surcharge funds, FTA New Starts rev-enues, and other Federal-assistance programs for capital needs, complemented by local assistance.

2009 $M YOE $M

Project implementation 4,281 5,115

Rail rehabilitation, replacement, and purchase of railcars 121 124

TheBus and TheHandi-Van expansion and replacement 1,014 1,258

Total 5,416 6,497

Table!6-2 Overview of Transit Capital Expenditures through 2030 (excluding "nance charges)


General Excise and Use Tax Surcharge !e local funding source for the Project is a dedicated 0.5-percent surcharge on the State of Hawai‘i’s GET. In 2005, the Hawai‘i State Legisla-ture authorized counties to adopt this surcharge for public transportation projects. Following this authorization, the City enacted Ordinance$05-027 establishing a 0.5-percent County surcharge on the GET for business transactions on O‘ahu to be levied through December 31, 2022. !is revenue is to be exclusively used for the Project’s capital and/ or operating expenditures and could be used to back General Obligation (GO) Bonds as needed for the Project. GET surcharge revenues are estimated to be $3,524 million (YOE $) through FY2023.

FTA Section!5309 New Starts Program (49!USC!5309) !e City is seeking capital funds from FTA’s New Starts program, which provides funding for #xed guideway transit projects and extensions. Under current authorizing legislation, an annual appro-priation is available nationwide on a discretionary

basis for projects that have completed the pro-gram’s procedural requirements and that meet certain criteria speci#ed in law and regulation. !e program is highly competitive. At this point, the City is in the process of addressing FTA requirements, and indications are that the Project will meet FTA criteria. However, FTA cannot make a #nal commitment to fund the Project until a Full Funding Grant Agreement has been approved a"er NEPA requirements have been met, the Project is approved for Final Design, and the New Starts Program is reauthorized by Congress as part of the Federal Surface Transportation Funding Program. Current authorizing legislation expired but has been extended in anticipation of a new authorization in 2010, following which there could be changes in statute, regulations, policy, and funding availability.

!e City’s #nancial analysis assumes that the Project will receive $1.55 billion from this program between 2010 and 2019. To date, $35 million has

Figure 6-1 Total Agency-wide Capital Costs

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030CITY F ISCAL YEAR

MIL

LIO

NS

OF

YEA

R-O

F-EX

PEN

DIT

UR

E D

OLL

AR

S

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

'

Project Capital CostsTheHandi-Van AcquisitionsTotal Ongoing Bus CapExBus Acquisition CostsRail Rehabilitation and ReplacementAdditional Railcar Acquisition


been appropriated by Congress for the Project. An additional $55 million appropriation has been proposed in the Federal budget for 2011.

FTA Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Program (49 USC 5307)!ese funds are distributed to the Honolulu and Kailua-K'ne‘ohe urbanized areas using a formula set by law. !e total amount of Section 5307 funds received by the City through FY2030, including funds from the American Recovery and Reinvest-ment Act (ARRA), will amount to approximately $900 million (YOE $) of which approximately $305 million is proposed to be used for the Project if other project funding sources or cost savings do not cover the full capital cost. A portion of the $900 million is attributable to the increased Section 5307 amount that will be distributed to the Honolulu urbanized area as a result of the Project’s #xed guideway route miles and other operating data. !e statutory basis for Section 5307, as for New Starts, expired at the end of the previous Federal #scal year (September 30, 2009) but has been extended in anticipation of a new authorization in 2010; the formula and eligibility requirements could change depending on this future reauthorization.

City General Obligation Bonds !e #nancial analysis assumes that GO Bonds will be the main #nancial instrument used by the City to provide #nancial support for the Project. !is funding source will be required to bridge funding gaps in any given year and will be repaid by the revenue sources described in previous sections. GO Bonds are direct obligations of the City, for which its full faith and credit are pledged. City GO debt will be issued from 2013 through 2019 and repaid by 2023. Section 6.5, Cash Flow Analysis, provides further details on #nancing assumptions for the Project.

No private source of capital revenue was assumed to fund the Project. Opportunities for joint development or other forms of public-private partnerships could reduce City contributions or could help fund construction of future extensions of the Project.

6.3.3 Funding Sources for Ongoing Capital Expenditures

Federal Assistance !e City receives Federal assistance for ongoing transit capital investments through various fund-ing programs from the FTA. One of the conditions for receiving most of these funds is that at least 20 percent of eligible expenses be paid with local funds. !e three main sources of Federal funds for ongoing capital expenses are as follows:

• FTA Urbanized Area Formula Program (49!USC!5307)— of the $900 million avail-able from Section 5307 funds, another approximately $325 million, including $20 million in ARRA funds, will continue to be used for ongoing capital needs. Activi-ties eligible for Section 5307 funds include capital investments in rail and rail related areas, bus and bus-related activities (e.g., the replacement of rail vehicles and buses, overhaul of rail vehicles and buses, rebuilding of rail vehicles and buses, crime prevention and security equipment, and construction of maintenance and passenger facilities).

• FTA Capital Investment Grants (49!USC!5309): Fixed Guideway Mod-ernization Program—these funds are distributed using a formula speci#ed by law. Implementation of the Project will increase Fixed Guideway Modernization funds for Honolulu because the formula is largely based on the number of #xed guideway miles. Total Section 5309 Fixed Guideway Modernization funding is expected to be approximately $102$million (YOE $) through FY2030.


• FTA Capital Investment Grants (49!USC!5309): Bus and Bus-related Equip-ment and Facilities Capital Program—these funds are distributed on a discretionary 80/20 (Federal/Local) matching basis. All bus-relat-ed elements of the Project are eligible for bus capital funds. It is assumed that Honolulu’s bus capital local allocations between 2009 and 2030 will equal 35 percent of annual bus and bus-related capital needs, well over the local match required to qualify for the funds. Total Section 5309 bus funding is expected to be $419$million (YOE $) through FY2030.

City General Obligation Bonds !e City currently issues GO Bonds to #nance ongoing transit capital expenses. !is includes !eBus and !eHandi-Van purchases, construc-tion of facilities and transit centers, and other public transportation capital improvements. !e #nancial analysis assumes that the City will continue to use GO Bond proceeds to match Federal contributions and fund ongoing system-wide capital expenditures. !is will correspond to approximately $571 million (YOE$$) in GO Bond proceeds through FY2030.

Other Potential Capital Sources Based on the forecast GET surcharge revenues and the assumed Federal funding level, the Project is not expected to require any other source of funds; however, at this stage in the Project’s develop-ment, numerous risks and uncertainties exist that can a&ect the Project’s funding. !ese risks are discussed in Section 6.6, Risks and Uncertain-ties. Accordingly, the City recognizes the need to identify potential additional capital funding sources to enhance the strength and robustness of this #nancial analysis.

!e City has identi#ed three potential sources of added capital funding to actively pursue as the Project moves forward:

1. Private Funds—the City will look to the private sector to supplement project funds. A variety of mechanisms are potentially available. !is might include donations of right-of-way, contributions toward the cost of building stations and other project com-ponents that directly bene#t private entities through transit-oriented development, or the creation of bene#t assessment districts or other value capture mechanisms around one or more stations.

2. Airport Funds—the decision to route the Project to directly serve Honolulu Interna-tional Airport will bene#t both airport pas-sengers and employees, but adds more than $200 million to the Project’s capital cost. In similar situations elsewhere in the U.S. (e.g., San Francisco, Portland, Minneapolis, and Northern Virginia), the responsible airport authorities have contributed sizable amounts toward the construction of rail projects. Funds have come from Passenger Facility Charges, Airport Improvement Program (AIP) Funds, and general airport revenues. In addition, the Federal Aviation Administra-tion reauthorization bill now being consid-ered by Congress could expand opportunities to use Passenger Facility Charges for transit projects serving airports.

3. Reduction in State Retention of GET Sur-charge—the State has retained 10 percent of the GET Surcharge collected on O‘ahu since 2007. !is amount is substantially more than required for administration of the program. If the retained portion can be reduced, ad-ditional funds will %ow to the rail program. A reduction of the retention percentage to 5 percent would generate about $187 mil-lion in additional revenue over the time the surcharge is in e&ect. !is change would be subject to action by the State Legislature.


6.4 Operating and Maintenance Plan !is section discusses the data and unit costs used to calculate O&M needs and the sources and uses of operating funds through FY2030.

6.4.1 Operating and Maintenance Costs Figure 6-2 presents the projected O&M costs for the City’s transit system, including the Project, from FY2009 to FY2030. In the year FY2030 YOE$$, total O&M costs are projected to be approximately $117 million or 31 percent higher with the Project than with the No Build Alterna-tive, as shown in Table 6-3.

!e #xed guideway system’s operating costs are anticipated to be about 26 percent of total O&M costs for the public transportation system in FY2030. O&M costs will increase in a step-like manner as operable segments are opened for

revenue service, until the entire alignment is completed in FY2019.

6.4.2 Operating and Maintenance Funding Sources

!is section describes the range of O&M funding sources anticipated. !ese sources include FTA Section 5307 funds for preventive maintenance, fare revenues, and contributions from the City’s General and Highway Funds.

Fare RevenuesSystemwide ridership is forecast to be approxi-mately 282,500 linked trips per day in 2030. !e fare structure for the #xed guideway is assumed to follow the current bus fare structure, with free transfers between modes. !is will yield farebox revenues ranging from $45 million in FY2009 to $151 million (YOE$$) in FY2030.

Figure 6-2 Systemwide Operating and Maintenance Costs

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030CITY F ISCAL YEAR

MIL

LIO

NS

OF

YEA

R-O

F-EX

PEN

DIT

UR

E D

OLL

AR

S

200

100

300

400

500

600

Total O&M Costs—TheHandi-VanTotal O&M Costs—Fixed GuidewayTotal O&M Costs—TheBusTotal Fare Revenues


!e average fare incorporated into the #nancial analysis starts at $0.95, which includes the pro-posed fare increase for FY2010. !e growth in average fare from this point is shown as a “step function” with increases of approximately $0.33 in FY2015 and FY2023, which are based on the City’s historical fare increases. Figure 6-2 shows the projected annual fare revenues (in YOE $). In 2001, the City Council adopted a resolution to adjust fare levels so that the farebox recovery ratio (the ratio of annual fare revenues to annual O&M costs) for !eBus will be maintained between 27 and 33$percent in any given year. !e assumed average fare discussed previously will result in a farebox recovery ratio for the combined bus and #xed guideway systems that follows the City’s resolution in most years, including 2030 when the ratio is expected to equal about 30 percent.

Federal Funding Section 5307 funds were #rst applied to capital needs, with the remainder used for preventive maintenance. Based on historical trends, it is assumed that a maximum of 20 percent of annual O&M expenditures will be associated with preven-tive maintenance, and thus could be covered by Section 5307 funds.

In FY2009, the Honolulu and Kailua-K'ne‘ohe urbanized areas were apportioned a combined $31$million in Section 5307 formula funds by FTA. As noted earlier, over the longer term, the City’s #nancial analysis assumes that it will receive approximately $900 million (YOE$$) through FY2030 from this funding program and ARRA funds, $630$million (including ARRA) of which

is assumed to be used for capital needs (for rail capital and ongoing capital needs for both bus and rail) and about $270 million of that going to preventive maintenance.

City Contribution !e City’s contribution to transit O&M is currently funded using revenues from the General and Highway Funds. !e General Fund mainly com-prises real property tax revenues, but also includes revenues from a transient accommodations tax (transferred from the State), motor vehicle annual registration fees, and a public service company tax. !e Highway Fund consists of revenues from the City fuel tax, the vehicle weight tax, and a public utility franchise tax. General and Highway Fund revenues were assumed to increase at an average rate of 2.7 percent per year by the State’s Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism’s in%ation forecast between 2009 and 2012. In%ation in subsequent years is assumed to be constant at 2.5 percent. In addition, a real growth component is assumed based on historical experience. Based on these assumptions, the total amount of General and Highway Funds is forecast to total approximately $33 billion between 2009 and 2030.

Between FY1994 and FY2008, the transit subsidy has averaged 11 percent of the total Highway and General Fund revenues. Immediately a"er 2003, City revenues increased as a result of large increases in real estate values on O‘ahu, more quickly than O&M costs for !eBus. !is had resulted in a transit subsidy below 10 percent for 2004 and 2005. Figure 6-3 shows that given

O&M Costs (FY2030)

TheBus TheHandi-Van Fixed Guideway TotalDi!erence from

No Build

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

Table 6-3 2030 Operating and Maintenance Costs by Alternative


Figure 6-3 Transit System Operating Revenues and City Subsidy

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030CITY F ISCAL YEAR

PER

CEN

TAG

E SH

AR

E

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

City's Operating Subsidy5307 Formula Funds Used for Preventive MaintenanceTotal System Operating Revenue

Share of General and Highway Fund Revenues Projected to go to Transit Operations (Millions of YOE Dollars)

present economic conditions, this percentage is likely to increase through FY2030, averaging 13.9 percent over the entire forecast period with the Project. While higher than the historical average, this increase is not unprecedented. In 2001, the City spent approximately 15 percent of its General and Highway Fund revenues on transit (although property taxes were not increased to pay for the higher percentage), and the Project a&ords substan-tially more overall service than what was provided at that time.

6.5 Cash Flow Analysis !e cash %ow analysis compares costs with rev-enues on a year-by-year basis, factoring in #nanc-ing as necessary. Table 6-4 summarizes funding

sources and the use of funds for the Project over the forecast period. !e Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Summary Cash Flow Tables (RTD 2009g) presents the year-by-year cash %ow for the Project.

6.5.1 Financing Assumptions for the Project !is #nancial analysis assumes that GET surcharge revenues will be the only source of funding through FY2010 adding Federal Section 5307 formula funds and Section 5309 New Starts funds beginning in 2010.

In years when GET surcharge revenues and/or Federal funding are not su(cient to meet the cash %ow requirement to cover capital expenditures, a mix of City GO Bonds and short-term construction


borrowing will be used to bridge the funding gap. !e weighted average interest rate on long-term debt is assumed to be 3.27 percent, which is consis-tent with the City’s current Standard & Poor’s AA #nancial rating and based on rates as of April 8, 2009. All GO debt is assumed to mature in FY2023, corresponding to the last #scal year of receipt of GET revenues.

!e total #nance charges incurred for the Project will be $398$million. Most of these #nance charges will correspond to interest payments on GO Bonds. !e remainder will include #nance charges related to the cost of issuance of GO Bonds and short-term borrowing and the interest expense on short-term borrowing.

Interest will be earned on any positive year-end cash balances, which has been calculated at a conservative 1$percent per year. Interest income is expected to generate $11 million for the Project (YOE $).

6.5.2 Ongoing Capital Expenditure Cash Flow Systemwide ongoing capital expenditures include all necessary replacement, rehabilitation, and improvements to the existing system (!eBus and !eHandi-Van) as well as the Project. Funding sources used to pay for these capital expenses consist of discretionary and formula-based Federal funding programs (see Section 6.3.3 for descrip-tions of these programs). Any resulting funding gap is assumed to be bridged on an annual basis with City GO Bonds, as is currently the case with transit-related budgets. !erefore, the resulting ongoing capital sources and uses will balance in any given year.

6.5.3 Operating and Maintenance Expenditure Cash Flow

O&M funds will be used for !eBus and !eHandi-Van as well as for the Project. Sources of O&M funds include farebox revenues and Federal assistance for preventive maintenance; any remaining funding requirements are assumed to be funded through City contributions from its General and Highway Funds. !e resulting operating sources and use of funds will balance in any given year. !e Summary Cash Flow Tables (RTD 2009g) includes year-by-year ongoing operating expenditure cash %ows.

6.6 Risks and Uncertainties !e #nancial analysis described in this chapter and the sources and uses of funds are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties. Some risks are project-speci#c and others are related to macro-level uncertainties a&ected by the local and global economies. Although this analysis has de#ned a set of most likely scenarios based on the cost, revenue, funding, and #nancing assumptions described, several operating and capital risks could materially a&ect the #nal #nancial results. Uncertainties can be organized into the following major categories.

Table 6-4 Project Sources and Uses of Capital Funds (millions of YOE $)

Sources of Funds FY2009–2030

Project beginning cash balance (FY2009) 154

Net GET surcharge revenues 3,524

FTA Section 5309 New Starts 1,550

FTA Section 5307 Formula Funds (including $4m ARRA)

305

Interest income on cash balance 11

Total Sources Funds 5,544

Uses of Funds FY2009–2030

Capital cost 5,115

Interest payment on long-term debt 359

Finance charges on short-term construction "nancing

20

Other "nance charges 19

Project ending cash balance 31

Total Uses Funds 5,544

Source: Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Financial Plan


6.6.1 Project Cost Risks Changes in Project Scope Most projects, especially large infrastructure proj-ects such as this one, have uncertainties associated with the de#nition of the project. At this stage of project planning, there are o"en numerous deci-sions and project re#nements that will be made as the project design progresses. Assumptions may be revisited and con#rmed or modi#ed during New Starts Preliminary Engineering and Final Design. Scope changes may also result from the following:

• Physical barriers, such as unexpected utility locations or groundwater

• Community involvement • Changes in political leadership • Budget constraints that lead to scope

reductions

Changes in Project Schedule Scheduling delays, the availability of skilled labor, vehicle delivery, and unforeseen construction chal-lenges can all lead to cost increases that may a&ect the #nancial plan for a project. Schedule changes might result from project changes, local decision-making processes, equipment malfunctions, and construction delays. As a project becomes more complex, tasks become larger and they o"en have more dependencies. Every task’s duration is dependent on factors that can be outside of an agency’s control.

!e choice between di&erent procurement mecha-nisms may a&ect phasing of the Project, as well as the timing of capital outlays. Some e(ciencies may be gained from using an innovative procurement approach, such as design-build or design-build-operate-maintain. Depending on the general approach that the City pursues, this procurement method could change at various milestones throughout the Project.

6.6.2 Economic and Financial Risks In"ation In%ation is applied to both costs and revenues. Project construction costs have been escalated using individual cost component rates that vary according to demand and supply at a global, regional, and local level, as well as the overall local economic environment. Commodity components (cement, steel, and other critical construction materials) may be subject to similar %uctuations in prices that could a&ect project costs. Right-of-way costs are closely related to property values, and labor rates will depend on the results of periodic contract negotiations.

Interest Rates and Municipal Market Uncertainties As in any capital project requiring the issuance of debt, the Project is subject to uncertainty around %uctuations in interest rates. Variations in interest rates could a&ect the interest earnings rate on cash balances and the interest paid on any outstanding debt, as well as the size of the debt requirements to #nance the Project. Fluctuations in interest rates are in%uenced by a number of factors, including the credit rating of the bond issuer (the City) and market risks associated with local or global #nancial conditions. Variations in interest rates could also in%uence the level of working capital and the ability to both operate existing service and undertake new initiatives.

Credit Rating !is #nancial analysis assumes that the City’s credit quality will remain at its current Standard & Poor’s AA rating. Adverse economic conditions or shi"s in the City’s debt policies could a&ect its credit rating and increase the cost of borrowing accordingly. Most importantly, the credit quality of the City is likely to be in%uenced by the size of the City’s capital program and its ability to remain below the current a&ordability guidelines set by the City Council.


Market Uncertainty As with any interest rate, the yield curves on debt assumed in the #nancial analysis are subject to global market conditions. Recent turmoil in the credit markets is a case in point and has prompted the Federal Reserve to react with a series of interest rate cuts that in%uence the market in general and the #nance cost for the Project in particular. !is uncertainty is further enhanced by the fact that, given baseline assumptions, the #rst debt issuance for the Project capital expenditures is not expected to occur before 2012. Because it is assumed that the City will continue to be able to issue bonds in the tax-exempt municipal marketplace, uncertainties about market factors must be evaluated.

Based on the assumptions and analysis presented in this Financial Plan, a 1.0 percent increase in interest rates is estimated to correspond to an increase in interest costs of approximately $130$million over the forecast period.

6.6.3 Capital Revenues GET—Scenario Based on Council on Revenues Growth Rates (Downside Risk) In the short term, GET surcharge revenues are subject to uncertainties related to the magnitude and timing of the economic recovery on O‘ahu. Over the longer term, GET surcharge revenues on O‘ahu depend on a variety of underlying economic factors outside of the City’s control that may result in a higher or lower projection than the one used in this Final EIS.

Federal Funding: New Starts, 5307, 5309 Fixed Guideway Modernization—Reauthorization and Appropriation Risk !e Project assumes Federal funding participation through the Section 5307 Urbanized Area Pro-gram and the Section 5309 New Starts Program. Federal legislation that authorizes these programs (SAFETEA-LU) expired at the end of September 2009 but has been extended in anticipation of a new authorization in 2010. While these programs

have been in place for many years, through several authorization cycles, there is a possibility that Congress will change direction in the next autho-rization cycle. !ey could increase or decrease the amount of funds available, impose new rules on project eligibility, or revise the criteria that are used to evaluate potential projects. !e timing of new authorization legislation is also uncertain.

!e amount of the FTA contribution will be spelled out in a Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) between FTA and the City. !e FFGA will also identify the amount to be made available each year. Although history has shown that Congress ultimately honors and appropriates the full amount identi#ed in an FFGA, Congress could delay funding for the Project by reducing or delaying the annual appropriations. Any delay could necessitate additional borrowing or schedule delays, poten-tially delaying funding authority or increasing the Project’s capital cost.

Other Federal Funding OpportunitiesA number of proposals for increased funding for transit are being considered, either as part of the reauthorization of SAFETEA-LU or other legisla-tion. For example:

• !e National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission recom-mended a signi#cant increase in funding and a restructuring of the FTA and FHWA programs. Its recommendations included creation of a new Metropolitan Mobility Pro-gram, which would place increased emphasis on public transportation.

• !e ARRA of 2009 created new funding op-portunities for transit, including $100 million in funding for Transit Investments for Green-house Gas and Energy Reduction Grants, as well as a new $1.5 billion multimodal discretionary program. !ese new programs may be precursors to the next reauthoriza-tion of the surface transportation programs. Grants under the multimodal discretionary


program will go to projects with a signi#cant impact on the nation, a metropolitan area, or a region and may range up to $300 million. Priority will be given to projects that can be completed within three years, and funds must be obligated by September 30, 2011.

• Congress is considering comprehensive cli-mate and energy legislation that would fund the expansion of environmentally friendly modes of transportation, including transit. Funding could be provided through new cap-and-trade legislation designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Lower Amount of GET Surcharge Revenues Retained by the State !e enabling legislation for the County GET sur-charge speci#es that 10 percent of GET surcharge revenues be retained by the State for administrative and collection purposes. A decrease of this per-centage from 10 to 5 percent would increase GET revenues by $183 million from FY2009 to FY2023.

6.6.4 Operating RevenuesFare Policy and RidershipGrowth in transit ridership is subject to uncertain-ties because the availability of alternate modes and riders’ price sensitivity could a&ect ridership, at least in the short-term. For purposes of this Final EIS, the assumption is made that there will be free transfers to and from the #xed guideway service. Upside risks also exist and demand could be higher than expected. Although this would a&ect fare revenues positively, it could also increase the system’s level-of-service requirements.

Other Potential Operating Sources• Advertising and Other Nonfare Operat-

ing Revenues—expanding the advertising program could generate signi#cantly more than the approximately $400,000 received by the City for bus advertisements. With the introduction of rail service, not only will there be an ability to advertise within each

railcar, but the stations could present viable advertising locations. Based on FTA’s 2007 National Transit Database data, Honolulu receives approximately $0.006 per boarding, while some larger transit systems in the U.S. receive 10 to 40 times that amount.

• Parking Revenues—demand for park-and-ride stations is forecast to be strong with the Project. Charging even a nominal amount for daily parking could generate a signi#cant amount of revenue. Collected parking funds could be used for capital and operating costs as parking fees could be bonded to o&set the construction costs of the parking lots and structure or revenues could be used to o&set operating costs of the parking facilities, such as those incurred to pay for garage attendants and security personnel.

• Reduced Service Redundancies between Bus and Rail Operations—the addition of the Project to existing bus service will likely result in some overlap of service between bus and rail. While some bus service and route modi#cations are planned as the Project is implemented, there is a possibility to further modify existing bus service as rail ridership increases. !is would a&ect ongoing bus %eet replacement cycles since fewer buses may need to be replaced as more are removed from service, thus a&ecting O&M costs for the bus %eet.

• Adjust City Highway Fund Revenues (Vehicle Registration Fees, City Gas Tax)—the #nancial analysis assumes revenues from the City’s General and Highway Funds will grow at historical real growth rates plus general in%ation. As a general purpose local government, the City has the authority to raise other local tax revenues over and beyond the baseline growth rate assumed for the General and Highway Fund revenues in this #nancial analysis. Both funds consist of a variety of tax revenues, including property taxes, but also include fuel tax and motor


vehicle weight tax, which are the two largest sources of revenues for the Highway Fund.

• FTA Formula Funds—Section 5307 funds could become available following reautho-rization or if GET revenues are higher than expected (which would allow for a reduction in the use of 5307 funds for the Project’s capital needs). While Section 5307 funds are used for capital purposes in priority, any remaining amount is allocated to operations for preventive maintenance purposes. Uncer-tainties in the Capital Plan could also a&ect the amount of Section 5307 funds used for operations and decrease the local amount of operating subsidy required.

6.6.5 Operating Costs Operating Cost Escalation—Labor Cost, Energy Prices The #nancial analysis assumes that operating expenditures will increase following general in%a-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

costs, both negative and positive. !ese include station managers, labor productivity, fare collec-tion systems, security, and salaries. !ese costs are all accounted for in the operating cost estimates, but are elements of the system that could result in uncertainties over time.

A change in the bus vehicle %eet allocation may also reduce operating costs as well as a&ect bus replace-ments costs. !e City is reconsidering a policy to move toward a %eet in which all articulated buses are hybrids in favor of more economical, yet still environmentally friendly, clean diesel vehicles. Changes to that policy may signi#cantly a&ect system operating costs as well as ongoing capital costs. A hybrid bus costs approximately $1 million to replace, while a diesel bus costs approximately $650,000. However, hybrid buses are less expensive to operate and have operating cost savings of approximately $5,000 per peak vehicle over similar diesel buses.

07


CHAPTER

Evaluation of the Project

!is chapter compares the Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project to the No Build Alternative from several perspectives. Section"7.1, Changes to this Chapter since the Dra# Environ-mental Impact Statement, summarizes how this chapter has changed since the Dra# Environmen-tal Impact Statement (EIS). Section"7.2, E$ective-ness in Meeting Project Purpose and Need, draws on information in prior chapters and summarizes how well the Project meets its Purpose and Need. Section"7.3, Transportation and Environmental Consequences, discusses the Project’s potential e$ect on transportation and the environment. Sec-tion"7.4, Cost-e$ectiveness, adds a cost perspective to the e$ectiveness comparison, to consider the Project’s bene%ts in justifying its capital and operating costs. Section"7.5, Financial Feasibility, looks at a$ordability given available funding sources. Section 7.6, New Starts Program, sum-marizes the Project’s ratings in the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) New Starts Program. Section"7.7, Important Trade-o$s, is a discussion of trade-o$s to be made in implementing the Project. !e chapter concludes with Section"7.8, Unresolved Issues.

!e evaluation measures used in this chapter re&ect local goals for the Project (described in Chapter 1, Background, Purpose and Need) as well as FTA criteria for evaluating projects proposed for funding under the Section 5309 New Starts program. FTA criteria that are meaningful to an analysis of the Project include user bene%ts and development potential (both measures of e$ectiveness) and the FTA’s cost-e$ectiveness index. By including these criteria, this chapter ful%lls Council on Environmental Quality regula-tions (40"CFR"1502.23), which require that an EIS “indicate those considerations, including factors not related to environmental quality, which are likely to be relevant and important to a decision.”


!is chapter has been updated to re&ect the iden-ti%cation of the Airport Alternative as the Project and to re&ect updated and additional analysis presented in the other chapters of this Final EIS. Transportation data have been updated, as

7-1

7-2 CHAPTER 7 – Evaluation of the Project

described in Chapter 3, Transportation. Section"7.6 has been added to document FTA’s approval of the Project to enter the Preliminary Engineering phase of the New Starts process. Section 7.7 has been modi%ed to compare the Project to the No Build Alternative. Section 7.8 has been added to address unresolved issues related to the Project.

7.2 E!ectiveness in Meeting Project Purpose and Need

Section 1.8, Need for Transit Improvements, of this Final EIS describes four needs that the Project is intended to meet. !is section evalu-ates how well each alternative meets these needs, based on the variety of measures of e$ectiveness shown in Table 7-1. Several of these measures are primarily intended to address local goals, while others are also factors considered in FTA New Starts evaluations.

7.2.1 Improve Corridor MobilityJust as mobility and congestion have worsened over the years, conditions in 2030 will be worse than today. Despite implementation of the planned $3"billion in roadway improvements identi%ed in the O‘ahu Regional Transportation Plan 2030 (ORTP), the No Build Alternative still would not

relieve tra'c congestion for drivers or improve mobility for transit riders compared to today. Average travel times along major corridors would increase. Locations farthest from employment centers would experience the largest increase in congestion, decline in mobility, and constrained access. !e Project will substantially improve corri-dor mobility compared to the No Build Alternative.

As shown in Table 7-2, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), vehicle hours traveled (VHT), and vehicle hours of delay (VHD) would increase under the No Build Alternative compared to today. Vehicular tra'c volumes on major roadways would grow substantially between now and 2030. Increases in a.m. peak-hour tra'c across screenlines would range from approximately 10 to 50 percent (Table"3-9 in Chapter"3).

For !eBus and !eHandi-Van riders, these increases in highway congestion would directly a$ect their mobility because travel times on buses would increase. For the No Build Alternative, transit would continue to operate in mixed tra'c, except on several short bus-only segments and in high-occupancy vehicle lanes on freeways. As shown in Figure 3-6 in Chapter"3, average transit 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 to support City policy to develop a second urban center

• Development within station area compared to existing amount of development

Improve transportation equity • User bene!ts to transit-dependent communities• Percent of project costs borne by communities of concern


since 1984 (from 14.6 to 13.2 mph) and would continue to decline through 2030 to approximately 12.7 mph under the No Build Alternative.

!e Project will increase average transit speeds by approximately 25 percent compared to the 2030 No Build Alternative (Figure 3-6 in Chapter 3), leading to higher transit ridership and travel time savings for existing and new transit users. Transit travel times between major destinations will decrease up to 60 percent compared to the No Build Alterna-tive (Table 7-2). As transit becomes a faster, and thus more attractive, travel choice, ridership will increase. As shown in Table 7-2, transit ridership will increase by approximately 56,200 trips per day (25 percent) by 2030 with the Project compared to the No Build Alternative, and transit users will save more than 20 million equivalent hours of travel time per year by 2030.

Increases in transit ridership will bene%t highway users as well by removing drivers from the road-ways through better transit service. !e Project will reduce tra'c congestion and improve mobility compared to the No Build Alternative (Table 7-2). Daily VMT will decrease by 4"percent; VHT will

decrease by 8"percent; and VHD will decrease by 18"percent.

7.2.2 Improve Corridor Travel ReliabilityWith the No Build Alternative, travel reliability for both drivers and transit riders would decrease by 2030. Because delay on the system is not predict-able from one day to another, reliability for drivers would worsen. !e large increase (46 percent) in VHD that would occur with the No Build Alternative includes an element of unpredictability that requires special accommodations in travel planning. Average travel times would increase somewhat under the No Build Alternative, but the impact on reliability would be more dramatic, especially in the morning. !e reason is that driv-ers are forced to allocate more time to account for the possibility that unexpected delays will occur. !ese unknowns make it di'cult to estimate a trip’s duration when scheduling appointments.

All transit riders would experience similar decreases in reliability under the No Build Alternative. Problems with turnbacks and sched-ule adherence already plague the transit system. !ese reliability factors are expected to get worse

Table 7-2 E"ectiveness of Alternatives in Improving Corridor Mobility

Measure 2007 Existing ConditionsAlternative (2030)

No Build Project

Transit Travel Time (minutes)

Wai anae to UH M#noa 128 minutes 121 minutes (1 transfer)

93 minutes (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


in the future as the highway system becomes more congested.

With the Project, reliability for transit riders will increase substantially as trips are moved from buses operating on streets in mixed tra'c and congested freeways to the %xed guideway, which will provide a predictable travel time. Forty-three percent of transit trips and transit passenger miles will be carried on an exclusive %xed guideway that is not subject to tra'c delay (Table 7-3).

With the Project, bus passengers will also realize service reliability as a result of route restructuring that replaces long-haul bus routes with shorter local routes integrated with the %xed guideway system. Driver and bus transit reliability will also improve as a result of reduced congestion and delay on the highway.

7.2.3 Improve Access to Planned Development to Support City Policy to Develop a Second Urban Center

A goal of the Project is to support urban devel-opment consistent with the City General Plan (DPP"2002a), which is the blueprint for future population and employment growth. By providing improved mobility and access, a %xed guideway transit facility can serve as a catalyst for shaping development patterns in a corridor.

Although both of the alternatives are generally consistent with Local, District, and State plans, the Project best serves the areas of O‘ahu desig-nated for future growth and development.

Compared to the No Build Alternative, the Proj-ect will support a greater amount of development and redevelopment around stations by enhanc-ing access and supplying a daily in&ux of transit riders and potential customers for businesses.

With the Project, approximately 60,000 additional residents and 27,000 new jobs will be located within walking distance to project stations in 2030. As shown in Table"7-2, the “second city” planned for Kapolei will experience transit travel times to Ala Moana Center that are reduced by 44"percent compared to the No Build Alterna-tive. !e improved transit conditions are further illustrated in Figure"7-1, which shows travel time savings for the majority of transit users in ‘Ewa and Central O‘ahu, which are areas planned for future development. Section 3.4.2 describes the travel time savings calculation. By providing better transit access, the Kapolei area will be better able to grow and develop than it would be if it remained isolated from the rest of the region by congested roadways.

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 an unfair burden of a project’s negative environ-mental, social, or economic impacts or receive less than a fair share of a project’s bene%ts. !is section focuses on considering the following evaluation criteria:

• Population segments bene%ting from alterna-tive investments

• Population segments paying for alternative investments

• Net bene%ts by population segment, com-pared to needs

Measure2007

Existing Conditions

Alternative (2030)

No Build Project

Percent of transit trips carried on !xed guideway 0% 0% 43%

Percent of transit passenger miles in exclusive right-of-way

1% 1% 43%

Table 7-3 E"ectiveness of Alternatives in Improving Corridor Travel Reliability


Figure 7-1 Communities of Concern and User Bene!ts for the Project Compared to the No Build Alternative

LEGENDSubstantial 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

• Travel-time savings for transit-dependent populations

Approximately 35 percent of O‘ahu’s population currently lives in areas that have concentrations of communities of concern. Communities of concern are de%ned as concentrations of minority, low-income, transit-dependent, and linguistically isolated households (Figure"7-1).

!e Project will provide service where the transit need is greatest, connecting areas that have the high-est transit dependency, which includes communities of concern. !irty-six percent of the population

within communities of concern will be located within one-half mile of a transit station in 2030.

!e Project will provide transit travel-time savings to approximately 61"percent of the islandwide population in 2030 compared to the No Build Alternative (Table"7-4). Of the 35"per-cent of the island’s population that resides in areas containing concentrations of communities of concern, over half would realize a substantial transit travel-time savings. !e rest of the island’s population that resides in areas with concentra-tions of communities of concern will experience little change in transit travel time as a result of the


Project. None of the population will experience an increase in travel times.

Tourists pay approximately 30"percent of the General Excise and Use Tax (GET) surcharge collected, which is the Project’s local funding source. !e remain-ing local transit investment costs are distributed throughout the island in proportion to how much each individual expends on goods and services.

!e Project will substantially improve transporta-tion equity compared to the No Build Alternative. Based on demographics within the study corridor, the demand and need for public transit on O‘ahu is greatest within the areas served by the Project (Figure 1-8 in Chapter 1).

7.3 Transportation and Environmental Consequences

!e Project’s e$ect on transportation and the environment would di$er substantially from the No Build Alternative.

7.3.1 Transportation!e Project will have a positive e$ect on transit use within the study corridor, which will help reduce delay in the transportation system as a whole, regardless of travel mode (Table 7-2).

!e Project will a$ect parking availability, both during construction and permanently, once the Project is complete and in operation. !e Project will remove approximately 865 parking spaces,

most of which will not be replaced. Landowners will be paid fair market value for the land, includ-ing lost parking spaces, which is consistent with the requirements of the U.S. Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act. On-street parking spaces will generally not be replaced; however, there is available parking nearby to accommodate drivers currently using these spaces. !e City will conduct surveys to determine the extent of spillover parking near stations and implement mitigation strategies as needed. Potential strategies include the addition of parking supply, parking restrictions, and shared parking arrangements.

During the construction period, lanes will be closed for construction of the overhead guideway located in the median of existing roadways. Although the time to build these improvements will be kept as short as possible, one or more lanes in sections of major highways will be closed while columns are placed and the guideway erected.

7.3.2 Environmental Consequences!e Project will convert 160"acres of land to trans-portation use. !is includes approximately 88 acres of currently prime, unique, or important farmland. However, all of this land is already planned for conversion to non-farm use by other projects, including the Ho‘opili Development. !e Project will acquire land from 204 properties (Table"4-4 in Chapter"4, Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation).

Table!7-4 Equity Comparison of 2030 Transit Travel-time Savings for the Project Compared to the No Build Alternative

Percent of Islandwide Population

That will experiencePercent of Population within Category

Within Communities of Concern

Outside Communities 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%


With mitigation, Project-generated noise will not exceed the FTA impact criteria at any location.

Construction of the Project could encounter con-taminated soils. Six potentially contaminated sites will be acquired by the Project and other sites are near the Project. Any contamination encountered during construction will be treated in accordance with Federal and State regulations.

!e Project will require removal of approximately 550 street trees and pruning of approximately 100 additional street trees. Approximately 55"percent of the removed trees are anticipated to be able to be transplanted.

Archaeological resources and burials are antici-pated to be encountered. !e area Koko Head of Moanalua Stream has the highest potential for e$ects to archaeological resources and burials. !e Project will adversely a$ect 33 historic resources.

!e Project will reduce air pollution, energy consumption, and water pollution compared to the No Build Alternative.

7.4 Cost-e!ectiveness!e cost-e$ectiveness analysis considers whether the Project’s bene%t would justify its capital and operating costs.

Cost-e$ectiveness is one of the key criteria that FTA uses to evaluate projects proposed for Section 5309 New Starts funding. !e FTA’s cost-e$ectiveness index is a ratio formed by adding an alternative’s annualized capital cost to its year 2030 operating and maintenance cost and dividing the total by user bene%ts. Costs and bene%ts were both calculated compared to a New Starts baseline alternative that represents the best that can be done to improve transit service in the study corridor without building a %xed guideway

transit facility. !e baseline alternative includes all projects in the ORTP.

!e cost-e$ectiveness indices for the Project compared to the baseline is within the “medium” range established by FTA for its New Starts ratings, which, along with other considerations, is cur-rently required to qualify for New Starts funding (Table"7-5).

Measure Project

Cost per hour of transportation system user bene!ts $16.24

Table!7-5 2030 Cost-e"ectiveness of the Project

7.5 Financial Feasibility7.5.1 Measure of Capital Financial Feasibility!e primary source of capital for the Project is the GET surcharge revenue. !is source will fund more than 70"percent of the cost of the Project. !e remainder of project funding will be from Federal transit sources, primarily from the Sec-tion 5309 New Starts program, supplemented as necessary by formula Section 5307 funds. While the %nancial plan is balanced, any capital funding shortfalls, including any shortfall on debt repay-ment incurred from the issuance of bonds, would need to be covered using additional revenues from other as-yet-unidenti%ed sources. Possible sources are listed in Section 6.3.3 of this Final EIS. !e amount of other revenues required over and above GET surcharge and New Starts revenues provides a measure of the relative %nancial feasibility of the Project. Operating costs for the transit system as a whole represent an average of 13.8 percent of the City’s annual operating budget between 2019 and 2030 (Table 7-6). !e Project represents approxi-mately 25 percent of that amount.


!e Project is %nancially feasible based on this measure because it would not require additional funding sources beyond the GET surcharge revenues and Federal funds.

7.5.2 Measure of City Financial Contribution for Operating and Maintenance

Fare revenues will need to be supplemented to cover total future operating and maintenance costs. As with the current bus transit system, additional funding will be obtained through an allocation from the City’s General and Highway Funds. Between %scal years 1994 and 2007, an average of 11 percent of the total revenue from General and Highway Funds revenues was spent on transit (the maximum was 15 percent in 2001). A measure of the relative operating %nancial feasibility for the Project is the City’s contribution to transit opera-tions as a percentage of total forecast General and Highway Funds revenues.

7.5.3 Comparison of Alternatives!e Project will be %nancially feasible with the currently identi%ed capital revenue sources. It will increase the total operating and maintenance subsidy from the City’s General and Highway Funds by about 2 percent.

7.6 New Starts Program!e Section 5309 “New Starts” program is the Fed-eral government’s primary program for providing %nancial support to locally planned, implemented, and operated %xed-guideway transit major capital

investments. FTA documents the New Starts evalu-ation as part of the National Environmental Policy Act process, for which this EIS is being prepared. !is section describes how FTA evaluates projects for its New Starts funding recommendations and provides the ratings for this Project. Section 5307 formula allocation funds have been used for repair and replacement of buses. A portion of these funds will be dedicated to the Project to cover any shortfall a#er the GET surcharge and New Starts funding have been applied. Section 5307 funds will increase as a result of implementation of the Project, which makes it a reasonable project funding option.

7.6.1 BackgroundEach year, FTA submits its Annual Report on New Starts to Congress as a companion document to the annual budget submitted by the President. !e report provides recommendations for the allocation of New Starts funds under Section 5309 of Title 49 of the United States Code. As required by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, E'cient, Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (PL"2005), FTA uses the following project justi%cation criteria to evaluate New Starts projects: mobility improvements, cost-e$ective-ness, operating e'ciencies, land use and economic development, environmental factors, and other factors. FTA must also consider the local %nancial commitment for the proposed project.

FTA reviews the project justi%cation and local %nancial commitment criteria for each candidate project and assigns a rating for each criterion. For some of the project justi%cation criteria, the proposed project is compared against a baseline alternative. A candidate project is given an overall rating of “High,” “Medium-High,” “Medium,” “Medium-Low,” or “Low” based on ratings assigned by FTA to each of the project justi%cation and local %nancial commitment criteria described above. FTA will not recommend funding for projects that are rated “Medium-Low” or ”Low.”

MeasureNo Build

AlternativeProject

Other City revenues required for capital (million year-of-expenditure dollars)

n/a $0

Average percentage of City General and Highway Funds needed for operating and maintenance

12% 14%

Table 7-6 2030 Financial Feasibility


A rating of “High,” “Medium-High,” or “Medium” does not automatically translate into a funding recommendation, although the potential for receiv-ing New Starts funding is much greater.

Project evaluation is an on-going process. FTA evaluation and rating occurs annually in support of budget recommendations presented in the Annual Report on New Starts and when projects request FTA approval to enter into Preliminary Engineering or Final Design. Consequently, as proposed New Starts projects proceed through the project development process, information concern-ing costs, bene%ts, and impacts is re%ned and the ratings updated to re&ect new information.

7.6.2 Ratings for the ProjectFTA approved the Project’s entry into Prelimi-nary Engineering on October 16, 2009, giving the Project an overall rating of “Medium,” which is su'cient for the Project to be advanced in the Federal project development process and for the Project to be recommended for Federal fund-ing. If these results hold up through subsequent phases of project development, along with other FTA considerations, the Project will be in the competitive range for funding consideration. Funding recommendations are made each year from among the projects that have completed the planning and project development process, including the National Environmental Policy Act process. !ese recommendations re&ect the merits of the projects competing for available Federal funds at the time, as well as the availabil-ity of New Starts funding authorization.

Mobility Improvements!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

to share of transit-dependent individuals in the region (Table 7-7).

Table 7-7 Mobility Improvements (2030)

Measure Project

Number of transit trips using the Project 116,300

Increase in transit ridership 20%

User bene!ts per project passenger mile 3.6

Number of trips by transit-dependent riders using the Project 18,600

Transit-dependent user bene!ts per project passenger mile 3.1

Share of user bene!ts received by transit-dependent riders compared to share of transit-dependent individuals in the region

12.4%

Cost-e!ectiveness!e Project is rated “Medium” for cost-e$ective-ness. !e cost-e$ectiveness rating considers the incremental cost per hour of user bene%ts and the incremental cost per incremental passenger in 2030 (Table 7-8).

Table 7-8 Cost-e"ectiveness (2030)

Measure Project

Incremental cost per hour of user bene!ts $16.24

Incremental cost per incremental passenger in 2030 $16.17

Operating E"ciencies!e Project is rated “Medium” for operating e'-ciency. !e operating e'ciencies rating considers the ratio between the increase in passenger miles and the increase in operating and maintenance costs (Table"7-9).


Table 7-9 Operating E$ciencies (2030)

Measure Project

Cost per passenger mile (New Starts baseline) $0.41

Cost per passenger mile (Project) $0.34

Di"erence in cost per passenger mile $0.07 cost savings

Land Use and Economic Development!e Project is rated “Medium” for Land Use and “Medium-High” for Economic Development. !e land use rating considers existing land use, transit-supportive plans and policies and performance and impacts of policies (Table 7-10).

Environmental Bene#ts !e Project is rated “Medium” for environmental bene%ts because O‘ahu is in attainment for all transportation-related air pollutants.

Local Financial CommitmentOverall the Project is rated “Medium” for local %nancial commitment. !e GET surcharge that was enacted in 2005 provides a local funding source that will cover more than 70 percent of 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

entire transit system. Fares and property and gas taxes support the system’s operating %nancial plan (Table 7-6).

7.7 Important Trade-o!sIn selecting the Airport Alternative for the Project, DTS considered the evaluation results presented in the Dra# EIS, comments from agencies and the public, and City Council Resolution 08-261.

!is Final EIS evaluates the Project in comparison to the No Build Alternative. !is trade-o$ analysis highlights the areas that are distinctly di$erent between the No Build Alternative and the Project (Table"7-11). !e Project will meet the project goals and objectives identi%ed in Chapter 1 of this Final EIS. !e Project will improve corridor mobil-ity, corridor travel reliability, access to planned development to support City policy to develop a second urban center, and transportation equity. !e Project will achieve the Purpose and Need in a cost-e$ective manner. Although implementation of the Project will require a substantial investment, it is %nancially feasible.

7.8 Unresolved IssuesAs identi%ed in Section 4.21, Anticipated Permits, Approvals, and Agreements, of this Final EIS, several permits are still required for construction of the Project. Many of the permits will be sought in the Final Design phase a#er the Federal Record of Decision has been issued. !e permits may place additional conditions on the Project.

Federal funds from the Section 5309 New Starts program have not been committed. !ey will be committed by FTA at completion of the Full-funding Grant Agreement.

Measure Project

Population in corridor 764,640

Employment in corridor 524,240

Corridor population as percentage of metropolitan area 68%

Corridor employment as percentage of metropolitan area 83%

Corridor population density (persons per square mile) 5,054

Corridor employment density (persons per square mile) 3,465

Table 7-10 Land Use and Economic Development (2030)


Table 7-11 Trade-o"s

MeasureNo Build

AlternativeProject

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.

08


CHAPTER

Comments and Coordination

Agencies, non-governmental groups, and the public have been engaged throughout the plan-ning process for the Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project, as required by Federal and State law. !e National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (USC"1969) mandates agency and public participation in de#ning and evaluating the impacts of the project alternatives. !e Project has followed Section"6002 of the Safe, Account-able, Flexible, E!cient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (PL"2005) guidance for federally funded projects. It has also followed U.S. Department of Transportation guide-lines for public participation, including Title"VI of "e Civil Rights Act of 1964 (USC"1964c) and Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (USEO"1994).

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.

!e requirements of Chapter"343 of the Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) (HRS"2008) and imple-menting regulations contained in Title 11, Chap-ter"200 (HAR"1996a) of the Hawai‘i Administrative Rules (HAR) also include consultation with agencies, citizen groups, and concerned individuals during the Project.

NEPA and HRS"Chapter 343 require that a Dra$ Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) provide full disclosure of the environmental impacts associated with a proposed action. !e agencies and the public were given a reasonable opportunity to comment on project planning documents. In accordance with Federal and State regulations, this Final EIS includes the comments received on the Dra$ EIS and responses to those comments (Appendix"A, Comments Received on the Dra$ Environmental Impact Statement and Responses).

8-1

8-2 CHAPTER 8 – Comments and Coordination


!is chapter was updated to re%ect the current list of cooperating agencies and Section"106 consult-ing parties. Section 8.2, Public and Community Outreach, was expanded to detail NEPA coordina-tion. Section 8.5, Public Hearings, was updated, and a new Section 8.6, Dra$ EIS Comments, was added to summarize the public comment period on the Dra$ EIS. Section"8.7, Continuing Public Involvement through Construction, was added to address that public involvement will be ongoing through construction of the Project.

Since the publication of the Dra$ EIS, the U. S. Department of Defense (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (U.S. Coast Guard—14th Coast Guard District) have each requested their status be changed from cooperating agency to participating agency. !e U.S. Department of Defense (U.S. Naval Base Pearl Harbor) and the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) have requested status as cooperating agen-cies. !e FAA had been initially invited and was involved in the Project as a participating agency.

8.2 Public and Community Outreach!e Project’s public involvement e&orts began with the Project’s Alternatives Analysis phase in December 2005. Opportunities for public comment and information sharing will continue throughout the remainder of the Project, using the now well-established network of existing civic and community groups.

!e Public Involvement Plan (PIP) developed for the Alternatives Analysis and Dra$ EIS phase details public involvement strategies to be used throughout the Project. Its fundamental goal is to engage, inform, and respond to the public. As the Project progresses, the PIP will be updated

and revised to re%ect changes in the Project and ensure that coordination is thorough, e&ective, and relevant.

8.2.1 Public Outreach TechniquesTo reach as many community members as possible, a wide variety of public involvement tools have been used throughout the Project. Informational materials produced on an ongoing basis include newsletters, fact sheets, brochures, media releases, public meeting announcements, and other relevant project handouts. At the conclusion of the Alterna-tives Analysis and Dra$ EIS phases, videos were produced highlighting the #ndings. Complement-ing information sources include the project website (honolulutransit.org), telephone information line (808-566-2299), radio programs, and a monthly show on public access television.

Islandwide community updates were held during the course of the Project to share information and gather input on signi#cant milestone deci-sions. !e Project maintains an active Speakers Bureau to provide informational presentations to community groups, agencies, and organizations. A full list of Speakers Bureau presentations is included in Appendix G, Record of Public and Stakeholder Correspondence and Coordination. To date, more than 2,500 comments on the Project have been submitted through the website and more than 600 have been received via the telephone information line.

8.2.2 Government and Other Agency Coordination

Government agencies that have an interest in and/or regulatory authority regarding the Project have been actively engaged. !ese agencies were sent scoping information and requests to become participating or cooperating agencies during the environmental process.

Feedback was solicited from the following govern-ment and other agencies through direct contact:


• Elected o'cials • Neighborhood boards• !e Transit Solutions Advisory Committee

during the Alternatives Analysis phase • Governmental agencies and stakeholders• Interested organizations

Appendix F, Record of Agency Correspondence and Coordination, includes a list of government agencies and organizations contacted.

Lead, Cooperating, and Participating Agencies!e Council on Environmental Quality de#nes lead agency as the agency or agencies preparing or taking primary responsibility for preparing an EIS. Lead agencies for the Project include the City and County of Honolulu Department of Transportation Services (DTS) and the Federal Transit Adminis-tration (FTA). DTS is the local transit agency, the designated recipient of project funds, and a co-lead agency with the FTA. !e DTS Rapid Transit Divi-sion (RTD) is the entity tasked with development and implementation of the Project.

!e Council on Environmental Quality de#nes a cooperating agency as any Federal agency (other than a lead agency) with jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmen-tal impacts that may be involved in a proposed project or project alternative (40 CFR 1508.5). A State or Local agency with similar quali#cations may, with agreement from the lead agencies, also become a cooperating agency.

Also, pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.3, “a cooperating agency may adopt without recirculating the EIS of a lead agency when, a$er an independent review of the statement, the cooperating agency concludes that its comments and suggestions have been satis#ed.”

Cooperating agencies for the Project include the following:

• U.S. Department of Defense (U.S. Army Garrison–Hawai‘i)

• U.S. Department of Defense (U.S. Naval Base Pearl Harbor)—the Project will require the U.S. Navy’s approval related to a station on U.S. Navy property

• U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration—the Federal Avia-tion Administration has regulatory oversight jurisdiction at Honolulu International Airport and will need to approve the Airport Layout Plan changes as a result of the Project, use of airport revenue for the airport por-tion of the Project, and for the right-of-way request for use of airport property.

• U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration—the Project will require the Federal Highway Administration’s approval related to crossing and accessing the interstate highway system

• State of Hawai‘i Department of Transporta-tion—the Project will require the State of Hawai‘i Department of Transportation’s approval related to using state rights-of-way

!e FAA is a cooperating agency on this EIS, in accordance with 40 CFR Part 1501.6(a)(1), since it has special expertise and jurisdiction by law to approve proposed development at Honolulu International Airport. !e FAA is assigned responsibilities pursuant to 49 USC 40101 et seq., for civil aviation and regulation of air commerce in the interests of aviation safety and e'ciency. As a cooperating agency on this EIS, FAA will use the EIS documentation to comply with its own requirements under NEPA for Federal actions. !e FAA will also use the EIS to support subsequent decisions and Federal actions, includ-ing unconditional approval of the portion of the Airport Layout Plan that depicts the Project, determination of eligibility for Federal assistance under the Federal grant-in-aid program, approval of an application to use Passenger Facility


Charges, and approval to grant right-of-way at the airport to carry out the Project.

Participating agencies are those with an interest in the Project. !e standard for participating agency status is broader than for cooperating agency status. According to SAFETEA-LU regulations, “any Fed-eral, State, regional, and local government agency that may have an interest in the project should be invited to serve as participating agencies. Nongov-ernmental organizations and private entities cannot serve as participating agencies.”

For this Project, participating agencies include the following:

• U.S. Department of Defense (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)

• U.S. Department of Agriculture (Natural Resource Conservation Service)

• U.S. Department of Homeland Security (U.S. Coast Guard —14th Coast Guard District)

• U.S. Department of the Interior (Fish and Wildlife Service)

• U.S. Department of the Interior (National Park Service)

• U.S. Department of the Interior (U.S. Geological Survey Paci#c Island Ecosystems Research Center)

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency• U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency• State of Hawai‘i Department of Accounting

and General Services• State of Hawai‘i Department of Business,

Economic Development and Tourism• State of Hawai‘i Department of Defense• State of Hawai‘i Department of Education• State of Hawai‘i Department of Hawaiian

Home Lands• State of Hawai‘i Department of Health• State of Hawai‘i Department of Land and

Natural Resources• State of Hawai‘i Department of Land and

Natural Resources (State Historic Preserva-tion Division)

• State of Hawai‘i, Hawai‘i Community Devel-opment Authority

• State of Hawai‘i O'ce of Environmental Quality Control

• State of Hawai‘i O'ce of Hawaiian A&airs• University of Hawai‘i• O‘ahu Metropolitan Planning Organization

Participating agencies were identi#ed and invited to participate at the start of the NEPA process. !eir participation includes providing input to scoping, development of the Purpose and Need, and identi#cation of potential e&ects. Project scoping and issuance of the Dra$ EIS provided o'cial comment periods for the public and partici-pating and cooperating agencies.

!e lead, cooperating, and participating agen-cies have worked cooperatively throughout the Project’s environmental process, as required by the SAFETEA-LU regulations described in this chapter. During this process, their main goal is to ensure that all agency concerns are satisfactorily addressed and that the permit review and approval process proceeds smoothly and expeditiously.

Table 8-1 summarizes the roles and responsi-bilities of the Project’s lead, cooperating, and participating agencies. Appendix"F includes agency correspondence.

8.2.3 Section 106 and Consulting Party Coordination

!e lead agency is responsible for complying with Section 106 of the National Historic Preserva-tion Act. Section"106 requires the lead agency to “accommodate historic preservation concerns with the needs of Federal undertakings through consultation among the agency o'cial and other parties with an interest in the e&ects of the under-taking on historic properties...” [36 CFR 800.1(a)]. Although other parties are consulted for their input, the Federal agency has the authority to make all decisions.


Extensive e&ort was made to identify, contact, and consult with groups entitled to be consulting parties relating to archaeological, cultural, and historic resources within the Area of Potential E&ect (APE). !e purpose of consultation was to identify archaeological, cultural, and historic resources and to discuss other issues relating to the Project’s potential e&ects on such resources. Information was obtained from individuals and organizations likely to have knowledge of potential resources in the study corridor. A reasonable and good faith e&ort was made to identify Native Hawaiian organizations that might attach religious and cultural signi#cance to historic properties in the APE, and they were given opportunities to discuss issues and concerns.

In addition to consultation with the State His-toric Preservation O'cer (SHPO), the City also consulted with organizations and agencies with concerns regarding archaeological, cultural, and historic areas. !is consultation included Hawaiian civic clubs that may have an interest in the Project. Letters sent by the FTA initiated an ongoing con-sultation process with the following groups (Sec-tion"106 consulting parties) to identify resources,

consider project e&ects, and develop mitigation to limit the adverse e&ects of the Project:

• Advisory Council on Historic Preservation• U.S. Navy (U.S. Naval Base Pearl Harbor)• Historic Hawai‘i Foundation• National Park Service • National Trust for Historic Preservation• University of Hawai‘i Historic Preservation

Certi#cate Program• American Institute of Architects• Hawai‘i Community Development Authority• O'ce of Hawaiian A&airs• O‘ahu Island Burial Council• Hui M(lama I N( Kupuna O Hawai‘i Nei• Royal Order of Kamehameha• !e Ahahui Ka‘ahumanu• !e Hale O N( Ali‘i O Hawai‘i• !e Daughters and Sons of Hawaiian

Warriors• Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs—and 15

individual civic clubs

Between July 28, 2009, and November"13, 2009, FTA and the City invited all consulting parties to participate in a series of meetings to develop a Programmatic Agreement (PA) (see Section"4.16,

Agency Designation Role Responsibility

Lead Primary responsibility: ensuring compliance with NEPA and preparing the environmental document.

Requests participation from other agencies; provides project 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 jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved in a proposed project or project alternative (may also be a State agency).

Participates early in the NEPA process; participates in developing the Purpose and Need and alternatives and in the scoping process; develops information and analysis; provides 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 may have an interest in a proposed project. Nongovernmental organizations and private entities cannot serve as participat-ing agencies.

Participates in developing the Purpose and Need and alternatives and identifying potential impacts during scoping and the Draft EIS. Briefed on the Project before issuance of the Draft EIS.

Table 8-1 Summary of Agency Roles and Responsibilities


Archaeological, Cultural, and Historic, and Appendix H, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act dra$ Programmatic Agreement). !e Section 106 signatories FTA, SHPO, and ACHP, in coordination with the invited signato-ries, will #nalize the dra$ PA. FTA will distribute the executed PA to the Section 106 consulting parties and invite their signature as concurring parties to the PA. Appendix"F includes Section"106 correspondence.

8.2.4 HRS Chapter 343 Coordination!e EIS preparation notice for this Project was published in the Hawai‘i O'ce of Environmental Quality Control’s (OEQC) Environmental Notice on December 8, 2005, thus beginning the 30-day comment period under HRS"Chapter 343 for the Project. Comments received are contained in the Honolulu High Capacity Transit Corridor Project Scoping Report (DTS"2006c) located in Appen-dix"G. Written responses were prepared and sent to all commenters who provided either a mailing address or an e-mail address for responses. !e Dra$ EIS addressed comments and issues raised during the EIS preparation notice comment period and issues noted during the NEPA scoping process in 2007.

HRS"Chapter 343, and its implementing regulations contained in HAR"Section 11-200, require that agencies, citizen groups, and concerned individu-als be consulted for input. Interested parties may request consulted party status to receive ongoing project and coordination information. Downtown Neighborhood Board No."13 and the Outdoor Circle requested and were granted consulted party status under HRS"Chapter 343. Both parties have received periodic updates on the Project.

8.2.5 NEPA Coordination!e Notice of Intent to prepare the EIS appeared in the Federal Register on March 15, 2007. !e scoping comment period under NEPA o'cially began on the date of the Federal Register publication

and closed on April 12, 2007. All interested individuals and organizations and Federal, State, and Local agencies were invited to comment on the Purpose of and Needs to be addressed by the Project; the alternatives, including the modes and technologies to be evaluated and the alignments and termination points to be considered; and the environmental, social, and economic impacts to be analyzed. An opportunity to express a preference for a particular alternative was available a$er the Dra$ EIS was released. Comments received are contained in the Honolulu High Capacity Transit Corridor Project National Environmental Policy Act Scoping Report (DTS"2007) located in Appendix"G.

A Notice of Availability of the Dra$ EIS was pub-lished in the Federal Register on November"21, 2008. Notice also appeared in the Environmental Notice issued by OEQC in its November"23, 2008, edition. !e Dra$ EIS was circulated for a 45-day review and comment period, which was later extended until February 6, 2009, in response to requests by members of the public. Informa-tion about cooperating and participating agencies under NEPA are included earlier in this chapter. A Notice of Availability of the Final EIS will be published in the Federal Register.

8.3 Community Outreach during the Alternatives Analysis Phase

Federal regulations (40"CFR"1501) require scoping to follow publication of a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS and take place before the Dra$ EIS is prepared. A public meeting was held during the scoping process. Notice of this meeting was published in the Federal Register, in local news-papers, and through other means of announcing public meetings.

An initial Notice of Intent was published for the Project on December"5, 2005. Two public scoping meetings and one agency scoping meeting were held in December 2005. !e #rst public meeting


was on December"13, 2005, at the Neal"S. Blaisdell Center P)kake Room at 777"Ward Avenue in Downtown Honolulu from 5:00"to 8:00"p.m. !e second public meeting was on December"14, 2005, at the Kapolei Middle School Cafeteria at 91-5335 Kapolei Parkway in Kapolei, from 7:00"to 9:00"p.m. Agencies, non-governmental groups, and the gen-eral public were given the opportunity to comment on the Project’s Purpose and Need, alternatives, and other project issues.

!e comment period for these scoping meetings ended on January"9, 2006. In all, 528 comments were received via mail, website, telephone, and at the meetings (requests to be placed on the mailing list were not included in this total). Comments were grouped into three categories: Purpose and Need, alternatives, and scope of analysis.

!e agency scoping meeting was on December"13, 2005, at the Neal"S. Blaisdell Center P)kake Room 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 agencies and to utility companies. !is meeting was attended by 20 agencies and utility companies. Comments were received from the following agen-cies and utilities:

• U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency• U.S. National Park Service• Hawai‘i Community Development Authority• State of Hawai‘i Department of Accounting

and General Services• State of Hawai‘i Department of Education• State of Hawai‘i Department of Hawaiian

Home Lands• State of Hawai‘i Department of Land and

Natural Resources• State of Hawai‘i O'ce of Environmental

Quality Control• O'ce of Hawaiian A&airs

• University of Hawai‘i• City and County of Honolulu Department of

Design and Construction• City and County of Honolulu Fire

Department• Downtown Neighborhood Board No. 13• Hawaiian Electric Company

Project personnel attended 104 neighborhood board meetings and 204 Speakers Bureau events during the Project’s Alternatives Analysis phase.

!e Alternatives Analysis was completed in October 2006 and submitted to the City Council for use in its selection of a Locally Preferred Alternative. Agency and public comments on the Alternatives Analysis were generally categorized as either supporting a speci#c alternative or opposing the Project. Numerous other general comments or questions did not directly support or oppose speci#c options.

8.4 Community Outreach during the Project’s Preliminary Engineering/EIS Phase

Another series of public and agency scoping meetings was held prior to beginning the Project’s Preliminary Engineering (PE)/EIS phase. A Notice of Intent was published on March"15, 2007, stating that this notice superseded the previous Notice of Intent published on December"5, 2005.

Agencies, non-governmental groups, and the general public were again given the opportunity to comment on the Project’s Purpose and Need, alternatives, or other project issues. Coordination is currently continuing with cooperating and participating agencies. Meetings with individual agencies have been held to discuss and #nalize evaluation methods and project issues and to collect project data.


!ree public scoping meetings were held in March and April 2007. !e #rst was on March"28, 2007, at Kapolei Hale at 1000"Uluohia Street from 6"to 9"p.m. !e second was on March"29, 2007, at McKinley High School at 1039"South King Street from 5"to 8"p.m. !e third was on April 3, 2007, at Salt Lake Elementary School at 1131"Ala Liliko‘i Street from 5"to 8"p.m.

!ere were 104 comments received via mail, web-site, and telephone, and at scoping meetings. !e following types of comments were not included in this total: requests to be placed on the mailing list, comments on alternatives already considered and/or eliminated from further consideration, comments on new alternatives considered previ-ously and eliminated, Council hearing comments from the Alternatives Analysis phase, and taxa-tion comments.

An agency scoping meeting was held on March"28, 2007, at Honolulu Hale, Mission Memorial Audi-torium, 550"King Street from 10"a.m. to 12"p.m. Twenty agencies attended.

!e public involvement techniques used during the Alternatives Analysis phase continued throughout the PE/EIS phase. In addition to updating groups and organizations on the Project’s progress, additional presentations were made to new groups and organizations. Project information was disseminated throughout the study corridor in the form of community updates, participation in Town Hall meetings, and informational displays. Project personnel have also attended neighborhood board meetings and have been available via radio call-in shows. !e Project website and hotline continue to be updated and maintained. Approximately 20"half-hour information shows about the Project have been produced and broadcast on local ‘*lelo television. !e Project also produced an interac-tive DVD containing the Dra$ EIS, a 28-minute movie summarizing important points of the Dra$ EIS, and a %ythrough of the Airport and Salt Lake

Alternatives that was sent to all recipients of the Dra$ EIS.

8.4.1 Community Station Design Workshops!e City is conducting a series of station design workshops to solicit community and Section 106 consulting party input and ideas about station design elements and the interface between each station and the surrounding community. Each station, or group of stations, is the topic of a series of meetings. Comments received during the #rst meeting or meetings are incorporated into a dra$ design for presentation at the #nal meeting.

Station design workshops began in April 2009 and have been completed for the following stations: `Ewa (East Kapolei and UH West O ahu), Waipahu (Ho‘opili, West Loch, and Waipahu Transit Center), Leeward Community College, Pearlridge, and Pearl Highlands. Workshops will continue throughout the project corridor to support the completion of PE.

8.4.2 Agency CoordinationCooperating agencies were o&ered the opportunity to be briefed on the Project and given an oppor-tunity to comment on a preliminary copy of the Dra$ EIS. Cooperating agencies were invited to attend the Dra$ EIS public hearings. Participating agencies received a copy of the Dra$ EIS for review and comment and were invited to attend the Dra$ EIS public hearings.

All cooperating agencies received a preliminary copy of the Final EIS for review and comment prior to its distribution. Cooperating agency comments have been addressed in this Final EIS. All participating agencies will receive a copy of the Final EIS and will receive noti#cation when the Record of Decision is issued. !e Final EIS is being distributed to everyone who was on the list of recipients for the Dra$ EIS, along with all those who provided comments on the Dra$ EIS.


Agencies with permitting authority will continue to be consulted during the permit application process. Permit applications will be submitted, and data will be developed to support the needs identi#ed by permitting agencies.

8.5 Public HearingsAs part of the NEPA and HRS"Chapter 343 process, the Dra$ EIS was circulated for a 45-day review and comment period, which was later extended. A Notice of Availability of the Dra$ EIS was published in the Federal Register on November"23, 2008. Notice also appeared in the Environmental Notice issued by OEQC in its November 23, 2008, edition. In December 2008, the review and comment period was extended until February"6, 2009, in response to requests by members of the public. During this period, the document was made available to interested and concerned parties, including residents, property owners, community groups, the business com-munity, elected o'cials, and public agencies, for public and agency comment.

A series of #ve public hearings was held during the initial 45-day period to give interested par-ties an opportunity to submit comments on the Project and the analysis contained in the Dra$ EIS. Attendance at the hearings was not required to submit comments. All of the public hearings were held in ADA-compliant locations, and the ability to request special needs materials or personnel was provided. Attendees were provided handouts, including a schedule of the times and locations for all hearings and a project information sheet. !e comments received are addressed in this Final EIS.

Public hearings were held at the following times and locations:

• Saturday, December 6, 2008, at Kapolei Hale, 1000 Uluohia Street in Kapolei from 9 "to 11"a.m. !is hearing was attended by 33"individuals; 11 testimonies were given and

2"comment forms were placed into comment boxes. A written letter was also handed to a court reporter as a comment.

• Monday, December 8, 2008, at Neal S. Blaisdell Center, Hawai‘i Suite, 777 Ward Avenue in Honolulu from 6"to 8"p.m. !is hearing was attended by 79 individuals; 26"testimonies were given and 10 comment forms were placed into comment boxes.

• Tuesday, December 9, 2008, at Salt Lake Dis-trict Park, 1159 Ala Liliko‘i Place in Honolulu from 6"to 8"p.m. !is hearing was attended by 59 individuals; 25 testimonies were given and 5 comment forms were placed into comment boxes.

• Wednesday, December 10, 2008, at the Filipino Community Center, 94-428 Mokuola Street in Waipahu from 6"to 8"p.m. !is hearing was attended by 45 individuals; 8"testimonies were given. No comment forms were placed into the comment boxes.

• !ursday, December 11, 2008, at Bishop Museum, 1525 Bernice Street in Honolulu from 6"to 8"p.m. !is hearing was attended by 11 individuals; 3 testimonies were given. No comment forms were placed into the com-ment boxes.

Two rooms were used for all public hearings. One room contained project information on display boards, multi-media displays, copies of the Dra$ EIS, and comment boxes. Project sta& were on hand to interact with the public. Two secured com-ment boxes were provided for those who wished to submit written comments. A court reporter was also available in this area to transcribe comments from the public.

!e other room was the public hearing room where the public was invited to comment on the Project. Stationed in this room were the Public Hearing O'cer and a court reporter for transcrip-tions. Transcripts from all #ve public hearings are included in Appendix A. Individuals who wished


to comment were provided three minutes to make their statements.

All hearings were open to the public for the two-hour time for which they were advertised. A$er the Public Hearing O'cer closed the formal comment portion of the public hearing, individuals were able to provide verbal comments to the court reporter stationed in the project information area or to place written comments into comment boxes. !e Public Hearing O'cer remained on-site through-out the hearing in case a need arose to reconvene formal testimony.

Public hearings were advertised in major local newspapers, on local radio and television, and in ethnic and cultural newspapers in several lan-guages. !e hearings were also announced through the Project’s website, hotline, newsletters, and a postcard mailed to area residents.

8.6 Draft EIS Comments!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-ability of the Dra$ EIS in the Federal Register on November 21, 2008, were included as Dra$ EIS comments. In total, 586 comment submissions were received via the following means:

• Project website—276• Letter—175• Public hearing testimony—73• Public hearing comment form—20 (including

two that were mailed in)• E-mail—41• Fax—1

!e majority of the comments received were related to the following topics: alternatives considered, planned extensions, ridership and travel forecast-ing, parking, tra'c analysis, visual, noise, cost and #nancing, construction phasing, construction e&ects, and acquisition and relocation (Table 8-2).

A discussion of the comments received for each of these topics follows in the subsections below.

Postcards were mailed to everyone on the Project’s mailing list, and advertisements were placed in local newspapers and on City buses concern-ing the availability of the Dra$ EIS and how to comment. Individuals were able to provide comments through the Project’s website at www.honolulutransit.org, by attending a public hearing, or by mailing them to DTS or FTA. Copies of all comments received, as well as copies of all response letters, are included in Appendix A.

8.6.1 Alternatives ConsideredSeveral individuals commented on various aspects of the alternatives considered. !e most common comments were related to re-evaluating alterna-tives that were previously considered, speci#cally

Topic Issues

Alternatives considered Re-evaluation of alternativesGrade-separation requirementSteel-wheel technologySelection of the Airport Alternative

Planned extensions Evaluation of phasing

Ridership and travel forecasting

Modeling processRidership forecast uncertainty

Parking Loss of parkingSpillover parking

Tra#c analysis CalculationsFuture conditions

Visual Visual characterVisual integration

Noise Noise generated by Project

Cost and !nancing Capital costsOperating costsFunding

Construction phasing Order of construction

Construction e"ects Tra#cAccess to businesses

Acquisition and relocation ResidencesBusinesses

Table 8-2 Common Comment Topics on the Draft EIS


that the system be grade-separated; selection of steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology; and selection of the Airport Alternative as the Project.

Reevaluation of AlternativesBus-based transit and the Managed Lane Alterna-tive were the topics of a number of comments. Both were evaluated during the Alternatives Analysis process as part of the Transportation System Man-agement (TSM) Alternative and the Managed Lane Alternative. Additional information was added to Section 2.2.2 of this Final EIS to clarify why these alternatives performed poorly and were eliminated from further consideration.

!e TSM Alternative, which was essentially the bus-based alternative, did not perform at a level comparable to the Fixed Guideway Alternative. !is is because it would be subject to the same roadway congestion as automobiles and would not improve travel reliability. !e analyses found that the TSM Alternative would have improved transit travel times somewhat by reducing the amount of time riders would have to wait for a bus to arrive at a bus stop; however, the TSM Alternative would have generated fewer hours of transit-user bene#ts than the Managed Lane and Fixed Guideway Alternatives because most buses would still operate in mixed tra'c.

!e Managed Lane Alternative was fully evaluated in the Honolulu High Capacity Transit Corridor Project Alternatives Analysis Report (DTS 2006b) and demonstrated to be less e&ective than a Fixed Guideway Alternative. !e Managed Lane facility would have cost $2.6 billion in 2006 dollars (higher now). Transit reliability would not have been improved except for express bus service opera-tion in the managed lanes. While this alternative would have slightly reduced congestion on parallel highways, systemwide tra'c congestion would have been similar to the No Build Alternative as a result of increased tra'c on arterials trying to access the facility."As noted in Table 2-2 of

Chapter"2, Alternatives Considered, of this Final EIS, total islandwide congestion as measured by vehicle hours of delay (VHD) would have increased with the Managed Lane Alternative as compared to the No Build Alternative. A more detailed response related to the Managed Lane Alternative is pro-vided in Section 8.6.12.

Grade-separation RequirementAt-grade light-rail transit was suggested as an alternative to the Project in several comments. As explained in Section 2.2.2 of this Final EIS, at-grade light-rail transit was considered during the Alternatives Analysis process. An at-grade light-rail transit option did not meet the Project’s Purpose and Need. Although the at-grade light-rail system could have reduced the visual impact of the Project and, in some locations, could reduce the cost, it would have reduced the reliability, speed, safety, and expandability of the system. Also, it would have increased the cost of right-of-way acquisition because more land would have been needed to maintain functioning roadways. An at-grade light-rail system would have increased congestion by removing at least two lanes of tra'c to place tracks at-grade and most likely would have had a broader e&ect on sensitive cultural resources and burial sites along the corridor. More detail in response to questions about at-grade operation is presented in Section 8.6.13.

Steel-wheel Technology!e selection of steel-wheel technology was questioned in several comments. !e majority of individuals recommended magnetic levitation technology as an option. As explained in Sec-tion"2.2.3 of this Final EIS, technologies other than steel wheel were eliminated because they are proprietary technologies, meaning that selecting one of those technologies would have required all future purchases of vehicles or equipment to be from that same manufacturer."!ese were elimi-nated because none of the proprietary technologies o&ered substantial proven performance, cost, and


reliability bene#ts compared to steel wheel operat-ing on steel rail, which is a technology that has been in revenue operation around the world for many decades.

Commenters suggested that there are less impacts associated with noise, safety, and visual with mag-netic levitation relative to steel-wheel technology. However, High Speed Surface Transport, a Japa-nese magnetic levitation technology, is unproven in general use. !ere is only a single operating urban High Speed Surface Transport system in the world, with less than #ve years of operations. !e single operating system has a maximum speed of 100 kilometers per hour (62 miles per hour), which is similar to the maximum operating speeds of 50 to 60 miles per hour common for steel-wheel systems. While the system may be quieter, steel-wheel systems can be designed to match the noise level of magnetic levitation when in operation. !ere is no speci#c safety improvement from the traction design."!e assumed visual bene#ts for beam-track vehicles would not apply in the United States because of requirements to include an emergency egress walkway. Also, the smaller structures proposed in the comments would result in shorter span-lengths, which increases the number of columns required and the number of views blocked by support structures. !is would result in higher costs. More details about the elimination of magnetic levitation technologies as an option is presented in Section"2.2.3 of this Final EIS.

Selection of the Airport AlternativeSection 2.3, Alternatives Considered in the Dra$ Environmental Impact Statement, of this Final EIS summarizes the alternatives that were evalu-ated in the Dra$ EIS, and Section 2.4, Preferred Alternative Identi#cation Process, describes the City’s identi#cation of the Airport Alternative as the Preferred Alternative for the Project, which was based on consideration of the bene#ts of each alternative, public input on the Dra$ EIS, and City Council Resolution 08-261 (City"2008).

8.6.2 Planned ExtensionsComments were received suggesting that the #xed guideway extensions, which are part of the Locally Preferred Alternative selected by the City Council, also should be examined in the EIS. !ere were also comments asking that the Project be extended to the University of Hawai‘i at M(noa.

!e planned extensions are discussed as future foreseeable projects in the cumulative impacts sec-tions of Chapter"3, Transportation, and Chapter"4, Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Miti-gation, of this Final EIS. !e extensions are not part of the Project as evaluated in this Final EIS because no funding has been identi#ed for these portions of the Locally Preferred Alternative. Because there is no identi#ed funding, no engineering design or environmental evaluation could be completed at this time. !e FTA will not be granting any New Starts approvals for the extensions of the elevated rail system under the current project.

If funding is identi#ed in the future, engineering design and environmental analysis of the exten-sions and the appropriate alternatives analysis will be undertaken. !e Project, as evaluated in this Final EIS, has logical termini and independent util-ity from any extensions that may be constructed in the future.

8.6.3 Ridership/Travel ForecastingVarious comments were received concerning the Project’s travel forecasting model. Among the concerns was the uncertainty of the results given the nature of the modeling process, the type of model used in generating ridership information upon which the EIS information is based, and experience with modeling results on other projects around the country.

Modeling ProcessIn response to the comments, more information about the modeling process was included in this Final EIS. Regarding the model used for the


Project, FTA determines the type of model, the modeling process, and the manner in which travel forecasting is conducted for large transit projects. !e structure and process used in modeling were established by the FTA to ensure all projects submitted for funding consideration under the Federal New Starts Program are presented on an equal footing. !e FTA also de#nes the way travel forecasting is conducted to ensure ridership #gures are realistic and to avoid past errors by other proj-ects where, in some cases, forecasts exceeded actual ridership performance by a substantial margin in the early years of some systems’ operations.

Ridership forecasting today is much better than it was just 10 years ago. Recent forecasts for new systems using the improved modeling techniques set forth by the FTA have been very accurate (e.g., Phoenix, Salt Lake City). Still, there is also recogni-tion within FTA that forecasting by its nature contains an element of uncertainty. !e acknowl-edgment of uncertainty is presented in Section 3.2, Methodology, of this Final EIS with a reference to the more detailed information available in the Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Travel Forecasting Results and Uncertainties Report (RTD 2009l).

Regarding the modeling process for the Project, ridership projections for the forecast year of 2030 have been developed using a travel demand model that is calibrated and validated to current year conditions based on actual tra'c counts and bus ridership. !e model is based upon a set of realistic input assumptions regarding land use and demographic changes (City policy regarding where growth will be oriented over time and trends based on economic factors and population changes) between now and 2030. !e model is also based on expected transportation levels of service on both the highway and public transit systems (based on current conditions and how they are likely to change over time given plans for highway and transit improvement between now

and 2030). Based upon the model and these key input assumptions, approximately 116,300 trips per day are expected on the rapid transit system on an average weekday in 2030. Since the Dra$ EIS was published, the travel demand model was re#ned by adding an updated air passenger model and, through coordination with the FTA, de#ning more realistic drive access modes to project stations and including a more comprehensive o&-peak non-home-based direct demand element based on travel surveys in Honolulu.

Ridership Forecast UncertaintyHonolulu is the #rst project in the country to design and undertake such a detailed uncertainty analysis of this type of forecast. FTA has worked closely with the Project’s travel forecasters and provided extensive guidance during this e&ort. A variety of factors were considered in the uncer-tainty analysis, including the following variables:

• Variations in assumptions regarding the magnitude and distribution patterns of future growth in the ‘Ewa end of the corridor

• !e impact of various levels of investment in highway infrastructure

• Expected frequency of service provided by the rapid transit system

• Park-and-ride behavior with the new system in place

• Implications on ridership of vehicle and passenger amenities provided by the new guideway vehicles

!e anticipated range for rapid transit system rid-ership in 2030 is expected to be between 105,000 to 130,000 trips per day bracketing the o'cial forecast of 116,300 trips a day used for all calcula-tions. Even at the low end, the cost-e&ectiveness of the Project is within New Starts funding thresh-olds requirements.

8.6.4 ParkingA number of comments addressed the Project’s e&ects on parking, including the loss of existing


on-street and o&-street parking supply, removal of freight and/or passenger loading zones, and e&ects relating to spillover parking near stations.

Loss of ParkingApproximately 690 o&-street and 175 on-street parking spaces will be removed to accommodate the Project. O&-street parking supply a&ected by the Project is scattered throughout the corridor and is exclusively on private property. !ese parking spaces will be acquired to provide additional rights-of-way needed to construct the guideway or stations. Compensation to the a&ected property owners will comply with the requirements of the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (CFR"1989a). !e City does not plan to generally replace all private, o&-street parking removed for construction of the Project. However, the City will work with landown-ers to replace parking as appropriate.

On-street parking a&ected by the Project is concen-trated in three areas: near the Lagoon Drive and Iwilei Stations and in Kaka‘ako along Halekauwila Street. Based on the results of parking utilization surveys conducted in June 2008, April 2009, and March 2010 for the Project, there is available park-ing nearby to accommodate motorists currently using the 175 on-street parking spaces that will be removed by the Project. !erefore, these on-street parking spaces will generally not be replaced by the City. However, some new on-street parking spaces will be created by construction of the Project in the general locations of lost spaces as streets are rebuilt following construction.

One freight loading zone and two passenger loading zones will be a&ected by the Project. !e loading zones will be temporarily removed or relocated, and new loading zones will be installed once construction is complete.

Spillover ParkingRegarding the potential for spillover parking near stations, ridership forecasts indicate that a small number of passengers will park near stations without designated park-and-ride facilities. Analy-sis found that spillover parking will not a&ect tra'c in the area. However the existing parking supply could be a&ected. To address the e&ects of spillover parking on supply, the City will conduct surveys prior to and again within six months a$er station opening to determine the extent of spillover parking and then implement mitigation strategies as needed. Mitigation strategies include, but are not limited to, implementation of parking restrictions and development of shared-parking arrangements. Follow-up surveys will be conducted by the City to determine if the mitigation strategies are e&ective, and additional mitigation measures will be imple-mented by the City as needed.

8.6.5 Tra!c AnalysisComments were received questioning the use of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology in evaluating tra'c conditions under the No Build Alternative or the Project. !e concern was that the HCM technique does not perform well under saturated conditions. !ere were also multiple comments about tra'c conditions becoming worse in the future, even with the Project.

CalculationsIn response to these comments, the information provided regarding the use of the HCM methodol-ogy was expanded and more comprehensively explained. Despite the cited limitations of the HCM methodology, it works well under the conditions present in the Honolulu corridor. !e HCM methodology is used as a basic measure of the quality of service on the highway system and as a gauge for where additional analysis is needed. !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


implementation, further analysis was completed using more sophisticated modeling tools, such as VISSIM, to develop micro-simulation models of these critical areas. !e application of this model-ing e&ort provided insight into a broader area of impact and allowed testing of mitigation options.

Future Conditions!e Alternatives Analysis Report (DTS 2006b) concludes that tra'c conditions will worsen in 2030 as a result of planned growth in the future no matter which alternative is built. On the other hand, based on the Alternatives Analysis, the only alternative that improves future tra'c conditions to a measurable degree compared to the No Build Alternative is the Fixed Guideway Alternative. It clearly shows superior results in terms of conges-tion reduction in comparison with other touted alternatives analyzed in the Alternatives Analysis.

!e information about the alternatives is pre-sented in more detail in Section 2.2, Alternatives Screening and Selection Process, in this Final EIS. More information about the performance of the Dra$ EIS alternatives is presented in Section 2.3 and in Chapter 3.

8.6.6 Visual !roughout the Dra$ EIS review and comment period, many commented that visual changes associated with the project elements will result in substantial visual e&ects. Many comments received expressed concern that the elevated #xed guideway transit system will adversely a&ect O‘ahu’s unique visual character by creating blight and degrading views. In addition, commenters requested more information on how the project elements will be integrated with their communities, especially in the areas around stations.

!ese commenters on view e&ects are representa-tive of the various viewer groups that have been considered in the visual and aesthetic conditions analysis presented in the Dra$ EIS and this Final

EIS. In response to the viewer group’s responses, received during the Dra$ EIS comment period, further analysis of views and vistas was done and the visual e&ects of several key views have been reevaluated. !e re#nement resulted in revised rat-ings from moderate to signi#cant for Views 12, 14, and 15 (Table"4-9 in Chapter"4) in the Downtown area. !e analysis of protected views and vistas was provided in earlier technical documents; however, this Final EIS more clearly describes the visual e&ects on these resources.

!e overall conclusions of the Dra$ EIS have not changed, but, through these re#nements, the following clari#cations have been made:

• Viewpoint 12—visual impact rating re#ned to re%ect that some views would be blocked and to expressly point out the contrast of project elements with Chinatown’s historic character

• Viewpoint 14—visual impact rating re#ned to re%ect the bulk and scale of the guideway and columns being out of character with the pedestrian-oriented environment at this viewpoint

• Viewpoint 15—visual impact rating re#ned to re%ect the bulk and scale of the station as well as the other elements noted in the Dra$ EIS

!e Dra$ EIS described several types of visual e&ects, and the re#nements re%ect the same type of visual e&ects identi#ed in the Dra$ EIS and shown in these viewpoints in the Dra$ EIS. !e Dra$ EIS concluded that changes to some views, including protected views and vistas, would be unavoidable, and the re#nements con#rmed this conclusion.

Although mitigation measures will minimize many adverse visual e&ects by providing visual bu&ers and reducing visual contrasts between the project elements and their surroundings, the Final EIS acknowledges, as concluded in the Dra$ EIS, that probable unavoidable adverse e&ects, such as


view blockage, cannot be mitigated and will be signi#cant (noted as a “high” level of visual impact in the Dra$ EIS) in some areas.

Visual Character!e island’s unique visual character and scenic beauty are essential components of the visual and aesthetic assessment presented in the Dra$ EIS. !is Final EIS includes more details on protected views and vistas, as well as potential visual e&ects and mitigation. !is analysis is included in the Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Visual and Aesthetics Resources Technical Report (RTD 2008e); visual e&ects in the Dra$ EIS were based on this analysis, and it was added into the Final EIS based on comments on the Dra$ EIS to expand and clarify the information.

As described in the Dra$ EIS, the Project will introduce a new linear visual element to the cor-ridor, and changes to some views will be signi#cant and unavoidable. Some adverse visual e&ects, such as view blockage, cannot be mitigated and will result in unavoidable adverse environmental e&ects. !ese e&ects will be most noticeable where the guideway and stations are nearby or in the foreground of views.

Although changes in visual resources or view planes and the viewer response will be signi#cant in some areas, view changes are not likely to be obtrusive in wider vistas or regional panoramic views where the project elements serve as smaller components of the larger landscape.

Visual QualityA viewer’s response to changes in view may vary with exposure and sensitivity and depend on the alignment orientation and the height of the guideway, stations, surrounding trees, and buildings. Overall, the Project will be set in an urban context where visual change is expected and di&erences in scales of structures are typi-cal. However, through the Dra$ EIS review and

comment processes, many reviewers commented that the visual changes associated with the Project will be substantial. !ese comments have been acknowledged in this Final EIS. Even with mitiga-tion measures, some obstruction and changes to views will result in signi#cant unavoidable adverse e&ects. !ese e&ects will be most noticeable where the guideway and stations are nearby or in the foreground of views.

Protected views and vistas are view planes that the City has determined are important to protect because of their scenic quality, scale, and promi-nence within the visual environment. !ese views are developed through the City’s general, develop-ment, and community plans. !ese plans guide the adoption of zoning ordinances that regulate the use of land within demarcated zones and set detailed standards for the height, bulk, size, and location of buildings.

Protected views and vistas, including mauka and makai views and views of prominent landmarks in the study corridor, are identi#ed in City develop-ment plans, including the ‘Ewa Development Plan (DPP"2000), the Central O‘ahu Sustainable Communities Plan (DPP"2002b), and the Primary Urban Center Development Plan (DPP"2004a). !e Project is supportive of the land use objectives included in these plans (Appendix J, Relationship to Land Use Plans, Policies, and Controls). Appen-dix J summarizes the Project’s relationship to State and City land use plans, polices, and controls for the study corridor. !e summary includes the relevant provisions of policy documents related to visual and aesthetic conditions.

!e City’s general urban design principles protect public views based on the type of view and are applicable to both public streets and public and private structures. Some protected views and vistas will change as a result of the Project, including public views along streets and highways, mauka-makai view corridors, panoramic and signi#cant


landmark views from public places, views of natural features, heritage resources and other landmarks, and view corridors between signi#cant landmarks. !e guideway and some stations will partially block mauka-makai public views from streets that intersect with the alignment.

!e Project will introduce a new linear visual element to the corridor and, as a result, changes to some views will be unavoidable. Depending on the degree of view obstruction or blockage, some changes in view will be signi#cant. Viewers’ responses to these changes will vary with their exposure and sensitivity and depend on the align-ment orientation, guideway and station height, and height of surrounding trees and buildings. View changes will be less notable in wider vista or panoramic views where the project elements are smaller components of the larger landscape. Generally, the project elements will not be domi-nant features in these views.

8.6.7 NoiseOperational noise from the Project was a concern to several commenters. !e most common concern was operating noise from the rail vehicles.

Section 4.10, Noise and Vibration, of this Final EIS provides a detailed noise analysis for the Project, including additional evaluation completed in response to comments on the Dra$ EIS and imple-mentation of recommended mitigation measures in portions of the corridor that would experience noise impacts in the absence of such mitigation.

!e noise analysis follows current FTA guidance to use Ldn or Leq to evaluate noise impacts. Figure"4-51 in Chapter 4 of this Final EIS, however, does generally compare the Lmax noise levels. !e project design includes a parapet wall that will reduce noise along the guideway. No noise impacts are predicted for any schools along the study corridor. Wheel skirts will reduce noise levels to below impact criteria in several locations. In three

locations in the corridor, sound-absorptive mate-rial will be placed in the track bed to reduce noise levels at nearby high-rise buildings.

8.6.8 Project Cost and FinancingMany comments questioned the cost of the Project (both capital and operating costs) and the City’s ability to fund the Project and obtain the anticipated Federal share of the funding. !ere were concerns about the economy and the drop in the 0.5-percent general excise and use tax (GET) surcharge collections that are dedicated to fund the Project.

!e funding of the Project relies on a combina-tion of Federal and Local funds. Costs have held relatively steady over the past year as the economy has slowed the rate of in%ation of some of the key cost drivers, such as steel and cement. !e overall cost of the Project has not changed substantially in year-of-expenditure (in%ation-adjusted) dollars since the Dra$ EIS was published.

While there has been a reduction in the rate of GET surcharge collections, the #nancial plan continues to be balanced despite the reduction in revenues. !is has been accomplished using a higher Section 5309 New Starts allocation than shown in the Dra$ EIS (from $1.4 billion to $1.55"billion) and allocating to the Project some of the anticipated increases in Section 5307 formula funds that will come to the City as a result of the Project. Section 6.3, Capital Plan, of this Final EIS addresses the way capital costs have been covered in the Project’s #nancial analysis.

!e responses also reference how the #nancial analysis addresses the uncertainties of the fund-ing forecast and provides for alternative funding options should they be needed to o&set any addi-tional shortfall in the primary revenue sources. !ese uncertainties and alternative funding options are presented in more detail in Section 6.6, Risks and Uncertainties, of this Final EIS.


Regarding operating and maintenance costs, the daily operation of the rapid transit system will come from the same City sources currently used to pay for !eBus and other elements of the public transportation system. !e rapid transit system will represent about 25 percent of the total transit system’s annual cost and will add between 2"and 3"percent to the City’s annual operating budget. !is amount is within annual variability in budgeting and will not, by itself, cause a need to increase property taxes or other fees.

8.6.9 Construction PhasingMany comments were received that questioned the phasing plan to begin construction toward the ‘Ewa end of the line when most of the ridership is likely to be closer to Downtown. !ere was also a concern that if the Project began in Kapolei and funding was insu'cient, the Project would never realize the anticipated bene#t or would require an increase in local funding to reach Downtown. Downtown is the primary activity center in the study corridor and getting to Downtown is of great interest among those who commented.

!ere are a number of reasons for starting con-struction at the ‘Ewa end of the line even though it is acknowledged that ridership will not achieve its full potential until the Project reaches Downtown. !e Project starts at the ‘Ewa end for the following key reasons: access to the maintenance and storage facility, the ability to start the Project sooner saving on costs, and improved ability to obtain the needed rights-of-way.

As described in Chapter 2, the Project will be constructed in four phases over a nine-year period. To support phased openings, the #rst construction phase must have access to the maintenance and storage facility, which requires more than 40 acres of dedicated space. In addition to maintenance and storage of vehicles, the facility will serve as the location of the main operations center for the entire system. No location was identi#ed closer

to Downtown with su'cient available space to construct a maintenance and storage facility.

!e Project is not a series of individual projects, but a single project that consists of a series of construc-tion phases that will accomplish the following:

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

• Reduce the time that each area will experi-ence tra'c and community disturbances

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

• Match the rate of construction to what can be maintained with the local workforce and available #nancial resources

• Balance expenditure of funds to minimize borrowing

!e portion of the corridor in the ‘Ewa direction of Pearl Highlands is less developed than the areas in the Koko Head direction. Right-of-way can be obtained more quickly at the ‘Ewa end of the Project; therefore, overall project construction can begin earlier, resulting in lower total construction costs. Construction is planned to continue uninter-rupted in the Koko Head direction from Pearl Highlands to Aloha Stadium, Kalihi, and #nally to Ala Moana Center.

8.6.10 ConstructionA number of comments addressed the e&ects of construction on tra'c and access to businesses.

Construction-phase Tra!cConstruction of the Project will a&ect tra'c with temporary lane closures occurring throughout the day, including peak periods and at night. Both through lanes and turning lanes will be a&ected by these closures. In some cases, up to two travel lanes will be closed at a time. Construction-related e&ects on transportation will be mitigated through the implementation of a Maintenance of Tra'c (MOT) Plan and a Transit Mitigation Program to


be prepared prior to construction. !e construc-tion contractor will develop the MOT Plan using parameters developed by, and with approval of, the City or State of Hawai‘i Department of Transporta-tion. !e MOT Plan will address all phases of construction, and the construction contractor will submit any proposed changes to the MOT Plan to the City for approval.

Access to BusinessesAccess to businesses in the Project area will be maintained throughout construction, although there could be temporary changes to access and movement during construction. In some locations, le$-turn lanes will be closed during construction, restricting access to right-turns only. Other streets may temporarily become one-way movements or eliminate parking altogether during construction. Existing passenger or freight loading zones could be relocated for the duration of construction.

!e MOT Plan will address temporary e&ects on access to businesses during construction. Mitiga-tion to reduce adverse economic hardships for existing businesses may include, but is not limited to, the following:

• Coordinate with nearby property owners and businesses

• Develop a public involvement plan prior to construction

• Provide public information to inform customers that businesses are open during construction

• Minimize extent and duration of e&ects to business access

• Provide signage, lighting, and information to indicate businesses are open

• Provide public information on construction activity using print, television, and radio media

• Phase construction to minimize tra'c disruption and maintain access to businesses

• Provide advance notice of utility relocation

8.6.11 Acquisitions and RelocationsVarious commenters inquired about acquisition of individual property or the acquisition and reloca-tion process in general. Appendix C, Preliminary Right-of-Way Plans, of this Final EIS includes a map and tables of all parcels from which the Project would acquire property.

!e City has been coordinating with"potentially a&ected property owners since October 2008."!e City will continue to work with"individual prop-erty owners to provide relocation services. As stated in Section 4.4.3 of this Final"EIS, relocation services will be provided to all a&ected business and residential property owners and tenants without discrimination; and persons, businesses, or organizations that are displaced as part of the Project will be treated fairly and equitably.

!ose from whom property is to be acquired will be treated according to the requirements of the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (CFR"1989a). It provides for purchase at fair market value and includes relocation assistance to those a&ected."!e Act requires that those in need of relocation must be placed in comparable quarters.

8.6.12 Managed Lane AlternativeA number of commenters stated that the alterna-tives studied did not properly address other options for the corridor. In particular, there was a concern that the Managed Lane Alternative was not included in the Dra$ EIS as an alternative.

!e process of alternatives screening and selection is discussed in Chapter 2 and in Section 8.6.1. As discussed, alternatives were developed through three general phases: (1) the FTA Alternatives Analysis process; (2) the selection of a Locally Pre-ferred Alternative; and (3) the NEPA scoping and Dra$ EIS process. !e initial screening of alterna-tives is documented in the Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Alternatives Screening


Memorandum (DTS 2006a) (Screening Memoran-dum). !e subsequent FTA Alternatives Analysis process is provided in the Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Alternatives Analysis Report (DTS 2006b) (Alternatives Analysis Report).

!e initial screening process considered a wide range of alternatives, including “construction of a ‘managed’ two-lane elevated structure for transit vehicles and potentially carpools, as well as single occupant vehicles willing to pay a congestion-based toll,” as described on page S-2 of the Screening Memorandum. !e screening results for the Man-aged Lane Alternative are discussed on pages C-4 through C-5 of this report. !e analysis found that the transit mode share under the Managed Lane Alternative would hold constant with the No Build Alternative; the automobile mode share would increase; and the bike and walk mode share would decrease. Vehicle hours traveled would decrease, while vehicle miles traveled would increase slightly.

!is initial screening process identi#ed four alterna-tives that were presented at scoping meetings held to obtain public input. As described on page 5-2 of the Screening Memorandum, one of the alternatives recommended for further evaluation was the Man-aged Lane Alternative. !e Managed Lane Alterna-tive originally was described as follows:

“!e Managed Lane Alternative would include construction of a two-lane grade-separated facil-ity between Waiawa Interchange and Iwilei for use by buses, para-transit vehicles and vanpool vehicles (see Figure 5-1). !e lanes would be managed to maintain free-%ow speeds for buses, while simultaneously allowing High-Occupancy Vehicles (HOVs) and variable pricing for toll-paying single-occupant vehicles. Intermediate bus access points would be provided in the vicinity of Aloha Stadium and Middle Street. Bus operations utilizing the managed lanes would be restruc-tured to use the Managed Lane and enhanced to provide additional service between Kapolei and

other points ‘Ewa of Downtown, through to the University of Hawai‘i at M(noa.”

!e scoping process resulted in the revision of this proposed alternative. As discussed on page 6-1 of the Screening Memorandum:

“Based on scoping comments, a second operational option was included under the Managed Lane Alternative. !e initial option proposed a two-lane grade-separated facility between Waiawa Interchange and Iwilei which would operate as one lane in each direction at all times of the day. !e second option proposes similar infrastructure, but it would operate as a reversible facility with two lanes traveling Koko Head during the morning peak period, and then reversing to travel ‘Ewa in the PM peak period. Both operational options would include restructured and enhanced bus operations by utilizing the managed lanes to provide additional service between Kapolei and other points ‘Ewa of Downtown, and both would be managed to maintain free-%ow speeds for buses. Provided enough capacity exists, High-Occupancy Vehicles (HOVs) and toll-paying single-occupant vehicles would also be allowed to use the facility under either scenario; however, it is possible that under the initial option (one lane in each direc-tion), there would not be enough excess capacity to allow toll-paying single occupant vehicles and still maintain reasonable speeds. Intermediate access points would be provided in the vicinity of Aloha Stadium and the Ke‘ehi Interchange.”

!is alternative was further developed in the Alternatives Analysis Report, with additional features added to maximize the performance of the alternative, as discussed on page 2-4:

“!e Two-direction Option would serve express buses operating in both directions during the entire day. !e Reversible Option would serve peak-direction bus service, while reverse-direction service would use H-1. Twenty-nine bus routes,


with approximately 93 buses per hour, would use the managed lane facility during peak hours for either option. One limited-stop route and one local route would continually operate in the managed lane. A total of 27 peak-period express routes would operate in the peak direction using the managed lane facility. Of these, three are new express routes serving developing areas and nine are new routes developed for exclusive use of the managed lane. !e nine new managed lane express bus system routes originate from Kalaeloa, Kapolei, or Central O‘ahu and terminate at the Alapa‘i Transit Center, Waik)k), or UH M(noa. Other peak-period, local and limited-stop routes follow a route similar to the current structure but will use the managed lane for the line-haul portion of the route.

“A toll structure has been developed that ensures that the managed lane facility would operate to maintain free-%ow speeds for buses. To maintain free-%ow speeds in the Two-direction Option, it may be necessary to charge tolls to manage the number of HOVs using the facility. For the Revers-ible Option, three-person HOVs would be allowed to use the facility for free, while single-occupant and two-person HOVs would have to pay a toll.”

As discussed on page 3-8 of the Alternatives Analysis Report, the enhanced bus system would include an increased %eet size, estimated at 321 buses beyond the existing %eet for the two-direction managed lane facility and 381 buses for the reversible managed lane facility, to provide a su'cient %eet to ensure that the alternative would function as planned.

!e Alternatives Analysis Report estimated total capital and operating costs for the Managed Lane Alternative. As discussed on page 2-16, capital costs for the Managed Lane Alternative were estimated to range between $3.6 and $4.7 billion, of which $2.6 to $3.8 billion would be

for construction of the managed lanes. Transit operating costs for the Managed Lane Alternative would range between approximately $251 and $261 million as a result of additional buses that would be put in service under that alternative. !ese costs do not include the cost of maintaining the managed lane facility. Capital costs for the Fixed Guideway Alternative, including bus system costs, would range between $5.2 and $6.1 billion for the Full-corridor Alignments, of which $4.6 to $5.5 billion would be for the #xed guideway system. !e costs would be $4.2 billion for the 20-mile Alignment, of which $3.6 billion would be for the #xed guideway system. Operating costs for the Fixed Guideway Alternative in 2030, in 2006 dollars, would be approximately $192 million. !e total operating costs for the Fixed Guideway Alternative, including the bus and #xed guideway, would range between approximately $248 and $256 million.

!e capital cost of the Managed Lane Alternative thus is potentially somewhat lower than the 20-mile Fixed Guideway Alternative and signi#cantly lower than the Full-corridor Alternative. Operating costs would be slightly higher. !ese cost factors were considered in conjunction with other project goals in evaluating the alternatives.

With respect to transit travel time bene#t, the Managed Lane Alternative options would improve some trips that were particularly well-served by the managed lanes. In general, the Managed Lane Alternative would increase transit travel times by increasing tra'c on the overall roadway system and creating more delay for buses. !e H-1 Freeway leading up to the managed lanes would become more congested because cars accessing the managed lanes would increase tra'c volumes. Signi#cant congestion would occur where the managed lanes connect to Nimitz Highway at Paci#c Street near Downtown. Much of the time saved in the managed lane itself would be negated by the time spent in congestion leading up to the


managed lane, as well as exiting the lanes at their Downtown terminus. Furthermore, areas that are not directly served by the managed lane would not experience much positive change from the No Build Alternative. As discussed on page 3-14, the Alternatives Analysis Report found that, “although the Managed Lane Alternative would provide some travel-time improvement for certain areas, it has signi#cant limitations with regard to improv-ing travel times or transit service for a broader customer base.”

As discussed on page 3-17, transit ridership would increase only 5.3 to 6.4 percent over the No Build Alternative, a small increase compared both to the cost of the Managed Lane Alternative and the increase that would result from the Fixed Guideway Alternative, which would increase transit ridership by 21 percent for the 20-mile alignment.

!e volume of peak-hour vehicles in key areas would actually increase under the Managed Lane Alternative compared to the No Build Alternative. As discussed on page 3-27, the Fixed Guideway Alternative would reduce the number of vehicles by 3 to 12 percent.

With respect to the goal of providing equitable transportation solutions that meet the needs of lower-income transit-dependent communi-ties, the Alternatives Analysis Report observed that the Managed Lane Alternative, “would not substantially improve service or access to transit for transit-dependent communities, as buses that use existing HOV facilities would be routed to the managed lane facility but would continue to be a&ected by congestion in other parts of their routes. Arterial congestion would increase in the study corridor with the Managed Lane Alterna-tive, making bus access to the managed lanes less reliable” (page 6-8).

!e Alternatives Analysis Report also considered consistency with existing land use planning and

regional transportation planning. On page 6-13, the report concluded that the Fixed Guideway Alternative, “best serves the areas of O‘ahu that are designated for future growth and development. It is also the only alternative that is consistent with regional transportation system planning de#ned in the 2030 O‘ahu Regional Transportation Plan (OMPO 2006a).”

!e evaluation of alternatives inevitably involves trade-o&s. As stated on page 6-13 of the Alterna-tives Analysis Report, the “greatest trade-o& among the alternatives is between the transporta-tion bene#t provided and the cost to implement alternatives. . . . !e Managed Lane Alternative provides slightly more bene#t [than the Trans-portation System Management (TSM) alternative, which had little e&ect on tra'c], but at a substan-tial cost. While the Fixed Guideway Alternative would have the highest cost, it is also the only alternative that would provide a substantial trans-portation bene#t, measured both by the bene#t to transit users and in the reduction in congestion compared to the No Build Alternative.”

!e Alternatives Analysis #ndings are sum-marized in Table 2-2 in Chapter 2 of this Final EIS. !e Managed Lane Alternative is discussed in Section 2.2.2 of this Final EIS. As stated in the Final EIS and supported by the lengthy analysis that preceded the preparation of the Dra$ EIS, the Managed Lane Alternative was not pursued because the Managed Lane Alternative would not have achieved project goals and objectives, would not result in substantially fewer environmental impacts, and would not be #nancially feasible. For all of these reasons, it was not advanced to consid-eration in the Dra$ EIS.

Comments received about the Managed Lane Alternative referenced in the Dra$ EIS suggested there were signi#cant di&erences between the alternative studied in the Alternatives Analysis and an ideal managed lane option. However, there was


no substantial di&erence between the alternatives proposed in comments and those studied in the Alternatives Analysis that would have resulted in a di&erent outcome. !e primary concern raised about the Alternatives Analysis alternatives was that they did not allow access other than at the beginning and end of the facility. !at is a misun-derstanding of the Alternatives Analysis alterna-tives. Both provided access at Aloha Stadium and Middle Street to allow connections to intermediate points along the corridor. Any additional access points would substantially increase the cost of the facility because of right-of-way and structure costs and would a&ect the level-of-service provided by the investment.

Also questioned in the comments was the provi-sion of a congestion pricing system that would make the facility available to single occupant vehicles or those with two occupants at a cost that would rise during periods of high demand. In both cases, the Managed Lane Alternative evaluated a pricing option, and the two-lane reversible alterna-tive description stated that, “A toll structure has been developed that ensures that the managed lane facility would operate to maintain free-%ow speeds for buses” (Alternatives Analysis Report, page"2-4). While there may be some minor details of the proposed alternatives that di&er from the Alterna-tives Analysis alternatives, the evaluation assesses the concept fairly in the context of the Project’s Purpose and Need.

8.6.13 At-grade Alternatives Several comments have suggested that an at-grade alternative could reduce visual impacts, particularly Downtown. !is response addresses the reasons why an at-grade alternative was not included in the EIS. It may also be helpful to refer to Section 2.2 of this Final EIS.

!e Screening Memorandum (DTS 2006a) recog-nized the visually sensitive areas in Kaka‘ako and Downtown, including the Chinatown, Hawai‘i

Capital, and !omas Square/Academy of Arts Special Design Districts. To minimize impacts on historic resources, visual aesthetics, and surface tra'c, the screening process considered 15 combinations of tunnel, at-grade, and elevated alignments between Iwilei and Ward Avenue. Five di&erent alignments through Downtown were advanced for further analysis in the Alternatives Analysis, including an at-grade portion along Hotel Street, a tunnel under King Street, and elevated guideways along Nimitz Highway and Queen Street.

!e Alternatives Analysis Report evaluated the alignment alternatives based on transportation bene#ts, environmental and social impacts, and overall bene#ts and cost considerations. !e report found that an at-grade alignment along Hotel Street would require the acquisition of more parcels and could a&ect more burial sites than any of the other alternatives. !e alignment with an at-grade operation Downtown and a tunnel through the Hawai‘i Capital Historic District (under King Street) was not selected because of the environmental e&ects, such as impacts to cul-tural resources, reduction of street capacity, and property acquisition requirements of the at-grade and tunnel sections, would cost an additional $300 million. Of the remaining elevated align-ments that were studied, the Alternatives Analysis concluded that an elevated alignment along Nimitz Highway would have less visual impacts than one along Queen Street because of its much wider right-of-way and location along the edge of the Hawai‘i Capital Historic District.

!e Project’s purpose is “to provide high-capacity rapid transit” in the congested east-west travel corridor. !e need for the Project includes improv-ing corridor transit mobility and reliability. !e at-grade alignment would not meet the Project’s Purpose and Need because it could not satisfy the mobility and reliability objectives of the Project. Some of the technical considerations associated


with an at-grade versus elevated alignment through Downtown include the following:

• System Capacity and Speed—!e short, 200-foot (or less) blocks in Downtown Hono-lulu would permanently limit the system to two-car trains to prevent stopped trains from blocking vehicular tra'c on cross-streets. Under ideal operational circumstances, the capacity of an at-grade system could reach 4,000 passengers per hour per direction, assuming optimistic #ve-minute headways. Based on travel forecasts, the Project should support approximately 8,000 passengers in the peak hour per direction by 2030. More-over, the Project can be readily expanded to carry over 25,000 in each direction by reducing the interval between trains (head-way) to 90"seconds during the peak period. To reach a comparable system capacity, speed and reliability, an at-grade alignment would require a fenced, segregated right-of-way that would eliminate all obstacles to the train’s passage, such as vehicular, pedestrian, or bicycle crossings throughout Downtown. Even with transit signal priority, at-grade speeds would be slower and less reliable than an elevated guideway. An at-grade system would travel at slower speeds due to the shorter blocks, the tight and short radius curves in places within the constrained and congested Downtown street network, the need to obey tra'c regulations (e.g., tra'c signals), and potential con%icts with other at-grade activity, including cars, bicyclists, and pedestrians. !ese e&ects mean longer travel times and far less reliability than a fully grade-separated system. None of these factors a&ect an elevated rail system. !e elevated rail can travel at its own speed any time of the day regardless of weather, tra'c, or the need to let cross tra'c proceed at intersections.

• Mixed-Tra!c Con"icts—An at-grade system operating with three-minute headways would prevent e&ective coordination of tra'c

signals in the delicately balanced signal network in Downtown Honolulu. A three-minute cycle of tra'c lights would a&ect tra'c %ow and capacity of cross-streets. Furthermore, there would be no option to increase the capacity of the rail system by reducing the headway to 90 seconds, which would only exacerbate the signalization problem. An at-grade system would require removal of two or more existing tra'c lanes on a&ected streets. !is e&ect is signi#cant and would exacerbate congestion. Congestion would not be isolated to streets that cross the at-grade alignment but instead would spread throughout Downtown. !e Final EIS shows that the Project’s impact on tra'c will be isolated and minimal with the elevated guideway, and in fact will reduce system-wide tra'c delay by 18 percent compared to the No Build Alternative (Table 3-14 in Chapter 3). !at is because the elevated guideway will not require removal of existing travel lanes, and will provide an attractive, reliable travel alternative. When tra'c slows, or even stops due to congestion or incidents, the elevated system will continue to operate without delay or interruption. An at-grade light rail system with continuous tracks in-street would create major impedi-ments to turning movements, many of which would have to be closed to eliminate a crash hazard. Even where turning movements are designed to be accommodated, at-grade sys-tems experience potential collision problems. In addition, mixing at-grade #xed guideway vehicles with cars, bicyclists, and pedestrians presents a much higher potential for con%icts compared to grade-separated conditions. Where pedestrian and automobiles cross the tracks in the street network, particularly in areas of high activity (e.g., station areas or intersections), there is a risk of collisions involving trains that does not exist with


an elevated system. !ere is evidence of crashes between trains and cars and trains and pedestrians on other at-grade systems throughout the country. !is potential would be high in the Chinatown and Downtown neighborhoods, where the number of pe-destrians is high and the aging population presents a particular risk.

• Construction Impacts and Cost—Con-structing an at-grade rail system could have more e&ects than an elevated system in a number of ways. !e wider and continuous footprint of an at-grade rail system compared to an elevated rail system (which touches the ground only at discrete column foundations, power substations, and station accessways) increases the potential of utility con%icts and impacts to sensitive cultural resources. In addition, the extra roadway lanes used by an at-grade system would increase congestion or require that additional businesses or homes be taken to widen the roadway through Downtown. Additionally, the duration of short-term construction impacts to the com-munity and environment with an at-grade system would be considerably greater than with an elevated system. Because of di&ering construction techniques, more lanes would need to be continuously closed for at-grade construction and the closures would last longer than with elevated construction. !is would result in a greater disruption to business and residential access, prolonged exposure to construction noise, and tra'c impacts.

Because it is not feasible for an at-grade system through Downtown to move passengers rapidly and reliably without a signi#cant detrimental e&ect on other elements of the transportation system (e.g., highway and pedestrian systems, safety, reli-ability), an at-grade system would have a negative system-wide impact that would reduce ridership throughout the system. !e at-grade system would

not meet the Project’s Purpose and Need and does not, therefore, require additional analysis.

8.7 Continuing Public Involvement through Construction

Public involvement activities will continue throughout the construction period. !e City will work with businesses and residents prior to and during construction to provide information and address concerns about the construction process. !e City will also continue the use of the Speakers Bureau, the project website (www.honolulutransit.org), and the hotline. !e City will also work with the community throughout the acquisition and relocation process.

!e City will continue educational outreach to all segments of the island. Cultural and ethnic groups, youth, elderly, special needs, and the accessibility challenged will be specially targeted. Lastly, the City will actively engage the public in areas where community input could shape the rail system, including station design where appropriate.

8.8 Accommodations for Minority, Low-income, and Persons with Disabilities

All meetings were held in handicapped-accessible facilities in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Every e&ort was made to respond to members of the public who require a sign language interpreter, an assisted learning system, a translator, or any other accommodations to facili-tate participation in the transit planning process. Every reasonable e&ort was made to accommodate individuals requiring assistance.

Executive Order"12898 requires that, as part of the environmental evaluation of the alternatives, the Project must address environmental justice issues. To comply with this requirement, community demographics and socioeconomic impacts were


carefully considered in analyzing the alternatives. !e public participation process ensures “full and fair participation by potentially a&ected communi-ties” throughout the duration of the Project.

Particular attention was paid to reaching low-income and minority populations that are tradi-tionally underserved and underrepresented in the public involvement process. Materials have been 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.

!rough the Speakers Bureau and literature deliveries, a concerted e&ort was made to reach out to local churches, elderly care facilities, and com-munity organizations that cater to these popula-tions. All organizations that previously received presentations were contacted with requests to conduct new presentations to provide updates on the Project’s progress. !is e&ort will continue throughout construction of the Project.


ReferencesAECOS 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.

References

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.


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 Waik(k(.

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.

References

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, K!nehili. 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=HawaiianGroundBlessingGuestPressReleaseDetailPage&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).


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-P)lama action plan.

DPP 2006 City and County of Honolulu Department of Planning and Permitting. 2006. Maka(wa 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.

References

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 L)na‘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.


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. Kai)ulu ‘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

References

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.


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 ‘+ina 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.

References

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.comNavy 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.


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.

References

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.


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.

References

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.


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).

References

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.


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.govUSDA 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.htmUSFWS 1996 U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Recovery

plan for marsilea villosa.

References

Government Regulation Naming ConventionsExample 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

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.


List of Preparers&

Federal Transit AdministrationName 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

Name Education Title/EIS RoleYears of

Experience

Judy A. Aranda B.A. and Masters, Planning, University of Washington

Transportation Planning and Land Use 32

Kenneth Banao B.B.A., University of Hawaiì at M"noa Transportation Forecasting 20

Sharon Greene B.A., Tufts University; M.C.P., Harvard University; M.S., Boston University; Certi#cate Program in Real Estate, University of California at San Diego

Financial Oversight/Evaluation Manager

35

Kenneth Hamayasu, P.E. B.S., Civil Engineering, University of Hawaiì at M"noa; Professional Engineer, Hawaiì

Second Deputy Director, Department of Transportation Services/Project Executive

35

Phyllis Kurio B.A., University of Hawaiì at M"noa Transportation Planning and Grants Management

20

Faith Miyamoto B.A., University of California at Berkeley; M.S., University of Hawaiì at M"noa

Chief of Transportation Planning and Environmental Studies

20

Bruce Nagao B.F.A., University of Hawaiì at M"noa Land Use Planning 30

Kahu Kaleo Patterson B.S., M.Div., D.Min, University of Hawaiì at M"noa

Environmental and Cultural Planner 30

Susan A. Robbins, AICP B.S., Education, Maryland State College; M.S., Urban Planning, Columbia University

Chief of Environmental Planning and EIS Lead

29

Stephanie (Tesse) Roberts, P.E. B.S.C.E., Bucknell University; M.L.P., University of Southern California

Senior Transportation Planner 9.5

Eric Rouse B.S., University of Rochester; M.S., University of Texas

Financial Oversight/Senior Evaluator 14

Ryan Tam, AICP B.S. with Honors, Cornell University; M.U.P., Harvard University; Ph.D., Urban and Regional Planning and S.M. Transportation, Massachu-setts Institute of Technology

Transportation Systems Planning 9

Patrick Williams B.A., English and Rhetoric & Communications, University of California at Davis

Final EIS Video Guide/Public Informa-tion Specialist

15

List of Preparers

Federal Aviation Administration


Experience

David B. Kessler, AICP B.A., Geography; M.A., Physical Geography Regional Environmental Protection Specialist, Airports Division, Western-Paci#c Region

27

Peter F. Ciesla B.S., Accounting; M.B.A., Finance Regional Environmental Protection Specialist, Airports Division, Western-Paci#c Region

20

Steven Wong B.S., Mechanical Engineering Program Manager, Honolulu Airports District O!ce, Airports Division, Western-Paci#c Region

20

Consultant Sta!Parsons Brinckerho!


Experience

Paul Anderson B.A., Cornell University, B.S. University of Hawai`i at M"noa

Maintenance of Tra!c 12

Matthew Simon Bieschke B.S., Civil Engineering, M.S., Transportation and Urban Systems Engineering, and M.S., International Project Management and Finance, Washington University

Financial Planning Lead 11

Art Borst, PE B.S., Civil Engineering, Fairleigh Dickenson University; M.S., Civil Engineering, Polytechnic Institute of New York

Facilities Design Manager 35

Jason Bright M.S., Anthropology, University of Utah; B.S., Anthropology, Utah State University

Quality Control Review 14

Kristin Carlson B.A., Environmental Studies, and B.A., Geography, George Washington University; Master of Urban and Environmental Planning, University of Virginia

Transportation Planner 2

Veronica Chan B.A., Environmental Analysis and Design, University of California at Irvine

Relocation and Displacements 5

Prajakta Chitre B.S., Georgetown University Financial Planner 5

Joanne Crowe, AICP B.A., Urban Studies, Wheaton College; M.S., Urban Planning, Hunter College

Land Use Planner 30

William A. Davidson B.S., Civil Engineering, Iowa State University Travel Forecasting Lead 37

Theresa Dickerson B.S., Landscape Architecture, California State Polytechnic University

Social Impacts 20

James M. Dunn, P.E. B.S., Civil Engineering, University of Santa Clara

Project Design Manager 42

Donald J. Emerson B.S., Civil Engineering, Tufts University; Master of Urban A$airs, Virginia Tech

Strategic Advisor 39

Brianne Emery M.S., University of Utah Environmental Planner 2


Malie Espin B.S., Natural Resources and Environmental Management, University of Hawai`i at M"noa

Environmental Planner 0.5

Tammy Evans Certi#cation in Real Estate Administrative Support 4

Stephanie Foell B.S., Towson University; Master of Historic Preservation, University of Georgia

Supervising Architectural and Landscape Historian

15

Melissa Foreman B.A., Economics, Southern Methodist University; M.S., Geographic Information Systems, University of Texas

Transportation Planning 5.5

David Franck B.S., Civic Engineering, Ecole Spéciale des Travaux Publics (Paris, France); M.S., Transportation Systems Analysis and Planning, Northwestern University

Financial Analyst 3

Heather Fujioka B.S., Mathematics, Willamette University; M.S., Statistics, Oregon State University

Travel Forecasting 11

Rhett Fussell B.S. and M.C.E., Civil Engineering, North Carolina State University

Travel Forecasting 12

Mark Garrity, AICP Bachelor of Architecture, Carnegie Mellon University; Master of City Planning, University of Pennsylvania

Transportation Planning Lead 17

Peter Geiger B.S., Xavier University; M.S., Simon Fraser University

Environmental Planner 21

Sharon Grader Graphic Design, Shoreline Community College; Writing Certi#cate, University of Washington

Graphic Designer 27

Rob Greene, INCE Board Certi#ed

B.S., Environmental Science, Paci#c Western University; Board Certi#ed, Institute of Noise Control Engineering of the USA (INCE)

Acoustics/Vibration and Air Quality Program Manager/Quality Assurance

30

Dennis Haskell Bachelor of Architecture, University of Virginia; Master of Architecture, University of Pennsylvania

Architecture Lead 40

James T. Hayes B.S., Earth and Planetary Science, and B.A., International Development, Washington University (in St. Louis)

Hazardous Materials and Permitting 17

Allan Hodges, FAICP B.S., Community Development, Southern Illinois University; Master of Urban Planning, Michigan State University

Land Use and Cumulative Impacts Lead

42

Steve Hogan B.S., Engineering, Harvey Mudd College; M.S., Transportation (Civil), University of California at Berkeley; M.S., Administration, University of California at Irvine

Project Planning Manager 32

Thomas L. Jenkins B.S. and M.S., Civil Engineering, University of Kansas

Technical Advisor 45

Kevin Keller B.A., Geography, California State University at Fullerton

Noise and Vibration Study 15

Susan Killen, AICP B.A., Art, and B.A., Education, Seattle Univer-sity; M.%Ed., Education, Central Washington State University

Quality Assurance 30

List of Preparers

Takahiko (Taka) Kimura B.S., University of California at Berkeley, M.S. Stanford

Design Engineering 17

Ann L. Koby, AICP B.B.A., Lamar University Central U.S. Environmental Practice Area Manager—Quality Review

30

Eric Liberman, P.E. B.S., Civil Engineering, University of Mas-sachusetts at Amherst

Conceptual Engineering Support 18

Michael Lieu B.S., Applied Ecology, University of California at Irvine

Noise Analysis and GIS Analysis 7

Alice Lovegrove B.E., Engineering Science, and M.S., Environmental and Waste Management, State University of New York at Stony Brook

Air Quality Analysis 20

Matthew F.K. McDaniel B.A., Hampden-Sydney College; M.A., Louisiana State University; M.H.P., University of Georgia

Senior Historian/Architectural Historian

10.5

Pamela A. Murray B.S., Montana State Bozeman; M.P.S., Pratt Institute

Environmental Comments Coordinator 13

Michael H. Omohundro B.A., Urban Studies, University of California, San Diego; M.A. Candidate, Urban and Regional Planning, University of Hawai`i at M"noa

GIS and General Planning 2

Helen Regan B.F.A., Media Arts and Animation, Art Institute of Seattle

Design Visualization Specialist 4

Jan Reichelderfer B.S., Geology, University of Delaware; M.S., Geology, University of Illinois

Water Resources and Geology 15

Ed Reynolds B.A., Journalism, Baylor University Technical Editor 24

Stephanie Roberts, AICP B.A., Geography, Bowling Green State University; M.S., Urban Studies, Cleveland State University

Project Coordination 9

Andrea Rose B.A., Romance Linguistics with honors, University of Washington

Technical Editor 18

Lawrence Sauve B.A., Political Science, and M.A., Architecture and Urban Planning, University of California at Los Angeles

Transportation Planner 34

Mark H. Scheibe B.S., Civil Engineering, University of Santa Clara; M.S., Transportation Engineering, Northwestern University

Deputy Project Manager 36

Esther Schwalb B.A., Barnard College; M.S., Pratt Institute Senior Supervising Planner/Section 4(f)/Section 6(f) Review

28

John Sell B.S., Taylor University Waters Environmental Scientist 10

Clyde Shimizu B.S., Civil Engineering, University of Hawai`i at M"noa

Engineering design coordination 29

Bradford Ship B.S., Civil Engineering, Lafayette College; Master of Engineering Management, Dartmouth College

Economic Analyst 2

Dorothy Skans B.A., Visual and Speech Communications, University of Washington

Document Production Specialist 40


Darrell Sommerlatt B.S., Pennsylvania State University; M.S., University of Maryland

Environmental Planner/GIS and Technical Reports

3

Lawrence Spurgeon B.S., Industrial Engineering, University of California at Berkeley; M.S.E., Environmental Engineering, University of Washington

Environmental Planning and EIS Lead 15

Mark Stewart Bachelor of Landscape Architecture and B.A., Urban Planning, University of Washington

Visual and Aesthetic Resources and Section 4(f)

21

Edward Tadross B.A., Tulane University Air Quality Specialist 11

Geo$ Taylor A.A., Art and Animation, Art Institute of Seattle

Senior Design Visualization Specialist 8

James R. Van Epps B.S., Civil Engineering with high honors, University of Illinois; M.S., Industrial Engineer-ing, Kansas State University

Project Manager 42

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 Hawaiì Right-of-way 34

Amy Zaref, AICP B.A., Environmental Studies, State University of New York at Binghampton

EIS Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

27

Lisa Zeimer B.A., State University of New York at Bu$alo; Master of Urban Planning, University of Michigan at Ann Arbor

Senior Environmental Manager/Quality Review

25

AECOS Consultants


Experience

Eric B. Guinther B.S., Biology, University of the Paci#c Wetland Scientist 30

Aukahi


Experience

Lani Ma a Lapilio B.A., University of Hawaiì at M"noa; Graduate Certi#cate of Historic Preservation, University of Hawaiì at M"noa; J.D. William S. Richardson School of Law

Cultural Report 20

Cultural Surveys


Experience

Hal Hammatt B.A., University of Pennsylvania; M.A., University of Edinburgh; Ph.D., Washington State

Supervision 40

Alex Hazlett B.A., University of California at Santa Barbara; M.A., University of Hawaiì at M"noa; Ph.D., Texas A&M

Historian 5

Todd McCurdy B.A., Indiana University of Pennsylvania; M.A., University of Memphis

Editor 11

List of Preparers

Matt McDermott B.A., Boston University; M.A., University of Hawaiì at M"noa

Firm Project Manager 20

Connie O’Hare B.A., University of Tennessee Historian 30

David Shideler B.S., University of Florida; B.A., M.P.H., M.A., and A.B.D., University of Hawaiì at M"noa


Jon Tulchin B.A., University of Hawaiì at M"noa Editor 5

Dahl Consulting, LLC


Experience

N"lani E. Dahl B.A., Communication, University of Hawaiì at M"noa

Executive Producer, Final EIS Video Guide/Public Information Manager

10

Fehr and Peers


Experience

Dick Kaku B.S., Civil Engineering, Cornell University; M.S., Civil Engineering, University of California at Berkeley

Firm Principal 36

Jill Y. Liu B.S., Civil Engineering, National Taiwan University; Master of Engineering Civil Engineering (Transportation Engineering Program), University of California at Berkeley

Engineer 4

John Muggridge Bachelor of Engineering, Mechanical and 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)


Experience

David Logan Irick B.A., Geography, University of Washington 3D Animations, Interactive Graphics, and Mapping Applications

6

Harley Powers Parks B.A., Geography, University of California at Santa Barbara

3D Animations, Interactive Graphics, and Mapping Applications

20

Ku iwalu


Experience

Brian Cruz A.A., Liberal Arts, Big Ben Community College, Germany; B.S., Business Management, University of Phoenix Online

Cultural Research Specialist (Subcon-sultant Ka imipono Consulting)

5

Lynette Hiilani Cruz B.A., Paci#c Island Studies, Hawaiì Paci#c University; M.A. and Ph.D., Anthropology, University of Hawaiì at M"noa

Anthropology (Subconsultant Ka imipono Consulting)

10


Maria Ka imipono Orr B.A., Archaeology, and M.A., Anthropology, University of Hawaiì at M"noa

Investigator, Ethnographer (Subcon-sultant Ka imipono Consulting)

20

Iìni Patelesio B.A., Hawaiian Studies, University of Hawaiì at M"noa

Cultural Research Assistant 5

Lee + Elliott


Experience

Theodore Barker B.S. and M.S., Industrial Engineering, West Virginia University

Maintenance Planner 38

John Dexter B.S., Mechanical Engineering, General Motors Institute


Christopher Gambla B. S., Aviation Management, University of Dubuque; M.S., Business Administration, Benedictine University

Operations Planning and Cost Estimating

20

Sebastian Gladney B.S., Civil Engineering, University of California at Berkeley

Operations Analysis and Train Performance

28

Janice Li B.S., Industrial Engineering, University of Washington; Master of Business Administra-tion, University of Delaware


David D. Little, AICP B.A., Economics (Minor, Business Administra-tion), University of New Hampshire; M.S., Transportation Engineering, University of California at Berkeley

Operations Analysis and Coordination 24

Maggie Picard B.S., Economics, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth

Graphics and Planning 1

Nate Yemane B.S., Industrial and Systems Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Operations Analysis and Route Synchronizing

4

LKG-CMC Inc.


Experience

Sean Egdamin AAS, Applied Science and Computer Graphics, Denver Business College

Art Director/Graphic Designer 15

Lychee Productions, Inc.


Experience

Laura Pennington B.A., Business Management, University of Hawaiì at M"noa

Executive Producer, Final EIS Video Guide/Events and Media Manager

30

List of Preparers

MM Pictures, LLC


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 Video Guide

30

Andrew Magpoc Course Work, University of Wisconsin Director, Final EIS Video Guide 14

Oceanit Laboratories, Inc.


Experience

Robert Bourke B.S., Zoology/Fisheries, Oregon State University; M.S., Animal Sciences, University of Hawaiì

Environmental Scientist 25

Tobias Koehler B.S., University of California at Berkley; M.S., Botany, University of Hawaiì

Botanist 5

Steve Nimz & Associates, LLC


Experience

Steve M. Nimz Associate, Orchid Management Horticulture, Michigan State University; Associate, Agriculture Science, Lake Michigan College; B.S., Tropical Agriculture, Economics, and Horticulture, University of Hawaiì at M"noa

Arborist 37

Tom Yoneyama


Experience

Tom Yoneyama B.A., English, University of Hawaiì at M"noa Scriptwriter, Final EIS Video Guide 25

Weslin Consulting Services, Inc.


Experience

Linda Frysztacki B.A., Liberal Studies, California State University at Fullerton

Transit Planning 29

Wes Frysztacki, P.E. B.S. and M.S., Civil Engineering, Villinova University; Certi#cate, Professional Program in Urban Transportation, Carnegie-Mellon University

Transportation Planning and Facilities 39


Yukie Ohashi Planning Consultants, LLC


Experience

Tim Ohashi B.S., Wildlife Resources, University of Idaho; M.S., Wildlife Sciences, New Mexico State University

Wildlife Biologist 10

Yukie Ohashi Bachelor of Fine Arts and Masters Candidate, Urban and Regional Planning, University of Hawai`i at M"noa

Wetlands, Natural Resources Planner 19

List of Preparers



List of EIS RecipientsAll recipients included in this list will receive either a hard copy or electronic copy of the Final EIS.

Category ContactFederal O!cialsAgencies U.S. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

U.S. Army Garrison-Hawaiì, Directorate of Public WorksU.S. Army Garrison-Hawaiì, IMCON-Paci"cU.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Paci"c DivisionU.S. Coast Guard, 14th Coast Guard DistrictU.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation ServiceU.S. Department of Agriculture, State ConservationistU.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries ServiceU.S. Department of Homeland SecurityU.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Paci"c Area O!ceU.S. Department of the Interior, District ChiefU.S. Department of the Interior, National Park ServiceU.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit AdministrationU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, Paci"c Islands Contact O!ceU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, O!ce of Federal Activities, EIS Filing SectionU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, Federal Facilities Environmental Review BranchU.S. Federal Highway AdministrationU.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Paci"c Islands O!ceU.S. General Services Administration, Region 9, Public Buildings ServiceU.S. Geological SurveyU.S. Department of the NavyU.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Paci"c DivisionU.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Station Pearl HarborU.S. Postal Service

U.S. District Court, District of Hawaiì 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!cialsU.S. Senators The Honorable Daniel K. Akaka

The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye

U.S. Representatives The Honorable Mazie HironoThe Honorable Charles K. Djou

1Final EIS recipients who did not receive the Draft EIS.

List of EIS Recipients

Category ContactState of Hawai`i O!cialsGovernor The Honorable Linda Lingle

Lt. Governor The Honorable James R. Aiona, Jr.

State Senators The Honorable Robert BundaThe Honorable Suzanne Chun OaklandThe Honorable Will EsperoThe Honorable Carol FukunagaThe Honorable Mike GabbardThe Honorable Brickwood Galuteria1

The Honorable Josh Green1

The Honorable Colleen HanabusaThe Honorable Clayton HeeThe Honorable Fred HemmingsThe Honorable David Y. IgeThe Honorable Les Ihara, Jr.The Honorable Michelle Kidani1

The Honorable Donna Mercado KimThe Honorable Russell S. KokubunThe Honorable Clarence K. NishiharaThe Honorable Norman SakamotoThe Honorable Sam SlomThe Honorable Dwight Y. Takamine1

The Honorable Brian T. TaniguchiThe Honorable Jill N. TokudaThe Honorable Shan S. Tsutsui



Category ContactState House of Representatives The Honorable Henry J.C. Aquino1

The Honorable Karen Leinani AwanaThe Honorable Della Au BelattiThe Honorable Lyla B. Berg1

The Honorable Tom BrowerThe Honorable Rida Cabanilla1

The Honorable Corrinne W.L. Ching1

The Honorable Pono Chong1

The Honorable Isaac W. Choy1

The Honorable Lynn FinneganThe Honorable Faye P. Hanohano1

The Honorable Sharon E. Har1

The Honorable Ken Ito1

The Honorable Jon Riki KaramatsuThe 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 ManahanThe Honorable Barbara C. MarumotoThe Honorable John M. MizunoThe Honorable Mark M. Nakashima1

The Honorable Scott Y. Nishimoto1

The Honorable Blake K. OshiroThe Honorable Marcus R. Oshiro1

The Honorable Kymberly Marcos Pine1

The Honorable Karl RhoadsThe Honorable Scott K. Saiki1

The Honorable Calvin K.Y. SayThe Honorable Maile S.L. Shimabukuro1

The Honorable Joseph M. Souki1

The Honorable Mark Takai1

The Honorable Roy M. Takumi1

The Honorable Cynthia ThielenThe Honorable Glenn WakaiThe Honorable Gene WardThe Honorable Jessica Wooley1

The Honorable Ryan I. Yamane1

The Honorable Lyle T. Yamashita1



Category ContactState of Hawaiì Agencies State Archives

Department of Accounting & General ServicesDepartment of AgricultureDepartment of Budget & FinanceDepartment of Business, Economic Development & TourismDepartment of Business, Economic Development & Tourism, Aloha Tower Development CorporationDepartment of Business, Economic Development & Tourism, Hawaiì Housing Finance & Development CorporationDepartment of Business, Economic Development & Tourism, Land Use CommissionDepartment of Business, Economic Development & Tourism, O!ce of PlanningDepartment of DefenseDepartment of EducationDepartment of Hawaiian Home LandsDepartment of Health, Disability and Communication Access BoardDepartment of Health, Environmental Planning O!ceDepartment of Health, O!ce of Environmental Quality ControlDepartment of Land & Natural ResourcesDepartment of Land & Natural Resources, Commission on Water Resource ManagementDepartment of Land & Natural Resources, O ahu Island Burial CouncilDepartment of Land & Natural Resources, State Historic Preservation DivisionDepartment of TransportationDepartment of Transportation, Airports DivisionHawaiì Community Development AuthorityHawaiì State Civil DefenseO ahu Metropolitan Planning OrganizationO!ce of Hawaiian A#airs

Commission on TransportationLaurence BalterLester H. Fulcuda1

Ralph J.N.K. Hiatt1

Richard Houck1

William LindermannOwen MiyamotoKuuhaku ParkPete G. Pascua, Jr.John Ray1

John Romanowski



Category ContactCity and County of HonoluluMayor The Honorable Mu" Hannemann

City Council The Honorable Ikaika Anderson1

The Honorable Todd Kala ApoThe Honorable Romy CacholaThe Honorable Donovan Dela CruzThe Honorable Lee Donohue1

The Honorable Nestor GarciaThe Honorable Ann KobayashiThe Honorable Gary OkinoThe Honorable Rod Tam

City Departments Board of Water Supply1

Department of Community ServicesDepartment of Customer Services, Municipal LibraryDepartment of Design and ConstructionDepartment of Environmental ServicesDepartment of Facility MaintenanceDepartment of Parks and RecreationDepartment of Planning and Permitting1

Department of Transportation ServicesHonolulu Fire DepartmentHonolulu Police DepartmentManaging Director O!ceMunicipal Reference and Records Center

Neighborhood Boards Hawaiì Kai Neighborhood Board No. 1Kuliòu ou/Kalani Iki Neighborhood Board No. 2Wai alae/Kahala Neighborhood Board No. 3Kaimuk$ Neighborhood Board No. 4Diamond Head/Kapahulu/St. Louis Heights Neighborhood Board No. 5P%lolo Neighborhood Board No. 6M%noa Neighborhood Board No. 7McCully/M&ìliìli Neighborhood Board No. 8Waik$k$ Neighborhood Board No. 9Makiki/Lower Punchbowl/Tantalus Neighborhood Board No. 10Ala Moana/Kaka ako Neighborhood Board No. 11Nu uanu/Punchbowl Neighborhood Board No. 12Downtown Neighborhood Board No. 13Liliha/Pu unui/AlÈwa/Kamehameha Heights Neighborhood Board No. 14K%lihi/P%lama Neighborhood Board No. 15K%lihi Valley Neighborhood Board No. 16'liamanu/Salt Lake Neighborhood Board No. 18Aiea Neighborhood Board No. 20

Pearl City Neighborhood Board No. 21Waipahu Neighborhood Board No. 22Èwa Neighborhood Board No. 23



Category ContactNeighborhood Boards(continued)

Wai anae Coast Neighborhood Board No. 24Mililani/Waipiò/Melemanu Neighborhood Board No. 25Wahiawa Neighborhood Board No. 26North Shore Neighborhood Board No. 27Ko olauloa Neighborhood Board No. 28Kahalu u Neighborhood Board No. 29K%neohe Neighborhood Board No. 30Kailua Neighborhood Board No. 31Waim%nalo Neighborhood Board No. 32Makakilo/Kapolei Neighborhood Board No. 34Mililani Mauka/Launani Valley Neighborhood Board No. 35Na%n%kuli/M%ìli Neighborhood Board No. 36

OtherColleges Hawaiì Paci"c University

Honolulu Community CollegeKapiolani Community CollegeLeeward Community CollegeUniversity of Hawaiì–West O ahuUniversity of Hawaiì–M%noa

Libraries Hawaiì State Library, Hawaiì Documents CenterHonolulu Municipal Reference and Records CenterLegislative Reference BureauUniversity of Hawaiì at M%noa, Hamilton Library, Hawaiian Collection

Aiea Public Library1

'ina Haina Public LibraryBond Memorial Public LibraryDepartment of Business, Economic Development and Tourism LibraryÈwa Beach Public and School LibraryHana Public and School LibraryHanap(p( Public LibraryHawaiì Kai Public LibraryHilo Public LibraryH&lualoa Public LibraryHonoka a Public LibraryK%hili-Palama Public LibraryKahuku Pubic and School LibraryKahului Public Library (Maui Regional Library)Kailua Public LibraryKailua-Kona Public LibraryKaimuk$ Public LibraryKalihi Public Library1

K%ne ohe Public libraryKapa a Public LibraryKapolei Public Library1

Kauai Community College LibraryKea au Public and School LibraryKealakekua Public Library



Category ContactLibraries(continued)

K$hei Public LibraryK&loa Public and School LibraryL%hain% Public LibraryL%na i Public and School LibraryLaup%hoehoe Public and School LibraryLibrary for the Blind and Physically HandicappedL$hu e Public LibraryLiliha Public LibraryMakawao Public LibraryMakiki Community LibraryM%noa Public LibraryMaui Community College LibraryMcCully-M&`ili`ili Public LibraryMililani Public LibraryMoloka i Public LibraryMountain View Public and School LibraryN% %lehu Public LibraryP%hala Public and School LibraryP%hoa Public and School LibraryPearl City Public LibraryPrinceville LibrarySalt Lake-Moanalua Public LibraryThelma Parker Memorial Public and School libraryUniversity of Hawaii Library, LibrarianWahiawa Public LibraryWaialua Public LibraryWaianae Public LibraryWaik$k$-Kapahulu Public LibraryWailuku Public LibraryWaim%nalo Public and School LibraryWaimea Public libraryWaipahu Public Library

Newspapers Honolulu Star Advertiser

Utilities Hawaiian Electric Co.1Hawaiian Telcom1

The Gas Co.1Oceanic Time Warner Cable1



Category ContactGroups/Organizations Ahahui Siwila Hawaiì O Kapolei Hawaiian Civic Club

Aliì Pauahi Hawaiian Civic ClubAmerican Lung AssociationAmerican Planning AssociationAssociation of Flight AttendantsAssociation of Hawaiian Civic ClubsBoilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Local 627Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, Local 1Carpet Linoleum & Soft Tile Union, Local 1926Cement and Concrete Products Industry of HawaiìConservation Council of HawaiìConvention Center AuthorityDistrict Council 50Drywall Tapers Finishers LU 1944EAH HousingFil Am Courier Editorial BoardFilipino Chamber of Commerce of HawaiìGlaziers, Architectural Metal & Glassworkers, Local 188)Go Rail Go, Committee for Balanced TransportationHawaiì Business RoundtableHawaiì Government Employees AssociationHawaiì State AFL-CIOHawaiì State Teachers AssociationHawaiian Civic Club of Èwa-Pu uloaHawaiian Civic Club of HonoluluHawaiian Civic Club of WahiawaHawaiì’s Thousand FriendsInternational Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 1186International Longshore & Warehouse Union, Local 142International Union of Elevator Constructors, Local 126Iron Workers, Local 625K%lihi-Palama Hawaiian Civic ClubKe ehi Lagoon Memorial OrganizationKing Kamehameha Hawaiian Civic ClubKo olaupoko Hawaiian Civic ClubLaborers’ International Union of North America, Local 368Laird Christianson AdvertisingNational Trust for Historic PreservationO ahu Filipino Community CouncilOperative Plasterers’ & Cement Masons’ IA, Local 630Paci"c Business News Editorial BoardPainters Union, Local 1791Pearl City Shopping CenterPearl Harbor Hawaiian Civic ClubPearlridge Center Management O!cePlumbers & Fitters UA, Local Union 675Prince K*hi& Hawaiian Civic ClubPrincess Kaiùlani Hawaiian Civic Club



Other Final Environmental Impact Statement Recipients

Category ContactGroups/Organizations(continued)

Royal Order of Kamehameha ISheet Metal Workers IA, Local 293The Garden Club of HonoluluUnited Public WorkersUnited Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers, Local 221Urban Land Institute HawaiìWai anae Hawaiian Civic ClubWaldron Steamship CompanyWard Centers


Lois AbramsJo Ann AbrazadoVicki Christine AbsherShaun AgenoJanice AkauDavid Aki, Hawaiì Teamsters and Allied

Workers, Local 996Edgar AlakeaJustito AlconHarlan AlimentRic Allen, American Lung AssociationJohn AndersonMark AndersonDavid Arakawa, Land Use Research FoundationGeorge T. Arizumi, Malama O M!noaMargaret Armstrong, Association of Flight

AttendantsDavid AtkinJe#ry BabbMary BakerDonnie BanquilClara BantolinaJan BappeToni Baran, #1 Hawaiì WeddingsJames Bassett, Kamehameha Schools Bishop

EstateMark BaumanBert BeneventoJoan BennettFred Berg, Hawaiì Developers’ CouncilJosh Berger, CB Richard EllisDarleen BinneyAmy Blagri#, AIA HonoluluConrad W. BlankenzeePatricia Blum, Eye of the Paci"cPeggy BobilinW. Richard Boddy ,Wai anae Coast Trans

Concerns Grp Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Local 627

James, BoyerDan BoylanCharlie BrackenRobin BrandtDavid Bremer, Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers

Local 1Liane BriggsRodlyn BrownJeb P. BrownMade BrunnerJ. David Bryant, Hawaiì Stevedores, Inc.Valentin BuenoMargaret ByrneApril CadizS. CainChristine Camp, Avalon GroupIan CappsShawn CarbreyMarijane Carlos, Ala Wai Manor DoDCharles H. Carole, Carpet Linoleum & Soft Tile

Union Local 1926Don Carroll, Oceanic Time Warner CableCharles Carter, Cement & Concrete Products

Industry of HawaiìWendy ChanRobert ChangCharlie ChangDelwyn Ching, USAG-HIMeredith J. Ching, Alexander & Baldwin, Inc.,

Government & Community RelationsCecily Ann Ching, Building Owners & Managers

Association HawaiìCarleton Ching, Castle & CookeAlvin Kealii Chock, The Arbors AOAOSK Choi, University of Hawaiì at M%noa, College

of EngineeringLester ChongDavid ChoyJayson Chun

John ClauchertyDon Clegg, Analytical Planning Consultants, Inc.Loring Colburn, CDR, U.S. Paci"c Fleet, Pearl

HarborGuillermo Colon, OTS Inc., Conservation Council

of HawaiìNathan CrowMerle Crow, Paci"c Souvenir GroupIrma CunhaC.C. CurryChris DacusStanley DalbecStan DalberDennis DangMike DangGwen DeluzeHoward DicusDavid Dodge, Waik$k$ Improvement AssociationJames DonovanTyler Dos Santos-TamLinda Douglas, Drywall Tapers & Finishers Local

1944Rian DubachSolray Duncan, EAH Housing, Elevator Construc-

tors Local 126Arlene Ellis, League of Women VotersStanton Enomoto, Hawaiì Community

Development AuthorityCaptain Edward Enos, Jr., Hawaiì Pilots

AssociationJack EpsteinHolly ERMMariano ErmitanioJe#rey EsmondSusan EstoresGary EverettCharles M. Ferrell, Fil Am Courier Editorial

Board, Filipino Chamber of Commerce of Hawaiì



Sam FiskJudy FloresGregory Foret, Benedictine MonasteryAdrian FrankeAnn FreedWendy Fujimoto, Grassroot Institute of HawaiìLen FukukawaAlbert K. Fukushima, Pearl City Neighborhood

Board No. 21Donn FurushimaAlan R. GanoJane GarciaRt. Rev. Wayne W. Gau, Celtic Evangelical

ChurchMegan GilesJanet GilmarSteve Golden, The Gas CompanyMike Golojuch, P%lehua Community AssociationMike GoluichDane GonsalvesWilliam S. Gonsalves, Èwa Villages Home

Owners AssociationRobert GouldSherry Goya, Kaka ako Improvement

AssociationRobert GreenJerry GreerJames GreubelFrederick GrossH. HakodaTony HallArleen HamaStanley HamadaRichard K HanaokaMat Hara, Lester Chee StadlbauerKen HardingRuby Hargrave, Honolulu Community Action

ProgramVictoria HartAnn HartmanRobert Harts"eldM. HashimotoHitoshi Hattori, Silver Star Co., Ltd.Marjorie HawkinsReid HayashiFrank HayashidaJim HayesD.J. Henderson, HGEAJune HigakiBrett Hill, Brett Hill Construction, Inc.David HipleEd HoHoward HoddichPaul Ho#man, Booz Allen HamiltonMichael Ho#mann, Wormwood Research

Leslie HokyoMichael P. HoldenThomas HooverMargarita Hopkins, Congress of Visayan

OrganizationsLarry HowardRobert HughesJoshua Hvidding, IBEW Local Union 1186Lloyd IgnacioGeorge IkedaDavid ImayeJanet InamineDarrell IngLance Inouye, Ralph S. Inouye Co., Ltd.Kathy InouyeAaron IsgarRonald IshidaJan IshiharaAndrew Jackson, AIJ DesignMark JamesJohn JoaquinC. Kaui JocharonJeannette Goya JohnsonEd JohnsonMike Jones, D.R. Horton, Schuler DivisionDana JonesStan and Roberta JonesBob JonesWilliam KalawaoLeonard KamaTeddy KamaiCli#ord KandaRichard Kane, Paci"c Resource PartnershipPace KaneshigeBrian KawabeNorman M. Kawachika, American Council of

Engineering Companies of HawaiìRick KazmanSusan KelleyWalker KellyJon KhilRodney Kim, Sand Island Business AssociationEric A. Kim, Korean Chamber of Commerce of

HawaiìEric Kim, Tower Engineering HawaiìTaeyoung Kim, Environmental Communications,

Inc.Paul Kimura, Kaka ako Improvement Associa-

tion, HCDAMitchell KimuraClyde KobatakeJuli Kobayashi, Hawaiì Local Technical

Assistance ProgramCraig Kobayashi, Hawaiian Airlines

Laura Kodama, Leeward O ahu Transportation Management Organization

Arkie Koehl, Ko olau Poko Hawaiian Civic ClubKeith Kurahashi, Kusao & KurahashiBrett KurashigeNaomi Kuwaye, Imanaka Kudo & Fujimoto,

Attorneys at LawSherman Kwock, Laborers’ International Union

of North American Local 368Russell LakeJoshua Lake, Airspace WorkshopAlexandra LakeAdrian LauKathy LawtonCassie LeeLarry LeeWendy LeeHenry LeeRobert H. Lee, Hawaiì Fire Fighters Association,

Local 1463Rusty Leonard, Matson TerminalsRay LeonardAltilio Leonardi, Jr., Kapolei Chamber of

CommerceLeonard Leong, Royal ContractingGuy LeopardGary LiMichael Lilly, Ning, Lilly & JonesRobert Linczer, Robert E. Linczer Co.Catharine LoJessica LomaoangNikki LoveDonald LubitzHeather LumMaedene LumMajor Phil Lum, Salvation Army, Hawaiian &

Paci"c Islands DivisionDebbie Luning, Gentry HomesHarold LyauTenari Maafala, State of Hawaiì Organization of

Police O!cersSteve Madson, The Outdoor CircleWalter MahrFrank MakTesha Malama, Hawaiì Community Develop-

ment Authority, Kalaeloa DistrictSally Jo Manea, Get Fit Kaua iJon Mar, Jon B. Mar SurfboardsJohn F. Mathias, Jr., Hawaiì Bicycling LeagueMichael Mazzone, Hawaiì Carpenters UnionHelen McCuneIan McKayMark McMahonGeorge MelenkaDavid Mercil



Elizabeth Merritt, National Trust for Historic Preservation

Je# Merz, Waik$k$ Neighborhood BoardCraig MeyersMarilyn MichaelsDarin MijoJe# Mikulina, Sierra ClubGary MillerTed MillerBob MinughDan MitaEric MiyasatoHondo MizutaniRon MobleyHenry MochidaSandy MoneymakerJade MoonRalph Moore, Hope ChapelSteven MorganRoy MoritaJeremy MorrowRichard MorseRoger Morton, O ahu Transit Services, Inc.Molly Mosher-Cates, MC Realty AdvisorsDonn MotookaJim MoylanDaniel MuellerGregory MuellerAnita MuellerDean MuramotoL. MuraokaMaureen MuraokaMarc MyerSeichi NagaiNancy NagamineNobu NakamotoKaren Nakamura, Building Industry Association

of HawaiìRuth NakasoneColleen NeelyElizabeth NelsonRobert NickelNeil NiinoGlenn Nohara, Koga Engineering & Construc-

tion, Inc., O ahu Filipino Community CouncilByron OgataLeigh OkimotoChristine OlahMary Oliver, Honolulu Travel AssociationDirk Omine, Operative Plasterers’ & Cement

Masons’ IA Local 630Lori Ott, IBMKiyoi Oyama, Paci"c Business News Editorial

BoardJames Pacopac, Painters Union Local 1791

Malcolm PalmerKeith PattersonArza PattersonDavid Paulson, Pearl City Shopping Center,

Pearlridge Center Management O!ceWilliam PelzerLennard PepperRichard Personius, Silicon Methods, LLCCarol PhilipsSusan PhillipsBruce Plasch, Decision Analysts Hawaiì, Inc.Bill Plum, Plumbers & Fitters Union Local 675Dick PoirierRichard PortRalph Portmore, AICP, Group 70 InternationalDouglas PratherLee Prochaska, Pro Graphics Paci"cRichard QuinnJohn Radcli#e, University of Hawaiì Profes-

sional AssemblyDavid W. Rae, Estate of James CampbellDave RaeRodolfo RamosJudah RaquinioRobert RauWill RichDane RobertsonJohn RogersDavid RolfAnn RubyLehua Rupisan, Aloha anythingSharene Saito-Tam, Haseko, Inc.Gareth Sakakida, Hawaiì Transportation

AssociationNorman SakamotoMonica SalterPauline SatoGary Sato, TriMoving-Triathlon & Cycling ClubLane SatoJohn ScarryDante Carpenter, Democratic Party of HawaiìRod SchultzMichael SchwartzMarsha Schweitzer, Musicians Association of

HawaiìCharles ScottGordon Scruton, Construction Industry Legisla-

tive OrganizationTroy Se#roodKaren SenderGregg Serikaku,Plumbing & Mechanical

Contractors Association of HawaiìG. Sha#er, Sheet Metal Workers IA Local 293Kalene Shim, Chinatown Task ForceHoward M. Shima

Karen Shimizu, Servco Paci"c Inc.Brian ShiroHolli ShiroBrian ShiroJennifer ShishidoGerald & Carole Siegel, Neighborhood Board

No. 25Edgar Silva, Jr.Irwin SilverRosita Sipirok-SirearTerry SlatteryJim SlavishPaul SmithFrank SmithScott SniderMark Snyder, Gem of Hawaiì, Inc.Thomas Soteros-McNamaraWilfred SouzaAndrew SpeeseJessica SpurrierJonathan St. ThomasElizabeth M. Stack, McCandless HonoluluLee StackLinda Starr, Kuliòu ou Kalani Iki Neighborhood

BoardDebbie StelmachRoss StephensonAnnie StevensWilliam StohlerThomas J. StroutAudrey Suga-Nakagawa, AARP HawaiìIrvin SugimotoRichard Sullivan Architects Hawaiì Ltd.Max Sword, Outrigger HotelsA. TabarIra TagawaMitsuru TakahashiCarol Mae TakahashiDennis TakahashiCurtis TakanoJames TakemotoJon TakemuraA. TalatClaire Tamamoto, Aiea Community AssociationKatsumi Tanaka, E Noa CorporationGlen TanakaChad Taniguchi, Hawaiì Bicycling LeagueJustin TanoueCharlene TarrBrian TaylorMark TaylorJohn ThomasDavid Thompson, Mea Paci"c TradersBob ThompsonSummer Thomson


Draft Environmental Impact Statement Commenters


Monico TiongcoRobyn Titcomb, South Paci"c Design GroupRudolph TolentinoJim Tollefson, Chamber of Commerce of HawaiìKirk S. Tomita, Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc.T. Lei TorresMurray Towill, Hawaiì Hotel AssociationDennis TsurudaRichard TudorPatricia TummonsBrian R. Turner, National Trust for Historic

PreservationLawrence UchimaStanley Uehara, United Public WorkersEva Uran, Urban Land Institute HawaiìSara Van Der Wer#Larry VaughanMarie VaughanRonald J. VergaTony Vericella, Hawaiì Visitor & Convention

Bureau

Keith Vieria, Starwood HotelsJoey ViernesMarie Wagner, Waldron Steamship CompanyRichard Wallis Cade M. Watanabe, HERE Local 5 HawaiìCraig Watase, Mark Development, Inc.M. WearstlerPablo WegesendRichard WeimerDelta WestcotAnn and Frank WhiteRobert WillingBill Wilson, General Contractors Association of

HawaiìRobert WindischTami WittDonna Wong, Hawaiì’s Thousand FriendsDexter WongVernon WongMichael WooBetty Wood

E. Alvey WrightKlaus WyrtkiDarrell YagodichKyle Yamada, Tax Foundation of HawaiìRoy Yonaoshi, West O ahu Economic Develop-

ment AssociationHarry YoshidaDwight Yoshimura, Ala Moana CenterMae YoshinoRodney YoshizawaP. YoungLinda YoungPamela YoungJoy YoungBeverly YowErnie YowRobert YumolPaul Zavada

Abe, FrankAdvisory Council for Historic PreservationAgles, DeborahAirhart, RobertAkana, CreeAkana, MosesAlarcon, RenateAlexAmerican Institute of Architects, Sidney CharAmerican Planning AssociationAmong, LeslieAmong, LeslieAnderson, EveAnderson, EveAppleby, EdArakaki, EarlArakaki, EvelynAu, JaneAvenido, MaryAwanaBaideme, ChuyangBarker, AudreyBatula, SBlackman, PhilipBleecker, NicholasBoard of Water SupplyBoyett, RuthBoyette, JoannaBremer, DavidBrewer, Jim

Brezeale, ErnestBrezeale, JacquelynBrizdle, JohnBrowerBrown, DavidBrown, Rick (Hawai'i)Brown, Rick (Washington)Brown, RodlynBruinsslot, RalphBurbage, LoraBurger, DonaldBurton, Michael Burton, Michael CacholaCady, LyleCalaro, JudeeCampbell, NancyCaraang, HelitoCargas, JakeCarole, CharlesCastle & Cooke, Harry SaundersCBRE, Thomas Jivorsky, Kimberley PlayerCelshall, EmikaChan, BonnieChangChang, CharlieChang, HomerChang, RobertChar, SidneyCharley's Taxi , Dale Evans

Ching, ChaunceyChing, DonnaChing, MelissaChing, RandyChu, ElaineChu, MichaelChun, Tit KwongChun, WayneCity Council MembersColon, GuillermoConlan, TerrenceConlan, TerryCorteway, JackCrisostomo, MelissaCrowder, LizCulvyhouse, MJCunningham, NatlynnCuster, JonathonDa, ChrisDahilig, MichaelDarby, RonaldDavis, CarolDel Rio, AlbertDepartment of Accounting and General ServicesDepartment of AgricultureDepartment of Agriculture, National Resource

Conservation ServiceDepartment of Budget & FinanceDepartment of Defense



Department of Economic Development & Tourism, Liu

Department of Economic Development & Tourism, Mayer

Department of Education, KashiwaiDepartment of Education, KimuraDepartment of Hawaiian HomelandsDepartment of HealthDepartment of Health, OEQCDepartment of Homeland Security, Coast GuardDepartment of Homeland Security, Federal

Emergency Management AgencyDepartment of Land and Natural ResourcesDepartment of the Army, Honolulu DistrictDepartment of the Interior, National Park

ServiceDepartment of the Interior, National Park

ServiceDepartment of the Interior, National Park

Service, LentzDepartment of the Navy, KitchensDepartment of the Navy, MuilenburgDepartment of TransportationDesign & ConstructionDicken, JoeDisability and Communication Access Board,

FlemmingDisability and Communication Access Board,

WaiDistrict Court, District of Hawai'i–Mass Letter 1District Court, District of Hawai'i–Mass Letter 2DjouDolph, ChrisDR Horton, Schuler DivisionDuarte, DennisE Noa Corporation, Tom DinellEbey, KathleenEgge, DennisEnvironmental Protection AgencyEnvironmental ServicesErickson, AaronErnst, WilliamEstep, WilliamFacility ManagementFaletogo, ImoaFaletogo, MoeoneFaualo, AsomaliuFaualo, ManaseFCH Enterprises, Paul Yokota, Zippy's,

DillinghamFCH Enterprises, Paul Yokota, Zippy's, Pearl CityFCH Enterprises, Paul Yokota, Zippy's, PearlridgeFCH Enterprises, Paul Yokota, Zippy's, WaiauFCH Enterprises, Paul Yokota, Zippy's, Waimalu

FCH Enterprises, Paul Yokota, Zippy's, WaipahuFederal Aviation AdministrationFekete, StevenFernandes, StephanieFernandez, EddielynFerrell, CharlesFire Department Follmer, WilliamFord Island Properties, Steve ColonForet, GregoryFowler, RobertFriar, DavidFrith, CynthiaFroelich, WilliamFukunagaFung, KathleenFung, LeatriceFuruhashi, DexterGaluteriaGano, AlanGarces, GinalynnGenadio, Frank General Growth PropertiesGeneral Services AdministrationGeneral Services Administration, Neely GillmarGillmoreGolojuch, MichaelGolojuch, Michael Jr.Goo, Melissa (Moanalua High School Com-

munity Council)Good Samaritan Church of Jesus Christ,

Elizabeth SatarakaGrassroot Institute of HI, Jamie StoryGroothuis, KristaGrounds, GeneHa, JamesHackney, JohnHaitsuka, CaryHall, SallyHamm, GerhardHamp, CameronHandy, EarlHanohanoHanohanoHar, Representative Sharon Hasenyager, ShirleyHawai'i Community Development AuthorityHawai'i's Thousand FriendsHawkins, EmilyHebshi, AaronHECO, Kirk TomitaHedburgHedlund, Nancy

Heinrich, TomHigashide, RoyHiggins, JohnHinton, LennetteHistoric Hawai'i Foundation , Kiersten FaulknerHo, TonyHo, WailaniHodel, DanielHoernig, BryanHolman, RussellHong, BuzzHonolulutra!c.com, Cli# SlaterHookano, Theresa (Central Paci"c Bank)Hooper, PaulHuyler, HarryIaea, Sheree-VictoriaIkeda, KenIng, ReneeIshii, SeanJames, BillJames, MarkJansen, ChrisJansen, SueJarvis, ZoeJensenJohnson, PearlJohnston, JohnJudd, KaimiKagawa, BrentKaka'ako Business & Landowners AssociationKamehameha Schools, Kirk BelsbyKamis, RichardKammerer, DavidKanemori, TedKaramatsuKato, JohnKawano, RichardKayKeaton, LauraKerr, AnnaKido, KimKilleen, KevinKilthau, BobKim, JayneKim, YoungKimball, DavidKimura, AmyKingKishimori, PhillipKljajic, DraganKobayashiKot, CoryKuhia Jr., GlennKupukaa, Katherine



Kupukaa, KatherineKuranishi, SeanKurosawa, JaimeKurrenLam, JeremyLamon, MattLantry, RobertLathamLatino, FrankLaulu Jr., LeaumaLe, AndrewLeague of Women Voters of Honolulu, Piilani

KaopuikiLeano, FaanatiLeano, FideliaLeano, NadiaLeano, TaulagiLeeLee, GilbertLegrand, GiancarloLeong, GregLife of the Land, Henry CurtisLin, ShirlyLo, George (Bayez & Patel, Inc)Loder, ClintLohr, PatriciaLoo, Herbert T.C. Lovejoy, Je#Lowery, HughLoy, BobLuehring, DaveLum, StevenLum, WendellLyman, A. LonoLynch, JerryMaae, BrittanyMacQuoid, SharonMajor, BeverlyMalama, TeshaManahanMapa, ChristopherMarrone, RobertMartinez FamilyMatson, MichelleMatsuno, TadMatthews, DanMaulupe, PepeMayer, Irwin and MichelinaMcHenry, RobertMcManus, JamesMcWilliams, JayMeier, KathleenMelei, AulamaMelei, TaeotafeMercado, Cli#ord

Michel, CheriMick, BryanMiguel, ScottMiguel, ThomasMiho, JaneMinton, EricMiranda, RalphMist, SallyMitchell, JMiura, JimboMiyamoto, HannahMiyashiro, DarinMollowayMongold, DavidMoore, KathleenMori, RichardMorita, MauriceMoyen, DaleMurai, DaisyMuramatsu, ByronMurata, YNaea, SamoaNaea, TulimaNagamine, NancyNakamura, DorisNakaoNakasone, RuthNative Hawaiian Legal Corporation, Camille

KalamaNeighborhood BoardsNelson, StanleyNeumann, WolfgangNeville, Rachel (O'ahu Invasive Species

Committee)Newman, CNishimura, KarenOamilda, GlenOamilda, GlennOana, ArmaObatake, JaimieO'Donnell, GaryO!ce of Hawaiian A#airsOgura, DanielOkabe, CrystaOnishi, GaryOrnellas, JohnOshiroOshiro, CalvinOutdoor Circle, The-Bob LoyPa, FloritaPaci"c Guardian Center, H. Brian MoorePan"glio, MonikaParks & RecreationParnellPaterson, Geo#rey

Paterson, KirkPatterson, PatPazaglia, LancePearson, BryanPechauer, JanicePepper, LeonardPereira, RobertPickard, TomPine, Representative Kimberly Pineda, BryanPlanning & PermittingPlechaty, GeorgePolice DepartmentPothul, DouglasPoyer, DanielPyle, Doug Ramelb, BenReginaldo, JaysonReit Management & Research LLC, Brad LeachRethman, MichaelReuter, MaryRhoadesRhoadsRidings, JohnRobert, CroneRodman, RobertRothouse, HerbRubin, Nancy and ErrolRussell, BillRuth, Carolynn (Public Storage)Sakamura, GeraldSakuma, StanleySasaki, Keith (Dependable Hawaiian Express)Sataraka, AndrewSataraka, EpaferotiSataraka, IsakaraSataraka, Isakara NathanSataraka, KaiserlynSataraka, SamuelSataraka, TracieSato, LaneScottScott Hawai'i, Steven ScottScott, CharlesScott, SteveSeabrightServco Paci"c Inc., Carol K. LamShibata, CoreyShimamura, KarenSierra Club, Kim KidoSipirok-Siregr, RositaSmith, CharlesSmith, DanielSmith, GarrySmith, Kenny



Smith, MikeSmith, PamSmith, SamuelSoll, LindaSoon, Fah JaniceSoon, Tony Sorli, ChristianStassen-McLaughlin, MarilynState Representatives and Senators–Mass

Letter 1State Representatives and Senators–Mass

Letter 2Stop Rail Now, Dennis CallanStrout, ThomasSuch, JSuen, SLSummons, HurshaeSunahara-Teruya, KarenSuwa, RonTaheny, TedTakai, Representative MarkTam, PauletteTan, CandiceTang, RockTanioka, EarlTanji, AlexTaylor, MarkTellander, RobertTeller, SuzanneTeshimaThomas, Robert Tiedge, Daniel

Timpson, SteveTokiokaTokishi, JamesTom, BarbaraTomihama, BeatriceTomita, LTorres, DouglasToyama, MatthewTravaglio, BartTse, PaulTsumoto, KennethTuia, VeronicaUbersax, RichardUechi, MikeUltraSystems, Betsy A. LindsayUniversity of Hawai'i, GillmarUniversity of Hawai'i, MinnaiiUniversity of Hawai'i, Rappavan der Leest, MarkVaspra, StevenWaik$k$ Improvement Association, EggedWard, RobertWarren, MaryWasnich, RichardWatson, MaxWebb, RobertWebster, ClaudiaWeissmann, DanWerner, SusanWickens, AlanWicko#Widder, Arnold

Willson, CEWilson, ScottWithington Jr., LeonardWong, RobertWong, TarynWong, ThomasWood, BettyWright, E. AlveyYamaguchi, MichelleYamasaki, EarlYoshida, Kenneth


Topic Page(s) appear onAAcquisitions, Displacements, and Relocations

1-4, 4-9, 4-26, 4-38, 4-40, 4-41, 4-42, 4-47, 4-48 4-230;

5-37; 8-19

Act 247 2-1

Advancing Major Transit Investments through Planning and Project Development

4-9, 4-55, 4-113, 4-202, 4-206,

air quality 4-216; 4-235

Aloha Stadium 2-4, 2-9, 2-32; 3-33, 3-40, 3-50, 3-63, 3-66; 4-36, 4-40,4-47,

4-77, 4-94, 4-98, 4-107, 4-220; 5-2; 5-14 to 17, 5-50, 5-58, 5-70

Alternatives Analysis 1-4; 2-1, 2-4; 4-173; 5-5

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

2-29;4-50; 8-25

at-grade 2-2, 2-4, 2-6, 2-24; 4-209; 8-11

Bbalanced cantilever construction 3-68

best management practice (BMP) 4-146, 4-201, 4-203

bicycle 1-16; 2-43; 3-8, 3-15, 3-26, 3-28, 3-45, 3-59, 3-70, 3-74

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

CCapital funding 6-3, 6-6; 7-7

City and County of Honolulu General Plan

1-6; 4-11, 4-14

Coastal View Study 4-60, 4-103

commercial space 4-11, 4-26

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980(CERCLA)

4-126

contamination 4-127, 4-168, 4-199

Index

Topic Page(s) appear oncooperating agency 8-2 to 8-3

crime 2-30, 4-44

EE Noa Corporation 3-13

employment 1-6, 1-9, 1-20

Executive Order 12898 4-48, 4-55; 8-24

extensions 2-24, 2-46; 3-2, 3-75; 4-213, 4-219, 4-228; 8-12

`Ewa Development Plan 1-6, 1-12, 1-22; 4-11, 4-21, 4-215, 4-219 to 220

FFederal Aviation Administration (FAA)

2-23; 6-6

freight 3-25, 3-52, 3-69, 3-72

funding 1-3; 2-11, 2-13; 3-35; 6-3

GGeneral Use and Excise Tax Surcharge

1-4; 6-3

goals 1-21, 1-23

HHawai`i Department of Transpor-tation (HDOT)

1-16; 2-23;4-9; 8-18

hazardous waste, see waste 4-125, 4-130

high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) 1-13, 1-17 to 19; 3-18, 3-34; 8-20

Honolulu Area Rail Rapid Transit (HART)

1-3

Honolulu Rapid Transit and Land (HRT&L)

1-1

LLeadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)

2-45; 4-199

Index

Topic Page(s) appear onLeeward O ahu Transportation Management Association (LOTMA)

1-17; 3-7, 3-13, 3-19, 3-51

level of service (LOS) 1-1, 1-5; 2-4, 2-14, 2-46, 2-43

locally preferred alternative 4-46, 47, 53 to 56, 172; 7-5; 8-7

MMaintenance of Tra!c (MOT) Plan 3-71; 8-18

magnetic "elds 4-123

Managed Lane Alternative 2-7 to 11; 4-169; 8-19, 8-21

Mililani Trolley 3-13

Minority (race) 4-48

Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) 4-111

mobility 1-21; 2-9, 2-14; 7-2

NNational Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)

4-109

New Starts 2-2; 3-4, 3-36; 6-4, 6-12; 7-7

Nimitz Flyover Project 2-9

Notice of Availability 8-6, 8-9

Notice of Intent 1-4 to 5; 2-14 to 15; 8-6 to 7

OO ahu Metropolitan Planning Organization (O ahuMPO)

1-3; 2-4; 3-5; 4-49; 6-3

O ahu Railway and Land Company (OR&L)

1-1

O ahu Regional Transportation Plan 2030 (ORTP)

1-3, 1-21; 2-4; 3-5; 4-14; 7-2

O ahu Trans 2K Islandwide Mobility Concept Plan

1-3

O ahu Transit Services, Inc. 1-16

O ahu Transportation Study 1-3

operating and maintenance (O&M) 6-3, 6-7, 6-10; 7-8

operating parameters 2-28

Topic Page(s) appear onPpark-and-ride 2-24, 2-44; 3-12, 3-45, 3-50,

3-68, 3-73; 4-59, 4-121, 4-157, 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;

4-38; 5-15, 5-19; 7-6; 8-10, 8-13

e#ect on existing supply 3-62, 3-69; 5-26, 5-65; 7-6; 8-13

spillover 3-48, 3-62, 3-72; 8-13

participating agency 8-2

pedestrian 1-16; 2-41; 3-25, 3-46, 3-58, 3-66, 3-69; 4-202; 5-39

phasing 2-43, 2-46; 4-200; 6-11

construction 3-73; 8-18

poverty 4-49

preliminary engineering (PE) 2-41; 5-6; 7-9

Preliminary Engineering and Evaluation Program (PEEP) I & II

1-3

Primary Corridor Transportation Project

1-3; 2-4

Primary Urban Center (PUC) Development Plan

1-6; 4-12, 4-66, 4-226; 8-16

public

involvement plan (PIP) 4-199; 8-2

opposition 1-3; 4-59

outreach 2-41; 3-70; 4-49, 4-58, 4-199; 8-2

purpose of the project 1-21

Rreverse commute 3-10, 3-31

ridership 2-29; 3-5, 3-12, 3-14, 3-40, 3-43, 3-58; 6-7, 6-13; 7-3; 8-12

risks 6-6, 6-10

Ssafety 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


Topic Page(s) appear onState Historic Preservation Division 2-7; 4-10

study area (corridor) 1-1, 1-5, 1-15

Ttechnology 2-16, 2-30; 8-11

temporary use 5-4

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

4-48

TheBoat 3-11

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 Concept Plan

1-3

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 (TMP)

3-64, 3-67, 3-70; 8-18

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

UUniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act.

3-54, 3-62; 4-26, 4-40, 4-58; 7-6; 8-13

utilities 4-28, 4-37, 4-41, 4-202, 4-211,

Vvehicle 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

Topic Page(s) appear onvehicle miles traveled (VMT) 2-8; 3-9, 3-28; 7-2

vehicle maintenance and storage facility

2-42, 2-46; 3-51, 3-63; 4-115, 4-197

visitors 1-9, 1-12, 1-21; 3-26, 3-39

Wwaste, see also hazardous waste 4-125, 4-130

water 2-13; 4-141, 4-231

groundwater 4-146, 4-206, 4-209 to 210

Index


www.honolulutransit.org • [email protected] • (808) 566-2299

Final EIS Part 5

Business

Transcript of Final EIS Part 5