01551754

Component

Following several decades of controversy relating to planning for an elevated transit system in Honolulu, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) issued a Record of Decision (ROD) in January 2011 for a 20-mile system cutting through the spine of the city’s major urbanized corridor. Construction commenced soon thereafter but opponents of the project filed two lawsuits against the FTA and the City & County of Honolulu, one in Federal and the other in State Court. The plaintiffs in the federal case challenged the project claiming inadequate environmental documentation as prescribed by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), consideration of historic and recreational resources covered by Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, and the Section 106 provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 pertaining to the validity of programmatic agreements. Among other claims, the plaintiffs questioned the specification of the project’s purpose and need, the alternatives analysis process employed to screen technology and alignment alternatives, issues associated with the segmentation of the project into phases, and identification of native burial sites and traditional cultural properties. The federal court found the defendants in violation of federal law in three counts and prescribed remedial actions to address them. A supplemental EIS became necessary. At the same time, legal action was taken by different plaintiffs in State Court challenging the validity of the project’s segmented archaeological inventory study (AIS) vis-à-vis the requirements of state law. This case reached the Hawaii Supreme Court which issued a unanimous decision to halt construction until completion of an acceptable AIS. Addressing the orders associated with the two legal decisions resulted in a project delay of approximately one year. This paper presents a brief history of the planning for a high capacity transit corridor in Honolulu over a period of about forty years and specifically discusses the major issues that were adjudicated in the two lawsuits. The study documents one particular case and, even though no two major transit investment efforts would be expected to traverse identical paths, there are lessons to be drawn from the accumulation of individual experiences. Two specific decisions of the Federal Court in the case at hand carry national implications respecting the planning for federally funded transportation improvements.

This paper was sponsored by TRB committee ADC10 Environmental Analysis in Transportation.

01550057

15-0558

English

12p

2015

Transportation Research Board 94th Annual Meeting

Digital/other

References

Case studies; Environmental policy; Environmental protection; Historic preservation; Laws and legislation; Transportation planning; Urban transit

Honolulu (Hawaii)

Planning and Forecasting; Public Transportation; I72: Traffic and Transport Planning

Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting 2015 Paper #15-0558

TRIS, TRB, ATRI

Dec 30 2014 12:17PM