Honolulu: Transportation info and development

[Mr Downtown]

Um, you guys do know that the project has been halted, right?


Thursday, November 1st, 2012 | Posted by Hawaii Reporter

Honolulu’s Controversial Rail Project is Derailed in Federal Court
Honolulu’s controversial rail project has been derailed in federal court. This after Ninth Circuit Court Judge Wallace Tashima ruled today in HonoluluTraffic.com v. Federal Transit Administration et al that the city violated federal law on major three counts.

On December 12, the plaintiffs will return to court to ask the judge to grant a permanent injunction against the city, which could halt the rail project for good.

read full story here

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Um, you guys do know that the project has been halted, right?

From the same article.....
But the city administration is declaring a victory.
Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation CEO Dan Grabauskas said the city is pleased with the ruling because the city and FTA won on 20 of 23 counts.
Despite the plaintiffs’ assertion that the project will have to be stopped - at least until the city redoes its FEIS and ROD - Grabauskas maintains the project is still “on course.”
“On all the major issues, we have successfully shown that the project properly conducted the required analyses and environmental studies. The ruling underscores the fact that the majority of alternatives were given proper consideration, including bus rapid transit (BRT), at-grade light rail and managed lanes. We will be carefully examining the ruling to determine what further course of action is needed,” he said.
Honolulu Mayor Peter Carlisle, also one of the rail project's primary advocates, said this ruling will not stop the rail project:“This ruling does not stop the rail project that is so critical to our island’s future. In fact, the court dismissed the bulk of the plaintiffs’ accusations and upheld the project’s Environmental Impact Statement. We are confident that a reasonable remedy can address the remaining issues in a timely manner. Today’s ruling will require further analysis, but the bottom line is that the project can and should continue moving forward.”

I would suggest halted is too strong a verb, delayed is more appropriate.

[easy as pie]

they're still pouring precast forms and building off-site, everything is moving ahead. the issues raised in the lawsuit are already being addressed (like literally, hit the hart website for local meetings and things). the injunction very likely won't come and would be appealed if it does - eventually likely just forcing various government agencies and the hawaiian legislature/governor to grand waivers. you have a voter mandate, a business plan, and funding. you have oahu business and unions, a majority of residents, all of city council but one, the mayor, the leg, the governor, the entire u.s. congressional delegation, and the president of the united states - all of them behind it. you have work already underway. with that clown cayetano out of the way, this thing is a juggernaut.

[OhioGuy]

Feds sign $1.55B commitment for Honolulu rail project

Hawaii received a long-awaited $1.55 billion check from the U.S. Department of Transportation today to continue work on a commuter rail project meant to relieve some of the vexing congestion along the H-1 freeway.

“I’m proud today to seal the deal,” said Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood during a signing ceremony at the U.S. Capitol.

The project, decades in the planning, was nurtured to fruition by the late Sen. Daniel K. Inouye, who died Monday at age 88.

“This moment is an honor and a tribute to a person who has been great for the people of Hawaii and America,” said Sen. Daniel Akaka, speaking of his lifelong friend and colleague.

[bobdreamz]

^ Wow! A lot of negative rhetoric on that website from the readers in Hawaii! When the FTA commits funds I presume the funds are available already and don't need Congressional approval.
Either way congrats to Honolulu!

[OhioGuy]

Originally Posted by bobdreamz

^ Wow! A lot of negative rhetoric on that website from the readers in Hawaii! When the FTA commits funds I presume the funds are available already and don't need Congressional approval.
Either way congrats to Honolulu!

I've been following the Honolulu rail saga for several years and have consistently seen plenty of negative rhetoric online. Considering the recent election results with the pro rail rapid transit mayoral candidate winning, I suspect it's mostly from a small, but very vocal, group of people.

As for the funds, it was my understanding the money is committed. Unless the US government defaults on paying its bills, this money is locked in for constructing Honolulu's elevated rail system. Hopefully Hawaii doesn't have any extensive fiscal issues over the coming years that will make it difficult to cover the other $4 billion.

Hopefully as this line is built and people have the opportunity to ride it, they'll become even more supportive of the needed extensions to Waikiki (as it stands now, the terminus is about 2 blocks from the edge of Waikiki) and the University of Hawaii. There would be two branches after the Ala Moana Center, one going to Waikiki (probably 3 additional stations) and the other to the University of Hawaii (also probably 3 additional stations). Perhaps they could add a surcharge for any travel ending or originating in Waikiki?

[aquablue]

Does anybody feel the elevated line is ugly and not suited to a town like Honolulu?

[electricron]

Originally Posted by aquablue

Does anybody feel the elevated line is ugly and not suited to a town like Honolulu?

Not really. The soils under Honolulu are poor for building subways, so that leaves surface lines or elevated guideways. Honolulu is on a mountainous volcanic island, there really isn't a lot of vacant flat land available for transportation. Building transit above the streets makes sense.

Additionally, Hawaii has very strict laws about ancient burial grounds that are unmarked, Digging up bones is taken seriously and causes delays, the less digging you do the quicker your project gets completed.

[easy as pie]

there are other pluses too - the constant visual reminder of its presence will affect both ridership and development along the line. miami has a similar heavy rail system and it looks great slipping through the city (and parts of honolulu strike me as very miami-esque).

[aquablue]

Originally Posted by easy as pie

there are other pluses too - the constant visual reminder of its presence will affect both ridership and development along the line. miami has a similar heavy rail system and it looks great slipping through the city (and parts of honolulu strike me as very miami-esque).

I think elevated lines are usually ugly and Hon. doesn't need more concrete. Look at what they are doing to Northern Virginia and how oppressive the new metro lines look.

[eleven=11]

Originally Posted by aquablue

I think elevated lines are usually ugly and Hon. doesn't need more concrete. Look at what they are doing to Northern Virginia and how oppressive the new metro lines look.

ive been on the miami & the dc metro

miami feels like a new york/chicago subway
just with heat and lots of people that dont speak english
lots of concrete and parking lots
needs more TRD - transit related development

downtown dc is one of the best in the world
underground is very cool looking and works well
dont mind the concrete at all

hawaii has one of the best bus systems
should feed the new train well.......

[bobdreamz]

Originally Posted by easy as pie

there are other pluses too - the constant visual reminder of its presence will affect both ridership and development along the line. miami has a similar heavy rail system and it looks great slipping through the city (and parts of honolulu strike me as very miami-esque).

Miami couldn't built a subway because it's water table is high and there is no solid bedrock beneath but a porous aquifer so Miami's system is either elevated or at ground level.
How can a elevated rail line be uglier than the massive concrete highways that slice through all of our cities?

[electricron]

Originally Posted by bobdreamz

Miami couldn't built a subway because it's water table is high and there is no solid bedrock beneath but a porous aquifer so Miami's system is either elevated or at ground level.
How can a elevated rail line be uglier than the massive concrete highways that slice through all of our cities?

Miami's soil, although not the same as Honolulu, is just as poor for tunneling.
Not every city in the world is built on solid rock. I wouldn't want to be tunneling subways in Venice either.

[aquablue]

Originally Posted by bobdreamz

Miami couldn't built a subway because it's water table is high and there is no solid bedrock beneath but a porous aquifer so Miami's system is either elevated or at ground level.
How can a elevated rail line be uglier than the massive concrete highways that slice through all of our cities?

Because putting it down a major city street like they are doing in HN will negatively impact the look and feel of that street. It just doesn't look nice. The street is nice the way it is. I'm all for rail but not for disfiguring the appearance of cities. Should have gone with surface rail. I'm fine with over head lines.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by aquablue

Because putting it down a major city street like they are doing in HN will negatively impact the look and feel of that street. It just doesn't look nice. The street is nice the way it is. I'm all for rail but not for disfiguring the appearance of cities. Should have gone with surface rail. I'm fine with over head lines.

When you say "the street," which street are you talking about? The rail runs on a lot of different streets. And sometimes not on a street at all.

Let's take Dillingham Blvd. for example. The "look and feel" of that street isn't exactly a Hawaiian treasure. In fact, I'm not sure it could possibly be worse than it is today.

Surface rail would never have worked over those distances, it would've just been too slow. If you didn't want to serve west Oahu, fine, but that would sort of defeat the purpose. Which is to make future growth better than what's been built so far out there.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by aquablue

Because putting it down a major city street like they are doing in HN will negatively impact the look and feel of that street. It just doesn't look nice. The street is nice the way it is. I'm all for rail but not for disfiguring the appearance of cities. Should have gone with surface rail. I'm fine with over head lines.

Elevated tracks in Vancouver don't look that ugly. They don't look that ugly in Brooklyn, Queens, or the Bronx. Manhattan's elevated rail structure is being turned into a park. If it was ugly from street level, one would have thought it could have been torn down without difficulty. But that wasn't the case. Obviously, 10 Million plus New Yorkers disagree with you!

[easy as pie]

there must have been some sort of reason (weather?) for the heaviness of the concrete, otherwise, why wouldn't hawaii have gone for a beautiful little vancouver-style system? obviously, with the weather and cost, the pillars and platforms would be concrete, but so thick? i do agree that it's sort of ugly, but there are two major things that this line needs to accomplish: it needs to reduce traffic and it needs to spur a better sort of development outside of waikiki and downtown/chinatown. it'll be up for a century or more and it'll guide development alone its axis because it'll be a major success for moving people around. those two conditions can't really be said about a non-grade separated system in that city.

[ardecila]

Yeah, but Vancouver didn't build elevated guideways in the downtown area. Outside of downtown, there are plenty of wide highways, freight ROWs, and generous setback corridors to use.

In cities where underground construction isn't feasible, the monotonous elevated structures can become pretty awful. I hope the Honolulu system can work with the topography in some of the more mountainous sections.

[aquablue]

Originally Posted by easy as pie

there must have been some sort of reason (weather?) for the heaviness of the concrete, otherwise, why wouldn't hawaii have gone for a beautiful little vancouver-style system? obviously, with the weather and cost, the pillars and platforms would be concrete, but so thick? i do agree that it's sort of ugly, but there are two major things that this line needs to accomplish: it needs to reduce traffic and it needs to spur a better sort of development outside of waikiki and downtown/chinatown. it'll be up for a century or more and it'll guide development alone its axis because it'll be a major success for moving people around. those two conditions can't really be said about a non-grade separated system in that city.

Encouraging development in outlying areas around stations is fine, but hopefully it won't detract from more density and development happening downtown.

[OhioGuy]

Urban High: Rail Lets Honolulu Grow Up

Taller buildings aren’t just coming to Kakaako, and that's mostly thanks to rail.

New city plans call for increasing building height limits around future rail stations as a means to spur development.

In fact, some areas could see buildings as tall as 450 feet, or about 100 feet taller than the maximum current city zoning laws allow.

It’s part of Honolulu’s push for transit-oriented development, a planning principle that seeks to gentrify neighborhoods, increase density and make communities more pedestrian-friendly.

Honolulu is in the process of developing new planning and zoning rules specifically for transit-oriented development, or TOD, as it is commonly referred.

Height limits will also be increased in various areas to a maximum of 450 feet, although there are caps in specific neighborhoods that have already developed other TOD plans.

This means that in Kapolei buildings should not exceed 90 feet, but around Honolulu International Airport and Ala Moana Center, where community TOD plans have yet to be developed, buildings can soar hundreds of feet into the air so long as projects meet certain requirements.

The temporary permitting process will allow developers to work around current zoning limitations so long as their projects are within a quarter mile of a future rail station.

Developers must show that eligible projects will increase transit ridership, bolster the economy, increase affordable housing or contribute to open spaces and parkland to be considered.

One option the city may consider for the right types of projects is the removal of minimum parking requirements, saying that a “hallmark” of transit-based communities is that cars aren’t absolutely necessary. The city, however, does plan to require bicycle parking for each project that comes before it.

The city also wants to have control over the landscaping — such as by planting trees next to streets, rather than next to buildings — to make space for outdoor cafes, bicycle racks and other activities.

If developers improve the quality of open spaces and create better access to parks, this could lead to more leniency when they seek permits for their projects.