Opponents of the planned $5.17 billion Honolulu rail transit project alleged Wednesday that the city is stalling a federal court challenge to the project and trying to run up the rail opponents’ legal bills while the city pushes ahead with construction of the system.
A federal judge delayed action Wednesday on a lawsuit filed against the city and the Federal Transit Administration over the 20-mile rail project, and pressed the city to compile records that are needed to resolve the case.
Judge A. Wallace Tashima instructed the city and the FTA to assemble a complete record of the environmental impact statement and other studies, hearings and public comments on the project by January. That administrative record for the project will document years of work and each of the steps taken by the city and the FTA to reach this point.
Tashima noted that both sides in the case agree the court must have the complete administrative record to decide the issues raised in the lawsuit. However, the city hasn’t finished sifting through an estimated 500,000 pages of documents to compile that record.
The lawsuit was filed in May by rail critics including businessman Cliff Slater, former Hawaii Gov. Ben Cayetano, former Hawaii Democratic Party Chairman Walter Heen and University of Hawaii law professor Randall Roth. The suit asks the federal court to block construction of the rail system until a supplemental environmental impact statement is done.
The critics want the court to require that the city reconsider issues such as the route the city selected for the rail line to follow, and whether the steel-wheel-on-steel-rail system the city selected for the project is the best option. The critics argue a monorail system, rubber-tired guided vehicles or some other technology might work better for Honolulu.
Meanwhile, the rail project is advancing. The city has now spent more than $342 million in city and federal funds on the rail project, and more than $1.62 billion in contracts has been awarded to companies and consultants to design, build and operate the system.
The city is acquiring properties for the rail right-of-way, moving utility lines and conducting soils testing to prepare for more intensive construction activities next year. Construction of the foundation for the 20-mile elevated guideway is expected to begin in February.
Those activities inside and outside the courtroom led critics of the project to allege the city wants to stall the federal court case while it builds rail transit.
"It’s obvious in the courtroom that the city is doing everything possible to delay the process, to run up the bill," Slater said of the lawsuit. "They’re just going on, and on, and on to delay the process … so they can get ahead of the game, possibly rush to construction, and take advantage of the situation."
"They’re always trying to portray to everybody that this is a done deal," Slater said.
Wednesday’s court hearing was the first on issues related to the federal lawsuit, and Deputy Corporation Counsel Gary Y. Takeuchi said the city isn’t stalling.
"No, we’re interested in resolving this case as quickly as we can," Takeuchi said. "I mean, there’s no point in having these issues out there. We’d like to get them resolved, and that can only benefit the project, really, to have this litigation finalized and done."
At the same time, Takeuchi said, work on the rail project will continue.
"It’s a very big, complicated project," he said. "Things have to occur in certain sequences, and so as far as I know the intention is to proceed as planned and try to get resolution of this matter as quickly as we can."
Nicholas C. Yost, lawyer for the rail opponents, said the city has taken "an extraordinary amount of time" to compile the administrative record needed to resolve the case.
"Half a year to come up with, not an administrative record, but a promise of when the administrative record is going to be ready — that’s an awfully long time," he said.
Yost said he is ready to seek a preliminary injunction if necessary to try to halt construction while the court case is resolved.
Cayetano told reporters outside the federal courthouse that Mayor Peter Carlisle and other city officials are wrong if they believe the rail project could progress to a point where it would be unstoppable.
"The best example that you can take a look at is the Superferry, which was operating and was brought to a halt by a court ruling," Cayetano said. "Superferry is no longer with us because the court ruled against it. The question here is not how far along the project is. The question is whether they violated the law in putting this project together."
Tashima took under consideration a motion by lawyers for the city who argued that Cayetano, Roth, Heen and the Small Business Hawaii Entrepreneurial Education Foundation should be disqualified from the lawsuit because they failed to raise their concerns about rail earlier in the process.
