Numerous studies done on and about the Honolulu rail project have all reached the same

conclusion: at-grade light rail cannot deliver fast, frequent, safe, and reliable transit service for
Oahu. This is the primary reason why the Honolulu City Council, after carefully considering all
the options, chose a grade-separated system for Honolulu.

The Federal Transit Administration reviewed all of the Citys research and independently
validated the grade-separated plans. In contrast, the Honolulu Transit Task Force (HTTF) paper
does not take into account the numerous engineering studies, technical reports and reviews
conducted for the grade-separated system. We are also confident the paper was developed
without the professional engineering and transit industry expertise to guide the development
of its recommendations.

The simple fact of the matter is at-grade rail is not the best transit solution for Honolulu. Some
of the reasons for that are included below.

A partially at-grade alternative is in fact not cheaper than an elevated system. This issue has
been discussed throughout the Alternatives Analsysis phase of the project. HTTFs conclusions
understate building costs and do not address basic issues with at-grade systems, such as
increased construction impacts, increased traffic impact, reduced operational safety, slower
train speed, reduced operational efficiency and lower ridership capacity. Further, the
disruption to communities during construction is neither minimized nor avoidable.

Building an at-grade rail would not be as inexpensive as the HTTF report touts. Based on a
realistic assessment of construction costs of new at-grade systems like Phoenix, the true
building cost of the proposed system is hundreds of millions of dollars more than indicated by
HTTF. A major flaw in the HTTF paper is using 2008 mainland construction costs as the basis of
its cost projections, instead using current (2016) Hawaii construction costs. It should be noted
that 2008 was the start of the recession when construction costs and indices were nearing their
lowest levels within a typical construction cycle, whereas Hawaii is currently near the top of the
current construction cycle, when costs are typically at their highest. If the papers authors
intend to compare construction costs, they should compare apples to apples and use current
costs when pricing similar types of work to avoid misleading comparisons.

In addition, the report is incorrect about long-term operating costs. An at-grade light rail
system is actually more expensive to operate and maintain that an elevated system because it
is slower and needs more trains to match capacity, not to mention the additional labor costs for
its drivers and operators, which are largely absent in the citys fully automated system. Labor
costs are significantly lower for a driverless automated system, which can only be implemented
as an elevated, grade-separated system. This is important when considering that the rail
system will last for decades.

Along with the higher operating costs, at-grade rail will have far more significant negative
impacts than portrayed in the HTTF paper. For example, creating an at-grade train route would
require digging a trench in the road approximately 30 feet wide to accommodate the tracks and
anywhere from 2 or 3 to 7 feet deep on Dillingham Boulevard, through Downtown Honolulu,
and other streets in Kakaako, some of the most heavily traveled roadways on the island, so
that utilities could be relocated.

The utility relocation costs would be comparable, but the disruption caused by work on an at-
grade system would severely affect archeological and cultural resources because of the more
extensive area that would have to be excavated and disturbed. Potential burial sites and
cultural artifacts are most often found at depths of 5 feet or less. This means a larger area of
archeological resources along the route would likely be impacted by a rail system running at
ground level than one that is elevated, in which the excavation is limited to 8-foot diameter
columns every 100 feet or more along the route.

The negative impacts of at-grade rail would also be felt by those who drive, because the train
system would take two lanes of traffic imagine that on Dillingham Blvd. and other streets in
Downtown -- and a 240-foot train would block the side streets and intersections when stopped.
At grade rail operations may eliminate cross-road traffic circulation at many key locations and,
if feasible, will require significant costs for safety crossings of the rail tracks. Taking traffic lanes
from cars and trucks will only increase congestion.

The most obvious impact on the rail operations and effectiveness of rail as a transportation
solution is that at-grade trains would be as slow as the traffic. Trains would be stuck in the
same congestion as cars and trucks and buses and would be stopped at the same red lights and
have to wait for the same pedestrians to cross the street. And trains would wait behind cars
making turns therefore reducing any incentive for people to choose rail or bus transit over
driving their cars

It should also be noted that the current HART rail car fleet is designed specifically for third rail
technology to power the system and conversion to an overhead catenary system would require
either a new procurement or a prohibitively expensive retrofitting of the cars that have been
delivered and are in productions.

Safety is another issue that is under reported. Phoenixs Valley Metro ground-level rail system
had more than 20 vehicle-train collisions in its first six months. In Seattle, the at-grade systems
in Sodo and Rainier Valley, which began service in 2009, have seen 51 Link-involved crashes,
including 8 fatalities, the most recent just late last month. Each red light is an opportunity for a
driver to make a turn and hit a train.