Though Honolulu erected a dozen or so support pillars for the rail in the vacant fields in West Oahu last year, the project is currently on hold. Should the rail be halted at this stage, Slater said “this would be the first time a heavy rail project in the country has gotten this far along, and was stopped.”

Rail proponents and advocates across the country are watching this case closely, said Cliff Slater, founder of, who organized the federal challenge. “Recall that Judge Tashima, who is a senior circuit judge on the Ninth Circuit and some of whose brothers and sisters will be considering this appeal, heard this case in Honolulu sitting by designation, as all the local judges had recused themselves,” Schwind said. Hawaii attorney Paul Schwind said the appellants’ brief directly attacks Tashima’s reasoning. district judges recused themselves, agreed in his initial November 2012 ruling the city failed to consider traditional cultural properties, the impact of the rail on Mother Waldron Park and whether the Beretania Tunnel is an option to alleviate traffic. Ninth Circuit Court Judge Wallace Tashima, who oversaw the initial federal case after all seven of Hawaii’s U.S. Ben Cayetano, ’s Cliff Slater, UH law professor Randall Roth and Senate Minority Leader Sam Slom outside the U.S. They also claim the FTA violated federal law by approving the rail project “without identifying and evaluating potential impacts on Native Hawaiian burial sites, despite unambiguous regulatory requirements (and case law from this Court) requiring that such evaluations be completed in advance of project approval.” WAITING ON A RULING: Former Gov. The eight appellants argue the environmental impact statement prepared by the Federal Transit Administration and City of Honolulu failed to consider any alternatives to the city’s “locally-preferred” elevated heavy rail system, “despite evidence that reasonable, feasible, prudent, and less-damaging alternatives including Managed Lanes, bus rapid transit, and light rail exist.” Instead, the law requires they rigorously and objectively vet all the reasonable alternatives,” said University of Hawaii law school professor Randy Roth, one of the appellants. “From the beginning we have wanted the city to comply with the law, the environmental laws, laws designed to protect historic structures and other laws quite frankly require that they don’t just make a political decision and then rush into spending billions of dollars. They maintain, among other claims, the proposed rail would negatively impact Oahu’s historic Chinatown and downtown Honolulu districts and an area park. District Court last December, argue the rail violates the National Environmental Protection Act’s requirement to evaluate all reasonable alternatives. FTA, filed in May 2011 by eight plaintiffs, including a former governor and a retired federal judge, asks a three-judge panel to essentially put an end to Honolulu’s plans to construct a 20-mile, $5.2 billion elevated steel rail system by forcing the city to redo its costly environmental impact statement.Īppellants, who are appealing a judgment and partial injunction issued in Hawaii’s U.S. BOON OR BOONDOGGLE? Those opposed to the city’s plan to build a heavy elevated steel rail system from West Oahu to Honolulu for $5.2 billion say the project violates federal environmental protection laws.īy Malia Zimmerman – HONOLULU - A multi-billion-dollar rail system faces another legal hurdle Thursday before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. RAILROADED: Small businesses along the planned Honolulu rail route are concerned the rail construction will put them out of business.

Rail route honolulu