LOS ANGELES -- A federal judge rendered a split decision in an environmental lawsuit brought against Honolulu’s $5.2 billion elevated rail project, allowing both sides to declare a win.
In the ruling handed down Thursday by 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Judge A. Wallace Tashima, he found that officials had fully studied alternatives to elevated rail.
But the judge criticized rail officials for what he called a “capricious” decision to move forward on the project before completing an archaeological study designed to insure native Hawaiian burial sites remain intact. He added that city officials had sufficiently assessed harm that rail station-induced growth could cause to historic sites near rail stations.
The judge also ruled that the city did not adequately consider building a Beretania Street tunnel as part of an alternative to a rail line or constructively include Mother Waldron Park in the project.
Tashima did not order a halt to construction, but he did say an injunction may be appropriate in the case. He asked that both sides submit arguments by the end of the month as to whether the project should continue or be stopped.
A hearing has been scheduled for Dec. 12.
The judge’s ruling on the archaeological study mirrored a Hawaii Supreme Court ruling made on Aug. 24.
The State Historic Preservation Division had approved a proposal by the Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation to split the archaeological study on the rail project into four segments. This allowed HART to begin construction on stretches of the 20-mile rail route where the study had been completed.
When the Supreme Court ruled against segmentation of the study it largely shut down construction on the project, which had just begun in March.
In saying that officials fully considered alternatives to rail in the environmental impact statement, it struck a blow against a bus rapid transit program being pushed by anti-rail mayoral candidate and former governor Ben Cayetano, a plaintiff in the lawsuit.
“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,” Daniel Grabuaskas, HART’s executive director and chief executive officer said in a statement. “We are pleased to see that the judge ruled in favor of the city on 20 of the 23 remaining issues, and flatly rejected the vast majority of the plaintiff’s claims.”
He added that HART officials will be carefully examining the ruling to determine what further course of action is needed.
