He had found in June that the original assessment – which had led to a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) was inadequate.

The new assessment is to say whether impacts from harbor changes in the 2025 master plan are significant enough "that an environmental impact statement would be required."

It sounded tantalizingly close to what plaintiffs have been seeking – an EIS on the Hawaii Superferry. But it was not quite that.

August said he was not telling the department what new information to use, but he supposed a large part of it would be a study by traffic expert Dick Kaku for the 2030 master plan.

Kaku spent hours on the witness stand Thursday, explaining his analysis of what happens when Superferry traffic is added to the streets around the harbor. He forecast no change in level of service at 14 intersections he studied.

Plaintiffs Kahului Harbor Coalition and Maui Tomorrow Foundation did not get a chance to present their witnesses. That will come when the evidentiary hearing resumes at 9:30 a.m. Aug. 22 – one day before the same lawyers will go to Honolulu to argue an appeal of a related case at the Hawaii Supreme Court.

Sometime around that same date, the ferry will make its first commercial run.

August said he wanted to move quickly so that any requirement for mitigation measures, if ordered, will not be "too burdensome" to any members of the community, which includes both the Department of Transportation and the people who use Kaahumanu and Puunene avenues every day.

There's no question that ferry traffic will increase the total flow in the area. According to Kaku's analysis, for some movements at the Puunene-Kaahumanu intersection, the number of cars passing in the "peak mid-morning" hour will be twice or even thrice what is experienced now.

However, he said, even that will not reduce the level of service at any intersection below LOS D.

His firm has done two studies for the county's long range traffic plans, and the county has decided, he said, that LOS D is acceptable. LOS E is not.

There are differences in definition of LOS, but the one he was using makes this distinction: At LOS D, a motorist will not have to wait more than one traffic signal cycle more than 50 percent of the time; at LOS E, it would happen 70 percent of the time.

It was not stated, but testimony implied that if Superferry had stuck to its original schedule, its traffic would have driven LOS down to E when it overlapped with the midday peak.

By bringing the vessel in a little earlier (it will be moored between 9:30 and 11 a.m.), the ferry misses the early and midday peaks.

Kaku concluded that the capacity of all the intersections is great enough that, even without mitigation, acceptable levels of service can be maintained.

Later, Deputy Corporation Counsel Jane Lovell asked him whether he really meant that no mitigation is required.

That's right, Kaku said.

Lawyer Isaac Hall, representing the plaintiffs, read from Kaku's report showing that numerous movements would be at LOS E with the addition of Superferry traffic.

Kaku said that is the finding if no changes are made to the timing of the green lights. Adjust them more equally, and LOS D will be maintained.

August asked whether making the green longer for traffic exiting the harbor wouldn't necessarily make it shorter for traffic along Kaahumanu.

Certainly, said Kaku, but as a matter of equal access for all, it would keep all 12 movements within county standards. (The 12 movements are left, straight or right at each of the four entrances to the intersection.)

Kaku said his analysis was for the maximum possible ferry load: 282 cars aboard and an estimated 39 vehicles bringing in walk-on passengers.

Earlier, Hawaii Superferry President John Garibaldi had testified that the business planning calls for much smaller loads: an average of 110 cars (or truck equivalents) on a typical weekday, and an average maximum of 153.

Kaku said the numbers he used represented an impact "everyone feels is unlikely to occur ever."

"Don't tell that to the investors," said August.

Even though Kaku did not feel any mitigation will be needed just because of the ferry, August asked him if it would help to use some sort of automatic light monitoring system. This would extend or contract the green period, depending on real-time observation of traffic, instead of setting the timing according to a model based on a survey.

Such systems are available, said Kaku, "if you are willing to spend the money."

Much of Garibaldi's testimony concerned the internal arrangements for traffic in Superferry's section of the harbor.

The significance of this was what Superferry managers always call "the infamous bridge" – a new bridge over a small drainage channel that was built as part of the 2025 master plan improvements.

The Department of Transportation has completed its 2025 plan and is now preparing an EIS for the 2030 changes. If the plaintiffs can get the court to revoke, delay, suspend or otherwise reject Superferry's use of the 2025 improvements, then it would not be able to use the new bridge.