The public needs to watch carefully as the final Environmental Impact Statement on Honolulu's planned elevated rail system arrives on Gov. Linda Lingle's desk — its last stop locally before moving on for the final federal review.

At this stage, the governor should give a careful review to the information compiled about the environmental impacts and whether concerns raised by the public have been clearly addressed. That's the scope of her job and how the process works.

What's distressing is that even before the EIS arrives — which could be months away — the rhetoric between state and city officials suggests the governor wants to go back over old ground and old issues that already have been adequately covered and reviewed by all government levels, including her own administration.

"I will not rubber-stamp the document," Lingle said in a radio interview. "It will not be a quick, couple days turnaround."

Fair enough. A mammoth document like this EIS deserves the governor's careful review.

But the governor should also avoid lengthy, pointless delays. The draft has been out for a year, and her own agencies have gone over it, submitting comments on key focus areas — transportation engineering and historic preservation among them. They've done the heavy lifting of a substantive review, and Lingle should rely on their expertise rather than start over.

The governor has also voiced her concern over the financial plan, already vetted by the Federal Transit Administration, which holds the prospect for federal funding in its hands. The plan also received thumbs-up from a local Business Roundtable panel, which was impressed by its fiscal prudence and allowances for funding and cost variations. What exactly, then, is the problem?

Lingle points to shortfalls in tax collections. However, allowances have been made for that and for changes in construction costs — which currently are expected to decrease, at least in the immediate term. And the state for years has been banking part of the tax collected to finance the rail.

The governor also has suggested that an at-grade system could more easily fit the current fiscal constraints. But there are shortcomings with this design that make it less suitable for Honolulu.

For starters, there's the lack of alternative routes to accommodate traffic displaced by the trains; the stops at intersections also would bottleneck traffic in town and bog down the train schedule, making it less efficient and driving down ridership.

All of this was covered at the city's earlier planning stage and need not be revisited by the EIS. City planners say the FTA has indicated the alternatives covered, the no-build option and variations of the airport and Salt Lake alignments, are sufficient.

There is good reason for the governor to apply due diligence to numerous environmental and cultural concerns. Just to name one: How should city builders approach Hawaiian burials sure to be unearthed? Lingle should make sure there's been the proper consultation to arrive at the best plan so that construction can go smoothly.

The entire state is in deep financial distress, and the rail project promises critical economic stimulus and jobs in the near term and a much-needed improvement in public transportation in the long run.

It should be a win-win for the city and for the state as a whole. The people elected to serve the taxpayers' interest need to keep their focus on delivering a well-planned and carefully executed improvement to Honolulu that in the end will benefit all of Hawai'i.