Major steps will come swiftly over the next few months as the city moves closer to breaking ground on the $5.4 billion mass transit project in December, assuming the project won't encounter any environmental hurdles.

The circumstances surrounding the Hawaii Superferry and Honolulu's elevated commuter train are vastly different, but there are similarities in the potential for pitfalls.

Unlike the Superferry, the city has done an environmental impact study. However, the formalities of an environmental impact study can sink a project — even one that has public and political backing.

Under the city's timeline, federal approval of the project's environmental impact statement is expected in late August.

Also ahead, the city is searching for firms to build the elevated guideway and install and operate the trains that will traverse the 20-mile route from East Kapolei to Ala Moana Center. And during the next year, plans are to sell nearly $1 billion in bonds and hire 44 more people to support the mass transit project.

It's a timetable that assumes the massive public works project will clear any environmental hurdles.

'WHAT'S THE RUSH?'

However, there are concerns the city is moving too quickly without final approval of its environmental impact study.

"It's disappointing and I think we're taking risks with a project that's too expensive to mess up," said City Council member Duke Bainium. "What's the rush?

"The rush, rush, rush, rush is more likely to play into the hands of those that want to stop rail right in its tracks. If you don't do it right now, you're going to pay later."

If the city's aggressive approach works, construction on the transit project could start sooner and cost less.

However, the city could pay more later if a lengthy environmental review drags on, delaying the project and possibly leading to added bond interest, salary and other costs.

In the case of the Superferry, officials for the interisland transit service sought to avoid conducting an environmental impact study. State lawmakers later passed a law allowing Superferry to operate during an environmental review, but the company was forced to suspend operations indefinitely after that law was deemed unconstitutional by the state Supreme Court.

Although the city has done an environmental impact study, in recent months several groups — ranging from the Environmental Protection Agency, Kamehameha Schools and the American Institute of Architects — have expressed concerns that it was inadequate. Part of the concern is whether the city adequately explored potentially cheaper options such as an at-grade train system. Additionally, three government agencies — the U.S. District Court, the U.S. Marshal for the District of Hawai'i and the U.S. General Services Administration — have asked the city to alter the train's route to avoid the Prince Kuhio Federal Building for security reasons.

LEARNING LESSONS

City officials have been quick to dismiss concerns and maintain that the project isn't likely to encounter obstacles that could prevent construction from starting late this year.

City Council Chairman Todd Apo defended the city's decision to assume that no environmental issues will delay the project.

"You've got to follow the law obviously, but you've got to be prepared," he said. "No one runs these projects in series where you wait for everything to be done in step one and then start step two. Clearly we're not going to attempt to start construction or anything we shouldn't ahead of the (environmental impact statement) being completed."

Council member Charles Djou acknowledged that the circumstances surrounding the Superferry and train projects aren't comparable. Still, the Superferry situation shows that an environmental impact study cannot be treated as a formality.

"I don't think the city is learning any lessons from the whole Superferry fiasco and unfortunately may be doomed to repeat it," Djou said. "The Hawai'i state Supreme Court has made it very clear that environmental review is not to be rushed. Trying to push things through without very careful and deliberate environmental review is going to get shut down by the courts. I think the lesson to be learned by the rail system from the Superferry is that you've got to do the environmental review carefully deliberately and not rush things."

MOVING FORWARD

Steps being taken to expedite the train project include:

• Soliciting bids for a $550 million to $600 million contract for construction of the elevated guideway.

• Soliciting bids for a 13-year contract to buy, operate and maintain the trains.

• Including nearly $7 million in salary for 79 city rail-related jobs in next year's budget.

• Issuing nearly $917 million in rail-related bonds, which is included in the budget for the next fiscal year starting July 1.

The city's timetable also means starting construction on the project nearly two years before $1.4 billion in federal funds are secured. Until then the project will be funded nearly entirely by a general excise tax surcharge.

Council member Romy Cachola raised concerns about the city's timetable during last week's City Council meeting.

"If we start in 2009, we haven't really applied for a full funding grant agreement, and you start breaking ground. Why are you doing that?" Cachola asked city transportation Director Wayne Yoshioka.

Yoshioka indicated that the timetable is partially dictated by concerns that the state may attempt to take money the city needs to build the train.

"Time is of the essence," he said to Cachola. "Right now we're collecting the (excise tax) money. It's clear that if the money stays unused, it can be taken for other purposes by other entities."

Yoshioka said the city's plans were made in coordination with the Federal Transit Administration. City officials have said the FTA has essentially guaranteed that it will give Honolulu $1 billion or more to help pay for the train.

"They're fully aware of what we are doing and they're on board with what we're doing, so it's not like we're taking a procedure that's independent of the FTA," Yoshioka said.

SEEKING MOMENTUM

The sooner the city starts construction, the less likely that political and public support for the project will breakdown, said council member Gary Okino. Changes in priorities and political will killed Honolulu's last two efforts to build major new mass-transit systems in 1982 and 1992.

"Once you start (construction), it's hard to stop," Okino said. "I think it's a fairly low risk to take in exchange for an expedited process. We just need to get this on the ground a soon as we can."

That attitude has fueled concerns that the city is rushing to start construction at the expense of doing the project in the most financially prudent way. Council member Bainum and groups such as the American Architects Association are asking the city to reconsider critical and costly decisions such as building the train on an elevated guideway. However, attempts to revisit such issues have been characterized by some rail proponents as an effort to delay and possibly kill the project.

"That mantra is being used to ram this through at a pace that is unsafe," Bainum said. "We're not (trying to kill the project), we're trying to do a project that's going to protect the environment and protect our pocketbooks for generations to come. We've been waiting 20-something years" for rail transit, Bainum added. "What's the harm in waiting a couple months?"

Okino, chairman of the council's Transportation and Planning Committee, and Apo said there's no need to rehash prior decisions such as whether the system should be built at ground level or on an elevated guideway.

"A lot of those so-called issues that people want to reexamine, they've been look- ed at," Apo said. "They're not new. If there's something brand new that didn't get dealt with I am more than happy to take a look at it (but) we can't just relook at it because some people want to relook at it.

"Doing it right doesn't mean everyone's going to agree that is the absolutely best way to do it. You're never going to reach that point."