Hawai'i Superferry - Chapter 4

[1stwahine]

Re: Hawai'i Superferry - Chapter 4

I'll be dialing for my daughters and son-in-law. I gotta start work soon.

Good Luck to all who can get on the SF!

With the Special Price or not, My Ohana will be customers!

Auntie Lynn

[Composite 2992]

Re: Hawai'i Superferry - Chapter 4

It's all so annoying.

Spread of invasive species? Vehicles carried by barges dwarf the number of cars expected to be carried by the Superferry. Numbers of passengers moved, along with their soiled shoes, are far greater by the airlines. And the cruise ships, more than twice as large as the Superferry and carrying four times as many passengers, put a much greater burden on the harbors.

Yet only the Superferry needs to get an EIS done?

I'm not against getting things done right. But they also need to be conducted fairly and reasonably. Any controls imposed upon the Superferry must also be imposed upon all other carriers. If environmental protection is the purpose of these controls, then they must be applied to all modes of travel. No exceptions.

Otherwise, what's the purpose except to specifically prevent the Superferry from conducting its business?

[zztype]

Re: Hawai'i Superferry - Chapter 4

More power to 'em. I'll be dialing like crazy tomorrow morning trying to get on the freakin' boat!

[Sprite]

Re: Hawai'i Superferry - Chapter 4

... Ultimately, this is turning out to be a surprisingly delicious game of chess.

LOL! You're terrible! I agree that any fixes needed can be done while HSF conducts its business. I think this is the only compromise available at this point. I think Schrivener suggested this earlier also... yes, here it is...

Schrivener said, "I'm not saying no to the ferry. In fact, I think it should be allowed to proceed, with the condition that an EIS be conducted within the next X months."

This seems, to me, a reasonable and intelligent solution.

[Miulang]

Re: Hawai'i Superferry - Chapter 4

True, true. Which is why I noted that without an injunction, they're not exactly going against anything. Just public perception. And there's a lot of perceiving going on, from both sides of the debate!

When I first heard about this, I figured an injunction was inevitable, and hence the rush to service. But the more I think about it, I'm not sure. The Hawaii Supreme Court said the state should not have given Hawaii Superferry a waiver from the EIS requirement, yes?

So one, Hawaii Superferry has good faith grounds as an operator, saying, "We received the waiver and planned our launch accordingly." The screw up is the state's, and hence the state should bear most of the adverse results. So now an EIS will be required... but that doesn't necessarily preclude active use of the facility in question. Look at Makua Valley. (Er, or maybe that's a bad comparison...)

And two, a very likely outcome of an EIS would be, "More mitigation efforts needed," not, "Evil evil evil must stop immediately!" Better traffic control, more monitoring or reporting, other infrastructure improvements, and so on. These are things that can be implemented concurrent with operation, IMHO.

It's not HSF's fault for this screwup; it's really the DOT (starting with Rod Haraga and having the errors compounded by Barry Fukunaga). In many ways, I don't blame HSF for taking advantage of the situation. It's really more the fault of the DOT. And HSF still will have to comply with any EIS mitigations that either the EIS that they now promise to do as "things progress" once they have started service and/or the EIS that the DOT is doing for the Year 2030 Kahului Harbor Master Plan. And in that one, all harbor users are impacted, so the mitigations will be pretty severe for HSF unless NCL pulls out completely, because of the traffic situation. They are still liable for an EIS, whether they sail or not. No one---not HSF, the State or any of the other litigants is saying that HSF doesn't have to have an EIS done in some form or other; the issue has always been the timing. By State law, because the State provided funding for the harbor facilities, HSF does have to submit to an EIS. The next date in court for the first suit that Judge August ruled on regarding traffic mitigation will be Nov. 3 on Maui when HSF and the DOT have to present their findings.

Miulang

P.S. Here is the State law that the pro-EIS groups are using to prove their point.

§343-5 Applicability and requirements. (a) Except as otherwise provided, an environmental assessment shall be required for actions that:

(1) Propose the use of state or county lands or the use of state or county funds, other than funds to be used for feasibility or planning studies for possible future programs or projects that the agency has not approved, adopted, or funded, or funds to be used for the acquisition of unimproved real property; provided that the agency shall consider environmental factors and available alternatives in its feasibility or planning studies; provided further that an environmental assessment for proposed uses under section 205-2(d)(9) or [205-4.5(a)(13)] shall only be required pursuant to section 205-5(b);

[joshuatree]

Re: Hawai'i Superferry - Chapter 4

Its an obvious attempt to stick the finger at the court from my vantage point. Its pretty cut and dry, a EIS needs to be done before HSF can commence service. By commencing service they are breaking the law.

Hmm, you lost me. Based on this link, HSF can still sail and it is the state that has the burden of EIS. That's the reason why the anti-HSF folks said they will file an injunction. So I believe this acknowledges HSF setting sail on Sunday is legit and can't be considered a finger.

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/ar...123865497.html

[pzarquon]

Re: Hawai'i Superferry - Chapter 4

Is it really a flaunt of the courts when there is no exact order barring service? Just that an EIS needs to be done?

True, true. Which is why I noted that without an injunction, they're not exactly going against anything. Just public perception. And there's a lot of perceiving going on, from both sides of the debate!

When I first heard about this, I figured an injunction was inevitable, and hence the rush to service. But the more I think about it, I'm not sure. The Hawaii Supreme Court said the state should not have given Hawaii Superferry a waiver from the EIS requirement, yes?

So one, Hawaii Superferry has good faith grounds as an operator, saying, "We received the waiver and planned our launch accordingly." The screw up is the state's, and hence the state should bear most of the adverse results. So now an EIS will be required... but that doesn't necessarily preclude active use of the facility in question. Look at Makua Valley. (Er, or maybe that's a bad comparison...)

And two, a very likely outcome of an EIS would be, "More mitigation efforts needed," not, "Evil evil evil must stop immediately!" Better traffic control, more monitoring or reporting, other infrastructure improvements, and so on. These are things that can be implemented concurrent with operation, IMHO.

[Konaguy]

Re: Hawai'i Superferry - Chapter 4

Is it really a flaunt of the courts when there is no exact order barring service? Just that an EIS needs to be done? I think HSF is trying to demo as quickly as possible how light of a footprint they will leave with a full load, thus the cheap tix to get a full load fast.

Its an obvious attempt to stick the finger at the court from my vantage point. Its pretty cut and dry, a EIS needs to be done before HSF can commence service. By commencing service they are breaking the law.

Yes there is no injunction in place. But thats exactly my point.The courts are not open on Sunday to hear any injunction motions. Since that is the case HSF is starting service.

This all could've been avoided if the EIS was done BEFORE HSF spent the multi millions on setting up shop here. I fault the HDOT for the latter. They
exempted the HSF from doing any EIS.

[escondido100]

Re: Hawai'i Superferry - Chapter 4

i am sure that the legal eagles at SF have anticipated this ruling for some time....if they launch early as they say they will i am sure they planned fro such a move way in advance. just think of the PR nightmare for the state...the judges.... the wackos and everybody else if those first passengers with their cars are stranded on maui or kaui or oahu because of an injunction being granted on monday.......i am sure that the wackos are trying to get a judge to issue an injunction over the weekend.... there are probably precedents for this.......lets get the EIS and move forward.....there is so much political BS here that when it gets all sorted out some one will have to pay dearly...probably us....
i am also sure that the folks at SF also have plans C,D,E and F ready to go.
probably one of those plans include pulling out completely and moving it all to some other third world island nation that would welcome them with open arms...there are hundreds of places they could move...probably not without the same population base.....but they are in this business and know it well.... the superferry will succeed somwhere.....if they pull out of Hawaii....our face will be MUD for along time to come.....those of us that want the ferry and want it to be responsible here need to let our displeasure at this turn of events be known loud and clear..... i think this early launch will help them.... they have not been told they cant.....yet.

[joshuatree]

Re: Hawai'i Superferry - Chapter 4

I love this development. I hope they have a full house. I'd book a trip myself, if I didn't, you know, have to be back on Honolulu on Monday morning. Sure, it's flauting the will of the courts, but... hey, there's no injunction yet. Ultimately, this is turning out to be a surprisingly delicious game of chess.

Is it really a flaunt of the courts when there is no exact order barring service? Just that an EIS needs to be done? I think HSF is trying to demo as quickly as possible how light of a footprint they will leave with a full load, thus the cheap tix to get a full load fast.

[pzarquon]

Re: Hawai'i Superferry - Chapter 4

I love this development. I hope they have a full house. I'd book a trip myself, if I didn't, you know, have to be back on Honolulu on Monday morning. Sure, it's flauting the will of the courts, but... hey, there's no injunction yet. Ultimately, this is turning out to be a surprisingly delicious game of chess.

[Konaguy]

Re: Hawai'i Superferry - Chapter 4

Our own Mel had a guest editorial published on Hawaii Reporter in regards to HSF.

"The environmental groups and many individuals from as far away as Seattle and beyond are probably gloating over this decision on the false pretense of saving whales and turtles, preventing the spread of invasive species, drug trafficking, and congestion. Hawaii Superferry addressed these issues yet they still insisted on having an EIS done."

[Sprite]

Re: Hawai'i Superferry - Chapter 4

And flying pigs too!
Talk about a shocker. Sheesh.

But you said above that you hadn't been paying attention. HSF has shown a huge and beyond-the-norm concern. You're just not aware of it.

Yes, Hawai`i looks really really stoopid today in the eyes of the world.

No, I meant that I was puzzled by the apparent lack of concern on the part of the environmentalists. But, as you said, they probably were aware that HSF had already been looking into this. Now I don't know why they didn't just say so when about four or five people asked about it. Irrelevant, just an observation.

Ditto on the last remark. Sigh. Thank you much, LikaNui, that's just what I wanted this morning -- enlightenment! I just haven't been able to get back here until now. Sorry.

This evening, KHON's evening news said that HSF is pushing up their journey two days to beat the court filing to stop them. The saga continues. Is that going to be Chapter 5?

[joshuatree]

Re: Hawai'i Superferry - Chapter 4

You could look at it that way, or you could say that this is the "dry run" that HSF needs to either make or break them. But this reminds me of another renegade businessman in the transportation industry who came to Hawai'i last year...

There is also still the matter of the Judge August ruling in which the DOT has to make some traffic mitigation changes on Maui before he will allow HSF to dock at Kahului Harbor. I haven't seen anything in the press yet to say that that one isn't still valid. And this one really has very little to do with HSF...it's all about the State DOT not doing enough to mitigate the traffic situation. (See the traffic study done in Nov. 2006 by CH2M Hill for HSF in post #484).

Miulang

How is it a dry run when it's paying passengers? Sure, the fare is cheap but it's still an actual run. I really don't see what's to worry with traffic, if you check the specials, they've limited it to 150 vehicles and it's 150 for both Maui and Kauai. I get the feeling that some people simply can't be happy that perhaps cheaper means of transportation is available for the masses?

[Miulang]

Re: Hawai'i Superferry - Chapter 4

I find this attempt by HSF to jump the gun by starting service before the environmentalists can file their legal motions very questionable. Its like they are trying the flaunt the decision made by the Hawaii Supreme Court.

You could look at it that way, or you could say that this is the "dry run" that HSF needs to either make or break them. But this reminds me of another renegade businessman in the transportation industry who came to Hawai'i last year...

There is also still the matter of the Judge August ruling in which the DOT has to make some traffic mitigation changes on Maui before he will allow HSF to dock at Kahului Harbor. I haven't seen anything in the press yet to say that that one isn't still valid. And this one really has very little to do with HSF...it's all about the State DOT not doing enough to mitigate the traffic situation. (See the traffic study done in Nov. 2006 by CH2M Hill for HSF in post #484).

Miulang