Opposition to Adoption of “Steel on Steel” Rail Technology

Citizens Against Noise of Hawaii
P. O. Box 270705 Honolulu, HI 96827
Honolulu City Council Public Hearing
Bill 80, CD1 and FD1

March 19, 2008

Testimony in Strong Opposition to Adoption of “Steel on Steel” Rail Technology

Honorable Chair Marshall and City Council Members:

Citizens Against Noise of Hawaii "CAN" asks you to carefully weigh the noise impacts
that proposed rail technologies will have on our health, quality of life, jobs and
businesses.

A study conducted for the European Union in its assessment of the impact of rail vs.
other modes of transport states that "rail transport shows a good environmental
performance except for noise costs which dominate the results for all rail transport."
We believe that noise factors were not given sufficient priority or study by the Expert
Panel when they selected "steel on steel" vs. the competing technologies. According to
the EU Study*, noise can have a damaging effect on human health by contributing to
"myocardial infarction, angina pectoris, hypertension, and sleep disturbance."
We live on an Island and many of us will never be very far from a rail line if one is built.
The rail technology decision must weigh the cost to our health and well being as well as
to our jobs and businesses, many of which depend on tourism.

According to the "Wheel/Rail Noise Control Manual" prepared by the Transportation
Research Board for the US Department of Transportation in 1997, the high-frequency
sound level of over 1,000 Hz from steel wheels on steel rails is not effectively abated by
sound barrier walls, berms, or sound absorbing materials like plants. This means that
once the decision is made to use "steel on steel" technology there will be no remedy.
Capital and operating cost efficiency and reliability are important, but the recommending
committee fell short by minimizing or ignoring socio-environmental factors and external
factors such as public health, jobs and tourism over the long term. Transportation
solution alternatives that offer, or combine, rubber tires or technologies other than “steel
on steel” offer a quieter option, but these now seem to be off the table.

Therefore in the public interest, and before any decision is made, we respectfully urge
the City Council to authorize a more thorough and meaningful study of the technology
alternatives by comparing noise mapping studies of the competing technologies in the
urban and suburban environments along the transportation corridor, from Kapolei to
Aloha Tower to Manoa. We also suggest that "tourist friendly" be one of your noise
review criteria.

This would help encourage ridership outside the commute hours, thus absorbing capital
and operating costs, and making attractions like Pearl Harbor, Hawaiian Waters and the
Pearl City and Waikele malls easier to visit.

In summary, we strongly encourage you to withhold your ratification of any technology
recommendation until a more complete study of the health and socio-economic factors
are fully weighed. Today we are at a critical crossroad, and CAN believes that newer,
quieter alternatives are better for our neighborhoods, our homes and our people than
past century/millennium retrofits.

Any new transportation system must serve Oahu for many decades to come. Please
make a wise decision with the best long term solution, in the interest of the public’s
health and welfare and for the greater public good.

Executive Board
Citizens Against Noise of Hawaii
Cliff Montgomery, President
Mark Smith, Vice-President
Michelle S. Matson, Secretary
Steven L. Montgomery, PhD, Director
Kathleen Kelly, Director
Gary Holt, Director
Michael Mueller, Director
*European Commission (2003). External costs. Research results on socio-environmental
damages due to electricity and transport.(EUR 20198). p. 9 &15.