Superferry shut down for good

[Bob Orts]

quote:

---

Originally posted by bystander

What you say may be true but is it not an analysis of the environmental or economic impact the superferry will have and not the impact of not having it?

---

Yes and no. An EIS is normally prepared for a project that is not operating. Example, the EIS for the TMT talks about the potential economic impact, the potential job creation, the potential this and that and the potential impact on environmental.... In the case of the HSF, the operation was in operation and all the guessing in many areas is now known. So they don't talk potentials, they can talk actuals. This presents a unique problem that in most EIS many people can challenge the results and assumptions, but the HSF already has hard data so it's very hard to challenge what is now known.

As for HRS 343, that is the state law that governs the requirement for an EIS, but HAR spells out all the details of the EIS, what, when, how, who, where, include this, don't include that, what criteria to use on presenting this or that, etc.

As for the FAQ, that was written a year ago based on Act 2 and any alterations from HRS 343, but since Act 2 is now invalid, any alterations to 343 are also invalid and don't apply. So if Act 2 created an expedited EIS that left out some items, the court ruling basically threw those changes out as well.

Although I personally favor the Superferry, if the courts said Act 2 was unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional.