If you have concerns about the city's proposed rail system or favor one route over another, now is the time to have your say.

Public comments on rail transit's recently released Draft Environmental Impact Statement will be accepted until Jan. 7 either in writing, online or through a series of five public hearings that begin tomorrow.

The 400-page report considers three routes — ranging from 19 to 25 miles — plus the potential economic and environmental effects of not building the rail system at all, an option known as the "No Build Alternative."

"Having read what the impacts are on each of the routes, people can have some educated say on the route they might prefer," said city spokesman Bill Brennan.

Cliff Slater of Stop Rail Now said the public comment period focuses on the wrong issue: Which route the system will take.

"Our problem is traffic congestion," said Slater, who noted that the draft EIS concludes rail would cut traffic by only 1 percent. "You can't solve traffic congestion problems with public transportation."

An effective and flexible solution to congestion, he said, would be toll lanes that operate alongside existing traffic lanes.

However, O'ahu voters approved a steel-on-steel rail system in the Nov. 4 election.

Panos Prevedouros, an opponent of rail and one of Mayor Mufi Hannemann's opponents in the primary election, said he will not testify at the hearings.

"I've wasted enough time," Prevedouros said. "Speaking to the city administration does not change anything. And right now, those are the people who run those meetings."

He said he couldn't imagine a worse time than now to burden local taxpayers with the most expensive project in Hawai'i's history. Ultimately, he said, the global financial crisis will dictate the fate of rail transit.

"The rail system will collapse under its own weight," he said. "It's simply too much money for too little benefit. This thing costs on the order of $5 billion."

Brennan disagreed. Rail would keep money circulating on O'ahu when it's most needed, he said, by providing jobs and bringing federal money into the local economy.

"My feeling is that rail is a good idea in good economic times, and it's even a better idea in bad economic times," he said.

In early 2007, after much controversy and debate, the City Council selected a transit route along Salt Lake Boulevard.

However, some council members now favor switching to a route by Honolulu International Airport — a plan originally supported by Hannemann. Hannemann has said he could go along with any route the council chooses because each will achieve the intended purpose.

That purpose, according to the Draft EIS report, is to "provide faster, more reliable public transportation service than can be achieved with buses operating in congested mixed-flow traffic."

The report details the pros and cons of the three proposed routes: Salt Lake Alternative, the Airport Alternative, and the Airport and Salt Lake Alternative, which includes lines to both the airport and Salt Lake.

Brennan said Hannemann was pleased by the report's findings because they showed the system would reduce traffic more than originally thought, and because the costs, while somewhat higher, are close to original estimates.

Those costs would range from $3.9 billion to $4.8 billion, with the airport alternative running some $200 million more than the Salt Lake alternative, and the combination of both alternatives costing the most.

The city is counting on Federal Transit Administration funding to get the project rolling. The FTA has agreed only to "consider" a $1.2 billion contribution for the proposed rail project, according to the report.

However, Mark Scheibe, deputy project manager for the Honolulu High Capacity Transit Corridor Project, said the agency has indicated that the project is a good candidate for federal funding.

"As noted in the draft EIS, FTA is comfortable with our assuming $1.2 billion in federal funds," Scheibe said. "The project needs to pass additional milestones before FTA can make a commitment of funds."

The report sets out existing and future conditions of a rail transit system "planning horizon" through 2030. Based on many variables, it concludes that under the No Build Alternative, "transit service would experience somewhat slower operating speeds and reduced reliability."

The study also said that although measures would mitigate negative effects, parts of the rail system would be "out of scale or character with their setting."

"The permanent destruction of sub-surface resources, including filled fishponds, filled/covered terraces, enclosures, shrines and 'auwai (irrigation ditches) is another potential long-term impact," the report said.