Let’s take that further. Let’s agree that all commentaries, letters and analyses on rail signed by any one of the Gang is also Mr. Slater’s work. Why should we expect the other three to have written them? They have evidenced miniscule interest in transit issues compared to Mr. Slater, so what we see repeatedly is from Mr. Slater, with the other three “caboosed” onto the pieces for their name-recognition PR value.
Good. Now that that’s agreed, let’s move on to a key plank in Mr. Slater’s anti-rail campaign – that the city has lied to the public about rail’s effect on future congestion. He did it again yesterday in a Gang of Four commentary (subscription) that revealed once again Mr. Slater's tendency to see what he wants to see in the city’s statements about rail and why it should be built.
Here’s one example from an undated post at HonoluluTraffic that presumably was written in 2007. It links to a KITV video report on a “Traffic Sucks” city hall rally in 2005 that Mr. Slater’s website says “typifies the grossly misleading statements emanating from our elected officials.”
Watch the video and see if you can find anything misleading in Mayor Mufi Hannemann’s sound bite: ”I want the Governor to know very clearly. This is our last chance. Traffic sucks! We need to spend time with our families! Quality of life is important! Put your signs up, gang. Let me see it! Let me see it! Transit now! Transit now! Transit now!” Pacific Business News’s report on the rally paraphrased the Mayor in saying “the city needs a rail system to alleviate increasing traffic congestion” (emphasis added).
But that isn’t what the Mayor said. He promised exactly what rail will deliver – “easing” of traffic congestion because there will be “less cars on the road.” Those statements are irrefutable, but in Mr. Slater’s world, they support his allegation that the city has misled the public on the congestion issue. That’s what his filter tells him.
The same 2007 post has a link (no longer good) to the project’s Alternative Analysis report, which is dated November 1, 2006 – still early in the rail process. On page S-3, the AA states clearly: “Traffic congestion on key corridor facilities is expected to continue to exist under all alternatives, particularly during peak travel periods.”
The city didn’t hide its assessment of what traffic will be like in the future, with and without rail. It’s been forthcoming in “obscure” documents like the AA as well as in the spotlight in public meetings before the City Council, on the radio and on TV.
Expect Mr. Slater to continue his deliberately misleading campaign against rail. It’s what his filter demands.
Modern cities need good transit systems (Star-Advertiser, 1/9)
This post has been added to our "aggregation" site below two headings – Mr. Cliff Slater (and Friends) and LTE Forum.