By Cliff Slater

City Transportation Director Cheryl Soon took to these pages recently ("Criticism of BRT doesn't match reality") to discuss the Bus/Rapid Transit (BRT) proposal.

I have not had to parse so many sentences since President Clinton left office.

Take for example, this about the BRT program: "It can be built within existing resources; no new taxes are needed." Yes, it is true that it will take no new taxes, just old ones. Hikes in the existing property taxes will suffice to repay, with interest, the $462 million in new bonds the city plans to float for the BRT.

Or how about "On more than one occasion, the governor acknowledged the city's intention to move forward with BRT." Yes, that is true. However, so have I acknowledged the city's intentions, but "acknowledgement" is not approval. You have not heard the governor, or her predecessor, approving the lane takings in the In-Town BRT program.

Then Ms. Soon says that the initial operating system (IOS), "the first segment of BRT," will result in the "revitalization of Ala Moana Boulevard." In fact, the IOS virtually destroys the median landscaping past the Ala Wai Bridge, narrows the lanes to 10 feet for buses that are 10 feet, 4 inches wide, and narrows the turning lanes to nine feet. This is revitalization?

Then Ms. Soon charges that, "Slater's interpretation of events is particularly wrong when it comes to the in-town BRT. The city always felt this portion needed to come first."

This one did not even need parsing; it is a bald-faced misstatement. The last draft environmental impact statement (EIS), released in March 2002, called for construction of the Regional BRT "Kapolei to Downtown" to begin construction before the In-Town BRT.

Only the Final EIS, issued just over a year ago, showed that the city has deferred the Regional BRT to a later time.

Or how about, "BRT still has all the advantages it had when the plan was selected in 2001 by the City Council." Another bald-faced misrepresentation.

Even in the last draft plan of March 2002, the promised time saving from Downtown to UH via the BRT was 13 minutes and that, added to the promised time saving using the Regional BRT from Kapolei to Downtown of 25 minutes, meant a total saving of 38 minutes from Kapolei to UH.

However, when the city issued the Final EIS, the Downtown-UH time saving had shrunk to 1.8 minutes and the city had deferred the Regional BRT to 2008.

Still has all the advantages?

And throughout Ms. Soon's article there are inferences that the BRT will relieve traffic congestion. However, my formal comments to her on the draft EIS that "Honolulu commuters are expecting that the (BRT) will give them some measure of relief from traffic congestion," brought Ms. Soon's written reply that, "It is unrealistic for commuters to expect that one project on its own will alleviate traffic congestion."

And when I charged that the plan was "deficient in failing to plan on reducing traffic congestion," the reply from Ms. Soon was, "The purpose of the BRT project is not to on its own reduce traffic congestion. It is one component of a larger transportation system."

She added, "Urban mobility does not necessarily mean reducing traffic congestion. It entails providing residents with several options to utilize in making a trip, be that the automobile, transit, taxis, walking, or bicycling."

It is clear from the foregoing that reduction of traffic congestion is not top of mind with the city planners, and they should say so in public instead of in obscure government documents.

From day 1, the city has not been straight with the voters about the BRT program. Let us hope it is not too late for some action to halt this nonsense.

Cliff Slater is a regular columnist whose footnoted columns are at www.lava.net/cslater.