The arguments made in John Williamson’s recent The Honolulu Advertiser op/ed (6/22) in support of rail transit are the epitome of “truthiness” — the Merriam-Webster Dictionary’s recent ‘Word of the Year’ recently coined as, “the quality of preferring concepts or facts one wishes to be true, rather than concepts or facts known to be true” For example, Williamson criticizes the Advertiser Public Affairs Editor Jerry Burris’s neo-skepticism of our bus ridership in light of recent national outcomes and says, “Clearly, the trend locally appears to be more, not less, transit ridership.” This is truthiness.

The fact is that, according to the State Data Book, bus ridership peaked at 77 million in 1994 and declined to 70 million last year — down 10 percent — despite a three percent increase in Oahu’s population and a 15 percent increase in bus service.(See 2006 State Data Book Tables 18.25 & 1.06.) Then Williamson says, “Roadway congestion and market forces will generate the demand for the fixed rail transit system.” That’s a nice thought but from what evidence does he derive that conclusion? Or is it truthiness?

If we examine ridership data from those U.S. rail cities whose traffic congestion significantly increased over the last 20 years, what do we find? None of them, not a one, increased the percentage of commuters using public transportation after they built rail, despite the increases in congestion. Even under extreme traffic congestion conditions, people still find their cars take less time door-to-door than transit. Then he adds, “Likewise, the trend in gas prices will ultimately force commuters to reconsider their transportation options. If $3 gas hasn’t brought about a substantial change, we can be sure that $4 or $4.50 will.” Sounds quite logical, or is it more truthiness?

Review the 1970-1980 period when pump prices rose 60 percent to $3 a gallon in today’s money. Given the change in incomes since then, this was the equivalent of an increase today from $3 to $4.50 a gallon. What happened in the 1970s? Commuters using transit declined significantly from 8.9 percent to 6.4 percent of all workers. Instead of using transit they bought smaller cars. And the European experience with their $6 a gallon gas has resulted in the same general shift from public transportation to autos that we continue to experience in the U.S. Then Williamson tells us we must make the effort “to meet the challenges in a world where our primary energy source is disappearing.” Truth, or truthiness? If we examine the U.S. Department of Energy’s data we find that, far from disappearing, worldwide oil reserves have more than doubled in the last 25 years while usage is only up a third. Even proven oil reserves in North America have tripled in the last 25 years while demand has remained flat. Senator Inouye said recently that the $1 billion cost for the city to upgrade our waste treatment plant to comply with federal standards will bankrupt the City. But the rail transit line would cost over $6 billion and would incur ongoing and significant operating losses.

Would that not bankrupt the City? Whatever else we know about rail, it will certainly have a profound financial impact. For this reason we have to start dealing in truth, not truthiness. We must separate facts from opinion and truth from truthiness and wishful thinking.

It is one thing to waste millions of dollars in City funds, but for rail we are talking about billions. The whole matter is far too important an issue for us to accept the City and its hired guns indulging in the kind of spin and obfuscation that has become their stock in trade.

The City is currently projecting $5.2 billion for the UH to West Kapolei Locally Preferred Alternative. Given the history of cost overruns by rail transit projects generally, and Hawaii public works projects in particular, you may pick your own number for the eventual cost overrun.

Cliff Slater is Board of Scholars of Grassroot Institute of Hawaii. This article originally appeared In Hawaii Reporter.

Notes: Truthiness is a satirical term created by television comedian Stephen Colbert to describe things that a person claims to know intuitively or “from the gut” without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or actual facts. Colbert created this definition of the word during the inaugural episode (October 17, 2005) of his satirical television program “The Colbert Report,” as the subject of a segment called The Wørd. It was named Word of the Year for 2005 by the American Dialect Society and for 2006 by Merriam-Webster. By using the term as part of his satirical routine, Colbert sought to criticize the tendency to rely upon “truthiness” and its use as an appeal to emotion and tool of rhetoric in contemporary sociopolitical discourse. He particularly applied it to United States President George W. Bush’s modus operandi in nominating Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court and in deciding to invade Iraq in 2003.