[sustran] "The Auto and its Good Friends". Revisited by John Pucher and others

[tabnet]

Very nice John.  Excellent piece of work. Thanks for sharing it with all and
sundry.

You really have touched many of the bases, and this will give the reader,
especially the younger ones, a very good checklist... just in case they run
into this lines of argumentation again.... which we can be sure they will.
I might point out too the good fit that your piece has with the notes on
this review of Wed 5/19/99 on Sustran of our colleague Carlos Cordero of
Peru.

As to our "Enemies" author (sorry, forgot his name already... oh blessed
memory), I have to base what I have to say briefly this morning not on his
book, which I have not (and certainly will not) read, but on Ken Orski's
review of it which has been circulated in several of these sites - and in
the knowledge that I can have 100% confidence in Ken's ability to
recapitulate accurately this line of reasoning. And as I read it an even
handful of things struck me above all.

* The first is the manner in which the author undertakes to occupy the high
ground of information, balance and reason... more or less killing by
kindness (of a sort) his chosen opponents. Hmmm. Debating 101.

* The second is the heavy aura of false, self-appointed expertise. The
gravitas balloon.  But when it comes to trotting out the arguments, he runs
out of steam kind of early.  This of course is one of the most common
infections of the transportation debate anyway, since we are all such
experts on how we get around.  When it comes to transportation expertise,
the operative position of so many commentators, on all sides, usually seems
to be, "I move, therefore I think."

* The third salient point is - and this you have jumped on to with both
feet - his sheer meanness of spirit. Need one say more?

* The fourth is that there is absolutely nothing new in it. Since I write
this while on the road I do not happen to have my files and his article with
me, but I certainly recall as I read through the piece that it might as well
have been 1979 as far as his basic  arguments were concerned.

* The last is grimmer news - and that is to underscore the point that,
whatever its defects, this is the line of reasoning that to this day
prevails in most international and national counsel.  And while we may hear
occasional eco-squeaks to the contrary, when it comes right down to the
concrete and steel, dollars and hours, air and blood, this is the real
bottom line.

So this gent is not just a joke that all of us who sing variously here in
the choir can put down and smile at knowingly. This is the state of play.
This is not just some weird rightist out there sawing away in some miserable
small corner of the public purview, these are the guys that own the playing
field, lay down the lines, bring the ball, decide the rules, and appoint
their own referees.  And if it's achieved results that are the bottom line,
most of the rest of us might as well be stuck up there right on top of the
Andes.

Step I in turning this around is to remember just that.  Not to be
discouraged by it, mind you, but to bear in mind that unless we get smarter
and more effective this is going to continue to be the case.  We cannot just
continue to solider along as we have been doing until now.  We need a much
higher energy level, more and better tools, more convincing real world
demonstrations, larger and more committed constituencies, better information
sharing and peer support systems, more leadership skills, and more.
Otherwise we will continue to lose the car war, with all the heavy social
price tags that go along with it and which Professor Pucher has so carefully
spelled out.

Or do I have this terribly wrong, again?

Eric Britton