[sustran] Re: "We dont need theologians, we need analysts."

[Wendell Cox]

Eric...

Just a few comments, though it appears that we are in agreement that the
matter simply comes down to getting the evaluation right and liberally
constructed, you are simply arguing that you cannot believe the auto will do
well in the evaluation. My response is, let's see.

Meanwhile, no response is needed, since it appears clear that we could both
spend hours on this exchange (that is not to discourage you from responding,
only to suggest I have spent too much time on this exchange, as you hint you
may have as well). Suffice it to say that there are two sides to this
debate.

Best,
Wendell

DEMOGRAPHIA & THE PUBLIC PURPOSE (Wendell Cox Consultancy)
http://www.demographia.com (Demographics & Land Use)
http://www.publicpurpose.com (Public Policy & Transport))
Telephone: +1.618.632.8507 - Facsimile: +1.810.821.8134
PO Box 841 - Belleville, IL 62222 USA
----- Original Message -----
From: <eric.britton at ecoplan.org>
To: <sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org>; Wendell Cox <wcox at publicpurpose.com>
Cc: Todd Litman <litman at vtpi.org>
Sent: Thursday, 05 July, 2001 13:19
Subject: [sustran] "We dont need theologians, we need analysts."


> Hello Wendell,
>
> When you say "we need analysts", I can assure you that you will get no
argument
> from here.  A background in physics and economics makes one kind of
interested
> in getting the sums right.  But as the saying goes, context counts for
something
> too.  Which seems to be very much your problem here and perhaps elsewhere.
> Let's have a peek.
>
> Your heavily propagandized and egregiously subsidized auto-based system is
going
> to have to cope with the following in its struggle to move up from
grotesque (I
> don't think the word is too strong) un-sustainability to something
significantly
> closer to what we need, and I for one would like to see how this is going
to
> work.  Let's take a quick look at some of the ballparks where we gotta get
our
> numbers lined up on this:
>
> 1. Pollution control?  We have some 700 million odd ICE vehicles out there
on
> the world's roads these days. Let me ask you, about how long it will take
to get
> most if not all of them converted to today's top of the line pollution
> standards?  Including of course in Lagos, Cairo and Katmandu.
>
The reality is that the auto is going to continue to be used, its use will
expand and the rich nations should help the poor in converting fleets. It
will take awhile, but my view is there is more reason for hope than for
despair.


> 2. Road Pricing?  I guess by this you mean electronic and other toll
systems?
> Where do you see the conclusive evidence not only that this can work but
that it
> is working in a way that will lead to ready replication in, say, my
lifetime?
>
> Gee, if that was all there was to sustainability then I'd hate even to
place my
> bets on the auto culture as making the needed in-roads on the necessary
global
> scale in time to avert quite a number of eco and other catastrophes.
Don't get
> me wrong, clean engines and clean fuels are useful steps, but they should
not be
> confused with the main action on the sustainability wars. But of course,
that's
> not the end of it. In fact, it's barely the beginning.  We also must be
prepared
> to factor in the critical basics on. . .
>
> 3. Road accidents?  And the half a million people who are killed by autos
each
> year?  And the millions who are maimed and forced to live truncated lives
> (including my great uncle, the noted painter James Britton, who was turned
from
> a happy productive artist, teacher and community leader into a depressive
> cripple and suicide, thanks to one of those sustainable vehicles?
>
The advances in road safety have been stunning. US fatality totals are
substantially the same as they were in the late 1950s, despite much higher
driving levels. How many centuries will it take to reconfigure cities into
the ville de Paris densities that are required to provide true transit
choice?

> 4. Public health?
>
Cleaner cars.

> 5. Urban tissue?
>
???

> 6. Sense of community?
>
What business is that of urban planners. We are getting into theology. Re
sense of community, it used to be that the center of neighborhoods in the US
was the neighborhood school. The social engineers destroyed that with forced
busing in the 1970s, a period during which by far the greatest urban
deconcentration occured as a result.

> 7. Social justice?
>
My response to Eric Bruun deals with this issue.


> This is of course not the end of the list as our many qualified friends
here in
> this good forum will I am sure be pleased to point out - and I am sorry
that
> this is not the day for me to put aside my other pressing work to fill in
the
> well known numbers here -- but do let me throw one more small qualifier
that may
> also need to be brought into the analysis.
>
> First though, a quick aside.  I think that I am a way above average
driver.  I
> am an athlete, in very good shape, have great eyesight, good peripheral
vision,
> excellent flexibility in neck and torso, don't smoke, don't drink, never
take my
> eyes off the road, have a steady unaggressive personality, am resoundingly
> polite an always give way to pedestrians and cyclists, maintain my car
very
> carefully, don't use a cell phone in a car, use my ears and nose
consistently to
> pick up alarm signals, have come up to car driving through a chain of
knowledge
> and reflexes that took me from trikes and bikes and on through motor
cycles and
> large trucks, refuse to go into heavy traffic, won't drive when tired,
etc.  I
> also make enough money so that I can afford to drive.  A model citizen
driver if
> I say so myself.  (My sins and weaknesses express themselves in other ways
as my
> friends and wife will gladly attest).
>
> I run you through  this long and boring litany since based on three
decades of
> careful observation and study, I am persuaded that, power steering, cruise
> control and the next latest help from the ITS crowd not excepted, at least
half
> of the people out there on the road should definitely not be taking charge
of a
> couple of tons of steel and rubber for all these reasons and more.  THE
REAL
> MAJORITY OF ALL PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE DRIVING - AND THE ONLY REASONS THAT
THEY
> ARE OUT THERE MENACING LIFE AND LIMB ON THE ROADS IS BECAUSE THE CAR
CULTURE HAS
> LEFT THEM WITHOUT A CHOICE.
>
An opinion I do not share.


> So the trick is not to have a bias against drivers -- but a definite bias
in
> favor of people, safety, economy (for all those who cannot really afford
the car
> habit), access, neighborliness and all the rest.  Which has most notably
not
> been the case in the past and which, if we judge by the expenditures of
our hard
> won taxpayer dollars continues to be the case in most places till this
day.
>
In the United States virtually all intercity roads are paid for by highway
user fees. I would happily privatize the whole thing tomorrow to make that
even more obvious and to get the product at a lower price than government is
able to provide.


> I know that the Bush administration has taken the position that global
warming
> may be a problem but that we need more "analysis" to figure out what to do
next.
> What can I say?
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Eric
>
> Eric Britton
>
> The @New Mobility Forum is permanently at http://newmobility.org
> The Commons ___Sustainable Development and Social Justice___
> Le Frene, 8/10 rue Joseph Bara, 75006 Paris, France
> Eric.Britton at NewMobility.org    Tel: +331 4326 1323
>
>
> = = = = =
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org
> [mailto:owner-sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org]On Behalf Of Wendell Cox
> Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 5:55 PM
> To: eric.britton at ecoplan.org; sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org
> Cc: Todd Litman
> Subject: [sustran] Re: a bias against drivers?
>
> Eric..
>
> Sorry. Not all of us have been converted to this view. With road pricing
and
> improved pollution control, an auto based system may well be sustainable,
at
> the appropriate densities. The issue has to do with overall objectives and
> there is no reason to introduce biases into the matter. I like Todd's
> criteria, if restated in unbiased terms. Let the evaluation determine the
> strategies. We dont need theologians, we need analysts.
>
> Best regards,
> Wendell
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>