[sustran] The next WBCSD Mobility study: "Some Cognitive Dissonance direct from Third World Cities"

[ecoplan]

Earlier references here: Walter Hook, Kisan Mehta, John Whitelegg, Matthias
Mueth

Dear Friends,

Very very interesting.  I think that maybe we should put our heads together
and see if we might offer these kind folks (the WBSC) not just a report on
this or that, but rather get off and running with another, altogether
different PROCESS.  

What they have done is fair enough given who they are, they way they tend to
look at things and all the good stuff they learned in school, B school and
then on in their life as consultants, manufacturers, money and energy
people, etc. (i.e., the sponsors being BP, DaimlerChrysler, Ford, General
Motors, Honda, Michelin, Norsk Hydro, Renault, Shell, Toyota and
Volkswagen).  And the century in which they learned just about everything
that they have put into their fine, but wouldn't you say in the final
analysis an awfully old-fashioned and altogether predictable report? (As I
say this I do not mean to denigrate, but simply to describe.  And I am
certainly not saying that their report is bad or altogether devoid of
interest, but it is simply both far too tame and from a Third World cities
perspective far from enough)

So what might be this new process?  Here are a few quick thoughts that might
help us move toward the definition of a good one:

1.	Suppose we start from the end here -- and just simply say give us
(who is us?) say a million dollars, and let us (??) use it for a 21st
century communications and knowledge building exercise that will help with
one important remaining part of your job - i.e., provide a wise global
policy framework for transport in Third World cities over the next decades
(starting with tomorrow morning, and definitely not the year 2010), both in
general and with a focus (but not an exclusive one, since a city is a city)

2.	I am not suggesting in this that we need to take off and criticize
point by point all that may be wrong or missing in their present
consultant's study, but I do think that we can safely say that based on what
we have here thus far that there is a major unfilled policy gap.

3.	The basic idea?: Develop a varied collage of observations, views and
recommendations DIRECT from a wide variety of "well placed on-the-ground
sources with deep knowledge based on long term familiarity with the problems
and solutions IN THAT PLACE" (I prefer this to 'expert', a word which in our
present context has become a rather unattractive epithet which is increasing
associated not with the solutions but with the problems themselves, often
'expert-created').

4.	A possible working title: "Mobility 2002: Transport in Third World
Cities: A People's Perspective".  (As opposed to, say, the perspective of a
supplier, a Western trained city or transport planner, a bureaucrat eager to
stay with the flow, anyone on the take,  

5.	The M2001 study, as is the custom, was looking to make a wise
coherent set of statements and recommendations based on a process of
synthesis and ultimate agreement.  Is that about right?

6.	This thing might be done in phases, with Phase I to be a series of
e-discussions and eventually individual clarifying efforts, each of which
would break off a defined piece of the larger whole and have a go at it.
Each would be (modestly) funded, say with a $10k budget for the person/group
who takes cradle to grave responsibility which will open with the
discussion, run through an open draft, gathering of criticism and feedback
(including from the Project Core Group (??) and anyone in the WMSC family
who would chose to weigh in.  A 'focus topic' (for lack of a better phrase)
might be the overall policy/problem nexus from the vantage of (a) a specific
city (Mumbai, Cairo, Santiago, whatever), (b) a specific problem or solution
type (road accidents, social (in)justice, collectivos, busways, becaks,
etc.), (c) a non-solution item or set (maybe metros, one way streets to
increase traffic speed, EVs, etc.), and (d) certainly a few other possible
transverse cuts of all this as well.

7.	We might try to create some kind of dynamic and useful framework or
base structure for each of these essays or sections, to that the whole thing
might eventually be made to head together in some kind of identifiable
overall thrust... i.e., not just be a bunch of interesting but ultimately
incoherent, hence from a policy perspective indigestible collage of
disparate, unconnectable bits and prices. For example some kind of
structured, quickly sizeable treatment of things like key problems areas,
key opportunity areas, specific and then more general recommendations. Thus
when the reader/participant digs into each piece, they will be able to go to
the same rough spot in each to find some of the things they are looking for.

8.	But this thing would take quite another approach, one which might be
thought of as a variant of 'cognitive dissonance', using it as a
problem-search and ultimately a knowledge building tool. Thus the common
thread of all these various pieces and essays will be in their great
diversity, different from each other in many ways, and most probably quite
different from the Mobility 2001 Mach I version that has already been
issued. 

9.	The goal of this approach is specifically "to increase the uncomfort
level" of policymakers - on the grounds that since for the most part in the
past they have tried to find solutions and processes with which they (who is
they?) could be comfortable, and maybe they were, but look at the mess in
our cites.

10.	Clearly, this Mach II effort would be very different as well in its
MO.  For starters, no travel.  No planes. All the creative interaction
should either be because A can walk, transit o bike over to B to swap ideas,
talk things over, argue a bit and figure out what to do next.  Or else via a
nicely organized phalanx of the best of our discussion lists on these topics
)and hey! who is better than dear Sustran), and then our new 21st century
tool: low cost, point to point and group IP videoconferencing. 

11.	If the project were really well done, we would end up with something
really profound, great and directly useful, and still have a good part of
the million left to do something else useful with.  Like establish a
Challenge Award or Prize for yet more good work along these lines.

Okay, let me try to summarize.  What we are proposing is an alternative open
project which will specifically seek to create a situation of cognitive
dissidence on the topic of near/medium term ways to move toward sustainable
transportation and social justice in Third World Cities.  We will do all the
work ourselves, we will honor diversity and differences, we will not seek
overarching agreement, we will post everything we do step by step as we move
ahead on the world's best and most interesting sustainability website, we
will do no physical travel to get it done, we won't spend all the money, and
we will find ways to make a difference, even as we advance this innovative
new group project.

Any holes in the above?  You bet. Let's see if anyone wants to help us do
better. 

Eric Britton


PS.  RATE THIS IDEA FROM 1 TO 10 

1: Awful, go home.   10: Pretty impressive (if flawed) and I'm ready to
participate and make it better)

We will post the results on the @New Mobility Forum at
http://newmobility.org






-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: winmail.dat
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 11208 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20011115/319bb1af/winmail.bin