[sustran] Re: Draft proposal to Principal Voices - Quick progress report

[Daryl Oster]

Vittal and Eric,

Thanks for pointing out my lax search method with respect to Ellatuvalapil
Sreedharan, I should have considered that he may not use his first name.  I
now have plenty of references, and concur his expert status is warranted.  

Eric, 
I am glad that you agree that Wendell Cox would be a good balance for a well
rounded debate.  And there is a need for at least a third voice for
transportation, a strong voice to represent advanced transportation
technology.  

It is clear to many of us that roads are not sustainable, and have passed
the point of diminishing returns; most agree change is needed.   Even if it
could be shown that trains, bicycles, and muscle offer energy and
environmental sustainability (there is plenty of evidence to suggest they do
not), it is proven they are not socially sustainable.  In spite of being
subsidized 50 times more than road, trains are still loosing market share to
cars.  Trains once had market share in Japan, Europe, and the US -- now
roads have market share because cars are more sustainable.  

The millions in lobby and campaign money of rail interests have done their
damage - they have poisoned the opinions of politicians, bureaucrats, and
educators with their: "smoke and mirrors" presentations, outright lies, and
"free" gifts of dinners, travel, accommodations, and RFP drafting
assistance.

To stick ones head in the sand and say: "we must do something, even if it is
not optimum -- let's go back to what "worked" in the past" is foolish,
especially since there is credible evidence (like ETT, and other sustainable
means) proving there are sustainable alternatives that can be implemented
easier than returning to trains, bikes, and muscle.   

You, I and others justify all the air flights, all the bus, train, and car
travel because we are using the best tools available to disseminate our
ideals.  Guess what -- EVERYONE thinks the same way -- our reasons for high
energy consumption are justified, and most other peoples reasons are not
justified.   If all people in the past had followed your example, and
instead of implementing prudent innovation, returned to old ways whenever
new ways encountered problems, we would still be in the Stone Age, the
planet would be stripped of trees, and starvation would be the norm.  

Just because you have wasted time in the past to chase down possibilities
that turned out to be dead ends -- do not make the mistake of going down a
proven dead end, without at least fully checking out the most promising
options. 


Daryl Oster
(c) 2004  all rights reserved.  ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth"
e-tube, e-tubes,  and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks
of et3.com Inc.  For licensing information contact:    et3 at et3.com ,
www.et3.com  POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423  (352)257-1310


> -----Original Message-----
> From: sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com at list.jca.apc.org
> [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com at list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of
> EcoPlan, Paris
> Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 4:55 AM
> To: 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport'
> Subject: [sustran] Draft proposal to Principal Voices - Quick progress
> report
> 
> Wednesday, December 22, 2004, Paris, France, Europe
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sustainable Friends,
> 
> 
> 
> In addition to several much appreciated private letters of cautious
> encouragement on this proposed initiative of 21 Dec, I have received in
> the last day the following two mailings from proponents of advanced
> transportation technologies, in a phrase free standing new systems based
> on “new surface transport infrastructure”.  I would like to comment
> briefly because I believe this is one of the central pillars that we have
> to deal with one way or another as we make our important decisions about
> the future of the sector.
> 
> 
> 
> Personally I have a great weakness for these proposals and the engineering
> technologies that they bring to the fore. On a number of occasions during
> my career I have carried out pretty extensive international surveys
> looking at the category in general and more specifically things like PRT,
> GRT, DRT, ITT, ATT, monorails, skycabs by many names, maglev, air cushion
> vehicles, accelerating moving sidewalks, pneumatic tube transport, and the
> long list goes on. But as my respected colleague and a central force in
> this movement, Jerry Schneider, Professor Emeritus of Civil Engineering
> and Urban Design and Planning at the University of Washington (see below)
> has said on numerous occasions: “The problem is implementing it."
> 
> 
> 
> That’s it and from the horse’s mouth! To whit my regretful conclusion as a
> hands-on advisor of policy: given the immediate needs of sustainability
> and our societies, we have to put this on the back burner for now and
> concentrate on what we can do with the infrastructure we have.  Sad and
> possibly even narrow conclusion that it may seem.  Fortunately however,
> there is a huge amount that we can in fact achieve working within the
> broad envelope of the infrastructure we have in hand, so to my mind the
> challenge is to get on with that task.
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Daryl Oster, an active proponent of “ETT” and "space travel on earth",
> for his part goes quite a bit further than I do in his criticism of the
> way in which the Voices  people have set out to organize their initiative:
> starting with a rather unjust hit on the qualifications of the respected
> Mr. Ellatuvalapil Sreedharan to be one of the Voices.  I could not agree
> less. The object of any truly creative dialogue, at least as I understand
> it, is to trot out a wide range of views and perspectives, and indeed it
> would be a major error if we packed the jury in any way. Not only is Mr.
> Sreedharan a person of real accomplishment in our sector, but also by the
> way if you Google “Sreedharan  + “transport OR transportation” you get no
> less than 2830 call-ups this morning. So we can put that one to rest, eh?
> ;-)
> 
> 
> 
> That said Mr. Oster does propose a candidate with international
> credentials who might indeed make another interesting apex for a debate
> triangle, Wendell Cox of The Public Purpose
> <http://www.publicpurpose.com/index.html>  (“To facilitate the ideal of
> government as the servant of the people by identifying and implementing
> strategies to achieve public purposes at a cost that is no higher than
> necessary).  Fine idea Daryl.  I will add him to our short list, not least
> because of his rigor, persistence, international reach, at times
> surprising flexibility -- and the fact that at least half the time I for
> one do not agree with him.  Which of course is the stuff of a good debate.
> 
> 
> 
> So there we have it for today.  I will let this cook for another 24 hours
> before dispatching to our contacts there – so there is still time for you
> to share both your criticisms, ideas and even encouragement if there is
> any of that in your end year larder.  It’s their party of course, but
> perhaps they will open it up a bit to ensure that it is fully informed,
> lively, varied and creative – the stuff of a really successful party.
> 
> 
> 
> Salamaat, Shalom, Merry Christmas, and Peace on Earth,
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Britton
> 
> 
> 
> PS. You may want to check out the latest bulletin of the ITDP at
> http://www.itdp.org/. Talk about new transportation ideas and on street
> progress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jerry Schneider [mailto:jbs at peak.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 10:48 PM
> To: eric.britton at ecoplan.org
> Subject: Re: [sustran] Draft proposal to Principal Voices team - For
> comment
> 
> 
> 
> At 09:18 AM 12/21/04 -0800, you wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> >snip ------------
> 
> >These fora and the individuals and groups behind them offer a clear cut,
> 
> >leading edge, world level state of the art, 21st century awareness of the
> 
> >issues and the full range of solutions -- and while there is no aversion
> on
> 
> >the part of most of us to building new systems and expanding
> infrastructure
> 
> >in specific cases, we tend to be far more reserved and I would like to
> say
> 
> >sophisticated, and indeed practical, when it comes to better management
> of
> 
> >the infrastructure and systems we already have in place. Moreover, we
> tend
> 
> >too to be rather ambitious when it comes to the creative integration of
> new
> 
> >communications technologies into the overall systemic infrastructure, and
> 
> >that too might be one of the more promising avenues of the discussions
> and
> 
> >debate.
> 
> 
> 
> One wonders what "new systems" you might have in mind? You are welcome to
> 
> add my ITT website to your list of promising avenues for discussion.
> 
> 
> 
>    Best regards,
> 
> 
> 
>     Jerry
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org at list.jca.apc.org
> [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org at list.jca.apc.org]
> On Behalf Of Daryl Oster
> Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 6:46 AM
> To: principalvoices at cnn.com; Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport
> Cc: policy at advancedtransit.org
> Subject: [sustran] principal voices
> 
> 
> 
> To Whom It May Concern:
> 
> 
> 
> According to your "principal voices" website, the principal voices are
> 
> "globally-renowned experts".  If this is true, why is it that a Google
> 
> search for Ellatuvalapil Sreedharan (the principal voice for
> transportation)
> 
> turns up ZERO hits?  If you are looking for an expert try the Google
> search:
> 
> 
> 
> "Jerry Schneider" +transportation
> 
> 
> 
> This will turn up over 800 hits leading to Transportation Professor
> 
> (retired) Jerry Schneider.  Dr. Schneider is likely the most renowned
> expert
> 
> on leading edge transportation alternatives.
> 
> 
> 
> Another Google search:
> 
> 
> 
> "Wendell Cox" +transportation
> 
> 
> 
> This search will turn up 11,000 hits on this transportation expert. Why
> not
> 
> ask either of these experts to debate with Ellatuvalapil Sreedharan?
> 
> 
> 
> If this is really a debate, why are the public questions limited to 4, and
> 
> why is there no criteria on selection? It appears to that the principal
> 
> voices debates could likely be a showcase for a hidden agenda that will
> 
> after the fact be claimed to have been an internationally recognized
> debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Oster
> 
> (c) 2004  all rights reserved.  ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth"
> 
> e-tube, e-tubes,  and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service
> marks
> 
> of et3.com Inc.  For licensing information contact:    et3 at et3.com ,
> 
> www.et3.com  POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423  (352)257-1310
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by Netsignia Online <http://www.netsignia.net/> , and is
> believed to be clean.