[sustran] Re: Daryl Oster's comments

Daryl Oster et3 at et3.com
Fri Dec 24 12:41:21 JST 2004



> -----Original Message On Behalf Of Preston Schiller
> Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 4:37 PM
> Subject: [sustran] Re: Daryl Oster's comments
> 
> I hope that Mr. Oster approaches his technology work with a little greater
> care than he has approached the reading of the memo to which he purports
> to be replying.
> 
> Besides basing his refutation of Mr. Sreedharan's expertise on his own
> faulty googling, he misread Eric Britton's correspondence (which advocated
> for the inclusion of persons with expertise in the "soft" side of
> transportation planning and innovation), and then recommended two
> controversial "experts."

Preston, 
I own up to my faulty search, and offer thanks for those correcting my
error; AND Miss-understanding Eric Britton is NOT one of my transgressions.
I agreed with Mr. Britton, that one voice for the transportation component
is not enough, however if this is to truly be a debate, then let's make it a
fair one and include voices from the other major perspectives.

Why is it that rail advocates are so defensive about entering into public
debate with we innovators?  Could it be that the daylight of fact,
engineering, and science harms the ability of railroaders to continue to
bilk the taxpayers under cover of darkness?


> No doubt Jerry Schneider was well-intentioned when he joined forces with a
> very colorful coalition of Seattle area "experts" to bash light rail for
> that traffic-stuck city. That coalition included several persons who were
> notoriously anti-transit and pro-highway expansion, as well as the usual
> array of "I have a better idea" types who often enter the fray very late
> in the game and whose "better ideas" often cost more and are less
> effective than the proposal under question. I have benefitted from
> interchanges with Schneider in the past but the bash of LRT leaves me with
> a very bad taste in my mouth. I will leave it to others to decide whether
> his work is "leading edge" or some other sort of edge.


If LRT's tax grabbing tactics where soundly bashed by simple statement of
facts, then it's about time.  Rail lost in the real market more than a half
century ago, that is where and when the real bashing took place.  What Dr.
Schneider, I, and many others are saying is pull grandpa off of the mammary
of government so the baby gets a reasonable chance to survive.  

 
> I say this as a refugee from the Seattle Transit Wars and someone who was
> very critical of the overblown costs of the current Sound Transit rail
> proposal (as well as the very high bus costs of both Sound Transit and
> King County's Metro) and the often disconnected way in which transit
> planning goes on in Central Puget Sound.


If you are truly critical of high costs, then perhaps it is time for you to
consider prudent ways to cut them by a factor of ten or more.   


> Citing Wendell Cox is far more laughable and display's Mr. Oster's lack of
> critical reading of Cox's work. I recall that a couple of years ago there
> was a lengthy interaction with Mr. Cox in the Sierra Club's transportation
> e-forum. I seem to recall that Mr. Cox stopped responding when there were
> too many difficult questions about the "data" upon which he was basing his
> anti-rail (intercity as well as rail transit) diatribes as well as the
> sources of funding for his "research."


I do not agree with everything Cox says, yet I do respect his ideals and
ability to expose gross public waste.  Please provide the URLs of this
debate that you claim Mr. Cox lost.


> Google can be a useful tool for developing some aspects of a bibliography
> but it is no substitute for plain old-fashioned reading and evaluation.
> Often the advocacy of "leading edge" technologies is used by interests who
> do not want automobile dependency staved and will dangle "better leading
> edge ideas" before the public in the hope that the public will follow a
> technological pied piper off a transportation cliff rather than implement
> tried and true transit solutions.
> Preston Schiller <preston at cc.wwu.edu>


I agree with you, it is not prudent to blindly walk off of a cliff, or to
step in front of a train.  I am not advocating following unsound or
"bleeding edge" engineering as is being pushed by the automobile industry as
sustainable (e.g. the new hydrogen economy).  Additionally, we must
recognize that with growth, what was tried and true becomes worn out and
obsolete.  


Ox carts were once "tried and true".  Mule propelled barges were once "tried
and true".  Paddle wheel steamers were once "tried and true".  Steam trains
were once "tried and true".  Diesel locomotive drawn passenger trains were
once "tried and true" - now they are obsolete for this purpose.  Cars /
roads are presently "tried and true", AND they are showing signs of need for
replacement.    


Ox carts are not the transportation mode that replaced trains when train
limitations became apparent in the market.  It is just as preposterous to
assume that trains will recapture the market from automobiles.  What will
occur is cars and aircraft will be replaced by technology offering a much
better benefit to cost ratio.  The efficient market recognizes value; those
who seek to provide more value for less cost are always powerfully resisted
by those who presently dominate the market.  First they laugh, then they
fight, then they lose.  Trains are on the verge of losing; just listen to
the screams of protest as the milk dries up. 
    

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





More information about the Sustran-discuss mailing list