[sustran] Re: Terrorism, Transit and Public Safety

[Jonathan E. D. Richmond]

We should all roundly condemn the so-called "paper" on "Terrorism,
Transit and Public Safety" from self-appointed expert Todd Litman. I have
long known that Litman's work must generally be discounted because of its
bias and lack of analytical quality. However, it is one thing to be an
advocate of something you believe in, but it is quite another to cheapen
the value of life in the wake of a terrible tragedy.

"Terrorism, Transit and Public Safety" is an example of "bait and switch."
If Litman was selling used cars, he would be in trouble with Canada's
consumer regulations for such a practice. Of course, many people will have
been drawn to this paper expecting some insight into the problems of
terrorism and steps that might be taken to make public transport more
secure. Instead, the "paper" is a hastily dashed-out piece of advocacy for
transit.

More than 50 people have been killed and 700 injured in the bombings which
took place in London. It is unacceptable for even one person to be to be
killed or injured for reasons of hatred. We have a Jewish saying that "to
save one person is to save the world," and we all have a shared duty to
stop terrorism from hurting anyone. There is not a point at which we have
done "enough" to make the world safe: We must continue our efforts until
we are sure of success.

And yet, what does Litman do? In his paper (www.vtpi.org/terror.pdf), he
gives us a brief paragraph to state that acts of terror have occurred on
public transport, and then goes straight away to declare that "Yes,
despite such events, public transit is still an extremely safe form of
trvel." A chart is shown to demonstrate that public transport fatality
rates are lower than for car travel. This is doubtless true, yet it is not
only irrelevant to the particular situation of terorrism, but it cheapens
life itself when advocacy of this type takes precedence over an analysis
of how to combat terrorist activity.

The graphs which are used as a tool to indicate cause and effect -- if you
have more transit you have less fatalities -- are likely misleading. Do
the cities with more transit use have less fatalities *because* people use
more transit or for other reasons? We simply do not know. It is possible,
for example, that because the cities with the most public transport use
are also the most congested, that they have lower traffic speeds than the
average, and therefore less opportunities for dangerous driving or
accidents. I don't know whether that is the case, but I do know that the
simplistic presentation of facts Litman has assembled is designed to
persuade readers of his cause, not to provide a scientific analysis. Yet,
is any of this discussion relevant to the issue at immediate hand,
and which Litman disarmingly uses to bring people to his article, which is
that terrorism is increasingly putting us all at greater risk, and must
be stopped?

Next, and most offensively, Litman states that "Transit risks tend to
receive more attention than risks associated with automobile travel...
Incidents that kill or injure a few transit passengers often receive
national or international attention, while automobile crashes that kill a
few people are so common they are considered local news, and injury
accidents often receive no media coverage at all.

Overall, transit passengers are much safer than motorists, and residents
of transit-oriented communities are safer than residents of
automobile-oriented communities, even taking into account risks from
murder and terrorism (Lucy, 2002). Terrorists would need to kill 30
transit passengers every month in the U.S. before transit riders would
face a similar risk as automobile occupants."

In other words, even if terorism gets worse, Litman argues that until we
have at least 30 killings a month, people should carry on using transit.
This is not only deeply insulting and hurtful to those who have just lost
colleagues, family, and friends, but this cheap sales pitch distracts us
from our real duty, which is to ensure that everything is done to promote
safety for both car and public transport users. We should not wait for 30
people a month to be killed, but we must take instead action to provide
the security against terrorism necessary to stop killing. In London, this
requires a complex response, which involves not only improved
intelligence, security procedures, and policing, but also public
investment in the underground system because the dilapidated nature of the
infrastructure and the severe crowding that takes place on trains during
many hours of the day is itself a contributor to security breaches and an
increased probability of deaths and injuries in the event of an attack.

And the appropriate response to traffic fatalities is not to simply tell
people to get on transit, even if terrorism escalates, but to devote the
needed public resources to provide education to stop such tragedies
occurring. Since human error is responsible for the vast majority of
traffic accidents, this implies a need for vastly improved
driver education that should in fact start with values that children learn
in school and be continued in a new and reflective form of practical
instruction that focuses on the responsibility of each and every motorist
on the road rather than with the teaching of mechanical skills.

So, Todd Litman, shame on you for your cheap advocate statement in the
aftermath of tragedy. Let us all turn instead to the real problems of
combatting terrorism and improving safety, with the assumption that each
and every human life has infinite value and that not even one death is
acceptable.

And let me add one more thing. Let us not rush to blame Islam for the
terrible things that are happening in the world, but let us follow the
example Mayor of London Ken Livingstone has taken and instead call for
unity in promoting the value of life. Here at AIT we have many Muslim
students on campus who are quite aware that I am both British and Jewish,
and I have been quick to send them a message to say that I am well aware
that Islam is a religion which promotes respect and love for
all. Those who commit acts of terror are not Muslims, and they pervert the
word of Islam. Let us bring everyone together, and not allow divisions to
occur.

                                                --Jonathan




On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Todd Alexander Litman wrote:

>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> I just completed a paper on "Terrorism, Transit and Public Safety"
> (http://www.vtpi.org/terror.pdf), in response to the recent bomb attacks in
> London, which puts terrorism risks into perspective with other
> transportation risks. I plan to distribute a press release on it early next
> week. I'd greatly appreciate your comments or suggestions for improving it.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
> Todd Litman, Director
> Victoria Transport Policy Institute
> "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity"
> 1250 Rudlin Street
> Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, Canada
> Phone & Fax: 250-360-1560
> Email: litman at vtpi.org
> Website: http://www.vtpi.org
>
>
>
>
> ================================================================
> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia.
>

-----

Jonathan E. D. Richmond                               02 524-5510 (office)
Visiting Fellow                               Intl.: 662 524-5510
Urban Environmental Management program,
School of Environment, Resources and Development
Room N260B                                            02 524-8257 (home)
Asian Institute of Technology                 Intl.: 662 524-8257
PO Box 4
Klong Luang, Pathumthani 12120                        02 524-5509 (fax)
Thailand                                      Intl:  662 524-5509

e-mail: richmond at ait.ac.th               Secretary:  Kuhn Vantana Pattanakul
        richmond at alum.mit.edu		              02 524-6368
					      Intl:  662 524-6132
http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/