[sustran] Re: heated discussion

Eric Bruun ericbruun at earthlink.net
Tue Jul 12 10:32:53 JST 2005


1) Who is LH? Please don't use abbreviations.

2) Please don't do name calling. It is not needed to
make your points.

Eric Bruun


----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Holloway" <holloway at magma.ca>
To: "'Nawdry'" <nawdry at austin.rr.com>; "'Jonathan E. D. Richmond'"
<richmond at alum.mit.edu>
Cc: <rsheridan at apta.com>; <srasmussen at sutherlandinstitute.org>;
<faulks at shaw.ca>; <Millvalley at aol.com>; <wickson at telus.net>;
<info at cfte.org>; "'PLANET'" <PLANET at listserv.BUFFALO.EDU>;
<Mike_Davis at bctransit.com>; <wmillar at apta.com>; <LRPPro at yahoogroups.com>;
"'Tara Bartee'" <tara.bartee at dot.state.fl.us>; <UTSG at JISCMAIL.AC.UK>;
<Fred.Williams at FTA.DOT.GOV>; <SPerry at apta.com>; "Reg Learn"
<reglearn at sympatico.ca>; <johnryan at speakeasy.org>; <SadikKhan at pbworld.com>;
"'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport'"
<sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org>; <clive_rock at translink.bc.ca>;
<BruunB at aol.com>; <iscott at metrorail.co.za>; <Sauve at pbworld.com>;
<ldemery at publictransit.us>; "'Reid Ewing'" <rewing6269 at aol.com>;
<acanby at transact.org>; <info at planetizen.com>; <gpascall at pop.nwnexus.com>;
<preston at cc.wwu.edu>; <norlidaz at yahoo.co.uk>; <ward at 1kfriends.org>;
<AGuzzetti at apta.com>; <TMatoff at ltk.com>; <Rlouie at ravp.ca>;
<roram at commutercheck.com>; <John.Holtzclaw at sierraclub.org>;
<jboothe at hklaw.com>; <t.grayling at ippr.org.uk>; <gweisbrod at edrgroup.com>;
<Elizabeth.Allingham at ottawa.ca>; <jmzupan at optonline.net>; <JNeff at apta.com>;
<rweaver at apta.com>; <CUTAACTU at cutaactu.ca>; <msetty at publictransit.us>;
<rtober at ci.charlotte.nc.us>; <jconsult at ozemail.com.au>; <DDuff at apta.com>;
<lpetraglia at edrgroup.com>; <wjandrea at ucalgary.ca>; <foords at shaw.ca>;
<goodwin at transport.ucl.ac.uk>; <gepperson at cuf-envision.org>;
<rsm at dkspdx.com>; <ghowellj at telus.net>; <aperl at ucalgary.ca>;
<info at railvolution.com>; <roschlau at cutaactu.ca>; <cjohnson at citistates.com>;
<tshrout at cmt-stl.org>; <CSULLIVA at dot.state.tx.us>; <gthompsn at coss.fsu.edu>;
<dangelo at cutaactu.ca>; <efigdor at pirg.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 1:32 PM
Subject: [sustran] Re: Terrorism, Transit and Public Safety


> I agree with LH.   This occurrence in England has been a time of
> significant social upheaval, which is normally the case after an
> incident where several lives and injuries have been sustained.   The
> analysis by Litman is appropriate and should boulster the use of public
> transit which inherantly and generally is a most safe means of
> transport.
>
> Chris Holloway
> Ottawa
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nawdry [mailto:nawdry at austin.rr.com]
> Sent: July 9, 2005 11:45 AM
> To: Jonathan E. D. Richmond
> Cc: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport; UTSG at JISCMAIL.AC.UK;
> PLANET; LRPPro at yahoogroups.com; Todd Litman; CUTAACTU at cutaactu.ca;
> rsheridan at apta.com; rsm at dkspdx.com; faulks at shaw.ca; Millvalley at aol.com;
> info at cfte.org; srasmussen at sutherlandinstitute.org;
> Mike_Davis at bctransit.com; Tara Bartee; Fred.Williams at FTA.DOT.GOV;
> johnryan at speakeasy.org; Rlouie at ravp.ca; SadikKhan at pbworld.com;
> wmillar at apta.com; clive_rock at translink.bc.ca; BruunB at aol.com;
> iscott at metrorail.co.za; Sauve at pbworld.com; Reid Ewing;
> acanby at transact.org; info at planetizen.com; gpascall at pop.nwnexus.com;
> gweisbrod at edrgroup.com; preston at cc.wwu.edu; norlidaz at yahoo.co.uk;
> ward at 1kfriends.org; AGuzzetti at apta.com; rtober at ci.charlotte.nc.us;
> jconsult at ozemail.com.au; roram at commutercheck.com; DDuff at apta.com;
> jboothe at hklaw.com; t.grayling at ippr.org.uk; goodwin at transport.ucl.ac.uk;
> Elizabeth.Allingham at ottawa.ca; jmzupan at optonline.net; JNeff at apta.com;
> holloway at magma.ca; rweaver at apta.com; ldemery at publictransit.us;
> msetty at publictransit.us; TMatoff at ltk.com; SPerry at apta.com;
> John.Holtzclaw at sierraclub.org; dangelo at cutaactu.ca;
> wjandrea at ucalgary.ca; foords at shaw.ca; gepperson at cuf-envision.org;
> wickson at telus.net; ghowellj at telus.net; aperl at ucalgary.ca;
> info at railvolution.com; roschlau at cutaactu.ca; cjohnson at citistates.com;
> tshrout at cmt-stl.org; CSULLIVA at dot.state.tx.us; gthompsn at coss.fsu.edu;
> lpetraglia at edrgroup.com; efigdor at pirg.org
> Subject: Re: Terrorism, Transit and Public Safety
>
>
> Please see my cursory comments below...
>
> LH
>
> At 07/09/2005 00:51, Jonathan E. D. Richmond wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> Jonathan Richmond is hardly on solid ground to attack another
> researcher's
> professional integrity and to accuse anyone's work of "bias and lack of
> analytical quality". His own work is replete with contradictions, misuse
> of
> data, sophistry, and other devices deployed to advance his own obsessive
>
> infatuation with and promotion of highway-based transport modes and
> corresponding hostility to non-highway public transport modes.  For
> example, responding to one of Richmond's attacks on Portland's light
> rail
> transit (LRT) system in 1998 (I believe in Richmond's report, "New Rail
> Transit Investments - A Review "), TriMet's very reasoned, fact-packed
> rejoinder included the following characterizations of Richmond's work:
>
> * His estimate of new ridership "is questionable and seems odd..."
> * Richmond used data from two entirely different sources (using
> different
> data-collection methods) interchangeably
> * Thus, "it is inappropriate to use two conflicting sets of numbers and
> then draw the conclusions one wants from each set as Mr. Richmond has
> done...."
> * Richmond's attack is "not comparing apples to apples" in its
> comparison
> of rail vs. bus operating and maintenance costs - particularly with
> respect
> to the cost of way maintenance.
> * Richmond's claim of that the "arrival of light rail" produced a
> "deterioration" in Portland's bus system performance and "dramatic
> reductions in financial viability" is characterized as blatantly
> untrue".
>
> Coming from a transit agency, these condemnations of Richmond's
> methodology
> and assertions, I believe, are unusually vigorous.
>
> >"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.
>
> On the contrary, Todd Litman's well-documented study is a timely and
> highly
> relevant contribution to public discourse which positions the entire
> issue
> of transport safety in perspective at a time when public transport is
> being
> portrayed, explicitly and implicitly, as inherently dangerous.
>
> This aspect has been well captured in the remarks of Dick Faulks:
>
>  >>This is an excellent response to the huge media response
> to the case in London. This is especially so in view of the
> suggestion that commuters stay home if feeling that
> too much danger is present.
> The Bottom Line of such a suggestion might be that one
> should get to work by taking one's own car or by carpooling!
> "Terrorism, Transit and Public Safety" allows one to see that
> such an alternative is far more dangerous to one's life!<<
>
>
> >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?
>
> There is nothing "misleading" or unscientific in presenting secular data
>
> for comparative purposes - Richmond's own work is filled with such
> methodology (a major problem is that his comparative data are often
> incompatible or are derived from wildly divergent sources).  The
> relevance
> of the data comparison has already been established, above.
>
> >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.
>
> Richmond is just throwing out red herrings here to justify his effort to
>
> concoct a tempest in a teapot. The main intent of Todd's analysis
> clearly
> is to underscore the inherent safety of public transport within the
> context
> of urban mobility systems.  The issues Richmond raises are certainly
> worth
> analysis, but in a different study.
>
>
> >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.
>
>
> On the contrary, hearty congratulations are in order for Todd's timely
> and
> apropos analytical perspective on this issue and especially at this
> critical time.  Clearly, Richmond is irritated by anything incorporating
>
> sound professional analysis and data foundations to bolster the case for
>
> investment in public transport, thus challenging the underlying premises
> of
> Richmond's relentless crusade against it.
>
> LH
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ================================================================
> 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.



More information about the Sustran-discuss mailing list