[sustran] Re: Book Review

[Todd Alexander Litman]

These issues can be viewed from a variety of perspectives. Rail 
service declined for a variety of reasons. I agree with Dr. Richmond 
that the GM/Standard Oil/Firestone Rubber conspiracy was a minor 
component, but I don't agree that the demise of rail in most U.S. 
cities, and sprawled land use were simply a rational response of "the 
market" which benefits consumers overall. A variety of market 
distortions (such as subsidized parking and underpricing of roads), 
social problems (racism in particular), and the enthusiasm with which 
people of diverse political ideologies embraced the vision of an 
automobile-dominated transportation system, creating a 
self-fulfilling prophesy.

Dr. Richmond's analysis is based on the assumption that redeveloping 
rail transit in modern cities is a wasteful and misguided, based on 
the relatively high unit costs of rail transit service compared with 
alternatives such as Bus Rapid Transit 
(http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm120.htm ) in automobile-oriented cities 
such as LA. But this perspective tends to overlook many of the 
potential benefits of rail transit (http://www.vtpi.org/railben.pdf 
), particularly its ability to create more efficient and multi-modal 
land use patterns, which provides a variety of economic, social and 
environmental benefits. This perspective assumes that transportation 
decisions should respond to existing land use patterns rather than 
try to change them. It also assumes that transit has a fixed budget, 
so money spent on rail would otherwise be spent on buses, but in many 
situations money spent on rail would otherwise be spent on highway 
capacity expansion. The criticism that rail investment decisions are 
biased by federal match funding may be true, but it is even more true 
for highway projects, which tend to receive higher matching levels 
and less economic scrutiny.

The argument that LA should not invest in rail because it currently 
has automobile-oriented land use and transportation patterns could be 
turned around. We could say that LA is exactly the sort of place that 
needs rail transit most: it has high density but a lack of mixed-use 
urban centers, and it has a mature highway system with high marginal 
costs for further expansion. People who support rail in such a city 
may be those who have a long-range vision for what the city could 
become. That sort of vision is badly needed. I suspect that many 
people who were skeptical of rail will learn to appreciate it over 
time as its positive impacts on land use development begin to take hold.

There are certainly cheaper ways to encourage urban redevelopment. I 
would rather see road pricing and large investments in bus service 
improvements first, although that would likely lead to rail 
development as transit ridership grows. But if the choice is between 
urban highway expansion and rail transit development I'm pretty sure 
that a comprehensive, long-term analysis will favor rail.


Best wishes,
-Todd Litman


At 06:48 PM 10/9/2005, Lee Schipper wrote:
>And the problems light rail had stemmed from the 1920s, when their fares
>were too low and they started to fold. People begrudgingly got cars --
>so said a UC Berkeley
>Geography Prof in his take on this in the late 1980s..
>
>How about the Delhi or Bangkok metros? The LA "Metro" with the boutique
>stations? How about the outer parts of US systems like Metro in
>Washington DC or BART?
>
> >>> "Jonathan E. D. Richmond" <richmond at alum.mit.edu> 10/9/2005 9:38:09
>PM >>>
>
>
>All good questions.
>
>The point is that while GM did indeed want to get rid of rail lines,
>the
>demise of rail was not the result of any such conspiracy but a response
>to
>the market which had made rail uncompetitive. Rail companies were
>making
>big losses as automotive-induced decentralization became a fact of
>life, and trying to get out of the business.
>
>                                                      --Jonathan
>
>On Sun, 9 Oct 2005, Lee Schipper wrote:
>
> > Thanks, this looks very interesting. It's always fun to fly in to LA
>and
> > see if you can spot the Blue Line train (I usually only see one)!
> >
> > I am just old enough to remember the Red cars in LA in the 1950s. WE
> > lived about 1/2 km from Venice and La Cienega, where the red car went
>by
> > on an overpass.  I wonder, how much longer would have the old red
>car
> > light rail lasted in LA without the alleged "conspiracy"? Maybe the
> > problem was people were not clustering homes at the stations or
>along
> > the lines?    Why did the French remove their rail from Paris in the
> > 1950s? Why did the social democrat Swedes do this in Stockholm too
>(as
> > well as ripping up lots of the key diesel-based rail lines
>connecting
> > small towns)?  Why did Hanoi rip up its light rail decades ago, only
>to
> > let the French donate one last year?
> >
> > There seem to be a message here, GM conspiracy or not.
> >
> > >>> richmond at alum.mit.edu 10/9/2005 9:07:24 PM >>>
> >
> >
> > Here's a review of my book in Technology and Culture, which most of
>you
> > on
> > this list probably would not otherwise see!
> >
> > Best,
> >
> >             --Jonathan
> >
> >
> > Technology and culture, July 2005
> >
> > Transport of Delight: The Mythical Conception of Rail Transit in Los
> > Angeles. By Jonathan Richmond. Akron, Ohio: University of Akron
>Press,
> > 2005. Pp. xix+498. $49.95.
> >
> > "This book is a study about the failure of thought and its causes,"
> > writes
> > Jonathan Richmond in his introduction to Transport of Delight. "It
> > starts
> > with a bizarre decision: to construct a comprehensive rail passenger
> > system in an environment where it appears incapable of providing
>real
> > benefits." Richmond analyzes the decision to redeploy rail-borne
> > public
> > transit in a metropolitan area infamous for its congestion, smog,
>and
> > sprawl, and, most importantly, where he believes that by any
>rational
> > measure buses provide a superior mode of transit. He finds the
> > explanation
> > for this decision in the power of myth and symbol, image and
>metaphor,
> > citing extensively from linguistic experts such as Susan Langer,
> > George
> > Lakoff, and Martin Fossand on his first page quoting a passage from
> > Russell Ackoff's The Art of Problem Solving: "We usually try to
>reduce
> > complex situations to what appear to be one or more simple solvable
> > problems . . . sometimes referred to as 'cutting the problem down to
> > size.' In so doing we often reduce our chances of finding a creative
> > solution to the original problem." This is exactly what Richmond
> > believes
> > happened in Los Angeles beginning in the 1980s.
> >
> > Richmond has done his homework. His book is based in part on more
>than
> > two
> > hundred interviews with public officials. He presents a history of
> > Henry
> > Huntington's Pacific Electric, the storied Red Car system that once
> > operated 1,100 miles of track radiating in all directions from Los
> > Angeles. He evaluates the case for modern light rail and the
> > forecasting
> > methodology used to predict passenger demand for the first route
> > planned
> > for the Los Angeles area, the Blue Line connecting with the region's
> > second-largest city, Long Beach. He reports that ridership forecasts
> > were
> > initially inflated. Then, just before the line opened, they were
> > deflated
> > in order to make the actual numbers look good.
> >
> > Transport of Delight devotes considerable attention to the political
> > decision-making process that led to passage of Proposition A, the
> > local
> > half-cent tax that funded the return of electric railways, a process
> > ultimately dependent on "availability of a set of symbols, images,
>and
> > metaphors which come together coherently to create a myth that acts
> > with
> > the power of truth" (p. 6). The human body's circulation system, for
> > example, became a powerful metaphor for transit planners. Likewise
> > valuable was the perception among civic leaders that electric trains
> > were
> > "sexier" than buses, a perception Richmond addresses at length in a
> > section titled "The Train as Symbol of Community Pride: Penis Envy
>in
> > Los
> > Angeles."
> >
> > Richmond notes the power of the mental image that remained after the
> > last
> > Red Cars disappeared in 1961, an image that gave rise to the notion
> > that
> > [End Page 661] the demise of a superior mode of transit was the
>result
> > of
> > a conspiracy in which General Motors played a key role. The first
> > local
> > railway started running between the harbor and downtown Los Angeles
>in
> > 1869, the last Red Car line operated along this same corridor, and,
> > thirty
> > years after service ended on that line, rail-borne transit was
>reborn
> > in
> > the form of the Blue Line. This, Richmond feels certain, was a big
> > mistake. In his view, buses are a superior mode of transit for Los
> > Angeles, particularly in terms of their cost-effectiveness; just
>about
> > everything involving an electric railway is vastly more expensive
>than
> > rubber tire on paved roadway.
> >
> > The Blue Line was brought into existence not on the basis of any
> > rational
> > assessment of available choices, but to reward political acumen,
> > particularly that of County Supervisor Kenneth Hahn (now deceased,
> > though
> > his son became mayor of Los Angeles), through whose Fourth District
> > was
> > routed not only the Blue Line but also two other new electric rail
> > lines -- all this in the wake of devastating riots in South Central
> > Los
> > Angeles and repeated recommendations that improved transit would
>have
> > beneficial social consequences.
> >
> > The problem was "cut down to size," yes, but Richmond is certain
>that
> > it
> > was the wrong size. Whatever one may happen to think about the
>virtues
> > of
> > different modes of urban transit, Transport of Delight presents an
> > excellent case study in the power of myth, and it provides us with a
> > compelling picture of a place where culture and technology blend
> > seamlessly.
> >
> > James Smart
> > Jim Smart is adjunct professor of journalism and public speaking at
> > California State University Fullerton and Cal State San Bernardino.
> > From
> > 1981 until 1998 he served as head of media relations for the
>Southern
> > California Rapid Transit District and the Los Angeles County
> > Metropolitan
> > Transportation Authority.
> >
> > Permission to reprint a review published here may be obtained only
> > from
> > the reviewer.
> >
> >
> > -----
> > Jonathan Richmond
> > 182 Palfrey St.
> > Watertown MA 02472-1835
> >
> > (617) 395-4360
> >
> > e-mail: richmond at alum.mit.edu
> > http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/
> >
> >
> > ================================================================
> > 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 Richmond
>182 Palfrey St.
>Watertown MA 02472-1835
>
>(617) 395-4360
>
>e-mail: richmond at alum.mit.edu
>http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/
>
>
>
>================================================================
>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.


Sincerely,
Todd Alexander Litman
Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org)
litman at vtpi.org
Phone & Fax 250-360-1560
1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA
"Efficiency - Equity - Clarity"

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20051010/664b35de/attachment-0001.html