[sustran] Criteria for New Mobility innovations

[Eric Britton]

Dear JK,

That’s extremely interesting that you would look at my “criteria scorecard”
or whatever one might wish to call it in the context of Transantiago that we
have been in parallel discussing. In drawing it up over the last several
days I was thinking mainly about the pre-selected (by me) innovations that
are presently in process here in Paris – and your crossing it to the
Transantiago project puts it all in a different perspective. Hmm.  Gotta
learn to get the right and left brains to working together on all this.

What do you all think about it if I add something along the following lines
to my shortlist?  (Help want for doing better on this and all the rest.)

Incremental implementation:  Can the measure or system be brought on line in
a phased, step-like manner which will permit debugging and fine tuning at
acceptable levels of public discomfort and cost?

Otherwise I am certainly struck by the centrality of your comments on what
are clear, and I am sure many of us think altogether avoidable strategic and
planning optimism and oversimplifications in the TA’s team approach. As a
strong supporter of new mobility innovation of which this is an important
example, I greatly regret these problems. It is such a clear object lesson,
for us all and I can only hope that they will now be able to scramble to
safety and get this important project working and accepted by all concerned.
I am in fact prudently confident that they have the brains, will and the
means to sort it out – but I would say once again that it would be good if
those of us with first hand information were to take the time to go over to
the TA entry at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transantiago -- and make it
better.

BTW, the entry is now posted in French German, Swedish and Spanish
versions – with this last, unsurprisingly, the most complete.

Eric Britton





-----Original Message-----
From: Jaswant Krishnayya [mailto:jkrishnayya at yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2007 11:50 AM
To: Eric Britton
Cc: sujitjp at gmail.com; Sudhir Jatar
Subject: Re your set of Criteria for New Mobility innovations

Dear Eric,

The idea is there, but these clues to better design do not, it seems to me,
take full account of what we can learn from the Santiago debacle.  There, as
you know, what seems like a superb piece of system-design, political
support, funding, etc., came apart in the real world because it was a
complex system-design that apparently had to all work together from day-one
.. or else.

What I am getting at is that in making modifications to real-world operating
systems, we must think incrementally. There is no way (?) to get millions
(or even thousands) of users to suddenly change the way they get to work or
go shopping.

So designing the system - sequence  - of implementation is a crucial part of
the system-design.  This must be in baby steps so that each step can be
retraced and rebuilt if found necessary, without threatening the public
acceptance of the  scheme as a whole - not to mention the promise (of
much-improved services) there contained.

You have many criteria that point to this, of course, particularly the
question whether the system has been tried out, etc etc.  However, a little
explicit acceptance that every complex system will have flaws only
discovered during real-world implementation - which will quickly cascade,
is, I believe essential too.

Sincerely,

Jaswant Krishnayya
===============


-         - - - -

Bottom-Line new mobility tests:
1.	Traffic reductions: Does this new mobility tool help to reduce (and
especially SOV) car traffic in the city?
2.	Environment sustainability: Does it offer a proven, significant,
cost-effective capacity for reducing CO2 and other sources of pollution?
3.	Cost effective: Can it be brought on line at relatively low cost?
4.	Fast results: And show significant results within a single electoral
mandate?
5.	Accessible: Is it widely accessible and easy to use?
6.	Equitable: Is it affordable and socially equitable?
7.	Synergies: Does it synergize with and open up space for yet other  new
mobility  options, reforms and measures?
8.	Public space: Does it help to improve the quantity/quality of public
space in the city?
9.	Replicable: Is it replicable in other cities (with proper preparation and
adaptation of course)?
10.	Experience-proved: Has enough experience been accumulated both in Paris
and elsewhere so that cities wishing to look closely at the concept can do
so with confidence?
11.	Flexible: Does the approach permit a range of alternative planning,
financing and implementation alternatives?
12.	Incremental implementation:  Can the measure or system be brought on
line in a phased, step-like manner which will permit debugging and fine
tuning at acceptable levels of public discomfort and cost?
13.	Reversible: Can it be readily and cheaply reversed, or radically
restructured or moved to a better location, if it proves somehow
unsatisfactory in its performance?
14.	Participatory: Does the project by its nature invite, provide for active
public participation and collaboration?
15.	Open: Is the necessary information accessible to diligent professionals?
16.	City-transformation:  Is it a ‘city-transforming’ project that can lead
to a much more sustainable city and higher quality of life for all?
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070505/7014b8fc/attachment.html