[sustran] Re: "Vision", "technical assessment" or ???

[Jonathan Richmond]

I'm afraid you do not get the point.

This collecvtive decision making based on supposedly facts rarely if ever 
happens, but the obsession on technical analysis consumes huge amounts of 
resources and distracts from the real task of engaging communities in 
meaningful dialogue on what they want done.

Technical analysis is almost always elitist furthermore: it reflects the 
views of those who take it upon themselves to plan rather than going out 
and doing the difficult task of finding out what those in need really 
want.

I'll give you one example. I worked in one country where 15 years of 
endless technical analysis produced no results. One study after anpother 
gathered dust -- shpould we do this transport improvement, should we do 
that? There was a technical case for every possible permutation!

Tnhe way I tried to resolve the issue was to hold consensus forums. I got 
together all the major stakeholders in transport. There it began to emerge 
that there were conflicts and fears: Fears of a loss of business and jobs 
byu existing transport industries and their workers. So we set about 
discussing and negotiating how to resolve these fears, and a viable course 
of action came out of this. We did not consult any technical studies in 
the course of this debate, nor was the option chosen seemingly the most 
technically feasible. I would be the first to agree that it was defective 
in many ways!

But we had a path to follow, a coalition of support, a way to make 
progress. And that has much to be said for it!

No, I do not discount facts. I use them all the time. And I marshall 
technical analysis and try to explain economic and financial 
characteristics all the time. My use of these techniques is primarily to 
stop decisions being made that are "really stupid." Beyond that, the game 
is far more complicated -- and so it should be if we are to meet the needs 
of the people who count: those who need better services, and those who 
need to be helped to express their own opinions and have them taken into 
acocunt rather than be given prescriptions by know-it-all Western 
economists!

                                        --Jonathan


On Thu, 5 May 2011, Robert Cowherd wrote:

> Jonathan,
>
> Are technical assessments often distorted? Sure. Even if they are accurate,
> are technical assessments often manipulated? Routinely.
>
> But to draw from this the position that we should abandon empirical data on
> how the real world operates is a dangerous cynicism. There may have been a
> brief moment (think 1980s) when some academics were attracted to this path,
> but looking out the window this seems irresponsible. We live in a different
> world.
>
> It remains the central task of any intellectual community (guided by a more
> humble culture of "expertise" focused on empowering others) to train its
> light on the strengths and weaknesses of technical assessments to correct
> the half-truths. Then, as a further step, to critically evaluate
> interpretations of the empirical evidence and challenge the distortions. To
> abandon our commitment to the facts because they are often not-quite-factual
> or because they are so easily manipulated is to abandon society to the
> ravages of the whomever-shouts-the-loudest political processes we see in
> cable news punditry. Oligopoly arrangements operating behind a mask of
> "free" markets thrives on this.
>
> Taking some cues from historiography, it takes the hard work of a community,
> often building on the work of those who came before, to establish useful
> empirical evidence. The separate task of interpreting that evidence to draw
> useful conclusions is contextual: every situation, every time and place,
> requires a fresh look.
>
> More than ever, there is no good alternative to the hard work of collective
> decision making at large and small scales. If not for recourse to facts on
> the ground, many of us will choose instead to just stay in bed.
>
> Robert Cowherd.
>
> On 5/5/11 5:19 AM, "Paul Barter" <peebeebarter at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I think these points from Chris Z and Jonathan R send us in an important new
>> direction about the proper roles of 'vision' and 'technical assessment
>> tools' in urban transport decision making. So I am posting this with a new
>> subject line in order to create a new message thread to make this easier to
>> find amidst the noise.
>>
>> MY TWO CENTS:
>>
>> Some might say 'markets' would be the other corner of the triangle here,
>> no?  Or rather, for policymakers, the task is to establish the right
>> frameworks and structures and regulations to make sure that any market
>> processes work well.
>>
>> 'Vision' at its worst can be a single dictator's idea of the good city. But
>> at its best I would think of it as a consensus about which values matter
>> most to the choice at hand. It should emerge from some kind of healthy
>> deliberative political process.
>>
>> And technical assessment tools are just one part of technical/rational
>> approaches to planning/policy.
>>
>> So, I tend to think of key transport choices (such as the big decisions in
>> public transport policy) as being made/influenced via a COMBINATION of all
>> three:
>>    1.  deliberative political processes,
>>    2.  technical planning,
>>    3.  market structuring/regulation.
>>
>> None of the three stands alone because each influences the others (or
>> should). So I would agree that thinking we can make such complex choices
>> with technical planning alone is a folly that has got us into trouble many
>> times in many places. And as Jonathan points out, it is often a smokescreen
>> to hide the values assumptions behind the decision and avoid the open
>> political processes that should reveal values-based choices. Much
>> mega-project planning in urban transport falls into this trap (whether for
>> expressways or high-capital public transport systems).
>>
>> I do think technical tools have their role, but only together with politics
>> and the careful use/regulation of market processes. But of course, we have
>> great challenges getting any of the three right, let alone getting the right
>> balance among them.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> On 5 May 2011 14:21, Jonathan Richmond <richmond at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Zegras comes out with the tired "technology will solve it approach." Do a
>>> scientific assessment and you will have the answer, he supposes. Alas, this
>>> does not work. First of all, there is no such thing as a neutral assessment.
>>> Assumptions must be made and there is no scientific way to choose them: read
>>> the work of Wachs and Dimitriou on this subject if you have any doubt.
>>>
>>> Secondly, technical assessments are rarely of interest to decision makers
>>> who have generally made up their minds on the basis of other criteria -- in
>>> fact, such assessments are more often than not made in support of a
>>> particular viewpoint than in an effort at supposed neutrality.
>>>
>>> Thirdly, why should resources be spent on Zegras's imagined "bi-partisan"
>>> assessment (even were such a thing possible) when there are so many other
>>> pressing demands in the developing world? How can such an expenditure be
>>> justified compatred, for example, to a project to assess the potential for
>>> non-motorized transport in the developing countries of the future? And who
>>> is supposed to come up with the money for the project?
>>>
>>> What Zegras will find is that coming up with a "vision" is dangerous in
>>> itself. The visual appeal will be taken as a model and the technical results
>>> count for little. And why do we want a technological vision put forward by
>>> Western academics anyway? Would it not make more sense to adopt a more
>>> modest approach and visit cities in question to talk to residents --
>>> including the poorest ones, not only the ones that might enjoy a high-tech
>>> marvel -- and develop a vision based on local understandings and needs?
>>>
>>>                                   --Jonathan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 4 May 2011, P. Christopher Zegras wrote:
>>>
>>>  First, deep thanks to Paul Barter for sending out his kindly diplomatic
>>>> email reminder
>>>>
>>>  of the purposes, audience, rules and etiquette of this great list-serve.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hopefully we can dispense with the name-calling. The world needs
>>>> futurists, the world
>>>>
>>>  needs realists, etc. - we need diversity (in all its forms), since from
>>> diversity comes
>>>  our only hope of ingenuity and sustainability.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Personally, and at the risk of violating sustran's rules myself: I find it
>>>> ironic that
>>>>
>>>  someone with a clear commercial interest in a particular technology
>>> accuses others with
>>> no explicit commercial interest of being cronies to some industrial
>>> interest or another.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I believe that the value of this debate can best be extracted with an
>>>> honest
>>>>
>>>  intellectual collaboration among the two sides.  First, basic empirical
>>> fact should
>>>  be determined: the recent article posted for Bangalore ("Will Bangalore
>>> take a call on
>>>  POD after Gurgaon experiment?") showed exactly the perpetuation of
>>> half-truths
>>> (or outright falsehoods- e.g, we know Heathrow's PRT [all 3.9 km!] is still
>>> not working;
>>>  NYC and "many places in US" have PRT! Please show me where, I'd love to go
>>> for a ride;
>>>  etc.), which one can only logically conclude comes from the industry
>>> promoters themselves.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> But, for this forum's purposes, what I believe really needs to be carried
>>>> out is a
>>>>
>>>  serious, "bi-partisan", assessment of this technology's capability to
>>> provide a
>>>  near-term solution to the developing world's mobility challenge.  How, in
>>> practice,
>>>  could PRT (whatever variant one wants to look at) actually serve the
>>> complex demands
>>>  under the complex constraints of a city like Mexico City or Arequipa or
>>> Bangalore or
>>>  Shenzen or Abidjan, or wherever): how many nodes, how much infrastructure,
>>> etc. etc. \  One thing is to lay out a generic vision of ski chair-lift\
>>> inspired cable PODs running across a city - but, regurgitating\ a place-less
>>> vision will not convince the doubters. The \vision NEEDS to be grounded with
>>> an actual simulation (need not be sophisticated\ - show me a convincing
>>> spreadsheet model) of the application to a\ REAL place, with REAL OD flows,
>>> with all the REAL constraints\ (physical, cultural, financial). Naturally,
>>> for the PRT side this \is a challenge due to the dearth of any successful
>>> real-world applications;
>>>  but, I believe a sketched vision on actual empirics would go a long way
>>> towards
>>> providing some initial answers.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Until we see such an analysis, it is, for me anyway, difficult to assess
>>>> the value of PRT technology for the developing world.  And, despite Mr.
>>>> Oster's calls for others to get out the "slide rules" to "prove" any other
>>>> modes are better than "real PRT," I believe the burden of proof falls
>>>> squarely on him.  The other modes are "real;" I'd like to see revolutionary
>>>> improvements  over the "real" modes, but real improvements are not evidenced
>>>> in patent filings, web-sites, franchisees and prosaic images of ski lifts
>>>> across the urban landscapes (oh what a sight it would be - an MRG-inspired
>>>> single chair spanning Mumbai in the monsoon season!) - but by realistic
>>>> portraits of practical implementation in real place.
>>>>
>>>> Personally, I believe the un-tethered digital, real-time, distributed
>>>> computing, ad-hoc sensored world of the 21st Century will seriously
>>>> disadvantage any infrastructure-intensive tethered mobility solutions.  But,
>>>> that's just a hypothesis; I'd be happy to see it rejected.
>>>>
>>>> And, now Mr. Luddite needs to sign off this computer-thingy and get on my
>>>> 2-wheeled human-pedal-powered contraption for a nice ride home in a Boston
>>>> Springtime "monsoon"...
>>>>
>>>> Kind wishes, Chris Zegras
>>>>
>>>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit
>> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>> If you get sustran-discuss via YAHOOGROUPS, please go to
>> http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real
>> sustran-discuss and get full membership rights.
>>
>> ================================================================
>> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable
>> and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global
>> South').
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit
> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> If you get sustran-discuss via YAHOOGROUPS, please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights.
>
> ================================================================
> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South').
>

-----
Jonathan Richmond
Bangladesh number: +880 (0)1714 179013
US number: +1 617 395-4360
e-mail: richmond at alum.mit.edu
http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/