[sustran] Re: "Vision", "technical assessment" or ??? (was: RE: Re: Will the real PRT please stand up)

[Sudhir]

I am not knowledgeable like the experts arguing about 'technical
analysis' and 'community needs' in developing countries. However,  I would
like to share my experience while i was still building roads. I worked in
highway sector in developing countries in Asia for 6 years and the first
trick i learnt was to manipulate both technical analysis and community
discussions to favor my projects i.e. high speed roads. This was my bread
and butter.

Consultants like me used to make projects feasible by using rubbish
assumptions and make authorities/policy makers "happy".  we were hired to do
that. We used to take peanuts to do that. In projects in developing
countries not even 1% is been spent on data collection and community
discussions for establishing the feasibility of projects and to do detailed
design.

When we used to go to small villages and town to discuss improvement
options,  alignments and bypass issues.. we always knew how to again
manipulate the discussions with people. The easiest option is to go and meet
"rich" and finalize the improvement option with him with his "cut" ( say
bypass along the boundary of his land which will get appreciated
later). "Rich" in villages "define" the mandate and opposition to such
people is virtually nil and thus the outcome is what they desire.

I am not pessimistic. I switched jobs. Now i am paying for my sins. What we
are trying to do now is to make the decision making more transparent. If we
can improve both i.e. technical analysis and change the way community
participation is done.. and if we can get policy makers to "back" good
projects.. we can see real improvement. This cannot be done without spending
even 5% of project cost on such elements. We need to get good data and
influence the rich and poor to accept good projects.

regards
Sudhir




On 6 May 2011 03:38, Jonathan Richmond <richmond at alum.mit.edu> wrote:

>
>
> I do hate to repeat myself, and Zegras really is beginning to sound like a
> needle stuck in a repeating groove of a record (for those who remember the
> concept), but I do need to say that he is just plain wrong to suggest that
> having communities "speaking for their needs" and "technical analysis" are
> both planning technologies.
>
> He really needs to read work by, say anthropologists or, indeed, by the
> late Donald Schon (my dissertation supervisor) from his own department to
> understand that the concepts are fundamentally different.
>
> When you start listening to people, reflect, and come to new understandings
> that result in community consensus that is about as far from a technological
> approach as you can get -- and I have actually used negotiating techniques
> to produce suboptimal solutions that no technical approach would ever
> recommend, but which are excellent because they are in fact viable and
> sustainable in terms of representing values that communities can support.
>
> Note that when I talk about communities I am not doing "counting." I'm not
> doing a quantitative analysis. I am listening and coming to understand
> perspectives that may be different from my own and trying to represent the
> aspirations of groups of people to enable them to project and achieve their
> own destinies.
>
> Zegras is right that no approach is "neutral." The concept of "neutrality"
> is in fact a myth. However, the approach I call for starts by giving value
> to the community and its needs -- that is where its bias lies, not in
> allowing a conversation to start with and be controlled by any particular
> technology. We need to identify those values we wish to have represented --
> and let them lead the conversation, rather than having them buried tacitly,
> as is so often the case with the type of technical analysis that Zegras
> seems to find so deductive, despite the discomfort in the concept I am
> pleased to see he is beginning to reveal to himself.
>
>                                                        --Jonathan
>
>
>
> On Thu, 5 May 2011, P. Christopher Zegras wrote:
>
>  As someone whose first real "exposure" to "applied development" was
>> observing attempts
>>
> to operationalize Manfred Max Neef's human scale development approach in
> some small Southern
>  Chilean villages (coincidentally, whose main development challenges came
> from the penetration
>  of the Southern "Highway" [Carretera Austral]) in 1991, I believe in the
> real importance and
>  value of a human "needs"-oriented development approach.  I also helped
> develop and coordinate
>  several pilot transportation-oriented community-driven local development
> initiatives  in
>  Santiago and Lima in the early/mid-1990s and have participated in my fair
> share as a citizen
>  in the various places I've lived over the years.
>
>>
>> With that background, I see at least two problems with Dr. Richmond's
>> hypothesis.
>>
>  First, however, let's recognize that communities "speaking for their
> needs" and
>  "technical analysis" are BOTH "planning technologies."  Dr. Richmond
> posits that the former is "better" than the latter to take on "the imagery
> on which political decision-making thrives".  One problem with the
> hypothesis is that I would imagine it being a bit difficult to actually test
> (an endeavor which itself would require, I suppose, belief in "scientific
> assessment"...).  But, I'd be happy to see any efforts.  Otherwise, I don't
> see how Dr. Richmond's claim is any more legitimate than the claims of any
> other technology peddler.
>
>>
>> More fundamentally,  however, I believe that the either/or choice is
>> simply wrong.
>>
>  The two "planning technologies" he contrasts are not mutually exclusive
> and probably
>  would work most effectively TOGETHER. Also, let's not fool ourselves:
> NEITHER is "neutral"
> and BOTH can be very easily abused. Any socio-technical system and
> attempted
>  intervention in that system will be value-laden.  That's the nature of us.
>  And,
>  any planning technology can be blind-sided by new strategic technologies -
> some
> outlandish, others revolutionarily important. That's why we need
> transparency and
> open-ness to third party assessment using the appropriate planning
> "technology."
>
>>
>> In terms of the "mobility technologies" (sidewalk, bike share, BRT, LRT,
>> urban
>>
>  gondolas, PRT, zeppelins, beam-me-up Scotty) - I'm agnostic as long as the
>  "planning technology" is properly employed to best assess the
> effectiveness
>  of the mobility technology's potential role.  Otherwise we are left to the
> whims
>  of the politicians and the monied interests who will peddle their visions
> for
>  their own reasons.  Some of those "visions" may have been right at the
> time (in my own value-laden opinion: Lerner & co's Curitiba,
> Mockus/Peñalosa's Bogotá); many more, probably less right (in my value-laden
> opinion: AMLO's 'segundos pisos'; Lagos' Costanera Norte).
>
>>
>> So, please give me a "neutral" human-needs based derivation of urban
>> transport
>>
>  development strategies and a "neutral" technical analysis of what will
> work best
>  and where.  If it ends up being Mr. Oster's "Space Travel on Earth"(TM) I
> hereby
> pledge to personally go to whatever city deemed worthy and dig the
> foundation for
>  the first pylon (and/or string the first cable) myself (as long as it
> doesn't
>  violate any local labor laws...).
>
>>
>>
>> cz
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jonathan Richmond [mailto:jedrichmond at gmail.com] On Behalf Of
>> Jonathan Richmond
>> Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 10:09 AM
>> To: P. Christopher Zegras
>> Cc: sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org
>> Subject: RE: [sustran] Re: Will the real PRT please stand up
>>
>>
>> Ironically, given my recent emphasis on applied development work, I would
>> be more likely that Prof. Zegras to go after money from such an assessment!
>>
>> However, I believe he has still failed to confront my basic point that a
>> "neutral" technical analysis is an elusive concept and likely to be weak in
>> the face of the imagery on which political decision-making thrives, and that
>> a better approach than focusing on technology is to lend our ears to local
>> communities and find ways to have them speak for themselves about their
>> needs.
>>
>>                         --Jonathan
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 5 May 2011, P. Christopher Zegras wrote:
>>
>>  Dear all,
>>>
>>> I will try not turn this forum topic into a debate among "Western
>>> academics"....
>>>
>>> Dr. Richmond incorrectly implies that I believe technology, including the
>>> "technology" of program and project assessment, will "solve it."  However,
>>> the technology of project/program assessment might help ground the
>>> discussion and steer us towards better interventions because at least it:
>>> 1. forces us to attempt to think systematically through the problem
>>> and potential solutions 2. makes clear what we think we know and don't
>>> know 3. makes more transparent our assumptions and allows (in theory)
>>> others to examine the implications of those assumptions.
>>>
>>> That is, it can at least, help to create the space for a more "honest and
>>> open" debate.
>>>
>>> Before Dr. Richmond accuses me of being so naïve as to believe that this
>>> is how the world actually works, I will paraphrase an old Limeño friend and
>>> colleague who once offered me his "genetics of a transportation project" (he
>>> was referring to the Peruvian case, and a particularly foolish flyover, but
>>> I believe the elements of the  "model" are fairly universal).  Projects
>>> originate via (his model "calibration" to the Peruvian case):
>>> 1. personal relationships
>>> 2. financial sources
>>> 3. public opinion
>>> 4. technical analysis.
>>>
>>> That is, the project is born by some personal relationship, is raised by
>>> linking it with some source of financing, then is peddled to the public in
>>> the form of the "vision", and finally is justified by the pre-determined
>>> technical analysis.  I'm pretty sure all of us, from whatever part of the
>>> world we live in, have experienced this firsthand.
>>>
>>> In any case, the recent PRT resurgence on this forum and, apparently, now
>>> in Indian cities raises a basic question: what to do about it?  Perhaps we
>>> can ignore it. I agree with Dr. Richmond that the developing world (and much
>>> of the rest of the world, in fact), probably has better things to be
>>> spending public $ and time on.  But, then what happens when some
>>> entrepreneur gets the right personal relationships, finds the public money,
>>> convinces the public of the "marvel" and then the technical analysis is fait
>>> accompli?
>>>
>>> Contrary to Dr. Richmond's claim, the problem is not that a "vision" is
>>> dangerous; everyone knows the power (good and bad) of the "modern" vision of
>>> transport "solutions" dating, well, probably back to the very beginning of
>>> human history.  Visions, good and bad, are inevitable - we have imaginations
>>> after all....The problem as I see it is the vision, unchallenged or
>>> unchallengeable, being peddled without an attempt at grounded assessment.
>>>  For example, if Mr. Oster can show how his cable car POD could ACTUALLY
>>> physically, financially, economically, culturally, environmentally, etc. fit
>>> into the fabric of a real city - and make his assessment open to public
>>> scrutiny - we will all be better off.
>>>
>>> Maybe we just let the latest PRT rumblings go on their way. A few press
>>> stories does not a "revolution" make. Perhaps some Indian city will be the
>>> pioneer of a "modern transportation marvel" or the latest victim in a
>>> storied history of unfulfilled promise.  Maybe we can hope that, as Eric
>>> Bruun kindly suggested, the Mayor's transport staff will have a look at
>>> Vuchic's book and draw their own proper conclusions, before the city has
>>> spent itself too far down the black hole.
>>>
>>> Don’t get me wrong, despite Dr. Richmond's suggestion, I am not
>>> recommending that some city hire a group of overpaid western consultants and
>>> academics to tell them that PRT is good or bad.  I believe that any
>>> place-specific proposal should be assessed by people who actually know and
>>> live in the place - although we would be foolish to ignore the inevitable
>>> asymmetries of power, money, "technical sophistication" etc. when certain
>>> proposals come from large monied interests (not that this is actually the
>>> PRT case, rather the case of most other transportation technologies and
>>> financiers).  I do believe the burden of proof falls on the proponent - but
>>> too often the proponent gets into the door, peddles the vision to the
>>> politician who "buys" it and then what?  We wait until another boondoggle
>>> consumes time, money and effort that may have been avoided ex-ante?
>>>
>>> So, in the face of this particular technology and its various proposals,
>>> all I was suggesting that someone spend a modest amount of time (and yes,
>>> probably $) to carry out a reasonable "non-partisan" (probably better term
>>> than "bi-partisan"), quick-and-dirty assessment of this technology in a
>>> specific place.  Who would fund it?  I don't know; some foundation or
>>> development institution or something else.  Would I rather the money were
>>> spent on education, or traffic safety, or health care, etc.?  Well, truth
>>> is, it depends. If a modest investment in a decent assessment of this
>>> technology avoided (or gained) thousands or millions of monies and hours
>>> down the line, then the returns might be worth it.
>>>
>>> Maybe the whole endeavor would be giving too much credit to this
>>> particular industry and we could simply ask Mr. Oster: please show us how
>>> your proposal would actually work to socially, economically and financially
>>> satisfy any share of mobility demand in any city of your choice and please
>>> let us actually see the analysis (assumptions, etc.) so we can judge for
>>> ourselves.
>>>
>>> And, full disclosure, in case Dr. Richmond thinks I'm trying to line
>>> myself up for some high-paying, white towered, gig: I do not have the
>>> interest nor time to carry out such an assessment. But, I would be very
>>> interested in seeing the results.
>>>
>>> Kind wishes, Chris
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Jonathan Richmond [mailto:richmond at alum.mit.edu]
>>> Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 2:21 AM
>>> To: P. Christopher Zegras
>>> Cc: sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org
>>> Subject: [sustran] Re: Will the real PRT please stand up
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: E T 3 Space Travel On Earth tm [mailto:et3 at et3.com]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 10:19 AM
>>>> To: Dr Adhiraj Joglekar
>>>> Cc: transport-innovators at googlegroups.com;
>>>> sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org
>>>> Subject: [sustran] Re: Will the real PRT please stand up
>>>>
>>>> The Luddites could not allow that -- how would the loom workers know
>>>> it was time to wake up?  :-#
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 5:05 AM, Dr Adhiraj Joglekar <
>>>> adhiraj.joglekar at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Cant wait for the day I can say - beam me up Scotty
>>>>>
>>>>> I might just sleep in peace presuming they won't make a racket
>>>>> caused by jet engines overhead in West London.
>>>>>
>>>>> A
>>>>>
>>>>> On 3 May 2011 18:11, E T 3 Space Travel On Earth tm <et3 at et3.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dave and Eric, you are both on to something here -- M2W
>>>>>> (scooters/motorcycles/mopeds) are gaining share in many emerging
>>>>>> markets, AND they have some problems too as both of you have
>>>>>> pointed out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Compared to a car, a motorcycle or freeway capable scooter can
>>>>>> achieve much higher efficiencies and load factors (as proven by
>>>>>> motorcycles in California (where lane splitting is legal) doubles
>>>>>> lane capacity compared to single occupant cars). Consider a car
>>>>>> with an empty weight of 1000kg, a 1500cc 5 cylinder engine capable
>>>>>> of safely seating 5 persons.  Now consider 5 scooters each with a
>>>>>> single cylinder (identical to the car's cylinder of 300cc each).
>>>>>> The scooters each have two seats of capacity *5 = 10 total seats
>>>>>> capacity, and have a mass of 150kg * 5 = 750kg (250kg less material).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At 100% load factor (all seats filled) the car gets 40mpg * 5 =
>>>>>> 200pmpg, the scooters get 100mpg *2 = 200pmpg (no change in energy
>>>>>> efficiency) BUT the scooters have double the capacity and 5 times
>>>>>> the granularity. AND it is clear that the emissions would be about
>>>>>> the same (remember we are using the same cylinder).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now add Daves ideas of: fully enclosed road PRT (oops i mean
>>>>>> scooters) that use electric or hybrid power.  Such vehicles (we
>>>>>> call them MoPods tm (instead of mopeds) can have much better
>>>>>> aerodynamics (and less weight too) offering further energy and
>>>>>> material savings compared to cars and scooters.  In the rain, the
>>>>>> MoPod occupants do not get their hair and suit messed up on the way
>>>>>> to their up-and-coming professional job.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (Stay with me now) -- As proven by the California PATH program (of
>>>>>> automating car lane following / speed / spacing / merge / diverge /
>>>>>> braking / etc.) lane capacity can be increased by up to 5 times,
>>>>>> and rush-hour speed doubled by using automation or "intelligent
>>>>>> transportation" (IT).  Applying this to the "MoPods" could yield
>>>>>> similar benefits.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, hopefully you are all still with me -- now things can get real
>>>>>> interesting.  Instead of competing with non IT vehicles on roads,
>>>>>> what if we borrow from what is proven technology in the for-profit
>>>>>> ski industry?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1st some BACKGROUND INFO:
>>>>>> In the early days of down-hill ski areas in the EU and USA, a road
>>>>>> was built to the top of the mountain and a bus would haul the
>>>>>> skiers to the top of the hill.  Then it was discovered that a
>>>>>> couple of cables with a bunch glorified lawn chairs tied on could
>>>>>> do a much faster and more convenient job of moving people to the
>>>>>> top of the hill at much less cost than a road, bus, and driver.
>>>>>> Ski areas adopting cable suspended automated people movers made a
>>>>>> lot more money, and soon that was all that survived.  Skiers were
>>>>>> happy (no waiting for another 29 skiers to fill the bus, much
>>>>>> faster, cheaper ticket cost, and they did not have to risk catching
>>>>>> the flu from the one sick guy on the hill).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What if such "ski lift" cables could be suspended across cities, on
>>>>>> existing buildings, electric poles, bridges, and light poles?  What
>>>>>> if such cable suspended systems had means for automatically
>>>>>> attaching to the top of a MoPod such that the MoPod could be
>>>>>> carried several km across the city -- above all the cars and buses
>>>>>> competing for space of the streets below?  What if the MoPods could
>>>>>> be released from the cable on to a ramp at any bus stop along the
>>>>>> cable route without disrupting the trip of 29 other users?  What if
>>>>>> they could be "picked up" in like manner from any "bus stop"?  What if
>>>>>> the cable would
>>>>>> charge your batteries as it carried you in your own MoPod?   What if
>>>>>> this could be built for less than a tenth of the cost of building a
>>>>>> special bus lane?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some of the many cost advantages compared to buses and trains are:
>>>>>> less labor, less energy, less infrastructure, less maintenance,
>>>>>> less cost per seat (and the user pays this cost -- not the tax
>>>>>> payer who may not be able to use the system).  From the users
>>>>>> perspective, they use their own MoPod vehicle for the entire trip
>>>>>> -- only using the system when it makes sense for them (energy cost,
>>>>>> lower per-mile cost, and time savings are the main reasons to use
>>>>>> the cable suspended public part).  Parking is much less of a
>>>>>> problem than with cars (MoPods are so light weight they can be
>>>>>> stood up vertical for minimal parking footprint for not much more
>>>>>> space needs than a bike).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is NOT rocket science (but rocket science can be applied too --
>>>>>> see our ET3 system), aPRT is NOT what it was 30 years ago.   You all
>>>>>> owe it to your selves as transportation professionals to FULLY
>>>>>> understand what many of you are unreasonably opposed to -- you
>>>>>> might even get to keep or improve your jobs (unless you are
>>>>>> secretly on the payroll of outmoded train or bus manufactures)!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now what if your MoPod could drive into an empty ET3 capsule and be
>>>>>> automatically routed to any major city on earth in 4 hours or less
>>>>>> (while using less than 1/50th as much electrical energy per
>>>>>> passenger as the most efficient electric train or electric car)? THE
>>>>>> "REAL"
>>>>>> aPRT STANDS UP!  Don't just blast it with emotion based arguments
>>>>>> -- get out you calculators (or slide rules if i have some of you
>>>>>> pegged right), and prove that trains, buses, and bikes are better
>>>>>> than the real PRT.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Daryl Oster
>>>>>> (c) 2011 all rights reserved. ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on
>>>>>> earth", e-tube, e-tubes, & the logos thereof are trademarks &
>>>>>> service marks of et3.com Inc. For licensing contact:POB 1423
>>>>>> Crystal River FL
>>>>>> 34423-1423
>>>>>> cell:(352)257-1310 Skype:daryl.oster  et3 at et3.com  www.et3.com
>>>>>> et3.net All information included or attached is intended only for
>>>>>> the recipient and is confidential unless otherwise noted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 2:50 AM, eric britton
>>>>>> <eric.britton at ecoplan.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nice Dave, Couple of quick points to your observations follow:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1.       The W/S reference on this is
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://worldstreets.wordpress.com/2011/04/29/op-ed-will-the-real-p
>>>>>>> r
>>>>>>> t-please-
>>>>>>> stand-up/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2.       I hope that I did not say that I thought that the M2W
>>>>>>> solution was Nirvana, in terms of energy efficiency, emissions,
>>>>>>> driver behavior, encumbrance, safety or whatever of these zooming
>>>>>>> beasts. What I was trying to convey is that they are a fact, that
>>>>>>> their modal share is growing, that people chose to go with them
>>>>>>> for their own excellent individual reasons, and that warts and all
>>>>>>> they get their owner/passengers where they want to do, when they
>>>>>>> want to go there, and at a price that defies all competition.
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>> was trying to be descriptive, neutral,  and non-judgmental. But
>>>>>>> also not entirely blind to their reality.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3.       What I would dearly like to see now is a certain number of
>>>>>>> cities giving the example for making what the people have voted
>>>>>>> for with their wallets and their bottoms, a better deal all around.
>>>>>>> This will of course take them to matters such as size, type and
>>>>>>> performance of the engines, provision of road space for safety and
>>>>>>> efficiency when they are moving, some kind of rationalization when
>>>>>>> it comes to parking, and a real policy about enforcement.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have often maintained  that, like it or not, that people are
>>>>>>> smarter than government, and that the wise government will realize
>>>>>>> that and is ready to work with the people and their expressed
>>>>>>> interests, not only as individuals and today, but for society as a
>>>>>>> whole and for the long term.  That's our responsibility as policy
>>>>>>> makers/advisors, and that's a job that really does need to be done.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Will the real city ready to take the lead and show the way please
>>>>>>> stand up.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Eric Britton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Eric,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You do like to throw out these zingers on Friday, don' t you?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You make a VERY good point about bicycles and scooters being the
>>>>>>> original PRT.  Traffic congestion in these cities is NOT being
>>>>>>> caused by scooters.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That said, I think you're being too charitable calling scooter
>>>>>>> engines "pretty efficient".   Possibly, "relatively fuel efficient"
>>>>>>> compared to a 1 or 2 ton automobile but even 100 mpg for a scooter
>>>>>>> compared to 30 mpg for a small car doesn't seem very efficient to
>>>>>>> me (sorry all, I don't have the Liters per 100 KM conversion).
>>>>>>> But the worst thing that even the 4 cycle engines pollute like
>>>>>>> crazy compared to any current generation gasoline vehicle!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Given the large numbers of very similar scooter designs, it has
>>>>>>> always baffled me that Asian governments haven't provided some
>>>>>>> incentives for some to sell retrofit kits for the biggest selling
>>>>>>> models for electricity or at least natural gas, and, of course,
>>>>>>> provide incentives for people to buy them (or offer a scooter
>>>>>>> scrap program).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I understand that in the middle point of the economic ladder
>>>>>>> people don't want the wind (and sun and rain) in their hair when
>>>>>>> they're traveling.
>>>>>>>  So
>>>>>>> why aren't there aren't more partially enclosed scooter designs to
>>>>>>> serve the lower end of the market?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For better and worse, we (in every country) are constrained by the
>>>>>>> categories of vehicles that get defined in our laws.  In the US we
>>>>>>> could use a legal definition of a practical medium speed vehicle
>>>>>>> that could be manufactured and sold for $6,000 - $8,000 (remember
>>>>>>> the itMoves?
>>>>>>> http://itmoves.us/pages/product
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's my 2¢ for Friday!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dave Brook
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Portland, Oregon
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Web: www.carsharing.us
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Twitter: carsharing_us
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 29, 2011, at 12:42 AM, eric britton wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Somebody wake me up on this please.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1.       If we look on the streets of any city in the Global South,
>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>> PRT, personal rapid transport, all over the place.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2.       In the form of cheap motorized two wheelers with pretty
>>>>>>> energy-efficient engines, enough road space to get the trip done,
>>>>>>> and free parking right next to where you want to go.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3.       There is no way that the old mid-20th century PRT folks can
>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>> start to compete with that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 4.       But if this is the on-street reality, which of course it is,
>>>>>>> please
>>>>>>> show me the city or research program that is showing the way in
>>>>>>> getting the most out of this stubborn reality.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 5.       Who is making the best things about it better yet?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 6.       And who is getting some kind of control of the worst?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We need a new policy paradigm for this, let's call it, the people's
>>>>>>> PRT.
>>>>>>>  Of
>>>>>>> course it's part of the problem, but it is also clear that it is a
>>>>>>> major part of the solution, as anyone with even an ounce of
>>>>>>> experience and common sense can see.  And policy makers, advisors
>>>>>>> and proponents of sustainable cities we will continue to ignore it
>>>>>>> at our peril.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Take the city of Kaohsiung as just one salient example: 1.5
>>>>>>> million people,
>>>>>>> 1.2 million scooters, and something like three quarters of the
>>>>>>> modal split.
>>>>>>> And all this in parallel with an absolutely gorgeous new state of
>>>>>>> the art six billion dollar metro that started to go out of
>>>>>>> business on Day 1 of its opening and ever since, because it simply
>>>>>>> cannot compete in terms of trip time, convenient or price.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Shouldn't we be working on this – along with the on-street reality
>>>>>>> options such as BRT, HOV access, parking control, strategic speed
>>>>>>> control, safe walking and cycling, and all that we know are parts
>>>>>>> of the solution -- instead of wasting our time with these long
>>>>>>> disproven, whack-a-mole PRT proposals that clearly have no place
>>>>>>> in our cities
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How to get the message across to the policy makers and politicians?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This has been good fun, but Brendan Finn has it right. These PRT
>>>>>>> enthusiasts are distracting us at a time when we need all our
>>>>>>> brains and focus for the real stuff.  Out they go.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Eric Britton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Some reference points:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ·         Sustran list comments -
>>>>>>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sustran-discuss/message/6637
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ·         World Streets article of 26 April- http://wp.me/psKUY-1A9
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ·         CityFix article of 27 April-
>>>>>>> http://thecityfix.com/can-pod-cars-transform-traffic-in-delhi/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ·         Facebook group -
>>>>>>> http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_217653324914604
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ·         World Streets Poll -
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://worldstreets.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/prt-proposal-for-delh
>>>>>>> i
>>>>>>> -convince
>>>>>>> s-chief-minister-but-does-it-convince-you-see-poll-results/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (Note on the poll results: It has in the last 24 hours been
>>>>>>> contaminated by no less than 106 visits from a single Comcast
>>>>>>> Cable site in one city in the United States, with the result that
>>>>>>> exactly 65 votes have been recorded in favor of PRT as a solution
>>>>>>> from the one site. Now that's interesting.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit
>>>>>>> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_s
>>>>>>> s
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> 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').
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>> Daryl Oster
>>>> (c) 2011 all rights reserved. ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on
>>>> earth", e-tube, e-tubes, & the logos thereof are trademarks & service
>>>> marks of et3.com Inc. For licensing contact:POB 1423 Crystal River FL
>>>> 34423-1423
>>>> cell:(352)257-1310 Skype:daryl.oster  et3 at et3.com  www.et3.com
>>>> et3.net All information included or attached is intended only for the
>>>> recipient and is confidential unless otherwise noted.
>>>>
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 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/
>>>
>>>
>> -----
>> 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/
>>
>>
> -----
> 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/
> --------------------------------------------------------
> 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').
>



-- 
Sudhir Gota
Transport Specialist
CAI-Asia Center
Units 3504-05, 35th Floor, Robinsons-Equitable Tower,
ADB Avenue, Ortigas Center, Pasig City
Metro Manila, Philippines 1605
Tel: +63-2-395-2843, Fax: +63-2-395-2846
www.cleanairinitiative.org
Skype : sudhirgota