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

[Jonathan Richmond]

Both the views you state are valid, and you consider them nicely. In both 
cases the community is brought in and if, as you say, values are truly 
considered -- something that in fact happens rarely -- both have their 
roles.

My point about technical suboptimality is that community consensus can be 
argued as the truly "optimal" approach, especially when the alternative is 
to continue to face political opposition and to do nothing. I say this not 
only because community values are represented by accepting their 
consensus, but because such an approach can be the most practical one to 
moving forward.

The particular case, by the way, was about allowing a BRT project to go 
ahead with local bus operators allowed to use the facility -- something 
likely to cause operational chaos! I advocated going along with this, 
however, as the only way to allow BRT to proceed, since up to that point 
BRT had been opposed by both the bus industry and its powerful labour 
unions!

There is nothing wrong with finding out about values, coming up with 
options and doing your own assessment -- however, that assessment should 
then be the subject of community debate and critical reflection by all 
parties. Perhaps that way, the two approaches you differentiate can in 
fact be brought together! --Jonathan



On Fri, 6 May 2011, Karthik Rao-Cavale wrote:

> Dr. Richmond,
>
> Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the real disagreement between
> you and Prof. Zegras is not about the role of deliberative processes but
> rather about the importance of "comprehensiveness" in project assessment.
> Your approach - which you borrow from Don Schon's experiential learning
> model - is cyclical in nature. Communities might consensually agree on
> sub-optimal options - and you will allow these sub-optimal options to
> proceed. Hopefully, communities will learn from their previous experience
> the next time round to make better choices.
>
> Prof. Zegras' approach is different, but no less based on community values.
> He will first ask communities to spell out their goals in detail. He would
> then anticipate the consequences of all the feasible options available to
> him (the "technical analysis" step), and by comparing their performance in
> light of the goals drawn up by the community, he would choose the optimal
> solution. His method is equally transparent as the community makes the value
> judgments - perhaps more transparent because of the explicitness required.
> But it does require greater effort and technical expertise because of the
> comprehensiveness demanded the technical analysis step. It is also more of a
> linear model, designed to produce the most optimal outcome in a single
> attempt. (Prof. Zegras, do correct me if I misrepresent your views)
>
> Personally, I think I prefer Prof. Zegras' approach. Transportation projects
> are too big to experiment with constantly. We need to get them right in a
> few attempts, and that's not likely to happen if we replace comprehensive
> analysis with a cyclical model of experiential learning. For all its
> inherent flaws, there is a reason why the rational comprehensive approach
> continues to hold sway in the profession of transportation planning (more so
> than in other planning disciplines).
>
> I derive my own theoretical framework for decision-making from what I
> understand of Amartya Sen's theory of justice. Friedrich Hayek has argued
> that all planning will eventually fail because of unintended consequences
> not taken into account. In *Development as Freedom*, Amartya Sen responds to
> this by saying that *unintended* consequences need not be
> *unanticipated*consequences. It follows that one of the prerequisites
> of reasoned progress
> (that communicative rationality hopes for) is that consequences can be
> anticipated with some degree of precision. This often requires "technical
> analysis" with some level of comprehensiveness.
>
> I hope I do not sound too confused. I look forward to your comments and
> criticism.
>
> Regards,
> karthik
>
> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 7:07 AM, Jonathan Richmond <richmond at alum.mit.edu>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 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/
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>
> ================================================================
> 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/