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

[Karthik Rao-Cavale]

Prof. Zegras,

Thanks for the detailed response. I enjoyed reading it, and I agree with
most of what you have to say. I do, however, wish to clarify my point about
the "linearity" of the rational-comprehensive planning method.

I do not underestimate the importance of steps 8 and 9 in the rational
comprehensive method - indeed, I think there are too few post ex-post
evaluations, especially in developing countries. In Mumbai, they spent
crores of rupees building the Bandra-Worli sea link (basically a tolled road
over the sea). After opening the link to traffic, they now find that demand
is not as high as they estimated. Ideally, we would go back to the drawing
board to see where in the planning process did the planners of the sea-link
get it wrong.

But I would still characterize the process as linear because its claim to
"optimality" is not based on the fact that analytical methods are refined
over time. Rather, the claim to optimality is based on the fact that all
plausible alternatives are evaluated by the same analytical methods
(assuming that the analytical methods in question treat all alternatives
fairly - an assumption often violated). Ex-post evaluation is aimed at
improving the "technology" of planning, but it does not change the product
itself. (Indeed, the product - the portion of the transportation system
planned - has already been built) This is the classical decision-analysis
kind of methodology that can basically be traced back to the folks at the
RAND Corporation.

I haven't read any of Prof. Schon's work, but as I understand his approach
from what I have read of him second-hand, it deliberately breaks up the
product of planning into smaller portions. (somewhat like Lindblom's
incremental planning approach) Less comprehensiveness is asked for in the
technical analysis step (Step 5) but steps 8 and 9 become more important.
They are not merely for improving the planner's analytical tools but for
improving the product itself. It is expected to lead to a "better" final
product than the "linear" model I described above.

I can imagine that these are not two distinct approaches to planning, and
that there exists a continuum in between. But these descriptions are useful
as two extremes between which any planner might choose to situate. My
argument is that given the lumpiness of transportation investments, any
reduction in the comprehensiveness of Step 5 is unacceptable in most cases.
We should incorporate Prof. Schon's organizational learning theories into
our processes, but not at the cost of comprehensiveness. Of course, the
model we adopt for large-scale construction of sidewalks in a developing
city might be different from the model for a large heavy rail system. I
think that my position applies more specifically to large turnkey projects
than to small improvements like sidewalks.

Regards,
karthik

On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 4:45 PM, P. Christopher Zegras <czegras at mit.edu>wrote:

> Dear Karthik,
>
> Thanks for the thoughtful post.
>
> My short response is the following: Dr. Richmond and I apparently don't
> disagree after all.
>
> To quote his response to you: "Perhaps that way, the two approaches you
> differentiate can in fact be brought together!"
>
> By my understanding, the primary substantive disagreement that Dr. Richmond
> and I had was that I disagreed with his hypothesis: that communities
> "speaking for their needs" was better than "technical analysis" to take on
> "the imagery on which political decision-making thrives".
>
> To which I simply counter-proposed: "I believe that the either/or choice is
> simply wrong and the two techniques probably would work most effectively
> TOGETHER."
>
> So, I no longer see a disagreement.
>
> (I still may disagree with some of Dr. Richmond's presumptions of my
> knowledge of, experience with, and understanding of the role of numbers,
> quantitative techniques, neutrality, etc. in planning, but I doubt that
> debate is of much interest here and attribute it to basic misunderstandings
> on both sides).
>
> For those that remain interested, I offer more detail below.  Karthik, I
> will also try respond along the way to the points you raise.  Dr. Richmond,
> before you respond to my synopsis above, I ask kindly for your patience and
> indulgence in attempting to wade through my full explanation below (unless
> you choose to ignore me completely, by which I will not be offended).
>
> First, I will attempt to clarify my own assumptions and concepts.
>
> I believe we are fundamentally talking about planning, by which I mean a
> process for getting something done.  Planning happens at multiple scales;
> for various time frames; by individuals, organizations, institutions,
> societies; using a range of techniques.
>
> Semantically, I called Planning a technology.  By this categorization I
> mean technology as in: the Greek roots of the word (systematic treatment of
> art, skill); commonly accepted social scientists' conceptualization of the
> term (i.e., the skills by which we use and produce "things"); and modern
> Merriam-Webster (i.e., "practical application of knowledge to a particular
> area").
>
> However, for the sake of clarity, hereafter I will use "technique" in
> distinguishing among particular planning methods and "technology" to refer
> to physical devices or systems of physical devices, even though these
> definitions remain difficult to practically separate in any actual
> socio-technical system.  There are a large number of planning techniques,
> the utility of which depends on the question, the time-frame, the scale, the
> proposed "solution", etc.  I believe any real-world planning application
> inevitably requires a combination of planning techniques.
>
> Finally, by "community" I refer to a network of interpersonal relationships
> providing "sociability, support, information, a sense of belonging, and
> social identity" (Wellman, 2005).
>
> Personally, I believe "ideal" planning would entail the following generic
> approach (carried out with various possible techniques and aided by various
> technologies, starting with pencils and paper):
> 1. problem(s) identification/definition, by which vision, goals and
> objectives are articulated.
> 2. goals/objectives translated into some suite of indicators (need NOT be
> quantitative), by which one can better understand the current state of the
> system.
> 3. design of specific analytical methods (need not be quantitative) to
> assess possible "solutions" to our problems.
> 4. collection of information necessary to enable our analysis (this
> includes all forms of data, qualitative and quantitative, as appropriate).
> 5. identification of and ex-ante evaluation of the possible "solutions" (in
> light of the goals/objectives/indicators).
> 6. choice of "best" solution(s).
> 7. implementation.
> 8. ex-post evaluation (relative to those indicators identified in step 2).
> 9. revisit 1, and repeat.
>
> When it comes to transportation (and any other form of public planning), I
> would prefer, ideally, that place-based "communities" actively participate
> in every step.  That is, community involvement is not a separate technique,
> but an integral component of everything else.  I do believe that would
> produce "better" outcomes.
>
> Karthik, I'm not sure if this is "linear" in that it may be more accurately
> characterized as circular, continuous....
>
> Of course, this is just Western-informed, "rational" planning almost
> straight from the textbook (literally, see Meyer and Miller, 2001). In many
> contexts it may be totally irrelevant.  I emphasize: this is my own biased
> conceptualization of planning, as informed by my own experiences, education,
> and so forth.
>
> In practice, it tends to be very difficult to adequately do any of the
> above, for any number of reasons. We never have perfect information, nor
> perfect knowledge. Any planning approach or technique, as Sudhir clearly
> pointed out, can quite easily be abused by the various players (potential
> for abuse correlated with power of the player), and becomes more complicated
> based on factors such as physical scale, jurisdictional scales, emergence of
> new conditions, etc. The larger the scope, the more time and money required.
> Many places don't think they have either, although most places (or those in
> power in those places) manage to find the time and money to embark on time-
> and money-intensive endeavors anyway, i.e.: Act now, Plan later.
>
> Too often, places start at 6 (choose the solution), pretend to do 5 (fudge
> the numbers), then do 7 (build), and go right back to 5.
>
> My experience in the Americas suggests to me that "communities" want and
> need to be involved in planning. But, they also recognize the shortcomings
> of their own particular knowledge in the face of the decision-making
> processes and powers.  Not to mention that they also have jobs to do, kids
> to raise, etc. etc.  And, "community" itself is a difficult concept to
> justly operationalize in practice. Unsurprisingly, most communities I've
> worked with want to enhance their knowledge with other forms of knowledge,
> just as I try to do.  That's human development.
>
> Below I provide some additional support and detail on various points, but
> this is probably already too long for most of you.
>
> My own experience, most recently informed by field-based pedagogical work
> (inspired by and attempting to operationalize Schön's concept of the
> "reflective practitioner") in Mexico City and Cartagena Colombia suggests
> that, unsurprisingly, place-based communities are very interested in
> actively engaging in defining and determining their development potentials.
>  They also tend to face major constraints: many of the communities facing
> the most dire conditions have little time or energy to "participate." That's
> also not a surprise given how hard most have to work to survive.  Yet, they
> will make the time and use the energy if they see the value. They want not
> only to utilize their own knowledge to improve their development
> possibilities, they also appreciate the value of, and want to gain, the
> knowledge of others - i.e., actively engage in knowledge creation.  A
> simplified example, students collaborate with market vendors in making a
> simple spreadsheet model of the actual costs of bananas so that market
> vendors can band together and more effectively press the wholesalers for a
> better price.  The numbers might be "wrong", the outcome possibly less than
> best, but better than before and hopefully moving the development
> possibilities in the right direction.  Beautiful symphony of at least two
> planning techniques, great learning experience for all parties, aided by a
> heavy dose of Schön-inspired reflection.  Knowledge gained for the next
> round.
>
> But, we can't always begin with step 1 (above) because reality often works
> differently.  Consider another example I'm familiar with in the Latin
> American metropolitan context: the case of a major urban highway proposal to
> go from the rich suburbs, straight through the middle of the city out to the
> airport and beach beyond.  The proposal is cooked up by some technocrats,
> politicians, the construction lobby, financiers, and others, aided by their
> primary planning techniques: traffic models and spreadsheets.  They probably
> did go through some versions of steps 1-6 above, but behind some closed
> doors, with a limited set of objectives, a limited number of "solutions"
> identified (i.e., one alignment or another), and a host of favorable
> assumptions.  However, at around Step 5, the most-afflicted neighborhoods
> learn about it and fight for their rights to participate in the process.
> They press to go back to 1, using the knowledge and power they have to
> organize as a community: banding together different interest groups, taking
> to the streets and the press in protest.  They also work exhaustively to
> gain other forms of knowledge they know they will need.  They appeal to
> academics, foundations, think tanks, sympathetic technocrats, etc.  They
> recognize that they can influence the process by exerting their power; they
> also believe they can strengthen their power by learning (or at least better
> understanding) the techniques of the technocrats.  The community wants help
> building their capacity, including technical, to articulate their wants,
> needs, arguments and counterproposals to the technocracy because they feel
> that is a key weapon in their struggle. They aim to synthesize the power of
> various planning techniques, because they believe that is how they can
> effectively influence planning socio-technical systems as complicated as
> today's metropolitan transportation systems.  They did not succeed in
> getting back to Step 1, but ultimately at least succeeded in improving the
> decisions made in Steps 6 and 7.
>
> The complexity increases with the scale of place, jurisdictions, and so on,
> as Karthik was suggesting.  At the city/metropolitan scale, we have massive
> interventions on the table, large monied interests involved, and long
> planning processes.  "Community involvement" can be very difficult to
> sustain, keep fairly balanced (geographically, economically, etc.), etc.
>  Anybody who has participated in such work over time, knows that people
> inevitably get pulled back to "their livelihoods", meetings and discussions
> can get dominated by experts, gadflys, and monied interests (who might or
> might not represent the "community") - in sum, politics and human nature.
> This is a world-wide challenge, documented in the Western context, for
> example, by Flyvbjerg for the case of Aalborg Denmark (Rationality and
> Power) and Gakenheimer for possibly the USA's first documented attempt at
> "open" transportation planning at the metropolitan scale: the Boston
> Transportation Planning Review (I'd like to note Dr. Richmond's grand
> lineage in this respect, as I believe he worked with both Prof. Altshuler,
> the intellectual father and leader of the BTPR, and Dr. Gakenheimer).  Dr.
> Richmond's own recent work sounds like a very important contribution to all
> of this and I hope one day to be able to learn about the experience in more
> detail.
>
> Finally, for any of those still reading at this point....I'd like to return
> to the proposition that initiated this exchange: PRT.  Its appearance in our
> "community" offers one glimpse at all of this.
>
> By my recollection, some news arises of a PRT proposal for an Indian city.
>   The news hits our community, which happens to be virtual-network-based,
> multi-cultural, multi-disciplinary, multi-national, multi-ethnic,
> multi-purpose, etc.
>
> One of our community members, Mr. Britton proposes and implements one
> "assessment" technique: a virtual poll to try to answer the question how
> does some self-selected slice of the global community feel about the virtues
> of PRT?  Recognizing all the imperfections and potential abuses of his
> "quick-and-dirty" approach, Mr. Britton aims to make it as transparent as
> possible.
>
> More doubters from the community weigh in, as does at least one PRT
> proponent, citing some not-well-grounded evidence to support his particular
> technology.  As far as I'm concerned, the proponent's proposal is made to
> this (Sustran) community.  As a member of this community, I suggest another
> assessment technique: a "bi-partisan" panel take a look at the evidence.  I
> also suggest that this would be most meaningful if done with a particular
> place in mind, b/c I think grounding visions in reality is necessary if we
> are to consider them seriously and transparently. Dr. Bruun proposed
> another, easier, technique: go look at the evidence already compiled in
> Prof. Vuchic's textbook.
>
> Dr. Richmond then proposed another approach.  As I understand it, he'd like
> to start with the "community," by which I assume he means a place-based
> setting where people and businesses live and work.  That's an entirely
> legitimate approach; he can go to a place where PRT is being proposed and
> implement his community-based planning technique and I'm fairly certain that
> PRT would not even make it onto the radar screen, or, if it did, it would
> get eliminated fairly quickly from consideration.  And, I would be very
> happy to see the results of such an exercise. I would also be very surprised
> if it did not ultimately require use of several different planning
> techniques, including those that require numbers and counting and possibly
> even slightly more complex calculations.
>
> We can thank PRT for opening up this dialogue.  I have my own serious
> doubts about the viability of PRT as a useful transportation technology for
> most places, but I will let the particular place figure it out, hopefully
> using the right combination of techniques. However, if the PRT proposal
> comes to our (sustran) community again, I will make the same request: "show
> me the numbers, based in place!"
>
> Thank you for your indulgence,
>
> Chris
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karthik Rao-Cavale [mailto:krc12353 at gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 2:28 AM
> To: sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org
> Subject: [sustran] Re: "Vision", "technical assessment" or ???
>
> 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').
> >
>
>