[sustran] Re: Daryl Oster's comments

[Preston Schiller]

I hope that Mr. Oster approaches his technology work with a little 
greater care than he has approached the reading of the memo to which he 
purports to be replying.

Besides basing his refutation of Mr. Sreedharan's expertise on his own 
faulty googling, he misread Eric Britton's correspondence (which 
advocated for the inclusion of persons with expertise in the "soft" 
side of transportation planning and innovation), and then recommended 
two controversial "experts."

No doubt Jerry Schneider was well-intentioned when he joined forces 
with a very colorful coalition of Seattle area "experts" to bash light 
rail for that traffic-stuck city. That coalition included several 
persons who were notoriously anti-transit and pro-highway expansion, as 
well as the usual array of "I have a better idea" types who often enter 
the fray very late in the game and whose "better ideas" often cost more 
and are less effective than the proposal under question. I have 
benefitted from interchanges with Schneider in the past but the bash of 
LRT leaves me with a very bad taste in my mouth. I will leave it to 
others to decide whether his work is "leading edge" or some other sort 
of edge.

I say this as a refugee from the Seattle Transit Wars and someone who 
was very critical of the overblown costs of the current Sound Transit 
rail proposal (as well as the very high bus costs of both Sound Transit 
and King County's Metro) and the often disconnected way in which 
transit planning goes on in Central Puget Sound.

Citing Wendell Cox is far more laughable and display's Mr. Oster's lack 
of critical reading of Cox's work. I recall that a couple of years ago 
there was a lengthy interaction with Mr. Cox in the Sierra Club's 
transportation e-forum. I seem to recall that Mr. Cox stopped 
responding when there were too many difficult questions about the 
"data" upon which he was basing his anti-rail (intercity as well as 
rail transit) diatribes as well as the sources of funding for his 
"research."

Google can be a useful tool for developing some aspects of a 
bibliography but it is no substitute for plain old-fashioned reading 
and evaluation.

Often the advocacy of "leading edge" technologies is used by interests 
who do not want automobile dependency staved and will dangle "better 
leading edge ideas" before the public in the hope that the public will 
follow a technological pied piper off a transportation cliff rather 
than implement tried and true transit solutions.

Preston Schiller <preston at cc.wwu.edu>



=-=-=-=-=-=-=
On Dec 22, 2004, at 1:07 PM, Eric Bruun wrote:

>
>  
> Daryl:
>  
> Two comments:
>  
> I think you have a narrow definition of "leading edge". Sometimes it 
> is really "bleeding edge" and the concept can not be implemented in a 
> practical fashion, as Jerry Scheider himself has noted. How about this 
> group submitting names of some more people who have done leading edge 
> work that has actually been implemented? I nominate Yngve Westerlund 
> from Gothenburg, Sweden. He has done great work advancing public 
> transportation for the elderly that has both reduced costs and gained 
> acceptance. He is still full of practical ideas.
>   
> Also, the number of hits one gets on a websearch is not proportional 
> to expertise. Wendell Cox gets cited because he is conservative and 
> the conservative press and rail transit project opponents have fewer 
> such people to select amongst when they want a quote or consulting 
> help. There are far more left-leaning "transportation experts," so any 
> one of them is likely to be cited less often.
>  
> Eric Bruun
>  
>  
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Vittal Kumar A."
> Sent: Dec 22, 2004 1:10 AM
> To: et3 at et3.com, Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport
> Subject: [sustran] Re: principal voices
>
> Dear Daryl,
>  
> Type in 'E Sreedharan' and see....!
>  
> regards,
> Vittal
>
> Daryl Oster <et3 at et3.com> wrote:
> To Whom It May Concern:
>
> According to your "principal voices" website, the principal voices are
> "globally-renowned experts". If this is true, why is it that a google
> search for Ellatuvalapil Sreedharan (the principal voice for 
> transportation)
> turns up ZERO hits? If you are looking for an expert try the google 
> search:
>
> "Jerry Schneider" +transportation
>
> This will turn up over 800 hits leading to Transportation Professor
> (retired) Jerry Schneider. Dr. Schneider is likely the most renowned 
> expert
> on leading edge transportation alternatives.
>
>  Another google search:
>
> "Wendell Cox" +transportation
>
>  This search will turn up 11,000 hits on this transportation expert. 
> Why not
> ask either of these experts to debate with Ellatuvalapil Sreedharan?
>
> If this is really a debate, why are the public questions limited to 4, 
> and
> why is there no criteria on selection? It appears to that the principal
> voices debates could likely be a showcase for a hidden agenda that will
> after the fact be claimed to have been an internationally recognized 
> debate.
>
>
> Daryl Oster
> (c) 2004  all rights reserved.  ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on 
> earth"
> e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service 
> marks
> of et3.com Inc.  For licensing information contact:    et3 at et3.com ,
> www.et3.com  POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423  (352)257-1310
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com at list.jca.apc.org
> > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com at list.jca.apc.org] On 
> Behalf Of
> > EcoPlan, Paris
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 7:35 AM
> > To: Sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org; 'UTSG'; 'New Mobility Cafe [NMC]'
> > Cc: 'Margaret Bell'; 'Phil Goodwin'; 'Walter Hook'; 'Lee Sch ipper'; 
> 'F. O.
> > Montgomery'
> > Subject: [sustran] Proposal to the Principal Voices team
> >
> > Tuesday, December 21, 2004, Paris, France, Europe
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear Sustainable World Colleagues,
> >
> >
> >
> > I intend to post the following, or some version of it, tomorrow to 
> the
> > Principal Voices team -- http://www.principalvoices.com
> > -- with whom we now appear to have
> > found an effective communications channel in the person of Stan 
> Stalnaker
> > of Fortune. As you will possibly note, it is along the lines of a 
> ‘gate
> > crash’ as suggested by the indomitable Dave Wetzel of Transport for
> > London.
> >
> >
> >
> > If you have any thoughts or suggestions to modify or improve on 
> this, I
> > would be most grateful to receive them at your first convenience. I 
> have
> > tried hard to be a good representative for what I believe to be our 
> shared
> > philosophy, and as you will note I have put myself further as our 
> ‘voice’,
> > which may or my not be the best idea. I am as always open to better 
> ones.
> >
> >
> >
> > You know, it is my personal philosophy that occasions like this do 
> not
> > pass twice, so when they come up we must reach out and seize them. 
> And so
> > it is here.
> >
> >
> >
> > Your call.
> >
> >
> >
> > Salamaat, Shalom, and Merry Christmas,
> >
> >
> >
> > Eric Britton
> >
> >
> >
> > ******************************************************
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear Stan,
> >
> >
> >
> > I appreciate your friendly note of Mon 12/20/2004 and in particular 
> your
> > volunteering to serve as a channel of communication in the event 
> that we
> > have anything of interest to convey to those people who are making 
> your
> > program work. Since time is short with your January start-up date 
> barely
> > ten days away, I should indeed like to get the following comments and
> > suggestions to your team without delay.
> >
> >
> >
> > 1. Principal Voices Problem – The Transportation dialogue
> >
> >
> >
> > In short and speaking in the name of more than one thousand 
> professionals
> > from more than fifty countries with a long term interest and true 
> hands-on
> > experience and competence in matters of transportation policy and 
> practice
> > internationally, I would like to draw your attention to what we 
> regard as
> > two significant shortcomings in your important project as currently
> > framed. I address you here specifically on the matter of your
> > transportation section and would like to propose a couple of simple 
> fixes,
> > which I might add I have shared worth our several peer networks just 
> to be
> > sure that there is no major objection in principle to what follows.
> >
> >
> >
> > First, you need at least one more transportation voice, possibly 
> two, to
> > have full and competent coverage of the field as it is now defined 
> (we
> > call this New Mobility, as opposed of course to old mobility, but 
> more on
> > that just below). Does this imply that I think there is anything 
> wrong
> > with having Mr. Ellatuvalapil Sreedharan as leading voice? Not at 
> all. To
> > the contrary I think it is most exciting to have him willing to join 
> in
> > here as a representative of contemporary thinking and expertise on 
> one
> > side of the sustainable transport debate – after all a truly 
> remarkable
> > man: “one of India's greatest civil engineers, the architect of the
> > supposedly unbuildable Konkan Railway linking Mumbai and Mangalore, 
> and,
> > more recently, designer of the Delhi Metro system”. I think it is 
> fair to
> > say that his expertise will do honor to the primarily supply 
> oriented,
> > engineering, build it and they will come perspective of the 
> transportation
> > challenge, but that is at best only half the story. The rest of the 
> story
> > is if anything in this day and age even more important, so in a 
> moment I
> > will get to our suggestion as to how this might be quickly remedied.
> >
> >
> >
> > The second shortcoming of the current plan is your utter lack of a 
> true
> > feedback and open debate forum – this is definitely going to limit 
> the
> > profile, reach, usefulness and contribution of the final product. 
> (Not
> > only that you are going to limit the newsworthiness of the whole 
> thing,
> > which I imagine is also a factor that need to be brought into the 
> picture,
> > especially given who you people are.) True enough Time, Fortune and 
> CNN
> > are all three at heart basically broadcast media, and true too each 
> is
> > increasingly interactive – why so? because it’s cheap, can ge t 
> valuable
> > content, greater variety of views, and via its vigor and lively 
> debate
> > bring each of you more faithful customers. But in this case you seem 
> to
> > be pretty lagged in that department, and what you present thus far 
> is a
> > crystal clear example of one more of those tiring ‘managed debates’ 
> of
> > which we have seen far too many. We see this all the time in 
> transport
> > and environmental circles, and if you chose to persist in this in 
> the end
> > you always have a dead product… which I am sure is not what you folks
> > want.
> >
> >
> >
> > 2. Background – The missing half of the mobility story
> >
> >
> >
> > While the author of your transport issues paper has made a fair stab 
> at
> > integrating the more complex sustainability issues in the 
> introduction –
> > and in particular is to be commended for his choice of External Links
> > which really does provide a pretty good cover age of the various and 
> quite
> > different points of view – the bottom line of your piece is that it 
> is a
> > plea for (a) more supply, (b) waiting for the right time to do 
> better, and
> > (c) tempering ‘calls for reason’ about not doing anything reach that 
> might
> > render the plight of the hard-pressed existing suppliers of products 
> and
> > services any worse. But dear friends, this is only one point of 
> view, and
> > if you are indeed to live up to your promise of a wide international
> > debate, you have to reach far broader than that.
> >
> >
> >
> > One starting place to turn for more and better is The New Mobility 
> Agenda
> > and its extensive international network of practitioners and 
> proponents.
> > You can find extensive background on the philosophy and 
> accomplishments of
> > this informal, independent but not ineffective international 
> grouping if
> > you go to http://newmobility.org . Y ou may also
> > find good value in the handful of international ‘conversations’ 
> about and
> > expertise on these matters which feed into this movement: via our 
> own New
> > Mobility Cafe at NewMobility at yahoogroups.com, the Sustainable 
> Transport
> > Action Network for Asia and the Pacific (SUSTRAN Network)at
> > http://www.geocities.com/sustrannet/, the Universities' Transport 
> Study
> > Group. at http://www.utsg.net/, and Institute for Transportation and
> > Development Policy, the http://www.itdp.org/
> >
> >
> >
> > These fora and the individuals and groups behind them offer a clear 
> cut,
> > leading edge, world level state of the art, 21st century awareness 
> of the
> > issues and the full range of solutions -- and while there is no 
> aversion
> > on the part of most of us to building new systems and expanding
> > infrastructure in specific cases, we tend to be far more reserved 
> and I
> > would like to say sophisticated , and indeed practical, when it 
> comes to
> > better management of the infrastructure and systems we already have 
> in
> > place. Moreover, we tend too to be rather ambitious when it comes to 
> the
> > creative integration of new communications technologies into the 
> overall
> > systemic infrastructure, and that too might be one of the more 
> promising
> > avenues of the discussions and debate.
> >
> >
> >
> > Bottom line: Unless you find a way to factor in not only the points 
> of
> > view of the people and groups who constitute this new leading edge in
> > transport thinking and policy, you will end up with a tame kitty. 
> It’s
> > that simple.
> >
> >
> >
> > Now how to get the structure in shape to do this job. Well there are 
> a
> > number of possibilities as you may well image, but here you have my 
> no-
> > wait proposal.
> >
> >
> >
> > 3. Solution proposed
> >
> >
> >
> > T he Voices:
> >
> >
> >
> > First and with characteristic modesty, I propose that you add my 
> name as a
> > ‘voice’ to your transportation component to ensure that the New 
> Mobility
> > Agenda approach is also fairly and fully represented. My thought is 
> that
> > I can then act as a relay to ensure that our collective voices, 
> principal
> > too, are heard. Why me? Well, because I am here, generally competent 
> from
> > this perspective, pretty much able to work the network that you need 
> to
> > bring in, and ready to do to work on this because I think it’s 
> important.
> > Also since time is short, I would save you the beauty contest to find
> > someone better.
> >
> >
> >
> > Who else? Well, you have three slots for the Environment and Business
> > ‘Conversations’ and I think we should have three for our critical
> > transportation dialogue as well. I know several dozen each of whom 
> could
> > do a fine job at this, but time is short so I have to work with what 
> comes
> > most immediately to mind in this specific context. Here you have two
> > candidates each of whom with deep qualifications and records of
> > accomplishment, a strong international reach, with ideas that often
> > diverge from my own, who might do very well indeed here (maybe 
> better than
> > me in fact but forget I said that):
> >
> > o Walter Hook, who is Executive Director of the Institute for
> > Transportation and Development Policy, a Non-governmental 
> Organization
> > dedicated to promoting environmentally sustainable and equitable
> > transportation policies and projects in developing countries and 
> Central
> > and Eastern Europe, and whom you can reach at whook at itdp.org; and/or
> >
> > o Lee Schipper, who currently is Co-Director, of the EMBARQ project
> > of the World Resources Institute, and who has done quite a lot with 
> your
> > Shell sponsors ( which might help ease the pain). schipper at wri.org.
> > Moreover since the closing transport debate is slated for Mexico 
> City, a
> > place where Lee works pretty extensively, it might be good to have 
> him
> > there to factor in his competence and presence for the physical 
> events.
> > That’s schipper at wri.org
> >
> >
> >
> > The Debate Forum/Discussions:
> >
> >
> >
> > We will be pleased to work with you to set this up in a way that 
> will do
> > the job. The idea is that it should be wide open, lively, well 
> plugged in
> > to the full range of expertise and views, and that it be well 
> managed to
> > stay on topic. Also since the web technology on all this is moving 
> along
> > quite smartly, this could be a good occasion for us to work with 
> your best
> > technical people to find a really strong, readable, appealing way to
> > handle this.
> >
> >
> >
> > A Final Thought for you: Other Technolo gies to integrate into this
> > process.
> >
> >
> >
> > * Have a look at http://newmobilitypartners.org and see if any of the
> > dialoguing and conferencing options set out there might be put to 
> good use
> > in this context. It is worth at least a thought.
> >
> >
> >
> > There you have it Principal Voice friends. We invite you to respond 
> to
> > this and work with us, because we think it is important. And because 
> if
> > you truly believe in sustainable development and social justice, 
> it’s just
> > the right thing to do.
> >
> >
> >
> > Best,
> >
> >
> >
> > Eric Britton
> >
> >
> >
> > Convener, The New Mobility Agenda at http://newmobility.org
> >
> >
> > Free video/voice conferencing at http://newmobilitypartners.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The Commons: Open Society Sustainability Initiative at 
> http://ecoplan.org
> >
> >
> > Le Frene, 8/10 rue Joseph Bara 75006 Paris, France
> >
> > E: postmaster at newmobility.org T: +331 4326 1323
> >
> > --- Outgoing mail certified Virus Free. Checked by Norton Anti-Virus
> >
> >
> >
> > The Commons Open Society Sustainability Initiative: Seeking out and
> > supporting new sustainability concepts for business, entrepreneurs,
> > activists, community groups, and government; a thorn in the side of
> > hesitant administrators and politicians; and through our joint 
> efforts,
> > energy and personal choices, placing them and ourselves firmly on 
> the path
> > to a more sustainable and more just society.
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Jazz up your holiday email with celebrity designs. Learn more.
-------------- next part --------------
Skipped content of type text/enriched