From schipper at berkeley.edu Sun May 1 00:40:16 2011 From: schipper at berkeley.edu (Lee Schipper) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2011 08:40:16 -0700 Subject: [sustran] Re: PRT proposal for Delhi convinces Chief Minister In-Reply-To: References: <1303838293.S.9563.7873.H.TkZhaXphbiBKYXdlZABbc3VzdHJhbl0gUFJUIHByb3Bvc2FsIGZvciBEZWxoaSBjb252aW5jZXMgQ2hpZWY_.pro-237-234.old.1303890402.27345@webmail.rediffmail.com> <-9161617130153268274@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: <6510DFAD-3856-424E-8DA2-18C87CE0D9EE@berkeley.edu> Woah. A bus seat is occupied by many more people per day and provides far more passenger-km than a car seat. And buses do provide standing room and take up less road space per passenger. The Indian bus manufacturers figured out that a woman with two children and packages might have a hard time climbing up 1 metre on to a lorry-bed with seats, as buses were until less than a decade ago. I credit the Swedish government's proposal to GIVE B'lore some Volvo lo floor buses a little more than ten years ago as providing the spark for the Indian version. Oh yes National government insisted there be hefty tax on the Swedish buses and suddenly this "gift" was unaffordable. Some of this is recounted in my IEA book "Bus Systems for the future" still free at Www.IEA.org I photographed a TAta or Leyland lo-floor bus in Delhi in 2006, so surely one does not need to turn to Volvo. But let's not make a comparison just on cost per seat.... And let's hope the bus lanes are car and two-wheeler free! Lee Schipper Global Met Studies UC Berkeley Precourt En Eff Center Stanford On Apr 30, 2011, at 8:16, Dunu Roy wrote: > You are right. The cost of the Volvo low-floor buses is exorbitant and bears no relation to production costs. The Tata/Leyland buses in Delhi are for 49 lakhs (non-AC) and 59 lakhs (AC). Even here, the CAG slammed the Corporation for buying buses at above the rates of Rs 43 lakhs and 51 lakhs respectively set by the Technical Committee. The chassis, it seems, costs only 15 lakhs, so if the body is built locally the expenses can be brought down significantly. > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:22 AM, ashok datar wrote: > cost of bus and car per person > > Dear All, > if we calculate the investment cost per seat in a car vs the same in a bus we get a disturbing picture > If a Volvo bus costs a min of Rs. 70 lakhs for 40 seats > it means the investment per seat is Rs. 1.75 lakhs > on the other hand , popular cars such as Santro, Indica, Alto etc all cost around Rs 3 to Rs. 4 lak rupees . > that means the investment per seat would be Rs one lakh per seat > why does it have to be so ? > Earlier , the ordinary BEST used to cost only Rs. 11 lakhs to Rs. 18 lakhs- obviously they were very basic and the costs are up but in those days investment cost per seat in a bus was only Rs. 30 to 40000 > I think there is something radically wrong that the cost of a bus needs to be so high in India > can we not provide good quality 40 seater buses under Rs. 40 lakhs > and if a car air conditioning costs Rs. 25000, how much extra it should cost for a bus ? > Ultimately in India , investment cost is more important than even the fuel cost > let us think about this issue which can make a radical difference to the approach of people to buses and cars > that is where no public transport can compete with two wheelers > ashok datar > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:11 PM, Sarath Guttikunda wrote: > Dear Lee and Co., > > attached is a summary of the results published by Ministry of Urban Development in 2008-09 on the passenger travel trends and they tell a good story of where the cities are headed. > > Important messages on this page: > As the cities grew (in size of population, which is proxy to the geographical size), access to the work places in less than 15 mins travel time decreases > As the cities grew, the share of public transport in the form of bus transport (percent of passenger trips) increases - which is a good sign, meaning the cities are realizing the importance of promoting public transport and more efforts are headed that way as the cities expand > As the cities grew, the share of non-motorized transport in the form of walking and biking (percent of passenger trips) decreases - which is the sad part of the equation, meaning the role of cars and SUVs is overtaking the need to promote NMT > Lower the share of non-motorized transport in the city, lower the service index (% trips accessible in less than 15 mins travel time) and higher the congestion index, primarily due increase in the personal transport > The access to public transport is growing, but not enough to support the travel demand growth in the big cities. Figure 3, top right panel, presents the share of passenger trips covered by the public transport against the population in the cities. The access to the public transport is high in the megacities, and expected to grow under the JNNURM funds. However, the lack of infrastructure in the bus manufacturing sector to supply the necessary > > With regards, > Sarath > > -- > Dr. Sarath Guttikunda, New Delhi, India > UrbanEmissions.Info | TED Fellow | +1(202)683-0937 (till June) > http://www.dri.edu/sarath-guttikunda > > > > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:22 PM, Lee Schipper wrote: > I will copy this to Sarath Guttikunda > begin_of_the_skype_highlighting end_of_the_skype_highlighting of > Delhi. Can the Moderator admit him? > he has some amazing MoUD data on accessibility and mobility (number of > people traveling less than 15 minutes to work) for dozens of Indian > cities, and the number taking mass transit. The largest cities in India > fail..its a mess..the medium sized cities (like Pune) are doing a bit > better, but the "small" cities (ahem, small compared to Delhi or Mumbai) > offer more near=by access, consistent with what Ashok Dator said. > -- > Lee Schipper, Ph.D > Project Scientist > Global Metropolitan Studies > http://metrostudies.berkeley.edu/ > > Street/Mail Address: > UC Berkeley Global Metropolitan Studies > 1950 Addison 2nd floor, Berkeley. > Berkeley CA 94704-2647 > > > +1 510 642 6889, > FAX +1 510 642 6061 > Cell +1 202 262 7476 > > skype: mrmeter > > > > > it is a very lively and serious debate on this new "toy" , may be good for > > very select uses at airports etc but cant be a sensible option for other > > major areas in any large and complex city. > > in fact, we need to have overall restraint policy for the urbanization as > > such all over > > if we want to cope with congestion, pollution, energy and sustainabiliy > > I think the cities need to degrow beyond a certain level > > they must remain within ground level transportation - preferably bussing ( > > i.e. when u cant walk or bike ) > > hopefully for most worktrips and other regular trips for education as well > > - > > it should be walking or biking oriented and then the BRTS > > and only in rare cases, taxies and hired personal cars for occasional uses > > so that we go towards miniimizning private, individually owned cars and > > provide more dense but low carbon impact and sustaibly green habitat > > we cant have all comforts which are based on personal car and then try to > > reject it > > we need to work towards alternate design of living especially in > > sustainable > > manner as global availability of energy, food, water is going to be > > liimited > > and need to equitably available and transport is a crtical element in the > > way we live especially in large urban societies based on exploitation of > > rural pop which can also be more sustainabale and "urban" with new > > techonlogies > > can we think altogether differently - not too radically > > ashok datar > > > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 3:13 PM, eric britton > > wrote: > > > >> This is a nice lively discussion, and I thought it might add a bit of > >> value > >> if we posted it to World Streets (even if we are supposed to be closed > >> as we > >> seek financial support to keep going) and popped a poll in there for > >> your > >> voting pleasure. You will see the full story at > >> http://worldstreets.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/prt-proposal-for-delhi-convinces-chief-minister-but-does-it-convince-you-see-poll-results/ > >> > >> Let's see what kind of consensus, divergence, trends if any we get here. > >> > >> What is more beautiful and encouraging than informed active citizens who > >> make their voices heard. > >> > >> Vote! > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -------------------------------------------------------- > >> 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'). > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Ashok R.Datar > > Mumbai Environmental Social Network > > 20 Madhavi, Makarand Society, S.V.S.Marg, Mahim-400 016 > > 98676 65107/0222 444 9212 see our website : www.mesn.org > > > > * I hear, then I forget. I see, then I remember. I do, then I > > understand.* > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > 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'). > > > > > > > > > > -- > Ashok R.Datar > Mumbai Environmental Social Network > 20 Madhavi, Makarand Society, S.V.S.Marg, Mahim-400 016 > 98676 65107/0222 444 9212 see our website : www.mesn.org > > I hear, then I forget. I see, then I remember. I do, then I understand. > > From carlosfpardo at gmail.com Sun May 1 04:10:54 2011 From: carlosfpardo at gmail.com (Pardo) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2011 14:10:54 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: PRT proposal for Delhi convinces Chief Minister In-Reply-To: <6510DFAD-3856-424E-8DA2-18C87CE0D9EE@berkeley.edu> References: <1303838293.S.9563.7873.H.TkZhaXphbiBKYXdlZABbc3VzdHJhbl0gUFJUIHByb3Bvc2FsIGZvciBEZWxoaSBjb252aW5jZXMgQ2hpZWY_.pro-237-234.old.1303890402.27345@webmail.rediffmail.com> <-9161617130153268274@unknownmsgid> <6510DFAD-3856-424E-8DA2-18C87CE0D9EE@berkeley.edu> Message-ID: <95905C5C-9394-4095-A6AF-C3DF64C087C1@gmail.com> Sorry for the ignorance, but I can't remember if 1 lakh is 10,000 Rs ... is it? And since we're at it, how much is 1 crore? It would be great if we could always give the small explanation for those who aren't familiar. This conversation is very useful for people outside India! Pardo Sent from Liliput-sized keyboard. Please excuse typos. On 30/04/2011, at 10:40, Lee Schipper wrote: > Woah. A bus seat is occupied by many more people per day and provides far more passenger-km than a car seat. And buses do provide standing room and take up less road space per passenger. > The Indian bus manufacturers figured out that a woman with two children and packages might have a hard time climbing up 1 metre on to a lorry-bed with seats, as buses were until less than a decade ago. I credit the Swedish government's proposal to GIVE B'lore some Volvo lo floor buses a little more than ten years ago as providing the spark for the Indian version. Oh yes National government insisted there be hefty tax on the Swedish buses and suddenly this "gift" was unaffordable. Some of this is recounted in my IEA book "Bus Systems for the future" still free at > Www.IEA.org > > > I photographed a TAta or Leyland lo-floor bus in Delhi in 2006, so surely one does not need to turn to Volvo. But let's not make a comparison just on cost per seat.... > > And let's hope the bus lanes are car and two-wheeler free! > > Lee Schipper > Global Met Studies UC Berkeley > Precourt En Eff Center Stanford > > > > On Apr 30, 2011, at 8:16, Dunu Roy wrote: > >> You are right. The cost of the Volvo low-floor buses is exorbitant and bears no relation to production costs. The Tata/Leyland buses in Delhi are for 49 lakhs (non-AC) and 59 lakhs (AC). Even here, the CAG slammed the Corporation for buying buses at above the rates of Rs 43 lakhs and 51 lakhs respectively set by the Technical Committee. The chassis, it seems, costs only 15 lakhs, so if the body is built locally the expenses can be brought down significantly. >> >> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:22 AM, ashok datar wrote: >> cost of bus and car per person >> >> Dear All, >> if we calculate the investment cost per seat in a car vs the same in a bus we get a disturbing picture >> If a Volvo bus costs a min of Rs. 70 lakhs for 40 seats >> it means the investment per seat is Rs. 1.75 lakhs >> on the other hand , popular cars such as Santro, Indica, Alto etc all cost around Rs 3 to Rs. 4 lak rupees . >> that means the investment per seat would be Rs one lakh per seat >> why does it have to be so ? >> Earlier , the ordinary BEST used to cost only Rs. 11 lakhs to Rs. 18 lakhs- obviously they were very basic and the costs are up but in those days investment cost per seat in a bus was only Rs. 30 to 40000 >> I think there is something radically wrong that the cost of a bus needs to be so high in India >> can we not provide good quality 40 seater buses under Rs. 40 lakhs >> and if a car air conditioning costs Rs. 25000, how much extra it should cost for a bus ? >> Ultimately in India , investment cost is more important than even the fuel cost >> let us think about this issue which can make a radical difference to the approach of people to buses and cars >> that is where no public transport can compete with two wheelers >> ashok datar >> >> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:11 PM, Sarath Guttikunda wrote: >> Dear Lee and Co., >> >> attached is a summary of the results published by Ministry of Urban Development in 2008-09 on the passenger travel trends and they tell a good story of where the cities are headed. >> >> Important messages on this page: >> As the cities grew (in size of population, which is proxy to the geographical size), access to the work places in less than 15 mins travel time decreases >> As the cities grew, the share of public transport in the form of bus transport (percent of passenger trips) increases - which is a good sign, meaning the cities are realizing the importance of promoting public transport and more efforts are headed that way as the cities expand >> As the cities grew, the share of non-motorized transport in the form of walking and biking (percent of passenger trips) decreases - which is the sad part of the equation, meaning the role of cars and SUVs is overtaking the need to promote NMT >> Lower the share of non-motorized transport in the city, lower the service index (% trips accessible in less than 15 mins travel time) and higher the congestion index, primarily due increase in the personal transport >> The access to public transport is growing, but not enough to support the travel demand growth in the big cities. Figure 3, top right panel, presents the share of passenger trips covered by the public transport against the population in the cities. The access to the public transport is high in the megacities, and expected to grow under the JNNURM funds. However, the lack of infrastructure in the bus manufacturing sector to supply the necessary >> >> With regards, >> Sarath >> >> -- >> Dr. Sarath Guttikunda, New Delhi, India >> UrbanEmissions.Info | TED Fellow | +1(202)683-0937 (till June) >> http://www.dri.edu/sarath-guttikunda >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:22 PM, Lee Schipper wrote: >> I will copy this to Sarath Guttikunda >> begin_of_the_skype_highlighting end_of_the_skype_highlighting of >> Delhi. Can the Moderator admit him? >> he has some amazing MoUD data on accessibility and mobility (number of >> people traveling less than 15 minutes to work) for dozens of Indian >> cities, and the number taking mass transit. The largest cities in India >> fail..its a mess..the medium sized cities (like Pune) are doing a bit >> better, but the "small" cities (ahem, small compared to Delhi or Mumbai) >> offer more near=by access, consistent with what Ashok Dator said. >> -- >> Lee Schipper, Ph.D >> Project Scientist >> Global Metropolitan Studies >> http://metrostudies.berkeley.edu/ >> >> Street/Mail Address: >> UC Berkeley Global Metropolitan Studies >> 1950 Addison 2nd floor, Berkeley. >> Berkeley CA 94704-2647 >> >> >> +1 510 642 6889, >> FAX +1 510 642 6061 >> Cell +1 202 262 7476 >> >> skype: mrmeter >> >> >> >>> it is a very lively and serious debate on this new "toy" , may be good for >>> very select uses at airports etc but cant be a sensible option for other >>> major areas in any large and complex city. >>> in fact, we need to have overall restraint policy for the urbanization as >>> such all over >>> if we want to cope with congestion, pollution, energy and sustainabiliy >>> I think the cities need to degrow beyond a certain level >>> they must remain within ground level transportation - preferably bussing ( >>> i.e. when u cant walk or bike ) >>> hopefully for most worktrips and other regular trips for education as well >>> - >>> it should be walking or biking oriented and then the BRTS >>> and only in rare cases, taxies and hired personal cars for occasional uses >>> so that we go towards miniimizning private, individually owned cars and >>> provide more dense but low carbon impact and sustaibly green habitat >>> we cant have all comforts which are based on personal car and then try to >>> reject it >>> we need to work towards alternate design of living especially in >>> sustainable >>> manner as global availability of energy, food, water is going to be >>> liimited >>> and need to equitably available and transport is a crtical element in the >>> way we live especially in large urban societies based on exploitation of >>> rural pop which can also be more sustainabale and "urban" with new >>> techonlogies >>> can we think altogether differently - not too radically >>> ashok datar >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 3:13 PM, eric britton >>> wrote: >>> >>>> This is a nice lively discussion, and I thought it might add a bit of >>>> value >>>> if we posted it to World Streets (even if we are supposed to be closed >>>> as we >>>> seek financial support to keep going) and popped a poll in there for >>>> your >>>> voting pleasure. You will see the full story at >>>> http://worldstreets.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/prt-proposal-for-delhi-convinces-chief-minister-but-does-it-convince-you-see-poll-results/ >>>> >>>> Let's see what kind of consensus, divergence, trends if any we get here. >>>> >>>> What is more beautiful and encouraging than informed active citizens who >>>> make their voices heard. >>>> >>>> Vote! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------------------------- >>>> 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'). >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Ashok R.Datar >>> Mumbai Environmental Social Network >>> 20 Madhavi, Makarand Society, S.V.S.Marg, Mahim-400 016 >>> 98676 65107/0222 444 9212 see our website : www.mesn.org >>> >>> * I hear, then I forget. I see, then I remember. I do, then I >>> understand.* >>> -------------------------------------------------------- >>> 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'). >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Ashok R.Datar >> Mumbai Environmental Social Network >> 20 Madhavi, Makarand Society, S.V.S.Marg, Mahim-400 016 >> 98676 65107/0222 444 9212 see our website : www.mesn.org >> >> I hear, then I forget. I see, then I remember. I do, then I understand. >> >> > -------------------------------------------------------- > 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'). From cornie.huizenga at slocatpartnership.org Sun May 1 04:34:51 2011 From: cornie.huizenga at slocatpartnership.org (Cornie Huizenga) Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 03:34:51 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: PRT proposal for Delhi convinces Chief Minister In-Reply-To: <95905C5C-9394-4095-A6AF-C3DF64C087C1@gmail.com> References: <1303838293.S.9563.7873.H.TkZhaXphbiBKYXdlZABbc3VzdHJhbl0gUFJUIHByb3Bvc2FsIGZvciBEZWxoaSBjb252aW5jZXMgQ2hpZWY_.pro-237-234.old.1303890402.27345@webmail.rediffmail.com> <-9161617130153268274@unknownmsgid> <6510DFAD-3856-424E-8DA2-18C87CE0D9EE@berkeley.edu> <95905C5C-9394-4095-A6AF-C3DF64C087C1@gmail.com> Message-ID: Carlos, 1 lakh = 100,000 1 crore = 10 million at least that is what I remember. Cornie On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 3:10 AM, Pardo wrote: > Sorry for the ignorance, but I can't remember if 1 lakh is 10,000 Rs ... is > it? And since we're at it, how much is 1 crore? It would be great if we > could always give the small explanation for those who aren't familiar. This > conversation is very useful for people outside India! > > Pardo > > Sent from Liliput-sized keyboard. Please excuse typos. > > On 30/04/2011, at 10:40, Lee Schipper wrote: > > > Woah. A bus seat is occupied by many more people per day and provides > far more passenger-km than a car seat. And buses do provide standing room > and take up less road space per passenger. > > The Indian bus manufacturers figured out that a woman with two children > and packages might have a hard time climbing up 1 metre on to a lorry-bed > with seats, as buses were until less than a decade ago. I credit the > Swedish government's proposal to GIVE B'lore some Volvo lo floor buses a > little more than ten years ago as providing the spark for the Indian > version. Oh yes National government insisted there be hefty tax on the > Swedish buses and suddenly this "gift" was unaffordable. Some of this is > recounted in my IEA book "Bus Systems for the future" still free at > > Www.IEA.org > > > > > > I photographed a TAta or Leyland lo-floor bus in Delhi in 2006, so surely > one does not need to turn to Volvo. But let's not make a comparison just on > cost per seat.... > > > > And let's hope the bus lanes are car and two-wheeler free! > > > > Lee Schipper > > Global Met Studies UC Berkeley > > Precourt En Eff Center Stanford > > > > > > > > On Apr 30, 2011, at 8:16, Dunu Roy wrote: > > > >> You are right. The cost of the Volvo low-floor buses is exorbitant and > bears no relation to production costs. The Tata/Leyland buses in Delhi are > for 49 lakhs (non-AC) and 59 lakhs (AC). Even here, the CAG slammed the > Corporation for buying buses at above the rates of Rs 43 lakhs and 51 lakhs > respectively set by the Technical Committee. The chassis, it seems, costs > only 15 lakhs, so if the body is built locally the expenses can be brought > down significantly. > >> > >> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:22 AM, ashok datar > wrote: > >> cost of bus and car per person > >> > >> Dear All, > >> if we calculate the investment cost per seat in a car vs the same in a > bus we get a disturbing picture > >> If a Volvo bus costs a min of Rs. 70 lakhs for 40 seats > >> it means the investment per seat is Rs. 1.75 lakhs > >> on the other hand , popular cars such as Santro, Indica, Alto etc all > cost around Rs 3 to Rs. 4 lak rupees . > >> that means the investment per seat would be Rs one lakh per seat > >> why does it have to be so ? > >> Earlier , the ordinary BEST used to cost only Rs. 11 lakhs to Rs. 18 > lakhs- obviously they were very basic and the costs are up but in those > days investment cost per seat in a bus was only Rs. 30 to 40000 > >> I think there is something radically wrong that the cost of a bus needs > to be so high in India > >> can we not provide good quality 40 seater buses under Rs. 40 lakhs > >> and if a car air conditioning costs Rs. 25000, how much extra it should > cost for a bus ? > >> Ultimately in India , investment cost is more important than even the > fuel cost > >> let us think about this issue which can make a radical difference to the > approach of people to buses and cars > >> that is where no public transport can compete with two wheelers > >> ashok datar > >> > >> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:11 PM, Sarath Guttikunda < > sguttikunda@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear Lee and Co., > >> > >> attached is a summary of the results published by Ministry of Urban > Development in 2008-09 on the passenger travel trends and they tell a good > story of where the cities are headed. > >> > >> Important messages on this page: > >> As the cities grew (in size of population, which is proxy to the > geographical size), access to the work places in less than 15 mins travel > time decreases > >> As the cities grew, the share of public transport in the form of bus > transport (percent of passenger trips) increases - which is a good sign, > meaning the cities are realizing the importance of promoting public > transport and more efforts are headed that way as the cities expand > >> As the cities grew, the share of non-motorized transport in the form of > walking and biking (percent of passenger trips) decreases - which is the sad > part of the equation, meaning the role of cars and SUVs is overtaking the > need to promote NMT > >> Lower the share of non-motorized transport in the city, lower the > service index (% trips accessible in less than 15 mins travel time) and > higher the congestion index, primarily due increase in the personal > transport > >> The access to public transport is growing, but not enough to support the > travel demand growth in the big cities. Figure 3, top right panel, presents > the share of passenger trips covered by the public transport against the > population in the cities. The access to the public transport is high in the > megacities, and expected to grow under the JNNURM funds. However, the lack > of infrastructure in the bus manufacturing sector to supply the necessary > >> > >> With regards, > >> Sarath > >> > >> -- > >> Dr. Sarath Guttikunda, New Delhi, India > >> UrbanEmissions.Info | TED Fellow | +1(202)683-0937 (till June) > >> http://www.dri.edu/sarath-guttikunda > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:22 PM, Lee Schipper > wrote: > >> I will copy this to Sarath Guttikunda > >> begin_of_the_skype_highlighting end_of_the_skype_highlighting of > >> Delhi. Can the Moderator admit him? > >> he has some amazing MoUD data on accessibility and mobility (number of > >> people traveling less than 15 minutes to work) for dozens of Indian > >> cities, and the number taking mass transit. The largest cities in India > >> fail..its a mess..the medium sized cities (like Pune) are doing a bit > >> better, but the "small" cities (ahem, small compared to Delhi or Mumbai) > >> offer more near=by access, consistent with what Ashok Dator said. > >> -- > >> Lee Schipper, Ph.D > >> Project Scientist > >> Global Metropolitan Studies > >> http://metrostudies.berkeley.edu/ > >> > >> Street/Mail Address: > >> UC Berkeley Global Metropolitan Studies > >> 1950 Addison 2nd floor, Berkeley. > >> Berkeley CA 94704-2647 > >> > >> > >> +1 510 642 6889, > >> FAX +1 510 642 6061 > >> Cell +1 202 262 7476 > >> > >> skype: mrmeter > >> > >> > >> > >>> it is a very lively and serious debate on this new "toy" , may be good > for > >>> very select uses at airports etc but cant be a sensible option for > other > >>> major areas in any large and complex city. > >>> in fact, we need to have overall restraint policy for the urbanization > as > >>> such all over > >>> if we want to cope with congestion, pollution, energy and sustainabiliy > >>> I think the cities need to degrow beyond a certain level > >>> they must remain within ground level transportation - preferably > bussing ( > >>> i.e. when u cant walk or bike ) > >>> hopefully for most worktrips and other regular trips for education as > well > >>> - > >>> it should be walking or biking oriented and then the BRTS > >>> and only in rare cases, taxies and hired personal cars for occasional > uses > >>> so that we go towards miniimizning private, individually owned cars and > >>> provide more dense but low carbon impact and sustaibly green habitat > >>> we cant have all comforts which are based on personal car and then try > to > >>> reject it > >>> we need to work towards alternate design of living especially in > >>> sustainable > >>> manner as global availability of energy, food, water is going to be > >>> liimited > >>> and need to equitably available and transport is a crtical element in > the > >>> way we live especially in large urban societies based on exploitation > of > >>> rural pop which can also be more sustainabale and "urban" with new > >>> techonlogies > >>> can we think altogether differently - not too radically > >>> ashok datar > >>> > >>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 3:13 PM, eric britton > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> This is a nice lively discussion, and I thought it might add a bit of > >>>> value > >>>> if we posted it to World Streets (even if we are supposed to be closed > >>>> as we > >>>> seek financial support to keep going) and popped a poll in there for > >>>> your > >>>> voting pleasure. You will see the full story at > >>>> > http://worldstreets.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/prt-proposal-for-delhi-convinces-chief-minister-but-does-it-convince-you-see-poll-results/ > >>>> > >>>> Let's see what kind of consensus, divergence, trends if any we get > here. > >>>> > >>>> What is more beautiful and encouraging than informed active citizens > who > >>>> make their voices heard. > >>>> > >>>> Vote! > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> 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'). > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Ashok R.Datar > >>> Mumbai Environmental Social Network > >>> 20 Madhavi, Makarand Society, S.V.S.Marg, Mahim-400 016 > >>> 98676 65107/0222 444 9212 see our website : www.mesn.org > >>> > >>> * I hear, then I forget. I see, then I remember. I do, then I > >>> understand.* > >>> -------------------------------------------------------- > >>> 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'). > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Ashok R.Datar > >> Mumbai Environmental Social Network > >> 20 Madhavi, Makarand Society, S.V.S.Marg, Mahim-400 016 > >> 98676 65107/0222 444 9212 see our website : www.mesn.org > >> > >> I hear, then I forget. I see, then I remember. I do, then I understand. > >> > >> > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > 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'). > -- Cornie Huizenga Joint Convener Partnership on Sustainable, Low Carbon Transport Mobile: +86 13901949332 cornie.huizenga@slocatpartnership.org www.slocat.net From carlosfpardo at gmail.com Sun May 1 05:32:21 2011 From: carlosfpardo at gmail.com (Pardo) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2011 15:32:21 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Lakh, crore, arab, etc In-Reply-To: References: <1303838293.S.9563.7873.H.TkZhaXphbiBKYXdlZABbc3VzdHJhbl0gUFJUIHByb3Bvc2FsIGZvciBEZWxoaSBjb252aW5jZXMgQ2hpZWY_.pro-237-234.old.1303890402.27345@webmail.rediffmail.com> <-9161617130153268274@unknownmsgid> <6510DFAD-3856-424E-8DA2-18C87CE0D9EE@berkeley.edu> <95905C5C-9394-4095-A6AF-C3DF64C087C1@gmail.com> Message-ID: <374D2E43-186C-4F90-9100-B3665372B2AA@gmail.com> Both Lee and Cornie were right in one of them, it seems. I found the info in the link below if anyone else has these recurrent doubts (and I'd encourage Indian colleagues to remind us every now and then!): http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_numbering_system Pardo Sent from Liliput-sized keyboard. Please excuse typos. On 30/04/2011, at 14:34, Cornie Huizenga wrote: > Carlos, > > 1 lakh = 100,000 > 1 crore = 10 million > > at least that is what I remember. > > Cornie > > On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 3:10 AM, Pardo wrote: > Sorry for the ignorance, but I can't remember if 1 lakh is 10,000 Rs ... is it? And since we're at it, how much is 1 crore? It would be great if we could always give the small explanation for those who aren't familiar. This conversation is very useful for people outside India! > > Pardo > > Sent from Liliput-sized keyboard. Please excuse typos. > > On 30/04/2011, at 10:40, Lee Schipper wrote: > > > Woah. A bus seat is occupied by many more people per day and provides far more passenger-km than a car seat. And buses do provide standing room and take up less road space per passenger. > > The Indian bus manufacturers figured out that a woman with two children and packages might have a hard time climbing up 1 metre on to a lorry-bed with seats, as buses were until less than a decade ago. I credit the Swedish government's proposal to GIVE B'lore some Volvo lo floor buses a little more than ten years ago as providing the spark for the Indian version. Oh yes National government insisted there be hefty tax on the Swedish buses and suddenly this "gift" was unaffordable. Some of this is recounted in my IEA book "Bus Systems for the future" still free at > > Www.IEA.org > > > > > > I photographed a TAta or Leyland lo-floor bus in Delhi in 2006, so surely one does not need to turn to Volvo. But let's not make a comparison just on cost per seat.... > > > > And let's hope the bus lanes are car and two-wheeler free! > > > > Lee Schipper > > Global Met Studies UC Berkeley > > Precourt En Eff Center Stanford > > > > > > > > On Apr 30, 2011, at 8:16, Dunu Roy wrote: > > > >> You are right. The cost of the Volvo low-floor buses is exorbitant and bears no relation to production costs. The Tata/Leyland buses in Delhi are for 49 lakhs (non-AC) and 59 lakhs (AC). Even here, the CAG slammed the Corporation for buying buses at above the rates of Rs 43 lakhs and 51 lakhs respectively set by the Technical Committee. The chassis, it seems, costs only 15 lakhs, so if the body is built locally the expenses can be brought down significantly. > >> > >> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:22 AM, ashok datar wrote: > >> cost of bus and car per person > >> > >> Dear All, > >> if we calculate the investment cost per seat in a car vs the same in a bus we get a disturbing picture > >> If a Volvo bus costs a min of Rs. 70 lakhs for 40 seats > >> it means the investment per seat is Rs. 1.75 lakhs > >> on the other hand , popular cars such as Santro, Indica, Alto etc all cost around Rs 3 to Rs. 4 lak rupees . > >> that means the investment per seat would be Rs one lakh per seat > >> why does it have to be so ? > >> Earlier , the ordinary BEST used to cost only Rs. 11 lakhs to Rs. 18 lakhs- obviously they were very basic and the costs are up but in those days investment cost per seat in a bus was only Rs. 30 to 40000 > >> I think there is something radically wrong that the cost of a bus needs to be so high in India > >> can we not provide good quality 40 seater buses under Rs. 40 lakhs > >> and if a car air conditioning costs Rs. 25000, how much extra it should cost for a bus ? > >> Ultimately in India , investment cost is more important than even the fuel cost > >> let us think about this issue which can make a radical difference to the approach of people to buses and cars > >> that is where no public transport can compete with two wheelers > >> ashok datar > >> > >> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:11 PM, Sarath Guttikunda wrote: > >> Dear Lee and Co., > >> > >> attached is a summary of the results published by Ministry of Urban Development in 2008-09 on the passenger travel trends and they tell a good story of where the cities are headed. > >> > >> Important messages on this page: > >> As the cities grew (in size of population, which is proxy to the geographical size), access to the work places in less than 15 mins travel time decreases > >> As the cities grew, the share of public transport in the form of bus transport (percent of passenger trips) increases - which is a good sign, meaning the cities are realizing the importance of promoting public transport and more efforts are headed that way as the cities expand > >> As the cities grew, the share of non-motorized transport in the form of walking and biking (percent of passenger trips) decreases - which is the sad part of the equation, meaning the role of cars and SUVs is overtaking the need to promote NMT > >> Lower the share of non-motorized transport in the city, lower the service index (% trips accessible in less than 15 mins travel time) and higher the congestion index, primarily due increase in the personal transport > >> The access to public transport is growing, but not enough to support the travel demand growth in the big cities. Figure 3, top right panel, presents the share of passenger trips covered by the public transport against the population in the cities. The access to the public transport is high in the megacities, and expected to grow under the JNNURM funds. However, the lack of infrastructure in the bus manufacturing sector to supply the necessary > >> > >> With regards, > >> Sarath > >> > >> -- > >> Dr. Sarath Guttikunda, New Delhi, India > >> UrbanEmissions.Info | TED Fellow | +1(202)683-0937 (till June) > >> http://www.dri.edu/sarath-guttikunda > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:22 PM, Lee Schipper wrote: > >> I will copy this to Sarath Guttikunda > >> begin_of_the_skype_highlighting end_of_the_skype_highlighting of > >> Delhi. Can the Moderator admit him? > >> he has some amazing MoUD data on accessibility and mobility (number of > >> people traveling less than 15 minutes to work) for dozens of Indian > >> cities, and the number taking mass transit. The largest cities in India > >> fail..its a mess..the medium sized cities (like Pune) are doing a bit > >> better, but the "small" cities (ahem, small compared to Delhi or Mumbai) > >> offer more near=by access, consistent with what Ashok Dator said. > >> -- > >> Lee Schipper, Ph.D > >> Project Scientist > >> Global Metropolitan Studies > >> http://metrostudies.berkeley.edu/ > >> > >> Street/Mail Address: > >> UC Berkeley Global Metropolitan Studies > >> 1950 Addison 2nd floor, Berkeley. > >> Berkeley CA 94704-2647 > >> > >> > >> +1 510 642 6889, > >> FAX +1 510 642 6061 > >> Cell +1 202 262 7476 > >> > >> skype: mrmeter > >> > >> > >> > >>> it is a very lively and serious debate on this new "toy" , may be good for > >>> very select uses at airports etc but cant be a sensible option for other > >>> major areas in any large and complex city. > >>> in fact, we need to have overall restraint policy for the urbanization as > >>> such all over > >>> if we want to cope with congestion, pollution, energy and sustainabiliy > >>> I think the cities need to degrow beyond a certain level > >>> they must remain within ground level transportation - preferably bussing ( > >>> i.e. when u cant walk or bike ) > >>> hopefully for most worktrips and other regular trips for education as well > >>> - > >>> it should be walking or biking oriented and then the BRTS > >>> and only in rare cases, taxies and hired personal cars for occasional uses > >>> so that we go towards miniimizning private, individually owned cars and > >>> provide more dense but low carbon impact and sustaibly green habitat > >>> we cant have all comforts which are based on personal car and then try to > >>> reject it > >>> we need to work towards alternate design of living especially in > >>> sustainable > >>> manner as global availability of energy, food, water is going to be > >>> liimited > >>> and need to equitably available and transport is a crtical element in the > >>> way we live especially in large urban societies based on exploitation of > >>> rural pop which can also be more sustainabale and "urban" with new > >>> techonlogies > >>> can we think altogether differently - not too radically > >>> ashok datar > >>> > >>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 3:13 PM, eric britton > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> This is a nice lively discussion, and I thought it might add a bit of > >>>> value > >>>> if we posted it to World Streets (even if we are supposed to be closed > >>>> as we > >>>> seek financial support to keep going) and popped a poll in there for > >>>> your > >>>> voting pleasure. You will see the full story at > >>>> http://worldstreets.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/prt-proposal-for-delhi-convinces-chief-minister-but-does-it-convince-you-see-poll-results/ > >>>> > >>>> Let's see what kind of consensus, divergence, trends if any we get here. > >>>> > >>>> What is more beautiful and encouraging than informed active citizens who > >>>> make their voices heard. > >>>> > >>>> Vote! > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> 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'). > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Ashok R.Datar > >>> Mumbai Environmental Social Network > >>> 20 Madhavi, Makarand Society, S.V.S.Marg, Mahim-400 016 > >>> 98676 65107/0222 444 9212 see our website : www.mesn.org > >>> > >>> * I hear, then I forget. I see, then I remember. I do, then I > >>> understand.* > >>> -------------------------------------------------------- > >>> 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'). > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Ashok R.Datar > >> Mumbai Environmental Social Network > >> 20 Madhavi, Makarand Society, S.V.S.Marg, Mahim-400 016 > >> 98676 65107/0222 444 9212 see our website : www.mesn.org > >> > >> I hear, then I forget. I see, then I remember. I do, then I understand. > >> > >> > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > 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'). > > > > -- > Cornie Huizenga > Joint Convener > Partnership on Sustainable, Low Carbon Transport > Mobile: +86 13901949332 > cornie.huizenga@slocatpartnership.org > www.slocat.net From patwardhan.sujit at gmail.com Sun May 1 15:20:41 2011 From: patwardhan.sujit at gmail.com (Sujit Patwardhan) Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 11:50:41 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: PRT proposal for Delhi convinces Chief Minister In-Reply-To: <95905C5C-9394-4095-A6AF-C3DF64C087C1@gmail.com> References: <1303838293.S.9563.7873.H.TkZhaXphbiBKYXdlZABbc3VzdHJhbl0gUFJUIHByb3Bvc2FsIGZvciBEZWxoaSBjb252aW5jZXMgQ2hpZWY_.pro-237-234.old.1303890402.27345@webmail.rediffmail.com> <-9161617130153268274@unknownmsgid> <6510DFAD-3856-424E-8DA2-18C87CE0D9EE@berkeley.edu> <95905C5C-9394-4095-A6AF-C3DF64C087C1@gmail.com> Message-ID: 1 May 2011 Hi Carlos, One Lakh is: 100,000 (hundred thousand) One Crore is: 10,000,000 (or 10 million) Cornie is absolutely right. -- Sujit On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 12:40 AM, Pardo wrote: > Sorry for the ignorance, but I can't remember if 1 lakh is 10,000 Rs ... is > it? And since we're at it, how much is 1 crore? It would be great if we > could always give the small explanation for those who aren't familiar. This > conversation is very useful for people outside India! > > Pardo > > Sent from Liliput-sized keyboard. Please excuse typos. > > On 30/04/2011, at 10:40, Lee Schipper wrote: > > > Woah. A bus seat is occupied by many more people per day and provides > far more passenger-km than a car seat. And buses do provide standing room > and take up less road space per passenger. > > The Indian bus manufacturers figured out that a woman with two children > and packages might have a hard time climbing up 1 metre on to a lorry-bed > with seats, as buses were until less than a decade ago. I credit the > Swedish government's proposal to GIVE B'lore some Volvo lo floor buses a > little more than ten years ago as providing the spark for the Indian > version. Oh yes National government insisted there be hefty tax on the > Swedish buses and suddenly this "gift" was unaffordable. Some of this is > recounted in my IEA book "Bus Systems for the future" still free at > > Www.IEA.org > > > > > > I photographed a TAta or Leyland lo-floor bus in Delhi in 2006, so surely > one does not need to turn to Volvo. But let's not make a comparison just on > cost per seat.... > > > > And let's hope the bus lanes are car and two-wheeler free! > > > > Lee Schipper > > Global Met Studies UC Berkeley > > Precourt En Eff Center Stanford > > > > > > > > On Apr 30, 2011, at 8:16, Dunu Roy wrote: > > > >> You are right. The cost of the Volvo low-floor buses is exorbitant and > bears no relation to production costs. The Tata/Leyland buses in Delhi are > for 49 lakhs (non-AC) and 59 lakhs (AC). Even here, the CAG slammed the > Corporation for buying buses at above the rates of Rs 43 lakhs and 51 lakhs > respectively set by the Technical Committee. The chassis, it seems, costs > only 15 lakhs, so if the body is built locally the expenses can be brought > down significantly. > >> > >> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:22 AM, ashok datar > wrote: > >> cost of bus and car per person > >> > >> Dear All, > >> if we calculate the investment cost per seat in a car vs the same in a > bus we get a disturbing picture > >> If a Volvo bus costs a min of Rs. 70 lakhs for 40 seats > >> it means the investment per seat is Rs. 1.75 lakhs > >> on the other hand , popular cars such as Santro, Indica, Alto etc all > cost around Rs 3 to Rs. 4 lak rupees . > >> that means the investment per seat would be Rs one lakh per seat > >> why does it have to be so ? > >> Earlier , the ordinary BEST used to cost only Rs. 11 lakhs to Rs. 18 > lakhs- obviously they were very basic and the costs are up but in those > days investment cost per seat in a bus was only Rs. 30 to 40000 > >> I think there is something radically wrong that the cost of a bus needs > to be so high in India > >> can we not provide good quality 40 seater buses under Rs. 40 lakhs > >> and if a car air conditioning costs Rs. 25000, how much extra it should > cost for a bus ? > >> Ultimately in India , investment cost is more important than even the > fuel cost > >> let us think about this issue which can make a radical difference to the > approach of people to buses and cars > >> that is where no public transport can compete with two wheelers > >> ashok datar > >> > >> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:11 PM, Sarath Guttikunda < > sguttikunda@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear Lee and Co., > >> > >> attached is a summary of the results published by Ministry of Urban > Development in 2008-09 on the passenger travel trends and they tell a good > story of where the cities are headed. > >> > >> Important messages on this page: > >> As the cities grew (in size of population, which is proxy to the > geographical size), access to the work places in less than 15 mins travel > time decreases > >> As the cities grew, the share of public transport in the form of bus > transport (percent of passenger trips) increases - which is a good sign, > meaning the cities are realizing the importance of promoting public > transport and more efforts are headed that way as the cities expand > >> As the cities grew, the share of non-motorized transport in the form of > walking and biking (percent of passenger trips) decreases - which is the sad > part of the equation, meaning the role of cars and SUVs is overtaking the > need to promote NMT > >> Lower the share of non-motorized transport in the city, lower the > service index (% trips accessible in less than 15 mins travel time) and > higher the congestion index, primarily due increase in the personal > transport > >> The access to public transport is growing, but not enough to support the > travel demand growth in the big cities. Figure 3, top right panel, presents > the share of passenger trips covered by the public transport against the > population in the cities. The access to the public transport is high in the > megacities, and expected to grow under the JNNURM funds. However, the lack > of infrastructure in the bus manufacturing sector to supply the necessary > >> > >> With regards, > >> Sarath > >> > >> -- > >> Dr. Sarath Guttikunda, New Delhi, India > >> UrbanEmissions.Info | TED Fellow | +1(202)683-0937 (till June) > >> http://www.dri.edu/sarath-guttikunda > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:22 PM, Lee Schipper > wrote: > >> I will copy this to Sarath Guttikunda > >> begin_of_the_skype_highlighting end_of_the_skype_highlighting of > >> Delhi. Can the Moderator admit him? > >> he has some amazing MoUD data on accessibility and mobility (number of > >> people traveling less than 15 minutes to work) for dozens of Indian > >> cities, and the number taking mass transit. The largest cities in India > >> fail..its a mess..the medium sized cities (like Pune) are doing a bit > >> better, but the "small" cities (ahem, small compared to Delhi or Mumbai) > >> offer more near=by access, consistent with what Ashok Dator said. > >> -- > >> Lee Schipper, Ph.D > >> Project Scientist > >> Global Metropolitan Studies > >> http://metrostudies.berkeley.edu/ > >> > >> Street/Mail Address: > >> UC Berkeley Global Metropolitan Studies > >> 1950 Addison 2nd floor, Berkeley. > >> Berkeley CA 94704-2647 > >> > >> > >> +1 510 642 6889, > >> FAX +1 510 642 6061 > >> Cell +1 202 262 7476 > >> > >> skype: mrmeter > >> > >> > >> > >>> it is a very lively and serious debate on this new "toy" , may be good > for > >>> very select uses at airports etc but cant be a sensible option for > other > >>> major areas in any large and complex city. > >>> in fact, we need to have overall restraint policy for the urbanization > as > >>> such all over > >>> if we want to cope with congestion, pollution, energy and sustainabiliy > >>> I think the cities need to degrow beyond a certain level > >>> they must remain within ground level transportation - preferably > bussing ( > >>> i.e. when u cant walk or bike ) > >>> hopefully for most worktrips and other regular trips for education as > well > >>> - > >>> it should be walking or biking oriented and then the BRTS > >>> and only in rare cases, taxies and hired personal cars for occasional > uses > >>> so that we go towards miniimizning private, individually owned cars and > >>> provide more dense but low carbon impact and sustaibly green habitat > >>> we cant have all comforts which are based on personal car and then try > to > >>> reject it > >>> we need to work towards alternate design of living especially in > >>> sustainable > >>> manner as global availability of energy, food, water is going to be > >>> liimited > >>> and need to equitably available and transport is a crtical element in > the > >>> way we live especially in large urban societies based on exploitation > of > >>> rural pop which can also be more sustainabale and "urban" with new > >>> techonlogies > >>> can we think altogether differently - not too radically > >>> ashok datar > >>> > >>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 3:13 PM, eric britton > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> This is a nice lively discussion, and I thought it might add a bit of > >>>> value > >>>> if we posted it to World Streets (even if we are supposed to be closed > >>>> as we > >>>> seek financial support to keep going) and popped a poll in there for > >>>> your > >>>> voting pleasure. You will see the full story at > >>>> > http://worldstreets.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/prt-proposal-for-delhi-convinces-chief-minister-but-does-it-convince-you-see-poll-results/ > >>>> > >>>> Let's see what kind of consensus, divergence, trends if any we get > here. > >>>> > >>>> What is more beautiful and encouraging than informed active citizens > who > >>>> make their voices heard. > >>>> > >>>> Vote! > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> 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'). > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Ashok R.Datar > >>> Mumbai Environmental Social Network > >>> 20 Madhavi, Makarand Society, S.V.S.Marg, Mahim-400 016 > >>> 98676 65107/0222 444 9212 see our website : www.mesn.org > >>> > >>> * I hear, then I forget. I see, then I remember. I do, then I > >>> understand.* > >>> -------------------------------------------------------- > >>> 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'). > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Ashok R.Datar > >> Mumbai Environmental Social Network > >> 20 Madhavi, Makarand Society, S.V.S.Marg, Mahim-400 016 > >> 98676 65107/0222 444 9212 see our website : www.mesn.org > >> > >> I hear, then I forget. I see, then I remember. I do, then I understand. > >> > >> > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > 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'). > -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- *?..each million we invest into urban motorways is an investment to destroy the city?* Mayor Hans Joachim Vogel Munich 1970 -------------------------------------------------------------------- Sujit Patwardhan patwardhan.sujit@gmail.com sujit@parisar.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Yamuna, ICS Colony, Ganeshkhind Road, Pune 411 007, India Tel: +91 20 25537955 Cell: +91 98220 26627 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Parisar: www.parisar.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From qadeeroy at gmail.com Sun May 1 00:16:39 2011 From: qadeeroy at gmail.com (Dunu Roy) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2011 20:46:39 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: PRT proposal for Delhi convinces Chief Minister In-Reply-To: References: <1303838293.S.9563.7873.H.TkZhaXphbiBKYXdlZABbc3VzdHJhbl0gUFJUIHByb3Bvc2FsIGZvciBEZWxoaSBjb252aW5jZXMgQ2hpZWY_.pro-237-234.old.1303890402.27345@webmail.rediffmail.com> <-9161617130153268274@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: You are right. The cost of the Volvo low-floor buses is exorbitant and bears no relation to production costs. The Tata/Leyland buses in Delhi are for 49 lakhs (non-AC) and 59 lakhs (AC). Even here, the CAG slammed the Corporation for buying buses at above the rates of Rs 43 lakhs and 51 lakhs respectively set by the Technical Committee. The chassis, it seems, costs only 15 lakhs, so if the body is built locally the expenses can be brought down significantly. On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:22 AM, ashok datar wrote: > *cost of bus and car per person * > > Dear All, > if we calculate the investment cost per seat in a car vs the same in a bus > we get a disturbing picture > If a Volvo bus costs a min of Rs. 70 lakhs for 40 seats > it means the investment per seat is Rs. 1.75 lakhs > on the other hand , popular cars such as Santro, Indica, Alto etc all cost > around Rs 3 to Rs. 4 lak rupees . > that means the investment per seat would be Rs one lakh per seat > why does it have to be so ? > Earlier , the ordinary BEST used to cost only Rs. 11 lakhs to Rs. 18 lakhs- > obviously they were very basic and the costs are up but in those days > investment cost per seat in a bus was only Rs. 30 to 40000 > I think there is something radically wrong that the cost of a bus needs to > be so high in India > can we not provide good quality 40 seater buses under Rs. 40 lakhs > and if a car air conditioning costs Rs. 25000, how much extra it should > cost for a bus ? > Ultimately in India , investment cost is more important than even the fuel > cost > let us think about this issue which can make a radical difference to the > approach of people to buses and cars > that is where no public transport can compete with two wheelers > ashok datar > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:11 PM, Sarath Guttikunda > wrote: > >> Dear Lee and Co., >> >> attached is a summary of the results published by Ministry of Urban >> Development in 2008-09 on the passenger travel trends and they tell a good >> story of where the cities are headed. >> >> Important messages on this page: >> >> - As the cities grew (in size of population, which is proxy to the >> geographical size), access to the work places in less than 15 mins travel >> time decreases >> - As the cities grew, the share of public transport in the form of bus >> transport (percent of passenger trips) increases - which is a good sign, >> meaning the cities are realizing the importance of promoting public >> transport and more efforts are headed that way as the cities expand >> - As the cities grew, the share of non-motorized transport in the form >> of walking and biking (percent of passenger trips) decreases - which is the >> sad part of the equation, meaning the role of cars and SUVs is overtaking >> the need to promote NMT >> - Lower the share of non-motorized transport in the city, lower the >> service index (% trips accessible in less than 15 mins travel time) and >> higher the congestion index, primarily due increase in the personal >> transport >> >> The access to public transport is growing, but not enough to support the >> travel demand growth in the big cities. Figure 3, top right panel, presents >> the share of passenger trips covered by the public transport against the >> population in the cities. The access to the public transport is high in the >> megacities, and expected to grow under the JNNURM funds. However, the lack >> of infrastructure in the bus manufacturing sector to supply the necessary >> >> With regards, >> Sarath >> >> -- >> Dr. Sarath Guttikunda, New Delhi, India >> UrbanEmissions.Info | TED Fellow | >> +1(202)683-0937 (till June) >> http://www.dri.edu/sarath-guttikunda >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:22 PM, Lee Schipper wrote: >> >>> I will copy this to Sarath Guttikunda >>> begin_of_the_skype_highlighting end_of_the_skype_highlighting of >>> Delhi. Can the Moderator admit him? >>> he has some amazing MoUD data on accessibility and mobility (number of >>> people traveling less than 15 minutes to work) for dozens of Indian >>> cities, and the number taking mass transit. The largest cities in India >>> fail..its a mess..the medium sized cities (like Pune) are doing a bit >>> better, but the "small" cities (ahem, small compared to Delhi or Mumbai) >>> offer more near=by access, consistent with what Ashok Dator said. >>> -- >>> Lee Schipper, Ph.D >>> Project Scientist >>> Global Metropolitan Studies >>> http://metrostudies.berkeley.edu/ >>> >>> Street/Mail Address: >>> UC Berkeley Global Metropolitan Studies >>> 1950 Addison 2nd floor, Berkeley. >>> Berkeley CA 94704-2647 >>> >>> >>> +1 510 642 6889, >>> FAX +1 510 642 6061 >>> Cell +1 202 262 7476 >>> >>> skype: mrmeter >>> >>> >>> >>> > it is a very lively and serious debate on this new "toy" , may be good >>> for >>> > very select uses at airports etc but cant be a sensible option for >>> other >>> > major areas in any large and complex city. >>> > in fact, we need to have overall restraint policy for the urbanization >>> as >>> > such all over >>> > if we want to cope with congestion, pollution, energy and sustainabiliy >>> > I think the cities need to degrow beyond a certain level >>> > they must remain within ground level transportation - preferably >>> bussing ( >>> > i.e. when u cant walk or bike ) >>> > hopefully for most worktrips and other regular trips for education as >>> well >>> > - >>> > it should be walking or biking oriented and then the BRTS >>> > and only in rare cases, taxies and hired personal cars for occasional >>> uses >>> > so that we go towards miniimizning private, individually owned cars and >>> > provide more dense but low carbon impact and sustaibly green habitat >>> > we cant have all comforts which are based on personal car and then try >>> to >>> > reject it >>> > we need to work towards alternate design of living especially in >>> > sustainable >>> > manner as global availability of energy, food, water is going to be >>> > liimited >>> > and need to equitably available and transport is a crtical element in >>> the >>> > way we live especially in large urban societies based on exploitation >>> of >>> > rural pop which can also be more sustainabale and "urban" with new >>> > techonlogies >>> > can we think altogether differently - not too radically >>> > ashok datar >>> > >>> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 3:13 PM, eric britton >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> >> This is a nice lively discussion, and I thought it might add a bit of >>> >> value >>> >> if we posted it to World Streets (even if we are supposed to be closed >>> >> as we >>> >> seek financial support to keep going) and popped a poll in there for >>> >> your >>> >> voting pleasure. You will see the full story at >>> >> >>> http://worldstreets.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/prt-proposal-for-delhi-convinces-chief-minister-but-does-it-convince-you-see-poll-results/ >>> >> >>> >> Let's see what kind of consensus, divergence, trends if any we get >>> here. >>> >> >>> >> What is more beautiful and encouraging than informed active citizens >>> who >>> >> make their voices heard. >>> >> >>> >> Vote! >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> -------------------------------------------------------- >>> >> 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'). >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Ashok R.Datar >>> > Mumbai Environmental Social Network >>> > 20 Madhavi, Makarand Society, S.V.S.Marg, Mahim-400 016 >>> > 98676 65107/0222 444 9212 see our website : www.mesn.org >>> > >>> > * I hear, then I forget. I see, then I remember. I do, then I >>> > understand.* >>> > -------------------------------------------------------- >>> > 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'). >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > > -- > Ashok R.Datar > Mumbai Environmental Social Network > 20 Madhavi, Makarand Society, S.V.S.Marg, Mahim-400 016 > 98676 65107/0222 444 9212 see our website : www.mesn.org > > * I hear, then I forget. I see, then I remember. I do, then I understand. > * > > From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Mon May 2 02:56:41 2011 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (eric britton) Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 19:56:41 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Sustainable transport, sustainable cities, sustainable lives . . . and Iran Message-ID: <011d01cc0829$22833fd0$6789bf70$@britton@ecoplan.org> If you are interested in sustainable transport, sustainable cities, sustainable lives . . . and Iran, we would like to talk to you about a new possible project. Thanks. Eric Britton World Streets - - - > Would you like to support World Streets? If so please click to http://wp.me/PsKUY-BD . | 8-10, rue Joseph Bara 75006 Paris. | +331 75503788. | eric.britton@newmobility.org | Skype: newmobility | Read World Streets at http://worldstreets.org | To subscribe to weekly edition: Click here India Streets ? is on-line at http://IndiaStreets.org | To subscribe to weekly edition: Click here Nuova Mobilit? - http://nuovamobilita.org | To subscribe to weekly edition: Click here New Mobility Partnerships ? http://www.newmobility.org From et3 at et3.com Tue May 3 06:01:13 2011 From: et3 at et3.com (E T 3 Space Travel On Earth tm) Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 15:01:13 -0600 Subject: [sustran] Fwd: [t-i] Repurpose this? In-Reply-To: <20110502164729.C24E7490539@zmail-mta01.peak.org> References: <20110502164729.C24E7490539@zmail-mta01.peak.org> Message-ID: FROM: Jerry Schneider to transport-innovators@googlegroups.com date Mon, May 2, 2011 at 10:47 AM The motto of public transit should be: "We take you where WE want you to go, WHEN we want you to go there." From et3 at et3.com Wed May 4 02:11:21 2011 From: et3 at et3.com (E T 3 Space Travel On Earth tm) Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 11:11:21 -0600 Subject: [sustran] Re: Will the real PRT please stand up In-Reply-To: <-1220649329868184467@unknownmsgid> References: <-1220649329868184467@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: 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@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 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-prt-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-delhi-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_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'). > From et3 at et3.com Wed May 4 02:37:19 2011 From: et3 at et3.com (E T 3 Space Travel On Earth tm) Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 11:37:19 -0600 Subject: [sustran] Re: PRT proposal for Delhi convinces Chief Minister In-Reply-To: <-3008201195211774888@unknownmsgid> References: <1304148566.1511.32395.m6@yahoogroups.com> <-3008201195211774888@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: Eric, It is easy for you to beat up your version of PRT (what PRT used to be) when you control access to the ring! Why do you filter out posts that make credible fact based arguments? If you continue to limit accessibility to your forums you will continue to attract a barrage when a crack appears (as with the "poll"). If you have credible arguments to make why not debate me on your forum? Is it possible that your standard of living (and the ability to drive your car around and fly in jets to train and bus conferences around the world) depends on your continuing support of bus and train modes? If so, i can understand why you filter out your credible competition, and put up your paper dragon to slay in front of your audience. -- 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@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 2:09 AM, eric britton wrote: > Couple of quick week-end remarks on this group think exercise, if I may? > > > > 1. ? ? ? Well, it certainly kicked some life into our group. > > > > 2. ? ? ? Not only that, it strikes me that no matter how bizarre the topic > (and PRT is indeed pretty bizarre), these exchanges dig usefully into some > of the important corners of the continuing policy debate. > > > > 3. ? ? Another striking thing has been the great tenacity of our PRT > friends. ?Please understand that I do not wish to insult them - because > there are a fair number whom I have known for years, including going back in > the days of our first studies of PRT back in the early seventies; so you > have to admire their tenacity. However their strong unbending nature in the > face of the evidence, year after year, decade after decade draw to mind the > behavior in Russia of the embattled "Old Believers", who were ready to > undergo any form of torture, firm as they were/are (since they still exist) > in their faith. Again, you can see their comments and challenges in more > detail > http://worldstreets.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/prt-proposal-for-delhi-convince > s-chief-minister-but-does-it-convince-you-see-poll-results/#comments, which > I believe provide more evidence of their deep commitment.. > > > > 4. ? ? And what do you think about the willingness to stuff the ballot > boxes, to the extent that today the World Streets poll shows that 60% of > those who voted have a favorable view of PRT? To me there is something that > is kind of touching about this willingness to "do what it takes" to defend > their bastion. And all the more since we live in a time and with technology > that permits even a moderately able geek to trace the sources with unfailing > accuracy. (I have to say that this does not make me mad, but it does make me > grin. ?At least a bit.) > > > > 5. ? ? Early next week I will close down the poll, sanitize it (-;) and > share the results with you all. We can then put it behind us and get on to > more creative topics. > > > > Still, it has been fun, and not without its lessons. > > > > Eric Britton > > > > > > PS. Several of the PRT defenders make the point that the nice thing about > those small pods is that you do not have to share your trip with "other > people". ?Am I a bit dim, or does that not have a very definite anti-social > ring to it? > From whook at itdp.org Wed May 4 02:44:51 2011 From: whook at itdp.org (Walter Hook) Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 13:44:51 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: PRT proposal for Delhi convinces Chief Minister In-Reply-To: References: <1304148566.1511.32395.m6@yahoogroups.com> <-3008201195211774888@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: how is this for a tag line: "all the disadvantages of cars, with none of the advantages." On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 1:37 PM, E T 3 Space Travel On Earth tm wrote: > Eric, > > It is easy for you to beat up your version of PRT (what PRT used to > be) when you control access to the ring! Why do you filter out posts > that make credible fact based arguments? If you continue to limit > accessibility to your forums you will continue to attract a barrage > when a crack appears (as with the "poll"). If you have credible > arguments to make why not debate me on your forum? Is it possible > that your standard of living (and the ability to drive your car around > and fly in jets to train and bus conferences around the world) depends > on your continuing support of bus and train modes? If so, i can > understand why you filter out your credible competition, and put up > your paper dragon to slay in front of your audience. > > > -- > 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@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 2:09 AM, eric britton > wrote: > > Couple of quick week-end remarks on this group think exercise, if I may? > > > > > > > > 1. Well, it certainly kicked some life into our group. > > > > > > > > 2. Not only that, it strikes me that no matter how bizarre the > topic > > (and PRT is indeed pretty bizarre), these exchanges dig usefully into > some > > of the important corners of the continuing policy debate. > > > > > > > > 3. Another striking thing has been the great tenacity of our PRT > > friends. Please understand that I do not wish to insult them - because > > there are a fair number whom I have known for years, including going back > in > > the days of our first studies of PRT back in the early seventies; so you > > have to admire their tenacity. However their strong unbending nature in > the > > face of the evidence, year after year, decade after decade draw to mind > the > > behavior in Russia of the embattled "Old Believers", who were ready to > > undergo any form of torture, firm as they were/are (since they still > exist) > > in their faith. Again, you can see their comments and challenges in more > > detail > > > http://worldstreets.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/prt-proposal-for-delhi-convince > > s-chief-minister-but-does-it-convince-you-see-poll-results/#comments, > which > > I believe provide more evidence of their deep commitment.. > > > > > > > > 4. And what do you think about the willingness to stuff the ballot > > boxes, to the extent that today the World Streets poll shows that 60% of > > those who voted have a favorable view of PRT? To me there is something > that > > is kind of touching about this willingness to "do what it takes" to > defend > > their bastion. And all the more since we live in a time and with > technology > > that permits even a moderately able geek to trace the sources with > unfailing > > accuracy. (I have to say that this does not make me mad, but it does make > me > > grin. At least a bit.) > > > > > > > > 5. Early next week I will close down the poll, sanitize it (-;) and > > share the results with you all. We can then put it behind us and get on > to > > more creative topics. > > > > > > > > Still, it has been fun, and not without its lessons. > > > > > > > > Eric Britton > > > > > > > > > > > > PS. Several of the PRT defenders make the point that the nice thing about > > those small pods is that you do not have to share your trip with "other > > people". Am I a bit dim, or does that not have a very definite > anti-social > > ring to it? > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > 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'). > -- Walter Hook Executive Director Institute for Transportation and Development Policy 9 East 19th Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10003 1-212-629-8001 www.itdp.org Promoting sustainable and equitable transportation worldwide. From jcmota at ua.pt Wed May 4 06:55:44 2011 From: jcmota at ua.pt (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jos=E9_Carlos_Mota?=) Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 22:55:44 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Sharing Ideas for Cities! Message-ID: <09A32EE93A4348579B16101D05DBBC52@clients.ua.pt> Sharing Ideas for Cities! Low-Cost & High-Value Ideas for Cities https://www.facebook.com/IdeasforCities 'Global City 2.0' [an informal network and an open invitation to individuals, groups and institutions who wish to think about the role of URBAN CIVIC MOVEMENTS and its potential to transform cities, specially in this hard economic times] site: http://globalcity.blogs.sapo.pt email: globalcitytwopointzero@gmail.com From peebeebarter at gmail.com Wed May 4 10:43:31 2011 From: peebeebarter at gmail.com (Paul Barter) Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 09:43:31 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Reminders & explanations about SUSTRAN-DISCUSS (was Re: PRT proposal for Delhi convinces Chief Minister) Message-ID: Some points arising from the PRT discussion and from the message below from Daryl Oster in particular: 1. Sustran-discuss is not managed by Eric Britton. Eric is simply a member. I am one of the two co-managers. The other is Karl Fjellstrom. 2. Please refrain from making personal attacks on sustran-discuss. This includes making insinuations about anyone's motives for holding any particular viewpoint. Such suggestions quickly provoke flame wars. Karl and I send private warnings about this from time to time but we don't always notice every example. So if anyone feels wronged, please send us a private email via sustran-discuss-owner@list.jca.apc.org 3. Sustran-discuss is a semi-open forum. When posting, please be aware that your message can potentially be seen by anyone (via the mirror on yahoogroups or via the JCA networks archive). However, you can only post if you actually sign up to the group. This is important to keep out spam and also makes it easier for us to stay on topic (see below). But it sometimes causes oddities when people cc sustran-discuss along with many other recipients. If those others are not members, they will often find their replies rejected, which they may find confusing or irritating. This has been happening a bit in this PRT discussion. It can't be helped. 4. What is "On Topic"? The stated focus of sustran-discuss is "... people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Sustran-discuss began in 1997 with a focus on Asia but has now become the main English-language discussion forum on urban transport issues in developing countries." There is a lot of room for interpretation on this and we are not too strict. But we send a reminder from time-to-time if the conversation starts to seem relevant only to high-income North America, Australasia, Europe or even the very rich bits of Asia. The PRT topic is fine so long as we don't completely lose sight of the geographical focus of sustran-discuss. 5. We have a size limit on attachments. This may be a little out of date but the intention is that a slow internet connection or a tight size limit on your inbox should not prevent anyone from using sustran-discuss. Sometimes we make exceptions for attachments that are only just over the limit. But messages with very large attachments or images will get held up by the filtering system and then most likely be rejected. The sender gets a message inviting them to trim the message. Sincerely, Paul Barter Co-manager of sustran-discuss On 4 May 2011 01:37, E T 3 Space Travel On Earth tm wrote: > Eric, > > It is easy for you to beat up your version of PRT (what PRT used to > be) when you control access to the ring! Why do you filter out posts > that make credible fact based arguments? If you continue to limit > accessibility to your forums you will continue to attract a barrage > when a crack appears (as with the "poll"). If you have credible > arguments to make why not debate me on your forum? Is it possible > that your standard of living (and the ability to drive your car around > and fly in jets to train and bus conferences around the world) depends > on your continuing support of bus and train modes? If so, i can > understand why you filter out your credible competition, and put up > your paper dragon to slay in front of your audience. > > > -- > Best regards, > > Daryl Oster > From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Wed May 4 19:37:21 2011 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (eric britton) Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 12:37:21 +0200 Subject: [sustran] It just keeps popping up. Admirable (in its way) Message-ID: <01bf01cc0a47$49e37160$ddaa5420$@britton@ecoplan.org> Will Bangalore take a call on POD after Gurgaon experiment? Published: Wednesday, May 4, 2011, 10:13 IST By DNA Correspondent | Place: Bangalore | Agency: DNA While Gurgaon is ready to invite it, Delhi is thinking of implementing it. Provide-On-Demand (Pod) Personal Rapid Transit is a necessity but a far-fetched plan for Namma Bengaluru. Pod is an automatic, driver-less, battery/power operated, laser ray-guided taxi running on or hanging from an elevated track. It is a personalised transport like hired high speed cab, but centrally controlled. Passengers will choose their destinations from a list of options on a touch-sensitive screen beside the rank of waiting pods at a station, board in, press 'close doors' button inside the pod cab and then press 'go' button. London Heathrow airport has already got Pod from airport to nearest metro stations and transport junctions and even New York and many places in the US have got PRT. India is trying to bring Pod home. Sweden is considering PRT. South Korea and Japan are enjoying pod taxi. Recently, Haryana chief minister announced that the detailed project report for the Pod PRT for Gurgaon is already out and Delhi CM Sheila Dixit discussed the viability of Pod PRT in Delhi during the last week of April. Even Amritsar is trying to consider Pod soon. Haryana government has announced the cost at Rs40 per kilometre involving 143 stations stretching to 31km in its first phase and 73km in the second phase. Stations will be at every 100 yards on the elevated tracks under which multi-level parking facility will be designed. Delhi chief minister, who had a meeting with transport authorities to discuss the viability of Pod during the last week of April, is now thinking of bringing it on in ITPO, Dwarka City, Karol Bagh and North campus as pilot project. On the other side, transport authorities in Bangalore feel the futurist idea is welcome but not everything new can just be implemented without thoughts being put to it. Bangalore Metropolitan Land Transport Authority commissioner V Manjula says she will wait to see how Pod PRT works in Gurgaon. "I saw the demo of Pod in Mobility India conference in Delhi but I am still to see how it performs. Let us first see how Gurgaon, even Delhi and Amritsar fares. Everything new cannot be right away implemented without realising whether the place needs it or not," said V Manjula. However, she agreed that Pod is necessary to quicken the transportation time in cities where the road traffic eats up commuters' time to reach one point to other. "Pod could be thought of in places where there are a lot of culturally improved places, airports and airport connectivity from a common point in the city," she said. She added the focus of easing transportation in Bangalore is now mass transit. "Pod is a form of PRT. Here we are not thinking of such futurist ideas like personlalised rapid transport. Our focus at this point in time is on mass rapid transit," she said. From adhiraj.joglekar at googlemail.com Wed May 4 20:05:01 2011 From: adhiraj.joglekar at googlemail.com (Dr Adhiraj Joglekar) Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 12:05:01 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Re: Will the real PRT please stand up In-Reply-To: References: <-1220649329868184467@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: 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 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@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 > 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-prt-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-delhi-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_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'). From et3 at et3.com Wed May 4 23:19:11 2011 From: et3 at et3.com (E T 3 Space Travel On Earth tm) Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 08:19:11 -0600 Subject: [sustran] Re: Will the real PRT please stand up In-Reply-To: References: <-1220649329868184467@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: 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 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 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@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 >> 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-prt-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-delhi-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_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'). > -- 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@et3.com ?www.et3.com ?et3.net All information included or attached is intended only for the recipient and is confidential unless otherwise noted. From czegras at MIT.EDU Thu May 5 07:00:56 2011 From: czegras at MIT.EDU (P. Christopher Zegras) Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 18:00:56 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: Will the real PRT please stand up In-Reply-To: References: <-1220649329868184467@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: <3BC44BCACA60F3439EE06B100CC1B7EA0E5D1F62E1@EXPO17.exchange.mit.edu> 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@et3.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 10:19 AM To: Dr Adhiraj Joglekar Cc: transport-innovators@googlegroups.com; sustran-discuss@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 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 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@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 >> >> 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-pr >> > 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-delhi-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_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'). > -- 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@et3.com www.et3.com et3.net All information included or attached is intended only for the recipient and is confidential unless otherwise noted. From bruun at seas.upenn.edu Thu May 5 09:58:12 2011 From: bruun at seas.upenn.edu (bruun at seas.upenn.edu) Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 20:58:12 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: Will the real PRT please stand up In-Reply-To: <3BC44BCACA60F3439EE06B100CC1B7EA0E5D1F62E1@EXPO17.exchange.mit.edu> References: <-1220649329868184467@unknownmsgid> <3BC44BCACA60F3439EE06B100CC1B7EA0E5D1F62E1@EXPO17.exchange.mit.edu> Message-ID: <20110504205812.16852qrfq0kd6gis@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> Chris PRT has been studied. We don't need more calculations. It is just that some people haven't looked at the studies, don't understand the studies, or don't want to understand the studies. Have a look at Vuchic's book "Urban Transit: Systems and Technology", for starters. The capacity performance is very poor at any kind of reasonable speed. Then there is the problem of interchanges. Eric Bruun Quoting "P. Christopher Zegras" : > 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@et3.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 10:19 AM > To: Dr Adhiraj Joglekar > Cc: transport-innovators@googlegroups.com; sustran-discuss@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 > 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 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@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 >>> >>> 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-pr >>> > 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-delhi-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_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'). >> > > > > -- > 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@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'). From richmond at alum.mit.edu Thu May 5 15:21:09 2011 From: richmond at alum.mit.edu (Jonathan Richmond) Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 12:21:09 +0600 (Bangladesh Standard Time) Subject: [sustran] Re: Will the real PRT please stand up In-Reply-To: <3BC44BCACA60F3439EE06B100CC1B7EA0E5D1F62E1@EXPO17.exchange.mit.edu> References: <-1220649329868184467@unknownmsgid> <3BC44BCACA60F3439EE06B100CC1B7EA0E5D1F62E1@EXPO17.exchange.mit.edu> Message-ID: 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@et3.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 10:19 AM > To: Dr Adhiraj Joglekar > Cc: transport-innovators@googlegroups.com; sustran-discuss@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 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 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@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 >>> >>> 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-pr >>>> 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-delhi-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_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'). >> > > > > -- > 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@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@alum.mit.edu http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ From peebeebarter at gmail.com Thu May 5 18:19:25 2011 From: peebeebarter at gmail.com (Paul Barter) Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 17:19:25 +0800 Subject: [sustran] "Vision", "technical assessment" or ??? Message-ID: 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 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 >> >> From cowherdr at wit.edu Thu May 5 19:50:03 2011 From: cowherdr at wit.edu (Robert Cowherd) Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 06:50:03 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: "Vision", "technical assessment" or ??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 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" 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 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'). From richmond at alum.mit.edu Thu May 5 20:07:13 2011 From: richmond at alum.mit.edu (Jonathan Richmond) Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 17:07:13 +0600 (Bangladesh Standard Time) Subject: [sustran] Re: "Vision", "technical assessment" or ??? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 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" 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 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@alum.mit.edu http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ From hghazali at gmail.com Thu May 5 22:11:20 2011 From: hghazali at gmail.com (Hassaan Ghazali) Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 18:11:20 +0500 Subject: [sustran] op-ed column on OBL Message-ID: Please find below the link to my op ed column on Osama Bin Laden which appeared in Pakistan Today on 5 May 2011 http://epaper.pakistantoday.com.pk/E-Paper/Lahore/2011-05-05/page-13/detail-3 Hassaan From czegras at MIT.EDU Thu May 5 22:44:14 2011 From: czegras at MIT.EDU (P. Christopher Zegras) Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 09:44:14 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: Will the real PRT please stand up In-Reply-To: References: <-1220649329868184467@unknownmsgid> <3BC44BCACA60F3439EE06B100CC1B7EA0E5D1F62E1@EXPO17.exchange.mit.edu> Message-ID: <3BC44BCACA60F3439EE06B100CC1B7EA0E5D1F63A5@EXPO17.exchange.mit.edu> 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 na?ve as to believe that this is how the world actually works, I will paraphrase an old Lime?o 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@alum.mit.edu] Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 2:21 AM To: P. Christopher Zegras Cc: sustran-discuss@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@et3.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 10:19 AM > To: Dr Adhiraj Joglekar > Cc: transport-innovators@googlegroups.com; > sustran-discuss@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 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 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@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 >>> >>> 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-pr >>>> 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-delhi >>>> -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_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'). >> > > > > -- > 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@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@alum.mit.edu http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ From richmond at alum.mit.edu Thu May 5 23:08:46 2011 From: richmond at alum.mit.edu (Jonathan Richmond) Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 20:08:46 +0600 (Bangladesh Standard Time) Subject: [sustran] Re: Will the real PRT please stand up In-Reply-To: <3BC44BCACA60F3439EE06B100CC1B7EA0E5D1F63A5@EXPO17.exchange.mit.edu> References: <-1220649329868184467@unknownmsgid> <3BC44BCACA60F3439EE06B100CC1B7EA0E5D1F62E1@EXPO17.exchange.mit.edu> <3BC44BCACA60F3439EE06B100CC1B7EA0E5D1F63A5@EXPO17.exchange.mit.edu> Message-ID: 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 na?ve as to believe that this is how the world actually works, I will paraphrase an old Lime?o 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@alum.mit.edu] > Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 2:21 AM > To: P. Christopher Zegras > Cc: sustran-discuss@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@et3.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 10:19 AM >> To: Dr Adhiraj Joglekar >> Cc: transport-innovators@googlegroups.com; >> sustran-discuss@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 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 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@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 >>>> >>>> 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-pr >>>>> 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-delhi >>>>> -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_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'). >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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@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@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@alum.mit.edu http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Thu May 5 23:11:10 2011 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (eric britton) Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 16:11:10 +0200 Subject: [sustran] I hate it when we quarrel Message-ID: <019b01cc0b2e$4ac92880$e05b7980$@britton@ecoplan.org> _____________________________________________________ World Streets Make it yours Paris. Thursday, 05 May, 2011 I hate it when we quarrel with each other. It just ain't creative. As I read it after all these years here, we, our constant long term peer group here, are all on the same side ? sustainable transport, sustainable cities and sustainable lives. We have different thoughts about how to get there ? and I am surely among the most obstinate of our group in my belief that the only valid primary target is VKT reduction by whatever creative democratic manner, and fast ? but we really should not allow ourselves to become adversarial. It is all a matter of tone (And I hope that YOU hear me, eh?) I love you guys and my only complaint is that we somehow have failed to bring more women into this little family. That, along with the occasional (but not very frequently) quarreling, is our biggest failure thus far. And of course that the world that we care about is still going to hell in a hand basket, desire our hopes and efforts. We have serious work to do. Forward! Together! Eric Eric Britton, Editor / Managing Director World Streets / New Mobility Partnerships 8, rue Jospeh Bara 75006 Paris France Tel. +331 7550 3788 | editor@newmobility.org | Skype: newmobility P Avant d'imprimer, pensez ? l'environnement From carlosfpardo at gmail.com Fri May 6 02:15:29 2011 From: carlosfpardo at gmail.com (Carlosfelipe Pardo) Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 12:15:29 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: I hate it when we quarrel In-Reply-To: <019b01cc0b2e$4ac92880$e05b7980$@britton@ecoplan.org> References: <019b01cc0b2e$4ac92880$e05b7980$@britton@ecoplan.org> Message-ID: <4DC2DB31.9020907@gmail.com> I have to disagree. I didn't find the discussion of yesterday and today to be a quarrel. It was a very critical and useful discussion of a key topic in urban transport policy that we should have more often. Granted, other recent discussions had acid remarks. But the Zegras - Richmond exchange is most valuable and I think many of us learned a lot from it (at least I did!). Hopefully more of us can contribute to the issue. Carlos. On 05/05/2011 09:11 a.m., eric britton wrote: > > > _____________________________________________________ > > World Streets > > Make it yours > > > > Paris. Thursday, 05 May, 2011 > > > > > > > I hate it when we quarrel with each other. It just ain't creative. As I read > it after all these years here, we, our constant long term peer group here, > are all on the same side ? sustainable transport, sustainable cities and > sustainable lives. > > > > We have different thoughts about how to get there ? and I am surely among > the most obstinate of our group in my belief that the only valid primary > target is VKT reduction by whatever creative democratic manner, and fast ? > but we really should not allow ourselves to become adversarial. It is all a > matter of tone (And I hope that YOU hear me, eh?) > > > > I love you guys and my only complaint is that we somehow have failed to > bring more women into this little family. That, along with the occasional > (but not very frequently) quarreling, is our biggest failure thus far. > > > > And of course that the world that we care about is still going to hell in a > hand basket, desire our hopes and efforts. > > > > We have serious work to do. > > > > Forward! Together! > > > > Eric > > > > > > Eric Britton, Editor / Managing Director > > World Streets / New Mobility Partnerships > > 8, rue Jospeh Bara 75006 Paris France > > Tel. +331 7550 3788 | editor@newmobility.org | Skype: newmobility > > > > P Avant d'imprimer, pensez ? l'environnement > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > 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'). > From czegras at MIT.EDU Fri May 6 04:10:41 2011 From: czegras at MIT.EDU (P. Christopher Zegras) Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 15:10:41 -0400 Subject: [sustran] "Vision", "technical assessment" or ??? (was: Re: Will the real PRT please stand up) Message-ID: <3BC44BCACA60F3439EE06B100CC1B7EA0E5D1F64D0@EXPO17.exchange.mit.edu> 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/Pe?alosa's Bogot?); 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@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Jonathan Richmond Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 10:09 AM To: P. Christopher Zegras Cc: sustran-discuss@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 na?ve as to believe that this is how the world actually works, I will paraphrase an old Lime?o 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@alum.mit.edu] > Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 2:21 AM > To: P. Christopher Zegras > Cc: sustran-discuss@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@et3.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 10:19 AM >> To: Dr Adhiraj Joglekar >> Cc: transport-innovators@googlegroups.com; >> sustran-discuss@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 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 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@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 >>>> >>>> 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@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@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@alum.mit.edu http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ From richmond at alum.mit.edu Fri May 6 04:38:14 2011 From: richmond at alum.mit.edu (Jonathan Richmond) Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 01:38:14 +0600 (Bangladesh Standard Time) Subject: [sustran] Re: "Vision", "technical assessment" or ??? (was: RE: Re: Will the real PRT please stand up) In-Reply-To: <3BC44BCACA60F3439EE06B100CC1B7EA0E5D1F64D0@EXPO17.exchange.mit.edu> References: <3BC44BCACA60F3439EE06B100CC1B7EA0E5D1F64D0@EXPO17.exchange.mit.edu> Message-ID: 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/Pe?alosa's Bogot?); 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@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Jonathan Richmond > Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 10:09 AM > To: P. Christopher Zegras > Cc: sustran-discuss@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 na?ve as to believe that this is how the world actually works, I will paraphrase an old Lime?o 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@alum.mit.edu] >> Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 2:21 AM >> To: P. Christopher Zegras >> Cc: sustran-discuss@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@et3.com] >>> Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 10:19 AM >>> To: Dr Adhiraj Joglekar >>> Cc: transport-innovators@googlegroups.com; >>> sustran-discuss@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 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 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@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 >>>>> >>>>> 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@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@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@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@alum.mit.edu http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ From peebeebarter at gmail.com Fri May 6 09:43:11 2011 From: peebeebarter at gmail.com (Paul Barter) Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 08:43:11 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: I hate it when we quarrel In-Reply-To: <4DC2DB31.9020907@gmail.com> References: <4DC2DB31.9020907@gmail.com> Message-ID: I agree with Carlos. The conversation is very interesting and useful I think. Disagreements are expected. Even very robust disagreement is fine. But I do worry about 'acid remarks'. In order to be a welcoming and diverse community, we need a tone that is significantly MORE polite and restrained than what some of us are used to in academic seminar rooms or around professional meeting tables. Please try to craft your posts in a way that would not discourage even a shy person from posting here. Paul On 6 May 2011 01:15, Carlosfelipe Pardo wrote: > I have to disagree. I didn't find the discussion of yesterday and today > to be a quarrel. It was a very critical and useful discussion of a key > topic in urban transport policy that we should have more often. Granted, > other recent discussions had acid remarks. But the Zegras - Richmond > exchange is most valuable and I think many of us learned a lot from it > (at least I did!). Hopefully more of us can contribute to the issue. > > Carlos. > > On 05/05/2011 09:11 a.m., eric britton wrote: > > > > > > _____________________________________________________ > > > > World Streets > > > > Make it yours > > > > > > > > Paris. Thursday, 05 May, 2011 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hate it when we quarrel with each other. It just ain't creative. As I > read > > it after all these years here, we, our constant long term peer group > here, > > are all on the same side ? sustainable transport, sustainable cities and > > sustainable lives. > > > > > > > > We have different thoughts about how to get there ? and I am surely among > > the most obstinate of our group in my belief that the only valid primary > > target is VKT reduction by whatever creative democratic manner, and fast > ? > > but we really should not allow ourselves to become adversarial. It is > all a > > matter of tone (And I hope that YOU hear me, eh?) > > > > > > > > I love you guys and my only complaint is that we somehow have failed to > > bring more women into this little family. That, along with the occasional > > (but not very frequently) quarreling, is our biggest failure thus far. > > > > > > > > And of course that the world that we care about is still going to hell in > a > > hand basket, desire our hopes and efforts. > > > > > > > > We have serious work to do. > > > > > > > > Forward! Together! > > > > > > > > Eric > > > > > > > > > > > > Eric Britton, Editor / Managing Director > > > > World Streets / New Mobility Partnerships > > > > 8, rue Jospeh Bara 75006 Paris France > > > > Tel. +331 7550 3788 | editor@newmobility.org | Skype: > newmobility > > > > > > > > P Avant d'imprimer, pensez ? l'environnement > From sudhir at cai-asia.org Fri May 6 09:59:55 2011 From: sudhir at cai-asia.org (Sudhir) Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 08:59:55 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: "Vision", "technical assessment" or ??? (was: RE: Re: Will the real PRT please stand up) In-Reply-To: References: <3BC44BCACA60F3439EE06B100CC1B7EA0E5D1F64D0@EXPO17.exchange.mit.edu> Message-ID: 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 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/Pe?alosa's Bogot?); 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@gmail.com] On Behalf Of >> Jonathan Richmond >> Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 10:09 AM >> To: P. Christopher Zegras >> Cc: sustran-discuss@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 na?ve as to believe that this >>> is how the world actually works, I will paraphrase an old Lime?o 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@alum.mit.edu] >>> Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 2:21 AM >>> To: P. Christopher Zegras >>> Cc: sustran-discuss@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@et3.com] >>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 10:19 AM >>>> To: Dr Adhiraj Joglekar >>>> Cc: transport-innovators@googlegroups.com; >>>> sustran-discuss@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@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 >>>>> 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@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 >>>>>> >>>>>> 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@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@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@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@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 From krc12353 at gmail.com Fri May 6 15:28:02 2011 From: krc12353 at gmail.com (Karthik Rao-Cavale) Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 02:28:02 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: "Vision", "technical assessment" or ??? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 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 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" 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 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@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'). > From richmond at alum.mit.edu Fri May 6 15:30:56 2011 From: richmond at alum.mit.edu (Jonathan Richmond) Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 12:30:56 +0600 (Bangladesh Standard Time) Subject: [sustran] Re: "Vision", "technical assessment" or ??? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 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 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" 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 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@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@alum.mit.edu http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ From sutp at sutp.org Fri May 6 22:31:44 2011 From: sutp at sutp.org (SUTP Team) Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 19:01:44 +0530 Subject: [sustran] GIZ SUTP Newsletter March - April 2011 Message-ID: <0CDD0981-5EDA-41C2-8A69-359A0123EDA3@sutp.org> ****** SUTP Newsletter ****** ****** Issue 02/11 - March- April 2011 ****** A PDF version of the newsletter can be downloaded from http://www.sutp.org/documents/newsletters/NL-Mar-Apr-11.pdf An online version is also available at http://www.sutp.org/newsletters/NL-Mar-Apr-11.htm ---------------- GIZ's new project: GEF Sustran East Africa Through funding by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) UN Habitat is implementing a 5-years programme on Promoting Sustainable Transport Solutions for East African Cities (GEF Sustran East Africa). The initiative is being implemented in partnership with GIZ, ITDP, TRL and the respective national and local governments. The programme aims to reduce growth in private motorized vehicles, thus reducing traffic congestion and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the three capital cities of Ethiopia, Uganda, and Kenya. GIZ will also provide technical assistance in Addis Ababa to support the development of an integrated public transport network and transport demand management measures. Read more: http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2619 --------------- German Cycling Knowledge in English language There's a broad demand for Germany's know-how in bicycle policy and infrastructural planning. The German bicycle portal contains a lot of resources: more than 4000 news, publications, research results and good practice examples. Funded by the Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Development, the series "Cycling Expertise Files" contains German Bicycle Expertise in English language. Read more: http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2637 --------------- Working Group on Transport NAMAs kicked off in Seoul Representatives from 17 countries from Africa, Asia and Latin America, the UNFCCC Secretariat, development banks as well as experts on transport and climate change participated in the Kick-Off Meeting of a Working Group on transport NAMAs that was kicked-off in Seoul, Korea on April 12th and 13th, 2011. Hosted by the Korean Transport Institute (KOTI) and supported by UNDESA, the SLoCaT Partnership and the Bridging the Gap initiative, the workshop aimed to better understand the concept of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) and how it could become a catalyst for sustainable transportation. Read more: http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2635 --------------- Climate Talks Bangkok: Majority of Parties note transport measures in pre-sessional NAMA Workshop At the first round of UN climate talks held in Bangkok from 3-8 April, 2011, a pre-sessional workshop on NAMAs took place, with the objective of understanding the diversity of mitigation actions submitted, their underlying assumptions, and any support needed for implementation of those actions. Of the dozen Parties that provided presentations, more than half of them noted explicitly their actions (both existing and planned) in the transport sector. Read more: http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2633 --------------- Delegates from Mexico, Colombia, Indonesia and UNESCAP discuss transport NAMAs at BtG Event The Bridging the Gap Initiative held an event titled "Transport NAMAs - first Ideas!" in parallel to the AWG meetings in Bangkok on April 6th, 2011. The event attracted more than 40 delegates and other participants to the climate talks representing a wide range of world regions and organisations. Harald Diaz-Bone from GIZ made a joint presentation on opportunities with NAMAs in the transport sector and GIZ?s role in supporting their development. Read more: http://www.transport2012.org/transport-climate-change-news/2011-04-09,transportnamas-bkk.htm --------------- Velocity Seville 2011 Seville has been known for its recent transformation of public space and transport policies, where more than 100 kms of bikeways have been built in less than 4 years, and a consequent increase in bicycle trips has been seen from 0.6% to 6.6%. This gave Seville the chance to develop the Velocity 2011 conference during March 23-25 , with 900 participants from 55 countries all over the world. Sessions included discussions on issues related to advocacy, engineering, policies and the industry of the bicycle. Read more: http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2618 --------------- Vision Mumbai: 40-Year Plan for Mumbai Metropolitan Region GIZ-SUTP was invited to participate in the unveiling of the 40-year plan for Mumbai Metropolitan Region (MMR), which was at a high level event organized by the popular think tank Bombay First. Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority (MMRDA) through the Mumbai Transformation Support Unit (MTSU), which advises the state government on infrastructure, organized this event to invite stakeholder views on the a 40-year Concept Plan for the city of Mumbai, developed by Sigapore based Surbana International Consultants. Read more: http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2606 ****** Publications ****** Technical Document #7 on Sustainable Transport Evaluation is now out Measuring sustainability in the transport sector aims at capturing the diverse effects of transportation activities on the environment, society and economy. On behalf of the Federal Ministry for Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU), GIZ has reviewed existing evaluation schemes for sustainability in the transport sector to determine which are most appropriate for sustainable transport planning and policy purposes on an international level. This document outlines options for choosing appropriate indicators and evaluation schemes, and proposes a working plan for starting an evaluation process within the CSD 18/19 framework. Read more: http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2631 --------------- FAQs on Transport NAMAs GIZ has put together a short paper proposing answers on Frequently Asked Questions on NAMAs in the transport sector. The paper was realized through the TRANSfer project, which started in January 2011 to develop transport NAMAs in a number of countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Read more: http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2621 --------------- Transport in the new green development approaches GIZ has published a short paper that focuses on the role of transport and mobility in a Green Economy, developed by Daniel Bongardt and Philipp Schaltenberg. This paper highlights basic strategies towards "green transport" in developing countries, discusses green jobs as well as social equity questions and finally presents GIZ's work in the greening of the transport sector. Read more: http://www.transport2012.org/bridging/ressources/files/1/1391,fs_GreenEconomy.pdf --------------- Module on Urban Freight now in Chinese The economic development of urban agglomerations depends heavily on a reliable and friction-free supply of goods and materials. At the same time, freight transportation in urban centres contributes considerably to air pollution, noise emission and traffic congestion. Decisive action is necessary in order to optimise urban freight delivery, and thus to alleviate the negative effects. This GIZ Sourcebook module, now translated in Chinese describes the importance of freight transportation in the context of urban development and provides detailed information on available options to meet current and future challenges for urban goods transport in rapidly growing cities of the developing world. Read more: http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2607 --------------- Case Study #2 on promoting cycling in cities GIZ SUTP released its second document in its recently initiated Case Study series. The document is titled "Muenster, Germany - An Example of Promoting Cycling in Cities ? Components of a High Quality Bicycle Infrastructure". This study introduces the German city Muenster's initiatives to promote cycling and outlines specifications and essentials of its bicycle infrastructure. It provides a case study and orientation for transport planners and policy makers who want to develop similar bicycle-based sustainable urban transport systems in their cities. Readers are welcome to contribute similar case study on sustainable practices in urban transport and mobility, and those interested may contact us. Read more: http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2617 --------------- Third Bulletin Sustainable Urban Mobility in Ukrainian Cities The bulletin comprises information about the development of cycling in Almaty, Kazakhstan, information on possibilities for Ukraine to take part in the 7th EC framework program on development of transportation technologies, a summary of a public discussion on the future transport infrastructure in Kyiv and an overview of new publications regarding sustainable mobility, all in Ukrainian language. Read more in Ukrainian language: http://www.sutp.org/suteca/mfwl/Bulletin-UA_no3final.pdf --------------- T-MAPPER website Launched GIZ and its partners are pleased to announce the launch of a new report and website, Transport Measures And Policies to Promote Emission Reductions (T-MAPPER), that provides information and data on national policies that help mitigate greenhouse gas emissions from the transport sector. The transport sector currently accounts for a fifth of global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, and transport energy-related CO2 emissions are predicted to increase by 1.7% a year from 2004 to 2030. A large proportion of these emissions take place outside of Europe, and the largest growth is anticipated in developing countries. The European Commission (EC) has therefore commissioned a study to better understand and support the actions being taken outside of the European Economic Area (EEA) to mitigate transport emissions. The project aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of policies being enacted outside the EEA to reduce the climate impact of the transport sector, some of which could be transferred to EEA countries, and provide information on possible mechanisms to support the reduction, or avoidance, of increases in Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions from transport (in other areas of the world). Visit T-MAPPER site : http://www.sutp.org/T-MAPPER/ ******News from partners and elsewhere******* Rea Vaya and Janmarg BRTs honoured at Public Transport Congress At the 59th annual UIPT congress, which was on in Dubai from 9 to 14 April, Johannesburg's new BRT System Rea Vaya and Ahmedabad?s Janmarg won accolades and honours. Read more: http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2636 --------------- The "Avoid, Shift, Improve" Strategy - a short film The Korea Transport Institute (KOTI) hosted the Working Group on Transport NAMAs in April in Seoul, Korea. At the event KOTI presented their "Sustainable Transport for All" video, which provides a concise overview of approaches to climate change mitigation in the land transport sector. The film draws on the "Avoid, Shift and Improve" concept for GHG emission reduction from the transport sector as detailed in the GIZ sourcebook on Transport and Climate Change (Module 5e). Read more: http://www.transport2012.org/transport-climate-change-news/2011-04-21,avoidshiftimprove-film.htm --------------- Burden of disease from environmental noise Noise pollution is becoming a major concern in cities today and traffic and transportation activities are significant contributors for the same. A recent publication titled Burden of disease from environmental noise: Quantification of healthy life years lost in Europe was prepared by experts in working groups convened by the WHO Regional Office for Europe, to provide technical support to policy-makers and their advisers in the quantitative risk assessment of environmental noise, using evidence and data available in Europe. Read more: http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2632 --------------- Asian Green City Index The Asian Green City Index (AGCI) is a unique index prepared by the Economic Intelligence Unit (EIU) in cooperation with Siemens, that builds on the European and Latin America Green City Indices. The Asian Green City Index compares 22 major Asian Cities on the basis of their environmental performance and policies. Read more:http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2620 --------------- European Commission's Transport 2050 Roadmap The European Commission on 28 March, 2011, adopted a comprehensive strategy (Transport 2050) for a competitive transport system that will increase mobility, remove major barriers in key areas and fuel growth and employment. At the same time, the proposals will dramatically reduce Europe's dependence on imported oil and cut carbon emissions in transport by 60% by 2050. Read more:http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/kallas/headlines/news/2011/03/2011_03_28_white_paper_en.htm --------------- Transport Chapter of the UNEP Green Economy Report This chapter examines the role of transport in a green economy and makes a case for ensuring future investment in the sector is increasingly green. It highlights a strategy of avoiding or reducing trips, shifting to more environmentally-friendly modes of transport and improving the efficiency of all modes of transport. It explores the challenges and opportunities posed by shifting to a greener transport system, and examines the various options for conditions that can enable actions and investments for the development of sustainable transport. Read more:http://hqweb.unep.org/greeneconomy/Portals/88/documents/ger/GER_10_Transport.pdf --------------- ****** Upcoming Events ****** Upcoming Events (May-June 2011*): 9-14 May Rosario, AR: Second Sustainable Transport and Air Quality Conference for Latin America & The Caribbean http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_eventlist&Itemid=56&func=details&did=510&lang=en 12-13 May La Rochelle, FR: Smart Mobility for Better Cities http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_eventlist&Itemid=56&func=details&did=494&lang=en 25-27 May Leipzig, DE: International Transport Forum 2011 http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_eventlist&Itemid=56&func=details&did=495&lang=en 25-28 May Paris, FR: XXIInd International Cycling History Conference http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_eventlist&Itemid=56&func=details&did=484&lang=en 3-5 June Bonn, DE: Resilient Cities 2011 http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_eventlist&Itemid=56&func=details&did=528&lang=en 6-9 June Lyon, FR: European ITS Congress 2011 http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_eventlist&Itemid=56&func=details&did=496&lang=en 6-8 June Pisa, IT: 17th International Conference on Urban Transport and the Environment http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_eventlist&Itemid=56&func=details&did=533&lang=en 24 June International Conference for the KOTI?s 25th Anniversary: Global Green Convergence http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_eventlist&Itemid=56&func=details&did=527&lang=en 26-29 June Niagara, CA: World Parking Symposium VIII http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_eventlist&Itemid=56&func=details&did=499&lang=en 30thJune-2nd July The 1st International Conference on Transportation Information and Safety (ICTIS 2011) http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_eventlist&Itemid=56&func=details&did=502&lang=en *To view a full list of events for the year 2011, visit: http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_eventlist&Itemid=56&func=details&did=517&lang=en --------------- A PDF version of the newsletter can be downloaded from http://www.sutp.org/documents/newsletters/NL-Mar-Apr-11.pdf An online version is also available at http://www.sutp.org/newsletters/NL-Mar-Apr-11.htm --------------- Contact us: Any further queries regarding this document can be addressed to sutp@sutp.org. All the documents mentioned here are available for download from the SUTP website: http://www.sutp.org For registration please visit http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=registers&lang=uk --------------- SUTP Disclaimer The information in this newsletter has been carefully researched and diligently compiled. Nevertheless, GIZ does not accept any liability or give any guarantee for the validity, accuracy and completeness of the information provided. GIZ assumes no legal liabilities for damages, material or immaterial in kind, caused by the use or non-use of provided information or the use of erroneous or incomplete information, with the exception of proven intentional or grossly negligent conduct on the side of GIZ. GIZ reserves the right to modify, append, delete parts or the complete online content without prior notice, or to cancel any publication temporarily or permanently. The third party links are not under the control of GIZ and GIZ is not responsible for the contents of any linked site or any link contained in a linked site. Links to the GIZ SUTP homepage are admissible if the GIZ SUTP website retrieved becomes the sole content of the browser window. ------------- Sustainable Urban Transport Project (SUTP) E sutp@sutp.org I http://www.sutp.org From pendakur at interchange.ubc.ca Sat May 7 10:53:15 2011 From: pendakur at interchange.ubc.ca (V. Setty Pendakur) Date: Fri, 06 May 2011 18:53:15 -0700 Subject: [sustran] Re: "Vision", "technical assessment" or ??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Karthik, thank you for a very well reasoned approach and thoughts. There are several roles we undertake as knowledgeable people in in issues related to transport infrastructure: as teachers, as participants in a civil society and as consultants providing advice. The constraints change drastically depending upon what role you are assigned and where. Not only the there are constraints placed by the condition of employment but also on the state of civil society. These constraints are real and quite serious. In addition, not all advice is or can be public because of the advice is private and takes place in discussions and arguments preceding decisions. First, we as experts or knowledgeable people do not make policy. We are just advisers, paid or not! Citizens and citizen organizations can influence policy and so do foreign money lenders and senior staff in various countries who work closely with politicians. These politicians may or may not represent citizen needs or citizen view points. This environment varies greatly from country to country. So there is no single magic formula that I have heard of which I can pull of the the bottle (genie!!) and use it with comfort. After having worked in about 30 countries over the last 40 years, I am convinced that progress made, if any, is always in modest increments. Yes, there are many mistakes made on the way to rational and poor friendly decisions. There are occasional quantum jumps which change the process and the product for years to come; both good and bad decisions. To close, I am finding that the only people or groups who can make quantum positive changes are the local citizens, even in countries where voices are dimmed. Foreigners can bring knowledge but only the locals can make the necessary changes to produce poor friendly policies. My own experience in India, Bangladesh, China, Brazil and Thailand indicate that there progress being made when the countries themselves are ready to make those changes. -- Best wishes; Setty Dr. V. Setty Pendakur Professor Emeritus, University of British Columbia Honorary Professor, China National Academy of Sciences Senior Counselor, The State Council of the PRC President, Round House Community Arts and Recreation Association President, Pacific Policy & Planning Associates 1099 Marinaside Crescent, Vancouver, BC Canada V6Z 2Z3 T: 1-604-263-3576; M:1-604-374-3575 Fax: 1-604-263-6493 From: Karthik Rao-Cavale Date: Fri, 06 May 2011 02:28:02 -0400 To: "sustran-discuss@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 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" 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 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@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'). From joshuaodeleye at yahoo.com Sat May 7 17:12:25 2011 From: joshuaodeleye at yahoo.com (joshua odeleye) Date: Sat, 7 May 2011 01:12:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [sustran] Re: "Vision", "technical assessment" or ??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <479063.83165.qm@web112906.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Dear All, I strongly agreed with the?Prof Pendakur? submission?that transport experts do not make policy.They can only advise the executive.But the executive are not obliged to implement such advise,especially when such advice is contrary to the executive selfish political goals.However, the people has the power- through ballot boxes and/or protest- as the case may be?to insist on the best people oriented?policy option.This approach is however easier said than done,especially in societies where the populace are not enlightened,conscious of their political right to ask for the best.Or in societies where civil societies consider transport issues as secondary issues,relatively to other political challenges. I however wish to suggest that the civil societies,especially in developing countries,?need to be sensitized of the importance of sustainable transport in building an egalitarian society. Best regards, Joshua A.Odeleye,PhD Nigerian Institute of Transport Technology P.M.B 1148,Zaria NIGERIA Mob ph.234-803-5905619 --- On Fri, 5/6/11, V. Setty Pendakur wrote: From: V. Setty Pendakur Subject: [sustran] Re: "Vision", "technical assessment" or ??? To: "Karthik Rao-Cavale Sutr" , "sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org" Date: Friday, May 6, 2011, 9:53 PM Karthik, thank you for a very well reasoned approach and thoughts. There are several roles we undertake as knowledgeable people in in issues related to transport infrastructure: as teachers, as participants in a civil society and as consultants providing advice.? The constraints change drastically depending upon what role you are assigned and where.? Not only the there are constraints placed by the condition of? employment but also on the state of civil society.? These constraints are real and quite serious. In addition, not all advice is or can be public because of the advice is private and takes place in discussions and arguments preceding decisions. First, we as experts or knowledgeable people do not make policy.? We are just advisers, paid or not!? Citizens and citizen organizations can influence policy and so do foreign money lenders and senior staff in various countries who work closely with politicians.? These politicians may or may not represent citizen needs or citizen view points. This environment varies greatly from country to country.? So there is no single magic formula that I have heard of which I can pull of? the the bottle (genie!!) and use it with comfort. After having worked in about 30 countries over the last 40 years, I am convinced that progress made, if any, is always in modest increments.? Yes, there are many mistakes made on the way to rational and poor friendly decisions.? There are occasional quantum jumps which change the process and the product for years to come; both good and bad decisions. To close, I am finding that the only people or groups who can make quantum positive changes are the local citizens, even in countries where voices are dimmed.? Foreigners can bring knowledge but only the locals can make the necessary changes to produce poor friendly policies.? My own experience in India, Bangladesh, China, Brazil and Thailand indicate that there progress being made when the countries themselves are? ready to make those changes. -- Best wishes; Setty Dr. V. Setty Pendakur Professor Emeritus, University of British Columbia Honorary Professor, China National Academy of Sciences Senior Counselor, The State Council of the PRC President, Round House Community Arts and Recreation Association President, Pacific Policy & Planning Associates 1099 Marinaside Crescent, Vancouver, BC Canada V6Z 2Z3 T: 1-604-263-3576; M:1-604-374-3575 Fax: 1-604-263-6493 From: Karthik Rao-Cavale Date: Fri, 06 May 2011 02:28:02 -0400 To: "sustran-discuss@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 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" 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 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@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'). -------------------------------------------------------- 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'). From czegras at MIT.EDU Sun May 8 05:45:52 2011 From: czegras at MIT.EDU (P. Christopher Zegras) Date: Sat, 7 May 2011 16:45:52 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: "Vision", "technical assessment" or ??? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3BC44BCACA60F3439EE06B100CC1B7EA0E5D1F6841@EXPO17.exchange.mit.edu> 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 Sch?n'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 Sch?n-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@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 2:28 AM To: sustran-discuss@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 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" 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 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@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'). > From krc12353 at gmail.com Sun May 8 09:17:19 2011 From: krc12353 at gmail.com (Karthik Rao-Cavale) Date: Sat, 7 May 2011 20:17:19 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: "Vision", "technical assessment" or ??? In-Reply-To: <3BC44BCACA60F3439EE06B100CC1B7EA0E5D1F6841@EXPO17.exchange.mit.edu> References: <3BC44BCACA60F3439EE06B100CC1B7EA0E5D1F6841@EXPO17.exchange.mit.edu> Message-ID: 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 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 Sch?n'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 Sch?n-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@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 2:28 AM > To: sustran-discuss@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 >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" 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 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@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'). > > > > From ashok.sreenivas at gmail.com Sun May 8 13:36:02 2011 From: ashok.sreenivas at gmail.com (Ashok Sreenivas) Date: Sun, 08 May 2011 10:06:02 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: "Vision", "technical assessment" or ??? In-Reply-To: <3BC44BCACA60F3439EE06B100CC1B7EA0E5D1F6841@EXPO17.exchange.mit.edu> References: <3BC44BCACA60F3439EE06B100CC1B7EA0E5D1F6841@EXPO17.exchange.mit.edu> Message-ID: <4DC61DB2.5060608@gmail.com> Dear Chris and Jonathan (if I may take the liberty of using first names as appears to be the norm in our informal "community"!), Thanks for initiating this very interesting discussion (particularly to "non-specialists" like me) and the excellent summing up of his views by Chris. I agree with most of Chris's statement but would like to elaborate a little on a point that, I think, is extremely important and perhaps has not been underscored enough. I refer to the importance of having a "correct perspective" for step 1 (problem identification/definition). For example, if the problem is defined (narrowly) as "too many vehicles are backing up at an intersection during peak hours", then it is likely that the solution to emerge (even following the outlined process) would simply be to build an overpass (or "flyover") at the intersection. Unfortunately, this happens rather often, with the infamous sea-link cited by Karthik being a good example (without going into other perverse incentives for why such projects are chosen!). Hence, I would like to stress that the problem definition phase must pay careful attention to the "scope" of the problem (e.g. why vehicles and why not people, why one intersection and why not the whole city etc.) and also ask associated questions such as the side-effect of the proposed solutions on other desirables such as safety, clean air, energy security, social equity etc. in the short, medium and long terms. It is possible that most solutions would involve a trade-off between different objective and desirable elements, but at least the trade-offs would be clear and transparent, so that the solution with the most "acceptable" trade-off is chosen. Regards Ashok -- Ashok Sreenivas Prayas Energy Group and Parisar On 08/05/2011 02:15, P. Christopher Zegras 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 Sch?n'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 Sch?n-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 From richmond at alum.mit.edu Sun May 8 13:38:00 2011 From: richmond at alum.mit.edu (Jonathan Richmond) Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 10:38:00 +0600 (Bangladesh Standard Time) Subject: [sustran] Re: "Vision", "technical assessment" or ??? In-Reply-To: <3BC44BCACA60F3439EE06B100CC1B7EA0E5D1F6841@EXPO17.exchange.mit.edu> References: <3BC44BCACA60F3439EE06B100CC1B7EA0E5D1F6841@EXPO17.exchange.mit.edu> Message-ID: Zegras is wrong that there is no disagreement. My approach of community communication is not a form of technology in my view, but is simply another technique according to Zegras. Zegras says "we are fundamentally talking about planning," however, in some developing countries where the concept of planning is quite foreign, much more success can be gained from a process of reflection in action -- the objective is not to produce some illusory comprehensive plan, but to actually get things done while stimulating people to think about what they are doing. I disagree with te traditional approach to planning that Zegras outlines, although I agree that it is "textbook" and that "it many contexts it may be totally irrelevant." Why then does Zegras find it to be ideal? It is far from ideal in communities where it is either foreign to the local culture or simply not practical to apply given institutional constraints. A locally sensitive approach to communication that allows practical possibilities to emerge and achieve consensus is far stronger in establishing support and making improvement a reality -- whether or not the outcome is technically preferable, in the Western sense Zegras proposes, to a theoretical optimal that is in fact not achievable. Even more importantly, even when the approach is in fact "workable," it is not without the biases of its methodology, and may produce a result that is not sustainable in terms of community support. Many inappropriate technologies have been introduced following the approach Zegras cites as ideal, particularly because, as he acknowledges, planning approaches are used to political ends. I make reference to Jacques Ellul, wo demonstrates that technical approaches are inevitable political -- it is naive to think that such methods can be apolitical. My community-based technique is not necessarily only "place-based" although that can be one element. Getting significant numbers of leaders representing a range of stakeholders and engaging them in reflective discussion is a way of both having local people think through solutions by themselves and identifying what has local support and is therefore feasible and sustainable. --Jonathan On Sat, 7 May 2011, P. Christopher Zegras 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 Sch?n'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 Sch?n-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@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 2:28 AM > To: sustran-discuss@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 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" 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 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@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@alum.mit.edu http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ From morten7an at yahoo.com Sun May 8 23:31:11 2011 From: morten7an at yahoo.com (Morten Lange) Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 07:31:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [sustran] The best examples from the south ? ( Curitiba, Bogota ++ ) What about road safety/ danger reduction ? Message-ID: <739061.42475.qm@web39422.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi The Decade of Action for Road Safety is dominated (although not completely) by the FIA, who points the South to solutions from Northern Europe regarding Road Safety. The Decade will be officially on Wednesday, 11th of May 2011. ( See e.g. http://www.decadeofaction.org/ ) My very rough analysis : Those nothern European countries are "rich", car-dominated societies and have overspent on infrastructure fro the private car. Fatalities are down in part beacuse of well equipped hospitals good paramedics and quick transport to high-tech hospitals. Partly beacuse pedestrians have been scared off the streets, etc. So what kind of good examples can be provided ? Which countries and cities have been setting good examples regarding road safety / road danger reduction ? Solutions that improve equity, preferably reduce the ecological footprint of the society , improve public health etc, while improving "road safety" ? -- Regards / Kvedja Morten Lange, Reykjav?k From patwardhan.sujit at gmail.com Mon May 9 00:21:59 2011 From: patwardhan.sujit at gmail.com (Sujit Patwardhan) Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 20:51:59 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Exhibition by Parisar to create awareness on BRT Message-ID: 8 May 2011 Here is the report by Times of India on the Exhibition put up by Parisar in Pimpri as part of the Outreach Programme for BRT in PCMC (Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation) Times of India report on Parisar's *Exhibition to Create Awareness on BRT* http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/pune/Exhibition-to-create-awareness-on-BRT/articleshow/8191000.cms Parisar will soon post PDF images of the Posters on www.parisar.org -- Sujit Patwardhan -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- *?..each million we invest into urban motorways is an investment to destroy the city?* Mayor Hans Joachim Vogel Munich 1970 -------------------------------------------------------------------- Sujit Patwardhan patwardhan.sujit@gmail.com sujit@parisar.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Yamuna, ICS Colony, Ganeshkhind Road, Pune 411 007, India Tel: +91 20 25537955 Cell: +91 98220 26627 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Parisar: www.parisar.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From czegras at MIT.EDU Mon May 9 11:23:33 2011 From: czegras at MIT.EDU (P. Christopher Zegras) Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 22:23:33 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: "Vision", "technical assessment" or ??? In-Reply-To: <4DC61DB2.5060608@gmail.com> References: <3BC44BCACA60F3439EE06B100CC1B7EA0E5D1F6841@EXPO17.exchange.mit.edu> <4DC61DB2.5060608@gmail.com> Message-ID: <3BC44BCACA60F3439EE06B100CC1B7EA0E5D1F695F@EXPO17.exchange.mit.edu> Dear Ashok, You make excellent points. Personally, I would be happy if any community started with the perspective/vision being: "sustainable accessibility." Accessibility here refers to the capability for people to fulfill desired activities to "flourish" (related to Sen's concepts of functionings and capabilities); sustainable attempts to account for all the lives, time, natural resources, etc. necessary to maintain accessibility over time. Such a perspective, as you suggest, would hopefully start us thinking about the "problem" and potential "solutions" in broader, more innovative ways, and make more likely the explicit and transparent consideration of the range of tradeoffs implied (and the value-system underlying those trade-offs), including over time. Kind wishes, Chris From: Ashok Sreenivas [mailto:ashok.sreenivas@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2011 12:36 AM To: P. Christopher Zegras Cc: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org Subject: Re: [sustran] Re: "Vision", "technical assessment" or ??? Dear Chris and Jonathan (if I may take the liberty of using first names as appears to be the norm in our informal "community"!), Thanks for initiating this very interesting discussion (particularly to "non-specialists" like me) and the excellent summing up of his views by Chris. I agree with most of Chris's statement but would like to elaborate a little on a point that, I think, is extremely important and perhaps has not been underscored enough. I refer to the importance of having a "correct perspective" for step 1 (problem identification/definition). For example, if the problem is defined (narrowly) as "too many vehicles are backing up at an intersection during peak hours", then it is likely that the solution to emerge (even following the outlined process) would simply be to build an overpass (or "flyover") at the intersection. Unfortunately, this happens rather often, with the infamous sea-link cited by Karthik being a good example (without going into other perverse incentives for why such projects are chosen!). Hence, I would like to stress that the problem definition phase must pay careful attention to the "scope" of the problem (e.g. why vehicles and why not people, why one intersection and why not the whole city etc.) and also ask associated questions such as the side-effect of the proposed solutions on other desirables such as safety, clean air, energy security, social equity etc. in the short, medium and long terms. It is possible that most solutions would involve a trade-off between different objective and desirable elements, but at least the trade-offs would be clear and transparent, so that the solution with the most "acceptable" trade-off is chosen. Regards Ashok -- Ashok Sreenivas Prayas Energy Group and Parisar On 08/05/2011 02:15, P. Christopher Zegras 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 Sch?n'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 c osts 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 Sch?n-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: bandin g 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 From kanthikannan at gmail.com Mon May 9 12:22:11 2011 From: kanthikannan at gmail.com (Kanthi Kannan) Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 08:52:11 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: R2W Update from one of our team members Message-ID: <4dc75e08.a936440a.7618.ffff80b2@mx.google.com> Dear all Please see the photos reg a compliant Regards Kanthi THOSE WHO WALK CANNOT DECIDE AND THOSE WHO DECIDE DO NOT WALK Dear Team https://picasaweb.google.com/prasadnomus/Road36RelaidFootpaths?authkey=Gv1sR gCI-Zuoybj9rXrwE#5603833761216915874 Plese pictures before/after on road 36, Jubilee Hills. As you can see in the before pictures, the footpaths were modified into parking ramps for commercial establishments. Based on our complaint with the Loakayukta, the footpaths are being relaid. This is significant progress. Prasad From navdeep.asija at gmail.com Mon May 9 13:09:14 2011 From: navdeep.asija at gmail.com (Asija, Navdeep) Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 09:39:14 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Amendments in "The Punjab Cycle Rickshaw Act (Regulation of Licenses) 1976" Message-ID: Dear All, We are in the process of Standardizing Rickshaw (Ecocabs) Operations across the state. As a policy matter, we have requested to the government to amend the present Rickshaw Act. I am sharing you the abstract from the letter, which is written by us to State Government. Honorable Punjab and Haryana High Court after taking suo motu action on one of the Fazilka Ecocab news item, asked government to improvise Rickshaw services in Punjab Haryana and Chandigarh. This is going to benifit more than 6 lakhs rickshaw families across the two states n UT. Looking forward your valuable input on the same. Kind Regards, Navdeep www.ecocabs.org ===================================== This is with reference to your office memo number 1TC/700-703 dated 6th April 2011 regarding the Implementation of Eco friendly Rickshaw across the Punjab state. Before implementing Ecocabs at state level, amendments in the existing ?Punjab Rickshaws (Regulation of License) Act, 1976? and other applicable Municipal Acts, due to its present changed concept of rickshaw operations are very much desirable. The existing Rickshaw Act does not provide much attention towards the smooth and legal rickshaw operations like flexibility based upon the size of the city, ownership status and financing mechanism. Followings are the issues of key importance, which needs immediate attention and amendments; 1. Upper Age Limit for Rickshaw Operations As the present rickshaw model and system has been improvised under ?Ecocab?, but the applicable act still restrict the upper age limit for rickshaw operations as 45. Whilst in a similar act for motor vehicles, state specified only lower age limit of driving but flexible about upper age limit of driving. We all understand the motor vehicle operations involved greater risk and danger than driving cycle rickshaw, which has maximum possible speed of 20km/hr. It has been evident that many rickshaw operators are driving the rickshaw with age up to 60 year plus, further cycling is a healthy exercise which keeps you fit even in older age. Such impractical imposition through act made the existence of many rickshaw operators illegal, which further involved harassment to them by Police and Municipal Authorities. The upper age limit in the act shall be linked with the medical fitness of rickshaw driver. 2. Rickshaw Rental and Fleet operations Municipal body can grant or renew license to an institution to be plied through any person. But the rickshaw cannot be used for hire. The present Act, does not allow anyone to hold more than one rickshaw. The licenses to widows, disabled and institutions can be given based upon their needs but maximum up to five. This means that person who is born as rickshaw puller has to die as puller only. He cannot make further investment to buy second rickshaw. In Big cities, it has been observed that many migrated people operate the rickshaw during their initial days in the city. They take rickshaw on rent from some rickshaw fleet operators. They don?t want to own a rickshaw, as they do not have any initial capital investment to make, permanent parking space or permanent residence to live. Further during the off season or festival time, they visit back their native place, then in that case who will take care of their rickshaw and where they will park it. Present act does not provide any kind of flexibility for renting/handing over a rickshaw to anyone else than owner itself. The rickshaw driver has to be owner only. When the owner of an airline acquires an additional fleet of planes, or a truck owner manages to expand his fleet to several hundred vehicles, he is celebrated as a successful entrepreneur. But when a person comes to acquire a few dozen or a few hundred rickshaws, owner gets to be stigmatized as a mafia don. In a survey it has been found that In Delhi alone the terror unleashed by the License-Quota-Raid-Raj on rickshaw-owners and pullers leads to loss of income through bribes and confiscation of rickshaws worth Rs 200 crores per year[1] By enacting a law that prohibits a person from owning more than one rickshaw and by insisting that ?owner must also be puller? and present act in fact legislated that: A person who begins his life as a puller, must die as a puller; The poor must remain manual laborers all their lives; The poor are not allowed to become even petty entrepreneurs. Further the present act itself is an unconstitutional violation of the fundamental right under sub.cl. (g) of cl. (l) of Article 19 of the Constitution to carry on occupation or business. As a similar restriction is not imposed on taxi drivers, cart load carriers, three wheeler auto rickshaw drivers and other vehicles plying for public hire, the present Punjab Rickshaw Act violates the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 3. Registration instead of Licensing Instead of licensing, simple registration mechanism can be adopted like as in the case of cars/motorcycle and other motor vehicles. Fee based regulation of numbers is required than licensed based quotas along with providing year round open registration system. 4. Redefining the definition of ?Rickshaw Puller? Present act specify rickshaw driver as ?Rickshaw Puller?, puller was old terminology, which is no more applicable in the three - wheeled cycle-rickshaw driven by a manual peddle power and includes all its components and accessories. Rickshaw puller terminology more was applicable to the old rickshaws which were operated on two wheels and in the front a one or two manual labour used to pull by hands. Present three wheeled cycle rickshaw design is modified version of the same, in which human traction power is being used as like his one of the skill, and through manual 0.25 horse power mechanical energy generated is being used for rickshaw running. These peddle solider of India are no more ?Puller? but a traction men or rickshaw/Ecocab drivers. This definition needs amendment in act. 5. End to Confiscation and Destruction of Rickshaws Airplanes are not confiscated if the owner is not piloting all or any of his planes. Trucks, buses and taxis are not confiscated if the owners hire others to drive them. In the case of rickshaw, as per Law Municipal Authorities can confiscate and destruct the rickshaw instead of just booking for fines. This needs immediate amendments in the present Act. 6. Procedure to Take Loan for Rickshaw/Ecocabs Further clear guidelines and simplified procedure to take loan and rickshaw from nationalized bank are required. For Each municipality it is advised to setup one single door clearance system for the rickshaw operators, like registration, getting medical done and other advertisement related work and loan applications. Setting up Ecocab/Rickshaw Management Centre could be the part of certain mandatory measures being take-up by Municipality independently or with some NGO?s. 7. National Urban Transport Policy: Cars Vs Cycle Rickshaw A car is an object of convenience for just the person or family that uses the vehicle. On an average a car provides service to not more than two to four people a day. When a car is parked it blocks road space and makes it dead for other road users. By contrast a rickshaw carries at least 20 to 30 persons a day and is constantly on the move. Therefore, it represents optimum utilization of road space. For a country like ours, numbers of people transported is more important than number of vehicle transported. Rickshaw has not been treated so far as an integral part of transport system and recognized as a legitimate trade. Most of our urban transport infrastructure also violates the ?National Urban Transport Policy?, which clearly says about equitable allocation of road space for people transported than only vehicle transported. In view of the above for the smooth safe and congestion free operations of Rickshaw/Ecocabs provisions for rickshaw sheds, parking spaces and in the separate track for non-motorized mode of transports are desired to be implemented. Through Punjab was the pioneer state to introduce ?The Punjab Cycle Rickshaw Act? in 1976 and now also being first state to Introduce Ecocabs in the year 2008. Punjab Rickshaw Act is being followed in most of the Indian States and UT with little amendments. Complete Amendment in the act or formulation of new Punjab Ecocab Act, would surely help to promote Punjab Ecocabs at large. Looking forward your positive and prompt action in this regards. ________________________________ [1] Manushi Sangathan, New Delhi From yanivbin at gmail.com Mon May 9 14:30:41 2011 From: yanivbin at gmail.com (Vinay Baindur) Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 11:00:41 +0530 Subject: [sustran] =?windows-1252?Q?=91No_room_left_for_the_car=92?= Message-ID: Published on *Down To Earth* (http://www.downtoearth.org.in) ------------------------------ ?No room left for the car? Author(s): Arushi Mittal Issue Date: 2011-5-15 Australian environmental activist and professor of sustainability at Curtin University in Perth, Peter Newman loves Indian streets. He shares his experience of Indian cities with Arushi Mittal [image: PETER NEWMAN]Courtesy: Iclei World Congress*What are your observations about Indian cities?* I come from a school of thought that likes cities, and I find an Indian street fascinating. There are so many different users: bullock carts, food vendors, beggars, cyclists and cars. I can see how cars are a necessary part of city life but they must not dominate it. If you allow cars all the time, the city becomes dysfunctional very quickly. *And my sense is that Indian streets have reached optimum car use. There is no room left for the car.* Every ordinary Indian can see that we need new solutions. But every traffic engineer is still trying to put in the flyovers that speed up traffic on one side even if everything grinds to a halt again on the other side. *How has your experience been in Pune, Mumbai, Bengaluru and Delhi?* My overall feeling is that Indian cities are ready for a change. People recognise the fact that there are too many cars. But it is still a problem getting people out of cars. I am committed to finding solutions and that is why I am coming back next year to try out a few ideas to extend public transport in cities like Pune. *Are Indian authorities prepared for the change?* Authorities are informed about sustainable urban transport, electric vehicles, using natural gas as fuel and the need for public transport in Indian cities. So, there is a sense that we have to try modes other than the car and also ensure they are used by everyone. *What should we focus on: metro rail system, other non-motorised transport (NMT) or buses?* You can?t make a metro work properly unless you have got very good pedestrian facilities around the stations. Getting attention for NMT is the main game. * There is no city where you can take a bit of space from the cars. The road and the car lobby are very strong and they are constantly trying to win, but they are winning less and less * But the car cannot be replaced by NMT. I think you have to tackle the car by introducing good metro services which will will then increase space for NMT. Getting space for pedestrians is a major priority for Indian roads. I took photographs of roads where there are no footpaths and the pedestrians are fighting their way against traffic. It is akin to a dangerous sport. *Does Delhi Metro deserve the applause it is receiving while not running at full capacity?* The great thing about the metro is that you can continuously expand it. You can have a train arriving every 30 seconds which will take a 1,000 people, equivalent to eight-10 lanes of traffic. Many Japanese cities have done this. *How can we avoid vested interests in transit oriented development (TOD)?* That is an issue in all our cities. The need is to get affordable housing near railway stations. This needs regulatory action. For example, Vancouver has two regulations for TOD: 15 per cent of development has to be social housing which is bought by cooperative societies or by the government and five per cent of the property value goes for building social infrastructure. Then there are those who do not want to use buses. They prefer walking or cycling. Vancouver is one of the few cities which wants more density and yet has seen a 30 per cent reduction in vehicle use. *How can we convince the public to accept change?* It is a tricky political issue and has to be fought hard in every city. There is no city where you can just take a bit of space from the cars. Such actions will always be contested. The road and the car lobby are very strong and they are constantly trying to win, but they are winning less and less. The view of life from behind the wheel, from behind a wind-screen is a very selfish one and it is a myth that you can have this free flowing, beautiful traffic situation. *How do you see the future?* I can see that in the next decade we will have substantially renewable cities. They will be dramatically able to show reductions in carbon by reducing car numbers and promoting electric vehicles. That is my dream and I think it is a very feasible one. It is no longer just a dream, it is actually graspable; I can see it happening. ------------------------------ *Source URL:* http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/no-room-left-car From allietberkeley at gmail.com Mon May 9 17:08:24 2011 From: allietberkeley at gmail.com (Allie Thomas) Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 16:08:24 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Info on Pricing Policies & their (negative) impact on bike use Message-ID: I'm looking for any research that focuses on how pricing policies have negatively impacted bike use. Currently, with low public transit fares in Beijing, fewer people are biking. I'm not suggesting this is the only reason for the decrease, but many Chinese officials feel that the government's decision to slash subway and bus fares has definitely made an impact. Bus prices have been reduced from 1 or 2 rmb to 0.40 rmb for all buses. Subway fares are 2 rmb anywhere in the city (no graduated fares like in Shanghai). Any information on this would be great. Also, if anyone knows of any journal articles, etc on how low public transit fares negatively impact quality of service as well as safety would be great. The subway in Beijing is getting overcrowded esp. during rush hour and they've had to restrict the number of people entering certain subway stops. Buses are just as overcrowded as well. cheers, Allie Thomas Doctoral candidate Dept of City & Regional Planning UC Berkeley From cornie.huizenga at slocatpartnership.org Mon May 9 17:16:45 2011 From: cornie.huizenga at slocatpartnership.org (Cornie Huizenga) Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 16:16:45 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: R2W Update from one of our team members In-Reply-To: <4dc75e08.a936440a.7618.ffff80b2@mx.google.com> References: <4dc75e08.a936440a.7618.ffff80b2@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Kanthi, Good work! I wonder how many people in other cities have complained on illegal conversion of side-walks into parking facilities. Cornie On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Kanthi Kannan wrote: > Dear all > > > > Please see the photos reg a compliant > > > > Regards > > > > Kanthi > > > > THOSE WHO WALK CANNOT DECIDE AND THOSE WHO DECIDE DO NOT WALK > > > > > > > > Dear Team > > > > > < > https://picasaweb.google.com/prasadnomus/Road36RelaidFootpaths?authkey=Gv1s > RgCI-Zuoybj9rXrwE#5603833761216915874> > > https://picasaweb.google.com/prasadnomus/Road36RelaidFootpaths?authkey=Gv1sR > gCI-Zuoybj9rXrwE#5603833761216915874 > > > > > > > < > https://picasaweb.google.com/prasadnomus/Road36RelaidFootpaths?authkey=Gv1s > RgCI-Zuoybj9rXrwE> Plese pictures before/after on road 36, Jubilee Hills. > As > you can see in the before pictures, the footpaths were modified into > parking > ramps for commercial establishments. Based on our complaint with the > Loakayukta, the footpaths are being relaid. This is significant progress. > > > > > > Prasad > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > 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'). > -- Cornie Huizenga Joint Convener Partnership on Sustainable, Low Carbon Transport Mobile: +86 13901949332 cornie.huizenga@slocatpartnership.org www.slocat.net From APrabhu at wri.org Mon May 9 15:09:45 2011 From: APrabhu at wri.org (Ashwin Prabhu) Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 02:09:45 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Rich data set on Indore Paratransit system Message-ID: <46E2E1971BCEC1459149FBB1A4B4342C0CC1D6CB@wricsex029330.WRI.CRM.Local> Hello all, EMBARQ India recently commissioned a comprehensive study of the paratransit system in Indore, India. The resulting report contains a large amount of data on travel characteristics, vehicles, users, operators and safety. We plan to use this data set to produce working papers on various topics such as the transport cost burden of paratransit users, the impact of moving paratransit users to the bus system on emissions and so on. In the meantime, we hope others interested in paratransit will be able to use this rich data set to produce analyses around similar or other issues. Please find the full report at the following link: http://www.embarq.org/en/a-study-para-transit-system-indore-city We are happy to share the raw data as well - please contact us if you would like a copy. Thanks, Ashwin Prabhu Associate - Research and Management EMBARQ India - The WRI Center for Sustainable Transport World Resources Institute Phone: (+91) 99870 55053 Email: ashwin.prabhu@wri.org From kanthikannan at gmail.com Mon May 9 18:19:24 2011 From: kanthikannan at gmail.com (Kanthi Kannan) Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 14:49:24 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: R2W Update from one of our team members In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4dc7b1be.2740440a.49ea.ffff95b8@mx.google.com> Thanks, Cornie. Not really sure but in Hyderabad the problem is rampant and there are a number of political heavy weights who are behind this. Thanks Kanthi _____ From: Cornie Huizenga [mailto:cornie.huizenga@slocatpartnership.org] Sent: 09 May 2011 13:47 To: Kanthi Kannan Cc: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org Subject: Re: [sustran] Re: R2W Update from one of our team members Kanthi, Good work! I wonder how many people in other cities have complained on illegal conversion of side-walks into parking facilities. Cornie On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Kanthi Kannan wrote: Dear all Please see the photos reg a compliant Regards Kanthi THOSE WHO WALK CANNOT DECIDE AND THOSE WHO DECIDE DO NOT WALK Dear Team RgCI-Zuoybj9rXrwE#5603833761216915874> https://picasaweb.google.com/prasadnomus/Road36RelaidFootpaths?authkey=Gv1sR gCI-Zuoybj9rXrwE#5603833761216915874 RgCI-Zuoybj9rXrwE> Plese pictures before/after on road 36, Jubilee Hills. As you can see in the before pictures, the footpaths were modified into parking ramps for commercial establishments. Based on our complaint with the Loakayukta, the footpaths are being relaid. This is significant progress. Prasad -------------------------------------------------------- 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'). -- Cornie Huizenga Joint Convener Partnership on Sustainable, Low Carbon Transport Mobile: +86 13901949332 cornie.huizenga@slocatpartnership.org www.slocat.net From gsbravi026 at yahoo.co.in Tue May 10 20:02:08 2011 From: gsbravi026 at yahoo.co.in (ravi gadepalli) Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 16:32:08 +0530 (IST) Subject: [sustran] Re: "Vision", "technical assessment" or ??? In-Reply-To: <3BC44BCACA60F3439EE06B100CC1B7EA0E5D1F695F@EXPO17.exchange.mit.edu> Message-ID: <659412.99522.qm@web137303.mail.in.yahoo.com> Dear Dr. Zegras, Your posts have been real eye-openers in terms of how to go about things while taking up a planning exercise. Just to make sure that I understood your reasoning correctly, I would like to put in front of u a real life problem being debated upon in Delhi. Please see if conforms to the planning process you suggested to be the best. Chandini Chowk is the heart of Old city in Delhi and is a heritage area. It has been a prime commercial area for hundreds of years. The streets in this area are quite narrow and the traffic has a high proportion of Cycle-Rickshaws. This results in traffic jams in the area throughout the day and so the Municipal corporation is looking for options to solve it. The consultant employed came up with a plan to remove all vehicular traffic in the area (including cycle-rickshaws) and provide trams for local mobility. This proposal was put forward for a stakeholder consultation. It was found that the tram is infeasible in the area and regular bus service was found to be more efficient based on the technical analysis. Removing Cars and two wheelers from the roads to the peripheral parking lots being developed is agreed upon. (Only after implementation will we know the seriousness of their acceptance, but still a consensus has been reached. ) The major point of debate has been the issue of Cycle-Rickshaws. Based on the technical analysis carried out, the consultant found the buses to be sufficient for mobility in the area. But the community felt the rickshaws provide better service due to door to door service even into interior areas and also acting as goods carriers for small loads. While this point can be debated and a consensus can be achieved, a new issue has cropped up. The socio-economic problem of the cycle-rickshaw pullers. They are not doing what they do because it is the most efficient mode, but because it is their livelihood. In such a scenario, if we go for the suboptimal solution of removing motorized traffic but still going with cycle-rickshaws, because it would still be a development over the existing scenario for some trips, the longer bus trips will not be catered to. Its either buses or rickshaws in the area. I think the problem in the whole issue is that the consultant looks at it as a transport problem and tries to find a solution but the local community looks at it as a socio-economic problem, of which transport is one of the many issues. But the Municipal corporation looks at it from the city's point of view and since Chandini Chowk is a heritage area they want the traffic congestion relieved through whatever means possible. So, if we go back to the problem definition stage, do we look at it from the local community? perspective or from the municipal corporation perspective or from the consultants perspective i.e. the optimum solution based on technical analysis? They cannot co-exist and one of them has to be chosen among the three. Kind Regards, Ravi. --- On Mon, 9/5/11, P. Christopher Zegras wrote: From: P. Christopher Zegras Subject: [sustran] Re: "Vision", "technical assessment" or ??? To: "Ashok Sreenivas" Cc: "sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org" Date: Monday, 9 May, 2011, 7:53 AM Dear Ashok, You make excellent points.? Personally, I would be happy if any community started with the perspective/vision being: "sustainable accessibility." Accessibility here refers to the capability for people to fulfill desired activities to "flourish" (related to Sen's concepts of functionings and capabilities); sustainable attempts to account for all the lives, time, natural resources, etc. necessary to maintain accessibility over time. Such a perspective, as you suggest, would hopefully start us thinking about the "problem" and potential "solutions" in broader, more innovative ways, and make more likely the explicit and transparent consideration of the range of tradeoffs implied (and the value-system underlying those trade-offs), including over time. Kind wishes, Chris From: Ashok Sreenivas [mailto:ashok.sreenivas@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2011 12:36 AM To: P. Christopher Zegras Cc: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org Subject: Re: [sustran] Re: "Vision", "technical assessment" or ??? Dear Chris and Jonathan (if I may take the liberty of using first names as appears to be the norm in our informal "community"!), Thanks for initiating this very interesting discussion (particularly to "non-specialists" like me) and the excellent summing up of his views by Chris. I agree with most of Chris's statement but would like to elaborate a little on a point that, I think, is extremely important and perhaps has not been underscored enough. I refer to the importance of having a "correct perspective" for step 1 (problem identification/definition). For example, if the problem is defined (narrowly) as "too many vehicles are backing up at an intersection during peak hours", then it is likely that the solution to emerge (even following the outlined process) would simply be to build an overpass (or "flyover") at the intersection. Unfortunately, this happens rather often, with the infamous sea-link cited by Karthik being a good example (without going into other perverse incentives for why such projects are chosen!). Hence, I would like to stress that the problem definition phase must pay careful attention to the "scope" of the problem (e.g. why vehicles and why not people, why one intersection and why not the whole city etc.) and also ask associated questions such as the side-effect of the proposed solutions on other desirables such as safety, clean air, energy security, social equity etc. in the short, medium and long terms. It is possible that most solutions would involve a trade-off between different objective and desirable elements, but at least the trade-offs would be clear and transparent, so that the solution with the most "acceptable" trade-off is chosen. Regards Ashok -- Ashok Sreenivas Prayas Energy Group and Parisar On 08/05/2011 02:15, P. Christopher Zegras 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 Sch?n'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 c osts 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 Sch?n-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: bandin g 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 -------------------------------------------------------- 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'). From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Wed May 11 12:55:54 2011 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (eric britton) Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 05:55:54 +0200 Subject: [sustran] World Streets/Sustran Message-ID: <00e101cc0f8f$55c7f710$0157e530$@britton@ecoplan.org> _____________________________________________________ World Streets Make it yours Paris. Wednesday, 04 May, 2011 Dear Sustran Friends, Some quick news from Paris: 1. Let me invite you to take a look at the new format and structure of World Streets. As part of our pretty massive overhaul, we have tried to come up with a new presentation frame that will bring the reader more efficiently into the full content of this massive collection of articles, photographs and other media. Check it out when you have a moment, and if you wish try to poll in which we ask for reader views. There is also plenty of space for critical comments, observations and suggestions. 2. You will notice that in the left column the journal presents a good summary of the last dozen postings to Sustran. IN this way we want to help spread the message. 3. Finally, that really most interesting series of exchanges that took place under two headings in the last two weeks, namely: a. "Vision", "technical assessment" or ??? - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sustran-discuss/message/6696 b. PRT proposal for Delhi convinces Chief Minister http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sustran-discuss/message/6637 Here's my question. Is anyone here with a strong interest and just a bit of free time for this, a candidate to take that whole series and help us wrangle it into a coherent, readable piece for World Streets? There is real gold in those hills, but we need someone with talent to help us organize all this so that the messages (and the contradictions) can be more greatly shared. That's it. Keep pedaling. Eric Britton Eric Britton, Editor / Managing Director World Streets / New Mobility Partnerships 8, rue Jospeh Bara 75006 Paris France Tel. +331 7550 3788 | editor@newmobility.org | Skype: newmobility P Avant d'imprimer, pensez ? l'environnement From kanthikannan at gmail.com Wed May 11 14:16:48 2011 From: kanthikannan at gmail.com (Kanthi Kannan) Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 10:46:48 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: Joining the Group for R2W Message-ID: <4dca1be5.6317440a.5251.1dc0@mx.google.com> Dear all Greetings!! The R2W has started a Group and this is a request for those of you to indicate your willingness to join the group. Please mail me personally to take this ahead. Thanks Kanthi From edelman at greenidea.eu Wed May 11 22:26:36 2011 From: edelman at greenidea.eu (Todd Edelman) Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 15:26:36 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Decade of Action for Road Safety: We are all "Steve"? Message-ID: <4DCA8E8C.9050501@greenidea.eu> Today starts the "Decade of Action for Road Safety 2011-2020", a collaboration between the World Health Organization (WHO) and other partners. The "Wear. Believe. Act" website, which is the official page of the campaign, is hosted by the FIA Foundation, which also supports the campaign's "Road Safety Fund". The Road Safety Fund - a legally distinct UK charity - is co-chaired by the Director General of the FIA Foundation (FIAf - the reason for the little "f" will become self-evident shortly). Confused? Well, anyway, before I mention the graphic above, I will explain why I have not included a link to FIAf: This is because none of the pages above link to FIAf, or - I really did look around - describe what it is... To continue please visit the following link, and please make comments there: *http://greenideafactory.blogspot.com/2011/05/decade-of-road-safety-we-are-all-steve.html * -- Todd Edelman Green Idea Factory, a member of the OPENbike team Mobile: ++49(0)162 814 4081 edelman@greenidea.eu www.greenidea.eu todd@openbike.se www.openbike.se Skype: toddedelman Urbanstr. 45 10967 Berlin Germany *** OPENbike - Share the Perfect Fit! From navdeep.asija at gmail.com Wed May 11 23:17:08 2011 From: navdeep.asija at gmail.com (Asija, Navdeep) Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 19:47:08 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Walking, Cycling Have Slowly Increased In The US Message-ID: Better infrastructure and targeted programs needed to encourage active travel, finds Rutgers professor and study leader John Pucher A new study led by a Rutgers researcher and published in the American Journal of Public Health reports a significant increase in walking between 2001 and 2009 in the United States, but only slight growth in cycling. John Pucher, a professor at the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy, headed the team from Rutgers, Virginia Tech and the University of Sydney that presented its findings, ?Walking and Cycling in the United States, 2001-2009: Evidence from the National Household Travel Surveys (NHTS).? Using data from the 2001 and 2009 surveys to compute the frequency, duration and distance of walking and cycling per capita, the researchers found that the average American made 17 more walk trips in 2009 than in 2001, covering nine more miles per year, as compared with just two more bicycle trips and five more miles of cycling. Population-weighted person and trip files were merged to calculate prevalence of any walking and cycling, and of walking and cycling at least 30 minutes per day. While the prevalence of ?any walking? in the population remained unchanged, walking at least 30 minutes per day increased from 7.2 percent to 8.0 percent. The prevalence of ?any cycling? in the population remained at 1.7 percent, and the prevalence of ?30 minute cycling? remained at 0.9 percent. Changes in active travel between 2001 and 2009 were not equally distributed across population subgroups, Pucher explained. ?Active travel declined for women, children and seniors, but increased among men, the middle-aged, the employed, the well-educated, and persons without a car,? he said. ?That suggests important problems of social inequities in active travel.? In designing the right mix of policies, it is important to target women, children and seniors, who are the most vulnerable pedestrians and cyclists and require special attention to protect them from the dangers of motor vehicle traffic, the authors concluded. ?Improved infrastructure for walking and cycling should be combined with educational and promotional programs to help encourage the necessary behavior change toward a more active lifestyle,? the authors wrote. The analysis confirmed the important role of public transport in encouraging active travel. With 90 percent of all public transport trips involving walk trips at both ends, policy packages for encouraging active travel should include safe and convenient pedestrian access to public transport stops. Cycling also has the potential to be an important access mode to public transport, the researchers found. The article was published on May 5 by the American Journal of Public Health under ?First Look?. It will appear in the October Supplement 2011 print issue of the journal. http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/2043274/walking_cycling_have_slowly_increased_in_the_us/ From sudhir at cai-asia.org Thu May 12 00:50:29 2011 From: sudhir at cai-asia.org (Sudhir) Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 23:50:29 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Low Carbon Strategies for Inclusive Growth - Interim report Message-ID: Expert group has submitted an Interim report on Low Carbon Strategies for Inclusive Growth http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/Inter_Exp.pdf also see http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/low-carbon-report-discusses-only-policy-options/articleshow/8230332.cms it does a fundamental mistake - it adds up the savings. does not look at interactive impact of one strategy on another. Interesting - Given differential fuel efficiencies and fuel taxation, if the Government desires, it could consider imposing an up-front tax on personal vehicles to absorb the benefits accruing from differential taxation while passing on fuel efficiency benefits to the consumers. However, some members of the group felt such an up-front tax would be unfair to the manufacturers as up-front costs are an important determinant in vehicle choice. It may be better to simply get rid of the relative distortions in fuel pricing by letting petrol and diesel be priced on the same footing, and let fuel efficiency and technology govern the choice of vehicle for the consumers. -- 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 From steve_raney at cities21.org Thu May 12 04:12:06 2011 From: steve_raney at cities21.org (Steve Raney) Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 12:12:06 -0700 Subject: [sustran] "Valid" PRT analysis Message-ID: <04dd01cc100f$51b6cc70$f5246550$@org> Eric and Todd raise invalid objections to PRT. For example, Todd was interviewed for a 2009 article on PRT, but the Boston Globe writer found Todd's objections invalid, hence: a) there are no quotes by Todd in the article and b) the writer dismisses a group of stale objections: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/10/04/invasion_of_the_ pod_car/. I am not claiming that that Eric and Todd are deficient. I applaud most of their contributions to sustainable transportation. But, for "PRT under Capitalism," private sector companies have to address a much larger set of objections/issues, in much more detail, in order to obtain equity investments and project funding. Readers should envision the equivalent of 1,000 pages of Q&A back and forth regarding objections/issues. There are now three "established" PRT vendors who have "run Capitalism's gauntlet:" ULTra PRT, 2getthere, and Vectus. To me, objections based on "non-gauntlet-proven" PRT systems are straw man (false) arguments (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man). I agree with Eric that comic-strip writer Ken Avidor's PRT straw man would be unsafe, expensive, unreliable, low-capacity, smelly, dirty, poorly-maintained, and ugly. PRT is not the best alternative for every transportation application. Time-consuming, expensive, expert processes are used to evaluate transportation alternatives (with O/D flows, benefit-cost analysis, stakeholder input, etc). It is common for PRT and BRT to be considered as complementary solutions in a multi-modal mosaic. It is rare for PRT and BRT to compete directly. Historically, the bias in alternatives analyses has favored the status quo. Apple would not debate "the iPod concept" on a listserv, nor would Apple use a simplistic survey to "vote" on the iPod. There were many failed attempts at digital music players (Creative Labs, etc) before the iPod succeeded. Apple would say, "Eric and Todd, in our product research, we came across a superset of your issues/objections. We would not have moved forward if we had not convinced ourselves that we could address those objections." Here is a link, http://www.ultraprt.com/news/89/149/May-2011-News-LHR-HSR-India-Apple-tools/ , to some current, commercially-oriented information on one of the three established PRT systems (I am an employee). Item #4 provides characteristics of Indian PRT applications. I have had the opportunity to spend 15,000 hours of my working career on PRT. My peer-reviewed research supports PRT "niche applications" where PRT synergistically enhances other green modes. ============================================ Steve Raney, Cities21: advanced transit & smart growth Transportation Research Board Committee Member, AP020 and AP040 From schipper at berkeley.edu Thu May 12 05:21:50 2011 From: schipper at berkeley.edu (Lee Schipper) Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 13:21:50 -0700 Subject: [sustran] Re: "Valid" PRT analysis In-Reply-To: <04dd01cc100f$51b6cc70$f5246550$@org> References: <04dd01cc100f$51b6cc70$f5246550$@org> Message-ID: <9c7d041e6d99b731203eed05ee18850b.squirrel@calmail.berkeley.edu> I have kept my fingers quiet in this interesting discussion, but I want to add one point responding to what Steve wrote. Comparing pods and pods is to me very invalid. Apple's IPOD is a product of a private firm with a history of interesting investments in intellectual and physical capital. It knows how to take risks. The problem facing any public transport system with infrastructure costs is that the public, aka 'OPM' (for 'other peoples' money') is asked to take the risks and come up with the money to put something we're assured we'll benefit us all. Since "us" is in fact all of us, we do need this kind of scrutiny. My colleague at Stanford, Richard White, wrote about this in his op ed in the NY Times a few weeks ago: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/opinion/lweb01train.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=high%20speed%20rail%20richard&st=cse While you may think high speed rail is a good thing (or not), and you may or may not agree with his stance, you have to admit that the issue of who takes risks and who gets benefits must be discussed. For all public transit systems, the risks are political, monetary, and often environmental if a system (like the Lima metro) fails but leaves a huge scar across the space it was supposed to serve. I don't know how to solve the OPM problem in my own country, and I would not claim I know how to solve that problem in India, but I do know that building any system of relatively low transport capacity per unit of investment, in a place where transport demand is spilling over every where, is risky. Whether it is the best use of public funds, I don't know -- that's for those of you in India to decide. But given the dominance until now of roads over other modes of transport in terms of where spending for Indian urban transport has gone, I think it's important to look at a specific city, take a long-run view, and see how combinations of options fit in, who pays and who benefits. This is not the way one sorts out what kind of ipod or other individual device should be made next. -- Lee Schipper, Ph.D Project Scientist Global Metropolitan Studies http://metrostudies.berkeley.edu/ Street/Mail Address: UC Berkeley Global Metropolitan Studies 1950 Addison 2nd floor, Berkeley. Berkeley CA 94704-2647 +1 510 642 6889, FAX +1 510 642 6061 Cell +1 202 262 7476 skype: mrmeter > Eric and Todd raise invalid objections to PRT. For example, Todd was > interviewed for a 2009 article on PRT, but the Boston Globe writer found > Todd's objections invalid, hence: a) there are no quotes by Todd in the > article and b) the writer dismisses a group of stale objections: > http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/10/04/invasion_of_the_ > pod_car/. > > > > I am not claiming that that Eric and Todd are deficient. I applaud most of > their contributions to sustainable transportation. But, for "PRT under > Capitalism," private sector companies have to address a much larger set of > objections/issues, in much more detail, in order to obtain equity > investments and project funding. Readers should envision the equivalent of > 1,000 pages of Q&A back and forth regarding objections/issues. There are > now > three "established" PRT vendors who have "run Capitalism's gauntlet:" > ULTra > PRT, 2getthere, and Vectus. To me, objections based on > "non-gauntlet-proven" > PRT systems are straw man (false) arguments (see > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man). I agree with Eric that > comic-strip > writer Ken Avidor's PRT straw man would be unsafe, expensive, unreliable, > low-capacity, smelly, dirty, poorly-maintained, and ugly. > > > > PRT is not the best alternative for every transportation application. > Time-consuming, expensive, expert processes are used to evaluate > transportation alternatives (with O/D flows, benefit-cost analysis, > stakeholder input, etc). It is common for PRT and BRT to be considered as > complementary solutions in a multi-modal mosaic. It is rare for PRT and > BRT > to compete directly. Historically, the bias in alternatives analyses has > favored the status quo. > > > > Apple would not debate "the iPod concept" on a listserv, nor would Apple > use > a simplistic survey to "vote" on the iPod. There were many failed attempts > at digital music players (Creative Labs, etc) before the iPod succeeded. > Apple would say, "Eric and Todd, in our product research, we came across a > superset of your issues/objections. We would not have moved forward if we > had not convinced ourselves that we could address those objections." > > > > Here is a link, > http://www.ultraprt.com/news/89/149/May-2011-News-LHR-HSR-India-Apple-tools/ > , to some current, commercially-oriented information on one of the three > established PRT systems (I am an employee). Item #4 provides > characteristics > of Indian PRT applications. > > > > I have had the opportunity to spend 15,000 hours of my working career on > PRT. My peer-reviewed research supports PRT "niche applications" where PRT > synergistically enhances other green modes. > > > > ============================================ > > Steve Raney, Cities21: advanced transit & smart growth > > Transportation Research Board Committee Member, AP020 and AP040 > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > 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'). > From allietberkeley at gmail.com Thu May 12 07:53:52 2011 From: allietberkeley at gmail.com (Allie Thomas) Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 15:53:52 -0700 Subject: [sustran] Bus pricing negatively impacting Bike Use in China/Other countries? Message-ID: I'm looking for any research that focuses on how pricing policies have negatively impacted bike use. Currently, with low public transit fares (bus and subway) in Beijing, fewer people are biking. I'm not suggesting this is the only reason for the decrease, but some Chinese officials feel that the government's decision to slash subway and bus fares has definitely made an impact. Bus prices have been reduced from 1 or 2 rmb to 0.40 rmb for all buses. Subway fares are 2 rmb anywhere in the city (no graduated fares like in Shanghai). Any information on this would be great. Also, if anyone knows of any journal articles, etc on how low public transit fares negatively impact quality of service as well as safety would be great. The subway in Beijing is getting overcrowded esp. during rush hour and they've had to restrict the number of people entering certain subway stops. Buses are just as overcrowded as well. I'm sorry if this is a duplicate. I posted it five days ago to the mailing list and it never came through. cheers, -- Allie Thomas Doctoral Candidate Dept of City & Regional Planning UC Berkeley allietberkeley@gmail.com From edelman at greenidea.eu Thu May 12 10:05:40 2011 From: edelman at greenidea.eu (Todd Edelman) Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 03:05:40 +0200 Subject: [sustran] The Ultimate Bike Helmet-related Letter to the Editor Message-ID: <4DCB3264.6030308@greenidea.eu> OK, just kidding (sort of). The May/June 2011 Momentum magazine features "The Helmet Debate" by Elly Blue (four pages long), as well as two bike helmet buying guides, a separate short helmet review, a full-page helmet ad, lots of nice photos of both helmeted and unhelmeted cyclists and also several letters regarding helmets, which were submitted in response to a request in the March/April issue. They printed/posted a short letter of mine. Following is the longer version from which it was excerpted (I sent it at the end of March and tonight I added some additional paragraphs)... This is timely as that new Momentum was just released, but I am also sending this now as a complement to yesterday's post about the Decade of Road Safety http://greenideafactory.blogspot.com/2011/05/decade-of-road-safety-we-are-all-steve.html. To continue please visit the following link, and please make comments there: *http://greenideafactory.blogspot.com/2011/05/ultimate-bike-helmet-related-letter-to.html * -- Todd Edelman Green Idea Factory, a member of the OPENbike team Mobile: ++49(0)162 814 4081 edelman@greenidea.eu www.greenidea.eu todd@openbike.se www.openbike.se Skype: toddedelman Urbanstr. 45 10967 Berlin Germany *** OPENbike - Share the Perfect Fit! From allietberkeley at gmail.com Thu May 12 12:32:18 2011 From: allietberkeley at gmail.com (Allie Thomas) Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 11:32:18 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Transit pricing negatively impacting Bike Use in China/Other countries? Message-ID: I'm looking for any research that focuses on how pricing policies have negatively impacted bike use. Currently, with low public transit fares (bus and subway) in Beijing, fewer people are biking. I'm not suggesting this is the only reason for the decrease, but some Chinese officials feel that the government's decision to slash subway and bus fares has definitely made an impact. Bus prices have been reduced from 1 or 2 rmb to 0.40 rmb for all buses. Subway fares are 2 rmb anywhere in the city (no graduated fares like in Shanghai). Any information on this would be great. Also, if anyone knows of any journal articles, etc on how low public transit fares negatively impact quality of service as well as safety would be great. The subway in Beijing is getting overcrowded esp. during rush hour and they've had to restrict the number of people entering certain subway stops. Buses are just as overcrowded as well. cheers, Allie -- Alainna Thomas Doctoral Candidate Dept of City & Regional Planning UC Berkeley allietberkeley@gmail.com From jcmota at ua.pt Thu May 12 23:24:30 2011 From: jcmota at ua.pt (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jos=E9_Carlos_Mota?=) Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 15:24:30 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Aqui! Here! - Film Synopsis Contest about Public Space & Cities Message-ID: Can you help us spreading this civic/cultural initiative? Aqui!Here! (http://www.aqui-here.com) it's the result of a fruitful collaboration between Cine Clube de Avanca (one of the oldest amateur filmmaking club of Portugal) and Amigosd'Avenida (city civic group from Aveiro, Portugal), and the idea is to produce the argument of ten short films that will be developed in ten cities from the five continents based on the Manifesto for the Public Space's ten principles developed by Aveiro's city civic movement - Amigosd'Avenida (http://www.aqui-here.com/images/pdf/manifesto-en.pdf). We are lauching now a film synopsis contest and the DEADLINE is June 11th 2011! We appreciate all the help you can give! Best regards Jos? Low-Cost & High-Value Ideas for Cities | Cidades pela Retoma | Amigosd'Avenida http://noeconomicrecoverywithoutcities.blogs.sapo.pt/ | http://globalcity.blogs.sapo.pt/ | http://ideasforcities.blogs.sapo.pt/ | https://www.facebook.com/CidadespelaRetoma | https://www.facebook.com/noeconomicrecoverywithoutcities | https://www.facebook.com/IdeasforCities | https://www.facebook.com/GlobalCityTwoPointZero | http://amigosdavenida.blogs.sapo.pt/ | https://www.facebook.com/AmigosdAvenida.Aveiro | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Film Synopsis Contest about Public Space & Cities (Aqui!Here!) Aqui/Here" is a cinematographic project led by Cine Clube de Avanca (one of the oldests amateur filmmaking club of Portugal) and Amigos d'Avenida (city civic group from Aveiro, Portugal). Based on the Manifesto for the Public Space's ten principles (http://www.aqui-here.com/images/pdf/manifesto-en.pdf) , ten short films will be developed in ten cities from the five continents. Join the official Synopsis Contest for the movie "Aqui/Here" and picture YOUR STORY in YOUR CITY as a future part of this film project! Choose one of the 10 "Manifesto for the Public Space"' points and write a synopsis idea for a short-film script with YOUR CITY as the background for your story. 10 Winners in each of the 10 short-films will win a first prize and work with the scriptwriter in the final scripts development! DEADLINE: June 11th 2011 More information in http://www.aqui-here.com/ 'Aqui!/Here!' Synopsis Contest Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/pages/AquiHere/162554620469427?sk=wall Site http://www.aqui-here.com/ Cine Clube de Avanca http://ccavanca.blogspot.com/ Amigosd'Avenida http://amigosdavenida.blogs.sapo.pt/ From sutp at sutp.org Fri May 13 01:29:04 2011 From: sutp at sutp.org (SUTP Team) Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 21:59:04 +0530 Subject: [sustran] [Register Now: Bridging the Gap Symposium: Moving Transport from CDM to NAMAs] Message-ID: <14DA9FDB-89E7-4900-8110-8CEA93D46F20@sutp.org> On behalf of our TRL colleagues: ---------------------------------------------- Dear reader We would like to invite you to the Bridging the Gap Symposium on Thursday 9th June in Bonn. The event, entitled ?Moving Transport from CDM to NAMAs,? will explore the latest developments around land transport and climate change. Please join us to hear from international experts and policy makers in this field, who will be discussing questions including: ? What is needed to make the concept of NAMAs work for the transport sector? What lessons need to be learned from the experience with the CDM? ? How could transport NAMAs and MRV of emission reductions look in practice? ? How could international support (financing, capacity building and technology transfer) be matched with the development and implementation of transport NAMAs? This full day workshop will be held at the Gustav-Stresemann-Institut, just a 5 minute walk from the UNFCCC venue. The agenda can be downloaded from: http://www.transport2012.org/bridging/ressources/documents/2/1329,2011-BtG-Symposium_draft_agenda_fin.pdf. PLEASE REGISTER This event is free to attend, but requires prior registration. Please indicate your interest to either Anne Binsted (abinsted@trl.co.uk) or Ko Sakamoto (ksakamoto@trl.co.uk). ABOUT US This event is organised and hosted by the Bridging the Gap Initiative (GIZ, ITDP, TRL, UITP and Veolia Transdev). Our aim is to ?Bridge the Gap? between the transport sector and the climate negotiations. http://www.transport2012.org/ Our work is made in contribution to the Partnership on Sustainable Low-Carbon Transport. www.slocat.net Kind regards, Anne Binsted, TRL +44 1344 770568 abinsted@trl.co.uk http://www.transport2012.org ------------- Sustainable Urban Transport Project (SUTP) E sutp@sutp.org I http://www.sutp.org From litman at vtpi.org Sat May 14 03:24:04 2011 From: litman at vtpi.org (Todd Alexander Litman) Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 11:24:04 -0700 Subject: [sustran] New Study Evaluates Pay-As-You-Drive Vehicle Insurance Message-ID: <052001cc11a2$6de59b80$49b0d280$@org> For Immediate Release 12 May 2011 Contact: Todd Litman 250-360-1560, litman@vtpi.org New Study Evaluates Pay-As-You-Drive Vehicle Insurance. Identifies Significant Potential Benefits to Motorists, the Economy and the Environment. Pay-As-You-Drive Vehicle Insurance in British Columbia (http://www.pics.uvic.ca/assets/pdf/publications/PAYD_Insurance.pdf ) By Todd Litman of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute for the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions. =================================== Insurance is one of the largest motor vehicle expenses, costing about $1,200 annually for a typical automobile. Conventional insurance is a fixed cost with respect to vehicle use; moderate reductions in vehicle travel provide no savings to motorists. An alternative price structure, called Pay-As-You-Drive (PAYD), changes insurance into a variable cost, so motorists save money when they reduce their mileage. As a result, they tend to drive less. A new report, Pay-As-You-Drive Vehicle Insurance in British Columbia, written by Todd Litman of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute for the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions evaluates the feasibility, benefits and costs of Pay-As-You-Drive insurance in British Columbia. The analysis indicates that PAYD pricing could provide significant benefits to motorists, the economy, and the environment. Various studies indicate that reducing vehicle travel reduces crashes. PAYD does not simply shift costs from one group to another: premium reductions reflect, in part, the savings that result when motorists reduce their annual vehicle mileage and therefore claim costs. As a result, it need not reduce insurance company profitability. Under most proposals PAYD would be a user option, so motorists could choose the price struc?ture that best meets their needs. Only motorists who expect to save money would choose PAYD. In addition to consumer savings, PAYD pricing tends to reduce energy consumption, carbon and other pollution emissions, and traffic congestion. It increases insurance affordability by giving motorists a new way to save money, and it is progressive with respect to income since lower-income motorists tend to drive less than average. The report evaluates several possible implementation methods. A relatively simple approach, called basic PAYD, prorates existing premiums by the average annual mileage of each rate class, so a $600 premium becomes 3? per kilometre, and a $1,800 premium becomes 9? per kilometre. Mileage can be verified with digital photos taken by motorists or insurance brokers at the start and end of the policy term. Because it has low implementation costs, this approach is predicted to have the largest potential market and provide the largest savings and benefits. PAYD insurance is not currently available in British Columbia but has been implemented else?where, including in the United States, Europe and Australia. * * * The Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org) is an independent research organization dedicated to developing innovative solutions to transport problems. Sincerely, Todd Litman Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org ) litman@vtpi.org Phone & Fax 250-360-1560 1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA ?Efficiency - Equity - Clarity? From edelman at greenidea.eu Sat May 14 21:13:15 2011 From: edelman at greenidea.eu (Todd Edelman) Date: Sat, 14 May 2011 14:13:15 +0200 Subject: [sustran] The Ultimate Bike Helmet-related Letter to the Editor Message-ID: <4DCE71DB.3080905@greenidea.eu> Hi, sorry you are getting this a second time but there were problems with Blogger - the host of my Blog - starting late on Wednesday 11.5.2011 just after it was posted, and the posting did not appear again until late on Friday. So some of you many have not had a chance to see it if you wanted to. Thanks! *** The May/June 2011 Momentum magazine features "The Helmet Debate" by Elly Blue (four pages long), as well as two bike helmet buying guides, a separate short helmet review, a full-page helmet ad, lots of nice photos of both helmeted and unhelmeted cyclists and also several letters regarding helmets, which were submitted in response to a request in the March/April issue. They printed/posted a short letter of mine. Following is the longer version from which it was excerpted (I sent it at the end of March and tonight I added some additional paragraphs)... This is timely as that new Momentum was just released, but I am also sending this now as a complement to yesterday's post about the Decade of Road Safety http://greenideafactory.blogspot.com/2011/05/decade-of-road-safety-we-are-all-steve.html. To continue please visit the following link, and please make comments there: *http://greenideafactory.blogspot.com/2011/05/ultimate-bike-helmet-related-letter-to.html * -- Todd Edelman Green Idea Factory, a member of the OPENbike team Mobile: ++49(0)162 814 4081 edelman@greenidea.eu www.greenidea.eu todd@openbike.se www.openbike.se Skype: toddedelman Urbanstr. 45 10967 Berlin Germany *** OPENbike - Share the Perfect Fit! From nuno.quental at iclei.org Tue May 17 01:13:29 2011 From: nuno.quental at iclei.org (Nuno Quental) Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 18:13:29 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Press release from ICLEI: Getting EcoMobile Message-ID: <4DD14D29.3000803@iclei.org> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20110516/4f235dfd/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Press release - Getting EcoMobile.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 208287 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20110516/4f235dfd/Pressrelease-GettingEcoMobile-0001.pdf From phaizan at gmail.com Thu May 19 19:03:10 2011 From: phaizan at gmail.com (Faizan Jawed) Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 15:33:10 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Public Parking Policy Revived in Mumbai with a minor tweak Message-ID: *Public parking policy revived* Published: Thursday, May 19, 2011, 2:42 IST By *DNA Correspondent* | Place: Mumbai | Agency: DNA Chief minister Prithviraj Chavan announced the revival of the policy for the parking lots in Mumbai. Parking lots will now be allowed to be developed on public-private partnership basis. FSI incentives and concessions in the premium charges will also be offered on such lots to the developers. The only sore point, however, is that the fact thatthe amendment in the development control rules (DCR) has restricted the height of the lots to ground plus four floors. The policy was scrapped four months ago after the government realised that the private players were taking unfair advantage of the policy to earn the additional FSI. The multi-storey parking lots had mushroomed in particular areas of the city. Of the 72 proposals submitted with the BMC, about 25 were onlyfrom the suburbs. The multi-storey parking lots that had come up in the Island city were getting no response from the vehicle owners. The builders were believably making a lot of profits in South Mumbai by earning incentives with FSI that went up to as high as 4 in some cases. The chief minister, while making the announcement in Delhi on Wednesday has clarified that there would be no mechanised parking lot keeping the utility and the maintenance in mind. He also has stated that the lots would not be allowed to go beyond ground plus four storey beside two level basements He announced that after the due deliberation by the urban development department the amendment has been initiated in DCR 33(24). The developers opting for the parking lots under PPP mode, will have to pay 40% premium on the incentive FSI deducting the cost borne by them the residential construction. BMC and the state government will share the premium charges in equal proportion. A committee of the civic commissioner and joint police commissioner (traffic) will prepare proposal considering the need and place of the parking lot. The final approval for such lots will come from the state government. The chief minister said that the modified policy would help the state government to ease the traffic congestion in the city. Source: http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report_public-parking-policy-revived_1544977 From ashok.sreenivas at gmail.com Fri May 20 18:36:40 2011 From: ashok.sreenivas at gmail.com (Ashok Sreenivas) Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 15:06:40 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Peak car? Message-ID: <4DD63628.60201@gmail.com> Very interesting article about the behavioural changes underway in UK: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/motoring/features/is-this-the-end-of-the-car-2286616.html Initial thoughts: - How sad is it that "new urbanism" is old hat in many Indian cities, but our authorities are bent on going towards old urbanism? - "Controlled parking", a key suspect causing the behavioural change - when will they get it? - Maybe they will, if they internalize the message of the Groningen example and realize that their precious real estate will get even more precious if they do some of these things. -- Ashok Sreenivas Prayas Energy Group and Parisar From sudhir at cai-asia.org Fri May 20 22:16:13 2011 From: sudhir at cai-asia.org (Sudhir) Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 21:16:13 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Peak car? In-Reply-To: <4DD63628.60201@gmail.com> References: <4DD63628.60201@gmail.com> Message-ID: Lee Schipper and Adam Millard wrote an excellent paper on this last year . One version of the paper is here - http://www.stanford.edu/group/peec/cgi-bin/docs/transportation/research/Millard-Ball%20Schipper%20Peak%20Travel%20preprint.pdf Quote - ?Since 2003, motorized travel demand has leveled out or even declined in most of the countries studied, and travel in private vehicles has declined,? the authors wrote in their study. ?Car ownership has continued to rise, but these cars are being driven less.? http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-peak.html regards Sudhir On 20 May 2011 17:36, Ashok Sreenivas wrote: > Very interesting article about the behavioural changes underway in UK: > > http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/motoring/features/is-this-the-end-of-the-car-2286616.html > > Initial thoughts: > - How sad is it that "new urbanism" is old hat in many Indian cities, > but our authorities are bent on going towards old urbanism? > - "Controlled parking", a key suspect causing the behavioural change - > when will they get it? > - Maybe they will, if they internalize the message of the Groningen > example and realize that their precious real estate will get even more > precious if they do some of these things. > > -- > Ashok Sreenivas > Prayas Energy Group and Parisar > > -------------------------------------------------------- > 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'). > -- 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 From yanivbin at gmail.com Sat May 21 00:55:34 2011 From: yanivbin at gmail.com (Vinay Baindur) Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 21:25:34 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Metro authorities threaten, abuse us' Message-ID: http://www.mid-day.com/news/2011/may/200511-Basavanagudi-road-construction-Bangalore.htm *Metro authorities threaten, abuse us'* *By: *Sheetal Sukhija *Date: *2011-05-20 *Basavanagudi residents are allegedly being bullied by project site engineer for complaining about deplorable roads conditions, open drains in area* For over two years since work on the Metro started in Basavanagudi, residents of R V Road have been subjected to constant nuisances. Firstly, it was the excavations on the roads that led to traffic snarls in the area and now, two drains have been left open for months. The situation got worse last week after a resident complained of being threatened by a Metro engineer. *Death trap? Two persons have fallen into the open drains at RV Road in Basavanagudi during heavy rains this month. Pic/Satish Badiger* *Abusive officials* "We have been shuffling between the BBMP and Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd (BMRCL) offices for over a year now requesting them to clear the mess. Even after assurances that something would be done, no action has been taken. Last week when I approached the BMRCL site office, an engineer shut the door and threatened to break my legs if I kept complaining. This behaviour is simply unacceptable," said H Khan, a resident. Reacting to the same, other residents claim that their pleas have been falling on deaf ears for two years now. Parveen A, Secretary of the Crescent Women's Wing explains, "The BBMP officials have told us that until the Metro construction is complete, the area cannot be cleared. The open drains has been creating a big problem and two persons have slipped and fallen into it during heavy rains. Accidents occur during the night, but despite all this, we support the Metro because it is for our own good. However, that does not mean that we should be treated in such a way." *Quite impolite?* Residents even lament that the BMRCL site office of their area remains locked for almost four days a week. "Every time we approach them, they either abuse us verbally or just shirk off responsibility. We've been living in this locality for over 20 years now and this is not how they should be treating us when we approach them with a grievance," complained a resident. The resident association has written polite letters to the BMRCL many times and they've even approached the BBMP Corporator Gangambika (Ward no 153), but have received no positive response. Malika Subhan, a resident said, "My husband suffered from chikungunya because of the stench from the open drain and one of our neighbours suffered a fractured knee as a result of falling into the drain." In response to the complaints filed by the residents, the BBMP Corporator arrived in the area for an inspection. However, she claimed that there could be no permanent solution, as the Metro would continue to disrupt the normal cleaning process. *Meanwhile, BMRCL* officials confirmed receiving a written complaint about the threat. BMRCL PRO Yashwant Chauhan however, has not started investigating the matter yet. "Once I receive a written complaint, I will investigate the matter duly. Our engineers are not goons and if something like this has happened, it will be looked into," he said. The residents, fearing repercussions, have not approached the police yet. From edelman at greenidea.eu Sat May 21 09:21:56 2011 From: edelman at greenidea.eu (Todd Edelman) Date: Sat, 21 May 2011 02:21:56 +0200 Subject: [sustran] The Saving Lives Through Better Information bill Message-ID: <4DD705A4.5050405@greenidea.eu> This example comes from NYC. I am not sure how unique it is, but perhaps it can serve as a model or template for road safety campaigners in other cities... "The Saving Lives Through Better Information bill requires NYPD to post information on traffic crashes and injuries in each precinct, searchable by intersection, every month." - from http://www.streetsblog.org/2011/05/18/eyes-on-the-street-another-curb-jumping-motorist-on-the-uws/ The story links to the City of New York City Council website: http://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=777871&GUID=FBD36CFB-B9F6-4693-A1BC-C39F3794C941&Options=&Search= Todd Edelman Green Idea Factory, a member of the OPENbike team Mobile: ++49(0)162 814 4081 edelman@greenidea.eu www.greenidea.eu todd@openbike.se www.openbike.se Skype: toddedelman Urbanstr. 45 10967 Berlin Germany *** OPENbike - Share the Perfect Fit! From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Mon May 23 01:42:52 2011 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (eric britton) Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 18:42:52 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Graduate seminars on Sustainable Development, Business & Society Message-ID: <01be01cc189f$4ccf9140$e66eb3c0$@britton@ecoplan.org> _____________________________________________________ Sustainable Development, Business & Society Dear Friends and Colleagues, I have the honor of being asked to organize and present a cycle of graduate seminars on Sustainable Development, Business & Society, the first of which to be presented to a class of MBA candidates in their last semester in a business school here in Paris, the Institut Sup?rieur de Gestion. It is an intensive, total emersion course crammed into an demanding three day period, 9-11 June 2011, with the students and myself working together in an interactive plugged-in environment eight hours each day. To get most mileage out of such a short period, I am presently right in the middle of the process of working to create what I hope will become an easy-to-use internet-mediated " toolkit" in support of the seminar. I would like to draw this to your attention, with the thought that perhaps you may have some ideas and suggestions for us (the site is presently about 70% complete, but is still light on actual content). To provide some orientation in how this works, I have just drafted a two page background note which I attach for your information. One of the areas in which we are still far too light is the identification of related university programs. So if you can send on URLs and names it would be great to be able to give them a good look. As we all know well, this is a very tricky and still very much wide open area of policy and practice, and nobody who follows developments can be satisfied with our present level of knowledge or performance. You will find a few background words on how I see it playing out at http://sustainabiltyseminar.wordpress.com/about/syllabus/, but more on this will have to await further progress in the program and on the site. If you wish to follow the action, let me invite you to subscribe, and once there I would suggest that you sign up for the weekly report so as not to be invaded by course details once things start to get rolling. We also have made arrangements for a certain number of course auditors, and if you wish to exchange some words on this I will be pleased to hear from you. I very much hope that this is going to be a useful and creative exercise, not only for this first class but for all who choose to follow and eventually participate in some manner. With all good wishes, Eric Britton Eric Britton, Editor / Managing Director World Streets / New Mobility Partnerships 8, rue Jospeh Bara 75006 Paris France Tel. +331 7550 3788 | editor@newmobility.org | Skype: newmobility P Avant d'imprimer, pensez ? l'environnement -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SDBS - Seminar in a box - 22may11 - v2.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 247031 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20110522/9728cfd8/SDBS-Seminarinabox-22may11-v2-0001.pdf From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Mon May 23 19:44:47 2011 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (eric britton) Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 12:44:47 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Call for Papers - World Transport Policy & Practice Special Edition: A Future Beyond the Car Message-ID: <00cd01cc1936$71e71600$55b54200$@britton@ecoplan.org> Call for Papers - World Transport Policy & Practice Special Edition: A Future Beyond the Car This special edition of World Transport Policy & Practice is planned to be published early in 2012. The deadline for submission of articles is July 31st. A broad introduction by Guest Editor Steve Melia will set the scene for up to half a dozen articles of 2,000 to 5,000 words around the following indicative themes: . Good practice in removal of cars/traffic from urban areas . Experience of new practices or technologies which offer the potential to replace private motor traffic in the longer-term . Alternatives to increasing motorisation in developing or newly-industrialised countries . Research into carfree lifestyles in developed countries . The challenges and limitations of 'solving the problem' through alternative fuels and new car technology In line with the overall aims of the journal, we are looking for evidence-based articles which will be of use to policymakers, campaigners and/or transport professionals. The articles should be about a specific aspect of 'the big picture', so for example, an article about experience of freight delivery in carfree or pedestrian areas would be appropriate, whereas a study of a specific change designed to increase efficiency of deliveries in a pedestrian area, would not. For more information see: www.stevemelia.co.uk/wtpp.htm. Best Regards Dr Steve Melia Senior Lecturer Centre for Transport & Society Department of Planning and Architecture University of the West of England Coldharbour Lane Bristol BS16 1QY + 44 (0)117 328 3267 From edelman at greenidea.eu Mon May 23 21:37:46 2011 From: edelman at greenidea.eu (Todd Edelman) Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 14:37:46 +0200 Subject: [sustran] =?windows-1252?Q?What=92s_wrong_with_the_UN_=93Decade_o?= =?windows-1252?Q?f_Action_for_Road_Safety=94_=96_Part_Two?= Message-ID: <4DDA551A.3010701@greenidea.eu> /From the Road Danger Reduction Forum in the UK:/* What?s wrong with the UN ?Decade of Action for Road Safety? ? Part Two* http://rdrf.org.uk/2011/05/what?s-wrong-with-the-un-?decade-of-action-for-road-safety?-?-part-two/#more-390 A picture is worth a thousand words, and this one [see link] disseminated by the Campaign for Global Road Safety (sic) for the UN Decade for Road Safety is a good indicator of what is wrong with it. Children in South-East Asia show how the CGRS and others behind this initiative think of the basic act of crossing the road: heavily supervised by adults; wearing crash helmets; carrying hi-viz signals; and even tied to each other. This is exactly not what real road safety is about. Let?s look at the origins of the ?UN Decade for Road Safety? to learn where this nonsense has come from:Of all the organisations controlling the global ?road safety? programmes, the key player is the FIA Foundation for the Automobile and Society, a UK based charity set up with a basic donation of $300 million made by the F?d?ration Internationale de l?Automobile (FIA), the federation of motoring organisations and the governing body of world motor sport. This comes from FIA?s sale of the rights to ?commercial exploitation? of Formula One racing to Bernie Ecclestone and his bankers for about $350million plus an undisclosed annual fee. From this fund, itself derived from the advertisers in Formula One, comes the funding for WHO and World Bank ?road safety? initiatives. Run with some 1.5 million euros a year for administration, the FIA Foundation, as a charity, is a different body from the FIA, although its leading members are often the same people. Trustees include the former FIA President, Max Mosley, the representatives of national motoring organisations, and the Finnish MEP and rally driver Ari Vatanen. An interesting description of how Formula One, the international motoring organisations, the motor and associated industries are linked to literally drive (through bodies such as the Campaign for Global Road Safety, Global Road Safety Initiative, Global Road Safety Partnership, RoadSafe etc.) initiatives such as the UN Decade for Road Safety is by Professor Ian Roberts ( Formula One and global road safety, Ian Roberts, J R Soc Med 2007;100:360?362 ? a shortened version is here). The UN Decade for Road Safety has been signed up to by the ?road safety? establishment of bodies like RoSPA, PACTS, BRAKE . We have not. As well as getting the wrong end of the stick on safety, it is part of a programme promoted by powerful bodies committed to increased dominance of road building and motor vehicle use throughout the developing world, with all the health and environmental problems that would bring. We will be describing this programme ? and what?s wrong with it ? again. *** Please also see: http://rdrf.org.uk/2011/05/what?s-wrong-with-the-un-?decade-of-action-for-road-safety?-?-part-one/ http://greenideafactory.blogspot.com/2011/05/decade-of-road-safety-we-are-all-steve.html -- Todd Edelman Green Idea Factory, a member of the OPENbike team Mobile: ++49(0)162 814 4081 edelman@greenidea.eu www.greenidea.eu todd@openbike.se www.openbike.se Skype: toddedelman Urbanstr. 45 10967 Berlin Germany *** OPENbike - Share the Perfect Fit! From morten7an at yahoo.com Tue May 24 01:23:56 2011 From: morten7an at yahoo.com (Morten Lange) Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 09:23:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: =?utf-8?B?UmU6IFtzdXN0cmFuXSBXaGF04oCZcyB3cm9uZyB3aXRoIHRoZSBVTiDigJxE?= =?utf-8?B?ZWNhZGUgb2YgQWN0aW9uIGZvciBSb2FkIFNhZmV0eeKAnSDigJMgUGFydCBU?= =?utf-8?B?d28=?= In-Reply-To: <4DDA551A.3010701@greenidea.eu> References: <4DDA551A.3010701@greenidea.eu> Message-ID: <10800.29813.qm@web39402.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi, I agree that how FIA and friends appear in part to steal the global "road safety" scene is worrying. Would it be possible to help e.g. Nelson Mandela ( + family) and Desmond Tutu to understand they have been conned ? Perhaps with the help of Vandana Shiva ? She was very clear, at Velo-City 2011 about the injustice towards Rickshaw operators, and said bicycles are to transport what organic is to agriculture This clip and this article should perhaps go viral. Maybe only videos "go viral",. So if with someone would blend this with the appropriate text and pictures. http://soundcloud.com/morten7an/lordrobertsondecadeaction20110511 http://www.rsmpress.co.uk/Roadsafety.pdf -- Regards / Kvedja Morten Lange, Reykjav?k ________________________________ From: Todd Edelman To: Sustran List ; NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, 23 May, 2011 12:37:46 Subject: [sustran] What?s wrong with the UN ?Decade of Action for Road Safety? ? Part Two /From the Road Danger Reduction Forum in the UK:/* What?s wrong with the UN ?Decade of Action for Road Safety? ? Part Two* http://rdrf.org.uk/2011/05/what?s-wrong-with-the-un-?decade-of-action-for-road-safety?-?-part-two/#more-390 A picture is worth a thousand words, and this one [see link] disseminated by the Campaign for Global Road Safety (sic) for the UN Decade for Road Safety is a good indicator of what is wrong with it. Children in South-East Asia show how the CGRS and others behind this initiative think of the basic act of crossing the road: heavily supervised by adults; wearing crash helmets; carrying hi-viz signals; and even tied to each other. This is exactly not what real road safety is about. Let?s look at the origins of the ?UN Decade for Road Safety? to learn where this nonsense has come from:Of all the organisations controlling the global ?road safety? programmes, the key player is the FIA Foundation for the Automobile and Society, a UK based charity set up with a basic donation of $300 million made by the F?d?ration Internationale de l?Automobile (FIA), the federation of motoring organisations and the governing body of world motor sport. This comes from FIA?s sale of the rights to ?commercial exploitation? of Formula One racing to Bernie Ecclestone and his bankers for about $350million plus an undisclosed annual fee. From this fund, itself derived from the advertisers in Formula One, comes the funding for WHO and World Bank ?road safety? initiatives. Run with some 1.5 million euros a year for administration, the FIA Foundation, as a charity, is a different body from the FIA, although its leading members are often the same people. Trustees include the former FIA President, Max Mosley, the representatives of national motoring organisations, and the Finnish MEP and rally driver Ari Vatanen. An interesting description of how Formula One, the international motoring organisations, the motor and associated industries are linked to literally drive (through bodies such as the Campaign for Global Road Safety, Global Road Safety Initiative, Global Road Safety Partnership, RoadSafe etc.) initiatives such as the UN Decade for Road Safety is by Professor Ian Roberts ( Formula One and global road safety, Ian Roberts, J R Soc Med 2007;100:360?362 ? a shortened version is here). The UN Decade for Road Safety has been signed up to by the ?road safety? establishment of bodies like RoSPA, PACTS, BRAKE . We have not. As well as getting the wrong end of the stick on safety, it is part of a programme promoted by powerful bodies committed to increased dominance of road building and motor vehicle use throughout the developing world, with all the health and environmental problems that would bring. We will be describing this programme ? and what?s wrong with it ? again. *** Please also see: http://rdrf.org.uk/2011/05/what?s-wrong-with-the-un-?decade-of-action-for-road-safety?-?-part-one/ http://greenideafactory.blogspot.com/2011/05/decade-of-road-safety-we-are-all-steve.html -- Todd Edelman Green Idea Factory, a member of the OPENbike team Mobile: ++49(0)162 814 4081 edelman@greenidea.eu www.greenidea.eu todd@openbike.se www.openbike.se Skype: toddedelman Urbanstr. 45 10967 Berlin Germany *** OPENbike - Share the Perfect Fit! -------------------------------------------------------- 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'). From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Tue May 24 16:19:16 2011 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (eric britton) Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 09:19:16 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Here is a great collaborative project that will I am sure interest you Message-ID: <003e01cc19e2$e9ca6300$bd5f2900$@britton@ecoplan.org> ______________________________________________________________ A Sustainable World Make it yours Paris. Tuesday, 24 May, 2011 Dear friends, Here is a great collaborative project that will I am sure interest you and possibly some of you might actually want to pitch in. Let's take it by the numbers. 1. The irrepressible Elizabeth Press who is Producer/Editor of Streetfilms in NYC, has the great idea of working with an easy to use sub-title software package to put sub-titles in other languages to the exceptionally useful StreetFilms series on "Moving beyond the automobile". You can see all about it at http://www.universalsubtitles.org/en/videos/kGFgTfq4Cm4K/info/Moving%20Beyon d%20the%20Automobile:%20Highway%20Removal/ 2. She asked me yesterday if we could lend a hand with a first round of translations to check out the software and routines. Her words: " We are trying out some new software for streetfilms.org and before we open it up to a fully crowd sourced project we are asking a few friendly folks in they would be interested in helping us test the software. I did the English subtitles on this video. http://www.universalsubtitles.org/en/videos/kGFgTfq4Cm4K/info/Moving%20Beyon d%20the%20Automobile:%20Highway%20Removal/ You can see under the video is a tab that says select Language and English is 100% but in that drop down menu you can choose other languages and will be guided through adding translation to the video. (Note: You can also in the top right hand corner switch the website navigation to other languages as well) Would any of you be willing to login to that universal subtitles website and add Subtitles to the video and let me know what the process is like for you?" 3. So I immediately got in touch with five of our work partners whose first language is, respectively, French, Italian, Persian Spanish and Portuguese ? and invited them to take a shot. 4. First through the gate was Luis N Filipe of Portugal, who took the time last night to do the first non-English subtitles, in Portuguese. He wrote this morning: "-I found the translation system very easy to use." Check it out. Bravo Luis! Looks great! 5. There you have it, it's that simple. Now what about you? Is there a language and place that is close to your heart and where you think people might wish to see and savor these short videos with sub-titles in your language? 6. If you are tempted and would like to give it a try please get in touch. It would be good if you would copy to Elizabeth, our big boss, at elizabeth@streetfilms.org, and to me so that I can follow progress and pitch in as may be useful. I personally think that this is a noble and important project. It shows what happens if we work together. (BTW, the other side has no chance. We are already winning this war. It's just that the message has not yet got through to the other side yet. No problem, we will just keep at it ) Best/Eric Britton Eric Britton, Editor / Managing Director Sustainable Development, Business & Society | World Streets | New Mobility Partnerships 8, rue Jospeh Bara 75006 Paris France Tel. +331 7550 3788 | editor@ecoplan.org | Skype: newmobility P Avant d'imprimer, pensez ? l'environnement From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Tue May 24 17:20:23 2011 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (eric britton) Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 10:20:23 +0200 Subject: [sustran] ring road bug Message-ID: <009f01cc19eb$6fd10500$4f730f00$@britton@ecoplan.org> ______________________________________________________________ A Sustainable World Make it yours Paris. Tuesday, 24 May, 2011 When your ministers and planners catch the ring road bug, this might be a useful antidote: Unfinished London at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUEHWhO_HdY &feature=player_embedded . A bit long perhaps but it does take time to crush a really bad idea. Eric Britton, Editor / Managing Director Sustainable Development, Business & Society | World Streets | New Mobility Partnerships 8, rue Jospeh Bara 75006 Paris France Tel. +331 7550 3788 | editor@ecoplan.org | Skype: newmobility P Avant d'imprimer, pensez ? l'environnement From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Tue May 24 20:51:01 2011 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (eric britton) Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 13:51:01 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Cities for Mobility World Congress 2011 - open for registration Message-ID: <009101cc1a08$dc3f2c90$94bd85b0$@britton@ecoplan.org> - Spanish and German translation below - Dear members and friends of Cities for Mobility, We are pleased to inform you that registration for the 5th Cities for Mobility World Congress titled "URBAN MOBILITY AND THE SOCIAL SPACE CHALLENGE" is now open under the following Link: http://www.cities-for-mobility.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article &id=146&Itemid=260 You will find there all the relevant information about the congress, including the agenda, registration and practical information and the list of speakers. The program in English and German is attached to this email. Participants will benefit from an exciting conference program which contains interactive workshops, poster exhibitions, excursions and -for the first time- a special contact forum. Participants are free to decide on spot which workshop they want to attend. We are looking forward to celebrating with you the 5th Anniversary of Cities for Mobility in Stuttgart in July! Kind regards, Your coordination team - - - - - - - - Estimados miembros y amigos de Cities for Mobility, tenemos el placer de informarles que las inscripciones para el 5to Congreso Mundial de Cities for Mobility titulado "URBAN MOBILITY AND THE SOCIAL SPACE CHALLENGE" ahora est?n abiertas bajo el siguiente enlace: http://www.cities-for-mobility.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article &id=146&Itemid=260 Encontrar?n all? todas las informaciones acerca del congreso, incluyendo la agenda, la inscripci?n, las informaciones pr?cticas y la lista de presentadores. Les enviamos el programa del congreso como archivo adjunto. Los participantes podr?n disfrutar de un fant?stico programa con talleres interactivos, exposiciones de poster, excursiones y - por primera vez - de un foro de contacto especial. Los participantes podr?n decidirse en el congreso en cual taller quieren participar. Ser? un placer festejar junto con ustedes el 5to Anniversario de la red Cities for Mobility en Stuttgart en julio. Muchos saludos, Su equipo de coordinaci?n - - - - - - - - Liebe Freunde und Mitglieder von Cities for Mobility, wir freuen uns, Ihnen mitzuteilen, dass die Anmeldung zum Cities for Mobility Weltkongress 2011 mit dem Titel "URBAN MOBILITY AND THE SOCIAL SPACE CHALLENGE" ab sofort unter dem folgenden Link offen ist: http://www.cities-for-mobility.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article &id=146&Itemid=260 Dort finden Sie alle wichtigen Informationen zum Kongress (Programm, Anmeldung, praktische Informationen und Rednerliste). Sie finden das Programm auf Deutsch und Englisch als Anlage zu dieser E-Mail. Der diesj?hrige Kongress bietet den Teilnehmern ein spannendes Programm mit vielf?ltigen Angeboten, u.a. interaktive Workshops, eine Poster Austellung, Exkursionen und - zum ersten Mal, ein Kontakforum f?r den Austausch und die Vernetzung unter den Teilnehmern. Die Teilnehmer k?nnen sich vor Ort entscheiden, an welchem Workshop sie teilnehmen m?chten. Wir freuen uns, gemeinsam mit Ihnen das 5-j?hrige Jubil?um von Cities for Mobility im Juli in Stuttgart zu feiern. Beste Gr??e, Ihr Koordinationsteam ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Coordination Office Cities for Mobility Landeshauptstadt Stuttgart / City of Stuttgart Referat Koordination und Planung des Oberb?rgermeisters / Mayor's Policy Office Rathaus, Marktplatz 1, 70173 Stuttgart Tel: +49 (0)711 216 - 85 01 Fax: +49 (0)711 216 - 61 05 Mail: patrick.daude@stuttgart.de Web: www.cities-for-mobility.org From edelman at greenidea.eu Wed May 25 03:12:42 2011 From: edelman at greenidea.eu (Todd Edelman) Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 20:12:42 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Shell Tries to Greenwash Fracking [for gas for transport] in South Africa Message-ID: <4DDBF51A.6010703@greenidea.eu> Shell Tries to Greenwash Fracking [for gas for transport] in South Africa by Andreas Spath 24.5.2011 http://www.care2.com/causes/environment/blog/shell-tries-to-greenwash-fracking-in-south-africa/ I've recently written about the moratorium the South African government has imposed on hydraulic fracturing, the polluting and water-intense method to extract natural gas from underground layers of shale rock, also referred to as fracking. While I was cautiously optimistic about this development, I also mentioned that the companies involved are unlikely to simply take it lying down. Well, they're not. Shell, the multinational oil and gas giant that wants to explore for shale gas in 90,000 square kilometers of the semi-arid Karoo region, has been distributing flyers at petrol stations that aim to convince South Africans that fracking is a good thing. A closer look reveals that it's simply a case of corporate greenwashing -- an attempt to present an environmentally hazardous practice as clean and beneficial. Don't trust Shell The flyer, entitled Shell and the Karoo contains pictures of a happy family of locals, a beautiful Karoo landscape and what appears to be sparklingly clear swimming pool water. The text speaks emotively of Shell's "commitments to the People of South Africa" and of the Karoo as "a special place" that "we must preserve [?] for our future and our children's future." There is talk of not competing with local inhabitants for their water needs, global best practices and consultation with experts and citizen advisory groups. The pamphlet is geared at convincing readers that Shell is a company that we can trust our country with, but even a cursory look at their past proves the contrary. Shell has a most atrocious and downright criminal environmental and human rights record, especially in Africa. They are repeat offenders that cannot be trusted. Not listening to the people The flyer also claims that Shell knows that "people are concerned," which is why they are "involved in extensive consultations to ensure we listen and reflect those concerns in our exploration plans." I went to one of these public consultations in Cape Town. Shell was roundly slated, discredited and essentially booed off the stage. By all accounts every other consultation, especially those held in the small towns of the Karoo itself, went pretty much the same way. Everywhere they went to listen to the people, Shell was told that their fracking plans were not wanted. Contrary to their claims, they didn't listen to the people's wishes, otherwise they wouldn't be continuing to try to convince us of their good intentions. Just another fossil fuel dead-end Beyond the rather obvious public relations spin, the flyer also contains some more factual greenwashing. On several occasions, the Karoo's natural gas potential is presented as a "plentiful," "sustainable" and "stable, alternative energy source" that can "help secure South Africa's energy future" by "reducing our dependence on coal." All of which is rather fanciful since the extent of the potential shale gas reserves beneath the Karoo are entirely unknown as yet and there is no guarantee that any natural gas produced in the region would necessarily be made available to South Africans themselves. The only thing that is guaranteed is that Shell would stand to make very substantial financial profits. The basic fact is that any shale gas from the Karoo would simply be another source of non-renewable fossil fuels, sure to run out sooner rather than later, and providing no long-term solution to either our current addiction to coal or our energy future. Far from reducing our dependence on coal, producing shale gas in the Karoo would continue to steer us down a fossil-fuelled dead-end and diminish our opportunities for exploiting the abundant, truly sustainable, clean, renewable energy solutions available in the region, in particular solar power. No cleaner than coal Finally, an actual lie. Shell's flyer describes the gas to be produced in the Karoo as a "more environmentally friendly" option that is "40% more energy efficient" and "emits 50-70% less CO2 than coal." Now while that may be the case for conventional natural gas, it's simply not true for shale gas mined by hydraulic fracturing. Shell can hardly claim to be ignorant of recent studies that show that over its complete lifecycle, fracked shale gas releases as much CO2 as coal or substantially more. The flyer is little more than an underhanded attempt at presenting fracking in South Africa as something that it is not and its contents should be rejected with contempt. Let's hope that those who read it understand that Shell is trying to hoodwink them. Take Action: Sign the petition to stop hydrofracking in the Karoo. ----- Andreas is a book shop manager and freelance writer in Cape Town, South Africa. Follow him on Twitter: @Andreas_Spath -- Todd Edelman Green Idea Factory, a member of the OPENbike team Mobile: ++49(0)162 814 4081 edelman@greenidea.eu www.greenidea.eu todd@openbike.se www.openbike.se Skype: toddedelman Urbanstr. 45 10967 Berlin Germany *** OPENbike - Share the Perfect Fit! From no-reply at blogger.com Wed May 25 17:09:42 2011 From: no-reply at blogger.com (Blogger) Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 01:09:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [sustran] [Velo Mondial] Road Safety: Follow the money Message-ID: <1306310982505.cc795261-1a6c-4084-b542-20cc5f2565e4@google.com> Of all the organisations controlling the global ?road safety? programmes, the key player is the FIA Foundation for the Automobile and Society, a UK based charity set up with a basic donation of $300 million made by the F?d?ration Internationale de l?Automobile (FIA), the federation of motoring organisations and the governing body of world motor sport. This comes from FIA?s sale of the rights to ?commercial exploitation? of Formula One racing to Bernie Ecclestone and his bankers for about $350million plus an undisclosed annual fee. >From this fund, itself derived from the advertisers in Formula One, comes the funding for WHO and World Bank ?road safety? initiatives. Trustees include the former FIA President and representatives of national motoring organisations. Formula One, the international motoring organisations, the motor and associated industries literally drive initiatives such as the UN Decade for Road Safety, through bodies such as the Campaign for Global Road Safety, Global Road Safety Initiative, Global Road Safety Partnership, RoadSafe. Read on in the Road Danger Reduction Forum -- Posted By Blogger to Velo Mondial at 5/25/2011 10:09:00 AM From steve_raney at cities21.org Thu May 26 11:59:58 2011 From: steve_raney at cities21.org (Steve Raney) Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 19:59:58 -0700 Subject: [sustran] Re: "Valid" PRT analysis In-Reply-To: <9c7d041e6d99b731203eed05ee18850b.squirrel@calmail.berkeley.edu> References: <04dd01cc100f$51b6cc70$f5246550$@org> <9c7d041e6d99b731203eed05ee18850b.squirrel@calmail.berkeley.edu> Message-ID: <0c1201cc1b51$004cdd00$00e69700$@org> Lee states that the use of OPM (other peoples' money) by public transit agencies reduces creativity, innovation, and cost control and also produces distorted risk-taking. The ULTra system at London Heathrow uses 100% private-sector funding, so Lee?s point is invalid. In the UK, Margaret Thatcher privatized transport, including Heathrow Airport (BAA). Not only is BAA the ULTra customer, but BAA also made an equity investment (private sector risk taking). The iPhone is a software/hardware product featuring a great touch screen user interface, a complex operating system, wireless communications, location tracking, and appealing packaging. Same for ULTra. The iPhone "delights" users. The ULTra system underwent extensive design and human factors research, like most private sector technology products. The ULTra system also "delights" ? examples: * "Landed and used the very cool #heathrowpod ? and they're even better to use - quicker, easier and greener than the buses to/from the car park" * "Just rode the "Heathrow Pod" It's awesome!!" * "On personal Heathrow Pod - parking to T5. Awesome sci-fi system." * "I am in a pod. A bit like the cab on Total Recall without the mad driver! ... FAST though! ... Almost like a real life scalextric ;-)" * "Geek transportation par excellence!" After the iPod came the iPhone came the iPad. PRT feature sets may progress along similar lines. Already, 2getthere offers a family of advanced transit solutions. *************** I expect there is a consensus in favor of "rational project decision-making" for PRT & all transportation alternatives studies. It might be productive to attempt to define a list of "desirable characteristics" beyond the initial consensus for fair, apolitical, rigorous studies. A PRT-exampled first cut at desirable characteristics: 1. Human-powered transportation is highly desirable. 2. 100% private sector funded business models (such as the ULTra Heathrow system) are desirable. 3. "Public transit with zero general taxpayer obligation and risk management" is desirable. Note the recent article on innovative cleantech (including PRT) funding tools: http://www.thenational.ae/lifestyle/personal-finance/new-investment-vehicles-can-boost-green-energy-projects. In addition, wind turbine financial risk management tools may be applied to other new cleantech technologies. 4. User fees are desirable. It is desirable to minimize general taxpayer obligation (OPM). Transit creates real-estate appreciation. Where possible, value capture should be used to capture local benefit, to improve business models. Historically, transit value capture mechanisms are less effective than desirable. (PRT research has led to the invention of a new tool, "parked car cap n trade." http://www.cities21.org/CRIB.htm ) 5. Social equity should be given high value. 6. Lifecycle environmental impact should be included as part of rigorous analysis. 7. With new technologies, care should be taken to envision potential unintended consequences. If a new project turns humans into the atrophied, former-bipeds envisioned in the movie Wall-E, this is undesirable. See: http://cache.heraldinteractive.com/blogs/entertainment/the_assistant/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/wall-e-human.jpg 8. Innovation (providing alternatives diversity) should be given high value. Sometimes innovation is hard to measure. Sometimes innovation takes time to arise/resolve. Take BART. Sir Peter Hall?s 1982 book, Great Planning Disasters states, ?Had the citizenry of the Bay Area the ability to foresee the true future, there seems little doubt that they would have rejected the whole BART proposal out of hand. But in the critical decisions between 1959 and 1962, the information on which they acted was seriously deficient. The cars would be controlled not by drivers but by computerized automatic train control. This involved advancing the existing state of the art in one giant leap.? Contrast this to one current opinion, ?30 years after Great Planning Disasters, daily BART ridership is beyond 300,000. That?s a catastrophic success.? - Steve -----Original Message----- From: Lee Schipper [mailto:schipper@berkeley.edu] Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 1:22 PM To: Steve Raney Cc: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org Subject: Re: [sustran] "Valid" PRT analysis I have kept my fingers quiet in this interesting discussion, but I want to add one point responding to what Steve wrote. Comparing pods and pods is to me very invalid. Apple's IPOD is a product of a private firm with a history of interesting investments in intellectual and physical capital. It knows how to take risks. The problem facing any public transport system with infrastructure costs is that the public, aka 'OPM' (for 'other peoples' money') is asked to take the risks and come up with the money to put something we're assured we'll benefit us all. Since "us" is in fact all of us, we do need this kind of scrutiny. My colleague at Stanford, Richard White, wrote about this in his op ed in the NY Times a few weeks ago: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/opinion/lweb01train.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=high%20speed%20rail%20richard&st=cse While you may think high speed rail is a good thing (or not), and you may or may not agree with his stance, you have to admit that the issue of who takes risks and who gets benefits must be discussed. For all public transit systems, the risks are political, monetary, and often environmental if a system (like the Lima metro) fails but leaves a huge scar across the space it was supposed to serve. I don't know how to solve the OPM problem in my own country, and I would not claim I know how to solve that problem in India, but I do know that building any system of relatively low transport capacity per unit of investment, in a place where transport demand is spilling over every where, is risky. Whether it is the best use of public funds, I don't know -- that's for those of you in India to decide. But given the dominance until now of roads over other modes of transport in terms of where spending for Indian urban transport has gone, I think it's important to look at a specific city, take a long-run view, and see how combinations of options fit in, who pays and who benefits. This is not the way one sorts out what kind of ipod or other individual device should be made next. -- Lee Schipper, Ph.D Project Scientist Global Metropolitan Studies http://metrostudies.berkeley.edu/ From bruun at seas.upenn.edu Fri May 27 04:29:32 2011 From: bruun at seas.upenn.edu (bruun at seas.upenn.edu) Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 15:29:32 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: "Valid" PRT analysis In-Reply-To: <0c1201cc1b51$004cdd00$00e69700$@org> References: <04dd01cc100f$51b6cc70$f5246550$@org> <9c7d041e6d99b731203eed05ee18850b.squirrel@calmail.berkeley.edu> <0c1201cc1b51$004cdd00$00e69700$@org> Message-ID: <20110526152932.11165by4uu0ziql8@webmail.seas.upenn.edu> Steve BAA must represent the public interest as airports have a lot of externalities. They don't get to be irresponsible. If I understand correctly, the Podcar carries it own batteries instead of drawing from the guideway. Nor does it have positive guidance in case of tire failure. I don't consider this to be an advanced design. There is no such thing as an apolitical PT evaluation. Multi-criteria evaluation of PT inherently includes public concerns that are reflected in political decisions about investment priorities and weighting of non-monetary costs and benefits. I also fully agree with Lee Schipper that it is vitally important to trace what economists blandly call the "incidence" of costs and benefits. There is something wrong with an evaluation/decision making process that usually aims benefits at one geographic or demographic sector and usually makes another one bear most of the costs. I consider PRT to be another example of project that is aimed at a higher demographic but would be very likely to ulimately be monetarily paid for, in part, by the general public. Certainly the non-using public would bear the externalities of this network running around in the sky without being able to afford to use it. It might also interfere with the construction of more high capacity systems like BRT, LRT, RRT,etc they could afford to use. Eric Bruun Quoting Steve Raney : > Lee states that the use of OPM (other peoples' money) by public > transit agencies reduces creativity, innovation, and cost control > and also produces distorted risk-taking. The ULTra system at London > Heathrow uses 100% private-sector funding, so Lee?s point is > invalid. In the UK, Margaret Thatcher privatized transport, > including Heathrow Airport (BAA). Not only is BAA the ULTra > customer, but BAA also made an equity investment (private sector > risk taking). > > The iPhone is a software/hardware product featuring a great touch > screen user interface, a complex operating system, wireless > communications, location tracking, and appealing packaging. Same for > ULTra. > > The iPhone "delights" users. The ULTra system underwent extensive > design and human factors research, like most private sector > technology products. The ULTra system also "delights" ? examples: > * "Landed and used the very cool #heathrowpod ? and they're even > better to use - quicker, easier and greener than the buses to/from > the car park" > * "Just rode the "Heathrow Pod" It's awesome!!" > * "On personal Heathrow Pod - parking to T5. Awesome sci-fi system." > * "I am in a pod. A bit like the cab on Total Recall without the > mad driver! ... FAST though! ... Almost like a real life scalextric > ;-)" > * "Geek transportation par excellence!" > > After the iPod came the iPhone came the iPad. PRT feature sets may > progress along similar lines. Already, 2getthere offers a family of > advanced transit solutions. > > *************** > > I expect there is a consensus in favor of "rational project > decision-making" for PRT & all transportation alternatives studies. > It might be productive to attempt to define a list of "desirable > characteristics" beyond the initial consensus for fair, apolitical, > rigorous studies. A PRT-exampled first cut at desirable > characteristics: > > 1. Human-powered transportation is highly desirable. > > 2. 100% private sector funded business models (such as the ULTra > Heathrow system) are desirable. > > 3. "Public transit with zero general taxpayer obligation and risk > management" is desirable. Note the recent article on innovative > cleantech (including PRT) funding tools: > http://www.thenational.ae/lifestyle/personal-finance/new-investment-vehicles-can-boost-green-energy-projects. In addition, wind turbine financial risk management tools may be applied to other new cleantech > technologies. > > 4. User fees are desirable. It is desirable to minimize general > taxpayer obligation (OPM). Transit creates real-estate appreciation. > Where possible, value capture should be used to capture local > benefit, to improve business models. Historically, transit value > capture mechanisms are less effective than desirable. (PRT research > has led to the invention of a new tool, "parked car cap n trade." > http://www.cities21.org/CRIB.htm ) > > 5. Social equity should be given high value. > > 6. Lifecycle environmental impact should be included as part of > rigorous analysis. > > 7. With new technologies, care should be taken to envision potential > unintended consequences. If a new project turns humans into the > atrophied, former-bipeds envisioned in the movie Wall-E, this is > undesirable. See: > http://cache.heraldinteractive.com/blogs/entertainment/the_assistant/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/wall-e-human.jpg > > 8. Innovation (providing alternatives diversity) should be given > high value. Sometimes innovation is hard to measure. Sometimes > innovation takes time to arise/resolve. Take BART. Sir Peter Hall?s > 1982 book, Great Planning Disasters states, ?Had the citizenry of > the Bay Area the ability to foresee the true future, there seems > little doubt that they would have rejected the whole BART proposal > out of hand. But in the critical decisions between 1959 and 1962, > the information on which they acted was seriously deficient. The > cars would be controlled not by drivers but by computerized > automatic train control. This involved advancing the existing state > of the art in one giant leap.? Contrast this to one current opinion, > ?30 years after Great Planning Disasters, daily BART ridership is > beyond 300,000. That?s a catastrophic success.? > > - Steve > > -----Original Message----- > From: Lee Schipper [mailto:schipper@berkeley.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 1:22 PM > To: Steve Raney > Cc: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org > Subject: Re: [sustran] "Valid" PRT analysis > > I have kept my fingers quiet in this interesting discussion, but I want to > add one point responding to what Steve wrote. > Comparing pods and pods is to me very invalid. Apple's IPOD is a product > of a private firm with a history of interesting investments in > intellectual and physical capital. It knows how to take risks. > The problem facing any public transport system with infrastructure costs > is that the public, aka 'OPM' (for 'other peoples' money') is asked to > take the risks and come up with the money to put something we're assured > we'll benefit us all. Since "us" is in fact all of us, we do need this > kind of scrutiny. > My colleague at Stanford, Richard White, wrote about this in his op ed in > the NY Times a few weeks ago: > http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/opinion/lweb01train.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=high%20speed%20rail%20richard&st=cse > > While you may think high speed rail is a good thing (or not), and you may > or may not agree with his stance, you have to admit that the issue of who > takes risks and who gets benefits must be discussed. For all public > transit systems, the risks are political, monetary, and often > environmental if a system (like the Lima metro) fails but leaves a huge > scar across the space it was supposed to serve. > > I don't know how to solve the OPM problem in my own country, and I would > not claim I know how to solve that problem in India, but I do know that > building any system of relatively low transport capacity per unit of > investment, in a place where transport demand is spilling over every > where, is risky. Whether it is the best use of public funds, I don't know > -- that's for those of you in India to decide. But given the dominance > until now of roads over other modes of transport in terms of where > spending for Indian urban transport has gone, I think it's important to > look at a specific city, take a long-run view, and see how combinations of > options fit in, who pays and who benefits. > This is not the way one sorts out what kind of ipod or other individual > device should be made next. > -- > Lee Schipper, Ph.D > Project Scientist > Global Metropolitan Studies > http://metrostudies.berkeley.edu/ > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > 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').