Dear Jonathan Richmond,
Perhaps I'll seem old-fashioned to you, but I'm afraid that I cannot accept
the postmodern perspective that all reality is subjective, and all
decisions reflect metaphors. That may be appropriate for literary criticism
but not for public policy and planning decisions that have significant
economic and social impacts.
You present your book as an academic publication for use in college-level
classes. Good scholarship requires that analysis be carefully described,
conclusions explained, and that alternative perspectives and contrary data
be given fair and thoughtful discussion - that is what distinguishes
academic analysis from biased opinion and propaganda.
Your book is based on the assumption that building rail transit in Los
Angeles is "crazy" and makes no sense. If this is an academic book you
should be able to describe the analysis that lead you to that conclusion,
and identify factors which could affect that conclusion, such as
alternative perspectives or data.
Your previous publications on the subject ("A Whole-System Approach to
Evaluating Urban Transit Investments," Transport Reviews. Vol. 21, No. 2,
April-June 2001, 141-180;
http://confusion.mit.edu/~richmond/professional/wholesys.pdf) compare rail
and bus transit based on direct impacts (e.g., cost per passenger-mile),
without much consideration of other factors which may justify additional
support for rail, such as the potential for increased ridership by
discretionary travelers (people who have the option of driving), and land
use effects (creation of more compact, mixed, walkable communities), and
their leverage effects (the tendency of each rail transit passenger-mile to
reduce 2-7 automobile vehicle-miles).
Research by myself ("Rail Transit in America: Comprehensive Evaluation of
Benefits," VTPI (www.vtpi.org/railben.pdf), 2004) and others indicates that
cities with quality rail transit systems have less per capita congestion
delays, lower traffic fatality rates, significant consumer cost savings,
significant road and parking facility cost savings, improved mobility for
non-drivers, lower transit service unit costs, higher land values, than
cities that lack such systems. My analysis indicates that these benefits
more than offset the additional costs of rail transit. You are certainly
welcome to disagree with this conclusion and present alternative
information, but it seems reasonable to ask whether these issues are
mentioned in your book. I assume, from the ambiguity of your response that
they are not.
My concern here is not with a balanced transportation system, which you
address as metaphor. It is with balance in information and perspectives
provided in the book.
Best wishes,
-Todd Litman
At 12:42 AM 3/17/2005 +0700, Jonathan E. D. Richmond wrote:
>Dear Todd,
>
>The book contains a discussion of the "balance" metaphor, to which you
>appear to be subject, among other things. The book is about the workings
>of the mind, and why people make crazy decisions -- in the case of Los
>Angeles, to proceed with a rail system that made no sense.
>
>Perhaps you need to read it!
Sincerely,
Todd Litman, Director
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
"Efficiency - Equity - Clarity"
1250 Rudlin Street
Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, Canada
Phone & Fax: 250-360-1560
Email: [log in to unmask]
Website: http://www.vtpi.org
|