Vent directly to the author of EDF's Reinventing Transit

[Jerry Schneider]

http://blogs.edf.org/transit/2009/04/22/transit-blog-first-post/#more-11
By the way, I don't think the taxpayers funded this study - directly.
EDF appears to me to be funded by corporations.

[Mr_Grant]

What you don't want to do is vent. EDF is clear that not all
technologies are included in the report. On the report's welcome
page, it reads--

"we quickly realized that there were way too many interesting projects
to feature in a single document. So instead we opted to start with a
handful of examples and go from there."

What you want to do is confer with each other offline and agree on a
way to approach EDF in a unified way.

EDF needs to hear automated transit as a comprehensive policy option,
not as a number of competing proprietary systems. I suggest ATRA
would be a good umbrella.

David

[Jay Andress]

I actually know this organisation pretty well. They are funded by corporations and wealthy individuals who have a strong interest in the environment. They have done many good projects over the years (Artic Oil Drilling and others). They will advocate any environmental cause that they feel is important, regardless of who "butters their bread". I haven't read the report that everyone is complaining about...EDF tends to be a middle-of the-road group because they want to maintain credibility with both Republicans and Democrats. They have gotten some Republicans to "cross the fence" on some key votes on the environment...and deserve a lot of credit on some of the major environmental victories in the last several decades.

 

                                                             Jay

--
new contact info: jay.a...@monomobile.com

[Walter Brewer]

Indeed very little by taxpayers directly. Of $132 mil operating budget. $3.4
is government and other grants. ~$56 mil from individual donations, ~$56 mil
from unnamed foundations.
Stresses use of good science in its evaluations. As a not for profit, pays
no taxes, and donation are tax deductable. Job openings in Boston,
Washinton, and California. Favorable reviews including previous members of
government:
"Environmental Defense was a critical player in this watershed moment in
America's fight against global warming."
- Former EPA Administrator William K. Reilly, on our TXU victory

"There aren't a lot of environmental groups with their own investment bank
consultants, so when you hear that Environmental Defense has just hired the
boutique Wall Street firm Perella Weinberg Partners, you know that we're in
a new world."
- Thomas L. Friedman, The New York Times

"Environmental Defense played a pivotal role in drafting the bill and
securing broad support that was critical to its passage."
- Speaker of the California Assembly Fabian Nunez, on California's Global
Warming Solutions Act, which he co-authored.

So any one want to take on the challenge of providing good up to date
science to EDF, because the home page shows no evidence beyond the usual
bus, train, streetcar, approaches, or especially putting together options on
the same basis of comparison.

Walt Brewer

[Walter Brewer]

Whoops! We crossed in the mail!
I don't see any indication of supporting corporations in EDF financial
records. Although may be part of the $56 mil individuals category.
Certainly has been successful in a favorable market. But see little "Big
Picture" approach to compare quantitatively the long term consequences. The
report that started this is an example.

[Walter Brewer]

I agree that is the politic way.
I would want to know why EDF chose the examples, which were more just more
run of the mill. Has it never heard of the general class of automated
transport? if so already arrived at a conclusion it is not the way to go? If
not heard of, why not if it is an on its toes organization?
It can be a comfortable posture as expert yesman to activists motivated by
ideology more than facts.
Brutal I know, but what are the facts?

Walt Brewer
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mr_Grant" <da...@kinetic.seattle.wa.us>
To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 3:33 PM
Subject: [t-i] Re: Vent directly to the author of EDF's Reinventing Transit

[Mr_Grant]

There's innovation, and then there's innovation. In the US so little
innovation has taken place that the bar is very low, and tinkering on
the edges qualifies. The case studies listed in the report all have
one thing in common -- they are all approaches/technologies/strategies
actually being used in the US for transit purposes (as opposed to
airport APMs). They could have studied Morgantown, maybe they will.
But Morgantown is not a recent development.

The edge-of-the-envelope transit innovation community has to ask
itself why it is not in a better position to be seen as a shovel-ready
endeavor.

[Ian Ford]

I probably shouldn't have posted my attempt at being funny about
refurbished school buses being 'cutting edge' (although it IS funny),
because Edward turns out to be a polite person open to dialog. Here is
his response and my input:

Ian,
Thanks so much for contributing these ideas and visiting our blog. I saw
and approved your comment which should now appear on the original post.
The work happening at Advanced Transit Association sounds very
interesting -- I'll have to read more about it. Perhaps it could be the
subject of a future blog post.

Best,
Edward

-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Ford [mailto:i...@ianford.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 2:58 PM
To: Transit at EDF <tra...@edf.org>
Subject: innovations

Edward et al,
I wrote earlier via the edf web site after reading Reinventing Transit.
You asked for additional ideas, and here they are. Attached is a vision
paper that explains several new ideas (and old ideas mixed in). The
Advanced Transit Association is another good resource for learning about
innovations: advancedtransit.org.

Thanks for your work in getting focus on this important topic!

--
Ian Ford i...@ianford.com 505.246.8490

[Mike C]

As frustrating as it is, people like this are NOT the problem. They
simply echo the current state of transit in this country. Attacking
them accomplishes nothing; we need to confront the root of the
problem.

And the root of problem is Vukan R. Vuchic.

Forty years ago, shortly after Vuchic apparently carved his vision of
the world in stone, PRT was a new and innovative idea with enormous
potential. So why is it practically taboo in US transit discussions
today? Why do transit professionals cringe at the mere mention of PRT
or any other small-vehicle solution?

Answer: Vukan Vuchic. This single man leveraged the power of his
immense reputation to taint an entire generation of transit
professionals. He did it with a small set of very convincing but
MISLEADING arguments published in his papers and books. How many years
has the media quoted Vuchic's anti-PRT argument? Decades? In all that
time, I don't think I've read a single critical argument from another
professional in a news article - there's no need, because when the
defacto King of Transit declares it to be invalid, that's the end of
the story.

So when we feel tempted to shoot the messenger, like this guy from
EDF, we should instead patiently educate them on how wrong the
"experts" have been for 4 decades, starting at the top.

Mike C.

> Ian Ford            i...@ianford.com           505.246.8490- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Jay Andress]

Mike,

 

  I don't think that the PRT reputation is ruined by one person.

  I know for a fact that PRT is not well thought of by high ranking officials in the US DOT. It is because of all the unrealistic claims about PRT. Instead of hearing about  Heathrow type projects...specific realistic projects... they have been inundated by metropolitan wide PRT projects that make no sense.

  Think of it from the standpoint of the DOT official or others...someone comes to them with an unusual idea so already they are skeptical. Then they make exaggerated claims and propose multi-billion dollar projects. The whole idea comes off looking like a joke.

   Until PRT advocates put together a marketing campaign and propose realistic first step projects I don't think PRT will be successful in the US. 

   This is one reason why I am upset about  Skytran marketing. The technology is so flawed, there is a complete ignorance of basic things like ADA and it is another metropolitan wide project. As long as PRT is represented by these types of projects it will go nowhere.(I actually think that projects like Skytran hurt the prospects for worthwhile PRT projects). When someone proposes a Heathrow type project in the US then I think PRT will get a fair hearing.

 

                                                                   Jay

[eph]

Or the problem is it would work very well, displacing established
transportation providers.

LRT advocates make hugely false claims and it seems to work for them.

Small projects get branded as "non scalable" and "toy systems". At
some point, a real (large) city will have to build a PRT/DM system.

I agree with Mike that there is a Mass Transit narrative that pervades
society. No idea how it came to be thought. This narrative seems
more powerful than facts. Maybe PRT/DM needs an "education" campaign?

F.

> new contact info: jay.andr...@monomobile.com

[Jack Slade]

And I think you are harping too much about ADA. It is not written in stone. Many forms of transport were exempted because there was no possible way to implement it on all systems. Do you really suppose that, 40 years from now, when we have no gasoline at all, nobody will be allowed to travel because their vehicles are not able to carry a wheelchair? Remember this Chinese Proverbe: Be careful about what you wish for, because you might get it. How can you fault a Company for trying to promote their product? You say it is flawed, and somebody asked you to point out the flaw. Is this the only one? The people for ADA who lobbied for this law don't want much, unless you analyze what they asked for carefully. For example, they don't want to have to use vehicles thaat are specially adapted to suit their needs. Did anybody ask John Q Public if he wants to have to ride all the time in vehicles that can accomodate Them? It is a Democracy, isn't it?   Jack Slade   JackSlade --- On Wed, 4/29/09, Jay Andress <andre...@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Jay Andress <andre...@gmail.com> Subject: [t-i] Re: Vent directly to the author of EDF's Reinventing Transit

[Dennis Manning]

Jack:

 

Excellent letter. Jay is shooting from the hip. He doesn't know what the Skytrans ADA strategy is. He also doesn't know what Skytrans can deliver and what it can't. So who is he to say their marketing is flawed. Jay's own claims for dual mode could easily be put in the same category of making extravagant claims. Relative to existing transit systems we are all making extravagant claims.

 

I've written to Skytrans for some clarity on their ADA approach. In the meantime I'd suggest to Jay that he cool it until he's operating on more than speculation.

 

I've a blind friend that was involved in the original ADA legislation. I need to talk more with him about what PRT specs would be acceptable. I can tell you that of all the people and groups I have talked with locally none were more excited about what PRT could deliver than the ADA folks.  

 

Dennis

[Jay Andress]

Dennis,

 

  I expected you to respond to my statement about DOT low opinion of PRT with some hostility...the truth hurts. I am hardly shooting from the hip when I have a direct quote from a high ranking DOT official. I posted the statement because I think there is a need for PRT in the US and think that opinions at DOT need to be changed. I have suggested a solution. 

  If you want to attack me go ahead...you are venting at the wrong person.

 

                                                                     Jay

[Dennis Manning]

Jay:

 

Just to be clear. I wasn't commenting on your low opinion of the DOT which I share. I was commenting on your teeing off on Skytran.

[Jerry Roane]

Dennis and Jay

I have a soft spot in my heart for this issue.  What a revolution in transportation represents is the ability to mainstream the handicapped population into normalcy.  Imagine yourself stricken with any malady that takes away your mobility.  Now picture your desire to be as close to everyone else as you can be.  This core desire is what the new paradigm of transportation can satisfy with design finesse.  The ADA was an attempt to meet one aspect of the experience one of independent mobility and allowance that various handicaps be considered.  The present approach is totally devoid of finesse and the hammer approach may have accidentally done almost as much harm as good but overall it was good even with the negatives.  It gave hope to those who were simply shut out of certain situations.  A door to door solution has to be developed especially for the blind that protects their safety across the city.  I think with help TriTrack can provide full mainstreaming with comfort, safety and style.  The biggest problem I have with most solutions is they lack style and finesse.  No one wants to stick out like a sour thumb but they do want to have the basic need fulfilled.  Addressing the blind issue and traffic -- elevated DM/PRT is tremendously safer for the individual because both these systems take traffic off the walking plane in the community.  Of course we feel that our approach of a personal vehicle that is uniquely tailored to all the particular handicaps of a particular individual can best blend with everyone else for mobility.  By being fully door to door or for that matter bedside to bedside if required for a particular individual we can fully protect the safety of the handicapped person. 

And now the zinger.  Some health impaired individuals need to get emergency medical care quickly to save their life.  Everyone needs emergency care on occasion also.  What a grid of 180 mph elevated guideways does in the community is gives almost immediate access to the emergency room.  In less time than it takes for a trained medical team to document the condition of the patient they pick up to protect their legal liability of a patient hand off, we could have you in the CAT scanner getting answers for why you might be having trouble.  TriTrack will be faster than helicopter life flight and in a heart attack or stroke scenario minutes mean the difference between living out the rest of your days God gave you on this Earth as a severely impaired individual all the way down to no long term impairment depending on the severity of the medical condition and the time to treatment.  Treatment means medical action, not filling out forms in the medical facility.  The data for those forms would certainly be available and private coming from your personal TriTrack computer to the medical facility.  Allergies that are life threatening can be known within milliseconds of your arrival so the best medical solutions can be tried.  Speed of mobility is important for many handicapped individuals because some have multiple challenges.  The more varied challenges the more the need of a customized solution to their needs.  By teaming the wheel chair with the TriTrack we pray we can ease the burden on the handicapped because they need a break.

Jerry Roane 

[Dennis Manning]

Jay:

 

I contacted Skytran. They said that yes they went to 3 seats for ADA purposes and that are ADA compliant. As to false marketing or exaggerated claims time will tell.

 

I'm not a spokesperson for Skytran. I just don't like to hear one PRT vendor slamming another.

 

Dennis 

----- Original Message -----

From: Jay Andress

To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 6:41 AM

[Michael Weidler]

One of the first entities to suggest PRT was the Aerospace Corp. It would be difficult to come up with a more respected source. As far as Skytran is concerned, I would expect a 3 seat vehicle to be able to accommodate a wheelchair. Furthermore, if you think proposals like those made by Skytran are pie-in-the-sky, I don't see how you can possibly endorse DM.