Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

SV: WorldTransport Forum A word on Randall O'Toole expert

Expand Messages
  • martin.strid@vv.se
    Mi ne povas ne reagi pri vort uzo al kiu ni kutimas: Strong economy = euphemism for ecologically unsustainable economy, Ju pli forta des pli malstabila.
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 12, 2006
      Mi ne povas ne reagi pri vort'uzo al kiu ni kutimas:
      "Strong economy" = euphemism for ecologically unsustainable economy, Ju pli forta des pli malstabila.
      "Volatile region" = region infected with petroleum resources,
      "Regional conflicts" includes conflicts caused by greed from other continents (rabemaj landoj) for local mineral resources such as petroleum.

      Amike vin salutas
      # :-)
      Martin Strid

      ´´·.¸¸.·´¯` ·.¸¸.·´´·.¸¸.·´¯` ·.¸
      ´´·.¸¸.·´¯` ·.¸¸.·´´·.¸¸.·´¯` ·.¸


      Från: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com [mailto:WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com] För David Stein
      Skickat: den 11 oktober 2006 12:10
      Till: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com
      Ämne: RE: WorldTransport Forum A word on Randall O'Toole expert

      Thank you, Todd Litman, for providing this helpful information that will help us to make the cause for Smart Growth, transit-based mobility and sensible city and regional planning strategies even stronger.

      My personal take on the situation is this: That with the prevailing conflicts in the World today and with the World's strongest economies depending on oil resources that must be exported from volitile regions, our World will continue to experience ongoing regional conflicts. Since the export of oil could under several instances be likely jepordized and throw world oil markets into a state of flux, a paradigm shift in growth and mobility strategies will have to occur which will totally debunk the arguements of Randal O'Toole and his cohorts for supporting the ongoing mobility trends.

      While I know that this is quite a basic overview, the real challenge will be addressing the more specific issues with hard facts, figures and models to inform the general public and stop bad policies in our cities and regions.

      David Stein

      From: Todd Alexander Litman <litman@vtpi. org>
      Reply-To: WorldTransport@ yahoogroups. com
      To: WorldTransport@ yahoogroups. com,NewMobilityC afe@yahoogroups. com, DBurden@aol. com,BettyDrake@ aol.com,WorldTra nsport@yahoogrou ps.com
      Subject: WorldTransport Forum A word on Randall O'Toole expert
      Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 10:35:53 -0700

      I debated Randal O'Toole at the Florida American Planning Association annual meeting last year, and have evaluated his publications. He produces very bad research (as far as I know, he has never published in peer review journals) but good propaganda, on par with junk science criticizing legitimate climate change research and the theory of evolution. He abuses all of the rules of good scholarship: relying on selective and anecdotal evidence, ignoring alternative evidence and explanations, presenting correlation as causation, and inaccurately defining issues.

      Professional critics such as Randal O'Toole and Wendell Cox have made their careers by giving a patina of legitimacy to bad policies. That is not entirely bad. They raise some legitimate issues that we need to address (such as the need to incorporate affordability in smart growth planning, and the need to provide incentives to maximize mode shifting and therefore maximize benefits from walking, cycling and transit improvements) and stimulate healthy debate about what represents good public policy.

      However, they can be difficult to deal with, since they generally lack respect for legitimate research and respectful discussion. Their main debate techniques are to disperse numerous factoids (individual facts without any context), and to provoke frustration and anger from people like ourselves, and then they claim to be victims. It is important to stay calm, be polite, stay focused, and show specifically how they misrepresent information and issues. Most intelligent people will quickly see through their false claims.

      Below are some information resources that you may find helpful for responding to transit and smart growth critics such as O'Toole. Please let me know if you have any specific questions.

      Todd Litman (2006), "Evaluating Rail Transit Criticism," Victoria Transport Policy Institute ( http://www.vtpi. org/railcrit. pdf ).
      This report evaluates criticism of rail transit. It examines claims that rail transit is ineffective at improving transportation system performance, that rail transit investments are not cost effective, and that transit is an outdated form of transportation. It finds that critics often misrepresent issues and use biased and inaccurate analysis.

      Light Rail Now (2005), "Randal O'Toole's 'Great Rail Disaster': Ideological Train Wreck Disguised as 'Research Study'" ( http://www.lightrai lnow.org/ features/ f_lrt_2005- 04.htm ).
      This report responds to O'Toole's report.

      Lyndon Henry and Todd Litman (2006), "Evaluating New Start Transit Program Performance: Comparing Rail And Bus," Victoria Transport Policy Institute ( http://www.vtpi. org/bus_rail. pdf ). This study compares public transit performance between U.S. cities that expanded rail systems and those that expanded bus systems. It indicates that cities that expanded their rail systems significantly outperform cities that expanded their bus systems in terms of transit ridership, transit cost efficiency and public support for transit.

      Nathaniel Baum-Snow and Matthew E. Kahn (2005), The Effects of Urban Rail Transit Expansions: Evidence from Sixteen Cities, 1970 to 2000, Brookings Papers on Urban Affairs ( www.econ.brown. edu/fac/Nathanie l_Baum-Snow/ brook_final. pdf). This study indicates that, although transit mode share declined in most cities between 1970 and 1990, the decline what much smaller in cities with rail transit.
      Todd Litman (2006), "Smart Congestion Reductions II: Reevaluating The Role Of Public Transit For Improving Urban Transportation, " Victoria Transport Policy Institute ( http://www.vtpi. org/cong_ reliefII. pdf )
      This report investigates the role that public transit can play in reducing traffic congestion and achieving other transportation improvement objectives. It responds to claims that rail transit fails to reduce traffic congestion.

      Bill Hillier and Ozlem Sahbaz, "High Resolution Analysis of Crime Patterns in Urban Street Networks: An Initial Statistical Sketch From An Ongoing Study Of A London Borough," University College London ( www.spacesyntax. tudelft.nl/ media/Long% 20papers% 20I/hilliersahba z.pdf ), 2006. This paper evaluates claims that smart growth increases crime. The analysis indicates that smart growth features such as compact development and connected streets tend to increase natural surveillance and community interactions which reduce crime.

      Todd Litman (2005), "Evaluating Criticism of Smart Growth," Victoria Transport Policy Institute ( http://www.vtpi. org/sgcritics. pdf ).
      This paper evaluates various criticisms of Smart Growth. It defines the concept of Smart Growth, contrasts it with sprawl, and describes common Smart Growth strategies. This analysis indicates that many claims by critics are inaccurate and misrepresent Smart Growth issues.

      "On Common Ground: New Urbanism Is Blooming," ( http://www.realtor. org/SG3.nsf/ Pages/summer06 ) is a special issue of the magazine of the National Association of Realtor which has several articles on new urbanism and smart growth, indicating that many households would prefer living in a more compact, mixed, multi-modal community, provided it has suitable amenities such as safe streets, quality public services (particularly policing and schools) and attractive design.

      Todd Litman (2006), "Evaluating Research Quality" Victoria Transport Policy Institute ( http://www.vtpi. org/resqual. pdf ).
      This paper discusses the importance of good research, discusses common causes of bias, provides guidelines for evaluating research and data quality, and describes examples of bad research.

      William Lucy, Danger in Exurbia: Outer Suburbs More Dangerous Than Cities, University of Virginia (www.virginia. edu), 2002; summarized in www.virginia. edu/topnews/ releases2002/ lucy-april- 30-2002.html . This study shows that city residents are much safer, even taking into account other risks that increase with urban living, such as pedestrian traffic injuries and homicide.

      Todd Litman (2004), "Rail Transit In America: Comprehensive Evaluation of Benefits," Victoria Transport Policy Institute ( http://www.vtpi. org/railben. pdf ).
      This paper discusses the importance of good research, discusses common causes of bias, provides guidelines for evaluating research and data quality, and describes examples of bad research.

      Best wishes,
      -Todd Litman

      At 12:06 PM 10/8/2006, Richard Layman wrote:

      Hmm.  Just some of those statements are pretty amazing.
      LR and congestion and Portland.  All "congestion" can't be cured, because it's a function of a land use paradigm that stresses driving.  Since the avg. suburban household in the U.S. makes about 15 trips per day, many SOV, I am not sure you can even calculate maximum requirements of road need.
      But LR in Portland has been essential to the repopulation of the City of Portland (unlike most U.S. cities, its population has grown since 1960, and this in the face of the deindustrialization trends that have impacted the regional economy there, comparable to what has happened in the rust belt in the U.S. midwest, or in the deindustrialization of East Coast center cities) and the success of its downtown.  And LR is constrained even in Portland because politics hasn't allowed Tri-Met to extend to Vancouver, Washington, which they would like to do, in part to provide service to people driving on I-5 from points north.
      Furthermore, great stuff about LR and trashy development.  I don't know much about all LR, but you have to say that LR and heavy rail need to be looked at in concert.  In other words, you can't constrain your view by only looking at LR.  Even if you do look at LR only, Dallas and Minneapolis would be good counter examples (not that I know any good examples of LR attracting trashy development- -why is it that land and improvements on land are valued more highly in transit-rich environments compared to equal land/improvements without transit connections? ).  Of course, with heavy rail, well, what about the boroughs of NYC, or Arlington County, Virginia, which has the lowest property tax burden in the state of Virginia because of their TOD focus.  Or DC.  I don't know enough about LR to know where there might be good examples of "trashy" development.
      I will agree that badly placed LR or HR is not likely to reduce congestion or improve the economic development capacity of a district such as a downtown (e.g., Baltimore).  But he didn't even make that claim based on your rendition.
      I do think that satisficing and bad line and station placement is an important issue.  It's one of the reasons that transit contributes greatly to ED and congestion reduction in the DC region, and not in Baltimore.  To be fair to Baltimore, we have the employment engine of the federal government, they don't.
      Even so, with the success of the WMATA system, we are bearing an assault by the O'Toole acolytes in the face of a possible federal earmark to the system, which Ronald Utt of the Heritage Foundation and others liken to "the largest earmark in history."  I wonder what they would say if there were 250,000 more cars on the region's road in the face of a nonexistent subway system.  I will say that they keep changing their arguments in the face of analytical criticism.  (My favorite is that this would hurt "the poor" when the poor in the region, especially without cars, are big users of the system.  Also, the chimera of how WMATA should be outsourcing.  Initially they provided no examples.  Now they are starting to, but they aren't great examples, i.e.  Boston and their railroad...?
      And about crime and transit, by definition, any center of activity has more crime than a place without people.   And places with more people tend to have more crime than places with fewer people.  And center cities tend to have more crime still.  But this isn't a function of a greater likelihood of possessing LR or HR, but of the fact that center cities tend to have much a much greater proportion of a region's lowest income population.  Sure some crime is enabled by transit, just like crime is enabled by access to cars.  The term "getaway car" wasn't invented out of a vacuum.
      Anyway, the only way to solve congestion is to mode shift away from Single Occupancy Vehicle trips.  I am not a traffic engineer, or even a great mathematician, but I can observe.
      Think of this city example.  A block that is 300' long can accommodate about 20 cars (vehicles might avg. about 15 feet including space between cars).  Assuming a cycle time of 3 minutes, and not considering the accordian effect, you can move 400 cars/hour/lane.  It's a lot more like 330.  If thousands of cars attempt to move down this street, and if there are two lanes (this example is L Street NW between 17th St. and Connecticut Ave.), you can see that there are real constraints. 
      The only way around it is to tear down buildings, which of course, makes no sense economically.  A building pays property taxes, a street doesn't.
      Oh, and as far as bus + rail goes, if you design it to work together, the entire system benefits.  I call this "transit-shed" or "mobility-shed" planning, and while I don't know much about TravelSmart, it appears to use the concept sort of...  I am preparing a presentation about this in the context of Montgomery County Maryland, for a talk Tues. night before the county advocacy group, Action Committee for Transit.
      See today's comic strip, Baby Blues to get a sense of the issue in the suburbs.  In cities, we combine trips.
      Richard Layman
      Citizens Planning Coalition
      Washington, DC
      http://urbanplacesa ndspaces. blogspot. com

      Eric Britton <eric.britton@ ecoplan.org> wrote:
      I personally love this guy (please don’t stop reading yet!).

      o               First because he gives us in one convenient place the entire litany of reasons, logic and tone which are indeed true enemies of our cities and environment. I find him handy for that.  A rogues’ gallery of unreason and irresponsibility.  It’s nice to know where to go.
      o               Shoddy as he is, and others of that same cloth, I nonetheless try to check him out from time to time run down his points one by one and make sure that my own logic and work is O’Toole-proof.
      o               Moreover, there is inevitably a bit of truth in some of the points he makes, and these pose good tests of our own ability to deal with the inevitable contradictions that the real world sets for us.
      o               And because he is so very bad – even if superficially attractive to a certain train of thought and legitimate citizen concern – that it’s not very hard to deliver a knock out punch. The important thing is not to get excited, keep grinning, and take him on point by point. It also helps in cases like this to keep giving him plenty of rope; he will inventively put it to the use it’s best for.
      o               And finally, because if we can’t deal with the O’Toole’s of this world, then we are in real trouble.
      I will copy this to the Idea Factory of the New Mobility Agenda (http://www.newmobil ity.org) and we will see what kind of reaction it will get there. I invite you to pop into the forum which is open to any and everyone to see what kind of further response this may get

      With all good wishes

      Eric Britton




      -----Original Message-----
      From: DBurden@aol. com [ mailto:DBurden@ aol.com]
      Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2006 12:20 AM
      To: BettyDrake@aol. com
      Subject: Re: Help -- need anti-Randall O'Toole expert

      Betty ... Randall O'Toole???? 

      Never thought I would hear that name again.  Randall is the somewhat eloquent stuck in the mud nemesis of walking, bicycling, Smart Growth, Active Living, traffic calming and Transit Oriented Communities, light rail and anything "lite-auto" focused kinda guy.   Michael Ronkin has heard him speak, and provided me good background about this Portland area fanatic when I was invited to debate him on my home turf.

      Freedom and land use isolation is everything to him, responsible community development means nothing to him. Although I have never met him I am told that Randall has the appearance of a rational person, but the logic of an idiot .... and he is extremely good at  bad fact making. Almost everything appearing below in his diatribe is silly, and not worthy of challenging with fact. Yet it must.

      Walter Kulash and I were contracted by the City of Gainesville, Florida to conduct a debate with O'Toole.  As fate would have it the Great God Tlalock and his son and daughter gods in charge of major storms and fury sent one of the biggest storms of record during the winter of '04 to the Portland, Oregon airport to keep O'Toole at the airport on the ground all day.  The end result, a very boring, but insistent, city commissioner read O'Toole's rambly essay.  Walter and I presented the counter point, sans O'Toole. 

      I am sure that many on this reading list will be able to tell their own O'Toole stories and suggest an anti-venom to his dark, smelly underbelly poison.

      I could also suggest that a combination that includes the wit and wisdom of Ian Lockwood and Troy Russ, and perhaps a real economist of Todd Littman could allow a community to focus on reality, pragmatism and a more optimistic future of city making and transportation performance.

      In a message dated 10/7/2006 1:35:32 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, BettyDrake writes:
      Any ideas??


      ------------ -----
      Forwarded Message:
      Help -- need anti-Randall O'Toole expert
      12:54:22 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
      members@apbp. org, ecartis@listserve. com

      Had lunch yesterday from an "economist" from Oregon name o' Randall O'Toole  who's been brought to town with great fanfare to counter a groundswell of sentiment in favor of light rail. 

      Re: Light Rail, he says that::
      1.  Llight rail will fail...it has never worked ANYWHERE to reduce congestion.
      2.  Light rail increases crime.  Postland Police Department cites light rail as a key factor in increased crime in neighborhoods around stations.
      3.  Light rail will not be used...in
      Portland, opening was accompanied by a spike in ridership and then greatly reduced usage.  Intel bought 10,000 (?) transit passes for its employees to encourage non-driving and only 400 are used.  Nobody wants it.  People will always drive.
      4.  Light rail means that the bus system will fail.  The types of people who HAVE TO use transit would rather take the bus.  If funds are shifted to light rail the bus routes will be cut, frequency diminished and "those types of people" left without transportation.
      5.  People who can afford to drive will never use rail or other transit.
      6.  The only people who benefit are the pork-loving politicians.
      7.  Light rail has never worked anywhere in the world.
      8.  Maintenance costs run in the billions.  At least every 30 years, everythying has to be replaced.
      7.  Light rail has the poorest safety record of any mode on the planet.  Prepare to die.
      8.  Light rail just increases congestion due to the low-cost trashy development (including Section 8 housing) that typically grows around rail stations.  If we want the entire character of our city to change for the worse, go with light rail.

      On other transportation topics:
      1.  Claims to be an expert in bicycle transportation but didn't know Mike Ronkin or Pete Lagerwey.("Never heard of 'em")
      2.  Calls traffic-calming, "congestion manufacture" ...says that it does nothing to improve safety or quality of life, it just slows down the traffic and is a safety hazard.  I cited studies documenting the opposite, he just blew right by these.
      3.  Says that the only way to "solve" the congestion problem is to build toll lanes on freeways and to increase street capacity in general (more, wider lanes, various technological traffic management devices).
      4.  Says that, really, the whole congestion problem will solve itself in a few years with hi-tek vehicles that run themselves -- cruise control that also controls distances between vehicles will in and of itself keep freeways from backing up at rush hour.
      5.  The automobile is responsible for our nation's economic well-being and high standard of living.  Anything that says otherwise is just itchi' for a fight.
      6.  In downtown areas it's silly to think that residents will walk, bike or take transit to get around.  They will ALWAYS prefer driving.  By building up density in central city areas, we're just asking for trouble.

      He went on and on and on.  He seems to take things way out of context, spout highly dubious statistics non-stop and talk and talk.  The citizens who brought him in to lecture and the folks listening to him are not equipped to counter these arguments.  It just makes me sick.  They don't know any better and if you haven't got a clue, he can sound credible.

      Is there anyone out there you could suggest that could help counter this guy???  HDR is doing a citywide Transportation Master Plan, which is what triggered the light rail discussion.  Charlie Hales seems to be a reasonable person and doing a good idea at laying out and evaluating all options.

      Suggestions, information, ammunition appreciated.

      Betty Drake



      Todd Alexander 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”

      ><< 17dcc779.jpg >>

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.