Conrad DeFiebre is not one of the bad ones, as a general rule, as far as media types are concerned. While he was a Strib writer for about 600 years, he was also one of the reporters that could tell a balanced, fair story. He was the first reporter from either of the dailes (to say nothing the TV statiosn) to be bothered with reporting the actual facts on the Concealed Carry debate back in the nineties. For that, I’ve personally given credit where it was due, not that anyone cares.
Long story short: He’s always been a good reporter.
But these days he works for MN2020, the regional “non-partisan” “progressive” think tank. Which is apropos not much, except that for someone whose gig has been telling entire, complete stories for his entire career, he kinda, well, doesn’t.
His latest piece is called “Conservatives “Re-Writing History”
; I’ll direct you to read the piece to find any examples of history at all, much less conservatives “re-writing” it.
Opposition to modern transit development may be on the wane in most parts of Minnesota,
“May” it be? Well, I guess we have to take Mr. DeFiebre’s word for it. Perhaps he knows of a Minnesota Poll on the subject?
but it’s alive and well in one surprising location: The Minnesota History Center in St. Paul.
“Light rail is an expensive investment without return except as an exercise in chest-thumping to make a city feel like it’s in the big leagues.”
That’s a quote from Lyle Wray, former Citizens League executive director, posted in big letters in the history center’s long-running transportation exhibit “Going Places: The Mystique of Mobility.” It enjoys equal billing with more mildly-worded praise of light rail in the display’s vintage Soo Line boxcar.
OK, so we have a qualitative judgment about the “mildness” or, I dunno, “spiciness” of wording?
I’ll let that pass.
What’s worse, an accompanying video clip features half a dozen anti-light rail comments, some from anonymous on-the-street interviewees, some from inveterate transit bashers at the Taxpayers League of Minnesota.
Er – so what? Isn’t it refreshing that the Minnesota History Center,noted conservative tools that they are (note to non-Minnesotans: they are not; they are more given to hagiographic treatment of old labor and Farmor/Labor Party organizers) actually presents both sides of a story?
Does MN2020 have a problem with that?
I digress. My question: Where is history, and its conservative re-write?
Worse yet, the exhibit also includes plenty of promotion of personal rapid transit, a thoroughly failed technology that has been embraced by both the rabid right and the lunatic left, mainly as a foil to responsible transit proposals.
“Rabid”? “Lunatic?” Such invective from a…reporter? Why, it’s almost as if DeFiebre is getting talking points from…someone with an ax to grind?
And let’s be clear: Personal Rapid Transit seems to be a rather pie-in-the-sky proposal that’d crisscross cities with small rails for tiny, taxi-like rail cars whose destinations could be programmed for anywhere on the system, rather than shuttling back and forth on a single line. It’s utterly un-tested, and it’s the kind of thing that draws all sorts of fawning resolutions at caucus-time demanding government support, and its cost estimates (which are usually about 10% those of light rail lines per rail mile) strike this tech/engineering industry hanger-on as hopelessly pollyannaish.
But “Thoroughly failed?” It can not “thorougly fail” unless it’s been “thorougly tested”.
But that kind of invective on an utterly speculative subject like PRT? Why that can only mean one thing:
Minneapolis artist, activist and blogger Ken Avidor tipped me off…
[scraaaaatch]
Ken “Avidor” Weiner is indeed a blogger. He’s an “artist” of sorts as well – the only “cartoonist” in the Twin Cities less talented that Swiftee. But he’s indeed an “activist” for light rail; so active, indeed, that he felt he needed at least two of him.
Note to Conrad DeFiebre: you might wanna pick better sources for this stuff. Not that “Sources” matter so much in your new career – clearly John Fitzgerald is mushy on the subject – but still.
But yet again, I digress.
The post is a puff piece about the wonders of light rail, and how short-sheeted they allegedly are in the MHS presenation on the subject.
So where is the the ballyhooed “conservative rewrite of history?” It’s the present. And the issue of “is light rail a boon or a doggle” is very, very Very, VERY, VERY much in the balance.
Because even if oil runs out tomorrow, the free market will have developed a hydrogen-powered car (the ultimate Personal Rapid Transit) and a network of nuclear powered hydro stations long before government will have built rails to haul the gray, lumpen hordes of proles about.
Thanks for the kind words about my reporting career. No thanks for some of the slants in the rest of the post. My main point was the lack of balanced comment about personal rapid transit in the History Center display. There were no discouraging words to match those heaped on light rail, and I think that is a disservice to the public. And, this being a free country, I’m allowed to argue that point with stronger language than was appropriate in a newspaper report, even with invective.
A few other points: 1) I didn’t write the headline, which I agree poorly reflects the article. 2) Ken Avidor, whatever his merit as a cartoonist, was not a “source” for my article. He was what we call a tipster. He alerted me to the slanted History Center display, but I checked out his information on my own. 3) I documented waning opposition to responsible transit development in a recent post at http://www.mn2020.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={C494395C-8454-42EE-B733-F460809C04BF} 4) PRT has been exhaustively tested on three continents and come up short in nearly every case. 5) I’ve reread my piece and still can’t discern Berg’s alleged puffery about light rail, except for a single sentence that reports the Hiawatha line’s ridership and economic development successes.
Conrad,
Re your right to argue: true, and fair enough. And I’m arguing back.
Re your other points:
1) Fair enough.
2) Perhaps a fair point, but it looked like your conclusions about PRT were pretty indistinguishable from his. While I think it’s a pie in the sky fantasy as techology at this point, technology (and especially new engineering concepts) rarely succeed or conclusively at the prototype stage. At any rate, he’s not a name I’d advertise as a tipster if you want anyone outside the fever swamp to read the reference and not shake their heads and move on. Just saying.
3) Interesting, and worth a post on its own.
4) True. And noted in this blog in the past.
5) I wrote somewhat imprecisely; “Puffery” was a pre-caffeine word choice. But claims as to light rail’s success are pretty much devoid of context: while the Ventura Trolley’s ridership is high, it still only generates 30% of its operating revenue from fares. That’s hardly a bargain for the taxpayer; were it more widely known, it might cause some of that waning opposition to wax again.
Thanks for writing.
From the ‘waning opposition’ web link:
“often cheek-by-jowl with dozens of strangers”
MN2020’s vision for the future of transportation? Inspiring.
“improved public health”
One has to assume this benefit comes from putting your cheek by someones jowl, right? I think this would actually help spread disease.
“Also from U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood’s official blog”
With no link. On a web page. Was this piece scanned in?
“”Cities with well-established rail systems …”
“In Western Europe …”
People live very close together and have for many years? Great. This is like the Twin Cities in what way?
It’s fabulous that many in St. Cloud back the idea of free stuff for people in St. Cloud. You’d think they’d be totally against that.
This from the “non-partisan” MN2020? It seems they start out by pulling your leg and never stop. *shrug*
Opposition to modern transit development may be on the wane in most parts of Minnesota, but it’s alive and well in one surprising location: The Minnesota History Center in St. Paul.
Modern in what way? As opposed to what ‘non-modern’ transit development? Horse-drawn street cars? Steam powered locomotives?
In what sense does the word ‘modern’ apply to LRT?
The people who write letters to the editor promoting the personal transit thing, remind me of the people who wrote angry letters in 1999 saying 2000 is not the start of the millinium, that actually 2001 is.
I suppose that every con-man fears that another con-man will move on his mark. I think that pretty much explains the attitude of mass-transit people to PRT.
Why does DeFiebre mention Avidor by name at all?
Avidor is not an authority on mass transit. Well, he seems to think that he is, but he has no credentials other than ‘artist’ and ‘activist’. Avidor is also very much on the record as opposing PRT in favor of traditional mass-transit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Avidor. Why didn’t LeFiebre mention this?
Being a real ‘journalist’ isn’t that hard. Probably doesn’t pay as well as working for mn2020, though.
So, Conrad, you say Avidor was not a “source”, then what precisely is your source for this statement:
“personal rapid transit, a thoroughly failed technology that has been embraced by both the rabid right and the lunatic left, mainly as a foil to responsible transit proposals.”
That paragraph is right out of Ken Avidor’s anti-PRT playbook, and in 4 years of following this issue I have yet to find a reliable source that says anything like this. So I’m very curious, if your source isn’t Avidor, WHO IS IT?
For the record, your “failed technology” is being embraced in “rabid right” countries like Sweden and the UK. Two phase one systems are due to open THIS YEAR, one at Heathrow Airport in London and the other in the new Masdar City initiative in the United Arab Emirates.
Involved parties in these initiatives: engineering giants Arup, CH2M Hill, and SKM – all companies which have worked on very large scale engineering efforts ranging from city light rail projects to the London Olympics to the Panama Canal rebuild.
Tell me Conrad, are these engineering firms the “rabid right” or the “lunatic left”.
Oh, and MIT is involved with Masdar. So is award winning design firm Foster & Partners. Is Norman Foster a “rabid righty” or a “lunatic lefty”? What about environmental advocacy groups Bioregional and World Wildlife Fund? Rabid or lunatic?
And let’s talk about Masdar. That’s a CAR-FREE city in the desert with TWO RAIL LINES cutting through the center to provide regional coverage. So what “reasonable transit proposal” is PRT suppressing in Masdar? Cars?
Really, Conrad, when handed a “tip” from a local activist with an OBVIOUS bias, you might want to at least make a token effort to look outside the propaganda packet he hands you. Obviously, you didn’t.
Or maybe you really did have reliable sources; if so, please list them.
Speaking of “lunatic lefty”.
😆 lol lol lol 😆
K-Rod, you have no clue about me. I am apolitical. But I’m glad I gave you the opportunity to laugh at your own ignorance. 🙂
“apolitical”
Looks like you want your snout deep in the trough.
Bwwwwaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahaha
OK, K-Rod, you keep amusing yourself. I’m still waiting for a response from Conrad on his so called “sources”.
Conrad,
On the offchance you’re reading this – I’d be interested in seeing your response to TE, as well.
While you disclaim (understandably) the greasy pinhead Weiner as a source, some of the terms from your article read like they were cribbed from one of his many posts on the subject.
Even if he does read it, he won’t supply sources, because he can’t. I’ve read everything that has been said about PRT over the last 5 years, and the only people saying these things are Avidor and his disciples. It’s obvious Conrad is an Avidor mind puppet.