[RTC List] Telecom & County Planning Commission MeetingThursday1/17

Fri Jan 18 11:15:33 PST 2008

And I would like there to be an online place where those of us who are interested in this dialog are able to follow it, but I am not the person to make that happen.  And I don't mean to take up bandwidth or RTC listserve space to say any more than this.
  Keri Raphael

Pat Bitton <pat_bitton at eurestopartners.com> wrote: 
      It really would be nice if people who have *individual* philosophical differences could take their conversations offline from this listserv.

  <sigh>

  Pat Bitton
  Partner, Euresto Partners
  Sales & Marketing Strategies for Technology Startups
  +1 707 268 8968/+1 408 464 0829 cell
  www.eurestopartners.com

---------------------------------
  From: list-bounces at redwoodtech.org [mailto:list-bounces at redwoodtech.org] On Behalf Of Aaron Antrim
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 9:56 AM
To: Arkley, Rob
Cc: greenwheels core email; list at redwoodtech.org
Subject: Re: [RTC List] Telecom & County Planning Commission MeetingThursday1/17

    Mr. Arkley:

  Recently, I read an article about a suite of pilot projects that have received $15 million from Cisco Systems.  In Seoul they are working on a GPS-enabled "travel companion" to help commuters use transit and motorists avoid congested roads; in the S.F. Bay Area, they are working at improving wireless connectivity for municipal buses; and, in Amsterdam, neighborhood-located work and telepresence facilities.  More here: http://weblog.infoworld.com/sustainableit/archives/2007/12/cisco_clinton_g.html

  The General Plan is a 20-year document.  In 20 years, I expect to see climate change and traffic congestion become more pressing problems in Humboldt County.  I also expect that information technology solutions to address these problems will increase in number and viability.

  Cisco is using climate change and congestion traffic challenges as new opportunities around which to create and deploy information technology solutions around the world  We can follow suit in Humboldt County if we take the right steps.

  We both advocate for a telecom element because it will provide a planning basis which will facilitate public and private investment infrastructure.  I posit including language in the General Plan which supports use of information technology as a cost-effective transportation demand management strategy may also facilitate telecom infrastructure & services development.  I don’t see a reason not to work together where our purposes intersect.

  In some areas our values obviously differ, but I feel very strongly compelled to respond to your assertion that my suggestions are "at best growth prohibiting."  I believe my suggestions would help Humboldt County grow, creating new economic and infrastructure development opportunities, while minimizing traffic congestion and environmental impacts. Recently, I can't help but notice a consistent rhetorical strategy to cast me and like-minded colleagues as "no growth," which is not accurate.   I believe growth can help us redevelop our urban areas to be more pedestrian, bike and transit friendly, whereas the flow of money out of the county to pay for imported cars and fuel inhibits economic growth.

  Here's another example of this observed rhetorical strategy at work.  My column, which you referenced, appeared in the Times-Standard under the headline of "Don't be so hasty on harbor project decision."  In the Eureka Reporter, it appeared as "Environmental groups oppose bay container port."  It appeared on the same spread as the Eureka Reporter's official editorial statement supporting aggressive container port development and calling advocates of alternatives advocates of "no growth."  Please stop using this inaccurate term in regards to me and my work.

  Sincerely,
  Aaron Antrim

    --
  Aaron Antrim
  Principal Information Architect, Transit Information Solutions
  www.transitinfosolutions.com
  Outreach Director, Green Wheels
  www.green-wheels.org
  707.633.4464

    On 17 Jan 2008, at 3:40 AM, Arkley, Rob wrote:

        Dear All,
       I think that Aaron may be well intentioned, but his input goes way beyond what I feel that Redwood Technology should go I its input.  Mr. Atrim also has a advocacy piece about the Bay and it is future.  Needless to say, he and I agree on little.  However, we should all agree that we need more telecom and IT service.
       Mr. Antrim's suggestions below are at best growth prohibiting and simply go far beyond the real issues that I believe that our group has in mind.  Let's stay focused on our goal and not become broadly advocacy based with the exception of issues directly  in our charge.  If we don't stay focused, we will lose our emphasis and power which a broad based and coalition has. 
       I don't want to start a huge and vitriolic e mail chain, but rather stay focused on our real goals, which are far more limited and surgical in nature than the below comments suggest.  I am convinced that if we stay focused and surgical, we will have much more likelihood of success.

                                                       vty,

                                                       Rob .

---------------------------------
  From: list-bounces at redwoodtech.org [mailto:list-bounces at redwoodtech.org] On Behalf Of Aaron Antrim
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 12:25 AM
To: list at redwoodtech.org
Subject: Re: [RTC List] Telecom & County Planning Commission MeetingThursday 1/17

Tina-   

  Thank you for your post about the General Plan Update process.  I agree a telecom element would be a good stop towards improving infrastructure on the North Coast.  I would look forward to seeing comments you or any other RTC members have on the existing parts of the General Plan draft that relate to telecom.

  I think one area where telecom could be better addressed is in the Circulation Element (that's planese for transportation element).

  Currently, traffic flow conditions are rated by criteria called Level of Service (LoS for short).  The General Plan states that LoS should be maintained at a C or better for roads in the county.  Green Wheels would like to see specific language added to the General Plan that specifies mobility management or transportation demand management programs costs and benefits should be considered and weighed against road construction projects as a way of improving or maintaining LoS on county roads.

  These transportation demand or mobility management programs are, in the words of a Nelson/Nygaard consultant, "trip-reducing programs, policies, and investments (such as expanded pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, requiring new development to unbundled parking costs provide free transit passes to residents and/or employees, and carsharing programs)."

  I'd like to add that telecommuting programs can be considered as transportation demand management as well, and I'd like to encourage RTC members to take this opportunity to communicate the benefits of information infrastructure as a basis for traffic congestion reduction, and sustainable and balanced transportation.

  You can see more Green Wheels comments on the General Plan here:
  www.green-wheels.org/generalplan

  -Aaron

_______________________________________________
List mailing list
List at redwoodtech.org
http://redwoodtech.org/mailman/listinfo/list_redwoodtech.org

        Note new email address:
keriraphael at gmail.com

---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://redwoodtech.org/pipermail/list_redwoodtech.org/attachments/20080118/b32e7fdc/attachment.html 