From chris at mailnet.rdc.cl Tue Nov 4 23:41:34 1997 From: chris at mailnet.rdc.cl (Christopher Zegras) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 11:41:34 -0300 Subject: [sustran] Urban toll road battle in Santiago Message-ID: <199711041441.LAA19501@mailnet.rdc.cl> To unsubscribe, send the message UNSUBSCRIBE sustran-discuss to majordomo@mail.jca.ax.apc.org Following is an update on an urban toll road battle in the south. Courtesy of Chip News www.chip.cl November 4, 1997 * HEADLINE: OPPOSITION GROWS TO COSTANERA NORTE Community Reveals Flaws in Major Highway Project KEYWORDS: URBAN ISSUES; ENVIRONMENT SOURCE: CHIP NEWS TEXT: (Ed. Note: Government officials announced Monday that bidding on the US$313 million Costanera Norte highway project has been postponed to Dec. 15 to allow time to hammer out issues relating to property expropriation and the environment. The following story about the controversial highway project was written by Lake Sagaris, a Canadian writer who works as a correspondent for Business Week, U.S. Trade and The London Times. Sagaris lives in the Barrio Bellavista, one of the communities that would be affected by the highway). Growing opposition from community organizations and experts threatens to delay the Costanera Norte, the Ministry of Public Works' (MOP) first major urban highway project and concession that is supposed to join Lo Barnechea with Pudahuel and points beyond, especially on the coast. The highway would start in Lo Barnechea, follow Kennedy Avenue westward, then veer into the San Cristobal Hill, right behind Channel 7 and other television studios located on the route. It would cut through the Pedro de Valdivia Norte neighborhood, cutting it off from the hill and creating a noise and air pollution hazard, before continuing under the Bellavista neighborhood, and then emerge and follow along the north side of the Mapocho River, in Independencia. The ministry originally planned to have the project well underway by September of last year, but opposition that began in the Bellavista neighborhood and spread to the well-to-do Pedro de Valdivia Norte neighborhood and the Central Market area known as the Vega has paralyzed progress. A legal writ filed by several community organizations in April halted bidding on the project and forced the ministry to submit an environmental impact study to the Santiago environmental commission (Corema). In July, an unprecedented number of community representatives used Corema's "citizen participation" sessions to get more information from the project's proponents and to present their criticisms, many of which stem from evaluations by expert advisors. For example, Juan de Dios Ortuzar, head of the Catholic University's Department of Transport Engineering and a world authority on transportation solutions, has participated in meetings between the coalition and Ricardo Lagos, Public Works Minister, as well as forums and panels. Ortuzar says the project is "the cornerstone for an approach to Santiago's transportation problems that will clearly fail." Ortuzar participated in an initial study which found that the Costanera Norte would not be profitable for its operator. The government responded by including Kennedy Avenue in the project, a move which angered Las Condes Mayor Joaquin Lavin and many of the highway's potential users. Ignacio Santa Maria, an architect who has been involved in urban planning in Santiago for over 30 years, says that the three- km-long tunnel through the San Cristobal Hill and under Bellavista will act as a strong dissuasive factor. Santiago users just won't be willing to confront a lengthy tunnel with two 90 degree angles and a sharp dip downwards, he says. This year, opposition to the project has grown exponentially. Neighborhood associations in Bellavista and Pedro de Valdivia Norte formed the No Costanera Norte Coalition in March. Since then, membership has grown to 15 community and commercial associations, representing more than 40,000 people in three municipal areas: Providencia, Recoleta and Independencia. Grassroots opposition is based on four major concerns, which the MOP has been unable to resolve: destruction of green recreation space, especially the San Cristobal Hill; massive air pollution that would emanate from eight chimneys, impacting especially on the Bellavista neighborhood; destruction of communities like Bellavista, Tirso de Molina, Vega Chica and Independencia, by destroying commercial activity in those neighborhoods; social inequality, as the project would benefit drivers from the upscale Las Condes and other neighborhoods, as well as housing and other development projects both there and in Enersis' satellite city in Pudahuel, at the expense of the vast majority of people who travel by bus, taking double the time and at considerably more risk to their health and safety. The project is also inconsistent with official policy to decontaminate Santiago, since by generating more traffic it would impact significantly on air pollution levels, especially deadly ozone. It is also inconsistent with transportation policy, which gives a high priority to improving bus and Metro train transportation. In recent months, environmental organizations like Renace and the Political Ecology Institute have taken a growing interest in the conflict, and have planned strong protests and legal actions to follow the Corema's decision, now expected at the end of November. The Latin American Observatory of Environmental Conflicts has recently sponsored the publication of a book on the debate, "Costanera Norte, What City Do We Want?," which will be launched later this month. Among other irregularities, the MOP's spokesman, Fernando Valderrama, says the ministry has not yet decided on the final route for the highway and just recently began studies of measures to assist hundreds of small business people and home owners and renters who would be displaced, temporarily or permanently. The Supreme Court is expected to make a decision on the first writ against the highway during the second half of November, while Corema has until early December to approve, modify or reject the project. Courtesy of Chip News www.chip.cl Christopher Zegras http://www.iiec.org /\ /^\ Instituto Internacional para la Conservacion de Energia /^\ /_o\ / \ General Flores 150, Providencia, Santiago, CHILE /^^^/_\< /^^^^^\ Tel: (56 2) 236 9232 Fax: 236 9233 / (*)/(*) \ From seacow at juno.com Wed Nov 5 12:57:59 1997 From: seacow at juno.com (Brian A Kuhl) Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 22:57:59 EST Subject: [sustran] Slightly off-topic: web site References: <199711041441.LAA19501@mailnet.rdc.cl> Message-ID: <19971105.000611.8191.7.seacow@juno.com> To unsubscribe, send the message UNSUBSCRIBE sustran-discuss to majordomo@mail.jca.ax.apc.org I wanted to know if this list has a web site. I am always updating my web site and would be willing to provide either a link to the web site or subscription info for the list on my site. (Or both.) Brian Kuhl seacow@juno.com; d039664c@dc.seflin.org http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Vines/6067 From tkpb at barter.pc.my Wed Nov 5 17:31:14 1997 From: tkpb at barter.pc.my (Paul Barter) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 16:31:14 +0800 (MYT) Subject: [sustran] Slightly off-topic: web site Message-ID: Dear Brian >I wanted to know if this list has a web site. > >I am always updating my web site and would be willing to provide either a >link to the web site or subscription info for the list on my site. (Or >both.) Unfortunately we do not yet have a web site. We hope to get one soon if time and money permit. I appreciate your offer to put sustran-discuss subscription information on your website. Here is a brief description of the list and how to subscribe. The sustran-discuss list is an interactive forum for news, announcements, questions and discussions on sustainable and people-centred transportation issues, especially in low and middle-income countries. It has been set up by the secretariat of the Sustainable Transport Action Network for Asia & the Pacific (SUSTRAN). To subscribe to the sustran-discuss list, send a message to: with the BODY of the message being: subscribe sustran-discuss You will then receive further instructions, including how to access the archives of earlier postings to the list and how to switch to the digest option. Best wishes and thanks, A.R. Paul BARTER Sustainable Transport Action Network for Asia & the Pacific (SUSTRAN) c/o Asia Pacific 2000, PO Box 12544, 50782 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Fax: +603 253 2361, E-mail: ------------------------------------------------- SUSTRAN is dedicated to promoting transport policies and investments which foster accessibility for all; social equity; ecological sustainability; health and safety; public participation; and high quality of life. From tkpb at barter.pc.my Wed Nov 5 19:59:09 1997 From: tkpb at barter.pc.my (Paul Barter) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 18:59:09 +0800 (MYT) Subject: [sustran] Litman comments on Eastern Europe Transport Message-ID: I am reposting this item by Todd Litman from the alt-transp list. I hope these comments will interest sustran-discuss participants as they seem very relevant to the situation in many parts of Asia where cities that have developed with few cars are suddenly seeing a rapid influx of them. Of course there are also interesting differences. The E. European cities apparently had extensive tram and rail systems before the car flood. By contrast most low-income or middle-income Asian cities had bus-dominated public transport systems (with little or no bus priority) before the current car and motorcycle ownership surges. Paul. From: litman@IslandNet.com (Todd Litman) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 04:53:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: alt-transp Eastern Europe Transport I just returned from a 2-1/2 week trip to Eastern Europe (Poland, east Germany and the Czech Republic) to attend a couple conferences on transport policy and generally look around. It was quite an enlightening experience which I highly recommend. Let me share some impressions on the current transport situation there. First, the economic and political conditions are extremely dynamic, and sometime in turmoil, which often makes good planning difficult. For example, right after German unification there was a rush by west German developers to build out-of-town shopping malls in east Germany before appropriate zoning laws could be imposed (such developments would not be allowed in west Germany). Poland seems to have little planning going on, except for new highways. The charm of many East European cities is their traditional pedestrian environments. The older sections of Warsaw, Leipzig, Halle, Prague and Krakow are really delightful due to the pedestrian scale of streets and buildings. These conditions also tend to naturally produce traffic calming due to narrow, uneven and often cobbled streets, with lots of T-intersections. Traffic volumes appeared relatively low on most such streets. I simply can't get enough of walking around these wonderful old cities! Everywhere you look is some fascinating detail: a narrow pathway, little groundfloor shops, an old church or synagogue, hand-carved wood doors, cobble stones worn by centuries of foot and wagon traffic...the closer you look the more you see. However, the high growth rates in automobile ownership mean that these streets have become clogged with parked vehicles. With few exceptions all available pavement is covered with parked cars. I especially found it disturbing that much of the sidewalk area is now turned over to car parking. In many areas the sidewalks are quite wide, but the portion next to the curb is used for parking, often leaving only a few feet for pedestrians despite heavy foot traffic. With only a few exceptions this parking is free, at least to neighborhood residents. (Many Warsaw car owners pay for parking patrols to deter vehicle theft, but the parking spaces themselves are free or cheap). Most cities have a ring of large, ugly residential towers, Le Corbusier's dream turned residents' nightmare. In east Germany local governments are renovating these buildings and trying to improve conditions (more neighborhood shops, parks, employment, etc.), but in Poland and the Czech Republic they look pretty run down. The transit systems are mediocre to good in most of the cities I visited, with subways, trams and buses that can take you just about anywhere. They are quite convenient to use, with frequent service, prepayment fare systems, and comprehensive posted information, if you can read the language. However, there is a definite lack of investment in most cities (Berlin seems to be the exception), so much of the rolling stock is outdated and sometimes poorly maintained. Trams and buses are often overcrowded, even during the off-peak periods. Of course, this just reinforces the popular distaste for public transit (people associate it with the old communist period) and increases the incentive to purchase a car. Bicycling is not very popular in Poland, where it is considered a mode of transport for the poor, and appears to be used mostly in rural areas. As I traveled west bicycling became more popular, with moderate use in east Germany and (as reported in many studies) quite high levels of use in west Germany, the Netherlands and Scandinavia. I did see a few young people with fancy mountain bikes. Some cities are employing various types of TDM, but the planning is not always comprehensive. Poland, in particular, seems to be embracing automobile ownership without much thought as to how to accommodate all of the additional vehicles. Poland appears to be using low fuel taxes as a way to subsidize middle class vehicle owners and compete for business from Western Europe. Sincerely, Todd Litman, Director Victoria Transport Policy Institute "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity" 1250 Rudlin Street Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, Canada Phone & Fax: (250) 360-1560 E-mail: litman@islandnet.com Website: http://www.islandnet.com/~litman From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Nov 5 19:59:09 1997 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 18:59:09 +0800 (MYT) Subject: ***no article*** Message-ID: ***no article*** From j.whitelegg at lancaster.ac.uk Wed Nov 5 21:17:56 1997 From: j.whitelegg at lancaster.ac.uk (JOHN WHITELEGG) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 12:17:56 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [sustran] Slightly off-topic: web site In-Reply-To: from "Paul Barter" at Nov 5, 97 04:31:14 pm Message-ID: <199711051217.MAA08271@unixa.lancs.ac.uk> Dear paul and other SUSTRAN colleagues, an urgent call for assistance I want to talk to Brian Williams at UNEP in Nairobi before the up coming Florence conference which begins next weekend. Due to a problem with my PC/e-mail system I've lost stored addresses. Has anyone got phone/fax/e-mail deatils about Brian and also has anyone got the conference address/phone/fax/e-mail in Florence. Any help very gratefully received best wishes John Whitelegg phone: +44 1524 63175 fax: +44 1524 848340 e-mail: j.whitelegg@lancaster.ac.uk From seacow at juno.com Sat Nov 8 11:30:15 1997 From: seacow at juno.com (Brian A Kuhl) Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 21:30:15 EST Subject: [sustran] Slightly off-topic: web site References: Message-ID: <19971107.223809.7471.4.seacow@juno.com> Thanks. I'll put the info on my site. Brian Kuhl seacow@juno.com; d039664c@dc.seflin.org http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Vines/6067 "Anyone who has begun to think places some portion of the world in jeopardy" -- John Dewey "My size? My size is the amount of space I fill up!" Murdock (Dwight Shultz) "The A-Team" "You know, Life would be perfect if it was just kids and dogs" -- Frank Pembelton (Andre Braugher) "Homicide: Life on the Street" On Wed, 5 Nov 1997 16:31:14 +0800 (MYT) tkpb@barter.pc.my (Paul Barter) writes: >Dear Brian > >>I wanted to know if this list has a web site. >> >>I am always updating my web site and would be willing to provide >either a >>link to the web site or subscription info for the list on my site. >(Or >>both.) > >Unfortunately we do not yet have a web site. We hope to get one soon >if >time and money permit. I appreciate your offer to put >sustran-discuss >subscription information on your website. Here is a brief description >of >the list and how to subscribe. > > >The sustran-discuss list is an interactive forum for news, >announcements, >questions and discussions on sustainable and people-centred >transportation >issues, especially in low and middle-income countries. It has been set >up >by the secretariat of the Sustainable Transport Action Network for >Asia & >the Pacific (SUSTRAN). > >To subscribe to the sustran-discuss list, send a message to: > with the BODY of the message being: >subscribe >sustran-discuss > >You will then receive further instructions, including how to access >the >archives of earlier postings to the list and how to switch to the >digest >option. > > >Best wishes and thanks, > >A.R. Paul BARTER >Sustainable Transport Action Network for Asia & the Pacific (SUSTRAN) >c/o Asia Pacific 2000, PO Box 12544, 50782 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. >Fax: +603 253 2361, E-mail: >------------------------------------------------- >SUSTRAN is dedicated to promoting transport policies and investments >which foster accessibility for all; social equity; ecological >sustainability; >health and safety; public participation; and high quality of life. > > From ob110ob at IDT.NET Sun Nov 9 00:34:57 1997 From: ob110ob at IDT.NET (Obwon) Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 07:34:57 -0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: alt-transp pedicabs as more than tourism? Message-ID: <346486A1.49C6@idt.net> Hi Kristin: It took me quite sometime to get around to doing the searches, it's far from exhaustive but here's some links you might find useful. 1. Heres and interesting vehicle and a small co. Often smaller co's will give better service in fabricating custom products. So they shouldn't be ignored http://www.industrivel.com/industrivel/trikea.htm 2. Wisconsin bikes. Lots of istea stuff including Amtrak trade off of bicycle cars for smoking cars going back on a promise they made. Will help in terms of considering problems to be faced as well as some other interesting stuff. http://danenet.wicip.org/bcp/bfw/wb3_2.html#s10_1 3. Here's two pedicab links http://www.halcyon.com/fkroger/bike/workbike.htm#Pizza http://www.cruzio.com/~hub/ppower/index.html 4. Here are my pedicab images page http://www.dynalogic.com/pizzapower/index.html 5. Some mfg links page http://www.recumbents.com/manufact.htm 6. Of course there's the Rhodescar page, prices have come down quite a bit. http://www.rhoadescar.com/14952.htm 7. Rideable Bicycle Replicas is a mfg of a pedicab with trailer that can carry four passengers. They also do custom work. http://www.hiwheel.com/hiwheel.htm 8. TechLand is a must see site http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~rossta/ 9. This is a link to SF discussions of proposed laws where bicycles will now be treated as a real part of the transportation mix rather than some strange toy. It's useful to examine some of the expected objections to be encountered. I didn't read the whole site yet, but it seems that the matter of bikers permission to 'proceed when clear' at traffic lights rather than wait the full cycle, is missing. Bikers need such lattitude, especially on longer trips where more lights will be encountered, such as in urban areas. Because their speed is low, and accelerations are difficult, when cross streets are clear bikers should have the right to proceed when safe. This also helps them keep their average speed up, and saves time/ shortens their trip. There's nine or ten long pages here, you should save them for reading later. http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~rossta/ 10. Bill Darbys Special Purpose Vehicle site a co dedicated to custom human power tech. http://dewline.com/~spv/ 11. Main Street Pedicab page, and mfg. http://www.pedicab.com/index1.html This is the result of a not so exhaustive search, since lots of information is often buried deeper within a site than one chooses to go when the going gets slow :-( But this should be a good enough start. I didn't follow all the links out to the end so when you get a page you might want to examine the rest of the site for yourself. Hope this is some help Obwon From ob110ob at IDT.NET Sun Nov 9 01:59:48 1997 From: ob110ob at IDT.NET (Alablaster) Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 08:59:48 -0800 Subject: [sustran] Here's a link for Bike Cargo Message-ID: <34649A84.5629@idt.net> Here's a link to a site that makes bike cargo carriers, they're less expensive than other hpv's and probably better suited for the recycling project that's been mentioned. Obwon http://members.aol.com/FADelivery/index.html From ecoplan_the_commons at compuserve.com Sun Nov 9 16:43:38 1997 From: ecoplan_the_commons at compuserve.com (Britton EcoPlan) Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 02:43:38 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Sustran and the Web Message-ID: <199711090243_MC2-2778-A632@compuserve.com> Dear Paul and colleagues, If you wish, we would be pleased to see what might be done to accommodate Sustran on our The-Commons Web site. It will require a bit of thought and work, but I would be pleased to talk this over with you. As you know we have from time to time, either reproduced some of the incoming messages or linked our visitors to you (as best we could). This might just be one more step. Let me know. With all good wishes, Eric Britton _________________________________________________________________ EcoPlan International -- Technology, Economics & Social Systems Le Frene, 8/10 rue Joseph Bara, F-75006 Paris, France e-mail: eric.britton@the-commons.org mobile: 336.0737.7798 Main Tel. 331.4441.6340 Fax 331.4441.6341 Data: 331.4441.6342 24 hour backup phone/fax: 331.4326.1323 ISDN/videoconferencing/groupwork: 331.4441.6340 (1-4) http://www.the-commons.org Ftp site: ftp.the-commons.org/pub From tkpb at barter.pc.my Tue Nov 11 15:01:57 1997 From: tkpb at barter.pc.my (Paul Barter) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 14:01:57 +0800 (MYT) Subject: [sustran] Mumbai evictions for "beautification" of roads Message-ID: Another item from the ACHR Newsletter which has some transport connection.... unfortunately. 8. Housing Eviction News a. YUVA, in Bombay India continue their APPEAL FOR ACTION! ACT NOW AND PREVENT PEOPLE FROM BEING RENDERED HOMELESS! 21st Oct, 1997 While the government is being careful about not demolishing houses where residents can show proofs of residing at the same spot on or before1.1.95. The State's new redevelopment policy has not altogether stopped the evictions. We have information of the following communities where demolitions are taking place. 1. From the morning of the 20th of October, 1997; 150 houses in Prakash Nagar, Mahim (W) were razed to the ground. Bulldozers were employed for the same. Since the people put up a fight, they were beaten with police batons. 2. On 14th Oct, houses along the Western Express highway which is the link road connecting the airport to the city were demolished. 13 houses in Annawadi, 15 in Ambedkar Nagar, 19 in Tiwari Compound, 23 in Birjewadi, 10 in Jan Kalyan Nagar and 43 in Chikoo wadi were pulled down. Newspapers also report the Transport Minister, Pramod Navalkar as having declared the commencement of the 'beautification drive' of the city. He has vowed to 'clean up' four arterial roads. The position we are taking is that no eviction should take place without the completion of a full and proper resettlement programme. Contact YUVA if you wish to join the fax and letter campaign at Kavitha, YUVA: From tkpb at barter.pc.my Tue Nov 11 15:01:55 1997 From: tkpb at barter.pc.my (Paul Barter) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 14:01:55 +0800 (MYT) Subject: [sustran] Boardwalk in Thai low-income settlement Message-ID: Dear all, Most of us take pedestrian access to our homes for granted. But this is not so everywhere. This item is from the electronic newsletter of the Asian Coalition for Housing Rights (ACHR) which has its secretariat in Bangkok. 6. Thailand: A BOARDWALK FOR TUNG PATTANA Thailand's UCDO teamed up with Denmark's funding agency DANCED to start a Community Environment Development Fund, which channels grant money to poor settlements for small improvement projects - wells, drainage, community centres, walkways. All decisions about how the fund will be used - what projects, where and how much - are made by national and local community networks. Chiang Mai's community network, for example, requires projects to cost less than Baht 200,000 (US$7,000), be built entirely with contributed labour, and benefit everyone in the community. 77 projects, affecting 14,248 families, are underway around Thailand. Here is how one community used the fund: Tung Pattana is a small squatter settlement in Chiang Mai. Its 25 houses are built of second-hand wood and salvage materials, on stilts, along a municipal drainage canal. Even though the possibility of eviction looms, Tung Pattana is filled with evidence of the human impulse to make a home: flower-filled balconies, songbirds in cages, and the merry confusion of clothes hung out to dry. The most potent expression of this impulse is the boardwalk Tung Pattana's people have come together to build. During the rains, floodwaters fill the canal and houses can only be reached by rickety bamboo poles, dangerous for old folks and children to navigate. The community asked for 100,000 Baht (US$3,500) from the Environment Fund, and, with their own sweat and ingenuity, built a boardwalk which is a marvel. For the legs, they used concrete fence-posts, and during the dry season, when the water was low, they cemented the posts into the bottom of the canal, in pairs, at two-metre intervals. Then they bolted wooden cross-members to the columns, nailed teakwood boards to these and trimmed the edges. The boardwalk is assembled in easily-liftable sections, so the entire system can be taken apart and re-bolted at a higher level during flooding. From pwcl at wr.com.au Tue Nov 11 00:07:38 1997 From: pwcl at wr.com.au (Christine Laurence) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 02:07:38 +1100 Subject: [sustran] Re: alt-transp pedicabs as more than tourism? In-Reply-To: <346486A1.49C6@idt.net> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19971111020738.006aa2dc@wr.com.au> This is the result of a not so exhaustive search, since lots of >information is often buried deeper within a site than one chooses to go >when the going gets slow :- > Hope this is some help > Obwon Dear Obwan, Thank you very much for your assistance. I've been busy organising a race around the public transport system in Sydney - to show how many destinations you can get to - we called it the Great Sydney Public Transport Derby. 30 people took part and we received good coverage in the media. So now I'm getting back into the Web stuff. Once again, thank you for helping out. Christine From tkpb at barter.pc.my Tue Nov 11 20:52:09 1997 From: tkpb at barter.pc.my (Paul Barter) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 19:52:09 +0800 (MYT) Subject: [sustran] public awareness stunts Message-ID: Christine Laurence said: >I've been busy organising a race >around the public transport system in Sydney - to show how many >destinations you can get to - we called it the Great Sydney Public >Transport Derby. 30 people took part and we received good coverage in the >media. Can you tell us more about this Public Transport Derby? I am sure some of the other activists on the list might find this a useful example. Does anyone else know of successful stunts that can highlight sustainable transport and attract media interest? One example that I know of from Malaysia was actually done by a newspaper on its own initiative. In late 1994, features section of "The Sun" newspaper here (one of three major national English language papers) ran a commuter race from their suburban office to the centre of Kuala Lumpur. The distance was about 12 km and all the participants were journalists from the paper. They travelled in morning rush hour. There was a car driver, a bus user, a motorcyclist, a bicycle, and a group of walkers. As well as it being a race each "commuter" wrote up their experiences for a feature in the paper which was very interesting. Guess what! The bicycle won (this despite the fact that none of the journalists involved actually owned a bicycle so they had to borrow an old black Indian-style single-speed bike from a local street vendor)! Admittedly the motorcyclist (who came a close second) took a wrong turn... but still. Both 2-wheelers beat the car by a wide margin. The car got stuck in traffic then had a problem finding a parking place. Then came the bus user, then the walkers (who had a woeful tale of pollution and obstacles and traffic). A. Rahman Paul BARTER Sustainable Transport Action Network for Asia & the Pacific (SUSTRAN) c/o Asia Pacific 2000, PO Box 12544, 50782 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Fax: +603 253 2361, E-mail: ------------------------------------------------- SUSTRAN is dedicated to promoting transport policies and investments which foster accessibility for all; social equity; ecological sustainability; health and safety; public participation; and high quality of life. From wcox at publicpurpose.com Sat Nov 15 04:09:45 1997 From: wcox at publicpurpose.com (Wendell Cox ) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 13:09:45 -0600 (CST) Subject: [sustran] Congress Repeals Amtrak 6 Year Severance Message-ID: <199711141909.NAA26365@mail1.i1.net> Headline.... US CONGRESS REPEALS AMTRAK 6 YEAR SEVERANCE PAY PROVISION The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that yesterday's bill, enacted by Congress, puts to an end the 6-year severance requirement for Amtrak workers. The bill also allows Amtrak to begin outsourcing (competitively contracting) for services starting in 2000. The 6-year public transit severance provision remains in place. Note... In recent weeks this mailing list has been used to promote products. We have received a number of questions and want to make it clear that The Public Purpose has not granted permission for such use of our list and has not endorsed any products. This notice is not intended to criticize any such products, only to indicate our interest in not being involved in any commercial promotion. Future mailings will "hide" recipient names. WENDELL COX CONSULTANCY International Public Policy, Economics, Labour, Transport & Strategic Planning The Public Purpose: Internet Public Policy Journal http://www.publicpurpose.com Voice +1 618 632 8507; Fax +1 618 632 8538 P.O. Box 8083;. Belleville, Illinois 62222 USA From tkpb at barter.pc.my Sat Nov 15 15:20:03 1997 From: tkpb at barter.pc.my (Paul Barter) Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 14:20:03 +0800 (MYT) Subject: [sustran] small car Message-ID: Dear sustran-discussers, I received the following request for information. Any ideas? Paul >Dear Paul, > >I met Anwar Fazal's friend Abdullatef who is heading the agency which is >rehabilitating the historic city of Fez, Morocco. I promised to make an >inquiry for him. They have no vehicles in the historic quarter of Fez. >Now they want to introduce a small vehicle just for collecting rubbish, >ambulance service and emergencies. Their streets are very narrow. I >can't remember the exact measure, but the car has to be narrower than >existing cars. What's the latest technology in small non-polluting >vehicles? Should he wait two years for those hydrogen-powered ones? > >Salma A. Rahman Paul BARTER Sustainable Transport Action Network for Asia & the Pacific (SUSTRAN) c/o Asia Pacific 2000, PO Box 12544, 50782 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Fax: +603 253 2361, E-mail: ------------------------------------------------- SUSTRAN is dedicated to promoting transport policies and investments which foster accessibility for all; social equity; ecological sustainability; health and safety; public participation; and high quality of life. From j.whitelegg at lancaster.ac.uk Sat Nov 15 18:41:40 1997 From: j.whitelegg at lancaster.ac.uk (JOHN WHITELEGG) Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 09:41:40 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [sustran] small car In-Reply-To: from "Paul Barter" at Nov 15, 97 02:20:03 pm Message-ID: <199711150941.JAA19835@unixa.lancs.ac.uk> Dear Paul, re the request for a small non-polluting vehicle. I suggest the BROX, a human-powered vehicle with up to .75 tonne carrying capacity. It is a highly sophisticated piece of engineering, narrow enough for Fez (and other historic cities), genuinely zero-polluting as opposed to the "polluting somehwre else vehicle" (PSEV) which is what the market largely cosnsits of at the moment. Its dimensions are: width 1080mm length 2000mm height 790 mm weight 38kg The BROX is already in use by the Royal mail in the UK and by a company delivering to shops in the West end of London. Contact "Wheels within wheels" in Manchester (UK) phone: +44 161 612 6354 Fax: +44 161 612 6514 Good luck best wishes, John Whitelegg From ob110ob at IDT.NET Sun Nov 16 04:13:17 1997 From: ob110ob at IDT.NET (ob110ob@IDT.NET) Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 11:13:17 -0800 Subject: [sustran] small car References: Message-ID: <346DF44D.1909@idt.net> Paul Barter wrote: > > Dear sustran-discussers, > I received the following request for information. Any ideas? > Paul > Sure... I little while ago I sent links to hpv sites, try those sites, and they have links to others. It seems that what you might want is more in the line of hpv's, human powered vehicles. There are many different types and many mfg's are small and willing to design something for specific needs. The problem with autos is that they have much in common with guns, (point and shoot, point and drive) if the driver of an auto is distracted, inattentive or confused, the same power and force is available and even inspite of the target! The auto will treat the body of a person who blocks it's path with the same force and energy as it would a brick wall. An hpv, just doesn't have that kind of power available to begin with, and if the drive is distracted, confused or inattentive it's likely that power and force will suffer/subside. If it hits a person, because it's slow and low powered, the likelyhood of serious injury is small. If it hits a brick wall the level of damage will be low to nil. A good consideration in the area you speak of which I get the impression is well on it's way to being a historic district, so you'd want to protect the facades from possible damaging collisions. As well as pollution related (air borne acids, chemicals etc.) damages as well Obwon From tkpb at barter.pc.my Sun Nov 16 09:41:43 1997 From: tkpb at barter.pc.my (SUSTRAN Secretariat) Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 08:41:43 +0800 (MYT) Subject: [sustran] SUSTRAN News Flash #28 Message-ID: Sustainable Transport Action Network for Asia and the Pacific (SUSTRAN) c/o Asia Pacific 2000, P.O. Box 12544, 50782 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Tel: +603 2559122 ext 2240, Fax: +603 253 2361. E-mail: or . SUSTRAN News Flash #28 15 November, 1997 CONTENTS 1. New distribution method for flashes 2. Please send details for contacts directory 3. Creatively fighting forced evictions in Manila. 4. Sustainable Penang initiative 5. Bicycle advocacy news from Manila 6. Melbourne tollway court battles continue. 7. Toll road fight in Santiago, Chile 8. FOE Bangladesh raises alarm over Dhaka air pollution 9. USA transport sector and global warming 10. Caution over Asian dependence on Middle East oil 11. New resources 12. Events 13. Quick quote 1. NEW DISTRIBUTION METHOD FOR FLASHES With the very kind assistance of JCA-NET in Japan, we are now using the majordomo listserver software to distribute these news flashes to the list of subscribers. THIS CHANGE MAKES NO DIFFERENCE TO SUSTRAN-DISCUSS SUBSCRIBERS. However, if you ever leave sustran-discuss you may still want to get SUSTRAN News Flashes (the monthly electronic newsletter from the SUSTRAN Secretariat). To subscribe directly to SUSTRAN News Flashes: send a message to: with the BODY (not subject) of the message being: subscribe sustran-flash 2. PLEASE SEND DETAILS FOR CONTACTS DIRECTORY The SUSTRAN Secretariat is now preparing the first edition of our long-promised Sustainable Transport Contacts Directory. We hope that this will provide a big boost to the network. Our work would be greatly helped if you could take a few minutes to tell us a little about yourself and your interest in this issue. If you would like to be considered for inclusion in the directory, then please send answers to the following questions to the SUSTRAN Secretariat. * Your full contact details and organisation (if applicable). Please include email and web pages if any. * If you are part of a relevant organisation, what kind of organisation is it and what is its main purpose? * What main issues and activities are you or your organisation involved in? * What transport-related issues and activities have you or your organisation been involved in? * What transport-related issues are of greatest concern to you? * Which geographical areas do your interests or activities relate to? * Please list any relevant publications or information sources that are available from you or your organisation. As always, any other comments and ideas on SUSTRAN and its mission and on SUSTRAN News Flashes are very welcome. 3. CREATIVELY FIGHTING TRANSPORT-RELATED FORCED EVICTIONS IN MANILA. When local government didn't respond to protests over large-scale forced evictions in Manila an association of poor people's organisations, called DAMPA, called on the Japanese Government to investigate the violations of the rights of people displaced by Japanese-funded public projects. The projects included a highway flyover, an aqueduct, a railway extension, and an airport expansion. The Philippines and Japan are both signatories to international treaties which prohibit funding of projects which violate the rights of displaced residents. In March 1996, a Japanese fact-finding team, including church, academic and NGO representatives, made a much-publicised visit to Manila. They found that: people were evicted without prior consultation or notice; in relocation sites, people were left without basic services, water, electricity, schools and hospitals; people lost jobs in the relocation process; people were taken to relocation sites without choice of where to go, resulting in community disorganisation; implementing agencies reneged on promises of compensation, support services. The mission's findings came out in all the local newspapers, along with its recommendations to OECF: affected people, especially the poor, must be included in planning relocation programmes, and some of the project budgets should be allocated for relocation of displaced residents. The OECF promised to cancel funding for projects involving involuntary resettlement, and to investigate complaints of affected residents and rights violations. [Source: "Housing by People" No. 10, Oct. 1997, Newsletter of the Asian Coalition for Housing Rights, 73 Soi Sonthiwattana 4, Ladprao 110, Ladprao Rd, Bangkok 10310, Thailand. Tel: +66 2 538 0919 Fax: 662 539 9950, E-mail: or ]. 4. SUSTAINABLE PENANG INITIATIVE The new Sustainable Penang Initiative is a long-term project conducted by Socio-Economic & Environmental Research Institute (SERI), with the objective of establishing a viable partnership for sustainable development in this highly urbanised Malaysian state. Consultations are taking place with citizen's groups, relevant government agencies and the business community as well as individuals with long-standing involvement in the issues concerned. Five roundtable discussions will be held to draw up a status report on Penang's economic progress, ecological sustainability, social justice, cultural vibrancy and popular participation. Transport became an important topic in the first roundtable, on Ecological Sustainability, which was held last week. Great progress was made toward developing a set of sustainability indicators for Penang. [Contact: Khoo Salma Nasution, Coordinator, The Sustainable Penang Initiative, Socio-Economic & Environmental Research Institute (SERI), 10A Persiaran Bukit Jambul (International College Grounds), 11900 Bayan Lepas, Penang, Malaysia. Tel +604 645 1710, Fax: +604 645 2807, E-mail seripg@tm.net.my]. 5. BICYCLE ADVOCACY NEWS FROM MANILA Cycling grabbed the audience's attention and imagination at the 6th monthly Talakayang Kalikasan environmental media forum at the Hotel Rembrandt in Quezon City. CYCAD members took center stage as they related the joys and risks of cycling in the city. They then read the petition for a bike-friendly city that CYCAD has been circulating and asked the audience, including the media, for their support and signatures. CYCAD's petition is seeking government policies that promote bicycling as alternative transportation and that recognises the social and environmental benefits of designing streets that enable cyclists to ride safely and pedestrians to walk without being impeded and forced on the roadway by parked cars. It asks government "to declare as government policy the promotion of bicycling and other forms of non-motorised transport." [Source: SIKAD Electronic Edition Newsletter of Cycling Advocates (CYCAD), November 1997 Vol. 1, No.2, Manila, Philippines (Sikad in Tagalog means "to pedal"). Contact: Ramon Fernan III, Cycling Advocates (CYCAD), 1563 Pasaje Rosario, Paco 1007 Manila, Philippines. Tel: +63 2 523 0106, E-mail: ]. 6. MELBOURNE TOLLWAY COURT BATTLES CONTINUE. The court battles against Melbourne's giant City Link tollway are continuing. Philip Morey, a member of the Public Transport Users Association, won an appeal to the Full Bench of the Federal Court against a trial judge's dismissal of his action for misleading and deceptive conduct against the promoters of the tollway. Morey has been granted a retrial of his allegations that the traffic and revenue estimates published by the promoters are inflated. His claims have been given added force by the recent announcement that the owners of the private Hills Motorway in Sydney have suspended payments to investors due to lower than expected traffic volumes. And a case by another PTUA member challenging the Federal tax breaks awarded to City Link goes on appeal to the Full Bench of the Federal Court on 31 October. [Contact: Paul Mees, mees@coombs.anu.edu.au] 7. TOLL ROAD FIGHT IN SANTIAGO, CHILE Growing opposition from community organisations and experts threatens to delay the Costanera Norte highway in Santiago, Chile. A legal writ filed by several community organisations in April halted bidding on the project and forced the ministry to submit an environmental impact study to the Santiago environmental commission (Corema). In July, an unprecedented number of community representatives used Corema's "citizen participation" sessions to get more information from the project's proponents and to present their criticisms. Grassroots opposition is based on four major concerns: destruction of green recreation space; massive air pollution that would emanate from eight chimneys; destruction of communities by destroying commercial activity in certain neighbourhoods; social inequality, as the project would benefit drivers and development projects in prosperous areas, at the expense of the vast majority of people who travel by bus. The project is also inconsistent with official policy to decontaminate Santiago, since by generating more traffic it would impact significantly on air pollution levels. The Latin American Observatory of Environmental Conflicts has recently sponsored the publication of a book on the debate, "Costanera Norte, What City Do We Want?," which will be launched later this month. [Source: Excerpted from an article by Lake Sagaris, from Chip News www.chip.cl, forwarded by Christopher Zegras, Instituto Internacional para la Conservacion de Energia, General Flores 150, Providencia, Santiago, CHILE, Tel: (56 2) 236 9232 Fax: 236 9233, email: , URL: http://www.iiec.org]. 8. FOE BANGLADESH RAISES ALARM OVER DHAKA AIR POLLUTION Although motor vehicle ownership in Dhaka remains low even by South Asian standards, the rate of increase is very high. According to Friends of the Earth Bangladesh, the city's vehicle population has increased by almost ten times since 1992. Dhaka is a very dense city and cannot cope with the influx of vehicles. Millions of people are directly exposed to alarming levels of air pollution, 70% of which is attributed to the highly-polluting poorly-maintained vehicle fleet running on low-quality fuel. A recent BBC report labelled Dhaka as one of the most air polluted cities in the world. Lead is still used in the petrol supply (0.84 grams per litre). The two-stroke engines of auto-rickshaws and tempos (3-wheel micro-buses) which burn a mixture of gasoline and lubricating oil, are particularly polluting. Friends of the Earth is appealing for help in their campaign against vehicular air pollution. [Contact: FOE Bangladesh (Institute for Environment and Development Studies), 6/12-15 Eastern View (5th Floor) 50 D.I.T. Extension Road, Dhaka 1000, GPO Box No. 3691. Tel. +880 2 835394, Fax. +880 2 9566694, 9565506, email: ]. 9. USA TRANSPORT SECTOR AND GLOBAL WARMING In the run up to the Kyoto conference on climate change, the international spotlight has been on the failure of a number of rich countries, especially the United States and Australia, to commit themselves to emissions reductions. Transportation in the "automobile-addicted" United States is the largest single carbon dioxide emitting "energy sector" in the world. A recent study by the National Research Council found that the US. transportation sector accounts for about 4-5% of the CO2 emitted as a result of human activities (including deforestation) annually. United States CO2 emissions from transportation are twice those from Germany, Japan, France and the UK combined (countries which together have a larger population than the US). Since 1990, transportation has been responsible for the largest share of US carbon emissions growth. The National Research Council says US motor vehicle CO2 emissions could double over the next 50 years. The Surface Transportation Policy Project coalition is lobbying the US administration to make the transportation policy connections to emission reductions but most environmental organisations have neglected transport in their greenhouse-related lobbying efforts. Meanwhile, a formidable coalition of big businesses, including auto, oil, road and air transport interests, have been lobbying hard against US action on climate change and launched a media campaign. They oppose any plan that does not also require emission reductions by developing countries. [Sources: Mobilizing the Region #142 and #148, Tri-State Transportation Campaign, 281 Park Ave. South, 2nd Floor, New York, NY 10010, tel. (212) 777-8181, fax (212) 777-8157, email: tstc@tstc.org, URL: http://www.tstc.org/] 10. CAUTION OVER ASIAN DEPENDENCE ON MIDDLE EAST OIL According to a Star report, experts warn that Asia's dependence on oil imports from the Middle East will rise to 90% from 75% by 2010. According to Kazuya Fujime of Japan's Institute of Energy Economics, demand in East Asia for oil will increase by 4.4% a year to reach 14.9 million barrels a day by 2010; with local production only rising 0.6% a year to six million barrels a day. Fujime concluded that Asian nations will need to increase stockpiles to cope with any cut in Middle East supplies by finding other supplies and developing other indigenous energy sources and improving efficiencies. [Source: cited by APRENET's CONNECTIVITY, Asia-Pacific Trade, Environment, and Development Monitor, VOL.1 NO.13, October 24, 1997. This is a useful electronic newsletter. Contact: APRENet, email: , URL: http://www.nautilus.org/aprenet/]. 11. NEW RESOURCES a. "How Communities Organize Themselves - Stories from the Field -" Compiled by Kenneth Fernandes. The stories in this book have been told by activists and community workers from low and middle income settlements of Karachi, at forums organised by the Urban Resource Centre. They provide insights into the collective struggles of low income communities for accessing basic amenities and highlight the process of change that has been initiated at the grassroots level as a result. [Available from Asian Coalition for Housing Rights, 73 Soi Sonthiwattana 4, Ladprao 110, Ladprao Rd, Bangkok 10310, Thailand. Tel: +66 2 538 0919 Fax: 662 539 9950, E-mail: or ]. b. "The Full Costs and Impacts of Transportation in Santiago de Chile" by the International Institute for Energy Conservation (IIEC), 1997, 133 pp. + Appendices. US$25. Recent years have witnessed increasing emphasis on the full costs of transportation. While a number of studies have examined a range of transportation's full costs in OECD countries, little comprehensive work in this field has been conducted in the developing world. This report attempts to fill this gap. The study analyses personal costs (transportation expenditures and travel time), social costs (congestion and accidents), infrastructure costs (road, rail, parking, and land), environmental costs (air and noise pollution, energy resources), as well as issues such as urban outgrowth, water pollution, and equity. The study's results should help to spur and guide similar initiatives in other cities. [To order, contact: International Institute for Energy Conservation, 750 First Street, NE, Suite 940, Washington, DC 20002 USA. Tel: 202 842 3388 Fax: 202 842 1565, email: cmcginn@iiec.org, URL: www.iiec.org]. 12. EVENTS a. Meeting on Aviation, Environment and Development. INZET, Association for North-South Campaigns, is organising a meeting for experts on aviation, environment and development, at Amsterdam Airport Schiphol, banquet rooms 'Amsterdam' and 'Brussels', Friday November 21st, 1300 - 1730. Two main questions will be discussed. Should we take the special position of developing countries into account when introducing economic measures for combating environmental pollution from international aviation? And if so, how? Emissions from aviation have a growing impact on the environment. Ideas on how to combat these emissions include economic instruments like excise duties on kerosene and environmental charges. What would be the effect of these instruments on developing countries? The meeting focuses on Africa South of the Sahara. [Contact: INZET, Association for North-South Campaigns, Keizersgracht 132, 1015 CW Amsterdam Netherlands. Tel: +31.20.6273339, Fax: +31.20.6273839, E-mail: admin@inzet.nl]. b. RESCHEDULED: "Greening Urban Transport: A National Conference on Improving Urban Transport Systems for Better Cities", 11-12 December 1997, Manila. Due to last minute problems this conference has been rescheduled to mid-December. Venue: Institute for Social Order, Ateneo University Campus, Loyola Heights, Quezon City. Organised by the Sustainable Transport Forum [Contact: Conference secretariat: Citizen's Alliance for Consumer Protection (CACP), 3-E Scouter Ojeda St., Roxas District, Quezon City Tel. (63-2)411-5753; 927-3658; fax. 410-0998; e-mail: cacp@phil.gn.apc.org]. c. "International Short Course on Urban Mobility and Non-Motorised Transport" at IHE Delft. The course, to be held in Delft, The Netherlands, from 23-27 March 1998, is meant for policy makers, urban managers/planners and traffic and road engineers involved in transport planning and management. Starting from an overview of the differences in, and similarities of urban transport issues in developed and developing countries, the course deals with integrated urban transport planning and management, focussing on planning and engineering for non-motorised transport. The organisers, the Department of Transport and Road Engineering of IHE Delft, draw on both the extensive Dutch expertise of the subject matter, and on their experience in East Africa in the Non-Motorised Urban Transport Pilot projects in Kenya and Tanzania in the framework of the World Bank/UNECA Sub_Sahara Africa Transport Programme. [Contact: J.H. Koster, Tel: +31.15.2151750, fax +31.15.2122921, email: jhk@ihe.nl]. 13. QUICK QUOTE "A short walk trip is the highest achievement of urban transport planning. Obviously it is not possible for all activities to lie within walking distance, but it is possible by bad planning for the great majority to lie beyond walking distance." (J.M. Thomson, 1977, in "Great Cities and Their Traffic" - this book is a classic by the way.) The Sustainable Transport Action Network for Asia & the Pacific (SUSTRAN) is dedicated to promoting transport policies and investments which foster accessibility for all; social equity; ecological sustainability; health and safety; public participation; and high quality of life. We rely on you, the participants in the network, for our news. Thank you to everyone who has sent material. Please keep it coming. We welcome brief news and announcements from all over the world. From mobility at igc.apc.org Tue Nov 18 07:43:27 1997 From: mobility at igc.apc.org (Institute for Transportation and Development Policy) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 14:43:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: [sustran] GEF Transport Strategy needs revision Message-ID: <2.2.16.19971117183430.2c771edc@pop.igc.org> Dear Sustran Discussion List, The Global Environmental Facility, which funds major projects related to greenhouse gas emissions reductions and is controlled by the World Bank is about to come out with their funding criteria for the transport sector, and as we feared the news is grim. An 'expert panel' was selected to identify legitimate interventions, and this panel was completely captured by the electric vehicle and fuel cell battery industry and research types. The guidelines virtually foreclose projects for bike lanes, bus lanes, and capacity building and advocacy campaigning. We need to mobilize a letter of complaint to Mr. Dilip Ajuta from the World BAnk GEF office. I will search the Web to see if the official draft is already on there, but in the meanwhile, here are the comments from our man at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency based on the briefing of U.S. Treasury Dept. officials... Rgds, Walter Hook, ITDP > >Subject: GEF Transport Strategy > >This is a brief synopsis and discussion of Dilip Ahuda's presentation of >the draft GEF transportation operational policy (OP11). > >NB: The draft OP would become the sole OP for GEF transport project >purposes. Dilip proposed that transport sector projects currently eligible >under otherOPs (6,7,8?) should be no longer be GEF-eligible unless they met >OP11 criteria. > >Process. The OP was developed this summer on the basis of a STAP workshop >and papers commissioned from IIASA (on transport sector intervention >opportunities) and from AIT (on Bangkok transport sector opportunities). >It has been circulated to IPCC consultative group and to STAP for comment. >Comments have been received and reviewed (and apparently, largely rejected >at least with respect to the major issue of a narrow focus on vehicle >technology). >It is planned that the draft OP will be placed on the WEB for public >comment in December. >In a comment, I urged that the background papers as well as the World >Bank Transport Policy be posted on the web along with the OP draft. I >suggest we request a copy of the background papers, i.e., the IIASA, AIT >papers and STAP comments. > >Substance. The "bottom line" for GEF support is basically that it would >focus on reconfiguring bus and motorized bike/trikes motors for non-GHG >fuels, e.g., hydrogen and fuel cells. More broadly, the focus is on >what is inconsistently termed urban "infrastructure" or >"technology"--really motor engine fuel shifts. Brief reference was also >made to GEF support for fossil fuels, e.g., natural gas, where in the "long >run" it could be expected to assist evolution to non-fossil fuels (whatever >that means). > >Rationale. The argument went somewhat as follows. Going in, it was >assumed that GEF should focus on urban transport and on paying the >"increment" needed to reduce technological cost to achieve GHG benefit. >Next step was to eliminate GEF-ineligible projects. Ineligible are: Urban >mass transit (too expensive for GEF); promoting electric and hybrid cars >(would help first world countries more than developing countries); road >efficiency improvements (would only serve to lock in country commitment to >an unsustainable transportation paradigm, i.e.,internal combustion >engines). Third step: GEF eligibility criteria should include: benefit >to "multiple" technical chains (one technology with several applications, >e.g., fuel cells); "conducive" local policies that would help to lock in >the change; multiple local benefits (to make the change sustainable >locally--although such multiple local benefits would given GEF >predilections would not counted in calculating net incremental cost), >local constituency support. A corollary is that cities already locked >into internal combustion, e.g., Bangkok, Manila, would not be GEF eligible; >eligibility would be limited to cities such as Shanghai where the "die was >not yet cast". > > By elimination, Dilip's logic leaves GEF with bus engines and >motorcycles/tricycles in cities other than those already heavily motorized. > > More specifically, GEF would fund the increment needed to enable >municipalities procurement of fuel-cell powered bus fleets where there was >municipal demand; and would fund increment needed to induce motorcycle >manufacturers to install similar non-GHG technology. > >General reactions. Audience reaction to the presentation seemed >distinctly cool judging by the four or five comments made (including those >of a German and a Dutch observer). All seemed puzzled by the message that >GEF should focus seemingly exclusively on bus/motorcycle engine technology >in less-motorized cities. > >Comments. The logic train just leaves me shaking my head. It seems classic >Bank missing-the- forest- for- the- trees. > >--Without having any numbers, I would assume that--however large third >world bus fleets in relation to first world fleets--third world urban bus >and motorcycle emissions comprise a miniscule portion of projected >transportation-based GHG emissions in GEF eligible countries. > >--Dilip's approach utterly fails to address major transportation policy >problems--mobility provision, automobile usage--and conspicuously fails to >address maintaining/growing the share of non-motorized vehicles >(non-GHG-emitting) which still comprise a large part of vehicle fleets in >developing countries. > >--When asked about cars, Dilip's responses are contradictory and >unsatisfying, regardless of whether one happens to think GEF should or >should not fund fuel cell car technology. He says doing car engines would >impermissibly help first world customers--but also that promoting fuel >cells in buses is strategic because it would help commercialize the >technology for application to cars. Assuming without knowing whether the >latter point is true, it seems to me that IF fuel cell commercialization >for cars is the underlying (however debatable) GEF objective here, THEN >GEF support for fuel cell passenger vehicles should be direct, not >indirect. After all, personal motorized vehicles, not buses, are the >unignorable crux of the problem, South as well as North. To argue that the >latter would incidentally be benefited seems a bit purist (and doesn't >"prove" that GEF should therefore support buses and motorcycles). It also >ignores that car manufacture is relocating to Asia and other "southern" >regions for sale into southern, not northern, markets; by extension, for >GEF to address these manufacturers would not "benefit" northern consumers >absent technology transfer. A second argument--that GEF resources are too >small to make much difference in the growing fuel-cell car market may be >true but does not "prove" that the only other kind of, or most appropriate >form of , GEF investment is fuel cells for bus and motorcycle engines. > >--Dilip's approach rules out GEF support in rural transport issues ab >initio. There may be good reasons for this but the question warrants >further exploration. Is there nothing GEF might usefuly do? How much of >the future GHG problem might be associated with highway extension in the >name of market integration, with urban migration associated with lack of >farmer access to markets? How catalytic might GEF be in regular Bank >programming given the renewed emphases on rural poverty? > >--To avoid being misunderstood, let me clarify that I am not saying that >GEF should not be involved in the kinds of things Dilip described. What >perplexes me is the notion that these should be the exclusive or even major >focus of GEF work in the sector. I would have thought, for instance, that > > -- given planning and research sector capacity constraints throughout >GEF-eligible countries, > -- the broadening understanding that motorization "strategies" in >cities like Bangkok are unsustainable, > > -- emerging demands to "do something" to protect health, etc., > > that a GEF strategy to catalyze domestic urban planning action to achieve >domestic and global benefits could be well-received. I know you will >want to get other reactions and impressions. I would welcome an >opportunity when appropriate to discuss the general subject further. >Cheers. > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________ The Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) 115 West 30th Street, Suite 1205 New York, NY 10001 Tel 212-629 8001, Fax 212-629 8033 mobility@igc.apc.org From tkpb at barter.pc.my Tue Nov 18 23:09:13 1997 From: tkpb at barter.pc.my (Paul Barter) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 22:09:13 +0800 (MYT) Subject: [sustran] Bikes on trains (fwd) Message-ID: Many of us know about the great benefits of bike parking at major public transport stops and stations. Many cities are also increasingly allowing bicycles onto trains. With so many rail projects underway and planned in Asia, this could become an important issue here. I am also reposting this to make you aware of the Bicycle News Agency... see URL at the end of the message. Paul. Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 01:47:53 +0100 From: Ernst Poulsen To: bikenews@cycling.org, eurobike@cycling.org, scancykel@cycling.org Subject: Bikenews 22/97: Bicycles enter subway trains The Bicycle News Agency 22/97 November 17th, 1997 BIKES ENTER SUBWAY TRAINS Copenhagen, Brussels, and Barcelona are setting examples for the rest of the world by radically improving conditions for cyclists on subway trains. By Ernst Poulsen Politicians and civil servants have finally come to understand that the combination of trains and bicycles is the perfect way of getting citizens to change to more ecological way of transport in the European capitols and large cities. Copenhagen has a 10-year history of slowly improving conditions for cyclists, and combined with regular counting cyclists, the authorities are able to measure the results of specific campaigns. One very interesting result is the recent 54% percent increase in the number of cyclists on subway trains. The huge jump came as a result of a special campaign which made it free to bring bikes on trains during the weekend. An advertisement campaign brought extra focus to the service. The S-trains presently allow two bicycle per train wagon-set. An average train will allow 4-6 bicycles. This will slowly improve as newly designed wagons are put into service. These hold room for at least 8 bicycles, no matter the length of the train. Barcelona is another city with improved services for cyclists. This city has allowed bicycles on trains on weekends since 1993, but as this has proved to be without problems, cyclists are now allowed to bring their bicycles onto the trains all week outside rush hours. The Barcelona trains allow cyclists without any charges, and the Spanish city is also about to change station gates to allow easy access with bicycles. Brussels has gone through the same period of "trial" - finding out that bikes on trains do not generate problems. In Brussels it costs a one time fee of 1,25 Euro/Ecu to buy bicycle pass which will allow the bike on trains on weekdays after 7 pm (19.00) and all weekend. ----------------------------------------------------------- FURTHER INFORMATION The Danish Railways - S-Trains (select "cykler") (in Danish) http://www.dsb.dk/din_rejse/priser_og_info/billetter/ Voyager dans la zone de Bruxelles (in French) http://www.b-rail.be/F/domestic/formul/zonebxl.htm Transports Metropolitan de Barcelona (in English or Catalonian) http://www.tmb.net/ ----------------------------------------------------------- The Bicycle News Agency / Bikenews@cycling.org http://webhotel.uni-c.dk/dcf/agency.htm Editor, Ernst Poulsen ernst@inet.uni2.dk All articles are the copyright of both The Bicycle News Agency and the individual authors. If you wish to print this article or quote parts of it in your magazine, it is possible to buy a news-subscription. Please contact the BNA editor. One year rates range from 25-400$ for magazines. Individual may still subscribe free. From tkpb at barter.pc.my Thu Nov 20 01:00:13 1997 From: tkpb at barter.pc.my (Paul Barter) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 00:00:13 +0800 (MYT) Subject: [sustran] US resource on transport pricing for emission reduction Message-ID: These US-based reports may have wider interest I hope. I have not yet had a look myself. Paul. Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 08:58:03 -0500 From: Joann Jackson_Stephens Subject: U.S. EPA Transportation Pricing Reports Available To: alt-transp@flora.org The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is pleased to announce the availability of two companion transportation pricing reports! EPA*s Office of Mobile Sources presents *Opportunities to Improve Air Quality Through Transportation Pricing Projects*. This 130-page information document explains what transportation pricing is and how transportation pricing programs can lead to reduced emissions, and includes examples of pricing programs that have been undertaken in the United States. It explains how and why pricing strategies can be very efficient and effective ways to reduce air pollution while maximizing freedom of choice. It also explains how pricing strategies take advantage of market innovations to improve air quality while also creating many other environmental and social benefits. The document also discusses some of the issues that will face an agency that decides to undertake a pricing program, such as institutional relationships, public involvement and acceptance, and equity in transportation pricing programs. If you*d like a copy, it can be downloaded from the following web site: http://www.epa.gov/omswww/market.htm. Send an email with your name and address to *oms-mkt-incen@epamail.epa.gov* for a printed copy to be mailed to you or to get additional information. EPA's Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation presents *Guidance on the Use of Market Mechanisms to Reduce Transportation Emissions*. This guidance document will provide planners and decision makers with information on transportation pricing policies that can help them attain air quality goals. This document provides explicit guidance for claiming credit for pricing measures in plans to attain air quality standards, maintain standards or meet reasonable progress requirements. It also provides suggestions on how to improve transportation modeling practice to account for market based transportation policies. It provides both policy information for decision makers and modeling guidance for technical staff. A copy may be downloaded as of January 1998 from the Transportation Partner's web-site at http://www.epa.gov/docs/oppeinet/oppe/tp/index.htm. Get additional information or request a copy from Bob Noland at 202-260-2418 or send email to *noland.bob@epamail.epa.gov*. A. Rahman Paul BARTER Sustainable Transport Action Network for Asia & the Pacific (SUSTRAN) c/o Asia Pacific 2000, PO Box 12544, 50782 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Fax: +603 253 2361, E-mail: ------------------------------------------------- SUSTRAN is dedicated to promoting transport policies and investments which foster accessibility for all; social equity; ecological sustainability; health and safety; public participation; and high quality of life. From ecoplan_the_commons at compuserve.com Thu Nov 20 03:44:36 1997 From: ecoplan_the_commons at compuserve.com (Britton EcoPlan) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 13:44:36 -0500 Subject: [sustran] sustran-discuss V1 #100 Message-ID: <199711191344_MC2-28CB-6CDA@compuserve.com> Dear Sustran Discussion List and of course Walter Hook, Walter Hook wrote: >>The Global Environmental Facility, which funds major projects related to greenhouse gas emissions reductions and is controlled by the World Bank is about to come out with their funding criteria for the transport sector, and as we feared the news is grim.... We need to mobilize a letter of complaint to Mr. Dilip Ajuta from the World Bank GEF office.<< A couple of quick and I hope useful reactions to that, if I may. 1. This (their present game plan) is a shameful, retrograde piece of work, and I feel sure that it is doubtless fairly presented in your note of yesterday. I certainly agree that their recommendation requires an immediate and strong response, and further that this forum can be a great place to start. 2. I call it shameful because it is so dreadfully predictable in its own way. Count on the Bank to find yet one more way to get it wrong in the transport sector (that between us here in private, of course). 3. The problem of course is that they have once again narrowed their sights before really understanding what the real issue set is... that is, they are dishing out answers without understanding what the basic questions are. 4. As our observant friends point out, it's not that there is anything WRONG with the hydrogen/fuel cell option. I have no problem understanding how my friends at IIASA and the AIT can fall in love with this stuff. Indeed it is terrific stuff and a whole gob of public money cleverly deployed is indeed needed to make the timely breakthrough which really is (yes! this time it really is) right out there in the near term horizon. (Fact is we will be looking very closely at these technologies in the next round of our Toward Zero Emissions Conference which is shortly to get underway at http://www.the-commons.org/zero-ems, together with photovoltaics, because we too are convinced that this is heady and timely stuff). 5. Problem is, of course, that all of this means precious little in real world terms if our concern is -- as indeed it should be! -- with cities and regions that are presently being split asunder by their lousy transportation configurations. Fooling around with power sources of vehicles is no more than nibbling at the margins of the real problems they are facing. Even if we were somehow able to get it all splendidly right, even in a best case all of this would not be making much more than a percent of a percent impact on the full range of sustainability issues over the coming 5 or more years. As they put it in sunny Southern California (cough! cough!), let's get real. 6. You all know this well of course, but somehow we have to find a way to get the message across. 7. Based on what I read yesterday I very much doubt that Mr. Dilip Ajuta is going to be part of the solution. Looks to me in fact like he is a central part of the problem. So I really see no sense of appealing to him, since it will doubtless only drive him yet deeper into a denial mode (and we all know how that works). May I suggest instead that we go for (a) his boss's boss and (b) do this in the full glare of day (though of course most genteel-ly). 8. Might be that what is needed is a nicely reasoned, calmly worded plain English response of no more than half a page which makes our point and then is signed by one or two hundred "International Experts and Concerned Citizens". ( Such a "Declaration" could be backed up by supporting papers, a bibliography, list of WWW sites that help make the point, further define what might be the path, etc., but should be kept short and to the point for media and public discussion purposes. Also, wouldn't it make sense for us in our wording of all this to take a very positive slant? We might, for example, heap praise on them for their recommendation, but then kindly explain that we have to go WAY beyond that if the truly agonizing environmental and life quality brief is to be properly served.) From here, we would be pleased to offer a special home page on The Commons in support of this initiative. I also feel that we could probably come up with quite a large number of distinguished signatories. Finally, might we somehow link this to Kyoto or somehow use it as a fulcrum to lift up this dead weight. Sorry to be so wordy and so hasty, but seems to me that this needs to be attacked without losing even another day. With all good wishes, Eric Britton _________________________________________________________________ EcoPlan International -- Technology, Economics & Social Systems E-mail: postmaster@the-commons.org/ecoplan World Wide Web: http://www.the-commons.org Day Phone: 331.4441.6340 (Also ISDN videoconference/groupwork) Day Fax: 331.4441.6341 ISDN Data: 331.4441.6342 Mobile Phone: 336.0737.7798 Postal: EcoPlan International Le Frene, 8/10 rue Joseph Bara F-75006 Paris, France 24 hour backup phone/fax: 331.4326.1323 From Brian.Williams at unchs.org Thu Nov 20 17:24:50 1997 From: Brian.Williams at unchs.org (Brian.Williams@unchs.org) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 08:24:50 GMT Subject: [sustran] GEF Transport Strategy needs revision Message-ID: <9711200824.322540@unchs57.unep.org> Dear Colleagues, As I was in attendance at and participated in a number of panel discussions during the STAP workshop on developing criteria and guidelines for including GEF transport programming within the Climate Change Tranche, I feel compelled to comment on the apparent final outcome as previously outlined by Dr. Hook at ITDP and Christopher Herman from the US Dept. of Treasury. The expert group panel that was convened to discuss these issues in Nairobi in March of this year represented a well-balanced cross-section of GEF partners as well as regionally-balanced representation from a cross-section of stakeholders. It was clear from the outset that the terms of reference for the meeting was that we were charged with the responsibility to evaluate ALL potential GHG mitigating strategies vis-a-vis transport. This included not only alternative vehicles/fuels but strategies to limit travel demand for trips by polluting modes; land use measures (e.g. promoting mixed uses); non-motorized transport etc. For example, one very key issue that arose was the degree to which the poor are currently underserved by transport generally. In response, it was suggested that a comprehensive and long-term strategy withing the GEF's transport programming needed to embrace both supply side AND demand-side measures as the costs of bringing the poor into the failed consuption patterns in transport currently in evidence would be prohibitive (and certainly out of the realm of the GEF). For your information, and for example, among the key papers presented during the meeting was a case-study of busways in Curitiba by one of the GEF partners, UNDP; Transport-demand management measures in Singapore highlighting emissions reductions in Singapore through various pricing mechanisms; Mobility and Sustainable Development in Gabarone, Botswana; A comprehensive study of emission impacts and energy consumption of travel in India under various scenarios, one of which were changes in modal composition (i.e. increases in public transport as percentage of modal share). Two papers were also presented on emerging and advanced transport technologies with respect to hydrogen-based fuels, fuel-cell batteries, etc. Given the above, I too am rather concerned about the apparent final outcome of the review process as it does not seem to adequately reflect the comprehensive nature of the discussions. While transport technology transfer from North to South presents numerous opportunities for GHG emissions reductions in the long-run, I do not believe it can be viewed in isolation from other strategies more appropriate for balanced urban development generally in the here and now, which, if taken, would reduce the financial burden on developing countries for actions which need to be undertaken in this sector. As I representative of a United Nations organization involved in sustainable developoment and human settlements generally and not directly involved as a GEF partner, my abilities to dirctly influence the final outcome of GEF's transport-related interventions have been and are limited. Nevertheless, I felt compelled to at least express a reporting of the technical meeting I was in attendance at in Nairobi which I believe was a candid and open discussion of the issues (among all technical experts invited as well as GEF representatives from the World Bank and UNEP, IIASA and AIT) and I am at a loss to explain the final outcome. It may be useful at this juncture to ensure a productive and useful outcome for all concerned (and in order not to reinvent the wheel as we are all busy people) that the actual discussions at the STAP meeting be referred to as a potential access or intervention point to encourage the GEF secretariat to consider additional GHG mitigation measures as appropriate. I suggest this only because, while it is often convenient to suggest that a particular position was rammed through without consultations, this would be an inaccurate assessment of the situation in this case. In any letters or other communication with the secretariat on this issue, it might be useful to refer the actual proceedings of the STAP meeting in order to immediately elevate the discussion to what can now potentially be included or added (why or why not, what was the reasoning used, etc., etc.) away from the (understandable) vitriolic reactions that are beginning to come in. Just a few random thoughts. thanks. Regards, Brian Williams, Human Settlements Officer United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (HABITAT) Research and Development Division P.O. Box 30030, Nairobi, Kenya TEL: (254 2) 623-916 FAX: (254 2) 624-265 EMAIL: brian.williams@unchs.org From ifrtd at gn.apc.org Thu Nov 20 18:52:03 1997 From: ifrtd at gn.apc.org (Niklas Sieber) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 09:52:03 +0000 Subject: [sustran] US resource on transport pricing for emission redu In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <199711201002.KAA07167@gn3.gn.apc.org> Lieber Herr Rothengatter ich habe diese mail gestern von einem Verteiler erhalten. Vielleicht interessieren Sie sich fuer die Dokumente. Leider kann ich zur Weihnachstfeier nicht kommen, weil ich erst am 21. nach Hamburg fliege. Aber im Fruehjahr werde ich mit Jan ein Seminar veranstalten und deshalb nach Karlsruhe kommen. Ansonsten steht meine Einladung in London noch aus. Viele Gruesse an die Familie und die Assis des IWW. Niklas Sieber > Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 00:00:13 +0800 (MYT) > To: sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org > From: tkpb@barter.pc.my (Paul Barter) > Subject: [sustran] US resource on transport pricing for emission reduction > Reply-to: sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org > These US-based reports may have wider interest I hope. I have not yet had a > look myself. > Paul. > > > Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 08:58:03 -0500 > From: Joann Jackson_Stephens > Subject: U.S. EPA Transportation Pricing Reports Available > To: alt-transp@flora.org > > The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is pleased to announce > the availability of two companion transportation pricing reports! > > EPA*s Office of Mobile Sources presents > *Opportunities to Improve Air Quality Through Transportation Pricing > Projects*. > > This 130-page information document explains what transportation pricing > is and how transportation pricing programs can lead to reduced emissions, > and includes examples of pricing programs that have been undertaken in the > United States. It explains how and why pricing strategies can be very > efficient and effective ways to reduce air pollution while maximizing > freedom of choice. It also explains how pricing strategies take advantage > of market innovations to improve air quality while also creating many > other environmental and social benefits. The document also discusses some > of the issues that will face an agency that decides to undertake a pricing > program, such as institutional relationships, public involvement and > acceptance, and equity in transportation pricing programs. > > If you*d like a copy, it can be downloaded from the following web site: > http://www.epa.gov/omswww/market.htm. Send an email with your name and > address to *oms-mkt-incen@epamail.epa.gov* for a printed copy to be mailed > to you or to get additional information. > > EPA's Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation presents > *Guidance on the Use of Market Mechanisms to Reduce Transportation > Emissions*. > > This guidance document will provide planners and decision makers with > information on transportation pricing policies that can help them attain > air quality goals. This document provides explicit guidance for claiming > credit for pricing measures in plans to attain air quality standards, > maintain standards or meet reasonable progress requirements. It also > provides suggestions on how to improve transportation modeling practice to > account for market based transportation policies. It provides both policy > information for decision makers and modeling guidance for technical staff. > > A copy may be downloaded as of January 1998 from the Transportation > Partner's web-site at http://www.epa.gov/docs/oppeinet/oppe/tp/index.htm. > Get additional information or request a copy from Bob Noland at > 202-260-2418 or send email to *noland.bob@epamail.epa.gov*. > > A. Rahman Paul BARTER > Sustainable Transport Action Network for Asia & the Pacific (SUSTRAN) > c/o Asia Pacific 2000, PO Box 12544, 50782 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. > Fax: +603 253 2361, E-mail: > ------------------------------------------------- > SUSTRAN is dedicated to promoting transport policies and investments > which foster accessibility for all; social equity; ecological sustainability; > health and safety; public participation; and high quality of life. > > From ecoplan_the_commons at compuserve.com Thu Nov 20 20:02:48 1997 From: ecoplan_the_commons at compuserve.com (Britton EcoPlan) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 06:02:48 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Revision/expansion of my yesterday's somewhat aggressive (but not negative) commentary on World Bank draft plan for Global Environmental Facility Message-ID: <199711200603_MC2-28E2-387E@compuserve.com> Subject: Revision/expansion of my yesterday's somewhat aggressive (but not negative) commentary on World Bank draft plan for Global Environmental Facility Walter Hook wrote in Sustran-discuss V1 #100: >>The Global Environmental Facility, which funds major projects related to greenhouse gas emissions reductions and is controlled by the World Bank is about to come out with their funding criteria for the transport sector, and as we feared the news is grim.... We need to mobilize a letter of complaint to Mr. Dilip Ajuta from the World Bank GEF office.<< A couple of quick and I hope useful reactions to that, if I may. 1. The present game plan strikes me as a retrograde piece of work, and knowing the players I feel quite sure that it is fairly presented in your note of yesterday. I certainly agree that their recommendation requires an immediate and strong response. I further concur that this forum can be a great place to start. 2. I call it retrograde because it is so dreadfully predictable in its own way. (Count on the Bank to find yet one more way to get the environmental side of the issues wrong in the transport sector. I really seems to be their Achilles' heel. That between us here in private, of course). The problem, sadly!, is that they have once again narrowed their sights before fully grasping the real issue set... that is, they are here dishing out answers without understanding what the basic questions are... the priorities out there in and near the streets of the cities of the developing countries. 3. As our observant friends point out, it's not that there is anything WRONG with the hydrogen/fuel cell option. To the contrary! I for one certainly have no problem understanding how my friends at IIASA and the AIT can fall in love with this. Indeed it is terrific and timely stuff and a whole gob of public money cleverly deployed is most certainly just what is needed now to help advance and shape the timely technology breakthrough which really is (yes! this time it really is) right out there in the near term horizon. (Fact is we will be looking very closely at these technologies in the next round of our Toward Zero Emissions Conference which is shortly to get underway at http://www.the-commons.org/zero-ems, together with photovoltaics, because we too are convinced that this is heady and timely stuff). 4. Problem is, of course, that all of this means precious little in real world terms if our concern is -- as indeed it should be with a Global ENVIRONMENTAL Facility! -- with cities and regions that are presently being split asunder by their lousy transportation configurations. The problem of transport in cities is many sided, systemic, and thus so too must be the approach. And the time horizon is not some comfortable 5 to 25 years or whatever it takes to get even the most benign of these new technologies in place and performing in a way that they make a real, palpable, breathable difference. Fooling around with power sources of vehicles under the present circumstances is no more than nibbling at the margins of the real, crushing problems they are currently facing. Even if we were somehow able to get this particular technology route splendidly right, even in a best case... all of this would not be making much more than a percent of a percent impact on the full range of sustainability issues over the coming 5 or so years. As they put it in sunny Southern California (cough! cough!), let's get real. 5. You all know this well of course, but somehow we have to find a way to get the message across. Based on what I read yesterday I very much doubt that Mr. Dilip Ajuta is going to be part of the solution, at least not in a first instance. Looks to me in fact that as things stand he is more part of the problem. So I really see no sense of appealing to him directly, since it will doubtless only drive him yet deeper into a denial mode (and we all know how that works). May I suggest instead that we go for (a) his boss's boss and (b) do this in the full glare of day (though of course most genteel-ly). 6. Nuance! Putting the less diplomatic parts of the above diatribe aside (pardon my passion), may I suggest further that we go at this now in a way that opens up a 'new partnership' which Mr. Dilip Ajuta and the others who have put their shoulders together on the present initiative at the Bank thus far can join in... early and with enthusiasm. In fact, if we are really clever, we may be able to engineer this in such a way that all those who have thus far labored to get things this far will in fact a strong sense of ownership in the new and expanded policy which I hope that we will now be able to hope them develop. After all, success can afford the luxury of many smiling fathers (and mothers). It's a big house. 7. Might be that what is needed is a nicely reasoned, calmly worded, plain English response of less than a page which makes our point and then is signed by one or two hundred "International Experts and Concerned Citizens". ( Such a "Declaration" could be backed up by supporting papers, a bibliography, list of WWW sites and references that help make the point, further define what might be the path, etc., but should be kept short and to the point for media and public discussion purposes. 8. Also, wouldn't it make good sense for us in our wording and approach to take a very positive slant one all of this? We might, for example, begin by praising them briefly for their recommendation, and then kindly explain that we must go WAY beyond that if the truly agonizing environmental and life quality brief - which is indeed the proper brief of the GEF -- is to be properly served. 9. We might also give a word concerning the importance of the issues and the routes that they have already targeted for funding under SOME OTHER program of the Bank or international community - on the grounds that it really is a hot trail. (Without forgetting of course that it is not OUR trail.) From here, we would be pleased to offer space for a home page on The Commons in support of this initiative. I also feel that we could probably come u p with quite a large number of distinguished signatories, and as soon as we have our statement set will be pleased to go out chasing for support. Finally, might we somehow link this to Kyoto or somehow use it as a fulcrum to lift up this otherwise dead weight? Would be nice if we could turn what presently looks like a bit of a problem into an opportunity! With all good wishes, Eric Britton _________________________________________________________________ EcoPlan International -- Technology, Economics & Social Systems E-mail: postmaster@the-commons.org/ecoplan World Wide Web: http://www.the-commons.org Day Phone: 331.4441.6340 (Also ISDN videoconference/groupwork) Day Fax: 331.4441.6341 ISDN Data: 331.4441.6342 Mobile Phone: 336.0737.7798 Postal: EcoPlan International Le Frene, 8/10 rue Joseph Bara F-75006 Paris, France 24 hour backup phone/fax: 331.4326.1323 From chris at mailnet.rdc.cl Fri Nov 21 07:01:42 1997 From: chris at mailnet.rdc.cl (Christopher Zegras) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 19:01:42 -0300 Subject: [sustran] GEF Strategy Message-ID: <199711202201.TAA08210@mailnet.rdc.cl> Brian, Thanks very much for the clarification on the process of the GEF Transport Strategy Development, which makes the STAP's final product even more astounding. A cohesive response, utilizing SUSTRANS members as a foundation, would be good. I think it is critical to expand the regional representation of the response (i.e., Latin America, Africa) as well as the sectoral representation (i.e., local developing country government officials). The latter is very important, since the UNDP and GEF ostensibly make "developing" country-driven initiatives a first criteria for any of its ultimate activities. We must also keep in mind (and in response to Eric Britton's "somewhat aggressive" ;^) comments), that the GEF, although primarily managed on a day-to-day basis by the Bank (i.e., GEF initiatives incorporated into Bank and IFC loans), is not an exclusive World Bank entity, and I would be very surprised if the World Bank actually had an over-riding role in the STAP. >From what I can tell, the Bank has been maintaining a distance in GEF policy-formation. So, we best be very sure of the process of developing the STAP position before we begin criticizing the Bank (at least on this specific issue). Indeed, I think we could use the Bank's own recently released transport policy, to help formulate criticisms of this GEF Transport Policy. Best wishes, Chris Zegras Date: Thu, 20 Nov 97 08:24:50 GMT From: Brian.Williams@unchs.org Subject: RE: [sustran] GEF Transport Strategy needs revision Dear Colleagues, As I was in attendance at and participated in a number of panel discussions during the STAP workshop on developing criteria and guidelines for including GEF transport programming within the Climate Change Tranche, I feel compelled to comment on the apparent final outcome as previously outlined by Dr. Hook at ITDP and Christopher Herman from the US Dept. of Treasury. The expert group panel that was convened to discuss these issues in Nairobi in March of this year represented a well-balanced cross-section of GEF partners as well as regionally-balanced representation from a cross-section of stakeholders. It was clear from the outset that the terms of reference for the meeting was that we were charged with the responsibility to evaluate ALL potential GHG mitigating strategies vis-a-vis transport. This included not only alternative vehicles/fuels but strategies to limit travel demand for trips by polluting modes; land use measures (e.g. promoting mixed uses); non-motorized transport etc. For example, one very key issue that arose was the degree to which the poor are currently underserved by transport generally. In response, it was suggested that a comprehensive and long-term strategy withing the GEF's transport programming needed to embrace both supply side AND demand-side measures as the costs of bringing the poor into the failed consuption patterns in transport currently in evidence would be prohibitive (and certainly out of the realm of the GEF). For your information, and for example, among the key papers presented during the meeting was a case-study of busways in Curitiba by one of the GEF partners, UNDP; Transport-demand management measures in Singapore highlighting emissions reductions in Singapore through various pricing mechanisms; Mobility and Sustainable Development in Gabarone, Botswana; A comprehensive study of emission impacts and energy consumption of travel in India under various scenarios, one of which were changes in modal composition (i.e. increases in public transport as percentage of modal share). Two papers were also presented on emerging and advanced transport technologies with respect to hydrogen-based fuels, fuel-cell batteries, etc. Given the above, I too am rather concerned about the apparent final outcome of the review process as it does not seem to adequately reflect the comprehensive nature of the discussions. While transport technology transfer from North to South presents numerous opportunities for GHG emissions reductions in the long-run, I do not believe it can be viewed in isolation from other strategies more appropriate for balanced urban development generally in the here and now, which, if taken, would reduce the financial burden on developing countries for actions which need to be undertaken in this sector. As I representative of a United Nations organization involved in sustainable developoment and human settlements generally and not directly involved as a GEF partner, my abilities to dirctly influence the final outcome of GEF's transport-related interventions have been and are limited. Nevertheless, I felt compelled to at least express a reporting of the technical meeting I was in attendance at in Nairobi which I believe was a candid and open discussion of the issues (among all technical experts invited as well as GEF representatives from the World Bank and UNEP, IIASA and AIT) and I am at a loss to explain the final outcome. It may be useful at this juncture to ensure a productive and useful outcome for all concerned (and in order not to reinvent the wheel as we are all busy people) that the actual discussions at the STAP meeting be referred to as a potential access or intervention point to encourage the GEF secretariat to consider additional GHG mitigation measures as appropriate. I suggest this only because, while it is often convenient to suggest that a particular position was rammed through without consultations, this would be an inaccurate assessment of the situation in this case. In any letters or other communication with the secretariat on this issue, it might be useful to refer the actual proceedings of the STAP meeting in order to immediately elevate the discussion to what can now potentially be included or added (why or why not, what was the reasoning used, etc., etc.) away from the (understandable) vitriolic reactions that are beginning to come in. Just a few random thoughts. thanks. Regards, Brian Williams, Human Settlements Officer United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (HABITAT) Research and Development Division P.O. Box 30030, Nairobi, Kenya TEL: (254 2) 623-916 FAX: (254 2) 624-265 EMAIL: brian.williams@unchs.org Christopher Zegras http://www.iiec.org /\ /^\ Instituto Internacional para la Conservacion de Energia /^\ /_o\ / \ General Flores 150, Providencia, Santiago, CHILE /^^^/_\< /^^^^^\ Tel: (56 2) 236 9232 Fax: 236 9233 / (*)/(*) \ From mobility at igc.apc.org Fri Nov 21 08:05:04 1997 From: mobility at igc.apc.org (Institute for Transportation and Development Policy) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 15:05:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: [sustran] GEF Strategy Message-ID: <2.2.16.19971120185609.23573eb0@pop.igc.org> Further news on the GEF debate. Central and Eastern Europe Bankwatch Network has a full copy of the "GEF Operational Program Number 11: Promoting Sustainable Transport Infrastructure". They were somehow also involved in the consultative process and they too are astounded and outraged, and would like to participate in a joint response. I now have about 7 out of twenty pages of the original. It does not appear to be up on the web yet, but CEE bankwatch network is mailing it to me. If I don't get the full text from the World Bank in the next week I should have the hard copy in about ten days, and I will put some choice comments up on the web. We officially have until January 5, 1998 to respond. paul, perhaps you should add CEE bankwatch to the email list? at least and maybe also which is the European Federation for Transport and Environment's CEEC Office. Rgds, Walter Hook At 07:01 PM 11/20/97 -0300, Christopher Zegras wrote: >Brian, > >Thanks very much for the clarification on the process of the GEF Transport >Strategy Development, which makes the STAP's final product even more astounding. > >A cohesive response, utilizing SUSTRANS members as a foundation, would be >good. I think it is critical to expand the regional representation of the >response (i.e., Latin America, Africa) as well as the sectoral >representation (i.e., local developing country government officials). The >latter is very important, since the UNDP and GEF ostensibly make >"developing" country-driven initiatives a first criteria for any of its >ultimate activities. > >We must also keep in mind (and in response to Eric Britton's "somewhat >aggressive" ;^) comments), that the GEF, although primarily managed on a >day-to-day basis by the Bank (i.e., GEF initiatives incorporated into Bank >and IFC loans), is not an exclusive World Bank entity, and I would be very >surprised if the World Bank actually had an over-riding role in the STAP. >>From what I can tell, the Bank has been maintaining a distance in GEF >policy-formation. So, we best be very sure of the process of developing the >STAP position before we begin criticizing the Bank (at least on this >specific issue). Indeed, I think we could use the Bank's own recently >released transport policy, to help formulate criticisms of this GEF >Transport Policy. > >Best wishes, > >Chris Zegras > > >Date: Thu, 20 Nov 97 08:24:50 GMT >From: Brian.Williams@unchs.org >Subject: RE: [sustran] GEF Transport Strategy needs revision > >Dear Colleagues, > > As I was in attendance at and participated in a number >of panel discussions during the STAP workshop on >developing criteria and guidelines for including GEF >transport programming within the Climate Change Tranche, I >feel compelled to comment on the apparent final outcome as >previously outlined by Dr. Hook at ITDP and Christopher >Herman from the US Dept. of Treasury. > > The expert group panel that was convened to discuss >these issues in Nairobi in March of this year represented a >well-balanced cross-section of GEF partners as well as >regionally-balanced representation from a cross-section of >stakeholders. It was clear from the outset that the terms of >reference for the meeting was that we were charged with the >responsibility to evaluate ALL potential GHG mitigating >strategies vis-a-vis transport. This included not only >alternative vehicles/fuels but strategies to limit travel >demand for trips by polluting modes; land use measures (e.g. >promoting mixed uses); non-motorized transport etc. For >example, one very key issue that arose was the degree to >which the poor are currently underserved by transport >generally. In response, it was suggested that a >comprehensive and long-term strategy withing the GEF's >transport programming needed to embrace both supply side AND >demand-side measures as the costs of bringing the poor into >the failed consuption patterns in transport currently in >evidence would be prohibitive (and certainly out of the realm >of the GEF). > > For your information, and for example, among the key >papers presented during the meeting was a case-study of >busways in Curitiba by one of the GEF partners, UNDP; >Transport-demand management measures in Singapore >highlighting emissions reductions in Singapore through >various pricing mechanisms; Mobility and Sustainable >Development in Gabarone, Botswana; A comprehensive study of >emission impacts and energy consumption of travel in India >under various scenarios, one of which were changes in modal >composition (i.e. increases in public transport as percentage >of modal share). Two papers were also presented on emerging >and advanced transport technologies with respect to >hydrogen-based fuels, fuel-cell batteries, etc. > > Given the above, I too am rather concerned about the >apparent final outcome of the review process as it does not >seem to adequately reflect the comprehensive nature of the >discussions. While transport technology transfer from North >to South presents numerous opportunities for GHG emissions >reductions in the long-run, I do not believe it can be viewed >in isolation from other strategies more appropriate for >balanced urban development generally in the here and now, >which, if taken, would reduce the financial burden on >developing countries for actions which need to be undertaken >in this sector. > > As I representative of a United Nations organization >involved in sustainable developoment and human settlements >generally and not directly involved as a GEF partner, my >abilities to dirctly influence the final outcome of GEF's >transport-related interventions have been and are limited. >Nevertheless, I felt compelled to at least express a >reporting of the technical meeting I was in attendance at in >Nairobi which I believe was a candid and open discussion of >the issues (among all technical experts invited as well as >GEF representatives from the World Bank and UNEP, IIASA and >AIT) and I am at a loss to explain the final outcome. > > It may be useful at this juncture to ensure a productive >and useful outcome for all concerned (and in order not to >reinvent the wheel as we are all busy people) that the actual >discussions at the STAP meeting be referred to as a potential >access or intervention point to encourage the GEF secretariat >to consider additional GHG mitigation measures as >appropriate. I suggest this only because, while it is often >convenient to suggest that a particular position was rammed >through without consultations, this would be an inaccurate >assessment of the situation in this case. In any letters or >other communication with the secretariat on this issue, it >might be useful to refer the actual proceedings of the STAP >meeting in order to immediately elevate the discussion to >what can now potentially be included or added (why or why >not, what was the reasoning used, etc., etc.) away from the >(understandable) vitriolic reactions that are beginning to >come in. > > Just a few random thoughts. thanks. > >Regards, > >Brian Williams, Human Settlements Officer >United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (HABITAT) >Research and Development Division >P.O. Box 30030, Nairobi, Kenya >TEL: (254 2) 623-916 >FAX: (254 2) 624-265 >EMAIL: brian.williams@unchs.org > Christopher Zegras http://www.iiec.org /\ /^\ > Instituto Internacional para la Conservacion de Energia /^\ /_o\ / \ > General Flores 150, Providencia, Santiago, CHILE /^^^/_\< /^^^^^\ > Tel: (56 2) 236 9232 Fax: 236 9233 / (*)/(*) \ > > ________________________________________________________________________________ The Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) 115 West 30th Street, Suite 1205 New York, NY 10001 Tel 212-629 8001, Fax 212-629 8033 mobility@igc.apc.org From tkpb at barter.pc.my Fri Nov 21 12:27:31 1997 From: tkpb at barter.pc.my (Paul Barter) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 11:27:31 +0800 (MYT) Subject: [sustran] Bike groups in Taiwan? Message-ID: Dear Sustran discussers Does anyone know of any bicycle organisations in Taiwan? See the request for information below. Paul. >Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 00:35:09 GMT >To: tkpb@barter.pc.my >From: Oliver Hatch >Subject: Bike groups > >Dear Paul, >I hope that you are well, and that the issue of bikes in your corner of the >globe is progressing. I have been very busy with the final build-up to the >Barcelona Velo-city and took a holiday afterwards. The conference attracted >514 delegates from 42 countries which is best ever in one of our European >events. > >I have had a request from one of my European colleagues that I cannot >answer, and I am hoping very much that you can help me. I have been asked to >find out about cycling groups in Taiwan. If you know of any such groups, >could you please give me their details so that I can pass it on. I am not >sure of the reason for this, but if there are not any cycling groups, but >any environmental ones, I guess that his would be better than nothing. I >don't think that my contact has e-mail links, so address + fax data will be >useful too. > >Thanks in advance, and keep going on the News-flashes - they are great. > >Best regards > >Olly Hatch, a wintery London town >Yours sincerely > >Oliver Hatch >Velo-city Conference Director > >+============================+ >31 Arodene Road >London SW2 2BQ >United Kingdom > >Telephone: +44-181-674-5916 >Mobile: +44-411-423655 >Faximilie: +44-181671-3386 >e-mail: oh@velo-city.org > >+============================+ From Brian.Williams at unchs.org Fri Nov 21 18:31:41 1997 From: Brian.Williams at unchs.org (Brian.Williams@unchs.org) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 09:31:41 GMT Subject: [sustran] GEF Strategy Message-ID: <9711210931.292540@unchs57.unep.org> Dear Chris, Thank you for your comments. I agree entirely with your reading that the Bank has distanced themselves from GEF policy-formulation. And I think that is precisely the problem. We seem to have situation where policy-formulation has been delegated to a few key private sector consultants. This raises two strategic points of intervention for us: 1) criticism of the results; 2) criticism that policy-formulation was delegated to begin with. Might I add that UNEP and UNDP are the other implementing/consultative partners in GEF policy-formulation. The UNEP GEF secretariat is down the hall from me here in Nairobi and invited me to attend the STAP meeting...I will make inquiries. Can someone work on UNDP? They were conspicuously absent during consultations. Might I also add for those who are not familiar with GEF that when it was re-configured and replenished in 1995, it was clear that UNEP was to provide technical inputs, the World Bank funding and UNDP execution. That is essentially the rough outline of the "partnership" arrangement of the Global Environment Facility as agreed by member states of the United Nations. Approval of projects must come from national governments, a constant source of consternation from all involved in this effort. I bring up this latter issue only as a potential strategic point for intervention. The GEF is demand-driven from national governments. If they don't like the plate of goodies offered them, it is up to them to object. This may be (while incredibly difficult and time-consuming) an additional strategy for us to collectively undertake for all concerned that a seriously misguided approach has been assumed in transport/climate change under GEF. If at all possible, please contact your national-level Ministers of Environment regarding the issue. They may be interested and willing to help. Many of us worked like hell to get transport into the Climate change/GEF equation at all. As it is now on the agenda (of which we should be proud) let's not let it be presented wrongly. This is a unique opportunity to set the record straight and communicate to national governments what the real issues in transport are. Funding "incremental costs" of transport/climate change mitigation measures is , I believe, a useful mechanism to adopt if done properly. But in operationalizing the concept with respect to transport, the GEF has assumed a decidedly technological quick fix only because it is simply easier to quantify effects from improvements in technology. Strategies need to be developed to quantify air-quality impacts of demand-management measures and even non-transport solutions. These impacts have been measured elsewhere but the results have simply not been adequately communicated to GEF and national governments. any additional ideas/inputs? Brian Williams, Human Settlements Officer United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (HABITAT) Research and Development Division P.O. Box 30030, Nairobi, Kenya TEL: (254 2) 623-916 FAX: (254 2) 624-265 EMAIL: brian.williams@unchs.org From Brian.Williams at unchs.org Fri Nov 21 18:31:41 1997 From: Brian.Williams at unchs.org (Brian.Williams@unchs.org) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 09:31:41 GMT Subject: [sustran] GEF Strategy Message-ID: <9711210931.292540@unchs57.unep.org> Dear Chris, Thank you for your comments. I agree entirely with your reading that the Bank has distanced themselves from GEF policy-formulation. And I think that is precisely the problem. We seem to have situation where policy-formulation has been delegated to a few key private sector consultants. This raises two strategic points of intervention for us: 1) criticism of the results; 2) criticism that policy-formulation was delegated to begin with. Might I add that UNEP and UNDP are the other implementing/consultative partners in GEF policy-formulation. The UNEP GEF secretariat is down the hall from me here in Nairobi and invited me to attend the STAP meeting...I will make inquiries. Can someone work on UNDP? They were conspicuously absent during consultations. Might I also add for those who are not familiar with GEF that when it was re-configured and replenished in 1995, it was clear that UNEP was to provide technical inputs, the World Bank funding and UNDP execution. That is essentially the rough outline of the "partnership" arrangement of the Global Environment Facility as agreed by member states of the United Nations. Approval of projects must come from national governments, a constant source of consternation from all involved in this effort. I bring up this latter issue only as a potential strategic point for intervention. The GEF is demand-driven from national governments. If they don't like the plate of goodies offered them, it is up to them to object. This may be (while incredibly difficult and time-consuming) an additional strategy for us to collectively undertake for all concerned that a seriously misguided approach has been assumed in transport/climate change under GEF. If at all possible, please contact your national-level Ministers of Environment regarding the issue. They may be interested and willing to help. Many of us worked like hell to get transport into the Climate change/GEF equation at all. As it is now on the agenda (of which we should be proud) let's not let it be presented wrongly. This is a unique opportunity to set the record straight and communicate to national governments what the real issues in transport are. Funding "incremental costs" of transport/climate change mitigation measures is , I believe, a useful mechanism to adopt if done properly. But in operationalizing the concept with respect to transport, the GEF has assumed a decidedly technological quick fix only because it is simply easier to quantify effects from improvements in technology. Strategies need to be developed to quantify air-quality impacts of demand-management measures and even non-transport solutions. These impacts have been measured elsewhere but the results have simply not been adequately communicated to GEF and national governments. any additional ideas/inputs? Brian Williams, Human Settlements Officer United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (HABITAT) Research and Development Division P.O. Box 30030, Nairobi, Kenya TEL: (254 2) 623-916 FAX: (254 2) 624-265 EMAIL: brian.williams@unchs.org From ecoplan_the_commons at compuserve.com Fri Nov 21 20:09:31 1997 From: ecoplan_the_commons at compuserve.com (Britton EcoPlan) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 06:09:31 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Suggestion for response to GEF proposal Message-ID: <199711210610_MC2-2908-1466@compuserve.com> Dear Friends, The latest thoughtful and balanced note by Brian.Williams, together with the good points made by John Howe in his separate but oh so related note (hello John! It's been a while.), suggest the following to me. Whoever is brave enough to undertake the task of drafting up the first cut of our collective response to the present GEF game plan, might do well to bring together these various comments and, with slight but able editing, fashion them into a supporting annex for our striking one-pager. And then, if that doesn't give them pause, well.... Sound about right? Eric Britton _________________________________________________________________ EcoPlan International -- Technology, Economics & Social Systems E-mail: postmaster@the-commons.org/ecoplan World Wide Web: http://www.the-commons.org Day Phone: 331.4441.6340 (Also ISDN videoconference/groupwork) Day Fax: 331.4441.6341 ISDN Data: 331.4441.6342 Mobile Phone: 336.0737.7798 Postal: EcoPlan International Le Frene, 8/10 rue Joseph Bara F-75006 Paris, France 24 hour backup Phone/Fax: 331.4326.1323 From mfksjmt at fs1.ar.man.ac.uk Sun Nov 23 14:17:00 1997 From: mfksjmt at fs1.ar.man.ac.uk (Jeff Turner) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 14:17:00 gmt0bst Subject: [sustran] Re: Urban poverty and Transport Message-ID: <17F1524397F@orpheus.man.ac.uk> Dear Sustran Network colleagues, To add to Brian Williams' and John Howe's summary on the discussions that were had on Transport and Poverty at the UN International Forum on Urban Poverty in Florence; I thought it would interest Sustran members to see one of the papers that were presented at Florence. Attached is a paper on Gender, Poverty and Transport, presented within Transport Theme 2 by myself and Margaret Grieco. We would welcome any comments on this paper but please address them to the Sustran network as a whole. Best wishes Jeff Turner Research Fellow Dept. of Planning & Landscape University of Manchester Oxford Road Manchester M13 9PL Tel +44 161 275 6948 Fax +44 161 275 6935 E-mail: Jeff.Turner@man.ac.uk From sydtrans at enternet.com.au Tue Nov 25 04:42:39 1997 From: sydtrans at enternet.com.au (Charlie Richardson) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 11:42:39 -0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Urban poverty and Transport References: <17F1524397F@orpheus.man.ac.uk> Message-ID: <3479D8AF.1FDA@enternet.com.au> Jeff Turner wrote: > > Dear Sustran Network colleagues, > > To add to Brian Williams' and John Howe's summary on the discussions > that were had on Transport and Poverty at the UN International Forum on > Urban Poverty in Florence; I thought it would interest Sustran > members to see one of the papers that were presented at Florence. > Attached is a paper on Gender, Poverty and Transport, presented > within Transport Theme 2 by myself and Margaret Grieco. We would > welcome any comments on this paper but please address them to the Sustran > network as a whole. > > Best wishes > > Jeff Turner > Research Fellow > Dept. of Planning & Landscape > University of Manchester > Oxford Road > Manchester > M13 9PL > Tel +44 161 275 6948 > Fax +44 161 275 6935 > E-mail: Jeff.Turner@man.ac.uk I'd be interested to see the 'attached' paper, but, well, it wasn't 'attached', was it? Charlie Richardson From sarafrk at cbme.iitd.ernet.in Mon Nov 24 16:03:04 1997 From: sarafrk at cbme.iitd.ernet.in (Dr.Rajeev Saraf) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 12:33:04 +0530 (IST) Subject: [sustran] Exclusive bus lanes - curb side vs. centre In-Reply-To: <9711210931.292540@unchs57.unep.org> Message-ID: Our minister just retuned from Curitiba where they have implemented exclusive bus lanes in the centre of the carriageway. We have been proposing a bus lane on both sides of the carriageway near the curb. We would like to know the pros and cons of one approach vs. the other? Under what conditions is one prefereed over the other. BTW, I am talking about Delhi and large number of people are using public transport ( bus -based). Any reference or comments would be appreciated. Thanks. ___________________________________________________________________________ Dr Rajeev Saraf | Urban and Transport Planner | SENIOR PROJECT SCIENTIST | PHONE : 91-11-6858703 APPLIED SYSTEM RESEARCH PROGRAM | EMAIL : sarafrk@cbme.iitd.ernet.in IIT DELHI 110016 | FAX : 91-11-6862037 INDIA | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From sarafrk at cbme.iitd.ernet.in Mon Nov 24 16:08:27 1997 From: sarafrk at cbme.iitd.ernet.in (Dr.Rajeev Saraf) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 12:38:27 +0530 (IST) Subject: [sustran] Minimum and maximum lane widths for arterials in urban areas In-Reply-To: <9711200824.322540@unchs57.unep.org> Message-ID: For Delhi, while redesigning the road cross section to accomodate bicycle tracks, we had proposed 3.0m wide lanes. But there was a strong resistance for few people, who said that we could not have lanes in urban areas of width less than 3.5m. I would like to if lanes of 3.0m have been implemented anywhere and what impact does it have on safety, speed and capacity? How have the codes in various countries dealt with lane widths? Any repsonse is welcome. thanks. ___________________________________________________________________________ Dr Rajeev Saraf | Urban and Transport Planner | SENIOR PROJECT SCIENTIST | PHONE : 91-11-6858703 APPLIED SYSTEM RESEARCH PROGRAM | EMAIL : sarafrk@cbme.iitd.ernet.in IIT DELHI 110016 | FAX : 91-11-6862037 INDIA | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From mfksjmt at fs1.ar.man.ac.uk Mon Nov 24 09:48:32 1997 From: mfksjmt at fs1.ar.man.ac.uk (Jeff Turner) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 09:48:32 gmt0bst Subject: [sustran] Re: Urban Poverty and Transport Message-ID: <192A79442F7@orpheus.man.ac.uk> Dear Sustran Network colleagues, Sorry for the previous failed attempt to send the paper!!! To add to Brian Williams' and John Howe's summary on the discussions that were had on Transport and Poverty at the UN International Forum on Urban Poverty in Florence; I thought it would interest Sustran members to see one of the papers that were presented at Florence. Attached is a paper on Gender, Poverty and Transport, presented within Transport Theme 2 by myself and Margaret Grieco. We would welcome any comments you have but please address them to the Sustran network as a whole. Best wishes Jeff Turner Research Fellow Dept. of Planning & Landscape University of Manchester Oxford Road Manchester M13 9PL Tel +44 161 275 6948 Fax +44 161 275 6935 E-mail Jeff.Turner@man.ac.uk -------------------------------------------------------------- Presentation notes of talk delivered at the UN International Forum on Urban Poverty (HABITAT), `Governance and participation: practical approaches to urban poverty reduction. Towards cities for the new generation', Florence, November, 1997 GENDER, POVERTY AND TRANSPORT: A CALL FOR POLICY ATTENTION. Margaret Grieco, Professor-elect of Organisation and Development Management, University of North London and Jeff Turner, Research Fellow, Department of Planning, University of Manchester. 1. A wake up call on gender, poverty and transport: the need for gender analysis and the development of gender methodologies. Both separately and jointly, we have worked for a time on the relationships which hold between gender, transport and poverty (Turner and Fouracre, 1995; Grieco, 1995, 1996; Grieco, Pickup and Whipp, 1989; Grieco, Apt and Turner, 1996) both within the developing and the developed world. Across the body of our research, it has become clear to us that women's greater domestic responsibilities coupled with their weaker access to household resources have significant consequences for their transport and travel status. The lower the income of a household the more probable it is that women will experience greater transport deprivation as compared to men. Transport deprivation may take the form of women's use of inferior modes of transport as compared with men; it may take the form of women's journeys having multiple purposes and thus generating greater anxiety in the travel context; it may take the form of customary or legal constraints on women's right to travel or to use a particular transport mode. Despite the now almost universal recognition that women's domestic load, often in combination with low paid or unpaid work, leaves women both time poor and resource poor, the implications of this situation for transport and travel have largely gone unconsidered and unremarked. Development projects all too frequently accept the immobility of women as a natural and unchangeable social state which simply explains the low level of women's participation in project planning and design even within communal or popular planning modes. The possibility of bringing participative forms to where women are to be found rarely receives adequate attention and projects which attempt to move the boundaries and constraints around women's access to transport and travel are few and far between. Developing women-friendly transport and travel services has, with a few notable exceptions, generally held a low priority status in policy makers thinking both in the developed and developing world. Yet any attempt to tackle poverty systematically must, given the social composition of the poor, tackle gender disparities in access to opportunities and resources and a critical factor,in its turn, determining gender opportunities and resources is the spatial distribution of those opportunities and resources and the access to transport and travel to reach them. This may seem a simple argument but in the present, new hospitals get built without any gender analysis of accessibilities. Indeed, as a profession transport planners have failed to produce systematic methodologies which incorporate gender analysis for the purpose of urban development and planning. At present, it would be fair to argue that there are no systematic gender inclusion procedures for transport either in terms of the training of professionals, the participation of users or the design and planning of systems, services and equipment. Yet new informatic technologies are available which readily permit the capture and harnessing of gender data for transport and travel systems which better service women and most particularly the low income woman. Instead of standing waiting with children at poorly serviced and poorly supervised unsafe busstops, low income women could through new technology call demand responsive services to get them to hospitals in time with efficiency benefits for the overall urban system. Only because we do not cost for women's wasted time travelling to overcentralised urban facilities or because we do not cost for the imposition of poor health on those who are discouraged by the epic quality of low income transport journeys do we arrive at costings which favour large hospitals on the periphery of urban space, hospitals which rarely have any customised transport to service routine low income needs. New informatic technologies give us new ways to think about how we tackle urban poverty. They provide us with a greater ability to precisely target the needs of the most needy and to service them responsively at a minimal administrative cost. But to take full advantage of this new set of opportunities we have to develop a new approach to social policy thinking which has gender at its core. Gender analysis and gender methodologies have to move from the activities of marginal policy activists to mainstream professional practice. Let's just conduct a test in this room: any person who represents an agency which systematically makes use of a gender methodology in respect of poverty or transport or any form of service provision or planning procedure please raise your hand. Let's take this opportunity of seeing how deep this procedure cuts: is it participative, were the users asked about their preferences, what use is made of the data collected, what changes has it resulted in (When we asked this question to transport experts in Florence no one answered in the affirmative). When writing these notes we guessed that the answer to our question was probably in the negative ball park rather than up there on the cutting edge of urban poverty. The consequence of few people in this field is that argument must remain for the moment more at the level of advocacy than research. But this is the wake up call: it is time to put gendered analysis and methodologies in place both within the developing and the developed world and it is the time to harness the instruments of the new millenium to this agenda. The development of gender responsive transport systems which service the needs of low income women and alleviate their poverty and the health and travel anxieties which attend that poverty is our goal. 2. Some simple examples of the gender, poverty, transport interaction. As we know, planners behave as if transport has no specific gender features but the evidence from research is that there are indeed specific features. Three examples make the point very clearly: 1) Studies of male and female trip making in developed countries indicate that women are more likely to be involved in trip chaining. Their heavy domestic schedules mean that they have different travel patterns to men: the time poverty of women shows in the complexity of their travel and transport schedules with all the attendant stresses that result. The poorer the woman, the more complex her travel and transport schedule as she has less ability to buy in help. 2) Studies of low income household survival strategies in developed countries and developing countries have shown the extent to which women are involved in the heavy exchange of time favours in order to meet their domestic survival and travel needs. Female trip making in low income contexts often requires major exercises of coordination with others, frequently outside of the household. 3) In Africa, women and girls are a major transport form, headloading goods from field to market and from market to other venues, transporting water from well to hearth. Both in rural and urban areas women are a major source of transport both for their households and for purchasers of their services. What are the transport policy implications of these three simple differences? In the first case, it may be more difficult to move women out of the family car than it is men as they are the household agent with the most tasks to accomplish within the tightest time schedules. To move women out of family cars may mean designing whole sets of infrastructural facilities differently so that many functions can reliably be performed in the same space and within a reliable time frame. Setting up such reliabilities through the use of new transport informatics and more responsive transport sytems clearly requires considerable policy thinking if we commence from this simple gender analysis. In the second case, currently there is a major discussion of difficulties in the british national health system caused by missed appointments and an expressed policy intention to curb this practice. But the evidence is that women are often the victims of time and transport circumstances which cause them to miss their appointments at cost to their own health. Indeed, the anxiety generated by attempting to gain time for their own health needs causes many low income women to simply suffer rather than attend to their own well being. Determining why appointments are missed and putting transport and child care services in place in response to the understanding that women's commitments and low level of resources work against their ability to keep appointments is the more progressive policy direction. Requiring low income women to honour health service contracts that have punctual attendance as a bottom line without providing the resources which enable them to meet these contracts will have the result of pushing low income women into further poor health. Similarly, bringing health facilities into local areas rather than centralising them enables women to take up health services - this is a major issue in health provision in developing countries at present. In the third case, the exclusion of women from participation in transport system and service design results in their specific transport needs being ignored. Head load carrying is damaging to health and there are low cost measures which could be taken immediately to reduce this health burden on women. Animal traction, wheeled or rolling devices can be used to take the load off the head at relatively low cost but instead attention has gone on developing road networks independently of whether these are indeed performing a useful local economic function or are maintainable. Indeed roads are often built under the legitimating banner that they will be good for women and result in the movement of loads from human transport onto motorised vehicles. The evaluations which show that this is not what happens are rarely undertaken and the myth persists. Appropriate gender representation in user groups would go some way to repairing this dangerous process of transport myth production. 3. Professionalising the relevance of gender in urban poverty and urban transport programmes: programming in grassroots gender participation. What can be done? In order to bring about a reduction in urban poverty, we must pay attention to the specific gender aspects of the poverty trap. Currently, within the western world there is a fairly strong policy wind blowing in the direction of reducing the dependence of single mothers on the welfare state. Within this debate, we hear much about the need to ensure that these `dependent' citizens should be brought very strongly into the world of work but at present nobody is discussing the household scheduling difficulties that single mothers will experience in terms of balancing work and child care commitments in the context of their inferior access to transport, amongst other resources. We need protocols in transport policy and planning which explicitly address the gender dimension : 1) in terms of researching how gender plays out in the interaction with transport and travel system 2) in terms of ensuring that sensitisation to gender is part of the professional training process 3) in terms of ensuring adequate gender representation within the profession and 4) in terms of ensuring adequate gender representation within user groups. We also need a more active urban polity signalling its transport needs and preferences to policy makers. New informatic technology will allow users to signal their needs and preferences to the transport `experts' in a way that has never previously been possible. Transport operators and policy makers can open up their organisations to high quality electronic feedback from users. The same technologies which allow the new hi-tech organisation of road based transport can support with little administrative cost gender electronic lobbies signalling their needs. It is a development we should start to expect: already within the United States, older persons have discovered the power of new informatic technologies in signalling their needs as a category of users to a host of services. The gender dimensions of poverty, and indeed of ageing, will surely in time generate a lobby for responsive transport services: it would be healthy if the profession moved to meet the new analytic, methodological and policy opportunities provided by the conjunction of gendered transport disadvantage and the evolution of technologies which can overcome it before the nascent technologies proceed to far along the old patriarchal pathways. References: Grieco, M. (1995) Time pressures and low income families: the implications for social transport policy in Europe', Community Development Journal Grieco, M. (1996) Workers' dilemmas: recruitment, reliability and repeated exchange. Routledge: London Grieco, M., Apt, N. and Turner, J. At Christmas and on rainy days: transport, travel and the female traders of Accra. Avebury: Aldershot Grieco, M., Pickup, L. and Whipp, R. (eds)(1989) Gender, transport and employment. Gower: Aldershot Turner, J. and Fouracre, P. (1995) Women and transport in developing countries, Transport Reviews ------------------------------------------------------------- From ob110ob at IDT.NET Thu Nov 27 00:06:42 1997 From: ob110ob at IDT.NET (ob110ob@IDT.NET) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 07:06:42 -0800 Subject: [sustran] Minimum and maximum lane widths for arterials in urban areas References: Message-ID: <347C3AF2.662@idt.net> Dr.Rajeev Saraf wrote: > > For Delhi, while redesigning the road cross section to accomodate bicycle > tracks, we had proposed 3.0m wide lanes. But there was a strong > resistance for few people, who said that we could not have lanes in > urban areas of width less than 3.5m. > I would like to if lanes of 3.0m have been implemented anywhere and what > impact does it have on safety, speed and capacity? How have the codes in > various countries dealt with lane widths? Any repsonse is welcome. > thanks. > > ___________________________________________________________________________ > Dr Rajeev Saraf | As an urban biker myself, I don't find that it really matters. Here in NYC, bike lanes seem to be an open invitation for motorist and delivery people to park/double park there. They also use the bike lanes as an additional lane when traffic gets heavy. If I'm riding during the rush hours or during the heavy delievery periods I'll stay away from bike lanes altogether and even use streets that don't have them where possible. Not because, as one might think, of many drivers interferring with lanes safe operation. But because the interferances are intermittent and errant and the interferers are most often the very erratic. The driver in a hurry, who doesn't care, or perhaps thinks that it's fun or that bikers don't matter in the face of his powerful machine. Particularly vexing are those cars that will creep into the lane and continue to by pass traffic while moving very slowly, they can continue doing this for a block or more and you can't safely get by them because they may at anytime swerve back into traffic (like if they see a police car somewhere). Then there's the people who cut you off, long distances from the corner where they finally make their turn. During periods of low or calm traffic situations the bike lane can be pleasant, but because of the errant erratic driver you still can not let your guard down. Bike lanes, I'd thought, were designed to give bikers some peace of mind by allocating as peice of the roadway for them. It doesn't work because drivers won't respect it and there's little or nothing a biker can do to force a car out of his way. Sure, you can block the path of a car in the bike lane and slow down, but you run the risk of getting hurt very badly if the driver suddenly pitches a fit. So it's not recommended that you address drivers about the problems they're causing until you're in a position of safety. Long distance bike lanes ( like the one in New York that runs almost from Battery Park at the south end of the island, up the west side along the river to 14th street) often seems an appealing place to ride. But being along the river, it's not very tempting if the temp is low or it's windy. Additionally, it may be a long ride away if your in the center of the city. These drawbacks would be overcome if the bikeway had a certain grading and ran a much longer distance. Because the riverfront bikeway is segregated from traffic it good and safe and fast, but it's only about 5 to 10 min. in length (when it's empty of pedestrian traffic). Bikers using share-the-road bikelanes must still know that they ride at risk. So there's little benefit from these lanes in terms of bikers perceptions of safety. One car parked on the lane introduces a hazard that interrupts your ride for anywhere from a 10th to a 1/4 mile. Or for 10 seconds to as much as 1/2 minute (depending on traffic conditions) before you can resume your crusing speed, if you're careful. I like the new bike lanes appearing on the streets, since it's an acknowledgement/encouragement to bikers. But, sadly, they are little more than decorative ornaments. Until bikers can be sure that they will be given right-of-way while in the lanes the level of alert that must be maintained is the same as what's needed for riding in traffic. Only problem is that long stretches of clear bike lane can lull one into a false feeling of safety. So the actual width of the bike lane isn't a real issue, as yet, if cars will not be kept out. Using such exposed lanes for either two-way or abreast riding in one direction is not something to be encouraged no matter how wide the lane is. On or in such lanes, bikers should maintain a distance from each other so they can't both be 'wiped out' by the errant car that comes in. Hope this is some help. Obwon From tkpb at barter.pc.my Thu Nov 27 11:56:24 1997 From: tkpb at barter.pc.my (Paul Barter) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 10:56:24 +0800 (MYT) Subject: [sustran] Minimum and maximum lane widths for arterials in urban areas Message-ID: Dear Rajeev Saraf >For Delhi, while redesigning the road cross section to accomodate bicycle >tracks, we had proposed 3.0m wide lanes. But there was a strong >resistance for few people, who said that we could not have lanes in >urban areas of width less than 3.5m. >I would like to if lanes of 3.0m have been implemented anywhere and what >impact does it have on safety, speed and capacity? How have the codes in >various countries dealt with lane widths? Any repsonse is welcome. >thanks. > I believe you are asking about the width of the traffic lanes not the bicycle lanes/tracks. I am not an engineer, so I can't answer you in great detail. But I think that many cities around the world do accept urban traffic lanes of less than 3.5 metres. I have just had a look at CROW Record 10, "Sign up for the bike: Design manual for a cycle-friendly infrastructure" (Centre for Research and Contract Standardization in Civil and Traffic Engineering - The Netherlands). [available from C.R.O.W., P.O. Box 37, NL-6710 BA EDE, The Netherlands. Tel. +31 8380 20410, Fax: +31 8380 21112]. This study gives much detail on the pragmatic Dutch approach to designing for bicycles. I notice a number of examples in this report which show traffic lanes of 3.0 metres. But I suspect that these are in rather low-speed environments (in old parts of cities). I am cc'ing this to Andre Pettinga, who was involved in writing the CROW Record 10. Perhaps he can provide the technical answer that you require. It should also be remembered that road engineering standards should be used as guidelines and not as divine law. Accepting lane widths slightly below "standard" may well cause some problems. BUT if you can show that there are greater safety and efficiency benefits of the new road design then we should not let the standards stop us from at least having a trial of the improvement. Best wishes, A. Rahman Paul BARTER Sustainable Transport Action Network for Asia & the Pacific (SUSTRAN) c/o Asia Pacific 2000, PO Box 12544, 50782 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Fax: +603 253 2361, E-mail: ------------------------------------------------- SUSTRAN is dedicated to promoting transport policies and investments which foster accessibility for all; social equity; ecological sustainability; health and safety; public participation; and high quality of life. From tjb at pc.jaring.my Thu Nov 27 21:56:15 1997 From: tjb at pc.jaring.my (Tony Barry) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 20:56:15 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Minimum and maximum lane widths for arterials in urban areas In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19971127205615.006a9038@pop3.jaring.my> At 10:56 27/11/97 +0800, you wrote: >Dear Rajeev Saraf > >>For Delhi, while redesigning the road cross section to accomodate bicycle >>tracks, we had proposed 3.0m wide lanes. But there was a strong >>resistance for few people, who said that we could not have lanes in >>urban areas of width less than 3.5m. >>I would like to if lanes of 3.0m have been implemented anywhere and what >>impact does it have on safety, speed and capacity? How have the codes in >>various countries dealt with lane widths? Any repsonse is welcome. >>thanks. >> > >I believe you are asking about the width of the traffic lanes not the >bicycle lanes/tracks. I am not an engineer, so I can't answer you in great >detail. But I think that many cities around the world do accept urban >traffic lanes of less than 3.5 metres. > snipped > Yes. your own home town of Kuala Lumpur for example. The Public Works Department guide has lane widths varying from 3.5m for category U6 and U5 (full or partial separation) down to 2.75m for U2 ( minor roads - local traffic - low volume of commercial vehicles). I would question the safety of using low width lanes immediately adjacent to bicycle track though (unless some physical separation is provided). Unfortunately Malaysia has a rather high level of road accidents so one cannot draw any conclusions as to the suitability of such lane widths from this alone. It gets quite complex as widening lanes gives increased opportunity for moorcylce "lane splitting" and with one of the highest motorcycle uses in Asia here the accident rate amongst motorcyclists is already extremely high (65% of accidents involve motorcyclists according to a recent report). You could try contacting Professor Karl Bang of TRE Transportation Research and Engineering, (tre@indo.net.id) who has done extensive work on highway capacity in Indonesia - it may contain something on effects of lane widths but I can't be sure. From tkpb at barter.pc.my Fri Nov 28 11:49:23 1997 From: tkpb at barter.pc.my (Paul Barter) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 10:49:23 +0800 (MYT) Subject: [sustran] Exclusive bus lanes - curb side vs. centre Message-ID: Rajeev Saraf asked: >Our minister just retuned from Curitiba where they have implemented >exclusive bus lanes in the centre of the carriageway. We have been >proposing a bus lane on both sides of the carriageway near the curb. >We would like to know the pros and cons of one approach vs. the other? >Under what conditions is one prefereed over the other. >BTW, I am talking about Delhi and large number of people are using public >transport ( bus -based). Has anyone answered your question, Rajeev? Perhaps directly to you, off the list? If so, can I suggest that later you post a brief summary of the replies to the list so that we can all gain from the learning process. As I understand them, the Curitiba initiatives in transport go much further and deeper than simply having a busway in the centre of a road. For a clear explanation of what was done there (and even more importantly, the philosophy behind the actions), I suggest you get a copy of: Robert Cervero (June 1995) "Creating a Linear City with a Surface Metro: The Story of Curitiba, Brazil" (Working Paper 643, National Transit Access Center, University of California at Berkeley). US$6.00. It is available from Insititute of Urban and Regional Development, 316 Wurster Hall, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720. Fax: +1 510 643 9576. This working paper provides a good critical analysis of Curitiba's experience. Some of the other reports I have seen were by people who were directly involved and are sometimes a little too uncritical. For a good introduction to the complexities of bus lanes and busways and the considerations in choosing between the various options, I suggest: United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat) (1993) "Provision of Travelway Space for Urban Public Transport in Developing Countries" (UNCHS, Nairobi). This booklet contains an overview chapter and a very useful chapter giving a lot of detail about the Brazilian experience with bus lanes and busways (and LRT). It also has case studies of the Ankara busway and Manila LRT. The Brazil chapter suggests that median bus lanes have much higher capacity than kerb bus lanes but somewhat higher costs. I suggest you contact Brian Williams at UNCHS in Nairobi to request a copy of this document. His contact details are: Brian Williams, Human Settlements Officer, United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (HABITAT), Research and Development Division, P.O. Box 30030, Nairobi, Kenya. TEL: (254 2) 623-916, FAX: (254 2) 624-265, EMAIL: brian.williams@unchs.org I hope this helps, A. Rahman Paul BARTER Sustainable Transport Action Network for Asia & the Pacific (SUSTRAN) c/o Asia Pacific 2000, PO Box 12544, 50782 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Fax: +603 253 2361, E-mail: ------------------------------------------------- SUSTRAN is dedicated to promoting transport policies and investments which foster accessibility for all; social equity; ecological sustainability; health and safety; public participation; and high quality of life. From skchang at ccms.ntu.edu.tw Fri Nov 28 21:56:52 1997 From: skchang at ccms.ntu.edu.tw (Shyue Koong Chang (Jason)) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 12:56:52 +0000 Subject: [sustran] Exclusive bus lanes - curb side vs. centre References: Message-ID: <347EBF7B.2A68ABEC@ccms.ntu.edu.tw> Dr.Rajeev Saraf wrote: > Our minister just retuned from Curitiba where they have implemented > exclusive bus lanes in the centre of the carriageway. We have been > proposing a bus lane on both sides of the carriageway near the curb. > We would like to know the pros and cons of one approach vs. the other? > Under what conditions is one prefereed over the other. > BTW, I am talking about Delhi and large number of people are using public > transport ( bus -based). > Any reference or comments would be appreciated. > Thanks. > > ___________________________________________________________________________ > Dr Rajeev Saraf | > Urban and Transport Planner | > SENIOR PROJECT SCIENTIST | PHONE : 91-11-6858703 > APPLIED SYSTEM RESEARCH PROGRAM | EMAIL : sarafrk@cbme.iitd.ernet.in > IIT DELHI 110016 | FAX : 91-11-6862037 > INDIA | > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Dr. Saraf: I am conducting a project of assessing exclusive bus lane and network in Taipei City. The more than 40 km exclusive bus lanes/network have been completed and implemented in seven streets in Taipei for 14 months. Of which two of them with total 7 km were designed on the second lane from the curb and have been implemented for more than four years. Most of the new exclusive bus lanes are designed and implemented in the center two lanes of the road. The main reason for the center lane design or "non curb" arrangement is that we have heavy proportion of motorcycles. The exclusive bus lanes and network is running very well. A recent evaluation indicates that the travel speeds increase significantly for various modes, i.e., private car, taxi, motorcycles. The bus ridership also increases from 1.75 million per day to 2.0 million per day based on a before and after study. These results encourage our transportation department to have a plan of expending the current network. That is the project I am conducting now. I will send you some materials presenting the basic ideas of the system and a preliminary assessment conducted two years ago. Please let me know if you need further information. Sincerely, Jason -- Shyue Koong Chang (Jason) Professor ------------------------------ Transportation Division Department of Civil Engineering National Taiwan University Phone: 886-2-3625920 ext.304 Fax: 886-2-3639990 email: skchang@ccms.ntu.edu.tw