From pendakur at unixg.ubc.ca Fri Jan 2 01:55:36 1998 From: pendakur at unixg.ubc.ca (Dr. V. S. Pendakur) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 1998 08:55:36 -0800 Subject: [sustran] Los Angeles Air Pollution at 50 Year Low Message-ID: Best wishes for the new year. Setty. **************************************************** Dr. V. Setty Pendakur School of Community and Regional Planning University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z2 1-604-822-3394-office, 1-604-263-3576-home 1-604-822-3787-fax Email : pendakur@unixg.ubc.ca *************************************************** ---------- > From: Wendell Cox > To: notice@il.net > Subject: [sustran] Los Angeles Air Pollution at 50 Year Low > Date: Tuesday, December 30, 1997 7:50 AM > > See San Francisco Chronicle article at.... > > http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/chronicle/article.cgi?file=MN17544.DTL&directo > ry=/chronicle/archive/1997/12/30 > > Happy New Year, > Wendell Cox > 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 841- Belleville, Illinois 62222 USA > > "To facilitate the ideal of government as the servant of the people by > identifying and implementing strategies to achieve public purposes at a cost > that is no higher than necessary." From tkpb at barter.pc.my Fri Jan 2 11:13:24 1998 From: tkpb at barter.pc.my (Paul Barter) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1998 10:13:24 +0800 (MYT) Subject: [sustran] Litman Generated Traffic Paper Message-ID: Dear sustran-discussers, This is from the alt-transp list. Todd Litman is not on sustran-discuss so if you want to give him comments you will need to email him directly. Best wishes and happy new year, Paul. From: litman@IslandNet.com (Todd Litman) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 17:42:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: alt-transp Generated Traffic Paper Seasons greetings from Victoria, BC. I have been invited to present a paper on incorporating generated traffic into transportation decision making to World Bank staff next month, while I am in Washington DC for the Transportation Research Board annual meeting. The introductory section of the paper is copied below (excluding citations, which don't copy into an email format). I would appreciate getting feedback on this draft. Please let me know if you would like me to email you the full paper. 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 =================================================================== Generated Traffic Implications for Transport Planning Presentation to World Bank 13 January 1997 by Todd Litman Victoria Transport Policy Institute Introduction Traffic engineers often compare traffic flow to a fluid, but in congested situations it is better described as a gas, which expands to fill available space. Transport improvements that reduce user costs (including vehicle operating costs and travel time) tend to attract trips from other routes, times and modes, and increase total travel. This is called generated traffic or induced travel. Economic analysis requires that all incremental (net) benefits and costs be including in the evaluation of policies, programs and projects. Incremental costs and benefits to existing trips are relatively easy to determine, but special consideration is needed to determine net benefits and costs of generated traffic. Generated traffic has three implications for transportation decision making. 1. First, generated traffic provides relatively less benefits than existing trips, since it consists of lower value trips that consumers are most willing to forego due to congestion delays. 2. Second, generated traffic erodes much of the predicted congestion reduction. Studies have found that 40-90% of added highway capacity is filled with generated traffic, and in some cases congestion costs actually increase. One researcher concludes, "At the country level we find that a 1.0 percent increase in lane-miles soon induces an immediate 0.2 percent increase in traffic, building to a 0.6 percent increase within two years after the lane-miles are added. At the metropolitan level, the immediate effect is also about 0.2 percent, building to a 0.9 percent increase after four years. Therefore, it appears that adding road capacity does little to decrease congestion because of the substantial induced traffic." 3. The third implication is that generated travel increases external costs such as accidents, congestion on other roads (for example, increasing freeway capacity oiljkincreases traffic volumes and therefore congestion on surface streets), parking demand (and parking subsidies), noise, air pollution and energy consumption. These external costs are significant, particularly under urban peak-period conditions. While users' marginal benefits exceed their marginal costs (if not, users would not take the additional trips), these benefits do not necessarily exceed total incremental costs. Generated traffic, therefore, may create more costs than benefits. Failing to incorporate generated traffic into transport modeling and planning, underestimating generated traffic, or ignoring any of these three factors can significantly affect transport decision making. A report by the UK Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment concludes, "... the economic value of a [road] scheme can be overestimated by the omission of even a small amount of induced traffic. We consider this matter of profound importance to the value-for-money assessment of the road programme." Models that fail to consider generated traffic were found by one study to overvalue roadway capacity expansion benefits by 50% or more. One researcher states, "...at moderate levels of congestion and elasticity values, the fixed matrix measure of benefits [which ignores generated traffic] exceeds the variable demand measure [which incorporates generated traffic] by 20-50 per cent. An important finding is that quite small absolute changes in traffic volumes have a significant impact on the benefit measures. Of course, the proportional effect on scheme Net Present Value will be greater still." Failing to incorporate feedback (congestion impacts on future travel) into traffic modeling can significantly overpredict traffic congestion problems. One study found that incorporating feedback when modeling a congested road network increased predicted traffic speeds by more than 20%, and reduced predicted VMT by more than 10%. Another study found that the ranking of preferred projects changed significantly when generated traffic feedback is incorporated into project assessment analysis. Specifically, capacity expansion options provide less congestion reduction benefit and increase air emissions, while demand management and No Build options offer greater benefits. Traffic models used in some large urban areas incorporate generated traffic feedback, but traffic models used in medium and small communities usually do not, and generated traffic costs are seldom incorporated in the economic analysis of specific projects. This omission is often justified with the excuse that tools do not exist to predict how much traffic will be generated or resulting net costs. These excuses are no longer valid. From mobility at igc.apc.org Tue Jan 6 04:53:46 1998 From: mobility at igc.apc.org (Institute for Transportation and Development Policy) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 11:53:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: [sustran] PCU equivalents for NMT in India Message-ID: <2.2.16.19980105154357.28270f1e@pop.igc.org> Dear Colleagues, I've just heard from a colleague working at World Bank in India that the following passenger car equivalents are being used for modeling in planned new road projects. They seem heavily biased against nmts to us. Does anyone have any hard figures on this, particularly Indian data? Your help would be greatly appreciated. The message was as follows; >This is to invite your comments/opinion regarding the following PCU >equivalents for NMT being used in India for WB project preparations: > >Bicycle 0.5 (rural) 0.4-0.5 (urban) >Cycle Rickshaw 1.5 (rural) 1.5-2.0 (urban) >Horse Carts 4.0 (rural) 1.5-2.0 (urban) >Bullock carts 4 to 6 (rural) 4 to 6 (urban) >Hand carts --- 2.0-3.0 (urban) > >The bicycle equivalents are somewhat higher than the ones used in The >Netherlands (0.3), but I am questioning the Cycle Rickshaw figures used; these >seem to be very high, and based on my own observations, I find these figures >hard to accept. However, the RM assured me that the figures were based on >studies in India and reflect local traffic conditions. I suspect that some >powers biased against NMT are at work here, but I need more data to substantiate >my suspicion. > All help is appreciated. Happy Holidays to all. Walter Hook, ITDP ________________________________________________________________________________ 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 j.whitelegg at lancaster.ac.uk Tue Jan 6 18:57:45 1998 From: j.whitelegg at lancaster.ac.uk (John Whitelegg) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 09:57:45 -0000 Subject: [sustran] PCU equivalents for NMT in India Message-ID: <01BD1AAC.72BC92E0@ras2-pptp-1.lancs.ac.uk> ---------- From: Institute for Transportation and Development Policy[SMTP:mobility@igc.apc.org] Sent: Monday, January 05, 1998 7:53 PM To: sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org Subject: [sustran] PCU equivalents for NMT in India Dear Colleagues, Dear Walter, I think the PCU estimates are far too high for cycle rickshaws and bullock carts. I have trawled through my files on NMT but can't find any hard data to substantiate this view. We need to know the Indian studies that have produced the estimates in the first place. I have contacted colleagues in Calcutta to check this out with them. Can we put in a holding letter to the WB expressing a professional opinion that doubts these estimates? very best wishes, John Whitelegg I've just heard from a colleague working at World Bank in India that the following passenger car equivalents are being used for modeling in planned new road projects. They seem heavily biased against nmts to us. Does anyone have any hard figures on this, particularly Indian data? Your help would be greatly appreciated. The message was as follows; >This is to invite your comments/opinion regarding the following PCU >equivalents for NMT being used in India for WB project preparations: > >Bicycle 0.5 (rural) 0.4-0.5 (urban) >Cycle Rickshaw 1.5 (rural) 1.5-2.0 (urban) >Horse Carts 4.0 (rural) 1.5-2.0 (urban) >Bullock carts 4 to 6 (rural) 4 to 6 (urban) >Hand carts --- 2.0-3.0 (urban) > >The bicycle equivalents are somewhat higher than the ones used in The >Netherlands (0.3), but I am questioning the Cycle Rickshaw figures used; these >seem to be very high, and based on my own observations, I find these figures >hard to accept. However, the RM assured me that the figures were based on >studies in India and reflect local traffic conditions. I suspect that some >powers biased against NMT are at work here, but I need more data to substantiate >my suspicion. > All help is appreciated. Happy Holidays to all. Walter Hook, ITDP ________________________________________________________________________ ________ 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 begin 600 WINMAIL.DAT M>)\^(B<.`0:0" `$```````!``$``0>0!@`(````Y 0```````#H``$(@ <` M& ```$E032Y-:6-R;W-O9G0@36%I;"Y.;W1E`#$(`0V ! `"`````@`"``$$ MD 8`4 $```$````,`````P``, (````+``\.``````(!_P\!````6P`````` M``"!*Q^DOJ,0&9UN`-T!#U0"`````'-U``,P`0```!\```!S=7-T``$P`0```"$` M```G"YA<&,N;W)G)P`````"`0LP`0`` M`"0```!33510.E-54U1204XM1$E30U534T!*0T$N05@N05!#+D]21P`#```Y M``````L`0#H!`````@'V#P$````$`````````J%&`02 `0`O````4D4Z(%MS M=7-TA'1N'!$15-4`````!X`'@P!````!0```%--5% ` M````'@`?# $````<````:BYW:&ET96QE9V= ;&%N8V%S=&5R+F%C+G5K``,` M!A"Z_;^9`P`'$,,&```>``@0`0```&4````M+2TM+2TM+2TM1E)/33I)3E-4 M25155$5&3U)44D%.4U!/4E1!5$E/3D%.1$1%5D5,3U!-14Y44$],24-94TU4 M4#I-3T))3$E464!)1T-!4$-/4D=314Y4.DU/3D1!62Q*04Y5``````(!"1 ! M````W@8``-H&```P#0``3%I&==UBDM3_``H!#P(5`J0#Y 7K`H,`4!,#5 (` M8V@*P'-E=.XR!@`&PP*#,@/&!Q,"@[HS$PU]"H (SPG9.Q7_>#(U-0* "H$- ML0M@;O!G,3 S%" +"A+R# $:8P! ( J%"HML:3$$.# "T6DM,30TSPWP#- < MPPM9,38*H -@]G0%D 5 +1[G"H<=FPPP=1YF1@-A.A_N'F8,@B!"20" =&ET M=1Z0(%,"$ 7 5'(`<7 5H6$+(] "(" `<&0@1&4T=F45D' '@ (P(% !!O!I M8WE;4TU4-% Z!&!B`Q CX'E P&EG8RYA<"?@!;#\9UT?CR"=!F ","'/(ML" M30(@9&%Y+"!*A0!P=0K >2 P-2T``#$Y.3@@-SHUFC,F8$THCR"=5&\JSYDB MVW-U(\ DD2UD! ""8S*P=6)J'J$K,,\BVULRI5TF M8$-5P"!E<75I=@= )C'K!" D0DXF\" +@".1,R#F81KO&_,S-AUG%"(,`2\> M9B6P"L$(4&PZ$&%G_0I0D 0@"L D(0K!=,AO;R!%$&=H)#,FL(IC.A @!1!C M:W,1P*9W1F$E@6)U/N!O2%#G1\ *P#I +B!$T1' )=![1/ DD'861U8TK3)"!%Z#KQ_T5B') 1X 5 "U%3 M0$GH!:!_`C `T!Z0)9 5<3[U.N)#_P= ,U "0$XS$; %D$5"3X'?"& %0 /P M10!%4FU)X5>@O0.@=U+13)$Z\4XP: ;P^S,@&0`@.A "0 203D)%8O170CF@ M>!Y@!Y `D%MA>TXP'F%F7.("( = 3 !PUPN )3)24V0(8&(Z045A>Q'P1=@_ M.WQ Y270+7%B/T7A64%(<#]!8(]!$DIONF@#H%=%$!Z0.A!G-':G.^\\_QYU M22=*46HRL?]',#Z!)9 #4EKA5L=90 6P-FM=$P5 5P6P6S @0O\`<$5 .O92 M1$5A0.4"$$DQWP/P6V%!$ 00"?!G6]%)D?\YJT:"8B!;4C*P2M$D0@1BKQP@ M6V$Z\0M1;E!09$#E]U!0!^ #8&$ED!YA-K))TGY417 M@!'P6#_91QS44MP7.$_$&H!;; E8-,Z4FTB1A8`=/ +(/];4E23;1VD>\E("((0V]X\M>#9OXCM?=8#6 M"?_6E!O M4JJVJ(=1Y6N')7(6`/\8T!ZB24%>$3+1#= FH%82[S,@B?-)XS*AS.!DGT/95B:L'_!0"V DN <("S1=9,'0&Q/?;Y Y4.4 MKU%O:ZQA5/1$4!K=7\>OR+_)S\K?_\N991TC8GZR(Z\DOR7/F"!WQG*.EI3D M,9! 4"!5`3/:,%EQ4S+0">!T+0`VO!J0)DM`$Y9+= < M8# QS1L')>" Message-ID: <199801071650.QAA01952@gn3.gn.apc.org> Dear everyone I attended a meeting of the above held at ESCAP in Bangkok early December. It was a very interesting meeting and I met many interesting people. Unfortunately, the content of the meeting included hardly anything about non-motorised transport modes, about environmental issues (limited to the transportation of hazardous goods), about poverty issues or gender issues. In this vacuum of concern for the transport-disadvantaged and wider developmental issues it was encouraging that the meeting did include a prioritised project on transport for the disabled. Should we attempt to influence our government delegations to include in the discussion issues that should be of greater concern to a region that is home to a large number of poor people? What do you think? Best wishes Priyanthi Fernando Executive Secretary, IFRTD _________________________ Niklas Sieber Dep. Exec. Secretary International Forum for Rural Transport and Development New Premier House 150 Southampton Row London WC1 B5AL United Kingdom Tel.: 0171/ 278 3682 Fax: 0171/ 278 6880 e-mail: ifrtd@gn.apc.org Webpage: http://www.gn.apc.org/ifrtd From pendakur at unixg.ubc.ca Thu Jan 8 02:03:01 1998 From: pendakur at unixg.ubc.ca (Dr. V. S. Pendakur) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 09:03:01 -0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: ESCAP Committee on Transport and Communications Message-ID: Thanks. It is extra-ordinary that, ESCAP which is the regional organization for Asia where non-motorized transport is predominant, has not included the concerns expressed by your memo. We may have to device strategies to make presentations to national delegations as well as their Committees on Social and Economic Affairs. Perhaps, some one more familiar with the structure of UN can advise us. Cheers. **************************************************** Dr. V. Setty Pendakur School of Community and Regional Planning University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z2 1-604-822-3394-office, 1-604-263-3576-home 1-604-822-3787-fax Email : pendakur@unixg.ubc.ca *************************************************** ---------- > From: ifrtd@gn.apc.org > To: sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org > Subject: [sustran] Re: ESCAP Committee on Transport and Communications > Date: Wednesday, January 07, 1998 8:28 AM > > Dear everyone > > I attended a meeting of the above held at ESCAP in Bangkok early > December. It was a very interesting meeting and I met many > interesting people. Unfortunately, the content of the meeting > included hardly anything about non-motorised transport modes, about > environmental issues (limited to the transportation of hazardous > goods), about poverty issues or gender issues. In this vacuum of > concern for the transport-disadvantaged and wider developmental > issues it was encouraging that the meeting did include a prioritised > project on transport for the disabled. Should we attempt to > influence our government delegations to include in the discussion > issues that should be of greater concern to a region that is home to > a large number of poor people? What do you think? > > Best wishes > > Priyanthi Fernando > Executive Secretary, IFRTD > > _________________________ > Niklas Sieber > Dep. Exec. Secretary > International Forum for Rural Transport and Development > New Premier House > 150 Southampton Row > London WC1 B5AL > United Kingdom > > Tel.: 0171/ 278 3682 > Fax: 0171/ 278 6880 > e-mail: ifrtd@gn.apc.org > Webpage: http://www.gn.apc.org/ifrtd From rogerh at foe.co.uk Thu Jan 8 12:14:58 1998 From: rogerh at foe.co.uk (Roger Higman) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 19:14:58 -0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: ESCAP Committee on Transport and Communications In-Reply-To: ifrtd@gn.apc.org "[sustran] Re: ESCAP Committee on Transport and Communications" (Jan 7, 4:28pm) References: <199801071650.QAA01952@gn3.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <980107191459.ZM9767@unknown.zmail.host> Priyanthi You wrote: > I attended a meeting of the above held at ESCAP in Bangkok early > December. It was a very interesting meeting and I met many > interesting people. Unfortunately, the content of the meeting > included hardly anything about non-motorised transport modes, about > environmental issues (limited to the transportation of hazardous > goods), about poverty issues or gender issues. In this vacuum of > concern for the transport-disadvantaged and wider developmental > issues it was encouraging that the meeting did include a prioritised > project on transport for the disabled. Should we attempt to > influence our government delegations to include in the discussion > issues that should be of greater concern to a region that is home to > a large number of poor people? What do you think? Yes! Roger Higman "A thorn in the side of Senior Campaigner (Atmosphere and Transport) the motor industry" Friends of the Earth (E,W+NI), Car Magazine 26-28 Underwood Street, London, N1 7JQ Tel + 44 171 566 1661 Fax + 44 171 490 0881 E-mail rogerh@foe.co.uk http://www.foe.co.uk From hirsch at igc.org Thu Jan 8 10:44:18 1998 From: hirsch at igc.org (Ralph B. Hirsch) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 17:44:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: [sustran] Re: ESCAP Committee on Transport and Communications Message-ID: <2.2.16.19980107204419.19cf0dac@pop.igc.org> On 7 January, Priyanthi Fernando of IFRTD (International Forum for Rural Transport and Development) wrote about a December 1997 meeting in Bangkok organized by ESCAP, the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific: >Unfortunately, the content of the meeting included >hardly anything about non-motorised transport modes, >about environmental issues (limited to the transportation >of hazardous goods), about poverty issues or gender issues. and asked: > Should we attempt to influence our government >delegations to include in the discussion issues that >should be of greater concern to a region that is home to >a large number of poor people? V. Setty Pendakur of the University of British Columbia commented: > It is extra-ordinary that ESCAP, which is the regional >organization for Asia where non-motorized transport is >predominant, has not included the concerns expressed >by your memo. We may have to device strategies to make >presentations to national delegations as well as their >Committees on Social and Economic Affairs. Perhaps, some >one more familiar with the structure of UN can advise us. Perhaps the following comments can be helpful. They are based on the experience of my organization, the International Federation of Pedestrians (FIP), which has been in consultative status with the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) for about 25 years. During that period we have been active with ECOSOC's Economic Commission for Europe (ECE), and more recently also with the Economic Commission for Africa (ECA). There are similar bodies for Western Asia (ESCWA), for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), and -- as mentioned by Priyanthi Fernando -- for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP). Due to lack of resources FIP has not yet become active in the work of any of the last three commissions named, although in principle we could become involved in their activities relating to transport, environment and urban development issues. On the basis of FIP's long years at the UN, I'll contradict my esteemed colleague, Setty Pendakur. No, it is NOT extraordinary that the concerns in Priyanthi Fernando's memo were left out of the discussions at ESCAP. It is amazing, it is deplorable. But it is unfortunately commonplace rather than extraordinary. Such concerns -- in order to be part of the agenda of the UN's regional commissions -- must be brought up either by a member country in the region, by an NGO in consultative status, or by the commission's secretariat. If the concerns are not among the priority issues of a country in the region, or if they are not championed by one of the NGOs, they are unlikely to be raised. An open discussion list such as SUSTRANS may not be the ideal medium to develop a detailed strategy for overcoming this deficiency, but it can provide an excellent starting point. For now let me say, on the basis of our experience, that for an NGO to work effectively with the regional commissions requires a dedicated, well-qualified, and versatile staff (most such staffs are paid, though a few are volunteers), enough money for travel to the meetings called by the commissions, and a tremendous amount of staying power. Presentations and other forms of contact with the delegations of individual countries can be a valuable complement to work with the regional commissions and its specialized bodies. Contacts made at one level are likely to reinforce those made at the other. A number of people, among them Setty Pendakur, who share the concerns listed by Priyanthi Fernando, will be in Washington, DC next week for the annual meeting of the Transportation Research Board (TRB). I hope that there we may move the matter a little further along in face-to-face discussions. I do see the Internet -- and this splendid discussion list SUSTRAN -- as potentially crucial tools for overcoming some of the handicaps that disadvantaged groups and NGOs with small financial resources have long labored under. Ralph B. Hirsch, Secretary General International Federation of Pedestrians (FIP) 3500 Race Street Philadelphia PA 19104-4925 USA telephone/fax +1.215.386.1270 e-mail From pendakur at unixg.ubc.ca Thu Jan 8 11:50:30 1998 From: pendakur at unixg.ubc.ca (Dr. V. S. Pendakur) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 18:50:30 -0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: ESCAP Committee on Transport and Communications Message-ID: Thanks, Ralph. Appreciate your comments. I would appreciate it if Priyanthi can prepare a one or two page memo to Assistant Secretary General UN/ESCAP, I will make copies and request like minded people read and possibly sign it. Later on we can figure out how to send it to them. However, we cannot do this as TRB, unless we go through the entire committee/council ladder and even then, it may be considered as too political!!. We can take this up as Sustarns, as ITDP, as IFP and other organizations. Dont forget, ESCAP has cofunding in the infrastructure area from UNCHS, UNDP and the ADB in several of their efforts. I would appreciate a quick feedback on this as we don not have time. I would particularly like comments from those who are going to attend TRB. Best wishes. Setty. **************************************************** Dr. V. Setty Pendakur School of Community and Regional Planning University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z2 1-604-822-3394-office, 1-604-263-3576-home 1-604-822-3787-fax Email : pendakur@unixg.ubc.ca *************************************************** ---------- > From: Ralph B. Hirsch > To: sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org > Subject: [sustran] Re: ESCAP Committee on Transport and Communications > Date: Wednesday, January 07, 1998 5:44 PM > > On 7 January, Priyanthi Fernando of IFRTD (International Forum for Rural > Transport and Development) wrote about a December 1997 meeting in Bangkok > organized by ESCAP, the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for > Asia and the Pacific: > >Unfortunately, the content of the meeting included > >hardly anything about non-motorised transport modes, > >about environmental issues (limited to the transportation > >of hazardous goods), about poverty issues or gender issues. > > and asked: > > Should we attempt to influence our government > >delegations to include in the discussion issues that > >should be of greater concern to a region that is home to > >a large number of poor people? > > V. Setty Pendakur of the University of British Columbia commented: > > It is extra-ordinary that ESCAP, which is the regional > >organization for Asia where non-motorized transport is > >predominant, has not included the concerns expressed > >by your memo. We may have to device strategies to make > >presentations to national delegations as well as their > >Committees on Social and Economic Affairs. Perhaps, some > >one more familiar with the structure of UN can advise us. > > Perhaps the following comments can be helpful. They are based on the > experience of my organization, the International Federation of Pedestrians > (FIP), which has been in consultative status with the UN Economic and Social > Council (ECOSOC) for about 25 years. During that period we have been active > with ECOSOC's Economic Commission for Europe (ECE), and more recently also > with the Economic Commission for Africa (ECA). There are similar bodies for > Western Asia (ESCWA), for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), and -- as > mentioned by Priyanthi Fernando -- for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP). Due to > lack of resources FIP has not yet become active in the work of any of the > last three commissions named, although in principle we could become involved > in their activities relating to transport, environment and urban development > issues. > > On the basis of FIP's long years at the UN, I'll contradict my esteemed > colleague, Setty Pendakur. No, it is NOT extraordinary that the concerns in > Priyanthi Fernando's memo were left out of the discussions at ESCAP. It is > amazing, it is deplorable. But it is unfortunately commonplace rather than > extraordinary. Such concerns -- in order to be part of the agenda of the > UN's regional commissions -- must be brought up either by a member country > in the region, by an NGO in consultative status, or by the commission's > secretariat. If the concerns are not among the priority issues of a country > in the region, or if they are not championed by one of the NGOs, they are > unlikely to be raised. > > An open discussion list such as SUSTRANS may not be the ideal medium to > develop a detailed strategy for overcoming this deficiency, but it can > provide an excellent starting point. For now let me say, on the basis of our > experience, that for an NGO to work effectively with the regional > commissions requires a dedicated, well-qualified, and versatile staff (most > such staffs are paid, though a few are volunteers), enough money for travel > to the meetings called by the commissions, and a tremendous amount of > staying power. > > Presentations and other forms of contact with the delegations of individual > countries can be a valuable complement to work with the regional commissions > and its specialized bodies. Contacts made at one level are likely to > reinforce those made at the other. > > A number of people, among them Setty Pendakur, who share the concerns listed > by Priyanthi Fernando, will be in Washington, DC next week for the annual > meeting of the Transportation Research Board (TRB). I hope that there we > may move the matter a little further along in face-to-face discussions. I do > see the Internet -- and this splendid discussion list SUSTRAN -- as > potentially crucial tools for overcoming some of the handicaps that > disadvantaged groups and NGOs with small financial resources have long > labored under. > > Ralph B. Hirsch, Secretary General > International Federation of Pedestrians (FIP) > 3500 Race Street > Philadelphia PA 19104-4925 > USA > telephone/fax +1.215.386.1270 > e-mail From sarafrk at cbme.iitd.ernet.in Thu Jan 8 14:05:13 1998 From: sarafrk at cbme.iitd.ernet.in (Dr.Rajeev Saraf) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 10:35:13 +0530 (IST) Subject: [sustran] PCU equivalents for NMT in India In-Reply-To: <01BD1AAC.72BC92E0@ras2-pptp-1.lancs.ac.uk> Message-ID: About this discussion on PCUs, I would like to make an argument that PCUs on the first place should not be used for any kind of traffic analysis. It absolutely does not make sense to convert all the modes to car equivalents in hetergeneous conditions when 80% to 90% vehicles are NOT CARS. Even PCU values are not static and could change depeneding on modal shares and speeds. A new concept of dynamic PCUs have been evolving. However, there is still seems to be a consensus that PCU characterisation will not refelect true character of traffic on road. ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On Tue, 6 Jan 1998, John Whitelegg wrote: > > > ---------- > From: Institute for Transportation and Development > Policy[SMTP:mobility@igc.apc.org] > Sent: Monday, January 05, 1998 7:53 PM > To: sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org > Subject: [sustran] PCU equivalents for NMT in India > > Dear Colleagues, > > > Dear Walter, > > I think the PCU estimates are far too high for cycle rickshaws and bullock > carts. I have trawled through my files on NMT but can't find any hard data > to substantiate this view. We need to know the Indian studies that have > produced the estimates in the first place. I have contacted colleagues in > Calcutta to check this out with them. Can we put in a holding letter to > the WB expressing a professional opinion that doubts these estimates? > > > very best wishes, > > > John Whitelegg > > I've just heard from a colleague working at World Bank in India that the > following passenger car equivalents are being used for modeling in planned > new road projects. They seem heavily biased against nmts to us. Does > anyone have any hard figures on this, particularly Indian data? Your help > would be greatly appreciated. > > The message was as follows; > > >This is to invite your comments/opinion regarding the following PCU > >equivalents for NMT being used in India for WB project preparations: > > > >Bicycle 0.5 (rural) 0.4-0.5 (urban) > >Cycle Rickshaw 1.5 (rural) 1.5-2.0 (urban) > >Horse Carts 4.0 (rural) 1.5-2.0 (urban) > >Bullock carts 4 to 6 (rural) 4 to 6 (urban) > >Hand carts --- 2.0-3.0 (urban) > > > >The bicycle equivalents are somewhat higher than the ones used in The > >Netherlands (0.3), but I am questioning the Cycle Rickshaw figures used; > these > >seem to be very high, and based on my own observations, I find these > figures > >hard to accept. However, the RM assured me that the figures were based on > >studies in India and reflect local traffic conditions. I suspect that > some > >powers biased against NMT are at work here, but I need more data to > substantiate > >my suspicion. > > > All help is appreciated. > > Happy Holidays to all. > > > Walter Hook, ITDP > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________ > > 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 > > > > > begin 600 WINMAIL.DAT > M>)\^(B<.`0:0" `$```````!``$``0>0!@`(````Y 0```````#H``$(@ <` > M& ```$E032Y-:6-R;W-O9G0@36%I;"Y.;W1E`#$(`0V ! `"`````@`"``$$ > MD 8`4 $```$````,`````P``, (````+``\.``````(!_P\!````6P`````` > M``"!*Q^DOJ,0&9UN`-T!#U0"`````'-U M87!C+F]R9P!33510`'-U M'@`", $````%````4TU44 `````>``,P`0```!\```!S=7-T M``$P`0```"$` > M```G"YA<&,N;W)G)P`````"`0LP`0`` > M`"0```!33510.E-54U1204XM1$E30U534T!*0T$N05@N05!#+D]21P`#```Y > M``````L`0#H!`````@'V#P$````$`````````J%&`02 `0`O````4D4Z(%MS > M=7-T M@ ,`#@```,X'`0`&``D`.0`M``(`30$!(( #``X```#.!P$`!@`)`#4`. `" > M`%0!`0F `0`A````-S%!0D0R-T8W03@V1#$Q,4(X-S T-#0U-3,U-# P,# ` > MW@8!`Y &`(@(```4````"P`C```````#`"8```````L`*0```````P`N```` > M```#`#8``````$ `.0``]8R)B1J]`1X`< `!````+P```%)%.B!; M;ET@4$-5(&5Q=6EV86QE;G1S(&9O M%@````&]&HF)C'_2JW*&>A'1N'!$15-4`````!X`'@P!````!0```%--5% ` > M````'@`?# $````<````:BYW:&ET96QE9V= ;&%N8V%S=&5R+F%C+G5K``,` > M!A"Z_;^9`P`'$,,&```>``@0`0```&4````M+2TM+2TM+2TM1E)/33I)3E-4 > M25155$5&3U)44D%.4U!/4E1!5$E/3D%.1$1%5D5,3U!-14Y44$],24-94TU4 > M4#I-3T))3$E464!)1T-!4$-/4D=314Y4.DU/3D1!62Q*04Y5``````(!"1 ! > M````W@8``-H&```P#0``3%I&==UBDM3_``H!#P(5`J0#Y 7K`H,`4!,#5 (` > M8V@*P'-E=.XR!@`&PP*#,@/&!Q,"@[HS$PU]"H (SPG9.Q7_>#(U-0* "H$- > ML0M@;O!G,3 S%" +"A+R# $:8P! ( J%"HML:3$$.# "T6DM,30TSPWP#- < > MPPM9,38*H -@]G0%D 5 +1[G"H<=FPPP=1YF1@-A.A_N'F8,@B!"20" =&ET > M=1Z0(%,"$ 7 5'(`<7 5H6$+(] "(" `<&0@1&4T=F45D' '@ (P(% !!O!I > M8WE;4TU4-% Z!&!B`Q CX'E P&EG8RYA<"?@!;#\9UT?CR"=!F ","'/(ML" > M30(@9&%Y+"!*A0!P=0K >2 P-2T``#$Y.3@@-SHUFC,F8$THCR"=5&\JSYDB > MVW-U(\ DD2UD! ""8S*P=6)J'J$K,,\BVULRI5TF > M8$-5P"!E<75I=@= )C'K!" D0DXF\" +@".1,R#F81KO&_,S-AUG%"(,`2\> > M9B6P"L$(4&PZ$&%G_0I0 M"X!K1/$D(#ES?R/!`, >D 0@"L D(0K!=,AO;R!%$&=H)#,FL(IC.A @!1!C > M:W,1P*9W1F$E@6)U/N!O2%#G1\ *P#I +B!$T1' )=![1/ DD' M8'7]1V%M+8 MD$;Q2?#],J!B(\ `<"/01C%$\@0@JG8(D'=)X5 M8CLC^P.@(\!U,R 'D44`)1!*)/$>861U8TK3)"!%Z#KQ_T5B') 1X 5 "U%3 > M0$GH!:!_`C `T!Z0)9 5<3[U.N)#_P= ,U "0$XS$; %D$5"3X'?"& %0 /P > M10!%4FU)X5>@O0.@=U+13)$Z\4XP: ;P^S,@&0`@.A "0 203D)%8O170CF@ > M>!Y@!Y `D%MA>TXP'F%F7.("( = 3 !PUPN )3)24V0(8&(Z045A>Q'P1=@_ > M.WQ Y270+7%B/T7A64%(<#]!8(]!$DIONF@#H%=%$!Z0.A!G-':G.^\\_QYU > M22=*46HRL?]',#Z!)9 #4EKA5L=90 6P-FM=$P5 5P6P6S @0O\`<$5 .O92 > M1$5A0.4"$$DQWP/P6V%!$ 00"?!G6]%)D?\YJT:"8B!;4C*P2M$D0@1BKQP@ > M6V$Z\0M1;E!09$#E]U!0!^ #8&$ED!YA-K))TGY417 M@!'P6 M`0 M_TP"3V(M`$$1(] S4 M@:O#7+8!194X"/TGP60AA:*'\;'! Y6H@22!(\20@ > M"<&O)1!T02@`7,%C3Q)D2>#_91QS44MP7.$_$&H!;; E8-,Z4FTB M4$^!_T^!3E$+@$^P)!%W`'L1!:#R;28B1A8`=/ +(/];4E23;1 M.;],4F^8WVN')$)<<7*E4N%E01$E$^QS.H#6@-9")J%'\2-3@2-3,"XU("AR > M"'!E!T IB\HT+8QC"'!BU0!P*8#60T?C4DA%2?".,8Q_(W&0(2TR+D# ?8X] > M2 6P7[%7H$FQ(U,T?Y'"D'^1CXL$22J3E$Y"-O^4'Y>VD>\E M^95Q+3.5CXK'?K(G4$?4_6Z. MP$5AEVKP)7$$("B,8#,I+0#[3()$X&%I0(8@1>("((0V]X\M>#9OXCM?=8#6 > M M-H#63;-.40#0_U- !3!)X9+@6E!AT2T`16+\4DU_H3*@%@%^X6P'>"?_6E!O > M4JJVJ(=1Y6N')7(6`/\8T!ZB24%>$3+1#= FH%82[S,@B?-)XS*A M M(B:@)3$N_8I=03[@>S.!DGT/95B:L'_!0"V DN <("S1=9,'0&Q/?;Y Y4.4 > MKU%O:ZQA5/1$4!K=7\>OR+_)S\K?_\N991TC8GZR(Z\DOR7/F"!WQG*.EI3D > M,9! 4"!5`3/:,%EQ4S+0">!T+0`VO!J0)DM`$Y9+= < > M8# QS1L')>" M'F9 Y045(0#?\ ```P`0$ `````#`!$0`````$ `!S# 81$!B1J]`4 `"## > E81$!B1J]`1X`/0`!````!0```%)%.B ``````P`--/TW``#NZ1J] > ` > end > > From ifrtd at gn.apc.org Thu Jan 8 20:18:28 1998 From: ifrtd at gn.apc.org (ifrtd@gn.apc.org) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 11:18:28 +0000 Subject: [sustran] Re: ESCAP Committee on Transport and Communication In-Reply-To: <2.2.16.19980107204419.19cf0dac@pop.igc.org> Message-ID: <199801081140.LAA03748@gn3.gn.apc.org> Ralph Hirsch provided some interesting insights into "infiltrating" the UN system and I do hope all of you in Washington will discuss how you can put these suggestions into operation. IFRTD members in a number of countries in Asia and Africa have formed themselves into national networks. I don't expect any of them will be represented in Washington, so please consider how they could also participate in your "strategy". A large number of the population in Asia and a majority of the poor live in rural areas -so while promoting the use of NMTs in urban cities is important, I would hope that you will not forget the problems of the rural poor as well. Roger Hirsch says Such concerns -- in order to be part of the agenda of the > UN's regional commissions -- must be brought up either by a member country > in the region, by an NGO in consultative status, or by the commission's > secretariat. If the concerns are not among the priority issues of a country > in the region, or if they are not championed by one of the NGOs, they are > unlikely to be raised Paul Guitink has suggested that the concerns are not prioritised by country governments because their lack of awareness and because of the lack of local technical capacity to address the issues even if they were raised. I guess one part of the strategy should be to lobby the country delegations to these meetings. A role that IFRTD networks in countries can do. But how do we influence the commission's secretariat which in the case of ESCAP seemed to me to be indifferent to the issues? As a post script let me add that the IFRTD would also be interested in learning more about FIP. Most people in developing countries are pedestrians by necessity sometimes travelling long distances for the most basic needs. Can FIP help address their concerns? Priyanthi Ferenando. > To: > From: "Ralph B. Hirsch" > Subject: [sustran] Re: ESCAP Committee on Transport and Communications > Reply-to: sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org > On 7 January, Priyanthi Fernando of IFRTD (International Forum for Rural > Transport and Development) wrote about a December 1997 meeting in Bangkok > organized by ESCAP, the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for > Asia and the Pacific: > >Unfortunately, the content of the meeting included > >hardly anything about non-motorised transport modes, > >about environmental issues (limited to the transportation > >of hazardous goods), about poverty issues or gender issues. > > and asked: > > Should we attempt to influence our government > >delegations to include in the discussion issues that > >should be of greater concern to a region that is home to > >a large number of poor people? > > V. Setty Pendakur of the University of British Columbia commented: > > It is extra-ordinary that ESCAP, which is the regional > >organization for Asia where non-motorized transport is > >predominant, has not included the concerns expressed > >by your memo. We may have to device strategies to make > >presentations to national delegations as well as their > >Committees on Social and Economic Affairs. Perhaps, some > >one more familiar with the structure of UN can advise us. > > Perhaps the following comments can be helpful. They are based on the > experience of my organization, the International Federation of Pedestrians > (FIP), which has been in consultative status with the UN Economic and Social > Council (ECOSOC) for about 25 years. During that period we have been active > with ECOSOC's Economic Commission for Europe (ECE), and more recently also > with the Economic Commission for Africa (ECA). There are similar bodies for > Western Asia (ESCWA), for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), and -- as > mentioned by Priyanthi Fernando -- for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP). Due to > lack of resources FIP has not yet become active in the work of any of the > last three commissions named, although in principle we could become involved > in their activities relating to transport, environment and urban development > issues. > > On the basis of FIP's long years at the UN, I'll contradict my esteemed > colleague, Setty Pendakur. No, it is NOT extraordinary that the concerns in > Priyanthi Fernando's memo were left out of the discussions at ESCAP. It is > amazing, it is deplorable. But it is unfortunately commonplace rather than > extraordinary. Such concerns -- in order to be part of the agenda of the > UN's regional commissions -- must be brought up either by a member country > in the region, by an NGO in consultative status, or by the commission's > secretariat. If the concerns are not among the priority issues of a country > in the region, or if they are not championed by one of the NGOs, they are > unlikely to be raised. > > An open discussion list such as SUSTRANS may not be the ideal medium to > develop a detailed strategy for overcoming this deficiency, but it can > provide an excellent starting point. For now let me say, on the basis of our > experience, that for an NGO to work effectively with the regional > commissions requires a dedicated, well-qualified, and versatile staff (most > such staffs are paid, though a few are volunteers), enough money for travel > to the meetings called by the commissions, and a tremendous amount of > staying power. > > Presentations and other forms of contact with the delegations of individual > countries can be a valuable complement to work with the regional commissions > and its specialized bodies. Contacts made at one level are likely to > reinforce those made at the other. > > A number of people, among them Setty Pendakur, who share the concerns listed > by Priyanthi Fernando, will be in Washington, DC next week for the annual > meeting of the Transportation Research Board (TRB). I hope that there we > may move the matter a little further along in face-to-face discussions. I do > see the Internet -- and this splendid discussion list SUSTRAN -- as > potentially crucial tools for overcoming some of the handicaps that > disadvantaged groups and NGOs with small financial resources have long > labored under. > > Ralph B. Hirsch, Secretary General > International Federation of Pedestrians (FIP) > 3500 Race Street > Philadelphia PA 19104-4925 > USA > telephone/fax +1.215.386.1270 > e-mail > > _________________________ Niklas Sieber Dep. Exec. Secretary International Forum for Rural Transport and Development New Premier House 150 Southampton Row London WC1 B5AL United Kingdom Tel.: 0171/ 278 3682 Fax: 0171/ 278 6880 e-mail: ifrtd@gn.apc.org Webpage: http://www.gn.apc.org/ifrtd From mobility at igc.apc.org Fri Jan 9 05:30:58 1998 From: mobility at igc.apc.org (Institute for Transportation and Development Policy) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 12:30:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [sustran] escap Message-ID: <2.2.16.19980108162110.1167b5b8@pop.igc.org> Re: the ESCAP discussion Might I suggest that the appropriate forum for this work would be the United Nations NGO Transport Caucus which has some sort of official status at UN activities, and is co-chaired by Andy Anderson representing the Intl. Union of Public Transport Associations and ITDP, but is open to any organization which wants to join. Andy works for London Transport and has been at the forefront of most of our UN lobbying efforts. He was just in Kyoto but was also at the UNCHS meeting in Florence, the UNECE meeting in Vienna, Habitat II, etc. His email is as above. Currently the Transport Caucus has been focusing on reforming UNDP and UNCHS as they seemed to do the most actual transport project implementation and transport technical assistance; perhaps I'm wrong. What does ESCAP do, exactly, in the transport field? Rgds, Walter Hook ITDP ________________________________________________________________________________ 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 rverzola at phil.gn.apc.org Fri Jan 9 20:22:07 1998 From: rverzola at phil.gn.apc.org (rverzola) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 03:22:07 -0800 Subject: [sustran] location of light rail transit stations Message-ID: <30a_9801090421@phil.gn.apc.org> Metro Manila today is the site of several major light rail transit (LRT) constructions. Of the the biggest one is the EDSA-LRT, EDSA referring to the major circumferential highway around the metropolis. This particular project is a private one: the government allowed it to build along the highway itself; in exchange, they will be allowed to set up station malls which they will rent out to various businesses, in addition to the usual income from fares. The construction expenses will be borne by the private consortium undertaking the project. There have been no public announcement regarding the exact locations of the LRT stations/malls, even as the construction started and went full blast. When I personally checked the locations, I was appalled that they were in several instances located a considerable distance (600 meters or so) away from major road arteries that cross their path. In these cases, it seems that the locations were chosen not on transport criteria but on "real estate/commercial site" considerations. I live on one of these arterial roads, where to get to the station, one has to walk more than half a kilometer. Another issue is that the consortium seems to be building a "Berlin Wall" underneath the LRT elevated rails. I can think of no other reason than to prevent pedestrial crossing at major points, to channel pedestrian traffic into their stations/malls. It is a clear case of public vs. private interest in conflict. I am interested in knowing if similar problemmatic cases have occured elsewhere in the past, and would like to compare notes and approaches to the issue. Since the construction is going on, time is short as the issue may become moot and academic soon. Obet Verzola Member, Sustainable Transport Forum Manila From kwood at central.co.nz Fri Jan 9 16:23:26 1998 From: kwood at central.co.nz (Kerry Wood) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 19:23:26 +1200 Subject: [sustran] PCU equivalents for NMT in India Message-ID: Dear Walter, Colleagues Some armchair stuff that might help with the rickshaw pcu problem. I have been trying to establish the effect on road capacity of putting in cycle facilities, using a range of assumed widths and cycle capacity data from the CROW manual. I make the capacity increase of converting a traffic lane to cycle use about 2.4 times for a 3.0 m lane and 3.2 times for a 4.0 m lane, which checks out quite well with the Dutch value of 0.3 pcu for a cycle. For wider lanes it is possible to retain a narrow traffic lane with a cycle lane alongside. In this case capacity increases are not so large - about 40 % to 2.4 times. The main point is that there is ALWAYS a capacity increase. A pedal rickshaw driver has three options in traffic (although not all are available all the time): - Keep well to the left, with room for motor traffic further out: the pcu equivalent is effectively zero. - Keep in the motor traffic lane: the pcu equivalent is a bit less than 1.0 because the rickshaw is shorter than a car: say 0.8 or so. - Keep in the motor traffic lane but alongside another pedal riskshaw: the pcu equivalent is half the above value, or 0.4 or so. On this basis a pcu value of somewhere around 0.3 to 0.6 seems reasonable, but 1.5 or 2.0 does not. To get such a high value needs assumptions about a large gap opening in front of the rickshaw, because it is slow, and somehow wasting road space, but my limited experience of India is that nothing goes to waste, road space included. Building in speed differences (which seems to be implied by having diffrent figures for urban and rural conditions) is a distortion of the concept of pcus, where a Beetle and a Ferrari both score 1.0. Dr Rajeev Saraf says that most traffic is non-car which changes the picture: if a pedal rickshaw is about 0.4 pcu, then a car is about 2.5 pru (pedal rickshaw units). It makes sense to use the dominant mode (or maybe the mode you want to be dominant) as the base line. Hope this is helpful Happy New Year Kerry Wood Transport Consultant Phone/fax + 64 4 801 5549 e-mail kwood@central.co.nz 1 McFarlane St Wellington 6001 New Zealand From ifrtd at gn.apc.org Sat Jan 10 05:07:53 1998 From: ifrtd at gn.apc.org (ifrtd@gn.apc.org) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 20:07:53 +0000 Subject: [sustran] escap In-Reply-To: <2.2.16.19980108162110.1167b5b8@pop.igc.org> Message-ID: <199801092015.UAA14111@gn3.gn.apc.org> Just to answer Walter Hook's question on ESCAP - the Secretariat hs a division on Transport, Communications and Tourism which is implementing the New Delhi Action Plan on Infrastructure Development in Asia and the Pacific. The Plan itself has some 64 priotitised projects - but resource mobilisation for these projects depends on donor and member country prioritisation. > Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 12:30:58 -0800 (PST) > To: sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org > From: Institute for Transportation and Development Policy > Subject: [sustran] escap > Cc: andya@lul.co.uk > Reply-to: sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org > Re: the ESCAP discussion > > Might I suggest that the appropriate forum for this work would be the United > Nations NGO Transport Caucus which has some sort of official status at UN > activities, and is co-chaired by Andy Anderson representing the Intl. Union > of Public Transport Associations and ITDP, but is open to any organization > which wants to join. Andy works for London Transport and has been at the > forefront of most of our UN lobbying efforts. He was just in Kyoto but was > also at the UNCHS meeting in Florence, the UNECE meeting in Vienna, Habitat > II, etc. His email is as above. Currently the Transport Caucus has been > focusing on reforming UNDP and UNCHS as they seemed to do the most actual > transport project implementation and transport technical assistance; perhaps > I'm wrong. What does ESCAP do, exactly, in the transport field? > > Rgds, > Walter Hook > ITDP > > ________________________________________________________________________________ > > 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 > > > Priyanthi Fernando Executive Secretary IFRTD 150 Southampton Row, London WC1B 5AL Tel: +44 171 278 3670 Fax: +44 171 278 6880 email:ifrtd/gn.apc.org http://www.gn.apc.org/ifrtd From msenior at dnvr.uswest.net Sun Jan 11 09:37:52 1998 From: msenior at dnvr.uswest.net (Milnor H.Senior, III) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 17:37:52 -0700 Subject: [sustran] GEF References: <2.2.16.19971208113333.1a87bb0c@pop.igc.org> Message-ID: <34B81460.7A22@dnvr.uswest.net> Institute for Transportation and Development Policy wrote: > > We now, thanks to Tomasz Terlecki of the CEE BAnkwatch Network, have access > to the entire GEF Draft Operational Program for Transport. Unfortunately, > it is too long to send the entire document. If you would like to receive it > directly by email, please let me know and I will forward it direct. > > Rgds, > Walter Hook > > ________________________________________________________________________________ > > 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 Dear Dr. Hook, I would like to receive the GEF Draft Operational Program for Transport. Thank you, Milnor H. Senior, III From nti at rci.rutgers.edu Wed Jan 14 05:54:12 1998 From: nti at rci.rutgers.edu (National Transit Institute) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 15:54:12 -0500 (EST) Subject: [sustran] Training Course on Transportation and Land Use Message-ID: COORDINATING TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE A New Three Day Intensive Course on Tools and Techniques The National Transit Institute is pleased to announce the offering of a new training course on Coordinating Transportation and Land Use. The purpose of this three-day training is to identify and disseminate the most useful information, evidence, tools, and techniques which are now available, for integrating transportation and land use planning. Planners must also be able to measure the implications of urban form and site design for transportation, as well as the implications of transportation for urban form and site design. The practical instruction for this course has two parts: (1) to provide training specifically related to issues at the regional level in development of metropolitan transportation plans, at the corridor level in development of major investment studies, and at the project level in completion of NEPA studies; and (2) to provide guidance on how to address transportation in site development and in neighborhood, municipal, and regional plans. The course also identifies best practices. Target Audience The target audience is transportation and land use professionals in the spectrum of agencies who work in the area of transportation and land use coordination. These include comprehensive, land use, and transportation planners who work in state departments of transportation, metropolitan planning organizations, transit agencies, state/county/local planning agencies, and consulting firms. Portions of the course are specifically targeted to include local civic activists, modelers, and elected officials as participants. Course Instructors There are three instructors for this course. Dr. Robert Cervero of the Department of City and Regional Planning, University of California at Berkeley, is a recognized expert on the subject of the relationship between land use and transportation. Dr. Reid Ewing of the College of Engineering and Design at Florida Atlantic University, is an authority on transportation, land use, and growth management. Mr. Uri Avin, AICP, of LDR International, Inc., has an extensive background in land use planning in both the private and public sectors. Fee and Schedule The $450 tuition fee includes all course materials. Enrollment is limited to 30 per course. The course schedule is: Atlanta, GA March 4-6, 1998 Chicago, IL April 1-3, 1998 Seattle, WA April 29-May 1, 1998 Dallas, TX June 3-5, 1998 For further program information, please contact: Amy Van Doren Telephone: 732/932-1700, ext. 21 e-mail: avd@rci.rutgers.edu To reserve a seat in a class, contact: Susan Greenstone, Registrar National Transit Institute Telephone: 732/932-1700 ===================================================================== National Transit Institute Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey 120 Albany Street, Suite 705 New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901 email: nti@rci.rutgers.edu tel.: (732) 932-1700 fax: (732) 932-1707 http://policy.rutgers.edu/nti From sarafrk at cbme.iitd.ernet.in Mon Jan 12 14:46:43 1998 From: sarafrk at cbme.iitd.ernet.in (Dr.Rajeev Saraf) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 11:16:43 +0530 (IST) Subject: [sustran] PCU equivalents for NMT in India In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I do not agree with Kerry when he says that the road space does not go waste. May be at the intersections when traffic is queued up waiting for the green signal. However, on the link, a de facto segregation takes place between motorised and non motorised modes even if the volume of the NMT is quite low. Even if there are few rickshaws or cyclists in the curb lane, the curb lane does not get used by motorised traffic. In that case, PCU values of cycle rickshaws would be very high. This is true for cities like Delhi where motorised mode is still a dominant mode. There the PCU value of Cycle rickshaw would be quite high. The point I am trying to make is that the usage of a lane by MT where NMT exists ( mostly curb line side) is nearly independent of the volume of NMT. However, if only pedal rickshaws were using one lane and there was no other mode ( under ideal conditions of excellent riding surface and zero slope), then throughput could reach 1400 rickshaws per hour per lane which would give a PCU value of approximately 1.3 PCUs. However, this throught degrades very fast with surface quality and little slopes and of course, loading. Keeping these in mind and taking average conditions, a PCU value of 3 as suggested by Indian Road Congress (IRC) may be acceptable. I however still question the whole philosphy of PCU in the first place. ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On Fri, 9 Jan 1998, Kerry Wood wrote: > Dear Walter, Colleagues > > > Some armchair stuff that might help with the rickshaw pcu problem. I have > been trying to establish the effect on road capacity of putting in cycle > facilities, using a range of assumed widths and cycle capacity data from > the CROW manual. > > I make the capacity increase of converting a traffic lane to cycle use > about 2.4 times for a 3.0 m lane and 3.2 times for a 4.0 m lane, which > checks out quite well with the Dutch value of 0.3 pcu for a cycle. > > For wider lanes it is possible to retain a narrow traffic lane with a cycle > lane alongside. In this case capacity increases are not so large - about 40 > % to 2.4 times. The main point is that there is ALWAYS a capacity increase. > > A pedal rickshaw driver has three options in traffic (although not all are > available all the time): > - Keep well to the left, with room for motor traffic further out: the > pcu equivalent is effectively zero. > - Keep in the motor traffic lane: the pcu equivalent is a bit less > than 1.0 because the rickshaw is shorter than a car: say 0.8 or so. > - Keep in the motor traffic lane but alongside another pedal > riskshaw: the pcu equivalent is half the above value, or 0.4 or so. > > On this basis a pcu value of somewhere around 0.3 to 0.6 seems reasonable, > but 1.5 or 2.0 does not. To get such a high value needs assumptions about a > large gap opening in front of the rickshaw, because it is slow, and somehow > wasting road space, but my limited experience of India is that nothing goes > to waste, road space included. Building in speed differences (which seems > to be implied by having diffrent figures for urban and rural conditions) is > a distortion of the concept of pcus, where a Beetle and a Ferrari both > score 1.0. > > Dr Rajeev Saraf says that most traffic is non-car which changes the > picture: if a pedal rickshaw is about 0.4 pcu, then a car is about 2.5 pru > (pedal rickshaw units). It makes sense to use the dominant mode (or maybe > the mode you want to be dominant) as the base line. > > Hope this is helpful > > > Happy New Year > > > > Kerry Wood > Transport Consultant > Phone/fax + 64 4 801 5549 e-mail kwood@central.co.nz > 1 McFarlane St Wellington 6001 New Zealand > > > From pguitink at worldbank.org Wed Jan 14 08:14:45 1998 From: pguitink at worldbank.org (Paul Guitink) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 23:14:45 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [sustran] PCU equivalents for NMT in India In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <"A1097ZXEXQN04D*/R=WBHQB/R=A1/U=PAUL GUITINK/"@MHS> The argument made by Dr Rajeef Saraf for the Delhi case implies that PCU equivalents are not based on technical considerations, but also take into account the motorized drivers preferences: at low traffic volumes, they will probably avoid to use the right lane, but what if traffic volumes are very high (congestion) and there is a 'free' right lane? Furthermore, if we accept this calculation, PCU equivalents for bicyclists will go up drastically as well: even at relatively low volumes of bicyclists in the right lane, faster motorized vehicles will avoid this lane: however, if the other lanes are congested and non-motorized vehicles in the right lane move faster, the motorized vehicles don't have a problem to mix with them. If this interpretation is accepted, we need to review as well the PCU equivalent of buses: in many cities, the right lanes are almost exclusively used by (micro)buses loading and unloading at will and thus reducing capacity drastically; a PCU equivalent of 10-12 for small buses (up to 20 passengers) would seem appropriate in that case in, for example, Accra (Ghana). The same argument can be made for taxis, tro-tro's, etc. However, I agree with Dr Rajeef Saraf and some other participants in this discussion that the PCE methodology is questionable. best regards, Paul Guitink From t4-inoue at nri.co.jp Wed Jan 14 14:36:08 1998 From: t4-inoue at nri.co.jp (Taiichi INOUE) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 14:36:08 +0900 Subject: [sustran] ITS Applications for taxi services Message-ID: <199801140536.OAA03310@nrims1.nri.co.jp> Dear, Now I have an ITS(Intelligent Transport Systems) project with Japan's Ministry of Transportation. In this project we are thinking about some ITS applications for taxi services now and in the future. For example, *Dispatching system *Real time car navigation system for drivers *Request (Demand) system using telephone, Internet, mobile PC and etc. *Traveler information system on board for passengers I'm looking for good examples in development or deployment phase in foreign countries. Would someone teach us good example? Think globally, Act locally. Consultant 0000,0000,ffff Taiichi Inoue Transport & Logistics System Strategy. Nomura Research Institute,Ltd. 2-2-1,Ootemachi,Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100,JAPAN tel +81-3-5203-0806 fax +81-3-5203-0810 Website http://www.nri.co.jp/ From wangcj at post.jut.edu.cn Wed Jan 14 15:14:49 1998 From: wangcj at post.jut.edu.cn (wangcj) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 14:14:49 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Small or Middle-sized city traffic control system Message-ID: <199801140610.OAA07830@jut.edu.cn> Hi, Our center want to develop a traffic control system for small or middle-sized cities (less than 1 million people), we want to cooperate with other research institute or company with experience or develop the Chinese version of your traffic control system. I will appreciate if you can provide me some information. Best regards, Wang (Michael) Chuanjiu Associate director of ITS R&D Center -------------------------------------------:-) E-mail: wangcj@post.jut.edu.cn Phone: 86-0431-7691287 (H) 86-0431-5682351-3373-3 (O) Mail: Wang Chuanjiu Transportation School Jilin University of Technology Changchun, Jilin, 130022 P. R. of China -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/19980114/ffa2fae7/attachment.htm From jongho at soback.kornet.nm.kr Wed Jan 14 20:17:15 1998 From: jongho at soback.kornet.nm.kr (JongHo Rhee) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 20:17:15 +0900 (KST) Subject: [sustran] ITS Applications for taxi services In-Reply-To: <199801140536.OAA03310@nrims1.nri.co.jp> from "Taiichi INOUE" at Jan 14, 98 02:36:08 pm Message-ID: <199801141117.UAA18436@soback.kornet.nm.kr> > > Dear, > > > > Now I have an ITS(Intelligent Transport Systems) project with Japan's Ministry of Transportation. In this project we are thinking about some ITS applications for taxi services now and in the future. For example, > > *Dispatching system > > *Real time car navigation system for drivers > > *Request (Demand) system using telephone, Internet, mobile PC and etc. > > *Traveler information system on board for passengers > > > > I'm looking for good examples in development or deployment phase in foreign countries. Would someone teach us good example? > > > > Think globally, Act locally. > > > Consultant > > 0000,0000,ffff Taiichi Inoue > > Transport & Logistics System Strategy. > > Nomura Research Institute,Ltd. > > 2-2-1,Ootemachi,Chiyoda-ku, > > Tokyo 100,JAPAN > > tel +81-3-5203-0806 fax +81-3-5203-0810 > > Website http://www.nri.co.jp/ > Dear Mr. Inoue: You may refer to my paper published at Berlin ITS World Congress. The main body of the paper is to dispatch taxes with AVL system The system's dispatching algorithm is a simple transportation LP problem. Good luke! Jongho Rhee Associate Professor Dept. of Transportation Eng. Kyonggi University Suwon, Kyonggi-do South Korea From wcox at publicpurpose.com Fri Jan 16 02:39:30 1998 From: wcox at publicpurpose.com (Wendell Cox ) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 11:39:30 -0600 (CST) Subject: [sustran] Proposed Los Angeles Urban Rail Construction Suspension Message-ID: <199801151739.LAA02136@mail1.i1.net> LACMTA Approves Moratorium on rail construction 3 lines (980114) Articles and Analysis at Los Angeles times website.... http://www.latimes.com Related article "New Urban Rail In America: Exorbitant Costs, Negligible Benefits" at http://www.publicpurpose.com/pp-rail.htm Summary of Los Angeles developments to be posted to following address by Monday 19 January. http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-lamor.htm The Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority has proposed an "indefinite hold" on future rail construction. Details at: http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-laend.htm Best regards, Wendell Cox 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 841- Belleville, Illinois 62222 USA "To facilitate the ideal of government as the servant of the people by identifying and implementing strategies to achieve public purposes at a cost that is no higher than necessary." From wcox at publicpurpose.com Fri Jan 16 02:48:17 1998 From: wcox at publicpurpose.com (Wendell Cox ) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 11:48:17 -0600 (CST) Subject: [sustran] Book Review: Urban Revitalization in Philadelphia Message-ID: <199801151748.LAA03533@mail1.i1.net> Business Week magazine contains a book review of PRAYER FOR THE CITY, by Buzz Bissinger. Book details the successful and less than successful attempts of Mayor Ed Rendell to restore health to a large ailing US city. One of chief characters --- Linda Morrison --- is known to many on this list. Book review is at... http://www.businessweek.com/1998/03/b3561025.htm Best regards, Wendell Cox 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 841- Belleville, Illinois 62222 USA "To facilitate the ideal of government as the servant of the people by identifying and implementing strategies to achieve public purposes at a cost that is no higher than necessary." From wcox at publicpurpose.com Sat Jan 17 13:19:54 1998 From: wcox at publicpurpose.com (Wendell Cox ) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 22:19:54 -0600 (CST) Subject: [sustran] New Urbanism, Portland and THE ECONOMIST Message-ID: <199801170419.WAA17608@mail1.i1.net> Article in current issue of THE ECONOMIST suggests that Portland's 2 decade old urban growth boundary had forced infilling development. US Census Bureau data for the 1980-1990 period indicates no such trend (latest data available). Among 10 US urbanized areas with more than 1 million population, Portland ranked last in percentage density increase. Ranked 7th in overall density --- barely half that of Los Angeles. Details at... http://www.publicpurpose.com/dm-uargn.htm Best regards, Wendell Cox 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 841- Belleville, Illinois 62222 USA "To facilitate the ideal of government as the servant of the people by identifying and implementing strategies to achieve public purposes at a cost that is no higher than necessary." From dhingra at civil.iitb.ernet.in Sun Jan 18 00:07:34 1998 From: dhingra at civil.iitb.ernet.in (Prof S L Dhingra) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 20:37:34 +0530 (IST) Subject: [sustran] PCU equivalents in India In-Reply-To: <"A1097ZXEXQN04D*/R=WBHQB/R=A1/U=PAUL GUITINK/"@MHS> Message-ID: To: hameedab@rmoc.on.ca Cc: Prof S L Dhingra Subject: Capacity Standards in India!! Dear Professor, Your mail to WIN was forwarded to us for a response. Although the response is delayed, I hope you have not lost interest in it. I am giving the information you wanted, and please feel free if you have any querry on the materail given below. There is no highway capacity manual in India; but there are some tentative guidelines provided by Indian Roads Congress based on various studies carried out within India. These details and their basis is given below. Yours sincerely P. K. Sikdar ---------------------------------------------------------------------- FOR RURAL ROADS ===================================================================== 1. under normal circumstances LOS B is considered adequate for design of rural highways where volume of traffic will be 0.5 times the capacity and this is taken as the 'Design Serrvice Volume'. 2. under exceptional circumstances LOS C is allowed for design where 'Design Service Volume' for LOS C is taken 40% higher than those for LOS B. 3. Recommended design service volume for two lane roads are given as follows. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Terrain Curvature Design Sevice Volume ------------------------------------------------------------------- Plain Low (0-50) 15,000 High(>51) 12,500 Rolling Low(0-100) 11,000 High(>101) 10,000 Hilly Low(0-200) 7,000 High(>201) 5,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. The values recommended above are based on the assumption that the road has a 7.0m wide carriageway and good earthen shoulders are available. The capacity figures relate to peak hour traffic in the range of 8-10% at LOS B. 5. The capacity of two lane road can be increased by providig paved and surfaced shoulders of at least 1.5m width on either side. Under these circumstances 15% increase in capacity can be expected. 6. Reduction in capacity due to restriction in shoulder or carriageway width is siggested as follows. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Capacity Reduction Factor ------------------------------------------------------------------- Usable Shoulder 3.50m 3.25m 3.00m width in m Lane Lane Lane ------------------------------------------------------------------- >1.8 1.00 0.92 0.84 1.2 0.92 0.85 0.77 0.6 0.81 0.75 0.68 0 0.70 0.64 0.58 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Usuable shoulder width refers to well maintained earth/moorum/gravel shoulder which can safely permit occasional passage of vehicles. 7. The RUCS 1990 developed the speed-flow relationships for 2-lane roads with and without paved shoulders in plain terrain as given below. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Without Shoulder With Shoulder ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. New Technology Car V = 85.45 - 0.0170Q V = 87.16 - 0.0076Q 2. Old Technology Car V = 67.96 - 0.0120Q V = 68.39 - 0.0040Q 3. Light Commercial Vehicle V = 65.96 - 0.0130Q V = 70.06 - 0.0064Q 4. Heavy Commercial Vehicle V = 58.96 - 0.0079Q V = 60.35 - 0.0062Q 5. Buses V = 66.79 - 0.0130Q V = 69.74 - 0.0036Q 6. Two Wheeler V = 51.58 - 0.0069Q V = 54.87 - 0.0063Q ------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. Recommended PCU Factors for Various types of Vehicle on Rural Roads ------------------------------------------------------------------- No. Vehicle Type Passenger Car Equivalency ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Motor Cycle or Scooter (2-Wheeled) 0.50 2. Passenger Car, Pick-up van, Auto rickshaw 1.00 3. Agricultural Tractor, Light Commercial Vehicle 1.50 4. Truck or Bus 3.00 5. Truck-trailer, Agricultural Tractor-trailer 4.50 6. Bicycle 0.50 7. Cycle Rickshaw (Pedel) 2.00 8. Hand Cart 3.00 9. Horse-drawn Vehicle 4.00 10. Bullock Cart 8.00 ------------------------------------------------------------------- ====================================================================== FOR URBAN ROADS 9.Urban Roads are classified as Arterials, Sub-atrerials and Collectors. Arterials :No frontage access, no standing vehicles, very little cross traffic Sub-arterials :Frontage development, side roads, bus stops, no standing vehicles and waiting restrictions. Collectors :Free frontage access, parked vehicles, bus stops, no waiting restrictions. 10. For urban roads, generally LOS C is adopted for design where the volume of traffic is around 0.7 times the capacity. The recommended design service volume (corresponding to LOS C) for two lane roads are as follows. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Type of Carriageway Total Design Service Volume Arterial Sub-arterial Collector ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Two Lane (One way) 2400 1900 1400 Two Lane (Two way) 1500 1200 900 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- * Recommended PCU values for different types of vehicles in urban roads ------------------------------------------------------------------- No. Vehicle Type Equaivalency Factor 5% >= 10%* ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Motor Cycle or Scooter (2-Wheeled) 0.50 0.75 2. Passenger Car, Pick-up van 1.00 1.00 3. Auto-rickshaw (3-Wheeled) 1.20 2.00 4. Light Commercial Vehicle 1.40 2.00 5. Truck or Bus 2.20 3.70 6. Agricultural Tractor-trailer 4.00 5.00 7. Bicycle 0.40 0.50 8. Cycle Rickshaw (Pedel) 1.50 2.00 9. Horse drawn vehicle 1.50 2.00 10. Hand Cart 2.00 3.00 ------------------------------------------------------------------- * Refers to the proportion of same vehicle in the traffic stream. ***********end of message******************* * Dr S. L DHINGRA * * Prof. of TRANSP. SYSTEMS ENGG. (TSE) * * HEAD, CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT * * INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY * * POWAI,BOMBAY-400 076,INDIA * * VOICE:091-022-5782545 EXTN 7329/7300(Off)* * 5786530 .. 7348(LAB) * * 8329(RES) * * 5767300/01(O)/8329(R) DID * * 5777001(RES) Private * * FAX :091-022-5767302/5783480 * * GRAMS:TECHNOLOGY,BOMBY,INDIA * * TELEX:011-72313 IITB IN * * EMAIL:dhingra@gemini.civil.iitb.ernet.in * ******************************************** On Tue, 13 Jan 1998, Paul Guitink wrote: > The argument made by Dr Rajeef Saraf for the Delhi case implies that PCU > equivalents are not based on technical considerations, but also take into > account the motorized drivers preferences: at low traffic volumes, they will > probably avoid to use the right lane, but what if traffic volumes are very high > (congestion) and there is a 'free' right lane? Furthermore, if we accept this > calculation, PCU equivalents for bicyclists will go up drastically as well: even > at relatively low volumes of bicyclists in the right lane, faster motorized > vehicles will avoid this lane: however, if the other lanes are congested and > non-motorized vehicles in the right lane move faster, the motorized vehicles > don't have a problem to mix with them. > > If this interpretation is accepted, we need to review as well the PCU equivalent > of buses: in many cities, the right lanes are almost exclusively used by > (micro)buses loading and unloading at will and thus reducing capacity > drastically; a PCU equivalent of 10-12 for small buses (up to 20 passengers) > would seem appropriate in that case in, for example, Accra (Ghana). The same > argument can be made for taxis, tro-tro's, etc. > > However, I agree with Dr Rajeef Saraf and some other participants in this > discussion that the PCE methodology is questionable. > > best regards, > > Paul Guitink > From Nabornetdp at aol.com Sun Jan 18 06:01:54 1998 From: Nabornetdp at aol.com (Nabornetdp) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 16:01:54 EST Subject: [sustran] Links With Public Transportation Safety International Message-ID: <603b150c.34c11c4a@aol.com> After years of R & D we are introducing the S-1 GARD to the US transit industry. Our product is a curbside rear wheel "danger zone deflector" which will help reduce injuries and fatalities resulting from bus run-over accidents. Several major US transit agencies will start an evaluation program in January, 1998. We are enjoying much attention from the worldwide coverage of our device on CNN. We are offering to link our web site to those of other related organizations and we invite suggestions for suitable candidates. Please click on Public Transportation Safety International Co and let us know what you think. Thank you very much. Daniel Prins From t4-inoue at nri.co.jp Mon Jan 19 12:47:45 1998 From: t4-inoue at nri.co.jp (Taiichi INOUE) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 12:47:45 +0900 Subject: [sustran] =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCJTEhPCU5JTklPyVHJSMhISVqITwlQCE8JE4bKEo=?= =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCSn0kWBsoSg==?= Message-ID: <199801190347.MAA08552@nrims1.nri.co.jp> ????? ??????????? ????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????HeartLand?Visitors???????????.xls ????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Think globally, Act locally. Consultant 0000,0000,ffff Taiichi Inoue Transport & Logistics System Strategy. Nomura Research Institute,Ltd. 2-2-1,Ootemachi,Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100,JAPAN tel +81-3-5203-0806 fax +81-3-5203-0810 Website http://www.nri.co.jp/ From driddell at ING.SUN.AC.ZA Mon Jan 19 09:21:17 1998 From: driddell at ING.SUN.AC.ZA (Wayne Duff-Riddell) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 09:21:17 GMT+0200 Subject: [sustran] Strategic Logistics Management in Urban Public Transport Message-ID: <3471466053B@ing.sun.ac.za> * This message contains the file 'thesis~1.txt', which has been * uuencoded. If you are using Pegasus Mail, then you can use * the browser's eXtract function to lift the original contents * out to a file, otherwise you will have to extract the message * and uudecode it manually. begin 660 thesis~1.txt M5$A%4TE3($]55$Q)3D4-"@T*#0I35%)!5$5'24,@3$]'25-424-3($U!3D%' M14U%3E0@24X@55)"04X@4%5"3$E#(%1204Y34$]25"X-"@T*#0H-"D]B:F5C M=&EV93H-"@T*5&\@87!P;'D@=&AE(&-O;F-E<'1S(&]F()-S=')A=&5G:6,@ M;&]G:7-T:6-S(&UA;F%G96UE;G24('1O('1H92!P;&%N;FEN9R!A;F0@;W!E M2!T2!T;V]L2!T;R!E=F%L=6%T92!T:&4@8V]S="!O9B`-"FEN9G)A&ES=&EN9R!R;V%D(&%N9"!R86EL(`T*:6YF'1S+"!H;W=E=F5R+"!W:&]S92!M M;V)I;&ET>2P@9F]R('=H870@#0IP=7)P;W-E+"!B>2!W:&%T(&UE86YS+"!A M="!W:&%T(&-O2!A(&-O M;F9L=65N8V4@;V8@;6%N>2!F86-T;W)S+"!I;F-L=61I;F<@#0IT96-H;F]L M;V=I8V%L(&EN;F]V871I;VYS+"!P2!C:&%R9V5D M('=I=&@@=&AE(&1U='D@;V8@<')O=FED:6YG(&%N9"!M86YA9VEN9R!A;B!U M7-T96T@;75S="!P M2!A2!B92!A<'!L:6-A8FQE(&%S(&$@;65T:&]D M(&]F(`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`H0E-C+D5N9RY-96-H*0T*26YS=&ET=71E M(&9O0T*1&5P87)T;65N="!O9B!#:79I M;"!%;F=I;F5E2!O9B!3=&5L;&5N8F]S8V@-"@T* M5&5L.@DH,#(Q*2`X,#@@-#8T-PT*1F%X.@DH,#(Q*2`X,#@@-#,V,0T*12UM ?86EL.@ED Hello STRATEGIC LOGISTICS MANAGEMENT IN URBAN PUBLIC TRANSPORT I am a post-graduate student at the University of Stellenbosch where I am studying towards a master's degree in transportation engineering. My thesis topic is "Strategic Logistics Management in Urban Public Transport," which I believe to be topical, given the current DOT policies and recent events in South Africa and around the world for that matter. The basic tenets of the thesis are presented in the attached outline. The eventual aim is to produce a model, either stand-alone, or alternatively, structured to bring together many other models, such as VIPS, Crewplan, COBA and others. The objective of the model is to support the optimal planning and operation of a public transport system, measured against a broad set of criteria, along the lines of a goal-programming model. At this stage, I am still trying to establish whether such a model exists and if so where and how effective is it. I would be grateful if you could let me know if such a model or general practice has come to your attention. I would be happy to provide any additional information and would gratefully accept any suggestions and criticism of the attached outline. Thank you for your assistance. Yours faithfully Wayne Duff-Riddell Wayne Duff-Riddell University of Stellenbosch Tel: +27 21 8084647 Fax: +27 21 8084361 E-Mail: driddell@firga.sun.ac.za From ebruun at rci.rutgers.edu Tue Jan 20 00:15:25 1998 From: ebruun at rci.rutgers.edu (Eric Bruun) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 10:15:25 -0500 (EST) Subject: [sustran] New Urbanism, Portland and THE ECONOMIST In-Reply-To: <199801170419.WAA17608@mail1.i1.net> Message-ID: The Census data up to 1990 that Cox cites below is very obsolete. The infill craze, and there really is some infill going on, is over the last few years. However, it is still limited and is causing a lot of hardship for people of modest means as real estate values approach those of San Francisco. Cox is right that the average density is lower than Los Angeles, as LA does have some dense areas. However, I think the data will show that Portland is increasing in density, and not decreasing like almost every other city. Eric Bruun On Fri, 16 Jan 1998, Wendell Cox wrote: > Article in current issue of THE ECONOMIST suggests that Portland's 2 decade > old urban growth boundary had forced infilling development. US Census Bureau > data for the 1980-1990 period indicates no such trend (latest data > available). Among 10 US urbanized areas with more than 1 million > population, Portland ranked last in percentage density increase. Ranked 7th > in overall density --- barely half that of Los Angeles. > > Details at... > > http://www.publicpurpose.com/dm-uargn.htm > > Best regards, > Wendell Cox > 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 841- Belleville, Illinois 62222 USA > > "To facilitate the ideal of government as the servant of the people by > identifying and implementing strategies to achieve public purposes at a cost > that is no higher than necessary." > > From ebruun at rci.rutgers.edu Tue Jan 20 03:20:16 1998 From: ebruun at rci.rutgers.edu (Eric Bruun) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 13:20:16 -0500 (EST) Subject: [sustran] New Urbanism, Portland and THE ECONOMIST (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 14:03:12 +0000 From: John Pucher Reply-To: pucher@rci.rutgers.edu To: Eric Bruun Subject: Re: [sustran] New Urbanism, Portland and THE ECONOMIST Eric, With a total population size only about a tenth of LA, how could you possibly expect the Portland density to equal that of LA anyway. The crucial error Cox makes is that he totally fails to control for city size. One should compare Portland with other cities of comparable size, or the comparison is quite simply unfair. John Pucher Feel free to pass this on if appropriate. Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 10:15:25 -0500 (EST) From: Eric Bruun To: sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org Cc: notice@il.net, vuchic@seas.upenn.edu, pucher@rci.rutgers.edu, garrity@teleport.com Subject: Re: [sustran] New Urbanism, Portland and THE ECONOMIST The Census data up to 1990 that Cox cites below is very obsolete. The infill craze, and there really is some infill going on, is over the last few years. However, it is still limited and is causing a lot of hardship for people of modest means as real estate values approach those of San Francisco. Cox is right that the average density is lower than Los Angeles, as LA does have some dense areas. However, I think the data will show that Portland is increasing in density, and not decreasing like almost every other city. Eric Bruun On Fri, 16 Jan 1998, Wendell Cox wrote: > Article in current issue of THE ECONOMIST suggests that Portland's 2 decade > old urban growth boundary had forced infilling development. US Census Bureau > data for the 1980-1990 period indicates no such trend (latest data > available). Among 10 US urbanized areas with more than 1 million > population, Portland ranked last in percentage density increase. Ranked 7th > in overall density --- barely half that of Los Angeles. > > Details at... > > http://www.publicpurpose.com/dm-uargn.htm > > Best regards, > Wendell Cox > 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 841- Belleville, Illinois 62222 USA > > "To facilitate the ideal of government as the servant of the people by > identifying and implementing strategies to achieve public purposes at a cost > that is no higher than necessary." > > *************************************** John Pucher Department of Urban Planning Rutgers University, Bloustein School 33 Livingston Avenue, Suite 302 New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901--1900 Fax: 732-932-2253 Phone: 732-932-3822, ext. 722 email: pucher@rci.rutgers.edu *************************************** From policy at mail1.i1.net Tue Jan 20 03:43:35 1998 From: policy at mail1.i1.net (Wendell Cox) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 12:43:35 -0600 Subject: [sustran] New Urbanism, Portland and THE ECONOMIST References: Message-ID: <34C39ED7.162C@mail1.i1.net> It is, however, the most recent available for urbanized areas. The issue is raised because Portland promoters routinely claim that their urban growth boundary (UGB) and planning policies have already accomplished much. The fact is that the UGB has been in effect for nearly 20 years --- and the one decade during that period for which we have data indicates that it had no impact whatever --- that all other US western urbanized areas densified at greater rates than Portland --- many significantly greater. The story in Portland is not what they have accomplished --- because they havn't accomplished anything --- it is rather what they intend to accomplish. The next data point will be the 2000 census, with urbanized area data due out in 2002 (or 2003). Meanwhile, it's a bit early to "break out the champaign." Seattle, which has only recently obtained an UGB, is every bit as delightful as Portland. And San Bernardino-Riverside, the data indicates, emerges as the new urbanist model for others to follow (at least in the 1980s). Portland, like virtually all other US urbanized areas is becoming or seeks to become Los Angeles! (at least with respect to density). The 2040 plan could get them there, though I would bet against it, given recent political happenings there. Best regards, Wendell Cox Eric Bruun wrote: > > The Census data up to 1990 that Cox cites below is very obsolete. The > infill craze, and there really is some infill going on, is over the last > few years. However, it is still limited and is causing a lot of hardship > for people of modest means as real estate values approach those of > San Francisco. Cox is right that the average density is lower > than Los Angeles, as LA does have some dense areas. However, I think the > data will show that Portland is increasing in density, and not decreasing > like almost every other city. Eric Bruun > > On Fri, 16 Jan 1998, Wendell Cox wrote: > > > Article in current issue of THE ECONOMIST suggests that Portland's 2 decade > > old urban growth boundary had forced infilling development. US Census Bureau > > data for the 1980-1990 period indicates no such trend (latest data > > available). Among 10 US urbanized areas with more than 1 million > > population, Portland ranked last in percentage density increase. Ranked 7th > > in overall density --- barely half that of Los Angeles. > > > > Details at... > > > > http://www.publicpurpose.com/dm-uargn.htm > > > > Best regards, > > Wendell Cox > > 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 841- Belleville, Illinois 62222 USA > > > > "To facilitate the ideal of government as the servant of the people by > > identifying and implementing strategies to achieve public purposes at a cost > > that is no higher than necessary." > > > > From policy at mail1.i1.net Tue Jan 20 04:00:53 1998 From: policy at mail1.i1.net (Wendell Cox) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 13:00:53 -0600 Subject: [sustran] New Urbanism, Portland and THE ECONOMIST (fwd) References: Message-ID: <34C3A2E5.1F04@mail1.i1.net> Eric Bruun wrote: > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 14:03:12 +0000 > From: John Pucher > Reply-To: pucher@rci.rutgers.edu > To: Eric Bruun > Subject: Re: [sustran] New Urbanism, Portland and THE ECONOMIST > > Eric, > > With a total population size only about a tenth of LA, how could you > possibly expect the Portland density to equal that of LA anyway. The > crucial error Cox makes is that he totally fails to control for city > size. Not an error at all. There is no necessity for a larger city to be more dense (per square mile) than a smaller city. Smaller UAs San Jose, Sacramento, Norfolk and Fort Lauderdale have higher densities than Portland --- 10 of 16 UAs with lower densities than Portland have higher populations. One should compare Portland with other cities of comparable > size, or the comparison is quite simply unfair. > Disagree... > John Pucher From inamura at plan.civil.tohoku.ac.jp Tue Jan 20 15:33:20 1998 From: inamura at plan.civil.tohoku.ac.jp (Hajime Inamura) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 15:33:20 +0900 Subject: [sustran] A dam project in India Message-ID: <9801200633.AA02625@scorpio.plan.civil.tohoku.ac.jp> Inamura@tohoku-U wrote, I am afraid this letter is nothing to do with the SUSTRAN. However, this is my sincere request to the members of SUSTRAN. ************************** I am now looking for the information about a dam in India. I even don't know the name of this very big dam project in southwest of India which need to move millions of inhabitants for dam construction. A man who has some information about it, pls. let me know directly. My address is inamura@plan.civil.tohoku.ac.jp ************************** I am very sorry for this rude inquiry. ------------------------------------------------- Hajime INAMURA inamura@plan.civil.tohoku.ac.jp Phone:+81-22-217-7492 Facsimile:+81-22-217-7494 Web :http://www.plan.civil.tohoku.ac.jp Department of Civil Engineering, Graduate School of Information Sciences, Tohoku University, Aoba, Aoba-ku, Sendai, 980-77, JAPAN ------------------------------------------------- From driddell at ING.SUN.AC.ZA Tue Jan 20 09:32:49 1998 From: driddell at ING.SUN.AC.ZA (Wayne Duff-Riddell) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 09:32:49 GMT+0200 Subject: [sustran] Strategic Logistics Management in Urban Public Transport: Repost Message-ID: <35F45EF0AEA@ing.sun.ac.za> Hello My apologies for the attachment problem on the last posting. A repost without attachments but a bit long until I get the e-mail process properly sorted out. I am a post-graduate student at the University of Stellenbosch where I am studying towards a master's degree in transportation engineering. My thesis topic is "Strategic Logistics Management in Urban Public Transport," which I believe to be topical, given the current DOT policies and recent events in South Africa and around the world for that matter. The basic tenets of the thesis are presented in the attached outline. The eventual aim is to produce a model, either stand-alone, or alternatively, structured to bring together many other models, such as VIPS, Crewplan, COBA and others. The objective of the model is to support the optimal planning and operation of a public transport system, measured against a broad set of criteria, along the lines of a goal-programming model. At this stage, I am still trying to establish whether such a model exists and if so where and how effective is it. I would be grateful if you could let me know if such a model or general practice has come to your attention. I would be happy to provide any additional information and would gratefully accept any suggestions and criticism of the attached outline. Thank you for your assistance. Yours faithfully Wayne Duff-Riddell THESIS OUTLINE STRATEGIC LOGISTICS MANAGEMENT IN URBAN PUBLIC TRANSPORT. Objective: To apply the concepts of "strategic logistics management" to the planning and operation of urban public transport, from the point of view of the managing authority. Goal: To develop a quantifiable model of urban public transport which brings together the principles of strategic logistics management, as applied in the private sector, with the socio-economic responsibilities of regional authorities. This model will, in all likelihood, have the form of a goal- programming model. Problem statement: In developing transport infrastructure for their area of jurisdiction, local and regional authorities need to consider many factors. They must consider the interface between their region and that of the surrounding areas at all levels from local to national and even international level. The cost of infrastructure and transit provision must be set off against parking, road space, law enforcement, pollution, and other problems. The benefits to be derived must be included in the evaluation. Such benefits include a tourist friendly transit system that will encourage visitors to their region and economic investment when investors perceive the transit service as making their business accessible. In other words, transit decisions go far beyond the minimisation of transit operating costs. The problem is that although there are many tools available to model various aspects of transportation systems, there appears not to be any single model integrating all aspects of the transport system. Such a model, for transport in general, would include the ability to evaluate the cost of infrastructure provision for each mode and aspect of a transport system. This would thus include land acquisition, road and railway construction costs based on the locality, and many other issues. This is too broad a spectrum to include at the development stage and thus the scope of this research is limited to the provision of an integrated public transport system utilising existing road and rail infrastructure. Such a model would use as inputs, high level information, that is information which has already been generated by other separate models which could themselves later be include in the integration. Although it is intended that the model should be universal in its applicability, the Cape Town Metropolitan Region is to be used as the basis for the development of the model. Transport planning and operation: The fundamental purpose of transportation is to provide efficient access to various activities that satisfy human needs. Therefore, the general goal of transportation planning is to accommodate this need for mobility and accessibility. Within specific contexts, however, whose mobility, for what purpose, by what means, at what cost and to whom, and who should do the planning and how, are questions that a not amenable to easy answers. Contemporary responses to these questions are largely rooted in history and have been influenced by a confluence of many factors, including technological innovations, private interests, and governmental policies. An authority charged with the duty of providing and managing an urban public transport system is faced with a vast array of decision requirements. In all of these however, two fundamental issues are of significant importance: 1. The cost of the system and its management must be kept to an absolute minimum. 2. The system must provide an acceptable and appropriate level of service. The latter requires that services are provided when and where they are needed within the bounds of economic common sense, that is a sixty seater bus service for one or two people is certainly not justifiable, but one for thirty or forty may well be. Further, the service should be of a suitable standard. A tourist oriented service, with relatively high fares must provide top quality facilities whilst a captive rider commuter service need provide only the essentials of a safe and comfortable service. In an effort to provide a service which meets these criteria, as well as the possibly hundreds of others involved in the overall management of a multimodal system, such as present in the Cape Metropole, the use of Strategic Logistics Management may be applicable as a method of minimising TOTAL costs, even though this may well mean that no individual service is operated under least cost conditions. Minimise: Total cost = + Transportation cost + Warehousing cost + Order processing and information cost + Lot quantity cost + Inventory carrying cost Subject to: Customer service levels = + Place + Price + Product + Promotion The minimisation of total costs requires an accurate knowledge of real costs of all aspects of the system. These costs will necessarily be associated with the policy decisions attached to the desired customer service levels. Cape Town, being our project model, has a wide variety of urban transport modes in use: 1. Metro rail 2. Bus 3. Minibus taxi 4. Private taxi 5. Tuk Tukkie 6. Private motor car 7. Motor cycle 8. Bicycle 9. Walking (The private motor vehicle must be included in any public transport system analysis as it may well prove to be the least cost alternative in some circumstances.) In addition to the above, Cape Town has interfaces with air and sea transport modes. Although not used for local commuting, ferry service facilities already exist between Cape Town and Hout Bay and Cape Town and Robben Island. This could possibly be extended to include False Bay from Simon's Town to Gordon's Bay as part of a commuter service. In other words, Cape Town is a city with a wide range of choices and as a result also with the potential for the application of overall transport cost minimisation measures through appropriate use of the various available modes. Any transit system must include flexibility to easily accommodate new industrial, commercial and residential developments, especially the latter in the current South African situation. An integrated system of information transfer between departments is required so that transport authorities are kept constantly informed by zoning authorities, urban planners and developers. Primary elements of Strategic Logistics Management Model: In each of the elements of the strategic logistics management model, the main objective is to determine what possibilities will best meet the overall objectives. The components are discussed very briefly below as they may be viewed from a public transport perspective. Transport: The authority has many options in terms of actually moving the customers from point A to point B. They could own and operate the transport fleet or parts of it, they could lease the fleet but provide the staff, or do what they do now and contract out the work. Warehousing: The product being sold is route-seats, the retail outlet is the station, or stop, the warehouse is the place where the route-seats are stored while not in use, overnight for example, or during off-peak day hours. The time dependent directional nature of the demand can have a strong influence on costs. Inventory: If the product being sold is route-seats, then the inventory is the number of route-seats available for sale during the inventory period. This is a function of the origin-destination demand using medium to long term prediction. Order processing: In commercial applications, order processing is the function of ensuring that an order received is timeously and fully completed. In public transport, this is a similar process in which event driven adjustments are made to the system to offer the necessary service. (Third party, advance sale of tickets and a event oriented information could be used for short term planning.) There may also be an extension of this to the development of new industrial and residential areas which would constitute "new orders." Information systems: A product is unsaleable unless properly marketed. Customers require information. The cost of providing the information must be matched to its ability to attract custom and improve service but only until the desired level of service is achieved. Lot quantity costs: In industry, producing a lot of items may be cheaper than producing a few but, if the cost of storing the many outweighs the saving, then nothing is gained. In transit provision, it may be cheaper to move two thousand people by train than bus, but only if they all want to travel at the same time. The commercial and transit logistics models are thus very similar in form. Desired customer service level: The desired customer service level is essentially a political decision. How much are we prepared to spend and what do we want to provide for our customers? The main issue here is that the public authority is the representative of the entire community, not only the users of the public transport system. Customer service levels, as mentioned earlier, must therefore reflect both transit and non- transit issues. The prescribed levels must also reflect the 80:20 public to private transport usage ratio desired by the government. Wayne Duff-Riddell (BSc.Eng.Mech) Institute for Transport Technology Department of Civil Engineering University of Stellenbosch Tel: (021) 808 4647 Fax: (021) 808 4361 E-mail: driddell@ing.sun.ac.za From ebruun at rci.rutgers.edu Wed Jan 21 01:08:36 1998 From: ebruun at rci.rutgers.edu (Eric Bruun) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 11:08:36 -0500 (EST) Subject: [sustran] Response to Cox on New Urbanism, Portland and THE ECONOMIST In-Reply-To: <34C39ED7.162C@mail1.i1.net> Message-ID: Look, it is just an assertion on Cox' part that nothing is happening in Portland. He is right that not much changed by the 1990 Census, but, I repeat, infill is occuring now, even if he wants to ignore it. Portland is going to show an increase in density after the 2000 census instead of a decrease. It will at least be a step in the right direction. Seattle, by contrast, which Cox thinks is equally good, is gridlocked on a larger scale and far more often than Portland. Furthermore, living without a car is very difficult due to sparser and slower transit service than Portland. I am a native of Seattle, and as one who prefers to bicycle and use transit, I far prefer Portland. I would like to know what Cox' point is by this Portland bashing. Tell us if your point is that land use planning as advertized by Portland is a hoax, or if land use planning can not work anywhere, or maybe your point is that decreasing density is not a bad thing. I will be traveling for the next week, but I will certainly follow this discussion if it is still going on when I get back. Eric On Mon, 19 Jan 1998, Wendell Cox wrote: > It is, however, the most recent available for urbanized areas. The issue > is raised because Portland promoters routinely claim that their urban > growth boundary (UGB) and planning policies have already accomplished > much. The fact is that the UGB has been in effect for nearly 20 years > --- and the one decade during that period for which we have data > indicates that it had no impact whatever --- that all other US western > urbanized areas densified at greater rates than Portland --- many > significantly greater. The story in Portland is not what they have > accomplished --- because they havn't accomplished anything --- it is > rather what they intend to accomplish. The next data point will be the > 2000 census, with urbanized area data due out in 2002 (or 2003). > Meanwhile, it's a bit early to "break out the champaign." Seattle, which > has only recently obtained an UGB, is every bit as delightful as > Portland. And San Bernardino-Riverside, the data indicates, emerges as > the new urbanist model for others to follow (at least in the 1980s). > > Portland, like virtually all other US urbanized areas is becoming or > seeks to become Los Angeles! (at least with respect to density). The > 2040 plan could get them there, though I would bet against it, given > recent political happenings there. > > Best regards, > Wendell Cox > > Eric Bruun wrote: > > > > The Census data up to 1990 that Cox cites below is very obsolete. The > > infill craze, and there really is some infill going on, is over the last > > few years. However, it is still limited and is causing a lot of hardship > > for people of modest means as real estate values approach those of > > San Francisco. Cox is right that the average density is lower > > than Los Angeles, as LA does have some dense areas. However, I think the > > data will show that Portland is increasing in density, and not decreasing > > like almost every other city. Eric Bruun > > > > On Fri, 16 Jan 1998, Wendell Cox wrote: > > > > > Article in current issue of THE ECONOMIST suggests that Portland's 2 decade > > > old urban growth boundary had forced infilling development. US Census Bureau > > > data for the 1980-1990 period indicates no such trend (latest data > > > available). Among 10 US urbanized areas with more than 1 million > > > population, Portland ranked last in percentage density increase. Ranked 7th > > > in overall density --- barely half that of Los Angeles. > > > > > > Details at... > > > > > > http://www.publicpurpose.com/dm-uargn.htm > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Wendell Cox > > > 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 841- Belleville, Illinois 62222 USA > > > > > > "To facilitate the ideal of government as the servant of the people by > > > identifying and implementing strategies to achieve public purposes at a cost > > > that is no higher than necessary." > > > > > > > From ebruun at rci.rutgers.edu Wed Jan 21 01:15:33 1998 From: ebruun at rci.rutgers.edu (Eric Bruun) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 11:15:33 -0500 (EST) Subject: [sustran] New Urbanism, Portland and THE ECONOMIST (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 12:18:58 -0800 (PST) From: Mark Garrity To: Eric Bruun Subject: Re: [sustran] New Urbanism, Portland and THE ECONOMIST Eric, you are absolutely correct that 1990 census data is invalid when studying Portland. The late 1980's recession in this area slowed growth considerably. Even in 1993, when I moved to Portland, homes were plentiful and affordable. Things have changed considerably in five years. In the first handbook I published for C-TRAN, I was hard pressed to find a substantial number of good infill projects that could be used as examples. Today, I cannot even keep track of them. There are apartment projects being built next to, on top of, and part of shopping centers in what until recently was a suburban strip environment. It is very common to see rowhouses/townhouses being built on vacant lots in Portland. I will be interesting to see a comparison of the 1990 and 2000 census. The trend toward smaller households no doubt continues, although the rate of change has likely gone down. But the total number of households in the City of Portland appears to be increasing dramatically in what is essentially a fixed area. As far as affordability, that is a raging debate here in Portland. Home builders argueing that a lack of land is causing the problem do them selves a disservice when it is revealed that new housing on the fringe is all luxury, single-family housing built on very large lots. Urban neighborhoods are gentrifying. With household size decreasing, though, density is actually going down in established urban neighborhoods, making the delivery of services, including transit, less efficient. I feel a blanket acceptance of accessory dwelling units can be a big part of the solution. People are generally afraid of density due to fears of depressed property values, and increased "urban problems" (percieved increase in crime, noise, traffic, etc). The fact that there is excess capacity in our public systems is not seen clearly by most people. Mark. At 10:15 AM 1/19/98 -0500, you wrote: > >The Census data up to 1990 that Cox cites below is very obsolete. The >infill craze, and there really is some infill going on, is over the last >few years. However, it is still limited and is causing a lot of hardship >for people of modest means as real estate values approach those of >San Francisco. Cox is right that the average density is lower >than Los Angeles, as LA does have some dense areas. However, I think the >data will show that Portland is increasing in density, and not decreasing >like almost every other city. Eric Bruun > > >On Fri, 16 Jan 1998, Wendell Cox wrote: > >> Article in current issue of THE ECONOMIST suggests that Portland's 2 decade >> old urban growth boundary had forced infilling development. US Census Bureau >> data for the 1980-1990 period indicates no such trend (latest data >> available). Among 10 US urbanized areas with more than 1 million >> population, Portland ranked last in percentage density increase. Ranked 7th >> in overall density --- barely half that of Los Angeles. >> >> Details at... >> >> http://www.publicpurpose.com/dm-uargn.htm >> >> Best regards, >> Wendell Cox >> 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 841- Belleville, Illinois 62222 USA >> >> "To facilitate the ideal of government as the servant of the people by >> identifying and implementing strategies to achieve public purposes at a cost >> that is no higher than necessary." >> >> > > From wcox at publicpurpose.com Wed Jan 21 03:03:48 1998 From: wcox at publicpurpose.com (Wendell Cox ) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 12:03:48 -0600 (CST) Subject: [sustran] Response to Cox on New Urbanism, Portland and THE ECONOMIST Message-ID: <199801201803.MAA04039@mail1.i1.net> >Look, it is just an assertion on Cox' part that nothing is happening >in Portland. He is right that not much changed by the 1990 Census, >but, I repeat, infill is occuring now, even if he wants to ignore >it. Portland is going to show an increase in density after the 2000 >census instead of a decrease. It will at least be a step in the right >direction. Seattle, by contrast, which Cox thinks is equally good, is >gridlocked on a larger scale and far more often than Portland. >Furthermore, living without a car is very difficult due to sparser and >slower transit service than Portland. I am a native of Seattle, and as >one who prefers to bicycle and use transit, I far prefer Portland. > 1. I am happy to wait to the 2000 census to find out if anything is really happening. My basic point is that the Portland cheerleaders have been claiming a whole lot of success that has not occured and is certainly not attributable to the planning decisions they attribute them to. The latest blurb from the Economist is typical of the kind of misleading assessment that Portland folks have fostered. The fact is that the decline in urban densities appears to have about ended, and the 1980s data shows that the trend is in the opposite directioin in the west. Portland trailed all western cities. I will not be surprised if Portland ranks no better than average after the 2000 census numbers are out --- but we will have to wait for that. 2. As for personal preferences --- I have lived in Portland and spent a good deal of time in Seattle --- and I find Seattle a more delightful city. This is not to argue with Eric's preference --- because it is just that --- a preference --- a subjective judgement. I suspect that the number of people who know both cities who favor one over the other is about equal. >I would like to know what Cox' point is by this Portland bashing. >Tell us if your point is that land use planning as advertized by >Portland is a hoax, or if land use planning can not work anywhere, >or maybe your point is that decreasing density is not a bad thing. > Point has to do with the misleading publicity out of and about Portland. Portland may stand on the threshhold of accomplishing something, but it has not yet. The Portland hype is a hoax. Decreasing density, (forgive the political incorrectness) is not necessarily bad. >I will be traveling for the next week, but I will certainly follow >this discussion if it is still going on when I get back. Eric > > >On Mon, 19 Jan 1998, Wendell Cox wrote: > >> It is, however, the most recent available for urbanized areas. The issue >> is raised because Portland promoters routinely claim that their urban >> growth boundary (UGB) and planning policies have already accomplished >> much. The fact is that the UGB has been in effect for nearly 20 years >> --- and the one decade during that period for which we have data >> indicates that it had no impact whatever --- that all other US western >> urbanized areas densified at greater rates than Portland --- many >> significantly greater. The story in Portland is not what they have >> accomplished --- because they havn't accomplished anything --- it is >> rather what they intend to accomplish. The next data point will be the >> 2000 census, with urbanized area data due out in 2002 (or 2003). >> Meanwhile, it's a bit early to "break out the champaign." Seattle, which >> has only recently obtained an UGB, is every bit as delightful as >> Portland. And San Bernardino-Riverside, the data indicates, emerges as >> the new urbanist model for others to follow (at least in the 1980s). >> >> Portland, like virtually all other US urbanized areas is becoming or >> seeks to become Los Angeles! (at least with respect to density). The >> 2040 plan could get them there, though I would bet against it, given >> recent political happenings there. >> >> Best regards, >> Wendell Cox >> >> Eric Bruun wrote: >> > >> > The Census data up to 1990 that Cox cites below is very obsolete. The >> > infill craze, and there really is some infill going on, is over the last >> > few years. However, it is still limited and is causing a lot of hardship >> > for people of modest means as real estate values approach those of >> > San Francisco. Cox is right that the average density is lower >> > than Los Angeles, as LA does have some dense areas. However, I think the >> > data will show that Portland is increasing in density, and not decreasing >> > like almost every other city. Eric Bruun >> > >> > On Fri, 16 Jan 1998, Wendell Cox wrote: >> > >> > > Article in current issue of THE ECONOMIST suggests that Portland's 2 decade >> > > old urban growth boundary had forced infilling development. US Census Bureau >> > > data for the 1980-1990 period indicates no such trend (latest data >> > > available). Among 10 US urbanized areas with more than 1 million >> > > population, Portland ranked last in percentage density increase. Ranked 7th >> > > in overall density --- barely half that of Los Angeles. >> > > >> > > Details at... >> > > >> > > http://www.publicpurpose.com/dm-uargn.htm >> > > >> > > Best regards, >> > > Wendell Cox >> > > 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 841- Belleville, Illinois 62222 USA >> > > >> > > "To facilitate the ideal of government as the servant of the people by >> > > identifying and implementing strategies to achieve public purposes at a cost >> > > that is no higher than necessary." >> > > >> > > >> > > > 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 841- Belleville, Illinois 62222 USA "To facilitate the ideal of government as the servant of the people by identifying and implementing strategies to achieve public purposes at a cost that is no higher than necessary." From driddell at ING.SUN.AC.ZA Wed Jan 21 09:58:04 1998 From: driddell at ING.SUN.AC.ZA (Wayne Duff-Riddell) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 09:58:04 GMT+0200 Subject: [sustran] SATURN Message-ID: <377B2CC49F2@ing.sun.ac.za> Hi Can anybody tell me about the network analysis package "SATURN?" Thanks Wayne Duff-Riddell University of Stellenbosch Tel: +27 21 8084647 Fax: +27 21 8084361 E-Mail: driddell@firga.sun.ac.za From tkpb at barter.pc.my Wed Jan 21 20:46:17 1998 From: tkpb at barter.pc.my (Paul Barter) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 19:46:17 +0800 (MYT) Subject: [sustran] New Urbanism, Portland and THE ECONOMIST Message-ID: The discussions on Portland are interesting... but I feel compelled to offer some perspective on cities outside North America, Australia or New Zealand. Almost everywhere else in the world, urban population densities are much higher than in the USA. In most cities in Asia, Africa or Latin America, high densities are a reality that must be coped with rather than a policy goal to debate. High urban densities cause their own transport challenges and opportunities. Dense cities do have the chance to achieve a high role for public transport and non-motorised transport. But they also face the very great danger that even relatively small numbers of vehicles can cause a big problem -- vehicle numbers can shoot up during an economic boom MUCH faster than the urban fabric (and road systems) can possibly adapt (witness appalling traffic problems in Bangkok, Seoul, Jakarta, etc). In many ways, this is the opposite issue to that of places like Portland, which is trying to avoid some of the problems associated with extremely low densities. Here are some 1990 density figures (in PERSONS PER HECTARE) published by the team led by Jeff Kenworthy of ISTP, Murdoch University, Western Australia (of which I have been a part). These density figures carefully exclude non-urban land uses in the calculation so that they should be truly comparable. Wherever possible, the entire metropolitan area is included: so for example, New York's figure is for the whole Tri-State Area and not just New York City. Low Density Cities Houston 10, Perth 11, Portland 12, Washington DC 14, Chicago 17, Sydney 17, New York 19, Vancouver 21, Los Angeles 24 (unfortunately this LA figure is LA County only - the entire metro region would be slightly lower) Lower Middle Density Cities Toronto 26 (whole Greater Toronto Area), Copenhagen 29, Montreal 34, Hamburg 40, London 42, Paris 46, Z?rich 47 Upper Middle Density Cities Stockholm 53, Munich 54, Kuala Lumpur (entire Klang Valley metro region) 59, Vienna 68, Tokyo (entire metro region) 71, Brussels 75, Singapore 87 High Density Cities Bangkok 149, DKI Jakarta 171, Surabaya 177, Metro Manila 198, Seoul (entire metro region) 245, Hong Kong 301 Various estimates that I have seen suggest that these Asian figures are not exceptions. Most large developing Asian cities are above 100 persons per hectare. Some Latin American cities may be a little sparser but are still mostly well above 60 persons per hectare. I hope this helps give a broader perspective. Paul. A. Rahman Paul BARTER Sustainable Transport Action Network for Asia & the Pacific (SUSTRAN) Secretariat, 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 Thu Jan 22 00:46:18 1998 From: wcox at publicpurpose.com (Wendell Cox ) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 09:46:18 -0600 (CST) Subject: [sustran] New Urbanism, Portland and THE ECONOMIST Message-ID: <199801211546.JAA11401@mail1.i1.net> There is no question that the US urbanized area is a relatively unique "animal" --- though urbanized areas in Australia and New Zealand are similar in density --- with Canadian urbanized areas a it more dense. For all of the volumnous work done by Newman & Kenworthy, their estimates of urban density have been eclipsed by better data, which is availalbe on my website at http://www.publicpurpose.com/wldurb91.htm This data is for urbanized areas, and limited to the portions of urbanized areas with more than 5,000 per square mile. It represents, by far, the best data that is comparable between metropolitan areas. Source is US Census Bureau. This data is not comparable to the density data for US urbanized areas that I have been citing, because the Census Bureau uses a significantly different standard for comparison within the country --- for example, for international comparison purposes, LA has a density of 9100 per square mile, while the internal data says 5800 (it all has to do with the 5000 per sqmi threshhold, which is not used in the US data set). There are problems with the Newman-Kenworthy data --- for example The Greater Toronto region contains large expanses of unurbanized land (especially in the regional municipalities of York and Durham), which causes an understatement of density. The "tri-state" region of New York contains much unurbanized land --- the urbanized area would have been more appropriate. Nonetheless, Newman and Kenworthy are to be complimented for the aggressive depth of their work on densities. Unfortunately, there is a tendancy among many in the US to not understand the difference between US urban areas and those in Europe or Asia. US urbanized areas are generally 1/2 to 1/5 as dense as European, and from 1/10 to 1/50 (generally speaking) that of Asian. Yet we often hear that we should follow European or Asian urban transport models --- quite appropriate in Europe and Asia --- but largely beyond hope in US urban areas. Atlanta's urbanized area has a population density below that of the entire nation of Bangladesh. It is because of these differences that light rail can carry close to (I'm told) 30,000 per peak hour in peak direction in Manila, and struggles to reach 3,000 in the US. Best regards, Wendell Cox >The discussions on Portland are interesting... but I feel compelled to >offer some perspective on cities outside North America, Australia or New >Zealand. > >Almost everywhere else in the world, urban population densities are much >higher than in the USA. In most cities in Asia, Africa or Latin America, >high densities are a reality that must be coped with rather than a policy >goal to debate. > >High urban densities cause their own transport challenges and >opportunities. Dense cities do have the chance to achieve a high role for >public transport and non-motorised transport. But they also face the very >great danger that even relatively small numbers of vehicles can cause a big >problem -- vehicle numbers can shoot up during an economic boom MUCH faster >than the urban fabric (and road systems) can possibly adapt (witness >appalling traffic problems in Bangkok, Seoul, Jakarta, etc). In many ways, >this is the opposite issue to that of places like Portland, which is trying >to avoid some of the problems associated with extremely low densities. > >Here are some 1990 density figures (in PERSONS PER HECTARE) published by >the team led by Jeff Kenworthy of ISTP, Murdoch University, Western >Australia (of which I have been a part). These density figures carefully >exclude non-urban land uses in the calculation so that they should be truly >comparable. Wherever possible, the entire metropolitan area is included: >so for example, New York's figure is for the whole Tri-State Area and not >just New York City. > > Low Density Cities >Houston 10, Perth 11, Portland 12, Washington DC 14, Chicago 17, >Sydney 17, New York 19, Vancouver 21, Los Angeles 24 (unfortunately >this LA figure is LA County only - the entire metro region would be >slightly lower) > > Lower Middle Density Cities >Toronto 26 (whole Greater Toronto Area), Copenhagen 29, Montreal 34, >Hamburg 40, London 42, Paris 46, Z?rich 47 > > Upper Middle Density Cities >Stockholm 53, Munich 54, Kuala Lumpur (entire Klang Valley metro >region) 59, Vienna 68, Tokyo (entire metro region) 71, Brussels 75, >Singapore 87 > > High Density Cities >Bangkok 149, DKI Jakarta 171, Surabaya 177, Metro Manila 198, Seoul >(entire metro region) 245, Hong Kong 301 > >Various estimates that I have seen suggest that these Asian figures are not >exceptions. Most large developing Asian cities are above 100 persons per >hectare. Some Latin American cities may be a little sparser but are still >mostly well above 60 persons per hectare. > >I hope this helps give a broader perspective. > >Paul. > >A. Rahman Paul BARTER >Sustainable Transport Action Network for Asia & the Pacific (SUSTRAN) >Secretariat, 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. > > > 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 841- Belleville, Illinois 62222 USA "To facilitate the ideal of government as the servant of the people by identifying and implementing strategies to achieve public purposes at a cost that is no higher than necessary." From wcox at publicpurpose.com Thu Jan 22 00:54:58 1998 From: wcox at publicpurpose.com (Wendell Cox ) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 09:54:58 -0600 (CST) Subject: [sustran] New Urbanism, Portland and THE ECONOMIST (fwd) Message-ID: <199801211554.JAA13629@mail1.i1.net> >Eric, you are absolutely correct that 1990 census data is invalid when >studying Portland. Do not believe there is later comparative data. >The late 1980's recession in this area slowed growth >considerably. The Portland UA experienced healthy growth during the 1980s --- and (numerically) virtually all of it occured outside the urbanized area of 1980. The recession argument may have reduced population growth, but it surely did not keep Portland from sprawling at a faster rate than any other western UA of more than a million. Even in 1993, when I moved to Portland, homes were plentiful >and affordable. Things have changed considerably in five years. In the >first handbook I published for C-TRAN, I was hard pressed to find a >substantial number of good infill projects that could be used as examples. >Today, I cannot even keep track of them. There are apartment projects being >built next to, on top of, and part of shopping centers in what until >recently was a suburban strip environment. It is very common to see >rowhouses/townhouses being built on vacant lots in Portland. I will be >interesting to see a comparison of the 1990 and 2000 census. The trend >toward smaller households no doubt continues, although the rate of change >has likely gone down. But the total number of households in the City of >Portland appears to be increasing dramatically in what is essentially a >fixed area. Hardly dramatic --- 1990 to 1996 population increase of the city proper was less than four percent --- Denver --- starting from a higher density base was six percent. Among the older western central cities, Portland has the lowest population density (Denver, Seattle, LA, SF). >As far as affordability, that is a raging debate here in Portland. Home >builders argueing that a lack of land is causing the problem do them selves >a disservice when it is revealed that new housing on the fringe is all >luxury, single-family housing built on very large lots. Urban neighborhoods >are gentrifying. With household size decreasing, though, density is >actually going down in established urban neighborhoods, making the delivery >of services, including transit, less efficient. I feel a blanket acceptance >of accessory dwelling units can be a big part of the solution. People are >generally afraid of density due to fears of depressed property values, and >increased "urban problems" (percieved increase in crime, noise, traffic, >etc). The fact that there is excess capacity in our public systems is not >seen clearly by most people. All of this is anecdotal --- we won't know anything about trends in Portland versus other UAs until the 2000 census. I have raised these issues because of the misleading claims being made by Portland and its advocates. It is one thing to claim success for things already accomplished. It is another to claim credit for things that have not yet happened. That is the situation in Portland. The fact is that --- right now --- no one has any reliable comparative data on which to declare Portland a success --- indeed it is very premature. What comparative data we have does not support the rosy claims. Best regards, Wendell Cox 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 841- Belleville, Illinois 62222 USA "To facilitate the ideal of government as the servant of the people by identifying and implementing strategies to achieve public purposes at a cost that is no higher than necessary." From raad at unixg.ubc.ca Thu Jan 22 05:46:19 1998 From: raad at unixg.ubc.ca (Tamim Raad) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 12:46:19 -0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: densities In-Reply-To: <199801211940.EAA04873@mail.jca.ax.apc.org> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19980121124619.0070f7fc@pop.unixg.ubc.ca> Wendle Cox wrote: >There are problems with the Newman-Kenworthy data --- for example > > The Greater Toronto region contains large expanses of unurbanized >land (especially in the regional municipalities of York and Durham), which >causes an understatement of density. Like Paul, I also worked with Kenworthy, particularly on the Canadian data. As Paul mentioned in his email, we were careful to weed out all non-urban land in the calculations of urban density (i.e., agricultural land, water, regional-scale parks, etc.). This was done for all the cities, to ensure a high comparability. The Toronto figure of 26 p/ha is quite accurate as the unurbanized lands in Halton, Peel, York and Durham were already "weeded" out. If these were included, densities closer to 7-10 p/ha would be achieved...clearly too low a density for Greater Toronto. Metro Toronto is, of course, more dense at around 41 p/ha. Similar exclusions of non-urban land were made for the U.S. data. > The "tri-state" region of New York contains much unurbanized land >- --- the urbanized area would have been more appropriate.=20 Looks right...quite close to the Kenworthy, et al figure of 19 p/ha for the New York region. Tamim ------------------ Tamim Raad Point Grey RPO, Box 39150 Vancouver, British Columbia V6R 4P1 Tel: (604) 739-2146 Email: raad@unixg.ubc.ca From wcox at publicpurpose.com Thu Jan 22 13:17:18 1998 From: wcox at publicpurpose.com (Wendell Cox ) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 22:17:18 -0600 (CST) Subject: [sustran] Re: densities Message-ID: <199801220417.WAA26262@mail1.i1.net> Point well taken on Toronto.... Though it is somewhat hard to believe that Toronto --- at 7800 per square mile (26/ha) is that close to Los Angeles --- which the US Census bureau places at 5,800 (domestic definition, 19/ha). Best regards, Wendell Cox >Wendle Cox wrote: >>There are problems with the Newman-Kenworthy data --- for example >> >> The Greater Toronto region contains large expanses of unurbanized >>land (especially in the regional municipalities of York and Durham), which >>causes an understatement of density. > >Like Paul, I also worked with Kenworthy, particularly on the Canadian data. > As Paul mentioned in his email, we were careful to weed out all non-urban >land in the calculations of urban density (i.e., agricultural land, water, >regional-scale parks, etc.). This was done for all the cities, to ensure a >high comparability. The Toronto figure of 26 p/ha is quite accurate as the >unurbanized lands in Halton, Peel, York and Durham were already "weeded" >out. If these were included, densities closer to 7-10 p/ha would be >achieved...clearly too low a density for Greater Toronto. Metro Toronto >is, of course, more dense at around 41 p/ha. > >Similar exclusions of non-urban land were made for the U.S. data. > >> The "tri-state" region of New York contains much unurbanized land >>- --- the urbanized area would have been more appropriate.=20 > >Looks right...quite close to the Kenworthy, et al figure of 19 p/ha for the >New York region. > >Tamim >------------------ >Tamim Raad >Point Grey RPO, Box 39150 >Vancouver, British Columbia V6R 4P1 >Tel: (604) 739-2146 >Email: raad@unixg.ubc.ca > > 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 841- Belleville, Illinois 62222 USA "To facilitate the ideal of government as the servant of the people by identifying and implementing strategies to achieve public purposes at a cost that is no higher than necessary." From wcox at publicpurpose.com Thu Jan 22 13:40:10 1998 From: wcox at publicpurpose.com (Wendell Cox ) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 22:40:10 -0600 (CST) Subject: [sustran] Re: densities Message-ID: <199801220440.WAA01782@mail1.i1.net> Correction --- reflecting the general unfamiliarity of this American with hectares.... Corrections noted by ### Point well taken on Toronto.... Though it is somewhat hard to believe that Toronto --- at ###6700 per square mile (26/ha) is that close to Los Angeles --- which the US Census bureau places at 5,800 (domestic definition, ###22/ha). Not sure I understand your NY point --- US Census Bureau places it at 5407 /sq mile --- 21/ha. Hope I got it right this time. Sorry for the inconvenience. Best regards, Wendell Cox >Wendle Cox wrote: >>There are problems with the Newman-Kenworthy data --- for example >> >> The Greater Toronto region contains large expanses of unurbanized >>land (especially in the regional municipalities of York and Durham), which >>causes an understatement of density. > >Like Paul, I also worked with Kenworthy, particularly on the Canadian data. > As Paul mentioned in his email, we were careful to weed out all non-urban >land in the calculations of urban density (i.e., agricultural land, water, >regional-scale parks, etc.). This was done for all the cities, to ensure a >high comparability. The Toronto figure of 26 p/ha is quite accurate as the >unurbanized lands in Halton, Peel, York and Durham were already "weeded" >out. If these were included, densities closer to 7-10 p/ha would be >achieved...clearly too low a density for Greater Toronto. Metro Toronto >is, of course, more dense at around 41 p/ha. > >Similar exclusions of non-urban land were made for the U.S. data. > >> The "tri-state" region of New York contains much unurbanized land >>- --- the urbanized area would have been more appropriate.=20 > >Looks right...quite close to the Kenworthy, et al figure of 19 p/ha for the >New York region. > >Tamim >------------------ >Tamim Raad >Point Grey RPO, Box 39150 >Vancouver, British Columbia V6R 4P1 >Tel: (604) 739-2146 >Email: raad@unixg.ubc.ca > > 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 841- Belleville, Illinois 62222 USA "To facilitate the ideal of government as the servant of the people by identifying and implementing strategies to achieve public purposes at a cost that is no higher than necessary." From t4-inoue at nri.co.jp Mon Jan 19 12:47:45 1998 From: t4-inoue at nri.co.jp (Taiichi INOUE) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 12:47:45 +0900 Subject: [sustran] =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCJTEhPCU5JTklPyVHJSMhISVqITwlQCE8JE4bKEo=?= =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCSn0kWBsoSg==?= Message-ID: <199801190347.MAA08552@nrims1.nri.co.jp> ????? ??????????? ????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????HeartLand?Visitors???????????.xls ????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Think globally, Act locally. Consultant 0000,0000,ffff Taiichi Inoue Transport & Logistics System Strategy. Nomura Research Institute,Ltd. 2-2-1,Ootemachi,Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100,JAPAN tel +81-3-5203-0806 fax +81-3-5203-0810 Website http://www.nri.co.jp/ From wcox at publicpurpose.com Fri Jan 23 00:41:18 1998 From: wcox at publicpurpose.com (Wendell Cox ) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 09:41:18 -0600 (CST) Subject: [sustran] =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCJTEhPCU5JTklPyVHJSMhISVqITwlQCE8JE4bKEo=?= =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCSn0kWBsoSg==?= Message-ID: <199801221541.JAA24947@mail1.i1.net> Unable to dicipher.... Any advice??? >$B0f>e$G$9!#(J >$B#T#D#M$*Hh$l$5$^$G$9!#(J >$BBgJQ%?%$%H$J%9%1%8%e!u67$,$*8_$$$K$o$+$j$K$/$$>u67$K$"$k$H;W$$$^$9!#$=$3 $G!"%a%s%P!e$N#P#C!!(JHeartLand$B"M(JVisitors$B"MEl5~ET#T#D#M?JD=>u67(J.xls > > >$B$K%j! Taiichi Inoue > Transport & Logistics System Strategy. > Nomura Research Institute,Ltd. > 2-2-1,Ootemachi,Chiyoda-ku, > Tokyo 100,JAPAN > tel +81-3-5203-0806 fax +81-3-5203-0810 > Website http://www.nri.co.jp/ > 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 841- Belleville, Illinois 62222 USA "To facilitate the ideal of government as the servant of the people by identifying and implementing strategies to achieve public purposes at a cost that is no higher than necessary." From Rob_Cervero at ced.berkeley.edu Fri Jan 23 02:28:33 1998 From: Rob_Cervero at ced.berkeley.edu (Robert Cervero) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 09:28:33 -0800 Subject: [sustran] Berkeley students join list group Message-ID: <3.0.32.19980122092833.006e04f0@popper.ced.berkeley.edu> Paul Barter: Hi. I'm writing just to let you know I've ask all my students -- about 20 -- who are enrolled in a new graduate course I'm teaching at Berkeley on international transport (with a developing countries focus) to join your list service/chat group. I find your forum a good source of information and lively discussions. I'm hoping my class can learn from the debates and perhaps occasionally contribute to it. I hope you don't mind, but I just wanted to alert you to the fact that about 20 Berkeley graduate students will probably be e-mailing you soon to join the list. By the way, Jeff Kenworthy spent a few days at Berkeley a few months ago. It was the first time I met him personally, even though we've long been aware of each other's work and had communicated often via cyberspace. Quite a nice chap. Regards, Robert Cervero From seacow at juno.com Fri Jan 23 06:48:01 1998 From: seacow at juno.com (Brian A Kuhl) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 16:48:01 EST Subject: [sustran] =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCJTEhPCU5JTklPyVHJSMhISVqITwlQCE8JE4bKEo=?= =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCSn0kWBsoSg==?= References: <199801221541.JAA24947@mail1.i1.net> Message-ID: <19980122.164654.8247.0.seacow@juno.com> Perhaps this is one of those things that goes better with a bottle of Vodka. Brian Kuhl seacow@juno.com http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Vines/6067 On Thu, 22 Jan 1998 09:41:18 -0600 (CST) wcox@publicpurpose.com (Wendell Cox ) writes: >Unable to dicipher.... Any advice??? > >>????? >>??????????? >>???????????????????????????????????? >??????????HeartLand?Visitors???????????.xls >> >> >>??! ???i ??e ? ????t & ????s ??? Str??y. >> N?ura ???? I?titute,Ltd. ? ???Oote????????, ? ??o ????N ? tel +8??????6 ?x +8??????0 ? ???e htt?//www.???.j? >> ???? COX C????? >?te????l ??? P??y, E????, ??ur, ????t & ??te?c >???? >?e ??? Pur??: ?te?? Pub?c ??? J??? >?tp?/www.pub??ur??.c? >??e +1 6? 6? 8?? F? +1 6? 6? 8?8 ?.O. ?x ?? B??vi?? I???s ??2 ?A > ?? f????e the ??l ? g????t ? t? s?va? ? t? p??e >? >??ti??g ?d ????ti? str???s to a??ve pub?c ???? at >a ?? >th? is ? h??r th? n????." > > From tkpb at barter.pc.my Fri Jan 23 12:10:32 1998 From: tkpb at barter.pc.my (Paul Barter) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 11:10:32 +0800 (MYT) Subject: [sustran] =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCJT........ Message-ID: Dear sustran-discussers I have contacted Mr Taiichi Inoue to alert him to the problem with his unreadable message. Best wishes, the list-owner. From inamura at plan.civil.tohoku.ac.jp Sun Jan 25 17:55:58 1998 From: inamura at plan.civil.tohoku.ac.jp (Hajime Inamura) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 17:55:58 +0900 Subject: [sustran] A dam project in India In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <9801250855.AA02650@scorpio.plan.civil.tohoku.ac.jp> Inamura wrote, Dear Dr. V. S. Pendakur Thank you very much for your information below. The Japan Society for Civil Engineers plans to survey the dams which need a lot of resettlement for the project. I am in charge of it. The dam which I want to know the details of project must be the Narmada. However UKP II is also very interesting. It is very appreciated if you would kindly let me know how I can get further informations of two dams. ************************************ Dear colleagues of the SUSTRAN, I have received two informations related to my inquiry on 20 Jan. 1998. Dr. V. Setty Pendakur at University of British Columbia kindly gave me the name of the dams stated below. The dam which I want to know more details of the project must be the Narmada. However the Upper Krishna II dam is also very interesting. It is very appreciated if you could kindly send me some further information of the dams. ************************************* >This could either be Narmada, (but that is in Western India) or this could >be Upper Krishna II, which is in Karnataka in Southwestern India. UKP II >does displace about 200,000 people and is currently under >implementation. >Best wishes. ------------------------------------------------- Hajime INAMURA inamura@plan.civil.tohoku.ac.jp Phone:+81-22-217-7492 Facsimile:+81-22-217-7494 Web :http://www.plan.civil.tohoku.ac.jp Department of Civil Engineering, Graduate School of Information Sciences, Tohoku University, Aoba, Aoba-ku, Sendai, 980-77, JAPAN ------------------------------------------------- From bockelma at uclink4.berkeley.edu Tue Jan 27 01:00:05 1998 From: bockelma at uclink4.berkeley.edu (Alix Bockelman) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 08:00:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: [sustran] Joining the list serve Message-ID: <2.2.16.19980126093200.20b72342@uclink4.Berkeley.edu> I would like to be added to the Sustran list serve. Thank you. Alix ____________________________________ Alix Bockelman Goldman School of Public Policy UC Berkeley bockelma@uclink4.berkeley.edu From heathm at uclink4.berkeley.edu Tue Jan 27 06:53:53 1998 From: heathm at uclink4.berkeley.edu (Heath Maddox) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 13:53:53 -0800 Subject: [sustran] sign me up please! Message-ID: <3.0.32.19980126135352.00683e68@uclink4.berkeley.edu> Hello, I am grad. student in transportation planning at UC Berkeley, currently taking an interntational comparartive transportation course with Robert Cervero. He suggested we sign up on sustran-discuss. Please put me on your list. Thank you very much. Heath Maddox From driddell at ING.SUN.AC.ZA Tue Jan 27 16:28:06 1998 From: driddell at ING.SUN.AC.ZA (Wayne Duff-Riddell) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 16:28:06 GMT+0200 Subject: [sustran] Strategic Logistics Management in Urban Public Transport Message-ID: <1E01296B3D@ing.sun.ac.za> Hello! Would anybody like to comment? A definition of Strategic Logistics Management is: "The process of planning, implementing and controlling the efficient,cost-effective flow and storage of raw materials, in-process inventory, finished goods, and related information from point-of-origin to point-of-consumption for the purpose of conforming to customer requirements." I'd like to hear ideas on what components of a public transport system could be considered to fit the various categories as listed below. For example, I believe that the finished goods, are "route-seats-on-schedule." Raw materials could be vehicles, money, roads, railway lines, bus terminals, railway stations etc. raw materials in-process inventory finished goods related information point-of-origin point-of-consumption I look forward to your replies. Thanks Wayne Duff-Riddell University of Stellenbosch Tel: +27 21 8084647 Fax: +27 21 8084361 E-Mail: driddell@firga.sun.ac.za From ebruun at rci.rutgers.edu Wed Jan 28 02:11:53 1998 From: ebruun at rci.rutgers.edu (Eric Bruun) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 12:11:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: [sustran] Another Response to Cox on New Urbanism, Portland and , THE , ECONOMIST In-Reply-To: <199801201803.MAA04039@mail1.i1.net> Message-ID: Sorry for the delay in responding. I have been away. It is not just a matter of personal taste when I say that Portland is better for people who like to use transit. It is simply a fact that Portland proper has more frequent and denser transit service than Seattle proper. In the Seattle area, transit service is disproportionately allocated to peak-hour peak direction service to suburbs. Also, Seattle has very few places where transit is sped up with preferential treatment. Also, Seattle is most assuredly a less "lovely" place to drive with the limited travel corridors. The Texas Transportation Institute consistently rate Seattle in the top 6 for time lost due to congestion delays. So it is not just my subjective judgement when I say that Portland is better in certain respects. Eric On Tue, 20 Jan 1998, Wendell Cox wrote: > >Look, it is just an assertion on Cox' part that nothing is happening > >in Portland. He is right that not much changed by the 1990 Census, > >but, I repeat, infill is occuring now, even if he wants to ignore > >it. Portland is going to show an increase in density after the 2000 > >census instead of a decrease. It will at least be a step in the right > >direction. Seattle, by contrast, which Cox thinks is equally good, is > >gridlocked on a larger scale and far more often than Portland. > >Furthermore, living without a car is very difficult due to sparser and > >slower transit service than Portland. I am a native of Seattle, and as > >one who prefers to bicycle and use transit, I far prefer Portland. > > > 1. I am happy to wait to the 2000 census to find out if anything is really > happening. My basic point is that the Portland cheerleaders have been > claiming a whole lot of success that has not occured and is certainly not > attributable to the planning decisions they attribute them to. The latest > blurb from the Economist is typical of the kind of misleading assessment > that Portland folks have fostered. The fact is that the decline in urban > densities appears to have about ended, and the 1980s data shows that the > trend is in the opposite directioin in the west. Portland trailed all > western cities. I will not be surprised if Portland ranks no better than > average after the 2000 census numbers are out --- but we will have to wait > for that. > > 2. As for personal preferences --- I have lived in Portland and spent a good > deal of time in Seattle --- and I find Seattle a more delightful city. This > is not to argue with Eric's preference --- because it is just that --- a > preference --- a subjective judgement. I suspect that the number of people > who know both cities who favor one over the other is about equal. > > >I would like to know what Cox' point is by this Portland bashing. > >Tell us if your point is that land use planning as advertized by > >Portland is a hoax, or if land use planning can not work anywhere, > >or maybe your point is that decreasing density is not a bad thing. > > > Point has to do with the misleading publicity out of and about Portland. > Portland may stand on the threshhold of accomplishing something, but it has > not yet. The Portland hype is a hoax. Decreasing density, (forgive the > political incorrectness) is not necessarily bad. > > >I will be traveling for the next week, but I will certainly follow > >this discussion if it is still going on when I get back. Eric > > > > > >On Mon, 19 Jan 1998, Wendell Cox wrote: > > > >> It is, however, the most recent available for urbanized areas. The issue > >> is raised because Portland promoters routinely claim that their urban > >> growth boundary (UGB) and planning policies have already accomplished > >> much. The fact is that the UGB has been in effect for nearly 20 years > >> --- and the one decade during that period for which we have data > >> indicates that it had no impact whatever --- that all other US western > >> urbanized areas densified at greater rates than Portland --- many > >> significantly greater. The story in Portland is not what they have > >> accomplished --- because they havn't accomplished anything --- it is > >> rather what they intend to accomplish. The next data point will be the > >> 2000 census, with urbanized area data due out in 2002 (or 2003). > >> Meanwhile, it's a bit early to "break out the champaign." Seattle, which > >> has only recently obtained an UGB, is every bit as delightful as > >> Portland. And San Bernardino-Riverside, the data indicates, emerges as > >> the new urbanist model for others to follow (at least in the 1980s). > >> > >> Portland, like virtually all other US urbanized areas is becoming or > >> seeks to become Los Angeles! (at least with respect to density). The > >> 2040 plan could get them there, though I would bet against it, given > >> recent political happenings there. > >> > >> Best regards, > >> Wendell Cox > >> > >> Eric Bruun wrote: > >> > > >> > The Census data up to 1990 that Cox cites below is very obsolete. The > >> > infill craze, and there really is some infill going on, is over the last > >> > few years. However, it is still limited and is causing a lot of hardship > >> > for people of modest means as real estate values approach those of > >> > San Francisco. Cox is right that the average density is lower > >> > than Los Angeles, as LA does have some dense areas. However, I think the > >> > data will show that Portland is increasing in density, and not decreasing > >> > like almost every other city. Eric Bruun > >> > > >> > On Fri, 16 Jan 1998, Wendell Cox wrote: > >> > > >> > > Article in current issue of THE ECONOMIST suggests that Portland's 2 > decade > >> > > old urban growth boundary had forced infilling development. US Census > Bureau > >> > > data for the 1980-1990 period indicates no such trend (latest data > >> > > available). Among 10 US urbanized areas with more than 1 million > >> > > population, Portland ranked last in percentage density increase. > Ranked 7th > >> > > in overall density --- barely half that of Los Angeles. > >> > > > >> > > Details at... > >> > > > >> > > http://www.publicpurpose.com/dm-uargn.htm > >> > > > >> > > Best regards, > >> > > Wendell Cox > >> > > 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 841- Belleville, Illinois 62222 USA > >> > > > >> > > "To facilitate the ideal of government as the servant of the people by > >> > > identifying and implementing strategies to achieve public purposes at > a cost > >> > > that is no higher than necessary." > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > 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 841- Belleville, Illinois 62222 USA > > "To facilitate the ideal of government as the servant of the people by > identifying and implementing strategies to achieve public purposes at a cost > that is no higher than necessary." > > From wcox at publicpurpose.com Wed Jan 28 03:18:42 1998 From: wcox at publicpurpose.com (Wendell Cox ) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 12:18:42 -0600 (CST) Subject: [sustran] Another Response to Cox on New Urbanism, Portland and , THE , ECONOMIST Message-ID: <199801271818.MAA13437@mail1.i1.net> >Sorry for the delay in responding. I have been away. It is not >just a matter of personal taste when I say that Portland is better >for people who like to use transit. It is simply a fact that Portland >proper has more frequent and denser transit service than Seattle >proper. In the Seattle area, transit service is disproportionately >allocated to peak-hour peak direction service to suburbs. Also, Seattle >has very few places where transit is sped up with preferential treatment. >Also, Seattle is most assuredly a less "lovely" place to drive with >the limited travel corridors. The Texas Transportation Institute >consistently rate Seattle in the top 6 for time lost due to congestion >delays. So it is not just my subjective judgement when I say that >Portland is better in certain respects. Eric As regards preferential treatment of transit, the downtown bus tunnel does a pretty good job of that in Seattle. Actually, when you consider service area population, service intensity in Seattle (Tri-Met v. King Co Metro) is at least as high as Portland (VM/pop). Seattle has implemental a number of HOV corridors with bus service --- Portland has none. Portland's light rail line --- while having preferential treatment --- operates at 15 mph --- considerably slower than express buses on mixed flow motorways. I suspect that in miles of priority right of way Seattle is now well ahead of Portland. Most of the TTI based difference in traffic congestion simply reflects the relationship that existed in 1982, when the first data was collected. Light rail and UGB have had nothing to do with this. Portland is delightful and so is Seattle. And none of it has to do with progressive planning or urban growth boundaries. Maybe someday it will... but I doubt it. Best regards, Wendell Cox 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 841- Belleville, Illinois 62222 USA "To facilitate the ideal of government as the servant of the people by identifying and implementing strategies to achieve public purposes at a cost that is no higher than necessary." From ebruun at rci.rutgers.edu Wed Jan 28 04:21:40 1998 From: ebruun at rci.rutgers.edu (Eric Bruun) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 14:21:40 -0500 (EST) Subject: [sustran] Yet another Response to Cox on New Urbanism, Portland , and , THE , ECONOMIST In-Reply-To: <199801271818.MAA13437@mail1.i1.net> Message-ID: Wendell, you simply do not know how the transit resources are distributed in the Seattle area. Metro has a record-high vehicle-hour to revenue vehicle-hour ratio of about 1.5 to 1 because of the extreme suburban emphasis of the route system. The ridership is not much higher than Portland either, considering that the service area is larger and the CBD is much larger. Most city routes in Seattle are on very poor 30 minute headways during the base period, deteriorating to 60 minutes at night. Also, the bus tunnel is very poorly utilized, with few routes actually using it. As for the HOV lanes on freeways, these are of little utility to intracity transit routes. The very few bus lanes in downtown are not enforced, either. By comparison, Portland has given over much more of its surface level street space to bus transit, especially in the central area. I make no claims that the light rail line in Portland makes much difference, one little route is not going to transform an entire city. Eric On Tue, 27 Jan 1998, Wendell Cox wrote: > >Sorry for the delay in responding. I have been away. It is not > >just a matter of personal taste when I say that Portland is better > >for people who like to use transit. It is simply a fact that Portland > >proper has more frequent and denser transit service than Seattle > >proper. In the Seattle area, transit service is disproportionately > >allocated to peak-hour peak direction service to suburbs. Also, Seattle > >has very few places where transit is sped up with preferential treatment. > >Also, Seattle is most assuredly a less "lovely" place to drive with > >the limited travel corridors. The Texas Transportation Institute > >consistently rate Seattle in the top 6 for time lost due to congestion > >delays. So it is not just my subjective judgement when I say that > >Portland is better in certain respects. Eric > > As regards preferential treatment of transit, the downtown bus tunnel does a > pretty good job of that in Seattle. Actually, when you consider service area > population, service intensity in Seattle (Tri-Met v. King Co Metro) is at > least as high as Portland (VM/pop). Seattle has implemental a number of HOV > corridors with bus service --- Portland has none. Portland's light rail line > --- while having preferential treatment --- operates at 15 mph --- > considerably slower than express buses on mixed flow motorways. I suspect > that in miles of priority right of way Seattle is now well ahead of Portland. > > Most of the TTI based difference in traffic congestion simply reflects the > relationship that existed in 1982, when the first data was collected. Light > rail and UGB have had nothing to do with this. > > Portland is delightful and so is Seattle. And none of it has to do with > progressive planning or urban growth boundaries. Maybe someday it will... > but I doubt it. > > Best regards, > Wendell Cox > 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 841- Belleville, Illinois 62222 USA > > "To facilitate the ideal of government as the servant of the people by > identifying and implementing strategies to achieve public purposes at a cost > that is no higher than necessary." > > From wcox at publicpurpose.com Wed Jan 28 05:57:57 1998 From: wcox at publicpurpose.com (Wendell Cox ) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 14:57:57 -0600 (CST) Subject: [sustran] Response to Eric Bruun Message-ID: <199801272057.OAA22197@mail1.i1.net> Eric... 1. The data doesnt indicate the 1.5 ratio --- look at 1995 NTDB. Data indicates little difference. 2. Whether suburban emphasis is desireable or not is a matter of judgement. As for frequencies, etc. there are also issues of route spacing. My Seattle/Portland contacts disagree with your judgement and unfortunately there is no source of compiled, objective data on this. Sounds like a good project for the new national transit institute. 3. Seattle's ridership is 30 to 40 percent higher than Portland's if you factor out the light rail-bus transfers. That is a difference similar to the difference in service area population. Best regards, Wendell Cox > >Wendell, you simply do not know how the transit resources are distributed >in the Seattle area. Metro has a record-high vehicle-hour to revenue >vehicle-hour ratio of about 1.5 to 1 because of the extreme suburban >emphasis of the route system. The ridership is not much higher than >Portland either, considering that the service area is larger and >the CBD is much larger. > >Most city routes in Seattle are on very poor 30 minute headways during the >base period, deteriorating to 60 minutes at night. Also, the bus tunnel is >very poorly utilized, with few routes actually using it. As for the HOV >lanes on freeways, these are of little utility to intracity transit >routes. The very few bus lanes in downtown are not enforced, either. >By comparison, Portland has given over much more of its surface level >street space to bus transit, especially in the central area. > >I make no claims that the light rail line in Portland makes much >difference, one little route is not going to transform an entire city. >Eric > >On Tue, 27 Jan 1998, Wendell Cox wrote: > >> >Sorry for the delay in responding. I have been away. It is not >> >just a matter of personal taste when I say that Portland is better >> >for people who like to use transit. It is simply a fact that Portland >> >proper has more frequent and denser transit service than Seattle >> >proper. In the Seattle area, transit service is disproportionately >> >allocated to peak-hour peak direction service to suburbs. Also, Seattle >> >has very few places where transit is sped up with preferential treatment. >> >Also, Seattle is most assuredly a less "lovely" place to drive with >> >the limited travel corridors. The Texas Transportation Institute >> >consistently rate Seattle in the top 6 for time lost due to congestion >> >delays. So it is not just my subjective judgement when I say that >> >Portland is better in certain respects. Eric >> >> As regards preferential treatment of transit, the downtown bus tunnel does a >> pretty good job of that in Seattle. Actually, when you consider service area >> population, service intensity in Seattle (Tri-Met v. King Co Metro) is at >> least as high as Portland (VM/pop). Seattle has implemental a number of HOV >> corridors with bus service --- Portland has none. Portland's light rail line >> --- while having preferential treatment --- operates at 15 mph --- >> considerably slower than express buses on mixed flow motorways. I suspect >> that in miles of priority right of way Seattle is now well ahead of Portland. >> >> Most of the TTI based difference in traffic congestion simply reflects the >> relationship that existed in 1982, when the first data was collected. Light >> rail and UGB have had nothing to do with this. >> >> Portland is delightful and so is Seattle. And none of it has to do with >> progressive planning or urban growth boundaries. Maybe someday it will... >> but I doubt it. >> >> Best regards, >> Wendell Cox >> 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 841- Belleville, Illinois 62222 USA >> >> "To facilitate the ideal of government as the servant of the people by >> identifying and implementing strategies to achieve public purposes at a cost >> that is no higher than necessary." >> >> > > > 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 841- Belleville, Illinois 62222 USA "To facilitate the ideal of government as the servant of the people by identifying and implementing strategies to achieve public purposes at a cost that is no higher than necessary." From chris at mailnet.rdc.cl Wed Jan 28 06:00:46 1998 From: chris at mailnet.rdc.cl (Christopher Zegras) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 18:00:46 -0300 Subject: [sustran] Santiago Metro FY97 Message-ID: <199801272100.SAA17656@mailnet.rdc.cl> Courtesy of ChipNews, Jan. 21 www.chip.cl -- SANTIAGO METRO HAD 200 MILLION USERS IN 1997. The Santiago Metro saw a boost in passengers but a dip in profits last year, company President Daniel Fernandez said Tuesday. Metro had a total of 200 million passengers in 1997, an 11.9 percent rise over the 178 million passengers in 1996. The major cause in this rise was the incorporation of Line 5, which runs between Plaza Italia and Plaza Vespucio in La Florida, the most densely populated Santiago neighborhood. Profits, however, fell 20 percent to US$2.6 million, Fernandez said, owing to the increase in depreciation tied to the investment in Line 5. Metro earned US$78 million in ticket sales and spent US$75.4 million on operations. The yearly passenger total works out to 779,000 average daily users, compared to 676,000 average daily users in 1996. The peak number of passengers reached 902,000 on December 23. Metro plans to invest US$200 million this year in technological innovations and service improvement, including: operational improvements of US$22 million; the integration of 11 new trains for US$108 million; train maintenance at a cost of US$4.25 million; communication system enhancements and ticket booth remodeling for US$18.2 million; and US$3.2 million worth of turnstiles. Metro is also currently constructing, with a US$107 million investment, an extension of Line 5, with service into the heart of Santiago to a new station in the Plaza de Armas. 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 tkpb at barter.pc.my Wed Jan 28 09:48:59 1998 From: tkpb at barter.pc.my (Paul Barter) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 08:48:59 +0800 (MYT) Subject: [sustran] tip on list discussions Message-ID: Dear sustran-discussers Just a reminder that when replying to a thread of discussion, please include in your reply only those parts of the earlier discussion that you are directly responding to. Delete the rest of it. Especially delete earlier signatures. Please do not include in your messages the whole of both sides of a discussion. Thanks, Paul. From tkpb at barter.pc.my Wed Jan 28 11:26:32 1998 From: tkpb at barter.pc.my (Paul Barter) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 10:26:32 +0800 (MYT) Subject: [sustran] Asian economic crisis and transport Message-ID: I am interested to hear the views of sustran-discussers on the implications for transport of the economic problems that have effected many of the formerly fast-growing economies in East and Southeast Asia. Will the crisis help to bring about a change towards more equitable, people-friendly and sustainable transport policies? Or will it set back this cause? Will any destructive projects that are now on hold just be revived when (if?) high growth resumes? Will there be any fundamental rethink of the way things are done in the region? Some examples of transport-related impacts that I have heard of include: * Car sales are plummeting in a number of countries (eg. next year's sales in Malaysia expected to be 60% lower in 1998 than in 1997). * Conspicuous consumption has suddenly become very unpopular. This is a big change from attitudes a year ago. Will expensive cars lose some of their status value? * Unfortunately a number of bus companies also have problems. There have been announcements of cancelled purchases of urban buses in Malaysia. An intercity bus company in Malaysia has had 32 of its coaches repossessed by a finance company in the last few weeks. A number of mega-projects have been delayed or cancelled: * The proposed bridge between Indonesia and Malaysia has been deferred indefinitely. * Bangkok's Hopewell expressway/mass transit project contract was cancelled (with about 20% built). No new investors so far. * Malaysia's Highland Highway, that is opposed by all major environmental groups in the country, has been deferred. * A large number of toll-highways have been completed in Malaysia in the last two-years or are due to open over the next two years. There are now doubts about toll-revenue projections and hence the short-term health of the companies involved may be at risk. Fuel prices: * Indonesia is to phase out gasoline subsidies (by April I think) at the urging of the IMF. Diesel and kerosene subsidies (which effect the poor most) will be less effected. While gasoline subsidies are probably a bad idea, many fear social unrest because of the timing and speed with which they are to be removed in Indonesia just when people have already seen their buying power plummet. Would a more gradual phase-out be safer? * Have Thailand, Korea and the Philippines (which import most of their oil) allowed their fuel prices to rise in local currency terms to reflect the international US$ price?? If not, then who is paying for this? Certainly Malaysia (an oil exporter) has NOT allowed fuel prices to rise. Presumably this means that fuel in Malaysia is now heavily subsidised (in the sense that the country must be forgoing income on oil that could be exported at a higher price)? It is widely thought that a lack of transparency in decision-making and accounting procedures has hampered the rebuilding of investor confidence. Therefore there is great pressure on Asian governments and corporate conglomerates (eg Korea's chaebols) to become more transparent: * Indonesia has announced that preferential treatment for the national car project (the Timur) has been cancelled. * Malaysia is considering reversing its long-standing practice of using (secretly) "negotiated tenders" for awarding privatised infrastructure projects (such as toll-roads and mass transit systems). Negotiated tenders have been criticised because of the suspicion that they encourage cronyism and the feather-bedding of contracts. The public works minister himself has called for a switch to the open tender method. Such a change might provide a better chance for public scrutiny of project proposals. Any responses? Please correct any mistakes or omissions that I might have made. Paul. From jernst at loxinfo.co.th Wed Jan 28 22:33:49 1998 From: jernst at loxinfo.co.th (John Ernst) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 20:33:49 +0700 Subject: [sustran] Asian economic crisis and transport Message-ID: <3.0.32.19980128203058.00817df0@mailsvr.loxinfo.co.th> At 09:26 AM 1/28/98 +0700, Paul Barter wrote: > >I am interested to hear the views of sustran-discussers on the implications >for transport of the economic problems that have effected many of the >formerly fast-growing economies in East and Southeast Asia. > Paul makes a very timely request. "The Nation", one of the two primary English-language newspapers in Bangkok, this morning featured a front-page editorial asking their readers to support a gas tax increase. While arguing the economic benefits, the editorial states: "The government is understandably afraid of the political outcome". Indeed, Asian governments appear to be held hostage by consumers who feel that cheap fuel benefits everyone. Since this issue hits everyone?s pocketbook, it is not hard to mobilize a public outcry. Fuel price increases in the Philippines are widely perceived as hurting the poor. A participant in a transport workshop last week in Manila argued that it was the government?s duty to keep gas prices low to help all the people. When I suggested that someone driving their own Mercedes around Manila ends up receiving a much higher subsidy from low fuel prices than a presumably poorer person riding in a jeepney, this appeared to be new information. Public transport in Manila is often viewed as more of the problem than the solution. Jeepneys and buses have been targeted as sources of pollution and causes of congestion. (Robert Verzola has written a good summary of biases against public transport in Manila). The concept of passenger-km as opposed to vehicle-km does not seem to be well understood in either the Philippines or Thailand. > >* Have Thailand, Korea and the Philippines (which import most of their >oil) allowed their fuel prices to rise in local currency terms to reflect >the international US$ price?? If not, then who is paying for this? > The Philippines are in a particular squeeze. The government attempted to deregulate oil prices last year, but the law was declared unconstitutional in November. While legislators attempt a new deregulation law, oil refiners have threatened to stop importing crude oil at current prices (reported in the Philippine Daily Enquirer, 17-Jan-98, p.1,14). In response to this situation, last Friday, the Philippine Energy Regulatory Board raised fuel prices by 1.18 pesos ($0.03) per liter for premium gasoline. The price of diesel, used by jeepneys, rose 50 centavos to 7.83 pesos per liter (roughly $0.19/liter). The price rise prompted strikes by jeepney operators at locations throughout the country. In Thailand, the currency has lost 50 percent of its value since June. Gas prices have not doubled, but increased by about 33 percent. A part, but not all, of this difference can be attributed to the fall in world oil prices. Prices have fallen about 15 percent since June (the WTI - Cushing spot price for crude oil was $19.26 in June 97, $16.48 on January 16, ?98). All else equal, fuel prices in baht should be up by 70 percent. Prices around Asia for premium gasoline were reported today in the Bangkok newspaper (The Nation, 28-Jan-98, p. A-5) as follows. I?ve converted these to US dollars at 54 baht/$ plus added in the new Philippines price using a 42 peso/$ rate. Prices shown are in US dollars/ liter: 0.23 Thailand 0.25 Malaysia 0.28 Brunei 0.32 Philippines 0.41 Myanmar 0.45 Laos 0.49 Taiwan For comparison: 0.87 Austria 0.37 US (source: US Dept of Energy, www.eia.doe.gov). Ironically, the dollar-based price of oil is lower in Thailand ? which imports essentially all of its oil ? than in Brunei, a major oil exporter. Unlike the Philippines, I am not aware of any price controls of the Thai government, but I would be interested if anyone has some information on what might be going on. > Will the >crisis help to bring about a change towards more equitable, people-friendly >and sustainable transport policies? Or will it set back this cause? There have been a lot of used Mercedes for sale lately in Bangkok. But, although there is propaganda in Thailand to cut back on consumption, I doubt if anyone is cutting back on car use until they are forced to by economic necessity. This is not hard to understand considering the only options to private motorized vehicle transport in Bangkok are slow, uncomfortable, dangerous or all three. Developing public and non-motorized transport -- which can be as simple as giving these modes enough road space to run more efficiently and safely -- presents an opportunity to relieve the economic drain of oil imports from many Asian economies. However, there is one risk of pushing these modes now. They could be even more associated with "hard times" or poverty by the public. In status conscious Asia, that is a major setback. Still, there is an opportunity to convince governments to improve public and non-motorized transport so that they provide fast, cheap, safe and reasonably comfortable alternatives to private cars. I would be really interested in information which clarifies the relationship between oil imports, oil prices, inflation and economic functioning, so that a strong case can be made on these grounds for governments to move toward more efficient and equitable transport systems. John Ernst International Institute for Energy Conservation - Asia office INTRODUCTION I am remiss to admit that this is my first contribution to the SUSTRAN list. I have followed the discussion since the beginning last April. I would like to thank those who have provided some very useful information to me through this list over the past months. By way of introduction, I manage the transport program of the International Institute for Energy Conservation?s office in Asia. I am an ecologist by training with 12-years experience in environmental advocacy from an NGO perspective. I have researched transport related issues in Africa and Asia for the past six-years and previously worked on a study of sustainable transport in 3 mid-sized Asian cities. IIEC-Asia is based in Bangkok, Thailand and currently has transport-related projects in Thailand, Manila and Xiamen, China. IIEC is a small non-profit, non-government organization with other offices in Santiago, Chile; Pretoria, South Africa, London and Washington, D.C. We focus on transport, energy efficiency and renewable energy solutions in a developing world. The transport program worldwide includes Julia Philpott in Washington, Lloyd Wright in Pretoria, Kristina Egan in Bangkok, and Chris Zegras (a regular SUSTRAN contributor) in Santiago. From stncar at ix.netcom.com Thu Jan 29 02:08:28 1998 From: stncar at ix.netcom.com (Marty Bernard) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 11:08:28 -0600 (CST) Subject: [sustran] Fwd: Light Rail To The Portland Airport (fwd) Message-ID: <199801281708.LAA18054@dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com> Author's name, etc. at bottom. What a slam dunk! ---- Begin Forwarded Message The Portland Business Journal asked for an Op-Ed piece on light rail to the airport. I sent the following. _______________________________________________________________ RAIL TO THE AIRPORT: TAX DOLLARS TAKE FLIGHT Light rail to the airport (PDXLR) is a wasteful idea with absolutely nothing factual to support any prospects for benefits to the region. Its object is to substitute a highly subsidized system for unsubsidized airport shuttles, limos, taxis and rental cars which provide faster and more convenient door-to-door service. No rail systems to airports can be considered successful but the nature of PDXLR and regional demographics portend even worse results. Only two US cities have light rail access. The rest use heavy rail (subways) which travel at faster speeds with fewer stops. Only Washington, D.C.'s heavy rail system comes close to showing respectable ridership because National airport is located in the middle of two lines (Blue and Yellow); is two stops from Pentagon City; three stops from the Pentagon; four stops from HUD, DOT, the Smithsonian and other mammoth work centers; in a region with 2 BD times this region's population; and National has the highest percentage of people who leave and return the same day (no luggage). PDX would be 16 stops and one transfer away from the nearest and only population concentration. New York eliminated its "Train to the Plane" subway service after many years of huge operating losses and low usage.. The preponderance of light rail commuters drive to MAX and park. Tri Met does not allow overnight parking because it needs every park & ride spot for the daily commute. There will be 5,770 park & ride spots after the west side line is completed. If free long-term parking were permitted, all of the spots could be filled in two days, leaving no spaces for daily commuters, the raison d'etre of the system. Neither buses or light rail are constructed for luggage. Conveyors to airports need lots of room for luggage at the entries and inside. Tri Met would have to replace its entire fleet of rail cars and buses to make it user friendly. Even if it could afford to do so, it would give up daily commuter seat space. Light rail to PDX would have a miniscule effect on congestion even if it attracted riders. Airport traffic coalesces on the east side where airport traffic runs in the contra-flow direction, that is, in the relatively empty lanes. The tiny number that might use PDXLR instead of autos would be exceeded by the much larger number that would use autos to get to the office buildings that have become part of the PDXLR project. Of cities with rail service to airports, Cleveland's subway to Hopkins Airport comes closest to resembling Portland's demographics. The ride from downtown Cleveland takes minutes compared to PDXLR's proposed 33 minute ride, not including the time and inconvenience of transferring at Gateway. After 19 years of hard-selling the service, only 2 % of airport travelers use the subway. 3% use shuttles, 3 % use limos, 5 % use taxis, 12 % use rental cars and 72 % use private auto. Tri Met has been operating a free shuttle service between Gateway and the airport for he last three Thanksgiving and Christmas periods when airport traffic was at peak, airport parking lots were filled and conditions at the airport invited avoidance of driving to the airport. The Gateway-PDX shuttle traveled the same route as the proposed airport light rail at a faster speed than light rail with none of the stops. It left every twenty minutes and, unlike PDXLR, was free. Usage was less than two riders per bus. More energy was consumed than if the Gateway-PDX shuttle users had driven alone. The construction cost is just one of ways in which our scarce resources will be misused. Overtime, the operating cost of the unused system will dig more deeply into our pockets. The Financing Scam If the rail line to the airport will do nothing for congestion or for improving service to airport users, it will do wonders for Bechtel, the private sector "partner" to Tri Met, the City of Portland and the Port of Portland. In return for "putting-up" between $25 and $30 million for undefined "development rights" of airport property, Bechtel will also get to build the light rail line to the airport without a bid process. If anyone else wanted "development rights" they would either have to buy a leasehold or buy title to the property. In their frenzy to build another rail line, none of the public partners has determined the value of the "development rights" or the no bid design-build construction (blank-check) agreement. Tri Met hopes to use the funds put into the project from all sources as matching funds for obtaining funding for the south/north light rail system. There may be some hitches due to the federal law that does not allow federal funds to be used as matching funds for other federal funds and the fact that the projects are clearly separate. Using land obtained with federal funds to obtain "private sector" funding as a match smacks of money-laundering. The City of Portland obtains transportation funding from two sources 96 state gas and weight taxes, which are constitutionally forbidden from use on this project, and from federal funds, which cannot be used as matching funds. After all of the hoopla about not having sufficient funding to even fill pot-holes, the number one priority, it makes little sense to use scarce transportation funds anyway. Hence, any funding from the City for this dubious project, in order to qualify for matching funds on south/north, will have to come from general funds at a time when the city and County are grappling with raising business taxes for such things as preventing teacher layoffs. Another Pea in the Shell Game When the City Council, on December 31, agreed to initial engineering funding, it was conceded that PDXLR would attract "low ridership." The new rationale was the value of PDXLR in attracting office space development at the airport. That hasn't happened along east side MAX. In October 1996, the City Council passed tax abatements for construction along the east side MAX line because "we have not seen any of the kind of development....that we would have like to have seen." Those subsidies would, also, apply to this line. When the question of the amount of parking spaces that would be provided with any office space construction was raised, no answers were offered by Bechtel or its "partners." The addition of parking for offices would only exacerbate congestion on the roads near the airport. There may have been worse use of public funds in this state. But one would be hard-pressed to name any. -- Melvin Y. Zucker Oregon Transportation Institute 2222 NW Ramsey Drive, Portland, OR 97229-4 5 Tel 503-292-2167 - Fax 503-292-0361 - E Mail myz@hevanet.com -- Marty Bernard Oakland, California To find out about a new form of personal urban transportation please visit the Information Pages of the National Station Car Association at http://www.stncar.com which are updated periodically. From yeossr at pacific.net.sg Fri Jan 30 00:20:51 1998 From: yeossr at pacific.net.sg (ROLAND YEO) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 23:20:51 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: sustran-discuss V1 #141 Message-ID: <01bd2cc9$7c516680$3a5418d2@liliany> Subject: [sustran] Asian economic crisis and transport A very timely discussion on this matter indeed. The removal of subsidies on petrol in Indonesia will increase the cost of using private cars as the main mode of journey to work. At the same time, the depreciating value of the rupiah further contributes to the higher cost of owning imported cars. It appears that with the removal of preferential treatment for the Timur Car project, the nation is caught between a rock and a hard place. Given these hard times, it is logical to assume that the demand for public transport, particularly in a major city like Jakarta, will increase significantly. However, the capital city's public transport system is not ready to take on this challenge both in terms of fleet capacity and the service level provided. So, to answer Paul's question in around about way, the removal of the petrol subsidy must be tied with the provision of alternate transportation such as increasing the total operating fleet of buses (I think that they have only something like 2000 or less buses deployed on the road at any time), and regulating the industry such that the bus service level is adequate both peak and off peak, and safe buses. These have not been spelled out and clearly adhered to by the operators to date. Roland -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss To: sustran-discuss-digest@jca.ax.apc.org Date: Thursday, January 29, 1998 4:13 AM Subject: sustran-discuss V1 #141 >* To leave, send the message UNSUBSCRIBE sustran-discuss-digest >* to majordomo@mail.jca.ax.apc.org > >sustran-discuss Thursday, January 29 1998 Volume 01 : Number 141 > > > >In this issue: > > [sustran] Response to Eric Bruun > [sustran] Santiago Metro FY97 > [sustran] tip on list discussions > [sustran] Asian economic crisis and transport > Re: [sustran] Asian economic crisis and transport > [sustran] Fwd: Light Rail To The Portland Airport (fwd) > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 14:57:57 -0600 (CST) >From: wcox@publicpurpose.com (Wendell Cox ) >Subject: [sustran] Response to Eric Bruun > >Eric... > >1. The data doesnt indicate the 1.5 ratio --- look at 1995 NTDB. Data >indicates little difference. > >2. Whether suburban emphasis is desireable or not is a matter of judgement. >As for frequencies, etc. there are also issues of route spacing. My >Seattle/Portland contacts disagree with your judgement and unfortunately >there is no source of compiled, objective data on this. Sounds like a good >project for the new national transit institute. > >3. Seattle's ridership is 30 to 40 percent higher than Portland's if you >factor out the light rail-bus transfers. That is a difference similar to the >difference in service area population. > >Best regards, >Wendell Cox > >> >>Wendell, you simply do not know how the transit resources are distributed >>in the Seattle area. Metro has a record-high vehicle-hour to revenue >>vehicle-hour ratio of about 1.5 to 1 because of the extreme suburban >>emphasis of the route system. The ridership is not much higher than >>Portland either, considering that the service area is larger and >>the CBD is much larger. >> >>Most city routes in Seattle are on very poor 30 minute headways during the >>base period, deteriorating to 60 minutes at night. Also, the bus tunnel is >>very poorly utilized, with few routes actually using it. As for the HOV >>lanes on freeways, these are of little utility to intracity transit >>routes. The very few bus lanes in downtown are not enforced, either. >>By comparison, Portland has given over much more of its surface level >>street space to bus transit, especially in the central area. >> >>I make no claims that the light rail line in Portland makes much >>difference, one little route is not going to transform an entire city. >>Eric >> >>On Tue, 27 Jan 1998, Wendell Cox wrote: >> >>> >Sorry for the delay in responding. I have been away. It is not >>> >just a matter of personal taste when I say that Portland is better >>> >for people who like to use transit. It is simply a fact that Portland >>> >proper has more frequent and denser transit service than Seattle >>> >proper. In the Seattle area, transit service is disproportionately >>> >allocated to peak-hour peak direction service to suburbs. Also, Seattle >>> >has very few places where transit is sped up with preferential treatment. >>> >Also, Seattle is most assuredly a less "lovely" place to drive with >>> >the limited travel corridors. The Texas Transportation Institute >>> >consistently rate Seattle in the top 6 for time lost due to congestion >>> >delays. So it is not just my subjective judgement when I say that >>> >Portland is better in certain respects. Eric >>> >>> As regards preferential treatment of transit, the downtown bus tunnel does a >>> pretty good job of that in Seattle. Actually, when you consider service area >>> population, service intensity in Seattle (Tri-Met v. King Co Metro) is at >>> least as high as Portland (VM/pop). Seattle has implemental a number of HOV >>> corridors with bus service --- Portland has none. Portland's light rail line >>> --- while having preferential treatment --- operates at 15 mph --- >>> considerably slower than express buses on mixed flow motorways. I suspect >>> that in miles of priority right of way Seattle is now well ahead of Portland. >>> >>> Most of the TTI based difference in traffic congestion simply reflects the >>> relationship that existed in 1982, when the first data was collected. Light >>> rail and UGB have had nothing to do with this. >>> >>> Portland is delightful and so is Seattle. And none of it has to do with >>> progressive planning or urban growth boundaries. Maybe someday it will... >>> but I doubt it. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Wendell Cox >>> 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 841- Belleville, Illinois 62222 USA >>> >>> "To facilitate the ideal of government as the servant of the people by >>> identifying and implementing strategies to achieve public purposes at a cost >>> that is no higher than necessary." >>> >>> >> >> >> >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 841- Belleville, Illinois 62222 USA > >"To facilitate the ideal of government as the servant of the people by >identifying and implementing strategies to achieve public purposes at a cost >that is no higher than necessary." > >------------------------------ > >Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 18:00:46 -0300 >From: Christopher Zegras >Subject: [sustran] Santiago Metro FY97 > >Courtesy of ChipNews, Jan. 21 www.chip.cl > >- -- SANTIAGO METRO HAD 200 MILLION USERS IN 1997. >The Santiago Metro saw a boost in passengers but a dip in profits >last year, company President Daniel Fernandez said Tuesday. >Metro had a total of 200 million passengers in 1997, an 11.9 >percent rise over the 178 million passengers in 1996. The major >cause in this rise was the incorporation of Line 5, which runs >between Plaza Italia and Plaza Vespucio in La Florida, the most >densely populated Santiago neighborhood. > Profits, however, fell 20 percent to US$2.6 million, >Fernandez said, owing to the increase in depreciation tied to the >investment in Line 5. Metro earned US$78 million in ticket sales >and spent US$75.4 million on operations. > The yearly passenger total works out to 779,000 average >daily users, compared to 676,000 average daily users in 1996. >The peak number of passengers reached 902,000 on December 23. > Metro plans to invest US$200 million this year in >technological innovations and service improvement, including: >operational improvements of US$22 million; the integration of 11 >new trains for US$108 million; train maintenance at a cost of >US$4.25 million; communication system enhancements and ticket >booth remodeling for US$18.2 million; and US$3.2 million worth of >turnstiles. Metro is also currently constructing, with a US$107 >million investment, an extension of Line 5, with service into the >heart of Santiago to a new station in the Plaza de Armas. > 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 / (*)/(*) \ > >------------------------------ > >Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 08:48:59 +0800 (MYT) >From: tkpb@barter.pc.my (Paul Barter) >Subject: [sustran] tip on list discussions > >Dear sustran-discussers > >Just a reminder that when replying to a thread of discussion, please >include in your reply only those parts of the earlier discussion that you >are directly responding to. Delete the rest of it. Especially delete >earlier signatures. > >Please do not include in your messages the whole of both sides of a >discussion. > >Thanks, >Paul. > >------------------------------ > >Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 10:26:32 +0800 (MYT) >From: tkpb@barter.pc.my (Paul Barter) >Subject: [sustran] Asian economic crisis and transport > >I am interested to hear the views of sustran-discussers on the implications >for transport of the economic problems that have effected many of the >formerly fast-growing economies in East and Southeast Asia. Will the >crisis help to bring about a change towards more equitable, people-friendly >and sustainable transport policies? Or will it set back this cause? Will >any destructive projects that are now on hold just be revived when (if?) >high growth resumes? Will there be any fundamental rethink of the way >things are done in the region? > >Some examples of transport-related impacts that I have heard of include: > >* Car sales are plummeting in a number of countries (eg. next year's sales >in Malaysia expected to be 60% lower in 1998 than in 1997). >* Conspicuous consumption has suddenly become very unpopular. This is a >big change from attitudes a year ago. Will expensive cars lose some of >their status value? >* Unfortunately a number of bus companies also have problems. There have >been announcements of cancelled purchases of urban buses in Malaysia. An >intercity bus company in Malaysia has had 32 of its coaches repossessed by >a finance company in the last few weeks. > >A number of mega-projects have been delayed or cancelled: >* The proposed bridge between Indonesia and Malaysia has been deferred >indefinitely. >* Bangkok's Hopewell expressway/mass transit project contract was >cancelled (with about 20% built). No new investors so far. >* Malaysia's Highland Highway, that is opposed by all major environmental >groups in the country, has been deferred. >* A large number of toll-highways have been completed in Malaysia in the >last two-years or are due to open over the next two years. There are now >doubts about toll-revenue projections and hence the short-term health of >the companies involved may be at risk. > >Fuel prices: >* Indonesia is to phase out gasoline subsidies (by April I think) at the >urging of the IMF. Diesel and kerosene subsidies (which effect the poor >most) will be less effected. While gasoline subsidies are probably a bad >idea, many fear social unrest because of the timing and speed with which >they are to be removed in Indonesia just when people have already seen >their buying power plummet. Would a more gradual phase-out be safer? >* Have Thailand, Korea and the Philippines (which import most of their >oil) allowed their fuel prices to rise in local currency terms to reflect >the international US$ price?? If not, then who is paying for this? >Certainly Malaysia (an oil exporter) has NOT allowed fuel prices to rise. >Presumably this means that fuel in Malaysia is now heavily subsidised (in >the sense that the country must be forgoing income on oil that could be >exported at a higher price)? > > >It is widely thought that a lack of transparency in decision-making and >accounting procedures has hampered the rebuilding of investor confidence. >Therefore there is great pressure on Asian governments and corporate >conglomerates (eg Korea's chaebols) to become more transparent: >* Indonesia has announced that preferential treatment for the national car >project (the Timur) has been cancelled. >* Malaysia is considering reversing its long-standing practice of using >(secretly) "negotiated tenders" for awarding privatised infrastructure >projects (such as toll-roads and mass transit systems). Negotiated tenders >have been criticised because of the suspicion that they encourage cronyism >and the feather-bedding of contracts. The public works minister himself has >called for a switch to the open tender method. Such a change might provide >a better chance for public scrutiny of project proposals. > > >Any responses? Please correct any mistakes or omissions that I might >have made. > >Paul. > >------------------------------ > >Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 20:33:49 +0700 >From: John Ernst >Subject: Re: [sustran] Asian economic crisis and transport > >At 09:26 AM 1/28/98 +0700, Paul Barter wrote: >> >>I am interested to hear the views of sustran-discussers on the implications >>for transport of the economic problems that have effected many of the >>formerly fast-growing economies in East and Southeast Asia. =20 >>=85 > >Paul makes a very timely request. "The Nation", one of the two primary >English-language newspapers in Bangkok, this morning featured a front-page >editorial asking their readers to support a gas tax increase. While >arguing the economic benefits, the editorial states: "The government is >understandably afraid of the political outcome". > >Indeed, Asian governments appear to be held hostage by consumers who feel >that cheap fuel benefits everyone. Since this issue hits everyone=92s >pocketbook, it is not hard to mobilize a public outcry. =20 > >Fuel price increases in the Philippines are widely perceived as hurting the >poor. A participant in a transport workshop last week in Manila argued >that it was the government=92s duty to keep gas prices low to help all the >people. When I suggested that someone driving their own Mercedes around >Manila ends up receiving a much higher subsidy from low fuel prices than a >presumably poorer person riding in a jeepney, this appeared to be new >information. =20 > >Public transport in Manila is often viewed as more of the problem than the >solution. Jeepneys and buses have been targeted as sources of pollution >and causes of congestion. (Robert Verzola has written a good summary of >biases against public transport in Manila). The concept of passenger-km as >opposed to vehicle-km does not seem to be well understood in either the >Philippines or Thailand. =20 > >>=85 >>* Have Thailand, Korea and the Philippines (which import most of their >>oil) allowed their fuel prices to rise in local currency terms to reflect >>the international US$ price?? If not, then who is paying for this? >>=85 >The Philippines are in a particular squeeze. The government attempted to >deregulate oil prices last year, but the law was declared unconstitutional >in November. While legislators attempt a new deregulation law, oil >refiners have threatened to stop importing crude oil at current prices >(reported in the Philippine Daily Enquirer, 17-Jan-98, p.1,14). In >response to this situation, last Friday, the Philippine Energy Regulatory >Board raised fuel prices by 1.18 pesos ($0.03) per liter for premium >gasoline. The price of diesel, used by jeepneys, rose 50 centavos to 7.83 >pesos per liter (roughly $0.19/liter). The price rise prompted strikes by >jeepney operators at locations throughout the country. =20 > >In Thailand, the currency has lost 50 percent of its value since June. Gas >prices have not doubled, but increased by about 33 percent. A part, but >not all, of this difference can be attributed to the fall in world oil >prices. Prices have fallen about 15 percent since June (the WTI - Cushing >spot price for crude oil was $19.26 in June 97, $16.48 on January 16, =9198)= From bsusantono at earthlink.net Fri Jan 30 13:07:23 1998 From: bsusantono at earthlink.net (Bambang Susantono) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 20:07:23 -0800 Subject: [sustran] transport and the asian econ. debacle References: <2.2.16.19980203170414.22b7758e@pop.igc.org> Message-ID: <34D151FB.7F68@earthlink.net> Dear netters, my few comments about Jakarta's transportation below: ============================================================== Institute for Transportation and Development Policy wrote: > > Just a few thoughts on Paul Barter's request for transport impacts of > the Asian economic debacle. > > Major toll road project in Surabaya was cancelled. The triple decker > toll road-light rail line proposed for Jakarta was put on hold before > the crash, but is certain to be dead in the water now. Toll roads, > normally pretty lucrative, appear to have been pretty hard hit because > they have some foreign currency borrowing but all their revenues are in > domestic currency,so they were badly hit by the change in the exchange > rate. Yes, most toll roads are delayed or postponed, but not all of them. Some of them which use domestic funds are still going. Most of the on-goint toll roads are financed by the Indonesian Highway Corporation. Triple decker is not officially canceled, although in reality there is no activity in the field. Elevated road along "Kali Malang" River, however, is still (surprisingly) on (dont know until when). > Borrowing for public sector roads from the World Bank, ADB, and JICA is > not slowing down, however; rather, it is increasing. The major roads program are the rural and regional transport project. Under the special INPRES (block grant) program to local government, one of the objective of massive road building, operation and maintenance is to provide jobs for thousands people hit by current crisis. As most of you aware, there are many lay-offs going on and unemployment rate is expected to rise exorbitantly. Here is one way to avoid any social unrest and political instability. > In Jakarta, most people are dependent on public transit, a lot of which > is in private hands. No question they are going to be hit by increased > oil prices. Food prices etc. are also rising. Only about 50 % of people use public transit. See the following study: JMATS, 1972-- 61 % public transport, 39 % cars ARSDS, 1985-- 57 % public transport, 43 % cars JMTSS, 1992-- 49.1 % public transport, 50.9 % cars Will people use public transport after the gasoline price increase? The Arterial Road System Developmetn Project shows that the probality is minuscule in the event of better public trasnport condition (note: not on the gasoline price increase). Interestingly, there is a tendency of people using carpooling, vanpooling and buspooling to save the transportation cost. My unscientific telephone survey indicates this. In fact, vanpooling and buspooling are underestimated in Jakarta trasnport study. In every major public offices or private companies, we can easily find this mode of trasnptation. > Many believe there would be riots > in Jakarta already if it weren't the middle of Ramadan, soon followed > by Idul Fitri. There is no riot so far in Jakarta! Most powerful moslem religious leaders have vowed not to tolerate any riots (especially in Jakarta). This message by "kyais" is more powerful than the armed forces. Sorry, dont want to talk about politics in this forum. > Maybe this is a strategic opportunity to push for non-motorized solutions. > Even the govt might be willing to back dramatic increases in bike use, since > it would reduce the burden of increased oil prices. Cuba went for the bike > for this reason. > I will respond this issue in separate e-mail. > Best, > Walter > Sincerely ("salam") Bambang Susantono Bintaro Jaya, Jakarta/Berkeley, CAL r.r.