[sustran] Re: sustran-discuss V1 #545

[PREMA/ BRITTO]

----- Original Message -----
From: sustran-discuss <owner-sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org>
To: <sustran-discuss-digest at jca.apc.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2000 12:00 PM
Subject: sustran-discuss V1 #545


> * To leave, send the message UNSUBSCRIBE sustran-discuss-digest
> * to majordomo at mail.jca.ax.apc.org
>
> sustran-discuss        Friday, January 21 2000        Volume 01 : Number
545
>
>
>
> In this issue:
>
>     [sustran] Air Pollution - Delhi, Etc.
>     [sustran] Re: Air Pollution - Delhi, Etc.
>     [sustran] Re: Air Pollution - Delhi, Etc.
>     [sustran] car free day in Manila? Dream on
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 15:30:57 -0600
> From: "Wendell Cox" <wcox at publicpurpose.com>
> Subject: [sustran] Air Pollution - Delhi, Etc.
>
> Within the last week there has been some discussion of the level of air
> pollution in Delhi. The following chart is republished from the London
Times
> 2000-01-17, with comparative evaluations of air pollution in urban areas
> over 10m --- Delhi ranks fourth, with cleaner air only in Mumbai, New York
> and London, according to this source. The rankings in this chart do not
> reflect my experience, or what I hear. Does anyone know what is going on.
>
> http://www.publicpurpose.com/who-arip.gif
>
> Chart was in an article that I found searching the site, so I cannot give
a
> url... Headline was "Traffic Fumes do not Harm London's Health."
>
> Best regards,
> Wendell Cox
>
> - --
> WENDELL COX CONSULTANCY: International Public Policy, Economics, Labor,
> Transport & Strategic Planning
>
> THE PUBLIC PURPOSE: Internet Public Policy Resource:
> http://www.publicpurpose.com
>      Transport Policy Discussion Group:
> http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-group.htm
>
> DEMOGRAPHIA: http://www.demographia.com
>      Urban Policy Discussion Group:
http://www.demographia.com/db-group.htm
>
> Telephone +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: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 12:55:43 +0800
> From: SUSTRAN Resource Centre <sustran at po.jaring.my>
> Subject: [sustran] Re: Air Pollution - Delhi, Etc.
>
> Dear Wendell,
>
> I am puzzled too by the graph on air pollution in cities that you
> mentioned.  The graph gives its source as the Atmospheric Research and
> Information Centre. Here are their contact details. I am also cc'ing this
> message to them.
>
> Sue Hare / Joe Buchdahl - Coordinators
> Atmospheric Research and Information Centre
> Dept. of Environmental & Geographical Sciences
> Manchester Metropolitan University
> Chester Street
> Manchester M1 5GD
> Tel: 0161 247 1590/3, Fax: 0161 247 6332
> E-mail: aric at mmu.ac.uk
> Internet: http://www.doc.mmu.ac.uk/aric/arichome.html
>
> At 15:30 19/01/00 -0600, you wrote:
> >
> >Within the last week there has been some discussion of the level of air
> >pollution in Delhi. The following chart is republished from the London
Times
> >2000-01-17, with comparative evaluations of air pollution in urban areas
> >over 10m --- Delhi ranks fourth, with cleaner air only in Mumbai, New
York
> >and London, according to this source. The rankings in this chart do not
> >reflect my experience, or what I hear. Does anyone know what is going on.
> >
> >http://www.publicpurpose.com/who-arip.gif
> >
> >Chart was in an article that I found searching the site, so I cannot give
a
> >url... Headline was "Traffic Fumes do not Harm London's Health."
> >
> >Best regards,
> >Wendell Cox
>
> PLEASE NOTE NEW 8 DIGIT TELEPHONE/FAX NUMBER
>
> A. Rahman Paul BARTER
> Sustainable Transport Action Network for Asia
> and the Pacific (the SUSTRAN Network)
> P.O. Box 11501,  Kuala Lumpur 50748, Malaysia.
> TEL/FAX: +60 3 2274 2590
> E-mail: sustran at po.jaring.my
> SUSTRAN:  http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Canopy/2853/
>
> The SUSTRAN Network promotes and popularises
> people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport
> with a focus on Asia and the Pacific.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 09:37:31 +0100
> From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org
> Subject: [sustran] Re: Air Pollution - Delhi, Etc.
>
> Headline was "Traffic Fumes do not Harm London's Health."
>
> That's really terrific. What a thoughtful and competent conclusion on the
> part of the media.  Just cause they see London up there as the "best
> performer" on the world list of eco-horrors, they feel safe to conclude
that
> there's no problem.  And so it ever goes.
>
> I detest conspiracy theories (as much as anything else because they put
you
> in such awful company), but in this case one is justified in wondering
> if....
>
> Of course there is a conspiracy.  And of course it is one of banality and
> complacency, in good part made possible because the people who should know
> better (that's you and me my friends) simply do not seem to know how to
grab
> and hold the stage.  By being "intellectually responsible", by being
> "specialized", by agreeing to do yet more studies (which either implicitly
> accept the inertial premises of an environmentally reactionary political
> establishment or, if we don't, by not making too much of a fuss about it),
> by conferring and incessantly talking to each other all the time about
> matters of common professional interest .... Hey, there are only 24 hours
in
> the day, and if we spend all our time doing this, no wonder that "Traffic
> Fumes do not Harm London's Health."
>
> Your servant is of course as guilty as the rest.  One more little white
> mouse nibbling harmlessly in his corner of the warm cage.
>
>
> Here's a piece of more hopeful news.
>
> Peter Wiederkehr of the OECD's EST (Environmentally Sustainable
> Transportation) program mentioned to me en passant yesterday that their
> global analysis of pollution factors has revealed something quite
> surprising.  Namely that it would not take an awful lot of rejiggling of
the
> transport system, at least within the OECD region, in order to achieve
some
> MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS in air quality. This is great news if true. As I
> understand it, he is not talking about Factor of Ten (or whatever) stuff,
> but rather has concluded that if we can only find a way to package the
> solution set (which in turn consists of a number of very specific, low
cost,
> trend-busting "sustainability triggers"), it is something that we should
be
> able to sell to the politicians (that is those who are not yet in jail or
> under investigation) and the public.
>
> I am going to ask him to put some of this in our forum here (for which I
am
> ever grateful to good Paul) for your information and consideration.  And
> hopefully your ideas and feedback, both to Peter and to the rest of us.
>
> Eric Britton
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 22:21:23 +0800
> From: "Heckler" <heckler at quickweb.com.ph>
> Subject: [sustran] car free day in Manila? Dream on
>
> For those of you who remember the letter that the Philippine NGO
Sustainable
> Transport Network sent to Metro Manila Development Authority Chairman
> Jejomar Binay endorsing his proposal for a carfree day in Metro Manila,
> hereunder is his verbatim reply (and uncommented as well).
>
> Dear Mr. Fernan:
>
> Thank you so much for your very encouraging letter of October 18, 1999. It
> was such a welcome respite from the barrage of criticism we received, ever
> since the plan to hold car-less days in Metro Manila saw print in several
> newspapers.
>
> I do not want to dampen your enthusiasm, but lest you be led to
prematurely
> entertain expectations on the proximity of the plan's implementation, I
> would like to inform you that it is still under study.
>
> Allow me just the same to clarify that this was not primarily intended as
a
> traffic management scheme. It was born out of our concern for the
> improvemenet of Metro Manila's air shed. As you and your group may well
> know, Metro Manila, with a vehicle density of 435 vehicles per kilometer
of
> road is already the 9th most polluted metropolis among the 40 best cities
in
> Asia and 70 percent of its air pollutants is accounted to vehicular
> emissions.
>
> Admittedly, it will take sometime before the plan can be implemented as
this
> is dependent on the existence of an efficient mass transport system. And
if
> it is any positive sign, this requirement has already been started to be
put
> in place by the government.
>
> Again, thank you very much and we look forward to your continued support.
>
> Very truly yours,
>
> Jejomar C. Binay
> Chairman
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of sustran-discuss V1 #545
> ******************************
>
>