From townsend at alcor.concordia.ca Wed Dec 1 04:10:58 2004 From: townsend at alcor.concordia.ca (Craig Townsend) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 14:10:58 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: More on motorbikes In-Reply-To: <001c01c4d6bd$df325fc0$d9659e82@Transpog> References: <0C270D0ABD2B8B44900A88DE0887F49A0467E2@MBOX01.stf.nus.edu.sg> <20214.137.132.3.7.1101801391.squirrel@137.132.3.7> <001c01c4d6bd$df325fc0$d9659e82@Transpog> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041130140009.01ca0a20@alcor.concordia.ca> Danielle, We had some vigorous exchanges on the topic on the Sustran list earlier this year (between May and August). Many of us would be interested to see studies that quantify the economic (including external costs of course) of motorcycles on a city-by-city basis. The EASTS study that you refer to has country-wide (urban and rural, national) data and it doesn't appear to have been standardized (checking the data for consistent definitions and using per capita figures) so the comparative conclusions that could be drawn are limited. Also, the economic costs/benefits are not examined. Good luck, Craig Townsend At 04:20 AM 30/11/2004, you wrote: > Hello there Mr. Johnson and to those interested in motorcycle studies, > > Thank you for this interesting article. > > A paper by Dr. Ing Hsu, Tien-Pen entitled " A Comparison Study on > Motorcycle Traffic Development in some Asian countries-Case of Taiwan, > Malaysia and Vietnam" full report available at > http://www.easts.info/Awards/ICRA-ComparisonStudyMotorcycleDevelopment.pdf > might also be of interest to you. > > > Moreover, I must admit I am particularly interested in this topic as Im > presently working on my graduate research about motorcycle propelled > vehicles, the case of tricycles and habal-habal (or motorcycle taxis with > extension that can accomodate four passengers ) in Davao City, > Philippines. Compare with other ASEAN countries, motorcycle taxi is not > as popular in our country, however in 1999, the habal-habal emerged and > initial interviews with local officials interestingly share the same > views as with those of the municipal transport official of San Paulo's. > You can read more of it at this site > http://www.iatss.or.jp/english/research/v28-n1/res-moku.html > > I would be very happy to know if there are studies that have done to > quantify its economic importance (as it is one of the thrust of my study > too). Any discussion on this from the experts is greatly appreciated. > > Many thanks! > > Best Regards, > Danielle Guillen > Graduate Student > University of Tsukuba > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Craig August Johnson" > > To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" > > Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 4:56 PM > Subject: [sustran] Economic Neccessity of Motorbikes in Sao Paulo > > > > This article was just in the NY times and I found it very interesting. > > > > It seems that globally as car transportation and congestion increase, > > motorbike taxis and couriers will play an ever critical role in > > maintaining the economic viability of these congested cities. > > > > It would be interesting to see a study that would attempt to quantify the > > relative economic advantage of such Asian cities with high amounts of > > motorbike transportation as Taipei and HCMC. > > Any comments? > > > > Craig Johnson > > > > > > > > > > > > > > November 30, 2004 > > S?O PAULO JOURNAL- NY TIMES > > Pedestrians and Drivers Beware! Motoboys Are in a Hurry > > By LARRY ROHTER > > > > ?O PAULO, Brazil - This is a city with nearly 11 million inhabitants and > > 4.5 million passenger cars, 32,000 taxis and 15,000 buses. Traffic jams > > more than 100 miles long are not uncommon, and even on an ordinary day, > > getting from one side of town to the other can take two hours or more. > > > > Only one group here in South America's largest city seems immune to those > > frustrations and delays: the daring army of motorcycle messengers known as > > "motoboys." Zigzagging among stopped cars, ignoring lane markers, red > > lights and stop signs, they regularly menace pedestrians and infuriate > > motorists as they zoom their way down gridlocked streets and highways, > > armed with the knowledge that without them business would grind to a halt. > > > > "Nowadays we are so integrated into the economy that S?o Paulo couldn't > > function without us," said Ednaldo Silva, a motoboy who owns an agency > > employing nearly 50 messengers. "People don't like us or respect us, but > > we are as essential to transport as trucks, and if we were to go on > > strike, the city would collapse." > > > > The bulk of the motoboy's work involves rushing contracts and other legal > > documents from one business to another, especially for bank loans. But > > from car parts to architect's plans, human organs for transplant to > > passports or pizza, there is almost nothing he cannot or will not deliver. > > > > "There's no way to do away with them," Gerson Lu?s Bittencourt, the > > muncipal transportation secretary, acknowledged. "They employ a ton of > > people and facilitate things for everyone. So what we have to do is find a > > way to regulate the phenomenon and restore sociability in traffic." > > > > Though no one is sure of their exact numbers, estimates start at 120,000 > > and range as high as 200,000. Many work 12 hours a day or more to earn a > > salary of $300 a month or less. > > > > According to official figures, S?o Paulo now has 332 motoboy agencies. > > Competition is strong, and they adopt names, often in English, stressing > > efficiency: Adrenaline Express, Moto Bullet, Fast Express, Agile Boys, > > Motojet, Fly Boy, Motoboy Speed, AeroBoy Express, Fast Boys. > > > > With so much emphasis on speed and so much competition with other > > vehicles, the job is often dangerous. Broken bones and wrecked cycles are > > an occupational hazard, and according to figures compiled by their union, > > on average, at least one motoboy a day dies in a traffic accident. > > > > "The truth is that we're discardable," said Edson Agripino, 38, a veteran > > of 15 years as a motoboy. "When a colleague gets hurt or killed, the first > > thing the dispatchers ask is 'Did he deliver the document?' " > > > > Nevertheless, many motoboys, especially the younger ones, see themselves > > as free spirits or urban cowboys, defying the conventions of society and > > envied by stodgy wage-earners stuck in their cars and offices. > > > > "It's great to be out on the street, on your own, watching the girls, and > > not in some cubicle with a boss bugging you all the time," said F?bio > > C?sar Lopes, who at 29 has nine years' experience as a motoboy. "I spent > > five years at an insurance agency, and believe me, not only do I make > > better money doing this, but it's a lot more fun." > > > > Ordinary motorists consider motoboys a plague, and hostility between the > > two groups is fierce and growing. There are at least 17 online chat groups > > devoted to complaining about motoboys, and conflicts in the street and > > even fistfights between drivers and motoboys are not unknown. > > > > "I can't stand motoboys," said Fl?vio Kobayashi, a graphic artist. "You're > > sitting there stuck in traffic, on your way home after a long, hard day, > > and along they come with their infernal beep-beep-beep, weaving their way > > through traffic in complete disregard of everyone else on the road. > > They'll break the rear-view mirror of your car if you get in their way, > > and any time there is an argument they come to each other's rescue to beat > > up on defenseless drivers." > > > > Pedestrians, especially newcomers from small towns in the interior, feel > > especially vulnerable. In a notorious incident in 2001, Marcelo Fromer, a > > guitarist in the popular rock group Os Tit?s, was run over and killed by a > > motoboy with an expired license, who fled but was apprehended a year > > later, tried and convicted. > > > > To bring the situation under control, the municipal government last year > > created an obligatory registry system. The new rules required all motoboys > > to pay a $110 tax, prove that they do not have a criminal record, obtain > > life insurance, wear a helmet, drive motorcycles less than 10 years old > > and carry their cargo in a rear-mounted basket with a license number on > > it, so they can be tracked. > > > > But motoboys resisted the system, saying it was devised to banish them > > from the streets. Only 40,000 of them registered, and they organized > > protests that blocked some main streets. During the campaign leading up to > > the mayoral election here in October, some candidates endorsed their > > position and obtained judicial restraining orders exempting individual > > motoboys from registration, which eventually forced Mayor Marta Suplicy to > > rescind the program. > > > > A few years ago, Congress tried a different tack and passed a law that > > would have made it essentially illegal for motoboys to practice their > > profession, which has begun spreading to other cities in Brazil. But the > > president at the time, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, who is from S?o Paulo, > > vetoed the bill, tacitly recognizing the indispensability of the motoboy. > > > > "Everybody hates the motoboys except when they need one themselves," said > > Ca?to Ortiz, the director of "Motoboys: Crazy Life," a recent > > prize-winning documentary. "When he's rushing some document of yours > > across town, then he becomes your savior, a hero, and you adore the guy." > > > > > > > > > From et3 at et3.com Wed Dec 1 05:37:41 2004 From: et3 at et3.com (Daryl Oster) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 15:37:41 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: More on motorbikes In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20041130140009.01ca0a20@alcor.concordia.ca> Message-ID: <20041130203817.93E172DCE6@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> Motorcycles have several cost and safety advantages over other modes: A couple of measures that best indicate a vehicles efficiency and relative safety in an urban environment is the vehicle mass per occupant, and the vehicle mass per driver. The vehicle mass per occupant is a good metric to compare the relative efficiency of materials, and energy use: For a motorcycle with a mass of 100kg, the average vehicle mass per occupant is either 50kg at best (vehicle fully loaded), to 100kg worst case(only the driver). For a car of 900kg, the vehicle mass per passenger is about 150kg/pasenger at best, to 900kg/passenger worst. For a 10,000kg 50 passenger bus, the best case is 200kg, and the worst case is 10,000kg. For a train, the mass per occupant are yet higher. The mechanics of material use dictates that larger vehicles will required more material use per occupant under best case, and the usual case of less than 100% load factor, the real world material utilization is much worse. It is true that motorcycle death rate is much greater than the rate in cars or busses. How much of that is the fault of the motorcycle, and how much is the fault of the cars and buses? For equal speed of vehicles, the fully loaded vehicle mass per driver is a good measure of the relative potential for one individual to cause damage in the event of loss of vehicle control, or failure to observe the ROW: Motorcycle = 150kg to 500kg per driver Private Automobile= 1500kg to 5000kg per driver Bus= 5,000kg to 20,000kg / driver For a given speed, the motorcycle represents the lowest risk to others, by more than a factor of 10. The private automobile driver not only has responsibility for more passengers, they also can cause much greater damage to other vehicles, and or property. The bus driver has far more potential to cause death in the event of an error, for the passengers on the bus, AND those other pedestrians and vehicles on the street. There is much evidence to support the view that bus drivers abuse pedestrians, car, and motorcycle occupants by un-rightfully taking the ROW through intimidation by virtue of their potential to damage other vehicles (with little relative risk to the bus driver). By contrast, motorcyclists, since they are more exposed to greater personal risk, they drive more cautiously, and do not aggressively take the ROW from other vehicles that by law should have priority. An observer will rarely see a motorcycle pull out in front of a bus, while it is frequent that busses will bull out in front of motorcycles that must make defensive maneuvers to avoid injury. Daryl Oster (c) 2004? all rights reserved.? ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth" e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks of et3.com Inc.? For licensing information contact:??? et3@et3.com , www.et3.com? POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423? (352)257-1310 > -----Original Message----- > From: sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com@list.jca.apc.org > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of > Craig Townsend > Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 2:11 PM > To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport > Subject: [sustran] Re: More on motorbikes > > Danielle, > > > We had some vigorous exchanges on the topic on the Sustran list earlier > > this year (between May and August). Many of us would be interested to see > > studies that quantify the economic (including external costs of course) of > > motorcycles on a city-by-city basis. The EASTS study that you refer to has > > country-wide (urban and rural, national) data and it doesn't appear to > have > > been standardized (checking the data for consistent definitions and using > > per capita figures) so the comparative conclusions that could be drawn are > > limited. Also, the economic costs/benefits are not examined. > > > Good luck, > > > Craig Townsend > > > > At 04:20 AM 30/11/2004, you wrote: > > > > Hello there Mr. Johnson and to those interested in motorcycle studies, > > > > > > Thank you for this interesting article. > > > > > > A paper by Dr. Ing Hsu, Tien-Pen entitled " A Comparison Study on > > > Motorcycle Traffic Development in some Asian countries-Case of Taiwan, > > > Malaysia and Vietnam" full report available at > > > http://www.easts.info/Awards/ICRA- > ComparisonStudyMotorcycleDevelopment.pdf > > > might also be of interest to you. > > > > > > > > > Moreover, I must admit I am particularly interested in this topic as Im > > > presently working on my graduate research about motorcycle propelled > > > vehicles, the case of tricycles and habal-habal (or motorcycle taxis > with > > > extension that can accomodate four passengers ) in Davao City, > > > Philippines. Compare with other ASEAN countries, motorcycle taxi is not > > > as popular in our country, however in 1999, the habal-habal emerged and > > > initial interviews with local officials interestingly share the same > > > views as with those of the municipal transport official of San Paulo's. > > > You can read more of it at this site > > > http://www.iatss.or.jp/english/research/v28-n1/res-moku.html > > > > > > I would be very happy to know if there are studies that have done to > > > quantify its economic importance (as it is one of the thrust of my study > > > too). Any discussion on this from the experts is greatly appreciated. > > > > > > Many thanks! > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > Danielle Guillen > > > Graduate Student > > > University of Tsukuba > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Craig August Johnson" > > > > > > To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 4:56 PM > > > Subject: [sustran] Economic Neccessity of Motorbikes in Sao Paulo > > > > > > > > > > This article was just in the NY times and I found it very > interesting. > > > > > > > > It seems that globally as car transportation and congestion increase, > > > > motorbike taxis and couriers will play an ever critical role in > > > > maintaining the economic viability of these congested cities. > > > > > > > > It would be interesting to see a study that would attempt to quantify > the > > > > relative economic advantage of such Asian cities with high amounts of > > > > motorbike transportation as Taipei and HCMC. > > > > Any comments? > > > > > > > > Craig Johnson > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > November 30, 2004 > > > > S?O PAULO JOURNAL- NY TIMES > > > > Pedestrians and Drivers Beware! Motoboys Are in a Hurry > > > > By LARRY ROHTER > > > > > > > > ?O PAULO, Brazil - This is a city with nearly 11 million inhabitants > and > > > > 4.5 million passenger cars, 32,000 taxis and 15,000 buses. Traffic > jams > > > > more than 100 miles long are not uncommon, and even on an ordinary > day, > > > > getting from one side of town to the other can take two hours or > more. > > > > > > > > Only one group here in South America's largest city seems immune to > those > > > > frustrations and delays: the daring army of motorcycle messengers > known as > > > > "motoboys." Zigzagging among stopped cars, ignoring lane markers, red > > > > lights and stop signs, they regularly menace pedestrians and > infuriate > > > > motorists as they zoom their way down gridlocked streets and > highways, > > > > armed with the knowledge that without them business would grind to a > halt. > > > > > > > > "Nowadays we are so integrated into the economy that S?o Paulo > couldn't > > > > function without us," said Ednaldo Silva, a motoboy who owns an > agency > > > > employing nearly 50 messengers. "People don't like us or respect us, > but > > > > we are as essential to transport as trucks, and if we were to go on > > > > strike, the city would collapse." > > > > > > > > The bulk of the motoboy's work involves rushing contracts and other > legal > > > > documents from one business to another, especially for bank loans. > But > > > > from car parts to architect's plans, human organs for transplant to > > > > passports or pizza, there is almost nothing he cannot or will not > deliver. > > > > > > > > "There's no way to do away with them," Gerson Lu?s Bittencourt, the > > > > muncipal transportation secretary, acknowledged. "They employ a ton > of > > > > people and facilitate things for everyone. So what we have to do is > find a > > > > way to regulate the phenomenon and restore sociability in traffic." > > > > > > > > Though no one is sure of their exact numbers, estimates start at > 120,000 > > > > and range as high as 200,000. Many work 12 hours a day or more to > earn a > > > > salary of $300 a month or less. > > > > > > > > According to official figures, S?o Paulo now has 332 motoboy > agencies. > > > > Competition is strong, and they adopt names, often in English, > stressing > > > > efficiency: Adrenaline Express, Moto Bullet, Fast Express, Agile > Boys, > > > > Motojet, Fly Boy, Motoboy Speed, AeroBoy Express, Fast Boys. > > > > > > > > With so much emphasis on speed and so much competition with other > > > > vehicles, the job is often dangerous. Broken bones and wrecked cycles > are > > > > an occupational hazard, and according to figures compiled by their > union, > > > > on average, at least one motoboy a day dies in a traffic accident. > > > > > > > > "The truth is that we're discardable," said Edson Agripino, 38, a > veteran > > > > of 15 years as a motoboy. "When a colleague gets hurt or killed, the > first > > > > thing the dispatchers ask is 'Did he deliver the document?' " > > > > > > > > Nevertheless, many motoboys, especially the younger ones, see > themselves > > > > as free spirits or urban cowboys, defying the conventions of society > and > > > > envied by stodgy wage-earners stuck in their cars and offices. > > > > > > > > "It's great to be out on the street, on your own, watching the girls, > and > > > > not in some cubicle with a boss bugging you all the time," said F?bio > > > > C?sar Lopes, who at 29 has nine years' experience as a motoboy. "I > spent > > > > five years at an insurance agency, and believe me, not only do I make > > > > better money doing this, but it's a lot more fun." > > > > > > > > Ordinary motorists consider motoboys a plague, and hostility between > the > > > > two groups is fierce and growing. There are at least 17 online chat > groups > > > > devoted to complaining about motoboys, and conflicts in the street > and > > > > even fistfights between drivers and motoboys are not unknown. > > > > > > > > "I can't stand motoboys," said Fl?vio Kobayashi, a graphic artist. > "You're > > > > sitting there stuck in traffic, on your way home after a long, hard > day, > > > > and along they come with their infernal beep-beep-beep, weaving their > way > > > > through traffic in complete disregard of everyone else on the road. > > > > They'll break the rear-view mirror of your car if you get in their > way, > > > > and any time there is an argument they come to each other's rescue to > beat > > > > up on defenseless drivers." > > > > > > > > Pedestrians, especially newcomers from small towns in the interior, > feel > > > > especially vulnerable. In a notorious incident in 2001, Marcelo > Fromer, a > > > > guitarist in the popular rock group Os Tit?s, was run over and killed > by a > > > > motoboy with an expired license, who fled but was apprehended a year > > > > later, tried and convicted. > > > > > > > > To bring the situation under control, the municipal government last > year > > > > created an obligatory registry system. The new rules required all > motoboys > > > > to pay a $110 tax, prove that they do not have a criminal record, > obtain > > > > life insurance, wear a helmet, drive motorcycles less than 10 years > old > > > > and carry their cargo in a rear-mounted basket with a license number > on > > > > it, so they can be tracked. > > > > > > > > But motoboys resisted the system, saying it was devised to banish > them > > > > from the streets. Only 40,000 of them registered, and they organized > > > > protests that blocked some main streets. During the campaign leading > up to > > > > the mayoral election here in October, some candidates endorsed their > > > > position and obtained judicial restraining orders exempting > individual > > > > motoboys from registration, which eventually forced Mayor Marta > Suplicy to > > > > rescind the program. > > > > > > > > A few years ago, Congress tried a different tack and passed a law > that > > > > would have made it essentially illegal for motoboys to practice their > > > > profession, which has begun spreading to other cities in Brazil. But > the > > > > president at the time, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, who is from S?o > Paulo, > > > > vetoed the bill, tacitly recognizing the indispensability of the > motoboy. > > > > > > > > "Everybody hates the motoboys except when they need one themselves," > said > > > > Ca?to Ortiz, the director of "Motoboys: Crazy Life," a recent > > > > prize-winning documentary. "When he's rushing some document of yours > > > > across town, then he becomes your savior, a hero, and you adore the > guy." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by Netsignia Online, and is > believed to be clean. > From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Thu Dec 2 17:31:30 2004 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (EcoPlan, Paris) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 09:31:30 +0100 Subject: [sustran] motorcycles and buses Message-ID: <006801c4d849$55ea09b0$6501a8c0@jazz> -----Original Message----- From: Simon Norton [mailto:S.Norton@dpmms.cam.ac.uk] Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 11:25 PM To: newmobilitycafe@yahoogroups.com As a bus user I strongly resent Daryl Oster's suggestion that bus drivers abuse other road users. In my experience they are more likely to keep giving way to other traffic, which is one reason why buses are so slow. If a bus has 50 people on it, why should it have to give way to a series of vehicles with 1-2 people in them each ? And even if it has only 5 people, maybe some of those empty seats could be used to replace vehicles on the street if buses could run at a decent speed, thus helping to reduce congestion for the benefit of all. In my experience motorcyclists, far from being defensive, are among the most aggressive of drivers. This was specifically stated in that article about "motoboys". Motorcyclists demand to be able to use bus lanes even though the purpose of bus lanes is, or should be, to give users of public transport priority over those who bring their own motor vehicles onto the streets. When pedestrians are taking advantage of a car jam to cross streets they have to look out for motorcyclists weaving in and out. Motorcycles are big noise makers. By a coincidence in today's Guardian newspaper there were two answers to a "Notes and Queries" question about why motorcycles seemed to be exempt from noise regulations. One was from something called the Motorcycle Action Group which said that they had warned European governments that the reaction of motorcyclists to tough noise regulations would be to ignore them, and another was from someone who said that he regarded it as music not noise. Well I don't see why I should have to listen to someone's music either, especially if it is in a style I abhor. The whole concept of private transport is based on the idea that the interests of a single person -- its user -- should have priority over the interests of the whole community that has to put up with them. This is as true for motorcycles as it is for cars. Simon Norton The New Mobility Agenda is permanently at http://NewMobility.org To post messages to list: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com To unsubscribe: NewMobilityCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Free group video/voice-conferencing via http://newmobilitypartners.org Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT click here _____ Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewMobilityCafe/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: NewMobilityCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041202/21d5f826/attachment.html From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Thu Dec 2 17:37:01 2004 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (EcoPlan, Paris) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 09:37:01 +0100 Subject: [sustran] motorcycles and buses Message-ID: <006d01c4d84a$1b2add30$6501a8c0@jazz> -----Original Message----- From: Simon Norton [mailto:S.Norton@dpmms.cam.ac.uk] Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 11:25 PM To: newmobilitycafe@yahoogroups.com As a bus user I strongly resent Daryl Oster's suggestion that bus drivers abuse other road users. In my experience they are more likely to keep giving way to other traffic, which is one reason why buses are so slow. If a bus has 50 people on it, why should it have to give way to a series of vehicles with 1-2 people in them each ? And even if it has only 5 people, maybe some of those empty seats could be used to replace vehicles on the street if buses could run at a decent speed, thus helping to reduce congestion for the benefit of all. In my experience motorcyclists, far from being defensive, are among the most aggressive of drivers. This was specifically stated in that article about "motoboys". Motorcyclists demand to be able to use bus lanes even though the purpose of bus lanes is, or should be, to give users of public transport priority over those who bring their own motor vehicles onto the streets. When pedestrians are taking advantage of a car jam to cross streets they have to look out for motorcyclists weaving in and out. Motorcycles are big noise makers. By a coincidence in today's Guardian newspaper there were two answers to a "Notes and Queries" question about why motorcycles seemed to be exempt from noise regulations. One was from something called the Motorcycle Action Group which said that they had warned European governments that the reaction of motorcyclists to tough noise regulations would be to ignore them, and another was from someone who said that he regarded it as music not noise. Well I don't see why I should have to listen to someone's music either, especially if it is in a style I abhor. The whole concept of private transport is based on the idea that the interests of a single person -- its user -- should have priority over the interests of the whole community that has to put up with them. This is as true for motorcycles as it is for cars. Simon Norton The New Mobility Agenda is permanently at http://NewMobility.org To post messages to list: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com To unsubscribe: NewMobilityCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Free group video/voice-conferencing via http://newmobilitypartners.org Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT click here _____ Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewMobilityCafe/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: NewMobilityCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041202/70dbfcec/attachment.html From et3 at et3.com Fri Dec 3 04:32:48 2004 From: et3 at et3.com (Daryl Oster) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 14:32:48 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: motorcycles and buses In-Reply-To: <006d01c4d84a$1b2add30$6501a8c0@jazz> Message-ID: <20041202193320.734852D80E@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> Simon, I am glad to learn that you are a bus driver who properly obeys the rules of ROW; and I hope your example is able to radiate to the hundreds of bus drivers we observed during our months in Chengdu. Am I understanding you correctly that you believe that busses should have priority according to the capacity of the vehicle? I agree that there are some very aggressive motorcycle drivers, and I condemn the ROW rule violations they make. I also agree with you that busses have some advantages over motorcycles as you point out, this dose not change the various safety and cost related advantages of motorcycles that I illustrated in my post. > The whole concept of private transport is based on the idea that the > interests of a single person -- its user -- should have priority over the > interests of the whole community that has to put up with them. This is as > true for motorcycles as it is for cars. This is patently false. Cars and motorcycles are not generally given special priority over busses and taxis. All road vehicles must follow the same rules - unless busses or trucks are unable to use some streets because of physical size or weight constraints. If there is any special priority, it is special lanes granted to busses and HOVs, and the exclusive priority given to trains at at-grade road crossings of RR ROW (ever see a train stop and wait for cars or motorcycles?). Daryl Oster (c) 2004? all rights reserved.? ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth" e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks of et3.com Inc.? For licensing information contact:??? et3@et3.com , www.et3.com? POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423? (352)257-1310 > -----Original Message----- > From: sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com@list.jca.apc.org > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of > EcoPlan, Paris > Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 3:37 AM > To: Sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org > Subject: [sustran] motorcycles and buses > > -----Original Message----- > From: Simon Norton [mailto:S.Norton@dpmms.cam.ac.uk] > Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 11:25 PM > To: newmobilitycafe@yahoogroups.com > > > As a bus user I strongly resent Daryl Oster's suggestion that bus drivers > abuse > other road users. In my experience they are more likely to keep giving way > to > other traffic, which is one reason why buses are so slow. > > If a bus has 50 people on it, why should it have to give way to a series > of > vehicles with 1-2 people in them each ? And even if it has only 5 people, > maybe > some of those empty seats could be used to replace vehicles on the street > if > buses could run at a decent speed, thus helping to reduce congestion for > the > benefit of all. > > In my experience motorcyclists, far from being defensive, are among the > most > aggressive of drivers. This was specifically stated in that article about > "motoboys". Motorcyclists demand to be able to use bus lanes even though > the > purpose of bus lanes is, or should be, to give users of public transport > priority over those who bring their own motor vehicles onto the streets. > When > pedestrians are taking advantage of a car jam to cross streets they have > to look > out for motorcyclists weaving in and out. > > Motorcycles are big noise makers. By a coincidence in today's Guardian > newspaper > there were two answers to a "Notes and Queries" question about why > motorcycles > seemed to be exempt from noise regulations. One was from something called > the > Motorcycle Action Group which said that they had warned European > governments > that the reaction of motorcyclists to tough noise regulations would be to > ignore > them, and another was from someone who said that he regarded it as music > not > noise. Well I don't see why I should have to listen to someone's music > either, > especially if it is in a style I abhor. > > The whole concept of private transport is based on the idea that the > interests > of a single person -- its user -- should have priority over the interests > of the > whole community that has to put up with them. This is as true for > motorcycles as > it is for cars. > > Simon Norton > From litman at vtpi.org Fri Dec 3 21:19:56 2004 From: litman at vtpi.org (Todd Alexander Litman) Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 04:19:56 -0800 Subject: [sustran] VTPI News - Fall 2004 Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20041203041942.0253a5c0@mail.highspeedplus.com> ----------- VTPI NEWS ----------- Victoria Transport Policy Institute "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity" ------------------------------------ Fall 2004 Vol. 7, No. 3 ---------------------------------- The Victoria Transport Policy Institute is an independent research organization dedicated to developing innovative solutions to transportation problems. The VTPI website (http://www.vtpi.org) has many resources addressing a wide range of transport planning and policy issues. VTPI also provides consulting services. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ VTPI WEBSITE UPDATE ==================== We have updated our website (http://www.vtpi.org). The new format is easier to read and navigate, and contains a search feature. Thanks to our Web Wizards Nathan Kelerstein and Christopher Stevenson for their excellent work! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ PAY-AS-YOU-DRIVE IMPLEMENTATION ================================ Pay-As-You-Drive (PAYD) means that fixed vehicle charges are converted into distance-based charges, giving motorists a new opportunity to save money when they reduce their mileage. Recently, Polis Direct, a major Dutch insurance company, introduced their "Kilometre Policy" (http://www.kilometerpolis.nl), the first PAYD insurance based on simple odometer readings. With this policy, per-kilometer premiums are calculated by dividing current premiums by the current policy's maximum annual kilometer value. A motorist who currently pays ?500 (Euro) with a 20,000 maximum annual kilometer policy will pay ?0.025 per kilometer, and one who pays ?1,000 with a 25,000 maximum annual kilometer policy pays ?0.04 per kilometer. Participants pay an "advance premium," which is 90% of their current premium, so a motorist who currently pays ?500 pays an advance premium of ?450. At the end of the policy term the motorist receives a rebate or pays extra based on how much they drive, up to 50% of their premium. EXAMPLE Current Policy: ?500 premium with 20,000 maximum annual kilometers. Per-Kilometer Fee: ?500/20,000 is ?0.025 First Year Advance Premium: ?500 x 90% = ?450 Year End Adjustments: If the motorist drives 14,000 kms they receive a ?100 rebate, for a total annual premium of ?350, a ?150 savings. If the motorist drives 18,000 kms they have no end-of-year adjustment, for a total annual premium of ?450, a ?50 savings. If the motorist drives 20,000 kms they pay an additional ?50, for a total annual premium of ?500, the same as they previously paid. If the motorist drives 22,000 kms they pay an additional ?100, for a total annual premium of ?550, a ?50 increase. Mileage data are collected during annual vehicle inspections and recorded in the national vehicle registration database. Odometer readings can also be obtained through service stations, for example, if a vehicle is transferred to a new owner. This policy is available to any motorist in the Netherlands who is at least 24 years of age, has a car worth less than ?42,000 new, and drives less than 40,000 kms annually. It is the result of three years of research and development by the TNO INRO research organization, with help from government agencies, private insurance companies, and the Victoria Transport Policy Institute (see http://www.ce.nl/eng/pdf/03_4224_35_summary.pdf). The Dutch government is promoting PAYD pricing (what they call vehicle fee "variabilization") to help reduce congestion, accident and pollution emission problems. VTPI helped plant the seed for this program when Todd Litman visited the Netherlands a couple years ago as a guest of TNO, to share information on transportation pricing reforms such as PAYD insurance. Dutch research on PAYD insurance included a market survey (N=906, October 2004) which found that: . 71% of motorists want PAYD (woman 74% and men 69%). . 54% say that car insurance price is the most important reason to choose an insurance company. . 39% wants to be able to influence directly how much they pay for insurance. . 33% would be more considerate about using the car if they had PAYD insurance. It will be interesting to see how this affects the Dutch insurance market. We expect the Kilometre Policy to attract many new customers, since this is a unique new product that offers many motorists significant savings. Other insurance companies will need to offer comparable products or lose market share. For more information on PAYD insurance see: "Pay-As-You-Drive Vehicle Insurance," Online TDM Encyclopedia (http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm79.htm). "Distance-Based Vehicle Insurance as a TDM Strategy" (http://www.vtpi.org/dbvi.pdf) "Pay-As-You-Drive Pricing for Insurance Affordability" (http://www.vtpi.org/payd_aff.pdf) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ NEW DOCUMENTS ============= "Safe Travels: Evaluating Mobility Management Safety Benefits," (http://www.vtpi.org/safetrav.pdf). This paper investigates the traffic safety impacts of mobility management strategies. Mileage reductions resulting from pricing and land use reforms tend to cause proportionate or larger reductions in crashes, and mode shifts also tend to provide significant safety benefits. Because most crashes involve multiple vehicles, reducing vehicle mileage reduces risk both to motorists who drive less and to other road users. This analysis indicates that mobility management can be a cost effective traffic safety strategy, and increased safety is one of the largest potential benefits of mobility management, but these benefits are often overlooked in conventional transport planning. "Rail Transit In America: Comprehensive Evaluation of Benefits" (http://www.vtpi.org/railben.pdf). This report evaluates the benefits of rail transit based on a comprehensive analysis of transportation system performance in major U.S. cities. It finds that cities with larger, well-established rail systems have significantly higher per capita transit ridership, lower average per capita vehicle ownership and mileage, less traffic congestion, lower traffic death rates and lower consumer transportation expenditures than otherwise comparable cities. "Evaluating Rail Transit Criticism" (http://www.vtpi.org/railcrit.pdf) This report evaluates criticism of rail transit. It examines claims that rail transit is ineffective at improving transportation system performance, that rail transit investments are not cost effective, and that transit is an outdated form of transportation. It finds that critics often misrepresent issues and use biased and inaccurate analysis. This is a companion to the report "Rail Transit in America: A Comprehensive Evaluation of Benefits." "Financing Transit Systems Through Value Capture: An Annotated Bibliography" (http://www.vtpi.org/smith.htm), by Jeffery J. Smith and Thomas A. Gihring This paper summarizes the findings of nearly 100 studies concerning the impacts of transit service on nearby property values, and the feasibility of capturing this additional value to finance transit improvements. The results indicate that proximity to transit often increases property values enough to offset much or all of transit system capital costs. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ UPDATED DOCUMENTS ================= We had such a wonderful time at the ProWalk/Bike conference earlier this fall that we updated ournonmotorized transportation documents. These are now available on our website. "Quantifying the Benefits of Nonmotorized Transportation For Achieving Mobility Management Objectives" (http://www.vtpi.org/nmt-tdm.pdf) This paper investigates the ability of nonmotorized travel (walking and cycling, and their variants) to help achieve transportation planning objectives such as congestion reduction, road and parking facility cost savings, consumer cost savings, and various environmental and social benefits. This analysis indicates that nonmotorized travel provides significant benefits, and that these benefits can increase with cost effective incentives. Conventional transportation evaluation practices tend to overlook many of these benefits and so undervalue nonmotorized transportation improvements and incentives. Whose Roads: Defining Bicyclists? and Pedestrians? Right to Use Public Roadways " (http://www.vtpi.org/whoserd.pdf) The paper investigates assumptions that nonmotorized modes are less important to society than motorized modes, and that roads are funded by motorists. It finds that nonmotorized modes play a critical role in an efficient transportation system, and that local roads, the roads used most for walking and cycling, are funded primarily by general taxes, which residents pay regardless of how they travel. Since non-drivers impose lower roadway costs they tend to overpay their fair share of roadway expenses. "Economic Value of Walkability" (http://www.vtpi.org/walkability.pdf). This paper describes ways to evaluate the value of walking (the activity) and walkability (the quality of walking conditions, including safety, comfort and convenience). Walking and walkability provide a variety of economic, social and environmental benefits. More comprehensive analysis tends to justify increased support for walking and other nonmotorized modes of travel. "Understanding Smart Growth Savings: What We Know About Public Infrastructure and Service Cost Savings, And How They are Misrepresented By Critics" (http://www.vtpi.org/sg_save.pdf) Various studies show that Smart Growth can save hundreds of dollars annually per capita compared with providing comparable public services to sprawled destinations. Most current development charges, utility fees and taxes fail to accurately reflect these location-related cost differences, representing a subsidy of sprawl. This paper summarizes estimates of Smart Growth savings, and critiques claims that such savings are insignificant. ONLINE TDM ENCYCLOPEDIA (http://www.vtpi.org/tdm) The VTPI "Online TDM Encyclopedia" is the most comprehensive resource available anywhere to help identify and evaluate innovative management solutions to transport problems. We continually update and expand the Encyclopedia. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ PUBLISHED ELSEWHERE ==================== Todd Litman, "Transit Price Elasticities and Cross-Elasticities," Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 7, No. 2, (www.nctr.usf.edu/jpt/pdf/JPT 7-2 Litman.pdf), 2004, pp. 37-58. WBCSM, "Mobility 2030: Meeting the Challenges to Sustainability," The Sustainable Mobility Project, World Business Council for Sustainable Mobility (http://www.wbcsd.org), 2004. This major international report describes various ways to create more sustainable transportation systems. It cites VTPI as a leading source of information on demand management issues and strategies. "Evaluating Public Transit Benefits in St. Louis: Critique of 'Light Rail Boon or Boondoggle'", Citizens for Modern Transit (http://www.cmt-stl.org/images/litman.pdf), 2004. This paper, written by Todd Litman for Citizens for Modern Transit, evaluates an article critical of rail transit investments. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ UPCOMING EVENTS ================ 2005 TRB Annual Meeting The 2005 Transportation Research Board 84th Annual Meeting takes place January 9-13, 2005 in Washington DC. VTPI Director Todd Litman will chair the TRB Sustainable Transportation Evaluation and Indicators Subcommittee. This subcommittee explores practical ways of evaluating progress toward sustainable transportation. Please contact him if you have questions or suggestions concerning this subcommittee. Transit and Economic Development: Current Thinking (P05-0706) SESSION #220: Public Transportation and Economic Development Monday, January 10, 2005, 8:00am- 9:45am, Hilton, International East Comprehensive Evaluation of Transportation Costs (05-1130) SESSION #304: Cost Estimation for Planning and Policy: What is a Cost? Monday, January 10, 2005, 1:30pm- 3:15pm, Hilton, International West. Practical Indicators for Sustainable Transportation Planning (05-1700) SESSION #462: Sustainable Transportation Planning Indicators Tuesday, January 11, 2005, 10:15am-12:00pm, Hilton, International West TITLE: SPONSORED BY: Task Force on Transportation and Sustainability PRESIDING OFFICER: Todd Alexander Litman, Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Rail Transit Impacts on Transportation System Performance (05-0810) SESSION #524: Rail Transit Systems Performance Tuesday, January 11, 2005, 2:30pm- 5:00pm, Hilton, International Center. Racial Justice in Transportation: A Metropolitan Policy Agenda, a special workshop sponsored by the Harvard University Civil Rights Project (www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu) and the Brookings Institute Metropolitan Policy Program (http://www.brookings.edu/metro/metro.htm). Thursday, January 13, Washington DC. "Community Challenges," Transportation Planning Workshop Friday, January 28, Orlando, Florida. IMPACT: Implementation Paths for ACTion towards sustainable mobility. Workshop, February 10-11, at Lund University, Sweden. Please contact Todd Litman (litman@vtpi.org) if there are other speaking or consulting opportunities for him in Northern Europe around that time. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ USEFUL RESOURCES ================= TFN Employment Connections The Transportation Futures Network (TFN) "Employment Connections" is a periodic compilation of job positions working on innovative transportation programs across North America, distributed by email.Employment Connections is a free service of the Transportation Futures Network (TFN). TFN believes that sensible transportation decisions are an essential ingredient of viable communities and therefore should support environmental quality, social equity, community development and economic efficiency. To that end, TFN works to cultivate progressive leadership in the transportation field by matching the right people with the right jobs in areas broadly related to the transportation field. If you would like to receive TFN Employment Connections, or if you would like to submit an employment posting, please send an email to mernst@tstc.org "Smart Bylaws Guide," by the West Coast Environmental Law Foundation (http://www.wcel.org/issues/urban/sbg), 2004. This comprehensive guide is designed to help local governments implement smart growth strategies through policy and bylaw changes. It describes smart growth concepts and implementation practices, and backs up the theory with case studies, technical standards and bylaws that can be tailored to specific municipal circumstances. The Guide brings together the best practices throughout North America. It complements the "Smart Growth Policy Reforms" chapter of our Online TDM Encyclopedia (http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm95.htm). "The New Transit Town: Best Practices In Transit-Oriented Development," by Hank Dittmar and Gloria Ohland, Island Press" (www.islandpress.org), 2004. This new book defines and describes transit oriented development, and discusses in detail how it can be implemented, including sections on planning and design, financing, regulations and zoning codes, parking and traffic management, and several detailed case studies. "Reconnecting America, Hidden In Plain Sight: Capturing The Demand For Housing Near Transit," (http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/html/TOD/newReport.htm), by Reconnecting America, for the Federal Transit Administration, 2004. This market study indicates that a growing portion of households value living in walkable communities near quality transit service, due to current demographic and real estate trends. "Smarter Choices - Changing the Way We Travel" UK Department for Transport (http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_control/documents/contentservertemplate/dft_index.hcst?n=10689&l=1), July 2004. This remarkable report draws on research on the effectiveness of mobility management programs and their potential for improving transportation system performance. It analyzes various strategies, including commute trip reduction programs, school transport management, mobility management marketing, carsharing and improved transit service information. It assesses their combined potential impacts and costs. It evaluates two different policy scenarios: a 'high intensity' scenario is projected to reduce peak period urban traffic by about 21% (off-peak 13%), and provide a nationwide reduction in all traffic of about 11%. The 'low intensity' scenario, which essentially reflects current levels of effort, is projected to reduce national vehicle traffic by just 2-3%. "Licenses Take A Back Seat: As High Schools Cut Driver's Education, Fewer Teens Are Getting Behind The Wheel," Los Angeles Times, By Shawn Hubler, December 2, 2004, front page; available at http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-et-teens2dec02,0,5974103.story?coll=la-home-headlines. This fascinating article indicates that a declining portion of U.S. teenagers are licensed to drive (from 52% of teens in 1992 to 43% in 2002), and that automobiles are becoming less important to young people. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Please let us know if you have comments or questions about any information in this newsletter, or if you would like to be removed from our mailing list. And please pass this newsletter on to others who may find it useful. Sincerely, Todd Litman, Director Victoria Transport Policy Institute "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity" 1250 Rudlin Street Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, Canada Phone & Fax: 250-360-1560 Email: litman@vtpi.org Website: http://www.vtpi.org From info at worldcarfree.net Tue Dec 7 06:36:11 2004 From: info at worldcarfree.net (info@worldcarfree.net) Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 22:36:11 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Dhaka Rickshaw Ban / World Bank Message-ID: <41B4DEDB.16426.2C202BB@localhost> [ Action Alert Released Today: www.worldcarfree.net/dhaka/ ] Summary: SAVE THE RICKSHAWS OF DHAKA The World Bank is urging Dhaka, Bangladesh, to outlaw one of the most efficient and beautiful forms of transport, the bicycle rickshaw, on a total of eight main roads. In Dhaka, most journeys are made on foot, and bicycle rickshaws are the main form of vehicular transport. Rickshaws are an efficient, non-polluting way to move around, and for many people without job skills, pulling a rickshaw is the only option other than begging or crime. It is estimated that five million people in Bangladesh are dependent on the income of rickshaw pullers for their survival. Make December the month to fight for the rickshaw. Tell the World Bank what you think of their idea: . ________________________________________________ WORLD CARFREE NETWORK Kratka 26, 100 00 Prague 10, Czech Republic tel: +(420) 274-810-849 - fax: +(420) 274-772-017 - ________________________________________________ From pendakur at interchange.ubc.ca Tue Dec 7 07:15:01 2004 From: pendakur at interchange.ubc.ca (V. Setty Pendakur) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 14:15:01 -0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Dhaka Rickshaw Ban / World Bank References: <41B4DEDB.16426.2C202BB@localhost> Message-ID: <002101c4dbe1$0e5ae920$975d4540@vqo1g195m03x39> Can we get some more details on why, who, where, what was the basis for this decision and any thing else? Then we can make a good case for our point of view. Cheers. V. Setty Pendakur President Pacific Policy and Planning Associates 702--1099 Marinaside Crescent Vancouver, BC, Canada V6Z 2Z3 Phone: 604-263-3576; Fax:604-263-6493 ----- Original Message ----- From: info@worldcarfree.net To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 1:36 PM Subject: [sustran] Dhaka Rickshaw Ban / World Bank [ Action Alert Released Today: www.worldcarfree.net/dhaka/ ] Summary: SAVE THE RICKSHAWS OF DHAKA The World Bank is urging Dhaka, Bangladesh, to outlaw one of the most efficient and beautiful forms of transport, the bicycle rickshaw, on a total of eight main roads. In Dhaka, most journeys are made on foot, and bicycle rickshaws are the main form of vehicular transport. Rickshaws are an efficient, non-polluting way to move around, and for many people without job skills, pulling a rickshaw is the only option other than begging or crime. It is estimated that five million people in Bangladesh are dependent on the income of rickshaw pullers for their survival. Make December the month to fight for the rickshaw. Tell the World Bank what you think of their idea: . ________________________________________________ WORLD CARFREE NETWORK Kratka 26, 100 00 Prague 10, Czech Republic tel: +(420) 274-810-849 - fax: +(420) 274-772-017 - ________________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041206/d8254f57/attachment.html From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Tue Dec 7 18:25:58 2004 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (EcoPlan, Paris) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 10:25:58 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Mobilien? Paris? Wha? Message-ID: <009101c4dc3e$c86609f0$6501a8c0@jazz> Quick introduction: As you know (I hope) our 20/20 Challenge Initiative is based on a targeted Kyoto-complaint reduction of 20% of traffic/pollution (you chose) in a 20 month period, after an intense 3 month planning and negotiation preparatory phase has laid a solid base for success (see http://newmobility.org then click 20/20 Challenge.) And of course one of the central keys to this is the shifting of the scarce urban infrastructure to high capacity carriers (i.e., not SOVs... single occupancy... ). And you know too about our wonderful friends in Curitiba, Bogota and increasingly more places in the world who have been pushing the envelope on high capacity separate busways but not with taking yet more of that scarce infrastructure but rather converting what can only be called egregiously inefficient used street space to these better high throughput uses. Well, the transport planning team in Paris has got the message, and we now invite you to have a look at the first stages of the next stage of their Mobilien program, think TransMilenio but this time in the middle of a grand boulevard in Paris. Have a look at http://www.paris.fr/fr/Deplacements/mobilien/1_a_presentation.asp. The site is of course in French, and being French it has no indication of the fact that this is part of a much broader world wide trend (but be that as it may, we love our hexagon). There are also a number of plans and pictures which give a good idea of what they are up to, and a little video showing user reactions to a first generation project started last year. Quick translation/gist: Even if French is not your best language, you who know so much about the issues should be able to do very well if you click http://babelfish.altavista.com/ in a second browser window and combine your knowledge, feel and a bit of detective work to get something like 98% feel for what they are up to. Here is a raw sample of their introduction to get you going: The city, the area, l'Etat, the STIF and the RATP were linked so that the Mobilien project becomes a reality. Within the framework of its policy again division of l'espace public and d amelioration of the road safety, the Town hall of Paris intends to increase the quality of the service and safety in public transport. As well as the project of the tram, Mobilien constitutes a key element d'une new mobility ecological in Paris. Since the design jusqu'? the realization, the Town of Paris, and in particular the Management of the Roadway system and Displacements, catalyses l'ensemble actors concerned with the transport policy in Paris and in Island of France in order to build the Mobilien network Comments? Suggestions for the Paris team (led by Denis Baupain (Monsieur Paris Plage, http://www.a-matter.com/eng/projects/Paris-Plage-pr070-01-q.asp) at denis.baupin@mairie-paris.fr ) Question/Offer: Should we organize a first free videoconference via http://newmobilitypartners.org to talk about this at one point. Denis does speak English and a multi-way exchange with him might be a great way to launch this new arm of our New Mobility Agenda. Let me know of your eventual interest ? once you have checked out that page and perhaps even try a first test conversation with me to make sure it will work for you ? and we can then see what we can do to set it up. Eric PS. If Mayor Bertrand Delano? and his team keep up with their innovations showing the way in Europa and indeed in the West or North or whatever we should be calling it cities, they begin to emerge possibly as next year?s candidate for us to push for next year?s World Technology Environment Prize, on the heels of the success that many of us had a hand in for drawing attention to Mayor Ken Livingstone?s great accomplishment with the London Congestion Charging program. Again, comments? Convener, The New Mobility Agenda at http://newmobility.org Free video/voice conferencing: Click to http://newmobilitypartners.org The Commons: Open Society Sustainability Initiative at http://ecoplan.org Le Frene, 8/10 rue Joseph Bara 75006 Paris, France E: postmaster@newmobility.org T: +331 4326 1323 --- Outgoing mail certified Virus Free. Checked by Norton Anti-Virus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041207/037c4a4d/attachment.html From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Wed Dec 8 19:56:45 2004 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (EcoPlan, Paris) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 11:56:45 +0100 Subject: [sustran] International peer support for a sustainability nomination Message-ID: <00ef01c4dd14$a2a519f0$c0e93951@jazz> Dear World Wide Friends of Sustainable Transport, (I would in fact prefer to get this message out without actually alerting the person in question, but we all know how this works and so I will just have to live with this and keep moving.) Every once in a while the phone rings and I suddenly have an opportunity - which as you can well imagine I am greatly honored by -- to name for some form of international recognition or support one or more outstanding sustainability advocates or groups working to expand the boundaries of knowledge and human interaction- including people who work outside of conventional reward systems. Which is why I write you all this morning. Now as some of you know I am always very interested to lend a hand to anyone or any institutions that wishes to award or support this kind of person in their work to advance the sustainability agenda anywhere in the world. My work under the Stockholm Partnerships for Sustainable Cities has been a wonderful instrument for this, and I am always on the lookout for ways in which I can make a contribution along these lines. I might note in this context that a major focus of my personal interest and approach - as indeed this note duly attests - is in the ways in which we can make use available technology to achieve our sustainability objectives, not least of which all that often goes into the ball of wax that many call IT. So here is my idea in reaction to this latest phone call and here is where I am looking for your thoughts and support. I am greatly impressed Todd Litman's long term dedication in developing, at his own expenses and without external support, the Online TDM Encyclopedia, a much consulted sustainability tool (for example this morning there were no less than 1160 references to this title under Google) of more than 80 chapters, 1,000 pages and hundred of links, and in his forcefully working day by day to make sure that this important reference is consulted internationally when it's time to make a decision in our much troubled transport sector. Many of us here know how hard this job is, how subtle are the distinctions that need to be made, and how important it is for us to have access to solid information and wise counsel in our work as we go about to alter the patterns of what we here like to refer to as 'old mobility' or a supply oriented approach to the needs of people in a world of finite resources and limited geometries of our cities - and heavy entrenched interests and old habits nearly all of which are working in the other, wrong direction. To this end, I would like to ask any and all of you to consider taking a moment and letting me know if (a) you think this is a worthy idea and (b) perhaps a few of your own thoughts and reactions on Todd's approach, accomplishments and goals. In truth, I cannot of course be in any way sure that this particular award will go this way, but my interest in supporting this approach goes way beyond any one particular possibility. Moreover, I am hopeful that perhaps even this note to you and our eventual follow-up will help us all to focus on the approach that he is taking and perhaps even scratch around among our own sources and contacts to see what might be done to give him further support and guidance for his worthy initiative. There you have it. As many of you will remember, we have put this kind of collaboration to good and great purposes in the past, remember Bogota in 2000 for example and a few things since (see below for latest). So if this agrees with you, I would like to ask you to respond privately to my personal email address at mail@ericbritton.org. I will then work with this in my corner for now, but I am sure that in good time we will be able to make this better known to a world in need of new ideas and better examples of how people care, and are also able to care together. Best to you all dear friends as this patently unsustainable 2004 stutters to an end, Eric Britton PS. Not all of you may be aware of the final outcome of our last collaborative peer support effort, in which many of you kindly and actively participated. The result that the candidate we supported for this year's World Technology Environment Award, Ken Livingstone and his team for their path-breaking work in introducing the pioneering Congestion Charging project in London, was indeed awarded the top environmental prize in the solemn ceremony that took place at the World Technology Summit on October 7/8 in San Francisco. And as we know one of the results of this project is that, whether you agree with all the details or not, it is serving to reshape attitudes toward road pricing in cities to the extent that virtually every major city in the world is today giving careful consideration to this option. So all we have to do now is stay tuned for the next series of city projects that are sure to follow. The New Mobility Agenda at http://newmobility.org Free video/voice conferencing: Click to http://newmobilitypartners.org The Commons: Increasing the uncomfort zone for hesitant administrators and politicians; pioneering new concepts for business, entrepreneurs, activists, community groups, and local government; and through our joint efforts, energy and personal choices, placing them and ourselves firmly on the path to a more sustainable and more just society. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041208/721a6b75/attachment.html From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Thu Dec 9 02:35:45 2004 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (EcoPlan, Paris) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 18:35:45 +0100 Subject: [sustran] World Technology Award for the Environment - 2004 Webcast now on line Message-ID: <002f01c4dd4c$5e39dd40$6501a8c0@jazz> Subject: World Technology Award for the Environment - 2004 Webcast now on line To follow up on that last paragraph of my email of this morning concerning the World Technology Award for the Environment that was given this year to Mayor Ken Livingstone and his team for their Congestion Charging project, we can now give you the URL where you can see both the Webcast for the 2004 World Technology Award ceremony in San Francisco in October: http://www.wtn.net/webcast/2004/summit/launch.html Now if you do go there, I would suggest that you first pop the Award link at the bottom of the home page, which sets off a very long Webcast indeed. If your time is short - and whose isn't? - you may just want to have a quick gander at the first several minutes in which the energetic WTN president James Clark explains the philosophy behind these awards (definitely interesting and quite innovative since he has set some rather challenging goals). And then if you wish to see the short acceptance speech by Jared Blumenfeld who is Director Department of the Environment of SF and who accepted the award in the good mayor's name, you can get there by setting the little slide that controls the presentation to about 80% of the way to its end. And there you'll have it. There is also an acceptance speech by Mayor Livingstone which is gracious and well informed and which you will be able to click to on the bottom right. (In actual fact, Ken misses the correct attribution to the origins of thinking and theory behind road pricing, which was not Milton Friedman in 1952. Rather it was his fellow Nobel Lauriat the wonderful, innovative and very kind William Vickerey who got his idea when living in lower Manhattan, watching traffic pile up in from of the Lincoln tunnel. I know that for a fact because Professor Vickerey, who was my theory professor many years ago, told me the story himself over coffee one morning after our class at Columbia University. I guess since we are a small family that I should also go on record by saying that no matter what a great teacher he was, as he was, he and the rest of the faculty there still were not able to turn me into an economist. There you have it. Eric Britton "Almost an economist" PS. We are getting a first wave of really fine support for the Litman award nomination, and if you have not yet got around to it what I can assure you is that you will be in very good company indeed. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041208/d66dc2cb/attachment.html From kennaughkb at yahoo.com.au Thu Dec 9 12:58:23 2004 From: kennaughkb at yahoo.com.au (Kirk Bendall) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 14:58:23 +1100 (EST) Subject: [sustran] Re: Mobilien? Paris? Wha? <> In-Reply-To: <009101c4dc3e$c86609f0$6501a8c0@jazz> Message-ID: <20041209035823.23178.qmail@web21323.mail.yahoo.com> Bonjour Eric, if 'La Belle France' can lead the way in transport again (metro, Citreon, Ariane, TGV, vraisment, etc) IMHO Mayor Bertrand should be a candidate for next year's World Technology Environment Prize - especially if they take the message to a wider audience - both with their European colleagues and elsewhere, developed and less so countries/cities (eg Cairo, francophone Africa, USA etc...) bon soir, Kirk --- "EcoPlan, Paris" > PS. If Mayor Bertrand Delano? and his team keep up > with their innovations > showing the way in Europa and indeed in the West or > North or whatever we > should be calling it cities, they begin to emerge > possibly as next year?s > candidate for us to push for next year?s World > Technology Environment Prize, > on the heels of the success that many of us had a > hand in for drawing > attention to Mayor Ken Livingstone?s great > accomplishment with the London > Congestion Charging program. Again, comments? > > > Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From ccordero at amauta.rcp.net.pe Fri Dec 10 01:58:06 2004 From: ccordero at amauta.rcp.net.pe (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Carlos_Cordero_Vel=E1squez?=) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 11:58:06 -0500 Subject: [sustran] article Message-ID: <001201c4de14$30b69200$f2b601c8@pentiumiii> Dear sustraners, below an intreresting article about indian cities and cars, taken from CSE's News Bulletin regards, Carlos &&& Down To Earth editorial: Cars, more cars I recently visited Bangalore, Chennai and Mumbai. The singular impression I have of all these cities, and of others I occasionally visit - of course the one I live in, Delhi - is one of noise, pollution, plastic, garbage and filth. But most of all what hits you is cities overrun by vehicles; cars, more cars. Every city is now bumper to bumper. Even Bangalore, the sanctuary city, is a car-mess. This nightmare has crept upon us, insidiously. Most people living in cities cannot even comprehend, let alone contest, this change. The pace has now swamped us. When my colleague Anil Agarwal made presentations to the Indian parliament in the mid-1980s about India's environmental challenges, he found no reason to speak of urban chaos and its deadly impacts. It was not there to see, then. So, this change is really the story of the last 15 years. In other words, it is an ecological history old enough for us to lament about. But isn't it young enough for us to rectify? Over the last 15 years, is it only that we have intensified our efforts towards economic growth? Or is it that we have intensified growth without public action? It is fair to ask: if the consequence of this growth is not intentional, then what has government after government been up to? Did they ever exist? Let's stick to transport. Take any city's data: the increase in number of vehicles far outstrips growth in human population. Chennai, for instance, has seen a 10 per cent growth in people and a staggering 108 per cent growth in on-road private vehicles in the last decade. I do not think this is accidental. Private vehicle growth has paralleled decline in public transport. Ahmedabad in 1990 had almost 800 buses, or roughly 23 buses per 100,000 people. In the early 1980s, the situation was better: 30 buses per 100,000 people. But by 2003, the city had barely 400 operational buses. The ratio now? Less than 9 buses per 100,000 people. Only Delhi - because of the Supreme Court order, ironically, that mandated 10,000 buses running on clean fuel - has substantially increased its fleet. At this point, many might argue that population growth is inevitable. What can city planners do? Human population growth may be ordained. The growth of private vehicles is certainly not. Remember, the decline in public transport leaves people with no choice but to move towards private vehicles. In all these cities, as public transport has declined, people have moved towards two-wheelers and cars. In the jargon of transport planners, there has occurred a substantial modal shift in transportation in these cities! I remember reading, many years ago, how the automobile industry of the us had deliberately bought out the railways and the tramways, so that it could decimate its competitors. In India, as usual, the story is simpler. Private interests have gained from the destruction of public service. But they have not had to invest in this destruction. The wound is officially self-inflicted. The last 15 years are about neglect and apathy. And no interest that speaks for the public good any more. Another indication of the total collapse of government. The change from public to private came, in India, with setting up the public sector company Maruti - what an irony! - with the imperative of making the car affordable for all Indians. Maruti, since then, has been joined by a horde of other car-makers, all competing to make the car more sexy and more glamorous. They have done well; indeed, made the car or scooter every Indians' dream-turned-reality. But this 'revolution' has come at a deadly cost. The problem is not that there are sellers of cars. The problem is that there are no sellers of public transport. Worse, even its 'owners' have become its enemy. In most cities, bus fleets run not as transportation companies, but as employment services. Ahmedabad, for instance, has 8,000 employees to run its mere 400-odd buses. Its owner, the government, will not sack these employees. And it certainly will not invest in improvements. In fact, what it will do is to argue, vociferously, that it has no money to invest in public transportation. It is, after all, a poor government of a poor country. But this would be more than complete falsehood. Let me explain. First, every city reluctant to invest in public transport is busy building flyovers to take care of burgeoning traffic. This, when it knows flyovers never solved the problem anywhere. They are like the proverbial Internet, where points of traffic jam shift; even as you invest in more space, cars fill it up. The answer to congestion is not more road space, but less. But more on misleading 'sarkari' economics. Delhi, for instance, according to government documents, is building 42 new structures, which will cost the exchequer nothing less than Rs 500 crore. Now, we know that private vehicles control over 90 per cent of the road space in our cities. Therefore, this is a subsidy for this mode of transport. On the other hand, the same money spent on public transport would have substantially upgraded services for all. Secondly, and shockingly, private vehicles pay less road tax than public transport vehicles. So, let us be clear that this is a mockery of economics; here, the poor support the rich. But in case these facts make you believe public transport is not used in our cities, let me correct this. It is true that private vehicles constitute over 90 per cent of all vehicles in our cities. But it is also true that in many cities, public transport, however it may exist, still moves over 50-70 per cent of commuters. In other words, this is not the story of the us, where the car replaced the bus. It is the story of poor cities - Bangalore, Chennai, Pune - of a poor country, where the poor have not become rich. They have only been neglected. Murderously so. Read the complete editorial online >> http://www.downtoearth.org.in/cover_nl.asp?mode=2 Write to the editor: editor@downtoearth.org.in Carlos Cordero Vel?squez CICLORED - Centro de Asesor?a y Capacitaci?n para el Transporte y Ambiente Pasaje Lavalle 110 - Lima 04 Per? telf: (51 1) 4671322 From etts at indigo.ie Fri Dec 10 03:31:13 2004 From: etts at indigo.ie (Brendan Finn) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 18:31:13 -0000 Subject: [sustran] Re: FW: NST on KL public transport changes In-Reply-To: <0C270D0ABD2B8B44900A88DE0887F49A2828CC@MBOX01.stf.nus.edu.sg> Message-ID: Paul, As you say, the situation in KL should be interesting. The word "integration" is being used quite a bit, but I'm not sure what it will mean. Rapid KL - a transformation of SPNB - has the two LRT lines and about half of the city's functioning bus routes. However, that still leaves the commuter rail, the monorail, KLIA, and about another half of the city's buses across many operators, all of which are in separate hands. I don't know what 'integration' will be possible here. It is unlikely that there will be service integration, harmonisation of timetables etc. There is currently no basis for fares integration - or even for common ticketing given that most of the ticketing equipment on the rail modes is relatively new and unlikely that anyone will ditch their gear with plenty of useful life remaining. Even within Rapid KL, the options for integration seem quite limited. It should be interesting to see how the bus and LRT divisions actually work together, and whether the bus services become subordinate to the LRT or are given a free hand to develop their business. So much will depend on what direction they are given. I have heard that there will be the Klang Valley Urban Transport Authority. Even there, it is not yet clear how much authority this will actually have, and to what extent either Rapid KL or the various independent operators can be controlled by the new KUTA. I think that for KL some key opportunities for integration were missed in the mid- and late-90's. I'm not sure that this can be reversed easily, and they may need to think long-term for when opportunities will next come around, and be ready then. Of course, while all of this has been going on, car ownership and usage have increased dramatically, so that modal share of public transport has fallen from over 30% to about 16% today. The cheap Proton has placed cars in the hands of most workers, and a lot of households have multiple cars. Traffic is still tolerable in KL - it doesn't seem any worse than Dublin, for example - but it is growing rapidly and must surely face key thresholds in the coming years. Can it be rescued from itself, or has it already passed the point of no return with inevitable consequences ? For sure, merely tinkering with the public transport supply will make no difference to the outcome. Brendan Finn, ETTS. ________________________________________________________________ e-mail : etts@indigo.ie phone : +353.87.2530286 -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+etts=indigo.ie@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+etts=indigo.ie@list.jca.apc.org]On Behalf Of Paul Barter Sent: 26 November 2004 03:39 To: sustran discuss; msia-plan-transp@yahoogroups.com Subject: [sustran] FW: NST on KL public transport changes Malaysia's Klang Valley starts to get serious about integrating its public transport - via a merger into one company of a significant proportion of the services - and apparently with Dutch advice. It will be interesting to watch what happens and if the promised service improvements can be realised. KL certainly needs some improvements, especially to bus service and to integration. Paul Dr Paul A. Barter LKY School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore 5 Arts Link, Singapore 117570 Tel: +65-6874 3324; Fax: +65-6778 1020 Email: paulbarter@nus.edu.sg Applications are now open (until 15 Jan. 2005) for our Masters in Public Policy 2005/2006. See http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/degree_prog_1.htm for details and application form. > New Straits Times > Frontpage > New bus service to overcome congestion in Kuala Lumpur > PUTRAJAYA, Nov 25: > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------------ > > Come Monday, a plan to reduce travelling time on public > transportation will take off. > For instance, passengers on the Rapid KL bus servicing Route > 60C between Pandan Indah and Jalan Yap Ah Loy will have to > wait only 7.5 minutes for a bus from that day. > > The new route will take over the present 60C and 6B bus routes. > > Second Finance Minister Tan Sri Nor Mohamed Yakcop said the > maximum time between buses on the new route will be 15 > minutes during peak hours, which implies an average waiting > time of 7.5 minutes. > > Rapid KL is the company formed to operate the city's public > transportation system. It will also operate Kuala Lumpur's > two light rail transit systems, currently called Star and Putra. > > "The Government is confident that commuters will begin to see > positive changes within the coming year, thus increasing the > usage of public transportation in the Klang Valley," he said > when briefing newsmen on the Government's plan yesterday. > > Nor Mohamed also introduced senior executives who would head > Rapid KL, its chief executive being Rein Westra, a Dutch > national with wide experience in Europe's public > transportation sector. > > He will be assisted by two chief operating officers, Ridza > Abdoh Salleh, in charge of rail operations, and Mohd Ali Mohd > Nor, who will be responsible for bus operations. > > The Government, in July 2003, started the ambitious project > called "Integrasi and Penyusunan Semula Sistem Pengangkutan > Awam Lembah Klang" (Inspak) specifically to free Kuala Lumpur > of its perennial traffic gridlock. Inspak's plans include > creating a reliable and efficient public transportation > system operated by a financially sound entity to ensure > service quality. > > > > From etts at indigo.ie Fri Dec 10 03:31:14 2004 From: etts at indigo.ie (Brendan Finn) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 18:31:14 -0000 Subject: [sustran] Re: Fwd: Shanghai targets idle taxis to ease jams In-Reply-To: <0C270D0ABD2B8B44900A88DE0887F49A2828CA@MBOX01.stf.nus.edu.sg> Message-ID: Paul, On paper, it seems like a great idea, and there's no doubt that it is feasible. If there are so many holding points, then there should surely be available cabs within a few minutes of the caller. The figure of cabs being empty 45% of the time is high, and is a huge amount of wasted resource. Parking them up temporarily should provide a major saving to the cabbies, and better margins. Of course, the big issue is the motivation for this. Is it to get some of the cab traffic out of the way so that motorists can have clearer conditions (for a few months until the space is absorbed again by more motorists) - or is it to offer a better taxi service ? There are four potential downsides : a) The response time. Booking on street can be spontaneous at present. Anything greater than 2-3 minutes between call and cab in central areas, and 5 minutes outside will be seen as a serious deterioration compared to today. (And some people will be impatient even at those levels). b) The cost of the booking, if any. If it's free, that's OK. If there's a charge such as in Singapore, there will naturally be consumer resistance. It would need to be nominal, or a standard element of the taxi fare. c) Handling the volume of calls. This will require both customer-facing and back-end excellence. For customer-facing aspect, it will have to offer many options other than voice calls - e.g. SMS, internet, button-actuation at taxi point etc. On the back-end, the call handling will have to be excellent, the assignment must be fast and fault-free, and so must the dispatch process. d) Risk of exclusion. People with mobiles have immediate access to the taxi system. People without are immediately disadvantaged. As always, it is the more vulnerable within society that will face such barriers. The "10,000 designated taxi calling points" will be the key to this. (Where can we find more info on how they will function?) I have been working for some in the domain of bus-based demand responsive transport, in which we deal with similar concepts. Recently, we have been exploring how to migrate the concepts and solutions from the typical niches of rural transport and services for the elderly, to large-scale service provision in urban areas. Interestingly (to me, anyway) the proposals for Shanghai would provide the platform in which shared vehicle services could be offered as an option, presumably at a lower price than the single-occupancy taxi. Especially if 100% of the taxi demand is channelled through a booking system, there must be incredible opportunities for optimisation across the city's taxi resource. Any takers on this one ? Brendan Finn. ETTS. ________________________________________________________________ e-mail : etts@indigo.ie phone : +353.87.2530286 -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+etts=indigo.ie@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+etts=indigo.ie@list.jca.apc.org]On Behalf Of Paul Barter Sent: 26 November 2004 02:43 To: sustran discuss Subject: [sustran] Fwd: Shanghai targets idle taxis to ease jams Any comments? -------- Straits Times Nov 26, 2004 Shanghai targets idle taxis to ease jams Instead of driving around to look for passengers, cabbies will wait for calls Shanghai - SHANGHAI'S municipal government is taking empty taxis off the roads in a drastic move to relieve its worsening traffic situation. Come 2007, passengers will no longer be able to flag down a cab. Instead, they will have to rely on taxi companies' hotlines or one of 10,000 designated taxi calling points to get a cab. And the city's more than 45,000 taxi-drivers will have to wait for business at 360 parking sites instead of plying the streets, the Shanghai Star reported. At the centre of the innovative and complex system, according to the local transportation bureau, will be a Global Positioning System (GPS) to monitor and direct taxis to ensure passengers get a taxi in three minutes. All taxis will be installed with a GPS device by 2007 and a basic network which covers 4,000 taxis will be put in use this year, the bureau said. Explaining the overhaul, bureau director Bian Baipin said: 'Raising a hand to beckon a taxi has many disadvantages. The taxi without passengers occupies the road and the taxi drivers are prone to fatigue and carelessness. 'The disadvantages also include fuel waste and environmental pollution.' Statistics from the bureau show that a taxi runs 350km a day on average and more than 45 per cent of taxis plying the roads are empty at any given time. But most people doubted that the new system would be feasible. 'It will be really terrible if the line to call the taxi is busy...I will waste a lot of time making the call and waiting for the taxi to come,' said Mr Qian Jinyue, an employee of a foreign-venture company based in Shanghai. The bureau gave the assurance that more people will be employed to man the hotlines to ensure the efficiency of the booking-based system. Cabbies were concerned if the parking centres would be enough to cover Shanghai and enable them to reach passengers quickly. -- CHINA DAILY/ASIA NEWS NETWORK Copyright (c) 2004 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved. [Forwarded for the purpose of research and education.] From Davewetzel at tfl.gov.uk Wed Dec 8 23:33:40 2004 From: Davewetzel at tfl.gov.uk (Wetzel Dave) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 14:33:40 -0000 Subject: [sustran] US Professor wants to abolish speed limits in the USA. Your chanc e to respond! Message-ID: <842CED24A576E94FA736D0DC0FAF81596723C7@tflexc001.corp.tfl.local> See item on speed limits in USA. http://www.progress.org/letters.htm or specifically: http://www.progress.org/archive/fold40.htm *********************************************************************************** The contents of the e-mail and any transmitted files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Transport for London hereby exclude any warranty and any liability as to the quality or accuracy of the contents of this email and any attached transmitted files. If you are not the intended recipient be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error please notify postmaster@tfl.gov.uk. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. *********************************************************************************** From Davewetzel at tfl.gov.uk Thu Dec 9 03:56:10 2004 From: Davewetzel at tfl.gov.uk (Wetzel Dave) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 18:56:10 -0000 Subject: [sustran] Re: [NewMobilityCafe] World Technology Award for the Environment - 2004 Webcast now on line Message-ID: <842CED24A576E94FA736D0DC0FAF81596723D9@tflexc001.corp.tfl.local> Sorry Eric - As always our Ken got it right re Milton Friedman. (It would appear that both Milton Friedman and William Vickerey were suggesting road pricing in the 1950s). Merry Xmas Dave Dave Wetzel; Vice-Chair; Transport for London.. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roads in a Market Economy. - book reviews Reason , August-Sept, 1996 by Robert W. Poole, Jr. .................one of the unexpected delights of this book is a heretofore unpublished essay, included as an epilogue, by Milton Friedman and Daniel Boorstin, dating from the early 1950s, proposing both private ownership and market pricing for roads. As usual, Friedman was way ahead of most of the rest of us. Fortunately, with the publication of Gabriel Roth's book, these ideas will gain the kind of hearing they have long deserved. Publisher Robert W. Poole Jr. (bobp@reason.org) is president of the Reason Foundation and a transportation policy adviser and consultant. COPYRIGHT 1996 Reason Foundation COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ -----Original Message----- From: EcoPlan, Paris [mailto:eric.britton@ecoplan.org] Sent: 08 December 2004 17:36 To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com; Sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org Subject: [NewMobilityCafe] World Technology Award for the Environment - 2004 Webcast now on line Subject: World Technology Award for the Environment - 2004 Webcast now on line To follow up on that last paragraph of my email of this morning concerning the World Technology Award for the Environment that was given this year to Mayor Ken Livingstone and his team for their Congestion Charging project, we can now give you the URL where you can see both the Webcast for the 2004 World Technology Award ceremony in San Francisco in October: http://www.wtn.net/webcast/2004/summit/launch.html Now if you do go there, I would suggest that you first pop the Award link at the bottom of the home page, which sets off a very long Webcast indeed. If your time is short - and whose isn't? - you may just want to have a quick gander at the first several minutes in which the energetic WTN president James Clark explains the philosophy behind these awards (definitely interesting and quite innovative since he has set some rather challenging goals). And then if you wish to see the short acceptance speech by Jared Blumenfeld who is Director Department of the Environment of SF and who accepted the award in the good mayor's name, you can get there by setting the little slide that controls the presentation to about 80% of the way to its end. And there you'll have it. There is also an acceptance speech by Mayor Livingstone which is gracious and well informed and which you will be able to click to on the bottom right. (In actual fact, Ken misses the correct attribution to the origins of thinking and theory behind road pricing, which was not Milton Friedman in 1952. Rather it was his fellow Nobel Lauriat the wonderful, innovative and very kind William Vickerey who got his idea when living in lower Manhattan, watching traffic pile up in from of the Lincoln tunnel. I know that for a fact because Professor Vickerey, who was my theory professor many years ago, told me the story himself over coffee one morning after our class at Columbia University. I guess since we are a small family that I should also go on record by saying that no matter what a great teacher he was, as he was, he and the rest of the faculty there still were not able to turn me into an economist. There you have it. Eric Britton "Almost an economist" PS. We are getting a first wave of really fine support for the Litman award nomination, and if you have not yet got around to it what I can assure you is that you will be in very good company indeed. The New Mobility Agenda is permanently at http://NewMobility.org To post messages to list: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com To unsubscribe: NewMobilityCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Free group video/voice-conferencing via http://newmobilitypartners.org Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT click here _____ Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewMobilityCafe/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: NewMobilityCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service . *********************************************************************************** The contents of the e-mail and any transmitted files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Transport for London hereby exclude any warranty and any liability as to the quality or accuracy of the contents of this email and any attached transmitted files. If you are not the intended recipient be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error please notify postmaster@tfl.gov.uk. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. *********************************************************************************** From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Fri Dec 10 20:19:14 2004 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (EcoPlan, Paris) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 12:19:14 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Green activist slams government's teleworking policy Message-ID: <009101c4deaa$18882a40$6501a8c0@jazz> Ingrid Marson, ZDNet UK, December 09, 2004, 14:25 GMT More : 1. Source: http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/0,39020645,39179945,00.htm 2. Click here to download a free copy of the report. http://www.forumforthefuture.org.uk/publications/greenteleworkpub_page2012.a spx 3. Click here to share your views with group : mailto:XWorkCafe@yahoogroups.com Jonathon Porritt, ex-director of Friends of the Earth, has criticised government reports on teleworking as 'tokenist' An environmental charity has called on the UK government to revise its policy on teleworking and encourage organisations to use it as part of their environmental policy. On Wednesday Forum for the Future launched a report on teleworking which showed how it can be used to reduce the impact that companies have on the environment and promote sustainable economic development. Jonathon Porritt, the programme director of the charity, said government reports on teleworking do not have enough information on how it can be used to improve sustainability. In particular, he criticised a report produced by the Department for Trade and Industry in 2003, entitled Telework Guidance, and a report by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister as respectively having "tokenistic references" and "only the odd tokenistic paragraph" on how businesses should use teleworking to reduce their environmental impact. "The government in every level has got to stop pussy-footing around with sustainable development and embed in its practice," said Porritt. The charity's report, entitled "Encouraging Green Teleworking", found that teleworking reduces the need for transport and will therefore contribute to achieving the government's targets on cutting carbon dioxide emissions. This is a necessity for the government after its admission on Wednesday that it will fail to meet its target on cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 20 percent by 2010 -- something Porritt didn't duck during his speech. "The Prime Minister thinks it's a pretty ambitious goal to achieve its climate change goal of 20 percent," said Porritt. "Well, so do I when I look at the government policy." Sun, which commissioned the charity's report and has had a teleworking policy for five years, initially started its policy on teleworking due to the problems of traffic congestion during the dot-com boom, according to Richard Barrington, the head of government affairs at Sun. "Part of the reason we started doing this was because of congestion," said Barrington at the launch event. "We did it purely because people were just sat in cars on roads. We started with drop-in centres along motorways -- industrial units where we had scattered technology." Employees at Sun save two hours commuting time per week through teleworking, according to the report. Companies can also save money by cutting down on the amount of office space needed. Sun has reduced its office space needs by 25 percent in the last four years through teleworking, according to the report. But one environmental downsides of teleworking is that it requires more hardware, which requires extra resources to produce and creates more waste. One way to minimise this impact is for companies to use thin clients. Barrington said that a significant number of Sun employees in the States are already using thin clients at home and it is in the process of rolling out thin clients to home workers across the UK. Porritt said that the technology side of teleworking is something which is likely to attract the government. "There's one bit of the sustainability that the government should like -- teleworking -- because its wonderously high-tech and glossy.it's lots of whizzy machines." One important aspect of implementing teleworking is change management, something which Barrington says Sun is still dealing with. "We still have a significant percentage of managers who don't like this, who think 'If I can't see, I can't manage, as I don't know what you're doing,'" said Barrington. "But if you treat people like adults or grown-ups, they tend to respond in kind." Porritt has had a long involvement with environmental issues in the UK -- he was the Chairman of the Green Party in the 80s, was the director of Friends of the Earth for a number of years until he left in 1996 to set up Forum for the Future. He was appointed chairman of the Sustainable Development Commission, the government's independent advisory body on sustainable development, in 2000. In response to Porritt's comments, the government said that it was focused on giving companies practical advice on teleworking. "Of course we recognise there are very important environmental benefits to teleworking. The guidance last year was intended for practical use for employers and employees," said a DTI spokesman. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041210/c4b9cd70/attachment.html From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Fri Dec 10 20:19:14 2004 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (EcoPlan, Paris) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 12:19:14 +0100 Subject: [sustran] It's sustainable, too - urban sprawl can be a lesson for the world Message-ID: <009b01c4deaa$19473480$6501a8c0@jazz> It's sustainable, too - urban sprawl can be a lesson for the world By Justin Norrie, Sydney Morning Herald., December 10, 2004 Source: http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Its-sustainable-too--urban-sprawl-can-be -a-lesson-for-the-world/2004/12/09/1102182427854.html?oneclick=true This year he questioned the Carr Government's spending on motorways at the expense of sustainable development in a city that was reaching its limits. But this week, the state's first sustainability commissioner, Peter Newman, applauded its sweeping land release program for Sydney's western fringes and said the rest of the city could learn from the example. In a letter to the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources, Professor Newman said the $8 billion development would help make the city more sustainable. Under eight sustainability criteria, he rated the project as employing close to or exceeding world's best practice in six areas. The land release areas exceeded the world's best practice in providing quality places to live and play, "as there is very high quality in all aspects of spatial design", Professor Newman said. The development rated "OK to good" practice in providing accessibility between homes, jobs, services and recreation, and "good to best practice" on the issues of quality and equity in services, including health, education , security and community development. "There are important innovations in each of the sustainability criteria, in particular in biodiversity, urban design, housing diversity and governance through the Development Commission and its up-front funded infrastructure and services," Professor Newman said. "These will make the land release areas an object of considerable international and national interest. I look forward to seeing how the rest of the city can be given such a careful sustainability makeover as has been the focus [here]." Professor Newman posed the question of whether it was possible to stop the city spreading, but said he did not know of any mechanism to halt growth. The 150,000 house blocks in the land release areas were needed because almost no land was available for development in Sydney's outskirts, even though the sprawl was likely to pose problems associated with dependency on cars. "Although the western areas will not be a sink for air pollutants ... there will be an increase in motor vehicles and Sydney's air will move close to exceeding air quality targets," Professor Newman wrote. Sound planning should reduce the necessity for travelling and would require a good public transport system and paths to encourage cycling and walking. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041210/8330a64c/attachment.html From etts at indigo.ie Fri Dec 10 20:44:18 2004 From: etts at indigo.ie (Brendan Finn) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:44:18 -0000 Subject: [sustran] Re: Green activist slams government's teleworking policy In-Reply-To: <009101c4deaa$18882a40$6501a8c0@jazz> Message-ID: Teleworking is good for those whose work permits it. I agree that it has huge potential, especially in countries with a knowledge economy. A lot of attention has been paid to technical, organisational, oversight, the arrangements within the home (or local office/desk), and self-management issues - i.e. to the work itself. Two aspects that must also be considered : a) The amenities where you are located - if it's dead suburbia, you don't really have access to very much during the day. After a while, that's not a lot of fun. b) The local transportation system. Public transport is designed to take you to/from the city centre, along the key arteries. It is ABSOLUTELY NOT designed for the local run-about journeys of 2-3 km. These are, of course, the typically journeys of home-makers and teleworkers. I'd be very interested to see whether the great ecological savings from the commute to downtown or out-of-town cube-farm is offset by a huge amount of local trips, and even if people have found themselves having to BUY ANOTHER CAR because the local transportation doesn't serve them. And as we all know, short trips by car are ecologically the worst. Personal example at this stage. I work from home when I'm in Ireland (about half the time, my journey to work distance should make an interesting distribution). I'm in the suburbs of Dublin, good bus service to city centre. But there's nothing for the local trips. What I can do in 5 minutes by car takes about a half-hour on foot, and probably as long when I factor in wait time - for the few trips that I could do by bus. I was spending more time on simple errands (pick up some stationary, computer accessories, call to travel agent, plus personal stuff) than I ever did in the daily commute. In August I finally gave in - me, a lifelong public transport advocate - and bought a car for the local trips. (The shame, the shame!). The answer definitely lies in local flexible transport - probably a combination of small bus-based and affordable taxi - where we can get low-fare trips in shared vehicles at a level of service that is close to taxi. Tariffs would be higher than regular bus, but probably not too much more. Problem is, the city authorities don't want to know (they have lovely highway plans), and both the bus operators and the taxi operators see it as a threat. Anyone else got perspectives on this ? Brendan Finn, ETTS, Ireland. -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+etts=indigo.ie@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+etts=indigo.ie@list.jca.apc.org]On Behalf Of EcoPlan, Paris Sent: 10 December 2004 11:19 To: XWorkCafe@yahoogroups.com; Sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org Cc: j.goodman@forumforthefuture.org.uk Subject: [sustran] Green activist slams government's teleworking policy Ingrid Marson , ZDNet UK, December 09, 2004, 14:25 GMT More : 1. Source: http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/0,39020645,39179945,00.htm 2. Click here to download a free copy of the report. http://www.forumforthefuture.org.uk/publications/greenteleworkpub_page2012.a spx 3. Click here to share your views with group : mailto:XWorkCafe@yahoogroups.com Jonathon Porritt, ex-director of Friends of the Earth, has criticised government reports on teleworking as 'tokenist' An environmental charity has called on the UK government to revise its policy on teleworking and encourage organisations to use it as part of their environmental policy. On Wednesday Forum for the Future launched a report on teleworking which showed how it can be used to reduce the impact that companies have on the environment and promote sustainable economic development. Jonathon Porritt, the programme director of the charity, said government reports on teleworking do not have enough information on how it can be used to improve sustainability. In particular, he criticised a report produced by the Department for Trade and Industry in 2003, entitled Telework Guidance, and a report by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister as respectively having "tokenistic references" and "only the odd tokenistic paragraph" on how businesses should use teleworking to reduce their environmental impact. "The government in every level has got to stop pussy-footing around with sustainable development and embed in its practice," said Porritt. The charity's report, entitled "Encouraging Green Teleworking", found that teleworking reduces the need for transport and will therefore contribute to achieving the government's targets on cutting carbon dioxide emissions. This is a necessity for the government after its admission on Wednesday that it will fail to meet its target on cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 20 percent by 2010 -- something Porritt didn't duck during his speech. "The Prime Minister thinks it's a pretty ambitious goal to achieve its climate change goal of 20 percent," said Porritt. "Well, so do I when I look at the government policy." Sun, which commissioned the charity's report and has had a teleworking policy for five years, initially started its policy on teleworking due to the problems of traffic congestion during the dot-com boom, according to Richard Barrington, the head of government affairs at Sun. "Part of the reason we started doing this was because of congestion," said Barrington at the launch event. "We did it purely because people were just sat in cars on roads. We started with drop-in centres along motorways -- industrial units where we had scattered technology." Employees at Sun save two hours commuting time per week through teleworking, according to the report. Companies can also save money by cutting down on the amount of office space needed. Sun has reduced its office space needs by 25 percent in the last four years through teleworking, according to the report. But one environmental downsides of teleworking is that it requires more hardware, which requires extra resources to produce and creates more waste. One way to minimise this impact is for companies to use thin clients. Barrington said that a significant number of Sun employees in the States are already using thin clients at home and it is in the process of rolling out thin clients to home workers across the UK. Porritt said that the technology side of teleworking is something which is likely to attract the government. "There's one bit of the sustainability that the government should like -- teleworking -- because its wonderously high-tech and glossy.it's lots of whizzy machines." One important aspect of implementing teleworking is change management, something which Barrington says Sun is still dealing with. "We still have a significant percentage of managers who don't like this, who think 'If I can't see, I can't manage, as I don't know what you're doing,'" said Barrington. "But if you treat people like adults or grown-ups, they tend to respond in kind." Porritt has had a long involvement with environmental issues in the UK -- he was the Chairman of the Green Party in the 80s, was the director of Friends of the Earth for a number of years until he left in 1996 to set up Forum for the Future. He was appointed chairman of the Sustainable Development Commission, the government's independent advisory body on sustainable development, in 2000. In response to Porritt's comments, the government said that it was focused on giving companies practical advice on teleworking. "Of course we recognise there are very important environmental benefits to teleworking. The guidance last year was intended for practical use for employers and employees," said a DTI spokesman. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041210/5b3a43e0/attachment-0001.html From Davewetzel at tfl.gov.uk Fri Dec 10 21:31:57 2004 From: Davewetzel at tfl.gov.uk (Wetzel Dave) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 12:31:57 -0000 Subject: [sustran] Taxis at night and safe transport for women. Message-ID: <842CED24A576E94FA736D0DC0FAF815967240A@tflexc001.corp.tfl.local> We have a problem in London that despite the Mayor increasing taxi night fares, there are not enough licensed taxis operating at night and giving a "hail and ride" service. Most "black cab" drivers are self-employed and we can not force them to operate at night. We are experimenting with special ranks for taxi drivers on their final journeys to match a "fare" who is going broadly in the same direction. (But this is only a marginal increase in supply for some journeys and as most taxi drivers live in East London this area gets offered a better service). This shortage of licensed taxis leads to dangers for paxs (especially women) who coming out of clubs in the early hours only find illegal "touts" offering private car rides for cash. Not only can people be ripped off on the price but by far the most transport related rapes and assaults take place in these illegal vehicles. We are licensing "minicabs" and other private hire operators but they can only respond to telephone bookings or to paxs who attend their office. They are not licensed for street hailing. The National Rail suburban services tend to operate their last trains well before midnight and most Underground lines close at about 1am. Our Mayor is consulting Londoners on the option of Friday and Saturday Underground trains running one hour later at night (finishing in the early hours) but with the knock-on of trains starting one hour later Sat and Sun mornings to allow for engineering works to have the same time. We have extended our night bus operation (with CCTV cameras on board) across London and reduced the premium night bus fares to normal day-time levels but even these services leave people vulnerable for the final leg of their journey walking from the bus stop to their home. (This is not a theoretical risk, this year we have had a number of assaults and two murders). We are told that Madrid and some other cities do not have these taxi problems at night. London is a 24 hour City and we do need to address this problem. Is there any research or practical experience that could indicate a solution for us? Please copy Luke Howard e-mail: lukehoward2@tfl.gov.uk and myself into any reply. Tks (and seasonal greetings) Dave Dave Wetzel; Vice-Chair; Transport for London. Tel: 020 7941 4200 Intl Tel: +44 207 941 4200 *********************************************************************************** The contents of the e-mail and any transmitted files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Transport for London hereby exclude any warranty and any liability as to the quality or accuracy of the contents of this email and any attached transmitted files. If you are not the intended recipient be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error please notify postmaster@tfl.gov.uk. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. *********************************************************************************** From litman at vtpi.org Fri Dec 10 23:57:29 2004 From: litman at vtpi.org (Todd Alexander Litman) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 06:57:29 -0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Green activist slams government's teleworking policy In-Reply-To: References: <009101c4deaa$18882a40$6501a8c0@jazz> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20041210064553.04169e10@mail.highspeedplus.com> I think it may be a mistake to overemphasize telework alone as an environmental strategy. It certainly provides user benefits by allowing people to increase their housing and work location options, and to avoid some trips, but telework vehicle travel reductions and energy savings tend to be partly offset in the following ways: ? Teleworkers often make additional vehicle trips to run errands that would otherwise have been made during a commute. ? Employees may use teleworking to move further from their worksite, for example, choosing a home of job in a rural area or another city because they know that they only need to commute two or three days a week. In some cases this may encourage more urban sprawl. ? Vehicles not used for commuting may be driven by other household members. ? Telecommuters may use additional energy for home heating and cooling, and to power electronic equipment. ? Improved telecommunications may increase people?s long-distance connections, resulting in more travel. For example, people may make new friends through the Internet, and travel more to visit them. I believe that telework should be supported as a transportation option, but to significantly reduce external costs such as congestion, energy consumption and pollution emissions it must be matched with incentives to reduce driving such as higher fuel taxes, road and parking pricing, and distance-based vehicle insurance. Without those incentives, telework may provide little net benefit to society. For more information see the "Telework" chapter of the Online TDM Encyclopedia (http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm43.htm). Best wishes, -Todd Litman At 11:44 AM 12/10/2004 +0000, Brendan Finn wrote: >Teleworking is good for those whose work permits it. I agree that it has >huge potential, especially in countries with a knowledge economy. > >A lot of attention has been paid to technical, organisational, oversight, >the arrangements within the home (or local office/desk), and >self-management issues i.e. to the work itself. > >Two aspects that must also be considered : > >a) The amenities where you are located if it s dead suburbia, you >don t really have access to very much during the day. After a while, that >s not a lot of fun. > >b) The local transportation system. Public transport is designed to >take you to/from the city centre, along the key arteries. It is ABSOLUTELY >NOT designed for the local run-about journeys of 2-3 km. These are, of >course, the typically journeys of home-makers and teleworkers. > >I d be very interested to see whether the great ecological savings from >the commute to downtown or out-of-town cube-farm is offset by a huge >amount of local trips, and even if people have found themselves having to >BUY ANOTHER CAR because the local transportation doesn t serve them. And >as we all know, short trips by car are ecologically the worst. > >Personal example at this stage. I work from home when I m in Ireland >(about half the time, my journey to work distance should make an >interesting distribution). I m in the suburbs of Dublin, good bus service >to city centre. But there s nothing for the local trips. What I can do in >5 minutes by car takes about a half-hour on foot, and probably as long >when I factor in wait time for the few trips that I could do by bus. I was >spending more time on simple errands (pick up some stationary, computer >accessories, call to travel agent, plus personal stuff) than I ever did in >the daily commute. In August I finally gave in me, a lifelong public >transport advocate and bought a car for the local trips. (The shame, the >shame!). > >The answer definitely lies in local flexible transport probably a >combination of small bus-based and affordable taxi where we can get >low-fare trips in shared vehicles at a level of service that is close to >taxi. Tariffs would be higher than regular bus, but probably not too much >more. Problem is, the city authorities don t want to know (they have >lovely highway plans), and both the bus operators and the taxi operators >see it as a threat. > >Anyone else got perspectives on this ? > >Brendan Finn, >ETTS, Ireland. > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: sustran-discuss-bounces+etts=indigo.ie@list.jca.apc.org >[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+etts=indigo.ie@list.jca.apc.org]On Behalf >Of EcoPlan, Paris >Sent: 10 December 2004 11:19 >To: XWorkCafe@yahoogroups.com; Sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org >Cc: j.goodman@forumforthefuture.org.uk >Subject: [sustran] Green activist slams government's teleworking policy > > > >Ingrid Marson, ZDNet UK, December 09, 2004, >14:25 GMT > >More : > >1. Source: >http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/0,39020645,39179945,00.htm > >2. Click >here >to download a free copy of the report. > >http://www.forumforthefuture.org.uk/publications/greenteleworkpub_page2012.aspx > >3. Click here to share your views with group : >mailto:XWorkCafe@yahoogroups.com > > > >Jonathon Porritt, ex-director of Friends of the Earth, has criticised >government reports on teleworking as 'tokenist' > >An environmental charity has called on the UK government to revise its >policy on teleworking and encourage organisations to use it as part of >their environmental policy. > >On Wednesday Forum for the Future launched a report on teleworking which >showed how it can be used to reduce the impact that companies have on the >environment and promote sustainable economic development. > >Jonathon Porritt, the programme director of the charity, said government >reports on teleworking do not have enough information on how it can be >used to improve sustainability. In particular, he criticised a >report >produced by the Department for Trade and Industry in 2003, entitled >Telework Guidance, and a report by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister >as respectively having "tokenistic references" and "only the odd >tokenistic paragraph" on how businesses should use teleworking to reduce >their environmental impact. > >"The government in every level has got to stop pussy-footing around with >sustainable development and embed in its practice," said Porritt. > >The charity's report, entitled "Encouraging Green Teleworking", found that >teleworking reduces the need for transport and will therefore contribute >to achieving the government's targets on cutting carbon dioxide emissions. >This is a necessity for the government after its admission on Wednesday >that it will fail to meet its target on cutting carbon dioxide emissions >by 20 percent by 2010 -- something Porritt didn't duck during his speech. > >"The Prime Minister thinks it's a pretty ambitious goal to achieve its >climate change goal of 20 percent," said Porritt. "Well, so do I when I >look at the government policy." > >Sun, which commissioned the charity's report and has had a teleworking >policy for five years, initially started its policy on teleworking due to >the problems of traffic congestion during the dot-com boom, according to >Richard Barrington, the head of government affairs at Sun. > >"Part of the reason we started doing this was because of congestion," said >Barrington at the launch event. "We did it purely because people were just >sat in cars on roads. We started with drop-in centres along motorways -- >industrial units where we had scattered technology." > >Employees at Sun save two hours commuting time per week through >teleworking, according to the report. > >Companies can also save money by cutting down on the amount of office >space needed. Sun has reduced its office space needs by 25 percent in the >last four years through teleworking, according to the report. > >But one environmental downsides of teleworking is that it requires more >hardware, which requires extra resources to produce and creates more >waste. One way to minimise this impact is for companies to use thin >clients. Barrington said that a significant number of Sun employees in the >States are already using thin clients at home and it is in the process of >rolling out thin clients to home workers across the UK. > >Porritt said that the technology side of teleworking is something which is >likely to attract the government. "There's one bit of the sustainability >that the government should like -- teleworking -- because its wonderously >high-tech and glossy&it's lots of whizzy machines." > >One important aspect of implementing teleworking is change management, >something which Barrington says Sun is still dealing with. > >"We still have a significant percentage of managers who don't like this, >who think 'If I can't see, I can't manage, as I don't know what you're >doing,'" said Barrington. "But if you treat people like adults or >grown-ups, they tend to respond in kind." > >Porritt has had a long involvement with environmental issues in the UK -- >he was the Chairman of the Green Party in the 80s, was the director of >Friends of the Earth for a number of years until he left in 1996 to set up >Forum for the Future. He was appointed chairman of the Sustainable >Development Commission, the government's independent advisory body on >sustainable development, in 2000. > >In response to Porritt's comments, the government said that it was focused >on giving companies practical advice on teleworking. > >"Of course we recognise there are very important environmental benefits to >teleworking. The guidance last year was intended for practical use for >employers and employees," said a DTI spokesman. > > > > Sincerely, Todd Litman, Director Victoria Transport Policy Institute "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity" 1250 Rudlin Street Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, Canada Phone & Fax: 250-360-1560 Email: litman@vtpi.org Website: http://www.vtpi.org From cpardo at cable.net.co Sat Dec 11 00:30:39 2004 From: cpardo at cable.net.co (Carlos Felipe Pardo) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 10:30:39 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Green activist slams government's teleworking policy In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20041210064553.04169e10@mail.highspeedplus.com> Message-ID: <000a01c4decd$34564ef0$c82f47c8@Archibaldo> Other than that, I think telecommuting may have a "psychological" downside- or beneficial aspects. I explain myself: Telecommuters may not in touch with any other people in a long time, since they are "stuck" at home working by themselves. On the other hand, they may spend more time with their family (if they have any wife or children). Sometimes we should think of commuting as another way of knowing the world, and of interacting. I think the option should be to promote another kind of mobility: leisure trips in sustainable modes, while working at home. The hour or so that people had "available" for their home-work-home trip can be spent in these leisure activities during the day- walking in a nearby park, riding a bicycle somewhere, etc. Lastly, one or two days of the week should be taken for running errands. That way, interacting can be solved, congestion may be lowered and people could improve their life quality. But maybe this is too much of an illusion. Just thought that another point of view different from the technical one- thank you Todd- could be of use in this discussion. Does anyone else have another opinion? Carlos F. Pardo cpardo@cable.net.co (+573) 00 268 1389 (+571) 310 6218 Cr 4 # 66-54 Bogot?- Colombia -----Mensaje original----- De: sustran-discuss-bounces+cpardo=cable.net.co@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+cpardo=cable.net.co@list.jca.apc.org] En nombre de Todd Alexander Litman Enviado el: Viernes, 10 de Diciembre de 2004 09:57 a.m. Para: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org Asunto: [sustran] Re: Green activist slams government's teleworking policy I think it may be a mistake to overemphasize telework alone as an environmental strategy. It certainly provides user benefits by allowing people to increase their housing and work location options, and to avoid some trips, but telework vehicle travel reductions and energy savings tend to be partly offset in the following ways: ? Teleworkers often make additional vehicle trips to run errands that would otherwise have been made during a commute. ? Employees may use teleworking to move further from their worksite, for example, choosing a home of job in a rural area or another city because they know that they only need to commute two or three days a week. In some cases this may encourage more urban sprawl. ? Vehicles not used for commuting may be driven by other household members. ? Telecommuters may use additional energy for home heating and cooling, and to power electronic equipment. ? Improved telecommunications may increase people?s long-distance connections, resulting in more travel. For example, people may make new friends through the Internet, and travel more to visit them. I believe that telework should be supported as a transportation option, but to significantly reduce external costs such as congestion, energy consumption and pollution emissions it must be matched with incentives to reduce driving such as higher fuel taxes, road and parking pricing, and distance-based vehicle insurance. Without those incentives, telework may provide little net benefit to society. For more information see the "Telework" chapter of the Online TDM Encyclopedia (http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm43.htm). Best wishes, -Todd Litman At 11:44 AM 12/10/2004 +0000, Brendan Finn wrote: >Teleworking is good for those whose work permits it. I agree that it has >huge potential, especially in countries with a knowledge economy. > >A lot of attention has been paid to technical, organisational, oversight, >the arrangements within the home (or local office/desk), and >self-management issues i.e. to the work itself. > >Two aspects that must also be considered : > >a) The amenities where you are located if it s dead suburbia, you >don t really have access to very much during the day. After a while, that >s not a lot of fun. > >b) The local transportation system. Public transport is designed to >take you to/from the city centre, along the key arteries. It is ABSOLUTELY >NOT designed for the local run-about journeys of 2-3 km. These are, of >course, the typically journeys of home-makers and teleworkers. > >I d be very interested to see whether the great ecological savings from >the commute to downtown or out-of-town cube-farm is offset by a huge >amount of local trips, and even if people have found themselves having to >BUY ANOTHER CAR because the local transportation doesn t serve them. And >as we all know, short trips by car are ecologically the worst. > >Personal example at this stage. I work from home when I m in Ireland >(about half the time, my journey to work distance should make an >interesting distribution). I m in the suburbs of Dublin, good bus service >to city centre. But there s nothing for the local trips. What I can do in >5 minutes by car takes about a half-hour on foot, and probably as long >when I factor in wait time for the few trips that I could do by bus. I was >spending more time on simple errands (pick up some stationary, computer >accessories, call to travel agent, plus personal stuff) than I ever did in >the daily commute. In August I finally gave in me, a lifelong public >transport advocate and bought a car for the local trips. (The shame, the >shame!). > >The answer definitely lies in local flexible transport probably a >combination of small bus-based and affordable taxi where we can get >low-fare trips in shared vehicles at a level of service that is close to >taxi. Tariffs would be higher than regular bus, but probably not too much >more. Problem is, the city authorities don t want to know (they have >lovely highway plans), and both the bus operators and the taxi operators >see it as a threat. > >Anyone else got perspectives on this ? > >Brendan Finn, >ETTS, Ireland. > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: sustran-discuss-bounces+etts=indigo.ie@list.jca.apc.org >[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+etts=indigo.ie@list.jca.apc.org]On Behalf >Of EcoPlan, Paris >Sent: 10 December 2004 11:19 >To: XWorkCafe@yahoogroups.com; Sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org >Cc: j.goodman@forumforthefuture.org.uk >Subject: [sustran] Green activist slams government's teleworking policy > > > >Ingrid Marson, ZDNet UK, December 09, 2004, >14:25 GMT > >More : > >1. Source: >http://new s.zdnet.co.uk/business/0,39020645,39179945,00.htm > >2. Click >here >to download a free copy of the report. > >http://www.forumforthefuture.org.uk/publications/greentelework pub_page2012.aspx > >3. Click here to share your views with group : >mailto:XWorkCafe@yahoogroups.com > > > >Jonathon Porritt, ex-director of Friends of the Earth, has criticised >government reports on teleworking as 'tokenist' > >An environmental charity has called on the UK government to revise its >policy on teleworking and encourage organisations to use it as part of >their environmental policy. > >On Wednesday Forum for the Future launched a report on teleworking which >showed how it can be used to reduce the impact that companies have on the >environment and promote sustainable economic development. > >Jonathon Porritt, the programme director of the charity, said government >reports on teleworking do not have enough information on how it can be >used to improve sustainability. In particular, he criticised a >report >produced by the Department for Trade and Industry in 2003, entitled >Telework Guidance, and a report by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister >as respectively having "tokenistic references" and "only the odd >tokenistic paragraph" on how businesses should use teleworking to reduce >their environmental impact. > >"The government in every level has got to stop pussy-footing around with >sustainable development and embed in its practice," said Porritt. > >The charity's report, entitled "Encouraging Green Teleworking", found that >teleworking reduces the need for transport and will therefore contribute >to achieving the government's targets on cutting carbon dioxide emissions. >This is a necessity for the government after its admission on Wednesday >that it will fail to meet its target on cutting carbon dioxide emissions >by 20 percent by 2010 -- something Porritt didn't duck during his speech. > >"The Prime Minister thinks it's a pretty ambitious goal to achieve its >climate change goal of 20 percent," said Porritt. "Well, so do I when I >look at the government policy." > >Sun, which commissioned the charity's report and has had a teleworking >policy for five years, initially started its policy on teleworking due to >the problems of traffic congestion during the dot-com boom, according to >Richard Barrington, the head of government affairs at Sun. > >"Part of the reason we started doing this was because of congestion," said >Barrington at the launch event. "We did it purely because people were just >sat in cars on roads. We started with drop-in centres along motorways -- >industrial units where we had scattered technology." > >Employees at Sun save two hours commuting time per week through >teleworking, according to the report. > >Companies can also save money by cutting down on the amount of office >space needed. Sun has reduced its office space needs by 25 percent in the >last four years through teleworking, according to the report. > >But one environmental downsides of teleworking is that it requires more >hardware, which requires extra resources to produce and creates more >waste. One way to minimise this impact is for companies to use thin >clients. Barrington said that a significant number of Sun employees in the >States are already using thin clients at home and it is in the process of >rolling out thin clients to home workers across the UK. > >Porritt said that the technology side of teleworking is something which is >likely to attract the government. "There's one bit of the sustainability >that the government should like -- teleworking -- because its wonderously >high-tech and glossy&it's lots of whizzy machines." > >One important aspect of implementing teleworking is change management, >something which Barrington says Sun is still dealing with. > >"We still have a significant percentage of managers who don't like this, >who think 'If I can't see, I can't manage, as I don't know what you're >doing,'" said Barrington. "But if you treat people like adults or >grown-ups, they tend to respond in kind." > >Porritt has had a long involvement with environmental issues in the UK -- >he was the Chairman of the Green Party in the 80s, was the director of >Friends of the Earth for a number of years until he left in 1996 to set up >Forum for the Future. He was appointed chairman of the Sustainable >Development Commission, the government's independent advisory body on >sustainable development, in 2000. > >In response to Porritt's comments, the government said that it was focused >on giving companies practical advice on teleworking. > >"Of course we recognise there are very important environmental benefits to >teleworking. The guidance last year was intended for practical use for >employers and employees," said a DTI spokesman. > > > > Sincerely, Todd Litman, Director Victoria Transport Policy Institute "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity" 1250 Rudlin Street Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, Canada Phone & Fax: 250-360-1560 Email: litman@vtpi.org Website: http://www.vtpi.org From tk at thomaskrag.com Sat Dec 11 02:34:10 2004 From: tk at thomaskrag.com (Thomas Krag) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 18:34:10 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Re: Green activist slams government's teleworking policy References: Message-ID: <021001c4dede$75bdde60$c300a8c0@packbell> A few comments - not to teleworking in itself, but on short trips: Is is a general misunderstanding that short car trips are worse than long car trips. It is very true that a calculated figure of the emissions per distance will be bigger for short trips than for long trips. But the opposite is true for the actual emissions. So if a long car trip is substituted with a short one, pollution will go down. Personally I still have to be convinced on the need for inventing a motorised system to cater for short trips (up to 3 km). I rather think a mental change is needed, and maybe some planning interventions as well. The key issue of the mental change in question is to bring about an understanding that motorisation, even how good it can be for a long range of purposes, is not always THE solution. For trips up to 3 km, for example, a superior but non-motorised solution has been demonstrated in several countries and cities. Many doubt the relevance, and in some places it is difficult to implement it due to planning obstacles - therefore planning interventions may be necessary. Where conditions are acceptable, however, a 3 km trip including access-, egress- and waiting time can usually be carried out in less than 15 minutes, for the more experiences userd and well planned areas even in less than 10 minutes. The solution is named "bicycle". Enjoy your ride! Thomas Krag -- Thomas Krag Mobility Advice Wilhelm Marstrands Gade 11 DK-2100 K?benhavn ? Tel +45 35 42 86 24, mob 27 11 86 24 tk@thomaskrag.com - www.thomaskrag.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Brendan Finn To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 12:44 PM Subject: [sustran] Re: Green activist slams government's teleworking policy Teleworking is good for those whose work permits it. I agree that it has huge potential, especially in countries with a knowledge economy. A lot of attention has been paid to technical, organisational, oversight, the arrangements within the home (or local office/desk), and self-management issues - i.e. to the work itself. Two aspects that must also be considered : a) The amenities where you are located - if it's dead suburbia, you don't really have access to very much during the day. After a while, that's not a lot of fun. b) The local transportation system. Public transport is designed to take you to/from the city centre, along the key arteries. It is ABSOLUTELY NOT designed for the local run-about journeys of 2-3 km. These are, of course, the typically journeys of home-makers and teleworkers. I'd be very interested to see whether the great ecological savings from the commute to downtown or out-of-town cube-farm is offset by a huge amount of local trips, and even if people have found themselves having to BUY ANOTHER CAR because the local transportation doesn't serve them. And as we all know, short trips by car are ecologically the worst. Personal example at this stage. I work from home when I'm in Ireland (about half the time, my journey to work distance should make an interesting distribution). I'm in the suburbs of Dublin, good bus service to city centre. But there's nothing for the local trips. What I can do in 5 minutes by car takes about a half-hour on foot, and probably as long when I factor in wait time - for the few trips that I could do by bus. I was spending more time on simple errands (pick up some stationary, computer accessories, call to travel agent, plus personal stuff) than I ever did in the daily commute. In August I finally gave in - me, a lifelong public transport advocate - and bought a car for the local trips. (The shame, the shame!). The answer definitely lies in local flexible transport - probably a combination of small bus-based and affordable taxi - where we can get low-fare trips in shared vehicles at a level of service that is close to taxi. Tariffs would be higher than regular bus, but probably not too much more. Problem is, the city authorities don't want to know (they have lovely highway plans), and both the bus operators and the taxi operators see it as a threat. Anyone else got perspectives on this ? Brendan Finn, ETTS, Ireland. -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+etts=indigo.ie@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+etts=indigo.ie@list.jca.apc.org]On Behalf Of EcoPlan, Paris Sent: 10 December 2004 11:19 To: XWorkCafe@yahoogroups.com; Sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org Cc: j.goodman@forumforthefuture.org.uk Subject: [sustran] Green activist slams government's teleworking policy Ingrid Marson, ZDNet UK, December 09, 2004, 14:25 GMT More : 1. Source: http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/0,39020645,39179945,00.htm 2. Click here to download a free copy of the report. http://www.forumforthefuture.org.uk/publications/greenteleworkpub_page2012.aspx 3. Click here to share your views with group : mailto:XWorkCafe@yahoogroups.com Jonathon Porritt, ex-director of Friends of the Earth, has criticised government reports on teleworking as 'tokenist' An environmental charity has called on the UK government to revise its policy on teleworking and encourage organisations to use it as part of their environmental policy. On Wednesday Forum for the Future launched a report on teleworking which showed how it can be used to reduce the impact that companies have on the environment and promote sustainable economic development. Jonathon Porritt, the programme director of the charity, said government reports on teleworking do not have enough information on how it can be used to improve sustainability. In particular, he criticised a report produced by the Department for Trade and Industry in 2003, entitled Telework Guidance, and a report by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister as respectively having "tokenistic references" and "only the odd tokenistic paragraph" on how businesses should use teleworking to reduce their environmental impact. "The government in every level has got to stop pussy-footing around with sustainable development and embed in its practice," said Porritt. The charity's report, entitled "Encouraging Green Teleworking", found that teleworking reduces the need for transport and will therefore contribute to achieving the government's targets on cutting carbon dioxide emissions. This is a necessity for the government after its admission on Wednesday that it will fail to meet its target on cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 20 percent by 2010 -- something Porritt didn't duck during his speech. "The Prime Minister thinks it's a pretty ambitious goal to achieve its climate change goal of 20 percent," said Porritt. "Well, so do I when I look at the government policy." Sun, which commissioned the charity's report and has had a teleworking policy for five years, initially started its policy on teleworking due to the problems of traffic congestion during the dot-com boom, according to Richard Barrington, the head of government affairs at Sun. "Part of the reason we started doing this was because of congestion," said Barrington at the launch event. "We did it purely because people were just sat in cars on roads. We started with drop-in centres along motorways -- industrial units where we had scattered technology." Employees at Sun save two hours commuting time per week through teleworking, according to the report. Companies can also save money by cutting down on the amount of office space needed. Sun has reduced its office space needs by 25 percent in the last four years through teleworking, according to the report. But one environmental downsides of teleworking is that it requires more hardware, which requires extra resources to produce and creates more waste. One way to minimise this impact is for companies to use thin clients. Barrington said that a significant number of Sun employees in the States are already using thin clients at home and it is in the process of rolling out thin clients to home workers across the UK. Porritt said that the technology side of teleworking is something which is likely to attract the government. "There's one bit of the sustainability that the government should like -- teleworking -- because its wonderously high-tech and glossy.it's lots of whizzy machines." One important aspect of implementing teleworking is change management, something which Barrington says Sun is still dealing with. "We still have a significant percentage of managers who don't like this, who think 'If I can't see, I can't manage, as I don't know what you're doing,'" said Barrington. "But if you treat people like adults or grown-ups, they tend to respond in kind." Porritt has had a long involvement with environmental issues in the UK -- he was the Chairman of the Green Party in the 80s, was the director of Friends of the Earth for a number of years until he left in 1996 to set up Forum for the Future. He was appointed chairman of the Sustainable Development Commission, the government's independent advisory body on sustainable development, in 2000. In response to Porritt's comments, the government said that it was focused on giving companies practical advice on teleworking. "Of course we recognise there are very important environmental benefits to teleworking. The guidance last year was intended for practical use for employers and employees," said a DTI spokesman. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041210/f7c715bf/attachment-0001.html From townsend at alcor.concordia.ca Sat Dec 11 05:05:10 2004 From: townsend at alcor.concordia.ca (Craig Townsend) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 15:05:10 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: [NewMobilityCafe] World Technology Award for the Environment - 2004 Webcast now on line In-Reply-To: <842CED24A576E94FA736D0DC0FAF81596723D9@tflexc001.corp.tfl. local> References: <842CED24A576E94FA736D0DC0FAF81596723D9@tflexc001.corp.tfl.local> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041210145659.01bc88a0@alcor.concordia.ca> I have been teaching my urban transport geography students that it was French economist Pigou who first proposed road pricing in The Economics of Welfare, published in 1920. Surely someone on this list has read the relevant works and can give us an authoritative answer! On another matter, has anyone on the list participated in travel surveys of university students/staff and/or university campus transport planning? If you could direct me to any relevant studies, etc, I would be most appreciative. Please respond to my personal email address: townsend@alcor.concordia.ca Craig Townsend (not an economist!) At 01:56 PM 08/12/2004, you wrote: >Sorry Eric - >As always our Ken got it right re Milton Friedman. >(It would appear that both Milton Friedman and William Vickerey were >suggesting road pricing in the 1950s). >Merry Xmas > >Dave >Dave Wetzel; Vice-Chair; Transport for London.. > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Roads in a Market Economy. - book reviews >Reason , August-Sept, > 1996 by Robert > >W. Poole, Jr. > >.................one of the unexpected delights of this book is a heretofore >unpublished essay, included as an epilogue, by Milton Friedman and Daniel >Boorstin, dating from the early 1950s, proposing both private ownership and >market pricing for roads. As usual, Friedman was way ahead of most of the >rest of us. Fortunately, with the publication of Gabriel Roth's book, these >ideas will gain the kind of hearing they have long deserved. > >Publisher Robert W. Poole Jr. (bobp@reason.org) is president of the Reason >Foundation and a transportation policy adviser and consultant. > >COPYRIGHT 1996 Reason Foundation >COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >------------ > >-----Original Message----- >From: EcoPlan, Paris [mailto:eric.britton@ecoplan.org] >Sent: 08 December 2004 17:36 >To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com; Sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org >Subject: [NewMobilityCafe] World Technology Award for the Environment - 2004 >Webcast now on line > > > >Subject: World Technology Award for the Environment - 2004 Webcast now on >line > > > >To follow up on that last paragraph of my email of this morning concerning >the World Technology Award for the Environment that was given this year to >Mayor Ken Livingstone and his team for their Congestion Charging project, we >can now give you the URL where you can see both the Webcast for the 2004 >World Technology Award ceremony in San Francisco in October: >http://www.wtn.net/webcast/2004/summit/launch.html > > > > >Now if you do go there, I would suggest that you first pop the Award link at >the bottom of the home page, which sets off a very long Webcast indeed. If >your time is short - and whose isn't? - you may just want to have a quick >gander at the first several minutes in which the energetic WTN president >James Clark explains the philosophy behind these awards (definitely >interesting and quite innovative since he has set some rather challenging >goals). And then if you wish to see the short acceptance speech by Jared >Blumenfeld who is Director Department of the Environment of SF and who >accepted the award in the good mayor's name, you can get there by setting >the little slide that controls the presentation to about 80% of the way to >its end. And there you'll have it. > > > >There is also an acceptance speech by Mayor Livingstone which is gracious >and well informed and which you will be able to click to on the bottom >right. (In actual fact, Ken misses the correct attribution to the origins >of thinking and theory behind road pricing, which was not Milton Friedman in >1952. Rather it was his fellow Nobel Lauriat the wonderful, innovative and >very kind William Vickerey who got his idea when living in lower Manhattan, >watching traffic pile up in from of the Lincoln tunnel. I know that for a >fact because Professor Vickerey, who was my theory professor many years ago, >told me the story himself over coffee one morning after our class at >Columbia University. I guess since we are a small family that I should also >go on record by saying that no matter what a great teacher he was, as he >was, he and the rest of the faculty there still were not able to turn me >into an economist. > > > >There you have it. > > > >Eric Britton > >"Almost an economist" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041210/9bfb20fa/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.809 / Virus Database: 551 - Release Date: 09/12/2004 From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Sat Dec 11 01:21:15 2004 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (EcoPlan, Paris) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 17:21:15 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Green activist slams government's teleworking policy - more on In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20041210064553.04169e10@mail.highspeedplus.com> Message-ID: <000a01c4ded4$4b5b3c80$6501a8c0@jazz> Dear World Wide Sustainability Advocates: Let me build on these very useful observations over this one day and in turn by Porritt, Finn, Pardo and Litman, and who together do a very good job indeed of mapping the issues, for my part I would like to pitch in with a couple of words why I like telework and its tele-ilk by whatever name as a sustainability strategy, and how it fits into our I hope soon famous New Mobility Agenda. 1. It is a policy with at least some relevance and usefulness in the face of the challenges of the transition to a more sustainable transportation system. 2. At best it will solve only a small part of the whole huge challenge, and that in different ways and proportions in different places. 3. It falls into a broader class of what I like to call ?2% solutions?.. of which quite clearly there must be very many in order to make the move to sustainability. The many small parts of what Phil Goodwin called memorably and years ago ?packages of measures?. If we can put telework into this perspective, we will be able to do some useful things with it. Albeit very different things in different places. If we forget it, or if we give it too much importance as a technology mediated magic wands of some sort, well then we are only hopelessly optimistic and stupid. That said, I feel that If we have that one straight, we can then set out to find the other 49 measures that we need to concatenate to have a chance. Stay tuned. Pitch in. And of course make yourself heard also please copying to both NewMobility@yahoogroups.com and sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org (since we have only some overlap in membership and the issue is important for us all). >From a gray Paris, Eric Britton PS. I have copied the four earlier posts in this series as neatly as I could here, in the order in which they came in. Diligent housekeeper that I am. The Commons Sustainability Initiative: Seeking out and supporting new concepts for business, entrepreneurs, activists, community groups, and government; a thorn in the side of hesitant administrators and politicians; and through our joint efforts, energy and personal choices, placing them and ourselves firmly on the path to a more sustainable and more just society. -----Original Message----- Sent: 10 December 2004 11:19 To: XWorkCafe@yahoogroups.com; Sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org Subject: [Sustran] Green activist slams government's teleworking policy Ingrid Marson, ZDNet UK, December 09, 2004, 14:25 GMT More : 1. 1. Source: http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/0,39020645,39179945,00.htm 2. 2. Click here to download a free copy of the report. http://www.forumforthefuture.org.uk/publications/greenteleworkpub_page2012.a spx 3. 3. Click here to share your views with group : mailto:XWorkCafe@yahoogroups.com Jonathon Porritt, ex-director of Friends of the Earth, has criticised government reports on teleworking as 'tokenist' An environmental charity has called on the UK government to revise its policy on teleworking and encourage organisations to use it as part of their environmental policy. On Wednesday Forum for the Future launched a report on teleworking which showed how it can be used to reduce the impact that companies have on the environment and promote sustainable economic development. Jonathon Porritt, the programme director of the charity, said government reports on teleworking do not have enough information on how it can be used to improve sustainability. In particular, he criticised a report produced by the Department for Trade and Industry in 2003, entitled Telework Guidance, and a report by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister as respectively having "tokenistic references" and "only the odd tokenistic paragraph" on how businesses should use teleworking to reduce their environmental impact. "The government in every level has got to stop pussy-footing around with sustainable development and embed in its practice," said Porritt. The charity's report, entitled "Encouraging Green Teleworking", found that teleworking reduces the need for transport and will therefore contribute to achieving the government's targets on cutting carbon dioxide emissions. This is a necessity for the government after its admission on Wednesday that it will fail to meet its target on cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 20 percent by 2010 -- something Porritt didn't duck during his speech. "The Prime Minister thinks it's a pretty ambitious goal to achieve its climate change goal of 20 percent," said Porritt. "Well, so do I when I look at the government policy." Sun, which commissioned the charity's report and has had a teleworking policy for five years, initially started its policy on teleworking due to the problems of traffic congestion during the dot-com boom, according to Richard Barrington, the head of government affairs at Sun. "Part of the reason we started doing this was because of congestion," said Barrington at the launch event. "We did it purely because people were just sat in cars on roads. We started with drop-in centres along motorways -- industrial units where we had scattered technology." Employees at Sun save two hours commuting time per week through teleworking, according to the report. Companies can also save money by cutting down on the amount of office space needed. Sun has reduced its office space needs by 25 percent in the last four years through teleworking, according to the report. But one environmental downsides of teleworking is that it requires more hardware, which requires extra resources to produce and creates more waste. One way to minimise this impact is for companies to use thin clients. Barrington said that a significant number of Sun employees in the States are already using thin clients at home and it is in the process of rolling out thin clients to home workers across the UK. Porritt said that the technology side of teleworking is something which is likely to attract the government. "There's one bit of the sustainability that the government should like -- teleworking -- because its wonderously high-tech and glossy it's lots of whizzy machines." One important aspect of implementing teleworking is change management, something which Barrington says Sun is still dealing with. "We still have a significant percentage of managers who don't like this, who think 'If I can't see, I can't manage, as I don't know what you're doing,'" said Barrington. "But if you treat people like adults or grown-ups, they tend to respond in kind." Porritt has had a long involvement with environmental issues in the UK -- he was the Chairman of the Green Party in the 80s, was the director of Friends of the Earth for a number of years until he left in 1996 to set up Forum for the Future. He was appointed chairman of the Sustainable Development Commission, the government's independent advisory body on sustainable development, in 2000. In response to Porritt's comments, the government said that it was focused on giving companies practical advice on teleworking. "Of course we recognise there are very important environmental benefits to teleworking. The guidance last year was intended for practical use for employers and employees," said a DTI spokesman. ----------- On Behalf Of Brendan Finn Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 12:44 PM To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport Subject: [sustran] Re: Green activist slams government's teleworking policy Teleworking is good for those whose work permits it. I agree that it has huge potential, especially in countries with a knowledge economy. A lot of attention has been paid to technical, organisational, oversight, the arrangements within the home (or local office/desk), and self-management issues ? i.e. to the work itself. Two aspects that must also be considered : a) The amenities where you are located ? if it?s dead suburbia, you don?t really have access to very much during the day. After a while, that?s not a lot of fun. b) The local transportation system. Public transport is designed to take you to/from the city centre, along the key arteries. It is ABSOLUTELY NOT designed for the local run-about journeys of 2-3 km. These are, of course, the typically journeys of home-makers and teleworkers. I?d be very interested to see whether the great ecological savings from the commute to downtown or out-of-town cube-farm is offset by a huge amount of local trips, and even if people have found themselves having to BUY ANOTHER CAR because the local transportation doesn?t serve them. And as we all know, short trips by car are ecologically the worst. Personal example at this stage. I work from home when I?m in Ireland (about half the time, my journey to work distance should make an interesting distribution). I?m in the suburbs of Dublin, good bus service to city centre. But there?s nothing for the local trips. What I can do in 5 minutes by car takes about a half-hour on foot, and probably as long when I factor in wait time ? for the few trips that I could do by bus. I was spending more time on simple errands (pick up some stationary, computer accessories, call to travel agent, plus personal stuff) than I ever did in the daily commute. In August I finally gave in ? me, a lifelong public transport advocate ? and bought a car for the local trips. (The shame, the shame!). The answer definitely lies in local flexible transport ? probably a combination of small bus-based and affordable taxi ? where we can get low-fare trips in shared vehicles at a level of service that is close to taxi. Tariffs would be higher than regular bus, but probably not too much more. Problem is, the city authorities don?t want to know (they have lovely highway plans), and both the bus operators and the taxi operators see it as a threat. Anyone else got perspectives on this ? Brendan Finn, ETTS, Ireland. -----Original Message----- On Behalf Of Todd Alexander Litman Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 3:57 PM Subject: [sustran] Re: Green activist slams government's teleworking policy I think it may be a mistake to overemphasize telework alone as an environmental strategy. It certainly provides user benefits by allowing people to increase their housing and work location options, and to avoid some trips, but telework vehicle travel reductions and energy savings tend to be partly offset in the following ways: ? Teleworkers often make additional vehicle trips to run errands that would otherwise have been made during a commute. ? Employees may use teleworking to move further from their worksite, for example, choosing a home of job in a rural area or another city because they know that they only need to commute two or three days a week. In some cases this may encourage more urban sprawl. ? Vehicles not used for commuting may be driven by other household members. ? Telecommuters may use additional energy for home heating and cooling, and to power electronic equipment. ? Improved telecommunications may increase people?s long-distance connections, resulting in more travel. For example, people may make new friends through the Internet, and travel more to visit them. I believe that telework should be supported as a transportation option, but to significantly reduce external costs such as congestion, energy consumption and pollution emissions it must be matched with incentives to reduce driving such as higher fuel taxes, road and parking pricing, and distance-based vehicle insurance. Without those incentives, telework may provide little net benefit to society. For more information see the "Telework" chapter of the Online TDM Encyclopedia (http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm43.htm). Best wishes, -Todd Litman -------------- -----Original Message----- On Behalf Of Carlos Felipe Pardo Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 4:31 PM Other than that, I think telecommuting may have a "psychological" downside- or beneficial aspects. I explain myself: Telecommuters may not in touch with any other people in a long time, since they are "stuck" at home working by themselves. On the other hand, they may spend more time with their family (if they have any wife or children). Sometimes we should think of commuting as another way of knowing the world, and of interacting. I think the option should be to promote another kind of mobility: leisure trips in sustainable modes, while working at home. The hour or so that people had "available" for their home-work-home trip can be spent in these leisure activities during the day- walking in a nearby park, riding a bicycle somewhere, etc. Lastly, one or two days of the week should be taken for running errands. That way, interacting can be solved, congestion may be lowered and people could improve their life quality. But maybe this is too much of an illusion. Just thought that another point of view different from the technical one- thank you Todd- could be of use in this discussion. Does anyone else have another opinion? Carlos F. Pardo cpardo@cable.net.co (+573) 00 268 1389 (+571) 310 6218 Cr 4 # 66-54 Bogot?- Colombia -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041210/9682c43a/attachment-0001.html From richmond at alum.mit.edu Sat Dec 11 21:07:21 2004 From: richmond at alum.mit.edu (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 19:07:21 +0700 (SE Asia Standard Time) Subject: [sustran] World Bank on Dhaka transport Message-ID: Here is the World Bank position on Non Motorized Transport in Dhaka. Any comments? --Jonathan Summary of NMT strategy under DUTP A fundamental component of the strategy to improve traffic conditions and circulation in Dhaka under the Dhaka Urban Transport Project (DUTP) is the segregation of motorized and non-motorized traffic. This is achieved through the creation of a network of NMT-free arterial roads, where existing road space does not allow the physical separation of slow and fast moving modes of traffic within the existing roadway. In January 2003 , the Dhaka Transport Coordination Board (DTCB) approved a network of 120km of main roads (about 6% of the total city network) from which it was proposed that NMT would be progressively restricted over the period up to December 2005. This core network is intended to provide for more efficient operation of motorized traffic, in particular, public transport services. It will also improve road safety for all modes. Integrated improvements on six corridors (about 50 km) within this network are funded under the Bank assisted DUTP. An initial section of the arterial network was improved under the project and converted to NMT-free operation in December 2002, following a social assessment and stakeholder consultations. This 'demonstration' corridor (Mirpur Road - Gabtali-Russell Square) continues to operate NMT-free and is generally adjudged to have been a success, with higher vehicle operating speeds, increased numbers of buses operating and a reduction in the number of reported road accidents. The traffic police have been supportive and it has proved possible to operate traffic signals successfully over the past 24 months, with increased driver compliance and understanding in an NMT-free environment. No additional sections of the NMT-free network have been introduced since December 2002. A comprehensive and in-depth impact study of both users and rickshaw pullers was undertaken by DTCB in mid-2004 through independent consultants to assess the overall impact of the conversion. Key results indicate that few difficulties have been experienced by users and that journey times in the corridor have been dramatically improved. The majority of users support the decision to move to NMT-free operations, as this reduced travel time by about 30% (8-10 minutes) per trip. Commuters using walking and buses reduced their transport cost, but it increased for others. There is a shortage of buses on the corridor, since bus owners do not find it commercially viable to ply modern large buses unless the total artery (Gabtoli-Azimpur-Press club) is made NMT-free. Reduced incomes were reported for rickshaw pullers as a result of the restrictions: those interviewed requested that Government provide some form of rehabilitation for rickshaw pullers prior to the introduction of the ban on NMT. BRAC (a leading NGO) is currently working with DTCB on the design of an appropriate safety net. This approach has now been mainstreamed by the Government of Bangladesh in the National Land Transport Policy which was adopted in early 2004, after a fairly extensive consultation and review process. The Policy includes under Section 9: Policies for Dhaka 9.2 Non-motorized transport 9.2.1 A progressive ban on the use of rickshaws on major arterial roads will be continued. Rickshaws will be allowed to cross such roads from and to minor side roads at selected crossings. 9.2.3 To encourage rickshaw use in suburban areas, where the bus network is less dense and/or frequent, as feeder services to the bus network. Survey and stakeholder consultations on the proposed next sections of the NMT-free corridor (the remainder of the Mirpur Road Corridor (Russell Square-Azimpur) and New Elephant Road) were completed in March 2004 through the Bangladesh Transport Federation. These indicate that if adequate and women friendly bus services are available and pavements are cleared and made secure, taking buses/walking would not create additional hardship for daily commuters, especially women as their commuting cost and time will be reduced by motorized transport. Separate interviews with bus operators indicated a strong support for the concept of expanding the network of NMT-free roads. It is evident that additional private operators are waiting and are willing to introduce additional new services on NMT-free corridors: the increased operating speeds make services financially attractive . The slow extension of the NMT-free network has resulted in some bus operators deferring their expansion plans. DTCB had originally proposed to convert these next to NMT-free operation in November 2003. This was subsequently deferred (now planned for Dec 2004). The Bank has requested that in order to fully benefit from the transport infrastructure investments made under the DUTP, the next phase of the NMT-free network be initiated without further delay. The Bank has also been emphasizing the importance of developing a network of parallel or complementary routes that can be used by NMT in order to mitigate the impact of the progressive restrictions on NMT using the main arterial network. The July 04 supervision mission was provided with a phased programme for the continued expansion of the NMT-free network, together with a proposed comprehensive network for NMT, some new dedicated NMT roads (or lanes), and a series of proposed NMT crossing points of the NMT-free arterial network. The mission stressed the importance of these alternative complimentary measures for NMT: in particular the provision of NMT crossing points of the arterial network have been consistently requested by representatives of NMT operators. Some 20 km of complementary NMT road sections and NMT parking areas associated with these arterial corridors, along with NMT-friendly junction redesigns and traffic signalling have been financed under the project. ----- Jonathan E. D. Richmond 02 524-5510 (office) Visiting Fellow Intl.: 662 524-5510 Urban Environmental Management program, School of Environment, Resources and Development Room N260B 02 524-8257 (home) Asian Institute of Technology Intl.: 662 524-8257 PO Box 4 Klong Luang, Pathumthani 12120 02 524-5509 (fax) Thailand Intl: 662 524-5509 e-mail: richmond@ait.ac.th Secretary: Kuhn Vantana Pattanakul richmond@alum.mit.edu 02 524-6368 Intl: 662 524-6132 http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ From karl at dnet.net.id Sat Dec 11 22:14:11 2004 From: karl at dnet.net.id (karl@dnet.net.id) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 20:14:11 +0700 (WIT) Subject: [sustran] Re: World Bank on Dhaka transport In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48559.203.88.130.74.1102770851.squirrel@203.88.130.74> Dear all, The whole premise of this argument that rickshaws have to be banned to improve the bus system is disingenuous, firstly in suggesting that the DUTP has been genuinely focusing on bus system improvements (they haven't), and secondly in suggesting that it is not possible to accommodate high volumes of buses and rickshaws in the same main corridors (it is). I reviewed the DUTP bus recommendations and they were quite weak. Their main thrust was to try to promote a few new 'premium', air-con routes while there was no attention given to on-street bus priority, bus stop design, or how to design corridors to accommodate both NMT and high volumes of buses. The only bus system recommendation of the DUTP actually implemented had no impact on the bus system. It was route tendering pilot which was not seriously bid for and which the 'winner' will not operate. I talked to the directors of one new private bus operator. They have several routes, and all are profitable except for one. Which one? The NMT free route from Uttara to Motijheel. The main reason for the loss? Severe congestion. So does making the road NMT free solve congestion?? Operating speeds for buses on this 'NMT free' route are often less than 10km/hr. The claim that rickshaws are the main gripe of the bus operators are not true according to my recent experience there. I spoke to directors of both of the new major new bus operators in the city. They have many concerns, the most serious of which is the poor operating conditions caused by congestion (especially on the rickshaw free route mentioned above), difficulties in licensing / permits, a 'fare war', and other issues. Of course there are many conflicts between buses and rickshaws, but also between buses and every other mode given the total lack of priority for buses in Dhaka. The claim that bus operators are 'standing by' waiting for the government to ban rickshaws is also untrue in my view. There is a lot that can be done to improve bus services in Dhaka and there is absolutely no reason that high volumes of buses and high volumes of rickshaws cannot operate in the same corridor. Kunming provides a good example of high volumes of buses & NMT in the same street. Instead of talking about 'nmt free' what they should do is come up with good designs to accommodate the high volumes of rickshaws, as well as measures to better regulate rickshaws. If they need to ban anything from congested corridors, start with private cars (used for only a very small percentage of trips in Dhaka). So don't be misled; it's not about buses. I worked on bus system improvements in Dhaka and the Dhaka Transport Coordination Board (under the previous executive director; maybe things have changed with the very recent appointment of a new ED) showed no interest in the topic. They want a metro and elevated road network. As for the real reason for this preoccupation with NMT free roads being driven by a few WB staff against a generally reluctant mayor and transport minister: it seems to be part of the general transport planning preoccupation of the DUTP in Dhaka which has been to improve the flow of traffic for the small minority of people using cars (around 7 people out of 1000 in Dhaka own a car; the 993 others don't) regardless of the consequences for the very large majority who are walking, using rickshaws, or using buses. The good news, though, is that it is not too late to change this. Dhaka still has a huge majority of people using the 'sustainable' modes of buses, walking, and rickshaws, and most of the NMT bans have not yet been implemented. One of the very recent studies under the DUTP has recommended Bus Rapid Transit combined with rickshaws - including on the main arterials, not just as feeders to the BRT - and pedestrian facility improvements. The WB staff involved on their part have to their credit been open to receiving feedback on the 'NMT free' policy in Dhaka and shown a willingness to engage in a dialogue on it. regards, Karl Fjellstrom (views expressed do not necessarily represent those of any employer) > > Here is the World Bank position on Non Motorized Transport in Dhaka. > Any comments? --Jonathan > > > Summary of NMT strategy under DUTP > > A fundamental component of the strategy to improve traffic conditions and > circulation in Dhaka under the Dhaka Urban Transport Project (DUTP) is the > segregation of motorized and non-motorized traffic. This is achieved > through the creation of a network of NMT-free arterial roads, where > existing road space does not allow the physical separation of slow and > fast moving modes of traffic within the existing roadway. > > In January 2003 , the Dhaka Transport Coordination Board (DTCB) approved a > network of 120km of main roads (about 6% of the total city network) from > which it was proposed that NMT would be progressively restricted over the > period up to December 2005. This core network is intended to provide for > more efficient operation of motorized traffic, in particular, public > transport services. It will also improve road safety for all modes. > Integrated improvements on six corridors (about 50 km) within this network > are funded under the Bank assisted DUTP. > > An initial section of the arterial network was improved under the project > and converted to NMT-free operation in December 2002, following a social > assessment and stakeholder consultations. This 'demonstration' corridor > (Mirpur Road - Gabtali-Russell Square) continues to operate NMT-free and > is generally adjudged to have been a success, with higher vehicle > operating speeds, increased numbers of buses operating and a reduction in > the number of reported road accidents. The traffic police have been > supportive and it has proved possible to operate traffic signals > successfully over the past 24 months, with increased driver compliance and > understanding in an NMT-free environment. No additional sections of the > NMT-free network have been introduced since December 2002. > > A comprehensive and in-depth impact study of both users and rickshaw > pullers was undertaken by DTCB in mid-2004 through independent > consultants to assess the overall impact of the conversion. Key results > indicate that few difficulties have been experienced by users and that > journey times in the corridor have been dramatically improved. The > majority of users support the decision to move to NMT-free operations, as > this reduced travel time by about 30% (8-10 minutes) per trip. Commuters > using walking and buses reduced their transport cost, but it increased > for others. There is a shortage of buses on the corridor, since bus owners > do not find it commercially viable to ply modern large buses unless the > total artery (Gabtoli-Azimpur-Press club) is made NMT-free. Reduced > incomes were reported for rickshaw pullers as a result of the > restrictions: those interviewed requested that Government provide some > form of rehabilitation for rickshaw pullers prior to the introduction of > the ban on NMT. BRAC (a leading NGO) is currently working with DTCB on > the design of an appropriate safety net. > > This approach has now been mainstreamed by the Government of Bangladesh in > the National Land Transport Policy which was adopted in early 2004, after > a fairly extensive consultation and review process. The Policy includes > under Section 9: Policies for Dhaka > > 9.2 Non-motorized transport > > 9.2.1 A progressive ban on the use of rickshaws on major arterial roads > will be continued. Rickshaws will be allowed to cross such roads from and > to minor side roads at selected crossings. > > 9.2.3 To encourage rickshaw use in suburban areas, where the bus network > is less dense and/or frequent, as feeder services to the bus network. > > Survey and stakeholder consultations on the proposed next sections of the > NMT-free corridor (the remainder of the Mirpur Road Corridor (Russell > Square-Azimpur) and New Elephant Road) were completed in March 2004 > through the Bangladesh Transport Federation. These indicate that if > adequate and women friendly bus services are available and pavements are > cleared and made secure, taking buses/walking would not create additional > hardship for daily commuters, especially women as their commuting cost and > time will be reduced by motorized transport. Separate interviews with bus > operators indicated a strong support for the concept of expanding the > network of NMT-free roads. It is evident that additional private operators > are waiting and are willing to introduce additional new services on > NMT-free corridors: the increased operating speeds make services > financially attractive . The slow extension of the NMT-free network has > resulted in some bus operators deferring their expansion plans. > > DTCB had originally proposed to convert these next to NMT-free operation > in November 2003. This was subsequently deferred (now planned for Dec > 2004). The Bank has requested that in order to fully benefit from the > transport infrastructure investments made under the DUTP, the next phase > of the NMT-free network be initiated without further delay. > > The Bank has also been emphasizing the importance of developing a network > of parallel or complementary routes that can be used by NMT in order to > mitigate the impact of the progressive restrictions on NMT using the main > arterial network. The July 04 supervision mission was provided with a > phased programme for the continued expansion of the NMT-free network, > together with a proposed comprehensive network for NMT, some new dedicated > NMT roads (or lanes), and a series of proposed NMT crossing points of the > NMT-free arterial network. The mission stressed the importance of these > alternative complimentary measures for NMT: in particular the provision of > NMT crossing points of the arterial network have been consistently > requested by representatives of NMT operators. Some 20 km of complementary > NMT road sections and NMT parking areas associated with these arterial > corridors, along with NMT-friendly junction redesigns and traffic > signalling have been financed under the project. > > > ----- > > Jonathan E. D. Richmond 02 524-5510 (office) > Visiting Fellow Intl.: 662 524-5510 > Urban Environmental Management program, > School of Environment, Resources and Development > Room N260B 02 524-8257 (home) > Asian Institute of Technology Intl.: 662 524-8257 > PO Box 4 > Klong Luang, Pathumthani 12120 02 524-5509 (fax) > Thailand Intl: 662 524-5509 > > e-mail: richmond@ait.ac.th Secretary: Kuhn Vantana > Pattanakul > richmond@alum.mit.edu 02 524-6368 > Intl: 662 524-6132 > http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ > > From townsend at alcor.concordia.ca Sun Dec 12 10:57:58 2004 From: townsend at alcor.concordia.ca (townsend@alcor.concordia.ca) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 20:57:58 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: World Bank on Dhaka transport Message-ID: <1102816678.41bba5a67a0a6@alcor.concordia.ca> The World Bank can be accused of many things, but inconsistency is not one of them! The Dhaka recommendations are by-the-book 1950s American Urban Transport Planning. As others have identified (see Dimitriou, 1992; Vasconcellos, 2001; Mees, 1999), the World Bank and international consultants have been exporting this model to developing countries for some time now. Beginning in the 1970s, similar recommendations were made, and to some extent followed, in Asian cities such as Bangkok (where rickshaws were banished to the suburbs and electric streetcars were dismantled) and Kuala Lumpur (where large scale road- building and low capacity owner-operated minibuses were introduced). The fact that high-density, low-income cities such as Dhaka will never be able to accommodate widespread and fast motor vehicle movement is not enough to dissuade the World Bank experts from using the same old manual. Ironically, while the wisdom of segregating traffic is now being questioned in the US where these types of policies have been pursued for decades (see story pasted in below), they are now being enthusiastically promoted in places like Dhaka. I suppose this is what we would expect from an institution whose lending activities are directly accountable to only one elected body (the US Congress). I propose that the desire of Dhaka officials to build metros and expressways (identified by Karl) is based on the realistic assumption that they will be given access to big money to pursue those capital-intensive projects while there will be little in the way of funds for NMT. Regards, Craig Townsend >From Wired magazine, December 2004 http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.12/traffic.html?pg=2&topic=(none) &topic_set=(none) Roads Gone Wild: No street signs. No crosswalks. No accidents. Surprise: Making driving seem more dangerous could make it safer. By Tom McNichol Hans Monderman is a traffic engineer who hates traffic signs. Oh, he can put up with the well-placed speed limit placard or a dangerous curve warning on a major highway, but Monderman considers most signs to be not only annoying but downright dangerous. To him, they are an admission of failure, a sign - literally - that a road designer somewhere hasn't done his job. "The trouble with traffic engineers is that when there's a problem with a road, they always try to add something," Monderman says. "To my mind, it's much better to remove things." Monderman is one of the leaders of a new breed of traffic engineer - equal parts urban designer, social scientist, civil engineer, and psychologist. The approach is radically counterintuitive: Build roads that seem dangerous, and they'll be safer. Monderman and I are tooling around the rural two-lane roads of northern Holland, where he works as a road designer. He wants to show me a favorite intersection he designed. It's a busy junction that doesn't contain a single traffic signal, road sign, or directional marker, an approach that turns eight decades of traditional traffic thinking on its head. Wearing a striped tie and crisp blue blazer with shiny gold buttons, Monderman looks like the sort of stout, reliable fellow you'd see on a package of pipe tobacco. He's worked as a civil engineer and traffic specialist for more than 30 years and, for a time, ran his own driving school. Droll and reserved, he's easy to underestimate - but his ideas on road design, safety, and city planning are being adopted from Scandinavia to the Sunshine State. Riding in his green Saab, we glide into Drachten, a 17th-century village that has grown into a bustling town of more than 40,000. We pass by the performing arts center, and suddenly, there it is: the Intersection. It's the confluence of two busy two-lane roads that handle 20,000 cars a day, plus thousands of bicyclists and pedestrians. Several years ago, Monderman ripped out all the traditional instruments used by traffic engineers to influence driver behavior - traffic lights, road markings, and some pedestrian crossings - and in their place created a roundabout, or traffic circle. The circle is remarkable for what it doesn't contain: signs or signals telling drivers how fast to go, who has the right-of-way, or how to behave. There are no lane markers or curbs separating street and sidewalk, so it's unclear exactly where the car zone ends and the pedestrian zone begins. To an approaching driver, the intersection is utterly ambiguous - and that's the point. Monderman and I stand in silence by the side of the road a few minutes, watching the stream of motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians make their way through the circle, a giant concrete mixing bowl of transport. Somehow it all works. The drivers slow to gauge the intentions of crossing bicyclists and walkers. Negotiations over right-of-way are made through fleeting eye contact. Remarkably, traffic moves smoothly around the circle with hardly a brake screeching, horn honking, or obscene gesture. "I love it!" Monderman says at last. "Pedestrians and cyclists used to avoid this place, but now, as you see, the cars look out for the cyclists, the cyclists look out for the pedestrians, and everyone looks out for each other. You can't expect traffic signs and street markings to encourage that sort of behavior. You have to build it into the design of the road." It's no surprise that the Dutch, a people renowned for social experimentation in practically every facet of life, have embraced new ideas in traffic management. But variations of Monderman's less-is-more approach to traffic engineering are spreading around the globe, showing up in Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Spain, Sweden, the UK, and the US. In Denmark, the town of Christianfield stripped the traffic signs and signals from its major intersection and cut the number of serious or fatal accidents a year from three to zero. In England, towns in Suffolk and Wiltshire have removed lane lines from secondary roads in an effort to slow traffic - experts call it "psychological traffic calming." A dozen other towns in the UK are looking to do the same. A study of center-line removal in Wiltshire, conducted by the Transport Research Laboratory, a UK transportation consultancy, found that drivers with no center line to guide them drove more safely and had a 35 percent decrease in the number of accidents. In the US, traffic engineers are beginning to rethink the dictum that the car is king and pedestrians are well advised to get the hell off the road. In West Palm Beach, Florida, planners have redesigned several major streets, removing traffic signals and turn lanes, narrowing the roadbed, and bringing people and cars into much closer contact. The result: slower traffic, fewer accidents, shorter trip times. "I think the future of transportation in our cities is slowing down the roads," says Ian Lockwood, the transportation manager for West Palm Beach during the project and now a transportation and design consultant. "When you try to speed things up, the system tends to fail, and then you're stuck with a design that moves traffic inefficiently and is hostile to pedestrians and human exchange." The common thread in the new approach to traffic engineering is a recognition that the way you build a road affects far more than the movement of vehicles. It determines how drivers behave on it, whether pedestrians feel safe to walk alongside it, what kinds of businesses and housing spring up along it. "A wide road with a lot of signs is telling a story," Monderman says. "It's saying, go ahead, don't worry, go as fast as you want, there's no need to pay attention to your surroundings. And that's a very dangerous message." We drive on to another project Monderman designed, this one in the nearby village of Oosterwolde. What was once a conventional road junction with traffic lights has been turned into something resembling a public square that mixes cars, pedestrians, and cyclists. About 5,000 cars pass through the square each day, with no serious accidents since the redesign in 1999. "To my mind, there is one crucial test of a design such as this," Monderman says. "Here, I will show you." With that, Monderman tucks his hands behind his back and begins to walk into the square - backward - straight into traffic, without being able to see oncoming vehicles. A stream of motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians ease around him, instinctively yielding to a man with the courage of his convictions. >From the beginning, a central premise guiding American road design was that driving and walking were utterly incompatible modes of transport, and that the two should be segregated as much as possible. The planned suburban community of Radburn, New Jersey, founded in 1929 as "a town for the motor age," took the segregation principle to its logical extreme. Radburn's key design element was the strict separation of vehicles and people; cars were afforded their own generously proportioned network, while pedestrians were tucked safely away in residential "super blocks," which often terminated in quiet cul de sacs. Parents could let kids walk to the local school without fearing that they might be mowed down in the street. Radburn quickly became a template for other communities in the US and Britain, and many of its underlying assumptions were written directly into traffic codes. The psychology of driver behavior was largely unknown. Traffic engineers viewed vehicle movement the same way a hydraulics engineer approaches water moving through a pipe - to increase the flow, all you have to do is make the pipe fatter. Roads became wider and more "forgiving" - roadside trees were cut down and other landscape elements removed in an effort to decrease fatalities. Road signs, rather than road architecture, became the chief way to enforce behavior. Pedestrians, meanwhile, were kept out of the traffic network entirely or limited to defined crossing points. The strict segregation of cars and people turned out to have unintended consequences on towns and cities. Wide roads sliced through residential areas, dividing neighborhoods, discouraging pedestrian activity, and destroying the human scale of the urban environment. The old ways of traffic engineering - build it bigger, wider, faster - aren't going to disappear overnight. But one look at West Palm Beach suggests an evolution is under way. When the city of 82,000 went ahead with its plan to convert several wide thoroughfares into narrow two-way streets, traffic slowed so much that people felt it was safe to walk there. The increase in pedestrian traffic attracted new shops and apartment buildings. Property values along Clematis Street, one of the town's main drags, have more than doubled since it was reconfigured. "In West Palm, people were just fed up with the way things were, and sometimes, that's what it takes," says Lockwood, the town's former transportation manager. "What we really need is a complete paradigm shift in traffic engineering and city planning to break away from the conventional ideas that have got us in this mess. There's still this notion that we should build big roads everywhere because the car represents personal freedom. Well, that's bullshit. The truth is that most people are prisoners of their cars." Today some of the most car-oriented areas in the US are rethinking their approaches to traffic, mainly because they have little choice. "The old way doesn't work anymore," says Gary Toth, director of project planning and development for the New Jersey Department of Transportation. The 2004 Urban Mobility Report, published by the respected Texas Transportation Institute, shows that traffic congestion is growing across the nation in towns and cities of all sizes. The study's conclusion: It's only going to get worse. Instead of widening congested highways, New Jersey's DOT is urging neighboring or contiguous towns to connect their secondary streets and add smaller centers of development, creating a series of linked minivillages with narrow roads, rather than wide, car-choked highways strewn with malls. "The cities that continue on their conventional path with traffic and land use will harm themselves, because people with a choice will leave," says Lockwood. "They'll go to places where the quality of life is better, where there's more human exchange, where the city isn't just designed for cars. The economy is going to follow the creative class, and they want to live in areas that have a sense of place. That's why these new ideas have to catch on. The folly of traditional traffic engineering is all around us." Back in Holland, Monderman is fighting his own battle against the folly of traditional traffic engineering, one sign at a time. "Every road tells a story," Monderman says. "It's just that so many of our roads tell the story poorly, or tell the wrong story." As the new approach to traffic begins to take hold in the US, the road ahead is unmarked and ambiguous. Hans Monderman couldn't be happier. How to Build a Better Intersection: Chaos = Cooperation 1. Remove signs: The architecture of the road - not signs and signals - dictates traffic flow. 2. Install art: The height of the fountain indicates how congested the intersection is. 3. Share the spotlight: Lights illuminate not only the roadbed, but also the pedestrian areas. 4. Do it in the road: Caf?s extend to the edge of the street, further emphasizing the idea of shared space. 5. See eye to eye: Right-of-way is negotiated by human interaction, rather than commonly ignored signs. 6. Eliminate curbs: Instead of a raised curb, sidewalks are denoted by texture and color. Contributing editor Tom McNichol (mcnichol@pacbell.net) wrote about bowling in issue 12.09. From binac at rediffmail.com Sun Dec 12 14:31:17 2004 From: binac at rediffmail.com (Bina C. Balakrishnan) Date: 12 Dec 2004 05:31:17 -0000 Subject: [sustran] Re: [NewMobilityCafe] Taxis at night and safe transport for women. Message-ID: <20041212053117.7096.qmail@webmail8.rediffmail.com> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041212/da76a835/attachment.txt From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Sat Dec 11 21:59:02 2004 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (EcoPlan, Paris) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 13:59:02 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Taxis at night and safe transport for women. In-Reply-To: <842CED24A576E94FA736D0DC0FAF815967240A@tflexc001.corp.tfl.local> Message-ID: <00be01c4df81$3734a9f0$6501a8c0@jazz> Dave and others: After years of observation, careful research and direct hands on consulting work in the sector, including a fair amount with taxis and less conventional transportation arrangements, I would share this thought with you. (If that is you are not already turned off by my, what S. Johnson so notably called the 'art of high profession'.) Your problem setting, which I appreciate, is nonetheless absolutely your problem. I realize of course that there is a rich history, tradition, ordinances, laws, union practices, behaviour and preferences and the list goes on . . . all of which one by one narrow your options. But if you take it like that believe me you will never be able to find anything more than a weak palliative. And the odds are not even that. If you really want to solve your problem, what you have to do is step (way) back, as your team and your mayor did when it was time to bite the bullet and go for road pricing. IN tihis case two, the problem is a lot bigger than it may at first appear to be. We are not talking about dusting the furniture here. What you need in this case - and bearing in mind that you are looking for near term solutions, say within months or at the most a year or two - is to take a clean piece of paper, step way back, and once you have defined your solution set - which incidentally the people and groups included in this mailing can certainly help you with - take it to your good mayor and explain to him that this is the next part of his great challenge. Every bit as contentious and difficult as congestion charging, -- indeed more - but there is no doubt that we have the technology and entrepreneurial capability - let's not forget this last, something which all too often gets missed in the old binomial public/private split which is making the transportation sector as stupid and underperforming as it is at present. The future of transport in cities is going to a good extent to be mediated by technology (including whatever mobile phones of always-there personal communications systems, and their extensions) and small/medium/large vehicles systems with drivers working on an enterprise system modulated by training and social and commercial awareness that good service is not only good business but also a social good. The viewpoint that underlies your letter essentially to my mind refuses to take this challenge on, and asks instead how can we slip along with doing as little as possible. Or do I have this profoundly wrong? In any event, in addressing this to you I know that I am going to get both your attention and your vigorous response. ;-) Eric Britton, as always with vigor and respect PS. I hate it when you use that word "paxs". Is that the way it is handled in English English the days? In the language that I practice, we have always called them people or passengers. Or, at our best, "us". But tell me that I have this wrong and I can try to adjust. We have a problem in London that despite the Mayor increasing taxi night fares, there are not enough licensed taxis operating at night and giving a "hail and ride" service. Most "black cab" drivers are self-employed and we can not force them to operate at night. We are experimenting with special ranks for taxi drivers on their final journeys to match a "fare" who is going broadly in the same direction. (But this is only a marginal increase in supply for some journeys and as most taxi drivers live in East London this area gets offered a better service). This shortage of licensed taxis leads to dangers for paxs (especially women) who coming out of clubs in the early hours only find illegal "touts" offering private car rides for cash. Not only can people be ripped off on the price but by far the most transport related rapes and assaults take place in these illegal vehicles. We are licensing "minicabs" and other private hire operators but they can only respond to telephone bookings or to paxs who attend their office. They are not licensed for street hailing. The National Rail suburban services tend to operate their last trains well before midnight and most Underground lines close at about 1am. Our Mayor is consulting Londoners on the option of Friday and Saturday Underground trains running one hour later at night (finishing in the early hours) but with the knock-on of trains starting one hour later Sat and Sun mornings to allow for engineering works to have the same time. We have extended our night bus operation (with CCTV cameras on board) across London and reduced the premium night bus fares to normal day-time levels but even these services leave people vulnerable for the final leg of their journey walking from the bus stop to their home. (This is not a theoretical risk, this year we have had a number of assaults and two murders). We are told that Madrid and some other cities do not have these taxi problems at night. London is a 24 hour City and we do need to address this problem. Is there any research or practical experience that could indicate a solution for us? Please copy Luke Howard e-mail: lukehoward2@tfl.gov.uk and myself into any reply. Tks (and seasonal greetings) Dave Dave Wetzel; Vice-Chair; Transport for London. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041211/6e7ea8d6/attachment.html From michaelm at myoffice.net.au Mon Dec 13 08:22:27 2004 From: michaelm at myoffice.net.au (Michael Yeates) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 09:22:27 +1000 Subject: [sustran] Re: [New Mobility/WorldTransport Forum] Taxis at night and safe transport for women. In-Reply-To: <842CED24A576E94FA736D0DC0FAF815967240A@tflexc001.corp.tfl. local> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20041213090032.02320680@mail.myoffice.net.au> Hi Dave and all, This should not be viewed (only?) as a gendered issue but rather as a level of service based on "access for all" ... ie a question of level of service expectations of which security and service continuity and frequency are important ... but service provision, essential ...! It seems to be yet another story about the futility of relying on competition and privatisation ... rather than integrated service provision. A rather happier story (hopefully still in existence unless the economists and road-funders triumphed over public transport users needs) was the so-called night-taxi system in operation in Graz in Austria. Given that public transport (in the case of Graz, primarily trams with buses mainly serving on extension and link routes) is expensive, it makes sense to not run public transport very late at night ... from an economists perspective. Therefore many low demand services are shut down which is of course a logical and rational conclusion. But from a public transport users perspective, that is of course completely the wrong solution. Reduced services and interconnections means that less people use the service, less security occurs with less people, the issues of the "wrong types of people" emerges, and with reduced patronage, an excuse to further cut the services. So in Graz, rather than run the public transport at a big loss at night, the public transport "progressively" closes down and taxis take over .. it is apparently cheaper for the public transport organisation(s) to pay the taxis a contracted subsidy than it is to run the public transport ... so the taxis know that there will be passengers along the remaining public transport routes until they too shut down. From then on, the taxis operate as the public transport system .. you provide your ticket as you would on the public transport ... the taxi then claims a contracted fare from the public transport supplier ... the taxis get a much higher fare than the fare already paid to the public transport by the passenger of course ... but that "cost" becomes a "saving", it is offset as a large saving from not running public transport into the period when the losses are simply too big. AND most importantly, by providing public transport users with a reliable cheap, safe, 24 hour service ... which in some ways is actually IMPROVED rather than made worse in the period when most public transport services either shut down or run skeleton services, patronage support and loyalty is maintained if not increased.. Effectively this is a very simple conceptual exercise in integration and from my very limited experience of it in 1999, it seemed to work well. Certainly people said they rarely had need of a car because they could always rely on the public transport with the night taxi system. The taxi drivers soon know where and how to find passengers ... they actually get much more work at night and probably a reduced proportion of undesirable passengers (than they otherwise would) so there is an incentive to keep the cabs on the road ... and the passengers regard it as equivalent or better level of service (ie safer at night, more convenient etc) than the "normal" public transport LOS. The taxis cluster where they expect to get passengers ... much as a bus<>rail integrated system ... so in the normal operations, buses do the integration, after hours it is the taxis. But it is possible to dramatically improve this system in an example of integrated service provision. In the case of Graz and its trams (I understand the buses all stop at about the same time across the network), imagine if the trams could be fitted with taxi call systems such that when the tram arrives at a stop, there is a reduced or zero waiting time for the taxi to arrive at the stop to complete the passengers journey. It is not hard to imagine this working to achieve the aims sought in the email below. Ideal world .. perhaps. But it does show the need to provide an integrated system that values customers and of course, Graz has been a leading demonstrator of the need to reduce the priority given to cars ... using a very complex but always well integrated suite of both carrots and sticks. The night taxi was one of the carrots ... I hope it has survived the economists ... regards Michael Yeates Public Transport Alliance Brisbane Australia At 10:31 PM 10/12/2004, Wetzel Dave wrote: >We have a problem in London that despite the Mayor increasing taxi night >fares, there are not enough licensed taxis operating at night and giving a >"hail and ride" service. >Most "black cab" drivers are self-employed and we can not force them to >operate at night. >We are experimenting with special ranks for taxi drivers on their final >journeys to match a "fare" who is going broadly in the same direction. (But >this is only a marginal increase in supply for some journeys and as most >taxi drivers live in East London this area gets offered a better service). > >This shortage of licensed taxis leads to dangers for paxs (especially women) >who coming out of clubs in the early hours only find illegal "touts" >offering private car rides for cash. > >Not only can people be ripped off on the price but by far the most transport >related rapes and assaults take place in these illegal vehicles. > >We are licensing "minicabs" and other private hire operators but they can >only respond to telephone bookings or to paxs who attend their office. They >are not licensed for street hailing. > >The National Rail suburban services tend to operate their last trains well >before midnight and most Underground lines close at about 1am. >Our Mayor is consulting Londoners on the option of Friday and Saturday >Underground trains running one hour later at night (finishing in the early >hours) but with the knock-on of trains starting one hour later Sat and Sun >mornings to allow for engineering works to have the same time. > >We have extended our night bus operation (with CCTV cameras on board) across >London and reduced the premium night bus fares to normal day-time levels >but even these services leave people vulnerable for the final leg of their >journey walking from the bus stop to their home. (This is not a theoretical >risk, this year we have had a number of assaults and two murders). > >We are told that Madrid and some other cities do not have these taxi >problems at night. > >London is a 24 hour City and we do need to address this problem. > >Is there any research or practical experience that could indicate a solution >for us? > >Please copy Luke Howard e-mail: lukehoward2@tfl.gov.uk and myself >into any reply. > >Tks (and seasonal greetings) > > >Dave >Dave Wetzel; Vice-Chair; Transport for London. >Tel: 020 7941 4200 >Intl Tel: +44 207 941 4200 > > > >*********************************************************************************** >The contents of the e-mail and any transmitted files are confidential and >intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are >addressed. Transport for London hereby exclude any warranty and any >liability as to the quality or accuracy of the contents of this email and >any attached transmitted files. If you are not the intended recipient be >advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, >dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly >prohibited. > >If you have received this email in error please notify postmaster@tfl.gov.uk. > >This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the >presence of computer viruses. >*********************************************************************************** > > > > > > >------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> >$4.98 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything. >http://us.click.yahoo.com/Q7_YsB/neXJAA/yQLSAA/2GfwlB/TM >--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> > >The New Mobility/World Transport Agenda >Consult at: http://NewMobiity.org >To post message to group: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com >To subscribe: WorldTransport-subscribe@yahoogroups.com >To unsubscribe: WorldTransport-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > >Yahoo! Groups Links > ><*> To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WorldTransport/ > ><*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > WorldTransport-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > ><*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Wed Dec 15 19:41:54 2004 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (EcoPlan, Paris) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 11:41:54 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Next steps in The Commons. Thanks for lending a hand. Message-ID: <00a201c4e292$b7e5f4a0$6501a8c0@jazz> Dear Friends, If you go to The Commons at http://ecoplan.org , you will see three new sections concerning which I would greatly appreciate your advice and suggestions: 1. Talking Sustainability: The first is toward the bottom of the left menu under World Outreach/Talking Sustainability. Here we would like to build up a collection of links to lively news and discussion groups that are trying to take an ordinal and useful whack at the sustainability problematique world wide . and in particular of course from a more activist 'policy and practice' perspective, as opposed to longer term research, hand wringing, what have you. Kindest thanks for getting back to us on this o that we can make it a stronger resource. 2. A day at the office: This link you will see on the top menu takes you to a new idea concerning which I would also like your counsel. As you will see if you click to it, the idea behind it is to give whoever comes into The Commons a feel for the kind of rich flow of ideas and materials that pass through here.. and the number of exceptional people and groups who are working hard at their corner of the sustainability agenda in their patch. What do you think? Is this useful? Do you have any suggestions for new topics, etc.? 3. World Sustainability Resources: Suggestions? Are you there? Thanks for giving a hand in this. The results will, or should one would hope, serve us all well. Best, Eric Britton The Commons: Open Society Sustainability Initiative at www.ecoplan.org Le Frene, 8/10 rue Joseph Bara 75006 Paris, France, Europe Free video/voice conferencing available at http://newmobilitypartners.org T: +331 4326 1323 Fax/Voicemail hotline: +331 5301 2896 E: mailto:eric.britton@ecoplan.org E Back-up: mail@ericbritton.org - Outgoing mail certified Virus Free. Checked by Norton Anti-Virus The Commons Open Society Sustainability Initiative: Seeking out and supporting new sustainability concepts for business, entrepreneurs, activists, community groups, and government; a thorn in the side of hesitant administrators and politicians; and through our joint efforts, energy and personal choices, placing them and ourselves firmly on the path to a more sustainable and more just society -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041215/e8ba9550/attachment.html From Davewetzel at tfl.gov.uk Wed Dec 15 23:31:16 2004 From: Davewetzel at tfl.gov.uk (Wetzel Dave) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 14:31:16 -0000 Subject: [sustran] Re: [UTSG] reducing interests in vehicular travel by getting rid of the fun in the driving Message-ID: <842CED24A576E94FA736D0DC0FAF81596724D8@tflexc001.corp.tfl.local> Todd wrote: "One of the best features of pricing is that rates can be adjusted to reflect changes in demand and planning objectives. To manage congestion, rates should be higher during peak periods and lower during off-peak periods, and can increase over time as demand grows, ....." I visited Minneapolis last month during the Presidential elections. Next Spring they are going to introduce charging on the High Occupancy Vehicle Lane (HOV, Diamond Lane) for single occupant vehicles on one of their Interstate Highways. This lane, in the middle of the highway, alternates for peak flows. It is currently well under-occupied by HOVs. They intend to charge up to $8 for single occupant vehicles to enter the lane. The congestion will be measured every six minutes - and the price adjusted accordingly, every six minutes. You only pay as you join through one of six entry points. If the lane is congested at $8 then it will be closed to non-HOV traffic completely. I think something similar already exists elsewhere in the USA. Dave Dave Wetzel; Vice-Chair; Transport for London. -----Original Message----- From: Todd Alexander Litman [mailto:litman@VTPI.ORG] Sent: 29 November 2004 14:57 To: UTSG@JISCMAIL.AC.UK Subject: Re: [UTSG] reducing interests in vehicular travel by getting rid of the fun in the driving At 10:56 AM 11/29/2004 +0000, Sanjay Rana wrote: >How does the congestion charging model incorporate the increased flow of >traffic in future - perhaps by increasing the congestion charge or adding >some other form of charge? One of the best features of pricing is that rates can be adjusted to reflect changes in demand and planning objectives. To manage congestion, rates should be higher during peak periods and lower during off-peak periods, and can increase over time as demand grows, or if a city wants to reduce road or parking supply, for example, by converting some traffic lanes to pedestrian space. >Are there any research on the type of traffic that have >disappeared/migrated? Was it the cross-london traffic or just some one from >Kensington avoiding to go to shopping to oxford street? The London congestion pricing evaluation program is looking carefully at the travel changes that have resulted (www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/cc_monitoring.shtml), and yes, much of the reduced traffic is from avoided cross-town trips, rather than trips to the center area, and some are reduced shopping trips. Some businesses have complained of substantial reductions in traffic, although I suspect they are exaggerating the impacts. >Another (and perhaps impractical) idea - How about setting up a website >where all vehicle owners i.e. households and companies can submit, >anonymously, the following information to a national survey: >For each car or a set of cars owned: > >- postcodes of starting point and end point of journey >- journeys per week >- time of each journey (i.e. AM,PM etc.) > >This could be a small project, advertised on relevant websites such as AA, >banks, DVLA, etc. in UK and similar ones elsewhere and also perhaps via >postal ballot. This is called "Ridesharing" (http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm34.htm), and such websites are implemented in many cities. Most are intended for predictable commute trips, others are dynamic, that is, they are intended for individual trips. The challenge we face is not a lack of travel alternatives, it is a lack of incentives to use those alternatives. Ridesharing, public transit, cycling, walking, telework (using telecommunications to substitute for physical travel) and flextime (allowing employees greater flexibility in when they work) are all transportation options that can substantially reduce private automobile travel. Most travelers could shift mode for some trips without too much effort, but they lack an incentive to do so. Most vehicle costs are fixed: motorists pay thousands of dollars/euros annually to own a car regardless of how much it is used. The marginal cost of driving seems low. Vehicles owners feel that they need to maximize their driving in order to get a fair return on their fixed costs (particularly since automobiles are status goods, so many consumers spend more than they really need to), and public transit/rideshare vehicles are generally stuck in traffic as well as private cars. As a result, the current transportation market gives travelers little incentive to shift mode when possible (for example, for a commuter to use public transit when they don't need their car for errands after work, or to cycle during good weather). Note, by the way, that physically and economically disadvantaged people tend to benefit most from pricing incentives, particularly if revenues are used to improve travel options such as public transit and nonmotorized travel conditions, because many already use alternative modes and they value the opportunity to save money, for example, by Parking Cash Out (commuters are given a choice between receiving free parking or the cash equivalent). The claim that pricing is always harmful to the poor is simply inaccurate. Sincerely, Todd Litman, Director Victoria Transport Policy Institute "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity" 1250 Rudlin Street Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, Canada Phone & Fax: 250-360-1560 Email: litman@vtpi.org Website: http://www.vtpi.org *********************************************************************************** The contents of the e-mail and any transmitted files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Transport for London hereby exclude any warranty and any liability as to the quality or accuracy of the contents of this email and any attached transmitted files. If you are not the intended recipient be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error please notify postmaster@tfl.gov.uk. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. *********************************************************************************** From litman at vtpi.org Fri Dec 17 00:02:01 2004 From: litman at vtpi.org (Todd Alexander Litman) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 07:02:01 -0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: [UTSG] reducing interests in vehicular travel by getting rid of the fun in the driving In-Reply-To: <842CED24A576E94FA736D0DC0FAF81596724D8@tflexc001.corp.tfl. local> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20041216062349.025a06c8@mail.highspeedplus.com> These are called "High Occupant Toll Lanes". They reflect a common concern that HOV lanes often have excess capacity that is wasted. Selling this excess capacity can generate revenues to help fund the facilities, and increases total benefits. HOT lanes are therefore considered a politically acceptable way to introduce congestion pricing into the highway system. For information see: William Stockton and Ginger Daniels, "Considerations in Assessing the Feasibility of High-Occupancy Toll Lanes," Texas Transportation Institute (http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/7-4915-S.pdf), 2000. Robert Poole and Kenneth Orski, "Hot Networks: A New Plan For Congestion Relief And Better Transit," Paper 305, Reason Foundation, (www.rppi.org/ps305.pdf), 2001. "HOV Priority," Online TDM Encyclopedia, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm19.htm), 2004. "Road Pricing," Online TDM Encyclopedia, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm35.htm), 2004. Their potential impacts are generally small. A High Occupancy Vehicle Lane can typically accommodate a maximum of about 1,000 vehicles per hour (less than a general purpose lane, because HOVs are larger than average automobiles, and because it is important that they never be congested). As a result, it may be possible to accept 300-600 single-occupant automobiles, providing a 5-15% increase in capacity on a typical 6-lane highway, and a revenue stream of $1,500 to $3,000 per day, assuming a $5 per peak-period toll. This is nowhere near the funding needed to fully finance an additional urban highway lane. The effectiveness of HOT lanes depends on the price structure used. If the price is too low, the facility will experience congestion, reducing the performance for both single-occupant vehicle users and HOV users, resulting in reduced transit and ridesharing. It is therefore important for the sake of overall transportation system efficiency that HOT facilities be managed to favor HOV performance. I personally support HOT lanes, because I think it is appropriate to fully utilize roadway capacity, they give motorists a new option (i.e., paying to drive on an uncongested lane occasionally, when it is appropriate), provides new funding, and allows motorists to experience road pricing in a positive way. However, I think it is important to realize that their benefits are modest, and they must be properly managed to avoid spoiling HOV priority benefits. Best wishes, -Todd Litman At 02:31 PM 12/15/2004 +0000, Wetzel Dave wrote: >Todd wrote: >"One of the best features of pricing is that rates can be adjusted to >reflect changes in demand and planning objectives. To manage congestion, >rates should be higher during peak periods and lower during off-peak >periods, and can increase over time as demand grows, ....." > >I visited Minneapolis last month during the Presidential elections. >Next Spring they are going to introduce charging on the High Occupancy >Vehicle Lane (HOV, Diamond Lane) for single occupant vehicles on one of >their Interstate Highways. > >This lane, in the middle of the highway, alternates for peak flows. >It is currently well under-occupied by HOVs. > >They intend to charge up to $8 for single occupant vehicles to enter the >lane. >The congestion will be measured every six minutes - and the price adjusted >accordingly, every six minutes. >You only pay as you join through one of six entry points. >If the lane is congested at $8 then it will be closed to non-HOV traffic >completely. > >I think something similar already exists elsewhere in the USA. > > >Dave >Dave Wetzel; Vice-Chair; Transport for London. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Todd Alexander Litman [mailto:litman@VTPI.ORG] >Sent: 29 November 2004 14:57 >To: UTSG@JISCMAIL.AC.UK >Subject: Re: [UTSG] reducing interests in vehicular travel by getting >rid of the fun in the driving > > >At 10:56 AM 11/29/2004 +0000, Sanjay Rana wrote: > >How does the congestion charging model incorporate the increased flow of > >traffic in future - perhaps by increasing the congestion charge or adding > >some other form of charge? > >One of the best features of pricing is that rates can be adjusted to >reflect changes in demand and planning objectives. To manage congestion, >rates should be higher during peak periods and lower during off-peak >periods, and can increase over time as demand grows, or if a city wants to >reduce road or parking supply, for example, by converting some traffic >lanes to pedestrian space. > > > >Are there any research on the type of traffic that have > >disappeared/migrated? Was it the cross-london traffic or just some one from > >Kensington avoiding to go to shopping to oxford street? > >The London congestion pricing evaluation program is looking carefully at >the travel changes that have resulted >(www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/cc_monitoring.shtml), and yes, much of the reduced >traffic is from avoided cross-town trips, rather than trips to the center >area, and some are reduced shopping trips. Some businesses have complained >of substantial reductions in traffic, although I suspect they are >exaggerating the impacts. > > > >Another (and perhaps impractical) idea - How about setting up a website > >where all vehicle owners i.e. households and companies can submit, > >anonymously, the following information to a national survey: > >For each car or a set of cars owned: > > > >- postcodes of starting point and end point of journey > >- journeys per week > >- time of each journey (i.e. AM,PM etc.) > > > >This could be a small project, advertised on relevant websites such as AA, > >banks, DVLA, etc. in UK and similar ones elsewhere and also perhaps via > >postal ballot. > >This is called "Ridesharing" (http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm34.htm), and such >websites are implemented in many cities. Most are intended for predictable >commute trips, others are dynamic, that is, they are intended for >individual trips. > >The challenge we face is not a lack of travel alternatives, it is a lack of >incentives to use those alternatives. Ridesharing, public transit, cycling, >walking, telework (using telecommunications to substitute for physical >travel) and flextime (allowing employees greater flexibility in when they >work) are all transportation options that can substantially reduce private >automobile travel. Most travelers could shift mode for some trips without >too much effort, but they lack an incentive to do so. Most vehicle costs >are fixed: motorists pay thousands of dollars/euros annually to own a car >regardless of how much it is used. The marginal cost of driving seems low. >Vehicles owners feel that they need to maximize their driving in order to >get a fair return on their fixed costs (particularly since automobiles are >status goods, so many consumers spend more than they really need to), and >public transit/rideshare vehicles are generally stuck in traffic as well as >private cars. As a result, the current transportation market gives >travelers little incentive to shift mode when possible (for example, for a >commuter to use public transit when they don't need their car for errands >after work, or to cycle during good weather). > >Note, by the way, that physically and economically disadvantaged people >tend to benefit most from pricing incentives, particularly if revenues are >used to improve travel options such as public transit and nonmotorized >travel conditions, because many already use alternative modes and they >value the opportunity to save money, for example, by Parking Cash Out >(commuters are given a choice between receiving free parking or the cash >equivalent). The claim that pricing is always harmful to the poor is simply >inaccurate. > > > >Sincerely, >Todd Litman, Director >Victoria Transport Policy Institute >"Efficiency - Equity - Clarity" >1250 Rudlin Street >Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, Canada >Phone & Fax: 250-360-1560 >Email: litman@vtpi.org >Website: http://www.vtpi.org > > >*********************************************************************************** >The contents of the e-mail and any transmitted files are confidential and >intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are >addressed. Transport for London hereby exclude any warranty and any >liability as to the quality or accuracy of the contents of this email and >any attached transmitted files. If you are not the intended recipient be >advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, >dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly >prohibited. > >If you have received this email in error please notify postmaster@tfl.gov.uk. > >This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the >presence of computer viruses. >*********************************************************************************** Sincerely, Todd Litman, Director Victoria Transport Policy Institute "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity" 1250 Rudlin Street Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, Canada Phone & Fax: 250-360-1560 Email: litman@vtpi.org Website: http://www.vtpi.org From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Fri Dec 17 23:43:17 2004 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (EcoPlan, Paris) Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 15:43:17 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Principal Voices - transportation and sustainable mobility Message-ID: <010801c4e446$c37eb080$6501a8c0@jazz> Friday, December 17, 2004. The Commons, Paris, France, Europe Let me tell you a bit about a new project/program called Principal Voices. in their own words "an international project aimed at provoking discussion on some of the more compelling challenges confronting our world today. "Over the next 12 months TIME, FORTUNE and CNN, in association with Shell, will be presenting a series of videos, articles and round-table discussions. Themes covered will include the environment, business innovation, economic development and transport. Each topic will bring together globally-renowned experts - Principal Voices - who will explore the key issues, offering their ideas and opinions on how to meet the challenges facing the planet as we move forward into the 21st Century." Among the first of these is transportation and sustainable mobility, the content of which I share with you below. For more, you are invited to go to www.principalvoices.com . You comments are more than welcome. Eric Britton ***************************************************** >From http://www.principalvoices.com/transport.html TRANSPORT - WHERE IN THE WORLD ARE WE GOING? Whether it be taking a bus round the corner to the local shops, or an international flight from one side of the globe to the other, transport is fundamental to the world in which we live. Economies rely upon it, communities could not interact without it, people and goods could not move from one place to another. If mass communications connect the world verbally and visually, it is transport that binds it together physically. As populations grow, cities expand, new markets open up and the pace of globalization becomes ever more pronounced, so too do the challenges facing those involved in transport, from the governments who formulate and implement transport policy, to the industries - automotive, shipping, rail and airline - that supply the basic means of movement. While the precise nature of those challenges might vary from country to country and industry to industry - planners in the developed world, for instance, have to juggle a wholly different set of dynamics from those in the Third World; the logistics of running an airline are not the same as those of running, say a rail or motor company - there is one issue that above all others dominates the current transport debate: That of sustainable mobility. SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY The need to increase people's mobility by providing safe, efficient, cost-effective transport, while at the same time minimizing the negative impact of that transport on health, lifestyle and the environment, is the key transport imperative of our time. It informs every aspect of the transport agenda, from the creation of dedicated cycle lanes in urban centres to the development of the latest super-jumbo airliner. As a recent report by the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) puts it: "Moving people and freight in an environmentally sustainable manner will be one of the biggest challenges of the 21st Century." The scale and complexity of that challenge are daunting. It is not simply a question of developing strategies to tackle transport-related pollution - crucial in an age of global warming - but also of finding ways to conserve natural resources, ease congestion of roads and airspace, cut noise, reduce the number of accidents and increase social equity by improving transport provision for the poorest nations. All this while at the same time keeping transport affordable and ensuring that economic growth is not stifled. "There are no quick fixes to this, no single solution," says Bjorn Stigson, President of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). "Something has to be done, however, because if we continue the present trends the world transport system simply cannot be sustained." Al Cormier, President of Canada's Centre for Sustainable Transportation, agrees: "The world's economy depends on transport. If we don't start making the right changes, and adopting the right policies, we are heading towards a very difficult situation." The great car debate The issue is particularly pressing for the automotive sector. Road vehicles constitute by far the world's commonest form of motorised transport. In 2002, according to industry analysts WardsAuto.com, there were 787 million motor vehicles in operation around the world, 586 million of them cars. Not only are these vehicles responsible for more environmental pollution than any other mode of transport - worldwide, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), they emit a billion and a half metric tonnes of carbon dioxide annually, 80 percent of the transport-related total - but also by far the largest share of transport-related deaths (over a million a year worldwide). In addition they are a major cause of noise pollution, of traffic congestion - in the U.S. alone, according to the General Accounting Office, it is estimated the economy loses $100 billion annually due to gridlocked roads - and of depletion of natural resources (the motor industry uses 20 percent of all the world's steel, and 60 percent of its natural rubber). Governments and motor companies alike have for some time acknowledged the need for action. A whole raft of measures have been proposed and, in some cases, implemented, everything from the expansion of urban metro systems to inner-city congestion charging to tighter legislative guidelines on exhaust emissions In particular, greater emphasis is being placed on technical innovation. Partly on their own initiative, partly under governmental duress, motor companies have been pouring resources into the development of more environmentally friendly fuels to propel their vehicles, as well as lighter materials with which to build them (lighter vehicles require less energy). Electricity, hydrogen, biodiesel, compressed natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, solar energy - all are power technologies that are in various stages of development. General Motors, for instance - the world's largest car company - has invested heavily in the pollutant-free Hy-Wire, a fibre-glass vehicle that uses a hydrogen-oxygen reaction to power an electric motor. Similarly Honda has developed the Civic GX, an ultra-low-emission car fuelled by compressed natural gas (the US Environmental Protection Agency named it the cleanest internal combustion vehicle in the world). If the will to adapt seems to be there, however, the rate of progress remains slow. "It takes a very long time for new technology to work it way into the transport system and to have an impact there," says Bjorn Stigson. "Greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles are likely to continue rising up to 2030 and for some time beyond that, especially in developing countries." More significantly, any measures to improve automotive sustainability have to be balanced against hard economic realities. The motor industry is fundamental to most national economies, generating income and providing employment. In Brazil, for instance, it accounts for almost 11 percent of GDP. In the U.S., according to WardsAuto.com, the industry is worth $378 billion annually and, directly or indirectly, employs one in every 10 people. However urgent the need for change, neither governments nor companies are going to sacrifice economic stability in order to achieve it. PLANES, TRAINS AND SHIPS The automotive sector is, and likely to remain for some while, the main focus of attention for those concerned with promoting sustainable mobility. The issue, however, and all its attendant dilemmas, is one that applies across the entire transport spectrum. The airline industry, for example, is, according to the IPCC, the fastest growing source of global carbon emissions, its current 3 percent share predicted to rise to 15 percent by 2050. In an effort to address the problem aircraft manufacturers such as Boeing and Airbus are experimenting with new fuel technologies, while the airlines themselves are looking at making changes to operational procedures to try and cut fuel use (shorter take-offs, for example). More significantly, there have been increasing calls for the introduction of a tax on aviation fuel (as a result of the Chicago Convention in 1944 the sector has to date been exempt from such taxes). Jacques Barrot, the incoming European Union Transport Commissioner, has indicated that such a move is high on his agenda. While there is a strong environmental argument for such a tax, however, there is, as with the motor sector, a delicate balancing act to be performed between the need to encourage sustainability and economic realities on the ground. "The aircraft industry is already in recession," says a representative from the World Economic Form. "This year alone it is going to lose between $7-10 billion. With oil prices so high an additional fuel tax will cause many companies to collapse." Even the rail and shipping sectors, traditionally the least environmentally damaging and least congestive modes of transport, are having to grapple with the issue of sustainability, albeit in their own unique ways. Lack of investment, for instance, is causing the railway system in many developing countries to slowly collapse, with disastrous effects both for those countries' economies, and for the safety of their citizens. "Africa is by far the worst hit continent," says Steve Bennett, Associate Editor of the International Railway Journal. "The governments just don't have the money to put into the maintenance of infrastructure and rolling stock, which means that people and goods can't move around, which means the economy crumbles. "In Zimbabwe, for instance, they don't even have enough fuel to run their trains. Other countries are donating foodstuffs, but they can't transport it to where it is needed." The marine industry, meanwhile, is coming under increasing scrutiny because of the contribution its sulphur-rich fuel is making to the formation of acid rain. (In 2000, according to statistics from the European Environmental Bureau, shipping in northern European waters released 2.6 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere, a figure that is expected to rise 3.3 million tonnes by 2010). "It is clearly a problem," Professor David Fowler, an expert in environmental sciences, said in a recent interview. "Until we control what's going on in the ocean we are never going to be free of the blight of acid rain." WHAT NEXT? Whatever the precise circumstances, sustainable mobility remains the key challenge confronting the world of transport. And whatever the dilemmas, conundrums and conflicts of interest it might involve, it is a challenge that has to be met if people and goods are to continue moving throughout 21st Century. As Eric Britton, founder of EcoPlan International, and originator of the so-called New Mobility Agenda, bluntly puts it: "If governments and industries don't get to grips with this, we are heading for disaster as usual." "By which I mean an already bad situation is just going to get a whole lot worse." ROAD . In 2002 there were 787 million motor vehicles operating around the world, of which 576 million were cars (Source: WardsAuto.com). . In 2003 60.3 million motor vehicles were manufactured, 41.8 million of them cars (Source: WardsAuto.com). . The largest motor vehicle manufacturer is Detroit-based General Motors. It employs 350,000 people worldwide and in 2003 sold 8.6 million cars and trucks (Source: General Motors Corporation) . The world's largest car production plant is Volkswagen's Wolfsburg Factory in Germany. It covers 1.5 million square metres and employs 47,800 people (Source: CXO Media Inc.) . In 2002 motor vehicles emitted some 1.5 billion metric tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) . 1.2 million people are killed annually on the world's roads. Almost 50 million are left injured by road accidents (Source: World Health Organisation) AIR . Atlanta Hartsfield is the world's busiest airport, handling 76.9 million passengers in 2003. London Heathrow is the busiest international airport, handling 63.3 million passengers in 2003 (Source: Airwise News) . The world's busiest air route is between Tokyo and Sapporo. It handles some 45 round trips daily (Source: www.geocities.com) . The largest motor vehicle manufacturer is Detroit-based General Motors. It employs 350,000 people worldwide and in 2003 sold 8.6 million cars and trucks (Source: General Motors Corporation) . The world's largest aircraft manufacturers are Chicago-based Boeing and Toulouse-based Airbus. Although Airbus delivered more planes than Boeing in 2003 (305 to 281), Boeing's deliveries were worth more ($18 billion to $17.5) (Source: Bloomberg) . The Airbus A380, due to come into operation in 2005/2006, will be the world's largest commercial airliner, capable of carrying 555 passengers (Source: The Sunday Times) RAIL . The U.S. has the world's largest rail network, with 228,464 kms of track (Source: CIA World Factbook) . The Indian rail network is the world's largest under single management (63,140 kms of track). It is also the world's largest commercial employer, with over 1.6 million employees (Source: The Guardian and CIA World Factbook) . The Trans-Siberian railway from Moscow to Vladivostok is the world's longest railway. It is 9288.2 kms (5,787 miles) long, passes through 87 cities and spans 8 time zones (Source: www.wordiq.com) . Sinjuku in Tokyo is the world's busiest station - Over 2 million passengers use it daily (Source: BBC) . Moscow has the world's busiest Metro system, servicing 9 million passengers daily, 3.2 billion annually. It also has the world's deepest metro station - Park Pobedy, 90 metres below ground level (Source: BBC) SEA . The world's largest ship is the supertanker Knock Nevis It is 458 metres long, 69 metres wide and weighs 564,963 tonnes (Source: www.wordiq.com) . The world's largest passenger ship is the Queen Mary 2 - 345 metres long, 45 metres wide, 150,000 tonnes (Source: www.nationmaster.com and www.cunard.com) . The world's busiest seaways are the Malacca Straits in the Southern Hemisphere, and the English Channel in the Northern (Sources: UK Department for Transport and CNN) . Singapore is the world's busiest port. In 2003 it was visited by 135,386 ships, with a total cargo of 347 million tonnes. Hong Kong is the world's busiest container port. (Source: Singapore Maritime and Port Authority and Hong Kong Shipper's Council) EXTERNAL LINKS Centre for Sustainable Transportation - http://www.cstctd.org/ EcoPlan International - http://www.ecoplan.org European Environmental Bureau - http://www.eeb.org/ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - http://www.ipcc.ch/ International Railway Journal - http://www.railjournal.com/ New Mobility Agenda - http://www.newmobility.org Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) - http://www.oecd.org/home/ Wards Auto - http://www.wardsauto.com/ World Business Council for Sustainable Development - http://www.wardsauto.com/ World Economic Forum - http://www.weforum.org/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041217/71f5d2b0/attachment-0001.html From sri at pn1.vsnl.net.in Sat Dec 18 14:30:29 2004 From: sri at pn1.vsnl.net.in (Systems Research Institute) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 11:00:29 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: Principal Voices - transportation and sustainable mobility In-Reply-To: <010801c4e446$c37eb080$6501a8c0@jazz> References: <010801c4e446$c37eb080$6501a8c0@jazz> Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.0.20041218105938.02630710@pn1.vsnl.net.in> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041218/46115bf2/attachment.html From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Sat Dec 18 17:04:02 2004 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (EcoPlan, Paris) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 09:04:02 +0100 Subject: [sustran] World Mobility Forum 1 to 3 February 2005, Stuttgart, Germany Message-ID: <000601c4e4d8$2cc8ea10$6501a8c0@jazz> Since Simon Norton is clearly in full form (see his piquant Fri 12/17/2004 7:01 PM), I thought that I would share yet another in the hope that this too might unloose a few critical tongues. And hurry, register early. *********************************************************** World Mobility Forum 1 to 3 February 2005, Stuttgart, Germany China and the Asian region: Mobility is reaching its limits Source: http://www.worldmobilityforum.com/frmset_en.php?lang=en Permanent traffic jams on roads, overloaded air corridors and incompatible railway networks in Europe are already pushing mobility to its acceptable limits. Super cities such as Bombay, Beijing or S?o Paulo are growing with incredible speed - the infrastructure falls by the wayside. The eastward enlargement in May 2004 has brought about a dramatic increase in heavy goods traffic, and in Asia, above all in China, the signs are that mobility is growing explosively in all areas. How will the environment cope? What decisions and technologies can save the environment? Will the demand for mobility in China develop in a similar way as in Europe? What will be the consequences? Can the Internet, GPS, telematics and Galileo, as the modern representatives of mobility, help in the search for a mobility of the future? International experts from all areas of mobility will discuss this in five panels. What will be their view on the opportunities and risks of the Chinese market? What technological developments can have an effect on environment and energy consumption? How can the local public transport and the infrastructure in metropolitan areas such as Beijing and Shanghai be organized for a future that is right for mobility? What kind of visions are needed today, to still have a mobility appropriate for people in this enormous area tomorrow? ? How are 1.3 billion people being mobilised? ? Is chaos in the gigantic conurbations inevitable? ? Can breakthrough technologies, such as the internet, telematics, GPS and Galileo solve or reduce these problems? ? Are fuel cell, hydrogen and bio fuels the technologies of the future? ? Are we, given the limitation of resources, soon faced with a global distribution battle? ? Is sustainable mobility in the future a vision or a utopia? At World Mobility Forum 2005, International experts from politics, commerce and science discuss these and other topics related to mobility. Workshops on the subject of: - ?The Soccer World Cup 2006 in Germany ? The logistics of major international events? - ?Risks and potentials of cross-linked transportation systems? - ?Marginal and general conditions for the transfer to China? Exclusively for the World Mobility Forum 2005: A study undertaken by PricewaterhouseCoopers on the subject: ?Mobility in China 2005? Accompanying trade fair with special emphasis on fuel cell and traffic management systems. The future is meeting in Stuttgart: World Mobility Forum 2005 is the meeting point of the mobility industry, the platform for contacts. Contact and Registration: info@worldmobilityforum.com or call our hotline: +49 (0) 711 2 50 34 80 00 Registration and more detailed information: World Mobility Forum Participation fee: Early booking: 1,500 Euro (plus 16% V.A.T.) up until the 31.12.2004. Normal booking: 1,750 Euro (plus 16% V.A.T.) from the 1.1.2005 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041218/6ae40038/attachment.html From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Mon Dec 20 17:58:47 2004 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (EcoPlan, Paris) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 09:58:47 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Congestion - problem or solution Message-ID: <008601c4e672$25237f00$6501a8c0@jazz> Old moblity: Congestoin is the problem New Mobility Agenda: Congestion is (part of) the solution -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041220/2c323e50/attachment.html From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Mon Dec 20 18:21:44 2004 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (EcoPlan, Paris) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 10:21:44 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Principal Voices: Making OUR voices heard Message-ID: <009201c4e675$5772a5f0$6501a8c0@jazz> Dave Wetzel and several others ask how the thousand or so active international transportation and environment experts that we are can make our voices heard in this forum. I have pondered this over the weekend and here are a few thoughts for you on this: 1. I have proposed to the organizers that they add my name to their transportation component to ensure that the 'New Mobility Agenda' approach is also fairly represented. bearing in mind that the other 'voice' that they have selected as a representative of contemporary thinking and expertise is Mr. Ellatuvalapil Sreedharan "one of India's greatest civil engineers, the architect of the supposedly unbuildable Konkan Railway linking Mumbai and Mangalore, and, more recently, designer of the Delhi Metro system". I think it is fair to say that this is one, primarily supply oriented, perspective, but that is at best only half of the story. My thought is that I can then act as a relay to ensure that our collective voices, principal too, are heard. 2. "Public Debates". Over the next 12 months the sponsors will be presenting a series of four round-table discussions in cities across the world: (1) Singapore, February 2005, on the environment; (2) Beijing - May 2005 - Business Innovation; (3) London, July 2005, Economic Development; and (4) Mexico City, November 2005, Transport. Details at http://www.principalvoices.com/debates.html . I am not sure as to the details of organization, but you are invited to "take part" and ask a question as you will see at http://www.principalvoices.com/ask.html. 3. Also as they put it: "FORTUNE have five tickets to give away for this unique event. For your chance to attend, send an e-mail, including your name and contact details, to stan_stalnaker@fortunemail.com. Those selected will be informed a month before the debate" Otherwise, it all looks pretty hermetic to me, but that often is the case in the world where the old mobility values continue to dominate. (I will shortly share a page with you on what I believe to be the main difference between these two schools, these two ages actually of thought and practice in our field). But perhaps we can at the very least keep an eye on them, even if they do not agree to any form of more direct participation, and share our views here. Your comments and suggestions are as always more than welcome. Eric Britton The New Mobility Agenda at http://newmobility.org About Principal Voices: Principal Voices is an international project aimed at provoking discussion on some of the more compelling challenges confronting our world today. Over the next 12 months TIME, FORTUNE and CNN, in association with Shell, will be presenting a series of videos, articles and round-table discussions. Themes covered will include the environment, business innovation, economic development and transport. About The Commons Open Society Sustainability Initiative: Seeking out and supporting new sustainability concepts for business, entrepreneurs, activists, community groups, and government; a thorn in the side of hesitant administrators and politicians; and through our joint efforts, energy and personal choices, placing them and ourselves firmly on the path to a more sustainable and more just society. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041220/0f5beb98/attachment.html From pascaldesmond at eircom.net Mon Dec 20 18:26:57 2004 From: pascaldesmond at eircom.net (Pascal Desmond) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 09:26:57 +0000 Subject: [sustran] "World Transport Policy & Practice" Volume 10, Number 3 (2004) now available In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lancaster, 20 December, 2004 Volume 10, Number 3 (2004) of "World Transport Policy & Practice", a quarterly journal edited by Professor John Whitelegg, is available free of charge as an Adobe Acrobat PDF file at http://www.eco-logica.co.uk/WTPPhome.html This is a special edition of WTPP, featuring work by authors from FLUX?? the Centre for Transport Research at Roskilde University Contents of Volume 10, Number 3, 2004: Guest Editorial Per Homann Jespersen Logistics and transport ? a conceptual model Per Homann Jespersen & Lise Drewes Nielsen Fresh salmon from Norway to Japan - a case study of a global supply chain Tina Petersen & Lise Drewes Nielsen Transport logistical effects of new traffic infrastructures - examples from the Scandinavian Links Leif Gjesing Hansen The transport content of products Per Homann Jespersen Future workshops on freight transport - a methodology for actor involvement Lise Drewes Nielsen, Per Homann Jespersen & Katrine Hartmann-Petersen A sociological perspective on supply chains - an interview analysis Lise Drewes Nielsen & Else Nygaard ***** DOWNLOAD ADVICE If you are using Windows, please ensure that you 'right click' your mouse. This will download the file to your desktop for viewing off-line. This is standard Windows procedure for downloading files. ***** World Transport Policy & Practice ISSN 1352-7614 Eco-Logica Ltd., 53 Derwent Road, LANCASTER, LA1 3ES. U.K. telephone +44 1524 63175 Editor: Professor John Whitelegg Business Manager: Pascal Desmond As an anti-spam measure you need to replace the ?%? sign with the ?@? sign in the above e-mail addresses http://www.eco-logica.co.uk/WTPPhome.html From Davewetzel at tfl.gov.uk Mon Dec 20 22:21:51 2004 From: Davewetzel at tfl.gov.uk (Wetzel Dave) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 13:21:51 -0000 Subject: [sustran] Re: [New Mobility/WorldTransport Forum - Motorcycle use of bus la nes] Message-ID: <842CED24A576E94FA736D0DC0FAF81599C61B7@tflexc001.corp.tfl.local> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/plain Size: 1823 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041220/ac4e0544/attachment.txt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041220/ac4e0544/attachment.html From sujit at vsnl.com Tue Dec 21 04:15:21 2004 From: sujit at vsnl.com (Sujit Patwardhan) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 00:45:21 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: [New Mobility/WorldTransport Forum - Motorcycle use ofbus la nes] In-Reply-To: <842CED24A576E94FA736D0DC0FAF81599C61B7@tflexc001.corp.tfl.local> References: <842CED24A576E94FA736D0DC0FAF81599C61B7@tflexc001.corp.tfl.local> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.0.20041220195211.03461eb0@mail.vsnl.com> 20 December 2004 Dear Friends, In many cities in India, two wheelers (scooters, motorcycles) make up over 75% of the auto vehicle population and they contribute to over 70% of auto emissions. Any facility to encourage this class of vehicles or to make its traffic movement smoother will only therefore lead to even worse traffic chaos while at the same time increasing its ridership. The goal for cities like these should in my opinion be to introduce disincentives in the use of two wheelers and to tempt auto two wheel users to better and more economical pubic transport (in most cases bus based). -- Sujit Patwardhan Pune At 06:51 PM 12/20/2004, you wrote: >Just had a meeting with motorcyclists to discuss an experiment we have >been conducting over the past 2 years re allowing powered two wheelers to >use bus lanes. >Together with a control bus lane corridor we have been assessing the >before and after effects on three routes re: >Accidents >Bus journey times >Traffic speeds >Other road users >Cyclists >Etc. > >Any experience with similar experiments or results of wider policy >implementation you can share? > > >Season's Greetings >Dave >Dave Wetzel; Vice-Chair; Transport for London. >Windsor House. 42-50 Victoria Street. London. SW1H 0TL. UK >Tel: 020 7941 4200 >Intl Tel: +44 207 941 4200 > > >Windsor House is close to New Scotland Yard. Buses 11, 24, 148 and 211 >pass the door. (507 passes close by). Nearest Tube: St. James's Park >Underground station. Nearest mainline stations: Waterloo and Victoria >(Both a walk or short bus ride). > >Public cycle parking available outside Windsor House. > > > >*********************************************************************************** Sustainable Urban Transport --------------------------------------------------- Sujit Patwardhan Member PTTF Pune Traffic & Transportation Forum, c/o Parisar, "Yamuna", ICS Colony,Ganeshkhind Road, Pune 411 007 Tel: +91 20 25537955 Cell: +91 98220 26627 Email: contact@pttf.net, sujit@vsnl.com ----------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041221/02a13a47/attachment-0001.html From et3 at et3.com Tue Dec 21 05:42:24 2004 From: et3 at et3.com (Daryl Oster) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 15:42:24 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: "World Transport Policy & Practice" Volume 10, Number 3 (2004) now available In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041220204255.C01B52DC27@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> The paper ?logistics and transport a conceptual model? (in WTPP v10#3) advocates methods that unrealistically reward trains and ships, and obscure the advantages of other modes. On the last quarter of page 9, the definition of the indicator of transport ?transport efficiency? is defined as the ratio between ton-kilometers and vehicle-kilometers. This definition may yield efficiency indications with traditional transportation modes like ships, trains, and trucks, however it cannot be considered a comprehensive measure of efficiency. Efficiency has several dimensions, including: Infrastructure cost, Time cost, Labor cost, and Energy cost, all compared on a ton-kilometer basis. Also, there must be a comparison of the distance the load travels in vehicles along the routes, compared with the straight-line distance from origin to destination that the load is transported (distance efficiency). The ratio of ton-kilometers and vehicle-kilometers is equal to vehicle capacity. So the ?logistics and transport a conceptual model? on pg.9 really states that efficiency scales with vehicle size. This is only true if there are savings in cost associated with vehicle size. There are many instances where ton-km costs do NOT scale inversely with vehicle size: *Infrastructure cost ? the tooling cost for large vehicles is much greater, and the number of vehicles produced is small, so vehicle cost per ton of capacity scales with size. *Time cost ? it takes longer to assemble most general cargo loads in large vehicles than in small vehicles, so many elements of time cost scale with vehicle size. *Labor cost ? labor savings is one of the main reasons vehicles have traditionally been made large. The use of automation eliminates this advantage for large vehicles. Large vehicles typically have the labor disadvantage of requiring several loading and unloading and transfers, and the need for storage while waiting for load assembly and disassembly. *Energy cost ? the energy efficiency advantage of using large vehicles is mostly related to fluid dynamics. This advantage is only achieved if the vehicle is full, and for travel in a fluid like air or water. There is no advantage if viscosity effects are mitigated (as with ETT ? see www.et3.com ). *The use of large vehicles usually results in a reduction of distance efficiency compared with using small vehicles. Large vehicles are more constrained: large ships cannot use small channels, or harbors, increasing the distance the load must travel, or involving transfers to other modes; trains cannot easily cross mountains or rivers; trucks on a delivery route increase the distance the average delivery pallet must travel from the origin to the destination. The questions raised in the summary on page 10-11: ?Is it possible to divert transport into more environmentally friendly directions, to create sustainable transport solutions or even to create sustainable supply and demand chains? Will it be possible to diminish the growth of transport without conflicting with welfare goals on the macro level and thereby decouple transport and economic growth as was the case in the 1970s in the energy sector? These questions, however, require some new answers to be given, which means creating new knowledge around transport and its integration in the processes of production, distribution and logistics. This paper has tried to move the first steps in that direction by presenting some frameworks of analysing the multiple relations between transport and logistics.? Indicates the intent of the authors are noble, however the methods of analysis indicate that either the authors have a shallow understanding of transportation efficiency, or they have a hidden agenda of creating policy to protect trains and ships from further innovation in transportation efficiency promised by automation and new modes. Daryl Oster (c) 2004? all rights reserved.? ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth" e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks of et3.com Inc.? For licensing information contact:??? et3@et3.com , www.et3.com? POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423? (352)257-1310 > -----Original Message----- > From: sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com@list.jca.apc.org > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of > Pascal Desmond > Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 4:27 AM > To: SUSTRAN > Subject: [sustran] "World Transport Policy & Practice" Volume 10,Number 3 > (2004) now available > > Lancaster, 20 December, 2004 > > > Volume 10, Number 3 (2004) of "World Transport Policy & Practice", a > > quarterly journal edited by Professor John Whitelegg, is available free of > > charge as an Adobe Acrobat PDF file at > > http://www.eco-logica.co.uk/WTPPhome.html > > > This is a special edition of WTPP, featuring work by authors from FLUX?? > the > > Centre for Transport Research at Roskilde University > > Contents of Volume 10, Number 3, 2004: > > > Guest Editorial > > Per Homann Jespersen > > > Logistics and transport ? a conceptual model > > Per Homann Jespersen & Lise Drewes Nielsen > > > Fresh salmon from Norway to Japan - a case study of a global supply chain > > Tina Petersen & Lise Drewes Nielsen > > > Transport logistical effects of new traffic infrastructures - examples > from > > the Scandinavian Links > > Leif Gjesing Hansen > > > The transport content of products > > Per Homann Jespersen > > > Future workshops on freight transport - a methodology for actor > involvement > > Lise Drewes Nielsen, Per Homann Jespersen & Katrine Hartmann-Petersen > > > A sociological perspective on supply chains - an interview analysis > > Lise Drewes Nielsen & Else Nygaard > > > ***** > > DOWNLOAD ADVICE > > If you are using Windows, please ensure that you 'right click' your mouse. > > This will download the file to your desktop for viewing off-line. This is > > standard Windows procedure for downloading files. > > > ***** > > > World Transport Policy & Practice > > ISSN 1352-7614 > > Eco-Logica Ltd., 53 Derwent Road, LANCASTER, LA1 3ES. U.K. > > telephone +44 1524 63175 > > Editor: Professor John Whitelegg > > Business Manager: Pascal Desmond > > As an anti-spam measure you need to replace the ?%? sign with the ?@? sign > > in the above e-mail addresses > > > http://www.eco-logica.co.uk/WTPPhome.html > > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by Netsignia Online, and is > believed to be clean. > From et3 at et3.com Tue Dec 21 08:05:01 2004 From: et3 at et3.com (Daryl Oster) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 18:05:01 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: [New Mobility/WorldTransport Forum - Motorcycle useofbus la nes] In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.0.20041220195211.03461eb0@mail.vsnl.com> Message-ID: <20041220230531.C20492C4FD@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> Your numbers suggest that two wheelers are cleaner than busses and automobiles. 75% > 70%, therefore two wheelers are cleaner than the rest of the vehicles on the road. Daryl Oster (c) 2004? all rights reserved.? ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth" e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks of et3.com Inc.? For licensing information contact:??? et3@et3.com , www.et3.com? POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423? (352)257-1310 > -----Original Message----- > From: sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com@list.jca.apc.org > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of > Sujit Patwardhan > Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 2:15 PM > To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport > Subject: [sustran] Re: [New Mobility/WorldTransport Forum - Motorcycle > useofbus la nes] > > 20 December 2004 > > > > > Dear Friends, > In many cities in India, two wheelers (scooters, motorcycles) make up over > 75% of the auto vehicle population and they contribute to over 70% of auto > emissions. Any facility to encourage this class of vehicles or to make its > traffic movement smoother will only therefore lead to even worse traffic > chaos while at the same time increasing its ridership. The goal for cities > like these should in my opinion be to introduce disincentives in the use > of two wheelers and to tempt auto two wheel users to better and more > economical pubic transport (in most cases bus based). > -- > Sujit Patwardhan > Pune > > > > > > > > > > At 06:51 PM 12/20/2004, you wrote: > > > > Just had a meeting with motorcyclists to discuss an experiment we > have been conducting over the past 2 years re allowing powered two > wheelers to use bus lanes. > Together with a control bus lane corridor we have been assessing the > before and after effects on three routes re: > Accidents > Bus journey times > Traffic speeds > Other road users > Cyclists > Etc. > > Any experience with similar experiments or results of wider policy > implementation you can share? > > > Season's Greetings > Dave > Dave Wetzel; Vice-Chair; Transport for London. > Windsor House. 42-50 Victoria Street. London. SW1H 0TL. UK > Tel: 020 7941 4200 > Intl Tel: +44 207 941 4200 > > > Windsor House is close to New Scotland Yard. Buses 11, 24, 148 and > 211 pass the door. (507 passes close by). Nearest Tube: St. James's Park > Underground station. Nearest mainline stations: Waterloo and Victoria > (Both a walk or short bus ride). > > Public cycle parking available outside Windsor House. > > > > ******************************************************************** > *************** > > > > Sustainable Urban Transport > --------------------------------------------------- > Sujit Patwardhan > Member > > PTTF > Pune Traffic & Transportation Forum, > c/o Parisar, "Yamuna", > ICS Colony,Ganeshkhind Road, > Pune 411 007 > > Tel: +91 20 25537955 > Cell: +91 98220 26627 > Email: contact@pttf.net, sujit@vsnl.com > ----------------------------------------------------- > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by Netsignia Online , and is > believed to be clean. From charlie.lloyd at blueyonder.co.uk Tue Dec 21 05:03:23 2004 From: charlie.lloyd at blueyonder.co.uk (Charlie Lloyd) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 20:03:23 -0000 Subject: [sustran] Re: [NewMobilityCafe] RE: [New Mobility/WorldTransport Forum - Motorcycle use of bus la nes] In-Reply-To: <842CED24A576E94FA736D0DC0FAF81599C61B7@tflexc001.corp.tfl.local> Message-ID: <41C7300B.18647.2722928@localhost> On 20 Dec 2004 at 13:21, Wetzel Dave wrote: > Just had a meeting with motorcyclists to discuss an experiment we have > been conducting over the past 2 years re allowing powered two wheelers to > use bus lanes. > > Together with a control bus lane corridor we have been assessing the > before and after effects on three routes re: > > Accidents > Bus journey times > Traffic speeds > Other road users > Cyclists > Etc. > > Any experience with similar experiments or results of wider policy > implementation you can share? > On the wider policy issues it is important to realise that any claims of an environmental advantage for motorcycles in urban areas is bogus. Generally they do not have catalytic exhaust systems, usually they carry only one person and as they travel faster with high revving engines they throw as much muck (per passenger km) as do cars. For some pollutants they are worse (eg PM10). This is particularly true in London where all the motorscooters too dirty to meet Italian emission levels have ended up here. They are also noisy, causing more stress and annoyance than any other road transport. Giving them access to bus lanes will increase their numbers while not replacing any car journies from the system. Interestingly recent research commissioned for DfT and TfL ( http://tinyurl.com/5vhfz ) suggests that allowing them in bus lanes will actually increase congestion by a few percent. A lot has been written about the poor safety record of motorcycles, both for their riders and other vulnerable road users especially pedestrians. I don't know if the trials in London have shown significant changes in casualty levels but as they have only been looking at the trial routes they may miss the extra casualties caused by more motorcycles on all roads in the system. Currently motorcycles in London have roughly the same modal share (no. of journeys) as do bicycles Before adding to the TfL policies which encourage more motorcycles into the system without reducing car VMT and which may frighten away cyclists and pedestrians you need to explain why this is a desirable policy objective. Charlie Lloyd. From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Tue Dec 21 15:54:52 2004 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (EcoPlan, Paris) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 07:54:52 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Inter-forum collaboration and exchange Message-ID: <009a01c4e729$fcba7510$6501a8c0@jazz> Dear Friends and Colleagues, >From time to time we are led to think about possible better solutions to the problems that come up when an item of real interest to more than one of our, after all, quite closely related fora of interest come up: how to ensure that the messages are being put before those of us who may indeed want to have access to them. Our short term fix ? which certainly could be improved ? is to try to cross post on a selective basis. But this has its limits. Likewise if you do go to the New Mobility Agenda you will see that we have provided one click access to the archives of both Sustran and the UTSG, which is already a useful first step. But again not quite enough. At this very time, by way of hot example, the current round of discussions taking place in various dislocated fashions touches on some very interesting matters such as: Motorcycle use of bus lanes; Principal Voices: Making OUR voices heard; shared taxis, the New Mobility 20/20 Emergency Initiative, and an eventual critical assessment of some of the articles and points that appear in the just published latest edition of the Journal of World Transport Policy and Practice. But all this in a far too dispersed manner. One possible way out is for us to invite you to join the discussions and the exchanges of the New Mobility Caf?, which you can reach via http://newmobility.org and from there click the menus for ?Talking New Mobility/Discussions?. To get on board, all you have to do is post a quick message to NewMobilityCafe-subscribe@yahoogroups.com and the rest follows without delay. Please note: we do our best to moderate this forum to make sure that communications are efficient and stay on focus. There may be a better way to do this. So I am all ears. Eric Britton Convener, The New Mobility Agenda at http://newmobility.org Free video/voice conferencing at http://newmobilitypartners.org The Commons: Open Society Sustainability Initiative at http://ecoplan.org Le Frene, 8/10 rue Joseph Bara 75006 Paris, France E: postmaster@newmobility.org T: +331 4326 1323 --- Outgoing mail certified Virus Free. Checked by Norton Anti-Virus The Commons Open Society Sustainability Initiative: Seeking out and supporting new sustainability concepts for business, entrepreneurs, activists, community groups, and government; a thorn in the side of hesitant administrators and politicians; and through our joint efforts, energy and personal choices, placing them and ourselves firmly on the path to a more sustainable and more just society. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041221/e5451fd4/attachment.html From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Tue Dec 21 21:40:13 2004 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (EcoPlan, Paris) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 13:40:13 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Draft proposal to Principal Voices team - For comment Message-ID: <015201c4e75a$3c883990$6501a8c0@jazz> Tuesday, December 21, 2004, Paris, France, Europe Dear Sustainable World Colleagues, I intend to post the following, or some version of it, tomorrow to the Principal Voices team -- http://www.principalvoices.com -- with whom we now appear to have found an effective communications channel in the person of Stan Stalnaker of Fortune. As you will possibly note, it is along the lines of a 'gate crash' as suggested by the indomitable Dave Wetzel of Transport for London. If you have any thoughts or suggestions to modify or improve on this, I would be most grateful to receive them at your first convenience. I have tried hard to be a good representative for what I believe to be our shared philosophy, and as you will note I have put myself further as our 'voice', which may or my not be the best idea. I am as always open to better ones. You know, it is my personal philosophy that occasions like this do not pass twice, so when they come up we must reach out and seize them. And so it is here. Your call. Salamaat, Shalom, and Merry Christmas, Eric Britton ****************************************************** Dear Stan, I appreciate your friendly note of Mon 12/20/2004 and in particular your volunteering to serve as a channel of communication in the event that we have anything of interest to convey to those people who are making your program work. Since time is short with your January start-up date barely ten days away, I should indeed like to get the following comments and suggestions to your team without delay. 1. Principal Voices Problem - The Transportation dialogue In short and speaking in the name of more than one thousand professionals from more than fifty countries with a long term interest and true hands-on experience and competence in matters of transportation policy and practice internationally, I would like to draw your attention to what we regard as two significant shortcomings in your important project as currently framed. I address you here specifically on the matter of your transportation section and would like to propose a couple of simple fixes, which I might add I have shared worth our several peer networks just to be sure that there is no major objection in principle to what follows. First, you need at least one more transportation voice, possibly two, to have full and competent coverage of the field as it is now defined (we call this New Mobility, as opposed of course to old mobility, but more on that just below). Does this imply that I think there is anything wrong with having Mr. Ellatuvalapil Sreedharan as leading voice? Not at all. To the contrary I think it is most exciting to have him willing to join in here as a representative of contemporary thinking and expertise on one side of the sustainable transport debate - after all a truly remarkable man: "one of India's greatest civil engineers, the architect of the supposedly unbuildable Konkan Railway linking Mumbai and Mangalore, and, more recently, designer of the Delhi Metro system". I think it is fair to say that his expertise will do honor to the primarily supply oriented, engineering, build it and they will come perspective of the transportation challenge, but that is at best only half the story. The rest of the story is if anything in this day and age even more important, so in a moment I will get to our suggestion as to how this might be quickly remedied. The second shortcoming of the current plan is your utter lack of a true feedback and open debate forum - this is definitely going to limit the profile, reach, usefulness and contribution of the final product. (Not only that you are going to limit the newsworthiness of the whole thing, which I imagine is also a factor that need to be brought into the picture, especially given who you people are.) True enough Time, Fortune and CNN are all three at heart basically broadcast media, and true too each is increasingly interactive - why so? because it's cheap, can get valuable content, greater variety of views, and via its vigor and lively debate bring each of you more faithful customers. But in this case you seem to be pretty lagged in that department, and what you present thus far is a crystal clear example of one more of those tiring 'managed debates' of which we have seen far too many. We see this all the time in transport and environmental circles, and if you chose to persist in this in the end you always have a dead product. which I am sure is not what you folks want. 2. Background - The missing half of the mobility story While the author of your transport issues paper has made a fair stab at integrating the more complex sustainability issues in the introduction - and in particular is to be commended for his choice of External Links which really does provide a pretty good coverage of the various and quite different points of view - the bottom line of your piece is that it is a plea for (a) more supply, (b) waiting for the right time to do better, and (c) tempering 'calls for reason' about not doing anything reach that might render the plight of the hard-pressed existing suppliers of products and services any worse. But dear friends, this is only one point of view, and if you are indeed to live up to your promise of a wide international debate, you have to reach far broader than that. One starting place to turn for more and better is The New Mobility Agenda and its extensive international network of practitioners and proponents. You can find extensive background on the philosophy and accomplishments of this informal, independent but not ineffective international grouping if you go to http://newmobility.org . You may also find good value in the handful of international 'conversations' about and expertise on these matters which feed into this movement: via our own New Mobility Cafe at NewMobility@yahoogroups.com, the Sustainable Transport Action Network for Asia and the Pacific (SUSTRAN Network)at http://www.geocities.com/sustrannet/, the Universities' Transport Study Group. at http://www.utsg.net/, and Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, the http://www.itdp.org/ These fora and the individuals and groups behind them offer a clear cut, leading edge, world level state of the art, 21st century awareness of the issues and the full range of solutions -- and while there is no aversion on the part of most of us to building new systems and expanding infrastructure in specific cases, we tend to be far more reserved and I would like to say sophisticated, and indeed practical, when it comes to better management of the infrastructure and systems we already have in place. Moreover, we tend too to be rather ambitious when it comes to the creative integration of new communications technologies into the overall systemic infrastructure, and that too might be one of the more promising avenues of the discussions and debate. Bottom line: Unless you find a way to factor in not only the points of view of the people and groups who constitute this new leading edge in transport thinking and policy, you will end up with a tame kitty. It's that simple. Now how to get the structure in shape to do this job. Well there are a number of possibilities as you may well image, but here you have my no-wait proposal. 3. Solution proposed The Voices: First and with characteristic modesty, I propose that you add my name as a 'voice' to your transportation component to ensure that the New Mobility Agenda approach is also fairly and fully represented. My thought is that I can then act as a relay to ensure that our collective voices, principal too, are heard. Why me? Well, because I am here, generally competent from this perspective, pretty much able to work the network that you need to bring in, and ready to do to work on this because I think it's important. Also since time is short, I would save you the beauty contest to find someone better. Who else? Well, you have three slots for the Environment and Business 'Conversations' and I think we should have three for our critical transportation dialogue as well. I know several dozen each of whom could do a fine job at this, but time is short so I have to work with what comes most immediately to mind in this specific context. Here you have two candidates each of whom with deep qualifications and records of accomplishment, a strong international reach, with ideas that often diverge from my own, who might do very well indeed here (maybe better than me in fact but forget I said that): o Walter Hook, who is Executive Director of the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, a Non-governmental Organization dedicated to promoting environmentally sustainable and equitable transportation policies and projects in developing countries and Central and Eastern Europe, and whom you can reach at whook@itdp.org; and/or o Lee Schipper, who currently is Co-Director, of the EMBARQ project of the World Resources Institute, and who has done quite a lot with your Shell sponsors (which might help ease the pain). schipper@wri.org. Moreover since the closing transport debate is slated for Mexico City, a place where Lee works pretty extensively, it might be good to have him there to factor in his competence and presence for the physical events. That's schipper@wri.org The Debate Forum/Discussions: We will be pleased to work with you to set this up in a way that will do the job. The idea is that it should be wide open, lively, well plugged in to the full range of expertise and views, and that it be well managed to stay on topic. Also since the web technology on all this is moving along quite smartly, this could be a good occasion for us to work with your best technical people to find a really strong, readable, appealing way to handle this. A Final Thought for you: Other Technologies to integrate into this process. * Have a look at http://newmobilitypartners.org and see if any of the dialoguing and conferencing options set out there might be put to good use in this context. It is worth at least a thought. There you have it Principal Voice friends. We invite you to respond to this and work with us, because we think it is important. And because if you truly believe in sustainable development and social justice, it's just the right thing to do. Best, Eric Britton Convener, The New Mobility Agenda at http://newmobility.org Free video/voice conferencing at http://newmobilitypartners.org The Commons: Open Society Sustainability Initiative at http://ecoplan.org Le Frene, 8/10 rue Joseph Bara 75006 Paris, France E: postmaster@newmobility.org T: +331 4326 1323 --- Outgoing mail certified Virus Free. Checked by Norton Anti-Virus The Commons Open Society Sustainability Initiative: Seeking out and supporting new sustainability concepts for business, entrepreneurs, activists, community groups, and government; a thorn in the side of hesitant administrators and politicians; and through our joint efforts, energy and personal choices, placing them and ourselves firmly on the path to a more sustainable and more just society. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041221/083aef33/attachment-0001.html From Davewetzel at tfl.gov.uk Tue Dec 21 19:42:20 2004 From: Davewetzel at tfl.gov.uk (Wetzel Dave) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 10:42:20 -0000 Subject: [sustran] Motorcycle use of bus lanes Message-ID: <842CED24A576E94FA736D0DC0FAF81599C6255@tflexc001.corp.tfl.local> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/plain Size: 4974 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041221/c698d8cb/attachment.txt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041221/c698d8cb/attachment.html From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Tue Dec 21 21:35:16 2004 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (EcoPlan, Paris) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 13:35:16 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Proposal to the Principal Voices team Message-ID: <013601c4e759$8c8c0a30$6501a8c0@jazz> Tuesday, December 21, 2004, Paris, France, Europe Dear Sustainable World Colleagues, I intend to post the following, or some version of it, tomorrow to the Principal Voices team -- http://www.principalvoices.com -- with whom we now appear to have found an effective communications channel in the person of Stan Stalnaker of Fortune. As you will possibly note, it is along the lines of a 'gate crash' as suggested by the indomitable Dave Wetzel of Transport for London. If you have any thoughts or suggestions to modify or improve on this, I would be most grateful to receive them at your first convenience. I have tried hard to be a good representative for what I believe to be our shared philosophy, and as you will note I have put myself further as our 'voice', which may or my not be the best idea. I am as always open to better ones. You know, it is my personal philosophy that occasions like this do not pass twice, so when they come up we must reach out and seize them. And so it is here. Your call. Salamaat, Shalom, and Merry Christmas, Eric Britton ****************************************************** Dear Stan, I appreciate your friendly note of Mon 12/20/2004 and in particular your volunteering to serve as a channel of communication in the event that we have anything of interest to convey to those people who are making your program work. Since time is short with your January start-up date barely ten days away, I should indeed like to get the following comments and suggestions to your team without delay. 1. Principal Voices Problem - The Transportation dialogue In short and speaking in the name of more than one thousand professionals from more than fifty countries with a long term interest and true hands-on experience and competence in matters of transportation policy and practice internationally, I would like to draw your attention to what we regard as two significant shortcomings in your important project as currently framed. I address you here specifically on the matter of your transportation section and would like to propose a couple of simple fixes, which I might add I have shared worth our several peer networks just to be sure that there is no major objection in principle to what follows. First, you need at least one more transportation voice, possibly two, to have full and competent coverage of the field as it is now defined (we call this New Mobility, as opposed of course to old mobility, but more on that just below). Does this imply that I think there is anything wrong with having Mr. Ellatuvalapil Sreedharan as leading voice? Not at all. To the contrary I think it is most exciting to have him willing to join in here as a representative of contemporary thinking and expertise on one side of the sustainable transport debate - after all a truly remarkable man: "one of India's greatest civil engineers, the architect of the supposedly unbuildable Konkan Railway linking Mumbai and Mangalore, and, more recently, designer of the Delhi Metro system". I think it is fair to say that his expertise will do honor to the primarily supply oriented, engineering, build it and they will come perspective of the transportation challenge, but that is at best only half the story. The rest of the story is if anything in this day and age even more important, so in a moment I will get to our suggestion as to how this might be quickly remedied. The second shortcoming of the current plan is your utter lack of a true feedback and open debate forum - this is definitely going to limit the profile, reach, usefulness and contribution of the final product. (Not only that you are going to limit the newsworthiness of the whole thing, which I imagine is also a factor that need to be brought into the picture, especially given who you people are.) True enough Time, Fortune and CNN are all three at heart basically broadcast media, and true too each is increasingly interactive - why so? because it's cheap, can get valuable content, greater variety of views, and via its vigor and lively debate bring each of you more faithful customers. But in this case you seem to be pretty lagged in that department, and what you present thus far is a crystal clear example of one more of those tiring 'managed debates' of which we have seen far too many. We see this all the time in transport and environmental circles, and if you chose to persist in this in the end you always have a dead product. which I am sure is not what you folks want. 2. Background - The missing half of the mobility story While the author of your transport issues paper has made a fair stab at integrating the more complex sustainability issues in the introduction - and in particular is to be commended for his choice of External Links which really does provide a pretty good coverage of the various and quite different points of view - the bottom line of your piece is that it is a plea for (a) more supply, (b) waiting for the right time to do better, and (c) tempering 'calls for reason' about not doing anything reach that might render the plight of the hard-pressed existing suppliers of products and services any worse. But dear friends, this is only one point of view, and if you are indeed to live up to your promise of a wide international debate, you have to reach far broader than that. One starting place to turn for more and better is The New Mobility Agenda and its extensive international network of practitioners and proponents. You can find extensive background on the philosophy and accomplishments of this informal, independent but not ineffective international grouping if you go to http://newmobility.org . You may also find good value in the handful of international 'conversations' about and expertise on these matters which feed into this movement: via our own New Mobility Cafe at NewMobility@yahoogroups.com, the Sustainable Transport Action Network for Asia and the Pacific (SUSTRAN Network)at http://www.geocities.com/sustrannet/, the Universities' Transport Study Group. at http://www.utsg.net/, and Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, the http://www.itdp.org/ These fora and the individuals and groups behind them offer a clear cut, leading edge, world level state of the art, 21st century awareness of the issues and the full range of solutions -- and while there is no aversion on the part of most of us to building new systems and expanding infrastructure in specific cases, we tend to be far more reserved and I would like to say sophisticated, and indeed practical, when it comes to better management of the infrastructure and systems we already have in place. Moreover, we tend too to be rather ambitious when it comes to the creative integration of new communications technologies into the overall systemic infrastructure, and that too might be one of the more promising avenues of the discussions and debate. Bottom line: Unless you find a way to factor in not only the points of view of the people and groups who constitute this new leading edge in transport thinking and policy, you will end up with a tame kitty. It's that simple. Now how to get the structure in shape to do this job. Well there are a number of possibilities as you may well image, but here you have my no-wait proposal. 3. Solution proposed The Voices: First and with characteristic modesty, I propose that you add my name as a 'voice' to your transportation component to ensure that the New Mobility Agenda approach is also fairly and fully represented. My thought is that I can then act as a relay to ensure that our collective voices, principal too, are heard. Why me? Well, because I am here, generally competent from this perspective, pretty much able to work the network that you need to bring in, and ready to do to work on this because I think it's important. Also since time is short, I would save you the beauty contest to find someone better. Who else? Well, you have three slots for the Environment and Business 'Conversations' and I think we should have three for our critical transportation dialogue as well. I know several dozen each of whom could do a fine job at this, but time is short so I have to work with what comes most immediately to mind in this specific context. Here you have two candidates each of whom with deep qualifications and records of accomplishment, a strong international reach, with ideas that often diverge from my own, who might do very well indeed here (maybe better than me in fact but forget I said that): o Walter Hook, who is Executive Director of the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, a Non-governmental Organization dedicated to promoting environmentally sustainable and equitable transportation policies and projects in developing countries and Central and Eastern Europe, and whom you can reach at whook@itdp.org; and/or o Lee Schipper, who currently is Co-Director, of the EMBARQ project of the World Resources Institute, and who has done quite a lot with your Shell sponsors (which might help ease the pain). schipper@wri.org. Moreover since the closing transport debate is slated for Mexico City, a place where Lee works pretty extensively, it might be good to have him there to factor in his competence and presence for the physical events. That's schipper@wri.org The Debate Forum/Discussions: We will be pleased to work with you to set this up in a way that will do the job. The idea is that it should be wide open, lively, well plugged in to the full range of expertise and views, and that it be well managed to stay on topic. Also since the web technology on all this is moving along quite smartly, this could be a good occasion for us to work with your best technical people to find a really strong, readable, appealing way to handle this. A Final Thought for you: Other Technologies to integrate into this process. * Have a look at http://newmobilitypartners.org and see if any of the dialoguing and conferencing options set out there might be put to good use in this context. It is worth at least a thought. There you have it Principal Voice friends. We invite you to respond to this and work with us, because we think it is important. And because if you truly believe in sustainable development and social justice, it's just the right thing to do. Best, Eric Britton Convener, The New Mobility Agenda at http://newmobility.org Free video/voice conferencing at http://newmobilitypartners.org The Commons: Open Society Sustainability Initiative at http://ecoplan.org Le Frene, 8/10 rue Joseph Bara 75006 Paris, France E: postmaster@newmobility.org T: +331 4326 1323 --- Outgoing mail certified Virus Free. Checked by Norton Anti-Virus The Commons Open Society Sustainability Initiative: Seeking out and supporting new sustainability concepts for business, entrepreneurs, activists, community groups, and government; a thorn in the side of hesitant administrators and politicians; and through our joint efforts, energy and personal choices, placing them and ourselves firmly on the path to a more sustainable and more just society. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041221/39f18935/attachment-0001.html From et3 at et3.com Wed Dec 22 14:45:43 2004 From: et3 at et3.com (Daryl Oster) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 00:45:43 -0500 Subject: [sustran] principal voices Message-ID: <20041222054617.9FD862F0CC@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> To Whom It May Concern: According to your "principal voices" website, the principal voices are "globally-renowned experts". If this is true, why is it that a google search for Ellatuvalapil Sreedharan (the principal voice for transportation) turns up ZERO hits? If you are looking for an expert try the google search: "Jerry Schneider" +transportation This will turn up over 800 hits leading to Transportation Professor (retired) Jerry Schneider. Dr. Schneider is likely the most renowned expert on leading edge transportation alternatives. Another google search: "Wendell Cox" +transportation This search will turn up 11,000 hits on this transportation expert. Why not ask either of these experts to debate with Ellatuvalapil Sreedharan? If this is really a debate, why are the public questions limited to 4, and why is there no criteria on selection? It appears to that the principal voices debates could likely be a showcase for a hidden agenda that will after the fact be claimed to have been an internationally recognized debate. Daryl Oster (c) 2004? all rights reserved.? ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth" e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks of et3.com Inc.? For licensing information contact:??? et3@et3.com , www.et3.com? POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423? (352)257-1310 > -----Original Message----- > From: sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com@list.jca.apc.org > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of > EcoPlan, Paris > Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 7:35 AM > To: Sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org; 'UTSG'; 'New Mobility Cafe [NMC]' > Cc: 'Margaret Bell'; 'Phil Goodwin'; 'Walter Hook'; 'Lee Schipper'; 'F. O. > Montgomery' > Subject: [sustran] Proposal to the Principal Voices team > > Tuesday, December 21, 2004, Paris, France, Europe > > > > Dear Sustainable World Colleagues, > > > > I intend to post the following, or some version of it, tomorrow to the > Principal Voices team -- http://www.principalvoices.com > -- with whom we now appear to have > found an effective communications channel in the person of Stan Stalnaker > of Fortune. As you will possibly note, it is along the lines of a ?gate > crash? as suggested by the indomitable Dave Wetzel of Transport for > London. > > > > If you have any thoughts or suggestions to modify or improve on this, I > would be most grateful to receive them at your first convenience. I have > tried hard to be a good representative for what I believe to be our shared > philosophy, and as you will note I have put myself further as our ?voice?, > which may or my not be the best idea. I am as always open to better ones. > > > > You know, it is my personal philosophy that occasions like this do not > pass twice, so when they come up we must reach out and seize them. And so > it is here. > > > > Your call. > > > > Salamaat, Shalom, and Merry Christmas, > > > > Eric Britton > > > > ****************************************************** > > > > Dear Stan, > > > > I appreciate your friendly note of Mon 12/20/2004 and in particular your > volunteering to serve as a channel of communication in the event that we > have anything of interest to convey to those people who are making your > program work. Since time is short with your January start-up date barely > ten days away, I should indeed like to get the following comments and > suggestions to your team without delay. > > > > 1. Principal Voices Problem ? The Transportation dialogue > > > > In short and speaking in the name of more than one thousand professionals > from more than fifty countries with a long term interest and true hands-on > experience and competence in matters of transportation policy and practice > internationally, I would like to draw your attention to what we regard as > two significant shortcomings in your important project as currently > framed. I address you here specifically on the matter of your > transportation section and would like to propose a couple of simple fixes, > which I might add I have shared worth our several peer networks just to be > sure that there is no major objection in principle to what follows. > > > > First, you need at least one more transportation voice, possibly two, to > have full and competent coverage of the field as it is now defined (we > call this New Mobility, as opposed of course to old mobility, but more on > that just below). Does this imply that I think there is anything wrong > with having Mr. Ellatuvalapil Sreedharan as leading voice? Not at all. To > the contrary I think it is most exciting to have him willing to join in > here as a representative of contemporary thinking and expertise on one > side of the sustainable transport debate ? after all a truly remarkable > man: ?one of India's greatest civil engineers, the architect of the > supposedly unbuildable Konkan Railway linking Mumbai and Mangalore, and, > more recently, designer of the Delhi Metro system?. I think it is fair to > say that his expertise will do honor to the primarily supply oriented, > engineering, build it and they will come perspective of the transportation > challenge, but that is at best only half the story. The rest of the story > is if anything in this day and age even more important, so in a moment I > will get to our suggestion as to how this might be quickly remedied. > > > > The second shortcoming of the current plan is your utter lack of a true > feedback and open debate forum ? this is definitely going to limit the > profile, reach, usefulness and contribution of the final product. (Not > only that you are going to limit the newsworthiness of the whole thing, > which I imagine is also a factor that need to be brought into the picture, > especially given who you people are.) True enough Time, Fortune and CNN > are all three at heart basically broadcast media, and true too each is > increasingly interactive ? why so? because it?s cheap, can get valuable > content, greater variety of views, and via its vigor and lively debate > bring each of you more faithful customers. But in this case you seem to > be pretty lagged in that department, and what you present thus far is a > crystal clear example of one more of those tiring ?managed debates? of > which we have seen far too many. We see this all the time in transport > and environmental circles, and if you chose to persist in this in the end > you always have a dead product which I am sure is not what you folks > want. > > > > 2. Background ? The missing half of the mobility story > > > > While the author of your transport issues paper has made a fair stab at > integrating the more complex sustainability issues in the introduction ? > and in particular is to be commended for his choice of External Links > which really does provide a pretty good coverage of the various and quite > different points of view ? the bottom line of your piece is that it is a > plea for (a) more supply, (b) waiting for the right time to do better, and > (c) tempering ?calls for reason? about not doing anything reach that might > render the plight of the hard-pressed existing suppliers of products and > services any worse. But dear friends, this is only one point of view, and > if you are indeed to live up to your promise of a wide international > debate, you have to reach far broader than that. > > > > One starting place to turn for more and better is The New Mobility Agenda > and its extensive international network of practitioners and proponents. > You can find extensive background on the philosophy and accomplishments of > this informal, independent but not ineffective international grouping if > you go to http://newmobility.org . You may also > find good value in the handful of international ?conversations? about and > expertise on these matters which feed into this movement: via our own New > Mobility Cafe at NewMobility@yahoogroups.com, the Sustainable Transport > Action Network for Asia and the Pacific (SUSTRAN Network)at > http://www.geocities.com/sustrannet/, the Universities' Transport Study > Group. at http://www.utsg.net/, and Institute for Transportation and > Development Policy, the http://www.itdp.org/ > > > > These fora and the individuals and groups behind them offer a clear cut, > leading edge, world level state of the art, 21st century awareness of the > issues and the full range of solutions -- and while there is no aversion > on the part of most of us to building new systems and expanding > infrastructure in specific cases, we tend to be far more reserved and I > would like to say sophisticated, and indeed practical, when it comes to > better management of the infrastructure and systems we already have in > place. Moreover, we tend too to be rather ambitious when it comes to the > creative integration of new communications technologies into the overall > systemic infrastructure, and that too might be one of the more promising > avenues of the discussions and debate. > > > > Bottom line: Unless you find a way to factor in not only the points of > view of the people and groups who constitute this new leading edge in > transport thinking and policy, you will end up with a tame kitty. It?s > that simple. > > > > Now how to get the structure in shape to do this job. Well there are a > number of possibilities as you may well image, but here you have my no- > wait proposal. > > > > 3. Solution proposed > > > > The Voices: > > > > First and with characteristic modesty, I propose that you add my name as a > ?voice? to your transportation component to ensure that the New Mobility > Agenda approach is also fairly and fully represented. My thought is that > I can then act as a relay to ensure that our collective voices, principal > too, are heard. Why me? Well, because I am here, generally competent from > this perspective, pretty much able to work the network that you need to > bring in, and ready to do to work on this because I think it?s important. > Also since time is short, I would save you the beauty contest to find > someone better. > > > > Who else? Well, you have three slots for the Environment and Business > ?Conversations? and I think we should have three for our critical > transportation dialogue as well. I know several dozen each of whom could > do a fine job at this, but time is short so I have to work with what comes > most immediately to mind in this specific context. Here you have two > candidates each of whom with deep qualifications and records of > accomplishment, a strong international reach, with ideas that often > diverge from my own, who might do very well indeed here (maybe better than > me in fact but forget I said that): > > o Walter Hook, who is Executive Director of the Institute for > Transportation and Development Policy, a Non-governmental Organization > dedicated to promoting environmentally sustainable and equitable > transportation policies and projects in developing countries and Central > and Eastern Europe, and whom you can reach at whook@itdp.org; and/or > > o Lee Schipper, who currently is Co-Director, of the EMBARQ project > of the World Resources Institute, and who has done quite a lot with your > Shell sponsors (which might help ease the pain). schipper@wri.org. > Moreover since the closing transport debate is slated for Mexico City, a > place where Lee works pretty extensively, it might be good to have him > there to factor in his competence and presence for the physical events. > That?s schipper@wri.org > > > > The Debate Forum/Discussions: > > > > We will be pleased to work with you to set this up in a way that will do > the job. The idea is that it should be wide open, lively, well plugged in > to the full range of expertise and views, and that it be well managed to > stay on topic. Also since the web technology on all this is moving along > quite smartly, this could be a good occasion for us to work with your best > technical people to find a really strong, readable, appealing way to > handle this. > > > > A Final Thought for you: Other Technologies to integrate into this > process. > > > > * Have a look at http://newmobilitypartners.org and see if any of the > dialoguing and conferencing options set out there might be put to good use > in this context. It is worth at least a thought. > > > > There you have it Principal Voice friends. We invite you to respond to > this and work with us, because we think it is important. And because if > you truly believe in sustainable development and social justice, it?s just > the right thing to do. > > > > Best, > > > > Eric Britton > > > > Convener, The New Mobility Agenda at http://newmobility.org > > > Free video/voice conferencing at http://newmobilitypartners.org > > > > > The Commons: Open Society Sustainability Initiative at http://ecoplan.org > > > Le Frene, 8/10 rue Joseph Bara 75006 Paris, France > > E: postmaster@newmobility.org T: +331 4326 1323 > > --- Outgoing mail certified Virus Free. Checked by Norton Anti-Virus > > > > The Commons Open Society Sustainability Initiative: Seeking out and > supporting new sustainability concepts for business, entrepreneurs, > activists, community groups, and government; a thorn in the side of > hesitant administrators and politicians; and through our joint efforts, > energy and personal choices, placing them and ourselves firmly on the path > to a more sustainable and more just society. > > From vittalkumar_a at yahoo.com Wed Dec 22 15:10:07 2004 From: vittalkumar_a at yahoo.com (Vittal Kumar A.) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 22:10:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: [sustran] Re: principal voices In-Reply-To: <20041222054617.9FD862F0CC@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> Message-ID: <20041222061007.69366.qmail@web51001.mail.yahoo.com> Dear Daryl, Type in 'E Sreedharan' and see....! regards, Vittal Daryl Oster wrote: To Whom It May Concern: According to your "principal voices" website, the principal voices are "globally-renowned experts". If this is true, why is it that a google search for Ellatuvalapil Sreedharan (the principal voice for transportation) turns up ZERO hits? If you are looking for an expert try the google search: "Jerry Schneider" +transportation This will turn up over 800 hits leading to Transportation Professor (retired) Jerry Schneider. Dr. Schneider is likely the most renowned expert on leading edge transportation alternatives. Another google search: "Wendell Cox" +transportation This search will turn up 11,000 hits on this transportation expert. Why not ask either of these experts to debate with Ellatuvalapil Sreedharan? If this is really a debate, why are the public questions limited to 4, and why is there no criteria on selection? It appears to that the principal voices debates could likely be a showcase for a hidden agenda that will after the fact be claimed to have been an internationally recognized debate. Daryl Oster (c) 2004 all rights reserved. ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth" e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks of et3.com Inc. For licensing information contact: et3@et3.com , www.et3.com POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423 (352)257-1310 > -----Original Message----- > From: sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com@list.jca.apc.org > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of > EcoPlan, Paris > Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 7:35 AM > To: Sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org; 'UTSG'; 'New Mobility Cafe [NMC]' > Cc: 'Margaret Bell'; 'Phil Goodwin'; 'Walter Hook'; 'Lee Schipper'; 'F. O. > Montgomery' > Subject: [sustran] Proposal to the Principal Voices team > > Tuesday, December 21, 2004, Paris, France, Europe > > > > Dear Sustainable World Colleagues, > > > > I intend to post the following, or some version of it, tomorrow to the > Principal Voices team -- http://www.principalvoices.com > -- with whom we now appear to have > found an effective communications channel in the person of Stan Stalnaker > of Fortune. As you will possibly note, it is along the lines of a ‘gate > crash’ as suggested by the indomitable Dave Wetzel of Transport for > London. > > > > If you have any thoughts or suggestions to modify or improve on this, I > would be most grateful to receive them at your first convenience. I have > tried hard to be a good representative for what I believe to be our shared > philosophy, and as you will note I have put myself further as our ‘voice’, > which may or my not be the best idea. I am as always open to better ones. > > > > You know, it is my personal philosophy that occasions like this do not > pass twice, so when they come up we must reach out and seize them. And so > it is here. > > > > Your call. > > > > Salamaat, Shalom, and Merry Christmas, > > > > Eric Britton > > > > ****************************************************** > > > > Dear Stan, > > > > I appreciate your friendly note of Mon 12/20/2004 and in particular your > volunteering to serve as a channel of communication in the event that we > have anything of interest to convey to those people who are making your > program work. Since time is short with your January start-up date barely > ten days away, I should indeed like to get the following comments and > suggestions to your team without delay. > > > > 1. Principal Voices Problem – The Transportation dialogue > > > > In short and speaking in the name of more than one thousand professionals > from more than fifty countries with a long term interest and true hands-on > experience and competence in matters of transportation policy and practice > internationally, I would like to draw your attention to what we regard as > two significant shortcomings in your important project as currently > framed. I address you here specifically on the matter of your > transportation section and would like to propose a couple of simple fixes, > which I might add I have shared worth our several peer networks just to be > sure that there is no major objection in principle to what follows. > > > > First, you need at least one more transportation voice, possibly two, to > have full and competent coverage of the field as it is now defined (we > call this New Mobility, as opposed of course to old mobility, but more on > that just below). Does this imply that I think there is anything wrong > with having Mr. Ellatuvalapil Sreedharan as leading voice? Not at all. To > the contrary I think it is most exciting to have him willing to join in > here as a representative of contemporary thinking and expertise on one > side of the sustainable transport debate – after all a truly remarkable > man: “one of India's greatest civil engineers, the architect of the > supposedly unbuildable Konkan Railway linking Mumbai and Mangalore, and, > more recently, designer of the Delhi Metro system”. I think it is fair to > say that his expertise will do honor to the primarily supply oriented, > engineering, build it and they will come perspective of the transportation > challenge, but that is at best only half the story. The rest of the story > is if anything in this day and age even more important, so in a moment I > will get to our suggestion as to how this might be quickly remedied. > > > > The second shortcoming of the current plan is your utter lack of a true > feedback and open debate forum – this is definitely going to limit the > profile, reach, usefulness and contribution of the final product. (Not > only that you are going to limit the newsworthiness of the whole thing, > which I imagine is also a factor that need to be brought into the picture, > especially given who you people are.) True enough Time, Fortune and CNN > are all three at heart basically broadcast media, and true too each is > increasingly interactive – why so? because it’s cheap, can get valuable > content, greater variety of views, and via its vigor and lively debate > bring each of you more faithful customers. But in this case you seem to > be pretty lagged in that department, and what you present thus far is a > crystal clear example of one more of those tiring ‘managed debates’ of > which we have seen far too many. We see this all the time in transport > and environmental circles, and if you chose to persist in this in the end > you always have a dead product… which I am sure is not what you folks > want. > > > > 2. Background – The missing half of the mobility story > > > > While the author of your transport issues paper has made a fair stab at > integrating the more complex sustainability issues in the introduction – > and in particular is to be commended for his choice of External Links > which really does provide a pretty good coverage of the various and quite > different points of view – the bottom line of your piece is that it is a > plea for (a) more supply, (b) waiting for the right time to do better, and > (c) tempering ‘calls for reason’ about not doing anything reach that might > render the plight of the hard-pressed existing suppliers of products and > services any worse. But dear friends, this is only one point of view, and > if you are indeed to live up to your promise of a wide international > debate, you have to reach far broader than that. > > > > One starting place to turn for more and better is The New Mobility Agenda > and its extensive international network of practitioners and proponents. > You can find extensive background on the philosophy and accomplishments of > this informal, independent but not ineffective international grouping if > you go to http://newmobility.org . You may also > find good value in the handful of international ‘conversations’ about and > expertise on these matters which feed into this movement: via our own New > Mobility Cafe at NewMobility@yahoogroups.com, the Sustainable Transport > Action Network for Asia and the Pacific (SUSTRAN Network)at > http://www.geocities.com/sustrannet/, the Universities' Transport Study > Group. at http://www.utsg.net/, and Institute for Transportation and > Development Policy, the http://www.itdp.org/ > > > > These fora and the individuals and groups behind them offer a clear cut, > leading edge, world level state of the art, 21st century awareness of the > issues and the full range of solutions -- and while there is no aversion > on the part of most of us to building new systems and expanding > infrastructure in specific cases, we tend to be far more reserved and I > would like to say sophisticated, and indeed practical, when it comes to > better management of the infrastructure and systems we already have in > place. Moreover, we tend too to be rather ambitious when it comes to the > creative integration of new communications technologies into the overall > systemic infrastructure, and that too might be one of the more promising > avenues of the discussions and debate. > > > > Bottom line: Unless you find a way to factor in not only the points of > view of the people and groups who constitute this new leading edge in > transport thinking and policy, you will end up with a tame kitty. It’s > that simple. > > > > Now how to get the structure in shape to do this job. Well there are a > number of possibilities as you may well image, but here you have my no- > wait proposal. > > > > 3. Solution proposed > > > > The Voices: > > > > First and with characteristic modesty, I propose that you add my name as a > ‘voice’ to your transportation component to ensure that the New Mobility > Agenda approach is also fairly and fully represented. My thought is that > I can then act as a relay to ensure that our collective voices, principal > too, are heard. Why me? Well, because I am here, generally competent from > this perspective, pretty much able to work the network that you need to > bring in, and ready to do to work on this because I think it’s important. > Also since time is short, I would save you the beauty contest to find > someone better. > > > > Who else? Well, you have three slots for the Environment and Business > ‘Conversations’ and I think we should have three for our critical > transportation dialogue as well. I know several dozen each of whom could > do a fine job at this, but time is short so I have to work with what comes > most immediately to mind in this specific context. Here you have two > candidates each of whom with deep qualifications and records of > accomplishment, a strong international reach, with ideas that often > diverge from my own, who might do very well indeed here (maybe better than > me in fact but forget I said that): > > o Walter Hook, who is Executive Director of the Institute for > Transportation and Development Policy, a Non-governmental Organization > dedicated to promoting environmentally sustainable and equitable > transportation policies and projects in developing countries and Central > and Eastern Europe, and whom you can reach at whook@itdp.org; and/or > > o Lee Schipper, who currently is Co-Director, of the EMBARQ project > of the World Resources Institute, and who has done quite a lot with your > Shell sponsors (which might help ease the pain). schipper@wri.org. > Moreover since the closing transport debate is slated for Mexico City, a > place where Lee works pretty extensively, it might be good to have him > there to factor in his competence and presence for the physical events. > That’s schipper@wri.org > > > > The Debate Forum/Discussions: > > > > We will be pleased to work with you to set this up in a way that will do > the job. The idea is that it should be wide open, lively, well plugged in > to the full range of expertise and views, and that it be well managed to > stay on topic. Also since the web technology on all this is moving along > quite smartly, this could be a good occasion for us to work with your best > technical people to find a really strong, readable, appealing way to > handle this. > > > > A Final Thought for you: Other Technologies to integrate into this > process. > > > > * Have a look at http://newmobilitypartners.org and see if any of the > dialoguing and conferencing options set out there might be put to good use > in this context. It is worth at least a thought. > > > > There you have it Principal Voice friends. We invite you to respond to > this and work with us, because we think it is important. And because if > you truly believe in sustainable development and social justice, it’s just > the right thing to do. > > > > Best, > > > > Eric Britton > > > > Convener, The New Mobility Agenda at http://newmobility.org > > > Free video/voice conferencing at http://newmobilitypartners.org > > > > > The Commons: Open Society Sustainability Initiative at http://ecoplan.org > > > Le Frene, 8/10 rue Joseph Bara 75006 Paris, France > > E: postmaster@newmobility.org T: +331 4326 1323 > > --- Outgoing mail certified Virus Free. Checked by Norton Anti-Virus > > > > The Commons Open Society Sustainability Initiative: Seeking out and > supporting new sustainability concepts for business, entrepreneurs, > activists, community groups, and government; a thorn in the side of > hesitant administrators and politicians; and through our joint efforts, > energy and personal choices, placing them and ourselves firmly on the path > to a more sustainable and more just society. > > --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Jazz up your holiday email with celebrity designs. Learn more. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041221/b1316ea5/attachment-0001.html From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Wed Dec 22 18:55:16 2004 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (EcoPlan, Paris) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 10:55:16 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Draft proposal to Principal Voices - Quick progress report Message-ID: <009901c4e80c$5b3a1040$6501a8c0@jazz> Wednesday, December 22, 2004, Paris, France, Europe Dear Sustainable Friends, In addition to several much appreciated private letters of cautious encouragement on this proposed initiative of 21 Dec, I have received in the last day the following two mailings from proponents of advanced transportation technologies, in a phrase free standing new systems based on "new surface transport infrastructure". I would like to comment briefly because I believe this is one of the central pillars that we have to deal with one way or another as we make our important decisions about the future of the sector. Personally I have a great weakness for these proposals and the engineering technologies that they bring to the fore. On a number of occasions during my career I have carried out pretty extensive international surveys looking at the category in general and more specifically things like PRT, GRT, DRT, ITT, ATT, monorails, skycabs by many names, maglev, air cushion vehicles, accelerating moving sidewalks, pneumatic tube transport, and the long list goes on. But as my respected colleague and a central force in this movement, Jerry Schneider, Professor Emeritus of Civil Engineering and Urban Design and Planning at the University of Washington (see below) has said on numerous occasions: "The problem is implementing it." That's it and from the horse's mouth! To whit my regretful conclusion as a hands-on advisor of policy: given the immediate needs of sustainability and our societies, we have to put this on the back burner for now and concentrate on what we can do with the infrastructure we have. Sad and possibly even narrow conclusion that it may seem. Fortunately however, there is a huge amount that we can in fact achieve working within the broad envelope of the infrastructure we have in hand, so to my mind the challenge is to get on with that task. Mr. Daryl Oster, an active proponent of "ETT" and "space travel on earth", for his part goes quite a bit further than I do in his criticism of the way in which the Voices people have set out to organize their initiative: starting with a rather unjust hit on the qualifications of the respected Mr. Ellatuvalapil Sreedharan to be one of the Voices. I could not agree less. The object of any truly creative dialogue, at least as I understand it, is to trot out a wide range of views and perspectives, and indeed it would be a major error if we packed the jury in any way. Not only is Mr. Sreedharan a person of real accomplishment in our sector, but also by the way if you Google "Sreedharan + "transport OR transportation" you get no less than 2830 call-ups this morning. So we can put that one to rest, eh? ;-) That said Mr. Oster does propose a candidate with international credentials who might indeed make another interesting apex for a debate triangle, Wendell Cox of The Public Purpose ("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). Fine idea Daryl. I will add him to our short list, not least because of his rigor, persistence, international reach, at times surprising flexibility -- and the fact that at least half the time I for one do not agree with him. Which of course is the stuff of a good debate. So there we have it for today. I will let this cook for another 24 hours before dispatching to our contacts there - so there is still time for you to share both your criticisms, ideas and even encouragement if there is any of that in your end year larder. It's their party of course, but perhaps they will open it up a bit to ensure that it is fully informed, lively, varied and creative - the stuff of a really successful party. Salamaat, Shalom, Merry Christmas, and Peace on Earth, Eric Britton PS. You may want to check out the latest bulletin of the ITDP at http://www.itdp.org/. Talk about new transportation ideas and on street progress. -----Original Message----- From: Jerry Schneider [mailto:jbs@peak.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 10:48 PM To: eric.britton@ecoplan.org Subject: Re: [sustran] Draft proposal to Principal Voices team - For comment At 09:18 AM 12/21/04 -0800, you wrote: >snip ------------ >These fora and the individuals and groups behind them offer a clear cut, >leading edge, world level state of the art, 21st century awareness of the >issues and the full range of solutions -- and while there is no aversion on >the part of most of us to building new systems and expanding infrastructure >in specific cases, we tend to be far more reserved and I would like to say >sophisticated, and indeed practical, when it comes to better management of >the infrastructure and systems we already have in place. Moreover, we tend >too to be rather ambitious when it comes to the creative integration of new >communications technologies into the overall systemic infrastructure, and >that too might be one of the more promising avenues of the discussions and >debate. One wonders what "new systems" you might have in mind? You are welcome to add my ITT website to your list of promising avenues for discussion. Best regards, Jerry -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Daryl Oster Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 6:46 AM To: principalvoices@cnn.com; Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport Cc: policy@advancedtransit.org Subject: [sustran] principal voices To Whom It May Concern: According to your "principal voices" website, the principal voices are "globally-renowned experts". If this is true, why is it that a Google search for Ellatuvalapil Sreedharan (the principal voice for transportation) turns up ZERO hits? If you are looking for an expert try the Google search: "Jerry Schneider" +transportation This will turn up over 800 hits leading to Transportation Professor (retired) Jerry Schneider. Dr. Schneider is likely the most renowned expert on leading edge transportation alternatives. Another Google search: "Wendell Cox" +transportation This search will turn up 11,000 hits on this transportation expert. Why not ask either of these experts to debate with Ellatuvalapil Sreedharan? If this is really a debate, why are the public questions limited to 4, and why is there no criteria on selection? It appears to that the principal voices debates could likely be a showcase for a hidden agenda that will after the fact be claimed to have been an internationally recognized debate. Daryl Oster (c) 2004 all rights reserved. ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth" e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks of et3.com Inc. For licensing information contact: et3@et3.com , www.et3.com POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423 (352)257-1310 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041222/7a0e5d91/attachment.html From mail at ericbritton.org Wed Dec 22 18:43:31 2004 From: mail at ericbritton.org (Eric Britton (personal)) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 10:43:31 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Draft proposal to Principal Voices - Quick progress report Message-ID: <008f01c4e80a$b8672160$6501a8c0@jazz> Wednesday, December 22, 2004, Paris, France, Europe In addition to several much appreciated private letters of cautious encouragement on this proposed initiative of 21 Dec, I have received in the last day the following two mailings from proponents of advanced transportation technologies, in a phrase free standing new systems based on "new surface transport infrastructure". I would like to comment briefly because I believe this is one of the central pillars that we have to deal with one way or another as we make our important decisions about the future of the sector. Personally I have a great weakness for these proposals and the engineering technologies that they bring to the fore. On a number of occasions during my career I have carried out pretty extensive international surveys looking at the category in general and more specifically things like PRT, GRT, DRT, ITT, ATT, monorails, skycabs by many names, maglev, air cushion vehicles, accelerating moving sidewalks, pneumatic tube transport, and the long list goes on. But as my respected colleague and a central force in this movement, Jerry Schneider, Professor Emeritus of Civil Engineering and Urban Design and Planning at the University of Washington (see below) has said on numerous occasions: "The problem is implementing it." That's it and from the horse's mouth! To whit my regretful conclusion as a hands-on advisor of policy: given the immediate needs of sustainability and our societies, we have to put this on the back burner for now and concentrate on what we can do with the infrastructure we have. Sad and possibly even narrow conclusion that it may seem. Fortunately however, there is a huge amount that we can in fact achieve working within the broad envelope of the infrastructure we have in hand, so to my mind the challenge is to get on with that task. Mr. Daryl Oster, an active proponent of "ETT" and "space travel on earth", for his part goes quite a bit further than I do in his criticism of the way in which the Voices people have set out to organize their initiative: starting with a rather unjust hit on the qualifications of the respected Mr. Ellatuvalapil Sreedharan to be one of the Voices. I could not agree less. The object of any truly creative dialogue, at least as I understand it, is to trot out a wide range of views and perspectives, and indeed it would be a major error if we packed the jury in any way. Not only is Mr. Sreedharan a person of real accomplishment in our sector, but also by the way if you Google "Sreedharan + "transport OR transportation" you get no less than 2830 call-ups this morning. So we can put that one to rest, eh? ;-) That said Mr. Oster does propose a candidate with international credentials who might indeed make another interesting apex for a debate triangle, Wendell Cox of The Public Purpose ("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). Fine idea Daryl. I will add him to our short list, not least because of his rigor, persistence, international reach, at times surprising flexibility -- and the fact that at least half the time I for one do not agree with him. Which of course is the stuff of a good debate. So there we have it for today. I will let this cook for another 24 hours before dispatching to our contacts there - so there is still time for you to share both your criticisms, ideas and even encouragement if there is any of that in your end year larder. It's their party of course, but perhaps they will open it up a bit to ensure that it is fully informed, lively, varied and creative - the stuff of a really successful party. Salamaat, Shalom, Merry Christmas, and Peace on Earth, Eric Britton -----Original Message----- From: Jerry Schneider [mailto:jbs@peak.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 10:48 PM To: eric.britton@ecoplan.org Subject: Re: [sustran] Draft proposal to Principal Voices team - For comment At 09:18 AM 12/21/04 -0800, you wrote: >snip ------------ >These fora and the individuals and groups behind them offer a clear cut, >leading edge, world level state of the art, 21st century awareness of the >issues and the full range of solutions -- and while there is no aversion on >the part of most of us to building new systems and expanding infrastructure >in specific cases, we tend to be far more reserved and I would like to say >sophisticated, and indeed practical, when it comes to better management of >the infrastructure and systems we already have in place. Moreover, we tend >too to be rather ambitious when it comes to the creative integration of new >communications technologies into the overall systemic infrastructure, and >that too might be one of the more promising avenues of the discussions and >debate. One wonders what "new systems" you might have in mind? You are welcome to add my ITT website to your list of promising avenues for discussion. Best regards, Jerry -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Daryl Oster Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 6:46 AM To: principalvoices@cnn.com; Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport Cc: policy@advancedtransit.org Subject: [sustran] principal voices To Whom It May Concern: According to your "principal voices" website, the principal voices are "globally-renowned experts". If this is true, why is it that a Google search for Ellatuvalapil Sreedharan (the principal voice for transportation) turns up ZERO hits? If you are looking for an expert try the Google search: "Jerry Schneider" +transportation This will turn up over 800 hits leading to Transportation Professor (retired) Jerry Schneider. Dr. Schneider is likely the most renowned expert on leading edge transportation alternatives. Another Google search: "Wendell Cox" +transportation This search will turn up 11,000 hits on this transportation expert. Why not ask either of these experts to debate with Ellatuvalapil Sreedharan? If this is really a debate, why are the public questions limited to 4, and why is there no criteria on selection? It appears to that the principal voices debates could likely be a showcase for a hidden agenda that will after the fact be claimed to have been an internationally recognized debate. Daryl Oster (c) 2004 all rights reserved. ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth" e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks of et3.com Inc. For licensing information contact: et3@et3.com , www.et3.com POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423 (352)257-1310 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041222/73468529/attachment-0001.html From kate.czuczman at ifrtd.org Thu Dec 23 01:27:41 2004 From: kate.czuczman at ifrtd.org (Kate Czuczman) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 16:27:41 -0000 Subject: [sustran] Vacancy - Executive Secretary, IFRTD Message-ID: <20041222162358.71E1914B5E8@mail.gn.apc.org> - Apologies for cross posting - We would like to announce a vacancy within the IFRTD Secretariat. After many years Priyanthi Fernando will be leaving us in February to take up a new position and we will therefore be seeking to fill the position of Executive Secretary. The Executive Secretary is the chief executive officer and principal spokesperson of the IFRTD, and is responsible for ensuring the effective coordination and implementation of the IFRTD strategy. For more information about IFRTD please take a look at our website http://www.ifrtd.org The recruitment process is being managed by ITDG, the charity that hosts the IFRTD Secretariat. For more information and an application pack please refer to ITDG's website at http://www.itdg.org.uk/?id=jobs or contact: The HR Unit, ITDG The Schumacher Centre for Technology and Development Bourton Hall Bourton on Dunsmore Rugby Warwickshire CV23 9QZ United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0) 1926 634447 Fax: +44 0) 1926 634401 Email: recruitment@itdg.org.uk The deadline for applications is 31st January 2005 Kate Czuczman Editor & Communications Coordinator IFRTD Secretariat Web: www.ifrtd.org and www.ruralwaterways.org Email: kate.czuczman@ifrtd.org "The IFRTD is a global network of individuals and organisations working together towards improved access and mobility for the rural poor in developing countries" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041222/6b669e51/attachment.html From Davewetzel at tfl.gov.uk Thu Dec 23 01:47:00 2004 From: Davewetzel at tfl.gov.uk (Wetzel Dave) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 16:47:00 -0000 Subject: [sustran] Re: Sent on behalf of Professor David Begg Message-ID: <842CED24A576E94FA736D0DC0FAF81599C6315@tflexc001.corp.tfl.local> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/plain Size: 2281 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041222/f73ab00c/attachment.txt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041222/f73ab00c/attachment.html From ericbruun at earthlink.net Thu Dec 23 06:07:52 2004 From: ericbruun at earthlink.net (Eric Bruun) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 16:07:52 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [sustran] Re: Daryl Oster's comments Message-ID: <4706766.1103749674358.JavaMail.root@kermit.psp.pas.earthlink.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041222/b4b77efe/attachment-0001.html From et3 at et3.com Thu Dec 23 10:05:31 2004 From: et3 at et3.com (Daryl Oster) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 20:05:31 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Draft proposal to Principal Voices - Quick progress report In-Reply-To: <009901c4e80c$5b3a1040$6501a8c0@jazz> Message-ID: <20041223010601.84FEC2C524@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> Vittal and Eric, Thanks for pointing out my lax search method with respect to Ellatuvalapil Sreedharan, I should have considered that he may not use his first name. I now have plenty of references, and concur his expert status is warranted. Eric, I am glad that you agree that Wendell Cox would be a good balance for a well rounded debate. And there is a need for at least a third voice for transportation, a strong voice to represent advanced transportation technology. It is clear to many of us that roads are not sustainable, and have passed the point of diminishing returns; most agree change is needed. Even if it could be shown that trains, bicycles, and muscle offer energy and environmental sustainability (there is plenty of evidence to suggest they do not), it is proven they are not socially sustainable. In spite of being subsidized 50 times more than road, trains are still loosing market share to cars. Trains once had market share in Japan, Europe, and the US -- now roads have market share because cars are more sustainable. The millions in lobby and campaign money of rail interests have done their damage - they have poisoned the opinions of politicians, bureaucrats, and educators with their: "smoke and mirrors" presentations, outright lies, and "free" gifts of dinners, travel, accommodations, and RFP drafting assistance. To stick ones head in the sand and say: "we must do something, even if it is not optimum -- let's go back to what "worked" in the past" is foolish, especially since there is credible evidence (like ETT, and other sustainable means) proving there are sustainable alternatives that can be implemented easier than returning to trains, bikes, and muscle. You, I and others justify all the air flights, all the bus, train, and car travel because we are using the best tools available to disseminate our ideals. Guess what -- EVERYONE thinks the same way -- our reasons for high energy consumption are justified, and most other peoples reasons are not justified. If all people in the past had followed your example, and instead of implementing prudent innovation, returned to old ways whenever new ways encountered problems, we would still be in the Stone Age, the planet would be stripped of trees, and starvation would be the norm. Just because you have wasted time in the past to chase down possibilities that turned out to be dead ends -- do not make the mistake of going down a proven dead end, without at least fully checking out the most promising options. Daryl Oster (c) 2004? all rights reserved.? ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth" e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks of et3.com Inc.? For licensing information contact:??? et3@et3.com , www.et3.com? POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423? (352)257-1310 > -----Original Message----- > From: sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com@list.jca.apc.org > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of > EcoPlan, Paris > Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 4:55 AM > To: 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport' > Subject: [sustran] Draft proposal to Principal Voices - Quick progress > report > > Wednesday, December 22, 2004, Paris, France, Europe > > > > Dear Sustainable Friends, > > > > In addition to several much appreciated private letters of cautious > encouragement on this proposed initiative of 21 Dec, I have received in > the last day the following two mailings from proponents of advanced > transportation technologies, in a phrase free standing new systems based > on ?new surface transport infrastructure?. I would like to comment > briefly because I believe this is one of the central pillars that we have > to deal with one way or another as we make our important decisions about > the future of the sector. > > > > Personally I have a great weakness for these proposals and the engineering > technologies that they bring to the fore. On a number of occasions during > my career I have carried out pretty extensive international surveys > looking at the category in general and more specifically things like PRT, > GRT, DRT, ITT, ATT, monorails, skycabs by many names, maglev, air cushion > vehicles, accelerating moving sidewalks, pneumatic tube transport, and the > long list goes on. But as my respected colleague and a central force in > this movement, Jerry Schneider, Professor Emeritus of Civil Engineering > and Urban Design and Planning at the University of Washington (see below) > has said on numerous occasions: ?The problem is implementing it." > > > > That?s it and from the horse?s mouth! To whit my regretful conclusion as a > hands-on advisor of policy: given the immediate needs of sustainability > and our societies, we have to put this on the back burner for now and > concentrate on what we can do with the infrastructure we have. Sad and > possibly even narrow conclusion that it may seem. Fortunately however, > there is a huge amount that we can in fact achieve working within the > broad envelope of the infrastructure we have in hand, so to my mind the > challenge is to get on with that task. > > > > Mr. Daryl Oster, an active proponent of ?ETT? and "space travel on earth", > for his part goes quite a bit further than I do in his criticism of the > way in which the Voices people have set out to organize their initiative: > starting with a rather unjust hit on the qualifications of the respected > Mr. Ellatuvalapil Sreedharan to be one of the Voices. I could not agree > less. The object of any truly creative dialogue, at least as I understand > it, is to trot out a wide range of views and perspectives, and indeed it > would be a major error if we packed the jury in any way. Not only is Mr. > Sreedharan a person of real accomplishment in our sector, but also by the > way if you Google ?Sreedharan + ?transport OR transportation? you get no > less than 2830 call-ups this morning. So we can put that one to rest, eh? > ;-) > > > > That said Mr. Oster does propose a candidate with international > credentials who might indeed make another interesting apex for a debate > triangle, Wendell Cox of The Public Purpose > (?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). Fine idea Daryl. I will add him to our short list, not least > because of his rigor, persistence, international reach, at times > surprising flexibility -- and the fact that at least half the time I for > one do not agree with him. Which of course is the stuff of a good debate. > > > > So there we have it for today. I will let this cook for another 24 hours > before dispatching to our contacts there ? so there is still time for you > to share both your criticisms, ideas and even encouragement if there is > any of that in your end year larder. It?s their party of course, but > perhaps they will open it up a bit to ensure that it is fully informed, > lively, varied and creative ? the stuff of a really successful party. > > > > Salamaat, Shalom, Merry Christmas, and Peace on Earth, > > > > Eric Britton > > > > PS. You may want to check out the latest bulletin of the ITDP at > http://www.itdp.org/. Talk about new transportation ideas and on street > progress. > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jerry Schneider [mailto:jbs@peak.org] > Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 10:48 PM > To: eric.britton@ecoplan.org > Subject: Re: [sustran] Draft proposal to Principal Voices team - For > comment > > > > At 09:18 AM 12/21/04 -0800, you wrote: > > > > >snip ------------ > > >These fora and the individuals and groups behind them offer a clear cut, > > >leading edge, world level state of the art, 21st century awareness of the > > >issues and the full range of solutions -- and while there is no aversion > on > > >the part of most of us to building new systems and expanding > infrastructure > > >in specific cases, we tend to be far more reserved and I would like to > say > > >sophisticated, and indeed practical, when it comes to better management > of > > >the infrastructure and systems we already have in place. Moreover, we > tend > > >too to be rather ambitious when it comes to the creative integration of > new > > >communications technologies into the overall systemic infrastructure, and > > >that too might be one of the more promising avenues of the discussions > and > > >debate. > > > > One wonders what "new systems" you might have in mind? You are welcome to > > add my ITT website to your list of promising avenues for discussion. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Jerry > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org@list.jca.apc.org > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org@list.jca.apc.org] > On Behalf Of Daryl Oster > Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 6:46 AM > To: principalvoices@cnn.com; Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport > Cc: policy@advancedtransit.org > Subject: [sustran] principal voices > > > > To Whom It May Concern: > > > > According to your "principal voices" website, the principal voices are > > "globally-renowned experts". If this is true, why is it that a Google > > search for Ellatuvalapil Sreedharan (the principal voice for > transportation) > > turns up ZERO hits? If you are looking for an expert try the Google > search: > > > > "Jerry Schneider" +transportation > > > > This will turn up over 800 hits leading to Transportation Professor > > (retired) Jerry Schneider. Dr. Schneider is likely the most renowned > expert > > on leading edge transportation alternatives. > > > > Another Google search: > > > > "Wendell Cox" +transportation > > > > This search will turn up 11,000 hits on this transportation expert. Why > not > > ask either of these experts to debate with Ellatuvalapil Sreedharan? > > > > If this is really a debate, why are the public questions limited to 4, and > > why is there no criteria on selection? It appears to that the principal > > voices debates could likely be a showcase for a hidden agenda that will > > after the fact be claimed to have been an internationally recognized > debate. > > > > > > Daryl Oster > > (c) 2004 all rights reserved. ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth" > > e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service > marks > > of et3.com Inc. For licensing information contact: et3@et3.com , > > www.et3.com POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423 (352)257-1310 > > > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by Netsignia Online , and is > believed to be clean. From sujit at vsnl.com Thu Dec 23 12:20:29 2004 From: sujit at vsnl.com (Sujit Patwardhan) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 08:50:29 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: principal voices In-Reply-To: <20041222054617.9FD862F0CC@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> References: <20041222054617.9FD862F0CC@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.0.20041223084922.0343b5e0@mail.vsnl.com> 22 December 2004 Friends, I don't know how reliable is this method for determining the level of expertise, but prompted by Daryl Oster's message I attempted a search on "Sreedharan" + transportation and it turned out 863 results, all referring to E. Sreeedharan. Curious to try some other names and to check out if the number of hits can indeed be taken as a good indicator for this purpose, here are some of the results: Jaime Lerner: 661 Enrique Penalosa: 679 Todd Litman: 4,300 Ken Livingstone: 42,100 Henry Ford: 149,000 Thought I should share this with friends on the list. -- Sujit Patwardhan At 11:15 AM 12/22/2004, you wrote: >To Whom It May Concern: > >According to your "principal voices" website, the principal voices are >"globally-renowned experts". If this is true, why is it that a google >search for Ellatuvalapil Sreedharan (the principal voice for transportation) >turns up ZERO hits? If you are looking for an expert try the google search: > >"Jerry Schneider" +transportation > >This will turn up over 800 hits leading to Transportation Professor >(retired) Jerry Schneider. Dr. Schneider is likely the most renowned expert >on leading edge transportation alternatives. > >Another google search: > >"Wendell Cox" +transportation > >This search will turn up 11,000 hits on this transportation expert. Why not >ask either of these experts to debate with Ellatuvalapil Sreedharan? > >If this is really a debate, why are the public questions limited to 4, and >why is there no criteria on selection? It appears to that the principal >voices debates could likely be a showcase for a hidden agenda that will >after the fact be claimed to have been an internationally recognized debate. > > >Daryl Oster >(c) 2004 all rights reserved. ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth" >e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks >of et3.com Inc. For licensing information contact: et3@et3.com , >www.et3.com POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423 (352)257-1310 > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com@list.jca.apc.org > > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of > > EcoPlan, Paris > > Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 7:35 AM > > To: Sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org; 'UTSG'; 'New Mobility Cafe [NMC]' > > Cc: 'Margaret Bell'; 'Phil Goodwin'; 'Walter Hook'; 'Lee Schipper'; 'F. O. > > Montgomery' > > Subject: [sustran] Proposal to the Principal Voices team > > > > Tuesday, December 21, 2004, Paris, France, Europe > > > > > > > > Dear Sustainable World Colleagues, > > > > > > > > I intend to post the following, or some version of it, tomorrow to the > > Principal Voices team -- http://www.principalvoices.com > > -- with whom we now appear to have > > found an effective communications channel in the person of Stan Stalnaker > > of Fortune. As you will possibly note, it is along the lines of a ?gate > > crash? as suggested by the indomitable Dave Wetzel of Transport for > > London. > > > > > > > > If you have any thoughts or suggestions to modify or improve on this, I > > would be most grateful to receive them at your first convenience. I have > > tried hard to be a good representative for what I believe to be our shared > > philosophy, and as you will note I have put myself further as our ?voice?, > > which may or my not be the best idea. I am as always open to better ones. > > > > > > > > You know, it is my personal philosophy that occasions like this do not > > pass twice, so when they come up we must reach out and seize them. And so > > it is here. > > > > > > > > Your call. > > > > > > > > Salamaat, Shalom, and Merry Christmas, > > > > > > > > Eric Britton > > > > > > > > ****************************************************** > > > > > > > > Dear Stan, > > > > > > > > I appreciate your friendly note of Mon 12/20/2004 and in particular your > > volunteering to serve as a channel of communication in the event that we > > have anything of interest to convey to those people who are making your > > program work. Since time is short with your January start-up date barely > > ten days away, I should indeed like to get the following comments and > > suggestions to your team without delay. > > > > > > > > 1. Principal Voices Problem ? The Transportation dialogue > > > > > > > > In short and speaking in the name of more than one thousand professionals > > from more than fifty countries with a long term interest and true hands-on > > experience and competence in matters of transportation policy and practice > > internationally, I would like to draw your attention to what we regard as > > two significant shortcomings in your important project as currently > > framed. I address you here specifically on the matter of your > > transportation section and would like to propose a couple of simple fixes, > > which I might add I have shared worth our several peer networks just to be > > sure that there is no major objection in principle to what follows. > > > > > > > > First, you need at least one more transportation voice, possibly two, to > > have full and competent coverage of the field as it is now defined (we > > call this New Mobility, as opposed of course to old mobility, but more on > > that just below). Does this imply that I think there is anything wrong > > with having Mr. Ellatuvalapil Sreedharan as leading voice? Not at all. To > > the contrary I think it is most exciting to have him willing to join in > > here as a representative of contemporary thinking and expertise on one > > side of the sustainable transport debate ? after all a truly remarkable > > man: ?one of India's greatest civil engineers, the architect of the > > supposedly unbuildable Konkan Railway linking Mumbai and Mangalore, and, > > more recently, designer of the Delhi Metro system?. I think it is fair to > > say that his expertise will do honor to the primarily supply oriented, > > engineering, build it and they will come perspective of the transportation > > challenge, but that is at best only half the story. The rest of the story > > is if anything in this day and age even more important, so in a moment I > > will get to our suggestion as to how this might be quickly remedied. > > > > > > > > The second shortcoming of the current plan is your utter lack of a true > > feedback and open debate forum ? this is definitely going to limit the > > profile, reach, usefulness and contribution of the final product. (Not > > only that you are going to limit the newsworthiness of the whole thing, > > which I imagine is also a factor that need to be brought into the picture, > > especially given who you people are.) True enough Time, Fortune and CNN > > are all three at heart basically broadcast media, and true too each is > > increasingly interactive ? why so? because it?s cheap, can get valuable > > content, greater variety of views, and via its vigor and lively debate > > bring each of you more faithful customers. But in this case you seem to > > be pretty lagged in that department, and what you present thus far is a > > crystal clear example of one more of those tiring ?managed debates? of > > which we have seen far too many. We see this all the time in transport > > and environmental circles, and if you chose to persist in this in the end > > you always have a dead product which I am sure is not what you folks > > want. > > > > > > > > 2. Background ? The missing half of the mobility story > > > > > > > > While the author of your transport issues paper has made a fair stab at > > integrating the more complex sustainability issues in the introduction ? > > and in particular is to be commended for his choice of External Links > > which really does provide a pretty good coverage of the various and quite > > different points of view ? the bottom line of your piece is that it is a > > plea for (a) more supply, (b) waiting for the right time to do better, and > > (c) tempering ?calls for reason? about not doing anything reach that might > > render the plight of the hard-pressed existing suppliers of products and > > services any worse. But dear friends, this is only one point of view, and > > if you are indeed to live up to your promise of a wide international > > debate, you have to reach far broader than that. > > > > > > > > One starting place to turn for more and better is The New Mobility Agenda > > and its extensive international network of practitioners and proponents. > > You can find extensive background on the philosophy and accomplishments of > > this informal, independent but not ineffective international grouping if > > you go to http://newmobility.org . You may also > > find good value in the handful of international ?conversations? about and > > expertise on these matters which feed into this movement: via our own New > > Mobility Cafe at NewMobility@yahoogroups.com, the Sustainable Transport > > Action Network for Asia and the Pacific (SUSTRAN Network)at > > http://www.geocities.com/sustrannet/, the Universities' Transport Study > > Group. at http://www.utsg.net/, and Institute for Transportation and > > Development Policy, the http://www.itdp.org/ > > > > > > > > These fora and the individuals and groups behind them offer a clear cut, > > leading edge, world level state of the art, 21st century awareness of the > > issues and the full range of solutions -- and while there is no aversion > > on the part of most of us to building new systems and expanding > > infrastructure in specific cases, we tend to be far more reserved and I > > would like to say sophisticated, and indeed practical, when it comes to > > better management of the infrastructure and systems we already have in > > place. Moreover, we tend too to be rather ambitious when it comes to the > > creative integration of new communications technologies into the overall > > systemic infrastructure, and that too might be one of the more promising > > avenues of the discussions and debate. > > > > > > > > Bottom line: Unless you find a way to factor in not only the points of > > view of the people and groups who constitute this new leading edge in > > transport thinking and policy, you will end up with a tame kitty. It?s > > that simple. > > > > > > > > Now how to get the structure in shape to do this job. Well there are a > > number of possibilities as you may well image, but here you have my no- > > wait proposal. > > > > > > > > 3. Solution proposed > > > > > > > > The Voices: > > > > > > > > First and with characteristic modesty, I propose that you add my name as a > > ?voice? to your transportation component to ensure that the New Mobility > > Agenda approach is also fairly and fully represented. My thought is that > > I can then act as a relay to ensure that our collective voices, principal > > too, are heard. Why me? Well, because I am here, generally competent from > > this perspective, pretty much able to work the network that you need to > > bring in, and ready to do to work on this because I think it?s important. > > Also since time is short, I would save you the beauty contest to find > > someone better. > > > > > > > > Who else? Well, you have three slots for the Environment and Business > > ?Conversations? and I think we should have three for our critical > > transportation dialogue as well. I know several dozen each of whom could > > do a fine job at this, but time is short so I have to work with what comes > > most immediately to mind in this specific context. Here you have two > > candidates each of whom with deep qualifications and records of > > accomplishment, a strong international reach, with ideas that often > > diverge from my own, who might do very well indeed here (maybe better than > > me in fact but forget I said that): > > > > o Walter Hook, who is Executive Director of the Institute for > > Transportation and Development Policy, a Non-governmental Organization > > dedicated to promoting environmentally sustainable and equitable > > transportation policies and projects in developing countries and Central > > and Eastern Europe, and whom you can reach at whook@itdp.org; and/or > > > > o Lee Schipper, who currently is Co-Director, of the EMBARQ project > > of the World Resources Institute, and who has done quite a lot with your > > Shell sponsors (which might help ease the pain). schipper@wri.org. > > Moreover since the closing transport debate is slated for Mexico City, a > > place where Lee works pretty extensively, it might be good to have him > > there to factor in his competence and presence for the physical events. > > That?s schipper@wri.org > > > > > > > > The Debate Forum/Discussions: > > > > > > > > We will be pleased to work with you to set this up in a way that will do > > the job. The idea is that it should be wide open, lively, well plugged in > > to the full range of expertise and views, and that it be well managed to > > stay on topic. Also since the web technology on all this is moving along > > quite smartly, this could be a good occasion for us to work with your best > > technical people to find a really strong, readable, appealing way to > > handle this. > > > > > > > > A Final Thought for you: Other Technologies to integrate into this > > process. > > > > > > > > * Have a look at http://newmobilitypartners.org and see if any of the > > dialoguing and conferencing options set out there might be put to good use > > in this context. It is worth at least a thought. > > > > > > > > There you have it Principal Voice friends. We invite you to respond to > > this and work with us, because we think it is important. And because if > > you truly believe in sustainable development and social justice, it?s just > > the right thing to do. > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > Eric Britton > > > > > > > > Convener, The New Mobility Agenda at http://newmobility.org > > > > > > Free video/voice conferencing at http://newmobilitypartners.org > > > > > > > > > > The Commons: Open Society Sustainability Initiative at http://ecoplan.org > > > > > > Le Frene, 8/10 rue Joseph Bara 75006 Paris, France > > > > E: postmaster@newmobility.org T: +331 4326 1323 > > > > --- Outgoing mail certified Virus Free. Checked by Norton Anti-Virus > > > > > > > > The Commons Open Society Sustainability Initiative: Seeking out and > > supporting new sustainability concepts for business, entrepreneurs, > > activists, community groups, and government; a thorn in the side of > > hesitant administrators and politicians; and through our joint efforts, > > energy and personal choices, placing them and ourselves firmly on the path > > to a more sustainable and more just society. > > > > Sustainable Urban Transport --------------------------------------------------- Sujit Patwardhan Member PTTF Pune Traffic & Transportation Forum, c/o Parisar, "Yamuna", ICS Colony,Ganeshkhind Road, Pune 411 007 Tel: +91 20 25537955 Cell: +91 98220 26627 Email: contact@pttf.net, sujit@vsnl.com ----------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041223/5c0c7c84/attachment.html From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Thu Dec 23 17:29:37 2004 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (EcoPlan, Paris) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 09:29:37 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Principal Voices recommendations Message-ID: <007a01c4e8c9$8dfa7b10$6501a8c0@jazz> Oops. Good. I got your message(s). Therefore, I will be adding the following names as you have suggested to the PV shortlist, each with a few judicious lines to help orient them and hopefully allow them to sort things out for themselves. ? Derek Scrafton, Adelaide ? Michael Meyer, Atlanta ? Mikel Murga, Bilbao ? Wendell Cox, Belleville, Illinois ? Enrique Pe?alosa, Bogota ? Martin Strid, Borlange ? Robin Chase, Boston ? Jan Gehl, Copenhagen ? Phil Goodwin, Exeter ? Yngve Westerlund, Gothenburg ? John Whitelegg, Lancaster ? Dave Wetzel, London ? Robert Poole, Los Angeles ? Dinish, Mohan, New Delhi ? Michael A. Replogle, New York ? Peter Wiederkehr, OECD ? Corinne Lepage, Paris ? Denis Baupin, Paris ? Per Homann Jespersen, Roskilde, DK ? Jerry Schneider, Seattle ? Karl Fjellstrom, Surabaya ? Peter Newman, Sydney ? Jane Jacobs, Toronto ? Sue Zielinski, Toronto ? Todd Litman, Victoria ? Ken Orski, Washington, DC ? Rudolf Petersen, Wuppertal Oh dear yes, I realize that (a) this is starting to be unwieldy, but we can leave the sorting to them once they have the full list in front of them. And almost for sure I have missed out on your favorite candidate (maybe you?), but you still can get them on board if you get back to me before the end of the day. As you can see I am trying to do this too fast, but the clock is ticking. That said, this gives them quite a fair choice of backgrounds and approaches, right to left, narrow to broad, engineering to public policy, -- which is what we need to bring into this debate -- but I would very much hope that political astuteness and tangible on street accomplishment will be high on their selection criteria. Last chance to come in with your recommendations on this. Eric Britton PS. And yes, it is not only fairer like this, but much more interesting and useful. I think what they really should consider doing is to create the three Voices, and then have an ?invisible college? which brings together whoever of this list might wish to pitch in and at most a handful of others. Now THAT would be really interesting. And useful. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041223/2fe32e6f/attachment-0001.html From et3 at et3.com Thu Dec 23 22:59:32 2004 From: et3 at et3.com (Daryl Oster) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 08:59:32 -0500 Subject: [sustran] FW: [Tr2000] Texas- State is on road to new highway era Message-ID: <20041223140001.C816F2EC03@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> > -----Original Message----- > From: t2000@hammond-vowels.com [mailto:t2000@hammond-vowels.com] > Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 2:13 PM > To: Tr2000@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [Tr2000] Texas- State is on road to new highway era/?Yo Quiero > 407? > > > Note to Greater Toronto Area readers, Cintra is involved in the Highway > 407 > consortium.... > > > Subject: Texas- State is on road to new highway era > > State is on road to new highway era > > Web Posted: 12/17/2004 12:00 AM CST > > Patrick Driscollh > San Antonio Express-News > > The Texas Transportation Commission selected a construction consortium > that includes a San Antonio firm Thursday to build the first leg of the > Trans Texas Corridor -- launching what officials called the nation's > most important highway project since the 1950s. > Trans Texas Corridor > # First leg of the 50-year project will: Take 10 years to complete. > # Cost $6 billion. > # Provide a four-lane toll road from San Antonio to Dallas. > Still to come, sometime after 2025: > # Toll lanes to the Mexican border. > # High-speed passenger rail service between San Antonio and Dallas. > > The group, led by Cintra of Spain, will build and operate the corridor's > first segment of toll roads from Dallas to San Antonio. > > Zachry Construction Corp. will partner with Cintra on the 10-year > project, the first phase of a 50-year venture promising greater mobility > for drivers and profits for the operator. > > Cintra will invest $6 billion over the next decade to construct the > four-lane toll road and relocate some Union Pacific tracks to the east > of San Antonio and Austin. > > Toll lanes to the border, high-speed passenger rail between San Antonio > and Dallas and new freight tracks from Austin to Dallas are expected to > follow sometime after 2025. > > "Today's action by the Texas Department of Transportation will go down > as one of the most significant days in the history of transportation," > said Gov. Rick Perry, who compared the project to the interstate highway > system launched during the Eisenhower administration. > > The highway department, after signing a contract with Cintra within the > next two months, will pay $3.5 million to refine plans over the next > year or two -- but not a penny more. > > In fact, Cintra will pay the state $1.2 billion by 2014 for the right to > operate the toll system. And the firm will shoulder the risk of bonds to > fund the work. > > Perry, who unveiled his dream of the Trans Texas Corridor almost three > years ago, joined commissioners as they listened to Cintra officials lay > out the terms of the deal. > > "We've just seen the future and it is here," he said. "This is powerful, > powerful stuff." > > But there will be a price to pay for the massive project. > > The Trans Texas Corridor is huge and costly. The $184 billion endeavor > is eventually supposed to crisscross the state with 4,000 miles of > 10-lane highways and rail lines in swaths up to a quarter-mile wide. > > Officials will have to charge tolls to finance bonds and pay for > operations and maintenance. They'll also have to confiscate farmlands > and wildlife areas. > > "This is just one of those things that is painful and there's not an > awful lot we can do about it," said commission Chairman Ric Williamson. > > Motorists now pay from 10 cents to 20 cents a mile to use toll roads in > Houston and Dallas, and Cintra says that will be a starting point to > decide its fees on the route it will build along Interstate 35. > > Cintra will have to rely on traffic congestion on I-35 to drive > frustrated motorists to its toll lanes. > > As a result, Texas will likely limit expansion of the interstate -- > probably to six lanes -- to ensure a lucrative market for the company. > > "They need to have an expectation that they can get a profit," > Williamson said. "And we shouldn't be ashamed of that." > > Besides, Williamson added, the Transportation Department couldn't afford > to do much more on I-35 anyway. > > However, the state can use the $1.2 billion rent from Cintra for other > projects on or near I-35. Ideas include passenger and freight rail > lines, and truck routes to connect the Port of Corpus Christi, the Rio > Grande Valley and Laredo. > > The first segment of the corridor would link to Texas 130, now under > construction, extending it from Lockhart to Seguin east of Austin. Work > could start in about a year. > > "Get it done so that the people of San Antonio can hook up and get > going," Perry said. > > Toll lanes along Interstate 10 east of San Antonio and along Southeast > Loop 1604 could be completed in 15 years. > > The local Alamo Regional Mobility Authority may consider picking up > parts of those sections. > > "It is something we're gong to have to look at," said Tom Griebel, > director of the authority. > > Cintra, which competed against Fluor Enterprises Inc. of Sugar Land and > Trans Texas Express of Dallas to win the project, is one of the largest > toll-road construction companies in the world, currently involved with > 17 jobs. > > Zachry Construction is a 15 percent partner on the project. > > Family-owned Zachry was founded in 1924 in Laredo to build highways but > later diversified and moved to San Antonio. Recent work includes Dallas' > light-rail system, power plants in Puerto Rico and the rebuilt U.S. > embassy in Moscow. > > Transportation Commissioner Hope Andrade of San Antonio said a new age > has dawned in Texas. > > "We've certainly proven that TxDOT has a new way of doing business," she > said. "The governor has made Texas proud, and we appreciate his vision." > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > pdriscoll@express-news.net > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Online at: > http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA121704.1A.corridor_sele > ct.14aed698.html > > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> > Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar. > Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free! > http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/XgSolB/TM > --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Tr2000/ > > <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > Tr2000-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by Netsignia Online, and is > believed to be clean. > From townsend at alcor.concordia.ca Fri Dec 24 04:47:15 2004 From: townsend at alcor.concordia.ca (townsend@alcor.concordia.ca) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 14:47:15 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Principal Voices recommendations In-Reply-To: <007a01c4e8c9$8dfa7b10$6501a8c0@jazz> References: <007a01c4e8c9$8dfa7b10$6501a8c0@jazz> Message-ID: <1103831235.41cb20c3886ae@alcor.concordia.ca> Eric, Why not create criteria for the types of attributes and skills that would be well suited to the task and then seek nominations? I would like to add Jeff Kenworthy (Perth), Vukan Vuchic (Philadelphia), and Robert Cervero (Berkeley) to the list. They have all produced a substantial amount of widely-respected scholarly output including books which are now considered "classics" and have had a major influence on transport decision- making around the world. They are all committed to a future which has a greater variety of urban transport modes and less reliance on private motor vehicles and fossil fuels. Best regards, Craig Townsend Quoting "EcoPlan, Paris" : > Oops. Good. I got your message(s). > > > > Therefore, I will be adding the following names as you have suggested to the > PV shortlist, each with a few judicious lines to help orient them and > hopefully allow them to sort things out for themselves. > > > > ? Derek Scrafton, Adelaide > > ? Michael Meyer, Atlanta > > ? Mikel Murga, Bilbao > > ? Wendell Cox, Belleville, Illinois > > ? Enrique Pe?alosa, Bogota > > ? Martin Strid, Borlange > > ? Robin Chase, Boston > > ? Jan Gehl, Copenhagen > > ? Phil Goodwin, Exeter > > ? Yngve Westerlund, Gothenburg > > ? John Whitelegg, Lancaster > > ? Dave Wetzel, London > > ? Robert Poole, Los Angeles > > ? Dinish, Mohan, New Delhi > > ? Michael A. Replogle, New York > > ? Peter Wiederkehr, OECD > > ? Corinne Lepage, Paris > > ? Denis Baupin, Paris > > ? Per Homann Jespersen, Roskilde, DK > > ? Jerry Schneider, Seattle > > ? Karl Fjellstrom, Surabaya > > ? Peter Newman, Sydney > > ? Jane Jacobs, Toronto > > ? Sue Zielinski, Toronto > > ? Todd Litman, Victoria > > ? Ken Orski, Washington, DC > > ? Rudolf Petersen, Wuppertal > > > > > > Oh dear yes, I realize that (a) this is starting to be unwieldy, but we can > leave the sorting to them once they have the full list in front of them. And > almost for sure I have missed out on your favorite candidate (maybe you?), > but you still can get them on board if you get back to me before the end of > the day. As you can see I am trying to do this too fast, but the clock is > ticking. That said, this gives them quite a fair choice of backgrounds and > approaches, right to left, narrow to broad, engineering to public policy, -- > which is what we need to bring into this debate -- but I would very much > hope that political astuteness and tangible on street accomplishment will be > high on their selection criteria. > > > > Last chance to come in with your recommendations on this. > > > > Eric Britton > > > > PS. And yes, it is not only fairer like this, but much more interesting and > useful. I think what they really should consider doing is to create the > three Voices, and then have an ?invisible college? which brings together > whoever of this list might wish to pitch in and at most a handful of others. > Now THAT would be really interesting. And useful. > > > > > > > > -- From et3 at et3.com Fri Dec 24 05:25:31 2004 From: et3 at et3.com (Daryl Oster) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 15:25:31 -0500 Subject: [sustran] FW: [atraPolicy] principal voices ### Message-ID: <20041223202558.610E72C4DD@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> The forwarded message (bottom of message) is typical of the opinion of many transportation experts that are offering innovative transportation solutions, IMO this opinion has merit, and should be considered by the anti-car / rail-centric crowd. We have two basic ways to achieve sustainability in transportation: 1) Use draconian measures to force people (against their will) to give up cars, and return to using trains, bikes, and muscle for transportation. 2) Implement transportation innovations that offer more than a 10 fold improvement in transportation efficiency, AND an improved benefit to cost ratio compared with roads. Most people in the world are aware of the problems associated with trains, bikes, and muscle transportation, and more are learning about the many problems associated with cars. Most people agree cars cause air pollution, just as they plainly see that animal transport has sanitation problems. It appears many members in this group are focused on the first way -legislate what is not socially sustainable -- reduce the global standard of living. The history of transportation shows that only the second way is proven to be effective, as it is socially sustainable. Furthermore, there is much evidence that trains, bikes, and muscle powered transportation is LESS sustainable than cars. "New Mobility" must be truly new -- not just a camouflage of old methods that have failed. Therefore, this group should embrace and support transportation sustainable innovations (like ETT) that offer quantum improvements in benefit to cost ratio over cars, trains and planes. ETT is in the process of implementation by et3.com Inc, an open collaboration that virtually anyone is free to join. Please consider that ETT implementation will take place faster with your help. You all can help by taking the responsibility of learning about ETT at www.et3.com, and then teaching others. Daryl Oster (c) 2004? all rights reserved.? ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth" e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks of et3.com Inc.? For licensing information contact:??? et3@et3.com , www.et3.com? POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423? (352)257-1310 > -----Forward Message----- > From: Walter Brewer [mailto:catcar38@charter.net] > Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 10:04 AM > To: policy@advancedtransit.org > Subject: Re: [atraPolicy] principal voices ### > > I have difficulty climbing upon the "New Mobility" Bandwagon. > > It's not that the broad goals indicated are flawed. > > But when advocacy for carless days appear, I don't believe it understands > the FUNCTION transportation plays in the overall mix of endeavors. > > Carless days are like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. They show > lack of understanding for the function cars play that are so essential to > economic, and social well being. They even show lack of understanding that > one element in a complex system may be less than ideal, as long as the end > product is benefited. > > Perhaps the "baby" in its present form borders upon ugly, but the > objective > is to help it grow up into a more useful citizen. In the case of > transportation vs the human mind and body, it can adopt a quite different > form. > > We need to be thinking about "Productive Mobility". It includes energy > efficiency, environmental respect, etc, but preserves the individual > oriented flexible destination oriented travel cars now provide, and > typically about 90% prefer. > > Walt Brewer > catcar38@charter.net From et3 at et3.com Fri Dec 24 06:21:45 2004 From: et3 at et3.com (Daryl Oster) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 16:21:45 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Daryl Oster's comments In-Reply-To: <4706766.1103749674358.JavaMail.root@kermit.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <20041223212216.BDAD62C3E4@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> Eric, You are correct the "bleeding edge" is real, and countless companies have failed attempting to implement technology that is dependant on making further advances in materials, manufacturing, computing, etc. ETT is NOT bleeding edge technology; it is designed for practical implementation. All the elements of ETT are highly proven, and the capacity for production presently exists. Transportation in an evacuated environment is the most proven form of transportation in the universe. Everyone that has ever lived has spent there whole lives traveling through space at more than 100,000km/h without using any energy. Observation of the perpetual motion of the planets is the foundation of modern science. Automation is also highly proven; hundreds of industries (like tube manufacture) are highly automated, and far more productive, accurate, and safe than if controlled by hand. The open collaboration et3.com Inc., exists to implement ETT through an expanding consortium of licensees who would benefit from, and are able to offer support to ETT implementation - much like "open source" (Linux software development), or "chaordic organizations" (like VISA international bank cards). There are over 50 individuals, companies, and institutions that have joined the ETT implementation effort. Much of the recent growth has been in China, where ETT implementation is being planned and carried out at high levels. I agree that the number of Google hits is not an indication of expertise, and I apologize that my statements can be interpreted to suggest it is. The number of hits IS an indication of the level and extent of recognition by others. Only by examining the body of work, may one determine expertise, (or lack thereof). "Experts" that fail to consider new paradigms in their field, and embrace those with the highest probability of success will not remain expert for very long, even though they may have accumulated a vast amount of Google hits! Daryl Oster (c) 2004? all rights reserved.? ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth" e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks of et3.com Inc.? For licensing information contact:??? et3@et3.com , www.et3.com? POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423? (352)257-1310 > -----Original Message----- > From: sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com@list.jca.apc.org > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of > Eric Bruun > Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 4:08 PM > To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport > Cc: tmatoff@ltk.com; vuchic@seas.upenn.edu; preston@cc.wwu.edu; > ywk@logistikscentrum.se > Subject: [sustran] Re: Daryl Oster's comments > > > > Daryl: > > Two comments: > > I think you have a narrow definition of "leading edge". Sometimes it is > really "bleeding edge" and the concept can not be implemented in a > practical fashion, as Jerry Scheider himself has noted. How about this > group submitting names of some more people who have done leading edge work > that has actually been implemented? I nominate Yngve Westerlund from > Gothenburg, Sweden. He has done great work advancing public transportation > for the elderly that has both reduced costs and gained acceptance. He is > still full of practical ideas. > > Also, the number of hits one gets on a websearch is not proportional to > expertise. Wendell Cox gets cited because he is conservative and the > conservative press and rail transit project opponents have fewer such > people to select amongst when they want a quote or consulting help. There > are far more left-leaning "transportation experts," so any one of them is > likely to be cited less often. > > Eric Bruun > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Vittal Kumar A." > Sent: Dec 22, 2004 1:10 AM > To: et3@et3.com, Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport > Subject: [sustran] Re: principal voices > > > Dear Daryl, > > Type in 'E Sreedharan' and see....! > > regards, > Vittal > > Daryl Oster wrote: > > To Whom It May Concern: > > According to your "principal voices" website, the principal voices > are > "globally-renowned experts". If this is true, why is it that a > google > search for Ellatuvalapil Sreedharan (the principal voice for > transportation) > turns up ZERO hits? If you are looking for an expert try the google > search: > > "Jerry Schneider" +transportation > > This will turn up over 800 hits leading to Transportation Professor > (retired) Jerry Schneider. Dr. Schneider is likely the most renowned > expert > on leading edge transportation alternatives. > > Another google search: > > "Wendell Cox" +transportation > > This search will turn up 11,000 hits on this transportation expert. > Why not > ask either of these experts to debate with Ellatuvalapil Sreedharan? > > If this is really a debate, why are the public questions limited to > 4, and > why is there no criteria on selection? It appears to that the > principal > voices debates could likely be a showcase for a hidden agenda that > will > after the fact be claimed to have been an internationally recognized > debate. > > > Daryl Oster > (c) 2004 all rights reserved. ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on > earth" > e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service > marks > of et3.com Inc. For licensing information contact: et3@et3.com , > www.et3.com POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423 (352)257-1310 > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com@list.jca.apc.org > > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com@list.jca.apc.org] On > Behalf Of > > EcoPlan, Paris > > Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 7:35 AM > > To: Sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org; 'UTSG'; 'New Mobility Cafe > [NMC]' > > Cc: 'Margaret Bell'; 'Phil Goodwin'; 'Walter Hook'; 'Lee Sch > ipper'; 'F. O. > > Montgomery' > > Subject: [sustran] Proposal to the Principal Voices team > > > > Tuesday, December 21, 2004, Paris, France, Europe > > > > > > > > Dear Sustainable World Colleagues, > > > > > > > > I intend to post the following, or some version of it, tomorrow to > the > > Principal Voices team -- http://www.principalvoices.com > > -- with whom we now appear to have > > found an effective communications channel in the person of Stan > Stalnaker > > of Fortune. As you will possibly note, it is along the lines of a > ?gate > > crash? as suggested by the indomitable Dave Wetzel of Transport > for > > London. > > > > > > > > If you have any thoughts or suggestions to modify or improve on > this, I > > would be most grateful to receive them at your first convenience. > I have > > tried hard to be a good representative for what I believe to be > our shared > > philosophy, and as you will note I have put myself further as our > ?voice?, > > which may or my not be the best idea. I am as always open to > better ones. > > > > > > > > You know, it is my personal philosophy that occasions like this do > not > > pass twice, so when they come up we must reach out and seize them. > And so > > it is here. > > > > > > > > Your call. > > > > > > > > Salamaat, Shalom, and Merry Christmas, > > > > > > > > Eric Britton > > > > > > > > ****************************************************** > > > > > > > > Dear Stan, > > > > > > > > I appreciate your friendly note of Mon 12/20/2004 and in > particular your > > volunteering to serve as a channel of communication in the event > that we > > have anything of interest to convey to those people who are making > your > > program work. Since time is short with your January start-up date > barely > > ten days away, I should indeed like to get the following comments > and > > suggestions to your team without delay. > > > > > > > > 1. Principal Voices Problem ? The Transportation dialogue > > > > > > > > In short and speaking in the name of more than one thousand > professionals > > from more than fifty countries with a long term interest and true > hands-on > > experience and competence in matters of transportation policy and > practice > > internationally, I would like to draw your attention to what we > regard as > > two significant shortcomings in your important project as > currently > > framed. I address you here specifically on the matter of your > > transportation section and would like to propose a couple of > simple fixes, > > which I might add I have shared worth our several peer networks > just to be > > sure that there is no major objection in principle to what > follows. > > > > > > > > First, you need at least one more transportation voice, possibly > two, to > > have full and competent coverage of the field as it is now defined > (we > > call this New Mobility, as opposed of course to old mobility, but > more on > > that just below). Does this imply that I think there is anything > wrong > > with having Mr. Ellatuvalapil Sreedharan as leading voice? Not at > all. To > > the contrary I think it is most exciting to have him willing to > join in > > here as a representative of contemporary thinking and expertise on > one > > side of the sustainable transport debate ? after all a truly > remarkable > > man: ?one of India's greatest civil engineers, the architect of > the > > supposedly unbuildable Konkan Railway linking Mumbai and > Mangalore, and, > > more recently, designer of the Delhi Metro system?. I think it is > fair to > > say that his expertise will do honor to the primarily supply > oriented, > > engineering, build it and they will come perspective of the > transportation > > challenge, but that is at best only half the story. The rest of > the story > > is if anything in this day and age even more important, so in a > moment I > > will get to our suggestion as to how this might be quickly > remedied. > > > > > > > > The second shortcoming of the current plan is your utter lack of a > true > > feedback and open debate forum ? this is definitely going to limit > the > > profile, reach, usefulness and contribution of the final product. > (Not > > only that you are going to limit the newsworthiness of the whole > thing, > > which I imagine is also a factor that need to be brought into the > picture, > > especially given who you people are.) True enough Time, Fortune > and CNN > > are all three at heart basically broadcast media, and true too > each is > > increasingly interactive ? why so? because it?s cheap, can ge t > valuable > > content, greater variety of views, and via its vigor and lively > debate > > bring each of you more faithful customers. But in this case you > seem to > > be pretty lagged in that department, and what you present thus far > is a > > crystal clear example of one more of those tiring ?managed > debates? of > > which we have seen far too many. We see this all the time in > transport > > and environmental circles, and if you chose to persist in this in > the end > > you always have a dead product which I am sure is not what you > folks > > want. > > > > > > > > 2. Background ? The missing half of the mobility story > > > > > > > > While the author of your transport issues paper has made a fair > stab at > > integrating the more complex sustainability issues in the > introduction ? > > and in particular is to be commended for his choice of External > Links > > which really does provide a pretty good cover age of the various > and quite > > different points of view ? the bottom line of your piece is that > it is a > > plea for (a) more supply, (b) waiting for the right time to do > better, and > > (c) tempering ?calls for reason? about not doing anything reach > that might > > render the plight of the hard-pressed existing suppliers of > products and > > services any worse. But dear friends, this is only one point of > view, and > > if you are indeed to live up to your promise of a wide > international > > debate, you have to reach far broader than that. > > > > > > > > One starting place to turn for more and better is The New Mobility > Agenda > > and its extensive international network of practitioners and > proponents. > > You can find extensive background on the philosophy and > accomplishments of > > this informal, independent but not ineffective international > grouping if > > you go to http://newmobility.org . Y ou may also > > find good value in the handful of international ?conversations? > about and > > expertise on these matters which feed into this movement: via our > own New > > Mobility Cafe at NewMobility@yahoogroups.com, the Sustainable > Transport > > Action Network for Asia and the Pacific (SUSTRAN Network)at > > http://www.geocities.com/sustrannet/, the Universities' Transport > Study > > Group. at http://www.utsg.net/, and Institute for Transportation > and > > Development Policy, the http://www.itdp.org/ > > > > > > > > These fora and the individuals and groups behind them offer a > clear cut, > > leading edge, world level state of the art, 21st century awareness > of the > > issues and the full range of solutions -- and while there is no > aversion > > on the part of most of us to building new systems and expanding > > infrastructure in specific cases, we tend to be far more reserved > and I > > would like to say sophisticated , and indeed practical, when it > comes to > > better management of the infrastructure and systems we already > have in > > place. Moreover, we tend too to be rather ambitious when it comes > to the > > creative integration of new communications technologies into the > overall > > systemic infrastructure, and that too might be one of the more > promising > > avenues of the discussions and debate. > > > > > > > > Bottom line: Unless you find a way to factor in not only the > points of > > view of the people and groups who constitute this new leading edge > in > > transport thinking and policy, you will end up with a tame kitty. > It?s > > that simple. > > > > > > > > Now how to get the structure in shape to do this job. Well there > are a > > number of possibilities as you may well image, but here you have > my no- > > wait proposal. > > > > > > > > 3. Solution proposed > > > > > > > > T he Voices: > > > > > > > > First and with characteristic modesty, I propose that you add my > name as a > > ?voice? to your transportation component to ensure that the New > Mobility > > Agenda approach is also fairly and fully represented. My thought > is that > > I can then act as a relay to ensure that our collective voices, > principal > > too, are heard. Why me? Well, because I am here, generally > competent from > > this perspective, pretty much able to work the network that you > need to > > bring in, and ready to do to work on this because I think it?s > important. > > Also since time is short, I would save you the beauty contest to > find > > someone better. > > > > > > > > Who else? Well, you have three slots for the Environment and > Business > > ?Conversations? and I think we should have three for our critical > > transportation dialogue as well. I know several dozen each of whom > could > > do a fine job at this, but time is short so I have to work with > what comes > > most immediately to mind in this specific context. Here you have > two > > candidates each of whom with deep qualifications and records of > > accomplishment, a strong international reach, with ideas that > often > > diverge from my own, who might do very well indeed here (maybe > better than > > me in fact but forget I said that): > > > > o Walter Hook, who is Executive Director of the Institute for > > Transportation and Development Policy, a Non-governmental > Organization > > dedicated to promoting environmentally sustainable and equitable > > transportation policies and projects in developing countries and > Central > > and Eastern Europe, and whom you can reach at whook@itdp.org; > and/or > > > > o Lee Schipper, who currently is Co-Director, of the EMBARQ > project > > of the World Resources Institute, and who has done quite a lot > with your > > Shell sponsors ( which might help ease the pain). > schipper@wri.org. > > Moreover since the closing transport debate is slated for Mexico > City, a > > place where Lee works pretty extensively, it might be good to have > him > > there to factor in his competence and presence for the physical > events. > > That?s schipper@wri.org > > > > > > > > The Debate Forum/Discussions: > > > > > > > > We will be pleased to work with you to set this up in a way that > will do > > the job. The idea is that it should be wide open, lively, well > plugged in > > to the full range of expertise and views, and that it be well > managed to > > stay on topic. Also since the web technology on all this is moving > along > > quite smartly, this could be a good occasion for us to work with > your best > > technical people to find a really strong, readable, appealing way > to > > handle this. > > > > > > > > A Final Thought for you: Other Technolo gies to integrate into > this > > process. > > > > > > > > * Have a look at http://newmobilitypartners.org and see if any of > the > > dialoguing and conferencing options set out there might be put to > good use > > in this context. It is worth at least a thought. > > > > > > > > There you have it Principal Voice friends. We invite you to > respond to > > this and work with us, because we think it is important. And > because if > > you truly believe in sustainable development and social justice, > it?s just > > the right thing to do. > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > Eric Britton > > > > > > > > Convener, The New Mobility Agenda at http://newmobility.org > > > > > > Free video/voice conferencing at http://newmobilitypartners.org > > > > > > > > > > The Commons: Open Society Sustainability Initiative at > http://ecoplan.org > > > > > > Le Frene, 8/10 rue Joseph Bara 75006 Paris, France > > > > E: postmaster@newmobility.org T: +331 4326 1323 > > > > --- Outgoing mail certified Virus Free. Checked by Norton Anti- > Virus > > > > > > > > The Commons Open Society Sustainability Initiative: Seeking out > and > > supporting new sustainability concepts for business, > entrepreneurs, > > activists, community groups, and government; a thorn in the side > of > > hesitant administrators and politicians; and through our joint > efforts, > > energy and personal choices, placing them and ourselves firmly on > the path > > to a more sustainable and more just society. > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > Do you Yahoo!? > Jazz up your holiday email with celebrity designs. Learn more. > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by Netsignia Online , and is > believed to be clean. From litman at vtpi.org Fri Dec 24 06:38:48 2004 From: litman at vtpi.org (Todd Alexander Litman) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 13:38:48 -0800 Subject: [sustran] Draft proposal to Principal Voices - Comparing Costs of Modes In-Reply-To: <20041223010601.84FEC2C524@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> References: <009901c4e80c$5b3a1040$6501a8c0@jazz> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20041223125700.02d3e948@mail.highspeedplus.com> I feel obliged to respond to the claim made below that rail is subsidized 50 times more than roads, out of concern that some people may actually believe it. Let me use the U.S. as an example. In 2000, transportation expenditures by federal, state and local governments totaled $167 billion in 2000, of which $104 billion was for roads and only $16.7 billion for rail transit, plus about $1.2 billion of Amtrak. By that measure, highways receive about six times as much subsidy as rail. You could argue that two-thirds of roadway expenditures are from motorist user fees, but on the other hand, automobile parking subsidies (costs not borne directly by users) are estimated in FHWA studies to total $200 to $500 billion in current dollars, so combined road and parking subsidies are 15 to 40 times greater than rail transit subsidies, depending on assumptions. In addition, railroads traditionally pay rent and taxes on their rights-of-way, which roads traditionally do not. The economic value of roadway land is substantial, approximately equal to roadway construction and maintenance costs. Failing to charge rent or taxes on this land is a substantial, but hidden subsidy of space-intensive modes such as automobile travel. Taking into account this subsidy, highways receive 20 to 50 times more subsidy than rail. Of course, there is far more travel by road than by rail, so subsidy per passenger-mile is relatively high for rail transit, but to be fair this comparison should be done for a particular travel condition, since rail transit occurs in congested urban conditions where automobile travel costs are far higher than average due to high road and parking facility costs (not to mention other externalities such as air pollution and barrier effects to nonmotorists). Expanding urban highways typically costs $0.25 to $1.00 per additional peak-period vehicle-mile, plus parking subsidies that average $5 to $15 per day. Rail transit subsidies per passenger-mile, although substantial, are generally lower than road and parking subsidies under urban-peak conditions. I suspect that you would find the same pattern in other countries. For more discussion see "Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis" (http://www.vtpi.org/tca) and the "Comparing Transit and Automobile Costs" section of "Evaluating Public Transit Benefits and Costs" (http://www.vtpi.org/tranben.pdf). I think it is generally a mistake to criticize a particular mode as being inefficient or unsustainable. A better approach is to recognize that nearly every mode can play a role in an efficient and sustainable transportation system, including walking, cycling, public transit, inter-city rail, highways, and perhaps some new modes yet to be developed. The key is to determine which is most cost effective for a particular situation, taking into account all benefits and costs. I cannot say how Evacuated Tube Transport costs compare with other modes because we lack operating examples. It would be interesting to perform a comprehensive analysis. Best holiday wishes, -Todd Litman At 08:05 PM 12/22/2004 -0500, Daryl Oster wrote: >Vittal and Eric, > >Thanks for pointing out my lax search method with respect to Ellatuvalapil >Sreedharan, I should have considered that he may not use his first name. I >now have plenty of references, and concur his expert status is warranted. > >Eric, >I am glad that you agree that Wendell Cox would be a good balance for a well >rounded debate. And there is a need for at least a third voice for >transportation, a strong voice to represent advanced transportation >technology. > >It is clear to many of us that roads are not sustainable, and have passed >the point of diminishing returns; most agree change is needed. Even if it >could be shown that trains, bicycles, and muscle offer energy and >environmental sustainability (there is plenty of evidence to suggest they do >not), it is proven they are not socially sustainable. In spite of being >subsidized 50 times more than road, trains are still loosing market share to >cars. Trains once had market share in Japan, Europe, and the US -- now >roads have market share because cars are more sustainable. > >The millions in lobby and campaign money of rail interests have done their >damage - they have poisoned the opinions of politicians, bureaucrats, and >educators with their: "smoke and mirrors" presentations, outright lies, and >"free" gifts of dinners, travel, accommodations, and RFP drafting >assistance. > >To stick ones head in the sand and say: "we must do something, even if it is >not optimum -- let's go back to what "worked" in the past" is foolish, >especially since there is credible evidence (like ETT, and other sustainable >means) proving there are sustainable alternatives that can be implemented >easier than returning to trains, bikes, and muscle. > >You, I and others justify all the air flights, all the bus, train, and car >travel because we are using the best tools available to disseminate our >ideals. Guess what -- EVERYONE thinks the same way -- our reasons for high >energy consumption are justified, and most other peoples reasons are not >justified. If all people in the past had followed your example, and >instead of implementing prudent innovation, returned to old ways whenever >new ways encountered problems, we would still be in the Stone Age, the >planet would be stripped of trees, and starvation would be the norm. > >Just because you have wasted time in the past to chase down possibilities >that turned out to be dead ends -- do not make the mistake of going down a >proven dead end, without at least fully checking out the most promising >options. > > >Daryl Oster >(c) 2004 all rights reserved. ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth" >e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks >of et3.com Inc. For licensing information contact: et3@et3.com , >www.et3.com POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423 (352)257-1310 > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com@list.jca.apc.org > > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of > > EcoPlan, Paris > > Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 4:55 AM > > To: 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport' > > Subject: [sustran] Draft proposal to Principal Voices - Quick progress > > report > > > > Wednesday, December 22, 2004, Paris, France, Europe > > > > > > > > Dear Sustainable Friends, > > > > > > > > In addition to several much appreciated private letters of cautious > > encouragement on this proposed initiative of 21 Dec, I have received in > > the last day the following two mailings from proponents of advanced > > transportation technologies, in a phrase free standing new systems based > > on ?new surface transport infrastructure?. I would like to comment > > briefly because I believe this is one of the central pillars that we have > > to deal with one way or another as we make our important decisions about > > the future of the sector. > > > > > > > > Personally I have a great weakness for these proposals and the engineering > > technologies that they bring to the fore. On a number of occasions during > > my career I have carried out pretty extensive international surveys > > looking at the category in general and more specifically things like PRT, > > GRT, DRT, ITT, ATT, monorails, skycabs by many names, maglev, air cushion > > vehicles, accelerating moving sidewalks, pneumatic tube transport, and the > > long list goes on. But as my respected colleague and a central force in > > this movement, Jerry Schneider, Professor Emeritus of Civil Engineering > > and Urban Design and Planning at the University of Washington (see below) > > has said on numerous occasions: ?The problem is implementing it." > > > > > > > > That?s it and from the horse?s mouth! To whit my regretful conclusion as a > > hands-on advisor of policy: given the immediate needs of sustainability > > and our societies, we have to put this on the back burner for now and > > concentrate on what we can do with the infrastructure we have. Sad and > > possibly even narrow conclusion that it may seem. Fortunately however, > > there is a huge amount that we can in fact achieve working within the > > broad envelope of the infrastructure we have in hand, so to my mind the > > challenge is to get on with that task. > > > > > > > > Mr. Daryl Oster, an active proponent of ?ETT? and "space travel on earth", > > for his part goes quite a bit further than I do in his criticism of the > > way in which the Voices people have set out to organize their initiative: > > starting with a rather unjust hit on the qualifications of the respected > > Mr. Ellatuvalapil Sreedharan to be one of the Voices. I could not agree > > less. The object of any truly creative dialogue, at least as I understand > > it, is to trot out a wide range of views and perspectives, and indeed it > > would be a major error if we packed the jury in any way. Not only is Mr. > > Sreedharan a person of real accomplishment in our sector, but also by the > > way if you Google ?Sreedharan + ?transport OR transportation? you get no > > less than 2830 call-ups this morning. So we can put that one to rest, eh? > > ;-) > > > > > > > > That said Mr. Oster does propose a candidate with international > > credentials who might indeed make another interesting apex for a debate > > triangle, Wendell Cox of The Public Purpose > > (?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). Fine idea Daryl. I will add him to our short list, not least > > because of his rigor, persistence, international reach, at times > > surprising flexibility -- and the fact that at least half the time I for > > one do not agree with him. Which of course is the stuff of a good debate. > > > > > > > > So there we have it for today. I will let this cook for another 24 hours > > before dispatching to our contacts there ? so there is still time for you > > to share both your criticisms, ideas and even encouragement if there is > > any of that in your end year larder. It?s their party of course, but > > perhaps they will open it up a bit to ensure that it is fully informed, > > lively, varied and creative ? the stuff of a really successful party. > > > > > > > > Salamaat, Shalom, Merry Christmas, and Peace on Earth, > > > > > > > > Eric Britton > > > > > > > > PS. You may want to check out the latest bulletin of the ITDP at > > http://www.itdp.org/. Talk about new transportation ideas and on street > > progress. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jerry Schneider [mailto:jbs@peak.org] > > Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 10:48 PM > > To: eric.britton@ecoplan.org > > Subject: Re: [sustran] Draft proposal to Principal Voices team - For > > comment > > > > > > > > At 09:18 AM 12/21/04 -0800, you wrote: > > > > > > > > >snip ------------ > > > > >These fora and the individuals and groups behind them offer a clear cut, > > > > >leading edge, world level state of the art, 21st century awareness of the > > > > >issues and the full range of solutions -- and while there is no aversion > > on > > > > >the part of most of us to building new systems and expanding > > infrastructure > > > > >in specific cases, we tend to be far more reserved and I would like to > > say > > > > >sophisticated, and indeed practical, when it comes to better management > > of > > > > >the infrastructure and systems we already have in place. Moreover, we > > tend > > > > >too to be rather ambitious when it comes to the creative integration of > > new > > > > >communications technologies into the overall systemic infrastructure, and > > > > >that too might be one of the more promising avenues of the discussions > > and > > > > >debate. > > > > > > > > One wonders what "new systems" you might have in mind? You are welcome to > > > > add my ITT website to your list of promising avenues for discussion. > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > Jerry > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org@list.jca.apc.org > > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org@list.jca.apc.org] > > On Behalf Of Daryl Oster > > Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 6:46 AM > > To: principalvoices@cnn.com; Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport > > Cc: policy@advancedtransit.org > > Subject: [sustran] principal voices > > > > > > > > To Whom It May Concern: > > > > > > > > According to your "principal voices" website, the principal voices are > > > > "globally-renowned experts". If this is true, why is it that a Google > > > > search for Ellatuvalapil Sreedharan (the principal voice for > > transportation) > > > > turns up ZERO hits? If you are looking for an expert try the Google > > search: > > > > > > > > "Jerry Schneider" +transportation > > > > > > > > This will turn up over 800 hits leading to Transportation Professor > > > > (retired) Jerry Schneider. Dr. Schneider is likely the most renowned > > expert > > > > on leading edge transportation alternatives. > > > > > > > > Another Google search: > > > > > > > > "Wendell Cox" +transportation > > > > > > > > This search will turn up 11,000 hits on this transportation expert. Why > > not > > > > ask either of these experts to debate with Ellatuvalapil Sreedharan? > > > > > > > > If this is really a debate, why are the public questions limited to 4, and > > > > why is there no criteria on selection? It appears to that the principal > > > > voices debates could likely be a showcase for a hidden agenda that will > > > > after the fact be claimed to have been an internationally recognized > > debate. > > > > > > > > > > > > Daryl Oster > > > > (c) 2004 all rights reserved. ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth" > > > > e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service > > marks > > > > of et3.com Inc. For licensing information contact: et3@et3.com , > > > > www.et3.com POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423 (352)257-1310 > > > > > > > > > > -- > > This message has been scanned for viruses and > > dangerous content by Netsignia Online , and is > > believed to be clean. Sincerely, Todd Litman, Director Victoria Transport Policy Institute "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity" 1250 Rudlin Street Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, Canada Phone & Fax: 250-360-1560 Email: litman@vtpi.org Website: http://www.vtpi.org From etts at indigo.ie Fri Dec 24 08:00:37 2004 From: etts at indigo.ie (Brendan Finn) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 23:00:37 -0000 Subject: [sustran] Re: FW: [atraPolicy] principal voices ### In-Reply-To: <20041223202558.610E72C4DD@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> Message-ID: I feel like an unwilling spectator in a parochial argument where participants have long ago established their arguments and counter-arguments. This seems to me like a discussion among Americans about American conditions with American mindsets. Please excuse us if the other 6 billion plus inhabitants of the globe don't immediately feel 'embraced' by this discussion. Many of us live in places where it is possible to live pleasantly without a car, even if we can't avoid being confronted by it every day. Far, far more people live without a car because as an option it's just not on the radar. They watch funds and resources eternally consumed by transport means which are irrelevant to them, and they see deep resistance to measures which would improve their lives. "Carfree" is reality for the vast majority of the world's population, whether by circumstance or by choice. I will remain polite about some of the "new advanced" means of transportation. Suffice to say that as the limitations become ever-clearer of one means of transport which has been and continues to be peddled mercilessly (and I use the word advisedly) throughout the world, a novel opportunity is now available to get governments, cities and the public to invest huge globs of money. I guess everyone is entitled to try to turn a buck and press his case. However, please allow the rest of us to get on with transportation solutions appropriate to our situations. Brendan Finn, ETTS Ltd. -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+etts=indigo.ie@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+etts=indigo.ie@list.jca.apc.org]On Behalf Of Daryl Oster Sent: 23 December 2004 20:26 To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport Cc: policy@advancedtransit.org Subject: [sustran] FW: [atraPolicy] principal voices ### The forwarded message (bottom of message) is typical of the opinion of many transportation experts that are offering innovative transportation solutions, IMO this opinion has merit, and should be considered by the anti-car / rail-centric crowd. We have two basic ways to achieve sustainability in transportation: 1) Use draconian measures to force people (against their will) to give up cars, and return to using trains, bikes, and muscle for transportation. 2) Implement transportation innovations that offer more than a 10 fold improvement in transportation efficiency, AND an improved benefit to cost ratio compared with roads. Most people in the world are aware of the problems associated with trains, bikes, and muscle transportation, and more are learning about the many problems associated with cars. Most people agree cars cause air pollution, just as they plainly see that animal transport has sanitation problems. It appears many members in this group are focused on the first way -legislate what is not socially sustainable -- reduce the global standard of living. The history of transportation shows that only the second way is proven to be effective, as it is socially sustainable. Furthermore, there is much evidence that trains, bikes, and muscle powered transportation is LESS sustainable than cars. "New Mobility" must be truly new -- not just a camouflage of old methods that have failed. Therefore, this group should embrace and support transportation sustainable innovations (like ETT) that offer quantum improvements in benefit to cost ratio over cars, trains and planes. ETT is in the process of implementation by et3.com Inc, an open collaboration that virtually anyone is free to join. Please consider that ETT implementation will take place faster with your help. You all can help by taking the responsibility of learning about ETT at www.et3.com, and then teaching others. Daryl Oster (c) 2004 all rights reserved. ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth" e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks of et3.com Inc. For licensing information contact: et3@et3.com , www.et3.com POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423 (352)257-1310 > -----Forward Message----- > From: Walter Brewer [mailto:catcar38@charter.net] > Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 10:04 AM > To: policy@advancedtransit.org > Subject: Re: [atraPolicy] principal voices ### > > I have difficulty climbing upon the "New Mobility" Bandwagon. > > It's not that the broad goals indicated are flawed. > > But when advocacy for carless days appear, I don't believe it understands > the FUNCTION transportation plays in the overall mix of endeavors. > > Carless days are like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. They show > lack of understanding for the function cars play that are so essential to > economic, and social well being. They even show lack of understanding that > one element in a complex system may be less than ideal, as long as the end > product is benefited. > > Perhaps the "baby" in its present form borders upon ugly, but the > objective > is to help it grow up into a more useful citizen. In the case of > transportation vs the human mind and body, it can adopt a quite different > form. > > We need to be thinking about "Productive Mobility". It includes energy > efficiency, environmental respect, etc, but preserves the individual > oriented flexible destination oriented travel cars now provide, and > typically about 90% prefer. > > Walt Brewer > catcar38@charter.net From preston at cc.wwu.edu Fri Dec 24 06:37:24 2004 From: preston at cc.wwu.edu (Preston Schiller) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 13:37:24 -0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Daryl Oster's comments In-Reply-To: <4706766.1103749674358.JavaMail.root@kermit.psp.pas.earthlink.net> References: <4706766.1103749674358.JavaMail.root@kermit.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Message-ID: I hope that Mr. Oster approaches his technology work with a little greater care than he has approached the reading of the memo to which he purports to be replying. Besides basing his refutation of Mr. Sreedharan's expertise on his own faulty googling, he misread Eric Britton's correspondence (which advocated for the inclusion of persons with expertise in the "soft" side of transportation planning and innovation), and then recommended two controversial "experts." No doubt Jerry Schneider was well-intentioned when he joined forces with a very colorful coalition of Seattle area "experts" to bash light rail for that traffic-stuck city. That coalition included several persons who were notoriously anti-transit and pro-highway expansion, as well as the usual array of "I have a better idea" types who often enter the fray very late in the game and whose "better ideas" often cost more and are less effective than the proposal under question. I have benefitted from interchanges with Schneider in the past but the bash of LRT leaves me with a very bad taste in my mouth. I will leave it to others to decide whether his work is "leading edge" or some other sort of edge. I say this as a refugee from the Seattle Transit Wars and someone who was very critical of the overblown costs of the current Sound Transit rail proposal (as well as the very high bus costs of both Sound Transit and King County's Metro) and the often disconnected way in which transit planning goes on in Central Puget Sound. Citing Wendell Cox is far more laughable and display's Mr. Oster's lack of critical reading of Cox's work. I recall that a couple of years ago there was a lengthy interaction with Mr. Cox in the Sierra Club's transportation e-forum. I seem to recall that Mr. Cox stopped responding when there were too many difficult questions about the "data" upon which he was basing his anti-rail (intercity as well as rail transit) diatribes as well as the sources of funding for his "research." Google can be a useful tool for developing some aspects of a bibliography but it is no substitute for plain old-fashioned reading and evaluation. Often the advocacy of "leading edge" technologies is used by interests who do not want automobile dependency staved and will dangle "better leading edge ideas" before the public in the hope that the public will follow a technological pied piper off a transportation cliff rather than implement tried and true transit solutions. Preston Schiller =-=-=-=-=-=-= On Dec 22, 2004, at 1:07 PM, Eric Bruun wrote: > > ? > Daryl: > ? > Two comments: > ? > I think you have a narrow definition of "leading edge". Sometimes it > is really "bleeding edge" and the concept can not be implemented in a > practical fashion, as Jerry Scheider himself has noted. How about this > group submitting names of some?more?people who have done leading edge > work that has actually?been implemented? I nominate Yngve Westerlund > from Gothenburg, Sweden. He has done great work advancing public > transportation for the elderly that has both reduced costs and gained > acceptance. He is still full of practical ideas. > ? > Also, the number of hits one gets on?a websearch is not proportional > to expertise. Wendell Cox gets cited because he is conservative and > the conservative press and rail transit project opponents have fewer > such people to select amongst when they want a quote or consulting > help. There are far more left-leaning "transportation experts," so any > one of them is likely to be cited less often. > ? > Eric Bruun > ? > ? > > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Vittal Kumar A." > Sent: Dec 22, 2004 1:10 AM > To: et3@et3.com, Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport > Subject: [sustran] Re: principal voices > > Dear Daryl, > ? > Type in 'E Sreedharan' and see....! > ? > regards, > Vittal > > Daryl Oster wrote: > To Whom It May Concern: > > According to your "principal voices" website, the principal voices are > "globally-renowned experts". If this is true, why is it that a google > search for Ellatuvalapil Sreedharan (the principal voice for > transportation) > turns up ZERO hits? If you are looking for an expert try the google > search: > > "Jerry Schneider" +transportation > > This will turn up over 800 hits leading to Transportation Professor > (retired) Jerry Schneider. Dr. Schneider is likely the most renowned > expert > on leading edge transportation alternatives. > > Another google search: > > "Wendell Cox" +transportation > > This search will turn up 11,000 hits on this transportation expert. > Why not > ask either of these experts to debate with Ellatuvalapil Sreedharan? > > If this is really a debate, why are the public questions limited to 4, > and > why is there no criteria on selection? It appears to that the principal > voices debates could likely be a showcase for a hidden agenda that will > after the fact be claimed to have been an internationally recognized > debate. > > > Daryl Oster > (c) 2004? all rights reserved.? ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on > earth" > e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service > marks > of et3.com Inc.? For licensing information contact:??? et3@et3.com , > www.et3.com? POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423? (352)257-1310 > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com@list.jca.apc.org > > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com@list.jca.apc.org] On > Behalf Of > > EcoPlan, Paris > > Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 7:35 AM > > To: Sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org; 'UTSG'; 'New Mobility Cafe [NMC]' > > Cc: 'Margaret Bell'; 'Phil Goodwin'; 'Walter Hook'; 'Lee Sch ipper'; > 'F. O. > > Montgomery' > > Subject: [sustran] Proposal to the Principal Voices team > > > > Tuesday, December 21, 2004, Paris, France, Europe > > > > > > > > Dear Sustainable World Colleagues, > > > > > > > > I intend to post the following, or some version of it, tomorrow to > the > > Principal Voices team -- http://www.principalvoices.com > > -- with whom we now appear to have > > found an effective communications channel in the person of Stan > Stalnaker > > of Fortune. As you will possibly note, it is along the lines of a > ?gate > > crash? as suggested by the indomitable Dave Wetzel of Transport for > > London. > > > > > > > > If you have any thoughts or suggestions to modify or improve on > this, I > > would be most grateful to receive them at your first convenience. I > have > > tried hard to be a good representative for what I believe to be our > shared > > philosophy, and as you will note I have put myself further as our > ?voice?, > > which may or my not be the best idea. I am as always open to better > ones. > > > > > > > > You know, it is my personal philosophy that occasions like this do > not > > pass twice, so when they come up we must reach out and seize them. > And so > > it is here. > > > > > > > > Your call. > > > > > > > > Salamaat, Shalom, and Merry Christmas, > > > > > > > > Eric Britton > > > > > > > > ****************************************************** > > > > > > > > Dear Stan, > > > > > > > > I appreciate your friendly note of Mon 12/20/2004 and in particular > your > > volunteering to serve as a channel of communication in the event > that we > > have anything of interest to convey to those people who are making > your > > program work. Since time is short with your January start-up date > barely > > ten days away, I should indeed like to get the following comments and > > suggestions to your team without delay. > > > > > > > > 1. Principal Voices Problem ? The Transportation dialogue > > > > > > > > In short and speaking in the name of more than one thousand > professionals > > from more than fifty countries with a long term interest and true > hands-on > > experience and competence in matters of transportation policy and > practice > > internationally, I would like to draw your attention to what we > regard as > > two significant shortcomings in your important project as currently > > framed. I address you here specifically on the matter of your > > transportation section and would like to propose a couple of simple > fixes, > > which I might add I have shared worth our several peer networks just > to be > > sure that there is no major objection in principle to what follows. > > > > > > > > First, you need at least one more transportation voice, possibly > two, to > > have full and competent coverage of the field as it is now defined > (we > > call this New Mobility, as opposed of course to old mobility, but > more on > > that just below). Does this imply that I think there is anything > wrong > > with having Mr. Ellatuvalapil Sreedharan as leading voice? Not at > all. To > > the contrary I think it is most exciting to have him willing to join > in > > here as a representative of contemporary thinking and expertise on > one > > side of the sustainable transport debate ? after all a truly > remarkable > > man: ?one of India's greatest civil engineers, the architect of the > > supposedly unbuildable Konkan Railway linking Mumbai and Mangalore, > and, > > more recently, designer of the Delhi Metro system?. I think it is > fair to > > say that his expertise will do honor to the primarily supply > oriented, > > engineering, build it and they will come perspective of the > transportation > > challenge, but that is at best only half the story. The rest of the > story > > is if anything in this day and age even more important, so in a > moment I > > will get to our suggestion as to how this might be quickly remedied. > > > > > > > > The second shortcoming of the current plan is your utter lack of a > true > > feedback and open debate forum ? this is definitely going to limit > the > > profile, reach, usefulness and contribution of the final product. > (Not > > only that you are going to limit the newsworthiness of the whole > thing, > > which I imagine is also a factor that need to be brought into the > picture, > > especially given who you people are.) True enough Time, Fortune and > CNN > > are all three at heart basically broadcast media, and true too each > is > > increasingly interactive ? why so? because it?s cheap, can ge t > valuable > > content, greater variety of views, and via its vigor and lively > debate > > bring each of you more faithful customers. But in this case you seem > to > > be pretty lagged in that department, and what you present thus far > is a > > crystal clear example of one more of those tiring ?managed debates? > of > > which we have seen far too many. We see this all the time in > transport > > and environmental circles, and if you chose to persist in this in > the end > > you always have a dead product? which I am sure is not what you folks > > want. > > > > > > > > 2. Background ? The missing half of the mobility story > > > > > > > > While the author of your transport issues paper has made a fair stab > at > > integrating the more complex sustainability issues in the > introduction ? > > and in particular is to be commended for his choice of External Links > > which really does provide a pretty good cover age of the various and > quite > > different points of view ? the bottom line of your piece is that it > is a > > plea for (a) more supply, (b) waiting for the right time to do > better, and > > (c) tempering ?calls for reason? about not doing anything reach that > might > > render the plight of the hard-pressed existing suppliers of products > and > > services any worse. But dear friends, this is only one point of > view, and > > if you are indeed to live up to your promise of a wide international > > debate, you have to reach far broader than that. > > > > > > > > One starting place to turn for more and better is The New Mobility > Agenda > > and its extensive international network of practitioners and > proponents. > > You can find extensive background on the philosophy and > accomplishments of > > this informal, independent but not ineffective international > grouping if > > you go to http://newmobility.org . Y ou may also > > find good value in the handful of international ?conversations? > about and > > expertise on these matters which feed into this movement: via our > own New > > Mobility Cafe at NewMobility@yahoogroups.com, the Sustainable > Transport > > Action Network for Asia and the Pacific (SUSTRAN Network)at > > http://www.geocities.com/sustrannet/, the Universities' Transport > Study > > Group. at http://www.utsg.net/, and Institute for Transportation and > > Development Policy, the http://www.itdp.org/ > > > > > > > > These fora and the individuals and groups behind them offer a clear > cut, > > leading edge, world level state of the art, 21st century awareness > of the > > issues and the full range of solutions -- and while there is no > aversion > > on the part of most of us to building new systems and expanding > > infrastructure in specific cases, we tend to be far more reserved > and I > > would like to say sophisticated , and indeed practical, when it > comes to > > better management of the infrastructure and systems we already have > in > > place. Moreover, we tend too to be rather ambitious when it comes to > the > > creative integration of new communications technologies into the > overall > > systemic infrastructure, and that too might be one of the more > promising > > avenues of the discussions and debate. > > > > > > > > Bottom line: Unless you find a way to factor in not only the points > of > > view of the people and groups who constitute this new leading edge in > > transport thinking and policy, you will end up with a tame kitty. > It?s > > that simple. > > > > > > > > Now how to get the structure in shape to do this job. Well there are > a > > number of possibilities as you may well image, but here you have my > no- > > wait proposal. > > > > > > > > 3. Solution proposed > > > > > > > > T he Voices: > > > > > > > > First and with characteristic modesty, I propose that you add my > name as a > > ?voice? to your transportation component to ensure that the New > Mobility > > Agenda approach is also fairly and fully represented. My thought is > that > > I can then act as a relay to ensure that our collective voices, > principal > > too, are heard. Why me? Well, because I am here, generally competent > from > > this perspective, pretty much able to work the network that you need > to > > bring in, and ready to do to work on this because I think it?s > important. > > Also since time is short, I would save you the beauty contest to find > > someone better. > > > > > > > > Who else? Well, you have three slots for the Environment and Business > > ?Conversations? and I think we should have three for our critical > > transportation dialogue as well. I know several dozen each of whom > could > > do a fine job at this, but time is short so I have to work with what > comes > > most immediately to mind in this specific context. Here you have two > > candidates each of whom with deep qualifications and records of > > accomplishment, a strong international reach, with ideas that often > > diverge from my own, who might do very well indeed here (maybe > better than > > me in fact but forget I said that): > > > > o Walter Hook, who is Executive Director of the Institute for > > Transportation and Development Policy, a Non-governmental > Organization > > dedicated to promoting environmentally sustainable and equitable > > transportation policies and projects in developing countries and > Central > > and Eastern Europe, and whom you can reach at whook@itdp.org; and/or > > > > o Lee Schipper, who currently is Co-Director, of the EMBARQ project > > of the World Resources Institute, and who has done quite a lot with > your > > Shell sponsors ( which might help ease the pain). schipper@wri.org. > > Moreover since the closing transport debate is slated for Mexico > City, a > > place where Lee works pretty extensively, it might be good to have > him > > there to factor in his competence and presence for the physical > events. > > That?s schipper@wri.org > > > > > > > > The Debate Forum/Discussions: > > > > > > > > We will be pleased to work with you to set this up in a way that > will do > > the job. The idea is that it should be wide open, lively, well > plugged in > > to the full range of expertise and views, and that it be well > managed to > > stay on topic. Also since the web technology on all this is moving > along > > quite smartly, this could be a good occasion for us to work with > your best > > technical people to find a really strong, readable, appealing way to > > handle this. > > > > > > > > A Final Thought for you: Other Technolo gies to integrate into this > > process. > > > > > > > > * Have a look at http://newmobilitypartners.org and see if any of the > > dialoguing and conferencing options set out there might be put to > good use > > in this context. It is worth at least a thought. > > > > > > > > There you have it Principal Voice friends. We invite you to respond > to > > this and work with us, because we think it is important. And because > if > > you truly believe in sustainable development and social justice, > it?s just > > the right thing to do. > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > Eric Britton > > > > > > > > Convener, The New Mobility Agenda at http://newmobility.org > > > > > > Free video/voice conferencing at http://newmobilitypartners.org > > > > > > > > > > The Commons: Open Society Sustainability Initiative at > http://ecoplan.org > > > > > > Le Frene, 8/10 rue Joseph Bara 75006 Paris, France > > > > E: postmaster@newmobility.org T: +331 4326 1323 > > > > --- Outgoing mail certified Virus Free. Checked by Norton Anti-Virus > > > > > > > > The Commons Open Society Sustainability Initiative: Seeking out and > > supporting new sustainability concepts for business, entrepreneurs, > > activists, community groups, and government; a thorn in the side of > > hesitant administrators and politicians; and through our joint > efforts, > > energy and personal choices, placing them and ourselves firmly on > the path > > to a more sustainable and more just society. > > > > > > > > Do you Yahoo!? > Jazz up your holiday email with celebrity designs. Learn more. -------------- next part -------------- Skipped content of type text/enriched From Davewetzel at tfl.gov.uk Thu Dec 23 22:16:50 2004 From: Davewetzel at tfl.gov.uk (Wetzel Dave) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 13:16:50 -0000 Subject: [sustran] The 2004 World Technology Winners and Finalists Winner: Ken Livi ngstone, Mayor, London, United Kingdom for the innovative Congestion Char ging scheme in London. Message-ID: <842CED24A576E94FA736D0DC0FAF81599C6372@tflexc001.corp.tfl.local> With thanks to the World Technology awards committee for honouring Ken Livingstone, Eric Britton in Paris for nominating Ken, Jared Blumenfeld in San Francisco for collecting this award on Ken's behalf (and delivering it in person to Ken in London), the fabulous work of the congestion Charge project team at Transport for London and Richard Biddle in Philadelphia for publicising the award. Season's Greetings Dave Dave Wetzel; Vice-Chair; Transport for London. -----Original Message----- From: Biddle [mailto:biddle19118@yahoo.com] Sent: 23 December 2004 05:04 To: Wetzel Dave & others Subject: The 2004 World Technology Winners and Finalists Winner: Ken Livingstone, Mayor, London, United Kingdom Winner: Ken Livingstone, Mayor, London, United Kingdom Nominee Commentary: Please describe the work that you are doing that you consider to be the most innovative and of the greatest likely long-term significance. Central London had historically suffered from one of the worst levels of traffic congestion in the United Kingdom. Average traffic speeds were less than 10 miles per hour throughout much of the working day. This congestion was damaging London's economy as people and goods spend unnecessary time in traffic rather than in productive activities. This congestion worsened the environment of London and made conditions unpleasant for other road users, in particular for walkers and cyclists. Something drastic needed to be done. As new roads generate more traffic and in any case it is completely impractical to build new roads in such a densely developed area as London, a novel solution to rectifying this problem was required. As part of his 2000 election campaign the Mayor put forward his proposals for the central London congestion charge. The scheme relies on people purchasing the charge, which can be obtained from shops and petrol stations, over the phone, via the web, 100 pay stations in car parks or by mobile phone text messaging. We also provide a fleet scheme used by 11,000 fleet vehicles per day. Their registration number is entered onto a database for that day. The scheme is enforced by cameras, which record the vehicle registration mark of all vehicles entering the zone. These are checked against the database of those that have paid, and if the registration mark is not included the owner of that vehicle will receive a fine. The technological issues in providing an efficient, reliable and integrated payment, monitoring and enforcement system were immense. However, it was essential for this to work well, otherwise it could jeopardise the scheme itself, and given the world-wide scrutiny of this initiative, could lead other towns and cities deciding not to take forward similar schemes for their areas. The scheme has been an enormous success. No other transport scheme has had such a positive impact on the traffic of a city. Detailed monitoring of its effects has been undertaken, with the key impacts being: * An immediate 30% reduction in congestion within the charging zone, which has been sustained since * An 18% reduction in traffic entering the zone, with the number of cars down by a third * An encouragement of other modes of travel - both cycling and travel by bus is up by 20% * A 60% reduction in delays to buses due to traffic impacts and a 30% improvement in overall bus reliability * A 12% reduction in emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and fine particles (PM10) * A reduction in road accidents (although too early to quantify) * No detrimental traffic impact on the boundary road or surrounding areas * On-street surveys show that people perceive the charge to have improved the environmental quality of the area The lessons we learnt for the successful introduction of Congestion Charging were: * The political commitment from Ken Livingstone, the Mayor was essential. * Consultation was genuine with a readiness to amend the scheme in the light of reasonable representations. * Public transport, especially buses (as we did not control the trains), was greatly improved. * *Traffic management was utilised to ensure the inner ring road around the zone ran freely. * Residential parking restrictions were introduced where it was thought motorists might park just outside the zone. * Extensive public information using most media (including local radio and TV) to inform motorists of the practicalities for how to pay the charge and also to keep the public informed on progress. (We did not want the communication channels swamped on the first day with motorists asking basic questions). * First class project management. A key test of the scheme's success is the degree to which the public support it. Ahead of the introduction of the charge there was a massive and sustained media campaign against the charge, although the balance of public opinion remained fairly even, with around 40% for and 40% against the charge. After 6 months of its operation almost 60% were in favour of the scheme compared with around 25% against. Probably the best test is that on 4 June 2004 Ken Livingstone was re-elected Mayor of London for another 4 years with more votes than previously and a margin of 11% above his main rival who threatened to abolish the Congestion Charge. Brief Bio: Kenneth Robert Livingstone was born in Lambeth in 1945 and educated at Tulse Hill Comprehensive School. After eight years working as a technician at the Chester Beatty Cancer Research Institute in London, he entered Phillipa Fawcett Teacher Training College, qualifying in 1973. He was a Labour member of Lambeth Council between 1971 and 1978, holding the position of Vice-Chair of the Housing Committee from 1971 to 1973. From 1978 to 1982 he was a member of Camden Council, where he was Chair of the Housing Committee from 1978 to 1980. In 1973 he was elected as a Labour member of the Greater London Council. Ken was Vice-Chair of Housing Management from 1974 to 1975 and was elected Leader in 1981. He remained Leader until March 1986 when Margaret Thatcher abolished the GLC. >From 1987 to June 2001, he served as Labour Member of Parliament for Brent East. He served on the Northern Ireland Select Committee after Labour's election victory in 1997, and was a member of the Greater London Authority Bill Standing Committee. Livingstone was elected as member of the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party representing Constituency Labour Party members between 1987 to 1989, and again from 1997 to 1998, after which Members of Parliament were not able to stand for election in this section. He was expelled from the Labour Party in March 2000 when he stood as an Independent candidate for Mayor of London and was elected Mayor of London on 4 May 2000, with 58 per cent of votes cast - 776,427. Ken Livingstone was readmitted to the Labour Party in January 2004 and selected as its London mayoral candidate. At the election on 4 June 2004 he was returned for another 4 year term with 55.4% of the votes cast -- 828,380. Ken has never feared being unpopular if he felt that the cause was a worthy one. He has shown this on numerous occasions over his political career, the most recent of which of course being his leading role in getting the Congestion Charging scheme on to the street and making a difference. He has written two books, "If Voting Changed Anything They'd Abolish It" (1987) and "Livingstone's Labour" (1989). Richard L. Biddle, Director Henry George School of Social Science Henry George Birthplace Museum 413 S. 10th Street Phila., PA 19147 Web: http:// www.geocities.com/henrygeorgeschool Email: HGSPhila@comcast.net (215) 922-4278 office (215) 407-9555 cell *********************************************************************************** The contents of the e-mail and any transmitted files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Transport for London hereby exclude any warranty and any liability as to the quality or accuracy of the contents of this email and any attached transmitted files. If you are not the intended recipient be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error please notify postmaster@tfl.gov.uk. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. *********************************************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041223/e2270c89/attachment.html From cpardo at cable.net.co Fri Dec 24 10:24:30 2004 From: cpardo at cable.net.co (Carlos Felipe Pardo) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 20:24:30 -0500 Subject: [sustran] On leading edge Message-ID: <003a01c4e957$51711ad0$b72f47c8@Archibaldo> I always wondered why people still think about leading edge technologies, when I guess we?ve found that the supposed ?edge? has brought us more trouble than any other thing. I have to say that I sometimes dream of speed and technology (basically, they are materialized in Internet and my laptop), but the bicycle ride to work every morning (in a congested city, fighting taxis and buses) may prove more overwhelming than the ?leading edge? BMW with ABS, GPS and 0-60 in 5 s. I hope we all remember that we were born with feet and muscles, and that it?s very interesting to use them to get from one place to another every day. Long live usable legs, bicycles and short distances. Merry Christmas and happy New Year. And happy birthday, just in case. Carlos F. Pardo cpardo@cable.net.co (+573) 00 268 1389 (+571) 310 6218 Cr 4 # 66-54 Bogot?- Colombia -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041223/6e7114af/attachment-0001.html From et3 at et3.com Fri Dec 24 12:41:21 2004 From: et3 at et3.com (Daryl Oster) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 22:41:21 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Daryl Oster's comments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041224034155.C2C632D948@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> > -----Original Message On Behalf Of Preston Schiller > Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 4:37 PM > Subject: [sustran] Re: Daryl Oster's comments > > I hope that Mr. Oster approaches his technology work with a little greater > care than he has approached the reading of the memo to which he purports > to be replying. > > Besides basing his refutation of Mr. Sreedharan's expertise on his own > faulty googling, he misread Eric Britton's correspondence (which advocated > for the inclusion of persons with expertise in the "soft" side of > transportation planning and innovation), and then recommended two > controversial "experts." Preston, I own up to my faulty search, and offer thanks for those correcting my error; AND Miss-understanding Eric Britton is NOT one of my transgressions. I agreed with Mr. Britton, that one voice for the transportation component is not enough, however if this is to truly be a debate, then let's make it a fair one and include voices from the other major perspectives. Why is it that rail advocates are so defensive about entering into public debate with we innovators? Could it be that the daylight of fact, engineering, and science harms the ability of railroaders to continue to bilk the taxpayers under cover of darkness? > No doubt Jerry Schneider was well-intentioned when he joined forces with a > very colorful coalition of Seattle area "experts" to bash light rail for > that traffic-stuck city. That coalition included several persons who were > notoriously anti-transit and pro-highway expansion, as well as the usual > array of "I have a better idea" types who often enter the fray very late > in the game and whose "better ideas" often cost more and are less > effective than the proposal under question. I have benefitted from > interchanges with Schneider in the past but the bash of LRT leaves me with > a very bad taste in my mouth. I will leave it to others to decide whether > his work is "leading edge" or some other sort of edge. If LRT's tax grabbing tactics where soundly bashed by simple statement of facts, then it's about time. Rail lost in the real market more than a half century ago, that is where and when the real bashing took place. What Dr. Schneider, I, and many others are saying is pull grandpa off of the mammary of government so the baby gets a reasonable chance to survive. > I say this as a refugee from the Seattle Transit Wars and someone who was > very critical of the overblown costs of the current Sound Transit rail > proposal (as well as the very high bus costs of both Sound Transit and > King County's Metro) and the often disconnected way in which transit > planning goes on in Central Puget Sound. If you are truly critical of high costs, then perhaps it is time for you to consider prudent ways to cut them by a factor of ten or more. > Citing Wendell Cox is far more laughable and display's Mr. Oster's lack of > critical reading of Cox's work. I recall that a couple of years ago there > was a lengthy interaction with Mr. Cox in the Sierra Club's transportation > e-forum. I seem to recall that Mr. Cox stopped responding when there were > too many difficult questions about the "data" upon which he was basing his > anti-rail (intercity as well as rail transit) diatribes as well as the > sources of funding for his "research." I do not agree with everything Cox says, yet I do respect his ideals and ability to expose gross public waste. Please provide the URLs of this debate that you claim Mr. Cox lost. > Google can be a useful tool for developing some aspects of a bibliography > but it is no substitute for plain old-fashioned reading and evaluation. > Often the advocacy of "leading edge" technologies is used by interests who > do not want automobile dependency staved and will dangle "better leading > edge ideas" before the public in the hope that the public will follow a > technological pied piper off a transportation cliff rather than implement > tried and true transit solutions. > Preston Schiller I agree with you, it is not prudent to blindly walk off of a cliff, or to step in front of a train. I am not advocating following unsound or "bleeding edge" engineering as is being pushed by the automobile industry as sustainable (e.g. the new hydrogen economy). Additionally, we must recognize that with growth, what was tried and true becomes worn out and obsolete. Ox carts were once "tried and true". Mule propelled barges were once "tried and true". Paddle wheel steamers were once "tried and true". Steam trains were once "tried and true". Diesel locomotive drawn passenger trains were once "tried and true" - now they are obsolete for this purpose. Cars / roads are presently "tried and true", AND they are showing signs of need for replacement. Ox carts are not the transportation mode that replaced trains when train limitations became apparent in the market. It is just as preposterous to assume that trains will recapture the market from automobiles. What will occur is cars and aircraft will be replaced by technology offering a much better benefit to cost ratio. The efficient market recognizes value; those who seek to provide more value for less cost are always powerfully resisted by those who presently dominate the market. First they laugh, then they fight, then they lose. Trains are on the verge of losing; just listen to the screams of protest as the milk dries up. Daryl Oster (c) 2004 all rights reserved. ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth" e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks of et3.com Inc. For licensing information contact: et3@et3.com , www.et3.com POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423 (352)257-1310 From et3 at et3.com Fri Dec 24 13:04:36 2004 From: et3 at et3.com (Daryl Oster) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 23:04:36 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: On leading edge In-Reply-To: <003a01c4e957$51711ad0$b72f47c8@Archibaldo> Message-ID: <20041224040507.67FE92C5BC@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> Carlos, That expanding edge is what has enabled us all to be able to communicate across thousands of miles, if you don't appreciate the additional choices the leading edge has implemented, why haven?t you permanently returned to the Stone Age? Transportation advances enabled the miracles of electricity and electronic communications. ETT will enable 50 times or more transportation for a given energy input than trains, planes, and cars; AND it is partly the internet and computers that are enabling ETT. True there will eventually be problems that ETT will be unable to surmount, perhaps by then we will be able to "beam up" to a earth colonized living Mars. BTW, our transportation and communication tools enable us to enjoy using our muscles to swim, bike, kayak, etc. for enjoyment rather than basic survival. ETT is able to sustainable offer those benefits to the entire world's population. Why do so many on this group begrudge this potential? Daryl Oster (c) 2004? all rights reserved.? ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth" e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks of et3.com Inc.? For licensing information contact:??? et3@et3.com , www.et3.com? POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423? (352)257-1310 > -----Original Message----- > From: sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com@list.jca.apc.org > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of > Carlos Felipe Pardo > Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 8:25 PM > To: 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport' > Subject: [sustran] On leading edge > > > I always wondered why people still think about leading edge technologies, > when I guess we?ve found that the supposed ?edge? has brought us more > trouble than any other thing. I have to say that I sometimes dream of > speed and technology (basically, they are materialized in Internet and my > laptop), but the bicycle ride to work every morning (in a congested city, > fighting taxis and buses) may prove more overwhelming than the ?leading > edge? BMW with ABS, GPS and 0-60 in 5 s. > I hope we all remember that we were born with feet and muscles, and that > it?s very interesting to use them to get from one place to another every > day. Long live usable legs, bicycles and short distances. > > Merry Christmas and happy New Year. And happy birthday, just in case. > > > Carlos F. Pardo > cpardo@cable.net.co > (+573) 00 268 1389 > (+571) 310 6218 > Cr 4 # 66-54 > Bogot?- Colombia > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by Netsignia Online , and is > believed to be clean. From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Fri Dec 24 20:59:31 2004 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (EcoPlan, Paris) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 12:59:31 +0100 Subject: [sustran] On leading edge and Principal Voices Message-ID: <00ba01c4e9b0$0b7d1840$6501a8c0@jazz> Friday, December 24, 2004, Paris, France, Europe Let me see if I can handle this in three quick parts: ******************************** 1. D. Oster writes on Fri 12/24/2004 5:05 AM: >> ETT is able to sustainable offer those benefits to the entire world's population. Why do so many on this group begrudge this potential?<< ******************************** 2. Brendan Finn wrote on the same date I feel like an unwilling spectator in a parochial argument where participants have long ago established their arguments and counter-arguments. This seems to me like a discussion among Americans about American conditions with American mindsets. Please excuse us if the other 6 billion plus inhabitants of the globe don't immediately feel 'embraced' by this discussion. Many of us live in places where it is possible to live pleasantly without a car, even if we can't avoid being confronted by it every day. Far, far more people live without a car because as an option it's just not on the radar. They watch funds and resources eternally consumed by transport means which are irrelevant to them, and they see deep resistance to measures which would improve their lives. "Carfree" is reality for the vast majority of the world's population, whether by circumstance or by choice. I will remain polite about some of the "new advanced" means of transportation. Suffice to say that as the limitations become ever-clearer of one means of transport which has been and continues to be peddled mercilessly (and I use the word advisedly) throughout the world, a novel opportunity is now available to get governments, cities and the public to invest huge globs of money. I guess everyone is entitled to try to turn a buck and press his case. However, please allow the rest of us to get on with transportation solutions appropriate to our situations. Brendan Finn, ETTS Ltd. ******************************** 3. I write on this date: Dear Darryl, I want you to know that I greatly appreciate the ideas and energy that you are sharing with us during this Principal Voices gate crashing process, but I want now to answer your good questions in a way which I am confident is pretty much in line with that of the almost entirely of this fine international panel in formation. Brendan Finn's email above is just one of a number that I have received on this subject - and may I note all from very busy people who would not normally have time for this were they not to give it such importance. As I do. So here is where things stand: 1. Your proposal is way out of the time scale of the issues and priorities of our bottom line concern here, which is sustainable development and social justice -- and moreover that the issues demand responses that can start to produce concrete on-street and in-lung results in two or three years. We simply cannot afford to wait for another distant day, no matter how glorious it might promise to be. 2. Once the innovators can come to the world with specifics, solid palpable accomplishments, attractive economics, proofs, and guarantees, well that might just change everything. In the meantime, we shall have to wait and give our attention to stuff that we know works. Even if it is as primitive as a good safe walk to where we want to get. 3. There are other places, other panels, other groups that share your concerns, ideas and time focus, and if you wish I will be pleased to provide you with a comprehensive listing of these -- not least because there is a part of my mind that has always been interested in advanced technology concepts. 4. I intend therefore to see to it that there is one person included in our highly diversified ad hoc group with solid information on this approach (I am afraid that I must say in this context: for what it is worth), so be assured that an opportunity will present itself for at least one measured plea in favor of high tec and new infrastructure. * * * Sorry, but that's just about as far as I can take it. If on the other hand any of the rest of you, dear, formidable and highly diversified colleagues, feel that this is unjust or unwise, please get back to me -- perhaps in private? -- so that I can try to come to grips with this in the more creative way which I believe is so very important here. I have been so wrong so often that I owe it to you all to be ready to reverse myself once the proof is there. But not before. And so in this troubled world that will not wait for us to be wise or perfect on some distant day, I wish you all, Salamaat, Shalom, Merry Christmas, and Peace on Earth, Eric Britton Convener, The New Mobility Agenda at http://newmobility.org Free video/voice conferencing at http://newmobilitypartners.org The Commons: Open Society Sustainability Initiative at http://ecoplan.org Le Frene, 8/10 rue Joseph Bara 75006 Paris, France E: postmaster@newmobility.org T: +331 4326 1323 --- Outgoing mail certified Virus Free. Checked by Norton Anti-Virus The Commons Open Society Sustainability Initiative: Seeking out and supporting new sustainability concepts for business, entrepreneurs, activists, community groups, and government; a thorn in the side of hesitant administrators and politicians; and through our joint efforts, energy and personal choices, placing them and ourselves firmly on the path to a more sustainable and more just society. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041224/3cd0e43a/attachment.html From mail at ericbritton.org Fri Dec 24 20:45:55 2004 From: mail at ericbritton.org (Eric Britton (personal)) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 12:45:55 +0100 Subject: [sustran] On leading edge and Principal Voices In-Reply-To: <20041224040507.67FE92C5BC@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> Message-ID: <00a601c4e9ae$24f517c0$6501a8c0@jazz> >> ETT is able to sustainable offer those benefits to the entire world's population. Why do so many on this group begrudge this potential?<< Dear Darryl, I want you to know that I greatly appreciate the ideas and energy that you are sharing with us during this Principal Voices gate crashing process, but I want now to answer your good questions in a way which I am confident is pretty much in line with that of the almost entirely of this fine international panel in formation. 1. Your proposal is way out of the time scale of the issues and priorities of our bottom line concern here, which is sustainable development and social justice -- and moreover that the issues demand responses that can start to produce concrete on-street and in-lung results in two or three years. We simply cannot afford to wait for another distant day, no matter how glorious it might promise to be. 2. Once the innovators can come to the world with specifics, solid palpable accomplishments, attractive economics, proofs, and guarantees, well that might just change everything. In the meantime, we shall have to wait and give our attention to stuff that we know works. Even if it is as primitive as a good safe walk to where we want to get. 3. There are other places, other panels, other groups that share your concerns, ideas and time focus, and if you wish I will be pleased to provide you with a comprehensive listing of these -- not least because there is a part of my mind that has always been interested in advanced technology concepts. 4. I intend therefore to see to it that there is one person included in our highly diversified ad hoc group with solid information on this approach (I am afraid that I must say in this context: for what it is worth), so be assured that an opportunity will present itself for at least one measured plea in favor of high tec and new infrastructure. * * * Sorry, but that's just about as far as I can take it. If on the other hand any of the rest of you, dear, formidable and highly diversified colleagues, feel that this is unjust or unwise, please get back to me -- perhaps in private? -- so that I can try to come to grips with this in the more creative way which I believe is so very important here. I have been so wrong so often that I owe it to you all to be ready to reverse myself once the proof is there. But not before. And so in this troubled world that will not wait for us to be wise or perfect on some distant day, I wish you all, Salamaat, Shalom, Merry Christmas, and Peace on Earth, Eric Britton Convener, The New Mobility Agenda at http://newmobility.org Free video/voice conferencing at http://newmobilitypartners.org The Commons: Open Society Sustainability Initiative at http://ecoplan.org Le Frene, 8/10 rue Joseph Bara 75006 Paris, France E: postmaster@newmobility.org T: +331 4326 1323 --- Outgoing mail certified Virus Free. Checked by Norton Anti-Virus The Commons Open Society Sustainability Initiative: Seeking out and supporting new sustainability concepts for business, entrepreneurs, activists, community groups, and government; a thorn in the side of hesitant administrators and politicians; and through our joint efforts, energy and personal choices, placing them and ourselves firmly on the path to a more sustainable and more just society. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041224/99f9e266/attachment.html From mail at ericbritton.org Sat Dec 25 20:58:46 2004 From: mail at ericbritton.org (Eric Britton (personal)) Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2004 12:58:46 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Re: On leading edge In-Reply-To: <003a01c4e957$51711ad0$b72f47c8@Archibaldo> Message-ID: <00b601c4ea79$1b0c7480$6501a8c0@jazz> Very nice Carlos. FYI, here is my working list for the international sustainable transport ?College? I am trying to pull together for as part of our attemtped gate crash for Princial Voices project. 1. Are you OK on it? 2. Any other ideas for us? (In parialr females and other parts of Latin America). Best, Eric A. Ables, Bangkok Oscar Aguilar Ju?rez, Zapopan, Jalisco Denis Baupin, Paris Margaret Bell, Leeds Reinie Biesenbach, Pretoria Donald Brackenbush, Los Angeles Eric Bruun, Philadpelhpia Enrique Calderon, Barcelona Sally Campbell, Eveleigh Carl Cederschiold, Stockholm Robert Cervero, Berkeley Phil Charles, Brisbane Robin Chase, Boston Al Cormier, Mississauga Wendell Cox, Belleville Ranjith de Silva, Colombo Carlos Dora, Rome Bernard Fautrier, Monaco Anwar Fazal, Kuala Lumpur Maria Josefina Figueroa, Roskilde Duarte de Souza Rosa Filho, Porto Alegre Brendan Finn, Singapore Karl Fjellstrom, Surabaya Rossella Forenza, Potenza Jan Gehl, Copenhagen Michael Glotz-Richter, Bremen Phil Goodwin, Exeter Ingibjorg R. Guolaugsdottir, Reykjavik Peter Hall, Berkeley Sylvia Harms, Dubendorf Roger Higman, London John. Holtzclaw, San Francisco Nguyen Trong Thong, Hanoi Ursula Huws, Analytica Taiichi Inoue, Tokyo Virgil Ioanid, Bucarest Jane Jacobs, Toronto Jiri Jiracek, Prague Per Homann Jespersen, Roskilde Charles Kunaka, Harare Richard Katzev, Portland Isam Kaysi, Beirut Fred Kent, NYC Jeff Kenworthy, Perth Gadi Kfir, Tel Aviv Adam Kowalewski, Warsaw Agnes Lehuen, Le Vesinet Corinne Lepage, Paris Graham Lightfoot, Scariff Todd Litman, Victoria Stefan Lorentzson, Gothenburg Harun al-Rasyid Sorah Lubis, Bandung C. Kenneth Orski, Washington, DC Dojie Manahan, Quezon City Naoko Matsumoto, Kanagawa? Segundo Med?na Hern?ndez, Havana Michael Meyer, Atlanta Nobuo Mishima, Kyoto Dinish Mohan, New Delhi Mikel Murga, Bilbao Peter Newman, Sydney Margaret O'Mahony, Dublin Richard Ongjerth, Budapest Carlos F. Pardo, Bogota Sujit Patwardhan, Pune Enrique Pe?alosa, Bogota Maria Elvira Perez, Colombia Rudolf Petersen, Wuppertal Stephen Plowden, London Robert Poole, Los Angeles Danijel Rebolj , Maribor Ernst Reichenbach, Katmandu Michael A. Replogle, New York Gabriel Roth, Chevy Chase Bodo Schwieger, Berlin Derek Scrafton, Adelaide Dimitris Sermpis, Athens Leena Silfverberg, Helsinki Robert Smith, Dorset Ivan Stanic, Ljubljana Linda Steg, Groningen Martin Strid, Borlange Craig Townsend, Robert Stussi, Lisbon Robert Thaler, Vienna Tony Verelst, Zonhoven Vukan Vuchic, Philadelphia Conrad Wagner, Stans Bernie Wagenblast, Paramus Yngve Westerlund, Gothenburg Dave Wetzel, London John Whitelegg, Lancaster Johnny Widen, Lulea Peter Wiederkehr, OECD Roelof Wittink, Utrecht Kerry Wood, Wellington Guiping Xiao, Beijing Muhammad Younus, Karachi Christopher Zegras, Cambridge Sue Zielinski, Toronto -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041225/b240f733/attachment-0001.html From et3 at et3.com Sun Dec 26 00:32:56 2004 From: et3 at et3.com (Daryl Oster) Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2004 10:32:56 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: On leading edge In-Reply-To: <00b601c4ea79$1b0c7480$6501a8c0@jazz> Message-ID: <20041225153331.B89042C4A5@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> Professor Catherine Burke, an expert in transportation and innovation at the University of Southern California. "Catherine Burke" +transportation = 776 hits on Google Daryl Oster > -----Original Message----- > From: sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com@list.jca.apc.org > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of > Eric Britton (personal) > Sent: Saturday, December 25, 2004 6:59 AM > To: 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport' > Subject: [sustran] Re: On leading edge > > Very nice Carlos. > > > > FYI, here is my working list for the international sustainable transport > ?College? I am trying to pull together for as part of our attemtped gate > crash for Princial Voices project. > > > > 1. Are you OK on it? > > > 2. Any other ideas for us? (In parialr females and other parts of Latin > America). > > > > Best, > > > > Eric > > > > > > A. Ables, Bangkok > > Oscar Aguilar Ju?rez, Zapopan, Jalisco > > Denis Baupin, Paris > > Margaret Bell, Leeds > > Reinie Biesenbach, Pretoria > > Donald Brackenbush, Los Angeles > > Eric Bruun, Philadpelhpia > > Enrique Calderon, Barcelona > > Sally Campbell, Eveleigh > > Carl Cederschiold, Stockholm > > Robert Cervero, Berkeley > > Phil Charles, Brisbane > > Robin Chase, Boston > > Al Cormier, Mississauga > > Wendell Cox, Belleville > > Ranjith de Silva, Colombo > > Carlos Dora, Rome > > Bernard Fautrier, Monaco > > Anwar Fazal, Kuala Lumpur > > Maria Josefina Figueroa, Roskilde > > Duarte de Souza Rosa Filho, Porto Alegre > > Brendan Finn, Singapore > > Karl Fjellstrom, Surabaya > > Rossella Forenza, Potenza > > Jan Gehl, Copenhagen > > Michael Glotz-Richter, Bremen > > Phil Goodwin, Exeter > > Ingibjorg R. Guolaugsdottir, Reykjavik > > Peter Hall, Berkeley > > Sylvia Harms, Dubendorf > > Roger Higman, London > > John. Holtzclaw, San Francisco > > Nguyen Trong Thong, Hanoi > > Ursula Huws, Analytica > > Taiichi Inoue, Tokyo > > Virgil Ioanid, Bucarest > > Jane Jacobs, Toronto > > Jiri Jiracek, Prague > > Per Homann Jespersen, Roskilde > > Charles Kunaka, Harare > > Richard Katzev, Portland > > Isam Kaysi, Beirut > > Fred Kent, NYC > > Jeff Kenworthy, Perth > > Gadi Kfir, Tel Aviv > > Adam Kowalewski, Warsaw > > Agnes Lehuen, Le Vesinet > > Corinne Lepage, Paris > > Graham Lightfoot, Scariff > > Todd Litman, Victoria > > Stefan Lorentzson, Gothenburg > > Harun al-Rasyid Sorah Lubis, Bandung > > C. Kenneth Orski, Washington, DC > > Dojie Manahan, Quezon City > > Naoko Matsumoto, Kanagawa > > Segundo Med?na Hern?ndez, Havana > > Michael Meyer, Atlanta > > Nobuo Mishima, Kyoto > > Dinish Mohan, New Delhi > > Mikel Murga, Bilbao > > Peter Newman, Sydney > > Margaret O'Mahony, Dublin > > Richard Ongjerth, Budapest > > Carlos F. Pardo, Bogota > > Sujit Patwardhan, Pune > > Enrique Pe?alosa, Bogota > > Maria Elvira Perez, Colombia > > Rudolf Petersen, Wuppertal > > Stephen Plowden, London > > Robert Poole, Los Angeles > > Danijel Rebolj , Maribor > > Ernst Reichenbach, Katmandu > > Michael A. Replogle, New York > > Gabriel Roth, Chevy Chase > > Bodo Schwieger, Berlin > > Derek Scrafton, Adelaide > > Dimitris Sermpis, Athens > > Leena Silfverberg, Helsinki > > Robert Smith, Dorset > > Ivan Stanic, Ljubljana > > Linda Steg, Groningen > > Martin Strid, Borlange > > Craig Townsend, > > Robert Stussi, Lisbon > > Robert Thaler, Vienna > > Tony Verelst, Zonhoven > > Vukan Vuchic, Philadelphia > > Conrad Wagner, Stans > > Bernie Wagenblast, Paramus > > Yngve Westerlund, Gothenburg > > Dave Wetzel, London > > John Whitelegg, Lancaster > > Johnny Widen, Lulea > > Peter Wiederkehr, OECD > > Roelof Wittink, Utrecht > > Kerry Wood, Wellington > > Guiping Xiao, Beijing > > Muhammad Younus, Karachi > > Christopher Zegras, Cambridge > > Sue Zielinski, Toronto > > > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by Netsignia Online , and is > believed to be clean. From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Sun Dec 26 22:27:09 2004 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (EcoPlan, Paris) Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2004 14:27:09 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Qualities for the future Message-ID: <007801c4eb4e$9f508fd0$6501a8c0@jazz> Sunday, December 26, 2004, Paris, France, Europe Many of you know Peter Wiederkehr, the man who for years has been the principal force behind the ETS (Environmentally Sustainable Transportation) project of the OECD Environment Directorate, an approach which he is now hoping to extend to the developing countries as well. Two days ago he was kind enough to come over to have lunch and share his views on our nascent New Mobility 20/20 Emergency Initiative, and in the process he talked about what he viewed as the realities and forces that in fact underpin whatever it is we decide to collectively do in the transport sector or any other. I was fascinated and impressed. So I asked Peter if he would not mind writing it down in note form, so that I could post it to our new ?A day at the office? gizmo that you will find on the New Mobility Agenda site (a sort of rough compendium that attempts to seize and share some of the most interesting of the many interesting things that pass though here each day) .. to which he kindly said yes. The attached is the result of his kind efforts and I find that it is sufficiently challenging, fundamental and important that you too would want to have a look. As you will see in his cover note to me just below, Peter welcomes comments and challenges, so let me get out of the way now and leave it now to Peter, and to you. Eric Britton Note: I find this particularly timely in the context of our collective attempt to see what we might do together possibly to reshape some elements of the Principal Voices program as it attempts to deal with a sector which we of course know rather well. ************************************************** Hi Eric, Please find below the amended text for your daily log. Thank you for challenging me and I look forward to your reaction. Please feel free to edit, if needed. Thank you. Peter ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dr. Peter Wiederkehr; 12, square Gabriel Faur?; 75017 Paris Tel./fax: +33 1 46 22 03 46 ; mobile: +33 6 30 15 70 40 email: peter.wiederkehr@wanadoo.fr ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _____ I am taking up your challenge to write down the few ideas on what I think would be needed for the future in terms of human qualities individually as well as collectively to make the new mobility agenda work. This is very much in line with what we had kept in mind in the EST project, where we continuously insisted in our discussions and proposals to preserve a human face for the future of transportation and not just the realization of a perfect and smoothly functioning system, but in fact a complex mechanically organised mobility life. What I am going to develop is neither original nor revolutionary, as it is inspired from many thinkers present and past, based on my cultural, educational and ethical background - a very personal synopsis of a few decades of errors and struggle with life and destiny. Of course, this shouldn?t be understood and is clearly not my intention that the following ideas should take the form of any sort of declaration of principles or societal goals (we have seen the many of them, which had more than doubtful impacts and primarily remained paper with little if at all relevance of the day-to-day behaviour and actions), quite the contrary, I rather think that this could be a starting point of a discussion for rethinking future needs, our approaches towards them and how we could apply it to influence that mobility agenda. Before I will develop these ideas, let me make a preliminary remark on the premises that I am starting from, as I think this is important, since the non-articulation of these premises is one of the main sources of misunderstanding among people. If we would be aware of this fact, we could avoid many conflicts and increase understanding and tolerance. To the premises: I think a modern and future oriented view of the world has to get rid of some old-fashioned, outdated and false concepts, in particular concerning the very nature of us as human beings. We ought to understand and take into account that, despite any other declarations from powerful institutions, the human being is a threefold entity that is simultaneously physical (the body), emotional (the soul) and spiritual (the mind). There are numerous facts that underpin this statement and even the latest research proves this, although largely ignored or wrongly communicated in the mainstream media channels (yet, there are some films that project these findings with a surprisingly clear message). Thus, I believe that we are neither only a physical body with its basic needs, capacities and limits, nor an urge-driven greedy beast that so many commercials are trying to make us believe nor an invisible spirit hovering over and above the lowlands of darkness and misery, but we, as human beings, are all the three-in-one, interacting, interfering and influencing one another. Recognising this fact of a threefold entity with different requirements and capacities for each of his parts would bring clarity in how we think, talk and act, and thus help to understand of what is going on in the world with us, the persons surrounding us, and possibly our own destiny and those of these people and our time. This view of the human being as a both spiritual and physical entity has serious consequences on what we are going to project, propose and actually do and how we do it, as each part claims its recognition and thus, the need for our self to reconcile them by conscious action. Our approaches will entirely depend on these premises: 1) If for instance we are convinced that the human being is primarily a physical entity with some emotional annex then we look for maximizing and facilitating the fulfillment of the physical needs, primarily through technological means to make life easier and people ?happier? (yet many surveys showed that children of lower social classes experience the feeling of happiness more often than children of wealthier classes ? how comes? and what was it again that triggered the student revolt in the late sixties?). 2) If we are of the opinion that the human being is basically influenced or even driven by emotional factors than the emphasis is put on trying to comfort people by controlling the emotional sphere and influence it accordingly through different stimuli to achieve a high level of pleasure and so- called satisfaction (e.g. by providing specific devices to deliver all kinds of drugs, painkillers, psycho-pharmaceuticals and tranquillizers of all kinds aimed at mitigating the impacts of the more than visible ugly face of modern life and the society at large. 3) If the prevailing view is that this is all wrong and the human being is primarily a spiritual entity incarnated in a body (there are still some parts of the world that share this conviction), the physical body is considered just a painful appendix or annoying hindrance to the actions and requirements of the mind and consequently, the body and soul will have to be ignored and subjected to the toughest constraints and sufferings so that it is completely subordinated to the mind. This extreme representation will lead to ignorance of our senses and neglect of the wonderful physical world, and ultimately ending in degradation and cultural decay. Thus, it is obvious that these different views of the world have much influence on our behaviour and are supported, underpinned and projected by the many of proponents in each category with specialists and authorities (who in many circumstance know more than their scholars) that exercise their power and influence with strong voices and impressive means. Yet, I don?t think that the problem is primarily in these single-sided views rather than using it in an unconscious way in their undertakings. I think that if people would be aware of this and recognised it when dealing and interacting with each other, it would help resolve many problems and completely blocked situations. Thus, we might be well advised to observe this in our in individual and collective endeavors. It is therefore my conviction that the view of us as human being as a threefold entity is capable of providing more balanced approaches and solutions of our problems (at least as a possibility), but has of course its own difficulties and challenges, as this entity is living and the interactions are dynamic; that means, they change over the time of the day, the months and years of our life; they might have fundamentally changed after several decades (the physical appearance provides testimony of the actions exercised upon it). Of course, this has broader ramifications on the view of the world, its course, etc. which would have to be discussed, but go beyond the scope of these initial comments. On the basis of the considerations so far, let?s look at some of the human qualities desperately needed and have the power of making progress towards a more human society and world. * Qualities that would be a pre-requisite for making real progress in any undertaking may include: showing interest and understanding; being concerned, showing compassion and empathy for people and life in general, being committed and reliable; trustworthy and truthful; defend individual freedom and diversity of opinions, but also show humor and tolerance, and above all be patient and endure on action taken, and finally, being aware and raise self-consciousness. Note that to all of these qualities would make sense for doing good business, figure in almost all humanitarian charters, but are quite absent in the actually prevailing motives and behaviours in today?s business world. Of course, there are noticeable exceptions. Basically, we would be looking for a fully conscious and responsibly acting individual. This is quite in contrast to the always heard call for everything to be smaller, faster and cheaper ? certainly, the individual is too complex, too slow, too expensive (thus, the attempt to replace it by machines). But the solutions have to have dimensions that we as individuals can manage (too small is not accessible either is too big; or too fast or complex exceeds our capacity to follow it with our mind and body; thus, it get?s out of our hands and finally, cheaper is an illusion, as there are enormous hidden social costs (externalities!). What will be required is the right measure, the human measure, and of course, everybody is called to determine this for himself. Lest there be no doubt: the human body is the perfect, sensitive physical apparatus that exists and we far from any understanding of its processes: striking examples of the wonders of our body are in the news almost every day. Thus, we would need creativity, courage and endurance to implement some of the new ideas, but also tolerance, respect and civism, and finally self-organising activities to use efficiently scarce resources. Our general ideal would be to give more than we take (if applied in general we would all gain enormously), be something for someone rather than to have it or him/her; i.e., to make a contribution to the world rather than just being a greedy, extremely clever consumer taking the resources wherever they are. What is this contribution like? What is its nature? What its magnitude? Who can do it? Who will take the lead? Who follows? It will need a lot of education and good examples; there are many, but largely unknown, ignored or belittled. Where could we get some guidance from? Maybe from the three principles or ideals that were advocated during the French Revolution: freedom, equality, fraternity. Are they of any use or guidance in our endeavors? Maybe this is too big of a complex of issues in this initial discussion, as this would lead us into a general analysis of current society and social systems. I would prefer to develop this on another occasion. I think these ideals could be useful to have them in the back of our minds when we examine the positive potential of a future activity. To conclude these preliminary comments with a view to our new mobility agenda: There are striking examples that work and deliver impressive results in terms of efficient resource use, economic savings, individual gains and social benefits. Just take one example: integrated mobility services combining public transport and individual car use (I would call them PTCarPlus) or any combined transport chain management for freight. A brief review of these initiatives shows that the above mentioned qualities are key ingredients to make them work, and at first was a strong concern about the present situation and its failures and the search for new, unconventional solutions. The personal qualities are becoming more critical as the service content of a product becomes more important. It is no longer the product and its performance that matters, the service itself is the product and thus the individual persons matter at the first place. Most of these initiatives work a small scale, where individual qualities have a great impact, corrective measures can easily applied and problems solved. To make them work at larger scale, the group possessing these qualities has to become larger, but there might be a limit in size in order to keep it working (remember the right measure). Thus, the term is decentralization of initiatives and competences, while communicating through networking including social gatherings to exchange ideas and experience (?every meeting is a transformation? is a saying from the Indians at the Canadian West coast, north of Vancouver); and building friendship. We should certainly work on a new meeting (conference?) culture. Such exchanges will be excellent opportunities to discuss initiatives, learn from them, create and encourage new ones that try new ways for solving problems, including those related to our ever increasing mobility demands. The experience from promising practical examples will be of great value as it will motivate people in their own endeavors. The analysis of all aspects of the initiative, in technical/scientific, social and economic terms is important, but more important is to draw conclusions from them and agree on specific actions. In any case, it would be useful to think about mobility systems that can function at an oil price of even more than 100 dollars per barrel of oil .Don?t you think so?. Encouraging the further development of integrated mobility services is just one example to exercise our ability towards a sustainable transport future. So far for today . I look forward to your reaction, Eric. Best wishes, Peter ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dr. Peter Wiederkehr; 12, square Gabriel Faur?; 75017 Paris Tel./fax: +33 1 46 22 03 46 ; mobile: +33 6 30 15 70 40 email: peter.wiederkehr@wanadoo.fr ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041226/11b925d6/attachment-0001.html From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Mon Dec 27 17:08:09 2004 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (EcoPlan, Paris) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 09:08:09 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Speaking of Voices - IEA/ECMT Workshop: Managing Oil Demand In Transport Message-ID: <014501c4ebeb$50ce3630$6501a8c0@jazz> IEA/ECMT Workshop: Managing Oil Demand In Transport PARIS, IEA HEADQUARTERS International Energy Agency European Conference of Ministers of Transport Paris, 7-8 March 2005 Preliminary Programme Monday, 7 March Saving Oil in a Hurry 8:45 Registration, coffee 9:00 Welcome: Claude Mandil, Executive Director, IEA; Jack Short, Secretary General, ECMT Introduction: Lew Fulton, Administrator, Energy Technology Policy Office, IEA 9:30 Keynote talk: "Economics of short term oil demand and role of interventions to rapidly cut demand" - David Greene, ORNL (invited) 10:00 Presentations: . IEA "Saving Oil in a Hurry" study - Robert Noland, Imperial College London (invited) . Appropriate government responses during a supply disruption (ECMT) . Industry Perspective - (oil and vehicle company representatives) 11:00 Coffee break 11:15 Presentations continue, followed by discussion 13:00 Lunch 14:00 Presentations of selected country experiences and "best practice" case studies by government representatives, followed by discussion..3 Topics may include: . IEA/EPP Division Presentation on Results of Recent Oil Supply Disruption Scenario Workshop . Country presentations on current emergency plans, recent activities in this area (countries TBD) . Actual experiences with oil supply disruptions in 2000-2001 (e.g., U.K.) . IEA Non-member country perspectives 15:30 Coffee break 15:45 Discussion of country needs and potential areas of co-operation, and proposed new analytical work in this area . Role of governments and recommended strategies for saving oil in a hurry, areas of agreement . Identification of opportunities for greater co-operation within and between countries in policy development and implementation . Gaps in information, data, analysis - IEA/ECMT roles in filling these? . Bridging to Day 2 - how do the issues overlap? 17:30 Adjourn. Reception. Tuesday, 8 March Managing Oil Demand: the Next Ten Years 9:00 Welcome, day two 9:15 Introductory talk: "World Energy Outlook - The Next 10 Years and Beyond" - IEA speaker (TBD) 9:45 Infrastructure charges and fuel taxes for transport: getting the prices right - ECMT speaker (TBD) 10:15 Presentations of recent assessments of policies and strategies to reduce growth in transportation oil demand, followed by discussion (specific speakers TBD) . Vehicle efficiency options . Mid-term fuel substitution options (biofuels, synthetic fuels, etc.) . Opportunities with travel demand management/modal structure . Opportunities in freight/air sector.4 11:00 Coffee break 11:15 Presentations continue, followed by discussion 13:00 Lunch 14:15 Presentations of selected policy experiences and "best practice" case studies by government representatives, followed by discussion 15:30 Coffee break 15:45 Discussion of country needs and potential areas of co-operation; proposed new work in this area; discuss possible role of a joint initiative . Role of governments and recommended strategies for medium term oil demand management: areas of agreement . Identification of opportunities for greater co-operation within and between countries in policy development and implementation . Gaps in information, data, analysis - IEA/ECMT role in filling these? . Need for a formal initiative? Concrete proposals for activities either under an initiative or otherwise . Identification of potential messages to IEA Ministers 16:45 Summary, next steps 17:00 Closing Remarks, Adjourn -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041227/2e39bd77/attachment.html From litman at vtpi.org Tue Dec 28 05:56:48 2004 From: litman at vtpi.org (Todd Alexander Litman) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 12:56:48 -0800 Subject: [sustran] "The Future Isn't What It Used To Be" Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20041227122639.039efe98@mail.highspeedplus.com> Dear Colleagues, I'm writing to let you know about our latest draft publication, "The Future Isn't What It Used To Be: Changing Trends And Their Implications For Transport Planning" (http://www.vtpi.org/future.pdf). This paper examines various demographic, economic and market trends that affect travel demand, and their implications for transport planning during the next century. During Twentieth Century per capita motor vehicle travel demand increased by an order of magnitude. Many of the factors that caused this growth have peaked in developed countries and are likely to decline. This indicates that future transport demand will be increasingly diverse. Transport planning can reflect these shifts by reducing emphasis on automobile travel and increasing support for alternative modes and smart growth development patterns. I would appreciate your feedback. Please let me know if you find any errors or omissions, or if you have any other ideas of factors that affect past and future travel demand. Also, please let me know if you know a source of good time-series shipping cost data, such as the real cost of transporting a ton of freight from New York to London or San Francisco for each decade from 1900 to 2000. Sincerely, Todd Litman, Director Victoria Transport Policy Institute "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity" 1250 Rudlin Street Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, Canada Phone & Fax: 250-360-1560 Email: litman@vtpi.org Website: http://www.vtpi.org From et3 at et3.com Wed Dec 29 02:20:30 2004 From: et3 at et3.com (Daryl Oster) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 12:20:30 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: "The Future Isn't What It Used To Be" In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20041227122639.039efe98@mail.highspeedplus.com> Message-ID: <20041228172105.A87862C54F@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> Todd, The summary mentions that in 1990 most worked and lived on farms; did you not mean to say in 1890? Thanks for mentioning ETT under your heading ?New Technologies?. Bracketing ETT with old jetpacks and flying cars is unfair, as is the blanket dismissal. This is especially true since ETT: increases energy efficiency by more than a factor of 50, maximizes use of lower cost and alternative fuel, and improves navigation and vehicle flow. Clearly jet packs and flying cars decrease fuel efficiency, and have a narrow dependence on specialized fuels (as was the case with SST). There are at least two possibilities explaining your blanket statement: you have not fully investigated and understand ETT, or you are attempting to discredit ETT to protect other agendas. If you have any criticism of ETT that supports your view, please be specific. As far as the data you seek, Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Ph.D., Hofstra University, Hempstead, New York, has some good data on shipping costs with a wide time scale. I saw the detailed information you seek in graphical form somewhere on the website: http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/ . The material is extensive, I am sorry I do not have time to be more specific as to the exact page. Daryl Oster (c) 2004? all rights reserved.? ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth" e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks of et3.com Inc.? For licensing information contact:??? et3@et3.com , www.et3.com? POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423? (352)257-1310 You wrote: New Technologies New technologies may affect future travel demand, but probably not the way most people expect. Although some entirely new modes may be developed, such as jetpacks, evacuated tube transport, and flying cars, their application is likely to be limited. Most new transportation technologies are likely to marginally improve the performance of existing modes, and many will actually reduce motorized mobility. As described at the beginning of this paper, many people assume that transportation progress consists of newer, faster, more automated modes replacing older, slower, modes, but that is not always the case. Many new modes fill niche markets and have little impact on overall travel patterns. For example, despite large subsidies and public support, super sonic air travel proved commercially unsuccessful and is unlikely to become available in the foreseeable future. Segways have yet to become widely used, and are unlikely to significantly reduce either driving or walking. Flying cars, if they ever become available, will probably have limited applications and do little to reduce problems such as urban traffic and parking congestion. In general, new technologies that reduce the financial, time or discomfort costs of driving are likely to increase total vehicle travel, while those that improve travel alternatives or implement more efficient pricing will tend to reduce total vehicle travel. Table 2 categorizes new transportation technologies according to their expected impacts on vehicle travel demand. More of those identified are likely to reduce motorized travel than are likely to increase it. Although Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) research initially focused on automated highways which probably would increase vehicle travel, implementation of this strategy has been slow. > -----Original Message----- > From: sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com@list.jca.apc.org > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of > Todd Alexander Litman > Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 3:57 PM > To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org; WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com; > UTSG@JISCMAIL.AC.UK; CONS-SPST-SPRAWL-TRANS@LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG > Subject: [sustran] "The Future Isn't What It Used To Be" > > > Dear Colleagues, > > I'm writing to let you know about our latest draft publication, "The > Future > Isn't What It Used To Be: Changing Trends And Their Implications For > Transport Planning" (http://www.vtpi.org/future.pdf). > > This paper examines various demographic, economic and market trends that > affect travel demand, and their implications for transport planning during > the next century. During Twentieth Century per capita motor vehicle travel > demand increased by an order of magnitude. Many of the factors that caused > this growth have peaked in developed countries and are likely to decline. > This indicates that future transport demand will be increasingly diverse. > Transport planning can reflect these shifts by reducing emphasis on > automobile travel and increasing support for alternative modes and smart > growth development patterns. > > I would appreciate your feedback. Please let me know if you find any > errors > or omissions, or if you have any other ideas of factors that affect past > and future travel demand. Also, please let me know if you know a source of > good time-series shipping cost data, such as the real cost of transporting > a ton of freight from New York to London or San Francisco for each decade > from 1900 to 2000. > > > > Sincerely, > Todd Litman, Director > Victoria Transport Policy Institute > "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity" > 1250 Rudlin Street > Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, Canada > Phone & Fax: 250-360-1560 > Email: litman@vtpi.org > Website: http://www.vtpi.org > > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by Netsignia Online, and is > believed to be clean. > > From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Wed Dec 29 03:49:58 2004 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (EcoPlan, Paris) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 19:49:58 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Litman on "The Future ain't What It Used To Be" In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20041227122639.039efe98@mail.highspeedplus.com> Message-ID: <010601c4ed0e$0c078140$6501a8c0@jazz> Dear Todd, Your paper is so very good that whatever I can say I can well put in public, not least with the thought that these observations in turn may break the ice on this and set off others that may be yet more useful to you with their comments ? and indeed to us all since you have done us a great service with this well thought out and supported piece. * New Technology: On p. 18, para 2: I for one would put that a bit more strongly. Perhaps with irony? You might possibly wish to tag on the drawled English phrase ? , to say the least?. My point is that I really do think that we need to keep this beast in the closet and not leave the door even remotely ajar. * Next para I think it?s a tad early to draw the curtain on Segways. * Table 2: Title? Better perhaps? ?Impacts of new transport-related technologies? (This would permit us to slip in some of the other stuff such as ICT through the transom.) * Table 2: Under ?Increases Motorized Travel?, possibly add something along the lines of ?Increased vehicle throughput via electronics? (Yes, I know it pushes over a bit into your second category, but it is a clear villain and needs to be called as much. Under Reduces: ?Mobile telephony interfaces with service suppliers? * Para 3, last sentence: I would tend to be prudent here since in my view at least technology is always a two edged sword and, wouldn?t you know? that other edge (the one that no one is looking at) has an awful tendency to be very sharp and painful indeed. So I would tend to say something along the lines that : ?Well, technology may promise to bring about great improvements, but given their complex impacts it is best that planners and policy makers remain highly critical about their overall and longer term impacts?. (That of course in your sober language which is far better than my wording there.) * Last sentence on that page, comment . . . Of course well deployed ITS can do a lot to help you locate that parking space you would so desperately like to find. * Consumer Preferences: On the possibility of a decline of at least youth interest in cars, I would ask you to consider and maybe integrate a few comments on: * Attitudes in the developing countries are still for the most part driven by all those good old images. * Alternatives to vehicle ownership: carsharing changes a lot for at least certain groups and places, and with just a bit of luck might become a major new behavioral norm.. in certain places and groups. * One great way to change consumer preferences is for you to be stuck in traffic while public and shared transport systems sail by you in the HOV lane (and for this to happen, we do need to factor in some pretty good new technologies). * Freight Transport: There are two things there that we need to better understand and then master in this important sector. First, the importance of full cost pricing.. since the sector is massively protected by the close to invisible ramifications of the ?old mobility? mind set and operating environment. Second, the negative environmental impacts of present arrangements, which need to be better mapped and understood. And finally that technology can do a lot to help us cope better with the latter ? but since the price envelope is so skewed there is not sufficient pressure on the suppliers and regulators to do a LOT better. Which they certainly could. * Economic Instruments: You get partial whack at this else, and in particular in your good page on Transportation Planning and Investment, and again in the bottom of p. 24, but might there not be a good lively whole section on this since it provides such a clearly powerful instrument of total system rationalization and improvement. For example: * Full cost pricing: bringing up things such as road pricing, fuel pricing, and yes! the price of sprawl which we could in fact adjust to reflect full costs. * Discriminatory pricing and subsidies: Really comes close to full cost, but might introduce some thoughts on things like free or cheap parking prices for poolers, carsharers; various kinds of support for those who opt for human powered transport. And maybe a few other things * Value capture and land taxes: (I have passed on your invitation to our colleagues in the ?Land Caf?? who know a lot about this and I rather think you may be hearing from them. * Who, where and why: Overall, I think it is fair to comment that your analysis takes as its starting point for the most part the, let us call them, OECD countries where there is a broad overall pattern, albeit with a wonderful series of variants and differences. But of course these countries at not the whole world, and indeed are in demographic and future growth trends overall, almost trivial. (Sorry if I am hurting anyone?s feelings.) The real action in the sector as far as growth, resource, human and environmental impacts will be in those other parts of the world where there are some five billion people and high continued population growth rates. And these good people are GOING to change. If all that is true, why then is yours an important piece to which we need to give closest attention. Because for better or worse (and I often think worse) we constitute the leading edge and the patterns that take over here are going to be emulated by that other five billion-plus. Which means that we need to get actively involved in ?Making our on future? and not just letting it happen to us. Thanks again so much Todd for this most timely piece. I will now get off the stage and let better and wiser voices take over. Eric Britton PS. I would much like to see if we could organize a free videoconference around this theme, but as a group you all seem to be a slightly Luddish lot when it comes to being at best only semi-comfortable with these technologies (which in fact is the state of the art). Sigh. But it is free, there for you to use, and believe me, it works. Check it out at http://newmobilitypartners.org for details and if you are up for it, please get in touch. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041228/20774d77/attachment.html From litman at vtpi.org Wed Dec 29 08:28:05 2004 From: litman at vtpi.org (Todd Alexander Litman) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 15:28:05 -0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Litman on "The Future ain't What It Used To Be" In-Reply-To: <010601c4ed0e$0c078140$6501a8c0@jazz> References: <5.1.1.6.0.20041227122639.039efe98@mail.highspeedplus.com> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20041228152101.03f0ea60@mail.highspeedplus.com> Dear Eric, Thank you very much! I really appreciate the feedback. Although I agree with everything you say, I an not incorporating all of your specific comments because I want this paper to have a focused and academic tone, and so I'm avoiding most subjective comments. I have, however, added some new sections, including a discussion of the differences between growth and development, and a discussion of counter-arguments and some of the errors made by proponents of automobile travel growth. The revised version is now on the website at http://www.vtpi.org/future.pdf. I also added discussion in the conclusions section about the implications for developing countries. Please let me know if you have more comments or suggestions. Best wishes, -Todd Litman At 07:49 PM 12/28/2004 +0100, EcoPlan, Paris wrote: >Dear Todd, > > > >Your paper is so very good that whatever I can say I can well put in >public, not least with the thought that these observations in turn may >break the ice on this and set off others that may be yet more useful to >you with their comments and indeed to us all since you have done us a >great service with this well thought out and supported piece. > > > * New Technology: On p. 18, para 2: I for one would put that a bit > more strongly. Perhaps with irony? You might possibly wish to tag on the > drawled English phrase & , to say the least . My point is that I really > do think that we need to keep this beast in the closet and not leave the > door even remotely ajar. > > * Next para& I think it s a tad early to draw the curtain on Segways. > > * Table 2: Title? Better perhaps? Impacts of new transport-related > technologies (This would permit us to slip in some of the other stuff > such as ICT through the transom.) > * Table 2: Under Increases Motorized Travel , possibly add something > along the lines of Increased vehicle throughput via electronics (Yes, I > know it pushes over a bit into your second category, but it is a clear > villain and needs to be called as much. Under Reduces: Mobile telephony > interfaces with service suppliers > > * Para 3, last sentence: I would tend to be prudent here since in my > view at least technology is always a two edged sword and, wouldn t you > know? that other edge (the one that no one is looking at) has an awful > tendency to be very sharp and painful indeed. So I would tend to say > something along the lines that : Well, technology may promise to bring > about great improvements, but given their complex impacts it is best that > planners and policy makers remain highly critical about their overall and > longer term impacts . (That of course in your sober language which is far > better than my wording there.) > > * Last sentence on that page, comment . . . Of course well deployed > ITS can do a lot to help you locate that parking space you would so > desperately like to find. > > * Consumer Preferences: On the possibility of a decline of at least > youth interest in cars, I would ask you to consider and maybe integrate a > few comments on: > * Attitudes in the developing countries are still for the most > part driven by all those good old images. > * Alternatives to vehicle ownership: carsharing & changes a lot > for at least certain groups and places, and with just a bit of luck might > become a major new behavioral norm.. in certain places and groups. > * One great way to change consumer preferences is for you to be > stuck in traffic while public and shared transport systems sail by you in > the HOV lane (and for this to happen, we do need to factor in some pretty > good new technologies). > > * Freight Transport: There are two things there that we need to better > understand and then master in this important sector. First, the > importance of full cost pricing.. since the sector is massively protected > by the close to invisible ramifications of the old mobility mind set and > operating environment. Second, the negative environmental impacts of > present arrangements, which need to be better mapped and understood. And > finally that technology can do a lot to help us cope better with the > latter but since the price envelope is so skewed there is not sufficient > pressure on the suppliers and regulators to do a LOT better. Which they > certainly could. > * Economic Instruments: You get partial whack at this else, and in > particular in your good page on Transportation Planning and Investment, > and again in the bottom of p. 24, but might there not be a good lively > whole section on this since it provides such a clearly powerful > instrument of total system rationalization and improvement. For example: > * Full cost pricing: bringing up things such as road pricing, fuel > pricing, and yes! the price of sprawl which we could in fact adjust to > reflect full costs. > * Discriminatory pricing and subsidies: Really comes close to full > cost, but might introduce some thoughts on things like free or cheap > parking prices for poolers, carsharers; various kinds of support for > those who opt for human powered transport. And maybe a few other things > * Value capture and land taxes: (I have passed on your invitation > to our colleagues in the Land Caf? who know a lot about this and I rather > think you may be hearing from them. > > > * Who, where and why: Overall, I think it is fair to comment that your > analysis takes as its starting point for the most part the, let us call > them, OECD countries where there is a broad overall pattern, albeit with > a wonderful series of variants and differences. But of course these > countries at not the whole world, and indeed are in demographic and > future growth trends overall, almost trivial. (Sorry if I am hurting > anyone s feelings.) The real action in the sector as far as growth, > resource, human and environmental impacts will be in those other parts of > the world where there are some five billion people and high continued > population growth rates. And these good people are GOING to change. > > >If all that is true, why then is yours an important piece to which we need >to give closest attention. Because for better or worse (and I often think >worse) we constitute the leading edge and the patterns that take over here >are going to be emulated by that other five billion-plus. Which means >that we need to get actively involved in Making our on future and not just >letting it happen to us. > > > >Thanks again so much Todd for this most timely piece. I will now get off >the stage and let better and wiser voices take over. > > > >Eric Britton > > > >PS. I would much like to see if we could organize a free videoconference >around this theme, but as a group you all seem to be a slightly Luddish >lot when it comes to being at best only semi-comfortable with these >technologies (which in fact is the state of the art). Sigh. But it is >free, there for you to use, and believe me, it works. Check it out at >http://newmobilitypartners.org for >details and if you are up for it, please get in touch. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, Todd Litman, Director Victoria Transport Policy Institute "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity" 1250 Rudlin Street Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, Canada Phone & Fax: 250-360-1560 Email: litman@vtpi.org Website: http://www.vtpi.org From ciclobrasil at udesc.br Thu Dec 30 00:17:07 2004 From: ciclobrasil at udesc.br (Giselle Xavier) Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 13:17:07 -0200 Subject: [sustran] Re: On leading edge In-Reply-To: <003a01c4e957$51711ad0$b72f47c8@Archibaldo> References: <003a01c4e957$51711ad0$b72f47c8@Archibaldo> Message-ID: <1104333427.41d2ca735604a@www.udesc.br> Dear Carlos Felipe and SUSTRAN list members I have been following this list for sometime. It is really great. Because of this message from Carlos Felipe, I want to say: I do agree we do not need to invest too much money in new things. Let us benchmark projects and ourselves! Wish you all peace and love in 2005! Giselle Xavier. -- Grupo CICLOBRASIL Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina - UDESC Rua Paschoal Simone, 358 88080 350 Florian?polis SC Fone: +55 48 3480423 Fax: +55 48 2442178 Quoting Carlos Felipe Pardo : > > I always wondered why people still think about leading edge > technologies, when I guess we?ve found that the supposed ?edge? has > brought us more trouble than any other thing. I have to say that I > sometimes dream of speed and technology (basically, they are > materialized in Internet and my laptop), but the bicycle ride to work > every morning (in a congested city, fighting taxis and buses) may prove > more overwhelming than the ?leading edge? BMW with ABS, GPS and 0-60 in > 5 s. > I hope we all remember that we were born with feet and muscles, and that > it?s very interesting to use them to get from one place to another every > day. Long live usable legs, bicycles and short distances. > > Merry Christmas and happy New Year. And happy birthday, just in case. > > > Carlos F. Pardo > cpardo@cable.net.co > (+573) 00 268 1389 > (+571) 310 6218 > Cr 4 # 66-54 > Bogot?- Colombia > ------------------------------------------------- http://www.udesc.br UDESC - Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina (Horde 2.1 / IMP 3.1) From et3 at et3.com Thu Dec 30 23:58:29 2004 From: et3 at et3.com (Daryl Oster) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 09:58:29 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Comparing Costs of Modes In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20041224064225.025da440@mail.highspeedplus.com> Message-ID: <20041230145905.771082E086@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> Todd Litman, Your Transportation Cost Analysis (TCA) is a useful resource, and I agree that true cost comparisons must be made on a per passenger mile basis, I applaud your excellence and monumental efforts to do so. Please do not interpret my suggestions for improvement in the negative. I hope you consider additional categories for trains, planes, boats, and projected cost estimates for automated PRT, and ETT. Thanks for your consideration of the following: There are several inequities readily apparent in your TCA (table 4, average travel 1996 $/passenger mile ( http://www.vtpi.org/tca/tca.xls): *Internal crash cost of bikes, cars and motorcycles; *External crash cost of cars and motorcycles; *Internal and external Parking for motorcycle and cars; *Congestion of cars, motorcycles and bikes; *Land value of cars, motorcycles, and bikes; *Transport diversity *Barrier Effect of cars, motorcycles and bikes *Land use impacts *Water pollution of cars, motorcycles, bikes, and pedestrians *Waste of cars, motorcycles, bikes, and pedestrians It appears that many of the numbers were ?pulled out of the air? to reward bikes and pedestrians, while punishing cars and especially motorcycles. I will address each point as follows: *Internal crash cost of bikes relative to cars: http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/bc/index.htm shows that in 2001, there were 728 bicycling fatalities and 45,000 bicycling injuries resulting from traffic crashes in the United States. While these numbers continue to decrease from year to year, bicyclist fatalities still account for 2 percent of all traffic fatalities as well as 2 percent of all traffic injuries. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/study/index.htm shows that in 2001 shows that bicycles accounted for 0.8% of the personal transportation trips. The Other bike trips - The 1995 National Personal Transportation Survey (NPTS) shows that bike to work trips comprise 8% of all bicycle trips. Average bicycle trip length ? work - NPTS shows an average round trip distance for bike to work trips of 4.0 miles. Average bicycle trip length ? other - NPTS shows an average round trip distance of 2.8 miles for all other bike trips. ((4mile (0.08)) + (2.8mile(0.92))) = 2.9 miles average bicycle trip length. OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY SUMMARY OF TRAVEL TRENDS 1995 NATIONWIDE PERSONAL TRANSPORTATION SURVEY shows that the national average car trip length was 9.06miles. Therefore the safety of bikes relative to cars on a vehicle mile basis is: 2%of fatalities / (0.8% of trips * (2.9bike miles/9.06car miles)) = 7.8 times the risk per vehicle mile for bikes relative to cars. The cost of the internal risk of bikes relative to cars must therefore be adjusted accordingly. In tca.xls, Todd Litman shows the internal crash cost of cars to be 5 cents per passenger mile; the internal crash cost for motorcycles is listed as 43.7 cents per passenger mile; and the internal crash cost for bicycles is listed as 5 cents per passenger mile ? the same as cars. The factor of cars relative to motorcycles is 43.7 / 5 = 8.7 roughly corresponding to the internal crash death rate factor of motorcycles relative to cars. If Litman correctly applied this factor to motorcycles, why is it that he fails to apply it to bicycles? If it were applied to bikes, it would increase the per mile cost of bikes to: 5 * 7.8 = 39cents per mile. Therefore the average per mile cost adjusted for this factor would show: Cars stay the same at 73.8cents/passenger mile, and bicycles would increase from 44.1cents to 78.1 cents per passenger mile from this factor alone. *External crash cost of cars and motorcycles; Litman claims the external crash costs for motorcycles are higher than cars, while insurance rates and physics prove the opposite. Liability insurance is required for cars in most states, while for motorcycles it is usually not mandatory. The liability insurance cost for cars is 3 to 4 times the rate for motorcycles, furthermore the liability insurance rate for bicycles is not zero, and when adjusted for mileage is often actually higher than cars. *Internal and external Parking for motorcycle and cars; Litman lists the parking internal and external costs for motorcycles as greater than or equal to cars, while listing bikes at less than 1/10 the rate of cars. In actuality, one can park 3 or 4 motorcycles in the place of one car, thus the rate applied to motorcycles is not justified. *Congestion of cars, motorcycles and bikes; Litman incorrectly applies a higher rate to motorcycles than cars, while the rate for bikes is less by a factor of 18! In fact many states allow motorcycles and bikes to split lanes, therefore the congestion factor for motorcycles should be less. Bikes actually cause congestion at a higher rate than cars due to their slow speed compared with motorized traffic, they typically operate at less than 1/3rd the speed limit ? causing much more congestion than their physical volume. Pedestrians crossing streets also contribute much more to congestion than is reflected in the chart. The time at traffic lights devited to pedestrian crossing is a major cause of congestion. The per mile congestion rate must compare physical volume, time, speed, and flow issues. *Land value of cars, motorcycles, and bikes; Litman charges cars at 17 times greater rate than bikes. Litman incorrectly charges motorcycles a higher rate than cars, when cars occupy 3 to 4 times more space. Bikes usually get very little use, so they have increased external costs for storage for a much higher percentage of the time. *Transport diversity. This is a totally bogus factor ? without an merit ? it appears just an invented way to unjustly penalize cars and motorcycles relative to walking, trains, busses, and bikes. *Barrier Effect of cars, motorcycles and bikes. Litman claims bikes at zero ? the came as pedestrians, he claims cars at .007, motorcycles at .009, this again is incongruent with reality. Motorcycles should be rated between bikes and cars, and bikes should rate higher than pedestrians. Is this just another reward for walking and bikes? It depends on the perspective, pedestrians and bikes could be as justifiable viewed as barriers to cars and motorcycles due to their slow speed. Train tracks constitute huge barriers, what of this? *Land use impacts Again Litman assigns zeros to walking, bikes, trains and busses, while placing a large factor on cars, and even greater factor on motorcycles. This again is a matter of perspective ? there is a lot of rail ROW that is exclusive ? no other use possible, where cars, bikes, motorcycles, and even pedestrians use roads. Motorcycles and bikes both are able to use narrow paths along with pedestrians. ? once again the bias for trains, busses, bikes and walking is apparent in Litman?s work. *Water pollution of cars, motorcycles, bikes, and pedestrians Most water pollution is the result of erosion. Pavement for cars, motorcycles bikes, and pedestrians causes high velocity runoff that induces high erosion rates. Another major contributor is foot and bike traffic that kills ground covering vegetation. To assign zeros to pedestrians and bikes is unjustified. *Waste of cars, motorcycles, bikes, and pedestrians. Physical evidence shows that pedestrians and cyclists are more likely to litter than motorists. Pedestrians and cyclists wear out their clothing and shoes at a faster rate than motorists. Tires on bikes wear out 30 times faster than car tires. Some other notes / observations / suggestions: Litman also places the cost of vehicle ownership for motorcycles higher than cars 25.2cents/mile motorcycles, to 14.vcents per passenger mile. While this may be true in North America (where per year use is low), it is not representative of the rest of the world. Litman assigns an average occupancy of 1.00 to motorcycles; actual is closer to 1.2 as many ride double, especially those who tour and put on high miles. Also, if everyone used telecommuting, and all transportation were automated, would not all much of cargo impacts and costs be attributed to telecommuting? To correctly calculate the true impacts and costs of travel there are several additional things that must be considered, please see the attached spreadsheet that shows some of the biggest cost and impact reasons that show why cars are so popular. Happy holidays, Daryl Oster (c) 2004? all rights reserved.? ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth" e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks of et3.com Inc.? For licensing information contact:??? et3@et3.com , www.et3.com? POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423? (352)257-1310 > -----Original Message----- > From: Todd Alexander Litman [mailto:litman@vtpi.org] > Sent: Friday, December 24, 2004 9:47 AM > To: et3@et3.com > Subject: RE: Comparing Costs of Modes > > > Please read my paper more carefully before you criticize it. > > If automobile insurance totally covered accidents society would be > indifferent to crashes and there would be no need for traffic safety > programs. But by its nature insurance can only cover a portion of total > costs (if crash damages were fully compensated some people, those who > place > a relatively low value on their own injuries, would have an incentive to > cause crashes and be injured). The costs in my analysis reflect > uncompensated crash costs. Todd, In actuality, what you describe is the one of the leading insurance frauds. In fact, my wife and I were the victim of such an attempt to defraud our insurance company. A driver intentionally swerved across 2 lanes to sideswipe the front corner of our vehicle, and then claimed we ran into him causing great injury. Fortunately I had a digital camera, and took several photos. It was also fortunate that we had the same insurance company! The insurance company attorney noticed that the injuries claimed were on the opposite side of the body from the crash! The court case was a slam dunk - he got zip, and his attorney was severely reprimanded. This abuse runs up the rates for all of us - and is not a reflection of true risks and damages. > > Again, I recommend that you learn more about multi-modal economic > evaluation, which accounts for all relevant costs. That is the only way > you > can really justify a new mode. > > > Best holiday wishes, > -Todd Litman > > At 12:27 AM 12/24/2004 -0500, Daryl Oster wrote: > > > > --Original Message From: Todd Alexander Litman > [mailto:litman@vtpi.org] > > > > > > For more discussion see "Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis" > > > (http://www.vtpi.org/tca) and the "Comparing Transit and Automobile > Costs" > > > section of "Evaluating Public Transit Benefits and Costs" > > > (http://www.vtpi.org/tranben.pdf). > > > > > >Todd, > >I scanned your work when it was announced a week or two ago, (it looks > like > >you have gone to a lot of effort); and it appeared to me that some of the > >costs you are claiming for cars are added in more than once, while some > of > >the other modes do not receive the same treatment. One area is risks and > >accidents, this cost is covered in insurance cost, yet you add it again. > >For bikes, the death risk is greater - AND the cost is mostly paid by > auto > >insurance - not reflected in the graphs. I will be happy to discuss > further > >if you want to. > > > > > > > I think it is generally a mistake to criticize a particular mode as > being > > > inefficient or unsustainable. A better approach is to recognize that > > > nearly every mode can play a role in an efficient and sustainable > > > transportation system, including walking, cycling, public transit, > inter-, > > > city rail highways, and perhaps some new modes yet to be developed. > The > > > key is to determine which is most cost effective for a particular > > > situation, taking into account all benefits and costs. > > > >We definitely agree on this, and I applaud your efforts to move in this > >direction. > > > > > > > I cannot say how Evacuated Tube Transport costs compare with other > modes > > > because we lack operating examples. It would be interesting to perform > a > > > comprehensive analysis. > > > Best holiday wishes, > > > -Todd Litman > > > > > >We do have examples of travel in an evacuated environment 109 gigameters > per > >hour multiplied by 6.1B people - continuously 24-365 without fail. That > >amounts to 5,824,524,000,000,000,000,000 (5.8X10ee21) passenger > kilometers > >per year, and the energy use is immeasurably low. > > > >And there are plenty of examples of the costs required to approximate > those > >"perpetual motion" transportation conditions on earth's surface in tubes. > >We have performed comprehensive analysis, some is presented on > www.et3.com , > >I invite any criticism you may offer. > > > > > > > >Daryl Oster > >(c) 2004 all rights reserved. ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth" > >e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service > marks > >of et3.com Inc. For licensing information contact: et3@et3.com , > >www.et3.com POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423 (352)257-1310> > > > Sincerely, > Todd Litman, Director > Victoria Transport Policy Institute > "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity" > 1250 Rudlin Street > Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, Canada > Phone & Fax: 250-360-1560 > Email: litman@vtpi.org > Website: http://www.vtpi.org > > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by Netsignia Online, and is > believed to be clean. > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: transport cost.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 25600 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041230/ccbc7837/transportcost-0001.xls From litman at vtpi.org Fri Dec 31 04:43:22 2004 From: litman at vtpi.org (Todd Alexander Litman) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 11:43:22 -0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Comparing Costs of Modes In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.1.6.0.20041224064225.025da440@mail.highspeedplus.com> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20041230103341.049f7818@mail.highspeedplus.com> I appreciate feedback on my publications, but I encourage Mr. Oster to more carefully read my papers before criticizing them. It is wrong to say that the cost value estimates in "Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis" are "pulled from the air." They are based on literally hundreds of studies that were reviewed and summarized in the book. How the values are estimated is discussed in detail in each chapter. You are welcome to disagree with the approach I used, but it is unfair to claim that they are not based on careful and transparent analysis. I used a different approach than Mr. Oster to calculate the relative risk of bicycling. His approach underestimates total cycling mileage and overestimates the health risks of increased cycling to responsible adults. As discussed in the chapter, bicycles have a unique risk profile: significant portion of bicycle fatalities involve child or inexperienced riders; a significant portion of cycling is ignored or undercounted in conventional travel surveys (most do not include recreational cycling, or cycling by children); shorter nonmotorized trips often substitute for longer motorized trips, and nonmotorized travel provides health benefits that offset crash risks. Studies of cycle commuters indicate that responsible adults who bicycle seem to have about the same health risk per trip as automobile travelers, which is why total per capita traffic fatalities tend to decline in cities with high rates of bicycle commuting (see additional discussion in the report "Safe Travels" http://www.vtpi.org/safetrav.pdf) Mr. Oster misunderstands the concept of external crash costs, that is, the costs of crash risks and damages not borne by users. It is inaccurate to claim that all crash costs are internalized through insurance. If that were true than crashes would not be a problem since victims would be fully compensated. In practice there are significant uncompensated risks and damages, in fact there must be as an incentive for travelers to be cautious. This is discussed in the "Safety and Health Costs" chapter. Motorcycles impose relatively high external costs because they cause significant injuries and disabilities, a portion of which are not compensated by insurance, leaving hospitals to cover a portion of medical costs, government programs to cover a portion of disability costs, and families and businesses to cover a portion of lost productivity. All of these issues are well described in the literature and discussed in my book. Similarly, Mr. Oster has misinterpreted motorcycle parking costs. While it may be true that 3 or 4 motorcycles *can* park in the place of one car, in practice, in the U.S. most motorcycles occupy one parking space, either because this is required, or due to motorcyclist preference. Only in large facilities where smaller, "motorcycle parking" spaces are provided do motorcycles use significantly less space to park. My analysis assumes that motorcycles use 25% less parking space, however, because motorcycles have lower load factors than automobiles, their parking costs per passenger-mile are about equal. Similarly with congestion and roadway land values. Although in some jurisdictions motorcycles are allowed to share lanes, they seldom do in congested urban conditions. It is only possible when two motorcycles happen to be traveling side-by-side, and it is unsafe in stop-and-go conditions. While it is true that under certain conditions (narrow road, fast motorized traffic, slow cyclist) cyclists can cause traffic delay, those conditions are unusual, since they are unpleasant for cyclists, and cyclists are not allowed at all most urban Interstate highways were more than half of all traffic congestion occurs. See discussion in http://www.vtpi.org/nmt-tdm.pdf. Mr. Oster is welcome to dismiss the costs of reduced diversity, barrier effect and negative land use impacts that result from more motorized travel, but I recommend reviewing the published literature on these subjects before calling them "bogus". Since I first included them in my analysis a decade ago they have become more widely recognized by planning professionals. See, for example, David J. Forkenbrock and Glen E. Weisbrod, "Guidebook for Assessing the Social and Economic Effects of Transportation Projects," NCHRP Report 456, TRB, (www.trb.org), 2001; Louis Berger Inc., "Guidance for Estimating the Indirect Effects of Proposed Transportation Projects," NCHRP Report 403, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org), 1998. While these cost categories may not apply in every planning situation, they are often important to consider. For example, if a community is choosing between two options for addressing traffic congestion (e.g., widen highways or improve walking, cycling and transit service), I think most people would recognize that there are advantages to choosing the option that improves mobility for non-drivers, reduces barriers to nonmotorized travel, and encourages more compact development patterns. That is what these cost values are intended to represent. Mr. Oster may dismiss these issues but they are based on an extensive and growing body of literature and I'm pretty sure that they would be considered legitimate by most objective people who take the trouble to investigate them. Best New Year wishes to all, -Todd Litman At 09:58 AM 12/30/2004 -0500, Daryl Oster wrote: >Todd Litman, > >Your Transportation Cost Analysis (TCA) is a useful resource, and I agree >that true cost comparisons must be made on a per passenger mile basis, I >applaud your excellence and monumental efforts to do so. Please do not >interpret my suggestions for improvement in the negative. I hope you >consider additional categories for trains, planes, boats, and projected cost >estimates for automated PRT, and ETT. Thanks for your consideration of the >following: > >There are several inequities readily apparent in your TCA (table 4, average >travel 1996 $/passenger mile ( http://www.vtpi.org/tca/tca.xls): >*Internal crash cost of bikes, cars and motorcycles; >*External crash cost of cars and motorcycles; >*Internal and external Parking for motorcycle and cars; >*Congestion of cars, motorcycles and bikes; >*Land value of cars, motorcycles, and bikes; >*Transport diversity >*Barrier Effect of cars, motorcycles and bikes >*Land use impacts >*Water pollution of cars, motorcycles, bikes, and pedestrians >*Waste of cars, motorcycles, bikes, and pedestrians >It appears that many of the numbers were ?pulled out of the air? to reward >bikes and pedestrians, while punishing cars and especially motorcycles. I >will address each point as follows: > > >*Internal crash cost of bikes relative to cars: >http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/bc/index.htm shows that in 2001, there were 728 >bicycling fatalities and 45,000 bicycling injuries resulting from traffic >crashes in the United States. While these numbers continue to decrease from >year to year, bicyclist fatalities still account for 2 percent of all >traffic fatalities as well as 2 percent of all traffic injuries. > >http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/study/index.htm shows that in >2001 shows that bicycles accounted for 0.8% of the personal transportation >trips. > >The Other bike trips - The 1995 National Personal Transportation Survey >(NPTS) shows that bike to work trips comprise 8% of all bicycle trips. > >Average bicycle trip length ? work - NPTS shows an average round trip >distance for bike to >work trips of 4.0 miles. > >Average bicycle trip length ? other - NPTS shows an average round trip >distance of 2.8 miles for all other bike trips. > >((4mile (0.08)) + (2.8mile(0.92))) = 2.9 miles average bicycle trip length. > >OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY SUMMARY OF TRAVEL TRENDS 1995 >NATIONWIDE PERSONAL TRANSPORTATION SURVEY shows that the national average >car trip length was 9.06miles. > >Therefore the safety of bikes relative to cars on a vehicle mile basis is: >2%of fatalities / (0.8% of trips * (2.9bike miles/9.06car miles)) = 7.8 >times the risk per vehicle mile for bikes relative to cars. The cost of the >internal risk of bikes relative to cars must therefore be adjusted >accordingly. > >In tca.xls, Todd Litman shows the internal crash cost of cars to be 5 >cents per passenger mile; the internal crash cost for motorcycles is listed >as 43.7 cents per passenger mile; and the internal crash cost for bicycles >is listed as 5 cents per passenger mile ? the same as cars. > >The factor of cars relative to motorcycles is 43.7 / 5 = 8.7 roughly >corresponding to the internal crash death rate factor of motorcycles >relative to cars. > >If Litman correctly applied this factor to motorcycles, why is it that he >fails to apply it to bicycles? If it were applied to bikes, it would >increase the per mile cost of bikes to: 5 * 7.8 = 39cents per mile. > >Therefore the average per mile cost adjusted for this factor would show: >Cars stay the same at 73.8cents/passenger mile, and bicycles would increase >from 44.1cents to 78.1 cents per passenger mile from this factor alone. > > >*External crash cost of cars and motorcycles; >Litman claims the external crash costs for motorcycles are higher than cars, >while insurance rates and physics prove the opposite. Liability insurance >is required for cars in most states, while for motorcycles it is usually not >mandatory. The liability insurance cost for cars is 3 to 4 times the rate >for motorcycles, furthermore the liability insurance rate for bicycles is >not zero, and when adjusted for mileage is often actually higher than cars. > > >*Internal and external Parking for motorcycle and cars; >Litman lists the parking internal and external costs for motorcycles as >greater than or equal to cars, while listing bikes at less than 1/10 the >rate of cars. In actuality, one can park 3 or 4 motorcycles in the place of >one car, thus the rate applied to motorcycles is not justified. > >*Congestion of cars, motorcycles and bikes; >Litman incorrectly applies a higher rate to motorcycles than cars, while the >rate for bikes is less by a factor of 18! In fact many states allow >motorcycles and bikes to split lanes, therefore the congestion factor for >motorcycles should be less. Bikes actually cause congestion at a higher >rate than cars due to their slow speed compared with motorized traffic, they >typically operate at less than 1/3rd the speed limit ? causing much more >congestion than their physical volume. Pedestrians crossing streets also >contribute much more to congestion than is reflected in the chart. The time >at traffic lights devited to pedestrian crossing is a major cause of >congestion. The per mile congestion rate must compare physical volume, >time, speed, and flow issues. > >*Land value of cars, motorcycles, and bikes; >Litman charges cars at 17 times greater rate than bikes. Litman incorrectly >charges motorcycles a higher rate than cars, when cars occupy 3 to 4 times >more space. Bikes usually get very little use, so they have increased >external costs for storage for a much higher percentage of the time. > > >*Transport diversity. >This is a totally bogus factor ? without an merit ? it appears just an >invented way to unjustly penalize cars and motorcycles relative to walking, >trains, busses, and bikes. > >*Barrier Effect of cars, motorcycles and bikes. >Litman claims bikes at zero ? the came as pedestrians, he claims cars at >.007, motorcycles at .009, this again is incongruent with reality. >Motorcycles should be rated between bikes and cars, and bikes should rate >higher than pedestrians. Is this just another reward for walking and bikes? >It depends on the perspective, pedestrians and bikes could be as justifiable >viewed as barriers to cars and motorcycles due to their slow speed. Train >tracks constitute huge barriers, what of this? > >*Land use impacts >Again Litman assigns zeros to walking, bikes, trains and busses, while >placing a large factor on cars, and even greater factor on motorcycles. >This again is a matter of perspective ? there is a lot of rail ROW that is >exclusive ? no other use possible, where cars, bikes, motorcycles, and even >pedestrians use roads. Motorcycles and bikes both are able to use narrow >paths along with pedestrians. ? once again the bias for trains, busses, >bikes and walking is apparent in Litman?s work. > >*Water pollution of cars, motorcycles, bikes, and pedestrians >Most water pollution is the result of erosion. Pavement for cars, >motorcycles bikes, and pedestrians causes high velocity runoff that induces >high erosion rates. Another major contributor is foot and bike traffic that >kills ground covering vegetation. To assign zeros to pedestrians and bikes >is unjustified. > >*Waste of cars, motorcycles, bikes, and pedestrians. >Physical evidence shows that pedestrians and cyclists are more likely to >litter than motorists. Pedestrians and cyclists wear out their clothing and >shoes at a faster rate than motorists. Tires on bikes wear out 30 times >faster than car tires. > >Some other notes / observations / suggestions: > >Litman also places the cost of vehicle ownership for motorcycles higher than >cars 25.2cents/mile motorcycles, to 14.vcents per passenger mile. While >this may be true in North America (where per year use is low), it is not >representative of the rest of the world. Litman assigns an average >occupancy of 1.00 to motorcycles; actual is closer to 1.2 as many ride >double, especially those who tour and put on high miles. > >Also, if everyone used telecommuting, and all transportation were automated, >would not all much of cargo impacts and costs be attributed to >telecommuting? > >To correctly calculate the true impacts and costs of travel there are >several additional things that must be considered, please see the attached >spreadsheet that shows some of the biggest cost and impact reasons that show >why cars are so popular. > >Happy holidays, > > >Daryl Oster >(c) 2004 all rights reserved. ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth" >e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks >of et3.com Inc. For licensing information contact: et3@et3.com , >www.et3.com POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423 (352)257-1310 > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Todd Alexander Litman [mailto:litman@vtpi.org] > > Sent: Friday, December 24, 2004 9:47 AM > > To: et3@et3.com > > Subject: RE: Comparing Costs of Modes > > > > > > Please read my paper more carefully before you criticize it. > > > > If automobile insurance totally covered accidents society would be > > indifferent to crashes and there would be no need for traffic safety > > programs. But by its nature insurance can only cover a portion of total > > costs (if crash damages were fully compensated some people, those who > > place > > a relatively low value on their own injuries, would have an incentive to > > cause crashes and be injured). The costs in my analysis reflect > > uncompensated crash costs. > >Todd, In actuality, what you describe is the one of the leading insurance >frauds. In fact, my wife and I were the victim of such an attempt to >defraud our insurance company. A driver intentionally swerved across 2 >lanes to sideswipe the front corner of our vehicle, and then claimed we ran >into him causing great injury. Fortunately I had a digital camera, and took >several photos. It was also fortunate that we had the same insurance >company! The insurance company attorney noticed that the injuries claimed >were on the opposite side of the body from the crash! The court case was a >slam dunk - he got zip, and his attorney was severely reprimanded. This >abuse runs up the rates for all of us - and is not a reflection of true >risks and damages. > > > > > > Again, I recommend that you learn more about multi-modal economic > > evaluation, which accounts for all relevant costs. That is the only way > > you > > can really justify a new mode. > > > > > > Best holiday wishes, > > -Todd Litman > > > > At 12:27 AM 12/24/2004 -0500, Daryl Oster wrote: > > > > > > --Original Message From: Todd Alexander Litman > > [mailto:litman@vtpi.org] > > > > > > > > For more discussion see "Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis" > > > > (http://www.vtpi.org/tca) and the "Comparing Transit and Automobile > > Costs" > > > > section of "Evaluating Public Transit Benefits and Costs" > > > > (http://www.vtpi.org/tranben.pdf). > > > > > > > > >Todd, > > >I scanned your work when it was announced a week or two ago, (it looks > > like > > >you have gone to a lot of effort); and it appeared to me that some of the > > >costs you are claiming for cars are added in more than once, while some > > of > > >the other modes do not receive the same treatment. One area is risks and > > >accidents, this cost is covered in insurance cost, yet you add it again. > > >For bikes, the death risk is greater - AND the cost is mostly paid by > > auto > > >insurance - not reflected in the graphs. I will be happy to discuss > > further > > >if you want to. > > > > > > > > > > I think it is generally a mistake to criticize a particular mode as > > being > > > > inefficient or unsustainable. A better approach is to recognize that > > > > nearly every mode can play a role in an efficient and sustainable > > > > transportation system, including walking, cycling, public transit, > > inter-, > > > > city rail highways, and perhaps some new modes yet to be developed. > > The > > > > key is to determine which is most cost effective for a particular > > > > situation, taking into account all benefits and costs. > > > > > >We definitely agree on this, and I applaud your efforts to move in this > > >direction. > > > > > > > > > > I cannot say how Evacuated Tube Transport costs compare with other > > modes > > > > because we lack operating examples. It would be interesting to perform > > a > > > > comprehensive analysis. > > > > Best holiday wishes, > > > > -Todd Litman > > > > > > > > >We do have examples of travel in an evacuated environment 109 gigameters > > per > > >hour multiplied by 6.1B people - continuously 24-365 without fail. That > > >amounts to 5,824,524,000,000,000,000,000 (5.8X10ee21) passenger > > kilometers > > >per year, and the energy use is immeasurably low. > > > > > >And there are plenty of examples of the costs required to approximate > > those > > >"perpetual motion" transportation conditions on earth's surface in tubes. > > >We have performed comprehensive analysis, some is presented on > > www.et3.com , > > >I invite any criticism you may offer. > > > > > > > > > > > >Daryl Oster > > >(c) 2004 all rights reserved. ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth" > > >e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service > > marks > > >of et3.com Inc. For licensing information contact: et3@et3.com , > > >www.et3.com POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423 (352)257-1310> > > > > > > Sincerely, > > Todd Litman, Director > > Victoria Transport Policy Institute > > "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity" > > 1250 Rudlin Street > > Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, Canada > > Phone & Fax: 250-360-1560 > > Email: litman@vtpi.org > > Website: http://www.vtpi.org > > > > > > > > -- > > This message has been scanned for viruses and > > dangerous content by Netsignia Online, and is > > believed to be clean. > > > > > Sincerely, Todd Litman, Director Victoria Transport Policy Institute "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity" 1250 Rudlin Street Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, Canada Phone & Fax: 250-360-1560 Email: litman@vtpi.org Website: http://www.vtpi.org From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Fri Dec 31 05:39:33 2004 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (EcoPlan, Paris) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 21:39:33 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Bogota dream lives on in city Message-ID: <018701c4eeaf$b0210ce0$6501a8c0@jazz> Source: http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=112273 Bogota dream lives on in city Vinita Deshmukh Pune, December 29: FORMER mayor of Bogota Enrique Penalosa made a visit to Pune and delivered an inspiring lecture on making a city for citizens and not cars. Sujit Patwardhan -founder of Parisar - who, along with the PMC, had organised this visit, speaks about its spillover effect. What after Penalosa's visit? Are you planning to further his vision in Pune? The whole idea of the Penalosa visit was to expose Puneites to the possibility of a different traffic scenario - rather than focusing on widening roads and building flyovers. Since Penalosa has touched a chord in the hearts of people - who are feeling deprived of open spaces and whose children stand vulnerable to accidents - we decided not to confine his visit only to the officials. We aimed to start a thought process that may lead to a movement. What was the reaction to his lectures? People who have read about his philosophy have begun to question why such a model cannot be adopted here too, when it became a reality in an under-developed country! Officials have also developed a soft corner and have begun talking about mass transit systems along the Bogota pattern. What is your action plan, since you spearheaded Penalosa's visit? We are planning to have sessions in different neighbourhoods where we will make presentations of the Bogota model. We are also planning to organise meetings with elected representatives which will hopefully throw up a nucleus of sensible corporators who begin to talk about sustainable transport systems instead of giving the traditional nod for more roads and flyovers. It might just end up in all talk and no implementation. Comment. True, that various reports for sustainable transport systems have gathered dust in the PMC but this was a live lecture which painted a picture of a city which exists. We have urged corporators to visit Bogota and see the picture for themselves. On our part, we will be keeping up the pressure on various fronts. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041230/ff5968ec/attachment.html From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Fri Dec 31 05:39:33 2004 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (EcoPlan, Paris) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 21:39:33 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Post-Tsunami rebuilding Message-ID: <018c01c4eeaf$b07cc170$6501a8c0@jazz> -----Original Message----- From: Tramsol@aol.com [mailto:Tramsol@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 8:27 PM To: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com Subject: [New Mobility/WorldTransport Forum] Post-Tsunami rebuilding A most telling feature of news coverage immediately post impact was the speed and coverage in restoration of transport achieved by the humble bicycle, almost as soon as the water had subsided to axle depth, bicycles were on the streets ferrying supplies and people, and apart from their limitations on load carrying for mass relief, in a coordinated group the final distribution of essential supplies like water, can be achieved without the delay of having to clear every road for motor vehicles, repair bridges, and get fuel supplies in place. Those organising the aid might note that a bicycle - especially the Phoenix/Flying Pidgeon/Dutch roadster with substantial load carrying racks, has geometry which allows riding with no tyres, backpedal brakes allow riding with near-round wheels, and bikes don't need fuel bunkerage and fuel supply taking valuable space on incoming transport (nice analogy here with the far North Highland line where steam trains required a further steam train hauling the coal to replenish the stock of coal at the end of the line to put provide the fuel for the return trip, including taking coal for the engine that hauled the coal up for the engines...). Maybe some lessons to learn here also from Vietnam - where 50,000 Tons of supplies were shipped down from Hanoi to Da Nang on bicycles, with the riders walking down guiding their bikes with bamboo extensions to saddle and handlebars, and each bike carrying roughly 250Kg of supplies, along jungle trails, and going around on very basic temporary structures where bridges and roads had been destroyed by the US military who could not conceve that such a vast supply chain could work without large trucks and roads. Once unloaded the bamboo extensions were detached and the bikes returned to being ridden machines for the return trip. If the relief is to get to the people then the bicycle has a major role in reaching every remote location where there are no roads available. Dave Holladay Transportation Management Solutions 6 Woodlands Terrace Glasgow G3 6DH 0141 332 4733 Phone 07 710 535 404 Mobile The New Mobility/World Transport Agenda Consult at: http://NewMobiity.org To post message to group: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com To subscribe: WorldTransport-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To unsubscribe: WorldTransport-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041230/8ee95ec1/attachment-0001.html From et3 at et3.com Fri Dec 31 06:31:38 2004 From: et3 at et3.com (Daryl Oster) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 16:31:38 -0500 Subject: [sustran] FW: [atraPolicy] "The Future Isn't What It Used To Be" Message-ID: <20041230213207.EA8A82D813@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> > -----Original Message----- > From: Jerry Schneider [mailto:jbs@peak.org] > Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 2:27 PM > To: policy@advancedtransit.org; seattleprt@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [atraPolicy] "The Future Isn't What It Used To Be" > > Be sure to read the page on "new technologies" - it completely ignores > what > is going on > in the real world and I see it as part of a self-serving essay that > advocates the author's strong > interest in "sustainable", demand&auto-reducing activities. Much of the > content is worth reading > but his bias against building anything new and different is very apparent. > > If you are so inclined, give him some feedback. It seems to me that those > interested in innovations are > being bashed from above (i.e. LRT, maglev, monorail) and ignored from > below > (sustainable-automobility reduction people) although I've recently seen > some bashing from below as well. > > ------- -------------------------------------- > > >Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 12:56:48 -0800 > >From: Todd Alexander Litman > >To: UTSG@JISCMAIL.AC.UK > >Subject: [UTSG] "The Future Isn't What It Used To Be" > > > >Dear Colleagues, > > > >I'm writing to let you know about our latest draft publication, "The > Future > >Isn't What It Used To Be: Changing Trends And Their Implications For > >Transport Planning" (http://www.vtpi.org/future.pdf). > > > >This paper examines various demographic, economic and market trends that > >affect travel demand, and their implications for transport planning > during > >the next century. During Twentieth Century per capita motor vehicle > travel > >demand increased by an order of magnitude. Many of the factors that > caused > >this growth have peaked in developed countries and are likely to decline. > >This indicates that future transport demand will be increasingly diverse. > >Transport planning can reflect these shifts by reducing emphasis on > >automobile travel and increasing support for alternative modes and smart > >growth development patterns. > > > >I would appreciate your feedback. Please let me know if you find any > errors > >or omissions, or if you have any other ideas of factors that affect past > >and future travel demand. Also, please let me know if you know a source > of > >good time-series shipping cost data, such as the real cost of > transporting > >a ton of freight from New York to London or San Francisco for each decade > >from 1900 to 2000. > > > > > > > >Sincerely, > >Todd Litman, Director > >Victoria Transport Policy Institute > >"Efficiency - Equity - Clarity" > >1250 Rudlin Street > >Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, Canada > >Phone & Fax: 250-360-1560 > >Email: litman@vtpi.org > >Website: http://www.vtpi.org > > > - Jerry Schneider - > Innovative Transportation Technologies > http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans > > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by Netsignia Online, and is > believed to be clean. > > From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Fri Dec 31 07:44:59 2004 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (EcoPlan, Paris) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 23:44:59 +0100 Subject: [sustran] "a self-serving essay that advocates the author's strong interest in 'sustainable', demand & auto-reducing activities". Message-ID: <01ce01c4eec1$36060700$6501a8c0@jazz> Dear Sustran Colleagues, Oh dear. I would like to comment on the following rather too lively statement made by Dr. Schneider when he writes in criticism of Todd Litman's policy piece kindly shared with us, "The Future Isn't What It Used To Be", the following words, characterizing it as: "a self-serving essay that advocates the author's strong interest in 'sustainable', demand & auto-reducing activities". (I like that: "Self-serving", "sustainable". That's rich. Har. Har. Har. Oops. Back to proper behaviour Eric old boy.) First I find this unacceptable in this forum on the grounds of sheer emptiness, rudeness and uncollegial language. Second, I strongly feel that the technologies which Dr. Schneider reports on and advocates are well outside of the time scope, quite possibly of the Sustran community and certainly of the New Mobility Agenda. For our part - the New Mobility Cafe at http://newmobility.org -- the day that he or anyone else can present to this forum solid cost and time of construction information based on actual operational experience, with sponsors who are ready to invest the money needed to make them work in some city (not promises mind you, committed funding with the usual contractual guarantees that we expect of any supplier to the sector), we will be pleased to share this information with the forum as a whole. In the meantime, as moderator of this forum I will exercise my right to exclude any future communications which do not pass this test, on the grounds of protecting the time of those busy colleagues who come to this forum for insight and discussions on the subject of sustainable mobility measures capable of making a difference in the one to seven years directly ahead. What I would like to invite however are any critical remarks on this position that any of you may care to share with me or us all. All that said it is only fair to point out that Dr. Schneider's life work encompasses many courageous and unbending years of work in promoting potentially innovative but as yet unproven "Automated People Mover and similar freight systems using some type of exclusive and elevated guideway". If this approach intersts you permit me to refer you to Professor Schneider's very complete information site at http://faculty.washington.edu/~jbs/itrans/siteindx.htm, and from whence you will find copious information on other sites and programs given over to this class of system, for which I am sure we all hope the very best. Eric Britton PS. I do hope that you will excuse me for the above parenthetic comment. But those of you who now me understand that this sort of thing takes me over from time to time. I shall try to get better in 2005. The Commons: Open Society Sustainability Initiative at www.ecoplan.org Le Frene, 8/10 rue Joseph Bara 75006 Paris, France, Europe Free call via Skype.com. Click here. Free video/voice conferencing available at http://newmobilitypartners.org T: +331 4326 1323 Fax/Voicemail hotline: +331 5301 2896 E: mailto:eric.britton@ecoplan.org E Back-up: mail@ericbritton.org - Outgoing mail certified Virus Free. Checked by Norton Anti-Virus The Commons Open Society Sustainability Initiative: Seeking out and supporting new sustainability concepts for business, entrepreneurs, activists, community groups, and government; a thorn in the side of hesitant administrators and politicians; and through our joint efforts, energy and personal choices, placing them and ourselves firmly on the path to a more sustainable and more just society > -----Original Message----- > From: Jerry Schneider [mailto:jbs@peak.org] > Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 2:27 PM > To: policy@advancedtransit.org; seattleprt@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [atraPolicy] "The Future Isn't What It Used To Be" > > Be sure to read the page on "new technologies" - it completely ignores what is going on in the real > > > world and I see it as part of a self-serving essay that advocates the author's strong interest in > > > > "sustainable", demand & auto-reducing activities. Much of the content is worth reading but his bias > > > against building anything new and different is very apparent. > If you are so inclined, give him some feedback. It seems to me that those interested in innovations are > being bashed from above (i.e. LRT, maglev, monorail) and ignored from below (sustainable-automobility > > reduction people) although I've recently seen some bashing from below as well. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041230/8d997fb4/attachment.html From et3 at et3.com Fri Dec 31 11:03:16 2004 From: et3 at et3.com (Daryl Oster) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 21:03:16 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: [atraPolicy] FW: Re: "The Future Isn't What It Used To Be" In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20041230154530.01786640@ianford.com> Message-ID: <20041231020349.588362BCD4@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> Ian, Good point, I do agree that Litman has done a monumental amount of work in collecting data and making it available, and I commend his efforts. I hoped to be able to convince him to promote progression instead of regression. I don't think I am being very effective at that, as he sees my critique as an attack even though he asked me for it. If no one points out the weaknesses, improvements will not be made. When the faults are pointed out, even if they are not changed by the author, others may see reason to consider a different perspective. Daryl Oster (c) 2004? all rights reserved.? ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth" e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks of et3.com Inc.? For licensing information contact:??? et3@et3.com , www.et3.com? POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423? (352)257-1310 > -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Ford [mailto:ilf@ianford.com] > Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 7:13 PM > To: policy@advancedtransit.org > Subject: Re: [atraPolicy] FW: [sustran] Re: "The Future Isn't What It Used > To Be" > > Daryl, your spreadsheet on costs of driving versus hiking is a great > example of what is different between you and Littman. You are analytical > and accurate, and you draw conclusions from data. Littman (and most > people) > are pushing an agenda based on their feelings and some general > information, > and using data to support their position. He is trying to improve the > world > and has a vision that includes increasing the options available in > transit, > making cities more walkable and safe, and so on. I wish there were more > people like that. The best result would be for him and the others > promoting > better cities to join ATRA and help us expand our views and create a > broader consensus on how to improve cities. So I hope you don't criticize > him too much for the way he interprets data. > __________________________________________________________ > Ian Ford ilf@ianford.com 505.246.8490 > > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by Netsignia Online, and is > believed to be clean. > > From et3 at et3.com Fri Dec 31 13:15:03 2004 From: et3 at et3.com (Daryl Oster) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 23:15:03 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Draft proposal to Principal Voices - Comparing Costs of Modes In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20041224062806.025c0ea0@mail.highspeedplus.com> Message-ID: <20041231041537.809602D9A6@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> Todd, If you follow your logic far enough you end up at the point proving that cars are subsidizing trains through the cost of parking. Most parking is "free" that is it is provided by the business owner to attract business to their store. The cost of the parking lot is part of the business cost, and added to the product or services provided - so the one who parks at the store pays for their parking when they buy the products at the store. There are many other transportation costs embodied in the cost of products in addition to the cost of parking. Much of the freight in the US is moved by ship and rail, and the cost of that shipping is added to the product cost, and paid by those who park in the parking lots (cars). Therefore cars are subsidizing rail infrastructure. IMO, the market is mostly fair and impartial, and in the US market trains were compared with cars long ago; guess what -- the trains lost. You are correct - the contest was NOT fair - it was biased in favor of trains. The railroads had much more clout than automotive innovators at the start of the contest -- railroads had market share AND tremendous political power (they still do), yet cars won the comparison - and they are winning all over the world. The situation today is vary similar with innovative transportation modes - still in experiment and development. It is now the car market that is peaking, instead of the train and bike market that peaked in the early 1900s. I understand why you so vehemently defend your untenable position. You have selected a good market niche to work - the railroads still have plenty of money to use to hang on to their still sizable global market! Your efforts are a stop-gap tool for the railroaders. Lovins has chosen his niche to work in promoting his hypercar, his work being supported by automobile interests and government. This is a more defendable position than the one you are in; as the battle between car and train is essentially over in the US- the new battle is be between aircraft and car, and new technology like aPRT and ETT. A better position yet would be with the best innovators. In China, cars have not yet won against trains, and it is likely both cars and trains in China will be beat at the same time there by new tech. The top transportation engineering university in China was focused on rail tech. During the last 3 years they have shifted there focus on new transportation technology as part of the 10th national 5 year plan of China. The central government of China has mandated that all new investments in the key national labs must be high-tech, leading edge technology -- not following technology like steel rail - or cars. China is now leap-frogging into the lead with fifth generation transport technology development programs at their top rated transportation university and key national lab. The ETT program at SWJTU is being led by Dr. Zhang Yaoping, the first et3 licensee in China (there are now 9 et3 licenses in China). The Chinese fully understands the benefits and costs of ETT, as by their invitation we spent 5 months out of the last two years in China. We were invited to presented ETT at the highest levels of the scientific and engineering community of China, and there is wide agreement to the likely benefits and costs. I am glad to learn you are ready and willing to get on with objective analysis of ETT. I will be at the ATRA annual meeting in DC on the 9th of January, the first day of TRB. Perhaps we can meet, and I can provide you with up to date information that is not available on the et3 website. For information on joining ARTA see the website http://www.advancedtransit.org . Daryl Oster (c) 2004? all rights reserved.? ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth" e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks of et3.com Inc.? For licensing information contact:??? et3@et3.com , www.et3.com? POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423? (352)257-1310 > -----Original Message----- > From: Todd Alexander Litman [mailto:litman@vtpi.org] > Sent: Friday, December 24, 2004 9:41 AM > To: et3@et3.com > Subject: RE: Draft proposal to Principal Voices - Comparing Costs of Modes > > > As I pointed out, and as elaborated in my paper, it is unfair to compare > > overall average roadway costs with rail transit costs, since automobile > > transportation also requires parking facilities, and because rail transit > > is provided only in urban areas where automobile costs are far higher than > > average. When compared fairly, based on the total public subsidy required > > to provide transportation in a particular situation, public transit is > > often cheaper than accommodating additional automobile travel, including > > land opportunity costs, roadway costs and parking costs. > > > I suggest that you focus on emphasizing the positive features of your > > preferred mode. It is unnecessary to criticize other modes to justify > > innovation. The way you criticized rail and people who it is both > > inaccurate and misguided (See my paper, "Evaluating Criticism of Rail > > Transit". Also note that the "Road Gang", which lobbies for highway > > construction has far more resources than rail transit lobbyists.). If > > evacuated tube transport is really superior we will be able to demonstrate > > that with objective economic analysis rather than insults slung through > > cyberspace. > > > > Best holiday wishes, > > -Todd Litman > > > > At 11:46 PM 12/23/2004 -0500, Daryl Oster wrote: > > > >Todd, > > > > > >The 50 factor is on a passenger mile basis - the only reasonable way to > > >measure the value of the subsidy. > > > > > >Using your fed expenditure numbers: > > > > > >One third of $104B = $35B; roads account for about 80% of passenger > > >transportation. > > >Rail = $16.7B + $1.2B = $17.9B; rail accounts for 1% of passenger > > >transportation. > > >SO > > >(80%/1%) X (17.9B/35B)= 41 > > > > > >Not quite the 50 factor claimed by Cox; but he makes his case quite clear > > >without any need for me to elaborate further. > > > > > >Daryl Oster > > >(c) 2004 all rights reserved. ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth" > > >e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service > marks > > >of et3.com Inc. For licensing information contact: et3@et3.com , > > >www.et3.com POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423 (352)257-1310 > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Todd Alexander Litman [mailto:litman@vtpi.org] > > > > Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 4:39 PM > > > > To: policy@advancedtransit.org; et3@et3.com; Asia and the Pacific > > > > sustainable transport > > > > Subject: Draft proposal to Principal Voices - Comparing Costs of Modes > > > > > > > > > > > > I feel obliged to respond to the claim made below that rail is > subsidized > > > > > > > > 50 times more than roads, out of concern that some people may actually > > > > > > > > believe it. Let me use the U.S. as an example. > > > > > > > > > > > > In 2000, transportation expenditures by federal, state and local > > > > > > > > governments totaled $167 billion in 2000, of which $104 billion was > for > > > > > > > > roads and only $16.7 billion for rail transit, plus about $1.2 billion > of > > > > > > > > Amtrak. By that measure, highways receive about six times as much > subsidy > > > > > > > > as rail. You could argue that two-thirds of roadway expenditures are > from > > > > > > > > motorist user fees, but on the other hand, automobile parking > subsidies > > > > > > > > (costs not borne directly by users) are estimated in FHWA studies to > total > > > > > > > > $200 to $500 billion in current dollars, so combined road and parking > > > > > > > > subsidies are 15 to 40 times greater than rail transit subsidies, > > > > depending > > > > > > > > on assumptions. > > > > > > > > > > > > In addition, railroads traditionally pay rent and taxes on their > > > > > > > > rights-of-way, which roads traditionally do not. The economic value of > > > > > > > > roadway land is substantial, approximately equal to roadway > construction > > > > > > > > and maintenance costs. Failing to charge rent or taxes on this land is > a > > > > > > > > substantial, but hidden subsidy of space-intensive modes such as > > > > automobile > > > > > > > > travel. Taking into account this subsidy, highways receive 20 to 50 > times > > > > > > > > more subsidy than rail. > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, there is far more travel by road than by rail, so subsidy > per > > > > > > > > passenger-mile is relatively high for rail transit, but to be fair > this > > > > > > > > comparison should be done for a particular travel condition, since > rail > > > > > > > > transit occurs in congested urban conditions where automobile travel > costs > > > > > > > > are far higher than average due to high road and parking facility > costs > > > > > > > > (not to mention other externalities such as air pollution and barrier > > > > > > > > effects to nonmotorists). Expanding urban highways typically costs > $0.25 > > > > to > > > > > > > > $1.00 per additional peak-period vehicle-mile, plus parking subsidies > that > > > > > > > > average $5 to $15 per day. Rail transit subsidies per passenger-mile, > > > > > > > > although substantial, are generally lower than road and parking > subsidies > > > > > > > > under urban-peak conditions. I suspect that you would find the same > > > > pattern > > > > > > > > in other countries. > > > > > > > > > > > > For more discussion see "Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis" > > > > > > > > (http://www.vtpi.org/tca) and the "Comparing Transit and Automobile > Costs" > > > > > > > > section of "Evaluating Public Transit Benefits and Costs" > > > > > > > > (http://www.vtpi.org/tranben.pdf). > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is generally a mistake to criticize a particular mode as > being > > > > > > > > inefficient or unsustainable. A better approach is to recognize that > > > > nearly > > > > > > > > every mode can play a role in an efficient and sustainable > transportation > > > > > > > > system, including walking, cycling, public transit, inter-city rail, > > > > > > > > highways, and perhaps some new modes yet to be developed. The key is > to > > > > > > > > determine which is most cost effective for a particular situation, > taking > > > > > > > > into account all benefits and costs. I cannot say how Evacuated Tube > > > > > > > > Transport costs compare with other modes because we lack operating > > > > > > > > examples. It would be interesting to perform a comprehensive analysis. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best holiday wishes, > > > > > > > > -Todd Litman > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At 08:05 PM 12/22/2004 -0500, Daryl Oster wrote: > > > > > > > > >Vittal and Eric, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Thanks for pointing out my lax search method with respect to > > > > Ellatuvalapil > > > > > > > > >Sreedharan, I should have considered that he may not use his first > name. > > > > I > > > > > > > > >now have plenty of references, and concur his expert status is > warranted. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Eric, > > > > > > > > >I am glad that you agree that Wendell Cox would be a good balance for > a > > > > well > > > > > > > > >rounded debate. And there is a need for at least a third voice for > > > > > > > > >transportation, a strong voice to represent advanced transportation > > > > > > > > >technology. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >It is clear to many of us that roads are not sustainable, and have > passed > > > > > > > > >the point of diminishing returns; most agree change is needed. Even > if > > > > it > > > > > > > > >could be shown that trains, bicycles, and muscle offer energy and > > > > > > > > >environmental sustainability (there is plenty of evidence to suggest > they > > > > do > > > > > > > > >not), it is proven they are not socially sustainable. In spite of > being > > > > > > > > >subsidized 50 times more than road, trains are still loosing market > share > > > > to > > > > > > > > >cars. Trains once had market share in Japan, Europe, and the US -- > now > > > > > > > > >roads have market share because cars are more sustainable. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >The millions in lobby and campaign money of rail interests have done > > > > their > > > > > > > > >damage - they have poisoned the opinions of politicians, bureaucrats, > and > > > > > > > > >educators with their: "smoke and mirrors" presentations, outright > lies, > > > > and > > > > > > > > >"free" gifts of dinners, travel, accommodations, and RFP drafting > > > > > > > > >assistance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >To stick ones head in the sand and say: "we must do something, even > if it > > > > is > > > > > > > > >not optimum -- let's go back to what "worked" in the past" is > foolish, > > > > > > > > >especially since there is credible evidence (like ETT, and other > > > > sustainable > > > > > > > > >means) proving there are sustainable alternatives that can be > implemented > > > > > > > > >easier than returning to trains, bikes, and muscle. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >You, I and others justify all the air flights, all the bus, train, > and > > > > car > > > > > > > > >travel because we are using the best tools available to disseminate > our > > > > > > > > >ideals. Guess what -- EVERYONE thinks the same way -- our reasons > for > > > > high > > > > > > > > >energy consumption are justified, and most other peoples reasons are > not > > > > > > > > >justified. If all people in the past had followed your example, and > > > > > > > > >instead of implementing prudent innovation, returned to old ways > whenever > > > > > > > > >new ways encountered problems, we would still be in the Stone Age, > the > > > > > > > > >planet would be stripped of trees, and starvation would be the norm. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Just because you have wasted time in the past to chase down > possibilities > > > > > > > > >that turned out to be dead ends -- do not make the mistake of going > down > > > > a > > > > > > > > >proven dead end, without at least fully checking out the most > promising > > > > > > > > >options. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Daryl Oster > > > > > > > > >(c) 2004 all rights reserved. ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on > earth" > > > > > > > > >e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service > > > > marks > > > > > > > > >of et3.com Inc. For licensing information contact: et3@et3.com , > > > > > > > > >www.et3.com POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423 (352)257-1310 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > > > From: sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com@list.jca.apc.org > > > > > > > > > > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com@list.jca.apc.org] On > > > > Behalf Of > > > > > > > > > > EcoPlan, Paris > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 4:55 AM > > > > > > > > > > To: 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport' > > > > > > > > > > Subject: [sustran] Draft proposal to Principal Voices - Quick > progress > > > > > > > > > > report > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wednesday, December 22, 2004, Paris, France, Europe > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sustainable Friends, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In addition to several much appreciated private letters of > cautious > > > > > > > > > > encouragement on this proposed initiative of 21 Dec, I have > received > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > the last day the following two mailings from proponents of > advanced > > > > > > > > > > transportation technologies, in a phrase free standing new systems > > > > based > > > > > > > > > > on ?new surface transport infrastructure?. I would like to > comment > > > > > > > > > > briefly because I believe this is one of the central pillars that > we > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > to deal with one way or another as we make our important decisions > > > > about > > > > > > > > > > the future of the sector. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Personally I have a great weakness for these proposals and the > > > > engineering > > > > > > > > > > technologies that they bring to the fore. On a number of occasions > > > > during > > > > > > > > > > my career I have carried out pretty extensive international > surveys > > > > > > > > > > looking at the category in general and more specifically things > like > > > > PRT, > > > > > > > > > > GRT, DRT, ITT, ATT, monorails, skycabs by many names, maglev, air > > > > cushion > > > > > > > > > > vehicles, accelerating moving sidewalks, pneumatic tube transport, > and > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > long list goes on. But as my respected colleague and a central > force > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > this movement, Jerry Schneider, Professor Emeritus of Civil > > > > Engineering > > > > > > > > > > and Urban Design and Planning at the University of Washington (see > > > > below) > > > > > > > > > > has said on numerous occasions: ?The problem is implementing it." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That?s it and from the horse?s mouth! To whit my regretful > conclusion > > > > as a > > > > > > > > > > hands-on advisor of policy: given the immediate needs of > > > > sustainability > > > > > > > > > > and our societies, we have to put this on the back burner for now > and > > > > > > > > > > concentrate on what we can do with the infrastructure we have. > Sad > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > possibly even narrow conclusion that it may seem. Fortunately > > > > however, > > > > > > > > > > there is a huge amount that we can in fact achieve working within > the > > > > > > > > > > broad envelope of the infrastructure we have in hand, so to my > mind > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > challenge is to get on with that task. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mr. Daryl Oster, an active proponent of ?ETT? and "space travel on > > > > earth", > > > > > > > > > > for his part goes quite a bit further than I do in his criticism > of > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > way in which the Voices people have set out to organize their > > > > initiative: > > > > > > > > > > starting with a rather unjust hit on the qualifications of the > > > > respected > > > > > > > > > > Mr. Ellatuvalapil Sreedharan to be one of the Voices. I could not > > > > agree > > > > > > > > > > less. The object of any truly creative dialogue, at least as I > > > > understand > > > > > > > > > > it, is to trot out a wide range of views and perspectives, and > indeed > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > would be a major error if we packed the jury in any way. Not only > is > > > > Mr. > > > > > > > > > > Sreedharan a person of real accomplishment in our sector, but also > by > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > way if you Google ?Sreedharan + ?transport OR transportation? you > get > > > > no > > > > > > > > > > less than 2830 call-ups this morning. So we can put that one to > rest, > > > > eh? > > > > > > > > > > ;-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That said Mr. Oster does propose a candidate with international > > > > > > > > > > credentials who might indeed make another interesting apex for a > > > > debate > > > > > > > > > > triangle, Wendell Cox of The Public Purpose > > > > > > > > > > (?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). Fine idea Daryl. I will add him to our short list, > not > > > > least > > > > > > > > > > because of his rigor, persistence, international reach, at times > > > > > > > > > > surprising flexibility -- and the fact that at least half the time > I > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > one do not agree with him. Which of course is the stuff of a good > > > > debate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So there we have it for today. I will let this cook for another > 24 > > > > hours > > > > > > > > > > before dispatching to our contacts there ? so there is still time > for > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > to share both your criticisms, ideas and even encouragement if > there > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > any of that in your end year larder. It?s their party of course, > but > > > > > > > > > > perhaps they will open it up a bit to ensure that it is fully > > > > informed, > > > > > > > > > > lively, varied and creative ? the stuff of a really successful > party. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Salamaat, Shalom, Merry Christmas, and Peace on Earth, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eric Britton > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PS. You may want to check out the latest bulletin of the ITDP at > > > > > > > > > > http://www.itdp.org/. Talk about new transportation ideas and on > > > > street > > > > > > > > > > progress. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > > > From: Jerry Schneider [mailto:jbs@peak.org] > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 10:48 PM > > > > > > > > > > To: eric.britton@ecoplan.org > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [sustran] Draft proposal to Principal Voices team - > For > > > > > > > > > > comment > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At 09:18 AM 12/21/04 -0800, you wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >snip ------------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >These fora and the individuals and groups behind them offer a > clear > > > > cut, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >leading edge, world level state of the art, 21st century > awareness of > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >issues and the full range of solutions -- and while there is no > > > > aversion > > > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >the part of most of us to building new systems and expanding > > > > > > > > > > infrastructure > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >in specific cases, we tend to be far more reserved and I would > like > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > say > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >sophisticated, and indeed practical, when it comes to better > > > > management > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >the infrastructure and systems we already have in place. > Moreover, we > > > > > > > > > > tend > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >too to be rather ambitious when it comes to the creative > integration > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > new > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >communications technologies into the overall systemic > infrastructure, > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >that too might be one of the more promising avenues of the > > > > discussions > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >debate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One wonders what "new systems" you might have in mind? You are > welcome > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > add my ITT website to your list of promising avenues for > discussion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jerry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > > > From: sustran-discuss- > > > > bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org@list.jca.apc.org > > > > > > > > > > [mailto:sustran-discuss- > > > > bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org@list.jca.apc.org] > > > > > > > > > > On Behalf Of Daryl Oster > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 6:46 AM > > > > > > > > > > To: principalvoices@cnn.com; Asia and the Pacific sustainable > > > > transport > > > > > > > > > > Cc: policy@advancedtransit.org > > > > > > > > > > Subject: [sustran] principal voices > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To Whom It May Concern: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > According to your "principal voices" website, the principal voices > are > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "globally-renowned experts". If this is true, why is it that a > Google > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > search for Ellatuvalapil Sreedharan (the principal voice for > > > > > > > > > > transportation) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > turns up ZERO hits? If you are looking for an expert try the > Google > > > > > > > > > > search: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Jerry Schneider" +transportation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This will turn up over 800 hits leading to Transportation > Professor > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (retired) Jerry Schneider. Dr. Schneider is likely the most > renowned > > > > > > > > > > expert > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on leading edge transportation alternatives. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Another Google search: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Wendell Cox" +transportation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This search will turn up 11,000 hits on this transportation > expert. > > > > Why > > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ask either of these experts to debate with Ellatuvalapil > Sreedharan? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If this is really a debate, why are the public questions limited > to 4, > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why is there no criteria on selection? It appears to that the > > > > principal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > voices debates could likely be a showcase for a hidden agenda that > > > > will > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > after the fact be claimed to have been an internationally > recognized > > > > > > > > > > debate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Daryl Oster > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (c) 2004 all rights reserved. ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on > > > > earth" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or > service > > > > > > > > > > marks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of et3.com Inc. For licensing information contact: et3@et3.com > , > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > www.et3.com POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423 (352)257-1310 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > This message has been scanned for viruses and > > > > > > > > > > dangerous content by Netsignia Online > , > > > > and is > > > > > > > > > > believed to be clean. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > Todd Litman, Director > > > > > > > > Victoria Transport Policy Institute > > > > > > > > "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity" > > > > > > > > 1250 Rudlin Street > > > > > > > > Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, Canada > > > > > > > > Phone & Fax: 250-360-1560 > > > > > > > > Email: litman@vtpi.org > > > > > > > > Website: http://www.vtpi.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > This message has been scanned for viruses and > > > > dangerous content by Netsignia Online, and is > > > > believed to be clean. > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > Todd Litman, Director > > Victoria Transport Policy Institute > > "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity" > > 1250 Rudlin Street > > Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, Canada > > Phone & Fax: 250-360-1560 > > Email: litman@vtpi.org > > Website: http://www.vtpi.org > > > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by Netsignia Online, and is > believed to be clean. > From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Fri Dec 31 17:23:25 2004 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (EcoPlan, Paris) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 09:23:25 +0100 Subject: [sustran] 31/12. Post-Tsunami rebuilding - Commentaries Message-ID: <003b01c4ef12$045fe620$6501a8c0@jazz> Dear Sustran Friends, Below you will find the first three responses that have come in subsequent to our call of Wednesday the 29th for discussion of Post-Tsunami rebuilding in the tragically impacted areas in the Indian Ocean. I bring this to your attention since the discussions thus far have been mainly on the New Mobility Agenda site at http://newmobility.org and its forum. I would note that thus far there have been no discussions here in Sustran, but perhaps it is because most of us are away for this otherwise festive end year period. In order to take a stab at keeping these pieces of this important discussions accessible, I am placing the incoming emails in our "Day at the Office" section that you will see at the top of the NMA home page. Finally, we have sprawled across all of our major web sites pleas for contributions to the main aid and emergency relief organizations struggling to do their best in the area. There too we all have our part to do. ********************************************** From: A day at the office [mailto:eric.britton@ecoplan.org] Sent: Friday, December 31, 2004 9:03 AM To: mail@ericbrittononline.com Subject: [A day at the office] 31/12. Post-Tsunami rebuilding - Commentaries [http://the-commons.blogspot.com/2004/12/highest-priority-post-tsunami.html] Three thought-provoking responses from colleagues in Scotland, Australia, and Florida help to our call of 29 December (see below) provide further insight into problems, choices (seen and unseen) and eventual solutions in the face of this natural catastrophe. **************************************************************** Original Message 1: From: michaelm@myoffice.net.au [mailto:michaelm@myoffice.net.au] Sent: Friday, December 31, 2004 2:43 AM To: worldtransport@yahoogroups.com; Subject: RE: [New Mobility/WorldTransport Forum] Post-Tsunami rebuilding Well put Dave ..! A similar story applies to use of the inherent efficiency of rail where relatively very high levels of efficiency in terms of load/energy/fuel ratios can be achieved with much lighter engines and rolling stock than the heavy weight "unsustainable" equipment developed in the "west". [Like your "coal" trains, we used to have "water trains" that carried water to replenish the tanks along the longer haul lines so that the "real" trains did not have to carry so much weight!] For example, one can imagine a freight/passenger system based on light and more frequent "eco+people-friendly" trains similar to sugar cane trains (ours use a small diesel engine but could be any available fuel e.g. bio-fuel) on a much narrower gauge and much lighter track and bed (i.e. track and bed is related to and depends on weight loading per wheel). This image suggests the benefits of rail for loads heavier than can be carried on bicycles (see Dave's email) ... especially in relatively flat coastal country which also looks as if it is of a low load carrying geology. However, the problem of emergency assistance is well described by our friend from Florida DoT in that the emphasis will be on restoring the previous situation ASAP rather than considering other options including whether it might be "improved" by utilising a move to 'more sustainable" transport solutions. But the destruction and removal and non-replacement of damaged freeways after earthquakes provides a good example of not simply replacing the previous situation although there are probably more rail tracks than roads not replaced ...! So the "story" suggests yet another example of an inability to get off the car/road/truck/bus dependency "train" ... even when catastrophic situations AND low cost, high efficiency solutions create an opportunity to do so. The fact that the authorities are now relying increasingly on helicopters (eg several being sent by air at vast expense in an Antonov freighter from Australia) suggests that cost is NOT an issue given the enormous social pressure. However as others have pointed out, this catastrophe is relatively insignificant when compared to the ANNUAL global road toll ... Solutions and suggestions? One suggestion to raise awareness of the transport and land use links (in this case, traditional links to the sea in low lying coastal areas) sounds totally unsympathetic, almost inhuman and potentially politically risky but if it is any of these, then the reasons why must be addressed. It is realistic and must not be forgotten. The comparison with the annual global road toll extended if necessary to include victims of air pollution etc must be emphasised and "aid" to address it contrasted. Have we become too complacent and accepting of the annual road toll such that only catastrophes make news and "sustainable" modes of transport are ignored or forgotten? Should the areas and infrastructure damaged be "restored" or should other strategies be considered too? The second is to emphasise that some transport systems are inherently better than others and that four in particular stand out. 1. walking 2. cycling and other HPV modes 3. rail modes with emphasis on light rather than heavy "efficiency" 4. boats (or traditional "low tech" methods) for moving heavy loads I would argue that these are the "sustainable modes". They emphasise localness, self-sufficiency and appropriateness. Are these some indicators of sustainability? Perhaps. They reduce the emphasis on economic efficiency and bulk, mass, fast or "just in time" travel for goods and/or passengers in favour of "sustainable efficiency" and "appropriate technology" and "localness" ... in the sense that for a trip of up to 1-5kms walking is healthy, and cycling or HPV travel is appropriate, whereas a car is neither esp when the load carrying capacity and fuel/cost efficiency of bicycles and HPVs is taken into account! Somewhere, sometime, we have to take into account the unsustainability of cheap air travel and global freight networks that pass on or avoid externality costs while excluding the vast proportion of the global population for the benefit of a very small proportion. [In this sense, it seems the dependency on the cheap global tourism economy could or should be considered a major "cause" of the tsunami catastrophe.] We have to be careful not to lose track of the inherent efficiency and appropriateness in a "sustainable" sense of these four "sustainable" modes in seeking to emphasise "new" mobility. Unfortunately, the idea of walking or cycling rather than using a car is too easily replaced by use of a bus or truck (or helicopters and other "new" VTOL aircraft!) ... rather than fixed (preferably light) rail modes ... repeating the error of dependency, flexibility and individual travel time preferences which disguise the inappropriateness and danger and unsustainability of modes that encourage faster travel and other-than-localness ... ie more longer, faster and heavier trips ... whether for moving freight or passengers. The bigger problem here is that the hegemony of high speed motorized transport dependency is so ingrained in "the west" that any suggestions that might be worth considering can appear patronising, paternalistic and inappropriate ... and rightly so! We don't set a good example! However, where there is an opportunity to demonstrate appropriate technology in a (more) sustainable mode ie if it provides an appropriate and sustainable solution to the real 'local' needs, then taking that opportunity will add the weight of evidence to the argument that the west is profligate with energy, wealth and space per capita. As with many of these decisions, local democracy suggests that the decisions should be taken by the locals rather than be made by others under pressure of assistance to restore the previous situation and this pressure includes reluctance to refuse foreigners giving specific types of aid. The lessons about "appropriate and sustainable technology" in transport and travel eg as learned in/from China and Vietnam with heavy load carrying bicycles and HPVs and walking should not be allowed to be forgotten or ignored by proponents of "new" modes of travel if "sustainability" is an issue. The lessons apply in urban as well as rural and natural settings, and as Dave points out, in all sorts of conditions, from long wars to sudden catastrophes. Whether we in the west can bother to make the effort is quite another issue! Michael Yeates Brisbane, Australia **************************************************************** Original Message 2: ----------------- From: Tramsol@aol.com Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 14:27:23 EST To: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com Subject: [New Mobility/WorldTransport Forum] Post-Tsunami rebuilding A most telling feature of news coverage immediately post impact was the speed and coverage in restoration of transport achieved by the humble bicycle, almost as soon as the water had subsided to axle depth, bicycles were on the streets ferrying supplies and people, and apart from their limitations on load carrying for mass relief, in a coordinated group the final distribution of essential supplies like water, can be achieved without the delay of having to clear every road for motor vehicles, repair bridges, and get fuel supplies in place. Those organising the aid might note that a bicycle - especially the Phoenix/Flying Pidgeon/Dutch roadster with substantial load carrying racks, has geometry which allows riding with no tyres, backpedal brakes allow riding with near-round wheels, and bikes don't need fuel bunkerage and fuel supply taking valuable space on incoming transport (nice analogy here with the far North Highland line where steam trains required a further steam train hauling the coal to replenish the stock of coal at the end of the line to put provide the fuel for the return trip, including taking coal for the engine that hauled the coal up for the engines...). Maybe some lessons to learn here also from Vietnam - where 50,000 Tons of supplies were shipped down from Hanoi to Da Nang on bicycles, with the riders walking down guiding their bikes with bamboo extensions to saddle and handlebars, and each bike carrying roughly 250Kg of supplies, along jungle trails, and going around on very basic temporary structures where bridges and roads had been destroyed by the US military who could not conceve that such a vast supply chain could work without large trucks and roads. Once unloaded the bamboo extensions were detached and the bikes returned to being ridden machines for the return trip. If the relief is to get to the people then the bicycle has a major role in reaching every remote location where there are no roads available. Dave Holladay Transportation Management Solutions 6 Woodlands Terrace Glasgow G3 6DH 0141 332 4733 Phone 07 710 535 404 Mobile *************************************************************** Original Message 3----- From: tara.bartee@dot.state.fl.us Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 4:15 PM To: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [New Mobility/WorldTransport Forum] HIGHEST PRIORITY: Post-Tsunami rebuilding - the role of sustainable mobility proponents Eric; You are correct that it will be incredibly difficult to get heard. I took part in the disaster response in Florida to our four hurricanes this year. I can attest that the hectic nature of response makes it very difficult to deal with the simplest of issues, much less real changes in infrastructure. The disparity in resources makes me think that whatever difficulties we had here are absolutely nothing compared to those in the path of the tsunami. The pressure to get things going again as fast as possible will be incredible. It will be essential to get transportation going first, or the rest of the relief won't be able get through. Time to rethink HOW things will be rebuilt will be an unbelievable luxury. What gets accomplished in the initial response has a serious impact on what can be accomplished in the ongoing recovery stage. The existing system will have to be replaced, perhaps with incremental improvements. A better strategy might be to monitor the response for sustainability issues. Afterwards, make cogent, specific recommendations to international disaster response and recovery organizations on planning in advance to correct "mistakes" when a disaster presents an "opportunity". For example, in much of the flood prone US, property owners are advised that in the next "event" they will not get federal disaster assistance to rebuild in the flood plain. Such aid will be available only for relocation and building anew on higher ground. Thus incremental restructuring occurs. The URL below takes you to an article about some of the advance planning we do in Florida. http://www.govpro.com/ASP/ViewArticle.asp?strArticleId=104275 And this takes you to some planning for the next disaster. http://www.floridadisaster.org/recovery/ This interesting URL lists numerous international disaster relief efforts. http://wwww.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/vLND?OpenView&Start=1 and their home page looks interesting as well http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf Tara Bartee Public Transit Office FDOT Voice 850-414-4520 FAX 850-414-4508 E-Mail tara.bartee@dot.state.fl.us ********************************************************* Wednesday, December 29, 2004, Paris, France, Europe Dear Friends and Colleagues, In the wake of the current tragic events in the regions affected by Tsunami, and once the terrible immediate health and basic needs of these areas and their people have started to be met, it is going to be time to take a number of decisions about rebuilding in all those impacted areas. And at the center of this rebuilding will be the transportation sector. Since this is the case, and since it opens up some unique opportunities in terms of sustainability, I invite us to think about it together. My question to you all here is: might this be a unique opportunity for us to make the voice of sustainable transportation and social justice heard once and for all as it should be? There are at least three things about this approach that recommend it strongly in the immediate situation and the after-math. First, sustainability proponents are used to figuring out how to get the most mileage, the most sustainable mobility bang per buck, out of the infrastructure and related realties and constraints before them. Second, they are accustomed to dealing with the physical mobility issues and needs in a far more resource and environmentally efficient manner. And third, the sustainability approach to defining and meeting the needs of people is based on an active citizenry, surely a precondition of the rapid progress which is needed at this time. So for all these reasons, the sustainability approach should be at the center of the transport policy and practice debate and decisions that must now follow. Here's our bottom line: The proponents of sustainable development now have a unique opportunity to influence transportation decisions and the specific hands-on programs and measure that follow, not only in the affected tragic regions but also world wide - since anything of real value that is accomplished there is going to gain world wide attention. But are we as yet geared up really to make our voices heard at this time? It is my view that despite the growing body of expertise and accomplishment, the proponents of sustainable transportation or new mobility are still very much a minority and until now not able to get in there and really change the problematique and the practices when it comes to investing money and making the big decisions which shape the system. In this context, I would like to propose here that those of you who have not as yet had an opportunity to look over our proposal for sustainable transportation as a "Third Voice" in the coming high profile international project, might wish to check out the following latest draft of the proposal in process - with a view to seeing if anything here can be used or built on to create the higher profile 'voice' that is going to be needed in the months and several years immediately ahead to make the wise decisions that are going to be essential if the rebuilding efforts are to be accomplished with maximum speed and best overall fit into the communities and people directly affected. To conclude: It may well be that my proposal that follows here is not the best way for us to join voices to see what can be done now to influence these important decisions that are going to be make in our beloved sector. No problem. Toss it out the window, and come in here with your suggestions. The issues are so very important, the opportunity so unique, and the decision window likely to be open for such a short period, that we really need to seize this opportunity to be every bit as smart and responsible as we can be. I hope that this will set off better thoughts and a course of action that mobilizes as many of us as possible. Eric Britton -- Posted by Eric Britton On Line to A day at the office at 12/31/2004 08:47:28 AM From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Fri Dec 31 17:24:53 2004 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (EcoPlan, Paris) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 09:24:53 +0100 Subject: [sustran] 31/12. Post-Tsunami rebuilding - Commentaries Message-ID: <003c01c4ef12$383a4850$6501a8c0@jazz> Dear Sustran Friends, Below you will find the first three responses that have come in subsequent to our call of Wednesday the 29th for discussion of Post-Tsunami rebuilding in the tragically impacted areas in the Indian Ocean. I bring this to your attention since the discussions thus far have been mainly on the New Mobility Agenda site at http://newmobility.org and its forum. I would note that thus far there have been no discussions here in Sustran, but perhaps it is because most of us are away for this otherwise festive end year period. In order to take a stab at keeping these pieces of this important discussions accessible, I am placing the incoming emails in our "Day at the Office" section that you will see at the top of the NMA home page. Finally, we have sprawled across all of our major web sites pleas for contributions to the main aid and emergency relief organizations struggling to do their best in the area. There too we all have our part to do. ********************************************** From: A day at the office [mailto:eric.britton@ecoplan.org] Sent: Friday, December 31, 2004 9:03 AM To: mail@ericbrittononline.com Subject: [A day at the office] 31/12. Post-Tsunami rebuilding - Commentaries [http://the-commons.blogspot.com/2004/12/highest-priority-post-tsunami.html] Three thought-provoking responses from colleagues in Scotland, Australia, and Florida help to our call of 29 December (see below) provide further insight into problems, choices (seen and unseen) and eventual solutions in the face of this natural catastrophe. **************************************************************** Original Message 1: From: michaelm@myoffice.net.au [mailto:michaelm@myoffice.net.au] Sent: Friday, December 31, 2004 2:43 AM To: worldtransport@yahoogroups.com; Subject: RE: [New Mobility/WorldTransport Forum] Post-Tsunami rebuilding Well put Dave ..! A similar story applies to use of the inherent efficiency of rail where relatively very high levels of efficiency in terms of load/energy/fuel ratios can be achieved with much lighter engines and rolling stock than the heavy weight "unsustainable" equipment developed in the "west". [Like your "coal" trains, we used to have "water trains" that carried water to replenish the tanks along the longer haul lines so that the "real" trains did not have to carry so much weight!] For example, one can imagine a freight/passenger system based on light and more frequent "eco+people-friendly" trains similar to sugar cane trains (ours use a small diesel engine but could be any available fuel e.g. bio-fuel) on a much narrower gauge and much lighter track and bed (i.e. track and bed is related to and depends on weight loading per wheel). This image suggests the benefits of rail for loads heavier than can be carried on bicycles (see Dave's email) ... especially in relatively flat coastal country which also looks as if it is of a low load carrying geology. However, the problem of emergency assistance is well described by our friend from Florida DoT in that the emphasis will be on restoring the previous situation ASAP rather than considering other options including whether it might be "improved" by utilising a move to 'more sustainable" transport solutions. But the destruction and removal and non-replacement of damaged freeways after earthquakes provides a good example of not simply replacing the previous situation although there are probably more rail tracks than roads not replaced ...! So the "story" suggests yet another example of an inability to get off the car/road/truck/bus dependency "train" ... even when catastrophic situations AND low cost, high efficiency solutions create an opportunity to do so. The fact that the authorities are now relying increasingly on helicopters (eg several being sent by air at vast expense in an Antonov freighter from Australia) suggests that cost is NOT an issue given the enormous social pressure. However as others have pointed out, this catastrophe is relatively insignificant when compared to the ANNUAL global road toll ... Solutions and suggestions? One suggestion to raise awareness of the transport and land use links (in this case, traditional links to the sea in low lying coastal areas) sounds totally unsympathetic, almost inhuman and potentially politically risky but if it is any of these, then the reasons why must be addressed. It is realistic and must not be forgotten. The comparison with the annual global road toll extended if necessary to include victims of air pollution etc must be emphasised and "aid" to address it contrasted. Have we become too complacent and accepting of the annual road toll such that only catastrophes make news and "sustainable" modes of transport are ignored or forgotten? Should the areas and infrastructure damaged be "restored" or should other strategies be considered too? The second is to emphasise that some transport systems are inherently better than others and that four in particular stand out. 1. walking 2. cycling and other HPV modes 3. rail modes with emphasis on light rather than heavy "efficiency" 4. boats (or traditional "low tech" methods) for moving heavy loads I would argue that these are the "sustainable modes". They emphasise localness, self-sufficiency and appropriateness. Are these some indicators of sustainability? Perhaps. They reduce the emphasis on economic efficiency and bulk, mass, fast or "just in time" travel for goods and/or passengers in favour of "sustainable efficiency" and "appropriate technology" and "localness" ... in the sense that for a trip of up to 1-5kms walking is healthy, and cycling or HPV travel is appropriate, whereas a car is neither esp when the load carrying capacity and fuel/cost efficiency of bicycles and HPVs is taken into account! Somewhere, sometime, we have to take into account the unsustainability of cheap air travel and global freight networks that pass on or avoid externality costs while excluding the vast proportion of the global population for the benefit of a very small proportion. [In this sense, it seems the dependency on the cheap global tourism economy could or should be considered a major "cause" of the tsunami catastrophe.] We have to be careful not to lose track of the inherent efficiency and appropriateness in a "sustainable" sense of these four "sustainable" modes in seeking to emphasise "new" mobility. Unfortunately, the idea of walking or cycling rather than using a car is too easily replaced by use of a bus or truck (or helicopters and other "new" VTOL aircraft!) ... rather than fixed (preferably light) rail modes ... repeating the error of dependency, flexibility and individual travel time preferences which disguise the inappropriateness and danger and unsustainability of modes that encourage faster travel and other-than-localness ... ie more longer, faster and heavier trips ... whether for moving freight or passengers. The bigger problem here is that the hegemony of high speed motorized transport dependency is so ingrained in "the west" that any suggestions that might be worth considering can appear patronising, paternalistic and inappropriate ... and rightly so! We don't set a good example! However, where there is an opportunity to demonstrate appropriate technology in a (more) sustainable mode ie if it provides an appropriate and sustainable solution to the real 'local' needs, then taking that opportunity will add the weight of evidence to the argument that the west is profligate with energy, wealth and space per capita. As with many of these decisions, local democracy suggests that the decisions should be taken by the locals rather than be made by others under pressure of assistance to restore the previous situation and this pressure includes reluctance to refuse foreigners giving specific types of aid. The lessons about "appropriate and sustainable technology" in transport and travel eg as learned in/from China and Vietnam with heavy load carrying bicycles and HPVs and walking should not be allowed to be forgotten or ignored by proponents of "new" modes of travel if "sustainability" is an issue. The lessons apply in urban as well as rural and natural settings, and as Dave points out, in all sorts of conditions, from long wars to sudden catastrophes. Whether we in the west can bother to make the effort is quite another issue! Michael Yeates Brisbane, Australia **************************************************************** Original Message 2: ----------------- From: Tramsol@aol.com Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 14:27:23 EST To: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com Subject: [New Mobility/WorldTransport Forum] Post-Tsunami rebuilding A most telling feature of news coverage immediately post impact was the speed and coverage in restoration of transport achieved by the humble bicycle, almost as soon as the water had subsided to axle depth, bicycles were on the streets ferrying supplies and people, and apart from their limitations on load carrying for mass relief, in a coordinated group the final distribution of essential supplies like water, can be achieved without the delay of having to clear every road for motor vehicles, repair bridges, and get fuel supplies in place. Those organising the aid might note that a bicycle - especially the Phoenix/Flying Pidgeon/Dutch roadster with substantial load carrying racks, has geometry which allows riding with no tyres, backpedal brakes allow riding with near-round wheels, and bikes don't need fuel bunkerage and fuel supply taking valuable space on incoming transport (nice analogy here with the far North Highland line where steam trains required a further steam train hauling the coal to replenish the stock of coal at the end of the line to put provide the fuel for the return trip, including taking coal for the engine that hauled the coal up for the engines...). Maybe some lessons to learn here also from Vietnam - where 50,000 Tons of supplies were shipped down from Hanoi to Da Nang on bicycles, with the riders walking down guiding their bikes with bamboo extensions to saddle and handlebars, and each bike carrying roughly 250Kg of supplies, along jungle trails, and going around on very basic temporary structures where bridges and roads had been destroyed by the US military who could not conceve that such a vast supply chain could work without large trucks and roads. Once unloaded the bamboo extensions were detached and the bikes returned to being ridden machines for the return trip. If the relief is to get to the people then the bicycle has a major role in reaching every remote location where there are no roads available. Dave Holladay Transportation Management Solutions 6 Woodlands Terrace Glasgow G3 6DH 0141 332 4733 Phone 07 710 535 404 Mobile *************************************************************** Original Message 3----- From: tara.bartee@dot.state.fl.us Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 4:15 PM To: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [New Mobility/WorldTransport Forum] HIGHEST PRIORITY: Post-Tsunami rebuilding - the role of sustainable mobility proponents Eric; You are correct that it will be incredibly difficult to get heard. I took part in the disaster response in Florida to our four hurricanes this year. I can attest that the hectic nature of response makes it very difficult to deal with the simplest of issues, much less real changes in infrastructure. The disparity in resources makes me think that whatever difficulties we had here are absolutely nothing compared to those in the path of the tsunami. The pressure to get things going again as fast as possible will be incredible. It will be essential to get transportation going first, or the rest of the relief won't be able get through. Time to rethink HOW things will be rebuilt will be an unbelievable luxury. What gets accomplished in the initial response has a serious impact on what can be accomplished in the ongoing recovery stage. The existing system will have to be replaced, perhaps with incremental improvements. A better strategy might be to monitor the response for sustainability issues. Afterwards, make cogent, specific recommendations to international disaster response and recovery organizations on planning in advance to correct "mistakes" when a disaster presents an "opportunity". For example, in much of the flood prone US, property owners are advised that in the next "event" they will not get federal disaster assistance to rebuild in the flood plain. Such aid will be available only for relocation and building anew on higher ground. Thus incremental restructuring occurs. The URL below takes you to an article about some of the advance planning we do in Florida. http://www.govpro.com/ASP/ViewArticle.asp?strArticleId=104275 And this takes you to some planning for the next disaster. http://www.floridadisaster.org/recovery/ This interesting URL lists numerous international disaster relief efforts. http://wwww.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/vLND?OpenView&Start=1 and their home page looks interesting as well http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf Tara Bartee Public Transit Office FDOT Voice 850-414-4520 FAX 850-414-4508 E-Mail tara.bartee@dot.state.fl.us ********************************************************* Wednesday, December 29, 2004, Paris, France, Europe Dear Friends and Colleagues, In the wake of the current tragic events in the regions affected by Tsunami, and once the terrible immediate health and basic needs of these areas and their people have started to be met, it is going to be time to take a number of decisions about rebuilding in all those impacted areas. And at the center of this rebuilding will be the transportation sector. Since this is the case, and since it opens up some unique opportunities in terms of sustainability, I invite us to think about it together. My question to you all here is: might this be a unique opportunity for us to make the voice of sustainable transportation and social justice heard once and for all as it should be? There are at least three things about this approach that recommend it strongly in the immediate situation and the after-math. First, sustainability proponents are used to figuring out how to get the most mileage, the most sustainable mobility bang per buck, out of the infrastructure and related realties and constraints before them. Second, they are accustomed to dealing with the physical mobility issues and needs in a far more resource and environmentally efficient manner. And third, the sustainability approach to defining and meeting the needs of people is based on an active citizenry, surely a precondition of the rapid progress which is needed at this time. So for all these reasons, the sustainability approach should be at the center of the transport policy and practice debate and decisions that must now follow. Here's our bottom line: The proponents of sustainable development now have a unique opportunity to influence transportation decisions and the specific hands-on programs and measure that follow, not only in the affected tragic regions but also world wide - since anything of real value that is accomplished there is going to gain world wide attention. But are we as yet geared up really to make our voices heard at this time? It is my view that despite the growing body of expertise and accomplishment, the proponents of sustainable transportation or new mobility are still very much a minority and until now not able to get in there and really change the problematique and the practices when it comes to investing money and making the big decisions which shape the system. In this context, I would like to propose here that those of you who have not as yet had an opportunity to look over our proposal for sustainable transportation as a "Third Voice" in the coming high profile international project, might wish to check out the following latest draft of the proposal in process - with a view to seeing if anything here can be used or built on to create the higher profile 'voice' that is going to be needed in the months and several years immediately ahead to make the wise decisions that are going to be essential if the rebuilding efforts are to be accomplished with maximum speed and best overall fit into the communities and people directly affected. To conclude: It may well be that my proposal that follows here is not the best way for us to join voices to see what can be done now to influence these important decisions that are going to be make in our beloved sector. No problem. Toss it out the window, and come in here with your suggestions. The issues are so very important, the opportunity so unique, and the decision window likely to be open for such a short period, that we really need to seize this opportunity to be every bit as smart and responsible as we can be. I hope that this will set off better thoughts and a course of action that mobilizes as many of us as possible. Eric Britton -- Posted by Eric Britton On Line to A day at the office at 12/31/2004 08:47:28 AM