From ericbruun at earthlink.net Sat May 1 01:41:04 2004 From: ericbruun at earthlink.net (Eric Bruun) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 12:41:04 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Yet more on UK Funding switch from Light Rail to Busway References: <007c01c42b72$890aa9a0$0101a8c0@fujitsu83p69tb><01df01c42e31$46633b00$a9f845cf@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <001101c42ed1$f1051060$20fa45cf@earthlink.net> Jonathon I hope we can agree to disagree. I have read your paper. I don't accept that you have studied this more than I have. I an in the consuting business nowadays, not in academia, so I haven't been publishing. But this doesn't mean that I haven't worked on it. I have a few comments in my self defense. "Right-wing idealogues" is not a cheap shot. The history of the British deregulation is that it was promoted by right-wing idealogues in the early 1980s. There was very little support for it in the professional public transport community. I also said that there are factors that support rail in some circumstances, I did not say in all circumstances. Thus, I don't disagree with some of your comments. So, of course, bridges and tunnels should be avoided, but sometimes there simply isn't any other realistic choice. Of course, there might be a lot of railcars sitting around during midday -- these are the types of trade-offs one has to make. (There might be many buses sitting around as well, by the way). And I certainly don't disagree that the analysis can be complex. That is the point I thought I was making. Efficiency, for example, is not the only criterion. It must be balanced amongst others. If one does only what is the most efficient, service would be limited only to certain corridors and at certain times, serving limited types of trips. In the case of most US cities, this would be mostly commuters to the Central Business District. Yet, there are lots of people who need to get to places not on these corridors. Should we just forget them? In the real world of political pressure on management, equity also counts. Radial trunk services with feeders are one way this is addressed. This is the idea behind many of the new LRT rail/bus networks; this has increased the connections for suburbs. The Houston bus-on-freeway network may be efficient, but it is not equitable -- this system works for downtown commuters but is very weak in the cross-suburb market and gets its speed by limiting the amount of service between intermediate origins and destinations along the corridor, and by having stops along the motorway rather than closer to where passengers want to go. As for my "conjecture" that better service for an equal operating budget can be provided with a trunk and feeder system than with separate radial routes, this can be shown with an engineering cost model. Since so many people keep challenging my assertion, I am submitting an academic paper that gives a good example in the very near future. In the meantime, there is empirical evidence to support my assertion. Have a look at Thompson and Matoff's article "Keeping up with the Jones" in the Summer 2003 edition of Journal of the American Planning Association. The newer LRT systems using trunk and feeder have comparable or better efficiency than the radial bus systems and much better equity, in that they provide the suburban and off-peak markets with more frequent service. Eric ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jonathan E. D. Richmond" To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 11:23 PM Subject: [sustran] Re: More on UK Funding switch from Light Rail to Busway > On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Eric Bruun wrote: > > > > > > > Dear Sustran readers: > > > > Covering operating costs, even by the definition used in Dublin, would be > > considered an excellent result in most of the richer cities in Europe and > > North America. But this definition of covering operating cost is > > problematic, of I will mention more below. > > > > As I have said before, I support quality bus network additions, but they are > > not necessarily the equal of rail projects. I don't know the circumstances > > of the specific alignments in Dublin, but here are some considerations that > > can often makes rail a better alternative: > > > > 1) High labor costs. If demand is high and service is frequent, then very > > large vehicles cut labor costs. If Dublin is like the UK, operator wages are > > probably quite low and unions weak or non-existent. In this case labor costs > > are not as important as in countries where workers are better paid. > > > > The cheaper cost from larger vehicles argument is based largely on myth. > Cost structures are complex, and in a great many cases bus costs come in > well below rail for equivalent volumes of service ata given quality level. > I interviewed dozens of people who came out with the claim that trains > were cheaper because "you only need one driver," and such imagery does > influence decision makers. The reality is different. > > > > 2) High peak to base ratios. Rail vehicles can have their rakes (or consists > > in North America) lengthened at low marginal cost. > > Yes, but you still pay for the capital equipment sitting idle most of the > day, and there are also system costs and oiperational issues to changing > consists during the day -- and as I said, the cost of drivers is but one > of many. > > > Each unit of bus capacity > > costs the same as the last on busways. The marginal cost for buses (and old > > fashioned streetcars) actually increases during peak hours if they are in > > mixed traffic operation. > > > > But you cannot compare that situation with a rail one as you are not > comparing like with like. Data shows that busway operating costs are > substantially below rail equivalents. Please see my "whole system > approach" paper on this, where I presented a great deal of data. > > > > > 3) Existing disused rail rights-of-way in decent locations can save a lot of > > time and money for rail projects. > > And you can put buses on them as well if you really want to, but a major > problem has been the use of such disused rights-of-way simply because they > exist, and not because they follow useful routes. There are many examples > of this across the States, for example in Sacramento where the light rail > crosses industrial areas with difficult access to housing. > > > > > > 4) Where there is no way to avoid tunneling or huge suspension bridges. Once > > this is necessary, then the cost of rail and electrification may not be such > > a large incremental increase. Not every large city has the width of > > right-of-way available that the main trunk line of TransMillenio in Bogota > > requires. Creating such a corridor would require the same kind of massive > > dislocation and disruption that motorways require. There also may be serious > > water crossings. > > These are high-cost options. Of course, bus tunnels can be built, as in > Seattle, but an alternative approach is to try to make existing > surface-level infrastructure work better. > > > > > > 5) Lack of enforcement of bus lanes. > > So enforce them! > > Rail rights-of-way can be designed to > > deter other vehicles. (Bus rights-of-way can also do this, in theory, but > > there is often much pressure to let other vehicles fill the "empty space".) > > > > This is not likely to happen with a well-designed busway. But, in certain > cases, it may make sense to allow other vehicles in. For example, the > extensive busway corridors built in Houston operate with carpools as well, > thereby carrying a great volume of efficiently packed vehicles. Houston > has documented substantial environmental improvement from its transportation > developments, unmatched by any of the cities that have gone for rail. > > > > 6) Corridors where development is going to intensify. Even if the demand is > > met by buses at a reasonable frequency today, there may have to be a > > continuous wall of them in the future. > > More misleading imagery. Rail systems operating in the street are > disruptive as well. If there is a separate right of way, buses are no more > of an impediment than trains. > > This becomes quite unattractive in > > areas where there are many residences and/or pedestrians. It also means that > > pedestrians have to be excluded. Fewer rail vehicles providing equal > > capacity at much longer headways might make it possible to keep the > > right-of-way more open. > > > > 7) System operating cost is relevant, not modal operating cost. This is > > where the auditors and right-wing idealogues get it all wrong. In some > > corridors it makes sense to transfer passengers to large trunk vehicles and > > use the buses for higher frequency local feeders, circulators, and > > tangential connectors. > > This increases costs greatly. Again, I have done a great deal of study on > this and, time and again, bus feeder type financial performance is well > below that of radial/trunk lines. When you covert from bus to rail you > generally move from the costs of providing single-seat direct trunk > services to having to operate feeder bus lines to the rail stations and > then pay for the train costs as well. The combined cost is substantial, > but rail advocates never include the bus feeder costs they have created in > rail system costs. I absolutely agree that system rather than modal cost > is most important -- that's why I wrote about a "whole-system approach." > But we need to look at the evidence in a scientific way. Please, also, do > not refer to "right-wing idealogues" to dismiss people whose opinions you > don't care for. There are many people who care deeply about equity and do > not like observing the damage done to the interests of those of lower > income by projects which waste resources on ineffective rail developments > while ignoring the basic-level bus improvements which could be achieved at > a far lower cost. > > > In this way, more service to more origin-destination > > pairs is offered for an equal operating budget. This is even more true when > > there are high peak-to-base ratios. > > As I have indicated, this is based on conjecture. Check out your facts. > > --Jonathan > > > > > > Eric > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Brendan Finn" > > To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" > > > > Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 5:40 AM > > Subject: [sustran] Re: UK Funding switch from Light Rail to Busway > > > > > > > For what it's worth : > > > > > > In Dublin we will soon have two new tram/LRT lines in operation. The UK > > > National Audit seems to have triggered a little freedom of information > > here. > > > > > > The Rail Procurement Agency (RPA) has entered into a contract with CONNEX > > > who will operate the system. We are told that this contract will have a > > > value of 20 million Euro per year. We are also told that the forecast > > > carryings are 20 million passengers per year, and the forecast revenue > > > (collected by RPA) is 20 million Euro per year. Following the UK National > > > Audit, the RPA has assured us that the forecasting was done to > > > "international standards" - whatever these actually are. > > > > > > The "optimistic" forecast, therefore, is that revenues barely cover direct > > > operating cost. "Optimistic" means that there is zero contribution to the > > > 700 million Euro plus investment, zero contribution to the maintenance > > costs > > > (not in the CONNEX contract), zero contribution to customer-facing > > services > > > such as ticketing and information, and zero surplus for future > > development. > > > Incredibly, that's the "optimistic" version based on the "international > > > standard" forecasts. > > > > > > Forgive my cynicism as I point out that the capital investment on these > > two > > > LRT lines is equivalent to 4 years total costs (note : full costs, not > > > subsidy) for the bus network which always has and always will carry the > > vast > > > majority of public transport passengers in Dublin. It is also about 10 > > times > > > greater than the extensive and excellent Quality Bus Corridor Network > > which > > > is well under way. > > > > > > Trams are very nice to use, and it was very considerate of previous > > > generations to make the investments for many cities. They are truly a > > legacy > > > to any city. However, transport professionals should maintain their > > > integrity and not pretend either that they make economic sense or that > > they > > > are the most effective mobility solution, especially when compared with > > the > > > very best bus-based alternatives. > > > > > > With best wishes, > > > > > > Brendan Finn. > > > _______________________________________________________________________ > > > Contact details are : e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : +353.87.2530286 > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Alan Howes" > > > To: ">" > > > Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 10:20 AM > > > Subject: [sustran] Re: UK Funding switch from Light Rail to Busway > > > > > > > > > I never suggested anyone should rely on the UK government's viewpoint (I > > > gave that up myself a long time ago). I gave the information so that > > people > > > could find out why the UK government is doing what it is doing. > > > > > > My own view, FWIW, is that UK government policy has switched from being > > too > > > much pro-tram to being too much anti-tram - such abrupt policy changes are > > > not helpful, but are unfortunately all too common. > > > > > > But I also feel that where cash for transport investment is scarce, as is > > > often the case in the developing world (but should NOT be the case in the > > UK > > > which is crying out for better transport infrastructure), bus-based > > systems > > > can often offer better value for money than rail-based ones. An > > over-short > > > summary of my views, but I don't have time for more at present. > > > > > > Alan > > > > > > -- > > > Alan Howes > > > Associate Transport Planner > > > Colin Buchanan and Partners > > > > > > 4 St Colme Street > > > Edinburgh EH3 6AA > > > Scotland > > > email: alan.howes@cbuchanan.co.uk > > > tel: (0)131 240 2892 (direct) > > > (0)131 226 4693 (switchboard) > > > (0)7952 464335 (mobile) > > > fax: (0)131 220 0232 > > > www: http:/www.cbuchanan.co.uk/ > > > _______________________________ > > > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended > > > solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. > > > Unless you are the named addressee, or authorised to receive it for the > > > addressee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If > > you > > > have received this email in error please contact the sender by replying to > > > this email. > > > Any views expressed by an individual within this email which do not > > > constitute or record professional advice relating to the business of CBP, > > do > > > not necessarily reflect the views of the company. Any professional advice > > or > > > opinion contained within this email is subject to our terms and conditions > > > of business. > > > We have taken precautions to minimise the risk of transmitting software > > > viruses. We cannot accept liability for any loss or damage caused by > > > software viruses. > > > _______________________________ > > > > > > > > > >>> Eric Bruun 25/04/04 23:09:06 >>> > > > > > > Normally, I just read and learn from this discussion group. But this is > > the > > > second time in the recent past that I simply have to say something. > > > > > > The UK is a very special case. The Central Government's definition of what > > > is good performance is not the same as in Europe or in North America. > > > Because of the Private Finance Initiative, the rates of return required > > are > > > higher than for public projects. Projects also might be based on the > > > investors getting some of the fare revenue. The Croydon Tramlink in London > > > would be considered a success elsewhere, but it is not a financial success > > > for the private investors through no fault of their own. Transport for > > > London sensibly is introducing Smart Cards with integrated fares, so that > > > there are fewer fares collected than anticipated, but the investors are > > not > > > being compensated for this change of plans. > > > > > > This experience is causing potential investors to be cautious. It is not > > > helped by the fact that the Government doesn't allow coordination with bus > > > networks so that there may be massive duplicative service. > > > > > > The last two issues of Urban Transport International have had interesting > > > articles about this. I would not rely only on the Government's viewpoint. > > > > > > Eric Bruun > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Alan P Howes > > > Sent: Apr 25, 2004 9:54 PM > > > To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org > > > Cc: Jerry Schneider > > > Subject: [sustran] UK Funding switch from Light Rail to Busway > > > > > > That's two people now who have asked about the above. Most of the > > > coverage I have seen of this is in the UK specialist magazines Local > > > Transport Today and Transit - neither of which publish on-line. > > > Though I will see if I can find an article to scan. > > > > > > There's some fairly good coverage though, on the BBC website at > > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3651587.stm Useful links to follow too. > > > > > > Another source is the UK Department for Transport website. It's big, > > > and I haven't yet found a definitive article. But if you take a look > > > at - > > > http://www.dft.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi?pn_id=2003_0170 > > > [UK DfT > Home > Local Transport > Local transport plan - process and > > > initiatives > Local transport capital settlements > Local transport > > > plans settlement - December 2003] > > > you will find details of DfT capital grants for local transport. Lots > > > of busways - no trams! If you dig around on the DfT site you might > > > find more. > > > > > > Then, hot off the press (April 23rd) there is a report from the UK > > > National Audit Office at http://www.nao.org.uk/pn/03-04/0304518.htm > > > > > > I haven't had time as yet to read the exec summary, let alone the full > > > report. But basically it is pointing out the fact that tram schemes > > > in the UK have mostly fallen short of meeting planned performance, and > > > looks at why. > > > > > > Regards, Alan > > > -- > > > Alan P Howes, Perthshire, Scotland > > > alan@ourpeagreenboat.co.uk > > > http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/alanhowes/ [Needs Updating!] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- > > Jonathan E. D. Richmond 02 524-5510 (office) > Visiting Fellow Intl.: 662 524-5510 > Transportation Engineering program > School of Civil Engineering, 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: Ms. Nisarat Hansuksa > richmond@alum.mit.edu 02 524-6051 > Intl: 662 524-6051 > http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ > From ericbruun at earthlink.net Sat May 1 01:59:42 2004 From: ericbruun at earthlink.net (Eric Bruun) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 12:59:42 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Response to Brendan References: <007c01c42b72$890aa9a0$0101a8c0@fujitsu83p69tb><01df01c42e31$46633b00$a9f845cf@earthlink.net> <000601c42e87$6b45dda0$0101a8c0@fujitsu83p69tb> Message-ID: <003801c42ed4$8bd5b700$20fa45cf@earthlink.net> Brendan Thanks for the interesting information. It doesn't sound like the case for LRT in Dublin is exceptionally strong. Yes, LRT can be coupled and uncoupled quickly, just like heavy rail. Whether it needs to be done and whether agencies will actually bother to do it are another issue. Sometimes agencies even have convenient places to store cars and don't need the capacity, but they just can't be bothered..... About pedestrians. Looking at German cities might help clarify my point. There are pedestrian malls where an LRV consist will come through every 5 to 15 minutes, and this is considered acceptable without any barriers to pedestrians. If equal throughput is supplied by many single buses, they might be every 30 seconds, and it would no longer be considered as safe or attractive as a pedestrian street. Eric ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brendan Finn" To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 3:47 AM Subject: [sustran] Re: More on UK Funding switch from Light Rail to Busway > Dear Eric, > > I would offer the following in response to your perspective. I keep it > specific to the Dublin LRT case so anyone can take it or leave it based on > the single case study : > > Dublin will open two LRT lines later this year. Only covering operating > costs (which is the OPTIMISTIC scenario) means that there is no contribution > to the 700+ million euro investment, no contribution to track and system > maintenance, no contribution to customer facing services, and no > contribution to system development. That is a lot of public money now, and > continuing indefinitely into the future. Dublin currently has a peak fleet > requirement of about 900 large buses, covers about 75% of its total costs > (including investment). It carries about 85% of the city's public transport > movements, the balance being mostly the suburban heavy rail network. > > The specific LRT alignments are not any better than the Quality Bus Network > (QBN) ones, nor is the forecast operating speed of the LRT particularly > better than the best of the QBNs. The two LRT lines will not intersect, and > they will not be able to run on the suburban rail tracks. Therefore, they > are simply two independent lines. > > Your points in turn : > > 1) Dublin still has an effective public monopoly on passenger transport. > Wages are not low, unions are strong, and labour costs are a significant > factor. > > 2) I do not think there is the same flexibility for modern tram systems, > where they are normally integrated 2- or 3-car sets. I have seen in Poland > and Russia where single car trams operate instead of 2-car or 3-car, but > this is always dropping a car rather than an ability to exploit cheap extra > capacity. Besides, in Dublin the issue is more likely to be one of reaching > a viable level of demand (unless the bus services are decimated to force > mode transfer). Are you mixing here the characteristics of heavy/suburban > rail and light rail ? > > 3) One of the LRT lines is on a disused rail line, the other on an alignment > which has been preserved for more than 20 years for a busway. Thus, the cost > savings have already been achieved. I dread to think of the cost and the > delays if the land had to be bought from scratch. > > 4) No tunnels on this one. Originally there should have been one at St. > Stephen's Green (where one LRT line will now terminate) but they eventually > decided against it on cost grounds, so now it does not connect with the > second line. There is one modest span bridge at Dundrum, replacing the old > rail bridge that was pulled down in the 60's. Nothing special in engineering > terms, it's basically just a flyover, although it looks quite nice. > > The QBN uses existing streetspace, with some minor traffic engineering works > and junction realignment. Total cost for a few hundred km. is about 80 > million Euro. It has the double effect of prioritising the bus services, and > restricting the space available to cars on the key arteries at operational > hours (normally 0700-1900, Mon-Sat). Since there is no physical separation, > the road space is available outside those hours, and can be used in > emergency. > > 5) Enforcement of bus lanes has been patchy since they were introduced here > in 1981, but has greatly improved since the QBN concept. Generally, it is > not a problem. Bus lanes which actually have buses in them are usually > self-enforcing. BTW, taxis with passengers are also allowed to use them, as > are cyclists - except for contraflow lanes, which are bus only. Almost all > the QBN has reasonable bus flows throughout the day, although there are a > few that I would question. People don't often park in bus lanes during > operational hours, and delivery trucks have also got the message since it's > very visible what you are doing. > > The big upside of no separation is cost and speed of implementation, the > ability to squeeze a third lane out of a two lane street, and the > flexibility of the use of the road. The big downside is the guy with two > wheels on or over the white line. But generally it works. > > 6) The "continuous wall" of buses has not yet been a phenomenon to worry the > good folk of Dublin. On the Stillorgan Road QBC (QB Corridor) they average > about 1 per minute. At the moment, the high level of on-bus ticketing, lack > of automatic priority at traffic signals, and need for some redesign of bus > stopping places place a yet-unreached upper limit, but getting these factors > right will allow a quite significant increase in throughput. I'd > particularly like to see more express or limited-stop services - there are > currently licencing restrictions on these - and this would greatly > facilitate the outlying and developing areas. > > Again, are you mixing the characteristics of heavy and light rail ? This > thread began specifically on light-rail and busway. I don't understand the > reference to pedestrians. Since most bus users arrive/leave the stop on > foot, it would be rather silly not to properly accommodate pedestrians. > > 7) In the Dublin case, there are no obvious system-wide v/ modal operating > cost benefits. The two LRT lines are stand-alone. The bus services actually > serve places along the arteries as well as performing line-haul. For the 750 > million euro it's cost us (so far) we could replace the entire Dublin bus > fleet twice (2 by 1,000 buses at 200,000 euro) over a 25-year period, > implement the QBN (80 million), capital finance a fleet of 2,000 small buses > four times (short life) for large-scale DRT (4 by 2,000 by 30,000 euro) and > still have the price of integrated ticketing and AVM left over. These > services would all be profitable or marginal excluding investment costs. > > BTW, I wear by left-wing colours on my sleeve. Where I live and in the > countries I work, funding for public purposes is hard enough to come by, and > to hold on to. The financial viability of services means you can do an awful > lot more with the available funds. > > Footnote : In Ireland, a lot of us had to fight very hard to get funding for > local rural services. Eventually in 2001 the Govt. made about 4 million euro > available for the Rural Transport Initiative. This was disbursed to 35 > different community organisations who each got many local and flexible > mobility services going in all corners of Ireland. It was highly successful > in giving mobility to people previously dependent on lift-giving. The Govt. > is now quietly cutting back that funding. The capital cost alone of the LRT > could have kept such a scheme going for 200 years. > > As I say, this information is specific to Dublin, maybe it is irrelevant > anywhere else. > > With best wishes, > > > Brendan Finn. > _______________________________________________________________________ > Contact details are : e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : +353.87.2530286 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Bruun" > To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" > > Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 10:10 PM > Subject: [sustran] More on UK Funding switch from Light Rail to Busway > > > > > > > > Dear Sustran readers: > > > > Covering operating costs, even by the definition used in Dublin, would be > > considered an excellent result in most of the richer cities in Europe and > > North America. But this definition of covering operating cost is > > problematic, of I will mention more below. > > > > As I have said before, I support quality bus network additions, but they > are > > not necessarily the equal of rail projects. I don't know the circumstances > > of the specific alignments in Dublin, but here are some considerations > that > > can often makes rail a better alternative: > > > > 1) High labor costs. If demand is high and service is frequent, then very > > large vehicles cut labor costs. If Dublin is like the UK, operator wages > are > > probably quite low and unions weak or non-existent. In this case labor > costs > > are not as important as in countries where workers are better paid. > > > > 2) High peak to base ratios. Rail vehicles can have their rakes (or > consists > > in North America) lengthened at low marginal cost. Each unit of bus > capacity > > costs the same as the last on busways. The marginal cost for buses (and > old > > fashioned streetcars) actually increases during peak hours if they are in > > mixed traffic operation. > > > > 3) Existing disused rail rights-of-way in decent locations can save a lot > of > > time and money for rail projects. > > > > 4) Where there is no way to avoid tunneling or huge suspension bridges. > Once > > this is necessary, then the cost of rail and electrification may not be > such > > a large incremental increase. Not every large city has the width of > > right-of-way available that the main trunk line of TransMillenio in Bogota > > requires. Creating such a corridor would require the same kind of massive > > dislocation and disruption that motorways require. There also may be > serious > > water crossings. > > > > 5) Lack of enforcement of bus lanes. Rail rights-of-way can be designed to > > deter other vehicles. (Bus rights-of-way can also do this, in theory, but > > there is often much pressure to let other vehicles fill the "empty > space".) > > > > 6) Corridors where development is going to intensify. Even if the demand > is > > met by buses at a reasonable frequency today, there may have to be a > > continuous wall of them in the future. This becomes quite unattractive in > > areas where there are many residences and/or pedestrians. It also means > that > > pedestrians have to be excluded. Fewer rail vehicles providing equal > > capacity at much longer headways might make it possible to keep the > > right-of-way more open. > > > > 7) System operating cost is relevant, not modal operating cost. This is > > where the auditors and right-wing idealogues get it all wrong. In some > > corridors it makes sense to transfer passengers to large trunk vehicles > and > > use the buses for higher frequency local feeders, circulators, and > > tangential connectors. In this way, more service to more > origin-destination > > pairs is offered for an equal operating budget. This is even more true > when > > there are high peak-to-base ratios. > > > > Eric > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Brendan Finn" > > To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" > > > > Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 5:40 AM > > Subject: [sustran] Re: UK Funding switch from Light Rail to Busway > > > > > > > For what it's worth : > > > > > > In Dublin we will soon have two new tram/LRT lines in operation. The UK > > > National Audit seems to have triggered a little freedom of information > > here. > > > > > > The Rail Procurement Agency (RPA) has entered into a contract with > CONNEX > > > who will operate the system. We are told that this contract will have a > > > value of 20 million Euro per year. We are also told that the forecast > > > carryings are 20 million passengers per year, and the forecast revenue > > > (collected by RPA) is 20 million Euro per year. Following the UK > National > > > Audit, the RPA has assured us that the forecasting was done to > > > "international standards" - whatever these actually are. > > > > > > The "optimistic" forecast, therefore, is that revenues barely cover > direct > > > operating cost. "Optimistic" means that there is zero contribution to > the > > > 700 million Euro plus investment, zero contribution to the maintenance > > costs > > > (not in the CONNEX contract), zero contribution to customer-facing > > services > > > such as ticketing and information, and zero surplus for future > > development. > > > Incredibly, that's the "optimistic" version based on the "international > > > standard" forecasts. > > > > > > Forgive my cynicism as I point out that the capital investment on these > > two > > > LRT lines is equivalent to 4 years total costs (note : full costs, not > > > subsidy) for the bus network which always has and always will carry the > > vast > > > majority of public transport passengers in Dublin. It is also about 10 > > times > > > greater than the extensive and excellent Quality Bus Corridor Network > > which > > > is well under way. > > > > > > Trams are very nice to use, and it was very considerate of previous > > > generations to make the investments for many cities. They are truly a > > legacy > > > to any city. However, transport professionals should maintain their > > > integrity and not pretend either that they make economic sense or that > > they > > > are the most effective mobility solution, especially when compared with > > the > > > very best bus-based alternatives. > > > > > > With best wishes, > > > > > > Brendan Finn. > > > _______________________________________________________________________ > > > Contact details are : e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : +353.87.2530286 > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From richmond at alum.mit.edu Sat May 1 14:45:03 2004 From: richmond at alum.mit.edu (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) Date: Sat, 1 May 2004 12:45:03 +0700 (SE Asia Standard Time) Subject: [sustran] Re: Yet more on UK Funding switch from Light Rail to Busway In-Reply-To: <001101c42ed1$f1051060$20fa45cf@earthlink.net> References: <007c01c42b72$890aa9a0$0101a8c0@fujitsu83p69tb><01df01c42e31$46633b00$a9f845cf@earthlink.net> <001101c42ed1$f1051060$20fa45cf@earthlink.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 30 Apr 2004, Eric Bruun wrote: > > > Jonathon > > I hope we can agree to disagree. I have read your paper. > I don't accept that you have studied this more than I have. > I an in the consuting business nowadays, not in academia, so I haven't been > publishing. But this doesn't mean that I haven't worked on it. > > I have a few comments in my self defense. > > "Right-wing idealogues" is not a cheap shot. The history of the British > deregulation is that it was promoted by right-wing idealogues in the early > 1980s. There was very little support for it in the professional public > transport community. Isn't it better to go on the evidence of performance? > > I also said that there are factors that support rail in some circumstances, > I did not say in all circumstances. Thus, I don't disagree with some of your > comments. So, of course, bridges and tunnels should be avoided, but > sometimes there simply isn't any other realistic choice. Of course, there > might be a lot of railcars sitting around during midday -- these are the > types of trade-offs one has to make. (There might be many buses sitting > around as well, by the way). > > And I certainly don't disagree that the analysis can be complex. That is the > point I thought I was making. > > Efficiency, for example, is not the only criterion. It must be balanced > amongst others. If one does only what is the most efficient, service would > be limited only to certain corridors and at certain times, serving limited > types of trips. In the case of most US cities, this would be mostly > commuters to the Central Business District. Yet, there are lots of people > who need to get to places not on these corridors. Exactly, and with rail systems you are constrained to a small number of corridors while, with the same resources, far more varied services can be provided with buses. Should we just forget > them? No, but the rail promoters in the US cities who have recently acquired rail have done exactly that. In the real world of political pressure on management, equity also > counts. Exactly, and lower income people suffer when they lose direct services and are made to transfer from feeder buses to rail and when bus services get cut back for budgetary reasons taking away vital short-distance local connections for people without access to cars. Radial trunk services with feeders are one way this is addressed. > This is the idea behind many of the new LRT rail/bus networks; this has > increased the connections for suburbs. It has made connections slow and inconvenient in many cases and removed important local services. The Houston bus-on-freeway network > may be efficient, but it is not equitable -- this system works for downtown > commuters but is very weak in the cross-suburb market and gets its speed by > limiting the amount of service between intermediate origins and destinations > along the corridor, and by having stops along the motorway rather than > closer to where passengers want to go. In fact, Houston has two types of system. The park and ride, which caters to suburban commuter interests and an urban bus system that complements it with a range of other services. Commuters going downtown get a much faster service than if light rail were to be stopping at a range of stations, and this works well in the Houston context, as does the ability of the busways to accommodate carpools. The urban system specifically targets low-income users. How would a rail system help the "cross-suburban market?" > > As for my "conjecture" that better service for an equal operating budget can > be provided with a trunk and feeder system than with separate radial routes, > this can be shown with an engineering cost model. I prefer to go by a substantial amount of available empirical evidence to the contrary. Since so many people keep > challenging my assertion, I am submitting an academic paper that gives a > good example in the very near future. In the meantime, there is empirical > evidence to support my assertion. Have a look at Thompson and Matoff's > article "Keeping up with the Jones" in the Summer 2003 edition of Journal of > the American Planning Association. The newer LRT systems using trunk and > feeder have comparable or better efficiency than the radial bus systems and > much better equity, in that they provide the suburban and off-peak markets > with more frequent service. > I hve not yet seen this article, but I have done a great deal of painstaking research on this subject which has strikingly revealed the negative impacts on financial performance of going from a bus only to a rail plus bus feeder configuration. As for equity, just note the demonstrations and protests that took place in Los Angeles following the opening of rail services and parallel degradation of bus services due to budgetary shortfalls occasioned by expensitures on rail. "No more rail. Billions for buses," the placards read, while a major lawsuit, which focused among other things on the discriminatory nature of the rail projects has forced the MTA to put a new emphasis on buses. --Jonathan > Eric > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jonathan E. D. Richmond" > To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" > > Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 11:23 PM > Subject: [sustran] Re: More on UK Funding switch from Light Rail to Busway > > > > On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Eric Bruun wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sustran readers: > > > > > > Covering operating costs, even by the definition used in Dublin, would > be > > > considered an excellent result in most of the richer cities in Europe > and > > > North America. But this definition of covering operating cost is > > > problematic, of I will mention more below. > > > > > > As I have said before, I support quality bus network additions, but they > are > > > not necessarily the equal of rail projects. I don't know the > circumstances > > > of the specific alignments in Dublin, but here are some considerations > that > > > can often makes rail a better alternative: > > > > > > 1) High labor costs. If demand is high and service is frequent, then > very > > > large vehicles cut labor costs. If Dublin is like the UK, operator wages > are > > > probably quite low and unions weak or non-existent. In this case labor > costs > > > are not as important as in countries where workers are better paid. > > > > > > > The cheaper cost from larger vehicles argument is based largely on myth. > > Cost structures are complex, and in a great many cases bus costs come in > > well below rail for equivalent volumes of service ata given quality level. > > I interviewed dozens of people who came out with the claim that trains > > were cheaper because "you only need one driver," and such imagery does > > influence decision makers. The reality is different. > > > > > > > 2) High peak to base ratios. Rail vehicles can have their rakes (or > consists > > > in North America) lengthened at low marginal cost. > > > > Yes, but you still pay for the capital equipment sitting idle most of the > > day, and there are also system costs and oiperational issues to changing > > consists during the day -- and as I said, the cost of drivers is but one > > of many. > > > > > > Each unit of bus capacity > > > costs the same as the last on busways. The marginal cost for buses (and > old > > > fashioned streetcars) actually increases during peak hours if they are > in > > > mixed traffic operation. > > > > > > > But you cannot compare that situation with a rail one as you are not > > comparing like with like. Data shows that busway operating costs are > > substantially below rail equivalents. Please see my "whole system > > approach" paper on this, where I presented a great deal of data. > > > > > > > > > 3) Existing disused rail rights-of-way in decent locations can save a > lot of > > > time and money for rail projects. > > > > And you can put buses on them as well if you really want to, but a major > > problem has been the use of such disused rights-of-way simply because they > > exist, and not because they follow useful routes. There are many examples > > of this across the States, for example in Sacramento where the light rail > > crosses industrial areas with difficult access to housing. > > > > > > > > > > 4) Where there is no way to avoid tunneling or huge suspension bridges. > Once > > > this is necessary, then the cost of rail and electrification may not be > such > > > a large incremental increase. Not every large city has the width of > > > right-of-way available that the main trunk line of TransMillenio in > Bogota > > > requires. Creating such a corridor would require the same kind of > massive > > > dislocation and disruption that motorways require. There also may be > serious > > > water crossings. > > > > These are high-cost options. Of course, bus tunnels can be built, as in > > Seattle, but an alternative approach is to try to make existing > > surface-level infrastructure work better. > > > > > > > > > > 5) Lack of enforcement of bus lanes. > > > > So enforce them! > > > > Rail rights-of-way can be designed to > > > deter other vehicles. (Bus rights-of-way can also do this, in theory, > but > > > there is often much pressure to let other vehicles fill the "empty > space".) > > > > > > > This is not likely to happen with a well-designed busway. But, in certain > > cases, it may make sense to allow other vehicles in. For example, the > > extensive busway corridors built in Houston operate with carpools as well, > > thereby carrying a great volume of efficiently packed vehicles. Houston > > has documented substantial environmental improvement from its > transportation > > developments, unmatched by any of the cities that have gone for rail. > > > > > > > 6) Corridors where development is going to intensify. Even if the demand > is > > > met by buses at a reasonable frequency today, there may have to be a > > > continuous wall of them in the future. > > > > More misleading imagery. Rail systems operating in the street are > > disruptive as well. If there is a separate right of way, buses are no more > > of an impediment than trains. > > > > This becomes quite unattractive in > > > areas where there are many residences and/or pedestrians. It also means > that > > > pedestrians have to be excluded. Fewer rail vehicles providing equal > > > capacity at much longer headways might make it possible to keep the > > > right-of-way more open. > > > > > > 7) System operating cost is relevant, not modal operating cost. This is > > > where the auditors and right-wing idealogues get it all wrong. In some > > > corridors it makes sense to transfer passengers to large trunk vehicles > and > > > use the buses for higher frequency local feeders, circulators, and > > > tangential connectors. > > > > This increases costs greatly. Again, I have done a great deal of study on > > this and, time and again, bus feeder type financial performance is well > > below that of radial/trunk lines. When you covert from bus to rail you > > generally move from the costs of providing single-seat direct trunk > > services to having to operate feeder bus lines to the rail stations and > > then pay for the train costs as well. The combined cost is substantial, > > but rail advocates never include the bus feeder costs they have created in > > rail system costs. I absolutely agree that system rather than modal cost > > is most important -- that's why I wrote about a "whole-system approach." > > But we need to look at the evidence in a scientific way. Please, also, do > > not refer to "right-wing idealogues" to dismiss people whose opinions you > > don't care for. There are many people who care deeply about equity and do > > not like observing the damage done to the interests of those of lower > > income by projects which waste resources on ineffective rail developments > > while ignoring the basic-level bus improvements which could be achieved at > > a far lower cost. > > > > > > In this way, more service to more origin-destination > > > pairs is offered for an equal operating budget. This is even more true > when > > > there are high peak-to-base ratios. > > > > As I have indicated, this is based on conjecture. Check out your facts. > > > > --Jonathan > > > > > > > > > > Eric > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Brendan Finn" > > > To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" > > > > > > Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 5:40 AM > > > Subject: [sustran] Re: UK Funding switch from Light Rail to Busway > > > > > > > > > > For what it's worth : > > > > > > > > In Dublin we will soon have two new tram/LRT lines in operation. The > UK > > > > National Audit seems to have triggered a little freedom of information > > > here. > > > > > > > > The Rail Procurement Agency (RPA) has entered into a contract with > CONNEX > > > > who will operate the system. We are told that this contract will have > a > > > > value of 20 million Euro per year. We are also told that the forecast > > > > carryings are 20 million passengers per year, and the forecast revenue > > > > (collected by RPA) is 20 million Euro per year. Following the UK > National > > > > Audit, the RPA has assured us that the forecasting was done to > > > > "international standards" - whatever these actually are. > > > > > > > > The "optimistic" forecast, therefore, is that revenues barely cover > direct > > > > operating cost. "Optimistic" means that there is zero contribution to > the > > > > 700 million Euro plus investment, zero contribution to the maintenance > > > costs > > > > (not in the CONNEX contract), zero contribution to customer-facing > > > services > > > > such as ticketing and information, and zero surplus for future > > > development. > > > > Incredibly, that's the "optimistic" version based on the > "international > > > > standard" forecasts. > > > > > > > > Forgive my cynicism as I point out that the capital investment on > these > > > two > > > > LRT lines is equivalent to 4 years total costs (note : full costs, not > > > > subsidy) for the bus network which always has and always will carry > the > > > vast > > > > majority of public transport passengers in Dublin. It is also about 10 > > > times > > > > greater than the extensive and excellent Quality Bus Corridor Network > > > which > > > > is well under way. > > > > > > > > Trams are very nice to use, and it was very considerate of previous > > > > generations to make the investments for many cities. They are truly a > > > legacy > > > > to any city. However, transport professionals should maintain their > > > > integrity and not pretend either that they make economic sense or that > > > they > > > > are the most effective mobility solution, especially when compared > with > > > the > > > > very best bus-based alternatives. > > > > > > > > With best wishes, > > > > > > > > Brendan Finn. > > > > > _______________________________________________________________________ > > > > Contact details are : e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : +353.87.2530286 > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Alan Howes" > > > > To: ">" > > > > Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 10:20 AM > > > > Subject: [sustran] Re: UK Funding switch from Light Rail to Busway > > > > > > > > > > > > I never suggested anyone should rely on the UK government's viewpoint > (I > > > > gave that up myself a long time ago). I gave the information so that > > > people > > > > could find out why the UK government is doing what it is doing. > > > > > > > > My own view, FWIW, is that UK government policy has switched from > being > > > too > > > > much pro-tram to being too much anti-tram - such abrupt policy changes > are > > > > not helpful, but are unfortunately all too common. > > > > > > > > But I also feel that where cash for transport investment is scarce, as > is > > > > often the case in the developing world (but should NOT be the case in > the > > > UK > > > > which is crying out for better transport infrastructure), bus-based > > > systems > > > > can often offer better value for money than rail-based ones. An > > > over-short > > > > summary of my views, but I don't have time for more at present. > > > > > > > > Alan > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Alan Howes > > > > Associate Transport Planner > > > > Colin Buchanan and Partners > > > > > > > > 4 St Colme Street > > > > Edinburgh EH3 6AA > > > > Scotland > > > > email: alan.howes@cbuchanan.co.uk > > > > tel: (0)131 240 2892 (direct) > > > > (0)131 226 4693 (switchboard) > > > > (0)7952 464335 (mobile) > > > > fax: (0)131 220 0232 > > > > www: http:/www.cbuchanan.co.uk/ > > > > _______________________________ > > > > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and > intended > > > > solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are > addressed. > > > > Unless you are the named addressee, or authorised to receive it for > the > > > > addressee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. > If > > > you > > > > have received this email in error please contact the sender by > replying to > > > > this email. > > > > Any views expressed by an individual within this email which do not > > > > constitute or record professional advice relating to the business of > CBP, > > > do > > > > not necessarily reflect the views of the company. Any professional > advice > > > or > > > > opinion contained within this email is subject to our terms and > conditions > > > > of business. > > > > We have taken precautions to minimise the risk of transmitting > software > > > > viruses. We cannot accept liability for any loss or damage caused by > > > > software viruses. > > > > _______________________________ > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Eric Bruun 25/04/04 23:09:06 >>> > > > > > > > > Normally, I just read and learn from this discussion group. But this > is > > > the > > > > second time in the recent past that I simply have to say something. > > > > > > > > The UK is a very special case. The Central Government's definition of > what > > > > is good performance is not the same as in Europe or in North America. > > > > Because of the Private Finance Initiative, the rates of return > required > > > are > > > > higher than for public projects. Projects also might be based on the > > > > investors getting some of the fare revenue. The Croydon Tramlink in > London > > > > would be considered a success elsewhere, but it is not a financial > success > > > > for the private investors through no fault of their own. Transport for > > > > London sensibly is introducing Smart Cards with integrated fares, so > that > > > > there are fewer fares collected than anticipated, but the investors > are > > > not > > > > being compensated for this change of plans. > > > > > > > > This experience is causing potential investors to be cautious. It is > not > > > > helped by the fact that the Government doesn't allow coordination with > bus > > > > networks so that there may be massive duplicative service. > > > > > > > > The last two issues of Urban Transport International have had > interesting > > > > articles about this. I would not rely only on the Government's > viewpoint. > > > > > > > > Eric Bruun > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Alan P Howes > > > > Sent: Apr 25, 2004 9:54 PM > > > > To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org > > > > Cc: Jerry Schneider > > > > Subject: [sustran] UK Funding switch from Light Rail to Busway > > > > > > > > That's two people now who have asked about the above. Most of the > > > > coverage I have seen of this is in the UK specialist magazines Local > > > > Transport Today and Transit - neither of which publish on-line. > > > > Though I will see if I can find an article to scan. > > > > > > > > There's some fairly good coverage though, on the BBC website at > > > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3651587.stm Useful links to follow too. > > > > > > > > Another source is the UK Department for Transport website. It's big, > > > > and I haven't yet found a definitive article. But if you take a look > > > > at - > > > > http://www.dft.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi?pn_id=2003_0170 > > > > [UK DfT > Home > Local Transport > Local transport plan - process and > > > > initiatives > Local transport capital settlements > Local transport > > > > plans settlement - December 2003] > > > > you will find details of DfT capital grants for local transport. Lots > > > > of busways - no trams! If you dig around on the DfT site you might > > > > find more. > > > > > > > > Then, hot off the press (April 23rd) there is a report from the UK > > > > National Audit Office at http://www.nao.org.uk/pn/03-04/0304518.htm > > > > > > > > I haven't had time as yet to read the exec summary, let alone the full > > > > report. But basically it is pointing out the fact that tram schemes > > > > in the UK have mostly fallen short of meeting planned performance, and > > > > looks at why. > > > > > > > > Regards, Alan > > > > -- > > > > Alan P Howes, Perthshire, Scotland > > > > alan@ourpeagreenboat.co.uk > > > > http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/alanhowes/ [Needs Updating!] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- > > > > Jonathan E. D. Richmond 02 524-5510 (office) > > Visiting Fellow Intl.: 662 524-5510 > > Transportation Engineering program > > School of Civil Engineering, 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: Ms. Nisarat Hansuksa > > richmond@alum.mit.edu 02 524-6051 > > Intl: 662 524-6051 > > http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ > > > ----- Jonathan E. D. Richmond 02 524-5510 (office) Visiting Fellow Intl.: 662 524-5510 Transportation Engineering program School of Civil Engineering, 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: Ms. Nisarat Hansuksa richmond@alum.mit.edu 02 524-6051 Intl: 662 524-6051 http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ From ajain at kcrc.com Mon May 3 11:29:51 2004 From: ajain at kcrc.com (Jain Alok) Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 10:29:51 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Rail or bus Message-ID: <07B178BAA415FB4A9C9B4AA845F1F2C6259C6D@smail1pa.corp.kcrc.com> Dear Eric and Jonathan, Some interesting arguments in your mails about rail vs. buses. No doubt I have enjoyed your discussions but it has gone a bit philosophical and leading to a bit of activism. Why should this be a rail vs. bus discussion? Why can't this be a rail plus bus discussion? There comes a time when passenger traffic in a corridor becomes so heavy that rail becomes the logical choice. You have cited European and US examples but in Asia, Hong Kong is a good example (for the record, I work for a HK railway company). Buses and rail co-exist and both provide fantastic service. The prices are comparable (so the poor vs rich issue is not a prime concern). Bus lanes are provided in corridors with heavy bus traffic. Usually, at these corridors the railway loadings are higher too. While nobody can argue about the point to point service provided by buses, a corridor requiring over 80,000 pphpd capacity cannot be served by buses (theoretically yes, some may argue, but practically speaking, it would create chaos and service reliability would go haywire). Railways can provide this service. In most of the circumstances if the journey is about 15-20km or more, buses can't beat the railway travel in terms of journey time. Ideally, depending on the demand a new area can be served by buses most efficiently but there comes a threshold beyond which the backbone movements should be moved over to fast, trunk routes such as railways and buses can still supplement and provide local service. I have seen Bangkok system (I studied in AIT, worked in Bangkok briefly, and visit once in while) and the problem with railways is not because they do not provide efficient service but the prices. And these prices have to be kept high because there is no committment to reduce the parallel running bus services. Not the non-aircon services, which serve an entirely different segment which may require a certain level of subsidy, but the aircon buses which charge much higher but are bleeding anyway. The alternative would be to cancel these inefficient aircon bus routes in exchange for a price reduction on railway and both will live happily thereafter. Institutional issues may be difficult to resolve but there is need for somebody with a political courage to take the tough step instead of empty rhetorics (such as the one of solving Bangkok's traffic problems in 3 months time. Reminds me of Harry Potter!!). Keep up the good work. Alok Jain This email and any attachment to it may contain confidential or proprietary information that are intended solely for the person / entity to whom it was originally addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distributing or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, arrive late or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the context of this message which arise as a result of transmission over the Internet. No opinions contained herein shall be construed as being a formal disclosure or commitment of the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation unless specifically so stated. From tr_saranathan at hotmail.com Mon May 3 12:29:11 2004 From: tr_saranathan at hotmail.com (TR Saranathan) Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 03:29:11 +0000 Subject: [sustran] Re: Rail or bus Message-ID: Dear partners, Throughout the world the conditions and factors are different and many times complicated. Even in the biggest Democracy in India, there is a trend of coalition Government. We are nowadays talking about Integrated approaches to balance many vital factors. We talk about Integrated Pest Management, Integrated Solid Waste Management or for that matter any Environmental issue. Hence we have to accept Integrated Transport Management. I agree with Mr.Jain Alok. Dr.T.R.Saranathan >From: Jain Alok >Reply-To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport > >To: 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport' > >Subject: [sustran] Rail or bus >Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 10:29:51 +0800 > >Dear Eric and Jonathan, > >Some interesting arguments in your mails about rail vs. buses. No doubt I >have enjoyed your discussions but it has gone a bit philosophical and >leading to a bit of activism. Why should this be a rail vs. bus discussion? >Why can't this be a rail plus bus discussion? There comes a time when >passenger traffic in a corridor becomes so heavy that rail becomes the >logical choice. You have cited European and US examples but in Asia, Hong >Kong is a good example (for the record, I work for a HK railway company). > >Buses and rail co-exist and both provide fantastic service. The prices are >comparable (so the poor vs rich issue is not a prime concern). Bus lanes >are >provided in corridors with heavy bus traffic. Usually, at these corridors >the railway loadings are higher too. While nobody can argue about the point >to point service provided by buses, a corridor requiring over 80,000 pphpd >capacity cannot be served by buses (theoretically yes, some may argue, but >practically speaking, it would create chaos and service reliability would >go >haywire). Railways can provide this service. In most of the circumstances >if >the journey is about 15-20km or more, buses can't beat the railway travel >in >terms of journey time. > >Ideally, depending on the demand a new area can be served by buses most >efficiently but there comes a threshold beyond which the backbone movements >should be moved over to fast, trunk routes such as railways and buses can >still supplement and provide local service. > >I have seen Bangkok system (I studied in AIT, worked in Bangkok briefly, >and >visit once in while) and the problem with railways is not because they do >not provide efficient service but the prices. And these prices have to be >kept high because there is no committment to reduce the parallel running >bus >services. Not the non-aircon services, which serve an entirely different >segment which may require a certain level of subsidy, but the aircon buses >which charge much higher but are bleeding anyway. The alternative would be >to cancel these inefficient aircon bus routes in exchange for a price >reduction on railway and both will live happily thereafter. Institutional >issues may be difficult to resolve but there is need for somebody with a >political courage to take the tough step instead of empty rhetorics (such >as >the one of solving Bangkok's traffic problems in 3 months time. Reminds me >of Harry Potter!!). > >Keep up the good work. >Alok Jain > >This email and any attachment to it may contain confidential or proprietary >information that are intended solely for the person / entity to whom it was >originally addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, any >disclosure, copying, distributing or any action taken or omitted to be >taken >in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. >Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as >information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, arrive late or contain >viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or >omissions in the context of this message which arise as a result of >transmission over the Internet. >No opinions contained herein shall be construed as being a formal >disclosure >or commitment of the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation unless specifically >so stated. _________________________________________________________________ Don’t miss out on jobs that are not advertised. http://go.msnserver.com/IN/47510.asp Post your CV on naukri.com today. From richmond at alum.mit.edu Mon May 3 13:20:55 2004 From: richmond at alum.mit.edu (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 11:20:55 +0700 (SE Asia Standard Time) Subject: [sustran] Re: Rail or bus In-Reply-To: <07B178BAA415FB4A9C9B4AA845F1F2C6259C6D@smail1pa.corp.kcrc.com> References: <07B178BAA415FB4A9C9B4AA845F1F2C6259C6D@smail1pa.corp.kcrc.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 3 May 2004, Jain Alok wrote: > Dear Eric and Jonathan, > > Some interesting arguments in your mails about rail vs. buses. No doubt I > have enjoyed your discussions but it has gone a bit philosophical and > leading to a bit of activism. Why should this be a rail vs. bus discussion? Good point, and I certainly would call for rail where it makes sense. > Why can't this be a rail plus bus discussion? Because there are many situations where rail investments have had poor results and we need to guard against further inapropriate developments that squander scarce public resources and hurt those of low income. There comes a time when > passenger traffic in a corridor becomes so heavy that rail becomes the > logical choice. Sometimes, but not necessarily. Look at Curitiba, for example. You have cited European and US examples but in Asia, Hong > Kong is a good example (for the record, I work for a HK railway company). > I agree completely: the Hong Kong system is wonderful and makes complete sense. So does the metro of Mexico City. > Buses and rail co-exist and both provide fantastic service. The prices are > comparable (so the poor vs rich issue is not a prime concern). Bus lanes are > provided in corridors with heavy bus traffic. Usually, at these corridors > the railway loadings are higher too. While nobody can argue about the point > to point service provided by buses, a corridor requiring over 80,000 pphpd > capacity cannot be served by buses (theoretically yes, some may argue, but > practically speaking, it would create chaos and service reliability would go > haywire). Railways can provide this service. Absolutely agreed. In most of the circumstances if > the journey is about 15-20km or more, buses can't beat the railway travel in > terms of journey time. > > Ideally, depending on the demand a new area can be served by buses most > efficiently but there comes a threshold beyond which the backbone movements > should be moved over to fast, trunk routes such as railways and buses can > still supplement and provide local service. > As I said, not necessarily. First of all, you make the assumption that there is a "backbone." If needs are dispersed, you may have the metaphor quite wrong, and channeling flows down a rigid hieracrchical type network may not serve needs. Cost is also an issue. With limited resources, difficult choices must be made about who to serve and how this is to be done, and rail is generally a very costly approach. > I have seen Bangkok system (I studied in AIT, worked in Bangkok briefly, and > visit once in while) and the problem with railways is not because they do > not provide efficient service but the prices. And these prices have to be > kept high because there is no committment to reduce the parallel running bus > services. No, it is much more complicated than that. Not only is the difference between rail and bus fares in Bangkok substantial, but rail provides only limited service compared to a complex urban bus network (the network is, indeed, in need of reform, with overly lenthy lines operated with poor timekeeping, but that is another matter). Not the non-aircon services, which serve an entirely different > segment which may require a certain level of subsidy, but the aircon buses > which charge much higher but are bleeding anyway. The alternative would be > to cancel these inefficient aircon bus routes in exchange for a price > reduction on railway and both will live happily thereafter. The passengers certainly would not be happy. The buses serve a whole range of points in-between rail stations as well as beyond them. Institutional > issues may be difficult to resolve but there is need for somebody with a > political courage to take the tough step instead of empty rhetorics (such as > the one of solving Bangkok's traffic problems in 3 months time. Reminds me > of Harry Potter!!). In fact, I think there is a need for cool analytical work to look at the complex characteristics of the population using public transport and the costs and benefits of alternative approaches. This difficult work is rarely done in an independent and unbiased way --Jonathan > > Keep up the good work. > Alok Jain > > This email and any attachment to it may contain confidential or proprietary > information that are intended solely for the person / entity to whom it was > originally addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, any > disclosure, copying, distributing or any action taken or omitted to be taken > in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. > Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as > information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, arrive late or contain > viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or > omissions in the context of this message which arise as a result of > transmission over the Internet. > No opinions contained herein shall be construed as being a formal disclosure > or commitment of the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation unless specifically > so stated. > ----- Jonathan E. D. Richmond 02 524-5510 (office) Visiting Fellow Intl.: 662 524-5510 Transportation Engineering program School of Civil Engineering, 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: Ms. Nisarat Hansuksa richmond@alum.mit.edu 02 524-6051 Intl: 662 524-6051 http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ From karl at dnet.net.id Mon May 3 15:51:08 2004 From: karl at dnet.net.id (Karl Fjellstrom) Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 13:51:08 +0700 Subject: [sustran] Re: Rail or bus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040503065225.C0BFD2C378@list.jca.apc.org> Dear all, I agree with Jonathan's replies on Bangkok. The simple analysis of Alok Jain of the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation on air con buses and the skytrain is incorrect. For one thing air-con buses are not 'inefficient'. They have a better cost recovery than the non-air con buses and with the exception of the BMTA (the state operator which makes a loss on all routes, air-con and non-aircon) they are all profitable despite the adverse operating conditions. Secondly closing bus routes parallel to the skytrain would improve skytrain ridership somewhat but is not a Harry Potter magical stroke which would solve the skytrain ridership problem or magically make reduced skytrain fares viable leading to buses and skytrain 'living happily thereafter' as he puts it. And it would in the mid term lead to yet more proliferation of the air-con passenger vans, as the skytrain is not an option for many people (due to cost and the limited coverage - it's predominantly a corridor of 'destinations') and cutting them off from buses would result in a substantial unmet demand that would probably - based on prior experience - subsequently be met by paratransit, further eroding the viability of the formal large bus sector... Imho rail metros (like bus-based 'metros') can have many benefits as e.g. Todd Litman elaborated. And especially where expensive rail investments have already been made, even if ill-advised, it makes sense to optimise them including by re-organising bus routes. But Hong Kong is a special case. Transit demands of 80,000 pax/hr/dir on one corridor are probably unique. A more normal range is say up to 13,000 pax/hr/dir which can be handled by regular buses or by just a single lane BRT, or in some cases up to 25,000 which is comfortably within the range of BRT and still within the range of regular bus services. BRT currently reaches 35,000 and can in fact go up to 50,000 on the existing Bogota configuration, for example. There are few corridors where public transport demand exceeds 40,000, and even where it does this demand can be split into multiple corridors through establishing a transit network. (In Hong Kong on the Kowloon side much of the demand is channeled into a single line, partly due to unique topography I suppose. Likewise Sao Paulo can hit 60,000 phd by focusing a line on Avenida Paulista with no parallel services.) So the argument that some trunk corridors *require* rail based on demand levels is true but only applies in some very exceptional cases. In cities with demand above a bus-only threshold and below say 50,000 pphpd, if a proper analysis of costs and benefits shows rail to be the better option, then by all means proceed with rail. But so often there is no such proper analysis.... Regards, Karl -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan E. D. Richmond Sent: Monday, 3 May 2004 11:21 AM To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport Subject: [sustran] Re: Rail or bus On Mon, 3 May 2004, Jain Alok wrote: > Dear Eric and Jonathan, > > Some interesting arguments in your mails about rail vs. buses. No > doubt I have enjoyed your discussions but it has gone a bit > philosophical and leading to a bit of activism. Why should this be a rail vs. bus discussion? Good point, and I certainly would call for rail where it makes sense. > Why can't this be a rail plus bus discussion? Because there are many situations where rail investments have had poor results and we need to guard against further inapropriate developments that squander scarce public resources and hurt those of low income. There comes a time when > passenger traffic in a corridor becomes so heavy that rail becomes the > logical choice. Sometimes, but not necessarily. Look at Curitiba, for example. You have cited European and US examples but in Asia, Hong > Kong is a good example (for the record, I work for a HK railway company). > I agree completely: the Hong Kong system is wonderful and makes complete sense. So does the metro of Mexico City. > Buses and rail co-exist and both provide fantastic service. The prices > are comparable (so the poor vs rich issue is not a prime concern). Bus > lanes are provided in corridors with heavy bus traffic. Usually, at > these corridors the railway loadings are higher too. While nobody can > argue about the point to point service provided by buses, a corridor > requiring over 80,000 pphpd capacity cannot be served by buses > (theoretically yes, some may argue, but practically speaking, it would > create chaos and service reliability would go haywire). Railways can provide this service. Absolutely agreed. In most of the circumstances if > the journey is about 15-20km or more, buses can't beat the railway > travel in terms of journey time. > > Ideally, depending on the demand a new area can be served by buses > most efficiently but there comes a threshold beyond which the backbone > movements should be moved over to fast, trunk routes such as railways > and buses can still supplement and provide local service. > As I said, not necessarily. First of all, you make the assumption that there is a "backbone." If needs are dispersed, you may have the metaphor quite wrong, and channeling flows down a rigid hieracrchical type network may not serve needs. Cost is also an issue. With limited resources, difficult choices must be made about who to serve and how this is to be done, and rail is generally a very costly approach. > I have seen Bangkok system (I studied in AIT, worked in Bangkok > briefly, and visit once in while) and the problem with railways is not > because they do not provide efficient service but the prices. And > these prices have to be kept high because there is no committment to > reduce the parallel running bus services. No, it is much more complicated than that. Not only is the difference between rail and bus fares in Bangkok substantial, but rail provides only limited service compared to a complex urban bus network (the network is, indeed, in need of reform, with overly lenthy lines operated with poor timekeeping, but that is another matter). Not the non-aircon services, which serve an entirely different > segment which may require a certain level of subsidy, but the aircon > buses which charge much higher but are bleeding anyway. The > alternative would be to cancel these inefficient aircon bus routes in > exchange for a price reduction on railway and both will live happily thereafter. The passengers certainly would not be happy. The buses serve a whole range of points in-between rail stations as well as beyond them. Institutional > issues may be difficult to resolve but there is need for somebody with > a political courage to take the tough step instead of empty rhetorics > (such as the one of solving Bangkok's traffic problems in 3 months > time. Reminds me of Harry Potter!!). In fact, I think there is a need for cool analytical work to look at the complex characteristics of the population using public transport and the costs and benefits of alternative approaches. This difficult work is rarely done in an independent and unbiased way --Jonathan > > Keep up the good work. > Alok Jain > > This email and any attachment to it may contain confidential or > proprietary information that are intended solely for the person / > entity to whom it was originally addressed. If you are not the > intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distributing or any > action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. > Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be secure or > error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, > arrive late or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept > liability for any errors or omissions in the context of this message > which arise as a result of transmission over the Internet. > No opinions contained herein shall be construed as being a formal > disclosure or commitment of the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation > unless specifically so stated. > ----- Jonathan E. D. Richmond 02 524-5510 (office) Visiting Fellow Intl.: 662 524-5510 Transportation Engineering program School of Civil Engineering, 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: Ms. Nisarat Hansuksa richmond@alum.mit.edu 02 524-6051 Intl: 662 524-6051 http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ From ericbruun at earthlink.net Tue May 4 03:40:20 2004 From: ericbruun at earthlink.net (Eric Bruun) Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 14:40:20 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Jain's comment on Rail or bus References: <07B178BAA415FB4A9C9B4AA845F1F2C6259C6D@smail1pa.corp.kcrc.com> Message-ID: <002b01c4313e$1c3cda60$fafc45cf@earthlink.net> Jain I enjoy these dicsussions to some extent, but it is taking too much time when I am quite busy, so I must limit my comments. Just one: I agree fully with your viewpoint. It is not a rail versus bus thing. I am not a "rail only" advocate. My apologies if this was not clear. It is the network that counts. I am opposed to analyzing lines in isolation, regardless of mode. Eric ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jain Alok" To: "'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport'" Sent: Sunday, May 02, 2004 10:29 PM Subject: [sustran] Rail or bus > Dear Eric and Jonathan, > > Some interesting arguments in your mails about rail vs. buses. No doubt I > have enjoyed your discussions but it has gone a bit philosophical and > leading to a bit of activism. Why should this be a rail vs. bus discussion? > Why can't this be a rail plus bus discussion? There comes a time when > passenger traffic in a corridor becomes so heavy that rail becomes the > logical choice. You have cited European and US examples but in Asia, Hong > Kong is a good example (for the record, I work for a HK railway company). > > Buses and rail co-exist and both provide fantastic service. The prices are > comparable (so the poor vs rich issue is not a prime concern). Bus lanes are > provided in corridors with heavy bus traffic. Usually, at these corridors > the railway loadings are higher too. While nobody can argue about the point > to point service provided by buses, a corridor requiring over 80,000 pphpd > capacity cannot be served by buses (theoretically yes, some may argue, but > practically speaking, it would create chaos and service reliability would go > haywire). Railways can provide this service. In most of the circumstances if > the journey is about 15-20km or more, buses can't beat the railway travel in > terms of journey time. > > Ideally, depending on the demand a new area can be served by buses most > efficiently but there comes a threshold beyond which the backbone movements > should be moved over to fast, trunk routes such as railways and buses can > still supplement and provide local service. > > I have seen Bangkok system (I studied in AIT, worked in Bangkok briefly, and > visit once in while) and the problem with railways is not because they do > not provide efficient service but the prices. And these prices have to be > kept high because there is no committment to reduce the parallel running bus > services. Not the non-aircon services, which serve an entirely different > segment which may require a certain level of subsidy, but the aircon buses > which charge much higher but are bleeding anyway. The alternative would be > to cancel these inefficient aircon bus routes in exchange for a price > reduction on railway and both will live happily thereafter. Institutional > issues may be difficult to resolve but there is need for somebody with a > political courage to take the tough step instead of empty rhetorics (such as > the one of solving Bangkok's traffic problems in 3 months time. Reminds me > of Harry Potter!!). > > Keep up the good work. > Alok Jain > > This email and any attachment to it may contain confidential or proprietary > information that are intended solely for the person / entity to whom it was > originally addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, any > disclosure, copying, distributing or any action taken or omitted to be taken > in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. > Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as > information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, arrive late or contain > viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or > omissions in the context of this message which arise as a result of > transmission over the Internet. > No opinions contained herein shall be construed as being a formal disclosure > or commitment of the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation unless specifically > so stated. From litman at vtpi.org Tue May 4 06:52:52 2004 From: litman at vtpi.org (Todd Alexander Litman) Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 14:52:52 -0700 Subject: [sustran] Re: Rail or bus In-Reply-To: <20040503065225.C0BFD2C378@list.jca.apc.org> References: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20040503101455.03aabc90@mail.highspeedplus.com> Let me address a few points that have been raised in this discussion. I agree that it is a mistake to approach this as simply a debate over whether rail is better than bus transit or vise versa. Both have advantages and disadvantages, and each is most appropriate in certain situations. These issues are discussed in the "Rail Versus Bus Transit" section of "Evaluating Rail Transit Benefits and Costs" (http://www.vtpi.org/railben.pdf). My report does not argue that rail transit is always better than bus. Rather, it argues that in a variety of ways conventional evaluation practices tend to undervalue transit in general and rail transit in particular. I've added a new section in my paper which discusses these (bullet points on page 6), and I'm in the process of updating "Guide to Evaluating Public Transit Benefits and Costs" (http://www.vtpi.org/tranben.pdf) to more clearly explain these distortions. Let me mention two distortions that I think are particularly relevant to this discussion. First, some arguments raised in this discussion seem to assume that a choice must be made between spending money on bus or rail. This may be partly true, but as often as not the choice is between rail and highway investments. This seems to be true in both developed countries and in the developing country cities that I'm familiar with (Kingston, Jamaica; Santiago, Chile; and Mexico City). Although from some perspectives rail may be less beneficial than bus, it is far more beneficial overall than expenditures on urban highways which stimulate more urban sprawl and automobile dependency. One interesting finding from my study is that in cities with large rail transit systems, per capita transit subsidies are far higher, and total transit service cost effectiveness tends to increase, including bus transit services. This seems to result because of the higher per-capita transit ridership, less dispersed land use patterns, and because, with more middle- and upper-class riders, there is more political support for the various management strategies to favor transit. Second, much of the benefit of rail transit tends to result from the changes it leverages in land use and motor vehicle transportation patterns. Rail transit can provide a catalyst for more accessible, multi-modal neighborhood development, and reduced per capita vehicle ownership and mileage. A number of studies, including my own, indicate that these indirect benefits can be far larger than the direct benefits that result from shifts of individual trips from automobile to transit. For example, comparing U.S. cities, those with major rail transit systems have more than 50% greater transit ridership, more than 50% less per capita traffic congestion delays, 50% lower per capita traffic fatalities, and about 15% lower per capita transportation expenditures, even accounting for differences in city size, due to these leveage effects. It's possible that busways may also have this effect, if implemented in conjunction with other smart growth strategies, but conventional bus services do not. Critics of rail transit tend to ignore these land use impacts and use biased evaluation methods. For example, they often evaluate traffic congestion reduction benefits based on roadway level-of-service ratings or travel time index, which evaluate congestion from the perspective of a peak-period driver and ignore the congestion reduction benefits that occur when people shift to alternative modes. Similarly, evaluation that focuses on short-term impacts (i.e., high discount rate) will tend to favor bus and highway improvements compared with evaluation that takes a longer-term perspective. Put differently, rail advocates face two specific obstacles. Many rail transit benefits only occur if rail is implemented with supportive transport and land use policies, and these benefits are difficult to quantify. However, when properly implemented and evaluated, I think that rail transit is probably justified in many medium and large cities where conventional planning would consider it an unjustified luxury. Best wishes, -Todd Litman At 01:51 PM 5/3/2004 +0700, Jonathan Richmond wrote: >-----Original Message----- >From: sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org >[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf >Of Jonathan E. D. Richmond >Sent: Monday, 3 May 2004 11:21 AM >To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport >Subject: [sustran] Re: Rail or bus > >On Mon, 3 May 2004, Jain Alok wrote: > > > Dear Eric and Jonathan, > > > > Some interesting arguments in your mails about rail vs. buses. No > > doubt I have enjoyed your discussions but it has gone a bit > > philosophical and leading to a bit of activism. Why should this be a rail >vs. bus discussion? > >Good point, and I certainly would call for rail where it makes sense. > > > > Why can't this be a rail plus bus discussion? > >Because there are many situations where rail investments have had poor >results and we need to guard against further inapropriate developments that >squander scarce public resources and hurt those of low income. > > There comes a time when > > passenger traffic in a corridor becomes so heavy that rail becomes the > > logical choice. > >Sometimes, but not necessarily. Look at Curitiba, for example. > > You have cited European and US examples but in Asia, Hong > > Kong is a good example (for the record, I work for a HK railway company). > > > >I agree completely: the Hong Kong system is wonderful and makes complete >sense. So does the metro of Mexico City. > > > > Buses and rail co-exist and both provide fantastic service. The prices > > are comparable (so the poor vs rich issue is not a prime concern). Bus > > lanes are provided in corridors with heavy bus traffic. Usually, at > > these corridors the railway loadings are higher too. While nobody can > > argue about the point to point service provided by buses, a corridor > > requiring over 80,000 pphpd capacity cannot be served by buses > > (theoretically yes, some may argue, but practically speaking, it would > > create chaos and service reliability would go haywire). Railways can >provide this service. > > >Absolutely agreed. > > In most of the circumstances if > > the journey is about 15-20km or more, buses can't beat the railway > > travel in terms of journey time. > > > > Ideally, depending on the demand a new area can be served by buses > > most efficiently but there comes a threshold beyond which the backbone > > movements should be moved over to fast, trunk routes such as railways > > and buses can still supplement and provide local service. > > > >As I said, not necessarily. First of all, you make the assumption that there >is a "backbone." If needs are dispersed, you may have the metaphor quite >wrong, and channeling flows down a rigid hieracrchical type network may not >serve needs. > >Cost is also an issue. With limited resources, difficult choices must be >made about who to serve and how this is to be done, and rail is generally a >very costly approach. > > > I have seen Bangkok system (I studied in AIT, worked in Bangkok > > briefly, and visit once in while) and the problem with railways is not > > because they do not provide efficient service but the prices. And > > these prices have to be kept high because there is no committment to > > reduce the parallel running bus services. > >No, it is much more complicated than that. Not only is the difference >between rail and bus fares in Bangkok substantial, but rail provides only >limited service compared to a complex urban bus network (the network is, >indeed, in need of reform, with overly lenthy lines operated with poor >timekeeping, but that is another matter). > > Not the non-aircon services, which serve an entirely different > > segment which may require a certain level of subsidy, but the aircon > > buses which charge much higher but are bleeding anyway. The > > alternative would be to cancel these inefficient aircon bus routes in > > exchange for a price reduction on railway and both will live happily >thereafter. > >The passengers certainly would not be happy. The buses serve a whole range >of points in-between rail stations as well as beyond them. > > Institutional > > issues may be difficult to resolve but there is need for somebody with > > a political courage to take the tough step instead of empty rhetorics > > (such as the one of solving Bangkok's traffic problems in 3 months > > time. Reminds me of Harry Potter!!). > >In fact, I think there is a need for cool analytical work to look at the >complex characteristics of the population using public transport and the >costs and benefits of alternative approaches. This difficult work is rarely >done in an independent and unbiased way --Jonathan > >----- > >Jonathan E. D. Richmond 02 524-5510 (office) >Visiting Fellow Intl.: 662 524-5510 >Transportation Engineering program >School of Civil Engineering, 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: Ms. Nisarat Hansuksa > richmond@alum.mit.edu 02 524-6051 > Intl: 662 524-6051 >http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ 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 Tue May 4 07:48:31 2004 From: etts at indigo.ie (Brendan Finn) Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 23:48:31 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Re: Bus, LRT, and heavy rail References: <5.1.1.6.0.20040503101455.03aabc90@mail.highspeedplus.com> Message-ID: <002801c43160$c219aae0$0101a8c0@fujitsu83p69tb> First, I would like to remind that this thread started in relation to LRT rather than rail systems generally, and more specifically to new investment. My guess is that most transport experts would agree that heavy rail networks and bus are quite different propositions. They usually serve different roles in the transportation supply, rail usually has a metropolitan area and regional dimension, and of course rail usually has valuable legacy infrastructure (as Kisan reminds us very well). Quite often they will serve different markets as well, such that heavy rail and bus do not easily substitute for each other. Todd reminds us that rail can be very useful in developing the territory, and Jain reminds us that in corridors with very high flows, rail is the supreme people mover. By contrast, LRT/tram systems do not have a clear-cut distinction from service-line bus. Most tram systems have a stopping pattern similar to buses, their comparative speed is typically due to having an exclusive right-of-way denied to buses, and they do not have an appreciable advantage over bus in people-moving capability. Cities who are fortunate to have a legacy of a tram network are right to retain them, since they form part of the urban culture and have a loyal customer-base. When it comes to new investment, one would expect urban and transport planners to take a professional approach - to develop and evaluate the best LRT/tram option(s) and the best bus-based/BRT option, giving each the features it needs for best performance. Unfortunately, this is not the usual practice. Through the late 80's and the 90's in Europe, there has been a very strident pro-LRT lobby. Having argued (as we all do) that public transport is the solution to the city's transport woes, the standard strategy is to rubbish bus as a viable option. We are all familiar with the tactics - buses can't carry the same number of people, they have high operating costs, they get in each other's way at high volume, choice customers (car users) won't use the bus, buses have failed us in the past, you can't give over the road space to buses, buses are dirty, there are not-nice people on buses at night etc. These negatives are loaded into the system design, patronage forecasts, evaluation frame, and of course the political and community campaign efforts. In parallel, the most optimistic forecasts are used for the LRT/tram carryings and financials. What the UK National Audit Office did was to call it as it is - unrealistic forecasts that are never reached, leaving financial burdens for system backers and the public purse. Using the Dublin example as a specific case, all of the negative tactics have been used, plus a few that I prefer not to put in general circulation. Bus was dead as an option from the start, reducing the choice to LRT or nothing. While the various agencies can spin their story, the facts are that it comes in 4-5 years later than originally promised, at double the original planned cost, the two lines don't meet (about 1 km. at closest point), and the optimistic income covers only the direct operating contract. For 10% of the final cost, the Quality Bus Network could have been in place a decade ago - at least that is now back on track. I accept that there are cases where new LRT makes transportation sense, but I haven't seen very many cases where they couldn't have been done as well and much cheaper by buses given equal levels of priority. With best wishes, Brendan Finn. _______________________________________________________________________ Contact details are : e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : +353.87.2530286 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Todd Alexander Litman" To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" ; "'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport'" Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 10:52 PM Subject: [sustran] Re: Rail or bus > > Let me address a few points that have been raised in this discussion. I > agree that it is a mistake to approach this as simply a debate over whether > rail is better than bus transit or vise versa. Both have advantages and > disadvantages, and each is most appropriate in certain situations. These > issues are discussed in the "Rail Versus Bus Transit" section of > "Evaluating Rail Transit Benefits and Costs" (http://www.vtpi.org/railben.pdf). > > My report does not argue that rail transit is always better than bus. > Rather, it argues that in a variety of ways conventional evaluation > practices tend to undervalue transit in general and rail transit in > particular. I've added a new section in my paper which discusses these > (bullet points on page 6), and I'm in the process of updating "Guide to > Evaluating Public Transit Benefits and Costs" > (http://www.vtpi.org/tranben.pdf) to more clearly explain these > distortions. Let me mention two distortions that I think are particularly > relevant to this discussion. > > First, some arguments raised in this discussion seem to assume that a > choice must be made between spending money on bus or rail. This may be > partly true, but as often as not the choice is between rail and highway > investments. This seems to be true in both developed countries and in the > developing country cities that I'm familiar with (Kingston, Jamaica; > Santiago, Chile; and Mexico City). Although from some perspectives rail may > be less beneficial than bus, it is far more beneficial overall than > expenditures on urban highways which stimulate more urban sprawl and > automobile dependency. > > One interesting finding from my study is that in cities with large rail > transit systems, per capita transit subsidies are far higher, and total > transit service cost effectiveness tends to increase, including bus transit > services. This seems to result because of the higher per-capita transit > ridership, less dispersed land use patterns, and because, with more middle- > and upper-class riders, there is more political support for the various > management strategies to favor transit. > > Second, much of the benefit of rail transit tends to result from the > changes it leverages in land use and motor vehicle transportation patterns. > Rail transit can provide a catalyst for more accessible, multi-modal > neighborhood development, and reduced per capita vehicle ownership and > mileage. A number of studies, including my own, indicate that these > indirect benefits can be far larger than the direct benefits that result > from shifts of individual trips from automobile to transit. For example, > comparing U.S. cities, those with major rail transit systems have more than > 50% greater transit ridership, more than 50% less per capita traffic > congestion delays, 50% lower per capita traffic fatalities, and about 15% > lower per capita transportation expenditures, even accounting for > differences in city size, due to these leveage effects. It's possible that > busways may also have this effect, if implemented in conjunction with other > smart growth strategies, but conventional bus services do not. > > Critics of rail transit tend to ignore these land use impacts and use > biased evaluation methods. For example, they often evaluate traffic > congestion reduction benefits based on roadway level-of-service ratings or > travel time index, which evaluate congestion from the perspective of a > peak-period driver and ignore the congestion reduction benefits that occur > when people shift to alternative modes. Similarly, evaluation that focuses > on short-term impacts (i.e., high discount rate) will tend to favor bus and > highway improvements compared with evaluation that takes a longer-term > perspective. > > Put differently, rail advocates face two specific obstacles. Many rail > transit benefits only occur if rail is implemented with supportive > transport and land use policies, and these benefits are difficult to > quantify. However, when properly implemented and evaluated, I think that > rail transit is probably justified in many medium and large cities where > conventional planning would consider it an unjustified luxury. > > > Best wishes, > -Todd Litman > > > > At 01:51 PM 5/3/2004 +0700, Jonathan Richmond wrote: > >-----Original Message----- > >From: sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org > >[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf > >Of Jonathan E. D. Richmond > >Sent: Monday, 3 May 2004 11:21 AM > >To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport > >Subject: [sustran] Re: Rail or bus > > > >On Mon, 3 May 2004, Jain Alok wrote: > > > > > Dear Eric and Jonathan, > > > > > > Some interesting arguments in your mails about rail vs. buses. No > > > doubt I have enjoyed your discussions but it has gone a bit > > > philosophical and leading to a bit of activism. Why should this be a rail > >vs. bus discussion? > > > >Good point, and I certainly would call for rail where it makes sense. > > > > > > > Why can't this be a rail plus bus discussion? > > > >Because there are many situations where rail investments have had poor > >results and we need to guard against further inapropriate developments that > >squander scarce public resources and hurt those of low income. > > > > There comes a time when > > > passenger traffic in a corridor becomes so heavy that rail becomes the > > > logical choice. > > > >Sometimes, but not necessarily. Look at Curitiba, for example. > > > > You have cited European and US examples but in Asia, Hong > > > Kong is a good example (for the record, I work for a HK railway company). > > > > > > >I agree completely: the Hong Kong system is wonderful and makes complete > >sense. So does the metro of Mexico City. > > > > > > > Buses and rail co-exist and both provide fantastic service. The prices > > > are comparable (so the poor vs rich issue is not a prime concern). Bus > > > lanes are provided in corridors with heavy bus traffic. Usually, at > > > these corridors the railway loadings are higher too. While nobody can > > > argue about the point to point service provided by buses, a corridor > > > requiring over 80,000 pphpd capacity cannot be served by buses > > > (theoretically yes, some may argue, but practically speaking, it would > > > create chaos and service reliability would go haywire). Railways can > >provide this service. > > > > > >Absolutely agreed. > > > > In most of the circumstances if > > > the journey is about 15-20km or more, buses can't beat the railway > > > travel in terms of journey time. > > > > > > Ideally, depending on the demand a new area can be served by buses > > > most efficiently but there comes a threshold beyond which the backbone > > > movements should be moved over to fast, trunk routes such as railways > > > and buses can still supplement and provide local service. > > > > > > >As I said, not necessarily. First of all, you make the assumption that there > >is a "backbone." If needs are dispersed, you may have the metaphor quite > >wrong, and channeling flows down a rigid hieracrchical type network may not > >serve needs. > > > >Cost is also an issue. With limited resources, difficult choices must be > >made about who to serve and how this is to be done, and rail is generally a > >very costly approach. > > > > > I have seen Bangkok system (I studied in AIT, worked in Bangkok > > > briefly, and visit once in while) and the problem with railways is not > > > because they do not provide efficient service but the prices. And > > > these prices have to be kept high because there is no committment to > > > reduce the parallel running bus services. > > > >No, it is much more complicated than that. Not only is the difference > >between rail and bus fares in Bangkok substantial, but rail provides only > >limited service compared to a complex urban bus network (the network is, > >indeed, in need of reform, with overly lenthy lines operated with poor > >timekeeping, but that is another matter). > > > > Not the non-aircon services, which serve an entirely different > > > segment which may require a certain level of subsidy, but the aircon > > > buses which charge much higher but are bleeding anyway. The > > > alternative would be to cancel these inefficient aircon bus routes in > > > exchange for a price reduction on railway and both will live happily > >thereafter. > > > >The passengers certainly would not be happy. The buses serve a whole range > >of points in-between rail stations as well as beyond them. > > > > Institutional > > > issues may be difficult to resolve but there is need for somebody with > > > a political courage to take the tough step instead of empty rhetorics > > > (such as the one of solving Bangkok's traffic problems in 3 months > > > time. Reminds me of Harry Potter!!). > > > >In fact, I think there is a need for cool analytical work to look at the > >complex characteristics of the population using public transport and the > >costs and benefits of alternative approaches. This difficult work is rarely > >done in an independent and unbiased way --Jonathan > > > >----- > > > >Jonathan E. D. Richmond 02 524-5510 (office) > >Visiting Fellow Intl.: 662 524-5510 > >Transportation Engineering program > >School of Civil Engineering, 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: Ms. Nisarat Hansuksa > > richmond@alum.mit.edu 02 524-6051 > > Intl: 662 524-6051 > >http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ > > > 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 ajain at kcrc.com Tue May 4 10:57:08 2004 From: ajain at kcrc.com (Jain Alok) Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 09:57:08 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Rail or bus Message-ID: <07B178BAA415FB4A9C9B4AA845F1F2C6259C78@smail1pa.corp.kcrc.com> Probably Karl and Jonathan are right. My analysis of Bangkok were too simplistic. Let me present it in a more complicated way. There are many types of bus services in Bangkok (I may be a bit out-dated on this, so please feel free to correct me). 1. non aircon buses by BMTA: they lose money with both hands but are more of a social service 2. aircon buses by BMTA: more than double the price of non-aircon buses but they are loss-making anyway 3. other air-con buses by private sector: prices comparable to skytrain. Probably breaks even (?). Limited stops 4. informal sector services (vans, minibuses etc.): prices comparable to skytrain. Must be money-making otherwise why would they exist. Limited stops. I have got nothing against 1 if the taxpayers don't feel bad about it. There is every reason to get rid of 2 if they duplicate (extra emphasis because this was missed by Karl) any of 1, 3 or skytrain. There is hardly any difference between 3, 4 and skytrain services. Again, there is opportunity to rationalise "duplicating" services. There are many other reasons for this than helping skytrain ridership (which according to the latest stats is not bad by any means - over 300,000/day). I don't think august audience of this group needs elaboration on that. Lets say sombody has the political will to achieve this. The ridership of skytrain would improve, the poor still have a basic bus service (which now probably be faster with some of 2 off-road), even 3 and 4 can co-exist by serving corridors not served by skytrain. It is arguable whether any extra profits made by skytrain can be translated into fare reduction but if the rationalisation deal can be "sold" to the financiers in exchange of fare reduction (x% reduction in fare for x% increase in ridership), I do not think it would be impossible. Financing institutions care about bottomline and as long as that could be maintained they don't care. Again, I must insist, there may not be an easy solution but my two pence worth of analysis says that it is better than keeping the status quo. We all know that everybody likes to have point-to-point (sorry door-to-door) first class service for free of almost free but can somebody tell me how it could be provided. Railway is a rigid system but then what bus system is not. Probably every citizen should own a car which should be fully subsidised by state and then let everybody be stuck in the traffic - that could also be considered an equitable system. I am not against bus system. By all means run them on dedicated right-of-way. To me at this point, there is hardly any difference between railway and buses except the power transmission and wheels. Bogota BRT is 2-4 lanes with extra widening of right-of-way at the stops. No doubt it is an impressive system but doesn't it resemble a railway system. Does it not have main service corridors (or trunks or backbone, no matter what you call it)? Do all the buses stop at every place in-between, especially the long distance ones? There is of-course no one-size-fits-all and every situation requires careful analysis. Alok -----Original Message----- From: Karl Fjellstrom [mailto:karl@dnet.net.id] Dear all, I agree with Jonathan's replies on Bangkok. The simple analysis of Alok Jain of the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation on air con buses and the skytrain is incorrect. For one thing air-con buses are not 'inefficient'. They have a better cost recovery than the non-air con buses and with the exception of the BMTA (the state operator which makes a loss on all routes, air-con and non-aircon) they are all profitable despite the adverse operating conditions. Secondly closing bus routes parallel to the skytrain would improve skytrain ridership somewhat but is not a Harry Potter magical stroke which would solve the skytrain ridership problem or magically make reduced skytrain fares viable leading to buses and skytrain 'living happily thereafter' as he puts it. And it would in the mid term lead to yet more proliferation of the air-con passenger vans, as the skytrain is not an option for many people (due to cost and the limited coverage - it's predominantly a corridor of 'destinations') and cutting them off from buses would result in a substantial unmet demand that would probably - based on prior experience - subsequently be met by paratransit, further eroding the viability of the formal large bus sector... Imho rail metros (like bus-based 'metros') can have many benefits as e.g. Todd Litman elaborated. And especially where expensive rail investments have already been made, even if ill-advised, it makes sense to optimise them including by re-organising bus routes. But Hong Kong is a special case. Transit demands of 80,000 pax/hr/dir on one corridor are probably unique. A more normal range is say up to 13,000 pax/hr/dir which can be handled by regular buses or by just a single lane BRT, or in some cases up to 25,000 which is comfortably within the range of BRT and still within the range of regular bus services. BRT currently reaches 35,000 and can in fact go up to 50,000 on the existing Bogota configuration, for example. There are few corridors where public transport demand exceeds 40,000, and even where it does this demand can be split into multiple corridors through establishing a transit network. (In Hong Kong on the Kowloon side much of the demand is channeled into a single line, partly due to unique topography I suppose. Likewise Sao Paulo can hit 60,000 phd by focusing a line on Avenida Paulista with no parallel services.) So the argument that some trunk corridors *require* rail based on demand levels is true but only applies in some very exceptional cases. In cities with demand above a bus-only threshold and below say 50,000 pphpd, if a proper analysis of costs and benefits shows rail to be the better option, then by all means proceed with rail. But so often there is no such proper analysis.... Regards, Karl -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan E. D. Richmond Sent: Monday, 3 May 2004 11:21 AM To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport Subject: [sustran] Re: Rail or bus On Mon, 3 May 2004, Jain Alok wrote: > Dear Eric and Jonathan, > > Some interesting arguments in your mails about rail vs. buses. No > doubt I have enjoyed your discussions but it has gone a bit > philosophical and leading to a bit of activism. Why should this be a rail vs. bus discussion? Good point, and I certainly would call for rail where it makes sense. > Why can't this be a rail plus bus discussion? Because there are many situations where rail investments have had poor results and we need to guard against further inapropriate developments that squander scarce public resources and hurt those of low income. There comes a time when > passenger traffic in a corridor becomes so heavy that rail becomes the > logical choice. Sometimes, but not necessarily. Look at Curitiba, for example. You have cited European and US examples but in Asia, Hong > Kong is a good example (for the record, I work for a HK railway company). > I agree completely: the Hong Kong system is wonderful and makes complete sense. So does the metro of Mexico City. > Buses and rail co-exist and both provide fantastic service. The prices > are comparable (so the poor vs rich issue is not a prime concern). Bus > lanes are provided in corridors with heavy bus traffic. Usually, at > these corridors the railway loadings are higher too. While nobody can > argue about the point to point service provided by buses, a corridor > requiring over 80,000 pphpd capacity cannot be served by buses > (theoretically yes, some may argue, but practically speaking, it would > create chaos and service reliability would go haywire). Railways can provide this service. Absolutely agreed. In most of the circumstances if > the journey is about 15-20km or more, buses can't beat the railway > travel in terms of journey time. > > Ideally, depending on the demand a new area can be served by buses > most efficiently but there comes a threshold beyond which the backbone > movements should be moved over to fast, trunk routes such as railways > and buses can still supplement and provide local service. > As I said, not necessarily. First of all, you make the assumption that there is a "backbone." If needs are dispersed, you may have the metaphor quite wrong, and channeling flows down a rigid hieracrchical type network may not serve needs. Cost is also an issue. With limited resources, difficult choices must be made about who to serve and how this is to be done, and rail is generally a very costly approach. > I have seen Bangkok system (I studied in AIT, worked in Bangkok > briefly, and visit once in while) and the problem with railways is not > because they do not provide efficient service but the prices. And > these prices have to be kept high because there is no committment to > reduce the parallel running bus services. No, it is much more complicated than that. Not only is the difference between rail and bus fares in Bangkok substantial, but rail provides only limited service compared to a complex urban bus network (the network is, indeed, in need of reform, with overly lenthy lines operated with poor timekeeping, but that is another matter). Not the non-aircon services, which serve an entirely different > segment which may require a certain level of subsidy, but the aircon > buses which charge much higher but are bleeding anyway. The > alternative would be to cancel these inefficient aircon bus routes in > exchange for a price reduction on railway and both will live happily thereafter. The passengers certainly would not be happy. The buses serve a whole range of points in-between rail stations as well as beyond them. Institutional > issues may be difficult to resolve but there is need for somebody with > a political courage to take the tough step instead of empty rhetorics > (such as the one of solving Bangkok's traffic problems in 3 months > time. Reminds me of Harry Potter!!). In fact, I think there is a need for cool analytical work to look at the complex characteristics of the population using public transport and the costs and benefits of alternative approaches. This difficult work is rarely done in an independent and unbiased way --Jonathan This email and any attachment to it may contain confidential or proprietary information that are intended solely for the person / entity to whom it was originally addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distributing or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, arrive late or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the context of this message which arise as a result of transmission over the Internet. No opinions contained herein shall be construed as being a formal disclosure or commitment of the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation unless specifically so stated. From ericbruun at earthlink.net Tue May 4 11:14:22 2004 From: ericbruun at earthlink.net (Eric Bruun) Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 22:14:22 -0400 Subject: [sustran] More on Bus, LRT, and heavy rail References: <5.1.1.6.0.20040503101455.03aabc90@mail.highspeedplus.com> <002801c43160$c219aae0$0101a8c0@fujitsu83p69tb> Message-ID: <008601c4317d$89ddbd20$fafc45cf@earthlink.net> Brendan I never lost sight of the focus of this discussion. I have not diverged into land use or other development issues, as interesting and relevant as these might be. While it seems that the Dublin LRT is used as essentially a fancier bus line, this is not the case for most of the new North American systems. I again cite Greg Thompson and Tom Matoff, 2003. "Keeping up with the Jones: Radial versus Multidestinational Transit in Decentraling Regions" Summer 2003, Journal of the American Planning Association. Their study looked at 9 regional transit systems, operating with 4 different principles. It shows that the new systems that use rail and bus in a coordinated network provide more service for comparable operating budgets, serve more origin-destination pairs and have higher ridership that bus only systems and -- here is where your point comes in -- radial-only rail systems, as well. They found that Pittsburgh with several light rail lines and Cleveland with a heavy rail line and a couple of light rail lines did not perform so well. But these systems run their rail almost like independent bus lines. Used cleverly, LRT indeed can be used to get more productivity and coverage with a limited bus fleet. One comment about capacity -- there is overlap between LRT and RRT (Rail Rapid Transit). The passenger throughput can become quite large, comparable to rapid transit, especially when several routes converge on a tunnel. The Boston Green Line tunnel sees about 200,000 per day, the San Francisco tunnel somewhat less. I live in Philadelphia, where it is only 80,000 per day in the tunnel. But even at this level, running enough buses to carry the same amount of passengers on the street would require enforcement of some dedicated bus lanes and very frequent buses, something that is not likely to happen. Where I live, even though it is a big city, the car is king! Even though bus lanes might be cheaper in principle, many of us don't want to wait for enlightened politicians. In the US, they are too busy building stadiums for multi-millionaires. In the meantime, we will try to grab the motorway money from a higher level of government for a grade-separated rail solution. I am sure the same reasoning goes on in cities of all income levels where the lower-level government won't prioritize public transportation. Eric Eric ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brendan Finn" To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 6:48 PM Subject: [sustran] Re: Bus, LRT, and heavy rail > First, I would like to remind that this thread started in relation to LRT > rather than rail systems generally, and more specifically to new investment. > > My guess is that most transport experts would agree that heavy rail networks > and bus are quite different propositions. They usually serve different roles > in the transportation supply, rail usually has a metropolitan area and > regional dimension, and of course rail usually has valuable legacy > infrastructure (as Kisan reminds us very well). Quite often they will serve > different markets as well, such that heavy rail and bus do not easily > substitute for each other. Todd reminds us that rail can be very useful in > developing the territory, and Jain reminds us that in corridors with very > high flows, rail is the supreme people mover. > > By contrast, LRT/tram systems do not have a clear-cut distinction from > service-line bus. Most tram systems have a stopping pattern similar to > buses, their comparative speed is typically due to having an exclusive > right-of-way denied to buses, and they do not have an appreciable advantage > over bus in people-moving capability. Cities who are fortunate to have a > legacy of a tram network are right to retain them, since they form part of > the urban culture and have a loyal customer-base. > > When it comes to new investment, one would expect urban and transport > planners to take a professional approach - to develop and evaluate the best > LRT/tram option(s) and the best bus-based/BRT option, giving each the > features it needs for best performance. Unfortunately, this is not the usual > practice. Through the late 80's and the 90's in Europe, there has been a > very strident pro-LRT lobby. Having argued (as we all do) that public > transport is the solution to the city's transport woes, the standard > strategy is to rubbish bus as a viable option. > > We are all familiar with the tactics - buses can't carry the same number of > people, they have high operating costs, they get in each other's way at high > volume, choice customers (car users) won't use the bus, buses have failed us > in the past, you can't give over the road space to buses, buses are dirty, > there are not-nice people on buses at night etc. These negatives are loaded > into the system design, patronage forecasts, evaluation frame, and of course > the political and community campaign efforts. In parallel, the most > optimistic forecasts are used for the LRT/tram carryings and financials. > What the UK National Audit Office did was to call it as it is - unrealistic > forecasts that are never reached, leaving financial burdens for system > backers and the public purse. > > Using the Dublin example as a specific case, all of the negative tactics > have been used, plus a few that I prefer not to put in general circulation. > Bus was dead as an option from the start, reducing the choice to LRT or > nothing. While the various agencies can spin their story, the facts are that > it comes in 4-5 years later than originally promised, at double the original > planned cost, the two lines don't meet (about 1 km. at closest point), and > the optimistic income covers only the direct operating contract. For 10% of > the final cost, the Quality Bus Network could have been in place a decade > ago - at least that is now back on track. > > I accept that there are cases where new LRT makes transportation sense, but > I haven't seen very many cases where they couldn't have been done as well > and much cheaper by buses given equal levels of priority. > > With best wishes, > > > Brendan Finn. > _______________________________________________________________________ > Contact details are : e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : +353.87.2530286 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Todd Alexander Litman" > To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" > ; "'Asia and the Pacific sustainable > transport'" > Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 10:52 PM > Subject: [sustran] Re: Rail or bus > > > > > > Let me address a few points that have been raised in this discussion. I > > agree that it is a mistake to approach this as simply a debate over > whether > > rail is better than bus transit or vise versa. Both have advantages and > > disadvantages, and each is most appropriate in certain situations. These > > issues are discussed in the "Rail Versus Bus Transit" section of > > "Evaluating Rail Transit Benefits and Costs" > (http://www.vtpi.org/railben.pdf). > > > > My report does not argue that rail transit is always better than bus. > > Rather, it argues that in a variety of ways conventional evaluation > > practices tend to undervalue transit in general and rail transit in > > particular. I've added a new section in my paper which discusses these > > (bullet points on page 6), and I'm in the process of updating "Guide to > > Evaluating Public Transit Benefits and Costs" > > (http://www.vtpi.org/tranben.pdf) to more clearly explain these > > distortions. Let me mention two distortions that I think are particularly > > relevant to this discussion. > > > > First, some arguments raised in this discussion seem to assume that a > > choice must be made between spending money on bus or rail. This may be > > partly true, but as often as not the choice is between rail and highway > > investments. This seems to be true in both developed countries and in the > > developing country cities that I'm familiar with (Kingston, Jamaica; > > Santiago, Chile; and Mexico City). Although from some perspectives rail > may > > be less beneficial than bus, it is far more beneficial overall than > > expenditures on urban highways which stimulate more urban sprawl and > > automobile dependency. > > > > One interesting finding from my study is that in cities with large rail > > transit systems, per capita transit subsidies are far higher, and total > > transit service cost effectiveness tends to increase, including bus > transit > > services. This seems to result because of the higher per-capita transit > > ridership, less dispersed land use patterns, and because, with more > middle- > > and upper-class riders, there is more political support for the various > > management strategies to favor transit. > > > > Second, much of the benefit of rail transit tends to result from the > > changes it leverages in land use and motor vehicle transportation > patterns. > > Rail transit can provide a catalyst for more accessible, multi-modal > > neighborhood development, and reduced per capita vehicle ownership and > > mileage. A number of studies, including my own, indicate that these > > indirect benefits can be far larger than the direct benefits that result > > from shifts of individual trips from automobile to transit. For example, > > comparing U.S. cities, those with major rail transit systems have more > than > > 50% greater transit ridership, more than 50% less per capita traffic > > congestion delays, 50% lower per capita traffic fatalities, and about 15% > > lower per capita transportation expenditures, even accounting for > > differences in city size, due to these leveage effects. It's possible that > > busways may also have this effect, if implemented in conjunction with > other > > smart growth strategies, but conventional bus services do not. > > > > Critics of rail transit tend to ignore these land use impacts and use > > biased evaluation methods. For example, they often evaluate traffic > > congestion reduction benefits based on roadway level-of-service ratings or > > travel time index, which evaluate congestion from the perspective of a > > peak-period driver and ignore the congestion reduction benefits that occur > > when people shift to alternative modes. Similarly, evaluation that focuses > > on short-term impacts (i.e., high discount rate) will tend to favor bus > and > > highway improvements compared with evaluation that takes a longer-term > > perspective. > > > > Put differently, rail advocates face two specific obstacles. Many rail > > transit benefits only occur if rail is implemented with supportive > > transport and land use policies, and these benefits are difficult to > > quantify. However, when properly implemented and evaluated, I think that > > rail transit is probably justified in many medium and large cities where > > conventional planning would consider it an unjustified luxury. > > > > > > Best wishes, > > -Todd Litman > > > > > > > > At 01:51 PM 5/3/2004 +0700, Jonathan Richmond wrote: > > >-----Original Message----- > > >From: sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org > > >[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org] On > Behalf > > >Of Jonathan E. D. Richmond > > >Sent: Monday, 3 May 2004 11:21 AM > > >To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport > > >Subject: [sustran] Re: Rail or bus > > > > > >On Mon, 3 May 2004, Jain Alok wrote: > > > > > > > Dear Eric and Jonathan, > > > > > > > > Some interesting arguments in your mails about rail vs. buses. No > > > > doubt I have enjoyed your discussions but it has gone a bit > > > > philosophical and leading to a bit of activism. Why should this be a > rail > > >vs. bus discussion? > > > > > >Good point, and I certainly would call for rail where it makes sense. > > > > > > > > > > Why can't this be a rail plus bus discussion? > > > > > >Because there are many situations where rail investments have had poor > > >results and we need to guard against further inapropriate developments > that > > >squander scarce public resources and hurt those of low income. > > > > > > There comes a time when > > > > passenger traffic in a corridor becomes so heavy that rail becomes the > > > > logical choice. > > > > > >Sometimes, but not necessarily. Look at Curitiba, for example. > > > > > > You have cited European and US examples but in Asia, Hong > > > > Kong is a good example (for the record, I work for a HK railway > company). > > > > > > > > > >I agree completely: the Hong Kong system is wonderful and makes complete > > >sense. So does the metro of Mexico City. > > > > > > > > > > Buses and rail co-exist and both provide fantastic service. The prices > > > > are comparable (so the poor vs rich issue is not a prime concern). Bus > > > > lanes are provided in corridors with heavy bus traffic. Usually, at > > > > these corridors the railway loadings are higher too. While nobody can > > > > argue about the point to point service provided by buses, a corridor > > > > requiring over 80,000 pphpd capacity cannot be served by buses > > > > (theoretically yes, some may argue, but practically speaking, it would > > > > create chaos and service reliability would go haywire). Railways can > > >provide this service. > > > > > > > > >Absolutely agreed. > > > > > > In most of the circumstances if > > > > the journey is about 15-20km or more, buses can't beat the railway > > > > travel in terms of journey time. > > > > > > > > Ideally, depending on the demand a new area can be served by buses > > > > most efficiently but there comes a threshold beyond which the backbone > > > > movements should be moved over to fast, trunk routes such as railways > > > > and buses can still supplement and provide local service. > > > > > > > > > >As I said, not necessarily. First of all, you make the assumption that > there > > >is a "backbone." If needs are dispersed, you may have the metaphor quite > > >wrong, and channeling flows down a rigid hieracrchical type network may > not > > >serve needs. > > > > > >Cost is also an issue. With limited resources, difficult choices must be > > >made about who to serve and how this is to be done, and rail is generally > a > > >very costly approach. > > > > > > > I have seen Bangkok system (I studied in AIT, worked in Bangkok > > > > briefly, and visit once in while) and the problem with railways is not > > > > because they do not provide efficient service but the prices. And > > > > these prices have to be kept high because there is no committment to > > > > reduce the parallel running bus services. > > > > > >No, it is much more complicated than that. Not only is the difference > > >between rail and bus fares in Bangkok substantial, but rail provides only > > >limited service compared to a complex urban bus network (the network is, > > >indeed, in need of reform, with overly lenthy lines operated with poor > > >timekeeping, but that is another matter). > > > > > > Not the non-aircon services, which serve an entirely different > > > > segment which may require a certain level of subsidy, but the aircon > > > > buses which charge much higher but are bleeding anyway. The > > > > alternative would be to cancel these inefficient aircon bus routes in > > > > exchange for a price reduction on railway and both will live happily > > >thereafter. > > > > > >The passengers certainly would not be happy. The buses serve a whole > range > > >of points in-between rail stations as well as beyond them. > > > > > > Institutional > > > > issues may be difficult to resolve but there is need for somebody with > > > > a political courage to take the tough step instead of empty rhetorics > > > > (such as the one of solving Bangkok's traffic problems in 3 months > > > > time. Reminds me of Harry Potter!!). > > > > > >In fact, I think there is a need for cool analytical work to look at the > > >complex characteristics of the population using public transport and the > > >costs and benefits of alternative approaches. This difficult work is > rarely > > >done in an independent and unbiased way --Jonathan > > > > > >----- > > > > > >Jonathan E. D. Richmond 02 524-5510 > (office) > > >Visiting Fellow Intl.: 662 524-5510 > > >Transportation Engineering program > > >School of Civil Engineering, 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: Ms. Nisarat Hansuksa > > > richmond@alum.mit.edu 02 524-6051 > > > Intl: 662 524-6051 > > >http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ > > > > > > 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 Regina_Therese_MANZO at ura.gov.sg Tue May 4 11:36:32 2004 From: Regina_Therese_MANZO at ura.gov.sg (Regina_Therese_MANZO@ura.gov.sg) Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 10:36:32 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Bus, LRT, and heavy rail - comments from a by-stander Message-ID: Hello All Sustainable Transport and Public Transit Advocates (let's remember we're all coming from the same starting point) - the recent spate of email activity over bus or rail is really interesting as it's obviously struck a nerve in Sustran contributors. It reminds me of boys and their need to be "king of the hill", the need to strive for the superlative - in sport, warfare, in the professional field, etc. Perhaps everyone needs to go out for a good joust or round of football/soccer. When we all come back in, we can again be clear that each circumstance is unique (not just in land use but also in politics and behavior patterns, etc.) and there's no set formula for "the best" multi-modal transport solution. Have to say I'm glazing over, but for those fully interested, enjoy, and hope it's educative. Bravo for all the notations of great information that have been provided. I'll refer to these in my work in the future. regards, Gina Manzo Regina Manzo, AICP „X Urban Redevelopment Authority „X 45 Maxwell Road „X URA Centre „X Singapore 069118 „X? ph +65 6321-8305 „X Privileged / Confidential information may be contained in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other person. Please notify the sender immediately if you receive this in error.? http://www.ura.gov.sg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20040504/83075b8e/attachment.html From richmond at alum.mit.edu Tue May 4 13:12:53 2004 From: richmond at alum.mit.edu (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 11:12:53 +0700 (SE Asia Standard Time) Subject: [sustran] Re: Bus, LRT, and heavy rail - comments from a by-stander In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Gina Manzo wrote: It reminds me of boys and their need to be "king of the hill", the need to strive for the superlative - in sport, warfare, in the professional field, etc. Perhaps everyone needs to go out for a good joust or round of football/soccer. Alas, Gina, there is indeed a risk of the arguments appearing this way, but with such a characterization it appears that both sides are in an advocacy position and neither one nor the other has a special claim on the truth. Pro-rail forces have distorted data, sometimes because their advocacy has simply led them to take the most positive assumptions, but also sometimes through outright dishonesty. The performance results in the US are quite clear, as I found in a comprehensive study that set out to be entirely objective. Unfortunately, there are rail opponents who are against public transport in general. Some of them favor more roadbuilding; others are against any form of public expenditure on transport systems. The presence of their arguments clouds the issues and does indeed make it all appear like a football (or possibly boxing) match, and it becomes extremely hard for people like myself who care about providing good value transport systems -- especially to serve the poorest members of society -- to get the truth through. --Jonathan ----- Jonathan E. D. Richmond 02 524-5510 (office) Visiting Fellow Intl.: 662 524-5510 Transportation Engineering program School of Civil Engineering, 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: Ms. Nisarat Hansuksa richmond@alum.mit.edu 02 524-6051 Intl: 662 524-6051 http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ From Regina_Therese_MANZO at ura.gov.sg Tue May 4 13:35:29 2004 From: Regina_Therese_MANZO at ura.gov.sg (Regina_Therese_MANZO@ura.gov.sg) Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 12:35:29 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Bus, LRT, and heavy rail - comments from a by-stander Message-ID: DQpIZWxsbyBKb25hdGhhbiBhbmQgU3VzdHJhbiAtDQoNCkdpbmEgTWFuem8gd3JvdGU6DQoNCkl0 IHJlbWluZHMgbWUgb2YgYm95cw0KYW5kIHRoZWlyIG5lZWQgdG8gYmUgImtpbmcgb2YgdGhlIGhp bGwiLCB0aGUgbmVlZCB0byBzdHJpdmUgZm9yIHRoZQ0Kc3VwZXJsYXRpdmUgLSBpbiBzcG9ydCwg d2FyZmFyZSwgaW4gdGhlIHByb2Zlc3Npb25hbCBmaWVsZCwgZXRjLiAgUGVyaGFwcw0KZXZlcnlv bmUgbmVlZHMgdG8gZ28gb3V0IGZvciBhIGdvb2Qgam91c3Qgb3Igcm91bmQgb2YgZm9vdGJhbGwv c29jY2VyLg0KDQpKb25hdGhhbiByZXBsaWVkOg0KDQpBbGFzLCBHaW5hLCB0aGVyZSBpcyBpbmRl ZWQgYSByaXNrIG9mIHRoZSBhcmd1bWVudHMgYXBwZWFyaW5nIHRoaXMgd2F5LA0KYnV0IHdpdGgg c3VjaCBhIGNoYXJhY3Rlcml6YXRpb24NCml0IGFwcGVhcnMgdGhhdCBib3RoIHNpZGVzIGFyZSBp biBhbg0KYWR2b2NhY3kgcG9zaXRpb24gYW5kIG5laXRoZXIgb25lIG5vciB0aGUgb3RoZXIgaGFz IGEgc3BlY2lhbCBjbGFpbSBvbiB0aGUNCnRydXRoLg0KDQpUaGlzIGlzIHRoZSBjYXNlIC0gbmVp dGhlciBwb3N0aW9uIGRvZXMgaGF2ZSAiYSBzcGVjaWFsIGNsYWltIG9uIHRoZQ0KdHJ1dGguIiAg Qm90aCByYWlsIGFuZCBidXMgYXJlIGltcG9ydGFudCwgYW5kIHRoZSBjb21wbGV4aXRpZXMgb2Yg ZWFjaCBoYXZlDQp0byBiZSBhc3Nlc3NlZCBmb3IgZWFjaCBtZXRybyByZWdpb24uICBMZXQncyB1 bmRlcnN0YW5kIG1vcmUgZGV0YWlscyBvZg0KZWFjaCBzbyB3ZSBjYW4gYmV0dGVyIHVzZSBlYWNo IGFzIGFwcHJvcHJpYXRlIGluIGEgc3VzdGFpbmFibGUgdHJhbnNwb3J0DQpzeXN0ZW0gLSBub3Qg b25lIGF0IHRoZSBleGNsdXNpb24gb2YgdGhlIG90aGVyLg0KDQpyZWdhcmRzLA0KR2luYQ0KDQpS ZWdpbmEgTWFuem8sIEFJQ1AghFggVXJiYW4gUmVkZXZlbG9wbWVudCBBdXRob3JpdHkghFggNDUg TWF4d2VsbCBSb2FkIIRYIFVSQQ0KQ2VudHJlIIRYIFNpbmdhcG9yZSAwNjkxMTgghFg/IHBoICs2 NSA2MzIxLTgzMDUghFgNClByaXZpbGVnZWQgLyBDb25maWRlbnRpYWwgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24gbWF5 IGJlIGNvbnRhaW5lZCBpbiB0aGlzIG1lc3NhZ2UuIElmDQp5b3UgYXJlIG5vdCB0aGUgaW50ZW5k ZWQgcmVjaXBpZW50LCB5b3UgbXVzdCBub3QgY29weSwgZGlzdHJpYnV0ZSBvciB1c2UgaXQNCmZv ciBhbnkgcHVycG9zZSwgbm9yIGRpc2Nsb3NlIGl0cyBjb250ZW50cyB0byBhbnkgb3RoZXIgcGVy c29uLiBQbGVhc2UNCm5vdGlmeSB0aGUgc2VuZGVyIGltbWVkaWF0ZWx5IGlmIHlvdSByZWNlaXZl IHRoaXMgaW4gZXJyb3IuDQpodHRwOi8vd3d3LnVyYS5nb3Yuc2cNCg0KDQp8LS0tLS0tLS0tKy0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLT4NCnwgICAgICAgICB8ICAgICAgICAgICAiSm9uYXRoYW4gRS4gRC4gUmlj aG1vbmQiIDxyaWNobW9uZEBhbHVtLm1pdC5lZHU+ICAgICAgICAgICAgfA0KfCAgICAgICAgIHwg ICAgICAgICAgIFNlbnQgYnk6ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICB8DQp8ICAgICAgICAgfCAgICAgICAgICAgc3VzdHJhbi1kaXNjdXNzLWJv dW5jZXMrcmVnaW5hX3RoZXJlc2VfbWFuem89dXJhLmdvdi5zZ0BsaXN0LnwNCnwgICAgICAgICB8 ICAgICAgICAgICBqY2EuYXBjLm9yZyAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgfA0KfCAgICAgICAgIHwgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICB8DQp8ICAgICAgICAg fCAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIHwNCnwgICAgICAgICB8ICAgICAgICAgICAwNC8wNS8yMDA0IDEyOjEy ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgfA0KfCAgICAgICAg IHwgICAgICAgICAgIFBsZWFzZSByZXNwb25kIHRvIEFzaWEgYW5kIHRoZSBQYWNpZmljIHN1c3Rh aW5hYmxlIHRyYW5zcG9ydCB8DQp8ICAgICAgICAgfCAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIHwNCnwtLS0tLS0t LS0rLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tPg0KICA+LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS18DQogIHwgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIHwNCiAgfCAg ICAgICAgVG86ICAgICAgQXNpYSBhbmQgdGhlIFBhY2lmaWMgc3VzdGFpbmFibGUgdHJhbnNwb3J0 IDxzdXN0cmFuLWRpc2N1c3NAbGlzdC5qY2EuYXBjLm9yZz4gfA0KICB8ICAgICAgICBjYzogICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICB8DQogIHwgICAgICAgIFN1YmplY3Q6IFtzdXN0cmFuXSBS ZTogQnVzLCBMUlQsIGFuZCBoZWF2eSByYWlsIC0gY29tbWVudHMgZnJvbSBhIGJ5LXN0YW5kZXIg ICAgICAgICAgIHwNCiAgPi0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tfA0K DQoNCg0KDQpHaW5hIE1hbnpvIHdyb3RlOg0KDQpJdCByZW1pbmRzIG1lIG9mIGJveXMNCmFuZCB0 aGVpciBuZWVkIHRvIGJlICJraW5nIG9mIHRoZSBoaWxsIiwgdGhlIG5lZWQgdG8gc3RyaXZlIGZv ciB0aGUNCnN1cGVybGF0aXZlIC0gaW4gc3BvcnQsIHdhcmZhcmUsIGluIHRoZSBwcm9mZXNzaW9u YWwgZmllbGQsIGV0Yy4gIFBlcmhhcHMNCmV2ZXJ5b25lIG5lZWRzIHRvIGdvIG91dCBmb3IgYSBn b29kIGpvdXN0IG9yIHJvdW5kIG9mIGZvb3RiYWxsL3NvY2Nlci4NCg0KDQpBbGFzLCBHaW5hLCB0 aGVyZSBpcyBpbmRlZWQgYSByaXNrIG9mIHRoZSBhcmd1bWVudHMgYXBwZWFyaW5nIHRoaXMgd2F5 LA0KYnV0IHdpdGggc3VjaCBhIGNoYXJhY3Rlcml6YXRpb24gaXQgYXBwZWFycyB0aGF0IGJvdGgg c2lkZXMgYXJlIGluIGFuDQphZHZvY2FjeSBwb3NpdGlvbiBhbmQgbmVpdGhlciBvbmUgbm9yIHRo ZSBvdGhlciBoYXMgYSBzcGVjaWFsIGNsYWltIG9uIHRoZQ0KdHJ1dGguDQoNClByby1yYWlsIGZv cmNlcyBoYXZlIGRpc3RvcnRlZCBkYXRhLCBzb21ldGltZXMgYmVjYXVzZSB0aGVpciBhZHZvY2Fj eSBoYXMNCnNpbXBseSBsZWQgdGhlbSB0byB0YWtlIHRoZSBtb3N0IHBvc2l0aXZlIGFzc3VtcHRp b25zLCBidXQgYWxzbyBzb21ldGltZXMNCnRocm91Z2ggb3V0cmlnaHQgZGlzaG9uZXN0eS4gVGhl IHBlcmZvcm1hbmNlIHJlc3VsdHMgaW4gdGhlIFVTIGFyZSBxdWl0ZQ0KY2xlYXIsIGFzIEkgZm91 bmQgaW4gYSBjb21wcmVoZW5zaXZlIHN0dWR5IHRoYXQgc2V0IG91dCB0byBiZSBlbnRpcmVseQ0K b2JqZWN0aXZlLg0KDQpVbmZvcnR1bmF0ZWx5LCB0aGVyZSBhcmUgcmFpbCBvcHBvbmVudHMgd2hv IGFyZSBhZ2FpbnN0IHB1YmxpYyB0cmFuc3BvcnQNCmluIGdlbmVyYWwuIFNvbWUgb2YgdGhlbSBm YXZvciBtb3JlIHJvYWRidWlsZGluZzsgb3RoZXJzIGFyZSBhZ2FpbnN0IGFueQ0KZm9ybSBvZiBw dWJsaWMgZXhwZW5kaXR1cmUgb24gdHJhbnNwb3J0IHN5c3RlbXMuIFRoZSBwcmVzZW5jZSBvZiB0 aGVpcg0KYXJndW1lbnRzIGNsb3VkcyB0aGUgaXNzdWVzIGFuZCBkb2VzIGluZGVlZCBtYWtlIGl0 IGFsbCBhcHBlYXIgbGlrZSBhDQpmb290YmFsbCAob3IgcG9zc2libHkgYm94aW5nKSBtYXRjaCwg YW5kIGl0IGJlY29tZXMgZXh0cmVtZWx5IGhhcmQgZm9yDQpwZW9wbGUgbGlrZSBteXNlbGYgd2hv IGNhcmUgYWJvdXQgcHJvdmlkaW5nIGdvb2QgdmFsdWUgdHJhbnNwb3J0IHN5c3RlbXMNCi0tIGVz cGVjaWFsbHkgdG8gc2VydmUgdGhlIHBvb3Jlc3QgbWVtYmVycyBvZiBzb2NpZXR5IC0tIHRvIGdl dCB0aGUgdHJ1dGgNCnRocm91Z2guDQoNCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgLS1Kb25hdGhhbg0KDQoNCi0tLS0tDQoNCkpvbmF0aGFuIEUuIEQu IFJpY2htb25kICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDAyIDUyNC01NTEwIChvZmZp Y2UpDQpWaXNpdGluZyBGZWxsb3cgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgSW50bC46 IDY2MiA1MjQtNTUxMA0KVHJhbnNwb3J0YXRpb24gRW5naW5lZXJpbmcgcHJvZ3JhbQ0KU2Nob29s IG9mIENpdmlsIEVuZ2luZWVyaW5nLCBSb29tIE4yNjBCICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgMDIgNTI0LTgy NTcgKGhvbWUpDQpBc2lhbiBJbnN0aXR1dGUgb2YgVGVjaG5vbG9neSAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg SW50bC46IDY2MiA1MjQtODI1Nw0KUE8gQm94IDQNCktsb25nIEx1YW5nLCBQYXRodW10aGFuaSAx MjEyMCAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDAyIDUyNC01NTA5IChmYXgpDQpUaGFpbGFuZCAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgSW50bDogIDY2MiA1MjQtNTUwOQ0K DQplLW1haWw6IHJpY2htb25kQGFpdC5hYy50aCAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIFNlY3JldGFyeTogIE1z LiBOaXNhcmF0IEhhbnN1a3NhDQogICAgICAgIHJpY2htb25kQGFsdW0ubWl0LmVkdSAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAwMiA1MjQtNjA1MQ0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIEludGw6DQo2 NjIgNTI0LTYwNTENCmh0dHA6Ly90aGUtdGVjaC5taXQuZWR1L35yaWNobW9uZC8NCg0KDQoNCg== From Regina_Therese_MANZO at ura.gov.sg Tue May 4 13:35:30 2004 From: Regina_Therese_MANZO at ura.gov.sg (Regina_Therese_MANZO@ura.gov.sg) Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 12:35:30 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Bus, LRT, and heavy rail - comments from a by-stander Message-ID: Hello Jonathan and Sustran - Gina Manzo wrote: It reminds me of boys and their need to be "king of the hill", the need to strive for the superlative - in sport, warfare, in the professional field, etc. Perhaps everyone needs to go out for a good joust or round of football/soccer. Jonathan replied: Alas, Gina, there is indeed a risk of the arguments appearing this way, but with such a characterization it appears that both sides are in an advocacy position and neither one nor the other has a special claim on the truth. This is the case - neither postion does have "a special claim on the truth." Both rail and bus are important, and the complexities of each have to be assessed for each metro region. Let's understand more details of each so we can better use each as appropriate in a sustainable transport system - not one at the exclusion of the other. regards, Gina Regina Manzo, AICP „X Urban Redevelopment Authority „X 45 Maxwell Road „X URA Centre „X Singapore 069118 „X? ph +65 6321-8305 „X Privileged / Confidential information may be contained in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other person. Please notify the sender immediately if you receive this in error.? http://www.ura.gov.sg "Jonathan E. D. Richmond" Sent by: sustran-discuss-bounces+regina_therese_manzo=ura.gov.sg@list.jca.apc.org 04/05/2004 12:12 Please respond to Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport cc: Subject: [sustran] Re: Bus, LRT, and heavy rail - comments from a by-stander Gina Manzo wrote: It reminds me of boys and their need to be "king of the hill", the need to strive for the superlative - in sport, warfare, in the professional field, etc. Perhaps everyone needs to go out for a good joust or round of football/soccer. Alas, Gina, there is indeed a risk of the arguments appearing this way, but with such a characterization it appears that both sides are in an advocacy position and neither one nor the other has a special claim on the truth. Pro-rail forces have distorted data, sometimes because their advocacy has simply led them to take the most positive assumptions, but also sometimes through outright dishonesty. The performance results in the US are quite clear, as I found in a comprehensive study that set out to be entirely objective. Unfortunately, there are rail opponents who are against public transport in general. Some of them favor more roadbuilding; others are against any form of public expenditure on transport systems. The presence of their arguments clouds the issues and does indeed make it all appear like a football (or possibly boxing) match, and it becomes extremely hard for people like myself who care about providing good value transport systems -- especially to serve the poorest members of society -- to get the truth through. --Jonathan ----- Jonathan E. D. Richmond 02 524-5510 (office) Visiting Fellow Intl.: 662 524-5510 Transportation Engineering program School of Civil Engineering, 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: Ms. Nisarat Hansuksa richmond@alum.mit.edu 02 524-6051 Intl: 662 524-6051 http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20040504/875e1495/attachment.html From richmond at alum.mit.edu Tue May 4 13:47:02 2004 From: richmond at alum.mit.edu (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 11:47:02 +0700 (SE Asia Standard Time) Subject: [sustran] Re: Bus, LRT, and heavy rail - comments from a by-stander In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Gina, you are indeed right in that advocacy positions by definition do not have a claim on truth -- they are pushing a particular position and will marshall evidence only to defend it. Confusion arises when people who do objective analyses that find one way or the other get lumped with the advocates. --Jonathan On Tue, 4 May 2004 Regina_Therese_MANZO@ura.gov.sg wrote: > > Hello Jonathan and Sustran - > > Gina Manzo wrote: > > It reminds me of boys > and their need to be "king of the hill", the need to strive for the > superlative - in sport, warfare, in the professional field, etc. Perhaps > everyone needs to go out for a good joust or round of football/soccer. > > Jonathan replied: > > Alas, Gina, there is indeed a risk of the arguments appearing this way, > but with such a characterization > it appears that both sides are in an > advocacy position and neither one nor the other has a special claim on th= e > truth. > > This is the case - neither postion does have "a special claim on the > truth." Both rail and bus are important, and the complexities of each ha= ve > to be assessed for each metro region. Let's understand more details of > each so we can better use each as appropriate in a sustainable transport > system - not one at the exclusion of the other. > > regards, > Gina > > Regina Manzo, AICP =84X Urban Redevelopment Authority =84X 45 Maxwell Roa= d =84X URA > Centre =84X Singapore 069118 =84X? ph +65 6321-8305 =84X > Privileged / Confidential information may be contained in this message. I= f > you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or use = it > for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other person. Please > notify the sender immediately if you receive this in error. > http://www.ura.gov.sg > > > |---------+--------------------------------------------------------------= ----------> > | | "Jonathan E. D. Richmond" = | > | | Sent by: = | > | | sustran-discuss-bounces+regina_therese_manzo=3Dura.= gov.sg@list.| > | | jca.apc.org = | > | | = | > | | = | > | | 04/05/2004 12:12 = | > | | Please respond to Asia and the Pacific sustainable = transport | > | | = | > |---------+--------------------------------------------------------------= ----------> > >----------------------------------------------------------------------= -------------------------| > | = | > | To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport | > | cc: = | > | Subject: [sustran] Re: Bus, LRT, and heavy rail - comments fro= m a by-stander | > >----------------------------------------------------------------------= -------------------------| > > > > > Gina Manzo wrote: > > It reminds me of boys > and their need to be "king of the hill", the need to strive for the > superlative - in sport, warfare, in the professional field, etc. Perhaps > everyone needs to go out for a good joust or round of football/soccer. > > > Alas, Gina, there is indeed a risk of the arguments appearing this way, > but with such a characterization it appears that both sides are in an > advocacy position and neither one nor the other has a special claim on th= e > truth. > > Pro-rail forces have distorted data, sometimes because their advocacy has > simply led them to take the most positive assumptions, but also sometimes > through outright dishonesty. The performance results in the US are quite > clear, as I found in a comprehensive study that set out to be entirely > objective. > > Unfortunately, there are rail opponents who are against public transport > in general. Some of them favor more roadbuilding; others are against any > form of public expenditure on transport systems. The presence of their > arguments clouds the issues and does indeed make it all appear like a > football (or possibly boxing) match, and it becomes extremely hard for > people like myself who care about providing good value transport systems > -- especially to serve the poorest members of society -- to get the truth > through. > > --Jonathan > > > ----- > > Jonathan E. D. Richmond 02 524-5510 (office= ) > Visiting Fellow Intl.: 662 524-5510 > Transportation Engineering program > School of Civil Engineering, 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: Ms. Nisarat Hansuksa > richmond@alum.mit.edu 02 524-605= 1 > Intl: > 662 524-6051 > http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ > > > > ----- Jonathan E. D. Richmond 02 524-5510 (office) Visiting Fellow Intl.: 662 524-5510 Transportation Engineering program School of Civil Engineering, 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: Ms. Nisarat Hansuksa richmond@alum.mit.edu=09=09 02 524-6051 =09=09=09=09=09 Intl: 662 524-6051 http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ From karl at dnet.net.id Tue May 4 14:02:25 2004 From: karl at dnet.net.id (Karl Fjellstrom) Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 12:02:25 +0700 Subject: [sustran] Re: Rail or bus In-Reply-To: <07B178BAA415FB4A9C9B4AA845F1F2C6259C78@smail1pa.corp.kcrc.com> Message-ID: <20040504050346.2B9582BEDB@list.jca.apc.org> Dear Alok, Thanks for the thoughtful note. Appreciate the chance to bounce ideas around, just as a way to learn and not to advocate a particular approach. Actually there's a lot to reply to, including your observations of Bogota (you're right, in many ways it has all the advantages of a metro rail system like high capacity, express routes, exclusive ROW, trunk & feeders, but without the main disadvantages of cost and construction time), but for now I'll just reply on your notes on Bangkok. I think there is an inaccuracy in your point 3 and 4 below where you indicate private sector air con bus services, and informal sector servcies (primarily a/c minivans) have a 'price comparable to the skytrain'. If this were true, then you may be right in some senses that "There is hardly any difference between 3, 4 and skytrain services." But according to my information this isn't true and so the argument doesn't hold..... Firstly: for private a/c services there is a fleet of 800 or so microbuses charging a flat 20 baht. But they have very long routes, I don't know exactly but probably more than 20 or 30km avg. And people tend to use them for long rather than short trips. Sometimes even shorter trips by the skytrain would cost double (40 baht). And there are the private a/c buses, around 700 in Jan-03 but rapidly growing. These charge from 8 to 18 baht depending on distance. Again, average routes are long (around 30km!) but a normal fare for a city trip up to 8km is 8 baht. A similar distance on the skytrain is at least triple or quadruple this. It's a similar story for the BMTA (state operator) air con buses, of which there are around 2000. These charge from 12 to 22 baht depending on distance but for the first 8km it's 12 baht, well under half the price of a comparable trip on the skytrain. (Though in all cases for very short trips of course there is much less price difference, as the minimum, 1-station skytrain fare is 10 baht.) Secondly: for the minivans, it's 10 to 43 baht depending on distance, but they tend to have even longer routes, serving outer suburbs. So as well as being much cheaper than the skytrain on a per km basis they also enable less transfers (hence further savings) than would be required if they were forced to use the skytrain for part of the trip. Just one note to add about the 'financiers' and 'bottomline' which you mention. KfW, a major financier of the system, recently wrote off a huge chunk of debt owed by the skytrain operator, since the operator cannot pay back the loan and is struggling just to make the interest payments. Ridership now of 300,000+ in 2004 is great, except perhaps when we consider the 1996 projections were for 900,000+ and even the revised projections following the economic crash in '97 were 600,000+ *during the first year of system opening* (back in late '99), with projections for further rapid growth after that. I'm not against the skytrain and I think it's a wonderful service for an important wealthy sector of the market. I think it also helps raise the image of transit in Bangkok. And much more should have been done to better integrate the formal bus services. (This could have preempted the explosion in informal services.) But I am a leery of some of the inflated claims made (often by those with a very strongly vested interest) in using public funds to further expand the skytrain network - or develop other metro rail lines - without even considering alernatives. Best rgds, Karl -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Jain Alok Sent: Tuesday, 4 May 2004 8:57 AM To: 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport' Subject: [sustran] Re: Rail or bus Probably Karl and Jonathan are right. My analysis of Bangkok were too simplistic. Let me present it in a more complicated way. There are many types of bus services in Bangkok (I may be a bit out-dated on this, so please feel free to correct me). 1. non aircon buses by BMTA: they lose money with both hands but are more of a social service 2. aircon buses by BMTA: more than double the price of non-aircon buses but they are loss-making anyway 3. other air-con buses by private sector: prices comparable to skytrain. Probably breaks even (?). Limited stops 4. informal sector services (vans, minibuses etc.): prices comparable to skytrain. Must be money-making otherwise why would they exist. Limited stops. I have got nothing against 1 if the taxpayers don't feel bad about it. There is every reason to get rid of 2 if they duplicate (extra emphasis because this was missed by Karl) any of 1, 3 or skytrain. There is hardly any difference between 3, 4 and skytrain services. Again, there is opportunity to rationalise "duplicating" services. There are many other reasons for this than helping skytrain ridership (which according to the latest stats is not bad by any means - over 300,000/day). I don't think august audience of this group needs elaboration on that. Lets say sombody has the political will to achieve this. The ridership of skytrain would improve, the poor still have a basic bus service (which now probably be faster with some of 2 off-road), even 3 and 4 can co-exist by serving corridors not served by skytrain. It is arguable whether any extra profits made by skytrain can be translated into fare reduction but if the rationalisation deal can be "sold" to the financiers in exchange of fare reduction (x% reduction in fare for x% increase in ridership), I do not think it would be impossible. Financing institutions care about bottomline and as long as that could be maintained they don't care. Again, I must insist, there may not be an easy solution but my two pence worth of analysis says that it is better than keeping the status quo. We all know that everybody likes to have point-to-point (sorry door-to-door) first class service for free of almost free but can somebody tell me how it could be provided. Railway is a rigid system but then what bus system is not. Probably every citizen should own a car which should be fully subsidised by state and then let everybody be stuck in the traffic - that could also be considered an equitable system. I am not against bus system. By all means run them on dedicated right-of-way. To me at this point, there is hardly any difference between railway and buses except the power transmission and wheels. Bogota BRT is 2-4 lanes with extra widening of right-of-way at the stops. No doubt it is an impressive system but doesn't it resemble a railway system. Does it not have main service corridors (or trunks or backbone, no matter what you call it)? Do all the buses stop at every place in-between, especially the long distance ones? There is of-course no one-size-fits-all and every situation requires careful analysis. Alok -----Original Message----- From: Karl Fjellstrom [mailto:karl@dnet.net.id] Dear all, I agree with Jonathan's replies on Bangkok. The simple analysis of Alok Jain of the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation on air con buses and the skytrain is incorrect. For one thing air-con buses are not 'inefficient'. They have a better cost recovery than the non-air con buses and with the exception of the BMTA (the state operator which makes a loss on all routes, air-con and non-aircon) they are all profitable despite the adverse operating conditions. Secondly closing bus routes parallel to the skytrain would improve skytrain ridership somewhat but is not a Harry Potter magical stroke which would solve the skytrain ridership problem or magically make reduced skytrain fares viable leading to buses and skytrain 'living happily thereafter' as he puts it. And it would in the mid term lead to yet more proliferation of the air-con passenger vans, as the skytrain is not an option for many people (due to cost and the limited coverage - it's predominantly a corridor of 'destinations') and cutting them off from buses would result in a substantial unmet demand that would probably - based on prior experience - subsequently be met by paratransit, further eroding the viability of the formal large bus sector... Imho rail metros (like bus-based 'metros') can have many benefits as e.g. Todd Litman elaborated. And especially where expensive rail investments have already been made, even if ill-advised, it makes sense to optimise them including by re-organising bus routes. But Hong Kong is a special case. Transit demands of 80,000 pax/hr/dir on one corridor are probably unique. A more normal range is say up to 13,000 pax/hr/dir which can be handled by regular buses or by just a single lane BRT, or in some cases up to 25,000 which is comfortably within the range of BRT and still within the range of regular bus services. BRT currently reaches 35,000 and can in fact go up to 50,000 on the existing Bogota configuration, for example. There are few corridors where public transport demand exceeds 40,000, and even where it does this demand can be split into multiple corridors through establishing a transit network. (In Hong Kong on the Kowloon side much of the demand is channeled into a single line, partly due to unique topography I suppose. Likewise Sao Paulo can hit 60,000 phd by focusing a line on Avenida Paulista with no parallel services.) So the argument that some trunk corridors *require* rail based on demand levels is true but only applies in some very exceptional cases. In cities with demand above a bus-only threshold and below say 50,000 pphpd, if a proper analysis of costs and benefits shows rail to be the better option, then by all means proceed with rail. But so often there is no such proper analysis.... Regards, Karl -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan E. D. Richmond Sent: Monday, 3 May 2004 11:21 AM To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport Subject: [sustran] Re: Rail or bus On Mon, 3 May 2004, Jain Alok wrote: > Dear Eric and Jonathan, > > Some interesting arguments in your mails about rail vs. buses. No > doubt I have enjoyed your discussions but it has gone a bit > philosophical and leading to a bit of activism. Why should this be a > rail vs. bus discussion? Good point, and I certainly would call for rail where it makes sense. > Why can't this be a rail plus bus discussion? Because there are many situations where rail investments have had poor results and we need to guard against further inapropriate developments that squander scarce public resources and hurt those of low income. There comes a time when > passenger traffic in a corridor becomes so heavy that rail becomes the > logical choice. Sometimes, but not necessarily. Look at Curitiba, for example. You have cited European and US examples but in Asia, Hong > Kong is a good example (for the record, I work for a HK railway company). > I agree completely: the Hong Kong system is wonderful and makes complete sense. So does the metro of Mexico City. > Buses and rail co-exist and both provide fantastic service. The prices > are comparable (so the poor vs rich issue is not a prime concern). Bus > lanes are provided in corridors with heavy bus traffic. Usually, at > these corridors the railway loadings are higher too. While nobody can > argue about the point to point service provided by buses, a corridor > requiring over 80,000 pphpd capacity cannot be served by buses > (theoretically yes, some may argue, but practically speaking, it would > create chaos and service reliability would go haywire). Railways can provide this service. Absolutely agreed. In most of the circumstances if > the journey is about 15-20km or more, buses can't beat the railway > travel in terms of journey time. > > Ideally, depending on the demand a new area can be served by buses > most efficiently but there comes a threshold beyond which the backbone > movements should be moved over to fast, trunk routes such as railways > and buses can still supplement and provide local service. > As I said, not necessarily. First of all, you make the assumption that there is a "backbone." If needs are dispersed, you may have the metaphor quite wrong, and channeling flows down a rigid hieracrchical type network may not serve needs. Cost is also an issue. With limited resources, difficult choices must be made about who to serve and how this is to be done, and rail is generally a very costly approach. > I have seen Bangkok system (I studied in AIT, worked in Bangkok > briefly, and visit once in while) and the problem with railways is not > because they do not provide efficient service but the prices. And > these prices have to be kept high because there is no committment to > reduce the parallel running bus services. No, it is much more complicated than that. Not only is the difference between rail and bus fares in Bangkok substantial, but rail provides only limited service compared to a complex urban bus network (the network is, indeed, in need of reform, with overly lenthy lines operated with poor timekeeping, but that is another matter). Not the non-aircon services, which serve an entirely different > segment which may require a certain level of subsidy, but the aircon > buses which charge much higher but are bleeding anyway. The > alternative would be to cancel these inefficient aircon bus routes in > exchange for a price reduction on railway and both will live happily thereafter. The passengers certainly would not be happy. The buses serve a whole range of points in-between rail stations as well as beyond them. Institutional > issues may be difficult to resolve but there is need for somebody with > a political courage to take the tough step instead of empty rhetorics > (such as the one of solving Bangkok's traffic problems in 3 months > time. Reminds me of Harry Potter!!). In fact, I think there is a need for cool analytical work to look at the complex characteristics of the population using public transport and the costs and benefits of alternative approaches. This difficult work is rarely done in an independent and unbiased way --Jonathan This email and any attachment to it may contain confidential or proprietary information that are intended solely for the person / entity to whom it was originally addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distributing or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, arrive late or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the context of this message which arise as a result of transmission over the Internet. No opinions contained herein shall be construed as being a formal disclosure or commitment of the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation unless specifically so stated. From etts at indigo.ie Tue May 4 21:21:19 2004 From: etts at indigo.ie (Brendan Finn) Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 13:21:19 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Re: Rail or bus References: <20040504050346.2B9582BEDB@list.jca.apc.org> Message-ID: <004101c431d2$4e0f3850$0101a8c0@fujitsu83p69tb> Dear Sustran group, For those who are interested, the review on LRT was carried out by the National Audit Office in the UK and is available at www.nao.org.uk/pn/03-04/0304518.htm In my opinion, the review does not pan LRT - on the contrary, it appears to be positive about the implemented systems. However, it is concerned about the financial performance, and has tried to get at the reasons LRT systems have invariably failed to meet the expectations and promises of the promoters. The recommendations are aimed at identifying the causes of scheme delays, cost inflation and revenue shortfalls, and avoiding these in future schemes. The issues are relevant beyond the UK, and they have compared elements of UK practice with that in France and Germany. For information, the UK has implemented 7 such schemes with the public sector being the biggest investor. They are facing the possibility of 25 further schemes, of which 12 are already at various stages in the planning pipeline. As the agency responsible for auditing the effectiveness of public expenditure, the NAO wants to ensure best value for public money. While the report has been welcomed by the industry sector, I think it will force more realism about future schemes so that they are planned on reality. This is in everyone's interests. I agree with Gina's comment that this discussion should not descend into a bunfight. However, this is not a trivial issue nor is it irrelevant to sustainable transport. There is a growing array of case studies in Europe, SouthEast Asia and North America where the solution has come before the analysis. In some cases, these projects have clearly not been the best options. This brings transportation professionals into disrepute, and has serious negative impacts on the cities and their citizens. Since these projects devour the public funds available for transportation investment, it is important that they really do produce the best solution. That requires an honest appraisal of the proposed project, and an equal consideration of the best alternatives. With best wishes, Brendan Finn. _______________________________________________________________________ Contact details are : e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : +353.87.2530286 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karl Fjellstrom" To: "'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport'" Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 6:02 AM Subject: [sustran] Re: Rail or bus > Dear Alok, > > Thanks for the thoughtful note. Appreciate the chance to bounce ideas > around, just as a way to learn and not to advocate a particular approach. > Actually there's a lot to reply to, including your observations of Bogota > (you're right, in many ways it has all the advantages of a metro rail system > like high capacity, express routes, exclusive ROW, trunk & feeders, but > without the main disadvantages of cost and construction time), but for now > I'll just reply on your notes on Bangkok. > > I think there is an inaccuracy in your point 3 and 4 below where you > indicate private sector air con bus services, and informal sector servcies > (primarily a/c minivans) have a 'price comparable to the skytrain'. If this > were true, then you may be right in some senses that "There is hardly any > difference between 3, 4 and skytrain services." But according to my > information this isn't true and so the argument doesn't hold..... > > Firstly: for private a/c services there is a fleet of 800 or so microbuses > charging a flat 20 baht. But they have very long routes, I don't know > exactly but probably more than 20 or 30km avg. And people tend to use them > for long rather than short trips. Sometimes even shorter trips by the > skytrain would cost double (40 baht). And there are the private a/c buses, > around 700 in Jan-03 but rapidly growing. These charge from 8 to 18 baht > depending on distance. Again, average routes are long (around 30km!) but a > normal fare for a city trip up to 8km is 8 baht. A similar distance on the > skytrain is at least triple or quadruple this. It's a similar story for the > BMTA (state operator) air con buses, of which there are around 2000. These > charge from 12 to 22 baht depending on distance but for the first 8km it's > 12 baht, well under half the price of a comparable trip on the skytrain. > (Though in all cases for very short trips of course there is much less price > difference, as the minimum, 1-station skytrain fare is 10 baht.) > > Secondly: for the minivans, it's 10 to 43 baht depending on distance, but > they tend to have even longer routes, serving outer suburbs. So as well as > being much cheaper than the skytrain on a per km basis they also enable less > transfers (hence further savings) than would be required if they were forced > to use the skytrain for part of the trip. > > Just one note to add about the 'financiers' and 'bottomline' which you > mention. KfW, a major financier of the system, recently wrote off a huge > chunk of debt owed by the skytrain operator, since the operator cannot pay > back the loan and is struggling just to make the interest payments. > Ridership now of 300,000+ in 2004 is great, except perhaps when we consider > the 1996 projections were for 900,000+ and even the revised projections > following the economic crash in '97 were 600,000+ *during the first year of > system opening* (back in late '99), with projections for further rapid > growth after that. > > I'm not against the skytrain and I think it's a wonderful service for an > important wealthy sector of the market. I think it also helps raise the > image of transit in Bangkok. And much more should have been done to better > integrate the formal bus services. (This could have preempted the explosion > in informal services.) But I am a leery of some of the inflated claims made > (often by those with a very strongly vested interest) in using public funds > to further expand the skytrain network - or develop other metro rail lines - > without even considering alernatives. > > Best rgds, Karl > > -----Original Message----- > From: sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf > Of Jain Alok > Sent: Tuesday, 4 May 2004 8:57 AM > To: 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport' > Subject: [sustran] Re: Rail or bus > > Probably Karl and Jonathan are right. My analysis of Bangkok were too > simplistic. Let me present it in a more complicated way. > > There are many types of bus services in Bangkok (I may be a bit out-dated on > this, so please feel free to correct me). > > 1. non aircon buses by BMTA: they lose money with both hands but are more of > a social service 2. aircon buses by BMTA: more than double the price of > non-aircon buses but they are loss-making anyway 3. other air-con buses by > private sector: prices comparable to skytrain. > Probably breaks even (?). Limited stops > 4. informal sector services (vans, minibuses etc.): prices comparable to > skytrain. Must be money-making otherwise why would they exist. Limited > stops. > > I have got nothing against 1 if the taxpayers don't feel bad about it. There > is every reason to get rid of 2 if they duplicate (extra emphasis because > this was missed by Karl) any of 1, 3 or skytrain. There is hardly any > difference between 3, 4 and skytrain services. Again, there is opportunity > to rationalise "duplicating" services. There are many other reasons for this > than helping skytrain ridership (which according to the latest stats is not > bad by any means - over 300,000/day). I don't think august audience of this > group needs elaboration on that. > > Lets say sombody has the political will to achieve this. The ridership of > skytrain would improve, the poor still have a basic bus service (which now > probably be faster with some of 2 off-road), even 3 and 4 can co-exist by > serving corridors not served by skytrain. It is arguable whether any extra > profits made by skytrain can be translated into fare reduction but if the > rationalisation deal can be "sold" to the financiers in exchange of fare > reduction (x% reduction in fare for x% increase in ridership), I do not > think it would be impossible. Financing institutions care about bottomline > and as long as that could be maintained they don't care. > > Again, I must insist, there may not be an easy solution but my two pence > worth of analysis says that it is better than keeping the status quo. We all > know that everybody likes to have point-to-point (sorry door-to-door) first > class service for free of almost free but can somebody tell me how it could > be provided. Railway is a rigid system but then what bus system is not. > Probably every citizen should own a car which should be fully subsidised by > state and then let everybody be stuck in the traffic - that could also be > considered an equitable system. > > I am not against bus system. By all means run them on dedicated > right-of-way. To me at this point, there is hardly any difference between > railway and buses except the power transmission and wheels. Bogota BRT is > 2-4 lanes with extra widening of right-of-way at the stops. No doubt it is > an impressive system but doesn't it resemble a railway system. Does it not > have main service corridors (or trunks or backbone, no matter what you call > it)? Do all the buses stop at every place in-between, especially the long > distance ones? > > There is of-course no one-size-fits-all and every situation requires careful > analysis. > > Alok > -----Original Message----- > From: Karl Fjellstrom [mailto:karl@dnet.net.id] > > Dear all, > > I agree with Jonathan's replies on Bangkok. The simple analysis of Alok Jain > of the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation on air con buses and the skytrain > is incorrect. For one thing air-con buses are not 'inefficient'. They have a > better cost recovery than the non-air con buses and with the exception of > the BMTA (the state operator which makes a loss on all routes, air-con and > non-aircon) they are all profitable despite the adverse operating > conditions. Secondly closing bus routes parallel to the skytrain would > improve skytrain ridership somewhat but is not a Harry Potter magical stroke > which would solve the skytrain ridership problem or magically make reduced > skytrain fares viable leading to buses and skytrain 'living happily > thereafter' as he puts it. And it would in the mid term lead to yet more > proliferation of the air-con passenger vans, as the skytrain is not an > option for many people (due to cost and the limited coverage - it's > predominantly a corridor of 'destinations') and cutting them off from buses > would result in a substantial unmet demand that would probably - based on > prior experience - subsequently be met by paratransit, further eroding the > viability of the formal large bus sector... > > Imho rail metros (like bus-based 'metros') can have many benefits as e.g. > Todd Litman elaborated. And especially where expensive rail investments have > already been made, even if ill-advised, it makes sense to optimise them > including by re-organising bus routes. > > But Hong Kong is a special case. Transit demands of 80,000 pax/hr/dir on one > corridor are probably unique. A more normal range is say up to 13,000 > pax/hr/dir which can be handled by regular buses or by just a single lane > BRT, or in some cases up to 25,000 which is comfortably within the range of > BRT and still within the range of regular bus services. BRT currently > reaches 35,000 and can in fact go up to 50,000 on the existing Bogota > configuration, for example. There are few corridors where public transport > demand exceeds 40,000, and even where it does this demand can be split into > multiple corridors through establishing a transit network. (In Hong Kong on > the Kowloon side much of the demand is channeled into a single line, partly > due to unique topography I suppose. Likewise Sao Paulo can hit 60,000 phd by > focusing a line on Avenida Paulista with no parallel services.) So the > argument that some trunk corridors *require* rail based on demand levels is > true but only applies in some very exceptional cases. > > In cities with demand above a bus-only threshold and below say 50,000 pphpd, > if a proper analysis of costs and benefits shows rail to be the better > option, then by all means proceed with rail. But so often there is no such > proper analysis.... > > Regards, Karl > > -----Original Message----- > From: sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf > Of Jonathan E. D. Richmond > Sent: Monday, 3 May 2004 11:21 AM > To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport > Subject: [sustran] Re: Rail or bus > > On Mon, 3 May 2004, Jain Alok wrote: > > > Dear Eric and Jonathan, > > > > Some interesting arguments in your mails about rail vs. buses. No > > doubt I have enjoyed your discussions but it has gone a bit > > philosophical and leading to a bit of activism. Why should this be a > > rail > vs. bus discussion? > > Good point, and I certainly would call for rail where it makes sense. > > > > Why can't this be a rail plus bus discussion? > > Because there are many situations where rail investments have had poor > results and we need to guard against further inapropriate developments that > squander scarce public resources and hurt those of low income. > > There comes a time when > > passenger traffic in a corridor becomes so heavy that rail becomes the > > logical choice. > > Sometimes, but not necessarily. Look at Curitiba, for example. > > You have cited European and US examples but in Asia, Hong > > Kong is a good example (for the record, I work for a HK railway company). > > > > I agree completely: the Hong Kong system is wonderful and makes complete > sense. So does the metro of Mexico City. > > > > Buses and rail co-exist and both provide fantastic service. The prices > > are comparable (so the poor vs rich issue is not a prime concern). Bus > > lanes are provided in corridors with heavy bus traffic. Usually, at > > these corridors the railway loadings are higher too. While nobody can > > argue about the point to point service provided by buses, a corridor > > requiring over 80,000 pphpd capacity cannot be served by buses > > (theoretically yes, some may argue, but practically speaking, it would > > create chaos and service reliability would go haywire). Railways can > provide this service. > > > Absolutely agreed. > > In most of the circumstances if > > the journey is about 15-20km or more, buses can't beat the railway > > travel in terms of journey time. > > > > Ideally, depending on the demand a new area can be served by buses > > most efficiently but there comes a threshold beyond which the backbone > > movements should be moved over to fast, trunk routes such as railways > > and buses can still supplement and provide local service. > > > > As I said, not necessarily. First of all, you make the assumption that there > is a "backbone." If needs are dispersed, you may have the metaphor quite > wrong, and channeling flows down a rigid hieracrchical type network may not > serve needs. > > Cost is also an issue. With limited resources, difficult choices must be > made about who to serve and how this is to be done, and rail is generally a > very costly approach. > > > I have seen Bangkok system (I studied in AIT, worked in Bangkok > > briefly, and visit once in while) and the problem with railways is not > > because they do not provide efficient service but the prices. And > > these prices have to be kept high because there is no committment to > > reduce the parallel running bus services. > > No, it is much more complicated than that. Not only is the difference > between rail and bus fares in Bangkok substantial, but rail provides only > limited service compared to a complex urban bus network (the network is, > indeed, in need of reform, with overly lenthy lines operated with poor > timekeeping, but that is another matter). > > Not the non-aircon services, which serve an entirely different > > segment which may require a certain level of subsidy, but the aircon > > buses which charge much higher but are bleeding anyway. The > > alternative would be to cancel these inefficient aircon bus routes in > > exchange for a price reduction on railway and both will live happily > thereafter. > > The passengers certainly would not be happy. The buses serve a whole range > of points in-between rail stations as well as beyond them. > > Institutional > > issues may be difficult to resolve but there is need for somebody with > > a political courage to take the tough step instead of empty rhetorics > > (such as the one of solving Bangkok's traffic problems in 3 months > > time. Reminds me of Harry Potter!!). > > In fact, I think there is a need for cool analytical work to look at the > complex characteristics of the population using public transport and the > costs and benefits of alternative approaches. This difficult work is rarely > done in an independent and unbiased way --Jonathan > > This email and any attachment to it may contain confidential or proprietary > information that are intended solely for the person / entity to whom it was > originally addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, any > disclosure, copying, distributing or any action taken or omitted to be taken > in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. > Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as > information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, arrive late or contain > viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or > omissions in the context of this message which arise as a result of > transmission over the Internet. > No opinions contained herein shall be construed as being a formal disclosure > or commitment of the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation unless specifically > so stated. > > > From ericbruun at earthlink.net Wed May 5 08:19:30 2004 From: ericbruun at earthlink.net (Eric Bruun) Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 19:19:30 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Advocacy? References: Message-ID: <004c01c4322e$44eec680$84f845cf@earthlink.net> Regina I don't feel that I am taking a pro-rail advocacy position in a "bus versus rail" debate. I have been arguing that 1) they both can work together, and 2) that new rail investment is appropriate under SOME CIRCUMSTANCES. What sucked me into this discussion was my perception that others were taking an advocacy position AGAINST rail under almost all circumstances. Was I wrong? Eric ----- Original Message ----- From: Regina_Therese_MANZO@ura.gov.sg To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 10:36 PM Subject: [sustran] Re: Bus, LRT, and heavy rail - comments from a by-stander Hello All Sustainable Transport and Public Transit Advocates (let's remember we're all coming from the same starting point) - the recent spate of email activity over bus or rail is really interesting as it's obviously struck a nerve in Sustran contributors. It reminds me of boys and their need to be "king of the hill", the need to strive for the superlative - in sport, warfare, in the professional field, etc. Perhaps everyone needs to go out for a good joust or round of football/soccer. When we all come back in, we can again be clear that each circumstance is unique (not just in land use but also in politics and behavior patterns, etc.) and there's no set formula for "the best" multi-modal transport solution. Have to say I'm glazing over, but for those fully interested, enjoy, and hope it's educative. Bravo for all the notations of great information that have been provided. I'll refer to these in my work in the future. regards, Gina Manzo Regina Manzo, AICP „X Urban Redevelopment Authority „X 45 Maxwell Road „X URA Centre „X Singapore 069118 „X ph +65 6321-8305 „X Privileged / Confidential information may be contained in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other person. Please notify the sender immediately if you receive this in error. http://www.ura.gov.sg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20040504/789d554d/attachment.html From Regina_Therese_MANZO at ura.gov.sg Wed May 5 10:32:48 2004 From: Regina_Therese_MANZO at ura.gov.sg (Regina_Therese_MANZO@ura.gov.sg) Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 09:32:48 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Advocacy? Message-ID: Dear Eric - I have appreciated your thoughtful comments on Sustran. My concern was, similar to yours, that there seemed to be advocacy of a single position rather than acknowledging both rail and bus as options/tools for a sustainable system. To some extent discussing these without a context opens the door for disagreements about when each can work because there's no boundary offered by the ground reality of a given metro area. I just wanted to reiterate that both are important tools. In a context of sustainability, we should always be considering equity, cost, environmental impact.... I specifically haven't mentioned my views, and for me personally it seems that rail does get promoted too often before a discussion of other alternatives because it is "sexy" and "modern"; this does not negate the fact that it offers certain benefits/disbenefits compared to bus/BRT systems and can be appropriate in certain circumstances. Apologies if I've offended anyone, and for dampening the discussion. Best regards, Gina Manzo Regina Manzo, AICP „X Urban Redevelopment Authority „X 45 Maxwell Road „X URA Centre „X Singapore 069118 „X? ph +65 6321-8305 „X Privileged / Confidential information may be contained in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other person. Please notify the sender immediately if you receive this in error.? http://www.ura.gov.sg "Eric Bruun" Sent by: sustran-discuss-bounces+regina_therese_manzo=ura.gov.sg@list.jca.apc.org 05/05/2004 07:19 Please respond to Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" cc: Subject: [sustran] Advocacy? Regina I don't feel that I am taking a pro-rail advocacy position in a "bus versus rail" debate. I have been arguing that 1) they both can work together, and 2) that new rail investment is appropriate under SOME CIRCUMSTANCES. What sucked me into this discussion was my perception that others were taking an advocacy position AGAINST rail under almost all circumstances. Was I wrong? Eric ----- Original Message ----- From: Regina_Therese_MANZO@ura.gov.sg To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 10:36 PM Subject: [sustran] Re: Bus, LRT, and heavy rail - comments from a by-stander Hello All Sustainable Transport and Public Transit Advocates (let's remember we're all coming from the same starting point) - the recent spate of email activity over bus or rail is really interesting as it's obviously struck a nerve in Sustran contributors. It reminds me of boys and their need to be "king of the hill", the need to strive for the superlative - in sport, warfare, in the professional field, etc. Perhaps everyone needs to go out for a good joust or round of football/soccer. When we all come back in, we can again be clear that each circumstance is unique (not just in land use but also in politics and behavior patterns, etc.) and there's no set formula for "the best" multi-modal transport solution. Have to say I'm glazing over, but for those fully interested, enjoy, and hope it's educative. Bravo for all the notations of great information that have been provided. I'll refer to these in my work in the future. regards, Gina Manzo Regina Manzo, AICP „X Urban Redevelopment Authority „X 45 Maxwell Road „X URA Centre „X Singapore 069118 „X ph +65 6321-8305 „X Privileged / Confidential information may be contained in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other person. Please notify the sender immediately if you receive this in error. http://www.ura.gov.sg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20040505/e1bb0ccd/attachment.html From ajain at kcrc.com Wed May 5 12:20:42 2004 From: ajain at kcrc.com (Jain Alok) Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 11:20:42 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Rail or bus Message-ID: <07B178BAA415FB4A9C9B4AA845F1F2C6259C8A@smail1pa.corp.kcrc.com> Dear Karl, Taking a few comparisons from your previous mail, and checking BTS website for latest ticketing offered, I can summarise the following: Minimum fare for short-distance travel: BMTA air-con buses: 8 baht Microbuses: 20 baht Skytrain: 10 baht Obviously, microbuses would be more expensive for short-distance whereas BMTA a/c buses and Skytrain are comparable. Fares for Long-distance travel: BMTA air-con buses: 18 baht Microbuses: 20 baht Skytrain: 40 baht (although with multiple trip ticket, this could be reduced to 18-25 baht) Yes, skytrain is more expensive than microbuses and BMTA buses when you consider published single journey fare but for regular users the fares are not that different. Apart from different ways of looking at figures, I guess we share the same view with respect to Bangkok. Regards Alok -----Original Message----- From: Karl Fjellstrom [mailto:karl@dnet.net.id] Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 1:02 PM To: 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport' Subject: [sustran] Re: Rail or bus Dear Alok, Thanks for the thoughtful note. Appreciate the chance to bounce ideas around, just as a way to learn and not to advocate a particular approach. Actually there's a lot to reply to, including your observations of Bogota (you're right, in many ways it has all the advantages of a metro rail system like high capacity, express routes, exclusive ROW, trunk & feeders, but without the main disadvantages of cost and construction time), but for now I'll just reply on your notes on Bangkok. I think there is an inaccuracy in your point 3 and 4 below where you indicate private sector air con bus services, and informal sector servcies (primarily a/c minivans) have a 'price comparable to the skytrain'. If this were true, then you may be right in some senses that "There is hardly any difference between 3, 4 and skytrain services." But according to my information this isn't true and so the argument doesn't hold..... Firstly: for private a/c services there is a fleet of 800 or so microbuses charging a flat 20 baht. But they have very long routes, I don't know exactly but probably more than 20 or 30km avg. And people tend to use them for long rather than short trips. Sometimes even shorter trips by the skytrain would cost double (40 baht). And there are the private a/c buses, around 700 in Jan-03 but rapidly growing. These charge from 8 to 18 baht depending on distance. Again, average routes are long (around 30km!) but a normal fare for a city trip up to 8km is 8 baht. A similar distance on the skytrain is at least triple or quadruple this. It's a similar story for the BMTA (state operator) air con buses, of which there are around 2000. These charge from 12 to 22 baht depending on distance but for the first 8km it's 12 baht, well under half the price of a comparable trip on the skytrain. (Though in all cases for very short trips of course there is much less price difference, as the minimum, 1-station skytrain fare is 10 baht.) Secondly: for the minivans, it's 10 to 43 baht depending on distance, but they tend to have even longer routes, serving outer suburbs. So as well as being much cheaper than the skytrain on a per km basis they also enable less transfers (hence further savings) than would be required if they were forced to use the skytrain for part of the trip. Just one note to add about the 'financiers' and 'bottomline' which you mention. KfW, a major financier of the system, recently wrote off a huge chunk of debt owed by the skytrain operator, since the operator cannot pay back the loan and is struggling just to make the interest payments. Ridership now of 300,000+ in 2004 is great, except perhaps when we consider the 1996 projections were for 900,000+ and even the revised projections following the economic crash in '97 were 600,000+ *during the first year of system opening* (back in late '99), with projections for further rapid growth after that. I'm not against the skytrain and I think it's a wonderful service for an important wealthy sector of the market. I think it also helps raise the image of transit in Bangkok. And much more should have been done to better integrate the formal bus services. (This could have preempted the explosion in informal services.) But I am a leery of some of the inflated claims made (often by those with a very strongly vested interest) in using public funds to further expand the skytrain network - or develop other metro rail lines - without even considering alernatives. Best rgds, Karl This email and any attachment to it may contain confidential or proprietary information that are intended solely for the person / entity to whom it was originally addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distributing or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, arrive late or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the context of this message which arise as a result of transmission over the Internet. No opinions contained herein shall be construed as being a formal disclosure or commitment of the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation unless specifically so stated. From richmond at alum.mit.edu Wed May 5 13:20:50 2004 From: richmond at alum.mit.edu (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 11:20:50 +0700 (SE Asia Standard Time) Subject: [sustran] Re: Rail or bus In-Reply-To: <07B178BAA415FB4A9C9B4AA845F1F2C6259C8A@smail1pa.corp.kcrc.com> References: <07B178BAA415FB4A9C9B4AA845F1F2C6259C8A@smail1pa.corp.kcrc.com> Message-ID: On the specifics of fares, the 10 baht fare will only get you about one station on Skytrain. Aircon bus rides the length of a more typical 30-40 baht Skytrain ride cost 10 baht, while nonaircon buses are 4 or 5 baht for any trip length. Longer distance bus rides are frequently several times the length of a Skytrain trip. Discounted Skytrain fares are available for regular users but must be used within a month. This means that irregular users -- for example someone who might go on a weekend shopping trip -- are discouraged by the highest fares, and the system is also put out of the reach of low-income groups who probably wouldn't have the cash to finance a multiride ticket in one go, quite apart from the fact that "Every baht counts" to them --Jonathan On Wed, 5 May 2004, Jain Alok wrote: > Dear Karl, > > Taking a few comparisons from your previous mail, and checking BTS website > for latest ticketing offered, I can summarise the following: > > Minimum fare for short-distance travel: > > BMTA air-con buses: 8 baht > Microbuses: 20 baht > Skytrain: 10 baht > > Obviously, microbuses would be more expensive for short-distance whereas > BMTA a/c buses and Skytrain are comparable. > > Fares for Long-distance travel: > > BMTA air-con buses: 18 baht > Microbuses: 20 baht > Skytrain: 40 baht (although with multiple trip ticket, this could be reduced > to 18-25 baht) > > Yes, skytrain is more expensive than microbuses and BMTA buses when you > consider published single journey fare but for regular users the fares are > not that different. > > Apart from different ways of looking at figures, I guess we share the same > view with respect to Bangkok. > > Regards > Alok > -----Original Message----- > From: Karl Fjellstrom [mailto:karl@dnet.net.id] > Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 1:02 PM > To: 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport' > Subject: [sustran] Re: Rail or bus > > > Dear Alok, > > Thanks for the thoughtful note. Appreciate the chance to bounce ideas > around, just as a way to learn and not to advocate a particular approach. > Actually there's a lot to reply to, including your observations of Bogota > (you're right, in many ways it has all the advantages of a metro rail system > like high capacity, express routes, exclusive ROW, trunk & feeders, but > without the main disadvantages of cost and construction time), but for now > I'll just reply on your notes on Bangkok. > > I think there is an inaccuracy in your point 3 and 4 below where you > indicate private sector air con bus services, and informal sector servcies > (primarily a/c minivans) have a 'price comparable to the skytrain'. If this > were true, then you may be right in some senses that "There is hardly any > difference between 3, 4 and skytrain services." But according to my > information this isn't true and so the argument doesn't hold..... > > Firstly: for private a/c services there is a fleet of 800 or so microbuses > charging a flat 20 baht. But they have very long routes, I don't know > exactly but probably more than 20 or 30km avg. And people tend to use them > for long rather than short trips. Sometimes even shorter trips by the > skytrain would cost double (40 baht). And there are the private a/c buses, > around 700 in Jan-03 but rapidly growing. These charge from 8 to 18 baht > depending on distance. Again, average routes are long (around 30km!) but a > normal fare for a city trip up to 8km is 8 baht. A similar distance on the > skytrain is at least triple or quadruple this. It's a similar story for the > BMTA (state operator) air con buses, of which there are around 2000. These > charge from 12 to 22 baht depending on distance but for the first 8km it's > 12 baht, well under half the price of a comparable trip on the skytrain. > (Though in all cases for very short trips of course there is much less price > difference, as the minimum, 1-station skytrain fare is 10 baht.) > > Secondly: for the minivans, it's 10 to 43 baht depending on distance, but > they tend to have even longer routes, serving outer suburbs. So as well as > being much cheaper than the skytrain on a per km basis they also enable less > transfers (hence further savings) than would be required if they were forced > to use the skytrain for part of the trip. > > Just one note to add about the 'financiers' and 'bottomline' which you > mention. KfW, a major financier of the system, recently wrote off a huge > chunk of debt owed by the skytrain operator, since the operator cannot pay > back the loan and is struggling just to make the interest payments. > Ridership now of 300,000+ in 2004 is great, except perhaps when we consider > the 1996 projections were for 900,000+ and even the revised projections > following the economic crash in '97 were 600,000+ *during the first year of > system opening* (back in late '99), with projections for further rapid > growth after that. > > I'm not against the skytrain and I think it's a wonderful service for an > important wealthy sector of the market. I think it also helps raise the > image of transit in Bangkok. And much more should have been done to better > integrate the formal bus services. (This could have preempted the explosion > in informal services.) But I am a leery of some of the inflated claims made > (often by those with a very strongly vested interest) in using public funds > to further expand the skytrain network - or develop other metro rail lines - > without even considering alernatives. > > Best rgds, Karl > > This email and any attachment to it may contain confidential or proprietary > information that are intended solely for the person / entity to whom it was > originally addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, any > disclosure, copying, distributing or any action taken or omitted to be taken > in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. > Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as > information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, arrive late or contain > viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or > omissions in the context of this message which arise as a result of > transmission over the Internet. > No opinions contained herein shall be construed as being a formal disclosure > or commitment of the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation unless specifically > so stated. > ----- Jonathan E. D. Richmond 02 524-5510 (office) Visiting Fellow Intl.: 662 524-5510 Transportation Engineering program School of Civil Engineering, 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: Ms. Nisarat Hansuksa richmond@alum.mit.edu 02 524-6051 Intl: 662 524-6051 http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ From karl at dnet.net.id Wed May 5 17:20:07 2004 From: karl at dnet.net.id (Karl Fjellstrom) Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 15:20:07 +0700 Subject: [sustran] Re: Rail or bus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040505082135.5C1302BEDF@list.jca.apc.org> Dear Alok, Jonathan's right... For very short trips the fares are similar. (Though the minimum skytrain fare gets you 1 station, the minimum bus fare gets you 8km.) But for a normal public transport trip of say 2 to 12km the skytrain is a factor of 1.5 to 5 times more expensive than the same length trip by a/c bus even with monthly pass discounts for the skytrain factored in. Factor in longer bus routes and hence less transfers and the difference is even greater. Microbus is a special case as it's a flat 20 baht fare but people tend only to use this for long trips so it still works out a lot cheaper per km. Sorry to opine further on such a well informed list, but going back to where we started: we can't simply attribute the skytrain's problems to the routing of the buses, and argue that if this could only be solved everyone could then be 'living happily thereafter' as you put it. I only reacted to your comments on the fares not to be pedantic but because I've sat through presentations by skytrain executives who trot out exactly this kind of specious argument and then in the next sentence point out that the govt should pay for extensions to the system. E.g. a top skytrain executive argued with a straight face in Mar-03 in a presentation that (paraphrasing) the beauty of the skytrain is that this kind of rail system extended city-wide means that we can solve Bangkok's urban transport problems without needing to take the politically unpalatable step of restricting cars.... As said, I think the skytrain is a great system even though the operators spend so much time in bankruptcy court negotiations, and there may well be a very good case to extend the system with public funds. And I'd support skytrain extensions and other rail metro systems in Bangkok provided they were based on a proper analysis considering all options (including bus-based options such as BRT). Best regards, karl -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan E. D. Richmond Sent: Wednesday, 5 May 2004 11:21 AM To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport Subject: [sustran] Re: Rail or bus On the specifics of fares, the 10 baht fare will only get you about one station on Skytrain. Aircon bus rides the length of a more typical 30-40 baht Skytrain ride cost 10 baht, while nonaircon buses are 4 or 5 baht for any trip length. Longer distance bus rides are frequently several times the length of a Skytrain trip. Discounted Skytrain fares are available for regular users but must be used within a month. This means that irregular users -- for example someone who might go on a weekend shopping trip -- are discouraged by the highest fares, and the system is also put out of the reach of low-income groups who probably wouldn't have the cash to finance a multiride ticket in one go, quite apart from the fact that "Every baht counts" to them --Jonathan On Wed, 5 May 2004, Jain Alok wrote: > Dear Karl, > > Taking a few comparisons from your previous mail, and checking BTS > website for latest ticketing offered, I can summarise the following: > > Minimum fare for short-distance travel: > > BMTA air-con buses: 8 baht > Microbuses: 20 baht > Skytrain: 10 baht > > Obviously, microbuses would be more expensive for short-distance > whereas BMTA a/c buses and Skytrain are comparable. > > Fares for Long-distance travel: > > BMTA air-con buses: 18 baht > Microbuses: 20 baht > Skytrain: 40 baht (although with multiple trip ticket, this could be > reduced to 18-25 baht) > > Yes, skytrain is more expensive than microbuses and BMTA buses when > you consider published single journey fare but for regular users the > fares are not that different. > > Apart from different ways of looking at figures, I guess we share the > same view with respect to Bangkok. > > Regards > Alok > -----Original Message----- > From: Karl Fjellstrom [mailto:karl@dnet.net.id] > Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 1:02 PM > To: 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport' > Subject: [sustran] Re: Rail or bus > > > Dear Alok, > > Thanks for the thoughtful note. Appreciate the chance to bounce ideas > around, just as a way to learn and not to advocate a particular approach. > Actually there's a lot to reply to, including your observations of > Bogota (you're right, in many ways it has all the advantages of a > metro rail system like high capacity, express routes, exclusive ROW, > trunk & feeders, but without the main disadvantages of cost and > construction time), but for now I'll just reply on your notes on Bangkok. > > I think there is an inaccuracy in your point 3 and 4 below where you > indicate private sector air con bus services, and informal sector > servcies (primarily a/c minivans) have a 'price comparable to the > skytrain'. If this were true, then you may be right in some senses > that "There is hardly any difference between 3, 4 and skytrain > services." But according to my information this isn't true and so the argument doesn't hold..... > > Firstly: for private a/c services there is a fleet of 800 or so > microbuses charging a flat 20 baht. But they have very long routes, I > don't know exactly but probably more than 20 or 30km avg. And people > tend to use them for long rather than short trips. Sometimes even > shorter trips by the skytrain would cost double (40 baht). And there > are the private a/c buses, around 700 in Jan-03 but rapidly growing. > These charge from 8 to 18 baht depending on distance. Again, average > routes are long (around 30km!) but a normal fare for a city trip up to > 8km is 8 baht. A similar distance on the skytrain is at least triple > or quadruple this. It's a similar story for the BMTA (state operator) > air con buses, of which there are around 2000. These charge from 12 to > 22 baht depending on distance but for the first 8km it's > 12 baht, well under half the price of a comparable trip on the skytrain. > (Though in all cases for very short trips of course there is much less > price difference, as the minimum, 1-station skytrain fare is 10 baht.) > > Secondly: for the minivans, it's 10 to 43 baht depending on distance, > but they tend to have even longer routes, serving outer suburbs. So as > well as being much cheaper than the skytrain on a per km basis they > also enable less transfers (hence further savings) than would be > required if they were forced to use the skytrain for part of the trip. > > Just one note to add about the 'financiers' and 'bottomline' which you > mention. KfW, a major financier of the system, recently wrote off a > huge chunk of debt owed by the skytrain operator, since the operator > cannot pay back the loan and is struggling just to make the interest payments. > Ridership now of 300,000+ in 2004 is great, except perhaps when we > consider the 1996 projections were for 900,000+ and even the revised > projections following the economic crash in '97 were 600,000+ *during > the first year of system opening* (back in late '99), with projections > for further rapid growth after that. > > I'm not against the skytrain and I think it's a wonderful service for > an important wealthy sector of the market. I think it also helps raise > the image of transit in Bangkok. And much more should have been done > to better integrate the formal bus services. (This could have > preempted the explosion in informal services.) But I am a leery of > some of the inflated claims made (often by those with a very strongly > vested interest) in using public funds to further expand the skytrain > network - or develop other metro rail lines - without even considering alernatives. > > Best rgds, Karl > > This email and any attachment to it may contain confidential or > proprietary information that are intended solely for the person / > entity to whom it was originally addressed. If you are not the > intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distributing or any > action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. > Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be secure or > error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, > arrive late or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept > liability for any errors or omissions in the context of this message > which arise as a result of transmission over the Internet. > No opinions contained herein shall be construed as being a formal > disclosure or commitment of the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation > unless specifically so stated. > ----- Jonathan E. D. Richmond 02 524-5510 (office) Visiting Fellow Intl.: 662 524-5510 Transportation Engineering program School of Civil Engineering, 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: Ms. Nisarat Hansuksa richmond@alum.mit.edu 02 524-6051 Intl: 662 524-6051 http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ From whook at itdp.org Wed May 5 22:55:08 2004 From: whook at itdp.org (Walter Hook) Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 09:55:08 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: Rail or bus References: <20040505082135.5C1302BEDF@list.jca.apc.org> Message-ID: <004c01c432a8$93d34e90$6801a8c0@WALTER> Interesting to note that the French rail and energy giant Alstom, like the skytrain in bangkok, just declared bankrupcy. Likely Siemens will buy the power generating sector but monopoly rules in the EU will prevent merger with Siemens rail division. The french government will no doubt try to bail them out if they can get away with not violating EU rules about govt subsidies. Alstom is part of the Delhi metro consortium, it provided the signaling systems. Bombardier also just had its stock downgraded, indicating problems. best walter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karl Fjellstrom" To: "'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport'" Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 4:20 AM Subject: [sustran] Re: Rail or bus > Dear Alok, > > Jonathan's right... For very short trips the fares are similar. (Though the > minimum skytrain fare gets you 1 station, the minimum bus fare gets you > 8km.) But for a normal public transport trip of say 2 to 12km the skytrain > is a factor of 1.5 to 5 times more expensive than the same length trip by > a/c bus even with monthly pass discounts for the skytrain factored in. > Factor in longer bus routes and hence less transfers and the difference is > even greater. Microbus is a special case as it's a flat 20 baht fare but > people tend only to use this for long trips so it still works out a lot > cheaper per km. > > Sorry to opine further on such a well informed list, but going back to where > we started: we can't simply attribute the skytrain's problems to the routing > of the buses, and argue that if this could only be solved everyone could > then be 'living happily thereafter' as you put it. I only reacted to your > comments on the fares not to be pedantic but because I've sat through > presentations by skytrain executives who trot out exactly this kind of > specious argument and then in the next sentence point out that the govt > should pay for extensions to the system. E.g. a top skytrain executive > argued with a straight face in Mar-03 in a presentation that (paraphrasing) > the beauty of the skytrain is that this kind of rail system extended > city-wide means that we can solve Bangkok's urban transport problems without > needing to take the politically unpalatable step of restricting cars.... > > As said, I think the skytrain is a great system even though the operators > spend so much time in bankruptcy court negotiations, and there may well be a > very good case to extend the system with public funds. And I'd support > skytrain extensions and other rail metro systems in Bangkok provided they > were based on a proper analysis considering all options (including bus-based > options such as BRT). > > Best regards, karl > > > -----Original Message----- > From: sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf > Of Jonathan E. D. Richmond > Sent: Wednesday, 5 May 2004 11:21 AM > To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport > Subject: [sustran] Re: Rail or bus > > > On the specifics of fares, the 10 baht fare will only get you about one > station on Skytrain. Aircon bus rides the length of a more typical 30-40 > baht Skytrain ride cost 10 baht, while nonaircon buses are 4 or 5 baht for > any trip length. Longer distance bus rides are frequently several times the > length of a Skytrain trip. > > Discounted Skytrain fares are available for regular users but must be used > within a month. This means that irregular users -- for example someone who > might go on a weekend shopping trip -- are discouraged by the highest fares, > and the system is also put out of the reach of low-income groups who > probably wouldn't have the cash to finance a multiride ticket in one go, > quite apart from the fact that "Every baht counts" to them --Jonathan > > > On Wed, 5 May 2004, Jain Alok wrote: > > > Dear Karl, > > > > Taking a few comparisons from your previous mail, and checking BTS > > website for latest ticketing offered, I can summarise the following: > > > > Minimum fare for short-distance travel: > > > > BMTA air-con buses: 8 baht > > Microbuses: 20 baht > > Skytrain: 10 baht > > > > Obviously, microbuses would be more expensive for short-distance > > whereas BMTA a/c buses and Skytrain are comparable. > > > > Fares for Long-distance travel: > > > > BMTA air-con buses: 18 baht > > Microbuses: 20 baht > > Skytrain: 40 baht (although with multiple trip ticket, this could be > > reduced to 18-25 baht) > > > > Yes, skytrain is more expensive than microbuses and BMTA buses when > > you consider published single journey fare but for regular users the > > fares are not that different. > > > > Apart from different ways of looking at figures, I guess we share the > > same view with respect to Bangkok. > > > > Regards > > Alok > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Karl Fjellstrom [mailto:karl@dnet.net.id] > > Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 1:02 PM > > To: 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport' > > Subject: [sustran] Re: Rail or bus > > > > > > Dear Alok, > > > > Thanks for the thoughtful note. Appreciate the chance to bounce ideas > > around, just as a way to learn and not to advocate a particular approach. > > Actually there's a lot to reply to, including your observations of > > Bogota (you're right, in many ways it has all the advantages of a > > metro rail system like high capacity, express routes, exclusive ROW, > > trunk & feeders, but without the main disadvantages of cost and > > construction time), but for now I'll just reply on your notes on Bangkok. > > > > I think there is an inaccuracy in your point 3 and 4 below where you > > indicate private sector air con bus services, and informal sector > > servcies (primarily a/c minivans) have a 'price comparable to the > > skytrain'. If this were true, then you may be right in some senses > > that "There is hardly any difference between 3, 4 and skytrain > > services." But according to my information this isn't true and so the > argument doesn't hold..... > > > > Firstly: for private a/c services there is a fleet of 800 or so > > microbuses charging a flat 20 baht. But they have very long routes, I > > don't know exactly but probably more than 20 or 30km avg. And people > > tend to use them for long rather than short trips. Sometimes even > > shorter trips by the skytrain would cost double (40 baht). And there > > are the private a/c buses, around 700 in Jan-03 but rapidly growing. > > These charge from 8 to 18 baht depending on distance. Again, average > > routes are long (around 30km!) but a normal fare for a city trip up to > > 8km is 8 baht. A similar distance on the skytrain is at least triple > > or quadruple this. It's a similar story for the BMTA (state operator) > > air con buses, of which there are around 2000. These charge from 12 to > > 22 baht depending on distance but for the first 8km it's > > 12 baht, well under half the price of a comparable trip on the skytrain. > > (Though in all cases for very short trips of course there is much less > > price difference, as the minimum, 1-station skytrain fare is 10 baht.) > > > > Secondly: for the minivans, it's 10 to 43 baht depending on distance, > > but they tend to have even longer routes, serving outer suburbs. So as > > well as being much cheaper than the skytrain on a per km basis they > > also enable less transfers (hence further savings) than would be > > required if they were forced to use the skytrain for part of the trip. > > > > Just one note to add about the 'financiers' and 'bottomline' which you > > mention. KfW, a major financier of the system, recently wrote off a > > huge chunk of debt owed by the skytrain operator, since the operator > > cannot pay back the loan and is struggling just to make the interest > payments. > > Ridership now of 300,000+ in 2004 is great, except perhaps when we > > consider the 1996 projections were for 900,000+ and even the revised > > projections following the economic crash in '97 were 600,000+ *during > > the first year of system opening* (back in late '99), with projections > > for further rapid growth after that. > > > > I'm not against the skytrain and I think it's a wonderful service for > > an important wealthy sector of the market. I think it also helps raise > > the image of transit in Bangkok. And much more should have been done > > to better integrate the formal bus services. (This could have > > preempted the explosion in informal services.) But I am a leery of > > some of the inflated claims made (often by those with a very strongly > > vested interest) in using public funds to further expand the skytrain > > network - or develop other metro rail lines - without even considering > alernatives. > > > > Best rgds, Karl > > > > This email and any attachment to it may contain confidential or > > proprietary information that are intended solely for the person / > > entity to whom it was originally addressed. If you are not the > > intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distributing or any > > action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and > may be unlawful. > > Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be secure or > > error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, > > arrive late or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept > > liability for any errors or omissions in the context of this message > > which arise as a result of transmission over the Internet. > > No opinions contained herein shall be construed as being a formal > > disclosure or commitment of the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation > > unless specifically so stated. > > > > ----- > > Jonathan E. D. Richmond 02 524-5510 (office) > Visiting Fellow Intl.: 662 524-5510 > Transportation Engineering program > School of Civil Engineering, 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: Ms. Nisarat Hansuksa > richmond@alum.mit.edu 02 524-6051 > Intl: 662 524-6051 > http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ > > > From ericbruun at earthlink.net Wed May 5 23:55:11 2004 From: ericbruun at earthlink.net (Eric Bruun) Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 10:55:11 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: More on Advocacy? References: Message-ID: <009001c432b0$fab1b680$b9fc45cf@earthlink.net> Regina, No offense taken. I just was concerned that I didn't seem to be expressing my position very clearly. Eric ----- Original Message ----- From: Regina_Therese_MANZO@ura.gov.sg To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 9:32 PM Subject: [sustran] Re: Advocacy? Dear Eric - I have appreciated your thoughtful comments on Sustran. My concern was, similar to yours, that there seemed to be advocacy of a single position rather than acknowledging both rail and bus as options/tools for a sustainable system. To some extent discussing these without a context opens the door for disagreements about when each can work because there's no boundary offered by the ground reality of a given metro area. I just wanted to reiterate that both are important tools. In a context of sustainability, we should always be considering equity, cost, environmental impact.... I specifically haven't mentioned my views, and for me personally it seems that rail does get promoted too often before a discussion of other alternatives because it is "sexy" and "modern"; this does not negate the fact that it offers certain benefits/disbenefits compared to bus/BRT systems and can be appropriate in certain circumstances. Apologies if I've offended anyone, and for dampening the discussion. Best regards, Gina Manzo Regina Manzo, AICP „X Urban Redevelopment Authority „X 45 Maxwell Road „X URA Centre „X Singapore 069118 „X ph +65 6321-8305 „X Privileged / Confidential information may be contained in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other person. Please notify the sender immediately if you receive this in error. http://www.ura.gov.sg "Eric Bruun" Sent by: sustran-discuss-bounces+regina_therese_manzo=ura.gov.sg@list.jca.apc.org 05/05/2004 07:19 Please respond to Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" cc: Subject: [sustran] Advocacy? Regina I don't feel that I am taking a pro-rail advocacy position in a "bus versus rail" debate. I have been arguing that 1) they both can work together, and 2) that new rail investment is appropriate under SOME CIRCUMSTANCES. What sucked me into this discussion was my perception that others were taking an advocacy position AGAINST rail under almost all circumstances. Was I wrong? Eric ----- Original Message ----- From: Regina_Therese_MANZO@ura.gov.sg To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 10:36 PM Subject: [sustran] Re: Bus, LRT, and heavy rail - comments from a by-stander Hello All Sustainable Transport and Public Transit Advocates (let's remember we're all coming from the same starting point) - the recent spate of email activity over bus or rail is really interesting as it's obviously struck a nerve in Sustran contributors. It reminds me of boys and their need to be "king of the hill", the need to strive for the superlative - in sport, warfare, in the professional field, etc. Perhaps everyone needs to go out for a good joust or round of football/soccer. When we all come back in, we can again be clear that each circumstance is unique (not just in land use but also in politics and behavior patterns, etc.) and there's no set formula for "the best" multi-modal transport solution. Have to say I'm glazing over, but for those fully interested, enjoy, and hope it's educative. Bravo for all the notations of great information that have been provided. I'll refer to these in my work in the future. regards, Gina Manzo Regina Manzo, AICP „X Urban Redevelopment Authority „X 45 Maxwell Road „X URA Centre „X Singapore 069118 „X ph +65 6321-8305 „X Privileged / Confidential information may be contained in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other person. Please notify the sender immediately if you receive this in error. http://www.ura.gov.sg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20040505/6d6540d7/attachment.html From ericbruun at earthlink.net Thu May 6 00:03:59 2004 From: ericbruun at earthlink.net (Eric Bruun) Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 11:03:59 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Siemens and Bangkok References: <20040505082135.5C1302BEDF@list.jca.apc.org> <004c01c432a8$93d34e90$6801a8c0@WALTER> Message-ID: <00a601c432b2$37a8e6c0$b9fc45cf@earthlink.net> The Bangkok Skytrain project was doomed from the start, and many people said so. The ideology behind this project was that infrastructure projects should pay for their capital as well as their operating expenses. But even in North America and Europe, where passengers can afford to pay high fares, this is almost never a requirement. (Except in the UK). Eric P.S. This is the same ideology responsible for the cholera epidemics in South Africa, as the rural poor can not afford to pay for clean water priced at rates sufficient to recover the pipeline investments. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Walter Hook" To: ; "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 9:55 AM Subject: [sustran] Re: Rail or bus > Interesting to note that the French rail and energy giant Alstom, like the > skytrain in bangkok, just declared bankrupcy. > > Likely Siemens will buy the power generating sector but monopoly rules in > the EU will prevent merger with Siemens rail division. The french > government will no doubt try to bail them out if they can get away with not > violating EU rules about govt subsidies. > > Alstom is part of the Delhi metro consortium, it provided the signaling > systems. > > Bombardier also just had its stock downgraded, indicating problems. > > best > walter > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Karl Fjellstrom" > To: "'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport'" > > Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 4:20 AM > Subject: [sustran] Re: Rail or bus > > > > Dear Alok, > > > > Jonathan's right... For very short trips the fares are similar. (Though > the > > minimum skytrain fare gets you 1 station, the minimum bus fare gets you > > 8km.) But for a normal public transport trip of say 2 to 12km the skytrain > > is a factor of 1.5 to 5 times more expensive than the same length trip by > > a/c bus even with monthly pass discounts for the skytrain factored in. > > Factor in longer bus routes and hence less transfers and the difference is > > even greater. Microbus is a special case as it's a flat 20 baht fare but > > people tend only to use this for long trips so it still works out a lot > > cheaper per km. > > > > Sorry to opine further on such a well informed list, but going back to > where > > we started: we can't simply attribute the skytrain's problems to the > routing > > of the buses, and argue that if this could only be solved everyone could > > then be 'living happily thereafter' as you put it. I only reacted to your > > comments on the fares not to be pedantic but because I've sat through > > presentations by skytrain executives who trot out exactly this kind of > > specious argument and then in the next sentence point out that the govt > > should pay for extensions to the system. E.g. a top skytrain executive > > argued with a straight face in Mar-03 in a presentation that > (paraphrasing) > > the beauty of the skytrain is that this kind of rail system extended > > city-wide means that we can solve Bangkok's urban transport problems > without > > needing to take the politically unpalatable step of restricting cars.... > > > > As said, I think the skytrain is a great system even though the operators > > spend so much time in bankruptcy court negotiations, and there may well be > a > > very good case to extend the system with public funds. And I'd support > > skytrain extensions and other rail metro systems in Bangkok provided they > > were based on a proper analysis considering all options (including > bus-based > > options such as BRT). > > > > Best regards, karl > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org > > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org] On > Behalf > > Of Jonathan E. D. Richmond > > Sent: Wednesday, 5 May 2004 11:21 AM > > To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport > > Subject: [sustran] Re: Rail or bus > > > > > > On the specifics of fares, the 10 baht fare will only get you about one > > station on Skytrain. Aircon bus rides the length of a more typical 30-40 > > baht Skytrain ride cost 10 baht, while nonaircon buses are 4 or 5 baht for > > any trip length. Longer distance bus rides are frequently several times > the > > length of a Skytrain trip. > > > > Discounted Skytrain fares are available for regular users but must be used > > within a month. This means that irregular users -- for example someone who > > might go on a weekend shopping trip -- are discouraged by the highest > fares, > > and the system is also put out of the reach of low-income groups who > > probably wouldn't have the cash to finance a multiride ticket in one go, > > quite apart from the fact that "Every baht counts" to them --Jonathan > > > > > > On Wed, 5 May 2004, Jain Alok wrote: > > > > > Dear Karl, > > > > > > Taking a few comparisons from your previous mail, and checking BTS > > > website for latest ticketing offered, I can summarise the following: > > > > > > Minimum fare for short-distance travel: > > > > > > BMTA air-con buses: 8 baht > > > Microbuses: 20 baht > > > Skytrain: 10 baht > > > > > > Obviously, microbuses would be more expensive for short-distance > > > whereas BMTA a/c buses and Skytrain are comparable. > > > > > > Fares for Long-distance travel: > > > > > > BMTA air-con buses: 18 baht > > > Microbuses: 20 baht > > > Skytrain: 40 baht (although with multiple trip ticket, this could be > > > reduced to 18-25 baht) > > > > > > Yes, skytrain is more expensive than microbuses and BMTA buses when > > > you consider published single journey fare but for regular users the > > > fares are not that different. > > > > > > Apart from different ways of looking at figures, I guess we share the > > > same view with respect to Bangkok. > > > > > > Regards > > > Alok > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Karl Fjellstrom [mailto:karl@dnet.net.id] > > > Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 1:02 PM > > > To: 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport' > > > Subject: [sustran] Re: Rail or bus > > > > > > > > > Dear Alok, > > > > > > Thanks for the thoughtful note. Appreciate the chance to bounce ideas > > > around, just as a way to learn and not to advocate a particular > approach. > > > Actually there's a lot to reply to, including your observations of > > > Bogota (you're right, in many ways it has all the advantages of a > > > metro rail system like high capacity, express routes, exclusive ROW, > > > trunk & feeders, but without the main disadvantages of cost and > > > construction time), but for now I'll just reply on your notes on > Bangkok. > > > > > > I think there is an inaccuracy in your point 3 and 4 below where you > > > indicate private sector air con bus services, and informal sector > > > servcies (primarily a/c minivans) have a 'price comparable to the > > > skytrain'. If this were true, then you may be right in some senses > > > that "There is hardly any difference between 3, 4 and skytrain > > > services." But according to my information this isn't true and so the > > argument doesn't hold..... > > > > > > Firstly: for private a/c services there is a fleet of 800 or so > > > microbuses charging a flat 20 baht. But they have very long routes, I > > > don't know exactly but probably more than 20 or 30km avg. And people > > > tend to use them for long rather than short trips. Sometimes even > > > shorter trips by the skytrain would cost double (40 baht). And there > > > are the private a/c buses, around 700 in Jan-03 but rapidly growing. > > > These charge from 8 to 18 baht depending on distance. Again, average > > > routes are long (around 30km!) but a normal fare for a city trip up to > > > 8km is 8 baht. A similar distance on the skytrain is at least triple > > > or quadruple this. It's a similar story for the BMTA (state operator) > > > air con buses, of which there are around 2000. These charge from 12 to > > > 22 baht depending on distance but for the first 8km it's > > > 12 baht, well under half the price of a comparable trip on the skytrain. > > > (Though in all cases for very short trips of course there is much less > > > price difference, as the minimum, 1-station skytrain fare is 10 baht.) > > > > > > Secondly: for the minivans, it's 10 to 43 baht depending on distance, > > > but they tend to have even longer routes, serving outer suburbs. So as > > > well as being much cheaper than the skytrain on a per km basis they > > > also enable less transfers (hence further savings) than would be > > > required if they were forced to use the skytrain for part of the trip. > > > > > > Just one note to add about the 'financiers' and 'bottomline' which you > > > mention. KfW, a major financier of the system, recently wrote off a > > > huge chunk of debt owed by the skytrain operator, since the operator > > > cannot pay back the loan and is struggling just to make the interest > > payments. > > > Ridership now of 300,000+ in 2004 is great, except perhaps when we > > > consider the 1996 projections were for 900,000+ and even the revised > > > projections following the economic crash in '97 were 600,000+ *during > > > the first year of system opening* (back in late '99), with projections > > > for further rapid growth after that. > > > > > > I'm not against the skytrain and I think it's a wonderful service for > > > an important wealthy sector of the market. I think it also helps raise > > > the image of transit in Bangkok. And much more should have been done > > > to better integrate the formal bus services. (This could have > > > preempted the explosion in informal services.) But I am a leery of > > > some of the inflated claims made (often by those with a very strongly > > > vested interest) in using public funds to further expand the skytrain > > > network - or develop other metro rail lines - without even considering > > alernatives. > > > > > > Best rgds, Karl > > > > > > This email and any attachment to it may contain confidential or > > > proprietary information that are intended solely for the person / > > > entity to whom it was originally addressed. If you are not the > > > intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distributing or any > > > action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and > > may be unlawful. > > > Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be secure or > > > error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, > > > arrive late or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept > > > liability for any errors or omissions in the context of this message > > > which arise as a result of transmission over the Internet. > > > No opinions contained herein shall be construed as being a formal > > > disclosure or commitment of the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation > > > unless specifically so stated. > > > > > > > ----- > > > > Jonathan E. D. Richmond 02 524-5510 (office) > > Visiting Fellow Intl.: 662 524-5510 > > Transportation Engineering program > > School of Civil Engineering, 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: Ms. Nisarat Hansuksa > > richmond@alum.mit.edu 02 524-6051 > > Intl: 662 524-6051 > > http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ > > > > > > > From ajain at kcrc.com Thu May 6 13:37:46 2004 From: ajain at kcrc.com (Jain Alok) Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 12:37:46 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Rail or bus Message-ID: <07B178BAA415FB4A9C9B4AA845F1F2C6259C96@smail1pa.corp.kcrc.com> I fully agree that skytrain alone cannot solve urban transport problems of Bangkok. It will take much more than that. Though in principle, I support the idea of somebody providing the capital for such projects and essentially writing it off (against possibly the greater economic benefits to the community which cannot be directly realised to the operating company) but in third world countries availability of the capital is a big issue to deal with. Either a new type of lending model be developed (may be instead of loading capital/depreciation and interest upfront on the project, it should be delayed at a time where economic benefits are actually expected to have accrued to certain threshold) or capital intensive projects can never go ahead. Difficult questions with no easy answers!!! Alok -----Original Message----- From: Karl Fjellstrom [mailto:karl@dnet.net.id] Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 4:20 PM To: 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport' Subject: [sustran] Re: Rail or bus Dear Alok, Jonathan's right... For very short trips the fares are similar. (Though the minimum skytrain fare gets you 1 station, the minimum bus fare gets you 8km.) But for a normal public transport trip of say 2 to 12km the skytrain is a factor of 1.5 to 5 times more expensive than the same length trip by a/c bus even with monthly pass discounts for the skytrain factored in. Factor in longer bus routes and hence less transfers and the difference is even greater. Microbus is a special case as it's a flat 20 baht fare but people tend only to use this for long trips so it still works out a lot cheaper per km. Sorry to opine further on such a well informed list, but going back to where we started: we can't simply attribute the skytrain's problems to the routing of the buses, and argue that if this could only be solved everyone could then be 'living happily thereafter' as you put it. I only reacted to your comments on the fares not to be pedantic but because I've sat through presentations by skytrain executives who trot out exactly this kind of specious argument and then in the next sentence point out that the govt should pay for extensions to the system. E.g. a top skytrain executive argued with a straight face in Mar-03 in a presentation that (paraphrasing) the beauty of the skytrain is that this kind of rail system extended city-wide means that we can solve Bangkok's urban transport problems without needing to take the politically unpalatable step of restricting cars.... As said, I think the skytrain is a great system even though the operators spend so much time in bankruptcy court negotiations, and there may well be a very good case to extend the system with public funds. And I'd support skytrain extensions and other rail metro systems in Bangkok provided they were based on a proper analysis considering all options (including bus-based options such as BRT). Best regards, karl This email and any attachment to it may contain confidential or proprietary information that are intended solely for the person / entity to whom it was originally addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distributing or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, arrive late or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the context of this message which arise as a result of transmission over the Internet. No opinions contained herein shall be construed as being a formal disclosure or commitment of the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation unless specifically so stated. From richmond at alum.mit.edu Thu May 6 13:54:23 2004 From: richmond at alum.mit.edu (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 11:54:23 +0700 (SE Asia Standard Time) Subject: [sustran] Re: Rail or bus In-Reply-To: <07B178BAA415FB4A9C9B4AA845F1F2C6259C96@smail1pa.corp.kcrc.com> References: <07B178BAA415FB4A9C9B4AA845F1F2C6259C96@smail1pa.corp.kcrc.com> Message-ID: Actually, there is a very good answer: Do honest and unbiased evaluation up-front. This virtually never happens. I see no case for separating capital and operating accounts. Money is money. Paying off capital creates a bias towards capital-intensive projects and gets in the way of many low-cost non capital advances. Quite apart from the fact that this leads to a tendency to expensive projects, there is a special need i nthe developing world to consider labour-intensive projects, given the essential need for employment. --Jonathan On Thu, 6 May 2004, Jain Alok wrote: > I fully agree that skytrain alone cannot solve urban transport problems of > Bangkok. It will take much more than that. > > Though in principle, I support the idea of somebody providing the capital > for such projects and essentially writing it off (against possibly the > greater economic benefits to the community which cannot be directly realised > to the operating company) but in third world countries availability of the > capital is a big issue to deal with. Either a new type of lending model be > developed (may be instead of loading capital/depreciation and interest > upfront on the project, it should be delayed at a time where economic > benefits are actually expected to have accrued to certain threshold) or > capital intensive projects can never go ahead. > > Difficult questions with no easy answers!!! > > Alok > -----Original Message----- > From: Karl Fjellstrom [mailto:karl@dnet.net.id] > Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 4:20 PM > To: 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport' > Subject: [sustran] Re: Rail or bus > > > Dear Alok, > > Jonathan's right... For very short trips the fares are similar. (Though the > minimum skytrain fare gets you 1 station, the minimum bus fare gets you > 8km.) But for a normal public transport trip of say 2 to 12km the skytrain > is a factor of 1.5 to 5 times more expensive than the same length trip by > a/c bus even with monthly pass discounts for the skytrain factored in. > Factor in longer bus routes and hence less transfers and the difference is > even greater. Microbus is a special case as it's a flat 20 baht fare but > people tend only to use this for long trips so it still works out a lot > cheaper per km. > > Sorry to opine further on such a well informed list, but going back to where > we started: we can't simply attribute the skytrain's problems to the routing > of the buses, and argue that if this could only be solved everyone could > then be 'living happily thereafter' as you put it. I only reacted to your > comments on the fares not to be pedantic but because I've sat through > presentations by skytrain executives who trot out exactly this kind of > specious argument and then in the next sentence point out that the govt > should pay for extensions to the system. E.g. a top skytrain executive > argued with a straight face in Mar-03 in a presentation that (paraphrasing) > the beauty of the skytrain is that this kind of rail system extended > city-wide means that we can solve Bangkok's urban transport problems without > needing to take the politically unpalatable step of restricting cars.... > > As said, I think the skytrain is a great system even though the operators > spend so much time in bankruptcy court negotiations, and there may well be a > very good case to extend the system with public funds. And I'd support > skytrain extensions and other rail metro systems in Bangkok provided they > were based on a proper analysis considering all options (including bus-based > options such as BRT). > > Best regards, karl > > This email and any attachment to it may contain confidential or proprietary > information that are intended solely for the person / entity to whom it was > originally addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, any > disclosure, copying, distributing or any action taken or omitted to be taken > in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. > Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as > information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, arrive late or contain > viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or > omissions in the context of this message which arise as a result of > transmission over the Internet. > No opinions contained herein shall be construed as being a formal disclosure > or commitment of the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation unless specifically > so stated. > ----- Jonathan E. D. Richmond 02 524-5510 (office) Visiting Fellow Intl.: 662 524-5510 Transportation Engineering program School of Civil Engineering, 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: Ms. Nisarat Hansuksa richmond@alum.mit.edu 02 524-6051 Intl: 662 524-6051 http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ From ecoplan.adsl at wanadoo.fr Thu May 6 16:44:59 2004 From: ecoplan.adsl at wanadoo.fr (ecoplan.adsl@wanadoo.fr) Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 09:44:59 +0200 Subject: [sustran] The New Mobility Agenda - A Common Research & Communications Resource Message-ID: <006a01c4333e$0b3925a0$6501a8c0@home> Thursday, May 06, 2004, Paris, France, Europe Dear Colleagues: As part of our radical make-over of the New Mobility Agenda/World Transport web site, the latest step has been the preparation of a "World Sustainable Mobility Links" section, of which the current text is reproduced below (you will see the full content replete with clickable links at http://newmobility.org). In the name of your colleagues and the hundreds of concerned citizens, researchers, students and policy makers who visit and use this site, it would be kind if you might each take a few minutes, have a look at what we have thus far here, and let us know about programs and sites that we are missing. I am sure that this already useful list will be greatly improved if we just put our heads together. Overall, I would indeed like to invite you to have a careful look at what we are doing -- and if you look both at the Home Page and the short Start Here section, you will find a pretty good explanation of what we already have put in place here, and a few thoughts on some of our ambitious intentions for the future. To remind you in closing: this is a free, fully independent and unfunded effort under taken in the name of sustainable mobility and social justice, and it will be only as good as we all make it. Your comments and contributions are cordially invited and will, I can assure you, receive my full attention. With all good wishes, Eric Britton The Commons __ technology, economy, society__ Le Frene, 8/10 rue Joseph Bara 75006 Paris, France, Europe T: +331 4326 1323 Fax/Voicemail hotline: +331 5301 2896 W : http://www.ecoplan.org IP Videoconference: 81.65.50.149 E: Eric.Britton@e... Personal webpage: www.EricBritton.org --- Outgoing mail certified Virus Free. Checked by Norton Anti-Virus. Version 9.05.15 1001 World-Wide New Mobility Resources What you have here below is our current collection of primarily international sources which provide useful points of departure and information on these issues. Most of these provide useful references and links in their turn. Such a listing is inevitably idiosyncratic and personal, and incomplete. You can help in both these respects by sharing your suggestions and ideas with us here. 1. ADEME (France) < http://www.ademe.fr> : Agence de l'Environnement et de la Ma?trise de l'?nergie) 2. Alliance for a Paving Moratorium (USA) : A project of the Sustainable Energy Institute - Promoting eco-democracy since 1988 3. Amor (Austria) : Austrian Mobility Research is one of the leading European companies in the field of mobility research and therefore has a vast experience in cooperating with the EU-research promotional institutions. Works for sustainable environmental-friendly and people-friendly traffic development. 4. Aseed - a network that initiates actions and campaigns on environmental and social justice issues. Main activities are promoting discussion, encouraging positive action, distributing publications and coordinating meetings 5. Auto-Free Ottawa (Canada) : makes extensive of electronic discussion areas. Used for announcements, general discussion and for event planning. There is also a support area for people that are making a transition to a car-free lifestyle. (Listed here as an example of spontaneous citizen organization.) 6. Awas (India) 7. The Baltic Challenge (Sweden) - for Sustainable Growth in the Baltic Sea Region A yearly competition - The Baltic Challenge Award - is a core activity inviting projects illustrating innovative and useful ways to implement ICT. The vision of the Baltic Challenge is to create the world's most dynamic and highly competitive ICT region - a leading user of ICT tools both for citizen and community leverage and for sustainable socio-economic growth in the region. 8. Best Practices (UNEP) 9. ?BEWARE! Massive Transport Statistics 10. Bicycle News Agency (Denmark) 11. CarBusters : a project of World Carfree Network. Carbusters.org, Car Busters magazine, and the Car Busters Resource Centre are tools for the grassroots global carfree movement - activists, campaigners and engaged citizens from around the world who want to take on car culture and promote alternative ways of life 12. Car Free Cities Discussions Free flow chat sessions on how to achieve "car free city solutions to the vexing problem of urban automobiles." Includes discussion of transport and energy issues. Intended for discussion of personal experiences as they relate to the larger issues. Moderated by Carfree.com. 13. Car Free Discussions 300 list members discuss and explore issues related to eliminating or reducing one's reliance on automotive transport. Celebrates non-polluting forms of transportation such as walking and bicycling while encouraging the use of mass transit as well as other life style changes providing an alternative to autocentric perspectives. Very personal, laid back approach. 14. Carfree Times A newsletter for those interested in carfree cities. Published on-line four times a year (sometimes more often). 15. Car Haters Unite (USA) - Hideouse-whitenoise, The Urban Cycling Zine. 16. Cars Suck - Right Of Way is a group of activists dedicated to asserting the rights of car-free street users -- including pedestrians, cyclists, and skaters -- and fighting back against car violence. Our home base is New York City, but we hope to report on, and help stimulate, action and awareness in other locales as well. 17. Centre for Alternative Technology (UK) CAT is an environmental charity aiming to 'inspire, inform, and enable' people to live more sustainably. A solutions driven organisation, offering practical solutions to environmental problems. Key areas: are renewable energy, environmental building, energy efficiency, organic growing and alternative sewage systems. 18. Centre for Sustainable Transport/Centre pour un Transport Durable (Canada) The Centre for Sustainable Transportation was founded to provide leadership in achieving sustainable transportation in Canada. 19. Centre for Alternative Transportation (USA) A non-profit organization committed to community involvement in manufacturing, using, and advocating sustainable modes of transportation. 20. Center For Science and Environment (India) 21. Center for Livable Communities (USA') - a national initiative of the Local Government Commission (LGC). A nonprofit, nonpartisan, membership organization of elected officials, city and county staff, and other interested individuals throughout California and other states, the Local Government Commission helps local governments identify and implement solutions to today's problems 22. Centre for Public Space Research A research centre of the School of Architecture at the Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts specially devoted to the study of urban spaces and the impact of the design of urban and suburban areas on the daily lives of their inhabitants. Director: Dr Jan Gehl. 23. Child Friendly Cities (Unicef) See http://www.unicef.org/search.php?q=Child+Friendly+Cities &Go.x=9&Go.y=9 for info on this Unicef program. 24. Club des villes cyclables (France) < http://www.villes-cyclables.org/> 25. Comit? 21 (France) < http://www.comite21.org/index.php> Comit? fran?ais pour l'environnement et le d?veloppement durable 26. Copenhagen X (Denmark) partnership between the city of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg Municipality and the Realdania Foundation, will arrange the mobile workshops using the city as case-study. 27. Citt? sostenibili (Italy) A project aimed at city improvements for children. Sponsored by the Italian Ministry of the Environment. 28. Culture Change/Sustainable Energy Institute A monthly bicycle ride to take back the streets. It began in San Francisco in 1992, and quickly spread to cities all over the world 29. Culture Change/Sustainable Energy Institute 30. Department of Environment, Transport and Regions (UK) 31. Detour Publications 32. Earth Policy Institute "dedicated to providing a vision of an environmentally sustainable economy-an eco-economy-as well as a roadmap of how to get from here to there." 33. EarthTrends : Environmental information portal, offers a searchable database, maps, country profiles, text and graphics "features" pieces, and pre-formatted datatables. 34. EarthNews Radio Syndicated radio program focusing on science and the environment. Requires Media Player 35. Earthwire News service 36. EcoPeace - Yaakov Garb 37. ELGO - European Local Government Database 38. ELTIS Info Service < http://www.eltis.org/en/index.htm%20> 39. Environment Digest < http://www.gn.apc.org/ecosystem/> 40. European Environmental Bureau < http://www.eeb.org> 41. http://www.elgo.co.uk/EU's Externe fuel price project < http://externe.jrc.es/> 42. ENS - Environmental News Service 43. ENN - Environmental News Network "ENN is your resource for quality environ- mental news, features and multimedia content." 44. L'Entreprise et la Cit? (France) < http://www.vinci.com/appli/wfv/wfv.nsf/web/cite_fr_1.htm> La Fondation d'entreprise VINCI pour la Cit? a pour ambition de mettre en place des passerelles entre le monde du travail et le monde associatif, entre le monde de l'entreprise et celui de la cit? 45. Environmental Data Services "The original daily international wire service of the environment. Established in 1990. ENS contributors around the world cover issues and events that affect the environment such as: legislation, politics, conferences, lawsuits, international agreements, demonstrations, science and technology, public health, air quality, drinking water, oceans and marine life, land use, wildlife, forests, natural disasters, the indoor environment, hazardous materials, toxics, nuclear issues, renewable energy, recycling, transportation, and environmental economics. 46. Environmental Defence (USA) Environmental Defense is fighting for greener, more cost-effective transportation choices 47. Environmental Daily &intTermID=9 5> : Focused European coverage of transport issues 48. Environmental Transportation Association "We will never be without cars but we can use them more sensibly as part of a sustainable transport system for Britain, something we can all be a part of. This is the vision of the Environmental Transport Association (ETA) .We are trying to address what can be done to reverse the congestion and pollution trends and we campaign and lobby government directly on these issues. We are also the only alternative motoring organisation and offers a comprehensive range of breakdown and insurance services. " 49. EnviroLinks News Service 50. European Federation for Transport and the Environment (T&E) 51. European Mobility Week 52. European Union 53. European Union Car-Free Day 54. European Road Crash Statistics 55. EU Sustainable Development News &1011=focss> 56. EU Transport News &1011=foctran> We do not cover all EU news, but select topics. Depth is differentiated according to upcoming EU policy decisions and to EU Actors interest. We follow topics over time, provide reliable databases and interfaces. The Guide is as complete as feasible. News are updated every weekday before 9 am. 57. EU Transport and Environment Program < http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/air/transport.htm> 58. Friends of the Earth < http://www.foe.co.uk/> 59. GART (France) < http://www.gart.org> Association d'?lus, le GART regroupe 246 autorit?s organisatrices de transport (agglom?rations, d?partements et r?gions). Son objectif : l'am?lioration des d?placements et le d?veloppement des transports publics en France. / 60. Go for Green (Canada) the Active Living and Environment Program, is a national non-profit, charitable organization whose mission is to encourage outdoor physical activity that protects, enhances or restores the environment. Go for Green has community-driven solutions that make a positive contribution to Canadian society. 61. Green Consumer Guide - Transport (UK) 62. GreenNet 63. Grameen Bank 64. Greenpeace International 65. Healthy Cities Project 66. Home Zones A home zone is a street or group of streets designed primarily to meet the interests of pedestrians and cyclists rather than motorists, opening up the street for social use. The key to creating a home zone is to develop street design that makes drivers feel it is normal to drive slowly and carefully. Features often include traffic calming, shared surfaces, trees and planters, benches and play areas. Developed by the Children's Play Council, UK. 67. I Walk to School International Walk to School Day gives children, parents, school teachers and community leaders an opportunity to be part of a global event as they celebrate the many benefits of walking. In 2003, approximately 3 million walkers from 29 countries walked to school together for various reasons - all hoping to create communities that are safe places to walk. 68. Illich Archives - on Society and Technology One of the most radical and profound political and social thinkers in the second half of the twentieth century. His aim is to analyze the institutional structures of industrialized society and to provide both rigorous criticism and a set of alternative concepts. 69. INSnet seeks to create awareness by offering access to news, opinions and information sources related to the broad field of sustainable development. 70. IISD - International Institute for Sustainable Development (Canada) advancing policy recommendations on international trade and investment, economic policy, climate change, measurement and indicators, and natural resource management to make development sustainable. 71. International Pedestrian Lexicon 72. ITDP - Institute for Transportation & Development Policy (Very important source of information and international collaboration.) 73. ITDP - International Forum for Rural Transport and Development : global network of individuals and representatives from government, academia, multilateral and bilateral donor agencies, consultancies, technical institutions, national and international NGOs, and community organisations. 74. INTRANSNET , a network of excellence of transport research laboratories in Europe funded within the 5th framework RTD programme of the EU. The project offers a high quality marketing option for all European transport research facilities via the web directory. 75. Joseph Rowntree Foundation 76. Less Traffic 77. Liftshare 78. Partners for Livable Communities (USA) nonprofit organization working to restore and renew our communities. Partners has over twenty-five years of experience in solving community problems by providing information, leadership and guidance that help communities help themselves. 79. Living Streets (Pedestrians' Association, UK) 80. Minist?re de l'?cologie et du d?veloppement durable (France) < http://www.environnement.gouv.fr> 81. Mobility management in companies - TOOLBOX The toolbox is a search facility to help companies develop their own mobility plan, and to help them promote effectively the use of public transport, collective company transport, car-pooling, walking and cycling for home-work journeys. It has been developed by a consortium of European specialists in mobility management. 82. MOSES (EU)) mobility services for urban sustainability - will develop mobility services to reduce dependence on the private car on a European scale - without restricting mobility. 83. MOSES Newsletter 84. MO.VE Forum - an international, non-governmental, permanent, observatory on Sustainable Mobility in urban areas. (EU program) 85. MOST - European project on mobility services for urban sustainability (mostly car sharing) 86. MOST - Moving on Sustainable Transportation (Transport Canada program) 87. Moving the Economy. (Canada) 88. Murdoch ISTP (Australia) New Mobility.com - "the Web site for New Mobility Magazine and the leading online resource for Disability Culture and Lifestyle. Newmobility.com is a tremendous research and communication tool for anyone with an interest in disability issues." 89. Northwest Environment Watch (Seattle) 90. OECD EST Program - Environmentally Sustainable Transport : The OECD initiated in 1994 this international project to define and chart a path towards Environmentally Sustainable Transport. The EST project attempts to demonstrate what strategies to achieve EST might look like, as well as their economic and social impacts, considering long-term environmental issues. 91. Oneworld Net 92. Partners for Sustainable Development (UN) 93. Pedestrians Organization 94. Pedestrians Association (UK) 95. Planning Bibliographies 96. Policy Studies Institut (UK)e 97. Right of Way 98. Rachel's Environmental & Health Weekly 99. Realdania Foundation (Denmark) a major Danish foundation whose mission is to improve the quality of life in the built environment by creating new qualities, and preserving existing ones, in the built environment in Denmark. 100. Road Danger Reduction Forum . 101. Road Rage (UK) . 102. Rocky Mountain Institute 103. Road Peace 104. Safe Routes to Schools (USA) 105. Sierra Club < http://www.schoolway.net/schoolway.phtml?sprache=en%3eSchoolway.net%3c/A %3e %20European%20network%20for%20cool%20kids%20and%20smart%20schools%20to%2 0mak e%20journeys%20to%20school%20safe%20and%20enjoyable.%20(EU)%3cLI%3e%3cA% 20HR EF=> 106. Surface Transportation Policy Project (STPP) 107. Tri-State Transportation Campaign (USA) 108. Scientists for Global Responsibility 109. Slower Speeds Initiative 110. Social Exclusion & Transport 111. SPARC (India) 112. Stockholm Challenge (Sweden) 113. Stockholm Partnerships for Sustainable Cities (Sweden) 114. SustainAbility : "The world's leading business consultancy on corporate responsibility and sustainable development." 115. Sustainability Report : Affiliated with the Institute for Research and Innovation in Sustainability (Canada) 116. Sustainable Development Communications Network (SDCN) : "a group of leading civil society organizations seeking to accelerate the implementation of sustainable development through broader, integrated information and communications about what we know." 117. Sustrans (South East Asia and the Pacific) Email discussion list devoted to people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). 118. Sustrans (UK) 119. TDM Encyclopedia (Canada) 120. Transed International Conference on Mobility and Transport for the Elderly and Disabled is 121. Transport 2000 122. The Transport Web : We are here to help you identify information and services available to the Transport World. We have a number of transport databases which are fully searchable. 123. Transportation Alternatives (USA) 124. TRB - Transportation Research Board (USA) 125. UITP Sustainable Development Working Group 126. UK Environment Agency 127. United Nations Car Free Days Program 128. United Nations Sustainable Development Program 129. Union of Concerned Scientists 130. UTSG Archives (UK) Universities' Transport Study Group. Well organised expert discussions of sustainable mobility issues and approaches, with notices on events and academic openings, mainly in Britain. Run by the Institute for Transport Studies of Leeds University. 131. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Canada :An independent research organization dedicated to developing innovative and practical solutions to transportation problems. Provide a variety of resources available free at this website to help improve transportation planning and policy analysis. Research is among the most current available and has been widely applied. 132. Walk21 (Denmark) is a global partnership of experts that focuses on providing conferences, training and consultancy services, with the aim of raising international awareness of walking issues and supporting professionals in the development and delivery of best practice. Director: Rodney Tolley. 133. Walkable communities, Inc. (USA) 134. WHO related links 135. WHO World Health Day 136. WISIONS (Germany, Switzerland) WISIONS is an initiative of the Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy, organised with the support of the Swiss-based foundation ProEvolution, to foster practical sustainable energy projects. 137. World CarFree Days Collaborative 138. World CarShare Consortium 139. World Bank 140. Worldcarfree.net will be a clearinghouse of information from around the world on how to revitalise our towns and cities and create a sustainable future. 141. World Business Council for Sustainable Development Coverage: Climate & Energy, CSR, Scenarios, Global Compact, Trade & Env. includes links to relevant WBCSD reports 142. World Resource Institute (USA) 143. World Transport Policy and Practice - Journal 144. Worldwatch Institute 145. WWF 146. Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy (Germany) 147. Young TransNet (National Children's Bureau) Try seaching this site for your reference Search this Site Search the Web Search Help here Looking for More? * Non-Profits, Annotated large listing &Start=1& Count=300&Expand=3> (From Moving the Economy, Canada) * ITDP Links (Canada) * Transport Web Links Base (Huge, searchable, also covers private sector) * TUGI - Websites on Cities & Urban Issues (Both South and North coverage) Have we missed you? Please click here and let us remedy that. It would be good to have a 20/30 word summary of your organization and objectives. And if you have an idea or recommendation to share with us all, this is the place to do it. postmaster@e... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20040506/b24e4cd6/attachment-0001.html From jbs at u.washington.edu Tue May 11 09:33:44 2004 From: jbs at u.washington.edu (Jerry Schneider) Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 17:33:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [sustran] Fwd: Rating and Evaluating "New Starts" Message-ID: Growing interest in opening up the "alternatives analysis" process conducted by the Federal Transit Admistration in the US DOT ------------------------------------- >Dear Colleague, >Because of your interest and involvement in public transit issues, I thought >you might be interested in this pre-publication text of an upcoming >Innovation Brief on FTA's New Starts program. >Sincerely, >Ken Orski, Editor, Innovation Briefs > > >Rating and Evaluating "New Starts" > >"Transit use is important in a number of our nation's major urban centers. >However, many cities have built or are building systems that are overpriced >or underutilized..." So stated Chairman Ernest J. Istook in his opening >statement at the April 28 hearing of the House Transportation Appropriations >Subcommittee on "Rating and Evaluating New Fixed Guideway Systems." Rep. >Istook went on to say, ""We need to better emphasize cost-effectiveness and >congestion relief as measures of a candidate project's worthiness to receive >federal funds. Currently FTA is tracking over 150 projects in planning >studies and preliminary stages for new projects or system expansions. These >projects could seek over $60 billion in federal New Starts funding over the >next several years...We all know that sixty billion dollars simply will not >be available, so we had better get started in winnowing the field of >candidates..." The chairman's opening statement summarized succinctly the >challenge facing the Federal Transit Administration in the years ahead: How >to become more adept at weeding out projects that do not relieve the most >congestion, move the most people and are the most cost-effective. > >U.S. DOT Inspector General Kenneth Meade stated concisely the dilemma facing >the congressional appropriators: > >"...there are 26 projects with existing full funding grant agreements and >another 38 projects in preliminary engineering, final design or that have >been proposed for funding, which collectively are seeking $24.3 billion in >federal funding. However, the funds available for New Starts projects over >the next six years can support only a fraction of these projects. >Specifically, the House transit reauthorization designated a total of $9.5 >billion for New Starts for Fiscal Years 2004 through 2009. Of the $9.5 >billion, the house bill provides $3.1 billion for the 26 transit projects >with existing full funding grant agreements. This leaves $6.4 billion to >fund other projects over the reauthorization period. Of this amount, >$4.0billion is proposed for the six projects FTA recommended for multi-year >grant agreements... If these six projects are approved, only $2.4 billion >would be left to fund the... 32 projects remaining in the pipeline." > >What's to be done? While Committee members offered no explicit >recommendations (they may do so later, in a Committee report), the tenor of >their questioning left no doubt as to their thinking. > >1. Assert more control over the alternatives analysis process. The >alternatives analysis is the essential first step in a lengthy process that >ultimately may lead to an award of a Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) and >construction of a rail system. The analysis evaluates corridor-level >transportation options and results in the selection of a "locally preferred >alternative." Local agencies have broad latitude in conducting this analysis >and in selecting evaluation criteria. > >FTA does not approve the selection of the locally preferred alternative. Nor >does it evaluate whether alternatives other than rail (such as Bus Rapid >Transit) might have been more cost-effective or generated greater benefits. >In deciding whether to advance a locally selected alternative into >preliminary engineering, the agency relies on information developed by >project applicant- information which, invariably, supports the local choice. >As the U.S. DOT Inspector General testified, "once a project emerges as the >locally preferred alternative, it is difficult to make material changes, >such as selecting an entirely different mode, since expectations have been >set, political support for the project has been established, and sometimes, >even funding put in place." > >In its reauthorization bill, the House authorized 143 new alternatives >analysis studies. Based on past experience, a large number of these analyses >will result in the selection of a light rail system as the preferred >alternative. To reduce the number of rail projects entering the New Starts >funding pipeline, FTA will need to exercise more oversight over the >alternatives selection process. FTA took a step in this direction when it >recently issued supplementary guidance specifying the basic information that >local study sponsors should submit to FTA at the outset of their >alternatives analysis study (Additional Guidance on Local Initiation of >Alternatives Analysis Planning Studies, April 2004). But this may not be >enough. Ultimately, as the Inspector General suggested, Congress may have to >step in and give FTA explicit authority to approve selection of the locally >preferred alternative. Without the authority to weed out marginal rail >proposals at the very outset of the process, FTA will be faced with ever >growing demands on the limited New Starts resources. > >2. Give more weight to cost-effectiveness in the rating process. "In >evaluating projects, the direct transportation benefits need to be the most >significant measurements," Chairman Istook noted in his opening statement. >"Each new start project should be required to show that its locally >preferred alternative will attract and move more riders, at lower cost, than >other alternatives." This has not always been the case in recent New Starts >evaluations. Rep. Istook pointedly noted that six out of the seven candidate >projects recommended for funding in FY 2005 were rated "Low-medium" for >cost-effectiveness, yet they all received an overall Project Justification >rating of "Medium" ("Low-medium" represents the next to the lowest rating on >a five-point scale of "High," "Medium high," "Medium," Low-medium," and >"Low." Projects must receive at least a "Medium" rating to be recommended >for construction funding). As the Inspector General explained, these >projects received a passing grade despite ranking low in cost-effectiveness >because FTA assigns equal weight to land use and cost-effectiveness >criteria. Through the averaging of scores, a high land use rating can >effectively override a low cost-effectiveness rating to produce an >acceptable overall rating and hence a recommendation for funding. > >3. Too much prominence is being given to the subjective criterion of land >use. FTA has made land use a separate measure of evaluation to acknowledge >the developmental influence of rail investment which, it believes, can be an >important indicator of future economic benefits. All seven candidate >projects recommended for funding received "Medium," "Medium-High" or "High" >rating for land use, although evidence of land use impact of light rail >transit remains highly debatable. Indeed, development around light rail >stations has been insignificant in most New Starts cities. What is more, FTA >awards high ratings for land use both if the station sites already are >developed (and thus are likely to generate ridership on the new rail system) >and if they are surrounded by vacant land (and thus offer a potential for >future development). Land use effects, several committee members suggested, >receive too much emphasis. The Inspector General concurred: "If the goal is >to give greater emphasis to the direct transportation benefits...then the >balance between these benefits and land use may need to be reconsidered." > >4. Pay more attention to congestion relief in estimating transportation user >benefits and develop more accurate methods of estimating highway travel time >savings as a proxy for congestion relief . Testimony by Administrator Dorn >and Inspector General Kenneth Mead indicated that FTA has not been able to >reliably estimate congestion reduction benefits of rail projects from the >data provided by local sponsors. Its evaluation captures only time-savings >realized by existing and new transit riders, but not travel time savings >experienced by motorists. Are there any such savings? Many analysts believe >that light rail investment has little or no effect on traffic congestion. >According to Texas Transportation Institute data, none of the urban areas >that have built light rail systems in recent years have been able to >demonstrate reduced traffic intensity. > >5. Develop better methods of estimating potential ridership on rail systems. >All parties at the hearing agreed that ridership is the single most critical >element supporting project justification and is at the basis of determining >all project-related benefits. In the words of the Inspector General, >"Reliable ridership estimates are paramount to achieving the intended >improvements - namely the identification of projects with the greatest >tangible benefits." Unfortunately, current ridership forecasting techniques >leave much to be desired. An FTA study of transit systems coming into >service between 1990 and 2000 compared actual ridership with ridership >forecasts in five light rail systems that have been in revenue service for >at least four years. "We found that these projects fell materially short of >delivering promised ridership," testified the Inspector General. The >ridership levels actually achieved ranged from 33 percent (Houston SW >Transitway) to 89 percent (Portland Westside LRT) of the predicted values. > >In the last issue of Innovation Briefs we suggested that the proposed >congressional reauthorization, with 38 authorized projects in the funding >pipeline and 143 authorized alternatives analysis studies has placed >congressional appropriators in an untenable position, since only a small >fraction of the authorized projects can be expected to receive funding. We >expressed the hope that Chairman Istook's transportation appropriations >subcommittee might take a careful look at the New Starts program and >instruct the Federal Transit Administration to take a more disciplined >approach to managing the limited New Starts dollars. We hope that the >Committee's report will spell out in explicit terms the reforms it expects >the agency to make in its rating and evaluation process, and recommend >appropriate congressional action to give FTA the necessary authority to >prevent marginally effective rail proposals from entering the New Starts >pipeline. > >C. Kenneth Orski >korski@erols.com >tel: 301.299.1996 >fax: 301.299.4425 >http://www.innobriefs.com > > > > >################################################################# >################################################################# >################################################################# >##### >##### >##### >################################################################# >################################################################# >################################################################# > >################################################################# >################################################################# >################################################################# >##### >##### >##### >################################################################# >################################################################# >################################################################# > >################################################################# >################################################################# >################################################################# >##### >##### >##### >################################################################# >################################################################# >################################################################# > >################################################################# >################################################################# >################################################################# >##### >##### >##### >################################################################# >################################################################# >################################################################# - Jerry Schneider - Innovative Transportation Technologies http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans From ecoplan.adsl at wanadoo.fr Thu May 13 17:22:07 2004 From: ecoplan.adsl at wanadoo.fr (ecoplan.adsl@wanadoo.fr) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 10:22:07 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Network for Environmentally Sustainable Transport in Latin America and the Caribbean (NESTLAC) Message-ID: <002401c438c3$627cc9e0$6501a8c0@home> Thursday, May 13, 2004, Paris, France, Europe Dear Friends, I would like to draw your attention to a program of the United Nations Environment Program which directly targets the matters which bring us together in this form, brining together some outstanding cities and hands-on innovators. The project address opens at http://uneprisoe.org/NESTLAC/index.htm in English, and then goes on to report for the most part in Spanish (but you always have our translation tools for that if needed). A short description of the program taken from the site follows: With all good wishes, Eric PS. Is your program/group listed in our World Inventory Sustainability Resources? Check it out at http://newmobility.org and if you?re not there it would be good to have your link and a short summary of mission, objectives, etc. The Commons __ technology, economy, society__ Le Frene, 8/10 rue Joseph Bara 75006 Paris, France, Europe T: +331 4326 1323 Fax/Voicemail hotline: +331 5301 2896 W : http://www.ecoplan.org IP Videoconference: 81.65.50.149 E: Eric.Britton@ecoplan.org Personal webpage: www.EricBritton.org --- Outgoing mail certified Virus Free. Checked by Norton Anti-Virus. Version 9.05.15 === Network for Environmentally Sustainable Transport in Latin America and the Caribbean (NESTLAC) Overview Project website Project Intranet The aim of NESTLAC is to disseminate, promote and facilitate the implementation of Environmentally Sustainable Transport (EST) options in Latin America and the Caribbean. The Network will promote the switch from private cars to public and non-motorised transport, leading thereby to reductions of both local and global emissions from the sector. NESTLAC will serve as the mechanism through which all the necessary activities to disseminate, promote and facilitate the implementation of EST options will be carried out. Initial members of NESTLAC are the Environmental Authority of Panama (ANAM), the Transit and Road Transport Authority of Panama (ATTT), the Chilean Inter-ministerial Secretariat for Planning and Transport (SECTRA), the Municipality of Guatemala City, the Transit and Transport Authority of El Salvador, the Vice-Ministry of Transport of El Salvador, Transmilenio S.A. of Bogot?, the Trolley-bus System of Quito and URC. NESTLAC is funded by the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and URC. For further information contact: Jorge Rogat, jorge.rogat@risoe.dk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20040513/12e72f53/attachment.html From roelof.wittink at cycling.nl Thu May 13 22:25:52 2004 From: roelof.wittink at cycling.nl (roelof.wittink@cycling.nl) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 15:25:52 +0200 Subject: [sustran] The new mobility agenda In-Reply-To: <002401c438c3$627cc9e0$6501a8c0@home> Message-ID: <40A39380.11736.15C0941@localhost> Dear Eric I read with interest your mail, May 06 on the World Sustainable Mobility Links and would like to add our web site www.i-ce.info (the former name www.cycling.nl works also still). In it is a.o. information on our Locomotives program. I would recommend web sites from Bicycling Empowerment Network in Cape Town, www.benbikes.org.za; TRIPP India (Dinesh Mohan and Geetam Tiwari) , www.iitd.ac.in/tripp; FPPQQ, the website of the organisation founded by Enrique Penalosa www.porelpaisquequeremos.com; and www.velo.info, the European network for cycling expertise. P.S. If you around in the Netherlands, give me a call best regards roelof wittink ******************************************************* Roelof Wittink, Director I-ce = Interface for Cycling Expertise Trans 3, 3512 JJ Utrecht, The Netherlands tel: +31 (0)30 2304521 fax: +31 (0)30 2312384 email (general): i-ce@cycling.nl email (personal): roelof.wittink@cycling.nl website: www.i-ce.info ******************************************************* From ecoplan.adsl at wanadoo.fr Fri May 14 02:38:08 2004 From: ecoplan.adsl at wanadoo.fr (ecoplan.adsl@wanadoo.fr) Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 19:38:08 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Access granted to send emails to ecoplan.adsl@wanadoo.fr Message-ID: <200405131736.i4DHamsG009317@fekb259.vwh.net> Thank you. You are now able to send emails to the recipient, ecoplan.adsl@wanadoo.fr Your message(s) have now been delivered: 5/13/2004 3:29:46 PM - The new mobility agenda 5/13/2004 3:29:50 PM - [sustran] The new mobility agenda 5/13/2004 3:29:46 PM - The new mobility agenda From paulbarter at nus.edu.sg Tue May 18 10:09:19 2004 From: paulbarter at nus.edu.sg (Barter, Paul) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 09:09:19 +0800 Subject: [sustran] FW: TRIPP BULLETIN Message-ID: <42F08B8662756D428F2811F53C6A93F5C2CB2C@MBXSRV04.stf.nus.edu.sg> Dear sustran-discussers The attachment from Dinesh was large so I am just forwarding the link below to TRIPP's latest newsletter. Do take a look at the excellent work they are doing in Delhi. Paul -----Original Message----- From: Dinesh Mohan [mailto:dmohan@cbme.iitd.ernet.in] Sent: Sunday, 16 May 2004 3:33 PM To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport; Barter, Paul Subject: TRIPP BULLETIN Paul: Good seeing you again. I am attaching our new newsletter. Could you circulate it to SUSTRAN. It' also avaialable at http://www.iitd.ac.in/tripp/bulletin/vol1(1).pdf Cheers Dinesh -- ====================================================================== TRIPP website http://www.iitd.ac.in/tripp/ READ THE DECLARATION ON PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO SAFETY http://www.iitd.ac.in/tripp/righttosafety/rightframe.html [If this server gives you trouble in sending a mail to me, you can use temporarily.] ====================================================================== Dinesh Mohan Henry Ford Professor for Biomechanics and Transportation Safety Transportation Research and Injury Prevention Programme Room MS 808, Main Building Indian Institute of Technology Hauz Khas New Delhi 110016 Phone: (+91 11) 2659 1147 FAX: (+91 11) 2685 8703 Home: (+91 11) 2649 4910 Email: dmohan@cbme.iitd.ernet.in ====================================================================== From roelof.wittink at cycling.nl Fri May 14 19:43:37 2004 From: roelof.wittink at cycling.nl (roelof.wittink@cycling.nl) Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 12:43:37 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Re: FW: WHO report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20040415081402.03a47498@mail.highspeedplus.com> References: <42F08B8662756D428F2811F53C6A93F5C2C829@MBXSRV04.stf.nus.ed u.sg> Message-ID: <40A4BEF9.23173.DDC15D@localhost> Dear Todd, A bit late reaction from my side but the issues you raise will remain relevant for very long time. Thanks very much for your efforts on the impact of walking and cycling on road safety. You may know about my involvement in road safety of cycling. I have been working at the Dutch Road Safety Research SWOV for 20 years and I am currently managing director of I-ce Interface for Cycling Expertise. I recently discussed extensively with Francesca Racioppi WHO the work to be done in Europe to produce a report on planning for cycling and walking with the highest impact on health. Part of this is to optimise road safety impact. In this respect we will come to the relation between more cycling and road safety. I totally disagree with road safety specialists that use risk data to forecast an increase in road fatalities as a consequence of an increase of cycling. It does not work this way. The empirical data prove completely the oppposite. Cities with a higher share of cycling, have a lower risk of cycling. Cities and countries that succeeded in a substantial increase of cycling, counted a decrease not only in risk but even in absolute numer of bicycle deaths. When I presented this at the latest Velo City conference, several people in the conference room confirmed my analyses. Risk comparisons will always show the vulnerability of cycling (although taking into account the risk for others and the conditions during travel, the differences are much less than calculating with only injuries and kilometers). However the point is that risks change at the same time when people feel invited to use a bicycle more often. It is about the process of interventions that promotes cycling. Cycling increased only when traffic calming takes place, when we work on another balance for room and priority given to cars and cyclists. I attach my contribution to the publication Sustainable Transport on this subject. For any reference: Wittink, Roelof; I-ce Interface for Cycling Expertise: Planning for cycling supports road safety; In: Sustainable Transport, Planning for walking and cycling in urban environments, ed. by Rodney Tolley; Woodhead publishing in Environmental management, ISBN 1 85573 614 4; 2003. I like to have your reaction and like to exchange with you how WHO and other bodies can be influenced to open their eyes for the facts and their background best regards roelof wittink On 15 Apr 2004 at 9:20, Todd Alexander Litman wrote: > > I was a member of the expert team which helped write the "World Report > on Road Traffic Injury Prevention" > (http://www.who.int/world-health-day/2004/en). I was mainly involved > in developing Chapter 4, which identifies interventions. > > There was considerable internal debate concerning motorization as a > risk factor, and the role of mobility management as a safety strategy. > Our original draft emphasized the importance of strategies that reduce > automobile travel volumes and speeds, but this was weakened > considerably during the review process. The good news is that some of > it was incorporated in the report. The bad news is that it is not as > prominent or as detailed as I would have preferred. > > An issue of considerable debate was how to handle the relative > accident rates of different modes. Motorized travel tends to have > fewer user deaths per passenger-kilometer than non-motorized travel, > and so it is easy to conclude that increased motorization reduces > risk. This is implied in Table 3.1 (p. 75) which does not take into > account the risk to other road users, or the tendency of motorization > to increase total travel. This issue is mentioned on page 111, but is > not highlighted or linked to the previous section. There is also > little discussion of the health benefits of increased walking and > cycling which may offset some or all of the accident risks, > particularly in industrialized countries. > > The WHO report also fails to discuss "offsetting behavior", the > tendency of people to take greater risks when they feel safer, a > critical issue when evaluating many of the solutions presented, such > as safer roads and vehicles. > > Chapter 4 includes the basic concept that risk can be reduced by > reducing total vehicle traffic volumes and speeds, and by restricting > motor vehicle use, and it emphasizes the safety benefits of improving > and encouraging transit rather than private automobile travel. It also > includes information on strategies such as improved walking and > cycling facilities and traffic calming. It relies considerably on my > report "If Health Matters: Integrating Public Health Objectives Into > Transportation Planning" (http://www.vtpi.org/health.pdf), which > discusses these issues in more detail. > > The report indicates that per capita crash rates decline with > increased motorization (see the third paragraph of page 40). Figure > 2.2 shows Africa to have the highest per-capita crash rates, although > this is based on limited and highly aggregate data, and Table 2.5 > indicates a much lower traffic fatality rate for Sub-Saharan Africa. > Much of the data is at the regional level, which hides differences > between different countries and cities which may indicate how factors > such as motorization affect crash rates. > > Regardless of the exact death rate, traffic accidents are a terrible > problem in developing countries, and the evidence is that this risk > declines with increased motorization, as vehicle and road quality > improve, people (drivers and other road users) take more precautions, > and emergency medical services improve. However, the ultimate level of > traffic safety in a particular country or city is affected by > per-capita vehicle ownership and use, and other transportation and > land use policies. This explains, for example, why the U.S. has a much > higher per capita traffic fatality rate than most other developed > countries (more than twice the rate in the U.K.), despite having > modern vehicles, well designed roads and numerous safety programs; and > why U.S. cities with more balanced transportation systems have a fifth > of the traffic fatality rate as automobile-dependent, Smart Growth > cities (see "If Health Matters" for information). Unfortunately, the > WHO report provides no information on these issues, and so supports > the conclusion that per capita vehicle ownership and mileage do not > affect risk. > > > The Conclusions and Recommendations (Chapter 5) includes many good > ideas. For example, > > Box 5.1 recommends encouraging walking and cycling and improving > walking and cycling conditions. > > On page 158, level of motorization, modes of travel, the volume of > unnecessary trips and land use planning practices are all listed as > risk exposure factors. > > On page 162, recommended safety strategies include safer cycling and > pedestrian facilities, and convenient, safe and affordable public > transit. > > > The European WHO report "Preventing Road Traffic Injury: A Public > Health Perspective For Europe" (www.euro.who.int/document/E82659.pdf) > similarly contains a lot of good information, such as the first of > "Highly effective measures for road safety" listed in Appendix 1: > > "Incorporating as a long-term goal, safety features into land-use and > transport planning ? such as the provision of shorter and safer > pedestrian and bicycle routes and convenient, safe and affordable > public transport ? and road design, including controlled crossings for > pedestrians, rumble strips and street lighting" > > > Please let me know if you have questions or comments. I am interested > in hearing how these issues are perceived in developing countries. > Also, please let me know if you have any specific suggestions for > improving my paper "If Health Matters". > > > Best wishes, > -Todd Litman > > > > At 11:02 AM 4/14/2004 +0800, Barter, Paul wrote: > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Rural transport and development mailing list > >[mailto:RURAL-TRANSPORT-DEVELOPMENT@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of > >Priyanthi Fernando Sent: Tuesday, 13 April 2004 8:45 PM To: > >RURAL-TRANSPORT-DEVELOPMENT@JISCMAIL.AC.UK Subject: WHO report on > >Road Traffic Injury Prevention > > > > > >Dear colleagues > > > >The WHO has just put out its World Report on Road Traffic Injury > >Prevention (see links at the end of this email). I have just skimmed > >the introductory chapters. The statistics speak for themselves - 1.2 > >million people killed per year begs that resources are channelled to > >a War Against Traffic Accidents! > > > >At the IFRTD Executive Committee meeting in November 2003 we > >had a considered discussion on road safety. It would seem to me > >that road traffic injuries are correlated with the increase in high > >speed road networks and increased motorisation. The 'vulnerable road > >users' (pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists - and perhaps other > >non-motorised transport users ) are the most at risk but perhaps also > >the least likely to benefit from motorisation and highways. So, from > >the perspective of reducing vulnerability of poor people, do we not > >also need a road traffic injury prevention strategy that questions > >the dominant paradigm of high speed motorisation? > > > >The following xtract from a contribution to the sustran email network > >shows that the World Bank (a co-author with WHO of the publication) > >finds it difficult to 'walk the talk': > > > >" Providing uninterrupted speed to vehicles results in higher > >accidents yet the authorites plan for super highways within cities > >and expressways cutting through rural areas..... The World Bank > >bemoans high road accident rate in Mumbai, a city of 12 million plus > >residents yet has extended liberal loan for Mumbai Urban Transport > >Project. in which construction of expressways and flyovers > >predominate. Now six lane carriageways are increased to eight with no > >pavements. The Bank further records that pedestrians form 95% of > >accident victims and turned down citizen request for construction of > >pavements. Is this how the poverty is reduced........ " > > > >I hope this will spark some discussion on this issue of road > >safety... > > > >Priyanthi Fernando > >IFRTD > > > > > >LINKS > > > >To download the report: > > > >http://www.who.int/world-health- > >day/2004/infomaterials/world_report/en/ > > > >Developing country organisations can order a hard copy from the WHO > >bookshop for 15 Swiss francs which is about 13.50 USD > > > >http://www.who.int/bookorders/anglais/detart1.jsp?sesslan=1&codlan > >=1&codcol=15&codcch=572 > > > > > >Priyanthi Fernando > >Executive Secretary, IFRTD > >113-114Spitfire Studios, > > 63-71 Collier Street > >London N1 9BE. United Kingdom > >Tel: +44 20 7713 6699 > >Fax: +44 20 7713 8290 > >Email: priyanthi.fernando@ifrtd.org OR ifrtd@ifrtd.org > >Web: www.ifrtd.org > > > >IFRTD provides a framework for collaboration between individuals and > >organisations interested in issues of access & mobility as they > >affect the lives of rural people in developing countries. > > > 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 > > ******************************************************* Roelof Wittink, Director I-ce = Interface for Cycling Expertise Trans 3, 3512 JJ Utrecht, The Netherlands tel: +31 (0)30 2304521 fax: +31 (0)30 2312384 email (general): i-ce@cycling.nl email (personal): roelof.wittink@cycling.nl website: www.i-ce.info ******************************************************* -------------- next part -------------- The following section of this message contains a file attachment prepared for transmission using the Internet MIME message format. If you are using Pegasus Mail, or any other MIME-compliant system, you should be able to save it or view it from within your mailer. If you cannot, please ask your system administrator for assistance. ---- File information ----------- File: CREATING final one.DOC Date: 13 Feb 2004, 10:24 Size: 97792 bytes. Type: Unknown -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CREATING final one.DOC Type: application/octet-stream Size: 97792 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20040514/8ad42ad2/CREATINGfinalone-0001.bin From ccordero at amauta.rcp.net.pe Wed May 19 05:25:10 2004 From: ccordero at amauta.rcp.net.pe (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Carlos_Cordero_Vel=E1squez?=) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 15:25:10 -0500 Subject: [sustran] junio a escala humana Message-ID: <003501c43d16$94677700$15b501c8@pentiumiii> CICLORED El bolet?n del transporte a escala humana Junio - Julio, 04 El viejo cine Un viernes por la noche es a veces un cine, un sitio tranquilo para recostar los sue?os propios y abandonarse a los ajenos, un espacio virtual donde mezclar la realidad de estar all? y la fantas?a que sale de la pantalla. Pero tambi?n una ubicaci?n precisa, un lugar, una memoria. Hace un par de viernes mientras nos acercamos al viejo cine, desde el camino que imagina la pel?cula, sin tomar nota del tr?nsito lento entre las calles luminosas y la oscuridad de la sala, algo en uno recuerda la ceremonia, se alegra y se prepara para la eterna unci?n del caf? tranquilo y la conversaci?n que lo prepara o la posterior, que aprueba la obra o la sentencia. Y ese viernes de hace dos las puertas andaban cerradas, las boleter?as desiertas y nadie esperaba las pel?culas que el peri?dico anunciaba todav?a. Un joven recostado sobre la escalera e interrogado por nosotros, sin sorprenderse demasiado dijo, "quebr?". Ese d?a no sabes qu? exactamente hacer con el viernes, con la memoria de las calles caminadas, las conversaciones con mi padre y los caf?s que a su amparo se cobijaron. Con el rito. Te das cuenta que algo se quiebra, algo distinto a una cuenta y un balance empresarial. Te preguntas si la vieja culebra que es la ciudad no tiene derecho a mudar de piel y llevarse los sue?os a otra parte, m?s lejos en uno; a fundar otros rutas y recuerdos. Sin embargo la memoria permanece atada a sus sitios y cada vez que pase por el cine Pacifico querr? hacer cola e ingresar al territorio donde todo es posible, donde el mundo se reinventa a plazo fijo y los parad?jicos sue?os pertenecen a los despiertos, a los que tienen ojos para verlos. &&& Es un chiste/ 1 En alguna gran avenida, de alguna gran ciudad latinoamericana, alguien espera para cruzar. Plantado al borde de la acera, ante la r?faga incesante de autom?viles, el peat?n espera diez minutos, veinte minutos, una hora. Entonces vuelve la cabeza y ve que hay un hombre recostado en la pared, fumando. Y le pregunta: - Oiga: ? c?mo hago para pasar al otro lado ? - No s?, yo nac? en ?ste. (Eduardo Galeano, Patas Arriba) &&& Dos breves I Hace algunos meses, llevaba en mis manos un libro en franc?s que compr? en mi primer viaje a Europa en el 2002. Debido a mis ocupaciones que necesitan "otras lecturas" pasaron casi dos a?os hasta que pude escogerlo. Les main et l'esprit se llama el lindo libro, libro-objeto porque como he aprendido franc?s viendo pel?culas, avanzo lento en la lectura. El hecho, es que fui a ver una obra de Yuyachkani en diciembre, en taxi, y llevaba una bolsa de algo, mi cartera peque?a y el libro. Dej? el libro en el asiento del taxi. Me di cuenta dos minutos despu?s. Estaba a punto de llorar, porque cuando por fin decido leer ese libro se me va de las manos. A los cinco minutos, el taxista volvi? al local de Yuyachkani a preguntar por la se?orita que hab?a dejado un libro. No pude estar m?s agradecida. II- Cuando llevaba unos tres minutos en el auto, me pregunta si tengo sencillo. Respondo que 20 soles. No pues se?orita, dice el se?or, que me hab?a pedido siete soles para ir del Congreso al Olivar de San Isidro, pero acept? luego ir por seis. El se?or empieza a refunfu?ar debido a que no hay d?nde cambiar el billete en el camino. Le sugiero ir al grifo de Grau, antes de entrar a la V?a Expresa (yo pod?a comprar una botella de agua)... Ve por el espejo con cara de imposible. - ?Por qu? no se puede? - Mire -contesta-. M?s gasto en meterme al grifo ahora que ha subido la gasolina.- Pero es una vuelta al ?valo, nom?s, digo yo. - Bueno pues, para usted no ser? gasto pero para m? s?. Agrega el taxista. Yo, desconocedora de cu?nto gastan los ticos en gasolina y, en general, de cu?nto gastan los autos en combustible, pues a?n -mil veces lo lamento- no s? conducir, le explico que no s? cu?nto pierde en combustible en dar esa vuelta porque no manejo. El taxista comenta el sueldo 16 (de marzo) de los congresistas, empezamos a hablar de pol?tica y de pronto dice que por lo menos en el tiempo de Fujimori la gasolina no sub?a tanto. Y, claro, le indico que no se olvide de toda la plata que se rob? el pr?fugo. - Pero esa plata yo no la veo. A m? lo que me interesa es lo que llevo cada d?a a mi casa. Si se la robaron, eso a m? no me iba a dar para la gasolina ni para la comida. Intento explicarle por qu? no podemos tolerar la corrupci?n y ?l repite el argumento de que a ?l solo le interesa el d?a a d?a y la cara que pone su esposa cuando llegue a su casa. Poco a poco, me doy cuenta de que no quiero pelear con el taxista, que prefiero que sepa que comprendo su situaci?n y respeto su d?a a d?a, y que aunque no comparta su opini?n, no quiero cansarlo con un lavado de cerebro en la V?a Expresa. Me doy cuenta de que no vamos a cambiar nunca el billete y que me dijo que ya no importaba, que le diera los cinco soles que ten?a en sencillo. A la altura de Juan de Arona busco en todos mis bolsillos, encuentro 50 centavos de d?lar y un euro. "A ver si ?stas le traen suerte", le digo, mientras se las doy en la otra mano. "Que le vaya muy bien". (colaboraci?n de Jacqueline Fowks de la Flor) &&& Zona de ?ngeles Casi le susurr?: "Se ha equivocado", y ella con desconcierto: ?perd?n? El tipo cargado de aplomo: "La zona de ?ngeles queda tres cuadras m?s all?", se?ala el faro con el brazo, apuntando la ruta de los parques. La muchacha sin entender bien respondi?: "perd?n, otra vez, disc?lpeme". Ella no buscaba redenci?n, acaso algo de comprensi?n. "Bueno, es evidente que eres un ?ngel distra?do, que no perteneces a este barrio. Tu verdadero sitio queda a tres cuadras de aqu?. Ser?a m?s f?cil que me acompa?es a tomar una cerveza y tal vez pueda explicarlo con m?s detalle". Ella se ajust? la chaqueta de cuero negro, tir? el cierre hacia arriba y se dejo caminar junto, bordeando del malec?n. Sonre?a. &&& Habla J?uregui El barrio es el n?cleo de la identidad, la esquina es la mejor forma de quererse. &&&--- El ?ltimo recurso. El mundo se est? quedando sin petr?leo entonces ?por qu? los pol?ticos se niegan a hablar de este tema? La industria del petr?leo est? en entredicho. El jueves, el gobierno aprob? la explotaci?n del dep?sito m?s grande descubierto en territorio brit?nico por al menos diez a?os. En todas partes se dice que este es un "enorme" hallazgo, lo cual disipa la idea de que el petr?leo del Mar del Norte est? en decadencia terminal, pero uno comienza a darse cuenta de la gravedad de la situaci?n humana cuando descubre que este nuevo "enorme" campo de petr?leo abastecer? al mundo por cinco d?as y cuarto. Cada generaci?n tiene su propio tab?, y el nuestro es el siguiente: que el recurso sobre el cual se han construido nuestras vidas se est? acabando, y no hablamos de ello porque no lo podemos imaginar; se puede decir que esta es una civilizaci?n que vive en la negaci?n. El petr?leo en s? no desaparecer?, pero cada vez se vuelve m?s dif?cil y costoso extraer lo que queda. El descubrimiento de nuevas reservas lleg? al m?ximo en la d?cada de los `60. Anualmente utilizamos cuatro veces m?s petr?leo del que hallamos. Al parecer, todos los grandes hallazgos han ocurrido hace mucho tiempo: los 400m barriles en el nuevo campo del Mar del Norte hubiesen sido insignificantes en la d?cada del `70. Nuestro abastecimiento para el futuro depende del descubrimiento de peque?os dep?sitos nuevos y de una mejor explotaci?n de los grandes que ya conocemos. Ninguna persona que tenga experiencia en el tema podr?a dudar que la producci?n global de petr?leo alcanzar? el m?ximo dentro de poco. La ?nica pregunta es en cu?nto tiempo m?s. Las proyecciones m?s optimistas son las realizadas por el ministerio de energ?a estadounidense, que sostiene que esto no suceder? hasta el a?o 2037; sin embargo, la agencia de informaci?n de energ?a de los EEUU ha admitido que las cifras del gobierno no han sido reales, ya que ha basado sus proyecciones para el suministro de petr?leo en las proyecciones de demanda de ?ste, quiz?s con el fin de no sembrar el p?nico en los mercados financieros. Otros analistas no est?n tan confiados. El ge?logo del petr?leo Colin Campbell calcula que la extracci?n global llegar? al m?ximo antes del 2010. En agosto, el geof?sico Kenneth Deffeyes le dijo a New Scientist que ?l estaba "99% seguro" de que la fecha en que se producir?a la m?xima producci?n global ser?a el 2004. Aun cuando los optimistas estuvieran en lo correcto, estar?amos consumiendo "todo el barril" de petr?leo dentro del curso de la vida de la mayor?a de los que hoy tiene una edad media. El suministro de petr?leo disminuir?, pero no as? la demanda global. Si actualmente consumimos 76m barriles, para el a?o 2020 estaremos utilizando 112m barriles al d?a, despu?s de lo cual se acelera la demanda proyectada. Si disminuye el suministro y crece la demanda, pronto nos encontraremos con algo que la gente de las econom?as industriales avanzadas no conoce mucho: la escasez. El precio del petr?leo se ir? a las nubes. A medida que aumenta el precio, los sectores que hoy en d?a dependen casi por completo del petr?leo crudo; principalmente el transporte y la agricultura; se ver?n obligados a contraerse. Dado que el cambio clim?tico causado por la combusti?n de petr?leo est? "asando" al Planeta, esto podr?a parecer algo positivo, pero el problema es que nuestras vidas se han vuelto dependientes de la econom?a del petr?leo. Sin autom?viles, es imposible proporcionarles servicios a nuestros suburbios en crecimiento. El hecho de que el precio del petr?leo suba conduce a un alza en los precios de los alimentos, por lo tanto, gran parte de la creciente poblaci?n mundial sufrir?a de hambre. Estos problemas se agravan debido a la directa relaci?n que existe entre el precio del petr?leo y la tasa de desempleo. Las ?ltimas cinco recesiones en los EEUU fueron precedidas por un aumento en el precio del petr?leo. Desde luego, el petr?leo no es el ?nico combustible que pueden usar los autom?viles. Existen muchos posibles sustitutos, pero es probable que en la actualidad ninguno est? ni siquiera cerca del precio tan bajo del crudo. El petr?leo se puede extraer de arenas de alquitr?n y esquisto de petr?leo, pero en la mayor?a de los casos el proceso utiliza casi tanta energ?a como la que libera, lo cual crea grandes monta?as y lagos de desechos t?xicos. El gas natural es una mejor opci?n, pero para cambiar la propulsi?n de petr?leo a gas se necesitar?a una enorme nueva infraestructura de combustible impresionantemente costosa. Sin duda, el gas est? sujeto a las mismas limitaciones que el petr?leo: en las actuales tasas de consumo, el mundo tiene provisi?n para unos 50 a?os, sin embargo, si el gas tomara el lugar del petr?leo su vida ser?a mucho m?s corta. Los veh?culos podr?an funcionar a partir de c?lulas accionadas por hidr?geno, el cual es producido por la electr?lisis de agua. Pero la electricidad para producir el hidr?geno debe proceder de alg?n lugar. Para llenar todos los autom?viles en los EEUU se necesitar?a cuatro veces la capacidad actual de la red nacional. La combusti?n del carb?n es sucia, y la energ?a nuclear es cara y mortal. Para lograr que los autom?viles de todo el mundo funcionen con energ?a solar o e?lica se necesitar?a una inversi?n m?s grande que todas las que se han hecho hasta ahora en cualquier civilizaci?n. Estudios recientes indican que el derrame de hidr?geno podr?a da?ar la capa de ozono y agravar el calentamiento global. Transformar las cosechas en diesel o metanol es casi igualmente viable en t?rminos de energ?a renovable; pero significa utilizar la tierra sobre la que se cultiva el alimento, para conseguir combustible. Mis c?lculos gruesos sugieren que para accionar los autom?viles del Reino Unido con petr?leo de colza se necesitar?a un ?rea de campos cultivables del tama?o de Inglaterra. Existe una soluci?n posible que ninguna persona que haya escrito acerca de la inminente crisis del petr?leo parece haber advertido: una t?cnica con la que los gobiernos ingleses y australianos experimentan actualmente, llamada gasificaci?n subterr?nea de carb?n. Este es un t?rmino extravagante para el encender los yacimientos de carb?n que son demasiado profundos o demasiado costosos para minar, y atrapar el gas que emerge. Este es un panorama espantoso, ya que significa que se aprovechan muchos trillones de toneladas de carbono que de otra forma eran imposibles de explotar, con el posible resultado de que el calentamiento global termine con la vida en la Tierra. En otras palabras, estamos en problemas: o echamos mano a cada fuente de combustible f?sil disponible, en cuyo caso "freir?amos" al planeta y la civilizaci?n colapsa; o damos por agotados los recursos y la civilizaci?n tambi?n colapsa. La ?nica respuesta racional, tanto para el inminente fin de la era del petr?leo como para la amenaza del calentamiento global, es redise?ar nuestras ciudades, nuestra agricultura y nuestras vidas. Sin embargo, esto no puede suceder sin una masiva presi?n pol?tica y nuestro problema es que nunca nadie se ha amotinado por la austeridad. La gente tiende a tomarse las calles porque desean consumir m?s, no menos. Si se da a elegir entre un conjunto nuevo de cubiertos para la mesa y la supervivencia de la humanidad, sospecho que la mayor?a de las personas escoger?an los cubiertos. En vista de todo lo anterior, la idea de que la guerra con Irak no ten?a nada que ver con el petr?leo es simplemente absurda. Los EEUU atac? Irak (que al parecer no pose?a armas de destrucci?n masiva y no constitu?a una amenaza para otras naciones) en vez de atacar a Corea del Norte (que desarrolla activamente un programa de armas nucleares y se jacta de sus intenciones de volar al reino que venga), porque Irak ten?a algo que ellos quer?an. En cierto sentido, Bush y Blair se han estado preparando para el d?a en que la producci?n de petr?leo llegue al m?ximo; y ha sido buscando asegurar las reservas de otras naciones. Me niego a creer que no hay un m?todo mejor que este para prevenir un desastre. Me niego a creer que los seres humanos son colectivamente incapaces de tomar decisiones racionales. Pero comienzo a preguntarme cu?l ser? la base de mi fe. (George Monbiot, The Guardian, 12/12/03) &&& La hora propia De alguna forma, estaba yo sentado sobre una piedra plana e inclinada, en la sombra de una ?rbol. No s? bien qu? hac?a ah?, en una zona ca?era del estado de Morelos, y en el cruce de tres caminos de tierra. El campesino, muy alto y delgado, hab?a pasado hac?a poco, en una bicicleta. Ahora hablaba con otro, aparentemente encarg?ndole unas cuantas vacas, como si tuviera que atender alg?n asunto surgido inesperadamente... "Yo soy Francisco Soriano." Y se hizo una pausa, durante la cual pens? que seguir?a el odioso "para servirle a usted". Pero el viejo no dijo m?s... Nos mostr? la tierra y los canales por donde corre el agua. A pesar de su edad - calculamos que ten?a por lo menos sesenta y cinco a?os- caminaba gr?cil y erguido entre el monte, con mucha m?s facilidad que nosotros. "No, no es arcilla. Nada de arcilla, pura tierra buena." Don Francisco mont? en su bicicleta. "Ustedes s?ganme, aunque sea despacito" -"Claro, no se preocupe." - Sonre?mos est?pidamente, pensando que hablaba de su velocidad. Pero pronto tuve que decirle a Jorge que acelerara un poco, porque don Francisco se adelantaba demasiado y lo pod?amos perder de vista. La camioneta jeep brincaba por el camino de tierra. El porche de Don Francisco es lo m?s fresco que puede uno encontrar en esas tardes de 36 grados. Se quit? los guaraches. Nos cont? de sus viajes cuando conduc?a camiones de carga. "Ya estoy harto de volantes. Mejor los vend? todos." - "?Ahora en bici?" - "S?, ahora en bici."- sonri? casi sin dientes. "?Qu? hora es la de ustedes?" - "Las tres y media"- "Ah. Las dos y media..." - ajust? don Francisco el reloj que carga en el bolsillo -"No las dos y media..."- dijo Lilia m?s fuerte, pensando que el viejo no hab?a o?do bien - "Las dos y media para m?. Yo no cambia hora. El presidente manda a su gente, pero no a m?." De regreso a Tepoztl?n, mientras yo pensaba en cambiar la Cannondale por una bicicleta vieja tipo "turismo", Lilia retras? su reloj una hora. (Baltazar del Cambio) &&&--- Historia clandestina Cuando estudiaba andaba clandestino porque estaba contra el gobierno. Despu?s que se le estropearon los sue?os se mud? a otro pa?s y tambi?n andaba de clandestino porque el gobierno estaba contra los de su clase. Un d?a frente a un cine, un monstruo amenazador y al pie la palabra Alien, le sali? al paso y le pareci? extra?o que se usara la misma palabra para hablar de los que como ?l hab?an sido expulsados de su tierra y entendi? por qu? se sent?a un extraterrestre caminando esas calles que no eran suyas. Otro d?a que vino, se muri? de algo. Nadie recuerda si limpiaba ventanas en un edificio que despu?s fue derribado o si se junt? con un ej?rcito de otra bandera para intentar pasar de Alien a Alguien o si fue atropellado tratando de cruzar una avenida. Nadie lo recuerda porque nadie lo supo. Como vino, se fue. Tinto al sol, desparramado, en copa rota. 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 jean-michel.cusset at let.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr Wed May 19 14:46:58 2004 From: jean-michel.cusset at let.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr (Jean-Michel CUSSET) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 07:46:58 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 9, Issue 18 No any access to this Issue In-Reply-To: <20040519030108.8BA402C3E5@list.jca.apc.org> Message-ID: <40AB10F1.15863.6D58C@localhost> Le 19 May 2004 ? 12:01, sustran-discuss-request@list.jca.apc.org a ?crit: > Send Sustran-discuss mailing list submissions to > sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > sustran-discuss-request@list.jca.apc.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > sustran-discuss-owner@list.jca.apc.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than > "Re: Contents of Sustran-discuss digest..." > ------------- Sorry, but I cannot have access to this issue ! Jean Michel CUSSET Directeur de recherche au CNRS Laboratoire d'Economie des Transports 14 avenue Berthelot 69363 LYON Cedex 07 France e-mail : jean-michel.cusset@let.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr T?l (33) 4 72 72 64 49 fax (33) 4 72 72 64 48 From jean-michel.cusset at let.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr Wed May 19 15:04:45 2004 From: jean-michel.cusset at let.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr (Jean-Michel CUSSET) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 08:04:45 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 9, Issue 18 Sorry no access to this Issue ! In-Reply-To: <20040519030108.8BA402C3E5@list.jca.apc.org> Message-ID: <40AB151C.19213.171ACB@localhost> Le 19 May 2004 ? 12:01, sustran-discuss-request@list.jca.apc.org a ?crit: > Send Sustran-discuss mailing list submissions to > sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > sustran-discuss-request@list.jca.apc.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > sustran-discuss-owner@list.jca.apc.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than > "Re: Contents of Sustran-discuss digest..." > Jean Michel CUSSET Directeur de recherche au CNRS Laboratoire d'Economie des Transports 14 avenue Berthelot 69363 LYON Cedex 07 France e-mail : jean-michel.cusset@let.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr T?l (33) 4 72 72 64 49 fax (33) 4 72 72 64 48 From litman at vtpi.org Wed May 19 23:38:03 2004 From: litman at vtpi.org (Todd Alexander Litman) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 07:38:03 -0700 Subject: [sustran] Pay-As-You-Drive Pricing For Insurance Affordability - Media Notice Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20040519073754.029b0760@mail.highspeedplus.com> PAY-AS-YOU-DRIVE PRICING: Innovative Strategy Proposed To Increase Insurance Affordability And Reduce Uninsured Driving Media Notice For Immediate Release 17 May 2004 For information Contact Todd Litman Phone: 250-360-1560 Email: litman@vtpi.org In a paper presented this week at a national meeting of the Casualty Actuarial Society (the professional organization for insurance risk analysts), researcher Todd Litman of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute describes a new strategy to increase vehicle insurance affordability and reduce uninsured driving called ?Pay-As-You-Drive Pricing.? Pay-As-You-Drive (PAYD) pricing means that a vehicle?s insurance premiums are based directly on how much it is driven. Premiums are calculated by the vehicle-mile, so a low-risk driver pays 2-4? per mile and a high-risk driver pays 10-20? per mile. This lets motorists save money by reducing their mileage. PAYD can be a consumer option, so motorists select the rate structure that offers them the best value. U.S. households spend approximately $1,000 per year on average on vehicle insurance. Vehicle insurance can be major financial burden for lower-income households, forcing many to forego vehicle ownership or drive uninsured. Various studies indicate that 10-35% of vehicles are uninsured, and this increases to more than 50% in some lower-income communities. According to Litman, ?Pay-As-You-Drive offers a new way to provide affordable insurance and reduce uninsured driving. Currently, ?insurance affordability? means that even high-risk, lower-income motorists can afford unlimited-mileage coverage. To achieve this, insurance companies are forced to overcharge lower-risk drivers compared with their claim costs. PAYD redefines ?insurance affordability? to mean that higher-risk drivers must limit their mileage to the accident exposure level they can afford. It actually reduces crashes and insurance claims rather than just shifting costs, and eliminates the need for unfair cross-subsidies between risk classes.? Litman describes how PAYD can help lower-income workers. ?Consider the situation of a worker who loses his or her job, and because they no longer commute, drives fewer miles. With current pricing, they continue paying the same vehicle insurance premiums, although both their income and their chance of having an insurance claim decline. People who are unemployed often find insurance costs a major financial burden, and so face the prospect of driving uninsured or giving up their car and the employment opportunities it provides. With PAYD, unemployed workers pay lower premiums and so can afford to keep a car for essential trips, job searches and future employment.? Pay-As-You-Drive pricing offers a number of additional benefits. By providing an incentive to reduce annual mileage it reduces accidents, traffic congestion, energy consumption and pollution emissions. It is currently being promoted by a variety of transportation, social equity and environmental organizations. Some major insurance companies have implemented PAYD pilot projects, including GMAC (General Motors Acceptance Corporation) Insurance, Progressive Insurance and Norwich Union. However, these programs require installation of special equipment in each vehicle, which increases costs. According to Litman, ?Insurance will only become more affordable when insurance companies offer the simpler, odometer-based system recommended in my paper.? The full report, Pay-As-You-Drive Pricing For Insurance Affordability, is available at the Victoria Transport Policy Institute website at http://www.vtpi.org/payd_aff.pdf. 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 richmond at alum.mit.edu Wed May 19 23:47:26 2004 From: richmond at alum.mit.edu (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 21:47:26 +0700 (SE Asia Standard Time) Subject: [sustran] Re: Pay-As-You-Drive Pricing For Insurance Affordability - Media Notice In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20040519073754.029b0760@mail.highspeedplus.com> References: <5.1.1.6.0.20040519073754.029b0760@mail.highspeedplus.com> Message-ID: Todd's idea is a good one -- the more the costs of driving can be connected with usage the better because having high fixed costs and then low marginal costs only promotes usage for those who have bought cars. But there would be a problem over the need to take mileage readings -- requiring a bureaucracy and opening the process up to possible abuse. How could that be dealt with? --Jonathan ----- Jonathan E. D. Richmond 02 524-5510 (office) Visiting Fellow Intl.: 662 524-5510 Transportation Engineering program School of Civil Engineering, 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: Ms. Nisarat Hansuksa richmond@alum.mit.edu 02 524-6051 Intl: 662 524-6051 http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ From litman at vtpi.org Thu May 20 02:02:02 2004 From: litman at vtpi.org (Todd Alexander Litman) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 10:02:02 -0700 Subject: [sustran] Re: Pay-As-You-Drive Pricing For Insurance Affordability - Media Notice In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.1.6.0.20040519073754.029b0760@mail.highspeedplus.com> <5.1.1.6.0.20040519073754.029b0760@mail.highspeedplus.com> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20040519094728.03eebf78@mail.highspeedplus.com> Dear Jonathan, Thank you for your comments. There is more detailed information on PAYD on our website, which discusses how it can be implemented (see http://www.vtpi.org/dbvi.pdf and http://www.vtpi.org/dbvi_com.pdf). There are several possible ways to track annual mileage, ranging from GPS tracking systems (the current Norwich Union and GMAC systems uses this approach, but it adds considerable cost, eliminating PAYD as a way of making insurance more affordable to lower-income motorists, and raises privacy issues), to the approach that I think will work best in most cases, which involves insurance companies or governments certifying third parties, such as garages and insurance brokers, to perform "odometer audits." This is a quick check for signs of tampering, recording odometer readings and sending the information to the vehicle registration database. This should take 2-5 minutes, and so should cost $5-10, or even less if performed in conjunction with scheduled maintenance such as an oil change. It does not require any new bureaucracy, and all costs would be covered by users. As part of this project I've done quite a bit of research on the risks of odometer fraud. Odometers are increasingly tamper-resistant because so many large transactions depend on their accuracy, including lease payments, vehicle warantees and used vehicle sales, which often involve thousands of dollars, far more than would be involved in most insurance premiums. Odometer fraud is difficult, illegal and would void insurance policies. I believe that odometer data should be as accurate as information used for other common commercial transactions, and far more accurate than current, unverified annual mileage claims used for vehicle insurance pricing. Best wishes, -Todd Litman At 09:47 PM 5/19/2004 +0700, Jonathan E. D. Richmond wrote: >Todd's idea is a good one -- the more the costs of driving can be >connected with usage the better because having high fixed costs and then >low marginal costs only promotes usage for those who have bought cars. > >But there would be a problem over the need to take mileage readings -- >requiring a bureaucracy and opening the process up to possible abuse. How >could that be dealt with? --Jonathan > >----- > >Jonathan E. D. Richmond 02 524-5510 (office) >Visiting Fellow Intl.: 662 524-5510 >Transportation Engineering program >School of Civil Engineering, 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: Ms. Nisarat Hansuksa > richmond@alum.mit.edu 02 524-6051 > Intl: 662 524-6051 >http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ 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 ericbruun at earthlink.net Thu May 20 08:41:22 2004 From: ericbruun at earthlink.net (Eric Bruun) Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 19:41:22 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: Pay-As-You-Drive Pricing For Insurance Affordability - Media Notice References: <5.1.1.6.0.20040519072147.03e74810@mail.highspeedplus.com> Message-ID: <009401c43dfa$d1a227c0$f5f845cf@earthlink.net> Todd, You forgot one additional important reason for Pay as You Drive (PAYD). In Philadelphia, auto insurance rates are very high. In fact, they are so high that people of low or even moderate incomes can not afford both auto insurance and to buy a monthly transit pass. So once they buy insurance, they can no longer be persuaded to use transit. I am quite sure that transit use would increase significantly with PAYD in any location where insurance rates are very high. Eric P.S. I think there is also a racial dimension to insurance pricing. In Philadelphia, there is an automatic huge penalty for having an address in the city proper, regardless of where one actually drives and the risks to which one is exposed. It seems that this is proxy for a racial penalty, since it is strictly illegal to use race as a basis for assessing rates. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Todd Alexander Litman" To: Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 10:21 AM Subject: Pay-As-You-Drive Pricing For Insurance Affordability - Media Notice PAY-AS-YOU-DRIVE PRICING: Innovative Strategy Proposed To Increase Insurance Affordability And Reduce Uninsured Driving Media Notice For Immediate Release 17 May 2004 For information Contact Todd Litman Phone: 250-360-1560 Email: litman@vtpi.org In a paper presented this week at a national meeting of the Casualty Actuarial Society (the professional organization for insurance risk analysts), researcher Todd Litman of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute describes a new strategy to increase vehicle insurance affordability and reduce uninsured driving called ?Pay-As-You-Drive Pricing.? Pay-As-You-Drive (PAYD) pricing means that a vehicle?s insurance premiums are based directly on how much it is driven. Premiums are calculated by the vehicle-mile, so a low-risk driver pays 2-4? per mile and a high-risk driver pays 10-20? per mile. This lets motorists save money by reducing their mileage. PAYD can be a consumer option, so motorists select the rate structure that offers them the best value. U.S. households spend approximately $1,000 per year on average on vehicle insurance. Vehicle insurance can be major financial burden for lower-income households, forcing many to forego vehicle ownership or drive uninsured. Various studies indicate that 10-35% of vehicles are uninsured, and this increases to more than 50% in some lower-income communities. According to Litman, ?Pay-As-You-Drive offers a new way to provide affordable insurance and reduce uninsured driving. Currently, ?insurance affordability? means that even high-risk, lower-income motorists can afford unlimited-mileage coverage. To achieve this, insurance companies are forced to overcharge lower-risk drivers compared with their claim costs. PAYD redefines ?insurance affordability? to mean that higher-risk drivers must limit their mileage to the accident exposure level they can afford. It actually reduces crashes and insurance claims rather than just shifting costs, and eliminates the need for unfair cross-subsidies between risk classes.? Litman describes how PAYD can help lower-income workers. ?Consider the situation of a worker who loses his or her job, and because they no longer commute, drives fewer miles. With current pricing, they continue paying the same vehicle insurance premiums, although both their income and their chance of having an insurance claim decline. People who are unemployed often find insurance costs a major financial burden, and so face the prospect of driving uninsured or giving up their car and the employment opportunities it provides. With PAYD, unemployed workers pay lower premiums and so can afford to keep a car for essential trips, job searches and future employment.? Pay-As-You-Drive pricing offers a number of additional benefits. By providing an incentive to reduce annual mileage it reduces accidents, traffic congestion, energy consumption and pollution emissions. It is currently being promoted by a variety of transportation, social equity and environmental organizations. Some major insurance companies have implemented PAYD pilot projects, including GMAC (General Motors Acceptance Corporation) Insurance, Progressive Insurance and Norwich Union. However, these programs require installation of special equipment in each vehicle, which increases costs. According to Litman, ?Insurance will only become more affordable when insurance companies offer the simpler, odometer-based system recommended in my paper.? The full report, Pay-As-You-Drive Pricing For Insurance Affordability, is available at the Victoria Transport Policy Institute website at http://www.vtpi.org/payd_aff.pdf. 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 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp From richmond at alum.mit.edu Thu May 20 13:25:16 2004 From: richmond at alum.mit.edu (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 11:25:16 +0700 (SE Asia Standard Time) Subject: [sustran] Re: Pay-As-You-Drive Pricing For Insurance Affordability - Media Notice In-Reply-To: <009401c43dfa$d1a227c0$f5f845cf@earthlink.net> References: <5.1.1.6.0.20040519072147.03e74810@mail.highspeedplus.com> <009401c43dfa$d1a227c0$f5f845cf@earthlink.net> Message-ID: Eric, I think you have to be very careful about making allegations like that without proof. Rates of crime tend to be higher in the inner city and insurance costs are therefore higher. Insurance companies carefully examine claims histories, conduct risk analyses, assign probabilities of claims, and price premiums accordingly. To consider whether a racial bias exists you would need to examine the calculations used to generate insurance prices to determine if they reflected actuarial analysis correctly or if there was a statistically significant bias. --Jonathan On Wed, 19 May 2004, Eric Bruun wrote: > Todd, > > You forgot one additional important reason for Pay as You Drive (PAYD). In > Philadelphia, auto insurance rates are very high. In fact, they are so high > that people of low or even moderate incomes can not afford both auto > insurance and to buy a monthly transit pass. So once they buy insurance, > they can no longer be persuaded to use transit. I am quite sure that transit > use would increase significantly with PAYD in any location where insurance > rates are very high. > > Eric > > P.S. I think there is also a racial dimension to insurance pricing. In > Philadelphia, there is an automatic huge penalty for having an address in > the city proper, regardless of where one actually drives and the risks to > which one is exposed. It seems that this is proxy for a racial penalty, > since it is strictly illegal to use race as a basis for assessing rates. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Todd Alexander Litman" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 10:21 AM > Subject: Pay-As-You-Drive Pricing For Insurance Affordability - Media Notice > > > PAY-AS-YOU-DRIVE PRICING: > Innovative Strategy Proposed To Increase Insurance Affordability And > Reduce Uninsured Driving > > Media Notice > For Immediate Release > 17 May 2004 > > For information Contact Todd Litman > Phone: 250-360-1560 > Email: litman@vtpi.org > > > In a paper presented this week at a national meeting of the Casualty > Actuarial Society (the professional organization for insurance risk > analysts), researcher Todd Litman of the Victoria Transport Policy > Institute describes a new strategy to increase vehicle insurance > affordability and reduce uninsured driving called ?Pay-As-You-Drive > Pricing.? > > Pay-As-You-Drive (PAYD) pricing means that a vehicle?s insurance premiums > are based directly on how much it is driven. Premiums are calculated by the > vehicle-mile, so a low-risk driver pays 2-4? per mile and a high-risk > driver pays 10-20? per mile. This lets motorists save money by reducing > their mileage. PAYD can be a consumer option, so motorists select the rate > structure that offers them the best value. > > U.S. households spend approximately $1,000 per year on average on vehicle > insurance. Vehicle insurance can be major financial burden for lower-income > households, forcing many to forego vehicle ownership or drive uninsured. > Various studies indicate that 10-35% of vehicles are uninsured, and this > increases to more than 50% in some lower-income communities. > > According to Litman, ?Pay-As-You-Drive offers a new way to provide > affordable insurance and reduce uninsured driving. Currently, ?insurance > affordability? means that even high-risk, lower-income motorists can afford > unlimited-mileage coverage. To achieve this, insurance companies are forced > to overcharge lower-risk drivers compared with their claim costs. PAYD > redefines ?insurance affordability? to mean that higher-risk drivers must > limit their mileage to the accident exposure level they can afford. It > actually reduces crashes and insurance claims rather than just shifting > costs, and eliminates the need for unfair cross-subsidies between risk > classes.? > > Litman describes how PAYD can help lower-income workers. ?Consider the > situation of a worker who loses his or her job, and because they no longer > commute, drives fewer miles. With current pricing, they continue paying the > same vehicle insurance premiums, although both their income and their > chance of having an insurance claim decline. People who are unemployed > often find insurance costs a major financial burden, and so face the > prospect of driving uninsured or giving up their car and the employment > opportunities it provides. With PAYD, unemployed workers pay lower premiums > and so can afford to keep a car for essential trips, job searches and > future employment.? > > Pay-As-You-Drive pricing offers a number of additional benefits. By > providing an incentive to reduce annual mileage it reduces accidents, > traffic congestion, energy consumption and pollution emissions. It is > currently being promoted by a variety of transportation, social equity and > environmental organizations. > > Some major insurance companies have implemented PAYD pilot projects, > including GMAC (General Motors Acceptance Corporation) Insurance, > Progressive Insurance and Norwich Union. However, these programs require > installation of special equipment in each vehicle, which increases costs. > According to Litman, ?Insurance will only become more affordable when > insurance companies offer the simpler, odometer-based system recommended in > my paper.? > > The full report, Pay-As-You-Drive Pricing For Insurance Affordability, is > available at the Victoria Transport Policy Institute website at > http://www.vtpi.org/payd_aff.pdf. > > > > 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 > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: > http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp > ----- Jonathan E. D. Richmond 02 524-5510 (office) Visiting Fellow Intl.: 662 524-5510 Transportation Engineering program School of Civil Engineering, 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: Ms. Nisarat Hansuksa richmond@alum.mit.edu 02 524-6051 Intl: 662 524-6051 http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ From psh at isec.ac.in Thu May 20 17:10:06 2004 From: psh at isec.ac.in (Puttanna S. Honaganahalli) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 13:40:06 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Autorickshaw passengers survey in Bangalore Message-ID: <005801c43e41$dcc4d520$0e01a8c0@isec.ac.in> Hi Folks I have been a silent observor all these days but time has now come to seek your assistance in a little exercise that I am undertaking, here, in Bangalore, India. Well, you may all know that Bangalore, the IT capital of the world, has a transport problem, but it doesn't have experts like you to tell us what needs to be done to fix the situation. (Not that our "babus" (bureuacrats) will listen to everything experts have to say, but that's a topic for another day). Anyways, in addition to being an air quality specialist, I am trying to double up as a travel demand management person, as well. I will be conducting an emission study of our auto-rickshaws in Bangalore and I need to keep the passengers cheerful and not get restless and impatient while the autorickshaw is undergoing the test. And, I thought it was also a golden opportunity to interview the passengers and get an answer to the question "why Bangaloreans choose auto-rickshaw over public transport to meet their travel needs". So, I am thinking of surveying the passengers while the autorickshaw emission is being tested. Since I am doing the survey for the first time I am a little uncertain of the kind of questions to ask. Any help you can offer will be highly appreciated. Or, if you have a questionnaire which may serve as a template for me to develop my own, that's even great. Thanks Puttanna S. Honaganahalli Ph.D. Ecological Economics Unit, Institute for Social and Economics Change (ISEC) Nagarabhavi, Bangalore 560 072 India Phone: 91-80-2321-5468 x120 Fax: 91-80-2321-7008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20040520/92935f82/attachment.html From whook at itdp.org Fri May 21 01:55:38 2004 From: whook at itdp.org (Walter Hook) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 12:55:38 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: Pay-As-You-Drive Pricing For Insurance Affordability -Media Notice References: <5.1.1.6.0.20040519072147.03e74810@mail.highspeedplus.com><009401c43dfa$d1a227c0$f5f845cf@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <008701c43e8b$475a8f30$6801a8c0@WALTER> we actually explored this in baltimore a few years (15!) back. there is no question that there is de-facto discrimination. it was also anti-urban discrimination. if you cross out of the city limits even in the same neighborhood with same demographic profile your rates tend to drop dramatically. it's because statistical calculation of risk based on risk factors by zip code (usual method as i recall) yields higher risk factors in low income high crime neighborhoods etc. The discriminatory element of this is that of course you could be a very safe driver with a garage and are being penalized because you live in a poor (which tends to correlate with minority) neighborhood. Just as there is an effort to push pay as you go insurance (which we completely support) ,there was an initaitive in Baltimore to shift to insurance based only on the individual's driving record as the only non-descriminatory method. we had an actuary working on it with us from GEICO, and he claimed you could assess risk in this way, and perhaps there is precedent for it. we had some support from the urban league. not sure if it ever went anywhere. Maybe the two issues could be linked up somehow. its interesting. walter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jonathan E. D. Richmond" To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 12:25 AM Subject: [sustran] Re: Pay-As-You-Drive Pricing For Insurance Affordability -Media Notice Eric, I think you have to be very careful about making allegations like that without proof. Rates of crime tend to be higher in the inner city and insurance costs are therefore higher. Insurance companies carefully examine claims histories, conduct risk analyses, assign probabilities of claims, and price premiums accordingly. To consider whether a racial bias exists you would need to examine the calculations used to generate insurance prices to determine if they reflected actuarial analysis correctly or if there was a statistically significant bias. --Jonathan On Wed, 19 May 2004, Eric Bruun wrote: > Todd, > > You forgot one additional important reason for Pay as You Drive (PAYD). In > Philadelphia, auto insurance rates are very high. In fact, they are so high > that people of low or even moderate incomes can not afford both auto > insurance and to buy a monthly transit pass. So once they buy insurance, > they can no longer be persuaded to use transit. I am quite sure that transit > use would increase significantly with PAYD in any location where insurance > rates are very high. > > Eric > > P.S. I think there is also a racial dimension to insurance pricing. In > Philadelphia, there is an automatic huge penalty for having an address in > the city proper, regardless of where one actually drives and the risks to > which one is exposed. It seems that this is proxy for a racial penalty, > since it is strictly illegal to use race as a basis for assessing rates. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Todd Alexander Litman" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 10:21 AM > Subject: Pay-As-You-Drive Pricing For Insurance Affordability - Media Notice > > > PAY-AS-YOU-DRIVE PRICING: > Innovative Strategy Proposed To Increase Insurance Affordability And > Reduce Uninsured Driving > > Media Notice > For Immediate Release > 17 May 2004 > > For information Contact Todd Litman > Phone: 250-360-1560 > Email: litman@vtpi.org > > > In a paper presented this week at a national meeting of the Casualty > Actuarial Society (the professional organization for insurance risk > analysts), researcher Todd Litman of the Victoria Transport Policy > Institute describes a new strategy to increase vehicle insurance > affordability and reduce uninsured driving called "Pay-As-You-Drive > Pricing." > > Pay-As-You-Drive (PAYD) pricing means that a vehicle's insurance premiums > are based directly on how much it is driven. Premiums are calculated by the > vehicle-mile, so a low-risk driver pays 2-4? per mile and a high-risk > driver pays 10-20? per mile. This lets motorists save money by reducing > their mileage. PAYD can be a consumer option, so motorists select the rate > structure that offers them the best value. > > U.S. households spend approximately $1,000 per year on average on vehicle > insurance. Vehicle insurance can be major financial burden for lower-income > households, forcing many to forego vehicle ownership or drive uninsured. > Various studies indicate that 10-35% of vehicles are uninsured, and this > increases to more than 50% in some lower-income communities. > > According to Litman, "Pay-As-You-Drive offers a new way to provide > affordable insurance and reduce uninsured driving. Currently, 'insurance > affordability' means that even high-risk, lower-income motorists can afford > unlimited-mileage coverage. To achieve this, insurance companies are forced > to overcharge lower-risk drivers compared with their claim costs. PAYD > redefines 'insurance affordability' to mean that higher-risk drivers must > limit their mileage to the accident exposure level they can afford. It > actually reduces crashes and insurance claims rather than just shifting > costs, and eliminates the need for unfair cross-subsidies between risk > classes." > > Litman describes how PAYD can help lower-income workers. "Consider the > situation of a worker who loses his or her job, and because they no longer > commute, drives fewer miles. With current pricing, they continue paying the > same vehicle insurance premiums, although both their income and their > chance of having an insurance claim decline. People who are unemployed > often find insurance costs a major financial burden, and so face the > prospect of driving uninsured or giving up their car and the employment > opportunities it provides. With PAYD, unemployed workers pay lower premiums > and so can afford to keep a car for essential trips, job searches and > future employment." > > Pay-As-You-Drive pricing offers a number of additional benefits. By > providing an incentive to reduce annual mileage it reduces accidents, > traffic congestion, energy consumption and pollution emissions. It is > currently being promoted by a variety of transportation, social equity and > environmental organizations. > > Some major insurance companies have implemented PAYD pilot projects, > including GMAC (General Motors Acceptance Corporation) Insurance, > Progressive Insurance and Norwich Union. However, these programs require > installation of special equipment in each vehicle, which increases costs. > According to Litman, "Insurance will only become more affordable when > insurance companies offer the simpler, odometer-based system recommended in > my paper." > > The full report, Pay-As-You-Drive Pricing For Insurance Affordability, is > available at the Victoria Transport Policy Institute website at > http://www.vtpi.org/payd_aff.pdf. > > > > 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 > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: > http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp > ----- Jonathan E. D. Richmond 02 524-5510 (office) Visiting Fellow Intl.: 662 524-5510 Transportation Engineering program School of Civil Engineering, 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: Ms. Nisarat Hansuksa richmond@alum.mit.edu 02 524-6051 Intl: 662 524-6051 http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ From ericbruun at earthlink.net Fri May 21 02:38:17 2004 From: ericbruun at earthlink.net (Eric Bruun) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 13:38:17 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: Insurance programs References: <5.1.1.6.0.20040519072147.03e74810@mail.highspeedplus.com><009401c43dfa$d1a227c0$f5f845cf@earthlink.net> <008701c43e8b$475a8f30$6801a8c0@WALTER> Message-ID: <013101c43e91$411e47a0$f5f845cf@earthlink.net> Johnathon The reason that race can be suspected is that auto insurance companies actually don't base their rates on actuarial data from a geographically precise level. The City of Philadelphia is quite huge with a very long perimeter. Many people who live near the boundary spend most of their time driving outside the city limits, and vice versa. Yet the person who lives outside the city limits and drives most of the time within the city would pay a much lower rate than the person living within the boundary and driving in the suburbs most of the time. How can that be justified, if, in fact, the suburbs have lower driving risk? Insurance companies, as best as I understand it, only breakeven on claims. Their real interest is only in money from the investments they make with the cash flow. They have no incentive to be equitable, precise, just, or anything else. This lump sum penalty appears to be just an easy way for them to set rates. But it is unfair to many city dwellers, of whom a high percentage are minority. Eric ----- Original Message ----- From: "Walter Hook" To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 12:55 PM Subject: [sustran] Re: Pay-As-You-Drive Pricing For Insurance Affordability-Media Notice > we actually explored this in baltimore a few years (15!) back. there is no > question that there is de-facto discrimination. it was also anti-urban > discrimination. if you cross out of the city limits even in the same > neighborhood with same demographic profile your rates tend to drop > dramatically. > > it's because statistical calculation of risk based on risk factors by zip > code (usual method as i recall) yields higher risk factors in low income > high crime neighborhoods etc. The discriminatory element of this is that of > course you could be a very safe driver with a garage and are being penalized > because you live in a poor (which tends to correlate with minority) > neighborhood. > > Just as there is an effort to push pay as you go insurance (which we > completely support) ,there was an initaitive in Baltimore to shift to > insurance based only on the individual's driving record as the only > non-descriminatory method. we had an actuary working on it with us from > GEICO, and he claimed you could assess risk in this way, and perhaps there > is precedent for it. we had some support from the urban league. not sure > if it ever went anywhere. > > Maybe the two issues could be linked up somehow. its interesting. > > > walter > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jonathan E. D. Richmond" > To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" > > Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 12:25 AM > Subject: [sustran] Re: Pay-As-You-Drive Pricing For Insurance > Affordability -Media Notice > > > > Eric, I think you have to be very careful about making allegations like > that without proof. Rates of crime tend to be higher in the inner city and > insurance costs are therefore higher. Insurance companies carefully > examine claims histories, conduct risk analyses, assign probabilities of > claims, and price premiums accordingly. > > To consider whether a racial bias exists you would need to examine the > calculations used to generate insurance prices to determine if they > reflected actuarial analysis correctly or if there was a statistically > significant bias. > > --Jonathan > > On Wed, 19 May 2004, Eric Bruun wrote: > > > Todd, > > > > You forgot one additional important reason for Pay as You Drive (PAYD). In > > Philadelphia, auto insurance rates are very high. In fact, they are so > high > > that people of low or even moderate incomes can not afford both auto > > insurance and to buy a monthly transit pass. So once they buy insurance, > > they can no longer be persuaded to use transit. I am quite sure that > transit > > use would increase significantly with PAYD in any location where insurance > > rates are very high. > > > > Eric > > > > P.S. I think there is also a racial dimension to insurance pricing. In > > Philadelphia, there is an automatic huge penalty for having an address in > > the city proper, regardless of where one actually drives and the risks to > > which one is exposed. It seems that this is proxy for a racial penalty, > > since it is strictly illegal to use race as a basis for assessing rates. > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Todd Alexander Litman" > > To: > > Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 10:21 AM > > Subject: Pay-As-You-Drive Pricing For Insurance Affordability - Media > Notice > > > > > > PAY-AS-YOU-DRIVE PRICING: > > Innovative Strategy Proposed To Increase Insurance Affordability And > > Reduce Uninsured Driving > > > > Media Notice > > For Immediate Release > > 17 May 2004 > > > > For information Contact Todd Litman > > Phone: 250-360-1560 > > Email: litman@vtpi.org > > > > > > In a paper presented this week at a national meeting of the Casualty > > Actuarial Society (the professional organization for insurance risk > > analysts), researcher Todd Litman of the Victoria Transport Policy > > Institute describes a new strategy to increase vehicle insurance > > affordability and reduce uninsured driving called "Pay-As-You-Drive > > Pricing." > > > > Pay-As-You-Drive (PAYD) pricing means that a vehicle's insurance premiums > > are based directly on how much it is driven. Premiums are calculated by > the > > vehicle-mile, so a low-risk driver pays 2-4? per mile and a high-risk > > driver pays 10-20? per mile. This lets motorists save money by reducing > > their mileage. PAYD can be a consumer option, so motorists select the rate > > structure that offers them the best value. > > > > U.S. households spend approximately $1,000 per year on average on vehicle > > insurance. Vehicle insurance can be major financial burden for > lower-income > > households, forcing many to forego vehicle ownership or drive uninsured. > > Various studies indicate that 10-35% of vehicles are uninsured, and this > > increases to more than 50% in some lower-income communities. > > > > According to Litman, "Pay-As-You-Drive offers a new way to provide > > affordable insurance and reduce uninsured driving. Currently, 'insurance > > affordability' means that even high-risk, lower-income motorists can > afford > > unlimited-mileage coverage. To achieve this, insurance companies are > forced > > to overcharge lower-risk drivers compared with their claim costs. PAYD > > redefines 'insurance affordability' to mean that higher-risk drivers must > > limit their mileage to the accident exposure level they can afford. It > > actually reduces crashes and insurance claims rather than just shifting > > costs, and eliminates the need for unfair cross-subsidies between risk > > classes." > > > > Litman describes how PAYD can help lower-income workers. "Consider the > > situation of a worker who loses his or her job, and because they no longer > > commute, drives fewer miles. With current pricing, they continue paying > the > > same vehicle insurance premiums, although both their income and their > > chance of having an insurance claim decline. People who are unemployed > > often find insurance costs a major financial burden, and so face the > > prospect of driving uninsured or giving up their car and the employment > > opportunities it provides. With PAYD, unemployed workers pay lower > premiums > > and so can afford to keep a car for essential trips, job searches and > > future employment." > > > > Pay-As-You-Drive pricing offers a number of additional benefits. By > > providing an incentive to reduce annual mileage it reduces accidents, > > traffic congestion, energy consumption and pollution emissions. It is > > currently being promoted by a variety of transportation, social equity and > > environmental organizations. > > > > Some major insurance companies have implemented PAYD pilot projects, > > including GMAC (General Motors Acceptance Corporation) Insurance, > > Progressive Insurance and Norwich Union. However, these programs require > > installation of special equipment in each vehicle, which increases costs. > > According to Litman, "Insurance will only become more affordable when > > insurance companies offer the simpler, odometer-based system recommended > in > > my paper." > > > > The full report, Pay-As-You-Drive Pricing For Insurance Affordability, is > > available at the Victoria Transport Policy Institute website at > > http://www.vtpi.org/payd_aff.pdf. > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: > > http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp > > > > ----- > > Jonathan E. D. Richmond 02 524-5510 (office) > Visiting Fellow Intl.: 662 524-5510 > Transportation Engineering program > School of Civil Engineering, 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: Ms. Nisarat Hansuksa > richmond@alum.mit.edu 02 524-6051 > Intl: 662 524-6051 > http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ > From litman at vtpi.org Fri May 21 03:02:22 2004 From: litman at vtpi.org (Todd Alexander Litman) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 11:02:22 -0700 Subject: [sustran] Re: Pay-As-You-Drive Pricing For Insurance Affordability -Media Notice In-Reply-To: <008701c43e8b$475a8f30$6801a8c0@WALTER> References: <5.1.1.6.0.20040519072147.03e74810@mail.highspeedplus.com> <009401c43dfa$d1a227c0$f5f845cf@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20040520104722.0247de78@mail.highspeedplus.com> The current insurance pricing system is certainly unfair in many ways. Whether or not it is intentional, premiums imposed on lower-income and minority are often higher than actuarially justified. This occurs because lower-income motorists tend to drive their vehicles less than average, and so tend to cross-subsidize wealthier, higher-mileage motorists in their rate class. There are a number of reasons that insurance rates are higher in lower-income neighborhoods, particularly: * Higher traffic densities. * Higher rates of uninsured vehicles, which increases costs on those who are insured. For discussion see Patrick Butler, "Why The Standard Automobile Insurance Market Breaks Down In Low Income Zip Codes," Report to the Texas House Committee on Insurance, July, 2000, available from the National Organization for Women Insurance Project (www.now.org). Because current practices undervalue mileage as a rating factor, other risk factors, such as driver demographics and territory become overweighted. PAYD insurance would allow more accurate pricing, and offer motorists a new opportunity to save money by reducing mileage, which is particularly valuable to lower-income, urban households. Virtually any strategy for making unlimited-mileage insurance more "affordable" requires increasing cross-subsidies from lower-risk to higher-risk motorists. A few years ago voters in California approved Proposition 103, which was intended to reduce the weight placed on territory and increase the weight placed on mileage as a rating factor. Unfortunately, the insurance industry there refused to implement any sort of odometer audit system, and so they continue to place little weight on mileage and overweight territory. The current Insurance Commissioner there has allowed insurance companies to continue with these practices, but this issue is being reviewed and may change. Best wishes, -Todd Litman At 12:55 PM 5/20/2004 -0400, Walter Hook wrote: >we actually explored this in baltimore a few years (15!) back. there is no >question that there is de-facto discrimination. it was also anti-urban >discrimination. if you cross out of the city limits even in the same >neighborhood with same demographic profile your rates tend to drop >dramatically. > >it's because statistical calculation of risk based on risk factors by zip >code (usual method as i recall) yields higher risk factors in low income >high crime neighborhoods etc. The discriminatory element of this is that of >course you could be a very safe driver with a garage and are being penalized >because you live in a poor (which tends to correlate with minority) >neighborhood. > >Just as there is an effort to push pay as you go insurance (which we >completely support) ,there was an initaitive in Baltimore to shift to >insurance based only on the individual's driving record as the only >non-descriminatory method. we had an actuary working on it with us from >GEICO, and he claimed you could assess risk in this way, and perhaps there >is precedent for it. we had some support from the urban league. not sure >if it ever went anywhere. > >Maybe the two issues could be linked up somehow. its interesting. > > >walter > > > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Jonathan E. D. Richmond" >To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" > >Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 12:25 AM >Subject: [sustran] Re: Pay-As-You-Drive Pricing For Insurance >Affordability -Media Notice > > > >Eric, I think you have to be very careful about making allegations like >that without proof. Rates of crime tend to be higher in the inner city and >insurance costs are therefore higher. Insurance companies carefully >examine claims histories, conduct risk analyses, assign probabilities of >claims, and price premiums accordingly. > >To consider whether a racial bias exists you would need to examine the >calculations used to generate insurance prices to determine if they >reflected actuarial analysis correctly or if there was a statistically >significant bias. > > --Jonathan > >On Wed, 19 May 2004, Eric Bruun wrote: > > > Todd, > > > > You forgot one additional important reason for Pay as You Drive (PAYD). In > > Philadelphia, auto insurance rates are very high. In fact, they are so >high > > that people of low or even moderate incomes can not afford both auto > > insurance and to buy a monthly transit pass. So once they buy insurance, > > they can no longer be persuaded to use transit. I am quite sure that >transit > > use would increase significantly with PAYD in any location where insurance > > rates are very high. > > > > Eric > > > > P.S. I think there is also a racial dimension to insurance pricing. In > > Philadelphia, there is an automatic huge penalty for having an address in > > the city proper, regardless of where one actually drives and the risks to > > which one is exposed. It seems that this is proxy for a racial penalty, > > since it is strictly illegal to use race as a basis for assessing rates. > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Todd Alexander Litman" > > To: > > Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 10:21 AM > > Subject: Pay-As-You-Drive Pricing For Insurance Affordability - Media >Notice > > > > > > PAY-AS-YOU-DRIVE PRICING: > > Innovative Strategy Proposed To Increase Insurance Affordability And > > Reduce Uninsured Driving > > > > Media Notice > > For Immediate Release > > 17 May 2004 > > > > For information Contact Todd Litman > > Phone: 250-360-1560 > > Email: litman@vtpi.org > > > > > > In a paper presented this week at a national meeting of the Casualty > > Actuarial Society (the professional organization for insurance risk > > analysts), researcher Todd Litman of the Victoria Transport Policy > > Institute describes a new strategy to increase vehicle insurance > > affordability and reduce uninsured driving called "Pay-As-You-Drive > > Pricing." > > > > Pay-As-You-Drive (PAYD) pricing means that a vehicle's insurance premiums > > are based directly on how much it is driven. Premiums are calculated by >the > > vehicle-mile, so a low-risk driver pays 2-4? per mile and a high-risk > > driver pays 10-20? per mile. This lets motorists save money by reducing > > their mileage. PAYD can be a consumer option, so motorists select the rate > > structure that offers them the best value. > > > > U.S. households spend approximately $1,000 per year on average on vehicle > > insurance. Vehicle insurance can be major financial burden for >lower-income > > households, forcing many to forego vehicle ownership or drive uninsured. > > Various studies indicate that 10-35% of vehicles are uninsured, and this > > increases to more than 50% in some lower-income communities. > > > > According to Litman, "Pay-As-You-Drive offers a new way to provide > > affordable insurance and reduce uninsured driving. Currently, 'insurance > > affordability' means that even high-risk, lower-income motorists can >afford > > unlimited-mileage coverage. To achieve this, insurance companies are >forced > > to overcharge lower-risk drivers compared with their claim costs. PAYD > > redefines 'insurance affordability' to mean that higher-risk drivers must > > limit their mileage to the accident exposure level they can afford. It > > actually reduces crashes and insurance claims rather than just shifting > > costs, and eliminates the need for unfair cross-subsidies between risk > > classes." > > > > Litman describes how PAYD can help lower-income workers. "Consider the > > situation of a worker who loses his or her job, and because they no longer > > commute, drives fewer miles. With current pricing, they continue paying >the > > same vehicle insurance premiums, although both their income and their > > chance of having an insurance claim decline. People who are unemployed > > often find insurance costs a major financial burden, and so face the > > prospect of driving uninsured or giving up their car and the employment > > opportunities it provides. With PAYD, unemployed workers pay lower >premiums > > and so can afford to keep a car for essential trips, job searches and > > future employment." > > > > Pay-As-You-Drive pricing offers a number of additional benefits. By > > providing an incentive to reduce annual mileage it reduces accidents, > > traffic congestion, energy consumption and pollution emissions. It is > > currently being promoted by a variety of transportation, social equity and > > environmental organizations. > > > > Some major insurance companies have implemented PAYD pilot projects, > > including GMAC (General Motors Acceptance Corporation) Insurance, > > Progressive Insurance and Norwich Union. However, these programs require > > installation of special equipment in each vehicle, which increases costs. > > According to Litman, "Insurance will only become more affordable when > > insurance companies offer the simpler, odometer-based system recommended >in > > my paper." > > > > The full report, Pay-As-You-Drive Pricing For Insurance Affordability, is > > available at the Victoria Transport Policy Institute website at > > http://www.vtpi.org/payd_aff.pdf. > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: > > http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp > > > >----- > >Jonathan E. D. Richmond 02 524-5510 (office) >Visiting Fellow Intl.: 662 524-5510 >Transportation Engineering program >School of Civil Engineering, 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: Ms. Nisarat Hansuksa > richmond@alum.mit.edu 02 524-6051 > Intl: 662 524-6051 >http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ 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 whook at itdp.org Fri May 21 04:29:29 2004 From: whook at itdp.org (Walter Hook) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 15:29:29 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: Pay-As-You-Drive Pricing For Insurance Affordability-Media Notice References: <5.1.1.6.0.20040519072147.03e74810@mail.highspeedplus.com><009401c43dfa$d1a227c0$f5f845cf@earthlink.net> <5.1.1.6.0.20040520104722.0247de78@mail.highspeedplus.com> Message-ID: <002b01c43ea0$c51ae4a0$6801a8c0@WALTER> are any US NGOs working on this? I'm not aware of any but not so focused on the US. Its an interesting set of issues that might attract a non traditional constituency for our issues. w. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Todd Alexander Litman" To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 2:02 PM Subject: [sustran] Re: Pay-As-You-Drive Pricing For Insurance Affordability-Media Notice The current insurance pricing system is certainly unfair in many ways. Whether or not it is intentional, premiums imposed on lower-income and minority are often higher than actuarially justified. This occurs because lower-income motorists tend to drive their vehicles less than average, and so tend to cross-subsidize wealthier, higher-mileage motorists in their rate class. There are a number of reasons that insurance rates are higher in lower-income neighborhoods, particularly: * Higher traffic densities. * Higher rates of uninsured vehicles, which increases costs on those who are insured. For discussion see Patrick Butler, "Why The Standard Automobile Insurance Market Breaks Down In Low Income Zip Codes," Report to the Texas House Committee on Insurance, July, 2000, available from the National Organization for Women Insurance Project (www.now.org). Because current practices undervalue mileage as a rating factor, other risk factors, such as driver demographics and territory become overweighted. PAYD insurance would allow more accurate pricing, and offer motorists a new opportunity to save money by reducing mileage, which is particularly valuable to lower-income, urban households. Virtually any strategy for making unlimited-mileage insurance more "affordable" requires increasing cross-subsidies from lower-risk to higher-risk motorists. A few years ago voters in California approved Proposition 103, which was intended to reduce the weight placed on territory and increase the weight placed on mileage as a rating factor. Unfortunately, the insurance industry there refused to implement any sort of odometer audit system, and so they continue to place little weight on mileage and overweight territory. The current Insurance Commissioner there has allowed insurance companies to continue with these practices, but this issue is being reviewed and may change. Best wishes, -Todd Litman At 12:55 PM 5/20/2004 -0400, Walter Hook wrote: >we actually explored this in baltimore a few years (15!) back. there is no >question that there is de-facto discrimination. it was also anti-urban >discrimination. if you cross out of the city limits even in the same >neighborhood with same demographic profile your rates tend to drop >dramatically. > >it's because statistical calculation of risk based on risk factors by zip >code (usual method as i recall) yields higher risk factors in low income >high crime neighborhoods etc. The discriminatory element of this is that of >course you could be a very safe driver with a garage and are being penalized >because you live in a poor (which tends to correlate with minority) >neighborhood. > >Just as there is an effort to push pay as you go insurance (which we >completely support) ,there was an initaitive in Baltimore to shift to >insurance based only on the individual's driving record as the only >non-descriminatory method. we had an actuary working on it with us from >GEICO, and he claimed you could assess risk in this way, and perhaps there >is precedent for it. we had some support from the urban league. not sure >if it ever went anywhere. > >Maybe the two issues could be linked up somehow. its interesting. > > >walter > > > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Jonathan E. D. Richmond" >To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" > >Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 12:25 AM >Subject: [sustran] Re: Pay-As-You-Drive Pricing For Insurance >Affordability -Media Notice > > > >Eric, I think you have to be very careful about making allegations like >that without proof. Rates of crime tend to be higher in the inner city and >insurance costs are therefore higher. Insurance companies carefully >examine claims histories, conduct risk analyses, assign probabilities of >claims, and price premiums accordingly. > >To consider whether a racial bias exists you would need to examine the >calculations used to generate insurance prices to determine if they >reflected actuarial analysis correctly or if there was a statistically >significant bias. > > --Jonathan > >On Wed, 19 May 2004, Eric Bruun wrote: > > > Todd, > > > > You forgot one additional important reason for Pay as You Drive (PAYD). In > > Philadelphia, auto insurance rates are very high. In fact, they are so >high > > that people of low or even moderate incomes can not afford both auto > > insurance and to buy a monthly transit pass. So once they buy insurance, > > they can no longer be persuaded to use transit. I am quite sure that >transit > > use would increase significantly with PAYD in any location where insurance > > rates are very high. > > > > Eric > > > > P.S. I think there is also a racial dimension to insurance pricing. In > > Philadelphia, there is an automatic huge penalty for having an address in > > the city proper, regardless of where one actually drives and the risks to > > which one is exposed. It seems that this is proxy for a racial penalty, > > since it is strictly illegal to use race as a basis for assessing rates. > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Todd Alexander Litman" > > To: > > Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 10:21 AM > > Subject: Pay-As-You-Drive Pricing For Insurance Affordability - Media >Notice > > > > > > PAY-AS-YOU-DRIVE PRICING: > > Innovative Strategy Proposed To Increase Insurance Affordability And > > Reduce Uninsured Driving > > > > Media Notice > > For Immediate Release > > 17 May 2004 > > > > For information Contact Todd Litman > > Phone: 250-360-1560 > > Email: litman@vtpi.org > > > > > > In a paper presented this week at a national meeting of the Casualty > > Actuarial Society (the professional organization for insurance risk > > analysts), researcher Todd Litman of the Victoria Transport Policy > > Institute describes a new strategy to increase vehicle insurance > > affordability and reduce uninsured driving called "Pay-As-You-Drive > > Pricing." > > > > Pay-As-You-Drive (PAYD) pricing means that a vehicle's insurance premiums > > are based directly on how much it is driven. Premiums are calculated by >the > > vehicle-mile, so a low-risk driver pays 2-4? per mile and a high-risk > > driver pays 10-20? per mile. This lets motorists save money by reducing > > their mileage. PAYD can be a consumer option, so motorists select the rate > > structure that offers them the best value. > > > > U.S. households spend approximately $1,000 per year on average on vehicle > > insurance. Vehicle insurance can be major financial burden for >lower-income > > households, forcing many to forego vehicle ownership or drive uninsured. > > Various studies indicate that 10-35% of vehicles are uninsured, and this > > increases to more than 50% in some lower-income communities. > > > > According to Litman, "Pay-As-You-Drive offers a new way to provide > > affordable insurance and reduce uninsured driving. Currently, 'insurance > > affordability' means that even high-risk, lower-income motorists can >afford > > unlimited-mileage coverage. To achieve this, insurance companies are >forced > > to overcharge lower-risk drivers compared with their claim costs. PAYD > > redefines 'insurance affordability' to mean that higher-risk drivers must > > limit their mileage to the accident exposure level they can afford. It > > actually reduces crashes and insurance claims rather than just shifting > > costs, and eliminates the need for unfair cross-subsidies between risk > > classes." > > > > Litman describes how PAYD can help lower-income workers. "Consider the > > situation of a worker who loses his or her job, and because they no longer > > commute, drives fewer miles. With current pricing, they continue paying >the > > same vehicle insurance premiums, although both their income and their > > chance of having an insurance claim decline. People who are unemployed > > often find insurance costs a major financial burden, and so face the > > prospect of driving uninsured or giving up their car and the employment > > opportunities it provides. With PAYD, unemployed workers pay lower >premiums > > and so can afford to keep a car for essential trips, job searches and > > future employment." > > > > Pay-As-You-Drive pricing offers a number of additional benefits. By > > providing an incentive to reduce annual mileage it reduces accidents, > > traffic congestion, energy consumption and pollution emissions. It is > > currently being promoted by a variety of transportation, social equity and > > environmental organizations. > > > > Some major insurance companies have implemented PAYD pilot projects, > > including GMAC (General Motors Acceptance Corporation) Insurance, > > Progressive Insurance and Norwich Union. However, these programs require > > installation of special equipment in each vehicle, which increases costs. > > According to Litman, "Insurance will only become more affordable when > > insurance companies offer the simpler, odometer-based system recommended >in > > my paper." > > > > The full report, Pay-As-You-Drive Pricing For Insurance Affordability, is > > available at the Victoria Transport Policy Institute website at > > http://www.vtpi.org/payd_aff.pdf. > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: > > http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp > > > >----- > >Jonathan E. D. Richmond 02 524-5510 (office) >Visiting Fellow Intl.: 662 524-5510 >Transportation Engineering program >School of Civil Engineering, 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: Ms. Nisarat Hansuksa > richmond@alum.mit.edu 02 524-6051 > Intl: 662 524-6051 >http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ 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 litman at vtpi.org Fri May 21 05:12:29 2004 From: litman at vtpi.org (Todd Alexander Litman) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 13:12:29 -0700 Subject: [sustran] Re: Pay-As-You-Drive Pricing For Insurance Affordability-Media Notice In-Reply-To: <002b01c43ea0$c51ae4a0$6801a8c0@WALTER> References: <5.1.1.6.0.20040519072147.03e74810@mail.highspeedplus.com> <009401c43dfa$d1a227c0$f5f845cf@earthlink.net> <5.1.1.6.0.20040520104722.0247de78@mail.highspeedplus.com> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20040520130616.0402a840@mail.highspeedplus.com> A number of organizations are promoting PAYD, including the National Organization for Women (www.now.org and http://www.centspermilenow.org), Environmental Defense (http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?ContentID=2205), the Oregon Environmental Council (OEC'S website), NorthWest Environment Watch (www.northwestwatch.org/press/payd_facts.html), and the National Motorists Association (www.motorists.org). The problem we face is that, although this type of transportation pricing reform provides many benefits (increased affordability, consumer savings, reduced accident risk, reduced congestion, reduced energy consumption and pollution emissions), there is currently no broad coalition working to promote it. As a result, most people are either unaware of the concept or think of it only in terms of one objective. Best wishes, -Todd Litman At 03:29 PM 5/20/2004 -0400, you wrote: >are any US NGOs working on this? I'm not aware of any but not so focused on >the US. Its an interesting set of issues that might attract a non >traditional constituency for our issues. > >w. >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Todd Alexander Litman" >To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" > >Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 2:02 PM >Subject: [sustran] Re: Pay-As-You-Drive Pricing For Insurance >Affordability-Media Notice > > > >The current insurance pricing system is certainly unfair in many ways. >Whether or not it is intentional, premiums imposed on lower-income and >minority are often higher than actuarially justified. This occurs because >lower-income motorists tend to drive their vehicles less than average, and >so tend to cross-subsidize wealthier, higher-mileage motorists in their >rate class. > >There are a number of reasons that insurance rates are higher in >lower-income neighborhoods, particularly: > * Higher traffic densities. > * Higher rates of uninsured vehicles, which increases costs on >those who are insured. > >For discussion see Patrick Butler, "Why The Standard Automobile Insurance >Market Breaks Down In Low Income Zip Codes," Report to the Texas House >Committee on Insurance, July, 2000, available from the National >Organization for Women Insurance Project (www.now.org). > > >Because current practices undervalue mileage as a rating factor, other risk >factors, such as driver demographics and territory become overweighted. >PAYD insurance would allow more accurate pricing, and offer motorists a new >opportunity to save money by reducing mileage, which is particularly >valuable to lower-income, urban households. Virtually any strategy for >making unlimited-mileage insurance more "affordable" requires increasing >cross-subsidies from lower-risk to higher-risk motorists. > >A few years ago voters in California approved Proposition 103, which was >intended to reduce the weight placed on territory and increase the weight >placed on mileage as a rating factor. Unfortunately, the insurance industry >there refused to implement any sort of odometer audit system, and so they >continue to place little weight on mileage and overweight territory. The >current Insurance Commissioner there has allowed insurance companies to >continue with these practices, but this issue is being reviewed and may >change. > > >Best wishes, >-Todd Litman > > > > >At 12:55 PM 5/20/2004 -0400, Walter Hook wrote: > >we actually explored this in baltimore a few years (15!) back. there is no > >question that there is de-facto discrimination. it was also anti-urban > >discrimination. if you cross out of the city limits even in the same > >neighborhood with same demographic profile your rates tend to drop > >dramatically. > > > >it's because statistical calculation of risk based on risk factors by zip > >code (usual method as i recall) yields higher risk factors in low income > >high crime neighborhoods etc. The discriminatory element of this is that >of > >course you could be a very safe driver with a garage and are being >penalized > >because you live in a poor (which tends to correlate with minority) > >neighborhood. > > > >Just as there is an effort to push pay as you go insurance (which we > >completely support) ,there was an initaitive in Baltimore to shift to > >insurance based only on the individual's driving record as the only > >non-descriminatory method. we had an actuary working on it with us from > >GEICO, and he claimed you could assess risk in this way, and perhaps there > >is precedent for it. we had some support from the urban league. not sure > >if it ever went anywhere. > > > >Maybe the two issues could be linked up somehow. its interesting. > > > > > >walter > > > > > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Jonathan E. D. Richmond" > >To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" > > > >Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 12:25 AM > >Subject: [sustran] Re: Pay-As-You-Drive Pricing For Insurance > >Affordability -Media Notice > > > > > > > >Eric, I think you have to be very careful about making allegations like > >that without proof. Rates of crime tend to be higher in the inner city and > >insurance costs are therefore higher. Insurance companies carefully > >examine claims histories, conduct risk analyses, assign probabilities of > >claims, and price premiums accordingly. > > > >To consider whether a racial bias exists you would need to examine the > >calculations used to generate insurance prices to determine if they > >reflected actuarial analysis correctly or if there was a statistically > >significant bias. > > > > --Jonathan > > > >On Wed, 19 May 2004, Eric Bruun wrote: > > > > > Todd, > > > > > > You forgot one additional important reason for Pay as You Drive (PAYD). >In > > > Philadelphia, auto insurance rates are very high. In fact, they are so > >high > > > that people of low or even moderate incomes can not afford both auto > > > insurance and to buy a monthly transit pass. So once they buy insurance, > > > they can no longer be persuaded to use transit. I am quite sure that > >transit > > > use would increase significantly with PAYD in any location where >insurance > > > rates are very high. > > > > > > Eric > > > > > > P.S. I think there is also a racial dimension to insurance pricing. In > > > Philadelphia, there is an automatic huge penalty for having an address >in > > > the city proper, regardless of where one actually drives and the risks >to > > > which one is exposed. It seems that this is proxy for a racial penalty, > > > since it is strictly illegal to use race as a basis for assessing rates. > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Todd Alexander Litman" > > > To: > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 10:21 AM > > > Subject: Pay-As-You-Drive Pricing For Insurance Affordability - Media > >Notice > > > > > > > > > PAY-AS-YOU-DRIVE PRICING: > > > Innovative Strategy Proposed To Increase Insurance Affordability And > > > Reduce Uninsured Driving > > > > > > Media Notice > > > For Immediate Release > > > 17 May 2004 > > > > > > For information Contact Todd Litman > > > Phone: 250-360-1560 > > > Email: litman@vtpi.org > > > > > > > > > In a paper presented this week at a national meeting of the Casualty > > > Actuarial Society (the professional organization for insurance risk > > > analysts), researcher Todd Litman of the Victoria Transport Policy > > > Institute describes a new strategy to increase vehicle insurance > > > affordability and reduce uninsured driving called "Pay-As-You-Drive > > > Pricing." > > > > > > Pay-As-You-Drive (PAYD) pricing means that a vehicle's insurance >premiums > > > are based directly on how much it is driven. Premiums are calculated by > >the > > > vehicle-mile, so a low-risk driver pays 2-4? per mile and a high-risk > > > driver pays 10-20? per mile. This lets motorists save money by reducing > > > their mileage. PAYD can be a consumer option, so motorists select the >rate > > > structure that offers them the best value. > > > > > > U.S. households spend approximately $1,000 per year on average on >vehicle > > > insurance. Vehicle insurance can be major financial burden for > >lower-income > > > households, forcing many to forego vehicle ownership or drive uninsured. > > > Various studies indicate that 10-35% of vehicles are uninsured, and this > > > increases to more than 50% in some lower-income communities. > > > > > > According to Litman, "Pay-As-You-Drive offers a new way to provide > > > affordable insurance and reduce uninsured driving. Currently, 'insurance > > > affordability' means that even high-risk, lower-income motorists can > >afford > > > unlimited-mileage coverage. To achieve this, insurance companies are > >forced > > > to overcharge lower-risk drivers compared with their claim costs. PAYD > > > redefines 'insurance affordability' to mean that higher-risk drivers >must > > > limit their mileage to the accident exposure level they can afford. It > > > actually reduces crashes and insurance claims rather than just shifting > > > costs, and eliminates the need for unfair cross-subsidies between risk > > > classes." > > > > > > Litman describes how PAYD can help lower-income workers. "Consider the > > > situation of a worker who loses his or her job, and because they no >longer > > > commute, drives fewer miles. With current pricing, they continue paying > >the > > > same vehicle insurance premiums, although both their income and their > > > chance of having an insurance claim decline. People who are unemployed > > > often find insurance costs a major financial burden, and so face the > > > prospect of driving uninsured or giving up their car and the employment > > > opportunities it provides. With PAYD, unemployed workers pay lower > >premiums > > > and so can afford to keep a car for essential trips, job searches and > > > future employment." > > > > > > Pay-As-You-Drive pricing offers a number of additional benefits. By > > > providing an incentive to reduce annual mileage it reduces accidents, > > > traffic congestion, energy consumption and pollution emissions. It is > > > currently being promoted by a variety of transportation, social equity >and > > > environmental organizations. > > > > > > Some major insurance companies have implemented PAYD pilot projects, > > > including GMAC (General Motors Acceptance Corporation) Insurance, > > > Progressive Insurance and Norwich Union. However, these programs require > > > installation of special equipment in each vehicle, which increases >costs. > > > According to Litman, "Insurance will only become more affordable when > > > insurance companies offer the simpler, odometer-based system recommended > >in > > > my paper." > > > > > > The full report, Pay-As-You-Drive Pricing For Insurance Affordability, >is > > > available at the Victoria Transport Policy Institute website at > > > http://www.vtpi.org/payd_aff.pdf. > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > > To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: > > > http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp > > > > > > >----- > > > >Jonathan E. D. Richmond 02 524-5510 (office) > >Visiting Fellow Intl.: 662 524-5510 > >Transportation Engineering program > >School of Civil Engineering, 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: Ms. Nisarat Hansuksa > > richmond@alum.mit.edu 02 524-6051 > > Intl: 662 524-6051 > >http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ > > >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 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 m.gaffney at pe.net Thu May 20 20:07:58 2004 From: m.gaffney at pe.net (Mason Gaffney) Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 04:07:58 -0700 Subject: [sustran] Re: hgtrans: Re: Pay-As-You-Drive Pricing For Insurance Affordability - Media Notice References: <5.1.1.6.0.20040519072147.03e74810@mail.highspeedplus.com> <009401c43dfa$d1a227c0$f5f845cf@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <003501c43e5a$b7f0b200$0500a8c0@Default> Good thinking, Eric. I haven't been following the earlier dialogue, but your statement makes sense. Social charges for autos are best imposed as variable costs, not fixed costs. Besides insurance, there are the fixed costs of license fees, and sales taxes on buying autos and trucks, and smog checks, and no doubt some others. Parking is a mixed bag. Owners should pay for domiciling their cars, and generally do. But when they hit the road for work or shopping or church, they generally get free parking thrown in. This constitutes a subsidy for auto use. Donald Shoup at UCLA has written a lot on this matter. Meantime, gasoline taxes have moved sharply downwards over the last century. In 1920, they contributed a much higher fraction of state revenues than today, even with so few cars being driven. Every time gas prices rise, the fixed tax per gallon falls as a % of the price. Mason Gaffney ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Bruun" To: "Sierra Club Forum on Transportation Issues" Cc: ; Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 4:41 PM Subject: hgtrans: Re: Pay-As-You-Drive Pricing For Insurance Affordability - Media Notice > Todd, > > You forgot one additional important reason for Pay as You Drive (PAYD). In > Philadelphia, auto insurance rates are very high. In fact, they are so high > that people of low or even moderate incomes can not afford both auto > insurance and to buy a monthly transit pass. So once they buy insurance, > they can no longer be persuaded to use transit. I am quite sure that transit > use would increase significantly with PAYD in any location where insurance > rates are very high. > > Eric > > P.S. I think there is also a racial dimension to insurance pricing. In > Philadelphia, there is an automatic huge penalty for having an address in > the city proper, regardless of where one actually drives and the risks to > which one is exposed. It seems that this is proxy for a racial penalty, > since it is strictly illegal to use race as a basis for assessing rates. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Todd Alexander Litman" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 10:21 AM > Subject: Pay-As-You-Drive Pricing For Insurance Affordability - Media Notice > > > PAY-AS-YOU-DRIVE PRICING: > Innovative Strategy Proposed To Increase Insurance Affordability And > Reduce Uninsured Driving > > Media Notice > For Immediate Release > 17 May 2004 > > For information Contact Todd Litman > Phone: 250-360-1560 > Email: litman@vtpi.org > > > In a paper presented this week at a national meeting of the Casualty > Actuarial Society (the professional organization for insurance risk > analysts), researcher Todd Litman of the Victoria Transport Policy > Institute describes a new strategy to increase vehicle insurance > affordability and reduce uninsured driving called "Pay-As-You-Drive > Pricing." > > Pay-As-You-Drive (PAYD) pricing means that a vehicle's insurance premiums > are based directly on how much it is driven. Premiums are calculated by the > vehicle-mile, so a low-risk driver pays 2-4? per mile and a high-risk > driver pays 10-20? per mile. This lets motorists save money by reducing > their mileage. PAYD can be a consumer option, so motorists select the rate > structure that offers them the best value. > > U.S. households spend approximately $1,000 per year on average on vehicle > insurance. Vehicle insurance can be major financial burden for lower-income > households, forcing many to forego vehicle ownership or drive uninsured. > Various studies indicate that 10-35% of vehicles are uninsured, and this > increases to more than 50% in some lower-income communities. > > According to Litman, "Pay-As-You-Drive offers a new way to provide > affordable insurance and reduce uninsured driving. Currently, 'insurance > affordability' means that even high-risk, lower-income motorists can afford > unlimited-mileage coverage. To achieve this, insurance companies are forced > to overcharge lower-risk drivers compared with their claim costs. PAYD > redefines 'insurance affordability' to mean that higher-risk drivers must > limit their mileage to the accident exposure level they can afford. It > actually reduces crashes and insurance claims rather than just shifting > costs, and eliminates the need for unfair cross-subsidies between risk > classes." > > Litman describes how PAYD can help lower-income workers. "Consider the > situation of a worker who loses his or her job, and because they no longer > commute, drives fewer miles. With current pricing, they continue paying the > same vehicle insurance premiums, although both their income and their > chance of having an insurance claim decline. People who are unemployed > often find insurance costs a major financial burden, and so face the > prospect of driving uninsured or giving up their car and the employment > opportunities it provides. With PAYD, unemployed workers pay lower premiums > and so can afford to keep a car for essential trips, job searches and > future employment." > > Pay-As-You-Drive pricing offers a number of additional benefits. By > providing an incentive to reduce annual mileage it reduces accidents, > traffic congestion, energy consumption and pollution emissions. It is > currently being promoted by a variety of transportation, social equity and > environmental organizations. > > Some major insurance companies have implemented PAYD pilot projects, > including GMAC (General Motors Acceptance Corporation) Insurance, > Progressive Insurance and Norwich Union. However, these programs require > installation of special equipment in each vehicle, which increases costs. > According to Litman, "Insurance will only become more affordable when > insurance companies offer the simpler, odometer-based system recommended in > my paper." > > The full report, Pay-As-You-Drive Pricing For Insurance Affordability, is > available at the Victoria Transport Policy Institute website at > http://www.vtpi.org/payd_aff.pdf. > > > > 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 > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: > http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> > Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70 > http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/yQLSAA/J1EolB/TM > ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> > > To unsubscribe, send an email to: > hgstransport-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hgstransport/ > > <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > hgstransport-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > From litman at vtpi.org Fri May 21 23:22:13 2004 From: litman at vtpi.org (Todd Alexander Litman) Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 07:22:13 -0700 Subject: [sustran] Re: Pay-As-You-Drive Pricing For Insurance Affordability - Media Notice In-Reply-To: <003501c43e5a$b7f0b200$0500a8c0@Default> References: <5.1.1.6.0.20040519072147.03e74810@mail.highspeedplus.com> <009401c43dfa$d1a227c0$f5f845cf@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20040521070402.036f63c8@mail.highspeedplus.com> These issues are discussed in my report "Socially Optimal Transport Prices and Markets" (http://www.vtpi.org/opprice.pdf) and the "Comprehensive Market Reforms" chapter of our Online TDM Encyclopedia (http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm29.htm). They point out that current transportation and land use markets are in many ways distorted, and that in a more efficient market consumers would probably choose to drive significantly less and choose more multi-modal communities, and be better off overall as a result. A number of specific pricing reforms are justified on market efficiency ground, including: * Road pricing * Distance-based vehicle insurance and registration fees. * Parking pricing * Unbundled parking costs from building purchase and rental costs * Charging road users the equivalent of rent and property taxes on road rights-of-way * Location-based taxes and utility fees, reflecting the lower public costs of clustered, infill development. Although these reforms would increase the cost of some transportation and land use activities, they would reduce other costs and increase consumer options. Best wishes, -Todd Litman At 04:07 AM 5/20/2004 -0700, you wrote: >Good thinking, Eric. I haven't been following the earlier dialogue, but >your statement makes sense. > >Social charges for autos are best imposed as variable costs, not fixed >costs. Besides insurance, there are the fixed costs of license fees, and >sales taxes on buying autos and trucks, and smog checks, and no doubt some >others. > >Parking is a mixed bag. Owners should pay for domiciling their cars, and >generally do. But when they hit the road for work or shopping or church, >they generally get free parking thrown in. This constitutes a subsidy for >auto use. Donald Shoup at UCLA has written a lot on this matter. > >Meantime, gasoline taxes have moved sharply downwards over the last century. >In 1920, they contributed a much higher fraction of state revenues than >today, even with so few cars being driven. Every time gas prices rise, the >fixed tax per gallon falls as a % of the price. > > >Mason Gaffney > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Eric Bruun" >To: "Sierra Club Forum on Transportation Issues" > >Cc: ; >Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 4:41 PM >Subject: hgtrans: Re: Pay-As-You-Drive Pricing For Insurance Affordability - >Media Notice > > > > Todd, > > > > You forgot one additional important reason for Pay as You Drive (PAYD). In > > Philadelphia, auto insurance rates are very high. In fact, they are so >high > > that people of low or even moderate incomes can not afford both auto > > insurance and to buy a monthly transit pass. So once they buy insurance, > > they can no longer be persuaded to use transit. I am quite sure that >transit > > use would increase significantly with PAYD in any location where insurance > > rates are very high. > > > > Eric > > > > P.S. I think there is also a racial dimension to insurance pricing. In > > Philadelphia, there is an automatic huge penalty for having an address in > > the city proper, regardless of where one actually drives and the risks to > > which one is exposed. It seems that this is proxy for a racial penalty, > > since it is strictly illegal to use race as a basis for assessing rates. > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Todd Alexander Litman" > > To: > > Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 10:21 AM > > Subject: Pay-As-You-Drive Pricing For Insurance Affordability - Media >Notice > > > > > > PAY-AS-YOU-DRIVE PRICING: > > Innovative Strategy Proposed To Increase Insurance Affordability And > > Reduce Uninsured Driving > > > > Media Notice > > For Immediate Release > > 17 May 2004 > > > > For information Contact Todd Litman > > Phone: 250-360-1560 > > Email: litman@vtpi.org > > > > > > In a paper presented this week at a national meeting of the Casualty > > Actuarial Society (the professional organization for insurance risk > > analysts), researcher Todd Litman of the Victoria Transport Policy > > Institute describes a new strategy to increase vehicle insurance > > affordability and reduce uninsured driving called "Pay-As-You-Drive > > Pricing." > > > > Pay-As-You-Drive (PAYD) pricing means that a vehicle's insurance premiums > > are based directly on how much it is driven. Premiums are calculated by >the > > vehicle-mile, so a low-risk driver pays 2-4? per mile and a high-risk > > driver pays 10-20? per mile. This lets motorists save money by reducing > > their mileage. PAYD can be a consumer option, so motorists select the rate > > structure that offers them the best value. > > > > U.S. households spend approximately $1,000 per year on average on vehicle > > insurance. Vehicle insurance can be major financial burden for >lower-income > > households, forcing many to forego vehicle ownership or drive uninsured. > > Various studies indicate that 10-35% of vehicles are uninsured, and this > > increases to more than 50% in some lower-income communities. > > > > According to Litman, "Pay-As-You-Drive offers a new way to provide > > affordable insurance and reduce uninsured driving. Currently, 'insurance > > affordability' means that even high-risk, lower-income motorists can >afford > > unlimited-mileage coverage. To achieve this, insurance companies are >forced > > to overcharge lower-risk drivers compared with their claim costs. PAYD > > redefines 'insurance affordability' to mean that higher-risk drivers must > > limit their mileage to the accident exposure level they can afford. It > > actually reduces crashes and insurance claims rather than just shifting > > costs, and eliminates the need for unfair cross-subsidies between risk > > classes." > > > > Litman describes how PAYD can help lower-income workers. "Consider the > > situation of a worker who loses his or her job, and because they no longer > > commute, drives fewer miles. With current pricing, they continue paying >the > > same vehicle insurance premiums, although both their income and their > > chance of having an insurance claim decline. People who are unemployed > > often find insurance costs a major financial burden, and so face the > > prospect of driving uninsured or giving up their car and the employment > > opportunities it provides. With PAYD, unemployed workers pay lower >premiums > > and so can afford to keep a car for essential trips, job searches and > > future employment." > > > > Pay-As-You-Drive pricing offers a number of additional benefits. By > > providing an incentive to reduce annual mileage it reduces accidents, > > traffic congestion, energy consumption and pollution emissions. It is > > currently being promoted by a variety of transportation, social equity and > > environmental organizations. > > > > Some major insurance companies have implemented PAYD pilot projects, > > including GMAC (General Motors Acceptance Corporation) Insurance, > > Progressive Insurance and Norwich Union. However, these programs require > > installation of special equipment in each vehicle, which increases costs. > > According to Litman, "Insurance will only become more affordable when > > insurance companies offer the simpler, odometer-based system recommended >in > > my paper." > > > > The full report, Pay-As-You-Drive Pricing For Insurance Affordability, is > > available at the Victoria Transport Policy Institute website at > > http://www.vtpi.org/payd_aff.pdf. > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: > > http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp > > > > > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> > > Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70 > > http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/yQLSAA/J1EolB/TM > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> > > > > To unsubscribe, send an email to: > > hgstransport-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hgstransport/ > > > > <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > hgstransport-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > > > <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > > Sincerely, Todd Litman, Director Victoria Transport Policy Institute "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity" 1250 Rudlin Street Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, Canada Phone & Fax: 250-360-1560 Email: litman@vtpi.org Website: http://www.vtpi.org From debi at beag.net Sat May 22 14:25:32 2004 From: debi at beag.net (debi@beag.net) Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 10:55:32 +0530 Subject: [sustran] modifications? Message-ID: <200405220525.i4M5PK676025@mail.jca.apc.org> I 've found your bill! -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: word_doc.zip Type: application/x-zip-compressed Size: 24194 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20040522/db998670/word_doc.bin From sujit at vsnl.com Sun May 23 15:38:59 2004 From: sujit at vsnl.com (Sujit Patwardhan) Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 12:08:59 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Pay as You Drive and Racism In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.1.6.0.20040519072147.03e74810@mail.highspeedplus.com> <009401c43dfa$d1a227c0$f5f845cf@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.0.20040523115214.027c1150@mail.vsnl.com> 23 May 2004 Though this is slightly off the topic, I share Eric's views. I believe that perception (by the one being discriminated) rather than evidence or proof is a more genuine yardstick to decide if racism exists. I know this stand may not appear fair to those (from the elite community) who do not practice racism themselves, but as someone who has experienced racism (personally) I don't have faith in the approach that requires "hard proof" to reveal a racist act. -- Sujit Sujit Patwardhan Parisar, Yamuna, ICS Colony, Ganeshkhind Road, Pune 411 007 India At 09:55 AM 5/20/2004, you wrote: >Eric, I think you have to be very careful about making allegations like >that without proof. Rates of crime tend to be higher in the inner city and >insurance costs are therefore higher. Insurance companies carefully >examine claims histories, conduct risk analyses, assign probabilities of >claims, and price premiums accordingly. > >To consider whether a racial bias exists you would need to examine the >calculations used to generate insurance prices to determine if they >reflected actuarial analysis correctly or if there was a statistically >significant bias. > > --Jonathan > >On Wed, 19 May 2004, Eric Bruun wrote: > > > Todd, > > > > You forgot one additional important reason for Pay as You Drive (PAYD). In > > Philadelphia, auto insurance rates are very high. In fact, they are so high > > that people of low or even moderate incomes can not afford both auto > > insurance and to buy a monthly transit pass. So once they buy insurance, > > they can no longer be persuaded to use transit. I am quite sure that > transit > > use would increase significantly with PAYD in any location where insurance > > rates are very high. > > > > Eric > > > > P.S. I think there is also a racial dimension to insurance pricing. In > > Philadelphia, there is an automatic huge penalty for having an address in > > the city proper, regardless of where one actually drives and the risks to > > which one is exposed. It seems that this is proxy for a racial penalty, > > since it is strictly illegal to use race as a basis for assessing rates. > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Todd Alexander Litman" > > To: > > Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 10:21 AM > > Subject: Pay-As-You-Drive Pricing For Insurance Affordability - Media > Notice > > > > > > PAY-AS-YOU-DRIVE PRICING: > > Innovative Strategy Proposed To Increase Insurance Affordability And > > Reduce Uninsured Driving > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sujit Patwardhan PARISAR "Yamuna", ICS Colony, Ganeshkhind Road, Pune 411007 Telephone: 255 37955 Email: or ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From psh at isec.ac.in Tue May 25 13:50:41 2004 From: psh at isec.ac.in (Puttanna S. Honaganahalli) Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 10:20:41 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Fw: autorikshaw survey Message-ID: <002701c44213$d57bf8e0$0e01a8c0@isec.ac.in> I am forwarding this message sent to me by Mr. Vittal Kumar. Apparently, Mr. Kumar had problems getting his message across to the list server. Puttanna ----- Original Message ----- From: "Puttanna S. Honaganahalli" To: "Vittal Kumar A." Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 4:51 PM Subject: Re: autorikshaw survey > Dear Mr. Kumar, > > Thanks for taking time to pen your thoughts to me. Unfortunately, I did not > reveive your comments. Can you please resend the same to me. I hope it is > not a botheration. > > Puttanna > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Vittal Kumar A." > To: > Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 4:19 PM > Subject: autorikshaw survey > > > > > > HI, > > > > I am unable to write to Sustainalbe discussion > > group...its bouncing back... > > hence sending you directly... > > > > regards, > > > > Vittal > > Note: forwarded message attached. > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________ > > Do you Yahoo!? > > Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70/year > > http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer ----- Original Message ----- From: "Puttanna S. Honaganahalli" Hi Folks I have been a silent observor all these days but time has now come to seek your assistance in a little exercise that I am undertaking, here, in Bangalore, India. Well, you may all know that Bangalore, the IT capital of the world, has a transport problem, but it doesn't have experts like you to tell us what needs to be done to fix the situation. (Not that our "babus" (bureuacrats) will listen to everything experts have to say, but that's a topic for another day). Anyways, in addition to being an air quality specialist, I am trying to double up as a travel demand management person, as well. I will be conducting an emission study of our auto-rickshaws in Bangalore and I need to keep the passengers cheerful and not get restless and impatient while the autorickshaw is undergoing the test. And, I thought it was also a golden opportunity to interview the passengers and get an answer to the question "why Bangaloreans choose auto-rickshaw over public transport to meet their travel needs". So, I am thinking of surveying the passengers while the autorickshaw emission is being tested. Since I am doing the survey for the first time I am a little uncertain of the kind of questions to ask. Any help you can offer will be highly appreciated. Or, if you have a questionnaire which may serve as a template for me to develop my own, that's even great. Thanks Puttanna S. Honaganahalli Ph.D. Ecological Economics Unit, Institute for Social and Economics Change (ISEC) Nagarabhavi, Bangalore 560 072 India Phone: 91-80-2321-5468 x120 Fax: 91-80-2321-7008 > From psh at isec.ac.in Tue May 25 14:11:12 2004 From: psh at isec.ac.in (Puttanna S. Honaganahalli) Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 10:41:12 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Fw: autorikshaw survey Message-ID: <007e01c44216$b4d83b00$0e01a8c0@isec.ac.in> Oops! In the earlier posting Mr. Kumar's reply got missed out. Here it is. Sorry for the inconvenience. Puttanna ----- Original Message ----- From: "Vittal Kumar A." To: "Puttanna S. Honaganahalli" Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 4:51 PM Subject: Re: autorikshaw survey > Dr. Puttanna.. > > check it out..if possible send it to discussion > group... > > regards, > Vittal > > Hi, > > Dr. Puttanna, > > Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC) > the local public transport corporation has set up a > task force by name 'Commuter Comfort Task Force' > (CCTF) aiming to evolve at what strategies and > measures to be adopted to enhance commuters > safisfaction. > > To achieve your goal, contact the MD of BMTC at > 9844078182. He's a sport. > > To discussion members.... Kindly give your inputs for > what forms the Customer satisfaction? is it frequency? > is it comfort while travelling? free flow of traffic? > pricing? courtesy? Any thoughts? > > What recommendations to increase the customer > satisfaction index? (CSI) > > regards, > Vittal > > --- "Puttanna S. Honaganahalli" > wrote: > > Dear Mr. Kumar, > > > > Thanks for taking time to pen your thoughts to me. > > Unfortunately, I did not > > reveive your comments. Can you please resend the > > same to me. I hope it is > > not a botheration. > > > > Puttanna > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Vittal Kumar A." > > To: > > Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 4:19 PM > > Subject: autorikshaw survey > > > > > > > > > > HI, > > > > > > I am unable to write to Sustainalbe discussion > > > group...its bouncing back... > > > hence sending you directly... > > > > > > regards, > > > > > > Vittal > > > Note: forwarded message attached. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________ > > > Do you Yahoo!? > > > Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70/year > > > http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70/year > http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer > From f.forestieri at netspa.com Tue May 25 15:36:11 2004 From: f.forestieri at netspa.com (f.forestieri@netspa.com) Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 08:36:11 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Rif: Fw: autorikshaw survey Message-ID: Dear Dr. Puttanna, Certainly much has been done in the development of information and awareness campaigns for mobility issues in the last years although it is still a "hot" topic in Europe. Some of the recent EU activities have been reported at the European Conference on Mobility Management -- I have included the link so you can consult the proceedings. http://www.ontario-conference.com/ecomm/GB/menu_flash.html In addition, one EU flagship project in this area was TAPESTRY (http://www.eu-tapestry.org/ ). Additional research should be underway next year . Hope this helps. Francesca Francesca Romana Forestieri Ricerca e Sviluppo Net Engineering Via Parigi 11 00185 Roma Tel. +-39-06-48906128 Cell. +-39-3355301560 Email: f.forestieri@netspa.com http://www.netspa.com/ita/flash/index.html |--------+----------------------------------------------------------------> | | "Puttanna S. Honaganahalli" | | | Inviato da: | | | sustran-discuss-bounces+f.forestieri=netspa.com@list.j| | | ca.apc.org | | | | | | | | | 25/05/2004 07.11 | | | Per favore, rispondere a Asia and the Pacific | | | sustainable transport | | | | |--------+----------------------------------------------------------------> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | Per: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" | | | | Cc: | | Oggetto: [sustran] Fw: autorikshaw survey | >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------| Oops! In the earlier posting Mr. Kumar's reply got missed out. Here it is. Sorry for the inconvenience. Puttanna ----- Original Message ----- From: "Vittal Kumar A." To: "Puttanna S. Honaganahalli" Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 4:51 PM Subject: Re: autorikshaw survey > Dr. Puttanna.. > > check it out..if possible send it to discussion > group... > > regards, > Vittal > > Hi, > > Dr. Puttanna, > > Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC) > the local public transport corporation has set up a > task force by name 'Commuter Comfort Task Force' > (CCTF) aiming to evolve at what strategies and > measures to be adopted to enhance commuters > safisfaction. > > To achieve your goal, contact the MD of BMTC at > 9844078182. He's a sport. > > To discussion members.... Kindly give your inputs for > what forms the Customer satisfaction? is it frequency? > is it comfort while travelling? free flow of traffic? > pricing? courtesy? Any thoughts? > > What recommendations to increase the customer > satisfaction index? (CSI) > > regards, > Vittal > > --- "Puttanna S. Honaganahalli" > wrote: > > Dear Mr. Kumar, > > > > Thanks for taking time to pen your thoughts to me. > > Unfortunately, I did not > > reveive your comments. Can you please resend the > > same to me. I hope it is > > not a botheration. > > > > Puttanna > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Vittal Kumar A." > > To: > > Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 4:19 PM > > Subject: autorikshaw survey > > > > > > > > > > HI, > > > > > > I am unable to write to Sustainalbe discussion > > > group...its bouncing back... > > > hence sending you directly... > > > > > > regards, > > > > > > Vittal > > > Note: forwarded message attached. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________ > > > Do you Yahoo!? > > > Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70/year > > > http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70/year > http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer > From gabbyherm at yahoo.com Wed May 26 02:48:45 2004 From: gabbyherm at yahoo.com (Gabrielle Hermann) Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 10:48:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [sustran] Call for Papers Message-ID: <20040525174845.42556.qmail@web12903.mail.yahoo.com> TRIALOG - a journal for planning and building in the Third World It is a journal for architects, urban planners, sociologists, geographers, economists and development planners. It is published in Germany and read in many different countries and continents. The editors are professionals in the fields listed above and members of the association. The thematic range of TRIALOG includes among other related topics: urbanization and housing policy / architecture and regional cultures / ecology, technological transfer and appropriate technologies / rural development strategies. For more information: www.trialog-journal.de Contributions are mainly written in German or English, with a summary in the respective other language. In several cases, articles were published in Spanish or French. We are preparing a special issue on Transport, Traffic, Mobility, not with emphasis on just technical aspects, but rather in relation to urban and/or rural development, ecology, income generation, gender issues …We are still looking for additional relevant papers. If you are interested in contributing, we are looking forward to hearing from you. The length of your contribution should be of around 4 pages or 18 000 signs; photographs and / or graphics are welcome. The deadline will be around the 15th of June. It would be very helpful to get the abstract already in the first days of May. Please contact Antje Wemhöner in Berlin A.Wemhoener@gmx.de Thank you. ===== "You must be the change you wish to see in the world" - Gandhi __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/ From shoque at smtrans.co.uk Wed May 26 22:23:41 2004 From: shoque at smtrans.co.uk (Shamsul A M A Hoque) Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 14:23:41 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Points to be taken In-Reply-To: <1085536192.343.13090.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: Whoever are sending any reply, please try to delete those extra lines (especialy from yahoo). For example- Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sustran-discuss/ Gabrielle I have visited this web-page but unfortunately very little informations are published in English. Even by pressing button to show in "English" does not show everything. Message: 4 Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 10:48:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Gabrielle Hermann Subject: [sustran] Call for Papers TRIALOG - a journal for planning and building in the Third World It is a journal for architects, urban planners, sociologists, geographers, economists and development planners. It is published in Germany and read in many different countries and continents. The editors are professionals in the fields listed above and members of the association. The thematic range of TRIALOG includes among other related topics: urbanization and housing policy / architecture and regional cultures / ecology, technological transfer and appropriate technologies / rural development strategies. For more information: www.trialog-journal.de Contributions are mainly written in German or English, with a summary in the respective other language. In several cases, articles were published in Spanish or French. We are preparing a special issue on Transport, Traffic, Mobility, not with emphasis on just technical aspects, but rather in relation to urban and/or rural development, ecology, income generation, gender issues We are still looking for additional relevant papers. If you are interested in contributing, we are looking forward to hearing from you. The length of your contribution should be of around 4 pages or 18 000 signs; photographs and / or graphics are welcome. The deadline will be around the 15th of June. It would be very helpful to get the abstract already in the first days of May. Please contact Antje Wemhvner in Berlin A.Wemhoener@gmx.de Thank you. end From gabbyherm at yahoo.com Thu May 27 07:10:58 2004 From: gabbyherm at yahoo.com (Gabrielle Hermann) Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 15:10:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [sustran] Re: Points to be taken In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040526221058.73342.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com> I think it's best if you talk to Antje Wemhvner directly at A.Wemhoener@gmx.de. She is very helpful. Good luck, Gabby --- Shamsul A M A Hoque wrote: > Whoever are sending any reply, please try to delete > those extra lines > (especialy from yahoo). > For example- > > Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the > web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sustran-discuss/ > > > Gabrielle > > I have visited this web-page but unfortunately very > little informations are > published in English. Even by pressing button to > show in "English" does not > show everything. > > > > > Message: 4 > Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 10:48:45 -0700 (PDT) > From: Gabrielle Hermann > Subject: [sustran] Call for Papers > > TRIALOG - a journal for planning and building in > the > Third World > > It is a journal for architects, urban planners, > sociologists, geographers, economists and > development > planners. It is published in Germany and read in > many > different countries and continents. > The editors are professionals in the fields listed > above and members of the association. > > The thematic range of TRIALOG includes among other > related topics: urbanization and housing policy / > architecture and regional cultures / ecology, > technological transfer and appropriate technologies > / > rural development strategies. For more information: > www.trialog-journal.de > > Contributions are mainly written in German or > English, > with a summary in the respective other language. In > several cases, articles were published in Spanish or > French. > > We are preparing a special issue on Transport, > Traffic, Mobility, not with emphasis on just > technical > aspects, but rather in relation to urban and/or > rural > development, ecology, income generation, gender > issues > We are still looking for additional relevant > papers. > If you are interested in contributing, we are > looking > forward to hearing from you. The length of your > contribution should be of around 4 pages or 18 000 > signs; photographs and / or graphics are welcome. > The > deadline will be around the 15th of June. It would > be > very helpful to get the abstract already in the > first > days of May. > > Please contact Antje Wemhvner in Berlin > A.Wemhoener@gmx.de Thank you. > > end > > ===== "You must be the change you wish to see in the world" - Gandhi __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/ From binac at rediffmail.com Thu May 27 18:28:34 2004 From: binac at rediffmail.com (Bina C. Balakrishnan) Date: 27 May 2004 09:28:34 -0000 Subject: [sustran] Re: Autorickshaw passengers survey in Bangalore Message-ID: <20040527092834.30360.qmail@webmail6.rediffmail.com> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20040527/bdc9f38b/attachment.txt From ankraut at wlink.com.np Fri May 28 01:10:08 2004 From: ankraut at wlink.com.np (Anil K. Raut) Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 21:55:08 +0545 Subject: [sustran] Vehicle carrying capacity study ! Message-ID: <009601c44406$56bfa7f0$0a2f4fca@anilkraut> Dear All: I am looking for information on how to calculate carrying capacity of vehicles in a city (with vehicle number, vehicle speed, road length, road width, and traffic flow on major intersections; data available)?? If you have carried out any such studies or know some, please let me know. I appreciate your help. Regards, Anil K. Raut ---------------------------- Anil K. Raut P. O. Box 8846 Kathmandu, NEPAL E-mail: ankraut@wlink.com.np; anil@environmentnepal.com.np Tel: 977-1-4232761 (Res.)/977-9841233941 (Mobile) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20040527/eb87724f/attachment.html From richmond at alum.mit.edu Fri May 28 01:36:32 2004 From: richmond at alum.mit.edu (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 23:36:32 +0700 (SE Asia Standard Time) Subject: [sustran] Re: Vehicle carrying capacity study ! In-Reply-To: <009601c44406$56bfa7f0$0a2f4fca@anilkraut> References: <009601c44406$56bfa7f0$0a2f4fca@anilkraut> Message-ID: There is a great deal of data available on this together with Highway Capacity Manuals, but it is mostly geared to Western situations and is often used in inappropriate ways in Asian Contexts. In particulat, nonmotirized vehicles and pedestrians tend to get ignored. I would certainly be interested to hear if you discover sources of particular relevance to Asia. Best of luck. --Jonathan On Thu, 27 May 2004, Anil K. Raut wrote: > Dear All: > > I am looking for information on how to calculate carrying capacity of vehicles in a city (with vehicle number, vehicle speed, road length, road width, and traffic flow on major intersections; data available)?? > > If you have carried out any such studies or know some, please let me know. > > I appreciate your help. > > Regards, > > Anil K. Raut > ---------------------------- > Anil K. Raut > P. O. Box 8846 > Kathmandu, NEPAL > E-mail: ankraut@wlink.com.np; anil@environmentnepal.com.np > Tel: 977-1-4232761 (Res.)/977-9841233941 (Mobile) ----- Jonathan E. D. Richmond 02 524-5510 (office) Visiting Fellow Intl.: 662 524-5510 Transportation Engineering program School of Civil Engineering, 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: Ms. Nisarat Hansuksa richmond@alum.mit.edu 02 524-6051 Intl: 662 524-6051 http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ From A.J.Plumbe at Bradford.ac.uk Fri May 28 03:25:19 2004 From: A.J.Plumbe at Bradford.ac.uk (A.J.Plumbe@Bradford.ac.uk) Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 19:25:19 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Re: Vehicle carrying capacity study ! In-Reply-To: <009601c44406$56bfa7f0$0a2f4fca@anilkraut> Message-ID: <1085682319.40b6328f34221@webmail.brad.ac.uk> Anil, Have you tried consulting the Transport Encyclopaedia available at http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/ ? Try the sections on Measuring Transportation and Evaluating Non-Motorised Transport as starters. This source provides essentially North American practice. It is probably passenger car equivalent units (pcus) that you are seeking. Tony Plumbe (International Development Consultant) Quoting "Anil K. Raut" : > Dear All: > > I am looking for information on how to calculate carrying capacity of > vehicles in a city (with vehicle number, vehicle speed, road length, road > width, and traffic flow on major intersections; data available)?? > > If you have carried out any such studies or know some, please let me know. > > I appreciate your help. > > Regards, > > Anil K. Raut > ---------------------------- > Anil K. Raut > P. O. Box 8846 > Kathmandu, NEPAL > E-mail: ankraut@wlink.com.np; anil@environmentnepal.com.np > Tel: 977-1-4232761 (Res.)/977-9841233941 (Mobile) A.J.Plumbe (Tony) ------------------------------------------------------------ This mail sent through IMP: http://webmail.brad.ac.uk To report misuse from this email address forward the message and full headers to misuse@bradford.ac.uk ------------------------------------------------------------ From tara.bartee at dot.state.fl.us Sat May 29 00:22:55 2004 From: tara.bartee at dot.state.fl.us (tara.bartee@dot.state.fl.us) Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 11:22:55 -0400 Subject: [sustran] (no subject) Message-ID: Anil K Raut wrote: Dear All: I am looking for information on how to calculate carrying capacity of vehicles in a city (with vehicle number, vehicle speed, road length, road width, and traffic flow on major intersections; data available)?? If you have carried out any such studies or know some, please let me know. I appreciate your help. Regards, Anil K. Raut Try the Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual. Available at: http://trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=2326 Tara Bartee Public Transit Office FDOT Voice 850-414-4520 FAX 850-414-4508 E-Mail tara.bartee@dot.state.fl.us From ecoplan.adsl at wanadoo.fr Sat May 29 03:31:37 2004 From: ecoplan.adsl at wanadoo.fr (ecoplan.adsl@wanadoo.fr) Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 20:31:37 +0200 Subject: [sustran] New Mobility Agenda Newsletter for our Sustran friends - Have a look In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <00cf01c444e2$039f3680$6501a8c0@home> Dear Sustran Friends, We are forever trying to see what we can do to make the New Mobility/World Transport program more interesting and useful for our colleagues around the world, and believe me we always have our especial friends at Sustran in mind as we labor on this one. (Joyful work.) As an example, we have tried to integrate the exchanges here into the overall program and website, as you will see if you click on the Discussions link on the menu. But in the event, I would now like to invite you to have a look at our latest Newsletter (also the first), which is attached as a html attachment (but I don't know if that gets through on Sustran. If not, the best is simply to go to the website at http://newmobility.org and click the Newsletter icon. Finally if none of that works, I have stripped out the html code and produced the ugly bit of text that follows. The content is there, but as McLuhan told us: the medium is the message. I hope that you will find the Newsletter and our (I think quite wonderful) site useful and easy to use. Best, Eric PS. And please make sure (if you can stand it) that you vote for Ken and the London Congestion Charging project for the 2004 World Technology Network Environment Award. And I promise you in turn that for the next awards, I will find our nominees in the Third World. After all, that's where all the people are. ;-) ========================== THE NEW MOBILITY AGENDA World Transport Policy and Practice New Mobility Agenda Quarterly Newsletter Volume 1, No. 1. Spring 2004 The Commons, Paris Thursday, 27th May 2004 Dear Friends and Colleagues, This won't happen very often I promise you -- but there has been enough going on in and around New Mobility/World Transport of late that a quick newsletter seemed like the most efficient way of putting before you the handful of things that you might wish to keep your eye on, and eventually make a decision or two about as far as your accessing and use of the New Mobility Agenda in all of its many useful parts. You have a 'contents' here, it's a fast read, and off you go. We hope you find it useful. Feedback? We live for it, and all you have to do is click below and we'll get your message. And yes, we answer our mail. Eric Britton PS. Think about it and vote for Ken. (Even if it hurts a bit. In time you'll be glad you did. ;-) PPS. And if you live in the North West of England and want to do your bit for sustainability and social justice, check out the platform of John Whitelegg, founder and editor in chief of World Transport and Professor of Sustainable Development at York University's Stockholm Institute of the Environment, who is running for the European Parliament with the Green Party. (Politics apparently is part of the process.) ========================================================================== Vol. 1. Newsletter contents: * 2004 WTN Prize nominations * Major program overhaul/results * Joint Projects/Collaboration * Conference/Event Organization * Foundations/Agency Support * Cycle, recycle, unsubscribe * Update/Protect your email WTN 2004 PRIZE NOMINATIONS: ENVIRONMENT & TECHNOLOGY "The World Technology Awards have been created to honour those individual leaders or, at times, co-equal teams from across the globe who most contribute to the advance of emerging technologies of all sorts for the benefit of business and society. We especially seek to honour those innovators who have done work recently which has the greatest likely future significance and impact over the long-term. The WTN awards are about those individuals whose work today will, in our opinion, create the greatest "ripple effects" in the future... in both expected and unexpected ways." " As you may recall, we have nominated for the 2004 World Technology Network Prize for Environment and Technology the Mayor of London, Ken Livingston, for his initiative in introducing in February 2003 the Congestion Charging Scheme in his transport-challenged city. The reaction to this nomination have been overwhelmingly positive, with distinguished colleagues around the world stepping forward to express their support for this nomination, with votes coming in thus far from Australia, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Germany, India, Japan, Malta, New Zealand, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK, USA. . . and counting. But not all of our respected expert colleagues agree, and several voices have been vigorous raised in protest (three in all thus far) stating their objections both to the concept and the way that Livingston has decided to handle it. Hmm. So, and as proponents of spirited exchange and debate, we have decided to go public with these discussions and of this date have opened up a special "voting station, that you can reach both to express your views and to help us to understand if indeed this is a step in the right direction. The polls close on 15 June, at which time we will submit the whole business to the other judges of the WTN as final support for our nomination in this complicated world of ours. It will take you but one moment, and all you have to do is. . . Click to support (or otherwise) nomination NEW MOBILITY WEBSITE OVERHAUL NEARING COMPLETION Early this year we decided to carry out a major extension and upgrade of our New Mobility/World Transport website so that it could become a worthy "first-stop shop" on the web for anyone wishing to make head or tails of the issues of sustainable mobility, including to find out where the best sources of expertise and counsel for their specific issues might be found. This process is now well advanced and we invite you to check out the results, including the growing number of interactive components and tools that it now presents. Have a look and tell us what you think. And what you want. - - > more Most active programs in 2004 (Click to visit) * The World CarShare Consortium * World Car Free Days Network * World Transport Policy & Practice * Children on the Move Discussion Groups/Email Options Please note that there are four main "speeds" for getting email from this program. Though until now most of us have opted for the first, this may not be the best choice for you. Thus, when you sign into our interactive @Forum, you can elect to receive email feedback from the program in any of four forms, to whit: 1. Individual emails: To receive all individual email messages. 2. Daily digest: To receive all emails for the day in one message. 3. Special notices only: Receive only important announcements from group moderator. 4. No email: Read the messages at the Web site at leisure. To adjust your subscription, click the Edit My Membership link of the @Forum home page. It takes only a minute and can be done from here. (To leave the list at any time, all you have to do is send a blank email to WorldTransport-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com). New Mobility World News Alerts The internet gives us unprecedented opportunities to stay abreast of latest sustainable mobility developments world wide. This new tool set provides one click overviews of latest developments in five languages (and counting). Read it with your morning coffee. - - > more World Inventory of Sustainability Resources One-click access to continuously updated selection of hundreds of outstanding sustainability research and action programs in some fifty countries. Indexed, fully searchable. (Did we miss you or one of your best references? Let us know so it will be there for all to use.) - - > more Top Joint Projects/Collaboration Shouldn't we be doing something together to advance the sustainable mobility agenda in your city, country or region? Our long standing international credentials and, more than that, our well oiled international expert network and partners might turn out to be useful to complement and support your own skill base and capacities. Considerable language skills and good ability to work creatively and efficiently in cross-cultural situations can also be put to good advantage. In the event of outstanding innovative projects we also - as you can see from the above - are prepared to step in from time to time and see if we can help in organizing international peer reviews and support groups. Get in touch and we can talk about it. Top Conferences/Event Organization - Program Review Need a helping hand in organizing your program, conference or event: bringing in some of the outstanding innovators, activists, thinkers, groups and resources that we have gotten to know and worked with over the years, working to advance the sustainability agenda in many parts of the world? They and we are not only worrying, rethinking the theory and writing about sustainability, but are out there in the field fighting to make it happen. It's 2004 and we clearly need to start doing better. Sustainability is one war that we are not winning. And the only way to achieve this is to work together. Bring in more new ideas, from different kinds of people and places, challenge your thinking, learn from others, and let them work with you to make a difference. Get in touch and let's talk about it. RESOURCES/FOUNDATIONS/SUPPORT Since 1988 we have joyfully shouldered the burden of these programs and public interest internet sites on our own, and one way or another intend to continue to make sure that we maintain and expand them in the future. They are terrific things to do since we are in the process continually are exposed to a very wide range of information and points of view, learn a lot, and get to know and appreciate many outstanding people and groups. But it sure would be agreeable if we could find some additional support, technical and financial, not only for the maintenance of the various programs you can see here, but also in order to increase their interactivity and usefulness, a major goal of our long favored cross-border cross-discipline co-learning process. We have some rather interesting plans for this, but we are going to need support to move ahead. Independence of mind: The trick with anything involving The Commons is that to do their job all these programs must be carried out with complete independence, continue to be entirely open and free-wheeling, and by their very nature cannot be subjected to oversight or external control. What you see here is what you get. ;-) Any ideas or leads for us? I have to admit we're not very good at this end of things. But as you know, it's a great cause and the sustainability agenda needs every willing hand it can mobilize. Come to Paris to talk it over, pick up the phone or put pen to paper and let us hear from you. RECYCLING THE NEW MOBILITY NEWSLETTER. (Don't just throw it away; that's not sustainable!) * Feel free to distribute the Newsletter to your network. * Forward it to your media contacts * To forward to a friend or colleague: click here to give us their address. * To unsubscribe from Newsletter: click here. Update Address Book/Protect your email Recently we were counseled by one of our colleagues to have a look at an email verification and address book program called Plaxo, which I personally am in the process of using in order to clean out and update my/our very large email address files . It does the job well, it's free, it's rather handsome, and thus far it is trouble-free. For the record, I found that fully 20% of my carefully maintained addresses were in fact either changed or not working. And so it ever goes on the web. (Attention: works with MS Outlook only.) The New Mobility AgendaClick here to initiate address book contact... I invite you to check it out with me as a first trial step, and if you like it, well that's your call. Click to know more about Plaxo Connect 2.0 To initiate address book contact: To unsubscribe from this list Copyright 2004 (c) by The Commons The content of this Newsletter is protected. All rights reserved. The use or reproduction of this text, even partial, is not authorized without written authorization of The Commons. Last Updated: Thursday, 27 May 2004 - 07:00 Central European Summer Time -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 45317 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20040528/167c4a10/winmail-0001.bin