[sustran] From Kyoto World Cities Blog of 26/04/05. The global transport challenge. John Whitelegg

Eric Britton eric.britton at ecoplan.org
Fri Apr 29 20:10:52 JST 2005


>From Kyoto World Cities Blog of 26/04/05.Check it out at
http://kyotocities.org 

 

Editor’s note: Our old friend and long time defender of sustainable
transport and social justice, Professor John Whitelegg, also a member of our
International Advisory Council and Founder and Editor of the important
independent Journal of World Transport Policy and Practice, has for some
years been busy mining the interface between the more technical aspects of
our subject, and the politics of change. This article appeared in today’s
openDemocracy’s online debate. 
*****************************************

The global transport challenge


 <http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-6-129-2454.jsp> John
Whitelegg, 26 - 4 – 2005, openDemocracy’s online debate

Source: http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-6-129-2454.jsp# 

 

 

The world’s transport system wastes lives, health, and money – and is
choking the planet. Citizens need to take control, says John Whitelegg

There is a world transport crisis. 3,000 people are killed every day in
road-traffic <http://www.who.int/features/2004/road_safety/en/>  accidents,
air pollution from vehicles is bathing most if not all cities in a chemical
soup and deaths from respiratory diseases exceed deaths in traffic
accidents. 

This would be a high price to pay for a perfectly functioning transport
system that delivers people and goods speedily and efficiently but this is
not the case. All countries and cities spend a lot of money for a transport
“solution” that has failed
<http://www.time.com/time/asia/covers/501040809/story.html> . In a rare
example of global unity and shared experience car commuters in Los Angeles
are stuck in traffic jams in the same way as they are in Bangkok, Delhi,
Beijing and Rio. 

Our highway-based transport systems purchased at huge expense are failing
miserably to deliver anything. We have created a very expensive way of
organising transport in cities, one that is grossly inefficient and one that
exacts a terrible penalty in deaths <http://www.roadpeace.org/> , injuries
and lifetime disability. 

This penalty is an affront to human rights. Traffic conditions make it very
difficult indeed for children and the elderly to cross roads. Women with
childcare duties find public transport difficult to use and the poor who
rely on walking and cycling are exposed
<http://www.transport2000.org.uk/campaigns/maintainCampaigns.asp?CampaignID=
14>  to more danger than the car occupant. Large sums of money are spent in
Delhi and Kolkata on expanding roads, highways and flyovers that can only
benefit the richer members of the urban elite. The poor are left to suffer
with inadequate pedestrian pavements and polluted air. 

Donald Appleyard
<http://www.pps.org/info/placemakingtools/placemakers/dappleyard> , in his
famous book Livable Streets (1981), described how people living on streets
with light traffic had more friends and acquaintances than people in cities
with heavy traffic. They lived in more sociable, friendly and
community-based environments. 

Citizens know this instinctively and seek out high-quality environments away
from the noise, dirt <http://millennium-debate.org/williams.htm>  and danger
of cars and lorries. The problem is that this privilege is usually only
available to the rich, which is why 90% of the people killed in road-traffic
accidents are likely to be poor, cyclists, pedestrians or bus users in
developing countries. Transport has become a socially polarised experience
with poor people living in poor-quality environments whilst richer people
drive past them, cocooned in their cars on the way to a rich variety of
destinations inaccessible to the poor. 

The need to lead

Meanwhile, cars and lorries account for about 30% of all greenhouse gas
emissions and are amongst the fastest growing sources of these gases. This
presents politicians with problems. Most politicians would accept that
climate change and all its attendant dangers are at or near the top of the
list of things that they think are important – but they dare not “touch”
transport. 

Most cities, regions and countries want more roads. Beijing
<http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-04/04/content_430931.htm>
would like another five-ring road to add to its existing five-ring roads.
Most cities would dearly like an international airport, or a bigger one if
they already have one. The World Bank funds new roads in India and China.
This locks all cities into higher levels of fossil-fuel dependency and
higher levels of greenhouse gas production at the same time as prime
ministers make speeches about reducing greenhouse gases. No wonder ordinary
citizens are confused about what they should do. 

It need not be like this. The former mayor of Bogotá in Colombia, Enrique
Penelosa <http://www.pps.org/info/placemakingtools/placemakers/epenalosa> ,
showed the world that a relatively poor city in a relatively poor country
can set the highest standards for transport. He declared car-free days,
established a highly reliable and cheap to use bus system (TransMillenio
<http://www.bogota-dc.com/trans/bog-tra.htm> ) and built a 17-kilometre bike
and pedestrian route to connect poor parts of the city with the downtown
area. This stands in stark contrast to most African, Indian and Chinese
cities <http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-6-129-2407.jsp>  that
are investing heavily in new roads and doing nothing for the poor and those
who live in polluted conditions. 

The Bogotá experience is not an isolated one. Curitiba
<http://www.fta.dot.gov/7694_7697_ENG_HTML.htm> , Brazil has pioneered an
outstandingly successful bus “rapid transit system” and done this, like
Bogotá, at much lower cost than a metro rail system and with much wider
geographical benefits to the region. London has reduced congestion by 30%
with its congestion pricing and Copenhagen
<http://www.i-sustain.com/learningCenter/Publications/Creating%20a%20Bicycle
%20Culture%20-%20DJC%20Article.htm>  has achieved some of the highest
bicycle use of any city in the world. 

The message in global transport patterns is clear. There are no technical,
economic or organisational problems in finding solutions but there is an
enormous difficulty in achieving political will. Where real progress has
been made this has occurred because of strong leadership by key politicians.
This presents us all with good news and bad news. 

The good news is that there are very few, if any, barriers to innovative and
successful transport projects aimed at creating liveable and sustainable
cities. They are not expensive to achieve and they present few, if any,
technological problems. The significant barrier everywhere is political
will. The London congestion charge
<http://www.citymayors.com/report/congestion_charge.html>  would not have
gone ahead were it not for the unusual drive, ambition and single-mindedness
of the mayor of London, Ken Livingstone. 

Werner Broeg in Munich has carried out research around the world on
politicians and he has found that in most cases politicians have established
views about traffic and transport characterised by a belief that everyone
wants to drive, that the car is the most desirable mode of transport and
that anything perceived of as anti-car will result in loss of political
office. 

Another road is possible

Broeg’s work <http://www.akf.dk/trip/konference03/abstracts/broeg.htm>
shows that politicians routinely underestimate the appetite of the
electorate for radical change. Citizens would like to see more public
transport, walking and cycling and would like to see more convivial and
sociable use of public space. Citizens are willing to reduce car trips given
the right information, incentives and support. In York, England
<http://www.york.gov.uk/roads/excellence/cycleintroduction.html>  a project
aimed at reducing car trips produced a 16% reduction in these trips in a
six-month period in its target group. 

All this points to the need for a change in worldview underwritten by
citizen action. It is possible
<http://www.ecocouncil.dk/global/english/2002_01_transporteurope.html>  to
create highly desirable city living spaces, to eliminate deaths and injuries
on the roads and to reduce obesity and greenhouse gases – and to do this at
much lower cost than building roads, which makes the problems worse. The way
forward is citizen action and the generation of enlightened politicians. We
are still in the foothills of understanding how to move in this direction. 

This article appears as part of openDemocracy’s online debate on the
politics of climate change. The debate was developed in partnership with the
British Council as part of their ZeroCarbonCity initiative - a two year
global campaign to raise awareness and stimulate debate around the
challenges of climate change.

Copyright ©John
<http://www.opendemocracy.net/articles/ViewPopUpArticle.jsp?id=6&articleId=2
454>  Whitelegg 2005. Published by openDemocracy Ltd. You may download and
print extracts from this article for your own personal and non-commercial
use only. If you are a library, university, teaching institution, business
or media organisation, you must acquire an Academic
<http://www.opendemocracy.net/articles/ViewPopUpArticle.jsp?id=6&articleId=2
454>  License or Organisational License from openDemocracy, or seek
permission directly from the author, before making copies, circulating or
reproducing this article for teaching or commercial.

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20050429/2272dbac/attachment.html


More information about the Sustran-discuss mailing list