[sustran] [SPAM SOSPECHOSO] Re: [gatnet] Re: FW: [siyanda] Invitation to share yourBeijing +10 views and resources on Siyanda

[Carlos F. Pardo]

First of all, I have little idea of the context in which you are discussing
this. Nonetheless, I agree with the idea that you should be talking about
accessibilty, and I've always thought that mobility in itself has been
always thought of as a need for human beings. I have to explain myself:

Human beings need to move, that is right basically because we have legs and
arms, and if we don't move we will get a heart attack. But, once we have
means of transport that may facilitate mobility, people start thinking that
mobility is a need to a greater extent than it was before. Cities have
increasing mobility, but also because of the ever-increasing availability of
means of transportation. This is a vicious circle: more means to move = more
mobility = more means to support that mobility, and so on. 

Thus, the idea of mobility as a human right is very troubling because of its
lack of a clear definition in people's minds, but also because it has taken
a right on its own. We need to get to places and things, so we need
mobility. Maybe it's not so the other way around.

I think I just went around your argument and made little contributions.
Anyway, I hope it helps.

 

Best regards,

 

Carlos F. Pardo

Project Coordinator

GTZ Sustainable Urban Transport Project (SUTP)

Room 0942, Transport Division, UN-ESCAP

ESCAP UN Building

Rajadamnern Nok Rd.

Bangkok 10200, Thailand

Tel:  +66 (0) 2 - 288  2576

Fax: +66 (0) 2 - 280  6042

Mobile: +66 (0) 1 - 772 4727

e-mail:  <mailto:carlos.pardo at sutp.org> carlos.pardo at sutp.org

Website:  <http://www.sutp.org/> www.sutp.org

 

  _____  

De: sustran-discuss-bounces+cpardo=cable.net.co at list.jca.apc.org
[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+cpardo=cable.net.co at list.jca.apc.org] En
nombre de Paul Barter
Enviado el: Thursday, February 17, 2005 9:33 AM
Para: sustran discuss
Asunto: [sustran] Re: [gatnet] Re: FW: [siyanda] Invitation to share
yourBeijing +10 views and resources on Siyanda

 

Dear sustran-discuss folks

Maybe some here will be interested in this posting i just sent to the Gender
and Transport list.

Paul

 

 

Dear gatnet folks

 

This concept of mobility as a human right is very interesting but slightly
troubling. I think i would agree that some notion of transport as a human
right could be a powerful argument. However may i beg to differ on the
terminology. Can i suggest instead 'basic accessibility' as a human right?
(or just 'accessibility' as a human right), NOT 'mobility'.

 

The distinction between accessibility and mobility is important. I am
following some of Todd Litman's ideas here. He identifies three perspectives
on "defining success" in transport policy:

 

1.  'Traffic': in this perspective vehicle movement and speed are
beneficial; congestion or inadequate roads are seen as the problem. The old
roads-focussed approaches in rural transport could be seen as analogous to a
traffic focus.

 

2.  'Mobility': in this perspective it is the efficient movement of people
and goods that is seen as beneficial or as they key aim of policy. This is
much wiser than a traffic focus because at least it helps move attention to
more efficient ways of moving people and goods. This would put a high
priority on collective modes of transport (eg buses, rail).

 

3. 'Accessibility' or an 'access focus': In this perspective it is the
ability to REACH opportunities that is beneficial, not movement itself. In
remote rural contexts gaining access to services, goods and contacts will
often require a lot of mobility. However, in many urban contexts
accessibility might involve very short trips. And in places like suburban
USA policy to enhance accessibility might actually require that we reduce
traffic or even reduce the need to travel (or reduce mobility). 

 

In the rural transport context, an example would be non-transport
interventions such as efforts to bring water supply and fuel supply to
houses (instead of forcing people - especially women - to walk long
distances for them). This is an excellent example of an effort to increase
accessibility of services without the need to increase mobility.

 

With an accessibility perspective, both traffic and mobility are obviously
still important. But they are seen as 'means' not 'ends in themselves'.
Other ways to enhance accessibility would include planning for proximity,
improved communications systems, bringing services closer, etc.  

 

So maybe we could instead push for a 'right to accessibility' of goods,
services and contacts. I would strongly oppose any suggestion that we have a
'right to mobility'. 

 

Unfortunately part of the problem is confusion over the terminology. I
notice that some people mean the same thing as my 'accessibility' when they
say 'mobility'. In Europe especially, 'mobility' seems to often be used in a
way that suggests it includes accessibility thinking.  I think it important
to make the distinction.

 

Please note that I am not saying that it is bad to increase mobility for
low-income people, especially low-income women. What I am saying is that
mobility is only one of the means for people to achieve the more fundamental
end of gaining access to things. In many cases it is an important means, and
we certainly should be helping people living in poverty to increase their
mobility, in order to increase their accessibility. In rural contexts this
will indeed be the main way to do so. 

 

Sorry to be so long-winded and argumentative on my veryfirst posting to the
list. A wonderful list by the way!!

 

 

All the best,

 

 

Paul

 

Dr Paul A. Barter 
Assistant Professor, LKY School of Public Policy
National University of Singapore, 29 Heng Mui Keng Terrace, Singapore 119620
Tel: +65-6874 3324;  Fax: +65-6778 1020
Email:  paulbarter at nus.edu.sg 
I am speaking for myself, not for my employers. 

Are you interested in urban transport in developing countries? Then consider
joining the SUSTRAN-DISCUSS list, an email discussion and announcements list
devoted to people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus
on developing countries. Visit
http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join or
http://www.geocities.com/sustrannet/ for more background information.

 


  _____  


From: Kate Czuczman [mailto:p3_22981 at ifrtd.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, 16 February 2005 6:52 PM
To: Gender and Transport
Subject: [gatnet] Re: FW: [siyanda] Invitation to share your Beijing +10
views and resources on Siyanda

It would be good to submit a piece on mobility as a human right.  Coudou and
Pri wrote something for the IFRTD website which could be adapted. 


 
Kate Czuczman
Editor & Communications Coordinator
IFRTD Secretariat
Web: www.ifrtd.org and www.ruralwaterways.org
Email: kate.czuczman at ifrtd.org

"The IFRTD is a global network of individuals and organisations working
together towards improved access and mobility for the rural poor in
developing countries"

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20050217/384122c2/attachment.html