From ibike at ibike.org Sat Apr 1 03:59:47 2006 From: ibike at ibike.org (Ibike/International Bicycle Fund) Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 10:59:47 -0800 Subject: [sustran] FW: Article: On Cheaper Cars In India Message-ID: <003001c654f5$4bb1c4e0$0400a8c0@domain.actdsltmp> -----Original Message----- ZNet | India On Cheaper Cars in India by Girish Mishra; March 30, 2006 The finance minister, P. Chidambaram, has proposed to reduce excise duty on cars from 24 to 16 per cent, i.e., by one third. He hopes: "industry will seize the opportunity to make India hub for the manufacture of small and fuel-efficient cars." It is needless to add that this proposal intends to encourage foreign direct investment in the automobile sector, which is at present controlled largely by the foreigners and induce the neo-rich to buy their own vehicles. This will ultimately lead to further worsening of the public transport system, which will be used largely by the lower rungs of the society whose voice, except the election times, does not count for policy-makers. Passenger cars manufactured here are not such that can be easily sold in the world market to fetch foreign exchange resources to help promote India's industrial development. They are meant for the domestic market. This clearly understood by the policy makers in the government as well as the foreign investors. In a developing economy like India, certain things need to be borne in mind while encouraging the production of goods and services. First, they should, as far as possible, satisfy the needs of a large number of people. Second, if the government has to choose between the satisfaction of the needs of a small number of people and an overwhelmingly larger segment of the society, the decision should be in the favour of the latter. Third, the production of those goods and services should be increased, whose augmented quantum would be sufficiently large and divisible to go round. >From these principles, it follows, to quote the late Paul Sweezy, in a developing country like India, "There should be no production automobiles, household appliances, or other consumer durable goods for private sale and use. The reason is simple that to turn out enough such products to go around would require many years, perhaps even many decades, and they are distributed privately in the mean time the result can only be to create or aggravate material inequalities. The appropriate . policy is therefore to produce these types of goods in forms and quantities best suited to the collective satisfaction of needs: car pools, communal cooking and eating establishments, apartment . houses or neighbourhood laundries, and so on." This will lead to a more rational pattern of production. Encouraging the production of passenger cars for domestic consumption, besides adversely affecting the volume and tempo of accumulation, is bound to add a new dimension to aggravating material inequalities. People having their own private means of conveyance are bound to develop their own distinctive way of life. To quote Sweezy again, "The automobile increasingly dominates their use of leisure (after work, weekends, vacations) and thus indirectly generates a whole new set of needs. the allocation of vast quantities of human and material resources of private consumer durable goods and their complementary facilities means neglecting or holding back the development of other sectors of the economy and society. Or to put the matter more bluntly: a society which decides not to make the raising of mass living standards the number one priority." Cars are, by their very nature, luxury goods invented for the exclusive enjoyment of a handful of the rich and they are unlike radio, television, bicycle, refrigerator, etc., which retain their attraction even when they are owned by most of the people. French publicist Michel Bosquet is right when he says, "The motor car is only interesting and advantageous so long as the mass of people do not own it, in the same way as a villa on the coast. The car is a luxury product by definition, because of the market for which it was originally conceived and luxury, also by definition, cannot be democratised. If luxury is within everyone's reach, nobody gets any advantage from it; on the contrary, everyone hustles, frustrates and dispossesses everyone else, and suffers these things at the hands of others." A car may give personal benefits to a handful of people, but at a huge social cost. It occupies scarce space in towns and cities in a country like India. Parking has become a big problem and, quite often, there are violent disputes. Car deprives other road-users like bicycle riders and pedestrians safe travel. In India, most car owners do not care for traffic rules and they try to overtake other modes of transportation and indulge in rash driving. Quite often, the poor and homeless sleeping on the pavements become their victims. Drinking and driving are seldom kept separate and the corrupt police do not care to bring the culprits to books. Encouragement to the MNCs to set up car manufacturing in India by giving them tax concessions and the cheaper loans to prospective consumers to create the demand are bound to ignite a desire in every individual to possess a car so that "he can prevail and advance himself at everyone's expense. The brutal, competitive egotism of the driver symbolically murdering the 'individual' obstructing the headlong passage through the traffic represents the flowering of universally bourgeois behaviour." The myth that motoring is a pleasure has adversely affected the development of public transport because the rich and influential have no interest in the latter. Road development and its use and town planning are oriented to suit car users. Looking back, one realizes that motorcar came into existence to give their owners the privilege of travelling much faster and at will than others. Looking at the situation in Indian cities and their suburbs, this hope is beyond realization. The increasing number of private cars and the distances to be travelled from the homes in suburbs to and fro the places of work have traffic jams a regular occurrence costing a great deal of time and money on fuel and maintenance. Besides, car drivers are under great mental strain. Studies conducted in the West reveal: "when everyone tries to move at the privileged speed. the result is that nobody can move out at all, the speed of the urban traffic falls to below that of a horse-drawn omnibus. and the average speed of traffic on roads out of town at weekends is lower than the speed of a cyclist. And the condition is incurable: every remedy has been tried and the end result is that things continue to get worse. Radial and ring roads, flyover junctions, sixteen-lane toll highways, all lead to the same result: the more roads there are servicing a town, the more traffic flows into it, and the more paralyzing the urban congestion becomes. The problem will remain insoluble as long as towns exist; however wide and fast a motorway is, the speed at which vehicles can leave it is limited by the rate at which they can be absorbed into the urban network." In the US, one has to choose between the car and the towns. The latter may be eliminated by spreading them out along hundreds of miles of highways. This solution is not feasible in India. Commenting on this experiment, Ivan Illich, in Energy and Equity, says, "The American man devotes more than fifteen hundreds hours a year- i.e., thirty hours a week or more than four hours a day including Sunday-to his car. This includes the time he spends behind the wheel, moving or stationary, the hours of work needed to pay for the car, and to pay for petrol, tyres, road tolls, insurance, fines, etc. . Thus this American takes fifteen hundred hours to travel 6,250 miles, an average of about 4 miles an hour. In other countries, which lack a transport industry, people travel on foot at exactly the same speed, with the added advantage that they can go anywhere at all, not just along asphalted roads." Bosquet has reached the same conclusion: the more a society uses privately-owned cars, after a certain threshold is reached, the more time its people have to spend or waste on moving about. Till the end of the Second World War, urban areas were worth living, but today the increasing number of cars and other motor vehicles have rendered them so smelly, noisy, toxic, dusty and crowded that the rich want to live away in suburbs. India must draw proper lessons from the experiences of the West without succumbing to the pressures and allurements from the MNCs. It should give topmost priority to the expansion and development of a reliable and comfortable public transport system. Wherever cars are needed, there should be a pool from which one can hire. The question is: will the MNCs allow the vast Indian market slip out of their hands? Did not the other day President Bush told it plainly that the 300-million middle class people with growing disposable income could not be ignored? It is for the Government of India to decide whether it cares for the interests of the 300-million or those of the 700-million plus people who urgently need 'development with dignity'. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060331/d1c060f1/attachment.html From sksunny at gmail.com Sat Apr 1 16:29:13 2006 From: sksunny at gmail.com (Sunny) Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2006 14:29:13 +0700 Subject: [sustran] Toyota forsees accident proof car In-Reply-To: <20060401030124.54BC42C861@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> References: <20060401030124.54BC42C861@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> Message-ID: <442E2BC9.7000908@gmail.com> www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=268160&area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__business/ This above website leads to a post that Toyota is planning for a future car that has a non polluting engine powered by hydrogen, running on open roads free of congestion. Do innovative technologies like this solve the problems caused by cars? and when is the time that the developing countries foster the new technologies? I feel that the innovative technologies are not going to correct the problems caused by the cars. Yes, they might address the problem of the air pollution but how many new non polluting cars are required to replace the old cars? and what will happen to the old cars? will they be tipped or recycled?. Even though a country manages to buy the new fuel efficient cars, the old inefficient cars usually end up in the third world due to financial reasons..still doing their polluting job but at a different place. In my opinion I feel that, the more a city restricts the use of car and more it encourages public transit or mass transit the easier the environmental and social problems can be addressed. Sunny P.S: It can be found on the link that US is advanced than Japan in the field of Fuel Cells but I wonder how many cars are running on fuel cells. If there is a technology that can convert the existing cars to fuel cells or hydrogen powered then it would be a better choice than buying a new car. From ashok.sreenivas at gmail.com Sat Apr 1 16:39:41 2006 From: ashok.sreenivas at gmail.com (Ashok Sreenivas) Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2006 13:09:41 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: Toyota forsees accident proof car In-Reply-To: <442E2BC9.7000908@gmail.com> References: <20060401030124.54BC42C861@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> <442E2BC9.7000908@gmail.com> Message-ID: <442E2E3D.8000308@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060401/97b3c0bf/attachment.html From sutp at sutp.org Mon Apr 3 15:39:46 2006 From: sutp at sutp.org (sutp) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 13:39:46 +0700 Subject: [sustran] Re: Private Sector Involvement in Public TransportInfrastructure? In-Reply-To: <20060329105644.xjcwa4vo0dycskw4@webmail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <200604030638.k336cqDT010529@ns-omrbm5.netsolmail.com> Dear Joshua, UN-ESCAP published 2 bulletins in the topic of PPP in the East Asia and Pacific region. They are - Bulletin 72: Private Sector Participation in the Transport Sector: Institutions in the ESCAP region. - Bulletin 73: Private Sector Participation in the Transport Sector: Policy Measures and Experiences in Selected Countries. Both are available on the website. http://www.unescap.org/ttdw/PubsDetail.asp?IDNO=142 http://www.unescap.org/ttdw/PubsDetail.asp?IDNO=143 Hope these sources would be useful to you. Best Regards, Thirayoot -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+sutp=sutp.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+sutp=sutp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Joshua Nelson Sent: 29 ?????? 2549 22:57 To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org Subject: [sustran] Private Sector Involvement in Public TransportInfrastructure? All, I'm a graduate student at MIT working with Professor Chris Zegras. We're updating a module from GTZ about private participation in urban transport infrastructure. In the update we would like to include examples of privately funded public transport infrastructure projects in Asia, especially China. We are aware of the BTS SkyTrain in Bangkok, but would like to broaden our scope. If anyone has knowledge of any additional private sector public transport infrastructure projects in Asia or could point us toward colleagues who may have information to share, it would be much appreciated. As an aside, we are also looking for specific information to update a section in the module on private road infrastructure projects in Bangkok. This section is current up to the year 2000; developments since then are of much interest. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Joshua Nelson Candidate, Master in City Planning Massachusetts Institute of Technology ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. From cvegjl at nus.edu.sg Mon Apr 3 19:25:30 2006 From: cvegjl at nus.edu.sg (Guevarra, Joselito Lomada) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 18:25:30 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Toyota forsees accident proof car Message-ID: <8C91742CAD38BB42B1703D7D2BD0DCB10E74B0@MBX03.stf.nus.edu.sg> Dear all, I don't think we have to be so negative to these things. Toyota foresees a future that much everyone wants to have. I find nothing wrong with that. Yes, it might be a little utopian, but most dreams and visions are. If we are pessimists and don't believe then we have already lost. I do share your frustrations and cynicism sometimes but the idealist part in me says I believe...here's to a happy week ahead to everyone! Cheers, Jojo Ps. Sunny has some interesting and valid points. And yes, there are ways to convert existing ICEs to run on hydrogen. Arnold Schwarzeneger's (did I get his name right?) Hummer is a hydrogen convert. ________________________________ From: sustran-discuss-bounces+cvegjl=nus.edu.sg@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+cvegjl=nus.edu.sg@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Ashok Sreenivas Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2006 3:40 PM To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport Subject: [sustran] Re: Toyota forsees accident proof car I think the Toyota claim defeats itself. It claims that it will run pollution-free on open roads free of congestion. And where are we going to get such roads? Perhaps Toyota also needs to invent technology to colonize outer space :) Ashok Sunny wrote: www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=268160&area=/breaking_news/break ing_news__business/ This above website leads to a post that Toyota is planning for a future car that has a non polluting engine powered by hydrogen, running on open roads free of congestion. Do innovative technologies like this solve the problems caused by cars? and when is the time that the developing countries foster the new technologies? I feel that the innovative technologies are not going to correct the problems caused by the cars. Yes, they might address the problem of the air pollution but how many new non polluting cars are required to replace the old cars? and what will happen to the old cars? will they be tipped or recycled?. Even though a country manages to buy the new fuel efficient cars, the old inefficient cars usually end up in the third world due to financial reasons..still doing their polluting job but at a different place. In my opinion I feel that, the more a city restricts the use of car and more it encourages public transit or mass transit the easier the environmental and social problems can be addressed. Sunny P.S: It can be found on the link that US is advanced than Japan in the field of Fuel Cells but I wonder how many cars are running on fuel cells. If there is a technology that can convert the existing cars to fuel cells or hydrogen powered then it would be a better choice than buying a new car. ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060403/be9f9ddc/attachment.html From edelman at greenidea.info Mon Apr 3 20:02:26 2006 From: edelman at greenidea.info (Todd Edelman) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 13:02:26 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [sustran] Re: Toyota forsees accident proof car In-Reply-To: <8C91742CAD38BB42B1703D7D2BD0DCB10E74B0@MBX03.stf.nus.edu.sg> References: <8C91742CAD38BB42B1703D7D2BD0DCB10E74B0@MBX03.stf.nus.edu.sg> Message-ID: <1089.62.245.95.24.1144062146.squirrel@mail.smartweb.cz> Jojo! I and many, many others do not want this utopia! The Toyota propagandist says no petrol stations are needed, then mentions the huge hydrogen infrastructure which is needed. There is no mention at all of how cars can be "accident-proof". If this means than pedestrians can walk in front of them and not get hit then I call for all pedestrians and cyclists, etc to plan to walk across streets, more or less at will, yes, Jojo, like we used to before Toy-ota and its friends came along. And such fuel economy between London and Istanbul! With the predicted increase in cars, what will happen if many of these are being driven to Turkey? No negative effects at all? I could go on and on but I wont. Again, what the propagandist from Toyota spews out is no utopia of mine: I am realistic about the negative effects of cars besides collisions and tailpipe emissions (social isolation, enabling of obesity, huge about space needed which causes of farms and forest, etc, tyres on tarmac noise, and so on....) I like using my legs, and if Istanbul is too far to walk to I will take a train, which by the way as been using regenerative braking for many years. - T > Jojo wrote: Dear all, > > I don't think we have to be so negative to these things. > ------------------------------------------------------ Todd Edelman International Coordinator On the Train Towards the Future! Green Idea Factory Laubova 5 CZ-13000 Praha 3 ++420 605 915 970 edelman@greenidea.info http://www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain Green Idea Factory, a member of World Carfree Network From aquaboi924 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 4 00:44:06 2006 From: aquaboi924 at yahoo.com (Jojo Guevarra) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 08:44:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [sustran] Re: Toyota forsees accident proof car In-Reply-To: <1089.62.245.95.24.1144062146.squirrel@mail.smartweb.cz> Message-ID: <20060403154406.21250.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> Dear Todd, Haha, you've misread my post. Apologies for my open-ended email, I should've elaborated. I advocate environmentally-friendly means of transport - whether it be a car, bicycle, etc. Cars running amock, even though they are green, is not my idea of utopia either. In fact, I support bicycles (like the Firefly Brigade - I'm pretty sure you know this) and walking as an alternative means of getting around. I also extensively use public transport. I must say, there are a few disagreeable things about the Toyota article, as you and others have pointed out, but that's not what I wanted to highlight. My utopia is a mobile world free of congestion and pollution (like in the article) and with equal opportunities to everyone. I could go on and on...but i won't ;-) Oh, please feel free to use your legs, if that's your utopia. Just don't use it to trample on mine. Have a nice day, Jojo Todd Edelman wrote: Jojo! I and many, many others do not want this utopia! The Toyota propagandist says no petrol stations are needed, then mentions the huge hydrogen infrastructure which is needed. There is no mention at all of how cars can be "accident-proof". If this means than pedestrians can walk in front of them and not get hit then I call for all pedestrians and cyclists, etc to plan to walk across streets, more or less at will, yes, Jojo, like we used to before Toy-ota and its friends came along. And such fuel economy between London and Istanbul! With the predicted increase in cars, what will happen if many of these are being driven to Turkey? No negative effects at all? I could go on and on but I wont. Again, what the propagandist from Toyota spews out is no utopia of mine: I am realistic about the negative effects of cars besides collisions and tailpipe emissions (social isolation, enabling of obesity, huge about space needed which causes of farms and forest, etc, tyres on tarmac noise, and so on....) I like using my legs, and if Istanbul is too far to walk to I will take a train, which by the way as been using regenerative braking for many years. - T > Jojo wrote: Dear all, > > I don't think we have to be so negative to these things. > ------------------------------------------------------ Todd Edelman International Coordinator On the Train Towards the Future! Green Idea Factory Laubova 5 CZ-13000 Praha 3 ++420 605 915 970 edelman@greenidea.info http://www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain Green Idea Factory, a member of World Carfree Network ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. --------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2?/min or less. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060403/fac61f0b/attachment.html From et3 at et3.com Tue Apr 4 04:42:53 2006 From: et3 at et3.com (Daryl Oster) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 15:42:53 -0400 Subject: [sustran] ground transport impacts In-Reply-To: <20060403154406.21250.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200604031943.k33JgtZZ028138@njbrsmtp2.vzwmail.net> This attached spreadsheet illustrates why cars are gaining in market share in developing countries, they have far greater VALUE than muscle powered transport, and contribute LESS environmental impact. Even if you value your time at zero; if you walk and plan on traveling more than 317 miles in your life (but less than 32,253 miles) it pays to invest in a bike for favorable environmental impact reasons alone. If you walk, and plan on traveling more than 8755 miles in your life, then it pays to invest in a car for favorable environmental impact reasons alone - even if you place no value on your time. If you travel by bike, and plan on traveling more than 32,253 miles in your life, then it pays to invest in a car for favorable environmental impact reasons alone - even if you place no value on your time. If you place a $15/hour value on your time, then the bike takes only 91 miles to justify the impact of production vs walking, and the car only 2,361miles. The car compaired with a bike is justified for those who value their time more than $15/hour if they plan on more than 7275 miles of travel. NOTE -- this analysis ignores the added value obtained if the car is used to transport it's full capacity of 5 persons -- the impact breakeven point vs walking or biking is MUCH faster if the car is used to it's full capacity. I hope that some of the experts on this list can provide numbers so I may include air, bus, and train on this chart, and see the comparisons to cars, bikes, walking, and ETT. Daryl Oster (c) 2006? all rights reserved.? ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth" e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks of et3.com Inc.? For licensing information contact:?POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423? (352)257-1310, et3@et3.com , www.et3.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ground tran impact.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 28672 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060403/1fdbf7ea/groundtranimpact-0001.xls From sujit at vsnl.com Tue Apr 4 05:14:36 2006 From: sujit at vsnl.com (Sujit Patwardhan) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 01:44:36 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: ground transport impacts In-Reply-To: <200604031943.k33JgtZZ028138@njbrsmtp2.vzwmail.net> References: <20060403154406.21250.qmail@web60523.mail.yahoo.com> <200604031943.k33JgtZZ028138@njbrsmtp2.vzwmail.net> Message-ID: <4cfd20aa0604031314kceac780o730e3b65e0d72e41@mail.gmail.com> 3 April 2006 David, For a technically impaired person like me (even after looking through the spreadsheet) it is difficult to understand how a fossil fuel guzzling and polluting (during manufacture and productive life) car can offer a more favourable environmental impact than walking and cycling. If you travel by bike, and plan on traveling more than 32,253 miles in your life, then it pays to invest in a car for favorable environmental impact reasons alone - even if you place no value on your time. Sujit Sujit Patwardhan Parisar/PTTF Pune India On 4/4/06, Daryl Oster wrote: > > > > This attached spreadsheet illustrates why cars are gaining in market share > in developing countries, they have far greater VALUE than muscle powered > transport, and contribute LESS environmental impact. > > Even if you value your time at zero; if you walk and plan on traveling > more > than 317 miles in your life (but less than 32,253 miles) it pays to invest > in a bike for favorable environmental impact reasons alone. > > If you walk, and plan on traveling more than 8755 miles in your life, then > it pays to invest in a car for favorable environmental impact reasons > alone > - even if you place no value on your time. > > If you travel by bike, and plan on traveling more than 32,253 miles in > your > life, then it pays to invest in a car for favorable environmental impact > reasons alone - even if you place no value on your time. > > If you place a $15/hour value on your time, then the bike takes only 91 > miles to justify the impact of production vs walking, and the car only > 2,361miles. The car compaired with a bike is justified for those who > value > their time more than $15/hour if they plan on more than 7275 miles of > travel. > > NOTE -- this analysis ignores the added value obtained if the car is used > to > transport it's full capacity of 5 persons -- the impact breakeven point vs > walking or biking is MUCH faster if the car is used to it's full capacity. > > I hope that some of the experts on this list can provide numbers so I may > include air, bus, and train on this chart, and see the comparisons to > cars, > bikes, walking, and ETT. > > > > Daryl Oster > (c) 2006 all rights reserved. ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth" > e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service > marks > of et3.com Inc. For licensing information contact:POB 1423, Crystal River > FL 34423-1423 (352)257-1310, et3@et3.com , www.et3.com > > > > > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries > (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is > on urban transport policy in Asia. > > > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ Sujit Patwardhan sujit@vsnl.com sujitjp@gmail.com "Yamuna", ICS Colony, Ganeshkhind Road, Pune 411 007 India Tel: 25537955 ----------------------------------------------------- Hon. Secretary: Parisar www.parisar.org ------------------------------------------------------ Founder Member: PTTF (Pune Traffic & Transportation Forum) www.pttf.net ------------------------------------------------------ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060404/825495e9/attachment.html From carlos.pardo at sutp.org Tue Apr 4 08:31:06 2006 From: carlos.pardo at sutp.org (Carlos F. Pardo SUTP) Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 18:31:06 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: ground transport impacts In-Reply-To: <200604031943.k33JgtZZ028138@njbrsmtp2.vzwmail.net> Message-ID: <000a01c65776$b5d6d2b0$0200a8c0@archibaldo> Daryl, You should really include environmental impacts AND social costs, such as the cost for every traffic accident (injuries and deaths), along with problems of obesity due to excessive use of cars, etc. This can all be quantified and I suspect it has been, especially environmental impacts (Wright and Fulton, 2005 in Transport Reviews is a great reference). Transport isn't just about moving people fast and cheap. If we started thinking about it that way, most of us would actually quit. Carlos F. Pardo -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+carlos.pardo=sutp.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+carlos.pardo=sutp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Daryl Oster Sent: Lunes, 03 de Abril de 2006 02:43 p.m. To: 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport' Subject: [sustran] ground transport impacts This attached spreadsheet illustrates why cars are gaining in market share in developing countries, they have far greater VALUE than muscle powered transport, and contribute LESS environmental impact. Even if you value your time at zero; if you walk and plan on traveling more than 317 miles in your life (but less than 32,253 miles) it pays to invest in a bike for favorable environmental impact reasons alone. If you walk, and plan on traveling more than 8755 miles in your life, then it pays to invest in a car for favorable environmental impact reasons alone - even if you place no value on your time. If you travel by bike, and plan on traveling more than 32,253 miles in your life, then it pays to invest in a car for favorable environmental impact reasons alone - even if you place no value on your time. If you place a $15/hour value on your time, then the bike takes only 91 miles to justify the impact of production vs walking, and the car only 2,361miles. The car compaired with a bike is justified for those who value their time more than $15/hour if they plan on more than 7275 miles of travel. NOTE -- this analysis ignores the added value obtained if the car is used to transport it's full capacity of 5 persons -- the impact breakeven point vs walking or biking is MUCH faster if the car is used to it's full capacity. I hope that some of the experts on this list can provide numbers so I may include air, bus, and train on this chart, and see the comparisons to cars, bikes, walking, and ETT. Daryl Oster (c) 2006? all rights reserved.? ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth" e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks of et3.com Inc.? For licensing information contact:?POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423? (352)257-1310, et3@et3.com , www.et3.com From sksunny at gmail.com Tue Apr 4 13:07:56 2006 From: sksunny at gmail.com (Sunny) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 11:07:56 +0700 Subject: [sustran] Re: ground impacts of transportation In-Reply-To: <20060403195338.662872DC69@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> References: <20060403195338.662872DC69@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> Message-ID: <4431F11C.2010300@gmail.com> Dear Daryl, I appreciate your intelligent work with numbers. But if you see the developing world the $15 you have assumed per hour is impossible to earn by many people. There are people living on a mere $1 a day or mostly less than that. If car travel is encouraged more then these people will slide into oblivion and if the earning member of such family is dead in a car accident then the others in the family are financially orphaned, in some cases but not everywhere these destitute folks might even turn into anti social elements. On the environmental side, I have visited you website and it is really awesome tht your creative thinking has gone by leaps and bound far than the others. But please allow me to show what actually is required for a developing country in terms of transportation Fast - as it says fast but in terms of time, high speeds do not satisfy this objective but steady speeds do. Convenient - is frequent, affordable to all the classes of the society and comfortable i.e. not getting packed like a over stuffed DHL Parcel Clean - Not letting our children face the consequences of the pollution we do, the system can be environmentally benign when the demand for fuel reduces and less fuel is burnt Safe - Less non-motorists being killed, weather is not a problem here Achievable - The system should address the MDG and help in poverty alleviation and reduce the vertical inequality. If a developing country could achieve the above objectives with minimum infrastructural investment then such a transportation would be suitable for a developing country. And from my understanding I strongly believe that cars can never be a solution even though they may come in any different model or any paraphernalia. Please give me your comments on this and I hope the others who read this will also comment on this. Sunny > This attached spreadsheet illustrates why cars are gaining in market share > in developing countries, they have far greater VALUE than muscle powered > transport, and contribute LESS environmental impact. > > Even if you value your time at zero; if you walk and plan on traveling more > than 317 miles in your life (but less than 32,253 miles) it pays to invest > in a bike for favorable environmental impact reasons alone. > > If you walk, and plan on traveling more than 8755 miles in your life, then > it pays to invest in a car for favorable environmental impact reasons alone > - even if you place no value on your time. > > If you travel by bike, and plan on traveling more than 32,253 miles in your > life, then it pays to invest in a car for favorable environmental impact > reasons alone - even if you place no value on your time. > > If you place a $15/hour value on your time, then the bike takes only 91 > miles to justify the impact of production vs walking, and the car only > 2,361miles. The car compaired with a bike is justified for those who value > their time more than $15/hour if they plan on more than 7275 miles of > travel. > > NOTE -- this analysis ignores the added value obtained if the car is used to > transport it's full capacity of 5 persons -- the impact breakeven point vs > walking or biking is MUCH faster if the car is used to it's full capacity. > > I hope that some of the experts on this list can provide numbers so I may > include air, bus, and train on this chart, and see the comparisons to cars, > bikes, walking, and ETT. > > From et3 at et3.com Tue Apr 4 17:09:21 2006 From: et3 at et3.com (Daryl Oster) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 04:09:21 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: ground impacts of transportation In-Reply-To: <4431F11C.2010300@gmail.com> Message-ID: <200604040809.k3489OLt000433@njbrsmtp1.vzwmail.net> > -----Original Message----- > From: > Sunny > Dear Daryl, > I appreciate your intelligent work with numbers. But if you see the > developing world the $15 you have assumed per hour is impossible to earn > by many people. Sunny, I agree many earn much less than $15/hour, and that is why the sheet also shows the favorable payoff for those who have even zero value of time. I suggest that you play around with the sheet and plug in different time valuations, and food and lodging values to see how the market in your area really perceives and values the most obvious impacts of cars on bike and muscle transport. I am interested in seeing your modified sheet. The sheet is not to show that bikes and walking do not have value and use, but only to explain reasons for automotive dominance in developed and developing markets. > There are people living on a mere $1 a day or mostly > less than that. If car travel is encouraged more then these people will > slide into oblivion and if the earning member of such family is dead in > a car accident then the others in the family are financially orphaned, > in some cases but not everywhere these destitute folks might even turn > into anti social elements. A tool is not worth much if it is not put to the highest and best use. The chart I submit to this group illustrates some of the main reasons why car use is growing at such a rapid pace - and it is not because people are pressured into ownership they cannot afford, but that most people will buy the best tools for living that they can afford, and that make their life less difficult. > > On the environmental side, I have visited you website and it is really > awesome tht your creative thinking has gone by leaps and bound far than > the others. Thank you for your kind words. It is clearly proven that the car offers far better transportation value than the train and bikes for increasingly more people, even those in developing countries. The car will not be replaced by returning to ways that the car has displaced, going back to muscle powered transport and trains is less sustainable than moving to cars. It is well established that cars are NOT sustainable for the entire worlds population. What is needed is to progress to a new transportation paradigm that is far more efficient (offers far greater value) than cars do; ETT is purposely designed to offer the greatest transportation value possible for most people, especially those who are not now able to afford cars. > But please allow me to show what actually is required for a > developing country in terms of transportation Having lived in Chengdu China for several months, I have some exposure to non-US economies, and I observe that while some who buy a car do not derive value, most who are able to purchase a better transportation tool derive great value, and are able to greatly improve their living condition as a result of upgrading from walking to a bike, or from a bike to a car. > Fast - as it says fast but in terms of time, high speeds do not satisfy > this objective but steady speeds do. Both speed and consistency are important in reducing travel time. ETT maximizes both. > Convenient - is frequent, affordable to all the classes of the society > and comfortable i.e. not getting packed like a over stuffed DHL Parcel I fully agree -- trains were designed to haul extremely heavy freight loads, and when used to haul people, they must be uncomfortably packed in like sardines to achieve reasonable load capacity. ETT is sized like the car -- for human size loads, and high comfort. > Clean - Not letting our children face the consequences of the pollution > we do, the system can be environmentally benign when the demand for fuel > reduces and less fuel is burnt Trains and busses in the US use more fuel and pollute more per passenger mile than do today's efficient cars and aircraft. ETT is designed to be super clean and efficient, providing more than 50 times more transportation for a given amount of energy use, (or pollution production). > Safe - Less non-motorists being killed, weather is not a problem here ETT is fully isolated from the traffic outside the tubes -- so it is impossible to strike pedestrians. Vehicles cannot leave the system, and people cannot enter it except at the stations. Stations may be disbursed along the tube according to demand. > Achievable - The system should address the MDG and help in poverty > alleviation and reduce the vertical inequality. > If a developing country could achieve the above objectives with minimum > infrastructural investment then such a transportation would be suitable > for a developing country. And from my understanding I strongly believe > that cars can never be a solution even though they may come in any > different model or any paraphernalia. Please give me your comments on > this and I hope the others who read this will also comment on this. > Sunny Transportation is the master key to survival, if we cannot get to food and water, or have food and water brought to us - we die. ETT can offer cargo and passenger transportation at one tenth the cost. A fully developed global ETT network will offer the ability for anyone to access the global market directly without non-productive middle men capturing most of the value from producers as they do now. Daryl Oster (c) 2006 all rights reserved. ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth" e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks of et3.com Inc. For licensing information contact: POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423 (352)257-1310, et3@et3.com , www.et3.com > > > This attached spreadsheet illustrates why cars are gaining in market > share > > in developing countries, they have far greater VALUE than muscle powered > > transport, and contribute LESS environmental impact. > > > > Even if you value your time at zero; if you walk and plan on traveling > more > > than 317 miles in your life (but less than 32,253 miles) it pays to > invest > > in a bike for favorable environmental impact reasons alone. > > > > If you walk, and plan on traveling more than 8755 miles in your life, > then > > it pays to invest in a car for favorable environmental impact reasons > alone > > - even if you place no value on your time. > > > > If you travel by bike, and plan on traveling more than 32,253 miles in > your > > life, then it pays to invest in a car for favorable environmental impact > > reasons alone - even if you place no value on your time. > > > > If you place a $15/hour value on your time, then the bike takes only 91 > > miles to justify the impact of production vs walking, and the car only > > 2,361miles. The car compaired with a bike is justified for those who > value > > their time more than $15/hour if they plan on more than 7275 miles of > > travel. > > > > NOTE -- this analysis ignores the added value obtained if the car is > used to > > transport it's full capacity of 5 persons -- the impact breakeven point > vs > > walking or biking is MUCH faster if the car is used to it's full > capacity. > > > > I hope that some of the experts on this list can provide numbers so I > may > > include air, bus, and train on this chart, and see the comparisons to > cars, > > bikes, walking, and ETT. > > > > > > > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries > (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus > is on urban transport policy in Asia. From bsriramak at yahoo.com Tue Apr 4 22:19:35 2006 From: bsriramak at yahoo.com (B Sriram) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 06:19:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [sustran] Bus Segregation, Car equivalents of BUS Message-ID: <20060404131935.99394.qmail@web33702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hello All, I am new member to this group. I am research student from India. It is said that a BUS is equivalent to 3 passenger cars. But I also find there is lot of debate on this value. Can anyone suggest what values should be taken? I have also read some reports about Bagota, and also some discussions in this group, which suggest that segregation of buses helps improve regular traffic as well as buses as they get dedicated lanes. How can I quantify that this segregation indeed improves the regular traffic ? Are there any published reports which can justify this. My main constraint is space. I will have to extract a lane from the existing carraigeway as it is bound by private property. Thanks Kiran Research Student Ahmedabad India --------------------------------- Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060404/60057e6a/attachment.html From Alan.Howes at cbuchanan.co.uk Tue Apr 4 22:30:12 2006 From: Alan.Howes at cbuchanan.co.uk (Alan Howes) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 14:30:12 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Re: Bus Segregation, Car equivalents of BUS Message-ID: <324DCD7680954F468CF306EE5404F00101F33B53@mail01.cbuchanan.co.uk> I would say that generally accepted pcu (passenger car unit) values for a bus are between 2.5 and 3. There are no doubt learned tomes on the subject. Will vary urban / rural / expressway etc. (Probably lower on an expressway). That's for a standard 12m bus, mind. Alan -- Alan Howes Associate Transport Planner Colin Buchanan 4 St Colme Street Edinburgh EH3 6AA Scotland email: alan.howes@cbuchanan.co.uk tel: (0)131 226 4693 (switchboard) (0)7952 464335 (mobile) fax: (0)131 220 0232 www: http:/www.cbuchanan.co.uk/ _______________________________ ________________________________ From: sustran-discuss-bounces+alan.howes=cbuchanan.co.uk@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+alan.howes=cbuchanan.co.uk@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of B Sriram Sent: 04 April 2006 14:20 To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org Subject: [sustran] Bus Segregation, Car equivalents of BUS Hello All, I am new member to this group. I am research student from India. It is said that a BUS is equivalent to 3 passenger cars. But I also find there is lot of debate on this value. Can anyone suggest what values should be taken? I have also read some reports about Bagota, and also some discussions in this group, which suggest that segregation of buses helps improve regular traffic as well as buses as they get dedicated lanes. How can I quantify that this segregation indeed improves the regular traffic ? Are there any published reports which can justify this. My main constraint is space. I will have to extract a lane from the existing carraigeway as it is bound by private property. Thanks Kiran Research Student Ahmedabad India ________________________________ Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1?/min. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ DISCLAIMER This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which 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 Colin Buchanan, 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 do not accept liability for any loss or damage caused by software viruses. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060404/e381f2a8/attachment.html From kennaughkb at yahoo.com.au Tue Apr 4 22:41:46 2006 From: kennaughkb at yahoo.com.au (Kirk Bendall) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 23:41:46 +1000 (EST) Subject: [sustran] Re: Bus Segregation, Car equivalents of BUS In-Reply-To: <20060404131935.99394.qmail@web33702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060404134146.52835.qmail@web34207.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Kiran, as well as vehcile size, acceleration/deceleration difference is part of the 'PCU equivalent' concept. If your issue is at individual property level a microsimulation extending to the bounding intersections maybe the way to examine alterenatives for your traffic conditions and driving/walking/cycling practices therein. regards, kirk bendall Woonona Australia --- B Sriram wrote: > Hello All, > > I am new member to this group. I am research > student from India. It is said that a BUS is > equivalent to 3 passenger cars. But I also find > there is lot of debate on this value. Can anyone > suggest what values should be taken? > > I have also read some reports about Bagota, and > also some discussions in this group, which suggest > that segregation of buses helps improve regular > traffic as well as buses as they get dedicated > lanes. > > How can I quantify that this segregation indeed > improves the regular traffic ? > > Are there any published reports which can justify > this. > > My main constraint is space. I will have to > extract a lane from the existing carraigeway as it > is bound by private property. > > Thanks > > Kiran > Research Student > Ahmedabad > India > > > --------------------------------- > Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make > PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.> > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of > people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport > with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global > South'). Because of the history of the list, the > main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. ____________________________________________________ On Yahoo!7 Messenger - Make free PC-to-PC calls to your friends overseas. http://au.messenger.yahoo.com From litman at vtpi.org Wed Apr 5 00:41:14 2006 From: litman at vtpi.org (Todd Alexander Litman) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 08:41:14 -0700 Subject: [sustran] Re: Bus Segregation, Car equivalents of BUS In-Reply-To: <20060404131935.99394.qmail@web33702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060404131935.99394.qmail@web33702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20060404083408.03267950@mail.islandnet.com> There are tables indicating the Passenger Car Equivalents (PCE) of heavy vehicles, including buses, under various roadway conditions (see http://www.vtpi.org/tca/tca0505.pdf, Table 5.5-4). You may want to review the "High Occupancy Vehicle Priority" (http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm19.htm ) and "Bus Rapid Transit" (http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm120.htm ) chapters of our Online TDM Encyclopedia, which discuss dedicated bus lanes and how to evaluate their benefits. These chapters reference several relevant technical reports and websites on the subject. In developing cities, busways and other types of transit service improvements are among the best ways of improving transportation system performance, both to the people who ride transit and to motorists who experience less traffic and parking congestion if their neighbors shift from driving to public transit. Best wishes, -Todd Litman At 06:19 AM 4/4/2006, B Sriram wrote: >I am new member to this group. I am research student from India. It >is said that a BUS is equivalent to 3 passenger cars. But I also >find there is lot of debate on this value. Can anyone suggest what >values should be taken? > >I have also read some reports about Bagota, and also some >discussions in this group, which suggest that segregation of buses >helps improve regular traffic as well as buses as they get dedicated lanes. > >How can I quantify that this segregation indeed improves the regular traffic ? > >Are there any published reports which can justify this. > >My main constraint is space. I will have to extract a lane from the >existing carraigeway as it is bound by private property. Sincerely, Todd Alexander Litman Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org) litman@vtpi.org Phone & Fax 250-360-1560 1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060404/8b19f62e/attachment.html From ashok.sreenivas at gmail.com Wed Apr 5 03:16:50 2006 From: ashok.sreenivas at gmail.com (Ashok Sreenivas) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 23:46:50 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: ground transport impacts In-Reply-To: <200604031943.k33JgtZZ028138@njbrsmtp2.vzwmail.net> References: <200604031943.k33JgtZZ028138@njbrsmtp2.vzwmail.net> Message-ID: <4432B812.7070306@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060404/29b91b65/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ground tran impact.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 27136 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060404/29b91b65/groundtranimpact-0001.xls From ericbruun at earthlink.net Wed Apr 5 07:39:32 2006 From: ericbruun at earthlink.net (Eric Bruun) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 18:39:32 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [sustran] Re: ETT as a global solution Message-ID: <9820314.1144190372521.JavaMail.root@elwamui-muscovy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060404/a6d5a54c/attachment.html From et3 at et3.com Wed Apr 5 12:22:58 2006 From: et3 at et3.com (Daryl Oster) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 23:22:58 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: ETT as a global solution In-Reply-To: <9820314.1144190372521.JavaMail.root@elwamui-muscovy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <200604050323.k353N0ZX008641@njbrsmtp2.vzwmail.net> > From: Eric Bruun > Daryl > I have struggled over the last few years to develop a generic-enough > methodology for analyzing major public transport projects to put in a > textbook. I have to say that there is no perfect methodology and and that > there is some merit to most approaches, including yours. Nevertheless, > yours is still too simplistic to draw the conclusions that you do. I have > a few comments below. >> The sheet is not to show that bikes and walking do not have value and >> use, but only to explain reasons for automotive dominance in developed >> and developing markets. > > > There is clearly no problem using the value of time for commercial travel. > But using value of time for commuting and personal travel is problematic > in several ways. Just a couple of examples: > If value of time is based on income of persons along a corridor, then > saving a few minutes for the wealthy is more important than saving a half- > hour for low-income workers living along another corridor. I don't think > this approach is morally defensible as public policy. Saving commute time > in the long run doesn't really work anyway -- as travel speeds go up, > people live farther away. Average commute time has been around 30 minutes > for centuries. Sprawl and dispersion occur instead. >> A tool is not worth much if it is not put to the highest and best use. >> The chart I submit to this group illustrates some of the main reasons why >> car use is growing at such a rapid pace ... > > This is a tautology that you are giving. People > can't choose options that don't exist. In most of the US there simply is > no viable alternative to the automobile. We don't know how many people > will choose to bicycle, walk or use transit > if we don't try to improve them or create communities where they are more > effective. But we shouldn't improve them because, allegedly, the consumer > has already spoken. This kind of reasoning leaves us in a stalemate. >From 1850 to 1910, trains and bikes displaced animal transport to niche markets by offering greater value. Cities built in this time period were as you describe - built approximately to the standards you are advocating. Starting in the 20s, cars displaced animal transport, finishing the job started by trains, and then much of the trains market also fell to the greater value offered by the car. Beat out of their market by cars superior value by about 1960, passenger railroaders increased their efforts on creating a demand for their product through political pressure, and lobby efforts to create unnatural conditions so they could continue to milk their cash cow. They also increased funding of publications advocating urban planning favorable to their passenger rail products. In spite of this, and in spite of 30 times more government expenditure for passenger rail passenger miles traveled (compared with automotive passenger miles traveled), the rail industry continues to loose market share against mostly privately funded automobile growth. We DO know that passenger trains had a 90% share of intercity passenger travel in 1910, and now they have a 1% share, and it is not because of lack of the option -- the miles of railroad peaked in about 1930, today there are 80,000 miles that are abandoned and not used -- this is 10,000 miles more rail than exists in all of China! The ONLY reason passenger rail still exists in the US is due to billions in subsidy - the people have soundly rejected rail because other modes offer far greater value for most people (but not all people). >> It is clearly proven that the car offers far >> better transportation value than the train and bikes for increasingly >> more people, even those in developing countries. The car will not be >> replaced by returning to ways that the car has displaced, going back to >> muscle powered transport and trains is less sustainable than moving to >> cars. > > The value only stays high until too many people switch to cars. Then it > deteriorates both for the car user and for the other people who don't get > the benefit of the car I agree that just as the incremental value of the rail network expansion eventually failed to add incremental value and had to turn to subsidy due to it's marginal or negative net value; so is the automobile network reaching the limits of it's expansion, and the existing infrastructure is decaying almost as fast as the rate of renewal. The automobile age is close to a plateau and the time is ripe for a new paradigm shift - the shift will eliminate the use of trains for passenger transportation, just as cars eliminated the use of animals for transportation. Now horses are almost only ridden for pleasure, and the same will soon be for passenger rail, after ETT finishes what cars started. > India is an excellent example. It is the non-motorized > travelers who mostly get killed and the far more numerous bus riders who > get slowed down by the priviledged car users. As you say below, this is an issue of grade and mode separation - it is an education, planning, and law enforcement failure, and the car is not to blame. The US proves cars can be safe, and at much higher speeds than common in India and China. (you are apparently forgetting that I lived in Chengdu China for 5 months). >> It is well established that cars are NOT sustainable for the entire >> worlds population. What is needed is to progress to a new transportation >> paradigm that is far more efficient (offers far greater value) than cars >> do; ETT is purposely designed to offer the greatest transportation value >> possible for most people, especially those who are not now able to afford >> cars. > > There is no transport mode that solves all problems. Nor is investment > always the answer. Sometimes it is just changes in traffic rules, > enforcement or pricing. I agree with you 100%, and you must admit that the car has won the world transportation market, and trains and buses are in decline everywhere except developing economies, and in developing economies, their use is decelerating, while car use in accelerating. Car use causes many problems this is true, and it is firmly established that cars are not sustainable for all the worlds population to use. -- Forcing the use of modes that are already proven to be LESS sustainable than the car is NOT the solution. Diminishing ones standard of living is counter to basic human nature. ETT offers environmental, energy, and social sustainability for most people. Just as trains and busses were displaced, car and jet use will eventually be displaced to niche markets by the superior value it will offer MOST people of the world (not all people). >> most who are able to purchase a better transportation tool derive >> great value, and are able to greatly improve their living condition as a >> result of upgrading from walking to a bike, or from a bike to a car. > > Many of us don't want to be "upgraded." This is a very biased way to state > the evolution. We are instead "forced" to use a car when our jobs > relocate, when conditions for bicycling become too scary, etc. My options > of cities where I can live in the US without being auto dependent are > extremely limited. I agree that SOME (clearly not "many") do not want to upgrade their life with the mainstream, and yet their existence changes anyway. -- most people now use computers, some that I know did not do so by choice, and resisted the change made by their boss for instance -- ask them now if they would go back to using a typewriter - you will most likely get a strong "no way!!" A dear friend of mine is 86 years old, and is a wiz with his 50 year old manual typewriter, and s-mail, he has refused to change (just as some Amish people have refused to use cars). >> trains were designed to haul extremely heavy freight loads, >> and when used to haul people, they must be uncomfortably packed in like >> sardines to achieve reasonable load capacity. ETT is sized like the car - >> for human size loads, and high comfort. > > There are capacity versus vehicle size curves that show that smaller > vehicles maximize throughput at slower speed than larger vehicles. If it > is both high speed and high capacity that you want, then trains are > required. This may be true for manually controlled vehicles, however ETT is automated, and at a design speed of 600km/h (373mph), the capacity of one 1.5m diameter ETT tube can safely exceed 200,000 passengers per hour, using 6 seat (car sized) vehicles. And this assumes a 3:1 safety factor - the maximum possible throughput would be more than 600,000 passengers per hour. By contrast, a HSR train (as in Japan) can achieve about 15,000 passengers per hour of seated passengers, and if packed to an almost unbearable "crush load" about 50,000 per hour. > A bus way can also have fairly high capacity at reasonable > speeds. I am very doubtful that there is any mode using vehicles the size > of a car that can have meaningful capacity. This has always been the > trouble with Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) -- it combines the > infrastructure costs of rail with the low capacity of > cars. You are more than a little out of touch with PRT. > Maybe ETT performs better than PRT but it can't possibly have the > capacity/ speed combination of a train. An 70mph design speed freeway can safely accommodate one manually controlled car per lane every 2 seconds. If each car were filled to full average seated capacity of 5 persons per car, the through put of 2 lanes would be 18,000 passengers per hour - or about the same as an assigned seat train. Freeway traffic can occasionally sustain double this capacity, but not reliably, or safely. ITS (automated cars) were demonstrated 10 years ago (California PATH program) that could increase throughput of a freeway by a factor of 8. As speed increases, so does the distance between vehicles at a constant frequency. So at constant spacing, the frequency can double by merging two streams that have been accelerated to double the velocity. Thus ETT achieves high capacity not through using large vehicles, but by using high frequency made safely possible by leveraging automation proven in industry to be much more reliable and precise than manual control. This cannot occur with trains, because trains rely on a switch that must physically move to transfer the train from one track to another. This "active mechanical switch", and the time it takes a train to stop, if the switch fails is what limits train frequency, and therefore capacity. The main advantage of large vehicles is that the labor cost and aerodynamic losses per passenger is reduced. If you do not have to pay the driver (automation)and if air resistance is eliminated (ETT) the advantage of large vehicles disappears. The big disadvantage of big fast trains in an urban environment is the massive amount of infrastructure required to elevate (or burry) the train for full grade separation to ensure safety. It takes about 18 tons of material per meter of elevated double track to support a couple of 100ton HSR (high speed rail)locomotives. It only takes a half ton of material per double tube meter of ETT guideway to support the capsules (never closer than 15m spacing) that weigh less than one ton each fully loaded with 6 passengers. ETT tubes can also be made using automated factory equipment, further reducing construction cost. ETT guideway is reasonably shown to be capable of being built for less than a tenth the cost, and have ten times the capacity. >> Trains and busses in the US use more fuel and pollute more per passenger >> mile than do today's efficient cars and aircraft. ETT is designed to be >> super clean and efficient, providing more than 50 times more >> transportation for a given amount of energy use, (or pollution >> production). > This statement is ridiculous. > Intercity train consumes more energy than an airliner over a 500 km trip? > Hardly. On a transcontinental trip, a fully loaded airliner might be > competitive with a car. But never with even a moderately loaded train. If you do not believe me about cars and aircraft now being more fuel efficient than trains, here are some credible people that disagree with you. (Also see attachment from the study) http://www.energybulletin.net/733.html > By the way, what is efficient? Cars have actually been getting less > "efficient" by and large, some hybrids and small cars notwithstanding. > These "efficiency" gains go into more power and weight for the same fuel > consumption. If we really want efficiency, then fuel prices will have to > be much higher in regions with affluent drivers. I agree, and conventional oil production likely peaked mid December of 2005 - so we are in for a steady and accelerating increase in fuel prices until the Canada oil sands reach the level of profitability (at about a 40% increase in price). > As for urban transportation, have a look at Kenworthy and Newman's data > about energy consumption of cities. Don't confuse how a bus performs in > low-density sprawl with the overall network effect of evolving cities in > such a way to have an efficient urban form and efficient transit. Buses > keep getting lower in productivity where sprawl worsens -- the solution is > to stop the sprawl, not the buses. There is no such thing as sprawl! The natural condition of people was spread out and rural, cars favor this, but stats prove that urbanization is the global trend, not the opposite. Cities formed on transportation nodes, as resource demands are changed by technology, so do transportation patterns. > Even if ETT or other modes work as well > as you say, they can't be everywhere. We are stuck with low efficiency of > transit in sprawled regions as the people without drivers licenses or > sufficient income will still need a minimum of mobility. We are also stuck > with high volumes of driving, large amounts of school bus driving, large > expenditures on water and sewers, and so on, as a result of sprawl. Building costs, tax rates and their lack of fiscal sustainability without subsidy in most dense cities prove that moderate density development is more efficient than high density. >> ETT is fully isolated from the traffic outside the tubes -- so it is >> impossible to strike pedestrians. Vehicles cannot leave the system, and >> people cannot enter it except at the stations. Stations may be disbursed >> along the tube according to demand. > > You can say the same thing about rapid transit, or about grade-separated > bicycle lanes. Ok Eric, shall we get back to your India [cars kill pedestrians] observation, or is your contradiction now apparent? Thanks for your input and discussion, I hope you offer some suggestions on improving the chart with the inclusion of bus and train with the same methodology. Best regards, Daryl Daryl Oster (c) 2006 all rights reserved. ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth" e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks of et3.com Inc. For licensing information contact: POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423 (352)257-1310, et3@et3.com , www.et3.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: energy use.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 19677 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060404/1c42364f/energyuse.jpg From et3 at et3.com Wed Apr 5 13:28:02 2006 From: et3 at et3.com (Daryl Oster) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 00:28:02 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: ground transport impacts In-Reply-To: <4432B812.7070306@gmail.com> Message-ID: <200604050428.k354S3ZX009941@njbrsmtp2.vzwmail.net> > From: Ashok Sreenivas > Daryl > I went through both the excel sheet and your web-site in some detail. I > must say ETT sounds like a very interesting idea and best luck with its > realization. However, I have some questions about your excel sheet and the > premise behind it. I'll do my best to answer them. > > 1. What kind of travel are you targeting for ETT (and therefore, the > calculations in the sheet)? Is it inter-city/country long distance travel, > or is it your mundane everyday commute? I delivered a paper at the 2005 APM (Automated People Mover) conference of the ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers) in Orlando titled: Long-Haul High-Speed APM Network Opportunities. This paper shows that present automation in transportation is in the gap between cars and non-motorized transport (see attachment), and in cases where demand is sufficient to justify the cost, this transportation automation is typified by short-haul / low-speed appropriate to fill this gap. My paper than identifies the long-haul / high-speed market to exploit with automation, and as the graph shows, the greatest demand is in the gap between air travel and car travel - at about 1000km. Since ETT uses the automotive philosophy of car sized vehicles sized for maximum utility with minimum cost (as cars are), AND small off-line ETT stations are finely disbursed according to demand, ETT can cover a wide area at low cost, and with subsidy from high demand intercity terminals, eventually extend "the last mile" to provide true origin to destination service as the car is presently (displacing cars), AND also extend upward to displace most jets travel by eventual intercontinental networking. Eventually ETT will offer door to door global travel with the efficiency of cargo ships, and the speed of supersonic jets for about 90% of the population. > > 2. If it is the former (long distance travel), I am not even sure we > should be comparing walking and cycling with cars as they are obviously > not suitable modes (unless, of course, you are an adventure freak!). Here, > the right thing to compare would be against trains, buses, air etc. > However, unfortunately I don't have the numbers for them, perhaps others > on the list can help. Yes, I do agree, and we do have many comparisons of ETT with trains, busses, ships, and jets, but not on the same format and terms as the chart. > > 3. If it is the latter (daily commute), I don't think food and lodging > should be considered as a factor at all. After all, I would like to have a > house in the city/town I live in, irrespective of how I travel about the > town! Similarly, I guess I would like to eat about as well either ways, as > we're now not talking of walkathons or bikeathons but manageable 3-5km > bike rides or 1-3km walks. Doing so changes the picture dramatically > between cars, bikes and walking. Now, even if you consider cars as having > 0 environmental impact (similar to walking, cycling), biking and cycling > become much better than cars. Of course, ETT still wins. I have attached > my version of the sheet, with one row (row #45) added for this comparison. I am not disputing the use of bikes and walking for short daily comutes, or the value of position close to work and activities to minimize car demands, only pointing out the big reasons that are being ignored as why car use is so prevalent. And also that walking and biking are not as sustainable as many are lead to believe. > 4. About safety, you say that the per-mile risk of death on bicycles is > 7.8 times that of cars. But this is because the bicyclists are being hit > by the same cars!! Reduce the cars (or at least ensure they don't come in > each others way) and so will the fatalities. So, it is not a independent > variable as the statisticians (Disclaimer: I am not one) may call it. > Regards > Ashok Most bike deaths in the US occur on road or rail intersections and crossings, and the stats show it is usually the bike or pedestrian that violates the ROW rules -- the fault is usually that of the bike or pedestrian. This is a likely the reason that accident insurance for bikes is so much more costly per mile than car insurance. My observations in Chengdu China traffic chaos confirm this too - most of the problem is the fault of pedestrians walking on the street instead of a clear sidewalk, then the bikes are displaced from their lane, and then the cars are on the wrong side of the road, and a bus going twice as fast as the cars passes them all by using the bike lane on the opposite side of the road! - but the cars and buses (especially the busses) share blame as they do not follow the rules like they do here -- this is mostly an education and enforcement problem. And most pedestrians will just step into car traffic without even checking to se if they are violating the ROW of a car or bus -- they expect the vehicle to avoid them (It kind of works, but flow is only half the speed at about the same through put). The lines on the street are totally ignored, and the traffic lights are regarded as only suggestions. Within a week or two we had adjusted, and were stepping in front of cars too (but never a bus!! - once I barely saved my wife, I grabbed her shoulder just in time to yank her back as a bus ran a red light. In Shanghai, the traffic is much better -- all people follow the rules much better - almost as ordered as US cities. Thanks for your questions and reasoned input. Daryl Oster (c) 2006 all rights reserved. ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth" e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks of et3.com Inc. For licensing information contact: POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423 (352)257-1310, et3@et3.com , www.et3.com> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: market gaps.gif Type: image/gif Size: 51394 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060405/2fa714d8/marketgaps-0001.gif From litman at vtpi.org Wed Apr 5 13:30:58 2006 From: litman at vtpi.org (Todd Alexander Litman) Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 21:30:58 -0700 Subject: [sustran] New Parking Management Information - VTPI Update Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20060404212744.05dfe748@mail.islandnet.com> Parking Management Information Update ============================== A paradigm shift (a fundamental change in the way a problem is defined and solutions evaluated) is occurring with regard to parking planning. In the past most decision-makers assumed that, as much as possible, parking should be abundant and free, resulting in inefficient transport and land use patterns. Now, many planners are developing better solutions based on more efficient parking management. To find out more see these three current Planetizen editorials: Mott Smith, "Onsite Parking: The Scourge of America's Commercial Districts" (http://www.planetizen.com/node/19246 ). Donald Shoup, "The Price Of Parking On Great Streets" (http://www.planetizen.com/node/19150 ). Todd Litman, "Parking Management: Innovative Solutions To Vehicle Parking Problems" (http://www.planetizen.com/node/19149 ). Also see the new condensed version of my book, "Parking Management" available free at (http://www.vtpi.org/park_man.pdf ). And see the new draft report, "Parking Taxes: Evaluating Options and Impacts" (http://www.vtpi.org/parking_tax.pdf ), which describes and evaluates various types of parking taxes, including 'commercial parking taxes' (a special tax on parking rental transactions) and 'per-space parking levies' (a special property tax applied to parking facilities). Sincerely, Todd Alexander Litman Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org) litman@vtpi.org Phone & Fax 250-360-1560 1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060404/861bf854/attachment.html From n-matsumoto at iges.or.jp Wed Apr 5 15:00:00 2006 From: n-matsumoto at iges.or.jp (Naoko Matsumoto) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 15:00:00 +0900 Subject: [sustran] Database for Strategic Policy Options launched (IGES) References: <6.2.3.4.2.20060404212744.05dfe748@mail.islandnet.com> Message-ID: <002801c65876$2ce88920$2a0b11ac@iges.iges.or.jp> Dear Sustran members, Please kindly be informed that IGES has launched an open database for policy-makers which identifies 'Strategic Policy Options (SPOs)' - the keys to promote environmental innovation in the Asia-Pacific region. The database has eight sub-themes such as financial mechanisms for renewable energy development and environmentally-sustainable transport systems for urban areas. Each SPO highlights critical instruments required for its implementations, expected impacts, evaluation, its applicability and limitations. A total of approximately 150 SPOs are shown in the database. For details: http://www.iges.or.jp/cgi-bin/rispo/index_spo.cgi ******************************************************* Naoko Matsumoto (Ms.), Ph.D. Policy Researcher Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) 2108-11 Kamiyamaguchi, Hayama, Kanagawa 240-0115 Japan Phone: +81-468-55-3857 Fax: +81-468-55-3809 E-mail: n-matsumoto@iges.or.jp URL: http://www.iges.or.jp/ ******************************************************* From dsengupta at gmail.com Thu Apr 6 02:17:43 2006 From: dsengupta at gmail.com (Dibu Sengupta) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 13:17:43 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Bike to work Message-ID: FYI - http://www.waba.org/new/BTWD06/index.php Registration link: http://www.waba.org/new/BTWD06/wababtwd.php Pit Stop link: http://www.waba.org/new/BTWD06/pitstops.php#SSD Route map: http://www.commuterpage.com/website/btwd/viewer.htm?Title=Bike%20to%20Work%20Day -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060405/a1f9172f/attachment.html From sri at giaspn01.vsnl.net.in Wed Apr 5 13:57:56 2006 From: sri at giaspn01.vsnl.net.in (Prof J G Krishnayya) Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 10:27:56 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: ETT as a global solution In-Reply-To: <200604050323.k353N0ZX008641@njbrsmtp2.vzwmail.net> Message-ID: <003101c6586d$83440370$975541db@JGK> Daryl, Your post-hoc; propter hoc argument in favour of motor cars and against rail ignores completely the history of General Motors activity in the 30s to buy up and scrap municipal light rail lines all over the US. The technical facts you provide are interesting in an "engineering" sort of way (and I speak as someone who spent 6 years at MIT). They are not relevant to the real world. The story about London-Edinburg travel by Diesel Passat as being less energy-intensive than the proposed new (very heavy) High Speed Train is also interesting, but beside the point. The world does not travel in Passats. Next, planes will get increasingly pricey as fuel prices rise; docking space at reasonable distances from city-centres will become more and more a dream-of-the-past. Trains provide comfortable, seated - or sleeping - accommodation on a city-centre-to-city-centre basis with the simplest boarding and luggage arrangement. I'm sorry; you do not carry conviction, and raising the pitch of your arguments ( 5 months in Chengdu) does not help. All the best when you wake up! J G Krishnayya --------------------------- Prof J G Krishnayya Director, Systems Research Institute, 17-A Gultekdi, PUNE 411037, India www.sripune.org Tel +91-20-2426-0323 jkrishnayya@yahoo.com Res 020-2636-3930 sri@giaspn01.vsnl.net.in Fax +91-20-2444-7902 -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+sri=pn1.vsnl.net.in@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+sri=pn1.vsnl.net.in@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Daryl Oster Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 8:53 AM To: 'Eric Bruun'; 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport' Subject: [sustran] Re: ETT as a global solution > From: Eric Bruun > Daryl > I have struggled over the last few years to develop a generic-enough > methodology for analyzing major public transport projects to put in a > textbook. I have to say that there is no perfect methodology and and that > there is some merit to most approaches, including yours. Nevertheless, > yours is still too simplistic to draw the conclusions that you do. I have > a few comments below. >> The sheet is not to show that bikes and walking do not have value and >> use, but only to explain reasons for automotive dominance in developed >> and developing markets. > > > There is clearly no problem using the value of time for commercial travel. > But using value of time for commuting and personal travel is problematic > in several ways. Just a couple of examples: > If value of time is based on income of persons along a corridor, then > saving a few minutes for the wealthy is more important than saving a half- > hour for low-income workers living along another corridor. I don't think > this approach is morally defensible as public policy. Saving commute time > in the long run doesn't really work anyway -- as travel speeds go up, > people live farther away. Average commute time has been around 30 minutes > for centuries. Sprawl and dispersion occur instead. >> A tool is not worth much if it is not put to the highest and best use. >> The chart I submit to this group illustrates some of the main reasons why >> car use is growing at such a rapid pace ... > > This is a tautology that you are giving. People > can't choose options that don't exist. In most of the US there simply is > no viable alternative to the automobile. We don't know how many people > will choose to bicycle, walk or use transit > if we don't try to improve them or create communities where they are more > effective. But we shouldn't improve them because, allegedly, the consumer > has already spoken. This kind of reasoning leaves us in a stalemate. >From 1850 to 1910, trains and bikes displaced animal transport to niche markets by offering greater value. Cities built in this time period were as you describe - built approximately to the standards you are advocating. Starting in the 20s, cars displaced animal transport, finishing the job started by trains, and then much of the trains market also fell to the greater value offered by the car. Beat out of their market by cars superior value by about 1960, passenger railroaders increased their efforts on creating a demand for their product through political pressure, and lobby efforts to create unnatural conditions so they could continue to milk their cash cow. They also increased funding of publications advocating urban planning favorable to their passenger rail products. In spite of this, and in spite of 30 times more government expenditure for passenger rail passenger miles traveled (compared with automotive passenger miles traveled), the rail industry continues to loose market share against mostly privately funded automobile growth. We DO know that passenger trains had a 90% share of intercity passenger travel in 1910, and now they have a 1% share, and it is not because of lack of the option -- the miles of railroad peaked in about 1930, today there are 80,000 miles that are abandoned and not used -- this is 10,000 miles more rail than exists in all of China! The ONLY reason passenger rail still exists in the US is due to billions in subsidy - the people have soundly rejected rail because other modes offer far greater value for most people (but not all people). >> It is clearly proven that the car offers far >> better transportation value than the train and bikes for increasingly >> more people, even those in developing countries. The car will not be >> replaced by returning to ways that the car has displaced, going back to >> muscle powered transport and trains is less sustainable than moving to >> cars. > > The value only stays high until too many people switch to cars. Then it > deteriorates both for the car user and for the other people who don't get > the benefit of the car I agree that just as the incremental value of the rail network expansion eventually failed to add incremental value and had to turn to subsidy due to it's marginal or negative net value; so is the automobile network reaching the limits of it's expansion, and the existing infrastructure is decaying almost as fast as the rate of renewal. The automobile age is close to a plateau and the time is ripe for a new paradigm shift - the shift will eliminate the use of trains for passenger transportation, just as cars eliminated the use of animals for transportation. Now horses are almost only ridden for pleasure, and the same will soon be for passenger rail, after ETT finishes what cars started. > India is an excellent example. It is the non-motorized > travelers who mostly get killed and the far more numerous bus riders who > get slowed down by the priviledged car users. As you say below, this is an issue of grade and mode separation - it is an education, planning, and law enforcement failure, and the car is not to blame. The US proves cars can be safe, and at much higher speeds than common in India and China. (you are apparently forgetting that I lived in Chengdu China for 5 months). >> It is well established that cars are NOT sustainable for the entire >> worlds population. What is needed is to progress to a new transportation >> paradigm that is far more efficient (offers far greater value) than cars >> do; ETT is purposely designed to offer the greatest transportation value >> possible for most people, especially those who are not now able to afford >> cars. > > There is no transport mode that solves all problems. Nor is investment > always the answer. Sometimes it is just changes in traffic rules, > enforcement or pricing. I agree with you 100%, and you must admit that the car has won the world transportation market, and trains and buses are in decline everywhere except developing economies, and in developing economies, their use is decelerating, while car use in accelerating. Car use causes many problems this is true, and it is firmly established that cars are not sustainable for all the worlds population to use. -- Forcing the use of modes that are already proven to be LESS sustainable than the car is NOT the solution. Diminishing ones standard of living is counter to basic human nature. ETT offers environmental, energy, and social sustainability for most people. Just as trains and busses were displaced, car and jet use will eventually be displaced to niche markets by the superior value it will offer MOST people of the world (not all people). >> most who are able to purchase a better transportation tool derive >> great value, and are able to greatly improve their living condition as a >> result of upgrading from walking to a bike, or from a bike to a car. > > Many of us don't want to be "upgraded." This is a very biased way to state > the evolution. We are instead "forced" to use a car when our jobs > relocate, when conditions for bicycling become too scary, etc. My options > of cities where I can live in the US without being auto dependent are > extremely limited. I agree that SOME (clearly not "many") do not want to upgrade their life with the mainstream, and yet their existence changes anyway. -- most people now use computers, some that I know did not do so by choice, and resisted the change made by their boss for instance -- ask them now if they would go back to using a typewriter - you will most likely get a strong "no way!!" A dear friend of mine is 86 years old, and is a wiz with his 50 year old manual typewriter, and s-mail, he has refused to change (just as some Amish people have refused to use cars). >> trains were designed to haul extremely heavy freight loads, >> and when used to haul people, they must be uncomfortably packed in like >> sardines to achieve reasonable load capacity. ETT is sized like the car - >> for human size loads, and high comfort. > > There are capacity versus vehicle size curves that show that smaller > vehicles maximize throughput at slower speed than larger vehicles. If it > is both high speed and high capacity that you want, then trains are > required. This may be true for manually controlled vehicles, however ETT is automated, and at a design speed of 600km/h (373mph), the capacity of one 1.5m diameter ETT tube can safely exceed 200,000 passengers per hour, using 6 seat (car sized) vehicles. And this assumes a 3:1 safety factor - the maximum possible throughput would be more than 600,000 passengers per hour. By contrast, a HSR train (as in Japan) can achieve about 15,000 passengers per hour of seated passengers, and if packed to an almost unbearable "crush load" about 50,000 per hour. > A bus way can also have fairly high capacity at reasonable > speeds. I am very doubtful that there is any mode using vehicles the size > of a car that can have meaningful capacity. This has always been the > trouble with Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) -- it combines the > infrastructure costs of rail with the low capacity of > cars. You are more than a little out of touch with PRT. > Maybe ETT performs better than PRT but it can't possibly have the > capacity/ speed combination of a train. An 70mph design speed freeway can safely accommodate one manually controlled car per lane every 2 seconds. If each car were filled to full average seated capacity of 5 persons per car, the through put of 2 lanes would be 18,000 passengers per hour - or about the same as an assigned seat train. Freeway traffic can occasionally sustain double this capacity, but not reliably, or safely. ITS (automated cars) were demonstrated 10 years ago (California PATH program) that could increase throughput of a freeway by a factor of 8. As speed increases, so does the distance between vehicles at a constant frequency. So at constant spacing, the frequency can double by merging two streams that have been accelerated to double the velocity. Thus ETT achieves high capacity not through using large vehicles, but by using high frequency made safely possible by leveraging automation proven in industry to be much more reliable and precise than manual control. This cannot occur with trains, because trains rely on a switch that must physically move to transfer the train from one track to another. This "active mechanical switch", and the time it takes a train to stop, if the switch fails is what limits train frequency, and therefore capacity. The main advantage of large vehicles is that the labor cost and aerodynamic losses per passenger is reduced. If you do not have to pay the driver (automation)and if air resistance is eliminated (ETT) the advantage of large vehicles disappears. The big disadvantage of big fast trains in an urban environment is the massive amount of infrastructure required to elevate (or burry) the train for full grade separation to ensure safety. It takes about 18 tons of material per meter of elevated double track to support a couple of 100ton HSR (high speed rail)locomotives. It only takes a half ton of material per double tube meter of ETT guideway to support the capsules (never closer than 15m spacing) that weigh less than one ton each fully loaded with 6 passengers. ETT tubes can also be made using automated factory equipment, further reducing construction cost. ETT guideway is reasonably shown to be capable of being built for less than a tenth the cost, and have ten times the capacity. >> Trains and busses in the US use more fuel and pollute more per passenger >> mile than do today's efficient cars and aircraft. ETT is designed to be >> super clean and efficient, providing more than 50 times more >> transportation for a given amount of energy use, (or pollution >> production). > This statement is ridiculous. > Intercity train consumes more energy than an airliner over a 500 km trip? > Hardly. On a transcontinental trip, a fully loaded airliner might be > competitive with a car. But never with even a moderately loaded train. If you do not believe me about cars and aircraft now being more fuel efficient than trains, here are some credible people that disagree with you. (Also see attachment from the study) http://www.energybulletin.net/733.html > By the way, what is efficient? Cars have actually been getting less > "efficient" by and large, some hybrids and small cars notwithstanding. > These "efficiency" gains go into more power and weight for the same fuel > consumption. If we really want efficiency, then fuel prices will have to > be much higher in regions with affluent drivers. I agree, and conventional oil production likely peaked mid December of 2005 - so we are in for a steady and accelerating increase in fuel prices until the Canada oil sands reach the level of profitability (at about a 40% increase in price). > As for urban transportation, have a look at Kenworthy and Newman's data > about energy consumption of cities. Don't confuse how a bus performs in > low-density sprawl with the overall network effect of evolving cities in > such a way to have an efficient urban form and efficient transit. Buses > keep getting lower in productivity where sprawl worsens -- the solution is > to stop the sprawl, not the buses. There is no such thing as sprawl! The natural condition of people was spread out and rural, cars favor this, but stats prove that urbanization is the global trend, not the opposite. Cities formed on transportation nodes, as resource demands are changed by technology, so do transportation patterns. > Even if ETT or other modes work as well > as you say, they can't be everywhere. We are stuck with low efficiency of > transit in sprawled regions as the people without drivers licenses or > sufficient income will still need a minimum of mobility. We are also stuck > with high volumes of driving, large amounts of school bus driving, large > expenditures on water and sewers, and so on, as a result of sprawl. Building costs, tax rates and their lack of fiscal sustainability without subsidy in most dense cities prove that moderate density development is more efficient than high density. >> ETT is fully isolated from the traffic outside the tubes -- so it is >> impossible to strike pedestrians. Vehicles cannot leave the system, and >> people cannot enter it except at the stations. Stations may be disbursed >> along the tube according to demand. > > You can say the same thing about rapid transit, or about grade-separated > bicycle lanes. Ok Eric, shall we get back to your India [cars kill pedestrians] observation, or is your contradiction now apparent? Thanks for your input and discussion, I hope you offer some suggestions on improving the chart with the inclusion of bus and train with the same methodology. Best regards, Daryl Daryl Oster (c) 2006 all rights reserved. ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth" e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks of et3.com Inc. For licensing information contact: POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423 (352)257-1310, et3@et3.com , www.et3.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060405/21353d02/attachment-0001.html From michaelm at myoffice.net.au Thu Apr 6 11:52:50 2006 From: michaelm at myoffice.net.au (Michael Yeates) Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 12:52:50 +1000 Subject: [sustran] Re: alt-transp GNGM newsletter #2 Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20060406124331.02295510@mail.myoffice.net.au> Hi Eric ... Just came across this "gem" from an earlier time ... http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/1999-June/001049.html and reply from somebody else ... at http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/1999-June/001051.html GNGM ran into the problem of people changing (i) their email address and (ii) their role/task ie at work ... so it lasted just long enough to begin to get the message across about the Global Network for Gentle Mobility ... the "GM" part I trust you will recognise as a key part of the marketing promotion and slogan for the Graz 30km/h urban speed limit ... I do get a bit concerned by advocates for change (lots out there) who find the negatives rather more important than the positives from proposals ... esp those that have in fact "worked" although often on a different basis of assessment ... The whole speed issue is grossly distorted by the engineering view that slower speed limits only work if 85% compliance is achieved ,,, which is a self-defining outcome. Are there other measures where slower speed limits "work" yet 85% compliance is not achieved? Of course. Does it matter if people drive faster than the speed limit? Not necessarily ...!! MY........................... From richmond at alum.mit.edu Thu Apr 6 23:32:32 2006 From: richmond at alum.mit.edu (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 10:32:32 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Subject: [sustran] Re: ETT as a global solution In-Reply-To: <003101c6586d$83440370$975541db@JGK> References: <003101c6586d$83440370$975541db@JGK> Message-ID: While your other points are well-made, there are questions about the so-called GM conspiracy to buy up electric railways. The reason for this activity was that railways were losing money. True, GM wanted to sell buses, but the natural conversion from an efficiency point of view was from rail to buses. Even without GM's activities, the railways would have gone out of existence without government intervention, which was certainly not available at the time. --Jonathan ----- Jonathan Richmond Visiting Scholar Department of Urban Planning and Design Graduate School of Design Harvard University 312 George Gund Hall 48 Quincy St. Cambridge MA 02138-3000 Mailing address: 182 Palfrey St. Watertown MA 02472-1835 (617) 395-4360 e-mail: richmond@alum.mit.edu http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Thu Apr 6 23:48:58 2006 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (Eric Britton) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 16:48:58 +0200 Subject: [sustran] FW: Sustainable Transport Technologies for Developing Environments Message-ID: <05f001c65989$3dfe5eb0$6501a8c0@Home> -----Original Message----- From: Universities Transport Study Group [mailto:UTSG@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of CeG Professional Development Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 2:18 PM To: UTSG@JISCMAIL.AC.UK Subject: [UTSG] Sustainable Transport Technologies for Developing Environments SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT TECHNOLOGIES FOR DEVELOPING ENVIRONMENTS The School of Civil Engineering and Geosciences at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne are delivering three seminars followed by a conference to evolve the guidelines for application of sustainable technologies for developing environments. Seminar: Transport and Development Trends in Asia Napier University, Edinburgh 9 May 2006 Seminar: Transport and Development Trends in Latin America University College London 9 June 2006 Seminar: Transport and Development Trends in Africa Manchester 4 September 2006 (to be confirmed) International Conference: Sustainable Transport Technologies for Developing Environments University of Newcastle upon Tyne 5-6 October 2006 Further information about this series of seminars and the conference is available at http://www.ncl.ac.uk/cegs.cpd/cpd/sustrans.php The call for papers for the conference is available at http://www.ncl.ac.uk/cegs.cpd/cpd/sustranspapers.php We offer an online booking facility at http://www.ncl.ac.uk/cegs.cpd/cpd/sustransbook.php If you require further information, please do not hesitate to contact the Professional Development Unit. ~~~#~~~ Professional Development Unit Room 2.19 Drummond Building School of Civil Engineering and Geosciences University of Newcastle Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU UK tel +44 (0)191 222 7439 direct line tel +44 (0)191 222 6326 school office fax +44 (0)191 222 6502 email cegs.cpd@ncl.ac.uk website http://www.ncl.ac.uk/cegs.cpd/ ~~~#~~~ From schipper at wri.org Thu Apr 6 23:56:44 2006 From: schipper at wri.org (Lee Schipper) Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 10:56:44 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Conspiracy or fate? Message-ID: I support Jonathan's point -- even in social democratic sweden and left-centrist france, governments of the 1950s and 1960s dissasembled many local and intercity rail systems and rationalized bus systems -- instead of making private motorization face its real costs -- so that these systems, on their way into disuse anyway, were spared the suffering and suffocation from auto use. No one dared keep residential expansion into single family dwellings in the US structured close to rail corridors etc. The real point is that many people love the store of the GM/FIrestone/Standard oil "conspiracy", but it happens everywhere if cars and roads are cheap and more or less already there. The nice streetcars of the 1920s in the US went bankrupt because cities would not let them raise fares. ANgry consumers bought cars as the next alternative for commuting, and the car was out of the bag, so to speak. A geographer at UC Berkeley, Skip Vance, wrote a book about this in the late 1980s that was to be published by a major publisher that was bought out and the book project dropped. In short, take away the "conspiracy" and you still have the same develoments, just perhaps retarded by the "retarded" response by p olicy makers. And, oh yes, the Parisians are trying to replace the circumferential rail system they destroyed in the 1950s, Sweden has now reintroduced private and public buses (and some rail service) to replace the intercity systems that decayed through the 1970s, and the US, well.. that's another story. >>> richmond@alum.mit.edu 4/6/2006 10:32:32 AM >>> While your other points are well-made, there are questions about the so-called GM conspiracy to buy up electric railways. The reason for this activity was that railways were losing money. True, GM wanted to sell buses, but the natural conversion from an efficiency point of view was from rail to buses. Even without GM's activities, the railways would have gone out of existence without government intervention, which was certainly not available at the time. --Jonathan ----- Jonathan Richmond Visiting Scholar Department of Urban Planning and Design Graduate School of Design Harvard University 312 George Gund Hall 48 Quincy St. Cambridge MA 02138-3000 Mailing address: 182 Palfrey St. Watertown MA 02472-1835 (617) 395-4360 e-mail: richmond@alum.mit.edu http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. From whook at itdp.org Fri Apr 7 02:39:40 2006 From: whook at itdp.org (Whook) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 11:39:40 -0600 Subject: [sustran] Re: Conspiracy or fate? Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060406/9f0d220a/attachment.html From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Fri Apr 7 16:04:17 2006 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (Eric Britton) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 09:04:17 +0200 Subject: [sustran] UK Congestion charge chiefs may profit from a Swedish lesson Message-ID: <028101c65a11$7daea820$6501a8c0@Home> The Times April 06, 2006 Congestion charge chiefs may profit from a Swedish lesson By Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent AN INTELLIGENT congestion charging system pioneered in Stockholm, in which tolls vary according to the time of day and charges are automatically deducted from a driver?s bank account, is being considered for London. Transport for London (TfL) is sending a team to the Swedish capital to study the system with a view to adopting it in 2009. Stockholm?s system has cut twice as much traffic as Ken Livingstone?s scheme, despite drivers paying an average of only ?2 a day. The Mayor of London raised the flat-rate daily charge by 60 per cent to ?8 last summer but this failed to reduce traffic further. Stockholm charges drivers each time they cross the city boundary. The toll starts at 75p between 6.30am and 7am and rises to a maximum of ?1.50 between 7.30am and 8.30am. It is capped at ?5 per day but most drivers pay less than half that because they cross the boundary only twice, once on the way in to work and once on the way home. Drivers in London have to remember to pay each day and can do so at a shop, by text message, online or by ringing a call centre. In Stockholm, more than 60 per cent of drivers have a credit card-sized electronic tag fitted on the windscreen behind the rear-view mirror. This is read electronically by beacons on overhead gantries that straddle the road at 18 points of entry to the city. Screens on the gantries display the amount that will be charged at that time. The system deducts payments from drivers? bank accounts by direct debit and issues monthly statements showing the time of each crossing and the fee paid. The tags are issued free and more than 420,000 drivers have fitted them since the scheme began on January 3. Those who do not have tags are given five days to pay by post or at a shop. After that they are fined ?5, which rises to ?40 after four weeks. In London the ?8 charge rises to ?10 if it is not paid by 10pm on the day a driver enters the charging zone. If it is still not paid by midnight the driver incurs a ?50 fine that rises to ?150 after 28 days. The two cities have the same number of drivers entering the charging zone each day but drivers in London are five times more likely to be fined. Mr Livingstone receives ?70 million a year in fines, which accounts for more than half the annual profit from the scheme. Maria Svanelind, special adviser to Stockholm?s mayor, Annika Billstrom, said: ?We have learnt from London?s mistakes and have a more modern system which the motorist sees as fair. We do not want to penalise people for forgetting to pay. We recognise that it sometimes takes a while to get round to remembering.? Stockholm will have a referendum on September 17 to decide whether the scheme should continue. Ms Svanelind said: ?People will have had six months to judge whether they like the scheme. If they vote no, we will remove it. But we think most see the benefits of less congested roads.? Olaf Sandstrom, a journalist for Stockholm?s Dagens Industri newspaper, said public opinion had initially been strongly against the scheme but was now more evenly balanced. More than 2,000 people in Stockholm now drive to work earlier to be at their desks before charges begin at 6.30am. As in London, the profits from the scheme are reinvested in transport. But Stockholm plans to spend a significant proportion on new roads, whereas Mr Livingstone has spent most of the proceeds on extra buses. TfL is conducting a six-month trial in Southwark involving 500 vehicles equipped with tags and 19 gantries with electronic beacons. Morten Bratlie, for Q Free, the Norwegian company that supplied the technology in Stockholm, said it had developed a new type of gantry which resembled a lamp post. ?It stretches out a bit further over the road than a normal lamp post but it is reasonably discreet. The beacon and the cameras for reading the numberplates can be hidden inside.? Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2120871,00.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060407/55622882/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 73 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060407/55622882/attachment.gif -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 73 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060407/55622882/attachment-0001.gif From sksunny at gmail.com Fri Apr 7 17:25:00 2006 From: sksunny at gmail.com (Sunny) Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2006 15:25:00 +0700 Subject: [sustran] Re: UK Congestion charge chiefs may profit from a Swedishlesson Message-ID: <443621DC.3030805@gmail.com> It is very nice that Stockholm has benefited so much from congestion charging but one thing that troubles me is the reinvestment of the money into roads. If there is a study on the modal shift and the demand for other modes of travel since the charging system was introduced, then the investment could be diverted to such other means instead of roads again. It will be great to see the people of Stockholm voting "YES" for the system. I would have done that if I was there. Stockholm can be a very good case study for congestion charging. I would be glad if any one can provide me details of any publications that can highlight the mistakes that London made and what alternatives Stockholm has adopted to overcome these mistakes. Cheers, Sunny Eric Britton wrote: > > As in London, the profits from the scheme are reinvested in transport. > But Stockholm plans to spend a significant proportion on new roads, > whereas Mr Livingstone has spent most of the proceeds on extra buses. > > TfL is conducting a six-month trial in Southwark involving 500 > vehicles equipped with tags and 19 gantries with electronic beacons. > > Ms Svanelind said: "People will have had six months to judge whether they like the scheme. If they vote no, we will remove it. But we think most see the > benefits of less congested roads." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060407/7df12ade/attachment.html From sutp at sutp.org Fri Apr 7 17:43:45 2006 From: sutp at sutp.org (sutp) Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 15:43:45 +0700 Subject: [sustran] Re: Bus Segregation, Car equivalents of BUS In-Reply-To: <20060404131935.99394.qmail@web33702.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200604070842.k378glkQ032071@ns-omrbm6.netsolmail.com> Hello Kiran, The concept of passenger car equivalent (PCE) has also been documented in Highway Capacity Manual (2000) from the U.S. It lists PCEs of buses/trucks for various highway facilities, such as Freeways, Multilane highways, Signalized intersections, etc. The numbers were based on surveys done in the US. However, one should be cautious in applying the numbers to other geographical region, because many things are different including traffic conditions, driver behaviors, technology, new buses Vs old buses, etc. Regarding the Segregation of Bus Lane, I?d like to recommend an article named ?Public Transport Reforms in Seoul: Innovations Motivated by Funding Crisis? by Pucher et al, Journal of Public Transportation, Vol.8, No. 5, 2005. It contains the before - after studies of the Seoul Bus Reform project, and particularly compared the speeds of buses and cars on three major streets that recently utilize a central bus-only lane. When buses are segregated, both speeds of buses and cars improved. Two reasons: 1. The increase in bus operating speed attracts more passengers: some travelers switched from driving their own car to taking buses. 2. When bus operation mix with normal traffic, buses tend to run erratically crossing from lanes to lanes. Many times, they stop to board and alight passenger on the center lane or even the median lane, causing a temporarily bottleneck on the street section. Segregate bus operation therefore terminates the traffic interruptions from buses. Best Regards, Thirayoot _____ From: sustran-discuss-bounces+sutp=sutp.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+sutp=sutp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of B Sriram Sent: 4 ?????? 2549 20:20 To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org Subject: [sustran] Bus Segregation, Car equivalents of BUS Hello All, I am new member to this group. I am research student from India. It is said that a BUS is equivalent to 3 passenger cars. But I also find there is lot of debate on this value. Can anyone suggest what values should be taken? I have also read some reports about Bagota, and also some discussions in this group, which suggest that segregation of buses helps improve regular traffic as well as buses as they get dedicated lanes. How can I quantify that this segregation indeed improves the regular traffic ? Are there any published reports which can justify this. My main constraint is space. I will have to extract a lane from the existing carraigeway as it is bound by private property. Thanks Kiran Research Student Ahmedabad India _____ Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1?/min. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060407/97ab2aa3/attachment.html From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Sat Apr 8 22:30:07 2006 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (Eric Britton) Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2006 15:30:07 +0200 Subject: [sustran] "It would actually be quite nice if the American ambassador in Britain could . . . Message-ID: <008901c65b10$94c7bc40$6501a8c0@Home> -----Original Message----- From: Sunny [mailto:sksunny@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 3:05 PM To: eric.britton@ecoplan.org Subject: Re: "It would actually be quite nice . . . Dear Eric, It would be very nice if you can even post the same message even in the Sustrans forum or if you can allow me to post it there I can do it on your behalf. I agree to your idea and the embassy needs to pay the fine. But one thing i don't understand is does the law separate the diplomatic community from the regular law, I am sorry if the question is too naive but i don't have much exposure to the law system. Sunny Eric Britton wrote on Fri 4/7/2006 5:22 PM: "It would actually be quite nice if the American ambassador in Britain could pay the charge that everybody else is paying and not actually try and skive out of it like some chiselling little crook," "When British troops are putting their lives on the line for American foreign policy, it would be quite nice if they paid the congestion charge. "We will find a way of getting them into court either here or in America. We are not going to have them skive out of their responsibilities." Ken Livingston. Mayor of London. quoted in BBC.CO.UK Okay. We, the government of the United Sates of America, my government, a government of the people, the richest nation in the world, who are invading countries without a real game plan and leaving utter chaos in our wake. We who are refusing to cooperate with the Kyoto Treaty while having an "environmental program" that is in utter shambles. Who refuse to recognize the International Court of Justice. We who are abridging the human rights of suspects without refer to the Geneva Convention or our own laws. We who are passing taxes in our own land that soak the poor and bring relief to the highest income groups in the land. We who are - and without blinking an eye -- the world's largest market for drugs of all kinds and ready to make war on supply while we just shrug at demand, and who are effectively doing nothing before the challenges of surging oil prices other than topping up profits of those who need them least. All of that is normal. I guess. But when a representative of the United States government acts like a "a chiseling little crook" (these are my words as an American citizen, voter, volunteer soldier ready in defense of my country, and later peace worker in Vietnam) as has been the case recently with US refusal to pay the Congestion Charge in London, I really have to conclude that something is terribly wrong. It's not that I think that the London scheme is all that it could and should be, but for my government to give aggressive evidence of extreme antisocial behavior in this one small hopeful thing, instead of just paying up and shutting up, I have to take pen in hand and share these words of total disagreement with you. So thank you Ken Livingstone for your most justified remarks. And do not give in! Make the bums pay like everyone else. That is what democracy is all about. (Dear Friends. Please forgive this rant, since this is not quite what the New Mobility Agenda is about. But I have never done this before and I hope you understand why this, small as it may seem to be, was simply one straw too much.) Eric Britton London mayor goes after US embassy for tolls Financial Times By Christopher Adams in London Updated: 12:16 a.m. ET March 28, 2006 London's mayor on Monday accused the US ambassador to the UK of behaving "like a chiselling little crook" in a spat over the embassy's refusal to pay the city's road toll. Ken Livingstone, the famously outspoken left-wing mayor and long-standing critic of American foreign policy, delivered his latest outburst during a television interview. His assault on Robert Tuttle was prompted by the long-running dispute over the embassy's refusal to pay the congestion charge, a toll that is levied on those driving through central London during business hours. American diplomats have refused to pay the ?8 a day toll since last July, racking up many tens of thousands of pounds in unpaid charges. The embassy is believed to have about one hundred cars and fines for each day of non-payment can be as much ?150 a vehicle. The embassy argues the charge is a tax and that diplomats are exempt. Mr Livingstone, something of a stranger to diplomatic niceties, said: "It would actually be quite nice if the American ambassador in Britain could pay the charge that everybody else is paying and not actually try and skive out of it like a chiselling little crook." Earlier, he had told reporters: "When British troops are putting their lives on the line for American foreign policy, it would be quite nice if they paid the congestion charge." The mayor's remarks were only his latest brush with controversy. He is already appealing a decision by a disciplinary panel to suspend him from office for four weeks after he compared a Jewish journalist to a concentration camp guard. Last week he said two property tycoons with whom he has fallen out over the development of the 2012 London Olympics should "go back to Iran", though they are Indian-bron of Iraqi-Jewish parents. He was re-admitted to Tony Blair's Labour party two years ago after being expelled for standing against its official candidate in the first London mayoral elections. A spokesman for the embassy said: "The mayor has a tendency to hyperbole. I'm not going to dignify that." Copyright The Financial Times Ltd. All rights reserved. US Embassy must pay C-charge US Embassy owes ?160,000 in unpaid charges American diplomats are not legally entitled to refuse to pay London's congestion charge, according to advice from lawyers. US ambassador Robert Holmes Tuttle told his staff to stop paying last July and claim diplomatic immunity, which gives them protection against paying taxes. But legal advice to Transport for London says the US embassy is wrong to do this and points to the fact that American diplomats haven't refused to pay under similar schemes in Singapore and Oslo, in Norway. Now, following the detailed legal advice, Transport for London will ask the Americans to reconsider their position. US embassy staff currently owe more than ?160,000 in unpaid congestion charges in London. A US embassy spokesman said diplomats in Stockholm are exempt from paying the congestion charge there. The spokesman added: 'The U.S. Department of State remains convinced that the charge in London is an impermissable tax and diplomatic missions are not liable for payment of such taxes to host governments under the terms of the Vienna Convention.' However, the UK government has already made it clear to the US that the congestion charge is not a tax and that it decides what is and what is not a tax in this country. British diplomats pay road tolls in the United States and Transport for London's legal advice makes it clear that the US Embassy's diplomats must pay as London's congestion charge is not a tax. A Transport for London spokesman said: 'The congestion charging scheme gives no privileges to any VIPs, including the Mayor, MPs, London Assembly Members or councillors, therefore we believe diplomats should pay. 'British diplomats respect US laws, US diplomats should respect UK laws.' Press Release UAE Embassy settles congestion charge fees 6-4-2006 201 The Embassy of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has agreed that its diplomats in London should pay the Congestion Charge, and has reached a deal to clear a backlog of charges. After discussions with Transport for London, the UAE has paid ?99,950.00 for outstanding congestion charge fines accrued by the Embassy from February 2003 to March 2006. In a letter to TfL, the Embassy said: "I can assure you that every effort will be made in the future for all diplomats working for this Embassy to pay any congestion charges as and when they occur." The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said: "All Londoners will welcome this settlement with the Embassy of the United Arab Emirates and, in particular, their commitment to comply with the congestion charging scheme in the future. "The congestion charge is designed to reduce congestion in the busiest areas of the capital. "Those embassies, such as that of the United States, which flout the laws of this country and misuse diplomatic immunity to evade the charge are enjoying the benefits of reduced congestion but contributing nothing." "British diplomats respect US law when in the US. They pay American tolls on bridges and roads. The US Embassy should accept the advice of the British government and recognise that by trying to ignore this country's laws they do nothing but damage their standing in the eyes of London's citizens. "I hope they will now take a leaf from the United Arab Emirates and understand that as the richest and most powerful country in the world they can well afford to respect this country's laws." Malcolm Murray-Clark, Director of Congestion Charging said: "The congestion charging scheme gives no privileges to any VIPs, so we do not see why diplomats should not pay. The UAE has now joined the majority of other countries who accept this is a legitimate charge." Notes to Editors 1. Both the Government and TfL have received consistent legal advice which says that diplomats are not exempt from paying the congestion charge. We have the support of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and eminent members of HM Queen's Counsel. 2. In November last year, the Foreign Secretary, the Rt Hon Jack Straw MP told the House of Commons in answering a written question that: "We informed all missions by Note Verbale in March 2002 of our sustained view that there were no legal grounds to exempt diplomatic missions from payment of the congestion charge. Since then, in formal and informal exchanges, we have informed missions of our view that the congestion charge does not constitute a form of direct taxation under the Vienna Convention, but is a charge analogous to a motorway toll, and that they are expected to pay." 3. On 24th January 2006, Lord Triesman, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State within the Foreign Office told the House of Lords: "My Lords, we take every opportunity to remind diplomatic missions to meet their obligations to comply with United Kingdom law and pay promptly any fines that they incur. Following the annual Written Ministerial Statement on parking and congestion charge penalties on 12 December, we will now formally approach the heads of mission of the top 10 offenders in each category to find out what steps they are taking to pay. We will then take further action as appropriate". 4. All UK missions are expected to pay any road tolls and any parking charges. 5. Support for this approach has come from both this country and the US. 6. In an editorial on March 31st 2006, The New York Times said: "We don't buy the idea that diplomats are immune to the surcharge". The New York Times editorial concludes: "Mr. Livingstone is certainly within his rights to demand payment, which may now amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars, including fines". -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 14100 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060408/63a8d2d3/winmail.bin From richmond at alum.mit.edu Sat Apr 8 23:10:29 2006 From: richmond at alum.mit.edu (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2006 10:10:29 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Subject: [sustran] Re: "It would actually be quite nice if the American ambassador in Britain could . . . In-Reply-To: <008901c65b10$94c7bc40$6501a8c0@Home> References: <008901c65b10$94c7bc40$6501a8c0@Home> Message-ID: I find Eric Britton's reply entirely inappropriate. Ken Livingstone has been referred for disciplinary action for calling the US Ambassador a "chiselling little crook." This follows an initial action, where he was disciplined for making antisemitic remarks (that Livingstone is a racist is well-known in the UK). His behavior is quite unacceptable for anyone in political office. Diplomats enjoy certain immunities worldwide. Whether or not this is appropriate, it is a matter of international convention. So to call the Ambassador a "chiselling little crook" for exercising his international rights is simply inappropriate. I find Livingstone to be a disgusting person, and I do hope that he is removed from office as soon as possible. He has certainly done some good things for Transport, but there are others who can build on this without feeling the need to utter insults -- often of a racist nature -- as a regular feature of the job --Jonathan On Sat, 8 Apr 2006, Eric Britton wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: Sunny [mailto:sksunny@gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 3:05 PM > To: eric.britton@ecoplan.org > Subject: Re: "It would actually be quite nice . . . > > Dear Eric, > > It would be very nice if you can even post the same message even in the > Sustrans forum or if you can allow me to post it there I can do it on > your behalf. I agree to your idea and the embassy needs to pay the fine. > But one thing i don't understand is does the law separate the diplomatic > community from the regular law, I am sorry if the question is too naive > but i don't have much exposure to the law system. > > Sunny > > > Eric Britton wrote on Fri 4/7/2006 5:22 PM: > > =09=09"It would actually be quite nice if the American ambassador > in Britain could pay the charge that everybody else is paying and not > actually try and skive out of it like some chiselling little crook," > =09=09"When British troops are putting their lives on the line for > American foreign policy, it would be quite nice if they paid the congesti= on > charge. > =09=09"We will find a way of getting them into court either here > or in America. We are not going to have them skive out of their > responsibilities." > =09=09Ken Livingston. Mayor of London. quoted in BBC.CO.UK > > Okay. We, the government of the United Sates of America, my government, a > government of the people, the richest nation in the world, who are invadi= ng > countries without a real game plan and leaving utter chaos in our wake. W= e > who are refusing to cooperate with the Kyoto Treaty while having an > "environmental program" that is in utter shambles. Who refuse to recogniz= e > the International Court of Justice. We who are abridging the human rights= of > suspects without refer to the Geneva Convention or our own laws. We who a= re > passing taxes in our own land that soak the poor and bring relief to the > highest income groups in the land. We who are - and without blinking an e= ye > -- the world's largest market for drugs of all kinds and ready to make wa= r > on supply while we just shrug at demand, and who are effectively doing > nothing before the challenges of surging oil prices other than topping up > profits of those who need them least. All of that is normal. I guess. > > But when a representative of the United States government acts like a "a > chiseling little crook" (these are my words as an American citizen, voter= , > volunteer soldier ready in defense of my country, and later peace worker = in > Vietnam) as has been the case recently with US refusal to pay the Congest= ion > Charge in London, I really have to conclude that something is terribly > wrong. It's not that I think that the London scheme is all that it could = and > should be, but for my government to give aggressive evidence of extreme > antisocial behavior in this one small hopeful thing, instead of just payi= ng > up and shutting up, I have to take pen in hand and share these words of > total disagreement with you. > > So thank you Ken Livingstone for your most justified remarks. And do not > give in! Make the bums pay like everyone else. That is what democracy is > all about. > > (Dear Friends. Please forgive this rant, since this is not quite what the > New Mobility Agenda is about. But I have never done this before and I hop= e > you understand why this, small as it may seem to be, was simply one straw > too much.) > > Eric Britton > > > > London mayor goes after US embassy for tolls > Financial Times > > By Christopher Adams in London > > Updated: 12:16 a.m. ET March 28, 2006 > London's mayor on Monday accused the US ambassador to the UK of behaving > "like a chiselling little crook" in a spat over the embassy's refusal to = pay > the city's road toll. > Ken Livingstone, the famously outspoken left-wing mayor and long-standing > critic of American foreign policy, delivered his latest outburst during a > television interview. His assault on Robert Tuttle was prompted by the > long-running dispute over the embassy's refusal to pay the congestion > charge, a toll that is levied on those driving through central London dur= ing > business hours. > American diplomats have refused to pay the =A38 a day toll since last Jul= y, > racking up many tens of thousands of pounds in unpaid charges. The embass= y > is believed to have about one hundred cars and fines for each day of > non-payment can be as much =A3150 a vehicle. The embassy argues the charg= e is > a tax and that diplomats are exempt. > Mr Livingstone, something of a stranger to diplomatic niceties, said: "It > would actually be quite nice if the American ambassador in Britain could = pay > the charge that everybody else is paying and not actually try and skive o= ut > of it like a chiselling little crook." > Earlier, he had told reporters: "When British troops are putting their li= ves > on the line for American foreign policy, it would be quite nice if they p= aid > the congestion charge." > The mayor's remarks were only his latest brush with controversy. He is > already appealing a decision by a disciplinary panel to suspend him from > office for four weeks after he compared a Jewish journalist to a > concentration camp guard. Last week he said two property tycoons with who= m > he has fallen out over the development of the 2012 London Olympics should > "go back to Iran", though they are Indian-bron of Iraqi-Jewish parents. > He was re-admitted to Tony Blair's Labour party two years ago after being > expelled for standing against its official candidate in the first London > mayoral elections. A spokesman for the embassy said: "The mayor has a > tendency to hyperbole. I'm not going to dignify that." > Copyright The Financial Times Ltd. All rights reserved. > > > US Embassy must pay C-charge > US Embassy owes =A3160,000 in unpaid charges > American diplomats are not legally entitled to refuse to pay London's > congestion charge, according to advice from lawyers. > US ambassador Robert Holmes Tuttle told his staff to stop paying last Jul= y > and claim diplomatic immunity, which gives them protection against paying > taxes. > But legal advice to Transport for London says the US embassy is wrong to = do > this and points to the fact that American diplomats haven't refused to pa= y > under similar schemes in Singapore and Oslo, in Norway. > Now, following the detailed legal advice, Transport for London will ask t= he > Americans to reconsider their position. > US embassy staff currently owe more than =A3160,000 in unpaid congestion > charges in London. > A US embassy spokesman said diplomats in Stockholm are exempt from paying > the congestion charge there. The spokesman added: 'The U.S. Department of > State remains convinced that the charge in London is an impermissable tax > and diplomatic missions are not liable for payment of such taxes to host > governments under the terms of the Vienna Convention.' > However, the UK government has already made it clear to the US that the > congestion charge is not a tax and that it decides what is and what is no= t a > tax in this country. > British diplomats pay road tolls in the United States and Transport for > London's legal advice makes it clear that the US Embassy's diplomats must > pay as London's congestion charge is not a tax. > A Transport for London spokesman said: 'The congestion charging scheme gi= ves > no privileges to any VIPs, including the Mayor, MPs, London Assembly Memb= ers > or councillors, therefore we believe diplomats should pay. > 'British diplomats respect US laws, US diplomats should respect UK laws.' > > Press Release > UAE Embassy settles congestion charge fees > 6-4-2006 201 > The Embassy of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has agreed that its diploma= ts > in London should pay the Congestion Charge, and has reached a deal to cle= ar > a backlog of charges. > After discussions with Transport for London, the UAE has paid =A399,950.0= 0 for > outstanding congestion charge fines accrued by the Embassy from February > 2003 to March 2006. > In a letter to TfL, the Embassy said: "I can assure you that every effort > will be made in the future for all diplomats working for this Embassy to = pay > any congestion charges as and when they occur." > The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said: "All Londoners will welcome t= his > settlement with the Embassy of the United Arab Emirates and, in particula= r, > their commitment to comply with the congestion charging scheme in the > future. > "The congestion charge is designed to reduce congestion in the busiest ar= eas > of the capital. > "Those embassies, such as that of the United States, which flout the laws= of > this country and misuse diplomatic immunity to evade the charge are enjoy= ing > the benefits of reduced congestion but contributing nothing." > "British diplomats respect US law when in the US. They pay American tolls= on > bridges and roads. The US Embassy should accept the advice of the British > government and recognise that by trying to ignore this country's laws the= y > do nothing but damage their standing in the eyes of London's citizens. > "I hope they will now take a leaf from the United Arab Emirates and > understand that as the richest and most powerful country in the world the= y > can well afford to respect this country's laws." > Malcolm Murray-Clark, Director of Congestion Charging said: "The congesti= on > charging scheme gives no privileges to any VIPs, so we do not see why > diplomats should not pay. The UAE has now joined the majority of other > countries who accept this is a legitimate charge." > Notes to Editors > 1.=09Both the Government and TfL have received consistent legal advice > which says that diplomats are not exempt from paying the congestion charg= e. > We have the support of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and eminent > members of HM Queen's Counsel. > 2.=09In November last year, the Foreign Secretary, the Rt Hon Jack Straw > MP told the House of Commons in answering a written question that: > "We informed all missions by Note Verbale in March 2002 of our sustained > view that there were no legal grounds to exempt diplomatic missions from > payment of the congestion charge. Since then, in formal and informal > exchanges, we have informed missions of our view that the congestion char= ge > does not constitute a form of direct taxation under the Vienna Convention= , > but is a charge analogous to a motorway toll, and that they are expected = to > pay." > 3.=09On 24th January 2006, Lord Triesman, the Parliamentary > Under-Secretary of State within the Foreign Office told the House of Lord= s: > "My Lords, we take every opportunity to remind diplomatic missions to mee= t > their obligations to comply with United Kingdom law and pay promptly any > fines that they incur. Following the annual Written Ministerial Statement= on > parking and congestion charge penalties on 12 December, we will now forma= lly > approach the heads of mission of the top 10 offenders in each category to > find out what steps they are taking to pay. We will then take further act= ion > as appropriate". > 4.=09All UK missions are expected to pay any road tolls and any parking > charges. > 5.=09Support for this approach has come from both this country and the > US. > 6.=09In an editorial on March 31st 2006, The New York Times said: "We > don't buy the idea that diplomats are immune to the surcharge". The New > York Times editorial concludes: "Mr. Livingstone is certainly within his > rights to demand payment, which may now amount to hundreds of thousands o= f > dollars, including fines". > > > ----- Jonathan Richmond Visiting Scholar Department of Urban Planning and Design Graduate School of Design Harvard University 312 George Gund Hall 48 Quincy St. Cambridge MA 02138-3000 Mailing address: 182 Palfrey St. Watertown MA 02472-1835 (617) 395-4360 e-mail: richmond@alum.mit.edu http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ From richmond at alum.mit.edu Sat Apr 8 23:10:29 2006 From: richmond at alum.mit.edu (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2006 10:10:29 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Subject: [sustran] Re: "It would actually be quite nice if the American ambassador in Britain could . . . In-Reply-To: <008901c65b10$94c7bc40$6501a8c0@Home> References: <008901c65b10$94c7bc40$6501a8c0@Home> Message-ID: I find Eric Britton's reply entirely inappropriate. Ken Livingstone has been referred for disciplinary action for calling the US Ambassador a "chiselling little crook." This follows an initial action, where he was disciplined for making antisemitic remarks (that Livingstone is a racist is well-known in the UK). His behavior is quite unacceptable for anyone in political office. Diplomats enjoy certain immunities worldwide. Whether or not this is appropriate, it is a matter of international convention. So to call the Ambassador a "chiselling little crook" for exercising his international rights is simply inappropriate. I find Livingstone to be a disgusting person, and I do hope that he is removed from office as soon as possible. He has certainly done some good things for Transport, but there are others who can build on this without feeling the need to utter insults -- often of a racist nature -- as a regular feature of the job --Jonathan On Sat, 8 Apr 2006, Eric Britton wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: Sunny [mailto:sksunny@gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 3:05 PM > To: eric.britton@ecoplan.org > Subject: Re: "It would actually be quite nice . . . > > Dear Eric, > > It would be very nice if you can even post the same message even in the > Sustrans forum or if you can allow me to post it there I can do it on > your behalf. I agree to your idea and the embassy needs to pay the fine. > But one thing i don't understand is does the law separate the diplomatic > community from the regular law, I am sorry if the question is too naive > but i don't have much exposure to the law system. > > Sunny > > > Eric Britton wrote on Fri 4/7/2006 5:22 PM: > > =09=09"It would actually be quite nice if the American ambassador > in Britain could pay the charge that everybody else is paying and not > actually try and skive out of it like some chiselling little crook," > =09=09"When British troops are putting their lives on the line for > American foreign policy, it would be quite nice if they paid the congesti= on > charge. > =09=09"We will find a way of getting them into court either here > or in America. We are not going to have them skive out of their > responsibilities." > =09=09Ken Livingston. Mayor of London. quoted in BBC.CO.UK > > Okay. We, the government of the United Sates of America, my government, a > government of the people, the richest nation in the world, who are invadi= ng > countries without a real game plan and leaving utter chaos in our wake. W= e > who are refusing to cooperate with the Kyoto Treaty while having an > "environmental program" that is in utter shambles. Who refuse to recogniz= e > the International Court of Justice. We who are abridging the human rights= of > suspects without refer to the Geneva Convention or our own laws. We who a= re > passing taxes in our own land that soak the poor and bring relief to the > highest income groups in the land. We who are - and without blinking an e= ye > -- the world's largest market for drugs of all kinds and ready to make wa= r > on supply while we just shrug at demand, and who are effectively doing > nothing before the challenges of surging oil prices other than topping up > profits of those who need them least. All of that is normal. I guess. > > But when a representative of the United States government acts like a "a > chiseling little crook" (these are my words as an American citizen, voter= , > volunteer soldier ready in defense of my country, and later peace worker = in > Vietnam) as has been the case recently with US refusal to pay the Congest= ion > Charge in London, I really have to conclude that something is terribly > wrong. It's not that I think that the London scheme is all that it could = and > should be, but for my government to give aggressive evidence of extreme > antisocial behavior in this one small hopeful thing, instead of just payi= ng > up and shutting up, I have to take pen in hand and share these words of > total disagreement with you. > > So thank you Ken Livingstone for your most justified remarks. And do not > give in! Make the bums pay like everyone else. That is what democracy is > all about. > > (Dear Friends. Please forgive this rant, since this is not quite what the > New Mobility Agenda is about. But I have never done this before and I hop= e > you understand why this, small as it may seem to be, was simply one straw > too much.) > > Eric Britton > > > > London mayor goes after US embassy for tolls > Financial Times > > By Christopher Adams in London > > Updated: 12:16 a.m. ET March 28, 2006 > London's mayor on Monday accused the US ambassador to the UK of behaving > "like a chiselling little crook" in a spat over the embassy's refusal to = pay > the city's road toll. > Ken Livingstone, the famously outspoken left-wing mayor and long-standing > critic of American foreign policy, delivered his latest outburst during a > television interview. His assault on Robert Tuttle was prompted by the > long-running dispute over the embassy's refusal to pay the congestion > charge, a toll that is levied on those driving through central London dur= ing > business hours. > American diplomats have refused to pay the =A38 a day toll since last Jul= y, > racking up many tens of thousands of pounds in unpaid charges. The embass= y > is believed to have about one hundred cars and fines for each day of > non-payment can be as much =A3150 a vehicle. The embassy argues the charg= e is > a tax and that diplomats are exempt. > Mr Livingstone, something of a stranger to diplomatic niceties, said: "It > would actually be quite nice if the American ambassador in Britain could = pay > the charge that everybody else is paying and not actually try and skive o= ut > of it like a chiselling little crook." > Earlier, he had told reporters: "When British troops are putting their li= ves > on the line for American foreign policy, it would be quite nice if they p= aid > the congestion charge." > The mayor's remarks were only his latest brush with controversy. He is > already appealing a decision by a disciplinary panel to suspend him from > office for four weeks after he compared a Jewish journalist to a > concentration camp guard. Last week he said two property tycoons with who= m > he has fallen out over the development of the 2012 London Olympics should > "go back to Iran", though they are Indian-bron of Iraqi-Jewish parents. > He was re-admitted to Tony Blair's Labour party two years ago after being > expelled for standing against its official candidate in the first London > mayoral elections. A spokesman for the embassy said: "The mayor has a > tendency to hyperbole. I'm not going to dignify that." > Copyright The Financial Times Ltd. All rights reserved. > > > US Embassy must pay C-charge > US Embassy owes =A3160,000 in unpaid charges > American diplomats are not legally entitled to refuse to pay London's > congestion charge, according to advice from lawyers. > US ambassador Robert Holmes Tuttle told his staff to stop paying last Jul= y > and claim diplomatic immunity, which gives them protection against paying > taxes. > But legal advice to Transport for London says the US embassy is wrong to = do > this and points to the fact that American diplomats haven't refused to pa= y > under similar schemes in Singapore and Oslo, in Norway. > Now, following the detailed legal advice, Transport for London will ask t= he > Americans to reconsider their position. > US embassy staff currently owe more than =A3160,000 in unpaid congestion > charges in London. > A US embassy spokesman said diplomats in Stockholm are exempt from paying > the congestion charge there. The spokesman added: 'The U.S. Department of > State remains convinced that the charge in London is an impermissable tax > and diplomatic missions are not liable for payment of such taxes to host > governments under the terms of the Vienna Convention.' > However, the UK government has already made it clear to the US that the > congestion charge is not a tax and that it decides what is and what is no= t a > tax in this country. > British diplomats pay road tolls in the United States and Transport for > London's legal advice makes it clear that the US Embassy's diplomats must > pay as London's congestion charge is not a tax. > A Transport for London spokesman said: 'The congestion charging scheme gi= ves > no privileges to any VIPs, including the Mayor, MPs, London Assembly Memb= ers > or councillors, therefore we believe diplomats should pay. > 'British diplomats respect US laws, US diplomats should respect UK laws.' > > Press Release > UAE Embassy settles congestion charge fees > 6-4-2006 201 > The Embassy of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has agreed that its diploma= ts > in London should pay the Congestion Charge, and has reached a deal to cle= ar > a backlog of charges. > After discussions with Transport for London, the UAE has paid =A399,950.0= 0 for > outstanding congestion charge fines accrued by the Embassy from February > 2003 to March 2006. > In a letter to TfL, the Embassy said: "I can assure you that every effort > will be made in the future for all diplomats working for this Embassy to = pay > any congestion charges as and when they occur." > The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said: "All Londoners will welcome t= his > settlement with the Embassy of the United Arab Emirates and, in particula= r, > their commitment to comply with the congestion charging scheme in the > future. > "The congestion charge is designed to reduce congestion in the busiest ar= eas > of the capital. > "Those embassies, such as that of the United States, which flout the laws= of > this country and misuse diplomatic immunity to evade the charge are enjoy= ing > the benefits of reduced congestion but contributing nothing." > "British diplomats respect US law when in the US. They pay American tolls= on > bridges and roads. The US Embassy should accept the advice of the British > government and recognise that by trying to ignore this country's laws the= y > do nothing but damage their standing in the eyes of London's citizens. > "I hope they will now take a leaf from the United Arab Emirates and > understand that as the richest and most powerful country in the world the= y > can well afford to respect this country's laws." > Malcolm Murray-Clark, Director of Congestion Charging said: "The congesti= on > charging scheme gives no privileges to any VIPs, so we do not see why > diplomats should not pay. The UAE has now joined the majority of other > countries who accept this is a legitimate charge." > Notes to Editors > 1.=09Both the Government and TfL have received consistent legal advice > which says that diplomats are not exempt from paying the congestion charg= e. > We have the support of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and eminent > members of HM Queen's Counsel. > 2.=09In November last year, the Foreign Secretary, the Rt Hon Jack Straw > MP told the House of Commons in answering a written question that: > "We informed all missions by Note Verbale in March 2002 of our sustained > view that there were no legal grounds to exempt diplomatic missions from > payment of the congestion charge. Since then, in formal and informal > exchanges, we have informed missions of our view that the congestion char= ge > does not constitute a form of direct taxation under the Vienna Convention= , > but is a charge analogous to a motorway toll, and that they are expected = to > pay." > 3.=09On 24th January 2006, Lord Triesman, the Parliamentary > Under-Secretary of State within the Foreign Office told the House of Lord= s: > "My Lords, we take every opportunity to remind diplomatic missions to mee= t > their obligations to comply with United Kingdom law and pay promptly any > fines that they incur. Following the annual Written Ministerial Statement= on > parking and congestion charge penalties on 12 December, we will now forma= lly > approach the heads of mission of the top 10 offenders in each category to > find out what steps they are taking to pay. We will then take further act= ion > as appropriate". > 4.=09All UK missions are expected to pay any road tolls and any parking > charges. > 5.=09Support for this approach has come from both this country and the > US. > 6.=09In an editorial on March 31st 2006, The New York Times said: "We > don't buy the idea that diplomats are immune to the surcharge". The New > York Times editorial concludes: "Mr. Livingstone is certainly within his > rights to demand payment, which may now amount to hundreds of thousands o= f > dollars, including fines". > > > ----- Jonathan Richmond Visiting Scholar Department of Urban Planning and Design Graduate School of Design Harvard University 312 George Gund Hall 48 Quincy St. Cambridge MA 02138-3000 Mailing address: 182 Palfrey St. Watertown MA 02472-1835 (617) 395-4360 e-mail: richmond@alum.mit.edu http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Sun Apr 9 02:09:55 2006 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (Eric Britton) Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2006 19:09:55 +0200 Subject: [sustran] "I find Eric Britton's reply entirely inappropriate." In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001c01c65b2f$4303a260$6501a8c0@Home> Dear Jonathan and dear Sustran friends, Oops and ouch! Now I remember why I have always made a point of avoiding this kind of polemic. I remember when Jonathon and Todd were going at it con brillo a bit back, and all I could think at the time is that both are doing such important work, and while a certain amount of critical dissonance is always welcome, it does not help when it becomes too personal. We have enough genuine antagonists out there who need to be dealt with in our uphill struggle for sustainability, for us to be very cautious about discrediting each other. So let me see if I can get out of this quickly so we can get on to more important things. Anyway . . . sorry everyone, but I got a bit carried away when Sunny suggested sharing this with the group. Now we are in the main rather far away from our reason for being here, but there is I rather think a deeper and still relevant logic to the point which I have obviously made with insufficient tact. Let me give this one last whack and then get back to work. Let me stick with the immediate facts at the base of my heart-felt statement, which had nothing to do with Livingstone?s past behaviour over his long, raucous, but very useful career. I was applauding the good mayor for going after the US embassy in every day language in its legalistic defense of their inalienable right not to pay a toll. (And it is a toll and not a tax.) So yes, I would like the US government to line up on this one and pay up just like you and I do in our daily lives. For reasons that you too surely appreciate. I have followed the releases on this from our Embassy and I am not impressed. From a professional, environmental and social perspective I find their behaviour more than embarrassing, and why they chose to make a ?cause celebre? of this cannot be pure accident. They and their deep pocketed oil friends who constitute the present administration are sending a message. As always when we are confronted with a difference of opinion, it is off to the dictionary, in this case Webster?s Unabridged, Second edition, which tells us this: * ?Chiseling? ? ?Obtaining of goods or money under false pretenses or misrepresentation?. Hmm. I am into the ?false pretenses? bit here. Let me see, if I like Mr. Tuttle had made my fortune in the car business, and was part of a political network that was strongly opposed to anything that might in anyway hinder the ?old mobility? car-based oil-based system, and I had a shot at it, I surely would try to find a way to undermine any sort of policy which might spread like a (benevolent) virus. And being a ?diplomat? (as it were. . . I rather think a political appointee of the current president), I would seek to do this on legalistic grounds. And there you have it. Finally. . . as to Ken?s doing ?good things for transport?. Well, good and less good. But hey! that?s what mayors do, at best. It?s a big, complicated and conflicted world out there, and when it comes to sustainable mobility by any name we, the main proponents of these policies, still have quite some way to go before we have made it easy for them. Which is indeed our job. So, if I may: Now back to transport and better and softer cities. If you want to tangle more on this Jonathan, may I respectfully suggest we do it in private? Warm regards, Eric Britton I find Eric Britton's reply entirely inappropriate. Ken Livingstone has been referred for disciplinary action for calling the US Ambassador a "chiselling little crook." This follows an initial action, where he was disciplined for making antisemitic remarks (that Livingstone is a racist is well-known in the UK). His behavior is quite unacceptable for anyone in political office. Diplomats enjoy certain immunities worldwide. Whether or not this is appropriate, it is a matter of international convention. So to call the Ambassador a "chiselling little crook" for exercising his international rights is simply inappropriate. I find Livingstone to be a disgusting person, and I do hope that he is removed from office as soon as possible. He has certainly done some good things for Transport, but there are others who can build on this without feeling the need to utter insults -- often of a racist nature -- as a regular feature of the job --Jonathan ----- Jonathan Richmond Visiting Scholar Department of Urban Planning and Design Graduate School of Design Harvard University 312 George Gund Hall 48 Quincy St. Cambridge MA 02138-3000 Mailing address: 182 Palfrey St. Watertown MA 02472-1835 (617) 395-4360 e-mail: richmond@alum.mit.edu http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ On Sat, 8 Apr 2006, Eric Britton wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: Sunny [mailto:sksunny@gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 3:05 PM > To: eric.britton@ecoplan.org > Subject: Re: "It would actually be quite nice . . . > > Dear Eric, > > It would be very nice if you can even post the same message even in > the Sustrans forum or if you can allow me to post it there I can do it > on your behalf. I agree to your idea and the embassy needs to pay the > fine. But one thing i don't understand is does the law separate the > diplomatic community from the regular law, I am sorry if the question > is too naive but i don't have much exposure to the law system. > > Sunny > > > Eric Britton wrote on Fri 4/7/2006 5:22 PM: > > "It would actually be quite nice if the American ambassador in > Britain could pay the charge that everybody else is paying and not > actually try and skive out of it like some chiselling little crook," > "When British troops are putting their lives on the line for > American foreign policy, it would be quite nice if they paid the > congestion charge. > "We will find a way of getting them into court either here or in > America. We are not going to have them skive out of their > responsibilities." > Ken Livingston. Mayor of London. quoted in BBC.CO.UK > > Okay. We, the government of the United Sates of America, my > government, a government of the people, the richest nation in the > world, who are invading countries without a real game plan and leaving > utter chaos in our wake. We who are refusing to cooperate with the > Kyoto Treaty while having an "environmental program" that is in utter > shambles. Who refuse to recognize the International Court of Justice. > We who are abridging the human rights of suspects without refer to the > Geneva Convention or our own laws. We who are passing taxes in our own > land that soak the poor and bring relief to the highest income groups > in the land. We who are - and without blinking an eye > -- the world's largest market for drugs of all kinds and ready to make war > on supply while we just shrug at demand, and who are effectively doing > nothing before the challenges of surging oil prices other than topping up > profits of those who need them least. All of that is normal. I guess. > > But when a representative of the United States government acts like a > "a chiseling little crook" (these are my words as an American citizen, > voter, volunteer soldier ready in defense of my country, and later > peace worker in > Vietnam) as has been the case recently with US refusal to pay the Congestion > Charge in London, I really have to conclude that something is terribly > wrong. It's not that I think that the London scheme is all that it could and > should be, but for my government to give aggressive evidence of extreme > antisocial behavior in this one small hopeful thing, instead of just paying > up and shutting up, I have to take pen in hand and share these words of > total disagreement with you. > > So thank you Ken Livingstone for your most justified remarks. And do > not give in! Make the bums pay like everyone else. That is what > democracy is all about. > > (Dear Friends. Please forgive this rant, since this is not quite what > the New Mobility Agenda is about. But I have never done this before > and I hope you understand why this, small as it may seem to be, was > simply one straw too much.) > > Eric Britton > > > > London mayor goes after US embassy for tolls > Financial Times > > By Christopher Adams in London > > Updated: 12:16 a.m. ET March 28, 2006 > London's mayor on Monday accused the US ambassador to the UK of > behaving "like a chiselling little crook" in a spat over the embassy's > refusal to pay the city's road toll. Ken Livingstone, the famously > outspoken left-wing mayor and long-standing critic of American foreign > policy, delivered his latest outburst during a television interview. > His assault on Robert Tuttle was prompted by the long-running dispute > over the embassy's refusal to pay the congestion charge, a toll that > is levied on those driving through central London during business > hours. American diplomats have refused to pay the ?8 a day toll since > last July, racking up many tens of thousands of pounds in unpaid > charges. The embassy is believed to have about one hundred cars and > fines for each day of non-payment can be as much ?150 a vehicle. The > embassy argues the charge is a tax and that diplomats are exempt. > Mr Livingstone, something of a stranger to diplomatic niceties, said: "It > would actually be quite nice if the American ambassador in Britain could pay > the charge that everybody else is paying and not actually try and skive out > of it like a chiselling little crook." > Earlier, he had told reporters: "When British troops are putting their lives > on the line for American foreign policy, it would be quite nice if they paid > the congestion charge." > The mayor's remarks were only his latest brush with controversy. He is > already appealing a decision by a disciplinary panel to suspend him from > office for four weeks after he compared a Jewish journalist to a > concentration camp guard. Last week he said two property tycoons with whom > he has fallen out over the development of the 2012 London Olympics should > "go back to Iran", though they are Indian-bron of Iraqi-Jewish parents. > He was re-admitted to Tony Blair's Labour party two years ago after being > expelled for standing against its official candidate in the first London > mayoral elections. A spokesman for the embassy said: "The mayor has a > tendency to hyperbole. I'm not going to dignify that." > Copyright The Financial Times Ltd. All rights reserved. > > > US Embassy must pay C-charge > US Embassy owes ?160,000 in unpaid charges > American diplomats are not legally entitled to refuse to pay London's > congestion charge, according to advice from lawyers. US ambassador > Robert Holmes Tuttle told his staff to stop paying last July and claim > diplomatic immunity, which gives them protection against paying taxes. > But legal advice to Transport for London says the US embassy is wrong to do > this and points to the fact that American diplomats haven't refused to pay > under similar schemes in Singapore and Oslo, in Norway. > Now, following the detailed legal advice, Transport for London will ask the > Americans to reconsider their position. > US embassy staff currently owe more than ?160,000 in unpaid congestion > charges in London. > A US embassy spokesman said diplomats in Stockholm are exempt from paying > the congestion charge there. The spokesman added: 'The U.S. Department of > State remains convinced that the charge in London is an impermissable tax > and diplomatic missions are not liable for payment of such taxes to host > governments under the terms of the Vienna Convention.' > However, the UK government has already made it clear to the US that the > congestion charge is not a tax and that it decides what is and what is not a > tax in this country. > British diplomats pay road tolls in the United States and Transport for > London's legal advice makes it clear that the US Embassy's diplomats must > pay as London's congestion charge is not a tax. > A Transport for London spokesman said: 'The congestion charging scheme gives > no privileges to any VIPs, including the Mayor, MPs, London Assembly Members > or councillors, therefore we believe diplomats should pay. > 'British diplomats respect US laws, US diplomats should respect UK laws.' > > Press Release > UAE Embassy settles congestion charge fees > 6-4-2006 201 > The Embassy of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has agreed that its > diplomats in London should pay the Congestion Charge, and has reached > a deal to clear a backlog of charges. After discussions with Transport > for London, the UAE has paid ?99,950.00 for outstanding congestion > charge fines accrued by the Embassy from February 2003 to March 2006. > In a letter to TfL, the Embassy said: "I can assure you that every effort > will be made in the future for all diplomats working for this Embassy to pay > any congestion charges as and when they occur." > The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said: "All Londoners will welcome this > settlement with the Embassy of the United Arab Emirates and, in particular, > their commitment to comply with the congestion charging scheme in the > future. > "The congestion charge is designed to reduce congestion in the busiest areas > of the capital. > "Those embassies, such as that of the United States, which flout the laws of > this country and misuse diplomatic immunity to evade the charge are enjoying > the benefits of reduced congestion but contributing nothing." > "British diplomats respect US law when in the US. They pay American tolls on > bridges and roads. The US Embassy should accept the advice of the British > government and recognise that by trying to ignore this country's laws they > do nothing but damage their standing in the eyes of London's citizens. > "I hope they will now take a leaf from the United Arab Emirates and > understand that as the richest and most powerful country in the world they > can well afford to respect this country's laws." > Malcolm Murray-Clark, Director of Congestion Charging said: "The congestion > charging scheme gives no privileges to any VIPs, so we do not see why > diplomats should not pay. The UAE has now joined the majority of other > countries who accept this is a legitimate charge." > Notes to Editors > 1. Both the Government and TfL have received consistent legal advice > which says that diplomats are not exempt from paying the congestion charge. > We have the support of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and eminent > members of HM Queen's Counsel. > 2. In November last year, the Foreign Secretary, the Rt Hon Jack Straw > MP told the House of Commons in answering a written question that: > "We informed all missions by Note Verbale in March 2002 of our sustained > view that there were no legal grounds to exempt diplomatic missions from > payment of the congestion charge. Since then, in formal and informal > exchanges, we have informed missions of our view that the congestion charge > does not constitute a form of direct taxation under the Vienna Convention, > but is a charge analogous to a motorway toll, and that they are expected to > pay." > 3. On 24th January 2006, Lord Triesman, the Parliamentary > Under-Secretary of State within the Foreign Office told the House of Lords: > "My Lords, we take every opportunity to remind diplomatic missions to meet > their obligations to comply with United Kingdom law and pay promptly any > fines that they incur. Following the annual Written Ministerial Statement on > parking and congestion charge penalties on 12 December, we will now formally > approach the heads of mission of the top 10 offenders in each category to > find out what steps they are taking to pay. We will then take further action > as appropriate". > 4. All UK missions are expected to pay any road tolls and any parking > charges. > 5. Support for this approach has come from both this country and the > US. > 6. In an editorial on March 31st 2006, The New York Times said: "We > don't buy the idea that diplomats are immune to the surcharge". The New > York Times editorial concludes: "Mr. Livingstone is certainly within his > rights to demand payment, which may now amount to hundreds of thousands of > dollars, including fines". > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060408/0ac58088/attachment-0001.html From schipper at wri.org Sun Apr 9 03:47:00 2006 From: schipper at wri.org (Lee Schipper) Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2006 14:47:00 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: "I find Eric Britton's reply entirely inappropriate." Message-ID: While I'm (hopefully) not known for immoderate statements, I did not wince a minute at what the Mayor said or Eric's repeating it. The Mayor's own personal problems aside, I found the US response arrogant at the least. I happened to be flying next to a senior officer of one of our other embassies outside of Europe, who agreed with me. The congestion fee is not a tax, it is fee for the right to come into London with a car during congested hours. As one of you pointed out, diplomats pay bridge tolls, and (hopefully) their parking meter charges. Maybe The Mayor should have chosen words from Dickens: "Miserable Nickel-hugger"? >>> "Eric Britton" 4/8/2006 1:09:55 PM >>> Dear Jonathan and dear Sustran friends, Oops and ouch! Now I remember why I have always made a point of avoiding this kind of polemic. I remember when Jonathon and Todd were going at it con brillo a bit back, and all I could think at the time is that both are doing such important work, and while a certain amount of critical dissonance is always welcome, it does not help when it becomes too personal. We have enough genuine antagonists out there who need to be dealt with in our uphill struggle for sustainability, for us to be very cautious about discrediting each other. So let me see if I can get out of this quickly so we can get on to more important things. Anyway . . . sorry everyone, but I got a bit carried away when Sunny suggested sharing this with the group. Now we are in the main rather far away from our reason for being here, but there is I rather think a deeper and still relevant logic to the point which I have obviously made with insufficient tact. Let me give this one last whack and then get back to work. Let me stick with the immediate facts at the base of my heart-felt statement, which had nothing to do with Livingstone's past behaviour over his long, raucous, but very useful career. I was applauding the good mayor for going after the US embassy in every day language in its legalistic defense of their inalienable right not to pay a toll. (And it is a toll and not a tax.) So yes, I would like the US government to line up on this one and pay up just like you and I do in our daily lives. For reasons that you too surely appreciate. I have followed the releases on this from our Embassy and I am not impressed. From a professional, environmental and social perspective I find their behaviour more than embarrassing, and why they chose to make a "cause celebre" of this cannot be pure accident. They and their deep pocketed oil friends who constitute the present administration are sending a message. As always when we are confronted with a difference of opinion, it is off to the dictionary, in this case Webster's Unabridged, Second edition, which tells us this: * "Chiseling" * "Obtaining of goods or money under false pretenses or misrepresentation". Hmm. I am into the 'false pretenses' bit here. Let me see, if I like Mr. Tuttle had made my fortune in the car business, and was part of a political network that was strongly opposed to anything that might in anyway hinder the 'old mobility' car-based oil-based system, and I had a shot at it, I surely would try to find a way to undermine any sort of policy which might spread like a (benevolent) virus. And being a 'diplomat' (as it were. . . I rather think a political appointee of the current president), I would seek to do this on legalistic grounds. And there you have it. Finally. . . as to Ken's doing "good things for transport". Well, good and less good. But hey! that's what mayors do, at best. It's a big, complicated and conflicted world out there, and when it comes to sustainable mobility by any name we, the main proponents of these policies, still have quite some way to go before we have made it easy for them. Which is indeed our job. So, if I may: Now back to transport and better and softer cities. If you want to tangle more on this Jonathan, may I respectfully suggest we do it in private? Warm regards, Eric Britton I find Eric Britton's reply entirely inappropriate. Ken Livingstone has been referred for disciplinary action for calling the US Ambassador a "chiselling little crook." This follows an initial action, where he was disciplined for making antisemitic remarks (that Livingstone is a racist is well-known in the UK). His behavior is quite unacceptable for anyone in political office. Diplomats enjoy certain immunities worldwide. Whether or not this is appropriate, it is a matter of international convention. So to call the Ambassador a "chiselling little crook" for exercising his international rights is simply inappropriate. I find Livingstone to be a disgusting person, and I do hope that he is removed from office as soon as possible. He has certainly done some good things for Transport, but there are others who can build on this without feeling the need to utter insults -- often of a racist nature -- as a regular feature of the job --Jonathan ----- Jonathan Richmond Visiting Scholar Department of Urban Planning and Design Graduate School of Design Harvard University 312 George Gund Hall 48 Quincy St. Cambridge MA 02138-3000 Mailing address: 182 Palfrey St. Watertown MA 02472-1835 (617) 395-4360 e-mail: richmond@alum.mit.edu http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ On Sat, 8 Apr 2006, Eric Britton wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: Sunny [mailto:sksunny@gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 3:05 PM > To: eric.britton@ecoplan.org > Subject: Re: "It would actually be quite nice . . . > > Dear Eric, > > It would be very nice if you can even post the same message even in > the Sustrans forum or if you can allow me to post it there I can do it > on your behalf. I agree to your idea and the embassy needs to pay the > fine. But one thing i don't understand is does the law separate the > diplomatic community from the regular law, I am sorry if the question > is too naive but i don't have much exposure to the law system. > > Sunny > > > Eric Britton wrote on Fri 4/7/2006 5:22 PM: > > "It would actually be quite nice if the American ambassador in > Britain could pay the charge that everybody else is paying and not > actually try and skive out of it like some chiselling little crook," > "When British troops are putting their lives on the line for > American foreign policy, it would be quite nice if they paid the > congestion charge. > "We will find a way of getting them into court either here or in > America. We are not going to have them skive out of their > responsibilities." > Ken Livingston. Mayor of London. quoted in BBC.CO.UK > > Okay. We, the government of the United Sates of America, my > government, a government of the people, the richest nation in the > world, who are invading countries without a real game plan and leaving > utter chaos in our wake. We who are refusing to cooperate with the > Kyoto Treaty while having an "environmental program" that is in utter > shambles. Who refuse to recognize the International Court of Justice. > We who are abridging the human rights of suspects without refer to the > Geneva Convention or our own laws. We who are passing taxes in our own > land that soak the poor and bring relief to the highest income groups > in the land. We who are - and without blinking an eye > -- the world's largest market for drugs of all kinds and ready to make war > on supply while we just shrug at demand, and who are effectively doing > nothing before the challenges of surging oil prices other than topping up > profits of those who need them least. All of that is normal. I guess. > > But when a representative of the United States government acts like a > "a chiseling little crook" (these are my words as an American citizen, > voter, volunteer soldier ready in defense of my country, and later > peace worker in > Vietnam) as has been the case recently with US refusal to pay the Congestion > Charge in London, I really have to conclude that something is terribly > wrong. It's not that I think that the London scheme is all that it could and > should be, but for my government to give aggressive evidence of extreme > antisocial behavior in this one small hopeful thing, instead of just paying > up and shutting up, I have to take pen in hand and share these words of > total disagreement with you. > > So thank you Ken Livingstone for your most justified remarks. And do > not give in! Make the bums pay like everyone else. That is what > democracy is all about. > > (Dear Friends. Please forgive this rant, since this is not quite what > the New Mobility Agenda is about. But I have never done this before > and I hope you understand why this, small as it may seem to be, was > simply one straw too much.) > > Eric Britton > > > > London mayor goes after US embassy for tolls > Financial Times > > By Christopher Adams in London > > Updated: 12:16 a.m. ET March 28, 2006 > London's mayor on Monday accused the US ambassador to the UK of > behaving "like a chiselling little crook" in a spat over the embassy's > refusal to pay the city's road toll. Ken Livingstone, the famously > outspoken left-wing mayor and long-standing critic of American foreign > policy, delivered his latest outburst during a television interview. > His assault on Robert Tuttle was prompted by the long-running dispute > over the embassy's refusal to pay the congestion charge, a toll that > is levied on those driving through central London during business > hours. American diplomats have refused to pay the ?8 a day toll since > last July, racking up many tens of thousands of pounds in unpaid > charges. The embassy is believed to have about one hundred cars and > fines for each day of non-payment can be as much ?150 a vehicle. The > embassy argues the charge is a tax and that diplomats are exempt. > Mr Livingstone, something of a stranger to diplomatic niceties, said: "It > would actually be quite nice if the American ambassador in Britain could pay > the charge that everybody else is paying and not actually try and skive out > of it like a chiselling little crook." > Earlier, he had told reporters: "When British troops are putting their lives > on the line for American foreign policy, it would be quite nice if they paid > the congestion charge." > The mayor's remarks were only his latest brush with controversy. He is > already appealing a decision by a disciplinary panel to suspend him from > office for four weeks after he compared a Jewish journalist to a > concentration camp guard. Last week he said two property tycoons with whom > he has fallen out over the development of the 2012 London Olympics should > "go back to Iran", though they are Indian-bron of Iraqi-Jewish parents. > He was re-admitted to Tony Blair's Labour party two years ago after being > expelled for standing against its official candidate in the first London > mayoral elections. A spokesman for the embassy said: "The mayor has a > tendency to hyperbole. I'm not going to dignify that." > Copyright The Financial Times Ltd. All rights reserved. > > > US Embassy must pay C-charge > US Embassy owes ?160,000 in unpaid charges > American diplomats are not legally entitled to refuse to pay London's > congestion charge, according to advice from lawyers. US ambassador > Robert Holmes Tuttle told his staff to stop paying last July and claim > diplomatic immunity, which gives them protection against paying taxes. > But legal advice to Transport for London says the US embassy is wrong to do > this and points to the fact that American diplomats haven't refused to pay > under similar schemes in Singapore and Oslo, in Norway. > Now, following the detailed legal advice, Transport for London will ask the > Americans to reconsider their position. > US embassy staff currently owe more than ?160,000 in unpaid congestion > charges in London. > A US embassy spokesman said diplomats in Stockholm are exempt from paying > the congestion charge there. The spokesman added: 'The U.S. Department of > State remains convinced that the charge in London is an impermissable tax > and diplomatic missions are not liable for payment of such taxes to host > governments under the terms of the Vienna Convention.' > However, the UK government has already made it clear to the US that the > congestion charge is not a tax and that it decides what is and what is not a > tax in this country. > British diplomats pay road tolls in the United States and Transport for > London's legal advice makes it clear that the US Embassy's diplomats must > pay as London's congestion charge is not a tax. > A Transport for London spokesman said: 'The congestion charging scheme gives > no privileges to any VIPs, including the Mayor, MPs, London Assembly Members > or councillors, therefore we believe diplomats should pay. > 'British diplomats respect US laws, US diplomats should respect UK laws.' > > Press Release > UAE Embassy settles congestion charge fees > 6-4-2006 201 > The Embassy of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has agreed that its > diplomats in London should pay the Congestion Charge, and has reached > a deal to clear a backlog of charges. After discussions with Transport > for London, the UAE has paid ?99,950.00 for outstanding congestion > charge fines accrued by the Embassy from February 2003 to March 2006. > In a letter to TfL, the Embassy said: "I can assure you that every effort > will be made in the future for all diplomats working for this Embassy to pay > any congestion charges as and when they occur." > The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said: "All Londoners will welcome this > settlement with the Embassy of the United Arab Emirates and, in particular, > their commitment to comply with the congestion charging scheme in the > future. > "The congestion charge is designed to reduce congestion in the busiest areas > of the capital. > "Those embassies, such as that of the United States, which flout the laws of > this country and misuse diplomatic immunity to evade the charge are enjoying > the benefits of reduced congestion but contributing nothing." > "British diplomats respect US law when in the US. They pay American tolls on > bridges and roads. The US Embassy should accept the advice of the British > government and recognise that by trying to ignore this country's laws they > do nothing but damage their standing in the eyes of London's citizens. > "I hope they will now take a leaf from the United Arab Emirates and > understand that as the richest and most powerful country in the world they > can well afford to respect this country's laws." > Malcolm Murray-Clark, Director of Congestion Charging said: "The congestion > charging scheme gives no privileges to any VIPs, so we do not see why > diplomats should not pay. The UAE has now joined the majority of other > countries who accept this is a legitimate charge." > Notes to Editors > 1. Both the Government and TfL have received consistent legal advice > which says that diplomats are not exempt from paying the congestion charge. > We have the support of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and eminent > members of HM Queen's Counsel. > 2. In November last year, the Foreign Secretary, the Rt Hon Jack Straw > MP told the House of Commons in answering a written question that: > "We informed all missions by Note Verbale in March 2002 of our sustained > view that there were no legal grounds to exempt diplomatic missions from > payment of the congestion charge. Since then, in formal and informal > exchanges, we have informed missions of our view that the congestion charge > does not constitute a form of direct taxation under the Vienna Convention, > but is a charge analogous to a motorway toll, and that they are expected to > pay." > 3. On 24th January 2006, Lord Triesman, the Parliamentary > Under-Secretary of State within the Foreign Office told the House of Lords: > "My Lords, we take every opportunity to remind diplomatic missions to meet > their obligations to comply with United Kingdom law and pay promptly any > fines that they incur. Following the annual Written Ministerial Statement on > parking and congestion charge penalties on 12 December, we will now formally > approach the heads of mission of the top 10 offenders in each category to > find out what steps they are taking to pay. We will then take further action > as appropriate". > 4. All UK missions are expected to pay any road tolls and any parking > charges. > 5. Support for this approach has come from both this country and the > US. > 6. In an editorial on March 31st 2006, The New York Times said: "We > don't buy the idea that diplomats are immune to the surcharge". The New > York Times editorial concludes: "Mr. Livingstone is certainly within his > rights to demand payment, which may now amount to hundreds of thousands of > dollars, including fines". > > > From litman at vtpi.org Mon Apr 10 01:10:16 2006 From: litman at vtpi.org (Todd Alexander Litman) Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2006 09:10:16 -0700 Subject: [sustran] Re: "I find Eric Britton's reply entirely inappropriate." In-Reply-To: <001c01c65b2f$4303a260$6501a8c0@Home> References: <001c01c65b2f$4303a260$6501a8c0@Home> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20060409082242.032eee60@mail.islandnet.com> I think that this is the type of situation in which it is important to separate the message from the messenger. Mayor Livginstone is a controversial and not very diplomatic person, but his basic message is true: it is important to avoid privilege-based exemptions to automobile user charges. Such exemptions are hidden subsidies that weaken public acceptance of such fees. I am often amazed at the level of emotion generated by vehicle fees and fuel prices. The price of carrots (a staple in our home) at our local store fluctuates by 40% from week to week and I never hear protests, but when the price of fuel changes by 10% its front-page news. Yesterday, my Rabbi's wife berated my suggestion that they city lift its current policy of not charging for on-street parking on Sundays in downtown as a way to deal with Sunday parking problems and fund city programs. She thinks it is burdensome, unfair and harmful to city businesses to charge for parking. I told her about the positive experience in Pasadena, where parking meter revenue improved downtown street conditions, leading to major economic redevelopment (http://www.sppsr.ucla.edu/up/webfiles/SmallChange.pdf), but she refused to believe it. "The money will just disappear into the city's black hold," she retorted. She and her husband are strongly pro-environment and social equity, yet she doesn't see the connection between subsidizing automobile travel and the various environmental and social problems we face. This attitude, that there is something particularly harmful about automobile user fees and that it is morally acceptable for motorists to try to avoid road tolls and parking fees, is a major barrier to rational transportation policy, particularly when we propose a new type of fee. Fortunately, vehicle user fees are one area where environmentalists and urbanists can build coalitions with the business community who support market solutions, and I applaud those who do (for example, Environmental Defense is working with organizations such as the Reason Foundation on highway pricing proposals, despite accusations that they are "fraternizing with the enemy"). Although I have no objection to equity-based discounts for road and parking fees (I think even people who are poor and disabled should still pay something), I think that the U.S. Ambassador deserves strong criticism for his selfish and hypocritical attitude which assumes he should be exempt from fees that most others pay. I hope the British government will fight this issue as long as needed to establish a good precedence. Best wishes, -Todd Litman At 10:09 AM 4/8/2006, Eric Britton wrote: >Dear Jonathan and dear Sustran friends, > >Oops and ouch! Now I remember why I have always >made a point of avoiding this kind of >polemic. I remember when Jonathon and Todd were >going at it con brillo a bit back, and all I >could think at the time is that both are doing >such important work, and while a certain amount >of critical dissonance is always welcome, it >does not help when it becomes too personal. We >have enough genuine antagonists out there who >need to be dealt with in our uphill struggle for >sustainability, for us to be very cautious about >discrediting each other. So let me see if I can >get out of this quickly so we can get on to more important things. > >Anyway . . . sorry everyone, but I got a bit >carried away when Sunny suggested sharing this >with the group. Now we are in the main rather >far away from our reason for being here, but >there is I rather think a deeper and still >relevant logic to the point which I have >obviously made with insufficient tact. Let me >give this one last whack and then get back to work. > >Let me stick with the immediate facts at the >base of my heart-felt statement, which had >nothing to do with Livingstone?s past behaviour >over his long, raucous, but very useful >career. I was applauding the good mayor for >going after the US embassy in every day language >in its legalistic defense of their inalienable >right not to pay a toll. (And it is a toll and not a tax.) > >So yes, I would like the US government to line >up on this one and pay up just like you and I do >in our daily lives. For reasons that you too >surely appreciate. I have followed the releases >on this from our Embassy and I am not impressed. > From a professional, environmental and social >perspective I find their behaviour more than >embarrassing, and why they chose to make a >?cause celebre? of this cannot be pure >accident. They and their deep pocketed oil >friends who constitute the present administration are sending a message. > >As always when we are confronted with a >difference of opinion, it is off to the >dictionary, in this case Webster?s Unabridged, >Second edition, which tells us this: > >? ?Chiseling? ? ?Obtaining of goods or >money under false pretenses or misrepresentation?. > >Hmm. I am into the ?false pretenses? bit here. >Let me see, if I like Mr. Tuttle had made my >fortune in the car business, and was part of a >political network that was strongly opposed to >anything that might in anyway hinder the ?old >mobility? car-based oil-based system, and I had >a shot at it, I surely would try to find a way >to undermine any sort of policy which might >spread like a (benevolent) virus. And being a >?diplomat? (as it were. . . I rather think a >political appointee of the current president), I >would seek to do this on legalistic grounds. And there you have it. > >Finally. . . as to Ken?s doing ?good things for >transport?. Well, good and less good. But hey! >that?s what mayors do, at best. It?s a big, >complicated and conflicted world out there, and >when it comes to sustainable mobility by any >name we, the main proponents of these policies, >still have quite some way to go before we have >made it easy for them. Which is indeed our job. > >So, if I may: Now back to transport and better >and softer cities. If you want to tangle more on >this Jonathan, may I respectfully suggest we do it in private? > >Warm regards, > >Eric Britton > > > > > >I find Eric Britton's reply entirely inappropriate. > >Ken Livingstone has been referred for >disciplinary action for calling the US >Ambassador a "chiselling little crook." This >follows an initial action, where he was >disciplined for making antisemitic remarks (that >Livingstone is a racist is well-known in the >UK). His behavior is quite unacceptable for anyone in political office. > >Diplomats enjoy certain immunities worldwide. >Whether or not this is appropriate, it is a >matter of international convention. So to call >the Ambassador a "chiselling little crook" for >exercising his international rights is simply inappropriate. > >I find Livingstone to be a disgusting person, >and I do hope that he is removed from office as >soon as possible. He has certainly done some >good things for Transport, but there are others >who can build on this without feeling the need >to utter insults -- often of a racist nature -- >as a regular feature of the job --Jonathan > > >----- >Jonathan Richmond >Visiting Scholar >Department of Urban Planning and Design >Graduate School of Design >Harvard University >312 George Gund Hall >48 Quincy St. >Cambridge MA 02138-3000 > >Mailing address: >182 Palfrey St. >Watertown MA 02472-1835 > >(617) 395-4360 > >e-mail: richmond@alum.mit.edu >http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ > > > > >On Sat, 8 Apr 2006, Eric Britton wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Sunny [mailto:sksunny@gmail.com] > > Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 3:05 PM > > To: eric.britton@ecoplan.org > > Subject: Re: "It would actually be quite nice . . . > > > > Dear Eric, > > > > It would be very nice if you can even post the same message even in > > the Sustrans forum or if you can allow me to post it there I can do it > > on your behalf. I agree to your idea and the embassy needs to pay the > > fine. But one thing i don't understand is does the law separate the > > diplomatic community from the regular law, I am sorry if the question > > is too naive but i don't have much exposure to the law system. > > > > Sunny > > > > > > Eric Britton wrote on Fri 4/7/2006 5:22 PM: > > > > "It would actually be quite nice if the American ambassador in > > Britain could pay the charge that everybody else is paying and not > > actually try and skive out of it like some chiselling little crook," > > "When British troops are putting their lives on the line for > > American foreign policy, it would be quite nice if they paid the > > congestion charge. > > "We will find a way of getting them into court either here or in > > America. We are not going to have them skive out of their > > responsibilities." > > Ken Livingston. Mayor of London. quoted in BBC.CO.UK > > > > Okay. We, the government of the United Sates of America, my > > government, a government of the people, the richest nation in the > > world, who are invading countries without a real game plan and leaving > > utter chaos in our wake. We who are refusing to cooperate with the > > Kyoto Treaty while having an "environmental program" that is in utter > > shambles. Who refuse to recognize the International Court of Justice. > > We who are abridging the human rights of suspects without refer to the > > Geneva Convention or our own laws. We who are passing taxes in our own > > land that soak the poor and bring relief to the highest income groups > > in the land. We who are - and without blinking an eye > > -- the world's largest market for drugs of all kinds and ready to make war > > on supply while we just shrug at demand, and who are effectively doing > > nothing before the challenges of surging oil prices other than topping up > > profits of those who need them least. All of that is normal. I guess. > > > > But when a representative of the United States government acts like a > > "a chiseling little crook" (these are my words as an American citizen, > > voter, volunteer soldier ready in defense of my country, and later > > peace worker in > > Vietnam) as has been the case recently with > US refusal to pay the Congestion > > Charge in London, I really have to conclude that something is terribly > > wrong. It's not that I think that the London > scheme is all that it could and > > should be, but for my government to give aggressive evidence of extreme > > antisocial behavior in this one small hopeful thing, instead of just paying > > up and shutting up, I have to take pen in hand and share these words of > > total disagreement with you. > > > > So thank you Ken Livingstone for your most justified remarks. And do > > not give in! Make the bums pay like everyone else. That is what > > democracy is all about. > > > > (Dear Friends. Please forgive this rant, since this is not quite what > > the New Mobility Agenda is about. But I have never done this before > > and I hope you understand why this, small as it may seem to be, was > > simply one straw too much.) > > > > Eric Britton > > > > > > > > London mayor goes after US embassy for tolls > > Financial Times > > > > By Christopher Adams in London > > > > Updated: 12:16 a.m. ET March 28, 2006 > > London's mayor on Monday accused the US ambassador to the UK of > > behaving "like a chiselling little crook" in a spat over the embassy's > > refusal to pay the city's road toll. Ken Livingstone, the famously > > outspoken left-wing mayor and long-standing critic of American foreign > > policy, delivered his latest outburst during a television interview. > > His assault on Robert Tuttle was prompted by the long-running dispute > > over the embassy's refusal to pay the congestion charge, a toll that > > is levied on those driving through central London during business > > hours. American diplomats have refused to pay the ?8 a day toll since > > last July, racking up many tens of thousands of pounds in unpaid > > charges. The embassy is believed to have about one hundred cars and > > fines for each day of non-payment can be as much ?150 a vehicle. The > > embassy argues the charge is a tax and that diplomats are exempt. > > Mr Livingstone, something of a stranger to diplomatic niceties, said: "It > > would actually be quite nice if the American > ambassador in Britain could pay > > the charge that everybody else is paying and not actually try and skive out > > of it like a chiselling little crook." > > Earlier, he had told reporters: "When British > troops are putting their lives > > on the line for American foreign policy, it > would be quite nice if they paid > > the congestion charge." > > The mayor's remarks were only his latest brush with controversy. He is > > already appealing a decision by a disciplinary panel to suspend him from > > office for four weeks after he compared a Jewish journalist to a > > concentration camp guard. Last week he said two property tycoons with whom > > he has fallen out over the development of the 2012 London Olympics should > > "go back to Iran", though they are Indian-bron of Iraqi-Jewish parents. > > He was re-admitted to Tony Blair's Labour party two years ago after being > > expelled for standing against its official candidate in the first London > > mayoral elections. A spokesman for the embassy said: "The mayor has a > > tendency to hyperbole. I'm not going to dignify that." > > Copyright The Financial Times Ltd. All rights reserved. > > > > > > US Embassy must pay C-charge > > US Embassy owes ?160,000 in unpaid charges > > American diplomats are not legally entitled to refuse to pay London's > > congestion charge, according to advice from lawyers. US ambassador > > Robert Holmes Tuttle told his staff to stop paying last July and claim > > diplomatic immunity, which gives them protection against paying taxes. > > But legal advice to Transport for London says the US embassy is wrong to do > > this and points to the fact that American diplomats haven't refused to pay > > under similar schemes in Singapore and Oslo, in Norway. > > Now, following the detailed legal advice, Transport for London will ask the > > Americans to reconsider their position. > > US embassy staff currently owe more than ?160,000 in unpaid congestion > > charges in London. > > A US embassy spokesman said diplomats in Stockholm are exempt from paying > > the congestion charge there. The spokesman added: 'The U.S. Department of > > State remains convinced that the charge in London is an impermissable tax > > and diplomatic missions are not liable for payment of such taxes to host > > governments under the terms of the Vienna Convention.' > > However, the UK government has already made it clear to the US that the > > congestion charge is not a tax and that it > decides what is and what is not a > > tax in this country. > > British diplomats pay road tolls in the United States and Transport for > > London's legal advice makes it clear that the US Embassy's diplomats must > > pay as London's congestion charge is not a tax. > > A Transport for London spokesman said: 'The > congestion charging scheme gives > > no privileges to any VIPs, including the > Mayor, MPs, London Assembly Members > > or councillors, therefore we believe diplomats should pay. > > 'British diplomats respect US laws, US diplomats should respect UK laws.' > > > > Press Release > > UAE Embassy settles congestion charge fees > > 6-4-2006 201 > > The Embassy of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has agreed that its > > diplomats in London should pay the Congestion Charge, and has reached > > a deal to clear a backlog of charges. After discussions with Transport > > for London, the UAE has paid ?99,950.00 for outstanding congestion > > charge fines accrued by the Embassy from February 2003 to March 2006. > > In a letter to TfL, the Embassy said: "I can assure you that every effort > > will be made in the future for all diplomats > working for this Embassy to pay > > any congestion charges as and when they occur." > > The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said: > "All Londoners will welcome this > > settlement with the Embassy of the United Arab Emirates and, in particular, > > their commitment to comply with the congestion charging scheme in the > > future. > > "The congestion charge is designed to reduce > congestion in the busiest areas > > of the capital. > > "Those embassies, such as that of the United > States, which flout the laws of > > this country and misuse diplomatic immunity > to evade the charge are enjoying > > the benefits of reduced congestion but contributing nothing." > > "British diplomats respect US law when in the > US. They pay American tolls on > > bridges and roads. The US Embassy should accept the advice of the British > > government and recognise that by trying to ignore this country's laws they > > do nothing but damage their standing in the eyes of London's citizens. > > "I hope they will now take a leaf from the United Arab Emirates and > > understand that as the richest and most powerful country in the world they > > can well afford to respect this country's laws." > > Malcolm Murray-Clark, Director of Congestion Charging said: "The congestion > > charging scheme gives no privileges to any VIPs, so we do not see why > > diplomats should not pay. The UAE has now joined the majority of other > > countries who accept this is a legitimate charge." > > Notes to Editors > > 1. Both the Government and TfL have received consistent legal advice > > which says that diplomats are not exempt from paying the congestion charge. > > We have the support of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and eminent > > members of HM Queen's Counsel. > > 2. In November last year, the Foreign Secretary, the Rt Hon Jack Straw > > MP told the House of Commons in answering a written question that: > > "We informed all missions by Note Verbale in March 2002 of our sustained > > view that there were no legal grounds to exempt diplomatic missions from > > payment of the congestion charge. Since then, in formal and informal > > exchanges, we have informed missions of our view that the congestion charge > > does not constitute a form of direct taxation under the Vienna Convention, > > but is a charge analogous to a motorway toll, and that they are expected to > > pay." > > 3. On 24th January 2006, Lord Triesman, the Parliamentary > > Under-Secretary of State within the Foreign Office told the House of Lords: > > "My Lords, we take every opportunity to remind diplomatic missions to meet > > their obligations to comply with United Kingdom law and pay promptly any > > fines that they incur. Following the annual > Written Ministerial Statement on > > parking and congestion charge penalties on 12 > December, we will now formally > > approach the heads of mission of the top 10 offenders in each category to > > find out what steps they are taking to pay. > We will then take further action > > as appropriate". > > 4. All UK missions are expected to pay any road tolls and any parking > > charges. > > 5. Support for this approach has come from both this country and the > > US. > > 6. In an editorial on March 31st 2006, The New York Times said: "We > > don't buy the idea that diplomats are immune to the surcharge". The New > > York Times editorial concludes: "Mr. Livingstone is certainly within his > > rights to demand payment, which may now amount to hundreds of thousands of > > dollars, including fines". > > > > > > > > > > > > > >================================================================ >SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion >of people-centred, equitable and sustainable >transport with a focus on developing countries >(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of >the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. Sincerely, Todd Alexander Litman Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org) litman@vtpi.org Phone & Fax 250-360-1560 1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA ?Efficiency - Equity - Clarity? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060409/5e37fbb5/attachment.html From sujit at vsnl.com Mon Apr 10 03:39:26 2006 From: sujit at vsnl.com (Sujit Patwardhan) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 00:09:26 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: "I find Eric Britton's reply entirely inappropriate." In-Reply-To: <001c01c65b2f$4303a260$6501a8c0@Home> References: <001c01c65b2f$4303a260$6501a8c0@Home> Message-ID: <4cfd20aa0604091139l328b8942i980c352370858427@mail.gmail.com> Why so much fuss, and where's the need to apologise? Sorry to those who think otherwise but many people around the world are offended by US Government's/Administration's arrogance. I don't see anything wrong with Eric's response. -- Sujit On 4/8/06, Eric Britton wrote: > > Dear Jonathan and dear Sustran friends, > > > > Oops and ouch! Now I remember why I have always made a point of avoiding > this kind of polemic. I remember when Jonathon and Todd were going at it > con brillo a bit back, and all I could think at the time is that both are > doing such important work, and while a certain amount of critical dissonance > is always welcome, it does not help when it becomes too personal. We have > enough genuine antagonists out there who need to be dealt with in our uphill > struggle for sustainability, for us to be very cautious about discrediting > each other. So let me see if I can get out of this quickly so we can get on > to more important things. > > > > Anyway . . . sorry everyone, but I got a bit carried away when Sunny > suggested sharing this with the group. Now we are in the main rather far > away from our reason for being here, but there is I rather think a deeper > and still relevant logic to the point which I have obviously made with > insufficient tact. Let me give this one last whack and then get back to > work. > > > > Let me stick with the immediate facts at the base of my heart-felt > statement, which had nothing to do with Livingstone's past behaviour over > his long, raucous, but very useful career. I was applauding the good mayor > for going after the US embassy in every day language in its legalistic > defense of their inalienable right not to pay a toll. (And it is a toll and > not a tax.) > > > > So yes, I would like the US government to line up on this one and pay up > just like you and I do in our daily lives. For reasons that you too surely > appreciate. I have followed the releases on this from our Embassy and I am > not impressed. From a professional, environmental and social perspective I > find their behaviour more than embarrassing, and why they chose to make a > "cause celebre" of this cannot be pure accident. They and their deep > pocketed oil friends who constitute the present administration are sending a > message. > > > > As always when we are confronted with a difference of opinion, it is off > to the dictionary, in this case Webster's Unabridged, Second edition, which > tells us this: > > ? "Chiseling" ? "Obtaining of goods or money under false > pretenses or misrepresentation". > > > > Hmm. I am into the 'false pretenses' bit here. Let me see, if I like Mr. > Tuttle had made my fortune in the car business, and was part of a political > network that was strongly opposed to anything that might in anyway hinder > the 'old mobility' car-based oil-based system, and I had a shot at it, I > surely would try to find a way to undermine any sort of policy which might > spread like a (benevolent) virus. And being a 'diplomat' (as it were. . . I > rather think a political appointee of the current president), I would seek > to do this on legalistic grounds. And there you have it. > > > > Finally. . . as to Ken's doing "good things for transport". Well, good > and less good. But hey! that's what mayors do, at best. It's a big, > complicated and conflicted world out there, and when it comes to sustainable > mobility by any name we, the main proponents of these policies, still have > quite some way to go before we have made it easy for them. Which is indeed > our job. > > > > So, if I may: Now back to transport and better and softer cities. If you > want to tangle more on this Jonathan, may I respectfully suggest we do it in > private? > > > > Warm regards, > > > > Eric Britton > > > > > > > > > > > > I find Eric Britton's reply entirely inappropriate. > > > > Ken Livingstone has been referred for disciplinary action for calling the > US Ambassador a "chiselling little crook." This follows an initial action, > where he was disciplined for making antisemitic remarks (that Livingstone is > a racist is well-known in the UK). His behavior is quite unacceptable for > anyone in political office. > > > > Diplomats enjoy certain immunities worldwide. Whether or not this is > appropriate, it is a matter of international convention. So to call the > Ambassador a "chiselling little crook" for exercising his international > rights is simply inappropriate. > > > > I find Livingstone to be a disgusting person, and I do hope that he is > removed from office as soon as possible. He has certainly done some good > things for Transport, but there are others who can build on this without > feeling the need to utter insults -- often of a racist nature -- as a > regular feature of the job --Jonathan > > > > > > ----- > > Jonathan Richmond > > Visiting Scholar > > Department of Urban Planning and Design > > Graduate School of Design > > Harvard University > > 312 George Gund Hall > > 48 Quincy St. > > Cambridge MA 02138-3000 > > > > Mailing address: > > 182 Palfrey St. > > Watertown MA 02472-1835 > > > > (617) 395-4360 > > > > e-mail: richmond@alum.mit.edu http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 8 Apr 2006, Eric Britton wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Sunny [mailto:sksunny@gmail.com ] > > > Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 3:05 PM > > > To: eric.britton@ecoplan.org > > > Subject: Re: "It would actually be quite nice . . . > > > > > > Dear Eric, > > > > > > It would be very nice if you can even post the same message even in > > > the Sustrans forum or if you can allow me to post it there I can do it > > > on your behalf. I agree to your idea and the embassy needs to pay the > > > fine. But one thing i don't understand is does the law separate the > > > diplomatic community from the regular law, I am sorry if the question > > > is too naive but i don't have much exposure to the law system. > > > > > > Sunny > > > > > > > > > Eric Britton wrote on Fri 4/7/2006 5:22 PM: > > > > > > "It would actually be quite nice if the American ambassador in > > > > Britain could pay the charge that everybody else is paying and not > > > actually try and skive out of it like some chiselling little crook," > > > "When British troops are putting their lives on the line for > > > American foreign policy, it would be quite nice if they paid the > > > congestion charge. > > > "We will find a way of getting them into court either here or > in > > > America. We are not going to have them skive out of their > > > responsibilities." > > > Ken Livingston. Mayor of London. quoted in BBC.CO.UK > > > > > > Okay. We, the government of the United Sates of America, my > > > government, a government of the people, the richest nation in the > > > world, who are invading countries without a real game plan and leaving > > > utter chaos in our wake. We who are refusing to cooperate with the > > > Kyoto Treaty while having an "environmental program" that is in utter > > > shambles. Who refuse to recognize the International Court of Justice. > > > We who are abridging the human rights of suspects without refer to the > > > Geneva Convention or our own laws. We who are passing taxes in our own > > > land that soak the poor and bring relief to the highest income groups > > > in the land. We who are - and without blinking an eye > > > -- the world's largest market for drugs of all kinds and ready to make > war > > > on supply while we just shrug at demand, and who are effectively doing > > > nothing before the challenges of surging oil prices other than topping > up > > > profits of those who need them least. All of that is normal. I guess. > > > > > > But when a representative of the United States government acts like a > > > "a chiseling little crook" (these are my words as an American citizen, > > > voter, volunteer soldier ready in defense of my country, and later > > > peace worker in > > > Vietnam) as has been the case recently with US refusal to pay the > Congestion > > > Charge in London, I really have to conclude that something is terribly > > > wrong. It's not that I think that the London scheme is all that it could > and > > > should be, but for my government to give aggressive evidence of extreme > > > antisocial behavior in this one small hopeful thing, instead of just > paying > > > up and shutting up, I have to take pen in hand and share these words of > > > total disagreement with you. > > > > > > So thank you Ken Livingstone for your most justified remarks. And do > > > not give in! Make the bums pay like everyone else. That is what > > > democracy is all about. > > > > > > (Dear Friends. Please forgive this rant, since this is not quite what > > > the New Mobility Agenda is about. But I have never done this before > > > and I hope you understand why this, small as it may seem to be, was > > > simply one straw too much.) > > > > > > Eric Britton > > > > > > > > > > > > London mayor goes after US embassy for tolls > > > Financial Times > > > > > > By Christopher Adams in London > > > > > > Updated: 12:16 a.m. ET March 28, 2006 > > > London's mayor on Monday accused the US ambassador to the UK of > > > behaving "like a chiselling little crook" in a spat over the embassy's > > > refusal to pay the city's road toll. Ken Livingstone, the famously > > > outspoken left-wing mayor and long-standing critic of American foreign > > > policy, delivered his latest outburst during a television interview. > > > His assault on Robert Tuttle was prompted by the long-running dispute > > > over the embassy's refusal to pay the congestion charge, a toll that > > > is levied on those driving through central London during business > > > hours. American diplomats have refused to pay the ?8 a day toll since > > > last July, racking up many tens of thousands of pounds in unpaid > > > charges. The embassy is believed to have about one hundred cars and > > > fines for each day of non-payment can be as much ?150 a vehicle. The > > > embassy argues the charge is a tax and that diplomats are exempt. > > > Mr Livingstone, something of a stranger to diplomatic niceties, said: > "It > > > would actually be quite nice if the American ambassador in Britain could > pay > > > the charge that everybody else is paying and not actually try and skive > out > > > of it like a chiselling little crook." > > > Earlier, he had told reporters: "When British troops are putting their > lives > > > on the line for American foreign policy, it would be quite nice if they > paid > > > the congestion charge." > > > The mayor's remarks were only his latest brush with controversy. He is > > > already appealing a decision by a disciplinary panel to suspend him from > > > office for four weeks after he compared a Jewish journalist to a > > > concentration camp guard. Last week he said two property tycoons with > whom > > > he has fallen out over the development of the 2012 London Olympics > should > > > "go back to Iran", though they are Indian-bron of Iraqi-Jewish parents. > > > He was re-admitted to Tony Blair's Labour party two years ago after > being > > > expelled for standing against its official candidate in the first London > > > mayoral elections. A spokesman for the embassy said: "The mayor has a > > > tendency to hyperbole. I'm not going to dignify that." > > > Copyright The Financial Times Ltd. All rights reserved. > > > > > > > > > US Embassy must pay C-charge > > > US Embassy owes ?160,000 in unpaid charges > > > American diplomats are not legally entitled to refuse to pay London's > > > congestion charge, according to advice from lawyers. US ambassador > > > Robert Holmes Tuttle told his staff to stop paying last July and claim > > > diplomatic immunity, which gives them protection against paying taxes. > > > But legal advice to Transport for London says the US embassy is wrong to > do > > > this and points to the fact that American diplomats haven't refused to > pay > > > under similar schemes in Singapore and Oslo, in Norway. > > > Now, following the detailed legal advice, Transport for London will ask > the > > > Americans to reconsider their position. > > > US embassy staff currently owe more than ?160,000 in unpaid congestion > > > charges in London. > > > A US embassy spokesman said diplomats in Stockholm are exempt from > paying > > > the congestion charge there. The spokesman added: 'The U.S. Department > of > > > State remains convinced that the charge in London is an impermissable > tax > > > and diplomatic missions are not liable for payment of such taxes to host > > > governments under the terms of the Vienna Convention.' > > > However, the UK government has already made it clear to the US that the > > > congestion charge is not a tax and that it decides what is and what is > not a > > > tax in this country. > > > British diplomats pay road tolls in the United States and Transport for > > > London's legal advice makes it clear that the US Embassy's diplomats > must > > > pay as London's congestion charge is not a tax. > > > A Transport for London spokesman said: 'The congestion charging scheme > gives > > > no privileges to any VIPs, including the Mayor, MPs, London Assembly > Members > > > or councillors, therefore we believe diplomats should pay. > > > 'British diplomats respect US laws, US diplomats should respect UKlaws.' > > > > > > Press Release > > > UAE Embassy settles congestion charge fees > > > 6-4-2006 201 > > > The Embassy of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has agreed that its > > > diplomats in London should pay the Congestion Charge, and has reached > > > a deal to clear a backlog of charges. After discussions with Transport > > > for London, the UAE has paid ?99,950.00 for outstanding congestion > > > charge fines accrued by the Embassy from February 2003 to March 2006. > > > In a letter to TfL, the Embassy said: "I can assure you that every > effort > > > will be made in the future for all diplomats working for this Embassy to > pay > > > any congestion charges as and when they occur." > > > The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said: "All Londoners will welcome > this > > > settlement with the Embassy of the United Arab Emirates and, in > particular, > > > their commitment to comply with the congestion charging scheme in the > > > future. > > > "The congestion charge is designed to reduce congestion in the busiest > areas > > > of the capital. > > > "Those embassies, such as that of the United States, which flout the > laws of > > > this country and misuse diplomatic immunity to evade the charge are > enjoying > > > the benefits of reduced congestion but contributing nothing." > > > "British diplomats respect US law when in the US. They pay American > tolls on > > > bridges and roads. The US Embassy should accept the advice of the > British > > > government and recognise that by trying to ignore this country's laws > they > > > do nothing but damage their standing in the eyes of London's citizens. > > > "I hope they will now take a leaf from the United Arab Emirates and > > > understand that as the richest and most powerful country in the world > they > > > can well afford to respect this country's laws." > > > Malcolm Murray-Clark, Director of Congestion Charging said: "The > congestion > > > charging scheme gives no privileges to any VIPs, so we do not see why > > > diplomats should not pay. The UAE has now joined the majority of other > > > countries who accept this is a legitimate charge." > > > Notes to Editors > > > 1. Both the Government and TfL have received consistent legal advice > > > which says that diplomats are not exempt from paying the congestion > charge. > > > We have the support of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and eminent > > > members of HM Queen's Counsel. > > > 2. In November last year, the Foreign Secretary, the Rt Hon Jack Straw > > > MP told the House of Commons in answering a written question that: > > > "We informed all missions by Note Verbale in March 2002 of our sustained > > > view that there were no legal grounds to exempt diplomatic missions from > > > payment of the congestion charge. Since then, in formal and informal > > > exchanges, we have informed missions of our view that the congestion > charge > > > does not constitute a form of direct taxation under the Vienna > Convention, > > > but is a charge analogous to a motorway toll, and that they are expected > to > > > pay." > > > 3. On 24th January 2006, Lord Triesman, the Parliamentary > > > Under-Secretary of State within the Foreign Office told the House of > Lords: > > > "My Lords, we take every opportunity to remind diplomatic missions to > meet > > > their obligations to comply with United Kingdom law and pay promptly any > > > fines that they incur. Following the annual Written Ministerial > Statement on > > > parking and congestion charge penalties on 12 December, we will now > formally > > > approach the heads of mission of the top 10 offenders in each category > to > > > find out what steps they are taking to pay. We will then take further > action > > > as appropriate". > > > 4. All UK missions are expected to pay any road tolls and any parking > > > charges. > > > 5. Support for this approach has come from both this country and the > > > US. > > > 6. In an editorial on March 31st 2006, The New York Times said: "We > > > don't buy the idea that diplomats are immune to the surcharge". The New > > > York Times editorial concludes: "Mr. Livingstone is certainly within his > > > rights to demand payment, which may now amount to hundreds of thousands > of > > > dollars, including fines". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries > (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is > on urban transport policy in Asia. > > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ Sujit Patwardhan sujit@vsnl.com sujitjp@gmail.com "Yamuna", ICS Colony, Ganeshkhind Road, Pune 411 007 India Tel: 25537955 ----------------------------------------------------- Hon. Secretary: Parisar www.parisar.org ------------------------------------------------------ Founder Member: PTTF (Pune Traffic & Transportation Forum) www.pttf.net ------------------------------------------------------ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060410/b3139d1b/attachment-0001.html From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Mon Apr 10 16:19:46 2006 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (Eric Britton) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 09:19:46 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Gender, Equity and Transport Forum - World Bank's Transport Strategy - Public Review: Message-ID: <057b01c65c6f$268d2f70$6501a8c0@Home> Dear Friends, This is to point you to a project and a discussion which I believe may interest all of you, and to which some of you may chose to contribute. Let me explain briefly. World Bank's Transport Strategy - Public Review: The project is the open review of an about to appear report by the World Bank's Transport Strategy. Here is what the Bank has to say about this process: In May 2005, the World Bank's Transport Sector Board decided that there was a need to consider whether some realignment of its work in the transport sector is necessary to reflect trends in development, and in development thinking, over the last few years. As a result, the Bank is planning to publish a document that will update our Transport Strategy. It is to be finalized in 2006 and to cover the period 2007-2015. The purpose of the update will be to articulate how the Bank's approach to transport and development is evolving; to identify planned adjustments to priorities and approach; and to explain these to our development partners and other stakeholders in the Bank's work. We are pleased to share this consultative draft of the emerging document (PDF 321 KB). Please note that this a working draft and contains some gaps. Not only will we take account of external consultations but we will be analyzing inputs from other groups within the Bank and, in due course, establishing the benchmarks and targets for agreed priorities. The Transport Sector Board would very much welcome external contributions from those with an interest in transport and development either through comment directed specifically at Document, or views about the Bank's role in the transport sector more broadly. We would be grateful to receive any contribution that you may wish to make by April 30th, 2006. Gender/Equity Review: As part of this review process, the Bank has asked the open Gatnet group -- The Gender, Equity and Transport Forum - for comments, suggestions and amendments. Gatnet works more or less along similar lines to ours here. It describes itself in these terms: This is the discussion group of a community of practice that began with a program on mainstreaming Gender into the World Bank's Transport Sector. It is open to all those who are interested in issues relating to improving mobility and access for poor women and men in developing countries. We are participating in this program, and have built a front-end for it that you will find at http://www.gatnet.net/, where I am sure you will find your way around quickly. Bank Report: You will find the full version of the report if you click to Gatnet Resources on the left hand menu. Discussions thus far: These are lodged under the Dgroups Idea Factory. For now they are rather awkwardly spread out under the Message rubric, but you will spot them by their subject lines. As some of you may well guess, my own approach to this important task is a bit different from that of some of my gender specialist colleagues. My position is first of all that the Bank will resist any major redrafting of the whole report, and that we will do better to concentrate our fire on a handful of key places in the report which can be refashioned to bring these issues into higher profile. (The draft as you will say makes one reference to the word gender and presses all references to women and girls into a single small para. So as you can see there is some way to go.) Your participation? I invite all of you will give this a look in, and hope that some of you might wish to pitch in once you have had a chance to catch up on all the various discussions and points made thus far. Perhaps as you read through the various communications you will note that this forum - all most all of whose participants are female - works a bit differently from our - and this is to our discredit!!! - largely male dominated (is that really the right word here?) group. For me as a life time activist for women's causes, this is a real learning experience. At times I feel like a big dog running around in a refined situation. I am trying to learn and adapt, but it may be a bit too late ;-) I am sure that you too will learn a lot if you take the time to work your way through this. And who knows, you may have some ideas and hints for us? Best on a sunny Paris morning of Spring, Eric Britton -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060410/06999f26/attachment.html From whook at itdp.org Mon Apr 10 23:00:23 2006 From: whook at itdp.org (Walter Hook) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 10:00:23 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: Gender, Equity and Transport Forum - World Bank's Transport Strategy - PublicReview: In-Reply-To: <057b01c65c6f$268d2f70$6501a8c0@Home> Message-ID: <000001c65ca7$1d01d130$c301a8c0@DFJLYL81> Dear Eric, Thanks for doing this. I looked briefly over the draft, and ITDP needs to come up with our comments too. I didn't see anything that warranted a major policy battle, but did feel certain sections could be strengthened. The more sensitive bit is trying to see through what is being said (generally the right things) and what effect it will actually have on world bank lending (I fear it will be more money for intercity roads and ports and airports, lots of words for the other good stuff but no clear way to operationalize). If anything, I think we should push them to articulate how they are going to actually try and affect the positive policy changes they identify. A lot more could and needs to be said about what exactly the World Bank might do in urban transport, anti corruption (which is interesting and seems to be Wolfowitz's main focus) and governance, and transport and health care (its not just about truck drivers spreading aids, its also about lack of mobility relating to lack of access to health care). BTW, enjoyed Livingstone, and your comments, which i thought were pretty funny. AS a long time resident of both new york (where UN ambassadors have diplomatic immunity and never pay their parking tickets) and Washington DC (where every year or so a drunk diplomat will run down and kill a small child and face no repercussions) I can say that while i found the US actions both stupid and deplorable, we (the US) in no way hold a monopoly on abuse of diplomatic immunity or undiplomatic diplomats. -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Eric Britton Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 3:20 AM To: Sustran-discuss@jca.apc.org; NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com Subject: [sustran] Gender,Equity and Transport Forum - World Bank's Transport Strategy - PublicReview: Dear Friends, This is to point you to a project and a discussion which I believe may interest all of you, and to which some of you may chose to contribute. Let me explain briefly. World Bank's Transport Strategy - Public Review: The project is the open review of an about to appear report by the World Bank's Transport Strategy. Here is what the Bank has to say about this process: In May 2005, the World Bank's Transport Sector Board decided that there was a need to consider whether some realignment of its work in the transport sector is necessary to reflect trends in development, and in development thinking, over the last few years. As a result, the Bank is planning to publish a document that will update our Transport Strategy. It is to be finalized in 2006 and to cover the period 2007-2015. The purpose of the update will be to articulate how the Bank's approach to transport and development is evolving; to identify planned adjustments to priorities and approach; and to explain these to our development partners and other stakeholders in the Bank's work. We are pleased to share this consultative draft of the emerging document (PDF 321 KB). Please note that this a working draft and contains some gaps. Not only will we take account of external consultations but we will be analyzing inputs from other groups within the Bank and, in due course, establishing the benchmarks and targets for agreed priorities. The Transport Sector Board would very much welcome external contributions from those with an interest in transport and development either through comment directed specifically at Document, or views about the Bank's role in the transport sector more broadly. We would be grateful to receive any contribution that you may wish to make by April 30th, 2006. Gender/Equity Review: As part of this review process, the Bank has asked the open Gatnet group -- The Gender, Equity and Transport Forum - for comments, suggestions and amendments. Gatnet works more or less along similar lines to ours here. It describes itself in these terms: This is the discussion group of a community of practice that began with a program on mainstreaming Gender into the World Bank's Transport Sector. It is open to all those who are interested in issues relating to improving mobility and access for poor women and men in developing countries. We are participating in this program, and have built a front-end for it that you will find at http://www.gatnet.net/, where I am sure you will find your way around quickly. Bank Report: You will find the full version of the report if you click to Gatnet Resources on the left hand menu. Discussions thus far: These are lodged under the Dgroups Idea Factory. For now they are rather awkwardly spread out under the Message rubric, but you will spot them by their subject lines. As some of you may well guess, my own approach to this important task is a bit different from that of some of my gender specialist colleagues. My position is first of all that the Bank will resist any major redrafting of the whole report, and that we will do better to concentrate our fire on a handful of key places in the report which can be refashioned to bring these issues into higher profile. (The draft as you will say makes one reference to the word gender and presses all references to women and girls into a single small para. So as you can see there is some way to go.) Your participation? I invite all of you will give this a look in, and hope that some of you might wish to pitch in once you have had a chance to catch up on all the various discussions and points made thus far. Perhaps as you read through the various communications you will note that this forum - all most all of whose participants are female - works a bit differently from our - and this is to our discredit!!! - largely male dominated (is that really the right word here?) group. For me as a life time activist for women's causes, this is a real learning experience. At times I feel like a big dog running around in a refined situation. I am trying to learn and adapt, but it may be a bit too late ;-) I am sure that you too will learn a lot if you take the time to work your way through this. And who knows, you may have some ideas and hints for us? Best on a sunny Paris morning of Spring, Eric Britton -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060410/465d2342/attachment.html From itdpasia at adelphia.net Tue Apr 11 14:28:00 2006 From: itdpasia at adelphia.net (John Ernst) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 23:28:00 -0600 Subject: [sustran] reducing traffic speed as cost-effective health intervention Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.0.20060410231919.00efb270@adelphia.net> An interesting news release from the Disease Control Priorities Project: the new edition of their book, Disease Control Priorities in Developing Countries, finds that interventions to reduce traffic speed are among the most cost effective. The report is not sophisticated from a transportation perspective -- it looks only at speed limit enforcement and speed bumps as interventions -- but these came out as among the most cost effective interventions for developing countries when compared to the many other expenditures possible to improve human health. The book is available for purchase or free download, the relevant chapter on "Unintentional Injuries" is at http://www.dcp2.org/pubs/DCP/39. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - John Ernst - Director, Asia Region ITDP - The Institute for Transportation and Development Policy Promoting environmentally sustainable and equitable transportation worldwide Visit http://www.itdp.org - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - From whook at itdp.org Mon Apr 10 23:00:23 2006 From: whook at itdp.org (Walter Hook) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 10:00:23 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: Gender, Equity and Transport Forum - World Bank's Transport Strategy - PublicReview: In-Reply-To: <057b01c65c6f$268d2f70$6501a8c0@Home> Message-ID: <000001c65ca7$1d01d130$c301a8c0@DFJLYL81> Dear Eric, Thanks for doing this. I looked briefly over the draft, and ITDP needs to come up with our comments too. I didn't see anything that warranted a major policy battle, but did feel certain sections could be strengthened. The more sensitive bit is trying to see through what is being said (generally the right things) and what effect it will actually have on world bank lending (I fear it will be more money for intercity roads and ports and airports, lots of words for the other good stuff but no clear way to operationalize). If anything, I think we should push them to articulate how they are going to actually try and affect the positive policy changes they identify. A lot more could and needs to be said about what exactly the World Bank might do in urban transport, anti corruption (which is interesting and seems to be Wolfowitz's main focus) and governance, and transport and health care (its not just about truck drivers spreading aids, its also about lack of mobility relating to lack of access to health care). BTW, enjoyed Livingstone, and your comments, which i thought were pretty funny. AS a long time resident of both new york (where UN ambassadors have diplomatic immunity and never pay their parking tickets) and Washington DC (where every year or so a drunk diplomat will run down and kill a small child and face no repercussions) I can say that while i found the US actions both stupid and deplorable, we (the US) in no way hold a monopoly on abuse of diplomatic immunity or undiplomatic diplomats. -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Eric Britton Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 3:20 AM To: Sustran-discuss@jca.apc.org; NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com Subject: [sustran] Gender,Equity and Transport Forum - World Bank's Transport Strategy - PublicReview: Dear Friends, This is to point you to a project and a discussion which I believe may interest all of you, and to which some of you may chose to contribute. Let me explain briefly. World Bank's Transport Strategy - Public Review: The project is the open review of an about to appear report by the World Bank's Transport Strategy. Here is what the Bank has to say about this process: In May 2005, the World Bank's Transport Sector Board decided that there was a need to consider whether some realignment of its work in the transport sector is necessary to reflect trends in development, and in development thinking, over the last few years. As a result, the Bank is planning to publish a document that will update our Transport Strategy. It is to be finalized in 2006 and to cover the period 2007-2015. The purpose of the update will be to articulate how the Bank's approach to transport and development is evolving; to identify planned adjustments to priorities and approach; and to explain these to our development partners and other stakeholders in the Bank's work. We are pleased to share this consultative draft of the emerging document (PDF 321 KB). Please note that this a working draft and contains some gaps. Not only will we take account of external consultations but we will be analyzing inputs from other groups within the Bank and, in due course, establishing the benchmarks and targets for agreed priorities. The Transport Sector Board would very much welcome external contributions from those with an interest in transport and development either through comment directed specifically at Document, or views about the Bank's role in the transport sector more broadly. We would be grateful to receive any contribution that you may wish to make by April 30th, 2006. Gender/Equity Review: As part of this review process, the Bank has asked the open Gatnet group -- The Gender, Equity and Transport Forum - for comments, suggestions and amendments. Gatnet works more or less along similar lines to ours here. It describes itself in these terms: This is the discussion group of a community of practice that began with a program on mainstreaming Gender into the World Bank's Transport Sector. It is open to all those who are interested in issues relating to improving mobility and access for poor women and men in developing countries. We are participating in this program, and have built a front-end for it that you will find at http://www.gatnet.net/, where I am sure you will find your way around quickly. Bank Report: You will find the full version of the report if you click to Gatnet Resources on the left hand menu. Discussions thus far: These are lodged under the Dgroups Idea Factory. For now they are rather awkwardly spread out under the Message rubric, but you will spot them by their subject lines. As some of you may well guess, my own approach to this important task is a bit different from that of some of my gender specialist colleagues. My position is first of all that the Bank will resist any major redrafting of the whole report, and that we will do better to concentrate our fire on a handful of key places in the report which can be refashioned to bring these issues into higher profile. (The draft as you will say makes one reference to the word gender and presses all references to women and girls into a single small para. So as you can see there is some way to go.) Your participation? I invite all of you will give this a look in, and hope that some of you might wish to pitch in once you have had a chance to catch up on all the various discussions and points made thus far. Perhaps as you read through the various communications you will note that this forum - all most all of whose participants are female - works a bit differently from our - and this is to our discredit!!! - largely male dominated (is that really the right word here?) group. For me as a life time activist for women's causes, this is a real learning experience. At times I feel like a big dog running around in a refined situation. I am trying to learn and adapt, but it may be a bit too late ;-) I am sure that you too will learn a lot if you take the time to work your way through this. And who knows, you may have some ideas and hints for us? Best on a sunny Paris morning of Spring, Eric Britton -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060410/465d2342/attachment-0002.html From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Tue Apr 11 19:39:17 2006 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (Eric Britton) Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 12:39:17 +0200 Subject: [sustran] "Why does public participation underpin sustainability?" Message-ID: <03f801c65d54$3054fcf0$6501a8c0@Home> The following question has been asked of The Commons. You will be able to follow and are invited to contribute to the discussions. The website of The Commons: Open Society Sustainability Initiative is of course at www.ecoplan.org . You will see its Idea Factory (where this discussion is to take place) on the top menu. To post your comments or questions, the address is the-commons@yahoogroups.com Eric Britton -----Original Message----- From: the-commons@yahoogroups.com [mailto:the-commons@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Delwyn Langdon Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 3:38 AM To: The-commons@yahoogroups.com Subject: [The Commons] Why does public participation underpin sustainability? Good Morning Common Friends I have a question that I would like your comments and thoughts on: Why does public participation underpin sustainability? This has become a topic of interest that is being discussed with my colleagues. Delwyn Langdon Manager Griffith University EcoCentre (p) 3735 7124 (f) 3735 7638 (m) 0439 781 803 (w) www.griffith.edu.au/centre/ecocentre -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060411/0ced0484/attachment.html From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Thu Apr 13 02:13:44 2006 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (Eric Britton) Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 19:13:44 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Someone interested in RT consultancy in Nepal? Message-ID: <020f01c65e54$75187a00$6501a8c0@Home> For your information please see the consultancy opportunity below: From: Ganesh K. Ghimire [mailto:ghimi@wlink.com.np] Sent: 11 April 2006 03:13 Dear Kate, I am writing to request if anyone could suggest someone interested in providing advisory/consultancy services for institutional development in rural transport development context. The work is for a period of 3-4 years in Nepal, but the envisaged input from the senior expert is in the range of 3-4 months per year. Area of work is that of institutional development in the context of rural road / rural transport / rural access infrastructure development. One can guess that some 15 - 20 years of professional experience, experience of similar work in similar context, and civil/highway engineering plus development related social science degrees etc. may be expected by the assignment. This is not an advertisement, and I am not the authority for this work. I am only trying to bridge the contact between the needing agency and the appropriately suitable professional through IFRTD network. Interested person may please contact me for further details with brief self-introduction (or anyone may suggest someone appropriate): Ganesh K. Ghimire; Email: ghimi@wlink.com.np; and/or ganeshghimire@hotmail.com with kind regards, Ganesh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060412/88ede026/attachment.html From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Thu Apr 13 17:09:07 2006 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (Eric Britton) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 10:09:07 +0200 Subject: [sustran] GTZ on Why Transport Matters: the relationship between the MDGs, gender and transport Message-ID: <03cd01c65ed1$8aef4430$6501a8c0@Home> Question on this to our GTZ, SUTP friends: Might we know who the authors of the gender section are. My thought is that they may be interested in our on-going review of the World Bank Transport Strategy, that you can follow via http://www.gatnet.net/. Thanks for letting us know. Eric Britton -----Original Message----- From: Margaret Grieco [mailto:mg294@cornell.edu] Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 11:19 PM To: Gender and Transport Subject: [gatnet] GTZ on the relationship between the mdgs, gender and transport Hi Folks, Here's a document that is worth looking at if you have not met it already. GTZ have threaded the arguments on gender, transport and the mdgs together here for us. Perhaps we could alert the World Bank to the document: http://www.sutp.org/docs/WhyTransportMatters-locked-8.11.05.pdf Best Margaret Margaret Grieco, D.Phil.(Oxon.), MCIT Professor of Transport and Society Transport Research Institute, Napier University, Sighthill Campus, Edinburgh EH11 4BN web site: http://www.geocities.com/transport_and_society -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060413/33591191/attachment.html From sujit at vsnl.com Fri Apr 14 05:53:03 2006 From: sujit at vsnl.com (Sujit Patwardhan) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 02:23:03 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Fwd: National Urban Transport Policy (Final) In-Reply-To: <4cfd20aa0604131349m4abe8bc9tdf40f68640dfed1e@mail.gmail.com> References: <4cfd20aa0604131349m4abe8bc9tdf40f68640dfed1e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4cfd20aa0604131353o956717agd83b460f4c69647d@mail.gmail.com> 13 April 2006 Dear All, The "National Urban Transport Policy", (draft of which was on the Urban Development Department, Govt of India site) is now posted on their site and can be downloaded as a PDF file. The location (URL) is given below. http://www.urbanindia.nic.in/moud/programme/ut/nutp.pdf -- Sujit -- ------------------------------------------------------ Sujit Patwardhan sujit@vsnl.com sujitjp@gmail.com "Yamuna", ICS Colony, Ganeshkhind Road, Pune 411 007 India Tel: 25537955 ----------------------------------------------------- Hon. Secretary: Parisar www.parisar.org ------------------------------------------------------ Founder Member: PTTF (Pune Traffic & Transportation Forum) www.pttf.net ------------------------------------------------------ -- ------------------------------------------------------ Sujit Patwardhan sujit@vsnl.com sujitjp@gmail.com "Yamuna", ICS Colony, Ganeshkhind Road, Pune 411 007 India Tel: 25537955 ----------------------------------------------------- Hon. Secretary: Parisar www.parisar.org ------------------------------------------------------ Founder Member: PTTF (Pune Traffic & Transportation Forum) www.pttf.net ------------------------------------------------------ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060414/fa17ebcb/attachment.html From Alan.Howes at cbuchanan.co.uk Fri Apr 14 05:58:38 2006 From: Alan.Howes at cbuchanan.co.uk (Alan Howes) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 21:58:38 +0100 Subject: [sustran] FW: National Urban Transport Policy (Final) References: <4cfd20aa0604131349m4abe8bc9tdf40f68640dfed1e@mail.gmail.com> <324DCD7680954F468CF306EE5404F001B58279@mail01.cbuchanan.co.uk> Message-ID: <324DCD7680954F468CF306EE5404F001B5827A@mail01.cbuchanan.co.uk> ________________________________ From: Alan Howes Sent: Thu 13/04/2006 21:53 To: Sujit Patwardhan; pttf@googlegroups.com Cc: Peter Lutman Subject: RE: National Urban Transport Policy (Final) A National Urban Transport Policy in 18 pages (or is it 23?) is quite an achievement. Have not read it but it looks quite good, and at least hints at pilot projects (but no firm proposals). What exactly is its status? Does it replace a previous Transport Policy? It looks a bit like what we in the UK call a "Green Paper" - a discussion document rather than a firm commitment. Alan -- Alan Howes Associate Transport Planner Colin Buchanan 4 St Colme Street, Edinburgh, EH3 6AA Tel: +44 131 226 4693 Mobile: +44 7952 464335 email: alan.howes@cbuchanan.co.uk www: http:/www.cbuchanan.co.uk/ ________________________________ From: Sujit Patwardhan [mailto:sujitjp@gmail.com] Sent: Thu 13/04/2006 21:49 To: pttf@googlegroups.com Subject: National Urban Transport Policy (Final) 13 April 2006 Dear All, The "National Urban Transport Policy", draft of which was on the Urban Development Department, Govt of India, is now posted on their site and can be downloaded as a PDF file. The location (URL) is given below. http://www.urbanindia.nic.in/moud/programme/ut/nutp.pdf -- Sujit -- ------------------------------------------------------ Sujit Patwardhan sujit@vsnl.com sujitjp@gmail.com "Yamuna", ICS Colony, Ganeshkhind Road, Pune 411 007 India Tel: 25537955 ----------------------------------------------------- Hon. Secretary: Parisar www.parisar.org ------------------------------------------------------ Founder Member: PTTF (Pune Traffic & Transportation Forum) www.pttf.net ------------------------------------------------------ ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ DISCLAIMER This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which 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 Colin Buchanan, 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 do not accept liability for any loss or damage caused by software viruses. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060413/6d0b9bb5/attachment.html From sksunny at gmail.com Sat Apr 15 11:23:53 2006 From: sksunny at gmail.com (Sunny) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 09:23:53 +0700 Subject: [sustran] Re: National Urban Transport Policy (Final) In-Reply-To: <324DCD7680954F468CF306EE5404F001B5827A@mail01.cbuchanan.co.uk> References: <4cfd20aa0604131349m4abe8bc9tdf40f68640dfed1e@mail.gmail.com> <3 24DCD7680954F468CF306EE5404F001B58279@mail01.cbuchanan.co.uk> <324DCD7680954F468CF306EE5404F001B5827A@mail01.cbuchanan.co.uk> Message-ID: <44405939.1080606@gmail.com> Thank you Sujit for the document. I have read it and most of the document is impressive if implemented. Still I wonder on some points stated in the document. Firstly, I did not find any mention of reducing speeds of the private motor vehicles as speed is an important factor for causing accidents. Secondly, from an environmental context Electricity is surely the cleanest and sometimes affordable source of energy provided that the source is also the same. Especially in India where most of the electricity is produced from burning fossil fuels or through hydro wont you think that increasing the electric fleet will pose a pressure on production? From my knowledge several states in India are still power thirsty and buy power from their neighbours. In my opinion it would be nice if there is sufficient research on other alternative fuels or biofuels which can at least meet the needs and also create a livelihood for some. Finally, the mention of NMT and vulnerable groups in the document is impressive, but I am worried that engineering solutions will be embraced for providing safety to pedestrians on the arterial roads. Like here in Bangkok, several pedestrian bridges are constructed, these are supposed to make the pedestrians safer while crossing the road; but in my view I feel that these bridges are to totally segregate the pedestrians off the main road so that they do not cause any hindrance for the car drivers and the cars need not stop or wait till the pedestrians cross the road. These bridges are not very pedestrian friendly as they don't consider the old or disabled people who are forced to cross the road directly some times ending up in the hospital. So, these are my opinions on the document and I agree that my idea can be wrong in some places. I would like to know the comments of the fellow members too. Thanks once again Sujit, Sunny Santhosh Kumar K Faculty of Environment and Resource Studies, MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY 999, Phuttamonthon Road 4, Salaya, Nakhorn Pathom. Thailand Ph: +66 4 113 0181 Email: sksunny@gmail.com; sunnysanthosh@gmail.com > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Sujit Patwardhan [mailto:sujitjp@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Thu 13/04/2006 21:49 > *To:* pttf@googlegroups.com > *Subject:* National Urban Transport Policy (Final) > > 13 April 2006 > > > Dear All, > The "National Urban Transport Policy", draft of which was on the Urban > Development Department, Govt of India, is now posted on their site and > can be downloaded as a PDF file. The location (URL) is given below. > > http://www.urbanindia.nic.in/moud/programme/ut/nutp.pdf > -- > Sujit > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > Sujit Patwardhan > sujit@vsnl.com > sujitjp@gmail.com From carlos.pardo at sutp.org Sat Apr 15 22:53:10 2006 From: carlos.pardo at sutp.org (Carlos F. Pardo SUTP) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 08:53:10 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: GTZ on Why Transport Matters: the relationship between theMDGs, gender and transport In-Reply-To: <03cd01c65ed1$8aef4430$6501a8c0@Home> Message-ID: <200604151353.k3FDrGZj002835@omr1.networksolutionsemail.com> Dear all, Sorry for the late reply. You will always find authors to the GTZ documents in the imprint. In the case of the GTZ MDG document is F?d?ric Holm-Hadulla, with some other contributors directly from the GTZ transport sector. I have made our colleagues at GTZ in Germany will be aware of the gatnet discussion in order to receive feedback from the as well. Best regards, Carlos F. Pardo _____ De: sustran-discuss-bounces+carlos.pardo=sutp.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+carlos.pardo=sutp.org@list.jca.apc.org] En nombre de Eric Britton Enviado el: Jueves, 13 de Abril de 2006 03:09 a.m. Para: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com; Sustran-discuss@jca.apc.org Asunto: [sustran] GTZ on Why Transport Matters: the relationship between theMDGs, gender and transport Question on this to our GTZ, SUTP friends: Might we know who the authors of the gender section are. My thought is that they may be interested in our on-going review of the World Bank Transport Strategy, that you can follow via http://www.gatnet.net/. Thanks for letting us know. Eric Britton -----Original Message----- From: Margaret Grieco [mailto:mg294@cornell.edu] Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 11:19 PM To: Gender and Transport Subject: [gatnet] GTZ on the relationship between the mdgs, gender and transport Hi Folks, Here's a document that is worth looking at if you have not met it already. GTZ have threaded the arguments on gender, transport and the mdgs together here for us. Perhaps we could alert the World Bank to the document: http://www.sutp.org/docs/WhyTransportMatters-locked-8.11.05.pdf Best Margaret Margaret Grieco, D.Phil.(Oxon.), MCIT Professor of Transport and Society Transport Research Institute, Napier University, Sighthill Campus, Edinburgh EH11 4BN web site: http://www.geocities.com/transport_and_society -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060415/fa032c9f/attachment.html From carlos.pardo at sutp.org Sat Apr 15 22:53:10 2006 From: carlos.pardo at sutp.org (Carlos F. Pardo SUTP) Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 08:53:10 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: GTZ on Why Transport Matters: the relationship between theMDGs, gender and transport In-Reply-To: <03cd01c65ed1$8aef4430$6501a8c0@Home> Message-ID: <200604151353.k3FDrGZj002834@omr1.networksolutionsemail.com> Dear all, Sorry for the late reply. You will always find authors to the GTZ documents in the imprint. In the case of the GTZ MDG document is F?d?ric Holm-Hadulla, with some other contributors directly from the GTZ transport sector. I have made our colleagues at GTZ in Germany will be aware of the gatnet discussion in order to receive feedback from the as well. Best regards, Carlos F. Pardo _____ De: sustran-discuss-bounces+carlos.pardo=sutp.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+carlos.pardo=sutp.org@list.jca.apc.org] En nombre de Eric Britton Enviado el: Jueves, 13 de Abril de 2006 03:09 a.m. Para: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com; Sustran-discuss@jca.apc.org Asunto: [sustran] GTZ on Why Transport Matters: the relationship between theMDGs, gender and transport Question on this to our GTZ, SUTP friends: Might we know who the authors of the gender section are. My thought is that they may be interested in our on-going review of the World Bank Transport Strategy, that you can follow via http://www.gatnet.net/. Thanks for letting us know. Eric Britton -----Original Message----- From: Margaret Grieco [mailto:mg294@cornell.edu] Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 11:19 PM To: Gender and Transport Subject: [gatnet] GTZ on the relationship between the mdgs, gender and transport Hi Folks, Here's a document that is worth looking at if you have not met it already. GTZ have threaded the arguments on gender, transport and the mdgs together here for us. Perhaps we could alert the World Bank to the document: http://www.sutp.org/docs/WhyTransportMatters-locked-8.11.05.pdf Best Margaret Margaret Grieco, D.Phil.(Oxon.), MCIT Professor of Transport and Society Transport Research Institute, Napier University, Sighthill Campus, Edinburgh EH11 4BN web site: http://www.geocities.com/transport_and_society -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060415/1b8bc2e5/attachment.html From kviethung at gmx.de Sun Apr 16 22:53:03 2006 From: kviethung at gmx.de (Viet Hung Khuat) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 15:53:03 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [sustran] Re: Fwd: National Urban Transport Policy (Final) References: <4cfd20aa0604131353o956717agd83b460f4c69647d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <25845.1145195583@www064.gmx.net> Dear Mr Sujit Patwardhan The paper is quite interesting to learn, but it is difficult to refer due to absence of date of issue, and may location. Please provide that information. Thanks, Khuat > --- Urspr?ngliche Nachricht --- > Von: "Sujit Patwardhan" > An: "SUSTRAN Asia and Pacific Sustainable Transport" > > Betreff: [sustran] Fwd: National Urban Transport Policy (Final) > Datum: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 02:23:03 +0530 > > 13 April 2006 > > > Dear All, > The "National Urban Transport Policy", (draft of which was on the Urban > Development Department, Govt of India site) is now posted on their site > and > can be downloaded as a PDF file. The location (URL) is given below. > > http://www.urbanindia.nic.in/moud/programme/ut/nutp.pdf > > > -- > Sujit > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > Sujit Patwardhan > sujit@vsnl.com > sujitjp@gmail.com > > "Yamuna", > ICS Colony, > Ganeshkhind Road, > Pune 411 007 > India > Tel: 25537955 > ----------------------------------------------------- > Hon. Secretary: > Parisar > www.parisar.org > ------------------------------------------------------ > Founder Member: > PTTF > (Pune Traffic & Transportation Forum) > www.pttf.net > ------------------------------------------------------ > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > Sujit Patwardhan > sujit@vsnl.com > sujitjp@gmail.com > > "Yamuna", > ICS Colony, > Ganeshkhind Road, > Pune 411 007 > India > Tel: 25537955 > ----------------------------------------------------- > Hon. Secretary: > Parisar > www.parisar.org > ------------------------------------------------------ > Founder Member: > PTTF > (Pune Traffic & Transportation Forum) > www.pttf.net > ------------------------------------------------------ > -- **************************************** Khuat Viet Hung, M.Eng (C/o: Prof. Manfred Boltze) Institut fuer Verkehr, TU Darmstadt Petersenstrasse 30, 64287 Darmstadt, Deutschland Tel. : + 49-6151-16 2033 Fax: + 49-6151-16 2045 GMX Produkte empfehlen und ganz einfach Geld verdienen! Satte Provisionen f?r GMX Partner: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/partner From carlos.pardo at sutp.org Mon Apr 17 20:01:56 2006 From: carlos.pardo at sutp.org (Carlos F. Pardo SUTP) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 06:01:56 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Hybrid cars- article from IHT Message-ID: <200604171102.k3HB1xvW030029@ns-omrbm2.netsolmail.com> A nice, centered article about the reality of hybrid cars and their "fuel efficiency" Source: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/16/opinion/edkitman.php Life in the green lane Jamie Lincoln Kitman The New York Times MONDAY, APRIL 17, 2006 If you've gone to any auto show in the last year or so, you'll know that hybrid cars are the hippest automotive fashion statement to come along in years. They've become synonymous with the worthy goal of reducing gasoline consumption and dependence on foreign oil and all that this means for a better environment and more stable geopolitics. And yet like fat-free desserts, which sound healthy but can still make you fat, the hybrid car can make people feel as if they're doing something good, even when they're doing nothing special at all. As consumers and governments at every level climb onto the hybrid bandwagon, there is the very real danger of elevating the technology at the expense of the intended outcome - saving gas. Few things these days say "environmentally aware consumer" so loudly as the fuel-sipping Toyota Prius. With its two power sources - one a gasoline- powered internal combustion engine, the other a battery-driven electric motor - the best-selling Prius (and other hybrids sold by Honda and Ford and due soon from several other car makers) can go further on a gallon and emit fewer pollutants in around-town use than most conventional automobiles because under certain circumstances they run on battery power and consume less fuel. But just because a car has so-called hybrid technology doesn't mean it's doing more to help the environment or to reduce the country's dependence on imported oil any more than a non-hybrid car. There are good hybrids and bad ones. Fuel-efficient conventional cars are often better than hybrid sport-utility vehicles - just look at how many miles per gallon the vehicle gets. Being a professional car-tester, which is to say a person who gets asked for unpaid car-buying advice practically every day, I know these distinctions have already been lost on many car buyers. And I fear they're well on their way to being lost on our governments, too. Lately, people have been calling me and telling me they're thinking about buying the Lexus 400H, a new hybrid SUV. When I tell them that they'd get better mileage in some conventional SUVs, and even better mileage with a passenger car, they protest, "But it's a hybrid!" I remind them that the 21 miles per gallon I saw while driving the Lexus 400H is not particularly brilliant, efficiency-wise - hybrid or not. Because the Lexus is a relatively heavy car and because its electric motor is deployed to provide speed more than efficiency, it will never be a mileage champ. The car that started the hybrid craze, the Toyota Prius, is lauded for squeezing 40 or more miles out of a gallon of gas, and it really can. But only when it's being driven around town. On a cross- country excursion in a Prius, the staff of Automobile Magazine discovered mileage plummeted on the Interstate. In fact, the car's computer, which controls the engine and the motor, allowing them to run together or separately, was programmed to direct the Prius to spend most of its highway time running on gasoline because at higher speeds the batteries quickly get exhausted. Indeed, the gasoline engine worked so hard that we calculated we might have used less fuel on our journey if we had been driving Toyota's conventionally powered, similarly sized Corolla - which costs thousands less. For years, most of the world's big car makers have shied away from building hybrids because while they are technologically intriguing, they are also an inelegant engineering solution - the use of two energy sources assures extra weight, extra complexity and extra expense (as much as $6,000 more per car.) The hybrid car's electric battery packs rob space from passengers and cargo and although they can be recycled, not every owner can be counted on to do the right thing at the end of their vehicle's service life. And an unrecycled hybrid battery pack, which weighs more than 100 pounds, poses a major environmental hazard. So the ideal hybrid car is one that is used in town and carefully disposed of at the end of its days. Hybrid taxis and buses make enormous sense. But the market knows no such distinctions. People think they want hybrids and they'll buy them, even if a conventional car would make more sense. The danger is that the automakers will co- opt the hybrids' green mantle and, with the help of a government looking to bail out its troubled friends in Detroit, misguidedly encourage the sale of hybrids without reference to their actual effect on oil consumption. Pro-hybrid laws and incentives sound nice, but they might just end up subsidizing companies that have failed to develop truly fuel-efficient vehicles at the expense of those that have had the foresight to design their cars right in the first place. And they may actually punish citizens who save fuel the old- fashioned way - by using less of it, with smaller, lighter and more efficient cars. All the while, they'll make a mockery of a potentially useful technology. (Jamie Lincoln Kitman is the New York bureau chief for Automobile Magazine and a columnist for Top Gear, a British magazine.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060417/2d1c93ff/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 73 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060417/2d1c93ff/attachment.gif From carlos.pardo at sutp.org Tue Apr 18 23:31:40 2006 From: carlos.pardo at sutp.org (Carlos F. Pardo SUTP) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 09:31:40 -0500 Subject: [sustran] SUTP newsletter Jan-March 2006 Message-ID: <200604181431.k3IEVgZj031716@omr1.networksolutionsemail.com> Sustainable Urban Transport Project (GTZ SUTP) update January ? March 2006 ? This bimonthly newsletter gives updates on the SUTP resources, website and events related to our topic of interest. For more information or feedback, please contact sutp@sutp.org , or visit our website at www.sutp.org . Note: you have been sent this update because you?ve registered in the SUTP website and/or agreed to be part of the sutp yahoogroup sutp-asia@yahoogroups.com . Please follow instructions in the group website at www.yahoogroups.com/sutp-asia to unsubscribe or write directly to sutp@sutp.org to unsubscribe to this newsletter. ? *****Project related News***** ? * Upcoming: Carfree Development module ? Spanish translation Lloyd Wright?s Carfree Development module (3e) will be published in Spanish by April 20th, and will be available in www.sutp.org for free download ? * Chinese translation of 20 sourcebook modules The first 20 modules of the Sourcebook developed by GTZ have been translated into Chinese. Click http://www.sutp.org/sbchin.htm for more information and to download the overview ? * GTZ participation during CITYNET KLRTC course CITYNET developed its KLRTC Training Course 8: SUSTAINABLE URBAN TRANSPORT IN ASIA AND THE PACIFIC REGION during 26 March 2006 - 1 April 2006 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Manfred Breithaupt from GTZ gave a talk during the first day about Sustainable transport and Fiscal Policies for Mobility Management. ? * GTZ participation during SSATP workshop in Addis The Sub-Saharan African Transport Program (SSATP) from the World Bank delivered the workshop on ?Addressing the Mobility and Transport Needs of the Urban and Rural Poor? in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, March 21 ? 23, 2006 in collaboration with GTZ, UITP and IFRTD. Armin Wagner from GTZ gave a presentation on ?Planning and training approaches on NMT/mass transport planning?. The presentation is available here: www.sutp.org/docs/ADDIS_AW.pdf ? *Vientiane support to GEF MSP proposal The GTZ SUTP project, along with other parties, is supporting Vientiane Municipality in developing a proposal for their Vientiane Sustainable Transport Initiative, which will include a BRT system, cycleways, pedestrianisation, TDM measures and pedicab development. ? * GTZ support to Sibiu, Romania GTZ has given technical suport to Sibiu in Romania, towards the implementation of TDM measures and parking management strategies to improve their transport situation. Reports and details are available directly from transport@gtz.de ? *GTZ SUTP support to Montevideo As part of the Montevideo event on Sustainable transport and Bus Rapid Transit Planning, GTZ SUTP will deliver a training course in May 2-4, 2006 in this city with participants from the municipality and other related parties, among other assistants from various cities in Latin America. This will hopefully develop into a strong cooperation with the city in terms of implementation arrangements. ? * Revised Public Awareness Raising module The GTZ SUTP has published a revised 40-page module on Public Awareness Raising in Sustainable Transport (module 1e, 3.8 MB) by Carlos F. Pardo. It has expanded on some of the issues that were developed in the initial document, and has included information on diagnostic tools, levels of awareness of the population, types of information that can be given to the target groups and complementing other chapters. This module will be complemented in May 2006 by a Training Course document on the same topic, as well as a live training course in Sao Paulo (July, 2006). The module will also be translated into Spanish by June 2006. It can be downloaded here. http://www.sutp.org/download/ ? * Document on Traffic Safety impacts Todd Litman and Steven Fitzroy from VTPI and Fitzroy and Associates have published a paper on the evaluation of mobility management traffic safety impacts. It can be downloaded here. http://www.vtpi.org/safetrav.pdf ? * Presentation on outreach tools Carlos F. Pardo has given a presentation during the WRI hosted event on sustainable transport during January 26-27, 2006 in Washington. The presentation is available here (PDF, 3MB) http://www.sutp.org/docs/OUTREACH_WASHINGTON_%20PARDO.pdf . Complete information on the event is available here. http://embarq.wri.org/en/ConferencesDetail.aspx?ID=43 ? * Article on BRT's in Latin America Gerhard Menckhoff has developed an interesting paper on BRT systems in Latin America, with an analysis of their main characteristics, pros and cons. It is available from download here. http://www.sutp.org/docs/MENCKHOFF_LAC_BRTS.pdf ? * GTZ article on energy and transport Dirk A?man from GTZ and Niklas Sieber have published an academic paper entitled "Transport in Developing Countries: Renewable Energy vs. Energy Reduction" on the Transport Reviews Journal of November 2005. Full text article is available from here. http://www.sutp.org/docs/Sieber_Assman_energy_transport.pdf ? * GTZ document on transport and Millennium Development Goals GTZ has published a document on The contributions from the Transport Sector to the Millennium Development Goals, called "Why Transport Matters". It ellaborates the nature of transport both as a complement to other sectors, and as a stimulant for economic growth and poverty reduction in its own right. It can be downloaded clicking here. http://www.sutp.org/docs/WhyTransportMatters-locked-8.11.05.pdf ? * Portuguese version of SUTP website- Tradu??o completa para o Portugu?s Our website has been kindly translated by Transporte Ativo members (Ze Lobo, Jo?o Guilherme and Denir Miranda) into Portuguese language. Please click here to access this version. http://www.sutp.org/PT/PTindex.htm ? ? * SUTP expands to Latin America and the Caribbean To complement its English/Asia The GTZ SUTP project has started its Latin America & the Caribbean/Spanish chapter based in Bogot?, Colombia. Most sourcebook modules have been translated to Spanish, and the webpage has already started a translation effort finalised in 2005. It is now available in www.sutp.org/esp/espindex.htm. Also, the new chapter can be contacted through an email to sutplac@sutp.org . ?? ? ************EVENTS (call for abstracts first, then chronological order)**** ? * Call for abstracts: 11th World Conference on Transport Research The World Conference on Transport Research Society (WCTRS) announces that the 11th World Conference will be held June 24-28, 2007, in Berkeley, California. The University of California will serve as host. For the 2007 Conference, the Local Organizing Committee is working closely with WCTRS officers and the WCTRS Scientific Committee to put together a memorable event. The five day conference will include plenary and concurrent sessions, field trips, and special events. Participants may give papers, organize sessions, or simply attend and participate in discussions. ? Website: http://www.uctc.net/wctrs/ Abstracts Due: 28 April 2006 Notification of acceptance: 02 June 2006 Papers Due: 01 December 2006 ? * Central Biofuels Conference & Expo II Learn and network with worldwide experts and professionals on ethanol, biodiesel, biomass and biotechnology. Dates: 21st - 23rd March, 2006 Venue: Panama City, Panama Contact: info@biofuelsconferences.com Web site: www.biofuelsconferences.com ? * Citeair Workshop Dates: 31st March, 2006 Venue: Brussels, Belgium Contact: wwenzel@polis-online.com ? * JEDDAH INTERNATIONAL URBAN FORUM & EXHIBITION Urbanism and Sustainability in A Changing World Dates: 16th-20th April, 2006 Venue: Jeddah, Saudi Arabia Website: http://www.jiufex.com/ Email: cs@jiufex.com ? * Intelligent Transport Systems: Design and Safety The European Network of Excellence HUMANIST organizes a training seminar on Intelligent Transport Systems: Design and Safety. Eight lecturers from European research centres will share their knowledge on safety and animate discussions on this important topic. The programme consists of lectures and practical exercices, performed in small groups. Dates: 09th - 10th May, 2006 Venue: Prague, Czech Republic Contact: info@biofuelsconferences.com Web site: www.noehumanist.org/ ? * Mayors' Asia-Pacific Environmental Summit Since 1999, the Mayors` Asia Pacific Environmental Summit (MAPES) has provided a unique forum for mayors and other local government officials in the region to promote sustainable development in their cities, share information and best practices, and build partnerships with business, donor organizations, and NGOs.? ? Dates and venue: 09th - 12th May, 2006, Melbourne, Australia, concurrent with Australia's largest environmental and trade show, ENVIRO 2006 Email: info@environmentalsummit.com Web site: www.environmentalsummit.com ? * European Conference on Mobility Management (ECOMM) 2006 The Subject will be treated in four streams: Co-operation in mobility management on a regiional scale Accessibility of urban areas Attractiveness of cities Public participation and solutions for target groups Dates: 10th - 12th May, 2006 Deadline for abstracts submission: 2nd January, 2006 Email: ecomm2006@vm2.nl Venue: Groningen, The Netherlands Web site: http://www.ecomm2006.nl/ ? * 4th Training Programme for Public Transport Managers The mobility sector has been rapidly changing during the last years. Therefore, the professional knowledge and capabilities required from persons in charge of the planning, administration, operation and maintenance of a public transport network is changing. Aware of this challenge, UITP has developed a training programme that others its members' managers the opportunity to improve their understanding of global mobility issues and enhance knowledge on the hot topics at present in public transport, touching upon globalisation and liberalisation, sustainable mobility and pricing of urban journeys, contractual arrangements between operators and authorities, integration and seamless travel, a total quality management and customer approach, safety and security, innovative rolling stock, travel information, electronic ticketing, etc. Dates and venue: 20th - 24th May, 2006, Bangkok, Thailand (Module 3) Email: caroline.deliens@uitp.com Web site: http://www.uitp.com/project/training/2005/copenhagen/ ? * European Workshop on Infomobility and Flexible Transport Services The Regione Toscana, ATAF, the Public Transport Company of the Florence Metropolitan Area, and the AGATA project part-financed by the European Programme INTERREG IIIB MEDOCC are organizing a workshop "Infomobility and Flexible Transport Services: towards e-governance and sustainability in European cities" in collaboration with ENEA (Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and the Environment) and the INTERREG IIIC SUNRISE, TRANSURBAN and MASCARA European projects. More than 30 speakers coming from different National and European areas, will present some significant experiences of mobility governance and ICT application to the overall transport chain. The workshop will affront the related institutional and normative aspects and the role of public transport and flexible services in the overall area of citizen info-mobility. The initiatives undertaken at national and European level will be also presented. Dates and venue: 25th - 26th May, 2006 Venue: Florence, Italy Contact: Jessica Huntingford Tel +39 055 4382432 - Fax +39 055 4382426 E-mail: jessica.huntingford@regione.toscana.it ? * GENDER, TRANSPORT AND DEVELOPMENT: BRIDGING THE DIVIDE BETWEEN DEVELOPMENT GOALS, RESEARCH AND POLICY IN DEVELOPING COUNTIRES. The South African National Roads Agency Ltd (SANRAL) and the Gender and Development Unit of the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC), in partnership with the Department of Transport (DoT) and the Centre for Scientific Industrial Research (CSIR) cordially invites you to submit a paper, poster, or participate in the round table discussion of the First International African Conference on Gender, Transport and Development. Dates and venue: 28th - 30th May 2006, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, Port Elizabeth, South Africa Email: wcloete@nra.co.za and copied to rpillay@hsrc.ac.za Web site: http://www.nra.co.za/ ? * Eastern Biofuels Conference & Expo II Learn and network with worldwide experts and professionals on ethanol, biodiesel, biomass and biotechnology. Dates: 30th May - 1st June, 2006 Venue: Budapest, Hungary Contact: info@biofuelsconferences.com Web site: www.biofuelsconferences.com ? * CODATU XII, Lyon. Date and Venue: 5th - 7th July, 2006, Lyon Web site: http://www.codatu.org Email: codatu@wanadoo.fr ? * Biannual Conference and Exhibit of the Clean Air Initiative for Latin American Cities on Sustainable Transport: Linkages to Mitigate Climate Change and Improve Air Quality The conference will also have three training courses from SUTP on Public Awareness, Bus Rapid Transit and Non motorised transport before, during and after the event. GTZ will also contribute to the conference by moderating sessions and delivering presentations. Date and Venue: July 24th -27th 2006 -- Sao Paulo, Brazil Web site: http://www.cleanairnet.org/lac_en/1415/article-70393.html ? * 11th International Conference on Travel Behaviour Research, Kyoto,Japan The 11th International Conference on Travel Behaviour Research, organized by the International Association for Travel Behaviour Research (IATBR), will be held at Kyoto University, Japan, in August 2006. This is the first conference in the IATBR series to be held in Asia. Date & Venue: 16th - 20th August, 2006, Kyoto University Clock Tower Centennial Hall, Japan E-mail: iatbr06@term.kuciv.kyoto-u.ac.jp Web site: http://term.kuciv.kyoto-u.ac.jp/iatbr06/ ? * European Transport Conference 2006 The European Transport Conference (ETC) is viewed as the key sector event. It brings together speakers and delegates to form a "who's who" of transport policy and innovation from across Europe. Dates: 18th - 20th September, 2006 Deadline for abstracts submission: 31st January, 2006 Venue: Strasbourg, France Web site: http://abstracts.etcproceedings.org/ ? * Better Air Quality 2006 The 5th Better Air Quality (BAQ) workshop will be held in the third week of September in the historic city of Yogyakarta in Central Java, Indonesia. The theme of BAQ 2006 is called a "Celebration of Efforts" to highlight the success stories that Asian countries, cities and communities have achieved over the last years in addressing air pollution while at the same time highlighting the efforts that are still ahead in improving air quality in Asia. A number of GTZ contributions are foreseen in this event, including workshops and training courses. Web site: www.baq2006.org Venue: Sheraton Mustika Hotel, Indonesia Date: September 13-15 September 2006 ? ? * 3rd International Symposium NETWORKS for MOBILITY 2006 Date & Venue: 05th-06th October, 2006, Stuttgart. E-mail: fovus@fovus.uni-stuttgart.de Web site: http://www.uni-stuttgart.de/fovus/index_en.htm ? * Segundo Congreso Internacional de Transporte Sustentable The Embarque-led Centro de Transporte Sustentable (CTS) from M?xico will co-organize an event together with GTZ SUTP LAC on October 16-18, 2006, on sustainable Transport. More info will be delivered through this website, or can be seen in http://www.cts-ceiba.org/congreso2/ (Spanish website) ? ? * Velo-city 2007 in Munich The goal of Velo-city 2007 in Munich is to create an international communication platform for decision makers in the economic, political and administrative arena for the successful promotion of bicycle transport in daily and leisure travel. Simultaneously, we want to reach out to the cyclists, the citizens of the City of Munich. Date & Venue: 12th-15th June, 2007, Gastelg Convention Centre. Registration: info@velo-city2007.com Web site: www.velo-city2007.com From madhav.g.badami at mcgill.ca Thu Apr 20 08:09:51 2006 From: madhav.g.badami at mcgill.ca (Madhav Badami, Prof.) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 19:09:51 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Call for papers for TRB 2007 Annual Meeting ... Message-ID: <45AEE06A4800AF4FAD8BEF09C433D85F030773CE@EXCHANGE2VS2.campus.mcgill.ca> Hello all, I would like to bring to your attention the following two calls for papers. Please consider submitting; also, please publicize these calls to people you think might be interested. Many thanks, Madhav Badami 1) Request for Papers for a Session on Two and Three-wheeled Motor Vehicles in the Developing Countries Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, January 2007 Sponsor: ABE90 Committee on Transportation in the Developing Countries Committee Chair: Dr. Ralph Gakenheimer, rgaken@mit.edu Co-Sponsor: ANF30 Committee on Motorcycles and Mopeds Committee Chair: Stephen B. Garets, Steve.Garets@oregonstate.edu Motor vehicle ownership and activity are growing rapidly in Asia, owing to rapid urbanization and growing urban incomes. This phenomenon, coupled with financial, technological and infrastructural constraints, is causing massive adverse social and environmental impacts, such as congestion and air pollution, traffic related injuries and deaths, compromised access and mobility, and displacement of the urban poor. While the local impacts are serious, there are significant implications for global issues such as energy security and climate change as well. An important characteristic of the rapid motorization in Asia is the predominance of two-wheeled motor vehicles, which have made Asian cities as motorized as those in other regions with several times the GDP per capita, such as Mexico City. While providing affordable mobility to millions, these vehicles, along with three-wheeled motor vehicles, which are an important for-hire public transport mode, contribute significantly to transport impacts, particularly on a passenger-kilometre basis. The challenge in relation to two and three-wheeled motor vehicles is to mitigate their transport impacts, while minimizing policy impacts for the users. We invite papers that address the following issues related to two and three-wheeled vehicles in Asia: ? Vehicle ownership and purchase choices and motivations ? Trip behaviour, trip reduction, and feasibility of shifting two and three-wheeled motor vehicle trips to public transit ? Energy consumption and emissions ? technological, institutional and behavioural dimensions; modeling; control measures, including I&M ? Road safety, including vehicle design for road safety ? Policy-making and implementation, monitoring and enforcement Papers for the 2007 Annual Meeting must be submitted electronically no later than August 1, 2006. When submitting your paper, please indicate ABE90 on the Submission Review Form. Papers willcan not be accepted after August 1 because of the time required for peer review and program development. Paper submission information is posted on the TRB website http://www.trb.org/meeting/. Authors who submit papers in response to this call are requested to send the paper number and title by August 3 to madhav.badami@mcgill.ca. For additional information, please contact: Prof. Madhav G. Badami School of Urban Planning and McGill School of Environment McGill University, Montreal, Canada Tel: (514) 398-3183; Fax: (514) 398-8376; E-mail: madhav.badami@mcgill.ca ************ 2) Request for Papers for a Session on Urban Transportation and Land Development in Developing Countries Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, January 2007 Sponsor: ABE90 Committee on Transportation in the Developing Countries Committee Chair: Dr. Ralph Gakenheimer, rgaken@mit.edu Co Sponsor: ADB10 Committee on Travel Behavior and Values Committee Chair: Dr. Ram M. Pendyala, pendyala@eng.usf.edu Co Sponsor: ADD30 Committee on Transportation and Land Development Committee Co-Chairs: Jonathan L. Gifford, jgifford@gmu.edu and Dr. Ruth L. Steiner, rsteiner@ufl.edu In many cities in developing countries in Asia, Africa and South America local authorities face major challenges in trying to accommodate the demands generated by growing and rapidly motorizing populations. Transportation planners in these cities lack the data and analytical methods to understand the effects of the growing demand for travel and rapid changes in land use as the cities try to accommodate new, as well wealthier, residents. In such a context, integration of land use and transportation planning is key. Analyzing the nexus between transportation infrastructure and land use patterns while sustaining economic growth and maintaining livable communities is far more complicated when growth is rapid. Some recent research projects in Latin America and Asia suggest that it is possible to incorporate the effects of land use within travel behavior models. These models can help authorities make more effective transportation and land development interventions, and can shape current urban growth policies and investments. For this session, we invite papers that address the nexus between land use, travel behavior and environmental impacts in a developing context. Papers that address technical issues in transportation modeling as well as institutional and policy responses to the coordination of transportation and land development in rapidly urbanizing cities are also welcome. When submitting a paper for the next TRB Annual Meeting please indicate ABE90 on the Submission Review Form. Papers for the 2007 Annual Meeting must be submitted electronically no later than August 1, 2006. Papers cannot be accepted after August 1 because of the time required for peer review and program development. Paper submission information is posted on the TRB website http://www.trb.org/meeting/. In addition, authors who have submitted papers in response to this call are requested to send the paper number and title by August 3 to sumeeta@deas.harvard.edu. Additional information about this call for papers may be obtained from: Dr. Sumeeta Srinivasan Division of Engineering and Applied Sciences Harvard University, Cambridge MA 02138 Tel: (617) 496-4413; Fax: (617) 496-1457 Email: sumeeta@deas.harvard.edu ************************************************************************ "As for the future, your task is not to foresee, but to enable it." Antoine de Saint-Exupery Madhav G. Badami, PhD School of Urban Planning and McGill School of Environment McGill University Macdonald-Harrington Building 815 Sherbrooke Street West Montreal, QC, H3A 2K6, Canada Phone: 514-398-3183 (Work); 514-486-2370 (Home) Fax: 514-398-8376; 514-398-1643 URLs: www.mcgill.ca/urbanplanning www.mcgill.ca/mse e-mail: madhav.badami@mcgill.ca From roadnotes at freenet.de Wed Apr 19 19:50:19 2006 From: roadnotes at freenet.de (Robert Bartlett) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 12:50:19 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Comparison of highway geometricsComparison of highway geometrics Message-ID: <444615EB.9090403@freenet.de> I'm working on an international comparison of highway geometrics (gradient, lane width etc. etc.). The aims are simplification and more appropriate designs. I have contacts in Peru and Brazil, and information for Germany and the UK, and would like to get some input from people in Asia - if anyone is interested, please send me an email for more details. Bob Bartlett From stephenplowden at blueyonder.co.uk Tue Apr 18 02:47:08 2006 From: stephenplowden at blueyonder.co.uk (Stephen Plowden) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 18:47:08 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Re: [NewMobilityCafe] Hybrid cars- article from IHT In-Reply-To: <200604171102.k3HB1xvW030028@ns-omrbm2.netsolmail.com> References: <200604171102.k3HB1xvW030028@ns-omrbm2.netsolmail.com> Message-ID: <4443D49C.8020704@blueyonder.co.uk> The important thing is to make cars lighter and less powerful. Try googling Loremo and note the difference between the LS and GT versions LS weight 450kg, top speed 160km/h, acceleration 0 to 100 km/h in 20 seconds, consumption 1.5litres/100km GT weight 470kg, top speed 220km/h, acceleration 0 to 100 km/h in 9 seconds, consumption 2.7 litres/100kms (already pretty good) Carlos F. Pardo SUTP wrote: > A nice, centered article about the reality of hybrid cars and their > ?fuel efficiency? > > Source: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/16/opinion/edkitman.php > > > Life in the green lane > > *Jamie Lincoln Kitman* > > The New York Times > > MONDAY, APRIL 17, 2006 > > If you've gone to any auto show in the last year or so, you'll know > that hybrid cars are the hippest automotive fashion statement to come > along in years. They've become synonymous with the worthy goal of > reducing gasoline consumption and dependence on foreign oil and all > that this means for a better environment and more stable geopolitics. > > And yet like fat-free desserts, which sound healthy but can still make > you fat, the hybrid car can make people feel as if they're doing > something good, even when they're doing nothing special at all. As > consumers and governments at every level climb onto the hybrid > bandwagon, there is the very real danger of elevating the technology > at the expense of the intended outcome - saving gas. > > Few things these days say "environmentally aware consumer" so loudly > as the fuel-sipping Toyota Prius. With its two power sources - one a > gasoline- powered internal combustion engine, the other a > battery-driven electric motor - the best-selling Prius (and other > hybrids sold by Honda and Ford and due soon from several other car > makers) can go further on a gallon and emit fewer pollutants in > around-town use than most conventional automobiles because under > certain circumstances they run on battery power and consume less fuel. > > But just because a car has so-called hybrid technology doesn't mean > it's doing more to help the environment or to reduce the country's > dependence on imported oil any more than a non-hybrid car. There are > good hybrids and bad ones. Fuel-efficient conventional cars are often > better than hybrid sport-utility vehicles - just look at how many > miles per gallon the vehicle gets. > > Being a professional car-tester, which is to say a person who gets > asked for unpaid car-buying advice practically every day, I know these > distinctions have already been lost on many car buyers. And I fear > they're well on their way to being lost on our governments, too. > > Lately, people have been calling me and telling me they're thinking > about buying the Lexus 400H, a new hybrid SUV. When I tell them that > they'd get better mileage in some conventional SUVs, and even better > mileage with a passenger car, they protest, "But it's a hybrid!" I > remind them that the 21 miles per gallon I saw while driving the Lexus > 400H is not particularly brilliant, efficiency-wise - hybrid or not. > Because the Lexus is a relatively heavy car and because its electric > motor is deployed to provide speed more than efficiency, it will never > be a mileage champ. > > The car that started the hybrid craze, the Toyota Prius, is lauded for > squeezing 40 or more miles out of a gallon of gas, and it really can. > But only when it's being driven around town. On a cross- country > excursion in a Prius, the staff of Automobile Magazine discovered > mileage plummeted on the Interstate. In fact, the car's computer, > which controls the engine and the motor, allowing them to run together > or separately, was programmed to direct the Prius to spend most of its > highway time running on gasoline because at higher speeds the > batteries quickly get exhausted. > > Indeed, the gasoline engine worked so hard that we calculated we might > have used less fuel on our journey if we had been driving Toyota's > conventionally powered, similarly sized Corolla - which costs > thousands less. > > For years, most of the world's big car makers have shied away from > building hybrids because while they are technologically intriguing, > they are also an inelegant engineering solution - the use of two > energy sources assures extra weight, extra complexity and extra > expense (as much as $6,000 more per car.) The hybrid car's electric > battery packs rob space from passengers and cargo and although they > can be recycled, not every owner can be counted on to do the right > thing at the end of their vehicle's service life. And an unrecycled > hybrid battery pack, which weighs more than 100 pounds, poses a major > environmental hazard. > > So the ideal hybrid car is one that is used in town and carefully > disposed of at the end of its days. Hybrid taxis and buses make > enormous sense. But the market knows no such distinctions. People > think they want hybrids and they'll buy them, even if a conventional > car would make more sense. The danger is that the automakers will co- > opt the hybrids' green mantle and, with the help of a government > looking to bail out its troubled friends in Detroit, misguidedly > encourage the sale of hybrids without reference to their actual effect > on oil consumption. > > Pro-hybrid laws and incentives sound nice, but they might just end up > subsidizing companies that have failed to develop truly fuel-efficient > vehicles at the expense of those that have had the foresight to design > their cars right in the first place. And they may actually punish > citizens who save fuel the old- fashioned way - by using less of it, > with smaller, lighter and more efficient cars. All the while, they'll > make a mockery of a potentially useful technology. > > /(Jamie Lincoln Kitman is the New York bureau chief for Automobile > Magazine and a columnist for Top Gear, a British magazine.)/ > > > > Check in here via the homepage at http://www.newmobility.org > To post message to group: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com > But please think twice before posting to the group as a whole > (It might be that your note is best sent to one person?) > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS > > * Visit your group "NewMobilityCafe > " on the web. > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > NewMobilityCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of > Service . > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > From sulin at vectordesigns.org Thu Apr 20 14:27:31 2006 From: sulin at vectordesigns.org (Su-Lin Chee) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 01:27:31 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Proposed new Kuala Lumpur monorail lines Message-ID: thought you all might find this interesting: http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp? file=/2006/4/15/nation/13967752&sec=nation Best wishes, Su-Lin Chee project manager klang valley public transportation information system vector designs www.vectordesigns.org 54a jalan kemuja bangsar utama 59000 kuala lumpur tel/fax +603.22826363 mobile +6016.2183363 From etts at indigo.ie Wed Apr 19 23:05:10 2006 From: etts at indigo.ie (Brendan Finn) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 15:05:10 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Re: Hybrid cars- article from IHT References: <200604171102.k3HB1xvW030029@ns-omrbm2.netsolmail.com> Message-ID: <000e01c66482$70894c10$a7c8a8c0@finn> Dear Carlos, It sounds like 40 mpg is considered some sort of breakthrough in the USA - have I misunderstood? My wife's regular diesel Audi A4 consistently averages 50 mpg across city and open road, better than cars used to be, but we don't think it's anything special. I think this just reinforces your point about clever (or sneaky) "green" branding by the auto industry. With best wishes, Brendan. _____________________________________________________________________________________ >From Brendan Finn, ETTS Ltd. e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : +353.87.2530286 ----- Original Message ----- From: Carlos F. Pardo SUTP To: carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com ; WorldTransport-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com ; NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com ; sutp-asia@yahoogroups.com ; 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport' Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 12:01 PM Subject: [sustran] Hybrid cars- article from IHT A nice, centered article about the reality of hybrid cars and their "fuel efficiency" Source: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/16/opinion/edkitman.php Life in the green lane Jamie Lincoln Kitman The New York Times MONDAY, APRIL 17, 2006 If you've gone to any auto show in the last year or so, you'll know that hybrid cars are the hippest automotive fashion statement to come along in years. They've become synonymous with the worthy goal of reducing gasoline consumption and dependence on foreign oil and all that this means for a better environment and more stable geopolitics. And yet like fat-free desserts, which sound healthy but can still make you fat, the hybrid car can make people feel as if they're doing something good, even when they're doing nothing special at all. As consumers and governments at every level climb onto the hybrid bandwagon, there is the very real danger of elevating the technology at the expense of the intended outcome - saving gas. Few things these days say "environmentally aware consumer" so loudly as the fuel-sipping Toyota Prius. With its two power sources - one a gasoline- powered internal combustion engine, the other a battery-driven electric motor - the best-selling Prius (and other hybrids sold by Honda and Ford and due soon from several other car makers) can go further on a gallon and emit fewer pollutants in around-town use than most conventional automobiles because under certain circumstances they run on battery power and consume less fuel. But just because a car has so-called hybrid technology doesn't mean it's doing more to help the environment or to reduce the country's dependence on imported oil any more than a non-hybrid car. There are good hybrids and bad ones. Fuel-efficient conventional cars are often better than hybrid sport-utility vehicles - just look at how many miles per gallon the vehicle gets. Being a professional car-tester, which is to say a person who gets asked for unpaid car-buying advice practically every day, I know these distinctions have already been lost on many car buyers. And I fear they're well on their way to being lost on our governments, too. Lately, people have been calling me and telling me they're thinking about buying the Lexus 400H, a new hybrid SUV. When I tell them that they'd get better mileage in some conventional SUVs, and even better mileage with a passenger car, they protest, "But it's a hybrid!" I remind them that the 21 miles per gallon I saw while driving the Lexus 400H is not particularly brilliant, efficiency-wise - hybrid or not. Because the Lexus is a relatively heavy car and because its electric motor is deployed to provide speed more than efficiency, it will never be a mileage champ. The car that started the hybrid craze, the Toyota Prius, is lauded for squeezing 40 or more miles out of a gallon of gas, and it really can. But only when it's being driven around town. On a cross- country excursion in a Prius, the staff of Automobile Magazine discovered mileage plummeted on the Interstate. In fact, the car's computer, which controls the engine and the motor, allowing them to run together or separately, was programmed to direct the Prius to spend most of its highway time running on gasoline because at higher speeds the batteries quickly get exhausted. Indeed, the gasoline engine worked so hard that we calculated we might have used less fuel on our journey if we had been driving Toyota's conventionally powered, similarly sized Corolla - which costs thousands less. For years, most of the world's big car makers have shied away from building hybrids because while they are technologically intriguing, they are also an inelegant engineering solution - the use of two energy sources assures extra weight, extra complexity and extra expense (as much as $6,000 more per car.) The hybrid car's electric battery packs rob space from passengers and cargo and although they can be recycled, not every owner can be counted on to do the right thing at the end of their vehicle's service life. And an unrecycled hybrid battery pack, which weighs more than 100 pounds, poses a major environmental hazard. So the ideal hybrid car is one that is used in town and carefully disposed of at the end of its days. Hybrid taxis and buses make enormous sense. But the market knows no such distinctions. People think they want hybrids and they'll buy them, even if a conventional car would make more sense. The danger is that the automakers will co- opt the hybrids' green mantle and, with the help of a government looking to bail out its troubled friends in Detroit, misguidedly encourage the sale of hybrids without reference to their actual effect on oil consumption. Pro-hybrid laws and incentives sound nice, but they might just end up subsidizing companies that have failed to develop truly fuel-efficient vehicles at the expense of those that have had the foresight to design their cars right in the first place. And they may actually punish citizens who save fuel the old- fashioned way - by using less of it, with smaller, lighter and more efficient cars. All the while, they'll make a mockery of a potentially useful technology. (Jamie Lincoln Kitman is the New York bureau chief for Automobile Magazine and a columnist for Top Gear, a British magazine.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060419/c1238816/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 73 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060419/c1238816/attachment.gif From Alan.Howes at cbuchanan.co.uk Thu Apr 20 23:12:44 2006 From: Alan.Howes at cbuchanan.co.uk (Alan Howes) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 15:12:44 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Re: Hybrid cars- article from IHT Message-ID: <324DCD7680954F468CF306EE5404F00101FED921@mail01.cbuchanan.co.uk> Though of course, US gallons are 20%(?) smaller ... :-) Which reminds me - is the UAE the only place where you can still buy petrol (gasoline) in Imperial gallons? Alan -- Alan Howes Associate Transport Planner Colin Buchanan 4 St Colme Street Edinburgh EH3 6AA Scotland email: alan.howes@cbuchanan.co.uk tel: (0)131 226 4693 (switchboard) (0)7952 464335 (mobile) fax: (0)131 220 0232 www: http:/www.cbuchanan.co.uk/ _______________________________ ________________________________ From: sustran-discuss-bounces+alan.howes=cbuchanan.co.uk@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+alan.howes=cbuchanan.co.uk@list.jca.apc. org] On Behalf Of Brendan Finn Sent: 19 April 2006 15:05 To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport Subject: [sustran] Re: Hybrid cars- article from IHT Dear Carlos, It sounds like 40 mpg is considered some sort of breakthrough in the USA - have I misunderstood? My wife's regular diesel Audi A4 consistently averages 50 mpg across city and open road, better than cars used to be, but we don't think it's anything special. I think this just reinforces your point about clever (or sneaky) "green" branding by the auto industry. With best wishes, Brendan. ________________________________________________________________________ _____________ >From Brendan Finn, ETTS Ltd. e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : +353.87.2530286 ----- Original Message ----- From: Carlos F. Pardo SUTP To: carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com ; WorldTransport-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com ; NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com ; sutp-asia@yahoogroups.com ; 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport' Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 12:01 PM Subject: [sustran] Hybrid cars- article from IHT A nice, centered article about the reality of hybrid cars and their "fuel efficiency" Source: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/16/opinion/edkitman.php Life in the green lane Jamie Lincoln Kitman The New York Times MONDAY, APRIL 17, 2006 If you've gone to any auto show in the last year or so, you'll know that hybrid cars are the hippest automotive fashion statement to come along in years. They've become synonymous with the worthy goal of reducing gasoline consumption and dependence on foreign oil and all that this means for a better environment and more stable geopolitics. And yet like fat-free desserts, which sound healthy but can still make you fat, the hybrid car can make people feel as if they're doing something good, even when they're doing nothing special at all. As consumers and governments at every level climb onto the hybrid bandwagon, there is the very real danger of elevating the technology at the expense of the intended outcome - saving gas. Few things these days say "environmentally aware consumer" so loudly as the fuel-sipping Toyota Prius. With its two power sources - one a gasoline- powered internal combustion engine, the other a battery-driven electric motor - the best-selling Prius (and other hybrids sold by Honda and Ford and due soon from several other car makers) can go further on a gallon and emit fewer pollutants in around-town use than most conventional automobiles because under certain circumstances they run on battery power and consume less fuel. But just because a car has so-called hybrid technology doesn't mean it's doing more to help the environment or to reduce the country's dependence on imported oil any more than a non-hybrid car. There are good hybrids and bad ones. Fuel-efficient conventional cars are often better than hybrid sport-utility vehicles - just look at how many miles per gallon the vehicle gets. Being a professional car-tester, which is to say a person who gets asked for unpaid car-buying advice practically every day, I know these distinctions have already been lost on many car buyers. And I fear they're well on their way to being lost on our governments, too. Lately, people have been calling me and telling me they're thinking about buying the Lexus 400H, a new hybrid SUV. When I tell them that they'd get better mileage in some conventional SUVs, and even better mileage with a passenger car, they protest, "But it's a hybrid!" I remind them that the 21 miles per gallon I saw while driving the Lexus 400H is not particularly brilliant, efficiency-wise - hybrid or not. Because the Lexus is a relatively heavy car and because its electric motor is deployed to provide speed more than efficiency, it will never be a mileage champ. The car that started the hybrid craze, the Toyota Prius, is lauded for squeezing 40 or more miles out of a gallon of gas, and it really can. But only when it's being driven around town. On a cross- country excursion in a Prius, the staff of Automobile Magazine discovered mileage plummeted on the Interstate. In fact, the car's computer, which controls the engine and the motor, allowing them to run together or separately, was programmed to direct the Prius to spend most of its highway time running on gasoline because at higher speeds the batteries quickly get exhausted. Indeed, the gasoline engine worked so hard that we calculated we might have used less fuel on our journey if we had been driving Toyota's conventionally powered, similarly sized Corolla - which costs thousands less. For years, most of the world's big car makers have shied away from building hybrids because while they are technologically intriguing, they are also an inelegant engineering solution - the use of two energy sources assures extra weight, extra complexity and extra expense (as much as $6,000 more per car.) The hybrid car's electric battery packs rob space from passengers and cargo and although they can be recycled, not every owner can be counted on to do the right thing at the end of their vehicle's service life. And an unrecycled hybrid battery pack, which weighs more than 100 pounds, poses a major environmental hazard. So the ideal hybrid car is one that is used in town and carefully disposed of at the end of its days. Hybrid taxis and buses make enormous sense. But the market knows no such distinctions. People think they want hybrids and they'll buy them, even if a conventional car would make more sense. The danger is that the automakers will co- opt the hybrids' green mantle and, with the help of a government looking to bail out its troubled friends in Detroit, misguidedly encourage the sale of hybrids without reference to their actual effect on oil consumption. Pro-hybrid laws and incentives sound nice, but they might just end up subsidizing companies that have failed to develop truly fuel-efficient vehicles at the expense of those that have had the foresight to design their cars right in the first place. And they may actually punish citizens who save fuel the old- fashioned way - by using less of it, with smaller, lighter and more efficient cars. All the while, they'll make a mockery of a potentially useful technology. (Jamie Lincoln Kitman is the New York bureau chief for Automobile Magazine and a columnist for Top Gear, a British magazine.) ________________________________ ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ DISCLAIMER This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which 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 Colin Buchanan, 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 do not accept liability for any loss or damage caused by software viruses. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060420/ba3b19e8/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 73 bytes Desc: image002.gif Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060420/ba3b19e8/attachment-0001.gif From schipper at wri.org Thu Apr 20 23:13:40 2006 From: schipper at wri.org (Lee Schipper) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 10:13:40 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: Hybrid cars- article from IHT Message-ID: The hybrid piece first appeared in the NY TImes last Sunday. MAde many good points. Be careful, though. 50 MPG US in diesel, given that diesel has 12% more energy that gasoline, is really 45 MPG gasoline. But no quesiton the Audi diesel is a great car. Whether it is a fuel saver depends on whether diesel is underpriced as it has been in so many countries, or priced close to gasoline, as is the case in the US or the UK. Our study published in the Journal of Tranpsort Economics and Policy in 2002 suggested that in the low diesel price countries, the diesel fleet itself has no energy or CO2 savings relative to the gasoline fleet because on a match pairs basis, diesels are somewhat heavier and more powerful, driven so much more, selected in large part as "driving extenders" rather than "fuel savers". Fold in the higher energy and CO2 content of diesel relative to gasoline, and there was little or no net savings left in the late 1990s. Would be fund to update to 2003 but that would take considerable work. The article appeard in JTEP in May 2002. Happy to send pdf copies (about 1 meg) >>> etts@indigo.ie 4/19/2006 10:05:10 AM >>> Dear Carlos, It sounds like 40 mpg is considered some sort of breakthrough in the USA - have I misunderstood? My wife's regular diesel Audi A4 consistently averages 50 mpg across city and open road, better than cars used to be, but we don't think it's anything special. I think this just reinforces your point about clever (or sneaky) "green" branding by the auto industry. With best wishes, Brendan. _____________________________________________________________________________________ >From Brendan Finn, ETTS Ltd. e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : +353.87.2530286 ----- Original Message ----- From: Carlos F. Pardo SUTP To: carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com ; WorldTransport-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com ; NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com ; sutp-asia@yahoogroups.com ; 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport' Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 12:01 PM Subject: [sustran] Hybrid cars- article from IHT A nice, centered article about the reality of hybrid cars and their "fuel efficiency" Source: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/16/opinion/edkitman.php Life in the green lane Jamie Lincoln Kitman The New York Times MONDAY, APRIL 17, 2006 If you've gone to any auto show in the last year or so, you'll know that hybrid cars are the hippest automotive fashion statement to come along in years. They've become synonymous with the worthy goal of reducing gasoline consumption and dependence on foreign oil and all that this means for a better environment and more stable geopolitics. And yet like fat-free desserts, which sound healthy but can still make you fat, the hybrid car can make people feel as if they're doing something good, even when they're doing nothing special at all. As consumers and governments at every level climb onto the hybrid bandwagon, there is the very real danger of elevating the technology at the expense of the intended outcome - saving gas. Few things these days say "environmentally aware consumer" so loudly as the fuel-sipping Toyota Prius. With its two power sources - one a gasoline- powered internal combustion engine, the other a battery-driven electric motor - the best-selling Prius (and other hybrids sold by Honda and Ford and due soon from several other car makers) can go further on a gallon and emit fewer pollutants in around-town use than most conventional automobiles because under certain circumstances they run on battery power and consume less fuel. But just because a car has so-called hybrid technology doesn't mean it's doing more to help the environment or to reduce the country's dependence on imported oil any more than a non-hybrid car. There are good hybrids and bad ones. Fuel-efficient conventional cars are often better than hybrid sport-utility vehicles - just look at how many miles per gallon the vehicle gets. Being a professional car-tester, which is to say a person who gets asked for unpaid car-buying advice practically every day, I know these distinctions have already been lost on many car buyers. And I fear they're well on their way to being lost on our governments, too. Lately, people have been calling me and telling me they're thinking about buying the Lexus 400H, a new hybrid SUV. When I tell them that they'd get better mileage in some conventional SUVs, and even better mileage with a passenger car, they protest, "But it's a hybrid!" I remind them that the 21 miles per gallon I saw while driving the Lexus 400H is not particularly brilliant, efficiency-wise - hybrid or not. Because the Lexus is a relatively heavy car and because its electric motor is deployed to provide speed more than efficiency, it will never be a mileage champ. The car that started the hybrid craze, the Toyota Prius, is lauded for squeezing 40 or more miles out of a gallon of gas, and it really can. But only when it's being driven around town. On a cross- country excursion in a Prius, the staff of Automobile Magazine discovered mileage plummeted on the Interstate. In fact, the car's computer, which controls the engine and the motor, allowing them to run together or separately, was programmed to direct the Prius to spend most of its highway time running on gasoline because at higher speeds the batteries quickly get exhausted. Indeed, the gasoline engine worked so hard that we calculated we might have used less fuel on our journey if we had been driving Toyota's conventionally powered, similarly sized Corolla - which costs thousands less. For years, most of the world's big car makers have shied away from building hybrids because while they are technologically intriguing, they are also an inelegant engineering solution - the use of two energy sources assures extra weight, extra complexity and extra expense (as much as $6,000 more per car.) The hybrid car's electric battery packs rob space from passengers and cargo and although they can be recycled, not every owner can be counted on to do the right thing at the end of their vehicle's service life. And an unrecycled hybrid battery pack, which weighs more than 100 pounds, poses a major environmental hazard. So the ideal hybrid car is one that is used in town and carefully disposed of at the end of its days. Hybrid taxis and buses make enormous sense. But the market knows no such distinctions. People think they want hybrids and they'll buy them, even if a conventional car would make more sense. The danger is that the automakers will co- opt the hybrids' green mantle and, with the help of a government looking to bail out its troubled friends in Detroit, misguidedly encourage the sale of hybrids without reference to their actual effect on oil consumption. Pro-hybrid laws and incentives sound nice, but they might just end up subsidizing companies that have failed to develop truly fuel-efficient vehicles at the expense of those that have had the foresight to design their cars right in the first place. And they may actually punish citizens who save fuel the old- fashioned way - by using less of it, with smaller, lighter and more efficient cars. All the while, they'll make a mockery of a potentially useful technology. (Jamie Lincoln Kitman is the New York bureau chief for Automobile Magazine and a columnist for Top Gear, a British magazine.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. From et3 at et3.com Fri Apr 21 05:07:36 2006 From: et3 at et3.com (Daryl Oster) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 16:07:36 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: Hybrid cars- article from IHT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200604202007.k3KK7cLt004507@njbrsmtp1.vzwmail.net> The Toyota Corolla is the best selling brand in the world - with good reason. I own a 2003 model, and it is rated at 36/41 MPG by the EPA (US gallons). In 86,000 miles, the average fuel efficiency is 38MPG (US measure). I have owned several Diesels in the past by VW, GM, and BMW. Diesel in the US is about 20% greater cost than gasoline, AND the lowest cost Diesel car available in the US in 2003 would have cost me $8,000 more than I paid for my Corolla. $8,000 is enough for 100,000 miles worth of driving at 38mpg and a fuel cost of $3/gal. In 2003, when I purchased my Corolla I compared to the Prius, and the additional $6,000 cost could not be justified on the projected fuel savings, especially considering the projected battery life of 80,000 miles. Daryl Oster (c) 2006? all rights reserved.? ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth" e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks of et3.com Inc.? For licensing information contact:?POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423? (352)257-1310, et3@et3.com , www.et3.com > -----Original Message----- > From: sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com@list.jca.apc.org > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of > Lee Schipper > Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 10:14 AM > To: etts@indigo.ie; sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org > Subject: [sustran] Re: Hybrid cars- article from IHT > > The hybrid piece first appeared in the NY TImes last Sunday. MAde many > good points. > > Be careful, though. 50 MPG US in diesel, given that diesel has 12% more > energy that gasoline, is really 45 MPG gasoline. > > But no quesiton the Audi diesel is a great car. Whether it is a fuel > saver depends on whether diesel is underpriced as it has been in so many > countries, or priced close to gasoline, as is the case in the US or the > UK. Our study published in the Journal of Tranpsort Economics and Policy > in 2002 suggested that in the low diesel price countries, the diesel > fleet itself has no energy or CO2 savings relative to the gasoline fleet > because on a match pairs basis, diesels are somewhat heavier and more > powerful, driven so much more, selected in large part as "driving > extenders" rather than "fuel savers". Fold in the higher energy and CO2 > content of diesel relative to gasoline, and there was little or no net > savings left in the late 1990s. Would be fund to update to 2003 but that > would take considerable work. > > The article appeard in JTEP in May 2002. Happy to send pdf copies > (about 1 meg) > > >>> etts@indigo.ie 4/19/2006 10:05:10 AM >>> > Dear Carlos, > > It sounds like 40 mpg is considered some sort of breakthrough in the > USA - have I misunderstood? My wife's regular diesel Audi A4 > consistently averages 50 mpg across city and open road, better than cars > used to be, but we don't think it's anything special. > > I think this just reinforces your point about clever (or sneaky) > "green" branding by the auto industry. > > With best wishes, > > > Brendan. > __________________________________________________________________________ > ___________ > >From Brendan Finn, ETTS Ltd. e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : > +353.87.2530286 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Carlos F. Pardo SUTP > To: carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com ; > WorldTransport-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com ; > NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com ; sutp-asia@yahoogroups.com ; 'Asia > and the Pacific sustainable transport' > Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 12:01 PM > Subject: [sustran] Hybrid cars- article from IHT > > > A nice, centered article about the reality of hybrid cars and their > "fuel efficiency" > > > > Source: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/16/opinion/edkitman.php > > > > Life in the green lane > Jamie Lincoln Kitman The New York Times > > MONDAY, APRIL 17, 2006 > > > > If you've gone to any auto show in the last year or so, you'll know > that hybrid cars are the hippest automotive fashion statement to come > along in years. They've become synonymous with the worthy goal of > reducing gasoline consumption and dependence on foreign oil and all that > this means for a better environment and more stable geopolitics. > > > > And yet like fat-free desserts, which sound healthy but can still > make you fat, the hybrid car can make people feel as if they're doing > something good, even when they're doing nothing special at all. As > consumers and governments at every level climb onto the hybrid > bandwagon, there is the very real danger of elevating the technology at > the expense of the intended outcome - saving gas. > > > > Few things these days say "environmentally aware consumer" so loudly > as the fuel-sipping Toyota Prius. With its two power sources - one a > gasoline- powered internal combustion engine, the other a battery-driven > electric motor - the best-selling Prius (and other hybrids sold by Honda > and Ford and due soon from several other car makers) can go further on a > gallon and emit fewer pollutants in around-town use than most > conventional automobiles because under certain circumstances they run on > battery power and consume less fuel. > > > > But just because a car has so-called hybrid technology doesn't mean > it's doing more to help the environment or to reduce the country's > dependence on imported oil any more than a non-hybrid car. There are > good hybrids and bad ones. Fuel-efficient conventional cars are often > better than hybrid sport-utility vehicles - just look at how many miles > per gallon the vehicle gets. > > > > Being a professional car-tester, which is to say a person who gets > asked for unpaid car-buying advice practically every day, I know these > distinctions have already been lost on many car buyers. And I fear > they're well on their way to being lost on our governments, too. > > > > Lately, people have been calling me and telling me they're thinking > about buying the Lexus 400H, a new hybrid SUV. When I tell them that > they'd get better mileage in some conventional SUVs, and even better > mileage with a passenger car, they protest, "But it's a hybrid!" I > remind them that the 21 miles per gallon I saw while driving the Lexus > 400H is not particularly brilliant, efficiency-wise - hybrid or not. > Because the Lexus is a relatively heavy car and because its electric > motor is deployed to provide speed more than efficiency, it will never > be a mileage champ. > > > > The car that started the hybrid craze, the Toyota Prius, is lauded > for squeezing 40 or more miles out of a gallon of gas, and it really > can. But only when it's being driven around town. On a cross- country > excursion in a Prius, the staff of Automobile Magazine discovered > mileage plummeted on the Interstate. In fact, the car's computer, which > controls the engine and the motor, allowing them to run together or > separately, was programmed to direct the Prius to spend most of its > highway time running on gasoline because at higher speeds the batteries > quickly get exhausted. > > > > Indeed, the gasoline engine worked so hard that we calculated we > might have used less fuel on our journey if we had been driving Toyota's > conventionally powered, similarly sized Corolla - which costs thousands > less. > > > > For years, most of the world's big car makers have shied away from > building hybrids because while they are technologically intriguing, they > are also an inelegant engineering solution - the use of two energy > sources assures extra weight, extra complexity and extra expense (as > much as $6,000 more per car.) The hybrid car's electric battery packs > rob space from passengers and cargo and although they can be recycled, > not every owner can be counted on to do the right thing at the end of > their vehicle's service life. And an unrecycled hybrid battery pack, > which weighs more than 100 pounds, poses a major environmental hazard. > > > > So the ideal hybrid car is one that is used in town and carefully > disposed of at the end of its days. Hybrid taxis and buses make enormous > sense. But the market knows no such distinctions. People think they want > hybrids and they'll buy them, even if a conventional car would make more > sense. The danger is that the automakers will co- opt the hybrids' green > mantle and, with the help of a government looking to bail out its > troubled friends in Detroit, misguidedly encourage the sale of hybrids > without reference to their actual effect on oil consumption. > > > > Pro-hybrid laws and incentives sound nice, but they might just end up > subsidizing companies that have failed to develop truly fuel-efficient > vehicles at the expense of those that have had the foresight to design > their cars right in the first place. And they may actually punish > citizens who save fuel the old- fashioned way - by using less of it, > with smaller, lighter and more efficient cars. All the while, they'll > make a mockery of a potentially useful technology. > > > > (Jamie Lincoln Kitman is the New York bureau chief for Automobile > Magazine and a columnist for Top Gear, a British magazine.) > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > > > > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries > (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus > is on urban transport policy in Asia. > > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries > (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus > is on urban transport policy in Asia. From schipper at wri.org Fri Apr 21 05:21:06 2006 From: schipper at wri.org (Lee Schipper) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 16:21:06 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: Hybrid cars- article from IHT Message-ID: Another point -- US refineries are stretched to produce a high yield of gasoline. Swining a huge amount of that to diesel would also be costly, and with Daryl's numbers for diesel costs, even cutting them down somewhat, a hybrid comes out somewhat better overall --unless a car owner is truly a high mileage driver benefittign from a very long engine lifetime of diesels compared to (uncertain) for the new generation of electronic hybrids. >>> "Daryl Oster" 4/20/2006 4:07:36 PM >>> The Toyota Corolla is the best selling brand in the world - with good reason. I own a 2003 model, and it is rated at 36/41 MPG by the EPA (US gallons). In 86,000 miles, the average fuel efficiency is 38MPG (US measure). I have owned several Diesels in the past by VW, GM, and BMW. Diesel in the US is about 20% greater cost than gasoline, AND the lowest cost Diesel car available in the US in 2003 would have cost me $8,000 more than I paid for my Corolla. $8,000 is enough for 100,000 miles worth of driving at 38mpg and a fuel cost of $3/gal. In 2003, when I purchased my Corolla I compared to the Prius, and the additional $6,000 cost could not be justified on the projected fuel savings, especially considering the projected battery life of 80,000 miles. Daryl Oster (c) 2006 all rights reserved. ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth" e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks of et3.com Inc. For licensing information contact: POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423 (352)257-1310, et3@et3.com , www.et3.com > -----Original Message----- > From: sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com@list.jca.apc.org > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of > Lee Schipper > Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 10:14 AM > To: etts@indigo.ie; sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org > Subject: [sustran] Re: Hybrid cars- article from IHT > > The hybrid piece first appeared in the NY TImes last Sunday. MAde many > good points. > > Be careful, though. 50 MPG US in diesel, given that diesel has 12% more > energy that gasoline, is really 45 MPG gasoline. > > But no quesiton the Audi diesel is a great car. Whether it is a fuel > saver depends on whether diesel is underpriced as it has been in so many > countries, or priced close to gasoline, as is the case in the US or the > UK. Our study published in the Journal of Tranpsort Economics and Policy > in 2002 suggested that in the low diesel price countries, the diesel > fleet itself has no energy or CO2 savings relative to the gasoline fleet > because on a match pairs basis, diesels are somewhat heavier and more > powerful, driven so much more, selected in large part as "driving > extenders" rather than "fuel savers". Fold in the higher energy and CO2 > content of diesel relative to gasoline, and there was little or no net > savings left in the late 1990s. Would be fund to update to 2003 but that > would take considerable work. > > The article appeard in JTEP in May 2002. Happy to send pdf copies > (about 1 meg) > > >>> etts@indigo.ie 4/19/2006 10:05:10 AM >>> > Dear Carlos, > > It sounds like 40 mpg is considered some sort of breakthrough in the > USA - have I misunderstood? My wife's regular diesel Audi A4 > consistently averages 50 mpg across city and open road, better than cars > used to be, but we don't think it's anything special. > > I think this just reinforces your point about clever (or sneaky) > "green" branding by the auto industry. > > With best wishes, > > > Brendan. > __________________________________________________________________________ > ___________ > >From Brendan Finn, ETTS Ltd. e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : > +353.87.2530286 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Carlos F. Pardo SUTP > To: carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com ; > WorldTransport-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com ; > NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com ; sutp-asia@yahoogroups.com ; 'Asia > and the Pacific sustainable transport' > Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 12:01 PM > Subject: [sustran] Hybrid cars- article from IHT > > > A nice, centered article about the reality of hybrid cars and their > "fuel efficiency" > > > > Source: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/16/opinion/edkitman.php > > > > Life in the green lane > Jamie Lincoln Kitman The New York Times > > MONDAY, APRIL 17, 2006 > > > > If you've gone to any auto show in the last year or so, you'll know > that hybrid cars are the hippest automotive fashion statement to come > along in years. They've become synonymous with the worthy goal of > reducing gasoline consumption and dependence on foreign oil and all that > this means for a better environment and more stable geopolitics. > > > > And yet like fat-free desserts, which sound healthy but can still > make you fat, the hybrid car can make people feel as if they're doing > something good, even when they're doing nothing special at all. As > consumers and governments at every level climb onto the hybrid > bandwagon, there is the very real danger of elevating the technology at > the expense of the intended outcome - saving gas. > > > > Few things these days say "environmentally aware consumer" so loudly > as the fuel-sipping Toyota Prius. With its two power sources - one a > gasoline- powered internal combustion engine, the other a battery-driven > electric motor - the best-selling Prius (and other hybrids sold by Honda > and Ford and due soon from several other car makers) can go further on a > gallon and emit fewer pollutants in around-town use than most > conventional automobiles because under certain circumstances they run on > battery power and consume less fuel. > > > > But just because a car has so-called hybrid technology doesn't mean > it's doing more to help the environment or to reduce the country's > dependence on imported oil any more than a non-hybrid car. There are > good hybrids and bad ones. Fuel-efficient conventional cars are often > better than hybrid sport-utility vehicles - just look at how many miles > per gallon the vehicle gets. > > > > Being a professional car-tester, which is to say a person who gets > asked for unpaid car-buying advice practically every day, I know these > distinctions have already been lost on many car buyers. And I fear > they're well on their way to being lost on our governments, too. > > > > Lately, people have been calling me and telling me they're thinking > about buying the Lexus 400H, a new hybrid SUV. When I tell them that > they'd get better mileage in some conventional SUVs, and even better > mileage with a passenger car, they protest, "But it's a hybrid!" I > remind them that the 21 miles per gallon I saw while driving the Lexus > 400H is not particularly brilliant, efficiency-wise - hybrid or not. > Because the Lexus is a relatively heavy car and because its electric > motor is deployed to provide speed more than efficiency, it will never > be a mileage champ. > > > > The car that started the hybrid craze, the Toyota Prius, is lauded > for squeezing 40 or more miles out of a gallon of gas, and it really > can. But only when it's being driven around town. On a cross- country > excursion in a Prius, the staff of Automobile Magazine discovered > mileage plummeted on the Interstate. In fact, the car's computer, which > controls the engine and the motor, allowing them to run together or > separately, was programmed to direct the Prius to spend most of its > highway time running on gasoline because at higher speeds the batteries > quickly get exhausted. > > > > Indeed, the gasoline engine worked so hard that we calculated we > might have used less fuel on our journey if we had been driving Toyota's > conventionally powered, similarly sized Corolla - which costs thousands > less. > > > > For years, most of the world's big car makers have shied away from > building hybrids because while they are technologically intriguing, they > are also an inelegant engineering solution - the use of two energy > sources assures extra weight, extra complexity and extra expense (as > much as $6,000 more per car.) The hybrid car's electric battery packs > rob space from passengers and cargo and although they can be recycled, > not every owner can be counted on to do the right thing at the end of > their vehicle's service life. And an unrecycled hybrid battery pack, > which weighs more than 100 pounds, poses a major environmental hazard. > > > > So the ideal hybrid car is one that is used in town and carefully > disposed of at the end of its days. Hybrid taxis and buses make enormous > sense. But the market knows no such distinctions. People think they want > hybrids and they'll buy them, even if a conventional car would make more > sense. The danger is that the automakers will co- opt the hybrids' green > mantle and, with the help of a government looking to bail out its > troubled friends in Detroit, misguidedly encourage the sale of hybrids > without reference to their actual effect on oil consumption. > > > > Pro-hybrid laws and incentives sound nice, but they might just end up > subsidizing companies that have failed to develop truly fuel-efficient > vehicles at the expense of those that have had the foresight to design > their cars right in the first place. And they may actually punish > citizens who save fuel the old- fashioned way - by using less of it, > with smaller, lighter and more efficient cars. All the while, they'll > make a mockery of a potentially useful technology. > > > > (Jamie Lincoln Kitman is the New York bureau chief for Automobile > Magazine and a columnist for Top Gear, a British magazine.) > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > > > > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries > (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus > is on urban transport policy in Asia. > > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries > (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus > is on urban transport policy in Asia. ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. From et3 at et3.com Fri Apr 21 06:21:57 2006 From: et3 at et3.com (Daryl Oster) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 17:21:57 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: Hybrid cars- article from IHT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200604202122.k3KLLxLt008279@njbrsmtp1.vzwmail.net> Lee, Good points about refining bias. The engine life of typical automotive diesels is not nearly as good as agricultural, truck and marine diesel engines. The VW Diesel is designed to operate at high speed to achieve high power and low weight, so the parts see much higher stress and wear. My research indicates that engine life and reliability and service costs are better for the Toyota gasoline engine than the VW Diesel engine. At today's fuel prices, it would take more than a million miles to recover the cost differential - by then the engine (and car) would be worn out. Diesel used to have superior transportation value in the US, (and still do for trucks and busses). Presently spark ignited gasoline powered cars are of slightly superior transportation value in the US, yet I suspect that Diesel hybrids will eventually displace spark ignited engines as bio-fuels start to displace fossil fuels, and storage batteries become lower cost and lighter weight. Daryl Oster (c) 2006? all rights reserved.? ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth" e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks of et3.com Inc.? For licensing information contact:?POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423? (352)257-1310, et3@et3.com , www.et3.com > -----Original Message----- > From: sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com@list.jca.apc.org > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of > Lee Schipper > Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 4:21 PM > To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org > Subject: [sustran] Re: Hybrid cars- article from IHT > > Another point -- US refineries are stretched to produce a high yield of > gasoline. Swining a huge amount of that to diesel would also be costly, > and with Daryl's numbers for diesel costs, even cutting them down > somewhat, a hybrid comes out somewhat better overall --unless a car > owner is truly a high mileage driver benefittign from a very long engine > lifetime of diesels compared to (uncertain) for the new generation of > electronic hybrids. > > >>> "Daryl Oster" 4/20/2006 4:07:36 PM >>> > The Toyota Corolla is the best selling brand in the world - with good > reason. I own a 2003 model, and it is rated at 36/41 MPG by the EPA > (US > gallons). In 86,000 miles, the average fuel efficiency is 38MPG (US > measure). > > I have owned several Diesels in the past by VW, GM, and BMW. Diesel in > the > US is about 20% greater cost than gasoline, AND the lowest cost Diesel > car > available in the US in 2003 would have cost me $8,000 more than I paid > for > my Corolla. $8,000 is enough for 100,000 miles worth of driving at > 38mpg > and a fuel cost of $3/gal. > > In 2003, when I purchased my Corolla I compared to the Prius, and the > additional $6,000 cost could not be justified on the projected fuel > savings, > especially considering the projected battery life of 80,000 miles. > > Daryl Oster > (c) 2006 all rights reserved. ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on > earth" > e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service > marks > of et3.com Inc. For licensing information contact: POB 1423, Crystal > River > FL 34423-1423 (352)257-1310, et3@et3.com , www.et3.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com@list.jca.apc.org > > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com@list.jca.apc.org] On > Behalf Of > > Lee Schipper > > Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 10:14 AM > > To: etts@indigo.ie; sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org > > Subject: [sustran] Re: Hybrid cars- article from IHT > > > > The hybrid piece first appeared in the NY TImes last Sunday. MAde > many > > good points. > > > > Be careful, though. 50 MPG US in diesel, given that diesel has 12% > more > > energy that gasoline, is really 45 MPG gasoline. > > > > But no quesiton the Audi diesel is a great car. Whether it is a fuel > > saver depends on whether diesel is underpriced as it has been in so > many > > countries, or priced close to gasoline, as is the case in the US or > the > > UK. Our study published in the Journal of Tranpsort Economics and > Policy > > in 2002 suggested that in the low diesel price countries, the diesel > > fleet itself has no energy or CO2 savings relative to the gasoline > fleet > > because on a match pairs basis, diesels are somewhat heavier and > more > > powerful, driven so much more, selected in large part as "driving > > extenders" rather than "fuel savers". Fold in the higher energy and > CO2 > > content of diesel relative to gasoline, and there was little or no > net > > savings left in the late 1990s. Would be fund to update to 2003 but > that > > would take considerable work. > > > > The article appeard in JTEP in May 2002. Happy to send pdf copies > > (about 1 meg) > > > > >>> etts@indigo.ie 4/19/2006 10:05:10 AM >>> > > Dear Carlos, > > > > It sounds like 40 mpg is considered some sort of breakthrough in the > > USA - have I misunderstood? My wife's regular diesel Audi A4 > > consistently averages 50 mpg across city and open road, better than > cars > > used to be, but we don't think it's anything special. > > > > I think this just reinforces your point about clever (or sneaky) > > "green" branding by the auto industry. > > > > With best wishes, > > > > > > Brendan. > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > > ___________ > > >From Brendan Finn, ETTS Ltd. e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : > > +353.87.2530286 > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Carlos F. Pardo SUTP > > To: carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com ; > > WorldTransport-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com ; > > NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com ; sutp-asia@yahoogroups.com ; 'Asia > > and the Pacific sustainable transport' > > Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 12:01 PM > > Subject: [sustran] Hybrid cars- article from IHT > > > > > > A nice, centered article about the reality of hybrid cars and > their > > "fuel efficiency" > > > > > > > > Source: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/16/opinion/edkitman.php > > > > > > > > > Life in the green lane > > Jamie Lincoln Kitman The New York Times > > > > MONDAY, APRIL 17, 2006 > > > > > > > > If you've gone to any auto show in the last year or so, you'll > know > > that hybrid cars are the hippest automotive fashion statement to > come > > along in years. They've become synonymous with the worthy goal of > > reducing gasoline consumption and dependence on foreign oil and all > that > > this means for a better environment and more stable geopolitics. > > > > > > > > And yet like fat-free desserts, which sound healthy but can still > > make you fat, the hybrid car can make people feel as if they're > doing > > something good, even when they're doing nothing special at all. As > > consumers and governments at every level climb onto the hybrid > > bandwagon, there is the very real danger of elevating the technology > at > > the expense of the intended outcome - saving gas. > > > > > > > > Few things these days say "environmentally aware consumer" so > loudly > > as the fuel-sipping Toyota Prius. With its two power sources - one a > > gasoline- powered internal combustion engine, the other a > battery-driven > > electric motor - the best-selling Prius (and other hybrids sold by > Honda > > and Ford and due soon from several other car makers) can go further > on a > > gallon and emit fewer pollutants in around-town use than most > > conventional automobiles because under certain circumstances they run > on > > battery power and consume less fuel. > > > > > > > > But just because a car has so-called hybrid technology doesn't > mean > > it's doing more to help the environment or to reduce the country's > > dependence on imported oil any more than a non-hybrid car. There are > > good hybrids and bad ones. Fuel-efficient conventional cars are > often > > better than hybrid sport-utility vehicles - just look at how many > miles > > per gallon the vehicle gets. > > > > > > > > Being a professional car-tester, which is to say a person who gets > > asked for unpaid car-buying advice practically every day, I know > these > > distinctions have already been lost on many car buyers. And I fear > > they're well on their way to being lost on our governments, too. > > > > > > > > Lately, people have been calling me and telling me they're > thinking > > about buying the Lexus 400H, a new hybrid SUV. When I tell them that > > they'd get better mileage in some conventional SUVs, and even better > > mileage with a passenger car, they protest, "But it's a hybrid!" I > > remind them that the 21 miles per gallon I saw while driving the > Lexus > > 400H is not particularly brilliant, efficiency-wise - hybrid or not. > > Because the Lexus is a relatively heavy car and because its electric > > motor is deployed to provide speed more than efficiency, it will > never > > be a mileage champ. > > > > > > > > The car that started the hybrid craze, the Toyota Prius, is lauded > > for squeezing 40 or more miles out of a gallon of gas, and it really > > can. But only when it's being driven around town. On a cross- > country > > excursion in a Prius, the staff of Automobile Magazine discovered > > mileage plummeted on the Interstate. In fact, the car's computer, > which > > controls the engine and the motor, allowing them to run together or > > separately, was programmed to direct the Prius to spend most of its > > highway time running on gasoline because at higher speeds the > batteries > > quickly get exhausted. > > > > > > > > Indeed, the gasoline engine worked so hard that we calculated we > > might have used less fuel on our journey if we had been driving > Toyota's > > conventionally powered, similarly sized Corolla - which costs > thousands > > less. > > > > > > > > For years, most of the world's big car makers have shied away from > > building hybrids because while they are technologically intriguing, > they > > are also an inelegant engineering solution - the use of two energy > > sources assures extra weight, extra complexity and extra expense (as > > much as $6,000 more per car.) The hybrid car's electric battery > packs > > rob space from passengers and cargo and although they can be > recycled, > > not every owner can be counted on to do the right thing at the end > of > > their vehicle's service life. And an unrecycled hybrid battery pack, > > which weighs more than 100 pounds, poses a major environmental > hazard. > > > > > > > > So the ideal hybrid car is one that is used in town and carefully > > disposed of at the end of its days. Hybrid taxis and buses make > enormous > > sense. But the market knows no such distinctions. People think they > want > > hybrids and they'll buy them, even if a conventional car would make > more > > sense. The danger is that the automakers will co- opt the hybrids' > green > > mantle and, with the help of a government looking to bail out its > > troubled friends in Detroit, misguidedly encourage the sale of > hybrids > > without reference to their actual effect on oil consumption. > > > > > > > > Pro-hybrid laws and incentives sound nice, but they might just end > up > > subsidizing companies that have failed to develop truly > fuel-efficient > > vehicles at the expense of those that have had the foresight to > design > > their cars right in the first place. And they may actually punish > > citizens who save fuel the old- fashioned way - by using less of it, > > with smaller, lighter and more efficient cars. All the while, > they'll > > make a mockery of a potentially useful technology. > > > > > > > > (Jamie Lincoln Kitman is the New York bureau chief for Automobile > > Magazine and a columnist for Top Gear, a British magazine.) > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ---- > > > > > > > > > > ================================================================ > > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of > people-centred, > > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing > countries > > (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main > focus > > is on urban transport policy in Asia. > > > > > > ================================================================ > > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing > countries > > (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main > focus > > is on urban transport policy in Asia. > > > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries > (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus > is on urban transport policy in Asia. > > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries > (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus > is on urban transport policy in Asia. From edelman at greenidea.info Fri Apr 21 07:20:54 2006 From: edelman at greenidea.info (Todd Edelman) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 00:20:54 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [sustran] Re: Hybrid cars- article from IHT In-Reply-To: <200604202122.k3KLLxLt008279@njbrsmtp1.vzwmail.net> References: <200604202122.k3KLLxLt008279@njbrsmtp1.vzwmail.net> Message-ID: <1265.62.245.95.24.1145571654.squirrel@mail.smartweb.cz> Hi everyone, Is this the "fuel economy" list? The "better car" list? Technical information about engines is always interesting of course, as are "the facts" about "hype-brid cars", but talking about "cost" as only, for example, purchase price vs. long-term fuel price, etc is like sooooo last century! (That means "cost" involves many, many factors--and I know Daryl has been challenged on that point before). This discussion started with a posting from Carlos, and I wrote him off-list that hype-brids were, in my opinion, not a step in any direction except the wrong one, because they are overwhelmingly still supposed to be used by individuals and like all other cars have all many negatives besides "tailpipe emissions" for this reason and many others. So they just confuse people, and lots of California politicians buy huge hybrids, and it is all such a bunch of nonsense... the Audi Awhatever may be a "great" car but there is great about it. - T ------------------------------------------------------ Todd Edelman International Coordinator On the Train Towards the Future! Green Idea Factory Laubova 5 CZ-13000 Praha 3 ++420 605 915 970 edelman@greenidea.info http://www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain Green Idea Factory, a member of World Carfree Network From olly at approtrans.org Fri Apr 21 07:42:18 2006 From: olly at approtrans.org (Olly Powell) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 08:12:18 +0930 Subject: [sustran] Re: Hybrid cars- and Diesel Greenwash In-Reply-To: <1265.62.245.95.24.1145571654.squirrel@mail.smartweb.cz> References: <200604202122.k3KLLxLt008279@njbrsmtp1.vzwmail.net> Message-ID: <444893E2.32485.174F72@localhost> In New Zealand I filed a formal complaint with the advertising standards authority, against Toyota for making exagerated claims about their petrol-electric greenwash mobile. I won the case and toyota had to withdraw the cliam, which was something like "90% reduced emissions and 50% better fuel economy". They were running much more insulting claims in Australian media (Australian issue of National Geographic) trying to compare the same car to a bicycle. In the Australian case I could do nothing as their equivalent body does not deal with issues of "truthufullness" and is toothless anyway. I had similar success with a Honda advert, which had to be modified to remove the words "environmentally friendly". Lately there is a lot of nonsense being said about "clean" diesel, including on this list. Nobody bothers to point out that Euro IV Diesel standards are considerably lower than Euro IV petrol standards, and that the nitrous oxide emissions of most European Diesels are so high they could not be sold in California. In NZ our new "clean" diesel is 50ppm sulphur, making the European figures somewhat worse than they would be in Europe. Personally I have no intention of ever purchasing any such trash. My six bicycles take up most of the space inmy shed. Olly On 21 Apr 2006 at 0:20, Todd Edelman wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Is this the "fuel economy" list? The "better car" list? Technical > information about engines is always interesting of course, as are "the > facts" about "hype-brid cars", but talking about "cost" as only, for > example, purchase price vs. long-term fuel price, etc is like sooooo last > century! (That means "cost" involves many, many factors--and I know Daryl > has been challenged on that point before). > > This discussion started with a posting from Carlos, and I wrote him > off-list that hype-brids were, in my opinion, not a step in any direction > except the wrong one, because they are overwhelmingly still supposed to be > used by individuals and like all other cars have all many negatives > besides "tailpipe emissions" for this reason and many others. So they just > confuse people, and lots of California politicians buy huge hybrids, and > it is all such a bunch of nonsense... the Audi Awhatever may be a "great" > car but there is great about it. > > - T > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > Todd Edelman > International Coordinator > On the Train Towards the Future! > > Green Idea Factory > Laubova 5 > CZ-13000 Praha 3 > > ++420 605 915 970 > > edelman@greenidea.info > http://www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain > > Green Idea Factory, > a member of World Carfree Network > > > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. -- Dr Olly Powell - Carfree Asia P.O. Box 104, Prospect S.A. 5008, Australia www.carfreeasia.org From sksunny at gmail.com Fri Apr 21 09:43:07 2006 From: sksunny at gmail.com (Sunny) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 07:43:07 +0700 Subject: [sustran] Hybrid cars can they help the developing world? In-Reply-To: <444893E2.32485.174F72@localhost> References: <200604202122.k3KLLxLt008279@njbrsmtp1.vzwmail.net> <444893E2.32485.174F72@localhost> Message-ID: <44482A9B.4070302@gmail.com> In view of the recent comments on the hybrid cars. I would like to ask the members here that how many of us would feel that Hybrid cars can help the developing world in any way to provide relief from the increasing car dependency and everyday traffic jams. I support both Todd and Olly, I don't see any benefit from having a hybrid in the developing cities like Delhi, Bangalore or Bangkok. In these cities this might increase the status symbol for many people who can boast on their hybrid ownership. But hybrids in any way cannot reduce the maternal causalities in the villages or increase the access to schools in the rural parts and I am sure that there are many people in India who have never even heard of a hybrid. I would have surely supported if it had shown signs of increasing the equity and gender. These in my view are the important goals to be achieved in terms of transportation in the developing world. If it comes to air pollution reduction...yes hybrids MIGHT reduce the air pollution but wht is the point if the existing car users don't shift but instead new hybrids are added to the roads. Then it is not a reduction in air pollution but an increase though it is only a small fraction. At the end of life the hybrids might be responsible for more pollution, air, water or land, due their improper disposal. In country like India when people are not educated in properly disposing their waste how can disposing f hybrids be achieved? On more point, I even state din some of my earlier posts, when there is an increased demand in the hybrids in the developed world..what is the fate of their existing cars...i see two possibilities 1 - being tipped or 2 - is exported to the third world, in both the cases the cars continue to produce their part of pollution sometimes even greater. So, on the whole i don't see any relief in the transportation scenario for the developing world from the advent of the hybrids unless the hybrids can control the human consumption pattern with the existing resources available for commute. Sunny P.S: Please see attached the picture of a real eco-car -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: cgo0026l.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 36005 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060421/45377a4e/cgo0026l-0001.jpg From et3 at et3.com Fri Apr 21 10:04:26 2006 From: et3 at et3.com (Daryl Oster) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 21:04:26 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: Hybrid cars- and Diesel Greenwash In-Reply-To: <444893E2.32485.174F72@localhost> Message-ID: <200604210104.k3L14SLt016495@njbrsmtp1.vzwmail.net> > -----Original Message----- > From: Olly Powell > In New Zealand I filed a formal complaint with the advertising standards > authority against Toyota for making exagerated claims about their petrol- > electric greenwash mobile. Olly, What about the exaggerated clams of rail advocates? Do you go after them with equal zeal? Or would that defile your dinner plate? > They were running much more insulting claims in Australian media > (Australian issue of National Geographic) trying to > compare the same car to a bicycle. > In the Australian case I could do nothing as their > equivalent body does not deal with issues of "truthufullness" and is > toothless anyway. It is a shame there are not tough laws requiring truthful representation of any and all transportation proposals to government. Trains and rail systems should be the focus, as they are misrepresented to the greatest degree. > I had similar success with a Honda advert, which had to be modified to > remove the words "environmentally friendly". I have submitted proof showing that the per passenger kilometer (or mile) ecology footprint of a bike or walking is greater than for small economical cars for conducting pure transportation. You and others have not submitted evidence refuting this. > Lately there is a lot of nonsense being said about "clean" diesel, > including on this list. > Nobody bothers to point out that Euro IV Diesel standards are considerably > lower than Euro IV petrol standards, and that the nitrous oxide emissions > of most European Diesels are so high they could not be sold in California. > In NZ our new "clean" diesel is 50ppm sulphur, making the European figures > somewhat worse than they would be in > Europe. Most trains are Diesel, and not of the clean variety. The emissions per passenger mile for typical Diesel trains are worse than for the clean Diesel cars and much worse than the hybrids you are attacking. While Diesels emit more NOX, the hydrocarbons and carcinogens are substantially less (if low cost and effective electrostatic particulate filters are used). > > Personally I have no intention of ever purchasing any such trash. My six > bicycles take > up most of the space inmy shed. > > Olly Why SIX bicycles? What kind of car do you own, and how does it compare with the Toyota Prius in sustainability measures? How many miles do YOU travel in a year - and what is the share for each mode, including air travel? Daryl Oster (c) 2006? all rights reserved.? ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth" e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks of et3.com Inc.? For licensing information contact:?POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423? (352)257-1310, et3@et3.com , www.et3.com From et3 at et3.com Fri Apr 21 10:32:36 2006 From: et3 at et3.com (Daryl Oster) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 21:32:36 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: Hybrid cars- article from IHT In-Reply-To: <1265.62.245.95.24.1145571654.squirrel@mail.smartweb.cz> Message-ID: <200604210132.k3L1WbZX007718@njbrsmtp2.vzwmail.net> > Original Message From: Todd Edelman > Hi everyone, > Is this the "fuel economy" list? The "better car" list? This is the sustainable transportation list!! And since cars are presently the most sustainable form of transportation, it makes sense to give them a little ink once in a while. But I say that cars can and MUST be greatly improved upon; (just as cars have improved upon the sustainability of trains, and trains improved upon the sustainability of muscle powered transport). > Technical > information about engines is always interesting of course, as are "the > facts" about "hype-brid cars", but talking about "cost" as only, for > example, purchase price vs. long-term fuel price, etc is like sooooo last > century! (That means "cost" involves many, many factors--and I know Daryl > has been challenged on that point before). Todd, Just what costs did I leave out?? NOTE: in the spreadsheet I recently posted, I included ALL of the costs Litman advocates, even though I do not agree with them, and they have not been equally applied to bikes and trains. If you have costs that should be added to the spreadsheet I submitted, please specify them -- that is one reason I posted it. Also, just what is it about adding up and comparing the costs and benefits of different modes that "is like sooooo last century" ? The world operates like that! And that is the main reason that intercity train use has dropped from a 90% market share in the US in 1910, to less than a 1% share today (in spite of 30 years of the government paying most of the true cost of people who ride trains). > This discussion started with a posting from Carlos, and I wrote him > off-list that hype-brids were, in my opinion, not a step in any direction > except the wrong one, because they are overwhelmingly still supposed to be > used by individuals and like all other cars have all many negatives > besides "tailpipe emissions" for this reason and many others. So they just > confuse people, and lots of California politicians buy huge hybrids, and > it is all such a bunch of nonsense... the Audi Awhatever may be a "great" > car but there is great about it. > Todd Edelman > International Coordinator > On the Train Towards the Future! > Green Idea Factory, > a member of World Carfree Network BTW Todd, this is NOT a car-free list either, nor is it a train list. It IS about improving the sustainability of transportation - especially in the HIUGE developing markets in the Far East -- cars/roads are contributing, but they are reaching the point of marginal value. Sustainability is NOT about being "car-free" or about "Train Towards The Future", it IS about dramatically improving the efficiency, ecology, and social sustainability of transportation. Ideas to accomplish this must be measured on a total benefit/total cost basis -- not with hyperbole and childish ridicule. Daryl Oster (c) 2006 all rights reserved. ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth" e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks of et3.com Inc. For licensing information contact: POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423 (352)257-1310, et3@et3.com , www.et3.com From et3 at et3.com Fri Apr 21 11:40:41 2006 From: et3 at et3.com (Daryl Oster) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 22:40:41 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: Hybrid cars can they help the developing world? In-Reply-To: <44482A9B.4070302@gmail.com> Message-ID: <200604210240.k3L2eiLt019239@njbrsmtp1.vzwmail.net> > Original Message From: Sunny > > In view of the recent comments on the hybrid cars. I would like to ask > the members here that how many of us would feel that Hybrid cars can > help the developing world in any way to provide relief from the > increasing car dependency and everyday traffic jams. IMO, there are much better solutions for the developing world than cars, like ETT, and MoPods (tm). We ALL depend on transportation -- without the ability to get to food and water, or to have food and water brought to us -- we die! So the sustainability of the transportation dependence we all share boils down to achieving maximum efficiency in transportation. In the mid 1800s it was proven that trains and bikes offered greater overall transportation efficiency than ox carts and horses for moving most people and goods (but a few people still refuse to acknowledge this). In the early 1900s it was proven that cars and aircraft and pipelines improved transport efficiency further still and displaced passenger trains (some refuse to acknowledge this). If there is such a thing as "car dependency" it is because the car offers far greater transportation VALUE (for most people - but not all people) than any other mode. As one cannot enjoy the same standard of living AND return to a less efficient mode! There are many ways to measure efficiency - energy efficiency, labor efficiency, materials efficiency, ROW efficiency, risk efficiency, etc -- the lowest common denominator of universal agreement in overall transportation efficiency is TOTAL COST PER PASENGER (or ton) PER UNIT OF DISTANCE. > I support both Todd and Olly, I don't see any benefit from having a > hybrid in the developing cities like Delhi, Bangalore or Bangkok. In > these cities this might increase the status symbol for many people who > can boast on their hybrid ownership. But hybrids in any way cannot > reduce the maternal causalities in the villages or increase the access > to schools in the rural parts and I am sure that there are many people > in India who have never even heard of a hybrid. I would have surely > supported if it had shown signs of increasing the equity and gender. > These in my view are the important goals to be achieved in terms of > transportation in the developing world. Equity and gender in the developed world are vastly improved compared to the developing world - this is fact. I submit to the group that bikes, trains, planes, and automobiles, played the biggest roles in this social sustainability accomplishment. > If it comes to air pollution reduction...yes hybrids MIGHT reduce the > air pollution but wht is the point if the existing car users don't shift > but instead new hybrids are added to the roads. I agree that most people do not buy hybrids because of superior transportation value, but instead because of projecting the image of environmental responsibility. IMO, hybrids (and /or EVs) are now almost equal in value, and will soon surpass the transportation value of conventional ICE (internal combustion engine) powered cars in the same classes. > Then it is not a reduction in air pollution but an increase though it is > only a small fraction. At the end of life the hybrids might be responsible > for more pollution, air, water or land, due their improper disposal. In > country like India when people are not educated in properly disposing > their waste how can disposing of hybrids be achieved? Don't throw the baby out with the bath water -- you have defined the core problem -- it is lack of education of proper use -- not inherent evils of cars that cause most of the present problems. Cars can be a good tool to securing education, allowing more to both work to support a family AND attend school. > On more point, I even stated in some of my earlier posts, when there is > an increased demand in the hybrids in the developed world..what is the > fate of their existing cars...i see two possibilities 1 - being tipped > or 2 - is exported to the third world, in both the cases the cars > continue to produce their part of pollution sometimes even greater. Again, it is best to improve rather than to stagnate -- hybrids represent a definite improvement in transportation efficiency (sustainability) - even if not yet full realized, and even though much better improvements (such as ETT) are well documented. > So, on the whole i don't see any relief in the transportation scenario > for the developing world from the advent of the hybrids unless the > hybrids can control the human consumption pattern with the existing > resources available for commute. > Sunny > P.S: Please see attached the picture of a real eco-car Sunny, The cartoon reminds me of the claim that electric trains and cars are only zero emission if they use electricity generated with non-combustion means. Most electricity is generated by burning coal, and this produces as much or more emissions as hybrid powered cars, but the emissions are concentrated all at one source -- this is far worse impact than disbursed emission of the same magnitude. -- Remember the saying "the solution to pollution is dilution"? Daryl Oster (c) 2006 all rights reserved. ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth" e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks of et3.com Inc. For licensing information contact: POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423 (352)257-1310, et3@et3.com , www.et3.com From mpotter at gol.com Fri Apr 21 11:58:28 2006 From: mpotter at gol.com (mpotter) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 11:58:28 +0900 Subject: [sustran] Re: Hybrid cars- and Diesel Greenwash In-Reply-To: <200604210104.k3L14SLt016495@njbrsmtp1.vzwmail.net> References: <200604210104.k3L14SLt016495@njbrsmtp1.vzwmail.net> Message-ID: Congratulations on your efforts and successes, in New Zealand Olly. More forceful encouragement of truth-in-advertising in the automotive domain is long overdue. Unfortunately, for those countries more in the thrall of this massive economic sector, such successes may be harder to come by. Re the comments about being tough on rail from the irate gentleman from Florida (bear in mind this is one of the most car-dependent places on the Planet) I suspect that in the highly unlikely event that rail should ever become as globally environmentally and socially destructive as the automobile, lots more people would be attacking rail. The automobile attracts fire partly because of the scope and severity of its consequences. The reasons for the swift and generally effective counter reactions to the suggestion that more environmentally sound alternatives to the automobile be encouraged can be found in the fact that the automobile, highway construction, petrol and allied industries butter far more peoples' bread than do those associated with rail. RE advertising, rail advertising is almost non-existent in the US, and miniscule in most other countries(at least the ones that I've been to), while automobile advertising is nearly ubiquitous every country I've been to save Myanmar. That said, here in Fukuoka (pop 1.3 million, metro 3.5 million) rail and subway advertising, limited though it is, in some cases does (admirably) include CO2 output and passenger kilometer energy efficiency comparisons with automobiles. The trains here are overwhelmingly electrified, which of course has an influence on CO2. For rapid transit vs the automobile, given the full subways and the endless AM procession of single-occupant cars here (about 92% one occupant), if anything the figures presented by rapid transit here seem understated. Adding to the environmental and social costs the costs and consequences of paving over land for parking and streets would tip the balance even further in favor of rail here. Rail does tend to be well utilized and well-implemented here. I.e., the basic shopping and other needs of commuters are able to be met in the immediate environs of the stations, high density neighborhoods with limited parking frequently radiate out from stations. This makes difficult direct comparison with countries like the US and Philippines, for example, where rail implementations are sparse and frequently abominable. As for the notion walking or cycling are more environmentally destructive than automobile use, this is a self-evidently ludicrous proposition. I spent 19 years in southern California as a driver, and am now on my sixteenth year as a transportation cyclist in Fukuoka, and I can tell the difference in both my bank account and my waistline. For envrionmental, financial and physical health, the bicycle is the clear winner. With fuel importing Japan spending 9% of GNP on transportation, transportation infrastructure, and assorted costs and the USA 18%, (figures from Holtz's Asphalt Nation) the difference would seem to hold on a national level as well. Respectfully, Mark Potter millennium3 Fukuoka, Japan On Apr 21, 2006, at 10:04 AM, Daryl Oster wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Olly Powell >> In New Zealand I filed a formal complaint with the advertising >> standards >> authority against Toyota for making exagerated claims about their >> petrol- >> electric greenwash mobile. > > Olly, > What about the exaggerated clams of rail advocates? Do you go after > them > with equal zeal? Or would that defile your dinner plate? > >> They were running much more insulting claims in Australian media >> (Australian issue of National Geographic) trying to >> compare the same car to a bicycle. >> In the Australian case I could do nothing as their >> equivalent body does not deal with issues of "truthufullness" and is >> toothless anyway. > > It is a shame there are not tough laws requiring truthful > representation of > any and all transportation proposals to government. Trains and rail > systems > should be the focus, as they are misrepresented to the greatest degree. > > >> I had similar success with a Honda advert, which had to be modified to >> remove the words "environmentally friendly". > > I have submitted proof showing that the per passenger kilometer (or > mile) > ecology footprint of a bike or walking is greater than for small > economical > cars for conducting pure transportation. You and others have not > submitted > evidence refuting this. > > >> Lately there is a lot of nonsense being said about "clean" diesel, >> including on this list. >> Nobody bothers to point out that Euro IV Diesel standards are >> considerably >> lower than Euro IV petrol standards, and that the nitrous oxide >> emissions > >> of most European Diesels are so high they could not be sold in >> California. > >> In NZ our new "clean" diesel is 50ppm sulphur, making the European >> figures > >> somewhat worse than they would be in >> Europe. > > Most trains are Diesel, and not of the clean variety. The emissions > per > passenger mile for typical Diesel trains are worse than for the clean > Diesel > cars and much worse than the hybrids you are attacking. While Diesels > emit > more NOX, the hydrocarbons and carcinogens are substantially less (if > low > cost and effective electrostatic particulate filters are used). > >> >> Personally I have no intention of ever purchasing any such trash. My >> six >> bicycles take >> up most of the space inmy shed. >> >> Olly > > > Why SIX bicycles? What kind of car do you own, and how does it > compare with > the Toyota Prius in sustainability measures? How many miles do YOU > travel > in a year - and what is the share for each mode, including air travel? > > Daryl Oster > (c) 2006? all rights reserved.? ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on > earth" > e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service > marks > of et3.com Inc.? For licensing information contact:?POB 1423, Crystal > River > FL 34423-1423? (352)257-1310, et3@et3.com , www.et3.com > > > > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing > countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, > the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. > From et3 at et3.com Fri Apr 21 13:42:13 2006 From: et3 at et3.com (Daryl Oster) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 00:42:13 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: Hybrid cars- and Diesel Greenwash In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200604210442.k3L4gGLt021423@njbrsmtp1.vzwmail.net> > Original Message From: mpotter > > Re the comments about being tough on rail from the irate gentleman > from Florida (bear in mind this is one of the most car-dependent places > on the Planet). I am sorry you think me to be irate; I am however like EVERYONE on this list dependant on transportation, and also (like most people on this lis), the car is my best transportation tool. You are correct that Florida is mostly car dependant. A hundred years ago it was train dependant; then the car was invented and relieved the train dependency -- but not transportation dependency --- that is inherent for ALL humans. > I suspect that in the highly unlikely event that rail should ever > become as globally environmentally and socially destructive as the > automobile, lots more people would be attacking rail. No one really needs to attack rail -- it has lived a very useful life, and has faded away to the point of almost being forgotten for all but about 2% of travel in the US (mostly in very densely populated cities). > The automobile attracts fire partly because of the scope and severity of > its consequences. The train attracts little fire because most of the damage was in the past, and the rail age is well past it's peak. No need to attack something in decline, unless people are spreading lies about it's resurrection. The car is attracting fire because the incremental value of continued expansion is becoming marginalized by increasing costs. > The reasons for the swift and generally effective > counter reactions to the suggestion that more environmentally sound > alternatives to the automobile be encouraged can be found in the fact > that the automobile, highway construction, petrol and allied industries > butter far more peoples' bread than do those associated with rail. I fully agree that environmentally sound alternatives to the automobile are needed. I dedicate most of my time and resources to achieving that. I also agree there are many virtues to bikes and trains - sustainable passenger transportation for most people is NOT one of them. > RE advertising, rail advertising is almost non-existent in the US, and > miniscule in most other countries(at least the ones that I've been to), > while automobile advertising is nearly ubiquitous every country I've > been to save Myanmar. Railroaders were displaced from the passenger market 50 years ago. The market will only respond to lies in the short term -- value wins in the long term; so now instead of wasting money on useless train advertising, railroaders focus their considerable resources on convincing governments to implement rail system after rail system that (in the US) go mostly under used - it is easyer to baffle public officials with reams of paperwork "proving" the supposed virtues of rail, and sealing support with wining and dining, and luxury trips to exotic places to see the latest rail improvements. In spite of the railroader lies, the car, by virtue of greater passenger transport sustainability, continues to take the train's share of passenger travel -- all over the world -- the efficient market cannot be lied to in the long term. > That said, here in Fukuoka (pop 1.3 million, metro 3.5 million) rail > and subway advertising, limited though it is, in some cases does > (admirably) include CO2 output and passenger kilometer energy > efficiency comparisons with automobiles. The trains here are > overwhelmingly electrified, which of course has an influence on CO2. > For rapid transit vs the automobile, given the full subways and the > endless AM procession of single-occupant cars here (about 92% one > occupant), if anything the figures presented by rapid transit here seem > understated. Adding to the environmental and social costs the costs > and consequences of paving over land for parking and streets would tip > the balance even further in favor of rail here. Japan is the most transportation dependant nation on earth -- as a nation mostly dependant on ships. Domestic travel is still somewhat dependant on the train, yet now 60% of passenger miles are by car - trains are fading away in Japan too - because cars are more sustainable for MOST people there too. > Rail does tend to be well utilized and well-implemented here. I.e., the > basic shopping and other needs of commuters are able to be met in the > immediate environs of the stations, high density neighborhoods with > limited parking frequently radiate out from stations. This makes > difficult direct comparison with countries like the US and Philippines, > for example, where rail implementations are sparse and frequently > abominable. Your assertion that rail is underdeveloped in the US is ludicrous. http://www.crowlaw.com/history.htm says: ******************START QUOTE****************** ... >From 1870 to 1916, total track miles grew from 53,000 miles to 245,000 miles, an average of over 11 miles per day. ... >From 1920 to 1941, an expanding network of paved roads, development of the automobile, and the depression shrank demand for the railroads. While World War II increased rail traffic, profits continued a downward slide. The age of decreasing rail miles had begun as total railroad miles contracted 7.6% from 1920 to 1950. Following World War II, total railroad miles continued to decline. From 1950 to 1992 total miles decreased 39.2% to 136,000 miles. During this time period, the railroad industry needed and received help from the government. In 1971, the federally subsidized Amtrak was born as a way to help relieve railroads of passenger service deficits. With federal assistance, Consolidated Rail was established in 1976 to renovate portions of six bankrupt railroads in the Northeast. ... >From a total of 23 miles of track in 1830, the U.S. rail network grew to 240,293 miles by 1910. During this period, railroads were the largest employers in the United States ... ******************END QUOTE****************** The ONLY reason passenger rail still exists in the US (outside of extremely and unnaturally dense areas like NYC), is by government action secured by the very powerful rail industry lobby. The rail industry reached it's zenith in the US in 1916. Presently there are more miles of abandoned rail ROW (245,000 - 136,000 = 109,000) in the US as exists in all of China (75,000 miles). > As for the notion walking or cycling are more environmentally > destructive than automobile use, this is a self-evidently ludicrous > proposition. I spent 19 years in southern California as a driver, and > am now on my sixteenth year as a transportation cyclist in Fukuoka, and > I can tell the difference in both my bank account and my waistline. > For envrionmental, financial and physical health, the bicycle is the > clear winner. Your personal testimony has failed to counter the proof I submitted to this group a few weeks ago. The HUGE majority in the US, Europe, and even Japan disagree with you. The rate of the bicycle market increase in China is about 20% of the rate of increase of auto sales. That said, it IS clear that the car is reaching natural limits to sustainability -- and a major paradigm shift is needed, and will occur - the shift will be progressive to modes like ETT-- not regressive to trains and bikes. > > With fuel importing Japan spending 9% of GNP on transportation, > transportation infrastructure, and assorted costs and the USA 18%, > (figures from Holtz's Asphalt Nation) the difference would seem to > hold on a national level as well. > > Respectfully, > Mark Potter > millennium3 > Fukuoka, Japan According to: http://web-japan.org/stat/stats/01CEN2A.html In 2002 Japan had 337 persons per square kilometer USA had 30 persons per square kilometer So your numbers actually help show that transportation in the US is more efficient than in Japan. The people in the US are much further apart and must travel more by need. Japan has 11 times the population density, so they spend much more on transportation than they should. Please consider that it must not be true what many of today's social planners are saying about the efficiency of population density, and the virtues of trains and bikes for transportation. Daryl Oster (c) 2006 all rights reserved. ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth" e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks of et3.com Inc. For licensing information contact: POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423 (352)257-1310, et3@et3.com , www.et3.com> From sustainable_transport at yahoo.co.in Fri Apr 21 16:01:17 2006 From: sustainable_transport at yahoo.co.in (Anvita Anand) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 08:01:17 +0100 (BST) Subject: [sustran] National Urban Transport policy - India In-Reply-To: <20060415030116.9008C2C5C4@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> Message-ID: <20060421070117.66161.qmail@web8323.mail.in.yahoo.com> Dear Sujit, Thanks for bringing to notice the URL for the National Urban Transport policy. It is an impressive document and seems to have included all issues, especially right if way for the vulnerable road users and the urban poor by including bicyclists and pedestrians in the discussions. And that makes me doubly concerned about the strategic absence of any mention about the cycle-rickshaws (passenger and goods) and the handcarts which are an important component of the NMTs in most of our cities. warm regards Anvita sustran-discuss-request@list.jca.apc.org wrote: 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..." ######################################################################## Sustran-discuss Mailing List Digest About this mailing list see: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss ######################################################################## Today's Topics: 1. Re: National Urban Transport Policy (Final) (Sunny) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 09:23:53 +0700 From: Sunny Subject: [sustran] Re: National Urban Transport Policy (Final) To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport Message-ID: <44405939.1080606@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Thank you Sujit for the document. I have read it and most of the document is impressive if implemented. Still I wonder on some points stated in the document. Firstly, I did not find any mention of reducing speeds of the private motor vehicles as speed is an important factor for causing accidents. Secondly, from an environmental context Electricity is surely the cleanest and sometimes affordable source of energy provided that the source is also the same. Especially in India where most of the electricity is produced from burning fossil fuels or through hydro wont you think that increasing the electric fleet will pose a pressure on production? From my knowledge several states in India are still power thirsty and buy power from their neighbours. In my opinion it would be nice if there is sufficient research on other alternative fuels or biofuels which can at least meet the needs and also create a livelihood for some. Finally, the mention of NMT and vulnerable groups in the document is impressive, but I am worried that engineering solutions will be embraced for providing safety to pedestrians on the arterial roads. Like here in Bangkok, several pedestrian bridges are constructed, these are supposed to make the pedestrians safer while crossing the road; but in my view I feel that these bridges are to totally segregate the pedestrians off the main road so that they do not cause any hindrance for the car drivers and the cars need not stop or wait till the pedestrians cross the road. These bridges are not very pedestrian friendly as they don't consider the old or disabled people who are forced to cross the road directly some times ending up in the hospital. So, these are my opinions on the document and I agree that my idea can be wrong in some places. I would like to know the comments of the fellow members too. Thanks once again Sujit, Sunny Santhosh Kumar K Faculty of Environment and Resource Studies, MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY 999, Phuttamonthon Road 4, Salaya, Nakhorn Pathom. Thailand Ph: +66 4 113 0181 Email: sksunny@gmail.com; sunnysanthosh@gmail.com > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Sujit Patwardhan [mailto:sujitjp@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Thu 13/04/2006 21:49 > *To:* pttf@googlegroups.com > *Subject:* National Urban Transport Policy (Final) > > 13 April 2006 > > > Dear All, > The "National Urban Transport Policy", draft of which was on the Urban > Development Department, Govt of India, is now posted on their site and > can be downloaded as a PDF file. The location (URL) is given below. > > http://www.urbanindia.nic.in/moud/programme/ut/nutp.pdf > -- > Sujit > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > Sujit Patwardhan > sujit@vsnl.com > sujitjp@gmail.com ------------------------------ ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. End of Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 32, Issue 19 *********************************************** Anvita A. Anand Project Scientist Transportation Research and Injury Prevention Program (TRIPP), MS 808, Main Building, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Hauz Khas, New Delhi 110 016 Phone: 91 11 2659 6361 Fax: 91 11 2685 8703 e-mail: sustainable_transport@yahoo.co.in, anvitaa@gmail.com website: http://www.iitd.ac.in/tripp --------------------------------- Jiyo cricket on Yahoo! India cricket Yahoo! Messenger Mobile Stay in touch with your buddies all the time. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060421/24858940/attachment.html From chuwasg at yahoo.com Fri Apr 21 18:01:08 2006 From: chuwasg at yahoo.com (chuwa) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 02:01:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [sustran] "regenerative" value of human power transportation In-Reply-To: <200604210132.k3L1WbZX007718@njbrsmtp2.vzwmail.net> Message-ID: <20060421090108.18889.qmail@web36908.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Daryl, I am refering to your earlier thread "ETT as a global solution" and this "Hybrid cars- article from IHT". But it's best to start a new thread. I am reading sustran because I am interested in the development of sustainable transport. To me the essence is the human and the environment need to be sustainable, not "transportation" itself. Transportation is a mean to an end, it is best to have as little negative ecological impact as possible. In this respect, I see no real contradiction between your position and many others. However, talking about total value verse cost, I can tell there is a fundamental value different when comparing human-powered transportation with motorized transportation. Appropriate level of exercise, like cycling (a human transport), has a "regenerative" value to the human body, while motorized transportation doesn't. In most of the developed society, where lack of physical exercise is a common root cause of "lifestyle disease (hyper-tension, diabetes, heart disease, colon cancer, you name it..), such regenerative value of human power transportation should be properly factored in. People are willing to pay BIG money to go to the gym. More people are more willing to pay MUCH more in hospital when attempting to "recover" some of their lost health. In less developed area, where exercise is necessary due to other daily chores, such regenerative value of human-powered transportation may be lower. I would be very interested to see this ?regenerative? value reflected in your famous Excel sheet. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Following is small attempt to provide a support for the ?regenerative? value in Singapore, based on one disease (kidney failure): Potential medical cost saving for new kidney failure case alone can be S$245,000,000 in 15 years. (suppose 30% population opt for bicycle commuting) There are estimated 500 new cases every year and the cost of treating kidney failure patient is S$ 31,200 per man-yr (source: National Kidney Foundation, Singapore) Cost of new cases in 15 years (new cases from 2nd year onward) become: 500*0.5*(1+14)*14yr* S$31,200= S$1,638,000,000 Daily bicycle commuting reduce the risk of kidney failure by 50%*, therefore; new cases of kidney failure will be reduced by 30%(population)*50%(reduction rate)=15%. This equals to reduction of S$245.7 Millions in 15 years. * this 50% reduction can be deducted from the following: 1) regular exercise (incluidng cycling) helps to reduce diabetes by 50%: "a 50% reduction in the risk of developing coronary heart disease, noninsulin-dependent diabetes and obesity" http://www.euro.who.int/document/Trt/Booklet.pdf (World Health Organization) 2) a direct link exists between diabetes and kidney failure : "Diabetes is the single leading cause of chronic kidney failure in the U.S., accounting for about 35 percent of the new cases each year ..." http://www.kidney.org/general/aboutdisease/diab.cfm (National Kidney Foundation, Inc.) It's not water tight, but hopefully the idea is clear. Warm regards from Singapore, Francis Chu Senior Design Consultant, Philips Design Daryl Oster wrote: > Original Message From: Todd Edelman > Hi everyone, > Is this the "fuel economy" list? The "better car" list? This is the sustainable transportation list!! And since cars are presently the most sustainable form of transportation, it makes sense to give them a little ink once in a while. But I say that cars can and MUST be greatly improved upon; (just as cars have improved upon the sustainability of trains, and trains improved upon the sustainability of muscle powered transport). > Technical > information about engines is always interesting of course, as are "the > facts" about "hype-brid cars", but talking about "cost" as only, for > example, purchase price vs. long-term fuel price, etc is like sooooo last > century! (That means "cost" involves many, many factors--and I know Daryl > has been challenged on that point before). Todd, Just what costs did I leave out?? NOTE: in the spreadsheet I recently posted, I included ALL of the costs Litman advocates, even though I do not agree with them, and they have not been equally applied to bikes and trains. If you have costs that should be added to the spreadsheet I submitted, please specify them -- that is one reason I posted it. Also, just what is it about adding up and comparing the costs and benefits of different modes that "is like sooooo last century" ? The world operates like that! And that is the main reason that intercity train use has dropped from a 90% market share in the US in 1910, to less than a 1% share today (in spite of 30 years of the government paying most of the true cost of people who ride trains). > This discussion started with a posting from Carlos, and I wrote him > off-list that hype-brids were, in my opinion, not a step in any direction > except the wrong one, because they are overwhelmingly still supposed to be > used by individuals and like all other cars have all many negatives > besides "tailpipe emissions" for this reason and many others. So they just > confuse people, and lots of California politicians buy huge hybrids, and > it is all such a bunch of nonsense... the Audi Awhatever may be a "great" > car but there is great about it. > Todd Edelman > International Coordinator > On the Train Towards the Future! > Green Idea Factory, > a member of World Carfree Network BTW Todd, this is NOT a car-free list either, nor is it a train list. It IS about improving the sustainability of transportation - especially in the HIUGE developing markets in the Far East -- cars/roads are contributing, but they are reaching the point of marginal value. Sustainability is NOT about being "car-free" or about "Train Towards The Future", it IS about dramatically improving the efficiency, ecology, and social sustainability of transportation. Ideas to accomplish this must be measured on a total benefit/total cost basis -- not with hyperbole and childish ridicule. Daryl Oster (c) 2006 all rights reserved. ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth" e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks of et3.com Inc. For licensing information contact: POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423 (352)257-1310, et3@et3.com , www.et3.com ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060421/d32f140a/attachment.html From carlos.pardo at sutp.org Fri Apr 21 22:16:19 2006 From: carlos.pardo at sutp.org (Carlos F. Pardo SUTP) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 08:16:19 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: "regenerative" value of human power transportation In-Reply-To: <20060421090108.18889.qmail@web36908.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200604211316.k3LDGNQ3012206@ns-omrbm4.netsolmail.com> Mr Oster's point of view reminds me of a vanguard movement during the two first decades of the XX century: futurism. I quote the manifesto: "We drove on, crushing beneath our burning wheels, like shirt-collars under the iron, the watch dogs on the steps of the houses." http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/T4PM/futurist-manifesto.html Marinetti and his colleagues never had in mind the consequences of what they were saying, and they were quickly shown that speed was not the best way to go. We simply have to remember, as Mr. Chu has said, that transport is a means to an end, and that value and cost for human beings are beyond Excel spreadhseets and could be better measured by quality of life (perceived or "calculated"). As in conflict resolution theory, if it will be impossible to persuade Mr Oster to embrace these views, we might as well amuse ourselves with his opinions. I, for one, do not agree with him (as I guess many people in this list do). I ride a bicycle every day and believe in the virtues of human contact and moderately high population densities. Best regards, Carlos F. Pardo _____ De: sustran-discuss-bounces+carlos.pardo=sutp.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+carlos.pardo=sutp.org@list.jca.apc.org] En nombre de chuwa Enviado el: Viernes, 21 de Abril de 2006 04:01 a.m. Para: et3@et3.com; Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport Asunto: [sustran] "regenerative" value of human power transportation Daryl, I am refering to your earlier thread "ETT as a global solution" and this "Hybrid cars- article from IHT". But it's best to start a new thread. I am reading sustran because I am interested in the development of sustainable transport. To me the essence is the human and the environment need to be sustainable, not "transportation" itself. Transportation is a mean to an end, it is best to have as little negative ecological impact as possible. In this respect, I see no real contradiction between your position and many others. However, talking about total value verse cost, I can tell there is a fundamental value different when comparing human-powered transportation with motorized transportation. Appropriate level of exercise, like cycling (a human transport), has a "regenerative" value to the human body, while motorized transportation doesn't. In most of the developed society, where lack of physical exercise is a common root cause of "lifestyle disease (hyper-tension, diabetes, heart disease, colon cancer, you name it..), such regenerative value of human power transportation should be properly factored in. People are willing to pay BIG money to go to the gym. More people are more willing to pay MUCH more in hospital when attempting to "recover" some of their lost health. In less developed area, where exercise is necessary due to other daily chores, such regenerative value of human-powered transportation may be lower. I would be very interested to see this "regenerative" value reflected in your famous Excel sheet. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Following is small attempt to provide a support for the "regenerative" value in Singapore, based on one disease (kidney failure): Potential medical cost saving for new kidney failure case alone can be S$245,000,000 in 15 years. (suppose 30% population opt for bicycle commuting) There are estimated 500 new cases every year and the cost of treating kidney failure patient is S$ 31,200 per man-yr (source: National Kidney Foundation, Singapore) Cost of new cases in 15 years (new cases from 2nd year onward) become: 500*0.5*(1+14)*14yr* S$31,200= S$1,638,000,000 Daily bicycle commuting reduce the risk of kidney failure by 50%*, therefore; new cases of kidney failure will be reduced by 30%(population)*50%(reduction rate)=15%. This equals to reduction of S$245.7 Millions in 15 years. * this 50% reduction can be deducted from the following: 1) regular exercise (incluidng cycling) helps to reduce diabetes by 50%: "a 50% reduction in the risk of developing coronary heart disease, noninsulin-dependent diabetes and obesity" http://www.euro.who.int/document/Trt/Booklet.pdf (World Health Organization) 2) a direct link exists between diabetes and kidney failure : "Diabetes is the single leading cause of chronic kidney failure in the U.S., accounting for about 35 percent of the new cases each year ..." http://www.kidney.org/general/aboutdisease/diab.cfm (National Kidney Foundation, Inc.) It's not water tight, but hopefully the idea is clear. Warm regards from Singapore, Francis Chu Senior Design Consultant, Philips Design Daryl Oster wrote: > Original Message From: Todd Edelman > Hi everyone, > Is this the "fuel economy" list? The "better car" list? This is the sustainable transportation list!! And since cars are presently the most sustainable form of transportation, it makes sense to give them a little ink once in a while. But I say that cars can and MUST be greatly improved upon; (just as cars have improved upon the sustainability of trains, and trains improved upon the sustainability of muscle powered transport). > Technical > information about engines is always interesting of course, as are "the > facts" about "hype-brid cars", but talking about "cost" as only, for > example, purchase price vs. long-term fuel price, etc is like sooooo last > century! (That means "cost" involves many, many factors--and I know Daryl > has been challenged on that point before). Todd, Just what costs did I leave out?? NOTE: in the spreadsheet I recently posted, I included ALL of the costs Litman advocates, even though I do not agree with them, and they have not been equally applied to bikes and trains. If you have costs that should be added to the spreadsheet I submitted, please specify them -- that is one reason I posted it. Also, just what is it about adding up and comparing the costs and benefits of different modes that "is like sooooo last century" ? The world operates like that! And that is the main reason that intercity train use has dropped from a 90% market share in the US in 1910, to less than a 1% share today (in spite of 30 years of the government paying most of the true cost of people who ride trains). > This discussion started with a posting from Carlos, and I wrote him > off-list that hype-brids were, in my opinion, not a step in any direction > except the wrong one, because they are overwhelmingly still supposed to be > used by individuals and like all other cars have all many negatives > besides "tailpipe emissions" for this reason and many others. So they just > confuse people, and lots of California politicians buy huge hybrids, and > it is all such a bunch of nonsense... the Audi Awhatever may be a "great" > car but there is great about it. > Todd Edelman > International Coordinator > On the Train Towards the Future! > Green Idea Factory, > a member of World Carfree Network BTW Todd, this is NOT a car-free list either, nor is it a train list. It IS about improving the sustainability of transportation - especially in the HIUGE developing markets in the Far East -- cars/roads are contributing, but they are reaching the point of marginal value. Sustainability is NOT about being "car-free" or about "Train Towards The Future", it IS about dramatically improving the efficiency, ecology, and social sustainability of transportation. Ideas to accomplish this must be measured on a total benefit/total cost basis -- not with hyperbole and childish ridicule. Daryl Oster (c) 2006 all rights reserved. ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth" e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks of et3.com Inc. For licensing information contact: POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423 (352)257-1310, et3@et3.com , www.et3.com ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060421/6e5aaffe/attachment.html From et3 at et3.com Fri Apr 21 22:26:46 2006 From: et3 at et3.com (Daryl Oster) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 09:26:46 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: "regenerative" value of human power transportation In-Reply-To: <20060421090108.18889.qmail@web36908.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200604211326.k3LDQlLt027655@njbrsmtp1.vzwmail.net> Francis, Thank you for your comments and observations on improving the spreadsheet to include the positive value of exercise for those who walk and / or ride a bike for transportation. I agree without reservation that moderate and frequent exercise has many valuable health benefits. It is also clear that daily walking and or bike riding are very good exercise. Therefore the value of the health benefits should be added to the hiking and biking modes on the chart I submitted. If the health benefits are to be properly equated, they must be made comparable on a cost per passenger mile (or km) basis. According to the 2006 CIA World Fact Book http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sn.html Population = 4,492,150 persons 76.1% are in the age bracket of 15 to 64 years old. 3.3% are unemployed According to you 30% commute via bike, and there are 500 new kidney cases every year treated at a cost of $ 31,200 per year 500cases * 30% * $31,200 * 50% = $2,340,000 savings / year Assuming 350 commute days per year, $2,340,000/360 = $6,500/day savings. If we assume a 5 mile daily round trip commute for each worker, we have total miles per day of: 4,492,150 persons * 72.8% * 5 miles = 16,351,426 person miles per day. So the likely health exercise value of the kidney disease treatment savings per mile = $6,500 / 16,351,426 = $0.0004 per person mile value. Kidney disease is not the only thing that is reduced by exercise, there are many other conditions that are costly to treat that can be reduced with proper exercise. I hope someone takes the time to equate all of them, and if it can be shown to be significant (compared with the major cost and benefit items on the chart), I will gladly include them. Daryl Oster (c) 2006? all rights reserved.? ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth" e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks of et3.com Inc.? For licensing information contact:?POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423? (352)257-1310, et3@et3.com , www.et3.com > -----Original Message----- > From: chuwa [mailto:chuwasg@yahoo.com] > Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 5:01 AM > To: et3@et3.com; Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport > Subject: "regenerative" value of human power transportation > > Daryl, > > I am refering to your earlier thread "ETT as a global solution" and this > "Hybrid cars- article from IHT". But it's best to start a new thread. > > I am reading sustran because I am interested in the development of > sustainable transport. To me the essence is the human and the environment > need to be sustainable, not "transportation" itself. Transportation is a > mean to an end, it is best to have as little negative ecological impact as > possible. In this respect, I see no real contradiction between your > position and many others. > > However, talking about total value verse cost, I can tell there is a > fundamental value different when comparing human-powered transportation > with motorized transportation. > > Appropriate level of exercise, like cycling (a human transport), has a > "regenerative" value to the human body, while motorized transportation > doesn't. In most of the developed society, where lack of physical exercise > is a common root cause of "lifestyle disease (hyper-tension, diabetes, > heart disease, colon cancer, you name it..), such regenerative value of > human power transportation should be properly factored in. People are > willing to pay BIG money to go to the gym. More people are more willing to > pay MUCH more in hospital when attempting to "recover" some of their lost > health. > > In less developed area, where exercise is necessary due to other daily > chores, such regenerative value of human-powered transportation may be > lower. > > I would be very interested to see this ?regenerative? value reflected in > your famous Excel sheet. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > --- > Following is small attempt to provide a support for the ?regenerative? > value in Singapore, based on one disease (kidney failure): > Potential medical cost saving for new kidney failure case alone can be > S$245,000,000 in 15 years. (suppose 30% population opt for bicycle > commuting) > There are estimated 500 new cases every year and the cost of treating > kidney failure patient is S$ 31,200 per man-yr > (source: National Kidney Foundation, Singapore) > Cost of new cases in 15 years (new cases from 2nd year onward) become: > 500*0.5*(1+14)*14yr* S$31,200= S$1,638,000,000 > Daily bicycle commuting reduce the risk of kidney failure by 50%*, > therefore; new cases of kidney failure will be reduced by > 30%(population)*50%(reduction rate)=15%. This equals to reduction of > S$245.7 Millions in 15 years. > > * this 50% reduction can be deducted from the following: > 1) regular exercise (incluidng cycling) helps to reduce diabetes by 50%: > "a 50% reduction in the risk of developing coronary heart disease, > noninsulin-dependent diabetes and obesity" > http://www.euro.who.int/document/Trt/Booklet.pdf (World Health > Organization) > 2) a direct link exists between diabetes and kidney failure : "Diabetes is > the single leading cause of chronic kidney failure in the U.S., accounting > for about 35 percent of the new cases each year ..." > http://www.kidney.org/general/aboutdisease/diab.cfm (National Kidney > Foundation, Inc.) > > It's not water tight, but hopefully the idea is clear. > > Warm regards from Singapore, > > Francis Chu > Senior Design Consultant, > Philips Design > > > > > > > > > Daryl Oster wrote: > > > > Original Message From: Todd Edelman > > Hi everyone, > > Is this the "fuel economy" list? The "better car" list? > > This is the sustainable transportation list!! And since cars are > presently > the most sustainable form of transportation, it makes sense to give > them a > little ink once in a while. But I say that cars can and MUST be > greatly > improved upon; (just as cars have improved upon the sustainability > of > trains, and trains improved upon the sustainability of muscle > powered > transport). > > > Technical > > information about engines is always interesting of course, as are > "the > > facts" about "hype-brid cars", but talking about "cost" as only, > for > > example, purchase price vs. long-term fuel price, etc is like > sooooo last > > century! (That means "cost" involves many, many factors--and I > know Daryl > > has been challenged on that point before). > > Todd, > Just what costs did I leave out?? > NOTE: in the spreadsheet I recently posted, I included ALL of the > costs > Litman advocates, even though I do not agree with them, and they > have not > been equally applied to bikes and trains. > If you have costs that should be added to the spreadsheet I > submitted, > please specify them -- that is one reason I posted it. > > Also, just what is it about adding up and comparing the costs and > benefits > of different modes that "is like sooooo last century" ? The world > operates > like that! And that is the main reason that intercity train use has > dropped > from a 90% market share in the US in 1910, to less than a 1% share > today (in > spite of 30 years of the government paying most of the true cost of > people > who ride trains). > > > This discussion started with a posting from Carlos, and I wrote > him > > off-list that hype-brids were, in my opinion, not a step in any > direction > > except the wrong one, because they are overwhelmingly still > supposed to be > > used by individuals and like all other cars have all many > negatives > > besides "tailpipe emissions" for this reason and many others. So > they just > > confuse people, and lots of California politicians buy huge > hybrids, and > > it is all such a bunch of nonsense... the Audi Awhatever may be a > "great" > > car but there is great about it. > > Todd Edelman > > International Coordinator > > On the Train Towards the Future! > > Green Idea Factory, > > a member of World Carfree Network > > BTW Todd, this is NOT a car-free list either, nor is it a train > list. It IS > about improving the sustainability of transportation - especially in > the > HIUGE developing markets in the Far East -- cars/roads are > contributing, but > they are reaching the point of marginal value. > > Sustainability is NOT about being "car-free" or about "Train Towards > The > Future", it IS about dramatically improving the efficiency, ecology, > and > social sustainability of transportation. Ideas to accomplish this > must be > measured on a total benefit/total cost basis -- not with hyperbole > and > childish ridicule. > > > Daryl Oster > (c) 2006 all rights reserved. ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on > earth" > e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service > marks > of et3.com Inc. For licensing information contact: POB 1423, Crystal > River > FL 34423-1423 (352)257-1310, et3@et3.com , www.et3.com > > > > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries > (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus > is on urban transport policy in Asia. > > From sksunny at gmail.com Sat Apr 22 00:28:15 2006 From: sksunny at gmail.com (Sunny) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 22:28:15 +0700 Subject: [sustran] Thailand getting Bicycle lanes Message-ID: <4448FA0F.9010804@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060421/502ea39c/attachment.html From chuwasg at yahoo.com Sat Apr 22 08:54:13 2006 From: chuwasg at yahoo.com (chuwa) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 16:54:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [sustran] Fwd: Re: "regenerative" value of human power transportation Message-ID: <20060421235413.76023.qmail@web36908.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Should have c.c. to the list.. chuwa wrote: Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 09:00:09 -0700 (PDT) From: chuwa Subject: RE: "regenerative" value of human power transportation To: et3@et3.com Daryl, let's stick to the kidney failure case for a while. The S$31,200 cost is for dialysis service for a patient per year (3~4 times per week). Behind each kidney failure there is huge implication to the immediate family members. It often suggest two person out of job (the patient and the care taker). Base on the current GDP per capita (S$30K), this may be another S$60,000 of value lost. Unfortunely I am not in a good position to provide the cost burden of many other lifestyle diseases. I wonder any on the list may be able to estimate this aspect of "regenerative" value of cycling? On the other hand, I don't understand why you use a fixed mileage per person-life. The need to travel to get things done is largely shaped by available transportation choices. In Hong Kong, some people stop stocking things in their fridge as they discover their Super market down stair can do a much better job and is equally accessible. On the other extreme, one of my colleague living in Belgium travels daily to our office in Holland, a round trip of 250km. I stop driving two years ago and switch to cycling as my main commuting mode. This reduce my "mileage" by 75%, yet I manage to go to the same office every day. You won't believe the money I save (car, COE, road tax, insurance, fuel..) The bottom line is that I know there is one less car polluting the air and there is one more healthier and happier person on Earth. I am not against ETT, in fact, I found it may be a good answer to many dense urban setting. It should work very well with bicycle and walking. Good luck with ETT! Regards, Francis Daryl Oster wrote: Francis, Thank you for your comments and observations on improving the spreadsheet to include the positive value of exercise for those who walk and / or ride a bike for transportation. I agree without reservation that moderate and frequent exercise has many valuable health benefits. It is also clear that daily walking and or bike riding are very good exercise. Therefore the value of the health benefits should be added to the hiking and biking modes on the chart I submitted. If the health benefits are to be properly equated, they must be made comparable on a cost per passenger mile (or km) basis. According to the 2006 CIA World Fact Book http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sn.html Population = 4,492,150 persons 76.1% are in the age bracket of 15 to 64 years old. 3.3% are unemployed According to you 30% commute via bike, and there are 500 new kidney cases every year treated at a cost of $ 31,200 per year 500cases * 30% * $31,200 * 50% = $2,340,000 savings / year Assuming 350 commute days per year, $2,340,000/360 = $6,500/day savings. If we assume a 5 mile daily round trip commute for each worker, we have total miles per day of: 4,492,150 persons * 72.8% * 5 miles = 16,351,426 person miles per day. So the likely health exercise value of the kidney disease treatment savings per mile = $6,500 / 16,351,426 = $0.0004 per person mile value. Kidney disease is not the only thing that is reduced by exercise, there are many other conditions that are costly to treat that can be reduced with proper exercise. I hope someone takes the time to equate all of them, and if it can be shown to be significant (compared with the major cost and benefit items on the chart), I will gladly include them. Daryl Oster (c) 2006??? all rights reserved.??? ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth" e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks of et3.com Inc.??? For licensing information contact:???POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423??? (352)257-1310, et3@et3.com , www.et3.com > -----Original Message----- > From: chuwa [mailto:chuwasg@yahoo.com] > Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 5:01 AM > To: et3@et3.com; Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport > Subject: "regenerative" value of human power transportation > > Daryl, > > I am refering to your earlier thread "ETT as a global solution" and this > "Hybrid cars- article from IHT". But it's best to start a new thread. > > I am reading sustran because I am interested in the development of > sustainable transport. To me the essence is the human and the environment > need to be sustainable, not "transportation" itself. Transportation is a > mean to an end, it is best to have as little negative ecological impact as > possible. In this respect, I see no real contradiction between your > position and many others. > > However, talking about total value verse cost, I can tell there is a > fundamental value different when comparing human-powered transportation > with motorized transportation. > > Appropriate level of exercise, like cycling (a human transport), has a > "regenerative" value to the human body, while motorized transportation > doesn't. In most of the developed society, where lack of physical exercise > is a common root cause of "lifestyle disease (hyper-tension, diabetes, > heart disease, colon cancer, you name it..), such regenerative value of > human power transportation should be properly factored in. People are > willing to pay BIG money to go to the gym. More people are more willing to > pay MUCH more in hospital when attempting to "recover" some of their lost > health. > > In less developed area, where exercise is necessary due to other daily > chores, such regenerative value of human-powered transportation may be > lower. > > I would be very interested to see this ???regenerative??? value reflected in > your famous Excel sheet. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > --- > Following is small attempt to provide a support for the ???regenerative??? > value in Singapore, based on one disease (kidney failure): > Potential medical cost saving for new kidney failure case alone can be > S$245,000,000 in 15 years. (suppose 30% population opt for bicycle > commuting) > There are estimated 500 new cases every year and the cost of treating > kidney failure patient is S$ 31,200 per man-yr > (source: National Kidney Foundation, Singapore) > Cost of new cases in 15 years (new cases from 2nd year onward) become: > 500*0.5*(1+14)*14yr* S$31,200= S$1,638,000,000 > Daily bicycle commuting reduce the risk of kidney failure by 50%*, > therefore; new cases of kidney failure will be reduced by > 30%(population)*50%(reduction rate)=15%. This equals to reduction of > S$245.7 Millions in 15 years. > > * this 50% reduction can be deducted from the following: > 1) regular exercise (incluidng cycling) helps to reduce diabetes by 50%: > "a 50% reduction in the risk of developing coronary heart disease, > noninsulin-dependent diabetes and obesity" > http://www.euro.who.int/document/Trt/Booklet.pdf (World Health > Organization) > 2) a direct link exists between diabetes and kidney failure : "Diabetes is > the single leading cause of chronic kidney failure in the U.S., accounting > for about 35 percent of the new cases each year ..." > http://www.kidney.org/general/aboutdisease/diab.cfm (National Kidney > Foundation, Inc.) > > It's not water tight, but hopefully the idea is clear. > > Warm regards from Singapore, > > Francis Chu > Senior Design Consultant, > Philips Design > > > > > > > > > Daryl Oster wrote: > > > > Original Message From: Todd Edelman > > Hi everyone, > > Is this the "fuel economy" list? The "better car" list? > > This is the sustainable transportation list!! And since cars are > presently > the most sustainable form of transportation, it makes sense to give > them a > little ink once in a while. But I say that cars can and MUST be > greatly > improved upon; (just as cars have improved upon the sustainability > of > trains, and trains improved upon the sustainability of muscle > powered > transport). > > > Technical > > information about engines is always interesting of course, as are > "the > > facts" about "hype-brid cars", but talking about "cost" as only, > for > > example, purchase price vs. long-term fuel price, etc is like > sooooo last > > century! (That means "cost" involves many, many factors--and I > know Daryl > > has been challenged on that point before). > > Todd, > Just what costs did I leave out?? > NOTE: in the spreadsheet I recently posted, I included ALL of the > costs > Litman advocates, even though I do not agree with them, and they > have not > been equally applied to bikes and trains. > If you have costs that should be added to the spreadsheet I > submitted, > please specify them -- that is one reason I posted it. > > Also, just what is it about adding up and comparing the costs and > benefits > of different modes that "is like sooooo last century" ? The world > operates > like that! And that is the main reason that intercity train use has > dropped > from a 90% market share in the US in 1910, to less than a 1% share > today (in > spite of 30 years of the government paying most of the true cost of > people > who ride trains). > > > This discussion started with a posting from Carlos, and I wrote > him > > off-list that hype-brids were, in my opinion, not a step in any > direction > > except the wrong one, because they are overwhelmingly still > supposed to be > > used by individuals and like all other cars have all many > negatives > > besides "tailpipe emissions" for this reason and many others. So > they just > > confuse people, and lots of California politicians buy huge > hybrids, and > > it is all such a bunch of nonsense... the Audi Awhatever may be a > "great" > > car but there is great about it. > > Todd Edelman > > International Coordinator > > On the Train Towards the Future! > > Green Idea Factory, > > a member of World Carfree Network > > BTW Todd, this is NOT a car-free list either, nor is it a train > list. It IS > about improving the sustainability of transportation - especially in > the > HIUGE developing markets in the Far East -- cars/roads are > contributing, but > they are reaching the point of marginal value. > > Sustainability is NOT about being "car-free" or about "Train Towards > The > Future", it IS about dramatically improving the efficiency, ecology, > and > social sustainability of transportation. Ideas to accomplish this > must be > measured on a total benefit/total cost basis -- not with hyperbole > and > childish ridicule. > > > Daryl Oster > (c) 2006 all rights reserved. ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on > earth" > e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service > marks > of et3.com Inc. For licensing information contact: POB 1423, Crystal > River > FL 34423-1423 (352)257-1310, et3@et3.com , www.et3.com > > > > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries > (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus > is on urban transport policy in Asia. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060421/7969bf8d/attachment.html From et3 at et3.com Sat Apr 22 22:22:00 2006 From: et3 at et3.com (Daryl Oster) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 09:22:00 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: Fwd: Re: "regenerative" value of human power transportation In-Reply-To: <20060421235413.76023.qmail@web36908.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200604221322.k3MDM3Lt010604@njbrsmtp1.vzwmail.net> > Original Message From: chuwa [mailto:chuwasg@yahoo.com] > Daryl, > let's stick to the kidney failure case for a while. The S$31,200 cost is > for dialysis service for a patient per year (3~4 times per week). Behind > each kidney failure there is huge implication to the immediate family > members. It often suggest two person out of job (the patient and the care > taker). Base on the current GDP per capita (S$30K), this may be another > S$60,000 of value lost. IMO, that is not proper accounting - the value of the treatment is the same regardless of who it is applied to, because it is exactly offset by the income in either case. In fact, I am now starting to think that your whole exercise premise may have some flaws, allow me to explain: If we are to use your logic and apply it to the possible benefit of cars we must calculate the health regenerative benefits of resting! It is well known that someone involved in physical labor (or exercise) must sit down and rest to regenerate for optimal health -- the ride home from a job requiring physical labor could supply the needed inactivity necessary to maintain good health before they go home to eat and engage in more physical work at home by mowing the lawn, raking leaves, shoveling snow, etc. . There are many workers who have physically demanding jobs - and home lives too. In fact likely as many or more workers must physically work or walk, than have jobs with no physical demands. A bike ride demand could negatively effect the health of such a person by placing too many physical demands on the body. > Unfortunatly I am not in a good position to provide the cost burden of > many other lifestyle diseases. I wonder any on the list may be able to > estimate this aspect of "regenerative" value of cycling? We agree on the health benefits of moderate exercise. The benefits of cycling exercise only apply to those who would not otherwise get a sufficient amount of exercise -- such as a university professor, lawyer, or accountant, these jobs are fewer in comparison to jobs that require some or much physical effort. > On the other hand, I don't understand why you use a fixed mileage per > person-life. The need to travel to get things done is largely shaped by > available transportation choices. In Hong Kong, some people stop stocking > things in their fridge as they discover their Super market down stair can > do a much better job and is equally accessible. The discussion topic IS sustainable TRANSPORTATION - not sustainable living. Since you bring it up, the one who has a grocery store below his house is still reliant on transportation -- the transport to get the produce out of the field, to the wholesale market - to the warehouse and then to the distribution centers, and finally to the individual stores. The link to the necessity of transportation is absolute and cannot be severed. > On the other extreme, one > of my colleague living in Belgium travels daily to our office in Holland, > a round trip of 250km. The measures of transportation sustainability consider benefit and cost only, and valid comparison must only consider benefits and costs ON A PASSENGER (or ton) MILE (or km) BASIS. It is the efficiency of transportation that determines the sustainability -- the need is a constant -- and different people all have different needs -- the need modifications are a totally separate issue, and overall living efficiency is always on a case by case basis bade by individuals-- and need is modified according to relative cost and benefit of all necessities - food, water, shelter, work, and ALL linked in some way by transportation. > I stop driving two years ago and switch to cycling as my main commuting > mode. This reduce my "mileage" by 75%, yet I manage to go to the same > office every day. You won't believe the money I save (car, COE, road tax, > insurance, fuel..) > The bottom line is that I know there is one less car polluting the air and > there is one more healthier and happier person on Earth. It is wonderful that you enjoy a healthier and happier life because you ride a bike to work. Many who now use cars could also make the same choice and enjoy the benefits you do. It is also true that many who now travel by bike would enjoy a better life if they owned a car. The chart I submitted show the biggest reasons why the car is winning the market for transportation mode, and what MUST be provided if MOST people are to be expected to change to a more sustainable mode. > I am not against ETT, in fact, I found it may be a good answer to many > dense urban setting. It should work very well with bicycle and walking. > Good luck with ETT! > Regards, > Francis I am not against biking or walking - nor am I against cars. I am simply stating the transportation facts as I see them, and as most people see them, although they may not be able to say precisely why. Thanks for your comments and reasoned observations, now I hope to be able to get good data on the real value of the total health benefits (or losses) of cars, bikes, and other modes. Best regards, Daryl Oster (c) 2006 all rights reserved. ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth" e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks of et3.com Inc. For licensing information contact: POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423 (352)257-1310, et3@et3.com , www.et3.com From edelman at greenidea.info Sun Apr 23 00:17:14 2006 From: edelman at greenidea.info (Todd Edelman) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 17:17:14 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [sustran] Re: Fwd: Re: "regenerative" value of human power transportation In-Reply-To: <200604221322.k3MDM3Lt010604@njbrsmtp1.vzwmail.net> References: <20060421235413.76023.qmail@web36908.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200604221322.k3MDM3Lt010604@njbrsmtp1.vzwmail.net> Message-ID: <1080.62.245.95.24.1145719034.squirrel@mail.smartweb.cz> Daryl wrote: > > The discussion topic IS sustainable TRANSPORTATION - not sustainable > living. TRUE, but you can't separate sustainable transport from its "parent philosophy" "sustainability" (or sustainable living). You talk about transporting food, but what is the point - I am speaking metaphorically here - of transporting food if the food is poisonous, of if you have no mouth...or really (forgive me) if you have no stomach, intestines, rectum... toilet, sewers, sewage treatment/biogas reactor, etc. Sustainable transport is part of a system, and "zooming out" just part way brings you to urban design, etc. We have to think holistically, vertically and horizontally. What would be good to do with your (in)famous spreadsheet is convert it to points, and then figure out how many points people get for just feeling happy, sad, exhausted, etc. - T ------------------------------------------------------ Todd Edelman International Coordinator On the Train Towards the Future! Green Idea Factory Laubova 5 CZ-13000 Praha 3 ++420 605 915 970 edelman@greenidea.info http://www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain Green Idea Factory, a member of World Carfree Network From sksunny at gmail.com Sun Apr 23 01:30:27 2006 From: sksunny at gmail.com (Sunny) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 23:30:27 +0700 Subject: [sustran] Re: Fwd: Re: "regenerative" value of human power transportation In-Reply-To: <200604221322.k3MDM3Lt010604@njbrsmtp1.vzwmail.net> References: <200604221322.k3MDM3Lt010604@njbrsmtp1.vzwmail.net> Message-ID: <444A5A23.5050309@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060422/9d2f7792/attachment.html From litman at vtpi.org Sun Apr 23 03:16:22 2006 From: litman at vtpi.org (Todd Alexander Litman) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:16:22 -0700 Subject: [sustran] Comparing Transportation Costs By Mode In-Reply-To: <200604210132.k3L1WbZX007718@njbrsmtp2.vzwmail.net> References: <1265.62.245.95.24.1145571654.squirrel@mail.smartweb.cz> <200604210132.k3L1WbZX007718@njbrsmtp2.vzwmail.net> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20060421102329.05383038@mail.islandnet.com> Mr. Oster and I had nearly the same debate on another list about a year ago. I appreciate that he is using my transportation costing analysis framework and default values (http://www.vtpi.org/tca ), but I think his analysis framework has several critical flaws. Let me mention a few key features that I disagree with. First, Oster reaches the unsurprizing conclusion that if you are to travel high mileage and charge a high value of time, automobile travel seems cheapest, due to economies of scale (since most automobile costs are fixed, average costs decline significantly with increased consumption). But this assumes that everybody can and should drive high mileage and is based on an excessive value of travel time (most travel time cost studies suggest that the value should be one-third to one-half prevailing wages during peak periods and probably significantly less during off-peak, yet Oster uses US$15.00 for everybody, which is probably an order of magnitude too high for developing country conditions). Transportation professionals are realizing that the best transportation system maximizes "accessibility" rather than "mobility", in other words, it apply strategies such as more accessible land use patterns and improved mobility substitutes such as telework and delivery services to reduce the need to travel (particularly by motor vehicle) (see http://www.vtpi.org/measure.pdf ). If we evaluate transportation in terms of accessibility rather than mobility, then modes such as walking and public transit become more valuable because they help support more compact, mixed land use development and have low costs when used for short trips. In other words, Oster's analysis framework represents the sort of self-fulfilling prophesy that results in automobile dependency: if you assume that automobile travel is cheapest and best, you can build a transportation/land use system which favors that mode so it actually becomes cheapest, at least from the users perspective. Second, Oster's cost framework ignores some of the most significant costs of automobile travel, including parking costs, congestion costs, and crash costs (including these would nearly double what he calculates as vehicle costs). It also fails to account for the much higher costs of driving under urban-peak conditions, which suggests that even if driving is cheapest on average, under urban-peak conditions other modes may be more cost effective. Food costs, which he incorporates, is only relevant for people who are eating too little, if people are eating too much and benefit from increased physical exercise, as is the case in most developed countries and even many lower-income countries, than time and calories spent walking and cycling represent a benefit rather than cost. I have no idea why Oster focuses on kidney disease as the risk associated with sedentary living, most studies (including a couple I've been involved with, see http://www.smartgrowth.bc.ca/downloads/SGBC_Health%20Report%20Final.pdf and http://vtpi.org/health.pdf ) indicate that cardiovascular diseases is the main risk. The health benefits of increased walking and cycling are much larger than Oster's analysis implies, probably similar in magnitude to crash reduction benefits, although we generally do not try to monetize that impact because the relationships are complex. Perhaps a simpler way to quantify it is to say that the first 30 minutes a day of active transportation (walking and cycling) incurs no time cost. Third, I think that Oster misrepresents the basic question. It is useless to ask, which mode of travel is cheapest and best to accommodate, since costs vary significantly depending on the situation. It is far better to ask, which mode is most cost effective and most appropriate for a particular situation. Walking and cycling are most cost effective for shorter trips, particularly in urban areas where space is at a premium or by people who are either low income or need to increase their physical activity; public transit is most cost effective for travel on major urban corridors and between cities; and automobile travel is most cost effective for some types of trips such as off-peak and rural travel, and when carrying heavy loads, although my research indicates that a significant portion of automobile travel that occurs in most developed countries results from market distortions that underprice driving, and in a more efficient transportation market the total amount of driving that occurs in developed countries would decline by a third or more (see http://www.vtpi.org/opprice.pdf ). Best wishes, -Todd Litman At 06:32 PM 4/20/2006, Daryl Oster wrote: > Is this the "fuel economy" list? The "better car" list? >This is the sustainable transportation list!! And since cars are presently >the most sustainable form of transportation, it makes sense to give them a >little ink once in a while. But I say that cars can and MUST be greatly >improved upon; (just as cars have improved upon the sustainability of >trains, and trains improved upon the sustainability of muscle powered >transport). > > > Technical > > information about engines is always interesting of course, as are "the > > facts" about "hype-brid cars", but talking about "cost" as only, for > > example, purchase price vs. long-term fuel price, etc is like sooooo last > > century! (That means "cost" involves many, many factors--and I know Daryl > > has been challenged on that point before). > >Todd, >Just what costs did I leave out?? >NOTE: in the spreadsheet I recently posted, I included ALL of the costs >Litman advocates, even though I do not agree with them, and they have not >been equally applied to bikes and trains. >If you have costs that should be added to the spreadsheet I submitted, >please specify them -- that is one reason I posted it. > >Also, just what is it about adding up and comparing the costs and benefits >of different modes that "is like sooooo last century" ? The world operates >like that! And that is the main reason that intercity train use has dropped >from a 90% market share in the US in 1910, to less than a 1% share today (in >spite of 30 years of the government paying most of the true cost of people >who ride trains). > > > This discussion started with a posting from Carlos, and I wrote him > > off-list that hype-brids were, in my opinion, not a step in any direction > > except the wrong one, because they are overwhelmingly still supposed to be > > used by individuals and like all other cars have all many negatives > > besides "tailpipe emissions" for this reason and many others. So they just > > confuse people, and lots of California politicians buy huge hybrids, and > > it is all such a bunch of nonsense... the Audi Awhatever may be a "great" > > car but there is great about it. > > Todd Edelman > > International Coordinator > > On the Train Towards the Future! > > Green Idea Factory, > > a member of World Carfree Network > >BTW Todd, this is NOT a car-free list either, nor is it a train list. It IS >about improving the sustainability of transportation - especially in the >HIUGE developing markets in the Far East -- cars/roads are contributing, but >they are reaching the point of marginal value. > >Sustainability is NOT about being "car-free" or about "Train Towards The >Future", it IS about dramatically improving the efficiency, ecology, and >social sustainability of transportation. Ideas to accomplish this must be >measured on a total benefit/total cost basis -- not with hyperbole and >childish ridicule. > > >Daryl Oster >(c) 2006 all rights reserved. ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth" >e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks >of et3.com Inc. For licensing information contact: POB 1423, Crystal River >FL 34423-1423 (352)257-1310, et3@et3.com , www.et3.com > > > > >================================================================ >SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, >equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing >countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, >the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. Sincerely, Todd Alexander Litman Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org) litman@vtpi.org Phone & Fax 250-360-1560 1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060422/803bb0a9/attachment.html From ericbruun at earthlink.net Sun Apr 23 04:54:39 2006 From: ericbruun at earthlink.net (Eric Bruun) Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 15:54:39 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [sustran] Accounting exercise Message-ID: <3143265.1145735679719.JavaMail.root@elwamui-milano.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Daryl If you want to talk about flaws, you can not apply monetary "accounting" as your sole means of evaluation in the first place. Some important considerations can not be monetized, or should not be monetized, or this is such a large range of contestable values that the result is a very wide range of values. If you really want to do a comprehensive analysis that includes all impacts from a transportation system, you might want to look at the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Eric Bruun -----Original Message----- >From: Daryl Oster >Sent: Apr 22, 2006 9:22 AM >To: chuwasg@yahoo.com, 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport' >Subject: [sustran] Re: Fwd: Re: "regenerative" value of human power transportation > > >> Original Message From: chuwa [mailto:chuwasg@yahoo.com] >> Daryl, >> let's stick to the kidney failure case for a while. The S$31,200 cost is >> for dialysis service for a patient per year (3~4 times per week). Behind >> each kidney failure there is huge implication to the immediate family >> members. It often suggest two person out of job (the patient and the care >> taker). Base on the current GDP per capita (S$30K), this may be another >> S$60,000 of value lost. > >IMO, that is not proper accounting - the value of the treatment is the same >regardless of who it is applied to, because it is exactly offset by the >income in either case. > >In fact, I am now starting to think that your whole exercise premise may >have some flaws, allow me to explain: > >If we are to use your logic and apply it to the possible benefit of cars we >must calculate the health regenerative benefits of resting! It is well >known that someone involved in physical labor (or exercise) must sit down >and rest to regenerate for optimal health -- the ride home from a job >requiring physical labor could supply the needed inactivity necessary to >maintain good health before they go home to eat and engage in more physical >work at home by mowing the lawn, raking leaves, shoveling snow, etc. . >There are many workers who have physically demanding jobs - and home lives >too. In fact likely as many or more workers must physically work or walk, >than have jobs with no physical demands. A bike ride demand could >negatively effect the health of such a person by placing too many physical >demands on the body. > >> Unfortunatly I am not in a good position to provide the cost burden of >> many other lifestyle diseases. I wonder any on the list may be able to >> estimate this aspect of "regenerative" value of cycling? > >We agree on the health benefits of moderate exercise. The benefits of >cycling exercise only apply to those who would not otherwise get a >sufficient amount of exercise -- such as a university professor, lawyer, or >accountant, these jobs are fewer in comparison to jobs that require some or >much physical effort. > > >> On the other hand, I don't understand why you use a fixed mileage per >> person-life. The need to travel to get things done is largely shaped by >> available transportation choices. In Hong Kong, some people stop stocking >> things in their fridge as they discover their Super market down stair can >> do a much better job and is equally accessible. > >The discussion topic IS sustainable TRANSPORTATION - not sustainable living. >Since you bring it up, the one who has a grocery store below his house is >still reliant on transportation -- the transport to get the produce out of >the field, to the wholesale market - to the warehouse and then to the >distribution centers, and finally to the individual stores. The link to the >necessity of transportation is absolute and cannot be severed. > >> On the other extreme, one >> of my colleague living in Belgium travels daily to our office in Holland, >> a round trip of 250km. > >The measures of transportation sustainability consider benefit and cost >only, and valid comparison must only consider benefits and costs ON A >PASSENGER (or ton) MILE (or km) BASIS. It is the efficiency of >transportation that determines the sustainability -- the need is a constant >-- and different people all have different needs -- the need modifications >are a totally separate issue, and overall living efficiency is always on a >case by case basis bade by individuals-- and need is modified according to >relative cost and benefit of all necessities - food, water, shelter, work, >and ALL linked in some way by transportation. > > >> I stop driving two years ago and switch to cycling as my main commuting >> mode. This reduce my "mileage" by 75%, yet I manage to go to the same >> office every day. You won't believe the money I save (car, COE, road tax, >> insurance, fuel..) >> The bottom line is that I know there is one less car polluting the air and >> there is one more healthier and happier person on Earth. > >It is wonderful that you enjoy a healthier and happier life because you ride >a bike to work. Many who now use cars could also make the same choice and >enjoy the benefits you do. It is also true that many who now travel by bike >would enjoy a better life if they owned a car. The chart I submitted show >the biggest reasons why the car is winning the market for transportation >mode, and what MUST be provided if MOST people are to be expected to change >to a more sustainable mode. > >> I am not against ETT, in fact, I found it may be a good answer to many >> dense urban setting. It should work very well with bicycle and walking. >> Good luck with ETT! >> Regards, >> Francis > >I am not against biking or walking - nor am I against cars. I am simply >stating the transportation facts as I see them, and as most people see them, >although they may not be able to say precisely why. > >Thanks for your comments and reasoned observations, now I hope to be able to >get good data on the real value of the total health benefits (or losses) of >cars, bikes, and other modes. > >Best regards, > > >Daryl Oster >(c) 2006 all rights reserved. ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth" >e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks >of et3.com Inc. For licensing information contact: POB 1423, Crystal River >FL 34423-1423 (352)257-1310, et3@et3.com , www.et3.com > > > >================================================================ >SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. From chuwasg at yahoo.com Sun Apr 23 16:29:00 2006 From: chuwasg at yahoo.com (chuwa) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 00:29:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [sustran] Re: "regenerative" value of human power transportation In-Reply-To: <200604221322.k3MDM3Lt010604@njbrsmtp1.vzwmail.net> Message-ID: <20060423072900.4188.qmail@web36914.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Daryl, Just some clarification: Cost burden of kidney failure (Litman, fair to Daryl, I started to use kidney failure as a small example, refer to my post on April 21..)- Suppose my kidney fail today, I'd have to pay the S$31,200 annual cost for dialysis. This cost is not for "treatment" or cure, it merely clean my blood for a couple of days, there is no end to this until someone is willing to donate his kidney and if I have the money to pay for the operation. In such situation, I will most likely lost my job and can no longer support my family. (income lost ON TOP OF medical expenses). Not only that, my wife also have to quit her job because taking care of a kidney failure patient is a very demanding job. Therefore she will lost her income too. That's how I come to the total lost of S$60,000 (based on current GDP, double income family) in addition to the medical cost of S$31,200. I know I may be stretching the concept of "cost" too far here, but it should be reasonably within the scope of "lost value". Health benefit (value) of cycling and walking (human power transport): I agree that the health value of walking and cycling is "only" applicable to those who don't get sufficient exercise otherwise.However, the unexpected fact is two third of the world population are physically inactive (http://tinyurl.com/gpffr), the majority can benefit from integrating at least 30 minutes of fast walking or cycling into their daily life. If the information here (http://www.activelivingleadership.org/pdf_file/TheFacts.pdf) is reliable, the health value of walking+cycling is potentially US$117 billion and 200,000 human in US per year. Perceived efficiency of car I can see where you come from - most people just check what are the available choices and car seems (especially in USA) the only sensible one. This is also the mainstream opinion. Your Excel sheet try to illustrate the mainstream view through cost reasoning and that may be exactly how the majority see it, even it may not be the truth. On the other hand I'm optimistic that the mainstream view is likely to change, and the opinions on this cutting edge group will slowly become the norm. Francis Chu Daryl Oster wrote: > Original Message From: chuwa [mailto:chuwasg@yahoo.com] > Daryl, > let's stick to the kidney failure case for a while. The S$31,200 cost is > for dialysis service for a patient per year (3~4 times per week). Behind > each kidney failure there is huge implication to the immediate family > members. It often suggest two person out of job (the patient and the care > taker). Base on the current GDP per capita (S$30K), this may be another > S$60,000 of value lost. IMO, that is not proper accounting - the value of the treatment is the same regardless of who it is applied to, because it is exactly offset by the income in either case. In fact, I am now starting to think that your whole exercise premise may have some flaws, allow me to explain: If we are to use your logic and apply it to the possible benefit of cars we must calculate the health regenerative benefits of resting! It is well known that someone involved in physical labor (or exercise) must sit down and rest to regenerate for optimal health -- the ride home from a job requiring physical labor could supply the needed inactivity necessary to maintain good health before they go home to eat and engage in more physical work at home by mowing the lawn, raking leaves, shoveling snow, etc. . There are many workers who have physically demanding jobs - and home lives too. In fact likely as many or more workers must physically work or walk, than have jobs with no physical demands. A bike ride demand could negatively effect the health of such a person by placing too many physical demands on the body. > Unfortunatly I am not in a good position to provide the cost burden of > many other lifestyle diseases. I wonder any on the list may be able to > estimate this aspect of "regenerative" value of cycling? We agree on the health benefits of moderate exercise. The benefits of cycling exercise only apply to those who would not otherwise get a sufficient amount of exercise -- such as a university professor, lawyer, or accountant, these jobs are fewer in comparison to jobs that require some or much physical effort. > On the other hand, I don't understand why you use a fixed mileage per > person-life. The need to travel to get things done is largely shaped by > available transportation choices. In Hong Kong, some people stop stocking > things in their fridge as they discover their Super market down stair can > do a much better job and is equally accessible. The discussion topic IS sustainable TRANSPORTATION - not sustainable living. Since you bring it up, the one who has a grocery store below his house is still reliant on transportation -- the transport to get the produce out of the field, to the wholesale market - to the warehouse and then to the distribution centers, and finally to the individual stores. The link to the necessity of transportation is absolute and cannot be severed. > On the other extreme, one > of my colleague living in Belgium travels daily to our office in Holland, > a round trip of 250km. The measures of transportation sustainability consider benefit and cost only, and valid comparison must only consider benefits and costs ON A PASSENGER (or ton) MILE (or km) BASIS. It is the efficiency of transportation that determines the sustainability -- the need is a constant -- and different people all have different needs -- the need modifications are a totally separate issue, and overall living efficiency is always on a case by case basis bade by individuals-- and need is modified according to relative cost and benefit of all necessities - food, water, shelter, work, and ALL linked in some way by transportation. > I stop driving two years ago and switch to cycling as my main commuting > mode. This reduce my "mileage" by 75%, yet I manage to go to the same > office every day. You won't believe the money I save (car, COE, road tax, > insurance, fuel..) > The bottom line is that I know there is one less car polluting the air and > there is one more healthier and happier person on Earth. It is wonderful that you enjoy a healthier and happier life because you ride a bike to work. Many who now use cars could also make the same choice and enjoy the benefits you do. It is also true that many who now travel by bike would enjoy a better life if they owned a car. The chart I submitted show the biggest reasons why the car is winning the market for transportation mode, and what MUST be provided if MOST people are to be expected to change to a more sustainable mode. > I am not against ETT, in fact, I found it may be a good answer to many > dense urban setting. It should work very well with bicycle and walking. > Good luck with ETT! > Regards, > Francis I am not against biking or walking - nor am I against cars. I am simply stating the transportation facts as I see them, and as most people see them, although they may not be able to say precisely why. Thanks for your comments and reasoned observations, now I hope to be able to get good data on the real value of the total health benefits (or losses) of cars, bikes, and other modes. Best regards, Daryl Oster (c) 2006 all rights reserved. ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth" e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks of et3.com Inc. For licensing information contact: POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423 (352)257-1310, et3@et3.com , www.et3.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060423/4f69e388/attachment.html From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Mon Apr 24 01:34:25 2006 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (Eric Britton) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 18:34:25 +0200 Subject: [sustran] New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A Proposal for Discussion Message-ID: <074801c666f3$cec682c0$6501a8c0@Home> New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A Proposal for Discussion When it comes to creating more viable and fairer transport systems, and behind that our real objective: more agreeable and more sustainable cities, we have one recurrent problem that we can perhaps deal with if we put our heads together. As is well known, whenever any given 'soft transport', "public space" or some type of "not quite so many cars" initiative is proposed in any given place, the first and most striking thing that happens is the howls of protest that immediately emerge from all those who claim that their democratic entitlements are being threatened by, as they often like to put it, some small group of arrogant bike-happy technocrats and their fellow eco-travelers. And since the media always likes a good cat fight, these righteous citizens often dominate the news. For the rest, for you and me and others like us, hey! we're the Silent Minority. The absolutely disenfranchised. Well, it does not always have to be like that and here is one proposal concerning which I would like to invite discussions and refinement - all as a prelude to giving this idea a couple of trial runs in one or more pioneering cities. The idea is to carry out an annual open citizen survey of attitudes and preferences concerning transport policy and practice (and the investments that go with it) in your city. The results should be made widely available through old and new media, and brought to the fore of the attention of the politicians, administrators and policy makers in your city. Here without any pretense of it being anything other than a grain of sand to get us going is my draft proposal for content for quick mini-survey that can be administered by phone, email or on any street corner by volunteers: Note to the reader: In a first instance, before digging into the details, I would like to ask the members of this fine group: (a) is this an idea that is worth pursuing; (b) are there some (better)examples that we should be looking at and learning from. Then once we have a feel for this as a useful activity, we can then start to see how we might together fine tune a good questionnaire and routine. 1, Draft Mini-survey (for comment and . . . ) All questions where appropriate to be answered simply by a 1 (yes), 0 (don't know), -or -1 (no), which will facilitate aggregation and overview. 1. Name 2. City of residence 3. M/F 4. Age: <15; 15-30; 30-65; >65 5. Do you own/drive a car? 6. My city government has a coherent, announced transportation policy: 7. I believe that this is a wise and well executed policy. 8. We need to spend more money to build more roads and more parking as a main transport priority. 9. We need to give much more attention and spend more money on "soft transport" and related life quality initiatives (examples: better support of pedestrians and cyclists, traffic calming, more public transport, new forms of shared transport, ITC substitutes for displacement.) 10. It is possible for people to live here well and easily without having their own car. 11. If they want my vote -- all candidates for local public office should take a firm stand on their transportation policies, and issue as part of their platform a signed personal statement indicating their support of more sustainable transport projects and programs. Your eventual brief comments or suggestions: ____________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ 2. How to execute - Thoughts on * This maybe is pushing it for length. If it can't be administered in three minutes, it probably will not do the job. Try it out on a couple of friends and let us know. * There is plenty of evidence that people tend to create and administrate questionnaires that one way or another tend to elicit their favored response. We should meticulously avoid doing this, and in our selection of questions - and people to be queried. If it ain't neutral, it is not worth a lot. So careful, eh? * The simple mental model I have for this is an excel table with names in columns, etc. All leading to easy sorting and sub-total * To have a real impact, it will best be administered at some fixed time. As examples: on Earth Day, in cooperation with any local Car Free Days, European Moblity Week, etc.) * The procedures and information should be fully public so that there can be no charges of rigging the returns. (Expect in Belarusia and Florida in which it is OK.) * Also involve schools, various clubs and groups, senior citizens, handicapped, pedestrian and cyclist naturally but also take it into hospitals, prisons, old people's homes, jails, and the homeless. * Local media partnerships, and even strong involvement by them, will be most useful. * I would propose that the on-street interviews be carried out on one day - but that an entire week be given over to the entire procedures. * The results should be publicly announced. * And then all those in local government should be asked to comment and give their appreciations of what this means. (Note: Our friends in South Africa with their first Car Free Days last year did a good job of this which we might usefully consult) * We propose that this be an annual exercise. * And that to the extent possible and sensible, we might want to think about questions and formats that are sufficiently parallel to allow us to aggregate. * BTW, is there or has there ever been anything like this in your city? Neighborhood? That we can learn from? 3. Parallel in-death Survey It may be a good idea to have a more in depth survey for those people disposed to spend more time with us on this. The trick will be to determine who, how, when, - and how used? Here are a few first thoughts on this to get us going: * Employment, social status * Where live/where work * If it were faster and cheaper to get to work or school by some way other than driving a car (in traffic) would you be willing to consider it? * When was the last time you took a bus or rail transit? * Used a bike to get to work or school? * D you think that it might be a good idea for your city to publish and maintain a "sustainable transportation webpage" that reports on key indicators including traffic deaths and incidents (by gravity and type), CO2 or other clean air indicators, parametric indicators of infrastructure and performance of NMT options, etc. * Would you be willing to work, say, 20 hours over a period of one or two months. as a volunteer to support better researched specific projects in your neighborhood. * Etc. * Etc * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060423/47016726/attachment.html From sulin at vectordesigns.org Mon Apr 24 09:57:58 2006 From: sulin at vectordesigns.org (Su-Lin Chee) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 20:57:58 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: Proposed new Kuala Lumpur monorail lines Message-ID: Hi Tony and everyone, Sorry about that. Am attaching text in body here. KLIG proposes four new lines for monorail system By LEONG SHEN-LI KUALA LUMPUR: KL Infrastructure Group Bhd, the company which operates the monorail here, has submitted a proposal to construct four new lines in the Klang Valley with a total length of 71km. KLIG chairman Datuk Ahmad Sa?adi said the project was estimated to cost RM4.5bil and would take six years to complete. ?We presented this proposal to the Government two months ago,? he said yesterday. Ahmad said the four new lines were the 21km Petaling Jaya line, 18km Subang Jaya line, 19km Sungai Buloh line and 13km Cheras line. The four lines will have 47 stations. Click on image for actual size. The Sungai Buloh line will directly link up with the existing KL Monorail system at the Titiwangsa station while the Subang Jaya line will link up with the existing system at the Tun Sambanthan station in Brickfields. All four lines will integrate with the existing light rail transit (LRT) and the KTM Komuter rail systems. ?We expect the new lines to ferry some 400,000 passengers per day,? he said. He added that when the entire network was completed, the existing lines would also experience an increase in usage because more people would find it convenient to use public transport. ?We should see another 320,000 passengers using the entire rail system daily on top of the current 340,000 passengers,'' he said. He said this would help the Government achieve the Ninth Malaysia Plan target of a 30:70 public to private transport ratio for the Klang Valley. Ahmad said under the proposal, MTrans Holdings Sdn Bhd, the holding company of KLIG, would manufacture 62 new monorail trains for the new lines. ?The new trains will have four cars each and carry at least 400 people,? he said. >
>


Hello Su-Lin,

>

From the UK following your link, all I get is 'Sorry, Access Denied'.  Can you say what the story is about and it may then be possible to navigate The Star website by another means. Thanks.

>

Tony Plumbe

>
>
>
> >
From:  "Su-Lin Chee" <sulin@vectordesigns.org>
Reply- To:  sulin@vectordesigns.org, sulinchee@gmail.com,Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport <sustran- discuss@list.jca.apc.org>
To:  Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport <sustran- discuss@list.jca.apc.org>
Subject:  [sustran] Proposed new Kuala Lumpur monorail lines
Date:  Thu, 20 Apr 2006 01:27:31 - 0400
>thought you all might find this interesting:
>http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?
>file=/2006/4/15/nation/13967752&sec=nation
>
>< BR>>Best wishes,
>
>Su-Lin Chee
>
>project manager
>klang valley public transportation information system
>vector designs
>www.vectordesigns.org
>54a jalan kemuja
>bangsar > utama
>59000 kuala lumpur
>tel/fax +603.22826363
>mobile +6016.2183363
>
>
>================================== ==============================
>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia.
> > > Best wishes, Su-Lin Chee project manager klang valley public transportation information system vector designs www.vectordesigns.org 54a jalan kemuja bangsar utama 59000 kuala lumpur tel/fax +603.22826363 mobile +6016.2183363 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/pjpeg Size: 62193 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060423/5ac40db2/attachment-0001.bin From paulbarter at nus.edu.sg Mon Apr 24 16:14:18 2006 From: paulbarter at nus.edu.sg (Paul Barter) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 15:14:18 +0800 Subject: [sustran] FW: Traffic in India Message-ID: A wonderful video clip of an Indian intersection working in ways most traffic engineers would never imagine in their wildest dreams. If you have never seen traffic in South Asia then this might come as something of a shock. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjrEQaG5jPM > Paul From Alan.Howes at cbuchanan.co.uk Mon Apr 24 17:16:08 2006 From: Alan.Howes at cbuchanan.co.uk (Alan Howes) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 09:16:08 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Re: FW: Traffic in India Message-ID: <324DCD7680954F468CF306EE5404F001020A90C3@mail01.cbuchanan.co.uk> Though I have to say that after my two weeks in Mumbai recently it came as no surprise. Our driver thought nothing of driving the wrong way down a contra-flow bus lane (not many of those in Mumbai), veering off onto the pavement if he happened to meet a bus. I did not think much of it either! Alan -- Alan Howes Associate Transport Planner Colin Buchanan 4 St Colme Street Edinburgh EH3 6AA Scotland email: alan.howes@cbuchanan.co.uk tel: (0)131 226 4693 (switchboard) (0)7952 464335 (mobile) fax: (0)131 220 0232 www: http:/www.cbuchanan.co.uk/ _______________________________ -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+alan.howes=cbuchanan.co.uk@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+alan.howes=cbuchanan.co.uk@list.jca.apc. org] On Behalf Of Paul Barter Sent: 24 April 2006 08:14 To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport Subject: [sustran] FW: Traffic in India A wonderful video clip of an Indian intersection working in ways most traffic engineers would never imagine in their wildest dreams. If you have never seen traffic in South Asia then this might come as something of a shock. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjrEQaG5jPM > Paul ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ DISCLAIMER This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which 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 Colin Buchanan, 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 do not accept liability for any loss or damage caused by software viruses. From whook at itdp.org Mon Apr 24 22:44:09 2006 From: whook at itdp.org (Walter Hook) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 09:44:09 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A Proposal forDiscussion In-Reply-To: <074801c666f3$cec682c0$6501a8c0@Home> Message-ID: <012e01c667a5$2a6eb140$c301a8c0@DFJLYL81> Eric, Paul white and i had a related idea over lunch the other day, and we were wondering if this has ever been tried. What if all the property owners and permanent tenants living along a block of urban street were given the choice by the municipality of whether they wanted the space in front of their house dedicated to car parking or sidewalk? How many residents would vote for car parking? It might be done something like this. The department of transport could determine the needed road capacity, but the parking units would be a function of ultra local democracy. What if as a result, each permanent resident or registered voter, or even just each property tax payer, on a city block got to determine the democratic use of the public space in front of their property. Since it is currently most of the time dedicated to parking, at least in the US, even if only 10% voted to get rid of the parking, that would be 10% of the parking units we could reclaim. On my block i would guess that maybe 50% would opt for a wider sidewalk. Then a block association could be free to contract an architect to redesign the street with that same number of units of parking. I am wondering if there are any successful examples of this sort of ultra local democracy? Walter -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Eric Britton Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2006 12:34 PM To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com; Sustran Resource Centre Cc: CarFreeCafe@yahoogroups.com Subject: [sustran] New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A Proposal forDiscussion New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A Proposal for Discussion When it comes to creating more viable and fairer transport systems, and behind that our real objective: more agreeable and more sustainable cities, we have one recurrent problem that we can perhaps deal with if we put our heads together. As is well known, whenever any given 'soft transport', "public space" or some type of "not quite so many cars" initiative is proposed in any given place, the first and most striking thing that happens is the howls of protest that immediately emerge from all those who claim that their democratic entitlements are being threatened by, as they often like to put it, some small group of arrogant bike-happy technocrats and their fellow eco-travelers. And since the media always likes a good cat fight, these righteous citizens often dominate the news. For the rest, for you and me and others like us, hey! we're the Silent Minority. The absolutely disenfranchised. Well, it does not always have to be like that and here is one proposal concerning which I would like to invite discussions and refinement - all as a prelude to giving this idea a couple of trial runs in one or more pioneering cities. The idea is to carry out an annual open citizen survey of attitudes and preferences concerning transport policy and practice (and the investments that go with it) in your city. The results should be made widely available through old and new media, and brought to the fore of the attention of the politicians, administrators and policy makers in your city. Here without any pretense of it being anything other than a grain of sand to get us going is my draft proposal for content for quick mini-survey that can be administered by phone, email or on any street corner by volunteers: Note to the reader: In a first instance, before digging into the details, I would like to ask the members of this fine group: (a) is this an idea that is worth pursuing; (b) are there some (better)examples that we should be looking at and learning from. Then once we have a feel for this as a useful activity, we can then start to see how we might together fine tune a good questionnaire and routine. 1, Draft Mini-survey (for comment and . . . ) All questions where appropriate to be answered simply by a 1 (yes), 0 (don't know), -or -1 (no), which will facilitate aggregation and overview. 1. Name 2. City of residence 3. M/F 4. Age: <15; 15-30; 30-65; >65 5. Do you own/drive a car? 6. My city government has a coherent, announced transportation policy: 7. I believe that this is a wise and well executed policy. 8. We need to spend more money to build more roads and more parking as a main transport priority. 9. We need to give much more attention and spend more money on "soft transport" and related life quality initiatives (examples: better support of pedestrians and cyclists, traffic calming, more public transport, new forms of shared transport, ITC substitutes for displacement.) 10. It is possible for people to live here well and easily without having their own car. 11. If they want my vote -- all candidates for local public office should take a firm stand on their transportation policies, and issue as part of their platform a signed personal statement indicating their support of more sustainable transport projects and programs. Your eventual brief comments or suggestions: ____________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ 2. How to execute - Thoughts on * This maybe is pushing it for length. If it can't be administered in three minutes, it probably will not do the job. Try it out on a couple of friends and let us know. * There is plenty of evidence that people tend to create and administrate questionnaires that one way or another tend to elicit their favored response. We should meticulously avoid doing this, and in our selection of questions - and people to be queried. If it ain't neutral, it is not worth a lot. So careful, eh? * The simple mental model I have for this is an excel table with names in columns, etc. All leading to easy sorting and sub-total * To have a real impact, it will best be administered at some fixed time. As examples: on Earth Day, in cooperation with any local Car Free Days, European Moblity Week, etc.) * The procedures and information should be fully public so that there can be no charges of rigging the returns. (Expect in Belarusia and Florida in which it is OK.) * Also involve schools, various clubs and groups, senior citizens, handicapped, pedestrian and cyclist naturally but also take it into hospitals, prisons, old people's homes, jails, and the homeless. * Local media partnerships, and even strong involvement by them, will be most useful. * I would propose that the on-street interviews be carried out on one day - but that an entire week be given over to the entire procedures. * The results should be publicly announced. * And then all those in local government should be asked to comment and give their appreciations of what this means. (Note: Our friends in South Africa with their first Car Free Days last year did a good job of this which we might usefully consult) * We propose that this be an annual exercise. * And that to the extent possible and sensible, we might want to think about questions and formats that are sufficiently parallel to allow us to aggregate. * BTW, is there or has there ever been anything like this in your city? Neighborhood? That we can learn from? 3. Parallel in-death Survey It may be a good idea to have a more in depth survey for those people disposed to spend more time with us on this. The trick will be to determine who, how, when, - and how used? Here are a few first thoughts on this to get us going: * Employment, social status * Where live/where work * If it were faster and cheaper to get to work or school by some way other than driving a car (in traffic) would you be willing to consider it? * When was the last time you took a bus or rail transit? * Used a bike to get to work or school? * D you think that it might be a good idea for your city to publish and maintain a "sustainable transportation webpage" that reports on key indicators including traffic deaths and incidents (by gravity and type), CO2 or other clean air indicators, parametric indicators of infrastructure and performance of NMT options, etc. * Would you be willing to work, say, 20 hours over a period of one or two months. as a volunteer to support better researched specific projects in your neighborhood. * Etc. * Etc * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060424/7b57686f/attachment-0002.html From whook at itdp.org Mon Apr 24 22:44:09 2006 From: whook at itdp.org (Walter Hook) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 09:44:09 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A Proposal forDiscussion In-Reply-To: <074801c666f3$cec682c0$6501a8c0@Home> Message-ID: <012e01c667a5$2a6eb140$c301a8c0@DFJLYL81> Eric, Paul white and i had a related idea over lunch the other day, and we were wondering if this has ever been tried. What if all the property owners and permanent tenants living along a block of urban street were given the choice by the municipality of whether they wanted the space in front of their house dedicated to car parking or sidewalk? How many residents would vote for car parking? It might be done something like this. The department of transport could determine the needed road capacity, but the parking units would be a function of ultra local democracy. What if as a result, each permanent resident or registered voter, or even just each property tax payer, on a city block got to determine the democratic use of the public space in front of their property. Since it is currently most of the time dedicated to parking, at least in the US, even if only 10% voted to get rid of the parking, that would be 10% of the parking units we could reclaim. On my block i would guess that maybe 50% would opt for a wider sidewalk. Then a block association could be free to contract an architect to redesign the street with that same number of units of parking. I am wondering if there are any successful examples of this sort of ultra local democracy? Walter -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Eric Britton Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2006 12:34 PM To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com; Sustran Resource Centre Cc: CarFreeCafe@yahoogroups.com Subject: [sustran] New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A Proposal forDiscussion New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A Proposal for Discussion When it comes to creating more viable and fairer transport systems, and behind that our real objective: more agreeable and more sustainable cities, we have one recurrent problem that we can perhaps deal with if we put our heads together. As is well known, whenever any given 'soft transport', "public space" or some type of "not quite so many cars" initiative is proposed in any given place, the first and most striking thing that happens is the howls of protest that immediately emerge from all those who claim that their democratic entitlements are being threatened by, as they often like to put it, some small group of arrogant bike-happy technocrats and their fellow eco-travelers. And since the media always likes a good cat fight, these righteous citizens often dominate the news. For the rest, for you and me and others like us, hey! we're the Silent Minority. The absolutely disenfranchised. Well, it does not always have to be like that and here is one proposal concerning which I would like to invite discussions and refinement - all as a prelude to giving this idea a couple of trial runs in one or more pioneering cities. The idea is to carry out an annual open citizen survey of attitudes and preferences concerning transport policy and practice (and the investments that go with it) in your city. The results should be made widely available through old and new media, and brought to the fore of the attention of the politicians, administrators and policy makers in your city. Here without any pretense of it being anything other than a grain of sand to get us going is my draft proposal for content for quick mini-survey that can be administered by phone, email or on any street corner by volunteers: Note to the reader: In a first instance, before digging into the details, I would like to ask the members of this fine group: (a) is this an idea that is worth pursuing; (b) are there some (better)examples that we should be looking at and learning from. Then once we have a feel for this as a useful activity, we can then start to see how we might together fine tune a good questionnaire and routine. 1, Draft Mini-survey (for comment and . . . ) All questions where appropriate to be answered simply by a 1 (yes), 0 (don't know), -or -1 (no), which will facilitate aggregation and overview. 1. Name 2. City of residence 3. M/F 4. Age: <15; 15-30; 30-65; >65 5. Do you own/drive a car? 6. My city government has a coherent, announced transportation policy: 7. I believe that this is a wise and well executed policy. 8. We need to spend more money to build more roads and more parking as a main transport priority. 9. We need to give much more attention and spend more money on "soft transport" and related life quality initiatives (examples: better support of pedestrians and cyclists, traffic calming, more public transport, new forms of shared transport, ITC substitutes for displacement.) 10. It is possible for people to live here well and easily without having their own car. 11. If they want my vote -- all candidates for local public office should take a firm stand on their transportation policies, and issue as part of their platform a signed personal statement indicating their support of more sustainable transport projects and programs. Your eventual brief comments or suggestions: ____________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ 2. How to execute - Thoughts on * This maybe is pushing it for length. If it can't be administered in three minutes, it probably will not do the job. Try it out on a couple of friends and let us know. * There is plenty of evidence that people tend to create and administrate questionnaires that one way or another tend to elicit their favored response. We should meticulously avoid doing this, and in our selection of questions - and people to be queried. If it ain't neutral, it is not worth a lot. So careful, eh? * The simple mental model I have for this is an excel table with names in columns, etc. All leading to easy sorting and sub-total * To have a real impact, it will best be administered at some fixed time. As examples: on Earth Day, in cooperation with any local Car Free Days, European Moblity Week, etc.) * The procedures and information should be fully public so that there can be no charges of rigging the returns. (Expect in Belarusia and Florida in which it is OK.) * Also involve schools, various clubs and groups, senior citizens, handicapped, pedestrian and cyclist naturally but also take it into hospitals, prisons, old people's homes, jails, and the homeless. * Local media partnerships, and even strong involvement by them, will be most useful. * I would propose that the on-street interviews be carried out on one day - but that an entire week be given over to the entire procedures. * The results should be publicly announced. * And then all those in local government should be asked to comment and give their appreciations of what this means. (Note: Our friends in South Africa with their first Car Free Days last year did a good job of this which we might usefully consult) * We propose that this be an annual exercise. * And that to the extent possible and sensible, we might want to think about questions and formats that are sufficiently parallel to allow us to aggregate. * BTW, is there or has there ever been anything like this in your city? Neighborhood? That we can learn from? 3. Parallel in-death Survey It may be a good idea to have a more in depth survey for those people disposed to spend more time with us on this. The trick will be to determine who, how, when, - and how used? Here are a few first thoughts on this to get us going: * Employment, social status * Where live/where work * If it were faster and cheaper to get to work or school by some way other than driving a car (in traffic) would you be willing to consider it? * When was the last time you took a bus or rail transit? * Used a bike to get to work or school? * D you think that it might be a good idea for your city to publish and maintain a "sustainable transportation webpage" that reports on key indicators including traffic deaths and incidents (by gravity and type), CO2 or other clean air indicators, parametric indicators of infrastructure and performance of NMT options, etc. * Would you be willing to work, say, 20 hours over a period of one or two months. as a volunteer to support better researched specific projects in your neighborhood. * Etc. * Etc * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060424/7b57686f/attachment-0003.html From SCHIPPER at wri.org Mon Apr 24 23:01:06 2006 From: SCHIPPER at wri.org (Lee Schipper) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 10:01:06 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A ProposalforDiscussion Message-ID: Years ago a good Swedish Transport economist posed the same question. by measuring how much time people spent walking to where there was green space, he figured out that providing on-street parking rather than more green space and broader sidewalks led to a real economic loss. His advice was to provide parking only in private, commercial areas (he also looked at how much off-street parking cost). One benefit of such an approach * say every other street in NYCity had no parking...just bays for deliveries here and there * front yards would reappaear and children and families could play in the streets more safely! >>> whook@itdp.org 4/24/2006 9:44:09 AM >>> Eric, Paul white and i had a related idea over lunch the other day, and we were wondering if this has ever been tried. What if all the property owners and permanent tenants living along a block of urban street were given the choice by the municipality of whether they wanted the space in front of their house dedicated to car parking or sidewalk? How many residents would vote for car parking? It might be done something like this. The department of transport could determine the needed road capacity, but the parking units would be a function of ultra local democracy. What if as a result, each permanent resident or registered voter, or even just each property tax payer, on a city block got to determine the democratic use of the public space in front of their property. Since it is currently most of the time dedicated to parking, at least in the US, even if only 10% voted to get rid of the parking, that would be 10% of the parking units we could reclaim. On my block i would guess that maybe 50% would opt for a wider sidewalk. Then a block association could be free to contract an architect to redesign the street with that same number of units of parking. I am wondering if there are any successful examples of this sort of ultra local democracy? Walter -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Eric Britton Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2006 12:34 PM To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com; Sustran Resource Centre Cc: CarFreeCafe@yahoogroups.com Subject: [sustran] New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A Proposal forDiscussion New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A Proposal for Discussion When it comes to creating more viable and fairer transport systems, and behind that our real objective: more agreeable and more sustainable cities, we have one recurrent problem that we can perhaps deal with if we put our heads together. As is well known, whenever any given 'soft transport', "public space" or some type of "not quite so many cars" initiative is proposed in any given place, the first and most striking thing that happens is the howls of protest that immediately emerge from all those who claim that their democratic entitlements are being threatened by, as they often like to put it, some small group of arrogant bike-happy technocrats and their fellow eco-travelers. And since the media always likes a good cat fight, these righteous citizens often dominate the news. For the rest, for you and me and others like us, hey! we're the Silent Minority. The absolutely disenfranchised. Well, it does not always have to be like that and here is one proposal concerning which I would like to invite discussions and refinement - all as a prelude to giving this idea a couple of trial runs in one or more pioneering cities. The idea is to carry out an annual open citizen survey of attitudes and preferences concerning transport policy and practice (and the investments that go with it) in your city. The results should be made widely available through old and new media, and brought to the fore of the attention of the politicians, administrators and policy makers in your city. Here without any pretense of it being anything other than a grain of sand to get us going is my draft proposal for content for quick mini-survey that can be administered by phone, email or on any street corner by volunteers: Note to the reader: In a first instance, before digging into the details, I would like to ask the members of this fine group: (a) is this an idea that is worth pursuing; (b) are there some (better)examples that we should be looking at and learning from. Then once we have a feel for this as a useful activity, we can then start to see how we might together fine tune a good questionnaire and routine. 1, Draft Mini-survey (for comment and . . . ) All questions where appropriate to be answered simply by a 1 (yes), 0 (don't know), -or -1 (no), which will facilitate aggregation and overview. 1. Name 2. City of residence 3. M/F 4. Age: <15; 15-30; 30-65; >65 5. Do you own/drive a car? 6. My city government has a coherent, announced transportation policy: 7. I believe that this is a wise and well executed policy. 8. We need to spend more money to build more roads and more parking as a main transport priority. 9. We need to give much more attention and spend more money on "soft transport" and related life quality initiatives (examples: better support of pedestrians and cyclists, traffic calming, more public transport, new forms of shared transport, ITC substitutes for displacement.) 10. It is possible for people to live here well and easily without having their own car. 11. If they want my vote -- all candidates for local public office should take a firm stand on their transportation policies, and issue as part of their platform a signed personal statement indicating their support of more sustainable transport projects and programs. Your eventual brief comments or suggestions: ____________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ 2. How to execute - Thoughts on * This maybe is pushing it for length. If it can't be administered in three minutes, it probably will not do the job. Try it out on a couple of friends and let us know. * There is plenty of evidence that people tend to create and administrate questionnaires that one way or another tend to elicit their favored response. We should meticulously avoid doing this, and in our selection of questions - and people to be queried. If it ain't neutral, it is not worth a lot. So careful, eh? * The simple mental model I have for this is an excel table with names in columns, etc. All leading to easy sorting and sub-total * To have a real impact, it will best be administered at some fixed time. As examples: on Earth Day, in cooperation with any local Car Free Days, European Moblity Week, etc.) * The procedures and information should be fully public so that there can be no charges of rigging the returns. (Expect in Belarusia and Florida in which it is OK.) * Also involve schools, various clubs and groups, senior citizens, handicapped, pedestrian and cyclist naturally but also take it into hospitals, prisons, old people's homes, jails, and the homeless. * Local media partnerships, and even strong involvement by them, will be most useful. * I would propose that the on-street interviews be carried out on one day - but that an entire week be given over to the entire procedures. * The results should be publicly announced. * And then all those in local government should be asked to comment and give their appreciations of what this means. (Note: Our friends in South Africa with their first Car Free Days last year did a good job of this which we might usefully consult) * We propose that this be an annual exercise. * And that to the extent possible and sensible, we might want to think about questions and formats that are sufficiently parallel to allow us to aggregate. * BTW, is there or has there ever been anything like this in your city? Neighborhood? That we can learn from? 3. Parallel in-death Survey It may be a good idea to have a more in depth survey for those people disposed to spend more time with us on this. The trick will be to determine who, how, when, - and how used? Here are a few first thoughts on this to get us going: * Employment, social status * Where live/where work * If it were faster and cheaper to get to work or school by some way other than driving a car (in traffic) would you be willing to consider it? * When was the last time you took a bus or rail transit? * Used a bike to get to work or school? * D you think that it might be a good idea for your city to publish and maintain a "sustainable transportation webpage" that reports on key indicators including traffic deaths and incidents (by gravity and type), CO2 or other clean air indicators, parametric indicators of infrastructure and performance of NMT options, etc. * Would you be willing to work, say, 20 hours over a period of one or two months. as a volunteer to support better researched specific projects in your neighborhood. * Etc. * Etc * From SCHIPPER at wri.org Mon Apr 24 23:01:06 2006 From: SCHIPPER at wri.org (Lee Schipper) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 10:01:06 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A ProposalforDiscussion Message-ID: Years ago a good Swedish Transport economist posed the same question. by measuring how much time people spent walking to where there was green space, he figured out that providing on-street parking rather than more green space and broader sidewalks led to a real economic loss. His advice was to provide parking only in private, commercial areas (he also looked at how much off-street parking cost). One benefit of such an approach * say every other street in NYCity had no parking...just bays for deliveries here and there * front yards would reappaear and children and families could play in the streets more safely! >>> whook@itdp.org 4/24/2006 9:44:09 AM >>> Eric, Paul white and i had a related idea over lunch the other day, and we were wondering if this has ever been tried. What if all the property owners and permanent tenants living along a block of urban street were given the choice by the municipality of whether they wanted the space in front of their house dedicated to car parking or sidewalk? How many residents would vote for car parking? It might be done something like this. The department of transport could determine the needed road capacity, but the parking units would be a function of ultra local democracy. What if as a result, each permanent resident or registered voter, or even just each property tax payer, on a city block got to determine the democratic use of the public space in front of their property. Since it is currently most of the time dedicated to parking, at least in the US, even if only 10% voted to get rid of the parking, that would be 10% of the parking units we could reclaim. On my block i would guess that maybe 50% would opt for a wider sidewalk. Then a block association could be free to contract an architect to redesign the street with that same number of units of parking. I am wondering if there are any successful examples of this sort of ultra local democracy? Walter -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Eric Britton Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2006 12:34 PM To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com; Sustran Resource Centre Cc: CarFreeCafe@yahoogroups.com Subject: [sustran] New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A Proposal forDiscussion New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A Proposal for Discussion When it comes to creating more viable and fairer transport systems, and behind that our real objective: more agreeable and more sustainable cities, we have one recurrent problem that we can perhaps deal with if we put our heads together. As is well known, whenever any given 'soft transport', "public space" or some type of "not quite so many cars" initiative is proposed in any given place, the first and most striking thing that happens is the howls of protest that immediately emerge from all those who claim that their democratic entitlements are being threatened by, as they often like to put it, some small group of arrogant bike-happy technocrats and their fellow eco-travelers. And since the media always likes a good cat fight, these righteous citizens often dominate the news. For the rest, for you and me and others like us, hey! we're the Silent Minority. The absolutely disenfranchised. Well, it does not always have to be like that and here is one proposal concerning which I would like to invite discussions and refinement - all as a prelude to giving this idea a couple of trial runs in one or more pioneering cities. The idea is to carry out an annual open citizen survey of attitudes and preferences concerning transport policy and practice (and the investments that go with it) in your city. The results should be made widely available through old and new media, and brought to the fore of the attention of the politicians, administrators and policy makers in your city. Here without any pretense of it being anything other than a grain of sand to get us going is my draft proposal for content for quick mini-survey that can be administered by phone, email or on any street corner by volunteers: Note to the reader: In a first instance, before digging into the details, I would like to ask the members of this fine group: (a) is this an idea that is worth pursuing; (b) are there some (better)examples that we should be looking at and learning from. Then once we have a feel for this as a useful activity, we can then start to see how we might together fine tune a good questionnaire and routine. 1, Draft Mini-survey (for comment and . . . ) All questions where appropriate to be answered simply by a 1 (yes), 0 (don't know), -or -1 (no), which will facilitate aggregation and overview. 1. Name 2. City of residence 3. M/F 4. Age: <15; 15-30; 30-65; >65 5. Do you own/drive a car? 6. My city government has a coherent, announced transportation policy: 7. I believe that this is a wise and well executed policy. 8. We need to spend more money to build more roads and more parking as a main transport priority. 9. We need to give much more attention and spend more money on "soft transport" and related life quality initiatives (examples: better support of pedestrians and cyclists, traffic calming, more public transport, new forms of shared transport, ITC substitutes for displacement.) 10. It is possible for people to live here well and easily without having their own car. 11. If they want my vote -- all candidates for local public office should take a firm stand on their transportation policies, and issue as part of their platform a signed personal statement indicating their support of more sustainable transport projects and programs. Your eventual brief comments or suggestions: ____________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ 2. How to execute - Thoughts on * This maybe is pushing it for length. If it can't be administered in three minutes, it probably will not do the job. Try it out on a couple of friends and let us know. * There is plenty of evidence that people tend to create and administrate questionnaires that one way or another tend to elicit their favored response. We should meticulously avoid doing this, and in our selection of questions - and people to be queried. If it ain't neutral, it is not worth a lot. So careful, eh? * The simple mental model I have for this is an excel table with names in columns, etc. All leading to easy sorting and sub-total * To have a real impact, it will best be administered at some fixed time. As examples: on Earth Day, in cooperation with any local Car Free Days, European Moblity Week, etc.) * The procedures and information should be fully public so that there can be no charges of rigging the returns. (Expect in Belarusia and Florida in which it is OK.) * Also involve schools, various clubs and groups, senior citizens, handicapped, pedestrian and cyclist naturally but also take it into hospitals, prisons, old people's homes, jails, and the homeless. * Local media partnerships, and even strong involvement by them, will be most useful. * I would propose that the on-street interviews be carried out on one day - but that an entire week be given over to the entire procedures. * The results should be publicly announced. * And then all those in local government should be asked to comment and give their appreciations of what this means. (Note: Our friends in South Africa with their first Car Free Days last year did a good job of this which we might usefully consult) * We propose that this be an annual exercise. * And that to the extent possible and sensible, we might want to think about questions and formats that are sufficiently parallel to allow us to aggregate. * BTW, is there or has there ever been anything like this in your city? Neighborhood? That we can learn from? 3. Parallel in-death Survey It may be a good idea to have a more in depth survey for those people disposed to spend more time with us on this. The trick will be to determine who, how, when, - and how used? Here are a few first thoughts on this to get us going: * Employment, social status * Where live/where work * If it were faster and cheaper to get to work or school by some way other than driving a car (in traffic) would you be willing to consider it? * When was the last time you took a bus or rail transit? * Used a bike to get to work or school? * D you think that it might be a good idea for your city to publish and maintain a "sustainable transportation webpage" that reports on key indicators including traffic deaths and incidents (by gravity and type), CO2 or other clean air indicators, parametric indicators of infrastructure and performance of NMT options, etc. * Would you be willing to work, say, 20 hours over a period of one or two months. as a volunteer to support better researched specific projects in your neighborhood. * Etc. * Etc * From litman at vtpi.org Tue Apr 25 00:10:01 2006 From: litman at vtpi.org (Todd Alexander Litman) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 08:10:01 -0700 Subject: [sustran] Re: [NewMobilityCafe] Re: New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A ProposalforDiscussion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20060424080209.05d55c38@mail.islandnet.com> On the other hand, on-street parking is the most efficient type of parking that can be provided. Most off-street spaces only serve a single destination and so have low load factors, while on-street spaces serve many destinations and have high load factors, and so are more efficient overall. Also, off-street spaces require driveways which use a portion of the curb and cross sidewalks. For these reasons many urban planners now support the provision of a maximum number of on-street spaces and a minimum number of off-street spaces (for discussion of ways to use parking facilities more efficiently see my new report "Parking Management" (http://www.vtpi.org/park_man.pdf ) and book "Parking Management Best Practices" (http://www.planning.org/bookservice/description.htm?BCODE=APMB ). If the choice is really between sidewalks and on-street parking I would generally choose providing a sidewalk, but it is desirable to provide on-street parking where possible. Best wishes, -Todd Litman At 07:01 AM 4/24/2006, Lee Schipper wrote: >Years ago a good Swedish Transport economist posed the same >question. by measuring how much time people spent walking to where >there was green space, he figured out that providing on-street >parking rather than more green space and broader sidewalks led to a real >economic loss. His advice was to provide parking only in private, >commercial areas (he also looked at how much off-street parking cost). > >One benefit of such an approach * say every other street in NYCity >had no parking...just bays for deliveries here and there * front >yards would reappaear >and children and families could play in the streets more safely! > > >>> whook@itdp.org 4/24/2006 9:44:09 AM >>> >Eric, > > > >Paul white and i had a related idea over lunch the other day, and we were >wondering if this has ever been tried. > > > >What if all the property owners and permanent tenants living along a block >of urban street were given the choice by the municipality of whether they >wanted the space in front of their house dedicated to car parking or >sidewalk? How many residents would vote for car parking? It might be done >something like this. The department of transport could determine the needed >road capacity, but the parking units would be a function of ultra local >democracy. What if as a result, each permanent resident or registered >voter, or even just each property tax payer, on a city block got to >determine the democratic use of the public space in front of their property. >Since it is currently most of the time dedicated to parking, at least in the >US, even if only 10% voted to get rid of the parking, that would be 10% of >the parking units we could reclaim. On my block i would guess that maybe >50% would opt for a wider sidewalk. Then a block association could be free >to contract an architect to redesign the street with that same number of >units of parking. > > > >I am wondering if there are any successful examples of this sort of ultra >local democracy? > > > >Walter > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org >[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf >Of Eric Britton >Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2006 12:34 PM >To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com; Sustran Resource Centre >Cc: CarFreeCafe@yahoogroups.com >Subject: [sustran] New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A Proposal >forDiscussion > > > >New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A Proposal for Discussion > > > >When it comes to creating more viable and fairer transport systems, and >behind that our real objective: more agreeable and more sustainable cities, >we have one recurrent problem that we can perhaps deal with if we put our >heads together. > > > >As is well known, whenever any given 'soft transport', "public space" or >some type of "not quite so many cars" initiative is proposed in any given >place, the first and most striking thing that happens is the howls of >protest that immediately emerge from all those who claim that their >democratic entitlements are being threatened by, as they often like to put >it, some small group of arrogant bike-happy technocrats and their fellow >eco-travelers. And since the media always likes a good cat fight, these >righteous citizens often dominate the news. For the rest, for you and me and >others like us, hey! we're the Silent Minority. The absolutely >disenfranchised. > > > >Well, it does not always have to be like that and here is one proposal >concerning which I would like to invite discussions and refinement - all as >a prelude to giving this idea a couple of trial runs in one or more >pioneering cities. > > > >The idea is to carry out an annual open citizen survey of attitudes and >preferences concerning transport policy and practice (and the investments >that go with it) in your city. The results should be made widely available >through old and new media, and brought to the fore of the attention of the >politicians, administrators and policy makers in your city. Here without any >pretense of it being anything other than a grain of sand to get us going is >my draft proposal for content for quick mini-survey that can be administered >by phone, email or on any street corner by volunteers: > > > >Note to the reader: In a first instance, before digging into the details, I >would like to ask the members of this fine group: (a) is this an idea that >is worth pursuing; (b) are there some (better)examples that we should be >looking at and learning from. Then once we have a feel for this as a useful >activity, we can then start to see how we might together fine tune a good >questionnaire and routine. > > > > > > > > > > > > >1, Draft Mini-survey (for comment and . . . ) > >All questions where appropriate to be answered simply by a 1 (yes), 0 (don't >know), -or -1 (no), which will facilitate aggregation and overview. > > > >1. Name > >2. City of residence > >3. M/F > >4. Age: <15; 15-30; 30-65; >65 > >5. Do you own/drive a car? > >6. My city government has a coherent, announced transportation policy: > >7. I believe that this is a wise and well executed policy. > >8. We need to spend more money to build more roads and more parking as >a main transport priority. > >9. We need to give much more attention and spend more money on "soft >transport" and related life quality initiatives (examples: better support of >pedestrians and cyclists, traffic calming, more public transport, new forms >of shared transport, ITC substitutes for displacement.) > >10. It is possible for people to live here well and easily without having >their own car. > >11. If they want my vote -- all candidates for local public office should >take a firm stand on their transportation policies, and issue as part of >their platform a signed personal statement indicating their support of more >sustainable transport projects and programs. > > > >Your eventual brief comments or suggestions: ____________________________ > >____________________________________________________________________________ >____________________________________________________________________________ >____________________________________________________________________________ >____________________________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > >2. How to execute - Thoughts on > > > >* This maybe is pushing it for length. If it can't be administered >in three minutes, it probably will not do the job. Try it out on a couple of >friends and let us know. > >* There is plenty of evidence that people tend to create and >administrate questionnaires that one way or another tend to elicit their >favored response. We should meticulously avoid doing this, and in our >selection of questions - and people to be queried. If it ain't neutral, it >is not worth a lot. So careful, eh? > >* The simple mental model I have for this is an excel table with >names in columns, etc. All leading to easy sorting and sub-total > >* To have a real impact, it will best be administered at some fixed >time. >As examples: on Earth Day, in cooperation with any local Car Free Days, >European Moblity Week, etc.) > >* The procedures and information should be fully public so that >there can be no charges of rigging the returns. (Expect in Belarusia and >Florida in which it is OK.) > >* Also involve schools, various clubs and groups, senior citizens, >handicapped, pedestrian and cyclist naturally but also take it into >hospitals, prisons, old people's homes, jails, and the homeless. > >* Local media partnerships, and even strong involvement by them, >will be most useful. > >* I would propose that the on-street interviews be carried out on >one day - but that an entire week be given over to the entire procedures. > >* The results should be publicly announced. > >* And then all those in local government should be asked to comment >and give their appreciations of what this means. (Note: Our friends in South >Africa with their first Car Free Days last year did a good job of this which >we might usefully consult) > >* We propose that this be an annual exercise. > >* And that to the extent possible and sensible, we might want to >think about questions and formats that are sufficiently parallel to allow us >to aggregate. > >* BTW, is there or has there ever been anything like this in your >city? Neighborhood? That we can learn from? > > > > > > > > >3. Parallel in-death Survey > > > >It may be a good idea to have a more in depth survey for those people >disposed to spend more time with us on this. > > > >The trick will be to determine who, how, when, - and how used? > > > >Here are a few first thoughts on this to get us going: > > > >* Employment, social status > >* Where live/where work > >* If it were faster and cheaper to get to work or school by some way >other than driving a car (in traffic) would you be willing to consider it? > >* When was the last time you took a bus or rail transit? > >* Used a bike to get to work or school? > >* D you think that it might be a good idea for your city to publish >and maintain a "sustainable transportation webpage" that reports on key >indicators including traffic deaths and incidents (by gravity and type), CO2 >or other clean air indicators, parametric indicators of infrastructure and >performance of NMT options, etc. > >* Would you be willing to work, say, 20 hours over a period of one or >two months. as a volunteer to support better researched specific projects >in your neighborhood. > >* Etc. > >* Etc > >* > > > > > > > >Check in here via the homepage at http://www.newmobility.org >To post message to group: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com >But please think twice before posting to the group as a whole >(It might be that your note is best sent to one person?) > > > > >Yahoo! Groups Links > ><*> To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewMobilityCafe/ > ><*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > NewMobilityCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > ><*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > Sincerely, Todd Alexander Litman Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org) litman@vtpi.org Phone & Fax 250-360-1560 1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060424/13b68dbb/attachment.html From litman at vtpi.org Tue Apr 25 00:10:01 2006 From: litman at vtpi.org (Todd Alexander Litman) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 08:10:01 -0700 Subject: [sustran] Re: [NewMobilityCafe] Re: New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A ProposalforDiscussion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20060424080209.05d55c38@mail.islandnet.com> On the other hand, on-street parking is the most efficient type of parking that can be provided. Most off-street spaces only serve a single destination and so have low load factors, while on-street spaces serve many destinations and have high load factors, and so are more efficient overall. Also, off-street spaces require driveways which use a portion of the curb and cross sidewalks. For these reasons many urban planners now support the provision of a maximum number of on-street spaces and a minimum number of off-street spaces (for discussion of ways to use parking facilities more efficiently see my new report "Parking Management" (http://www.vtpi.org/park_man.pdf ) and book "Parking Management Best Practices" (http://www.planning.org/bookservice/description.htm?BCODE=APMB ). If the choice is really between sidewalks and on-street parking I would generally choose providing a sidewalk, but it is desirable to provide on-street parking where possible. Best wishes, -Todd Litman At 07:01 AM 4/24/2006, Lee Schipper wrote: >Years ago a good Swedish Transport economist posed the same >question. by measuring how much time people spent walking to where >there was green space, he figured out that providing on-street >parking rather than more green space and broader sidewalks led to a real >economic loss. His advice was to provide parking only in private, >commercial areas (he also looked at how much off-street parking cost). > >One benefit of such an approach * say every other street in NYCity >had no parking...just bays for deliveries here and there * front >yards would reappaear >and children and families could play in the streets more safely! > > >>> whook@itdp.org 4/24/2006 9:44:09 AM >>> >Eric, > > > >Paul white and i had a related idea over lunch the other day, and we were >wondering if this has ever been tried. > > > >What if all the property owners and permanent tenants living along a block >of urban street were given the choice by the municipality of whether they >wanted the space in front of their house dedicated to car parking or >sidewalk? How many residents would vote for car parking? It might be done >something like this. The department of transport could determine the needed >road capacity, but the parking units would be a function of ultra local >democracy. What if as a result, each permanent resident or registered >voter, or even just each property tax payer, on a city block got to >determine the democratic use of the public space in front of their property. >Since it is currently most of the time dedicated to parking, at least in the >US, even if only 10% voted to get rid of the parking, that would be 10% of >the parking units we could reclaim. On my block i would guess that maybe >50% would opt for a wider sidewalk. Then a block association could be free >to contract an architect to redesign the street with that same number of >units of parking. > > > >I am wondering if there are any successful examples of this sort of ultra >local democracy? > > > >Walter > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org >[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf >Of Eric Britton >Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2006 12:34 PM >To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com; Sustran Resource Centre >Cc: CarFreeCafe@yahoogroups.com >Subject: [sustran] New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A Proposal >forDiscussion > > > >New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A Proposal for Discussion > > > >When it comes to creating more viable and fairer transport systems, and >behind that our real objective: more agreeable and more sustainable cities, >we have one recurrent problem that we can perhaps deal with if we put our >heads together. > > > >As is well known, whenever any given 'soft transport', "public space" or >some type of "not quite so many cars" initiative is proposed in any given >place, the first and most striking thing that happens is the howls of >protest that immediately emerge from all those who claim that their >democratic entitlements are being threatened by, as they often like to put >it, some small group of arrogant bike-happy technocrats and their fellow >eco-travelers. And since the media always likes a good cat fight, these >righteous citizens often dominate the news. For the rest, for you and me and >others like us, hey! we're the Silent Minority. The absolutely >disenfranchised. > > > >Well, it does not always have to be like that and here is one proposal >concerning which I would like to invite discussions and refinement - all as >a prelude to giving this idea a couple of trial runs in one or more >pioneering cities. > > > >The idea is to carry out an annual open citizen survey of attitudes and >preferences concerning transport policy and practice (and the investments >that go with it) in your city. The results should be made widely available >through old and new media, and brought to the fore of the attention of the >politicians, administrators and policy makers in your city. Here without any >pretense of it being anything other than a grain of sand to get us going is >my draft proposal for content for quick mini-survey that can be administered >by phone, email or on any street corner by volunteers: > > > >Note to the reader: In a first instance, before digging into the details, I >would like to ask the members of this fine group: (a) is this an idea that >is worth pursuing; (b) are there some (better)examples that we should be >looking at and learning from. Then once we have a feel for this as a useful >activity, we can then start to see how we might together fine tune a good >questionnaire and routine. > > > > > > > > > > > > >1, Draft Mini-survey (for comment and . . . ) > >All questions where appropriate to be answered simply by a 1 (yes), 0 (don't >know), -or -1 (no), which will facilitate aggregation and overview. > > > >1. Name > >2. City of residence > >3. M/F > >4. Age: <15; 15-30; 30-65; >65 > >5. Do you own/drive a car? > >6. My city government has a coherent, announced transportation policy: > >7. I believe that this is a wise and well executed policy. > >8. We need to spend more money to build more roads and more parking as >a main transport priority. > >9. We need to give much more attention and spend more money on "soft >transport" and related life quality initiatives (examples: better support of >pedestrians and cyclists, traffic calming, more public transport, new forms >of shared transport, ITC substitutes for displacement.) > >10. It is possible for people to live here well and easily without having >their own car. > >11. If they want my vote -- all candidates for local public office should >take a firm stand on their transportation policies, and issue as part of >their platform a signed personal statement indicating their support of more >sustainable transport projects and programs. > > > >Your eventual brief comments or suggestions: ____________________________ > >____________________________________________________________________________ >____________________________________________________________________________ >____________________________________________________________________________ >____________________________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > >2. How to execute - Thoughts on > > > >* This maybe is pushing it for length. If it can't be administered >in three minutes, it probably will not do the job. Try it out on a couple of >friends and let us know. > >* There is plenty of evidence that people tend to create and >administrate questionnaires that one way or another tend to elicit their >favored response. We should meticulously avoid doing this, and in our >selection of questions - and people to be queried. If it ain't neutral, it >is not worth a lot. So careful, eh? > >* The simple mental model I have for this is an excel table with >names in columns, etc. All leading to easy sorting and sub-total > >* To have a real impact, it will best be administered at some fixed >time. >As examples: on Earth Day, in cooperation with any local Car Free Days, >European Moblity Week, etc.) > >* The procedures and information should be fully public so that >there can be no charges of rigging the returns. (Expect in Belarusia and >Florida in which it is OK.) > >* Also involve schools, various clubs and groups, senior citizens, >handicapped, pedestrian and cyclist naturally but also take it into >hospitals, prisons, old people's homes, jails, and the homeless. > >* Local media partnerships, and even strong involvement by them, >will be most useful. > >* I would propose that the on-street interviews be carried out on >one day - but that an entire week be given over to the entire procedures. > >* The results should be publicly announced. > >* And then all those in local government should be asked to comment >and give their appreciations of what this means. (Note: Our friends in South >Africa with their first Car Free Days last year did a good job of this which >we might usefully consult) > >* We propose that this be an annual exercise. > >* And that to the extent possible and sensible, we might want to >think about questions and formats that are sufficiently parallel to allow us >to aggregate. > >* BTW, is there or has there ever been anything like this in your >city? Neighborhood? That we can learn from? > > > > > > > > >3. Parallel in-death Survey > > > >It may be a good idea to have a more in depth survey for those people >disposed to spend more time with us on this. > > > >The trick will be to determine who, how, when, - and how used? > > > >Here are a few first thoughts on this to get us going: > > > >* Employment, social status > >* Where live/where work > >* If it were faster and cheaper to get to work or school by some way >other than driving a car (in traffic) would you be willing to consider it? > >* When was the last time you took a bus or rail transit? > >* Used a bike to get to work or school? > >* D you think that it might be a good idea for your city to publish >and maintain a "sustainable transportation webpage" that reports on key >indicators including traffic deaths and incidents (by gravity and type), CO2 >or other clean air indicators, parametric indicators of infrastructure and >performance of NMT options, etc. > >* Would you be willing to work, say, 20 hours over a period of one or >two months. as a volunteer to support better researched specific projects >in your neighborhood. > >* Etc. > >* Etc > >* > > > > > > > >Check in here via the homepage at http://www.newmobility.org >To post message to group: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com >But please think twice before posting to the group as a whole >(It might be that your note is best sent to one person?) > > > > >Yahoo! Groups Links > ><*> To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewMobilityCafe/ > ><*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > NewMobilityCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > ><*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > Sincerely, Todd Alexander Litman Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org) litman@vtpi.org Phone & Fax 250-360-1560 1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060424/13b68dbb/attachment-0003.html From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Tue Apr 25 00:24:22 2006 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (Eric Britton) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 17:24:22 +0200 Subject: [sustran] "on-street parking is the most efficient type of " In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20060424080209.05d55c38@mail.islandnet.com> Message-ID: <028e01c667b3$2b1bffe0$6501a8c0@Home> I would like to weigh in on this one, with what may to some of you look like nothing more than a "personal religious prejudice" about matters of transport policy and practice that I have consistently courted for my entire career. Which has consistently biased me against not only off-street parking but also putting money into underground rail. The nice thing about on street parking and all that visible traffic, congestion, etc. is that you cannot avoid seeing it. It is the nature of man that if we can avoid coming to grips with a problem, no matter how grave, because it is hidden, we will. So let's keep our problems right in front of our noses - as a constant reminder that we better do something about them. BTW, I am a bit surprised that my proposal for annual open citizen mini-surveys of transport priorities in their cities has occasioned such a deafening silence. Hmm. And I thought it was/is a real great and useful idea. Hmm. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060424/016ecad1/attachment.html From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Tue Apr 25 00:24:22 2006 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (Eric Britton) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 17:24:22 +0200 Subject: [sustran] "on-street parking is the most efficient type of " In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20060424080209.05d55c38@mail.islandnet.com> Message-ID: <028e01c667b3$2b1bffe0$6501a8c0@Home> I would like to weigh in on this one, with what may to some of you look like nothing more than a "personal religious prejudice" about matters of transport policy and practice that I have consistently courted for my entire career. Which has consistently biased me against not only off-street parking but also putting money into underground rail. The nice thing about on street parking and all that visible traffic, congestion, etc. is that you cannot avoid seeing it. It is the nature of man that if we can avoid coming to grips with a problem, no matter how grave, because it is hidden, we will. So let's keep our problems right in front of our noses - as a constant reminder that we better do something about them. BTW, I am a bit surprised that my proposal for annual open citizen mini-surveys of transport priorities in their cities has occasioned such a deafening silence. Hmm. And I thought it was/is a real great and useful idea. Hmm. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060424/016ecad1/attachment-0001.html From Alan.Howes at cbuchanan.co.uk Tue Apr 25 00:30:26 2006 From: Alan.Howes at cbuchanan.co.uk (Alan Howes) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 16:30:26 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Re: "on-street parking is the most efficient type of " Message-ID: <324DCD7680954F468CF306EE5404F001020A931C@mail01.cbuchanan.co.uk> Well, Eric, have you read the latest Indian National Urban Transport Policy? It's very keen on off-street parking - sounds just like UK about 40 years ago. And look where that got us. I have more to say about (I)NUTP, when I get a round tuit. Alan -- Alan Howes Associate Transport Planner Colin Buchanan 4 St Colme Street Edinburgh EH3 6AA Scotland email: alan.howes@cbuchanan.co.uk tel: (0)131 226 4693 (switchboard) (0)7952 464335 (mobile) fax: (0)131 220 0232 www: http:/www.cbuchanan.co.uk/ _______________________________ ________________________________ From: sustran-discuss-bounces+alan.howes=cbuchanan.co.uk@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+alan.howes=cbuchanan.co.uk@list.jca.apc. org] On Behalf Of Eric Britton Sent: 24 April 2006 16:24 To: 'Todd Alexander Litman'; NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com; whook@itdp.org; sustran-discuss@jca.apc.org; sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org; NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com Cc: CarFreeCafe@yahoogroups.com Subject: [sustran] "on-street parking is the most efficient type of " I would like to weigh in on this one, with what may to some of you look like nothing more than a "personal religious prejudice" about matters of transport policy and practice that I have consistently courted for my entire career. Which has consistently biased me against not only off-street parking but also putting money into underground rail. The nice thing about on street parking and all that visible traffic, congestion, etc. is that you cannot avoid seeing it. It is the nature of man that if we can avoid coming to grips with a problem, no matter how grave, because it is hidden, we will. So let's keep our problems right in front of our noses - as a constant reminder that we better do something about them. BTW, I am a bit surprised that my proposal for annual open citizen mini-surveys of transport priorities in their cities has occasioned such a deafening silence. Hmm. And I thought it was/is a real great and useful idea. Hmm. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ DISCLAIMER This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which 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 Colin Buchanan, 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 do not accept liability for any loss or damage caused by software viruses. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060424/39b28f3a/attachment.html From zvi at inro.ca Tue Apr 25 01:21:30 2006 From: zvi at inro.ca (Zvi Leve) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 12:21:30 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: "on-street parking is the most efficient type of " In-Reply-To: <028e01c667b3$2b1bffe0$6501a8c0@Home> References: <028e01c667b3$2b1bffe0$6501a8c0@Home> Message-ID: <444CFB0A.9000807@inro.ca> Eric and others, Unfortunately I am too busy at work to put much time into this or any of the other interesting threads which have been posted recently. I think that both on-street parking, and limited well integrated (with the emphasis on well-integrated) off-street parking have their uses. In my opinion, there certainly are cases where removing on-street parking would be beneficial - just look at all of the pedestrianized areas in Europe and elsewhere. As for transportation and citizen participation, Montreal has a new local political party, Projet Montreal , whose entire platform revolves around sustainable transportation issues. They did reasonably well for a first time party in the last municipal elections, but I think that a municipal platform based solely on on transportation will only get them so far - the same themes and ideas could be 'spun' to put more emphasis on 'quality of life' instead of just transportation issues (which quite frankly does not interest your "average" voter very much - but then again, what does :-\ ).... A city's transportation policy is not a goal unto itself, but rather a means to an end.... On the subject of parking, here is an amusing anecdote about one resident's opinion of on-street parking: I live on a residential street of row-houses which is parallel to a major commercial artery. Some of our cross streets also have significant commercial and institutional uses (cafes and restaurants in particular, with some up-scale retail plus a few schools). My block has a particularly low rate of motorization, so we only "need" parking on one-side of the street (and even this is limited to residents). On the other hand, there are certainly people who do drive to our neighbourhood for various reasons (both for work and for pleasure) and have nowhere to park! I happened to suggest to one of my neighbours that having parking on both sides would be a double benefit: narrowing the lane-surface would encourage drivers to slow down (a problem on our "wide" block), plus having additional parking for the clients of all of our local cafes (which we also patronize) couldn't be a bad thing either! To make a long story short, a completely reasonable man literally became violent at the suggestion that we should allow more on-street parking! He started ranting about our street becoming a parking lot, with people coming from all over just to park in front of /his/ house and then take the bus down-town. I won't repeat here the names that he called me. I suppose that my comment "if he is so attached to /his/ parking space, maybe /he/ should move to the suburbs" did not help.... Anyway, that is just to point out that parking is a rather visceral issue with certain people, both residents and commerce owners who are convinced that all of their clients come by car. Cheers, Zvi Eric Britton wrote: > I would like to weigh in on this one, with what may to some of you > look like nothing more than a ?personal religious prejudice? about > matters of transport policy and practice that I have consistently > courted for my entire career. Which has consistently biased me against > not only off-street parking but also putting money into underground rail. > > The nice thing about on street parking and all that visible traffic, > congestion, etc. is that you cannot avoid seeing it. It is the nature > of man that if we can avoid coming to grips with a problem, no matter > how grave, because it is hidden, we will. So let?s keep our problems > right in front of our noses ? as a constant reminder that we better do > something about them. > > BTW, I am a bit surprised that my proposal for annual open citizen > mini-surveys of transport priorities in their cities has occasioned > such a deafening silence. Hmm. And I thought it was/is a real great > and useful idea. Hmm. > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >================================================================ >SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. > From zvi at inro.ca Tue Apr 25 01:21:30 2006 From: zvi at inro.ca (Zvi Leve) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 12:21:30 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: "on-street parking is the most efficient type of " In-Reply-To: <028e01c667b3$2b1bffe0$6501a8c0@Home> References: <028e01c667b3$2b1bffe0$6501a8c0@Home> Message-ID: <444CFB0A.9000807@inro.ca> Eric and others, Unfortunately I am too busy at work to put much time into this or any of the other interesting threads which have been posted recently. I think that both on-street parking, and limited well integrated (with the emphasis on well-integrated) off-street parking have their uses. In my opinion, there certainly are cases where removing on-street parking would be beneficial - just look at all of the pedestrianized areas in Europe and elsewhere. As for transportation and citizen participation, Montreal has a new local political party, Projet Montreal , whose entire platform revolves around sustainable transportation issues. They did reasonably well for a first time party in the last municipal elections, but I think that a municipal platform based solely on on transportation will only get them so far - the same themes and ideas could be 'spun' to put more emphasis on 'quality of life' instead of just transportation issues (which quite frankly does not interest your "average" voter very much - but then again, what does :-\ ).... A city's transportation policy is not a goal unto itself, but rather a means to an end.... On the subject of parking, here is an amusing anecdote about one resident's opinion of on-street parking: I live on a residential street of row-houses which is parallel to a major commercial artery. Some of our cross streets also have significant commercial and institutional uses (cafes and restaurants in particular, with some up-scale retail plus a few schools). My block has a particularly low rate of motorization, so we only "need" parking on one-side of the street (and even this is limited to residents). On the other hand, there are certainly people who do drive to our neighbourhood for various reasons (both for work and for pleasure) and have nowhere to park! I happened to suggest to one of my neighbours that having parking on both sides would be a double benefit: narrowing the lane-surface would encourage drivers to slow down (a problem on our "wide" block), plus having additional parking for the clients of all of our local cafes (which we also patronize) couldn't be a bad thing either! To make a long story short, a completely reasonable man literally became violent at the suggestion that we should allow more on-street parking! He started ranting about our street becoming a parking lot, with people coming from all over just to park in front of /his/ house and then take the bus down-town. I won't repeat here the names that he called me. I suppose that my comment "if he is so attached to /his/ parking space, maybe /he/ should move to the suburbs" did not help.... Anyway, that is just to point out that parking is a rather visceral issue with certain people, both residents and commerce owners who are convinced that all of their clients come by car. Cheers, Zvi Eric Britton wrote: > I would like to weigh in on this one, with what may to some of you > look like nothing more than a ?personal religious prejudice? about > matters of transport policy and practice that I have consistently > courted for my entire career. Which has consistently biased me against > not only off-street parking but also putting money into underground rail. > > The nice thing about on street parking and all that visible traffic, > congestion, etc. is that you cannot avoid seeing it. It is the nature > of man that if we can avoid coming to grips with a problem, no matter > how grave, because it is hidden, we will. So let?s keep our problems > right in front of our noses ? as a constant reminder that we better do > something about them. > > BTW, I am a bit surprised that my proposal for annual open citizen > mini-surveys of transport priorities in their cities has occasioned > such a deafening silence. Hmm. And I thought it was/is a real great > and useful idea. Hmm. > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >================================================================ >SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. > From etts at indigo.ie Tue Apr 25 02:00:23 2006 From: etts at indigo.ie (Brendan Finn) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 18:00:23 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Re: FW: Traffic in India References: Message-ID: <011301c667c0$990d3840$a7c8a8c0@finn> Dear Paul, Thanks for that link, it really captures it. Don't you agree that it just flows? Everyone gets through so much quicker than if there were traffic signals, and you get no tailbacks. Of course, it gives the screaming heebie-jeebies to people who must always have their cutlery properly arranged, creases in their newspapers, and everything just 'so', but to the people who are in the thick of it, they're just getting on with it. As it happens, I shot a similar video last summer in Urumqi, except there's also a pedestrian crossing going through it which is freely used by the cars doing u-turns. I started to video it to show people how bad the traffic and driving was. After 10 minutes of filming I realised that it all worked rather well, and felt suitably humbled about my prejudices. With best wishes, Brendan. _____________________________________________________________________________________ >From Brendan Finn, ETTS Ltd. e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : +353.87.2530286 ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Barter To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 8:14 AM Subject: [sustran] FW: Traffic in India A wonderful video clip of an Indian intersection working in ways most traffic engineers would never imagine in their wildest dreams. If you have never seen traffic in South Asia then this might come as something of a shock. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjrEQaG5jPM > Paul ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060424/fe910dc6/attachment.html From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Tue Apr 25 02:58:04 2006 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (Eric Britton) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 19:58:04 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Traffic in India video - "an amazing social pact is at work to avoid gridlock" Message-ID: <07bd01c667c8$a4bbd090$6501a8c0@Home> There is a great deal of commentary on the India traffic video page, much of which the sad usual that one finds on the net. But some of what these mainly Americans have to say is not without interest - not least since at the end of the day hey are usually talking about not India but themselles (our favorite subject). And I much like the one that offers the observation that: "an amazing social pact is at work to avoid gridlock" 1. Looks like they have to me! They all know what they're doing 2. India always have tons of wrecks everyday, but the people have learned to get around these kinds of things. In all honesty, this is nothing of any significance, you should see what it's like when theirs some serious traffic. 3. Well, the average speed over there is 30Km/hr. That's http://www.google.com/search?q =30km/hr+in+mph So, though there are crashes, HUNDREDS of them, everyday, no one gets seriously hurt (most of the time) 4. u should see Nicaragua 5. Two words, Organized Chaos! 6. it looks like everybody just getting in were they fit in seems like it just humans walking in a mall but only driving 7. Yeah Vietnam was like this too. Organized chaos (and more mopeds :P). 8. That's like nothing for India, u should see the main streets in Mumbai Calcutta Delhi and Bangalore 9. WOW just amazing-I noticed that it seemed like all younger people there. What happened to the old folk?? ha ha they probably stay home. Congested but still very organized. The air quality must be as bad there as it is in the united states-especially ca. 10. its like a giant footpath... but it all flows so no gripes here 11. Cool vid! believe me.. it's not that dangerous because accidents happen when you don't watch out.. and those guys keep their eyes wide open. 12. I am full of admiration for the Indians. If a similar uncontrolled traffic situation occurred in Britain the scene would be of multiple pile ups, dead and injured everywhere with the survivors attempting further mayhem on each other. 13. I'm sure the way North Americans drive must make people from other countries laugh as well...4-way stops? What the hell is THAT? How primitive when pretty much the rest of the world has moved on to roundabouts. 14. hahaha, as a Chinese I see such behaviour in China very often. It's just a matter of lifestyle, in a country where you have about a 1 billion people this is the way of life. Simple as that 15. Wow!!!!!!!!!! I drive like that! 16. Almost all of 3rd world countries are like that.. 17. ppl stop trippin out, this is just one of the intersections without traffic lights. Indian roads do have traffic lights, especially in big cities everywhere. on top of that, Indian roads are chaotic, with cars and people, so you need to be very careful and alert and that is exactly what these people in the video demonstrated. you think its chaos, which it is, but to the residents its a pattern, they know exactly how to get out of this mess. 18. This video has generated a range of emotions among ppl. Some are surprised, excited, amazed, disgusted, terrified or just simply enlightened. In "developed" countries, when traffic lights fail, ppl panic, traffic gets logged for miles. However, look at these people, without a traffic light or a cop, they are able to manage the situation "just" fine. 19. And when there are no traffic lights, people improvise the situation, alert and armed with years of experience, they go about their life honking and avoiding accidents. This video is stunning. Shows how skilled and alert these drivers and riders are. Not a single scratch in 3 minutes. 20. In S. America and Asia, traffic is much more of an art. It's not as regimented with defined lanes and such. As a result, traffic flows a lot faster. People maneuver their cars through crowded streets the same way pedestrians maneuver through crowded sidewalks. Getting "cut off" is the norm in these countries, and you weave and brake to avoid accidents, while in the US, people get shot over "getting cut off" and having to use their brakes. In the US people think if they are in a lane, they have proprietary ownership of that lane. Elsewhere, you have to share that lane, if someone encroaches into it. 21. I think this is a safe way to drive. Concentrate on the front of your vehicle and don't swing your head around. American driving with no front concentration is way more dangerous. 22. THAT is driving SKILL. they are my kind of drivers, awesome! seems like people there hafta be way more alert when driving, and thus less accidents. here in the U.S, you have people sleeping at the wheel, on their cell phones, and distracted. 23. i feel when i watch these driving videos that an amazing social pact is at work to avoid gridlock. i can imagine a much simpler intersection in the heart of any American city... everyone tries to go at once, honking ensues, and gridlock would be inevitable. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 8152 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060424/a9b368b9/winmail.bin From et3 at et3.com Tue Apr 25 03:18:30 2006 From: et3 at et3.com (Daryl Oster) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 14:18:30 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: "regenerative" value of human power transportation In-Reply-To: <20060423072900.4188.qmail@web36914.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200604241818.k3OIIWZX000335@njbrsmtp2.vzwmail.net> > -----Original Message From: Francis Chu > Daryl, > Just some clarification: > Cost burden of kidney failure (Litman, fair to Daryl, I started to use > kidney failure as a small example, refer to my post on April 21..)- > Suppose my kidney fail today, I'd have to pay the S$31,200 annual cost for > dialysis. This cost is not for "treatment" or cure, it merely clean my > blood for a couple of days, there is no end to this until someone is > willing to donate his kidney and if I have the money to pay for the > operation. In such situation, I will most likely lost my job and can no > longer support my family. (income lost ON TOP OF medical expenses). Not > only that, my wife also have to quit her job because taking care of a > kidney failure patient is a very demanding job. Therefore she will lost > her income too. That's how I come to the total lost of S$60,000 (based on > current GDP, double income family) in addition to the medical cost of > S$31,200. I know I may be stretching the concept of "cost" too far here, > but it should be reasonably within the scope of "lost value". This assumes the car to be the real cause of the kidney failure -- it is NOT!! The real and true cause in your example is said to be lack of exercise, I accept this as fact. The bike or walking can provide exercise, and therefore have measurable value of doing so; Therefore the VALUE can be properly attributed to walking or bike use; -- HOWEVER there are MANY sources of exercise -- the fault of improper exercise is the blame for some kidney failure - not the car - therefore the COST of that failure cannot properly be attributed to the car, nor can any trickle down COSTS of kidney failure be attributed to the car. This improper accounting is what bothers me the most about the anti car people. This type of accounting is good at generating an emotional response. About 80% of the people make decision based on emotion and not logical examination of fact. In the emotional anti-car rhetoric it is always the car that gets the blame, even when it is NOT the direct fault of the car. Improper placing of blame is not going to change the facts -- even if cars were to be eliminated, some would fail to get enough exercise, the failure to exercise is a choice that may or may not be supported by car use. Children who cannot drive, and who do not ride to school in a car, but instead by walking, train, or bus are increasingly fat -- much due to choice of playing computer games instead of engaging in sports that require physical exercise. Obesity IS a social problem -- and perhaps some is supported by the car -- but the car is NOT the cause. The causes are: Improper foods Overeating Insufficient exercise Hormones used in dairy and meat products, etc. The car does NOT demand any of these choices as a condition of use, therefore it cannot be held responsible - the fat person (or their parents) is the one who is responsible for their condition through improper choice. Education and will are what is needed to deal with the root cause to eliminate the problem-- not elimination of cars - that are NOT the primary cause. > > Health benefit (value) of cycling and walking (human power transport): > I agree that the health value of walking and cycling is "only" applicable > to those who don't get sufficient exercise otherwise.However, the > unexpected fact is two third of the world population are physically > inactive (http://tinyurl.com/gpffr), the > majority can benefit from integrating at least 30 minutes of fast walking > or cycling into their daily life. I agree, and I choose to get my exercise through physical work that also earns money - such as building a house to sell. Therefore I invest money time and exercise for the highest return I am able to with the resources and tools I have. > If the information here > > (http://www.activelivingleadership.org/pdf_file/TheFacts.pdf) is reliable, > the health value of walking+cycling is potentially US$117 billion and > 200,000 human in US per year. If all those who do not get proper exercise would instead drive their car to a place where they can physically work to provide value for their daily exercise investment, the economic impact would be much greater than the $117B. > Perceived efficiency of car > I can see where you come from - most people just check what are the > available choices and car seems (especially in USA) the only sensible one. Not the only sensible choice for all people -- just the most sensible choice for most people, and the chart is simply a reflection of the biggest reasons. -- reasons that the rail industry is so desperate to hide so they can continue to convince government to buy trains that have been marginalized to negative value for most people because the car offers better value for most people. > This is also the mainstream opinion. Your Excel sheet try to illustrate > the mainstream view through cost reasoning and that may be exactly how the > majority see it, even it may not be the truth. If it is not true, please show me what is false, and I will change it! Reality IS true, and denial of fact will not change the facts. It can not be true that returning to old ways will provide greater sustainability -- this, as it is already proven false in the real and true world! Most on this list must agree that: * We all depend on transportation for survival; * The rail network reached it's limits of expansion in the US by 1916. * The automobile and airplane have replaced 98% of train travel in the US. * The automobile is winning the global people transportation market; * The automobile is reaching energy, and environmental, and social limits to continued sustainability of present market expansion; * Eventual collapse of the car is inevitable. * Progression and regression are two possible outcomes of collapse. . What we disagree on is what must be done. There are many on this list who believe that we must somehow force a return to using the transportation modes that the car has displaced from the market (bikes, walking, and trains). I submit to the group that this belief is false, and based on half-truths, lies and deception that are propagated and fostered by the many existing industries and support professionals that benefit from continued government gifts to artificially prop up the rail industry. > On the other hand I'm optimistic that the mainstream view is likely to > change, and the opinions on this cutting edge group will slowly become the > norm. > Francis Chu This group may be on the cutting edge of awareness of the problems associated with cars, yet many have a regressive attitude of ignoring progressive solutions. I believe that something progressive must be done to arrest the expanding use of cars, and this progress must improve transportation value by at least an order of magnitude over the car. We share the view that the truth will prevail in the long term. Daryl Oster (c) 2006 all rights reserved. ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth" e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks of et3.com Inc. For licensing information contact: POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423 (352)257-1310, et3@et3.com , www.et3.com> From et3 at et3.com Tue Apr 25 04:05:07 2006 From: et3 at et3.com (Daryl Oster) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 15:05:07 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: Comparing Transportation Costs By Mode Message-ID: <200604241905.k3OJ58Lt014277@njbrsmtp1.vzwmail.net> > Original Message From: Todd Alexander Litman [mailto:litman@vtpi.org] ... > First, Oster reaches the unsurprizing conclusion that if you are to travel > high mileage and charge a high value of time, automobile travel seems > cheapest, due to economies of scale (since most automobile costs are > fixed, average costs decline significantly with increased consumption). Consumption is a totally different issue. The need is for TRANSPORTATION - so modes must be compared on what mode best (most sustainable) fills the need. Sustainability is mostly a question of efficiency. AND efficiency has several dimensions. My chart only points out the BIG reasons that cars are greatly valued as transportation tools. Car market dominance is NOT some mass conspiracy to manipulate people counter to their basic needs. Recognizing the REASONS for car's market dominance it the key to understanding how to transcend that dominance with more appropriate means. > But this assumes that everybody can and should drive high mileage and is > based on an excessive value of travel time (most travel time cost studies > suggest that the value should be one-third to one-half prevailing wages > during peak periods and probably significantly less during off-peak, yet > Oster uses US$15.00 for everybody, which is probably an order of magnitude > too high for developing country conditions). I do NOT make the claim that people should drive high mileages - Yet the facts show that as urbanization trends continue, that increased demands are placed on transportation. You fail to understand that there are TWO assumptions embedded in the chart! Assumption #1 is if time value is considered; Assumption #2 is if time value is NOT considered; Additionally, the chart is set up so the value of time can be changed to reflect the value of time NOTE: the breakeven miles occurs at an increasingly higher number as time value is reduced, but due to the reduced environmental impacts (food acquisition lodging needs or travel, etc) there is still a breakeven point if the time value is ZERO -- and this IS on the chart. The non-time value impacts are mostly hidden IF all trips are less than a few hours duration BUT THEY ARE STILL THERE!! Only by making the mode comparison at the SAME CONDITION OF STEADY STATE CONTINIUUS TRAVEL FUNCTION can the true market benefits and costs be unmasked. The spreadsheet - using the $15 is appropriate, as it shows the cost of benefit, and investment recovery time for the entire range - from zero time value - up to the value typically placed on time in highly developed countries. BTW, most (not all) people place a HIGHER value on their non-work time - hence the necessity of paying overtime differential to induce workers to work longer hours. > Transportation professionals are realizing that the best transportation > system maximizes "accessibility" rather than "mobility", in other words, > it apply strategies such as more accessible land use patterns and improved > mobility substitutes such as telework and delivery services to reduce the > need to travel (particularly by motor vehicle) Current land use patterns reflect the total system VALUE for greatest present condition sustainability. Telework at once eases some demands and creates others. > If we evaluate transportation in terms > of accessibility rather than mobility, then modes such as walking and > public transit become more valuable because they help support more > compact, mixed land use development and have low costs when used for short > trips. This reduction in transportation cost for the individual is offset by increased cargo transportation; construction costs (the cost of building vertically increases geometrically); social costs; and environmental costs. It is well known that tax rates in dense cities cannot be raised enough to cover the increased costs of dense settlements, AND that the burden must be transferred to those outside the city, or urban decay will occur. Planning for the most sustainable society involves proper choice of transportation mode - my point is that the mode offering the greatest transportation VALUE for the most people is the mode that should be encouraged in planning, and then planning can make the highest gains by maximizing total system sustainability. One of the reasons the car is so valued is due to the HUGE improvement in accessibility the car offers MOST people. The usefulness (accessibility) of any network with optimally placed nodes is approximately proportional to the number of nodes squared. A system with 20 nodes compared to 10 nodes is 4 times more accessible (useful). The cost of a train or airplane node is HUGE compared to the incremental cost of a node for car access. ETT approaches the automobile in terms of node accessibility, AND since ETT is automated, has the advantages of requiring no special skills or physical demands of operating a car. If you want to plan in terms of accessibility, then ALL benefits AND costs of accessibility must be compared according to mode. ALSO the cost of demolition and construction (rebuilding) of existing buildings according to a new master plan must be evaluated. > In other words, Oster's analysis framework represents the sort of > self-fulfilling prophesy that results in automobile dependency: if you > assume that automobile travel is cheapest and best, you can build a > transportation/land use system which favors that mode so it actually > becomes cheapest, at least from the users perspective. We must remember history. In the US, the first cities WERE built according to the existing highest value modes (at the time) of water and then train transport. The cost of accessing these few nodes was very high, and dramatically increased land value in proximity to the nodes. The extreme value of the nodes made possible ultra expensive high rise construction to increase node access. AFTER the car was invented, and it's much greater transportation value (including the vastly better accessibility through lower node cost), savings in construction was ALSO possible due to much greater land availability in close proximity to an transportation node. So the car offered DOUBLE savings - the transportation innovation ALSO precipitated lower construction and land costs for housing and commerce. Going back to OLD city planning, will be like paddling against BOTH wind and current. MUCH faster progress can be made going WITH wind and current at the same time. > Second, Oster's cost framework ignores some of the most significant costs > of automobile travel, including parking costs, congestion costs, and crash > costs (including these would nearly double what he calculates as vehicle > costs). Parking cost is usually embodied in the food cost and lodging cost. It is about 10% of the cost in areas where parking cost is so high that it is applied separately. I will subtracting 10% from the cost for walking; - bikes would be somewhere in-between. I am happy to include "crash cost", the cost of crashes has been determined very accurately by the insurance industry. The insurance industry must cover the costs of crashes, AND face unjustifiably huge court and settlement costs, AND still make a profit; SO the cost on insurance is significantly greater than true "crash cost". I am happy to use the prevalent insurance cost if and only if it is fairly and equally applied to each mode on the same terms. To fairly and impartially apply insurance costs, one must consider full coverage of: Liability and comprehensive insurance of BOTH Property and Injury losses. The benefits and costs of insurance MUST be compared and applied on a "at fault basis" AND, they must be reduced to a per passenger mile basis. My limited research at doing this (getting quoted only for myself for walking (medical injury insurance only for walking and biking- no libility)) proved to me that the per mile cost of insuring transportation risk of walking or biking is much greater than for car use. I have not yet received average or typical values for the whole of the insurance industry for the three modes in question, so I have not yet applied them. > It also fails to account for the much higher costs of driving > under urban-peak conditions, which suggests that even if driving is > cheapest on average, under urban-peak conditions other modes may be more > cost effective. Food costs, which he incorporates, is only relevant for > people who are eating too little, if people are eating too much and > benefit from increased physical exercise, as is the case in most developed > countries and even many lower-income countries, than time and calories > spent walking and cycling represent a benefit rather than cost. > I have no idea why Oster focuses on kidney disease as the risk associated > with sedentary living, This focus was not my focus, I was only showing a methodology of reducing a benefit to a per mile figure. - If you read the whole thread you may understand better. > most studies (including a couple I've been involved with, see > http://www.smartgrowth.bc.ca/downloads/SGBC_Health%20Report%20Final.pdf > and http://vtpi.org/health.pdf ) indicate that cardiovascular diseases is > the main risk. I think it would be interesting to include ALL benefits (and costs) of transportation related exercise (or rest from exercise). There have been several world class athletes who exercise an extreme amount who die of heart attack induced from extreme exercise with insufficient rest and recuperation time. There is an optimum balance in exercise, there are measurable health risks associated with BOTH extremes - and I am not very likely to take the time to quantify them all, perhaps others will. > The health benefits of increased walking and cycling are > much larger than Oster's analysis implies, probably similar in magnitude > to crash reduction benefits, although we generally do not try to monetize > that impact because the relationships are complex. Perhaps a simpler way > to quantify it is to say that the first 30 minutes a day of active > transportation (walking and cycling) incurs no time cost. IF there is a quantifiable reduction in health cost associated with commuting by foot or bike, there may be some insurance companies exploiting this niche by offering health insurance discounts. Insurance actuaries are equipped to be able to calculate this, I am not, and I would be very suppressed if you could provide investment grade data to support you allegation. > Third, I think that Oster misrepresents the basic question. It is useless > to ask, which mode of travel is cheapest and best to accommodate, since > costs vary significantly depending on the situation. It is far better to > ask, which mode is most cost effective and most appropriate for a > particular situation. ... The point I make is that EVERYONE IS DOING THIS ALL THE TIME - that is the efficient market - and it decides. The facts are clear - cars get the choice more often, and it is most likely due to the value reflected in the metrics shown on the chart. > Walking and cycling are most cost effective for > shorter trips, particularly in urban areas where space is at a premium or > by people who are either low income or need to increase their physical > activity; public transit is most cost effective for travel on major urban > corridors and between cities; and automobile travel is most cost effective > for some types of trips such as off-peak and rural travel, and when > carrying heavy loads, I agree, and the attached graph shows where the market lines are drawn -- by market force of achievement of best value equilibrium. > although my research indicates that a significant > portion of automobile travel that occurs in most developed countries > results from market distortions that underprice driving, and in a more > efficient transportation market the total amount of driving that occurs in > developed countries would decline by a third or more (see > http://www.vtpi.org/opprice.pdf ). > > > Best wishes, > -Todd Litman Many people DO consider walking - virtually all car users also walk when THEY deem it appropriate, according to their individual value of time, money, etc. The attached graph by: Rodrigue Jean-Paul, Ph.D. 2004 Geo Transportation Website of Hofstra University, Hempstead NY. http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans Shows the market gap of cars vs non-motorized (bike and walk) AND also the market gap of cars vs jets. Understanding and working WITH (instead of against) social market trends and demands is key to achieving sustainable transport, and ETT is the most credible attempt to accomplish this. Daryl Oster (c) 2006 all rights reserved. ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth" e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks of et3.com Inc. For licensing information contact: POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423 (352)257-1310, et3@et3.com , www.et3.com NOTE: This message was stopped for moderation due to excessive content, so it is modified to reduce content compared to the original correspondence sent by CC to Litman AND the sustran-discuss list. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: market_percent-s.gif Type: image/gif Size: 32276 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060424/7fd6e7b4/market_percent-s.gif From Alan.Howes at cbuchanan.co.uk Tue Apr 25 05:54:55 2006 From: Alan.Howes at cbuchanan.co.uk (Alan Howes) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 21:54:55 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Re: FW: Traffic in India References: <011301c667c0$990d3840$a7c8a8c0@finn> Message-ID: <324DCD7680954F468CF306EE5404F001B5827F@mail01.cbuchanan.co.uk> I'd call it making the best of a bad job. But just try crossing the road as a pedestrian - or getting along it in a bus. Average speed of buses in Mumbai is 15 kph (off-peak, actually slower than the am peak), and getting worse. It would be worse, but the drivers are incentivised on trips completed (i.e. paid to go fast), while the conductors are incentivised on fares collected. The former is the reason why buses pull away from stops with people still fighting to get on. The only reason a lot more people don't get killed is that the speeds are pretty low. Alan -- Alan Howes Associate Transport Planner Colin Buchanan 4 St Colme Street, Edinburgh, EH3 6AA Tel: +44 131 226 4693 Mobile: +44 7952 464335 email: alan.howes@cbuchanan.co.uk www: http:/www.cbuchanan.co.uk/ ________________________________ From: sustran-discuss-bounces+alan.howes=cbuchanan.co.uk@list.jca.apc.org on behalf of Brendan Finn Sent: Mon 24/04/2006 18:00 To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport Subject: [sustran] Re: FW: Traffic in India Dear Paul, Thanks for that link, it really captures it. Don't you agree that it just flows? Everyone gets through so much quicker than if there were traffic signals, and you get no tailbacks. Of course, it gives the screaming heebie-jeebies to people who must always have their cutlery properly arranged, creases in their newspapers, and everything just 'so', but to the people who are in the thick of it, they're just getting on with it. As it happens, I shot a similar video last summer in Urumqi, except there's also a pedestrian crossing going through it which is freely used by the cars doing u-turns. I started to video it to show people how bad the traffic and driving was. After 10 minutes of filming I realised that it all worked rather well, and felt suitably humbled about my prejudices. With best wishes, Brendan. _____________________________________________________________________________________ >From Brendan Finn, ETTS Ltd. e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : +353.87.2530286 ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Barter To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 8:14 AM Subject: [sustran] FW: Traffic in India A wonderful video clip of an Indian intersection working in ways most traffic engineers would never imagine in their wildest dreams. If you have never seen traffic in South Asia then this might come as something of a shock. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjrEQaG5jPM > Paul ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ DISCLAIMER This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which 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 Colin Buchanan, 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 do not accept liability for any loss or damage caused by software viruses. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 8091 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060424/be433662/attachment-0001.bin From ericbruun at earthlink.net Tue Apr 25 06:14:39 2006 From: ericbruun at earthlink.net (Eric Bruun) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 17:14:39 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [sustran] More about on-street parking Message-ID: <1946552.1145913279175.JavaMail.root@elwamui-ovcar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> After reading Todd's and Lee's comments, I have some additional ones. 1) I am sure that Lee is right. Especially for on-street parking in residential areas. 2) On the other hand, there are offsetting benefits from on-street parking. In addition to what Todd said, on-street parking can act as a buffer between pedestrians and a busy arterial. Check out Picadilly Circus in London sometime to see what heavy bus traffic right next to the sidewalk (pavement) is like. Also, merchants think they can better compete with malls if there is parking out front -- people can carry heavy or bulky items a short distance from store to car, unlike at malls. Also, it is still possible to favor transit with on-street parking -- make the ends of parking lanes into queue bypasses. Eric Bruum -----Original Message----- >From: Lee Schipper >Sent: Apr 24, 2006 10:01 AM >To: eric.britton@ecoplan.org, whook@itdp.org, sustran-discuss@jca.apc.org, sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org, NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com >Cc: CarFreeCafe@yahoogroups.com >Subject: [sustran] Re: New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A ProposalforDiscussion > >Years ago a good Swedish Transport economist posed the same question. by measuring how much time people spent walking to where >there was green space, he figured out that providing on-street parking rather than more green space and broader sidewalks led to a real >economic loss. His advice was to provide parking only in private, commercial areas (he also looked at how much off-street parking cost). > >One benefit of such an approach * say every other street in NYCity had no parking...just bays for deliveries here and there * front yards would reappaear >and children and families could play in the streets more safely! > >>>> whook@itdp.org 4/24/2006 9:44:09 AM >>> >Eric, > > > >Paul white and i had a related idea over lunch the other day, and we were >wondering if this has ever been tried. > > > >What if all the property owners and permanent tenants living along a block >of urban street were given the choice by the municipality of whether they >wanted the space in front of their house dedicated to car parking or >sidewalk? How many residents would vote for car parking? It might be done >something like this. The department of transport could determine the needed >road capacity, but the parking units would be a function of ultra local >democracy. What if as a result, each permanent resident or registered >voter, or even just each property tax payer, on a city block got to >determine the democratic use of the public space in front of their property. >Since it is currently most of the time dedicated to parking, at least in the >US, even if only 10% voted to get rid of the parking, that would be 10% of >the parking units we could reclaim. On my block i would guess that maybe >50% would opt for a wider sidewalk. Then a block association could be free >to contract an architect to redesign the street with that same number of >units of parking. > > > >I am wondering if there are any successful examples of this sort of ultra >local democracy? > > > >Walter > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org >[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf >Of Eric Britton >Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2006 12:34 PM >To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com; Sustran Resource Centre >Cc: CarFreeCafe@yahoogroups.com >Subject: [sustran] New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A Proposal >forDiscussion > > > >New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A Proposal for Discussion > > > >When it comes to creating more viable and fairer transport systems, and >behind that our real objective: more agreeable and more sustainable cities, >we have one recurrent problem that we can perhaps deal with if we put our >heads together. > > > >As is well known, whenever any given 'soft transport', "public space" or >some type of "not quite so many cars" initiative is proposed in any given >place, the first and most striking thing that happens is the howls of >protest that immediately emerge from all those who claim that their >democratic entitlements are being threatened by, as they often like to put >it, some small group of arrogant bike-happy technocrats and their fellow >eco-travelers. And since the media always likes a good cat fight, these >righteous citizens often dominate the news. For the rest, for you and me and >others like us, hey! we're the Silent Minority. The absolutely >disenfranchised. > > > >Well, it does not always have to be like that and here is one proposal >concerning which I would like to invite discussions and refinement - all as >a prelude to giving this idea a couple of trial runs in one or more >pioneering cities. > > > >The idea is to carry out an annual open citizen survey of attitudes and >preferences concerning transport policy and practice (and the investments >that go with it) in your city. The results should be made widely available >through old and new media, and brought to the fore of the attention of the >politicians, administrators and policy makers in your city. Here without any >pretense of it being anything other than a grain of sand to get us going is >my draft proposal for content for quick mini-survey that can be administered >by phone, email or on any street corner by volunteers: > > > >Note to the reader: In a first instance, before digging into the details, I >would like to ask the members of this fine group: (a) is this an idea that >is worth pursuing; (b) are there some (better)examples that we should be >looking at and learning from. Then once we have a feel for this as a useful >activity, we can then start to see how we might together fine tune a good >questionnaire and routine. > > > > > > > > > > > > >1, Draft Mini-survey (for comment and . . . ) > >All questions where appropriate to be answered simply by a 1 (yes), 0 (don't >know), -or -1 (no), which will facilitate aggregation and overview. > > > >1. Name > >2. City of residence > >3. M/F > >4. Age: <15; 15-30; 30-65; >65 > >5. Do you own/drive a car? > >6. My city government has a coherent, announced transportation policy: > >7. I believe that this is a wise and well executed policy. > >8. We need to spend more money to build more roads and more parking as >a main transport priority. > >9. We need to give much more attention and spend more money on "soft >transport" and related life quality initiatives (examples: better support of >pedestrians and cyclists, traffic calming, more public transport, new forms >of shared transport, ITC substitutes for displacement.) > >10. It is possible for people to live here well and easily without having >their own car. > >11. If they want my vote -- all candidates for local public office should >take a firm stand on their transportation policies, and issue as part of >their platform a signed personal statement indicating their support of more >sustainable transport projects and programs. > > > >Your eventual brief comments or suggestions: ____________________________ > >____________________________________________________________________________ >____________________________________________________________________________ >____________________________________________________________________________ >____________________________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > >2. How to execute - Thoughts on > > > >* This maybe is pushing it for length. If it can't be administered >in three minutes, it probably will not do the job. Try it out on a couple of >friends and let us know. > >* There is plenty of evidence that people tend to create and >administrate questionnaires that one way or another tend to elicit their >favored response. We should meticulously avoid doing this, and in our >selection of questions - and people to be queried. If it ain't neutral, it >is not worth a lot. So careful, eh? > >* The simple mental model I have for this is an excel table with >names in columns, etc. All leading to easy sorting and sub-total > >* To have a real impact, it will best be administered at some fixed >time. >As examples: on Earth Day, in cooperation with any local Car Free Days, >European Moblity Week, etc.) > >* The procedures and information should be fully public so that >there can be no charges of rigging the returns. (Expect in Belarusia and >Florida in which it is OK.) > >* Also involve schools, various clubs and groups, senior citizens, >handicapped, pedestrian and cyclist naturally but also take it into >hospitals, prisons, old people's homes, jails, and the homeless. > >* Local media partnerships, and even strong involvement by them, >will be most useful. > >* I would propose that the on-street interviews be carried out on >one day - but that an entire week be given over to the entire procedures. > >* The results should be publicly announced. > >* And then all those in local government should be asked to comment >and give their appreciations of what this means. (Note: Our friends in South >Africa with their first Car Free Days last year did a good job of this which >we might usefully consult) > >* We propose that this be an annual exercise. > >* And that to the extent possible and sensible, we might want to >think about questions and formats that are sufficiently parallel to allow us >to aggregate. > >* BTW, is there or has there ever been anything like this in your >city? Neighborhood? That we can learn from? > > > > > > > > >3. Parallel in-death Survey > > > >It may be a good idea to have a more in depth survey for those people >disposed to spend more time with us on this. > > > >The trick will be to determine who, how, when, - and how used? > > > >Here are a few first thoughts on this to get us going: > > > >* Employment, social status > >* Where live/where work > >* If it were faster and cheaper to get to work or school by some way >other than driving a car (in traffic) would you be willing to consider it? > >* When was the last time you took a bus or rail transit? > >* Used a bike to get to work or school? > >* D you think that it might be a good idea for your city to publish >and maintain a "sustainable transportation webpage" that reports on key >indicators including traffic deaths and incidents (by gravity and type), CO2 >or other clean air indicators, parametric indicators of infrastructure and >performance of NMT options, etc. > >* Would you be willing to work, say, 20 hours over a period of one or >two months. as a volunteer to support better researched specific projects >in your neighborhood. > >* Etc. > >* Etc > >* > > > > > >================================================================ >SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. From ericbruun at earthlink.net Tue Apr 25 06:14:39 2006 From: ericbruun at earthlink.net (Eric Bruun) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 17:14:39 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [sustran] More about on-street parking Message-ID: <1946552.1145913279175.JavaMail.root@elwamui-ovcar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> After reading Todd's and Lee's comments, I have some additional ones. 1) I am sure that Lee is right. Especially for on-street parking in residential areas. 2) On the other hand, there are offsetting benefits from on-street parking. In addition to what Todd said, on-street parking can act as a buffer between pedestrians and a busy arterial. Check out Picadilly Circus in London sometime to see what heavy bus traffic right next to the sidewalk (pavement) is like. Also, merchants think they can better compete with malls if there is parking out front -- people can carry heavy or bulky items a short distance from store to car, unlike at malls. Also, it is still possible to favor transit with on-street parking -- make the ends of parking lanes into queue bypasses. Eric Bruum -----Original Message----- >From: Lee Schipper >Sent: Apr 24, 2006 10:01 AM >To: eric.britton@ecoplan.org, whook@itdp.org, sustran-discuss@jca.apc.org, sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org, NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com >Cc: CarFreeCafe@yahoogroups.com >Subject: [sustran] Re: New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A ProposalforDiscussion > >Years ago a good Swedish Transport economist posed the same question. by measuring how much time people spent walking to where >there was green space, he figured out that providing on-street parking rather than more green space and broader sidewalks led to a real >economic loss. His advice was to provide parking only in private, commercial areas (he also looked at how much off-street parking cost). > >One benefit of such an approach * say every other street in NYCity had no parking...just bays for deliveries here and there * front yards would reappaear >and children and families could play in the streets more safely! > >>>> whook@itdp.org 4/24/2006 9:44:09 AM >>> >Eric, > > > >Paul white and i had a related idea over lunch the other day, and we were >wondering if this has ever been tried. > > > >What if all the property owners and permanent tenants living along a block >of urban street were given the choice by the municipality of whether they >wanted the space in front of their house dedicated to car parking or >sidewalk? How many residents would vote for car parking? It might be done >something like this. The department of transport could determine the needed >road capacity, but the parking units would be a function of ultra local >democracy. What if as a result, each permanent resident or registered >voter, or even just each property tax payer, on a city block got to >determine the democratic use of the public space in front of their property. >Since it is currently most of the time dedicated to parking, at least in the >US, even if only 10% voted to get rid of the parking, that would be 10% of >the parking units we could reclaim. On my block i would guess that maybe >50% would opt for a wider sidewalk. Then a block association could be free >to contract an architect to redesign the street with that same number of >units of parking. > > > >I am wondering if there are any successful examples of this sort of ultra >local democracy? > > > >Walter > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org >[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf >Of Eric Britton >Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2006 12:34 PM >To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com; Sustran Resource Centre >Cc: CarFreeCafe@yahoogroups.com >Subject: [sustran] New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A Proposal >forDiscussion > > > >New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A Proposal for Discussion > > > >When it comes to creating more viable and fairer transport systems, and >behind that our real objective: more agreeable and more sustainable cities, >we have one recurrent problem that we can perhaps deal with if we put our >heads together. > > > >As is well known, whenever any given 'soft transport', "public space" or >some type of "not quite so many cars" initiative is proposed in any given >place, the first and most striking thing that happens is the howls of >protest that immediately emerge from all those who claim that their >democratic entitlements are being threatened by, as they often like to put >it, some small group of arrogant bike-happy technocrats and their fellow >eco-travelers. And since the media always likes a good cat fight, these >righteous citizens often dominate the news. For the rest, for you and me and >others like us, hey! we're the Silent Minority. The absolutely >disenfranchised. > > > >Well, it does not always have to be like that and here is one proposal >concerning which I would like to invite discussions and refinement - all as >a prelude to giving this idea a couple of trial runs in one or more >pioneering cities. > > > >The idea is to carry out an annual open citizen survey of attitudes and >preferences concerning transport policy and practice (and the investments >that go with it) in your city. The results should be made widely available >through old and new media, and brought to the fore of the attention of the >politicians, administrators and policy makers in your city. Here without any >pretense of it being anything other than a grain of sand to get us going is >my draft proposal for content for quick mini-survey that can be administered >by phone, email or on any street corner by volunteers: > > > >Note to the reader: In a first instance, before digging into the details, I >would like to ask the members of this fine group: (a) is this an idea that >is worth pursuing; (b) are there some (better)examples that we should be >looking at and learning from. Then once we have a feel for this as a useful >activity, we can then start to see how we might together fine tune a good >questionnaire and routine. > > > > > > > > > > > > >1, Draft Mini-survey (for comment and . . . ) > >All questions where appropriate to be answered simply by a 1 (yes), 0 (don't >know), -or -1 (no), which will facilitate aggregation and overview. > > > >1. Name > >2. City of residence > >3. M/F > >4. Age: <15; 15-30; 30-65; >65 > >5. Do you own/drive a car? > >6. My city government has a coherent, announced transportation policy: > >7. I believe that this is a wise and well executed policy. > >8. We need to spend more money to build more roads and more parking as >a main transport priority. > >9. We need to give much more attention and spend more money on "soft >transport" and related life quality initiatives (examples: better support of >pedestrians and cyclists, traffic calming, more public transport, new forms >of shared transport, ITC substitutes for displacement.) > >10. It is possible for people to live here well and easily without having >their own car. > >11. If they want my vote -- all candidates for local public office should >take a firm stand on their transportation policies, and issue as part of >their platform a signed personal statement indicating their support of more >sustainable transport projects and programs. > > > >Your eventual brief comments or suggestions: ____________________________ > >____________________________________________________________________________ >____________________________________________________________________________ >____________________________________________________________________________ >____________________________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > >2. How to execute - Thoughts on > > > >* This maybe is pushing it for length. If it can't be administered >in three minutes, it probably will not do the job. Try it out on a couple of >friends and let us know. > >* There is plenty of evidence that people tend to create and >administrate questionnaires that one way or another tend to elicit their >favored response. We should meticulously avoid doing this, and in our >selection of questions - and people to be queried. If it ain't neutral, it >is not worth a lot. So careful, eh? > >* The simple mental model I have for this is an excel table with >names in columns, etc. All leading to easy sorting and sub-total > >* To have a real impact, it will best be administered at some fixed >time. >As examples: on Earth Day, in cooperation with any local Car Free Days, >European Moblity Week, etc.) > >* The procedures and information should be fully public so that >there can be no charges of rigging the returns. (Expect in Belarusia and >Florida in which it is OK.) > >* Also involve schools, various clubs and groups, senior citizens, >handicapped, pedestrian and cyclist naturally but also take it into >hospitals, prisons, old people's homes, jails, and the homeless. > >* Local media partnerships, and even strong involvement by them, >will be most useful. > >* I would propose that the on-street interviews be carried out on >one day - but that an entire week be given over to the entire procedures. > >* The results should be publicly announced. > >* And then all those in local government should be asked to comment >and give their appreciations of what this means. (Note: Our friends in South >Africa with their first Car Free Days last year did a good job of this which >we might usefully consult) > >* We propose that this be an annual exercise. > >* And that to the extent possible and sensible, we might want to >think about questions and formats that are sufficiently parallel to allow us >to aggregate. > >* BTW, is there or has there ever been anything like this in your >city? Neighborhood? That we can learn from? > > > > > > > > >3. Parallel in-death Survey > > > >It may be a good idea to have a more in depth survey for those people >disposed to spend more time with us on this. > > > >The trick will be to determine who, how, when, - and how used? > > > >Here are a few first thoughts on this to get us going: > > > >* Employment, social status > >* Where live/where work > >* If it were faster and cheaper to get to work or school by some way >other than driving a car (in traffic) would you be willing to consider it? > >* When was the last time you took a bus or rail transit? > >* Used a bike to get to work or school? > >* D you think that it might be a good idea for your city to publish >and maintain a "sustainable transportation webpage" that reports on key >indicators including traffic deaths and incidents (by gravity and type), CO2 >or other clean air indicators, parametric indicators of infrastructure and >performance of NMT options, etc. > >* Would you be willing to work, say, 20 hours over a period of one or >two months. as a volunteer to support better researched specific projects >in your neighborhood. > >* Etc. > >* Etc > >* > > > > > >================================================================ >SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. From Alan.Howes at cbuchanan.co.uk Tue Apr 25 06:24:09 2006 From: Alan.Howes at cbuchanan.co.uk (Alan Howes) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 22:24:09 +0100 Subject: [sustran] India's new National Urban Transport Policy - a few comments References: <011301c667c0$990d3840$a7c8a8c0@finn> Message-ID: <324DCD7680954F468CF306EE5404F001B58280@mail01.cbuchanan.co.uk> Some quick points on this - perhaps people who know India better than I can take them up (Sujit?) (1) It all seems very tentative. It's all "would", and very little "will". No action plans, costs, dates or targets - just mention of pilot projects. (2) Talk about level playing fields for all operators of transport services (under Objectives). Does that mean subsidising buses to the same extent as rail? (3) Para 14 seems to suggest (and para 24 confirms) subsidising capital costs, but not revenue. This favours capital-intensive modes. What it is likely to mean is big subsidies for Big Projects - like Metros and Heavy Rail - while buses (labour -intensive rather than capital-intensive) get very little subsidy. Perhaps an economist can explain why this makes sense - I can't. In the UK this has in the past led to subsidising middle-class train users at the cost of low-wage bus users. I know it's not quite the same in India, but ... (4) In a similar vein, Para 17 says Central Government will offer support under NURM for "premium service infrastructure" for high-quality bus services aimed at attracting discretionary users. Fine. And para 16 says that the "basic" services should have subsidised low fares. But it does NOT say that Central Government will pay this subsidy, and seems to do nothing to solve the current problem of who pays to keep fares down on basic bus services. (5) Para 26 is about para-transit. A most mis-used phrase. I know what it means in North America - what does it mean in India? Jitneys, taxis, auto-rickshaws (autos), illegal minibuses, legal minibuses ...? Enlighten me, someone. If it means autos and taxis, fine. If it does not - these should have a clearly defined role. (6) Segregated rights-of-way for pedestrians and cyclists (para 28) - possibly along the CENTRAL VERGE! I smell a rat. I have a nasty feeling that the highways guys will want to tuck the non-motorised modes out of the way where they don't get in the way of nice shiny cars. What SHOULD be happening is that peds and cyclists (and buses, and autos and taxis in controlled numbers), should get priority in the "High Streets" (what's the Indian equivalent?), while the cars are controlled, restrained, removed or whatever. (7) Parking. Para 35. (What are FAR norms?) The last thing Indian cities need (in CBDs, anyway) is more parking, whether on- or off-street. At least, not without much more widespread charging regimes for on-street, as well as off-street, parking. In general, parking generates traffic. (8) Attachment 1 - merits and demerits of transport systems. Normal buses do not have "Very Low Capacity" - they are typically 15 or more times more efficient than the private car. And why does GoI keep banging on about pollution from buses? OK, buses are more polluting than electric rail (at least at the point of use) - but they are far LESS polluting than cars, taxis, autos etc, which is what counts. Regards, Alan -- Alan Howes Associate Transport Planner Colin Buchanan 4 St Colme Street, Edinburgh, EH3 6AA Tel: +44 131 226 4693 Mobile: +44 7952 464335 email: alan.howes@cbuchanan.co.uk www: http:/www.cbuchanan.co.uk/ ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ DISCLAIMER This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which 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 Colin Buchanan, 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 do not accept liability for any loss or damage caused by software viruses. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 7625 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060424/fc185343/attachment.bin From ciclobrasil at udesc.br Tue Apr 25 07:57:20 2006 From: ciclobrasil at udesc.br (Giselle Xavier) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 19:57:20 -0300 Subject: [sustran] Re: [carfree_network] Critical Mass Budapest In-Reply-To: <001601c66703$44d488e0$9600000a@PASCAL> References: <001601c66703$44d488e0$9600000a@PASCAL> Message-ID: <1145919440.444d57d09fc5f@www.udesc.br> Yes, Congratulations! Luk?cs We will try to "beat you" making a bigger one in S?o Paulo, one day before the CAI LAC Conference!!! BIANNUAL CONFERENCE AND EXHIBIT OF THE CLEAN AIR INITIATIVE FOR LATIN AMERICAN CITIES ON SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT: LINKAGES TO MITIGATE CLIMATE CHANGE AND IMPROVE AIR QUALITY July 24th -27th 2006 -- Sao Paulo, Brazil http://www.cleanairnet.org/lac_en/1415/article-70393.html Save the date for the inaugural public event of the Clean Air Initiative in Latin American Cities for 2006. The main objective of this inaugural conference is to foster sound design, implementation and assessment of Sustainable Transportation programs in Latin American Cities and to highlight the linkages between local air quality concerns and greenhouse gas emissions. regards, giselle UDESC/VIACICLO/SUSTRAN LAC Quoting Pascal van den Noort : > Congratulations! > > Pascal J.W. van den Noort > Executive Director Operations Velo Mondial > Executive Board Velo.Info > +31 (20)6270 675 > +31 (0) 6270 556 88 > www.velomondial.net > www.velo.info > mailto:operations@velomondial.net > Velo Mondial: Winner of the Energy Globe 2005 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Luk?cs Andr?s [mailto:lukacs@levego.hu] > Sent: zaterdag 22 april 2006 22:24 > To: World Carfree Network list > Subject: [carfree_network] Critical Mass Budapest > > Dear all, > > About 32,000 people took part today in the Critical Mass demonstration > in Budapest. This was the biggest cyclist demonstration ever in Hungary. > > Andr?s Luk?cs > > eln?k / President > > Leveg? Munkacsoport / Clean Air Action Group > Budapest, Pf. 1676, HU-1465, Hungary > Iroda/office: 1075 Budapest, K?roly krt. 3/a. > Tel.: +36 1 411-0509, 411-0510 > Fax: +36 1 266-0150 > E-mail: lukacs@levego.hu > levego@levego.hu > http://www.levego.hu > > K?rj?k, t?mogassa a Leveg? Munkacsoport tev?kenys?g?t szem?lyi > j?vedelemad?ja 1%-?val. Ad?sz?munk: 18226254-2-42 > > The Clean Air Action Group, founded in 1988, is a national federation of > 132 Hungarian environmental NGOs. > > A Leveg? Munkacsoport 1988-ban alakult, jelenleg 132 tagszervezete van. > > Legyen ?n is a Leveg? Munkacsoport p?rtol? tagja, jelentkezzen a fenti > c?meken! > > > > [carfree_network] list guidelines and unsubscribe information are found at > http://www.worldcarfree.net/listservs/. Send messages for the entire list > to > carfree_network@lists.riseup.net. Send replies to individuals off-list. > > > > [carfree_network] list guidelines and unsubscribe information are found at > http://www.worldcarfree.net/listservs/. Send messages for the entire list to > carfree_network@lists.riseup.net. Send replies to individuals off-list. -- Giselle Noceti Ammon Xavier Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina - UDESC Rua Paschoal Simone, 358 Florian?polis - SC - BRASIL 88080 350 Fone:+55 48 3480423/91011783 Fax: +55 48 2442178 www.cefid.udesc.br/ciclo e-mail: ciclobrasil@udesc.br ------------------------------------------------- http://www.udesc.br UDESC - Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina (Horde 2.1 / IMP 3.1) From skchang at ntu.edu.tw Tue Apr 25 02:16:49 2006 From: skchang at ntu.edu.tw (S.K. Jason CHANG) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 01:16:49 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: FW: Traffic in India In-Reply-To: <011301c667c0$990d3840$a7c8a8c0@finn> References: <011301c667c0$990d3840$a7c8a8c0@finn> Message-ID: <20060425011649.k6a4cqr96oc4oo88@wmail6.cc.ntu.edu.tw> It is a trade-off of efficiency and safety! Similar driving behaviors and situation in most of Chinese cities, resulting an "official record" of 100,000 more fatalities and 520,000 more injuries annually!! Jason -- ??????? ????? Dr. S.K. Jason CHANG (ZHANG Xue-Kong) Professor, Department of Civil Engineering National Taiwan University Taipei, 10617, Taiwan Visiting Professor Tongji University, Shanghai China voice:+886-935178543 fax:+886-2236369990 skchang@ntu.edu.tw skchang2020@yahoo.com.tw http://ce11012.ce.ntu.edu.tw Quoting Brendan Finn : > Dear Paul, > > Thanks for that link, it really captures it. > > Don't you agree that it just flows? Everyone gets through so much > quicker than if there were traffic signals, and you get no tailbacks. > Of course, it gives the screaming heebie-jeebies to people who must > always have their cutlery properly arranged, creases in their > newspapers, and everything just 'so', but to the people who are in > the thick of it, they're just getting on with it. > > As it happens, I shot a similar video last summer in Urumqi, except > there's also a pedestrian crossing going through it which is freely > used by the cars doing u-turns. I started to video it to show people > how bad the traffic and driving was. After 10 minutes of filming I > realised that it all worked rather well, and felt suitably humbled > about my prejudices. > > With best wishes, > > > Brendan. > _____________________________________________________________________________________ >> From Brendan Finn, ETTS Ltd. e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : >> +353.87.2530286 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Paul Barter > To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport > Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 8:14 AM > Subject: [sustran] FW: Traffic in India > > > A wonderful video clip of an Indian intersection working in ways most > traffic engineers would never imagine in their wildest dreams. If you > have never seen traffic in South Asia then this might come as something > of a shock. > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjrEQaG5jPM > > > > Paul > > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing > countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, > the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. > > From sudhirgota at hotmail.com Tue Apr 25 12:41:13 2006 From: sudhirgota at hotmail.com (sudhir gota) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 03:41:13 +0000 Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 32, Issue 32 In-Reply-To: <20060424134610.508392E98E@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> Message-ID: Dear Sir, Traffic in India (Paul Barter) The video is only the eyeopener, you should just spend some time in India. This video highlights the fact that whatever analysis we are doing in India with respect to Traffic is not at all sufficient. We desperately require fresh ideas and research. Regards Sudhir >From: sustran-discuss-request@list.jca.apc.org >Reply-To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org >To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org >Subject: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 32, Issue 32 >Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 22:46:10 +0900 (JST) > >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..." > > >######################################################################## >Sustran-discuss Mailing List Digest > >About this mailing list see: > http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss >######################################################################## > > > >Today's Topics: > > 1. FW: Traffic in India (Paul Barter) > 2. Re: FW: Traffic in India (Alan Howes) > 3. Re: New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A Proposal > forDiscussion (Walter Hook) > 4. Re: New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A Proposal > forDiscussion (Walter Hook) > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Message: 1 >Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 15:14:18 +0800 >From: "Paul Barter" >Subject: [sustran] FW: Traffic in India >To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" > >Message-ID: > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >A wonderful video clip of an Indian intersection working in ways most >traffic engineers would never imagine in their wildest dreams. If you >have never seen traffic in South Asia then this might come as something >of a shock. > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjrEQaG5jPM > > > >Paul > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 2 >Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 09:16:08 +0100 >From: "Alan Howes" >Subject: [sustran] Re: FW: Traffic in India >To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" > >Message-ID: > <324DCD7680954F468CF306EE5404F001020A90C3@mail01.cbuchanan.co.uk> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >Though I have to say that after my two weeks in Mumbai recently it came >as no surprise. Our driver thought nothing of driving the wrong way >down a contra-flow bus lane (not many of those in Mumbai), veering off >onto the pavement if he happened to meet a bus. I did not think much of >it either! > >Alan > > >-- >Alan Howes >Associate Transport Planner >Colin Buchanan >4 St Colme Street >Edinburgh EH3 6AA >Scotland >email: alan.howes@cbuchanan.co.uk >tel: (0)131 226 4693 (switchboard) > (0)7952 464335 (mobile) >fax: (0)131 220 0232 >www: http:/www.cbuchanan.co.uk/ >_______________________________ > > >-----Original Message----- >From: >sustran-discuss-bounces+alan.howes=cbuchanan.co.uk@list.jca.apc.org >[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+alan.howes=cbuchanan.co.uk@list.jca.apc. >org] On Behalf Of Paul Barter >Sent: 24 April 2006 08:14 >To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport >Subject: [sustran] FW: Traffic in India > >A wonderful video clip of an Indian intersection working in ways most >traffic engineers would never imagine in their wildest dreams. If you >have never seen traffic in South Asia then this might come as something >of a shock. > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjrEQaG5jPM > > > >Paul > > >================================================================ >SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, >equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries >(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus >is on urban transport policy in Asia. > >........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ >DISCLAIMER > >This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended >solely for the use of the individual or entity to which 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 Colin >Buchanan, 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 do not accept liability for any loss or damage caused by >software viruses. > > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 3 >Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 09:44:09 -0400 >From: "Walter Hook" >Subject: [sustran] Re: New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A > Proposal forDiscussion >To: , "'Asia and the Pacific sustainable > transport'" , > , "'Sustran Resource Centre'" > >Cc: CarFreeCafe@yahoogroups.com >Message-ID: <012e01c667a5$2a6eb140$c301a8c0@DFJLYL81> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >Eric, > > > >Paul white and i had a related idea over lunch the other day, and we were >wondering if this has ever been tried. > > > >What if all the property owners and permanent tenants living along a block >of urban street were given the choice by the municipality of whether they >wanted the space in front of their house dedicated to car parking or >sidewalk? How many residents would vote for car parking? It might be >done >something like this. The department of transport could determine the >needed >road capacity, but the parking units would be a function of ultra local >democracy. What if as a result, each permanent resident or registered >voter, or even just each property tax payer, on a city block got to >determine the democratic use of the public space in front of their >property. >Since it is currently most of the time dedicated to parking, at least in >the >US, even if only 10% voted to get rid of the parking, that would be 10% of >the parking units we could reclaim. On my block i would guess that maybe >50% would opt for a wider sidewalk. Then a block association could be free >to contract an architect to redesign the street with that same number of >units of parking. > > > >I am wondering if there are any successful examples of this sort of ultra >local democracy? > > > >Walter > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org >[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf >Of Eric Britton >Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2006 12:34 PM >To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com; Sustran Resource Centre >Cc: CarFreeCafe@yahoogroups.com >Subject: [sustran] New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A Proposal >forDiscussion > > > >New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A Proposal for Discussion > > > >When it comes to creating more viable and fairer transport systems, and >behind that our real objective: more agreeable and more sustainable cities, >we have one recurrent problem that we can perhaps deal with if we put our >heads together. > > > >As is well known, whenever any given 'soft transport', "public space" or >some type of "not quite so many cars" initiative is proposed in any given >place, the first and most striking thing that happens is the howls of >protest that immediately emerge from all those who claim that their >democratic entitlements are being threatened by, as they often like to put >it, some small group of arrogant bike-happy technocrats and their fellow >eco-travelers. And since the media always likes a good cat fight, these >righteous citizens often dominate the news. For the rest, for you and me >and >others like us, hey! we're the Silent Minority. The absolutely >disenfranchised. > > > >Well, it does not always have to be like that and here is one proposal >concerning which I would like to invite discussions and refinement - all as >a prelude to giving this idea a couple of trial runs in one or more >pioneering cities. > > > >The idea is to carry out an annual open citizen survey of attitudes and >preferences concerning transport policy and practice (and the investments >that go with it) in your city. The results should be made widely available >through old and new media, and brought to the fore of the attention of the >politicians, administrators and policy makers in your city. Here without >any >pretense of it being anything other than a grain of sand to get us going is >my draft proposal for content for quick mini-survey that can be >administered >by phone, email or on any street corner by volunteers: > > > >Note to the reader: In a first instance, before digging into the details, I >would like to ask the members of this fine group: (a) is this an idea that >is worth pursuing; (b) are there some (better)examples that we should be >looking at and learning from. Then once we have a feel for this as a useful >activity, we can then start to see how we might together fine tune a good >questionnaire and routine. > > > > > > > > > > > > >1, Draft Mini-survey (for comment and . . . ) > >All questions where appropriate to be answered simply by a 1 (yes), 0 >(don't >know), -or -1 (no), which will facilitate aggregation and overview. > > > >1. Name > >2. City of residence > >3. M/F > >4. Age: <15; 15-30; 30-65; >65 > >5. Do you own/drive a car? > >6. My city government has a coherent, announced transportation policy: > >7. I believe that this is a wise and well executed policy. > >8. We need to spend more money to build more roads and more parking as >a main transport priority. > >9. We need to give much more attention and spend more money on "soft >transport" and related life quality initiatives (examples: better support >of >pedestrians and cyclists, traffic calming, more public transport, new >forms >of shared transport, ITC substitutes for displacement.) > >10. It is possible for people to live here well and easily without having >their own car. > >11. If they want my vote -- all candidates for local public office should >take a firm stand on their transportation policies, and issue as part of >their platform a signed personal statement indicating their support of more >sustainable transport projects and programs. > > > >Your eventual brief comments or suggestions: ____________________________ > >____________________________________________________________________________ >____________________________________________________________________________ >____________________________________________________________________________ >____________________________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > >2. How to execute - Thoughts on > > > >* This maybe is pushing it for length. If it can't be administered >in three minutes, it probably will not do the job. Try it out on a couple >of >friends and let us know. > >* There is plenty of evidence that people tend to create and >administrate questionnaires that one way or another tend to elicit their >favored response. We should meticulously avoid doing this, and in our >selection of questions - and people to be queried. If it ain't neutral, it >is not worth a lot. So careful, eh? > >* The simple mental model I have for this is an excel table with >names in columns, etc. All leading to easy sorting and sub-total > >* To have a real impact, it will best be administered at some fixed >time. >As examples: on Earth Day, in cooperation with any local Car Free Days, >European Moblity Week, etc.) > >* The procedures and information should be fully public so that >there can be no charges of rigging the returns. (Expect in Belarusia and >Florida in which it is OK.) > >* Also involve schools, various clubs and groups, senior citizens, >handicapped, pedestrian and cyclist naturally but also take it into >hospitals, prisons, old people's homes, jails, and the homeless. > >* Local media partnerships, and even strong involvement by them, >will be most useful. > >* I would propose that the on-street interviews be carried out on >one day - but that an entire week be given over to the entire procedures. > >* The results should be publicly announced. > >* And then all those in local government should be asked to comment >and give their appreciations of what this means. (Note: Our friends in >South >Africa with their first Car Free Days last year did a good job of this >which >we might usefully consult) > >* We propose that this be an annual exercise. > >* And that to the extent possible and sensible, we might want to >think about questions and formats that are sufficiently parallel to allow >us >to aggregate. > >* BTW, is there or has there ever been anything like this in your >city? Neighborhood? That we can learn from? > > > > > > > > >3. Parallel in-death Survey > > > >It may be a good idea to have a more in depth survey for those people >disposed to spend more time with us on this. > > > >The trick will be to determine who, how, when, - and how used? > > > >Here are a few first thoughts on this to get us going: > > > >* Employment, social status > >* Where live/where work > >* If it were faster and cheaper to get to work or school by some >way >other than driving a car (in traffic) would you be willing to consider it? > >* When was the last time you took a bus or rail transit? > >* Used a bike to get to work or school? > >* D you think that it might be a good idea for your city to publish >and maintain a "sustainable transportation webpage" that reports on key >indicators including traffic deaths and incidents (by gravity and type), >CO2 >or other clean air indicators, parametric indicators of infrastructure and >performance of NMT options, etc. > >* Would you be willing to work, say, 20 hours over a period of one >or >two months. as a volunteer to support better researched specific projects >in your neighborhood. > >* Etc. > >* Etc > >* > > > >-------------- next part -------------- >An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >URL: >http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060424/7b57686f/attachment.html > >------------------------------ > >Message: 4 >Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 09:44:09 -0400 >From: "Walter Hook" >Subject: [sustran] Re: New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A > Proposal forDiscussion >To: , "'Asia and the Pacific sustainable > transport'" , > , "'Sustran Resource Centre'" > >Cc: CarFreeCafe@yahoogroups.com >Message-ID: <012e01c667a5$2a6eb140$c301a8c0@DFJLYL81> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >Eric, > > > >Paul white and i had a related idea over lunch the other day, and we were >wondering if this has ever been tried. > > > >What if all the property owners and permanent tenants living along a block >of urban street were given the choice by the municipality of whether they >wanted the space in front of their house dedicated to car parking or >sidewalk? How many residents would vote for car parking? It might be >done >something like this. The department of transport could determine the >needed >road capacity, but the parking units would be a function of ultra local >democracy. What if as a result, each permanent resident or registered >voter, or even just each property tax payer, on a city block got to >determine the democratic use of the public space in front of their >property. >Since it is currently most of the time dedicated to parking, at least in >the >US, even if only 10% voted to get rid of the parking, that would be 10% of >the parking units we could reclaim. On my block i would guess that maybe >50% would opt for a wider sidewalk. Then a block association could be free >to contract an architect to redesign the street with that same number of >units of parking. > > > >I am wondering if there are any successful examples of this sort of ultra >local democracy? > > > >Walter > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org >[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf >Of Eric Britton >Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2006 12:34 PM >To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com; Sustran Resource Centre >Cc: CarFreeCafe@yahoogroups.com >Subject: [sustran] New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A Proposal >forDiscussion > > > >New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A Proposal for Discussion > > > >When it comes to creating more viable and fairer transport systems, and >behind that our real objective: more agreeable and more sustainable cities, >we have one recurrent problem that we can perhaps deal with if we put our >heads together. > > > >As is well known, whenever any given 'soft transport', "public space" or >some type of "not quite so many cars" initiative is proposed in any given >place, the first and most striking thing that happens is the howls of >protest that immediately emerge from all those who claim that their >democratic entitlements are being threatened by, as they often like to put >it, some small group of arrogant bike-happy technocrats and their fellow >eco-travelers. And since the media always likes a good cat fight, these >righteous citizens often dominate the news. For the rest, for you and me >and >others like us, hey! we're the Silent Minority. The absolutely >disenfranchised. > > > >Well, it does not always have to be like that and here is one proposal >concerning which I would like to invite discussions and refinement - all as >a prelude to giving this idea a couple of trial runs in one or more >pioneering cities. > > > >The idea is to carry out an annual open citizen survey of attitudes and >preferences concerning transport policy and practice (and the investments >that go with it) in your city. The results should be made widely available >through old and new media, and brought to the fore of the attention of the >politicians, administrators and policy makers in your city. Here without >any >pretense of it being anything other than a grain of sand to get us going is >my draft proposal for content for quick mini-survey that can be >administered >by phone, email or on any street corner by volunteers: > > > >Note to the reader: In a first instance, before digging into the details, I >would like to ask the members of this fine group: (a) is this an idea that >is worth pursuing; (b) are there some (better)examples that we should be >looking at and learning from. Then once we have a feel for this as a useful >activity, we can then start to see how we might together fine tune a good >questionnaire and routine. > > > > > > > > > > > > >1, Draft Mini-survey (for comment and . . . ) > >All questions where appropriate to be answered simply by a 1 (yes), 0 >(don't >know), -or -1 (no), which will facilitate aggregation and overview. > > > >1. Name > >2. City of residence > >3. M/F > >4. Age: <15; 15-30; 30-65; >65 > >5. Do you own/drive a car? > >6. My city government has a coherent, announced transportation policy: > >7. I believe that this is a wise and well executed policy. > >8. We need to spend more money to build more roads and more parking as >a main transport priority. > >9. We need to give much more attention and spend more money on "soft >transport" and related life quality initiatives (examples: better support >of >pedestrians and cyclists, traffic calming, more public transport, new >forms >of shared transport, ITC substitutes for displacement.) > >10. It is possible for people to live here well and easily without having >their own car. > >11. If they want my vote -- all candidates for local public office should >take a firm stand on their transportation policies, and issue as part of >their platform a signed personal statement indicating their support of more >sustainable transport projects and programs. > > > >Your eventual brief comments or suggestions: ____________________________ > >____________________________________________________________________________ >____________________________________________________________________________ >____________________________________________________________________________ >____________________________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > >2. How to execute - Thoughts on > > > >* This maybe is pushing it for length. If it can't be administered >in three minutes, it probably will not do the job. Try it out on a couple >of >friends and let us know. > >* There is plenty of evidence that people tend to create and >administrate questionnaires that one way or another tend to elicit their >favored response. We should meticulously avoid doing this, and in our >selection of questions - and people to be queried. If it ain't neutral, it >is not worth a lot. So careful, eh? > >* The simple mental model I have for this is an excel table with >names in columns, etc. All leading to easy sorting and sub-total > >* To have a real impact, it will best be administered at some fixed >time. >As examples: on Earth Day, in cooperation with any local Car Free Days, >European Moblity Week, etc.) > >* The procedures and information should be fully public so that >there can be no charges of rigging the returns. (Expect in Belarusia and >Florida in which it is OK.) > >* Also involve schools, various clubs and groups, senior citizens, >handicapped, pedestrian and cyclist naturally but also take it into >hospitals, prisons, old people's homes, jails, and the homeless. > >* Local media partnerships, and even strong involvement by them, >will be most useful. > >* I would propose that the on-street interviews be carried out on >one day - but that an entire week be given over to the entire procedures. > >* The results should be publicly announced. > >* And then all those in local government should be asked to comment >and give their appreciations of what this means. (Note: Our friends in >South >Africa with their first Car Free Days last year did a good job of this >which >we might usefully consult) > >* We propose that this be an annual exercise. > >* And that to the extent possible and sensible, we might want to >think about questions and formats that are sufficiently parallel to allow >us >to aggregate. > >* BTW, is there or has there ever been anything like this in your >city? Neighborhood? That we can learn from? > > > > > > > > >3. Parallel in-death Survey > > > >It may be a good idea to have a more in depth survey for those people >disposed to spend more time with us on this. > > > >The trick will be to determine who, how, when, - and how used? > > > >Here are a few first thoughts on this to get us going: > > > >* Employment, social status > >* Where live/where work > >* If it were faster and cheaper to get to work or school by some >way >other than driving a car (in traffic) would you be willing to consider it? > >* When was the last time you took a bus or rail transit? > >* Used a bike to get to work or school? > >* D you think that it might be a good idea for your city to publish >and maintain a "sustainable transportation webpage" that reports on key >indicators including traffic deaths and incidents (by gravity and type), >CO2 >or other clean air indicators, parametric indicators of infrastructure and >performance of NMT options, etc. > >* Would you be willing to work, say, 20 hours over a period of one >or >two months. as a volunteer to support better researched specific projects >in your neighborhood. > >* Etc. > >* Etc > >* > > > >-------------- next part -------------- >An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >URL: >http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060424/7b57686f/attachment-0001.html > >------------------------------ > >================================================================ >SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, >equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries >(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is >on urban transport policy in Asia. > >End of Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 32, Issue 32 >*********************************************** From sujit at vsnl.com Tue Apr 25 15:06:13 2006 From: sujit at vsnl.com (Sujit Patwardhan) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 11:36:13 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 32, Issue 32 In-Reply-To: References: <20060424134610.508392E98E@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> Message-ID: <4cfd20aa0604242306l6ab46d3cudd8f6b1539a855f0@mail.gmail.com> Dear Sudhir, It would have helped if you had elaborated at least to some extent. As an advocacy group (NGO) working on the issue of Urban Traffic and Transportation in Pune since 1998, we too realised quite early that the mainstream thinking, vision and perspective of the decision makers was hopelessly outdated. By presenting data, analysis and through exposure to new and alternative perspectives we have been able to make the authorities "see" this to some extent, but old deeply held beliefs (like superstition) is difficult to dispel through rational arguments alone. So the city administration has embarked on a few good concepts like designing BRT corridors on two or three roads on an "experimental basis", is laying out city-wide bicycle tracks and ensuring adequate footpaths for pedestrians but hasn't given up on the old failed concepts like the flyovers and wider and wider roads!! If this is what you imply by saying: whatever analysis we are doing in India with respect to Traffic is not at all sufficient. We desperately require fresh ideas and research. we agree with you. The video forwarded by Paul shows what the sharply growing number of auto vehicles on the roads is doing to vehicle mobility. Traffic planners with conventional thinking hats will say "See the mess? We need a flyover to relieve the road congestion", when actually the solution would be to get an efficient and reliable public transport in place, that can effectively shift people from personal vehicles to public transport. A flyover will only fuel further demand for personal vehicle use and abstruct the movement of public transport buses. -- Sujit Sujit Patwardhan Parisar/PTTF Pune On 4/25/06, sudhir gota wrote: > > Dear Sir, > > Traffic in India (Paul Barter) > > > The video is only the eyeopener, you should just spend some time in India. > This video highlights the fact that whatever analysis we are doing in > India > with respect to Traffic is not at all sufficient. We desperately require > fresh ideas and research. > > Regards > Sudhir > > >From: sustran-discuss-request@list.jca.apc.org > >Reply-To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org > >To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org > >Subject: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 32, Issue 32 > >Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 22:46:10 +0900 (JST) > > > >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..." > > > > > >######################################################################## > >Sustran-discuss Mailing List Digest > > > >About this mailing list see: > > http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss > >######################################################################## > > > > > > > >Today's Topics: > > > > 1. FW: Traffic in India (Paul Barter) > > 2. Re: FW: Traffic in India (Alan Howes) > > 3. Re: New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A Proposal > > forDiscussion (Walter Hook) > > 4. Re: New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A Proposal > > forDiscussion (Walter Hook) > > > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >Message: 1 > >Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 15:14:18 +0800 > >From: "Paul Barter" > >Subject: [sustran] FW: Traffic in India > >To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" > > > >Message-ID: > > > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > >A wonderful video clip of an Indian intersection working in ways most > >traffic engineers would never imagine in their wildest dreams. If you > >have never seen traffic in South Asia then this might come as something > >of a shock. > > > > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjrEQaG5jPM > > > > > > >Paul > > > > > >------------------------------ > > > >Message: 2 > >Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 09:16:08 +0100 > >From: "Alan Howes" > >Subject: [sustran] Re: FW: Traffic in India > >To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" > > > >Message-ID: > > <324DCD7680954F468CF306EE5404F001020A90C3@mail01.cbuchanan.co.uk> > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > >Though I have to say that after my two weeks in Mumbai recently it came > >as no surprise. Our driver thought nothing of driving the wrong way > >down a contra-flow bus lane (not many of those in Mumbai), veering off > >onto the pavement if he happened to meet a bus. I did not think much of > >it either! > > > >Alan > > > > > >-- > >Alan Howes > >Associate Transport Planner > >Colin Buchanan > >4 St Colme Street > >Edinburgh EH3 6AA > >Scotland > >email: alan.howes@cbuchanan.co.uk > >tel: (0)131 226 4693 (switchboard) > > (0)7952 464335 (mobile) > >fax: (0)131 220 0232 > >www: http:/www.cbuchanan.co.uk/ > >_______________________________ > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: > >sustran-discuss-bounces+alan.howes=cbuchanan.co.uk@list.jca.apc.org > >[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+alan.howes=cbuchanan.co.uk@list.jca.apc. > >org] On Behalf Of Paul Barter > >Sent: 24 April 2006 08:14 > >To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport > >Subject: [sustran] FW: Traffic in India > > > >A wonderful video clip of an Indian intersection working in ways most > >traffic engineers would never imagine in their wildest dreams. If you > >have never seen traffic in South Asia then this might come as something > >of a shock. > > > > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjrEQaG5jPM > > > > > > >Paul > > > > > >================================================================ > >SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > >equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries > >(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus > >is on urban transport policy in Asia. > > > > >........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ > >DISCLAIMER > > > >This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and > intended > >solely for the use of the individual or entity to which 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 > Colin > >Buchanan, 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 do not accept liability for any loss or damage caused by > >software viruses. > > > > > > > > > >------------------------------ > > > >Message: 3 > >Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 09:44:09 -0400 > >From: "Walter Hook" > >Subject: [sustran] Re: New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A > > Proposal forDiscussion > >To: , "'Asia and the Pacific sustainable > > transport'" , > > , "'Sustran Resource > Centre'" > > > >Cc: CarFreeCafe@yahoogroups.com > >Message-ID: <012e01c667a5$2a6eb140$c301a8c0@DFJLYL81> > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > >Eric, > > > > > > > >Paul white and i had a related idea over lunch the other day, and we were > >wondering if this has ever been tried. > > > > > > > >What if all the property owners and permanent tenants living along a > block > >of urban street were given the choice by the municipality of whether they > >wanted the space in front of their house dedicated to car parking or > >sidewalk? How many residents would vote for car parking? It might be > >done > >something like this. The department of transport could determine the > >needed > >road capacity, but the parking units would be a function of ultra local > >democracy. What if as a result, each permanent resident or registered > >voter, or even just each property tax payer, on a city block got to > >determine the democratic use of the public space in front of their > >property. > >Since it is currently most of the time dedicated to parking, at least in > >the > >US, even if only 10% voted to get rid of the parking, that would be 10% > of > >the parking units we could reclaim. On my block i would guess that maybe > >50% would opt for a wider sidewalk. Then a block association could be > free > >to contract an architect to redesign the street with that same number of > >units of parking. > > > > > > > >I am wondering if there are any successful examples of this sort of ultra > >local democracy? > > > > > > > >Walter > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org > >[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On > Behalf > >Of Eric Britton > >Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2006 12:34 PM > >To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com; Sustran Resource Centre > >Cc: CarFreeCafe@yahoogroups.com > >Subject: [sustran] New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A Proposal > >forDiscussion > > > > > > > >New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A Proposal for Discussion > > > > > > > >When it comes to creating more viable and fairer transport systems, and > >behind that our real objective: more agreeable and more sustainable > cities, > >we have one recurrent problem that we can perhaps deal with if we put our > >heads together. > > > > > > > >As is well known, whenever any given 'soft transport', "public space" or > >some type of "not quite so many cars" initiative is proposed in any given > >place, the first and most striking thing that happens is the howls of > >protest that immediately emerge from all those who claim that their > >democratic entitlements are being threatened by, as they often like to > put > >it, some small group of arrogant bike-happy technocrats and their fellow > >eco-travelers. And since the media always likes a good cat fight, these > >righteous citizens often dominate the news. For the rest, for you and me > >and > >others like us, hey! we're the Silent Minority. The absolutely > >disenfranchised. > > > > > > > >Well, it does not always have to be like that and here is one proposal > >concerning which I would like to invite discussions and refinement - all > as > >a prelude to giving this idea a couple of trial runs in one or more > >pioneering cities. > > > > > > > >The idea is to carry out an annual open citizen survey of attitudes and > >preferences concerning transport policy and practice (and the investments > >that go with it) in your city. The results should be made widely > available > >through old and new media, and brought to the fore of the attention of > the > >politicians, administrators and policy makers in your city. Here without > >any > >pretense of it being anything other than a grain of sand to get us going > is > >my draft proposal for content for quick mini-survey that can be > >administered > >by phone, email or on any street corner by volunteers: > > > > > > > >Note to the reader: In a first instance, before digging into the details, > I > >would like to ask the members of this fine group: (a) is this an idea > that > >is worth pursuing; (b) are there some (better)examples that we should be > >looking at and learning from. Then once we have a feel for this as a > useful > >activity, we can then start to see how we might together fine tune a good > >questionnaire and routine. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >1, Draft Mini-survey (for comment and . . . ) > > > >All questions where appropriate to be answered simply by a 1 (yes), 0 > >(don't > >know), -or -1 (no), which will facilitate aggregation and overview. > > > > > > > >1. Name > > > >2. City of residence > > > >3. M/F > > > >4. Age: <15; 15-30; 30-65; >65 > > > >5. Do you own/drive a car? > > > >6. My city government has a coherent, announced transportation > policy: > > > >7. I believe that this is a wise and well executed policy. > > > >8. We need to spend more money to build more roads and more parking > as > >a main transport priority. > > > >9. We need to give much more attention and spend more money on "soft > >transport" and related life quality initiatives (examples: better support > >of > >pedestrians and cyclists, traffic calming, more public transport, new > >forms > >of shared transport, ITC substitutes for displacement.) > > > >10. It is possible for people to live here well and easily without > having > >their own car. > > > >11. If they want my vote -- all candidates for local public office > should > >take a firm stand on their transportation policies, and issue as part of > >their platform a signed personal statement indicating their support of > more > >sustainable transport projects and programs. > > > > > > > >Your eventual brief comments or suggestions: ____________________________ > > > > >____________________________________________________________________________ > > >____________________________________________________________________________ > > >____________________________________________________________________________ > >____________________________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >2. How to execute - Thoughts on > > > > > > > >* This maybe is pushing it for length. If it can't be > administered > >in three minutes, it probably will not do the job. Try it out on a couple > >of > >friends and let us know. > > > >* There is plenty of evidence that people tend to create and > >administrate questionnaires that one way or another tend to elicit their > >favored response. We should meticulously avoid doing this, and in our > >selection of questions - and people to be queried. If it ain't neutral, > it > >is not worth a lot. So careful, eh? > > > >* The simple mental model I have for this is an excel table with > >names in columns, etc. All leading to easy sorting and sub-total > > > >* To have a real impact, it will best be administered at some > fixed > >time. > >As examples: on Earth Day, in cooperation with any local Car Free Days, > >European Moblity Week, etc.) > > > >* The procedures and information should be fully public so that > >there can be no charges of rigging the returns. (Expect in Belarusia and > >Florida in which it is OK.) > > > >* Also involve schools, various clubs and groups, senior > citizens, > >handicapped, pedestrian and cyclist naturally but also take it into > >hospitals, prisons, old people's homes, jails, and the homeless. > > > >* Local media partnerships, and even strong involvement by them, > >will be most useful. > > > >* I would propose that the on-street interviews be carried out on > >one day - but that an entire week be given over to the entire procedures. > > > >* The results should be publicly announced. > > > >* And then all those in local government should be asked to > comment > >and give their appreciations of what this means. (Note: Our friends in > >South > >Africa with their first Car Free Days last year did a good job of this > >which > >we might usefully consult) > > > >* We propose that this be an annual exercise. > > > >* And that to the extent possible and sensible, we might want to > >think about questions and formats that are sufficiently parallel to allow > >us > >to aggregate. > > > >* BTW, is there or has there ever been anything like this in your > >city? Neighborhood? That we can learn from? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >3. Parallel in-death Survey > > > > > > > >It may be a good idea to have a more in depth survey for those people > >disposed to spend more time with us on this. > > > > > > > >The trick will be to determine who, how, when, - and how used? > > > > > > > >Here are a few first thoughts on this to get us going: > > > > > > > >* Employment, social status > > > >* Where live/where work > > > >* If it were faster and cheaper to get to work or school by some > >way > >other than driving a car (in traffic) would you be willing to consider > it? > > > >* When was the last time you took a bus or rail transit? > > > >* Used a bike to get to work or school? > > > >* D you think that it might be a good idea for your city to > publish > >and maintain a "sustainable transportation webpage" that reports on key > >indicators including traffic deaths and incidents (by gravity and type), > >CO2 > >or other clean air indicators, parametric indicators of infrastructure > and > >performance of NMT options, etc. > > > >* Would you be willing to work, say, 20 hours over a period of one > >or > >two months. as a volunteer to support better researched specific > projects > >in your neighborhood. > > > >* Etc. > > > >* Etc > > > >* > > > > > > > >-------------- next part -------------- > >An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > >URL: > > > http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060424/7b57686f/attachment.html > > > >------------------------------ > > > >Message: 4 > >Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 09:44:09 -0400 > >From: "Walter Hook" > >Subject: [sustran] Re: New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A > > Proposal forDiscussion > >To: , "'Asia and the Pacific sustainable > > transport'" , > > , "'Sustran Resource > Centre'" > > > >Cc: CarFreeCafe@yahoogroups.com > >Message-ID: <012e01c667a5$2a6eb140$c301a8c0@DFJLYL81> > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > >Eric, > > > > > > > >Paul white and i had a related idea over lunch the other day, and we were > >wondering if this has ever been tried. > > > > > > > >What if all the property owners and permanent tenants living along a > block > >of urban street were given the choice by the municipality of whether they > >wanted the space in front of their house dedicated to car parking or > >sidewalk? How many residents would vote for car parking? It might be > >done > >something like this. The department of transport could determine the > >needed > >road capacity, but the parking units would be a function of ultra local > >democracy. What if as a result, each permanent resident or registered > >voter, or even just each property tax payer, on a city block got to > >determine the democratic use of the public space in front of their > >property. > >Since it is currently most of the time dedicated to parking, at least in > >the > >US, even if only 10% voted to get rid of the parking, that would be 10% > of > >the parking units we could reclaim. On my block i would guess that maybe > >50% would opt for a wider sidewalk. Then a block association could be > free > >to contract an architect to redesign the street with that same number of > >units of parking. > > > > > > > >I am wondering if there are any successful examples of this sort of ultra > >local democracy? > > > > > > > >Walter > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org > >[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On > Behalf > >Of Eric Britton > >Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2006 12:34 PM > >To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com; Sustran Resource Centre > >Cc: CarFreeCafe@yahoogroups.com > >Subject: [sustran] New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A Proposal > >forDiscussion > > > > > > > >New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A Proposal for Discussion > > > > > > > >When it comes to creating more viable and fairer transport systems, and > >behind that our real objective: more agreeable and more sustainable > cities, > >we have one recurrent problem that we can perhaps deal with if we put our > >heads together. > > > > > > > >As is well known, whenever any given 'soft transport', "public space" or > >some type of "not quite so many cars" initiative is proposed in any given > >place, the first and most striking thing that happens is the howls of > >protest that immediately emerge from all those who claim that their > >democratic entitlements are being threatened by, as they often like to > put > >it, some small group of arrogant bike-happy technocrats and their fellow > >eco-travelers. And since the media always likes a good cat fight, these > >righteous citizens often dominate the news. For the rest, for you and me > >and > >others like us, hey! we're the Silent Minority. The absolutely > >disenfranchised. > > > > > > > >Well, it does not always have to be like that and here is one proposal > >concerning which I would like to invite discussions and refinement - all > as > >a prelude to giving this idea a couple of trial runs in one or more > >pioneering cities. > > > > > > > >The idea is to carry out an annual open citizen survey of attitudes and > >preferences concerning transport policy and practice (and the investments > >that go with it) in your city. The results should be made widely > available > >through old and new media, and brought to the fore of the attention of > the > >politicians, administrators and policy makers in your city. Here without > >any > >pretense of it being anything other than a grain of sand to get us going > is > >my draft proposal for content for quick mini-survey that can be > >administered > >by phone, email or on any street corner by volunteers: > > > > > > > >Note to the reader: In a first instance, before digging into the details, > I > >would like to ask the members of this fine group: (a) is this an idea > that > >is worth pursuing; (b) are there some (better)examples that we should be > >looking at and learning from. Then once we have a feel for this as a > useful > >activity, we can then start to see how we might together fine tune a good > >questionnaire and routine. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >1, Draft Mini-survey (for comment and . . . ) > > > >All questions where appropriate to be answered simply by a 1 (yes), 0 > >(don't > >know), -or -1 (no), which will facilitate aggregation and overview. > > > > > > > >1. Name > > > >2. City of residence > > > >3. M/F > > > >4. Age: <15; 15-30; 30-65; >65 > > > >5. Do you own/drive a car? > > > >6. My city government has a coherent, announced transportation > policy: > > > >7. I believe that this is a wise and well executed policy. > > > >8. We need to spend more money to build more roads and more parking > as > >a main transport priority. > > > >9. We need to give much more attention and spend more money on "soft > >transport" and related life quality initiatives (examples: better support > >of > >pedestrians and cyclists, traffic calming, more public transport, new > >forms > >of shared transport, ITC substitutes for displacement.) > > > >10. It is possible for people to live here well and easily without > having > >their own car. > > > >11. If they want my vote -- all candidates for local public office > should > >take a firm stand on their transportation policies, and issue as part of > >their platform a signed personal statement indicating their support of > more > >sustainable transport projects and programs. > > > > > > > >Your eventual brief comments or suggestions: ____________________________ > > > > >____________________________________________________________________________ > > >____________________________________________________________________________ > > >____________________________________________________________________________ > >____________________________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >2. How to execute - Thoughts on > > > > > > > >* This maybe is pushing it for length. If it can't be > administered > >in three minutes, it probably will not do the job. Try it out on a couple > >of > >friends and let us know. > > > >* There is plenty of evidence that people tend to create and > >administrate questionnaires that one way or another tend to elicit their > >favored response. We should meticulously avoid doing this, and in our > >selection of questions - and people to be queried. If it ain't neutral, > it > >is not worth a lot. So careful, eh? > > > >* The simple mental model I have for this is an excel table with > >names in columns, etc. All leading to easy sorting and sub-total > > > >* To have a real impact, it will best be administered at some > fixed > >time. > >As examples: on Earth Day, in cooperation with any local Car Free Days, > >European Moblity Week, etc.) > > > >* The procedures and information should be fully public so that > >there can be no charges of rigging the returns. (Expect in Belarusia and > >Florida in which it is OK.) > > > >* Also involve schools, various clubs and groups, senior > citizens, > >handicapped, pedestrian and cyclist naturally but also take it into > >hospitals, prisons, old people's homes, jails, and the homeless. > > > >* Local media partnerships, and even strong involvement by them, > >will be most useful. > > > >* I would propose that the on-street interviews be carried out on > >one day - but that an entire week be given over to the entire procedures. > > > >* The results should be publicly announced. > > > >* And then all those in local government should be asked to > comment > >and give their appreciations of what this means. (Note: Our friends in > >South > >Africa with their first Car Free Days last year did a good job of this > >which > >we might usefully consult) > > > >* We propose that this be an annual exercise. > > > >* And that to the extent possible and sensible, we might want to > >think about questions and formats that are sufficiently parallel to allow > >us > >to aggregate. > > > >* BTW, is there or has there ever been anything like this in your > >city? Neighborhood? That we can learn from? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >3. Parallel in-death Survey > > > > > > > >It may be a good idea to have a more in depth survey for those people > >disposed to spend more time with us on this. > > > > > > > >The trick will be to determine who, how, when, - and how used? > > > > > > > >Here are a few first thoughts on this to get us going: > > > > > > > >* Employment, social status > > > >* Where live/where work > > > >* If it were faster and cheaper to get to work or school by some > >way > >other than driving a car (in traffic) would you be willing to consider > it? > > > >* When was the last time you took a bus or rail transit? > > > >* Used a bike to get to work or school? > > > >* D you think that it might be a good idea for your city to > publish > >and maintain a "sustainable transportation webpage" that reports on key > >indicators including traffic deaths and incidents (by gravity and type), > >CO2 > >or other clean air indicators, parametric indicators of infrastructure > and > >performance of NMT options, etc. > > > >* Would you be willing to work, say, 20 hours over a period of one > >or > >two months. as a volunteer to support better researched specific > projects > >in your neighborhood. > > > >* Etc. > > > >* Etc > > > >* > > > > > > > >-------------- next part -------------- > >An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > >URL: > > > http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060424/7b57686f/attachment-0001.html > > > >------------------------------ > > > >================================================================ > >SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > >equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries > >(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus > is > >on urban transport policy in Asia. > > > >End of Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 32, Issue 32 > >*********************************************** > > > > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries > (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is > on urban transport policy in Asia. > -- ------------------------------------------------------ Sujit Patwardhan sujit@vsnl.com sujitjp@gmail.com "Yamuna", ICS Colony, Ganeshkhind Road, Pune 411 007 India Tel: 25537955 ----------------------------------------------------- Hon. Secretary: Parisar www.parisar.org ------------------------------------------------------ Founder Member: PTTF (Pune Traffic & Transportation Forum) www.pttf.net ------------------------------------------------------ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060425/5783fe5b/attachment-0001.html From edelman at greenidea.info Tue Apr 25 15:31:42 2006 From: edelman at greenidea.info (Todd Edelman) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 08:31:42 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [sustran] Re: More about on-street parking In-Reply-To: <1946552.1145913279175.JavaMail.root@elwamui-ovcar.atl.sa.earthlink.ne t> References: <1946552.1145913279175.JavaMail.root@elwamui-ovcar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <1093.62.245.95.24.1145946702.squirrel@mail.smartweb.cz> Hi, I suppose I could admit I am a "carfree fundamentalist" who sees nothing sustainable about cities which allow individually owned and operated cars inside....so I will just mostly ignore this "better car parking" stuff. So just comment: > ... > on-street parking can act as a buffer between pedestrians and a busy > arterial. I have heard this argument before. Arent there better buffers? For example, trees, plants, bikelanes, watercourses, sculptures, vending machines, and so on? In carcities, how about if it was a rule that if you are so close to pedestrians you simply have to drive really, really slow? This is not rocket science. --- This list really confuses me sometimes. Do people want to spend their whole professional lives (and afterwards) regulating parking and trying to get cars to slow down? How many people on this would be perfectly happy to not be able to use a car if their city was designed to provide everything you need without one? To reference a recent thread on this list, are people ready to sacrifice sustainability(!) for peace, quiet, safety and proximity? Thanks, T ------------------------------------------------------ Todd Edelman International Coordinator On the Train Towards the Future! Green Idea Factory Laubova 5 CZ-13000 Praha 3 ++420 605 915 970 edelman@greenidea.info http://www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain Green Idea Factory, a member of World Carfree Network From paulbarter at nus.edu.sg Tue Apr 25 17:22:28 2006 From: paulbarter at nus.edu.sg (Paul Barter) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 16:22:28 +0800 Subject: [sustran] When replying to the digest version, please change subject line and please don't quote whole digest Message-ID: I need to put on my hat of list manager for a moment to offer a little tip to keep things working smoothly. This is not a reprimand! - just a friendly reminder to make things easier for everyone. Replying to the list when you are getting the digest version requires some extra work to avoid confusing everyone with meaningless subject lines and with very long chunks of quoted material. Please when replying to the digest version of the list (or when replyin to such a reply): 1. do not leave the message subject as re: sustran-discuss Digest, etc. Instead change the subject line to a meaningful one (for example, by cutting and pasting the subject line of the actual message that you are replying to) 2. do not include the whole digest in your reply. Delete all of it except maybe just the part that you are really responding to. I hope these little admin reminders will not put anyone off from participating. Many thanks to all the active participants for enriching the discussions of the list. All the best Paul -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060425/fb83d742/attachment.html From carlos.pardo at sutp.org Tue Apr 25 21:15:51 2006 From: carlos.pardo at sutp.org (Carlos F. Pardo SUTP) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 07:15:51 -0500 Subject: [sustran] RV: New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A Proposal forDiscussion Message-ID: <200604251215.k3PCFmga023599@ns-omrbm4.netsolmail.com> This post below was sent to sustran but rejected due to file size. I have edited it and sent it again. Carlos F. Pardo ________________________________________ De: Carlos F. Pardo SUTP [mailto:carlos.pardo@sutp.org] Enviado el: Domingo, 23 de Abril de 2006 11:42 a.m. Para: 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport'; Asunto: RE: [sustran] New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A Proposal forDiscussion The idea is cool, and the first step could be to see if some cities already have some data (in order to answer Eric?s question about ?what has been done?). A local (non-governmental) survey called Bogot? Como Vamos has interesting info, including the attitudes towards some aspects of mobility (in Spanish, however). The complete results are available from http://www.bogotacomovamos.org/bogotacv/scripts/ComoVa.php?men=5&con=18 In Bogot? there are also results from the Urban Mobility Observatory and the National Census, which I do not have here with me. But I guess we could wait and see if other cities have this information readily available. I know that Lima also did focus groups towards bicycle use (available from www.fonamperu.org ) and I helped develop focus groups for Mexico- but I never new if they were implemented by CTS-Embarq. Any other information like this would be very useful (I?ve described this briefly in the chapter on ?knowing the population? in the module about public awareness from www.sutp.org/download/ which is being expanded in the training course in Spanish). The answers to the typical questions (such as the ones attached) could help to have an overview of what the population thinks about one or another topic in transport, and continue by doing interventions such as the one described by Walter. Best regards, Carlos F. Pardo ________________________________________ De: sustran-discuss-bounces+carlos.pardo=sutp.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+carlos.pardo=sutp.org@list.jca.apc.org] En nombre de Eric Britton Enviado el: Domingo, 23 de Abril de 2006 11:34 a.m. Para: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com; Sustran Resource Centre CC: CarFreeCafe@yahoogroups.com Asunto: [sustran] New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A Proposal forDiscussion New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City? A Proposal for Discussion ? When it comes to creating more viable and fairer transport systems, and behind that our real objective: more agreeable and more sustainable cities, we have one recurrent problem that we can perhaps deal with if we put our heads together. ? As is well known, whenever any given ?soft transport?, ?public space? or some type of ?not quite so many cars? initiative is proposed in any given place, the first and most striking thing that happens is the howls of protest that immediately emerge from ?all those who claim that their democratic entitlements are being threatened by, as they often like to put it, some small group of arrogant bike-happy? technocrats and their fellow eco-travelers. And since the media always likes a good cat fight, these righteous citizens often dominate the news. For the rest, for you and me and others like us, hey! we?re the Silent Minority.? The absolutely disenfranchised. ? Well, it does not always have to be like that and here is one proposal concerning which I would like to invite discussions and refinement ? all as a prelude to giving this idea a couple of trial runs in one or more pioneering cities. ? The idea is to carry out an annual open citizen survey of attitudes and preferences concerning transport policy and practice (and the investments that go with it) in your city.? The results should be made widely available through old and new media, and brought to the fore of the attention of the politicians, administrators and policy makers in your city. Here without any pretense of it being anything other than a grain of sand to get us going is my draft proposal for content for quick mini-survey that can be administered by phone, email or on any street corner by volunteers: ? Note to the reader: In a first instance, before digging into the details, I would like to ask the members of this fine group: (a) is this an idea that is worth pursuing; (b) are there some (better)examples that we should be looking at and learning from. Then once we have a feel for this as a useful activity, we can then start to see how we might together fine tune a good questionnaire and routine. ? ? ? 1, Draft Mini-survey (for comment and . . . )? All questions where appropriate to be answered simply by a 1 (yes), 0 (don?t know), -or -1 (no), which will facilitate aggregation and overview. ? 1. Name 2. City of residence 3. M/F 4. Age: <15; 15-30; 30-65; >65 5. Do you own/drive a car? 6. My city government has a coherent, announced transportation policy: 7. I believe that this is a wise and well executed policy. 8. We need to spend more money to build more roads and more parking as a main transport priority. 9. We need to give much more attention and spend more money on ?soft transport? and related life quality initiatives (examples: better support of pedestrians and cyclists, traffic calming, ?more public transport, new forms of shared transport, ITC substitutes for displacement.) 10. It is possible for people to live here well and easily without having their own car. 11. If they want my vote -- all candidates for local public office should take a firm stand on their transportation policies, and issue as part of their platform a signed personal statement indicating their support of more sustainable ?transport ?projects and programs. ? Your eventual brief comments or suggestions: ____________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ? ? ? 2. How to execute ? Thoughts on ? ? This maybe is pushing it for length. If it can?t be administered in three minutes, it probably will not do the job. Try it out on a couple of friends and let us know. ? There is plenty of evidence that people tend to create and administrate questionnaires that one way or another tend to elicit their favored response. We should meticulously ?avoid doing this, and in our selection of questions ? and people to be queried. If it ain?t neutral, it is not worth a lot. So careful, eh? ? The simple mental model I have for this is an excel table with names in columns, etc. All leading to easy sorting and sub-total ? To have a real impact, it will best be administered at some fixed time. As examples: on Earth Day, in cooperation with any local Car Free Days, European Moblity Week, etc.) ? The procedures and information should be fully public so that there can be no charges of rigging the returns.? (Expect in Belarusia and Florida in which it is OK.) ? Also involve schools, various clubs and groups, senior citizens, handicapped, pedestrian and cyclist naturally but also take it into hospitals, prisons, old people?s homes, jails, and the homeless. ? Local media partnerships, and even strong involvement by them, will be most useful. ? I would propose that the on-street interviews be carried out on one day ? but that an entire week be given over to the entire procedures. ? The results should be publicly announced. ? And then all those in local government should be asked to comment and give their appreciations of what this means. (Note: Our friends in South Africa with their first Car Free Days last year did a good job of this which we might usefully consult) ? We propose that this be an annual exercise. ? And that to the extent possible and sensible, we might want to think about questions and formats that are sufficiently parallel to allow us to aggregate. ? BTW, is there or has there ever been anything like this in your city? Neighborhood? That we can learn from? ? ? 3. Parallel in-death Survey ? It may be a good idea to have a more in depth survey for those people disposed to spend more time with us on this. ? The trick will be to determine who, how, when,? - and how used? ? Here are a few first thoughts on this to get us going: ? ? Employment, social status ? Where live/where work ? If it were faster and cheaper to get to work or school by some way other than driving a car (in traffic) would you be willing to consider it? ? When was the last time you took a bus or rail transit? ? Used a bike to get to work or school? ???????? D you think that it might be a good idea for your city to publish and maintain a ?sustainable transportation webpage? that reports on key indicators including traffic deaths and incidents (by gravity and type), CO2 or other clean air indicators, parametric indicators of infrastructure and performance of NMT options, etc. ???????? Would you be willing to work, say, 20 hours over a period of one or two months.? as a volunteer to support better researched specific projects in your neighborhood. ???????? Etc. ???????? Etc ???????? ? ? From whook at itdp.org Tue Apr 25 23:11:47 2006 From: whook at itdp.org (Walter Hook) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 10:11:47 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: FW: Traffic in India In-Reply-To: <20060425011649.k6a4cqr96oc4oo88@wmail6.cc.ntu.edu.tw> Message-ID: <010e01c66872$31316900$c301a8c0@DFJLYL81> I agree with those who say this video should be viewed with a bit of care. I would be loath to make too many assumptions about the safety of the intersection or its capacity and flow characteristics without more careful study. For now the main problem is the lack of decent pedestrian refuge islands, a built out median, some clear indication that pedestrians belong in the space. This would not be solved by signalzing the intersection, and the situation might be made worse by increasing traffic speeds and providing no clear time for pedestrians to cross anyway. The traffic flow is not really the main safety issue, I think. Most of the victims on Indian and Chinese roads are pedestrians, like 60% as i recall, and most of the accidents are not at intersections such as these but mid block on higher speed arterials, particularly where intercity highways enter denser urban areas, and at bus stops. The traffic is flowing ok, and at modest speeds, at least at this volume of traffic. If it gets higher maybe it will logjam and require signalization. I agree that the problem here, at least at this level of traffic flow, is not the lack of a traffic signal. -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of S.K. Jason CHANG Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 1:17 PM To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org Subject: [sustran] Re: FW: Traffic in India It is a trade-off of efficiency and safety! Similar driving behaviors and situation in most of Chinese cities, resulting an "official record" of 100,000 more fatalities and 520,000 more injuries annually!! Jason -- ??????? ????? Dr. S.K. Jason CHANG (ZHANG Xue-Kong) Professor, Department of Civil Engineering National Taiwan University Taipei, 10617, Taiwan Visiting Professor Tongji University, Shanghai China voice:+886-935178543 fax:+886-2236369990 skchang@ntu.edu.tw skchang2020@yahoo.com.tw http://ce11012.ce.ntu.edu.tw Quoting Brendan Finn : > Dear Paul, > > Thanks for that link, it really captures it. > > Don't you agree that it just flows? Everyone gets through so much > quicker than if there were traffic signals, and you get no tailbacks. > Of course, it gives the screaming heebie-jeebies to people who must > always have their cutlery properly arranged, creases in their > newspapers, and everything just 'so', but to the people who are in > the thick of it, they're just getting on with it. > > As it happens, I shot a similar video last summer in Urumqi, except > there's also a pedestrian crossing going through it which is freely > used by the cars doing u-turns. I started to video it to show people > how bad the traffic and driving was. After 10 minutes of filming I > realised that it all worked rather well, and felt suitably humbled > about my prejudices. > > With best wishes, > > > Brendan. > ____________________________________________________________________________ _________ >> From Brendan Finn, ETTS Ltd. e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : >> +353.87.2530286 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Paul Barter > To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport > Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 8:14 AM > Subject: [sustran] FW: Traffic in India > > > A wonderful video clip of an Indian intersection working in ways most > traffic engineers would never imagine in their wildest dreams. If you > have never seen traffic in South Asia then this might come as something > of a shock. > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjrEQaG5jPM > > > > Paul > > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing > countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, > the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. > > ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. From whook at itdp.org Tue Apr 25 23:34:22 2006 From: whook at itdp.org (Walter Hook) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 10:34:22 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: More about on-street parking In-Reply-To: <1093.62.245.95.24.1145946702.squirrel@mail.smartweb.cz> Message-ID: <011101c66875$58801850$c301a8c0@DFJLYL81> Not sure my earlier response on this went through, cause it didn't come back to me. Just wanted to add that I was surprised by the comments in support of on-street parking from the likes of Todd and Eric and Eric. I thought we would be more on the same page on this. Eric B's support for on street parking, that it is ugly and therefore will ultimately one day lead to citizen awareness, does not appear to be borne out by the facts. Streets in most cities have been clogged with ugly, undercharged parked cars since the 20s, and it has not led to any consciousness raising: people just don't see anything wrong with it because it is just normal to them. We need some beautifully redesigned streets to show neighborhoods that they don't have to live on ugly streets. Once people see a better option, perhaps everyone would be clamoring for it. That is what is happening in china with pedestrian zones. Now every district government wants one, to the delightful consternation of the traffic engineers. Should we be encouraging congestion and on street parking in the hopes it will one day lead to a sustainable mobility revolution? That is like rejecting safe working conditions and the minimum wage because it ameliorates the chances of some dreamed for utopian revolution. Was also surprised to hear Todd all of a sudden the voice of parking efficiency, and Eric supporting parking as a buffer for pedestrians. I mean, if it's a buffer we're after, surely flowers are better. If folks are not familiar with the work of Prof. Hermann Knoflacher of the Univ. of Vienna, i recommend it. He makes a compelling argument that on street parking is THE central problem with western traffic systems. He goes so far as to say that if we dealt with the parking issue, we wouldn't need congestion charging. Maybe. He argues that total travel times are biased in favor of private car modes over transit modes largely because society allows people to park their cars right in front of their houses and right adjacent to their offices, while the nearest bus stop is likely to be some distance away. Because the walking trip is taken at very slow speeds, and this has to be added to the waiting time for the bus, the total trip time is therefore significantly biased against the transit trip. Therefore, on street parking has several significant dis-benefits: one, it biases modal choice towards private car use, two it consumes public space that otherwise could be used for children to play, people to sit and play dominoes, walk, etc. In addition, on street parking is generally badly underpriced in terms of land rent, subsidizing driving. In addition, car parking if removed would also provide the space for a bike lane that could be physically protected from traffic, although on a residential street the bike lane isn't necessary if you can traffic calm the whole street. Is KNoflacher for off-street parking? I tried to nail him down on this. What I think he said was, if you can get rid of the parking without adding off street parking, that is the best. If you need to make a political compromise, better to go for off street parking that is located on the major arterials with no direct access from the residential streets. This creates then the conditions for no needed motor vehicle traffic on residential streets except delivery access, and hence creates conditions where the streets could be dramatically redesigned for children, public space, etc. I asked him if there were concrete examples of where this had been done, he said there were some in Vienna but was a little vague... Best Walter Best Walter -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Todd Edelman Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 2:32 AM To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport Subject: [sustran] Re: More about on-street parking Hi, I suppose I could admit I am a "carfree fundamentalist" who sees nothing sustainable about cities which allow individually owned and operated cars inside....so I will just mostly ignore this "better car parking" stuff. So just comment: > ... > on-street parking can act as a buffer between pedestrians and a busy > arterial. I have heard this argument before. Arent there better buffers? For example, trees, plants, bikelanes, watercourses, sculptures, vending machines, and so on? In carcities, how about if it was a rule that if you are so close to pedestrians you simply have to drive really, really slow? This is not rocket science. --- This list really confuses me sometimes. Do people want to spend their whole professional lives (and afterwards) regulating parking and trying to get cars to slow down? How many people on this would be perfectly happy to not be able to use a car if their city was designed to provide everything you need without one? To reference a recent thread on this list, are people ready to sacrifice sustainability(!) for peace, quiet, safety and proximity? Thanks, T ------------------------------------------------------ Todd Edelman International Coordinator On the Train Towards the Future! Green Idea Factory Laubova 5 CZ-13000 Praha 3 ++420 605 915 970 edelman@greenidea.info http://www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain Green Idea Factory, a member of World Carfree Network ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. From ericbruun at earthlink.net Wed Apr 26 04:40:51 2006 From: ericbruun at earthlink.net (Eric Bruun) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 15:40:51 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [sustran] Re: More about on-street parking Message-ID: <25538740.1145994051731.JavaMail.root@elwamui-cypress.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Walter I wasn't taking an absolute position in favor of on-street parking, I am just pointing out that sometimes there are advantages to it. If you are describing an ideal situation, I would agree with you. But given the reality, at least in the US in the short term, getting rid of all on-street parking would mean even more parking houses in the central area, flight of businesses to the suburbs, and perhaps even widening of roads to speed up through traffic. This seems to be what happened in residential areas in Baltimore -- some are now throughways for commuters. Eric Bruun -----Original Message----- >From: Walter Hook >Sent: Apr 25, 2006 10:34 AM >To: 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport' >Subject: [sustran] Re: More about on-street parking > >Not sure my earlier response on this went through, cause it didn't come back >to me. > >Just wanted to add that I was surprised by the comments in support of >on-street parking from the likes of Todd and Eric and Eric. I thought we >would be more on the same page on this. > >Eric B's support for on street parking, that it is ugly and therefore will >ultimately one day lead to citizen awareness, does not appear to be borne >out by the facts. Streets in most cities have been clogged with ugly, >undercharged parked cars since the 20s, and it has not led to any >consciousness raising: people just don't see anything wrong with it because >it is just normal to them. We need some beautifully redesigned streets to >show neighborhoods that they don't have to live on ugly streets. Once >people see a better option, perhaps everyone would be clamoring for it. >That is what is happening in china with pedestrian zones. Now every >district government wants one, to the delightful consternation of the >traffic engineers. Should we be encouraging congestion and on street >parking in the hopes it will one day lead to a sustainable mobility >revolution? That is like rejecting safe working conditions and the minimum >wage because it ameliorates the chances of some dreamed for utopian >revolution. > >Was also surprised to hear Todd all of a sudden the voice of parking >efficiency, and Eric supporting parking as a buffer for pedestrians. I >mean, if it's a buffer we're after, surely flowers are better. > >If folks are not familiar with the work of Prof. Hermann Knoflacher of the >Univ. of Vienna, i recommend it. He makes a compelling argument that on >street parking is THE central problem with western traffic systems. He >goes so far as to say that if we dealt with the parking issue, we wouldn't >need congestion charging. Maybe. He argues that total travel times are >biased in favor of private car modes over transit modes largely because >society allows people to park their cars right in front of their houses and >right adjacent to their offices, while the nearest bus stop is likely to be >some distance away. Because the walking trip is taken at very slow speeds, >and this has to be added to the waiting time for the bus, the total trip >time is therefore significantly biased against the transit trip. Therefore, >on street parking has several significant dis-benefits: one, it biases modal >choice towards private car use, two it consumes public space that otherwise >could be used for children to play, people to sit and play dominoes, walk, >etc. In addition, on street parking is generally badly underpriced in terms >of land rent, subsidizing driving. In addition, car parking if removed >would also provide the space for a bike lane that could be physically >protected from traffic, although on a residential street the bike lane isn't >necessary if you can traffic calm the whole street. > >Is KNoflacher for off-street parking? I tried to nail him down on this. >What I think he said was, if you can get rid of the parking without adding >off street parking, that is the best. If you need to make a political >compromise, better to go for off street parking that is located on the major >arterials with no direct access from the residential streets. This creates >then the conditions for no needed motor vehicle traffic on residential >streets except delivery access, and hence creates conditions where the >streets could be dramatically redesigned for children, public space, etc. I >asked him if there were concrete examples of where this had been done, he >said there were some in Vienna but was a little vague... > >Best >Walter > > > > >Best > >Walter > > >-----Original Message----- >From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org >[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf >Of Todd Edelman >Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 2:32 AM >To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport >Subject: [sustran] Re: More about on-street parking > >Hi, > >I suppose I could admit I am a "carfree fundamentalist" who sees nothing >sustainable about cities which allow individually owned and operated cars >inside....so I will just mostly ignore this "better car parking" stuff. >So just comment: > >> ... >> on-street parking can act as a buffer between pedestrians and a busy >> arterial. > >I have heard this argument before. Arent there better buffers? For >example, trees, plants, bikelanes, watercourses, sculptures, vending >machines, and so on? In carcities, how about if it was a rule that if you >are so close to pedestrians you simply have to drive really, really slow? >This is not rocket science. > >--- > >This list really confuses me sometimes. > >Do people want to spend their whole professional lives (and afterwards) >regulating parking and trying to get cars to slow down? How many people on >this would be perfectly happy to not be able to use a car if their city >was designed to provide everything you need without one? To reference a >recent thread on this list, are people ready to sacrifice >sustainability(!) for peace, quiet, safety and proximity? > >Thanks, >T > >------------------------------------------------------ > >Todd Edelman >International Coordinator >On the Train Towards the Future! > >Green Idea Factory >Laubova 5 >CZ-13000 Praha 3 > >++420 605 915 970 > >edelman@greenidea.info >http://www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain > >Green Idea Factory, >a member of World Carfree Network > > > >================================================================ >SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, >equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries >(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is >on urban transport policy in Asia. > > > >================================================================ >SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. From ericbruun at earthlink.net Wed Apr 26 08:14:56 2006 From: ericbruun at earthlink.net (Eric Bruun) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 19:14:56 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [sustran] Re: More about on-street parking Message-ID: <3477431.1146006896640.JavaMail.root@elwamui-hybrid.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Todd You are indeed a fundamentalist. Personally, I can see times when a car is OK to use. For example, when carrying large items. Not all buffers are alike, by the way, when it comes to shopping districts. Stores want to be visible, and for aesthetics, facades often need to be visible, not blocked by trees. Even though I would like to see far fewer cars in our cities, I think that pushing for an absolute ban is counterproductive. We wouldn't even be able to get in the door to most politicians' offices. Eric Bruun -----Original Message----- >From: Todd Edelman >Sent: Apr 25, 2006 2:31 AM >To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport >Subject: [sustran] Re: More about on-street parking > >Hi, > >I suppose I could admit I am a "carfree fundamentalist" who sees nothing >sustainable about cities which allow individually owned and operated cars >inside....so I will just mostly ignore this "better car parking" stuff. >So just comment: > >> ... >> on-street parking can act as a buffer between pedestrians and a busy >> arterial. > >I have heard this argument before. Arent there better buffers? For >example, trees, plants, bikelanes, watercourses, sculptures, vending >machines, and so on? In carcities, how about if it was a rule that if you >are so close to pedestrians you simply have to drive really, really slow? >This is not rocket science. > >--- > >This list really confuses me sometimes. > >Do people want to spend their whole professional lives (and afterwards) >regulating parking and trying to get cars to slow down? How many people on >this would be perfectly happy to not be able to use a car if their city >was designed to provide everything you need without one? To reference a >recent thread on this list, are people ready to sacrifice >sustainability(!) for peace, quiet, safety and proximity? > >Thanks, >T > >------------------------------------------------------ > >Todd Edelman >International Coordinator >On the Train Towards the Future! > >Green Idea Factory >Laubova 5 >CZ-13000 Praha 3 > >++420 605 915 970 > >edelman@greenidea.info >http://www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain > >Green Idea Factory, >a member of World Carfree Network > > > >================================================================ >SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. From edelman at greenidea.info Wed Apr 26 08:23:37 2006 From: edelman at greenidea.info (Todd Edelman) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 01:23:37 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [sustran] Re: More about on-street parking In-Reply-To: <3477431.1146006896640.JavaMail.root@elwamui-hybrid.atl.sa.earthlink.n et> References: <3477431.1146006896640.JavaMail.root@elwamui-hybrid.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <2074.62.245.95.24.1146007417.squirrel@mail.smartweb.cz> Hi again, The problem is that if you design a city to allow some cars, it is REALLY hard to not allow lots and lots of cars. A carfree city would have a metrofreight or tramfreight system which combined with local electric deliveries and bicycles will make personal cars, carshare cars and of course trucks unnecessary. If people are walking, cycling or even taking the tram they will be able to see which stores are which as they will be moving slow enough or wont be distracted by having to drive. And, you push for a ban, you build a place where people have no reason to push for cars. t > Todd > > You are indeed a fundamentalist. Personally, I can see times when a car is > OK to use. For example, > when carrying large items. > > Not all buffers are alike, by the way, when it comes to shopping > districts. Stores want to be visible, and for aesthetics, facades often > need to be visible, not blocked by trees. > > Even though I would like to see far fewer cars in our cities, I think that > pushing for an absolute ban > is counterproductive. We wouldn't even be able to get in the door to most > politicians' offices. > > Eric Bruun > > > > -----Original Message----- >>From: Todd Edelman >>Sent: Apr 25, 2006 2:31 AM >>To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport >> >>Subject: [sustran] Re: More about on-street parking >> >>Hi, >> >>I suppose I could admit I am a "carfree fundamentalist" who sees nothing >>sustainable about cities which allow individually owned and operated cars >>inside....so I will just mostly ignore this "better car parking" stuff. >>So just comment: >> >>> ... >>> on-street parking can act as a buffer between pedestrians and a busy >>> arterial. >> >>I have heard this argument before. Arent there better buffers? For >>example, trees, plants, bikelanes, watercourses, sculptures, vending >>machines, and so on? In carcities, how about if it was a rule that if you >>are so close to pedestrians you simply have to drive really, really slow? >>This is not rocket science. >> >>--- >> >>This list really confuses me sometimes. >> >>Do people want to spend their whole professional lives (and afterwards) >>regulating parking and trying to get cars to slow down? How many people >> on >>this would be perfectly happy to not be able to use a car if their city >>was designed to provide everything you need without one? To reference a >>recent thread on this list, are people ready to sacrifice >>sustainability(!) for peace, quiet, safety and proximity? >> >>Thanks, >>T >> >>------------------------------------------------------ >> >>Todd Edelman >>International Coordinator >>On the Train Towards the Future! >> >>Green Idea Factory >>Laubova 5 >>CZ-13000 Praha 3 >> >>++420 605 915 970 >> >>edelman@greenidea.info >>http://www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain >> >>Green Idea Factory, >>a member of World Carfree Network >> >> >> >>================================================================ >>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, >> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries >> (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus >> is on urban transport policy in Asia. > > > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries > (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus > is on urban transport policy in Asia. > ------------------------------------------------------ Todd Edelman International Coordinator On the Train Towards the Future! Green Idea Factory Laubova 5 CZ-13000 Praha 3 ++420 605 915 970 edelman@greenidea.info http://www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain Green Idea Factory, a member of World Carfree Network From edelman at greenidea.info Wed Apr 26 08:58:15 2006 From: edelman at greenidea.info (Todd Edelman) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 01:58:15 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [sustran] Re: More about on-street parking In-Reply-To: <2074.62.245.95.24.1146007417.squirrel@mail.smartweb.cz> References: <3477431.1146006896640.JavaMail.root@elwamui-hybrid.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <2074.62.245.95.24.1146007417.squirrel@mail.smartweb.cz> Message-ID: <2174.62.245.95.24.1146009495.squirrel@mail.smartweb.cz> Hi, In my last email the final sentence should read: And, you DONT push for a ban, you build a place where people have no reason to want cars, no desire for them. - T p.s. I wrote a song recently from the perspectives of a young teen and a child about my adopted home the car-crazy Czech Republic... one part goes: 17 years since the so-called revolution Holy declarations in the unofficial constitution: ? Your parking place is guaranteed to be close by! ? But can we go to the park? You scream "No time!" I cry ------------------------------------------------------ Todd Edelman International Coordinator On the Train Towards the Future! Green Idea Factory Laubova 5 CZ-13000 Praha 3 ++420 605 915 970 edelman@greenidea.info http://www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain Green Idea Factory, a member of World Carfree Network From whook at itdp.org Tue Apr 25 01:07:04 2006 From: whook at itdp.org (Walter Hook) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 12:07:04 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: [NewMobilityCafe] Re: New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A ProposalforDiscussion In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20060424080209.05d55c38@mail.islandnet.com> Message-ID: <001201c667b9$21e16c70$c301a8c0@DFJLYL81> I admit I am a bit astonished by Todd and Eric?s comments in support of on street parking. I thought we would all be more or less on the same page on this. Eric?s support for on street parking, that it is ugly and therefore will ultimately one day lead to citizen awareness, does not appear to be borne out by the facts. Streets in most cities have been clogged with ugly, undercharged parked cars since the 20s, and it has not led to any consciousness raising: people just don?t see anything wrong with it because it is just normal to them. We need some beautifully redesigned streets to show neighborhoods that they don?t have to live on ugly streets, and see no justification for us to be encouraging congestion and on street parking in the hopes it will one day lead to a sustainable mobility revolution. That is like rejecting the minimum wage because it ameliorates the chances of a hoped for utopian revolution. Prof. Hermann Knoflacher of the Univ. of Vienna believes, and I am inclined to agree, makes a compelling argument that on street parking is THE central problem with western traffic systems. He goes so far as to say that if we dealt with the parking issue, we wouldn?t need congestion charging. Maybe. He argues that total travel times are biased in favor of private car modes over transit modes largely because society allows people to park their cars right in front of their houses and right adjacent to their offices, while the nearest bus stop is likely to be some distance away. Because the walking trip is taken at very slow speeds, and this has to be added to the waiting time for the bus, the total trip time is therefore significantly biased against the transit trip. Therefore, on street parking has several significant dis-benefits: one, it biases modal choice towards private car use, two it consumes public space that otherwise could be used for children to play, people to sit and play dominoes, walk, etc. In addition, on street parking is generally badly underpriced in terms of land rent, subsidizing driving. In addition, car parking if removed would also provide the space for a bike lane that could be physically protected from traffic, although on a residential street the bike lane isn?t necessary if you can traffic calm the whole street. Best Walter -----Original Message----- From: Todd Alexander Litman [mailto:litman@vtpi.org] Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 11:10 AM To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com; eric.britton@ecoplan.org; whook@itdp.org; sustran-discuss@jca.apc.org; sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org; NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com Cc: CarFreeCafe@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [NewMobilityCafe] [sustran] Re: New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A ProposalforDiscussion On the other hand, on-street parking is the most efficient type of parking that can be provided. Most off-street spaces only serve a single destination and so have low load factors, while on-street spaces serve many destinations and have high load factors, and so are more efficient overall. Also, off-street spaces require driveways which use a portion of the curb and cross sidewalks. For these reasons many urban planners now support the provision of a maximum number of on-street spaces and a minimum number of off-street spaces (for discussion of ways to use parking facilities more efficiently see my new report "Parking Management" (http://www.vtpi.org/park_man.pdf ) and book "Parking Management Best Practices" ( http://www.planning.org/bookservice/description.htm?BCODE=APMB ). If the choice is really between sidewalks and on-street parking I would generally choose providing a sidewalk, but it is desirable to provide on-street parking where possible. Best wishes, -Todd Litman At 07:01 AM 4/24/2006, Lee Schipper wrote: Years ago a good Swedish Transport economist posed the same question. by measuring how much time people spent walking to where there was green space, he figured out that providing on-street parking rather than more green space and broader sidewalks led to a real economic loss. His advice was to provide parking only in private, commercial areas (he also looked at how much off-street parking cost). One benefit of such an approach * say every other street in NYCity had no parking...just bays for deliveries here and there * front yards would reappaear and children and families could play in the streets more safely! >>> whook@itdp.org 4/24/2006 9:44:09 AM >>> Eric, Paul white and i had a related idea over lunch the other day, and we were wondering if this has ever been tried. What if all the property owners and permanent tenants living along a block of urban street were given the choice by the municipality of whether they wanted the space in front of their house dedicated to car parking or sidewalk? How many residents would vote for car parking? It might be done something like this. The department of transport could determine the needed road capacity, but the parking units would be a function of ultra local democracy. What if as a result, each permanent resident or registered voter, or even just each property tax payer, on a city block got to determine the democratic use of the public space in front of their property. Since it is currently most of the time dedicated to parking, at least in the US, even if only 10% voted to get rid of the parking, that would be 10% of the parking units we could reclaim. On my block i would guess that maybe 50% would opt for a wider sidewalk. Then a block association could be free to contract an architect to redesign the street with that same number of units of parking. I am wondering if there are any successful examples of this sort of ultra local democracy? Walter -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org [ mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org ] On Behalf Of Eric Britton Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2006 12:34 PM To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com; Sustran Resource Centre Cc: CarFreeCafe@yahoogroups.com Subject: [sustran] New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A Proposal forDiscussion New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A Proposal for Discussion When it comes to creating more viable and fairer transport systems, and behind that our real objective: more agreeable and more sustainable cities, we have one recurrent problem that we can perhaps deal with if we put our heads together. As is well known, whenever any given 'soft transport', "public space" or some type of "not quite so many cars" initiative is proposed in any given place, the first and most striking thing that happens is the howls of protest that immediately emerge from all those who claim that their democratic entitlements are being threatened by, as they often like to put it, some small group of arrogant bike-happy technocrats and their fellow eco-travelers. And since the media always likes a good cat fight, these righteous citizens often dominate the news. For the rest, for you and me and others like us, hey! we're the Silent Minority. The absolutely disenfranchised. Well, it does not always have to be like that and here is one proposal concerning which I would like to invite discussions and refinement - all as a prelude to giving this idea a couple of trial runs in one or more pioneering cities. The idea is to carry out an annual open citizen survey of attitudes and preferences concerning transport policy and practice (and the investments that go with it) in your city. The results should be made widely available through old and new media, and brought to the fore of the attention of the politicians, administrators and policy makers in your city. Here without any pretense of it being anything other than a grain of sand to get us going is my draft proposal for content for quick mini-survey that can be administered by phone, email or on any street corner by volunteers: Note to the reader: In a first instance, before digging into the details, I would like to ask the members of this fine group: (a) is this an idea that is worth pursuing; (b) are there some (better)examples that we should be looking at and learning from. Then once we have a feel for this as a useful activity, we can then start to see how we might together fine tune a good questionnaire and routine. 1, Draft Mini-survey (for comment and . . . ) All questions where appropriate to be answered simply by a 1 (yes), 0 (don't know), -or -1 (no), which will facilitate aggregation and overview. 1. Name 2. City of residence 3. M/F 4. Age: <15; 15-30; 30-65; >65 5. Do you own/drive a car? 6. My city government has a coherent, announced transportation policy: 7. I believe that this is a wise and well executed policy. 8. We need to spend more money to build more roads and more parking as a main transport priority. 9. We need to give much more attention and spend more money on "soft transport" and related life quality initiatives (examples: better support of pedestrians and cyclists, traffic calming, more public transport, new forms of shared transport, ITC substitutes for displacement.) 10. It is possible for people to live here well and easily without having their own car. 11. If they want my vote -- all candidates for local public office should take a firm stand on their transportation policies, and issue as part of their platform a signed personal statement indicating their support of more sustainable transport projects and programs. Your eventual brief comments or suggestions: ____________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ 2. How to execute - Thoughts on * This maybe is pushing it for length. If it can't be administered in three minutes, it probably will not do the job. Try it out on a couple of friends and let us know. * There is plenty of evidence that people tend to create and administrate questionnaires that one way or another tend to elicit their favored response. We should meticulously avoid doing this, and in our selection of questions - and people to be queried. If it ain't neutral, it is not worth a lot. So careful, eh? * The simple mental model I have for this is an excel table with names in columns, etc. All leading to easy sorting and sub-total * To have a real impact, it will best be administered at some fixed time. As examples: on Earth Day, in cooperation with any local Car Free Days, European Moblity Week, etc.) * The procedures and information should be fully public so that there can be no charges of rigging the returns. (Expect in Belarusia and Florida in which it is OK.) * Also involve schools, various clubs and groups, senior citizens, handicapped, pedestrian and cyclist naturally but also take it into hospitals, prisons, old people's homes, jails, and the homeless. * Local media partnerships, and even strong involvement by them, will be most useful. * I would propose that the on-street interviews be carried out on one day - but that an entire week be given over to the entire procedures. * The results should be publicly announced. * And then all those in local government should be asked to comment and give their appreciations of what this means. (Note: Our friends in South Africa with their first Car Free Days last year did a good job of this which we might usefully consult) * We propose that this be an annual exercise. * And that to the extent possible and sensible, we might want to think about questions and formats that are sufficiently parallel to allow us to aggregate. * BTW, is there or has there ever been anything like this in your city? Neighborhood? That we can learn from? 3. Parallel in-death Survey It may be a good idea to have a more in depth survey for those people disposed to spend more time with us on this. The trick will be to determine who, how, when, - and how used? Here are a few first thoughts on this to get us going: * Employment, social status * Where live/where work * If it were faster and cheaper to get to work or school by some way other than driving a car (in traffic) would you be willing to consider it? * When was the last time you took a bus or rail transit? * Used a bike to get to work or school? * D you think that it might be a good idea for your city to publish and maintain a "sustainable transportation webpage" that reports on key indicators including traffic deaths and incidents (by gravity and type), CO2 or other clean air indicators, parametric indicators of infrastructure and performance of NMT options, etc. * Would you be willing to work, say, 20 hours over a period of one or two months. as a volunteer to support better researched specific projects in your neighborhood. * Etc. * Etc * Check in here via the homepage at http://www.newmobility.org To post message to group: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com But please think twice before posting to the group as a whole (It might be that your note is best sent to one person?) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewMobilityCafe/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: NewMobilityCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Sincerely, Todd Alexander Litman Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org) litman@vtpi.org Phone & Fax 250-360-1560 1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA ?Efficiency - Equity - Clarity? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060424/a369d77e/attachment-0002.html From whook at itdp.org Tue Apr 25 01:07:04 2006 From: whook at itdp.org (Walter Hook) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 12:07:04 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: [NewMobilityCafe] Re: New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A ProposalforDiscussion In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20060424080209.05d55c38@mail.islandnet.com> Message-ID: <001201c667b9$21e16c70$c301a8c0@DFJLYL81> I admit I am a bit astonished by Todd and Eric?s comments in support of on street parking. I thought we would all be more or less on the same page on this. Eric?s support for on street parking, that it is ugly and therefore will ultimately one day lead to citizen awareness, does not appear to be borne out by the facts. Streets in most cities have been clogged with ugly, undercharged parked cars since the 20s, and it has not led to any consciousness raising: people just don?t see anything wrong with it because it is just normal to them. We need some beautifully redesigned streets to show neighborhoods that they don?t have to live on ugly streets, and see no justification for us to be encouraging congestion and on street parking in the hopes it will one day lead to a sustainable mobility revolution. That is like rejecting the minimum wage because it ameliorates the chances of a hoped for utopian revolution. Prof. Hermann Knoflacher of the Univ. of Vienna believes, and I am inclined to agree, makes a compelling argument that on street parking is THE central problem with western traffic systems. He goes so far as to say that if we dealt with the parking issue, we wouldn?t need congestion charging. Maybe. He argues that total travel times are biased in favor of private car modes over transit modes largely because society allows people to park their cars right in front of their houses and right adjacent to their offices, while the nearest bus stop is likely to be some distance away. Because the walking trip is taken at very slow speeds, and this has to be added to the waiting time for the bus, the total trip time is therefore significantly biased against the transit trip. Therefore, on street parking has several significant dis-benefits: one, it biases modal choice towards private car use, two it consumes public space that otherwise could be used for children to play, people to sit and play dominoes, walk, etc. In addition, on street parking is generally badly underpriced in terms of land rent, subsidizing driving. In addition, car parking if removed would also provide the space for a bike lane that could be physically protected from traffic, although on a residential street the bike lane isn?t necessary if you can traffic calm the whole street. Best Walter -----Original Message----- From: Todd Alexander Litman [mailto:litman@vtpi.org] Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 11:10 AM To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com; eric.britton@ecoplan.org; whook@itdp.org; sustran-discuss@jca.apc.org; sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org; NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com Cc: CarFreeCafe@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [NewMobilityCafe] [sustran] Re: New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A ProposalforDiscussion On the other hand, on-street parking is the most efficient type of parking that can be provided. Most off-street spaces only serve a single destination and so have low load factors, while on-street spaces serve many destinations and have high load factors, and so are more efficient overall. Also, off-street spaces require driveways which use a portion of the curb and cross sidewalks. For these reasons many urban planners now support the provision of a maximum number of on-street spaces and a minimum number of off-street spaces (for discussion of ways to use parking facilities more efficiently see my new report "Parking Management" (http://www.vtpi.org/park_man.pdf ) and book "Parking Management Best Practices" ( http://www.planning.org/bookservice/description.htm?BCODE=APMB ). If the choice is really between sidewalks and on-street parking I would generally choose providing a sidewalk, but it is desirable to provide on-street parking where possible. Best wishes, -Todd Litman At 07:01 AM 4/24/2006, Lee Schipper wrote: Years ago a good Swedish Transport economist posed the same question. by measuring how much time people spent walking to where there was green space, he figured out that providing on-street parking rather than more green space and broader sidewalks led to a real economic loss. His advice was to provide parking only in private, commercial areas (he also looked at how much off-street parking cost). One benefit of such an approach * say every other street in NYCity had no parking...just bays for deliveries here and there * front yards would reappaear and children and families could play in the streets more safely! >>> whook@itdp.org 4/24/2006 9:44:09 AM >>> Eric, Paul white and i had a related idea over lunch the other day, and we were wondering if this has ever been tried. What if all the property owners and permanent tenants living along a block of urban street were given the choice by the municipality of whether they wanted the space in front of their house dedicated to car parking or sidewalk? How many residents would vote for car parking? It might be done something like this. The department of transport could determine the needed road capacity, but the parking units would be a function of ultra local democracy. What if as a result, each permanent resident or registered voter, or even just each property tax payer, on a city block got to determine the democratic use of the public space in front of their property. Since it is currently most of the time dedicated to parking, at least in the US, even if only 10% voted to get rid of the parking, that would be 10% of the parking units we could reclaim. On my block i would guess that maybe 50% would opt for a wider sidewalk. Then a block association could be free to contract an architect to redesign the street with that same number of units of parking. I am wondering if there are any successful examples of this sort of ultra local democracy? Walter -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org [ mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org ] On Behalf Of Eric Britton Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2006 12:34 PM To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com; Sustran Resource Centre Cc: CarFreeCafe@yahoogroups.com Subject: [sustran] New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A Proposal forDiscussion New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A Proposal for Discussion When it comes to creating more viable and fairer transport systems, and behind that our real objective: more agreeable and more sustainable cities, we have one recurrent problem that we can perhaps deal with if we put our heads together. As is well known, whenever any given 'soft transport', "public space" or some type of "not quite so many cars" initiative is proposed in any given place, the first and most striking thing that happens is the howls of protest that immediately emerge from all those who claim that their democratic entitlements are being threatened by, as they often like to put it, some small group of arrogant bike-happy technocrats and their fellow eco-travelers. And since the media always likes a good cat fight, these righteous citizens often dominate the news. For the rest, for you and me and others like us, hey! we're the Silent Minority. The absolutely disenfranchised. Well, it does not always have to be like that and here is one proposal concerning which I would like to invite discussions and refinement - all as a prelude to giving this idea a couple of trial runs in one or more pioneering cities. The idea is to carry out an annual open citizen survey of attitudes and preferences concerning transport policy and practice (and the investments that go with it) in your city. The results should be made widely available through old and new media, and brought to the fore of the attention of the politicians, administrators and policy makers in your city. Here without any pretense of it being anything other than a grain of sand to get us going is my draft proposal for content for quick mini-survey that can be administered by phone, email or on any street corner by volunteers: Note to the reader: In a first instance, before digging into the details, I would like to ask the members of this fine group: (a) is this an idea that is worth pursuing; (b) are there some (better)examples that we should be looking at and learning from. Then once we have a feel for this as a useful activity, we can then start to see how we might together fine tune a good questionnaire and routine. 1, Draft Mini-survey (for comment and . . . ) All questions where appropriate to be answered simply by a 1 (yes), 0 (don't know), -or -1 (no), which will facilitate aggregation and overview. 1. Name 2. City of residence 3. M/F 4. Age: <15; 15-30; 30-65; >65 5. Do you own/drive a car? 6. My city government has a coherent, announced transportation policy: 7. I believe that this is a wise and well executed policy. 8. We need to spend more money to build more roads and more parking as a main transport priority. 9. We need to give much more attention and spend more money on "soft transport" and related life quality initiatives (examples: better support of pedestrians and cyclists, traffic calming, more public transport, new forms of shared transport, ITC substitutes for displacement.) 10. It is possible for people to live here well and easily without having their own car. 11. If they want my vote -- all candidates for local public office should take a firm stand on their transportation policies, and issue as part of their platform a signed personal statement indicating their support of more sustainable transport projects and programs. Your eventual brief comments or suggestions: ____________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ 2. How to execute - Thoughts on * This maybe is pushing it for length. If it can't be administered in three minutes, it probably will not do the job. Try it out on a couple of friends and let us know. * There is plenty of evidence that people tend to create and administrate questionnaires that one way or another tend to elicit their favored response. We should meticulously avoid doing this, and in our selection of questions - and people to be queried. If it ain't neutral, it is not worth a lot. So careful, eh? * The simple mental model I have for this is an excel table with names in columns, etc. All leading to easy sorting and sub-total * To have a real impact, it will best be administered at some fixed time. As examples: on Earth Day, in cooperation with any local Car Free Days, European Moblity Week, etc.) * The procedures and information should be fully public so that there can be no charges of rigging the returns. (Expect in Belarusia and Florida in which it is OK.) * Also involve schools, various clubs and groups, senior citizens, handicapped, pedestrian and cyclist naturally but also take it into hospitals, prisons, old people's homes, jails, and the homeless. * Local media partnerships, and even strong involvement by them, will be most useful. * I would propose that the on-street interviews be carried out on one day - but that an entire week be given over to the entire procedures. * The results should be publicly announced. * And then all those in local government should be asked to comment and give their appreciations of what this means. (Note: Our friends in South Africa with their first Car Free Days last year did a good job of this which we might usefully consult) * We propose that this be an annual exercise. * And that to the extent possible and sensible, we might want to think about questions and formats that are sufficiently parallel to allow us to aggregate. * BTW, is there or has there ever been anything like this in your city? Neighborhood? That we can learn from? 3. Parallel in-death Survey It may be a good idea to have a more in depth survey for those people disposed to spend more time with us on this. The trick will be to determine who, how, when, - and how used? Here are a few first thoughts on this to get us going: * Employment, social status * Where live/where work * If it were faster and cheaper to get to work or school by some way other than driving a car (in traffic) would you be willing to consider it? * When was the last time you took a bus or rail transit? * Used a bike to get to work or school? * D you think that it might be a good idea for your city to publish and maintain a "sustainable transportation webpage" that reports on key indicators including traffic deaths and incidents (by gravity and type), CO2 or other clean air indicators, parametric indicators of infrastructure and performance of NMT options, etc. * Would you be willing to work, say, 20 hours over a period of one or two months. as a volunteer to support better researched specific projects in your neighborhood. * Etc. * Etc * Check in here via the homepage at http://www.newmobility.org To post message to group: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com But please think twice before posting to the group as a whole (It might be that your note is best sent to one person?) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewMobilityCafe/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: NewMobilityCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Sincerely, Todd Alexander Litman Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org) litman@vtpi.org Phone & Fax 250-360-1560 1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA ?Efficiency - Equity - Clarity? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060424/a369d77e/attachment-0003.html From robert_cowherd at yahoo.com Tue Apr 25 19:06:12 2006 From: robert_cowherd at yahoo.com (robert cowherd) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 06:06:12 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: Traffic in India In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I don't have the equivalent video documentation to go with it, but in Indonesia, enterprising young men at similar intersections become informal sector traffic cops taking tips through cracked windows as the drivers go by them. Of course, the vehicles of heavy tippers become recognizable after a few days and get preferential treatment from the traffic compradors who fiercely defend proprietary rights to their intersections. It is a poetic microcosm of the larger "system" at work in Indonesia. Robert Cowherd MIT On 4/24/06 11:41 PM, "sudhir gota" wrote: > Dear Sir, > > Traffic in India (Paul Barter) > > > The video is only the eyeopener, you should just spend some time in India. > This video highlights the fact that whatever analysis we are doing in India > with respect to Traffic is not at all sufficient. We desperately require > fresh ideas and research. > > Regards > Sudhir > >> From: sustran-discuss-request@list.jca.apc.org >> Reply-To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org >> To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org >> Subject: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 32, Issue 32 >> Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 22:46:10 +0900 (JST) >> >> 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..." >> >> >> ######################################################################## >> Sustran-discuss Mailing List Digest >> >> About this mailing list see: >> http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss >> ######################################################################## >> >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. FW: Traffic in India (Paul Barter) >> 2. Re: FW: Traffic in India (Alan Howes) >> 3. Re: New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A Proposal >> forDiscussion (Walter Hook) >> 4. Re: New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A Proposal >> forDiscussion (Walter Hook) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 15:14:18 +0800 >> From: "Paul Barter" >> Subject: [sustran] FW: Traffic in India >> To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" >> >> Message-ID: >> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> >> A wonderful video clip of an Indian intersection working in ways most >> traffic engineers would never imagine in their wildest dreams. If you >> have never seen traffic in South Asia then this might come as something >> of a shock. >> >>> >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjrEQaG5jPM >>> >> >> Paul >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 2 >> Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 09:16:08 +0100 >> From: "Alan Howes" >> Subject: [sustran] Re: FW: Traffic in India >> To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" >> >> Message-ID: >> <324DCD7680954F468CF306EE5404F001020A90C3@mail01.cbuchanan.co.uk> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> >> Though I have to say that after my two weeks in Mumbai recently it came >> as no surprise. Our driver thought nothing of driving the wrong way >> down a contra-flow bus lane (not many of those in Mumbai), veering off >> onto the pavement if he happened to meet a bus. I did not think much of >> it either! >> >> Alan >> >> >> -- >> Alan Howes >> Associate Transport Planner >> Colin Buchanan >> 4 St Colme Street >> Edinburgh EH3 6AA >> Scotland >> email: alan.howes@cbuchanan.co.uk >> tel: (0)131 226 4693 (switchboard) >> (0)7952 464335 (mobile) >> fax: (0)131 220 0232 >> www: http:/www.cbuchanan.co.uk/ >> _______________________________ >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: >> sustran-discuss-bounces+alan.howes=cbuchanan.co.uk@list.jca.apc.org >> [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+alan.howes=cbuchanan.co.uk@list.jca.apc. >> org] On Behalf Of Paul Barter >> Sent: 24 April 2006 08:14 >> To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport >> Subject: [sustran] FW: Traffic in India >> >> A wonderful video clip of an Indian intersection working in ways most >> traffic engineers would never imagine in their wildest dreams. If you >> have never seen traffic in South Asia then this might come as something >> of a shock. >> >>> >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjrEQaG5jPM >>> >> >> Paul >> >> >> ================================================================ >> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, >> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries >> (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus >> is on urban transport policy in Asia. >> >> ............................................................................. >> ............................................................................. >> ............................................................................. >> ............................................................................. >> ............................................................................. >> ............................................................................. >> ............................................................................. >> ............................................. >> DISCLAIMER >> >> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended >> solely for the use of the individual or entity to which 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 Colin >> Buchanan, 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 do not accept liability for any loss or damage caused by >> software viruses. >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 3 >> Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 09:44:09 -0400 >> From: "Walter Hook" >> Subject: [sustran] Re: New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A >> Proposal forDiscussion >> To: , "'Asia and the Pacific sustainable >> transport'" , >> , "'Sustran Resource Centre'" >> >> Cc: CarFreeCafe@yahoogroups.com >> Message-ID: <012e01c667a5$2a6eb140$c301a8c0@DFJLYL81> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> >> Eric, >> >> >> >> Paul white and i had a related idea over lunch the other day, and we were >> wondering if this has ever been tried. >> >> >> >> What if all the property owners and permanent tenants living along a block >> of urban street were given the choice by the municipality of whether they >> wanted the space in front of their house dedicated to car parking or >> sidewalk? How many residents would vote for car parking? It might be >> done >> something like this. The department of transport could determine the >> needed >> road capacity, but the parking units would be a function of ultra local >> democracy. What if as a result, each permanent resident or registered >> voter, or even just each property tax payer, on a city block got to >> determine the democratic use of the public space in front of their >> property. >> Since it is currently most of the time dedicated to parking, at least in >> the >> US, even if only 10% voted to get rid of the parking, that would be 10% of >> the parking units we could reclaim. On my block i would guess that maybe >> 50% would opt for a wider sidewalk. Then a block association could be free >> to contract an architect to redesign the street with that same number of >> units of parking. >> >> >> >> I am wondering if there are any successful examples of this sort of ultra >> local democracy? >> >> >> >> Walter >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org >> [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf >> Of Eric Britton >> Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2006 12:34 PM >> To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com; Sustran Resource Centre >> Cc: CarFreeCafe@yahoogroups.com >> Subject: [sustran] New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A Proposal >> forDiscussion >> >> >> >> New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A Proposal for Discussion >> >> >> >> When it comes to creating more viable and fairer transport systems, and >> behind that our real objective: more agreeable and more sustainable cities, >> we have one recurrent problem that we can perhaps deal with if we put our >> heads together. >> >> >> >> As is well known, whenever any given 'soft transport', "public space" or >> some type of "not quite so many cars" initiative is proposed in any given >> place, the first and most striking thing that happens is the howls of >> protest that immediately emerge from all those who claim that their >> democratic entitlements are being threatened by, as they often like to put >> it, some small group of arrogant bike-happy technocrats and their fellow >> eco-travelers. And since the media always likes a good cat fight, these >> righteous citizens often dominate the news. For the rest, for you and me >> and >> others like us, hey! we're the Silent Minority. The absolutely >> disenfranchised. >> >> >> >> Well, it does not always have to be like that and here is one proposal >> concerning which I would like to invite discussions and refinement - all as >> a prelude to giving this idea a couple of trial runs in one or more >> pioneering cities. >> >> >> >> The idea is to carry out an annual open citizen survey of attitudes and >> preferences concerning transport policy and practice (and the investments >> that go with it) in your city. The results should be made widely available >> through old and new media, and brought to the fore of the attention of the >> politicians, administrators and policy makers in your city. Here without >> any >> pretense of it being anything other than a grain of sand to get us going is >> my draft proposal for content for quick mini-survey that can be >> administered >> by phone, email or on any street corner by volunteers: >> >> >> >> Note to the reader: In a first instance, before digging into the details, I >> would like to ask the members of this fine group: (a) is this an idea that >> is worth pursuing; (b) are there some (better)examples that we should be >> looking at and learning from. Then once we have a feel for this as a useful >> activity, we can then start to see how we might together fine tune a good >> questionnaire and routine. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 1, Draft Mini-survey (for comment and . . . ) >> >> All questions where appropriate to be answered simply by a 1 (yes), 0 >> (don't >> know), -or -1 (no), which will facilitate aggregation and overview. >> >> >> >> 1. Name >> >> 2. City of residence >> >> 3. M/F >> >> 4. Age: <15; 15-30; 30-65; >65 >> >> 5. Do you own/drive a car? >> >> 6. My city government has a coherent, announced transportation policy: >> >> 7. I believe that this is a wise and well executed policy. >> >> 8. We need to spend more money to build more roads and more parking as >> a main transport priority. >> >> 9. We need to give much more attention and spend more money on "soft >> transport" and related life quality initiatives (examples: better support >> of >> pedestrians and cyclists, traffic calming, more public transport, new >> forms >> of shared transport, ITC substitutes for displacement.) >> >> 10. It is possible for people to live here well and easily without having >> their own car. >> >> 11. If they want my vote -- all candidates for local public office should >> take a firm stand on their transportation policies, and issue as part of >> their platform a signed personal statement indicating their support of more >> sustainable transport projects and programs. >> >> >> >> Your eventual brief comments or suggestions: ____________________________ >> >> ____________________________________________________________________________ >> ____________________________________________________________________________ >> ____________________________________________________________________________ >> ____________________________________________________ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 2. How to execute - Thoughts on >> >> >> >> * This maybe is pushing it for length. If it can't be administered >> in three minutes, it probably will not do the job. Try it out on a couple >> of >> friends and let us know. >> >> * There is plenty of evidence that people tend to create and >> administrate questionnaires that one way or another tend to elicit their >> favored response. We should meticulously avoid doing this, and in our >> selection of questions - and people to be queried. If it ain't neutral, it >> is not worth a lot. So careful, eh? >> >> * The simple mental model I have for this is an excel table with >> names in columns, etc. All leading to easy sorting and sub-total >> >> * To have a real impact, it will best be administered at some fixed >> time. >> As examples: on Earth Day, in cooperation with any local Car Free Days, >> European Moblity Week, etc.) >> >> * The procedures and information should be fully public so that >> there can be no charges of rigging the returns. (Expect in Belarusia and >> Florida in which it is OK.) >> >> * Also involve schools, various clubs and groups, senior citizens, >> handicapped, pedestrian and cyclist naturally but also take it into >> hospitals, prisons, old people's homes, jails, and the homeless. >> >> * Local media partnerships, and even strong involvement by them, >> will be most useful. >> >> * I would propose that the on-street interviews be carried out on >> one day - but that an entire week be given over to the entire procedures. >> >> * The results should be publicly announced. >> >> * And then all those in local government should be asked to comment >> and give their appreciations of what this means. (Note: Our friends in >> South >> Africa with their first Car Free Days last year did a good job of this >> which >> we might usefully consult) >> >> * We propose that this be an annual exercise. >> >> * And that to the extent possible and sensible, we might want to >> think about questions and formats that are sufficiently parallel to allow >> us >> to aggregate. >> >> * BTW, is there or has there ever been anything like this in your >> city? Neighborhood? That we can learn from? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 3. Parallel in-death Survey >> >> >> >> It may be a good idea to have a more in depth survey for those people >> disposed to spend more time with us on this. >> >> >> >> The trick will be to determine who, how, when, - and how used? >> >> >> >> Here are a few first thoughts on this to get us going: >> >> >> >> * Employment, social status >> >> * Where live/where work >> >> * If it were faster and cheaper to get to work or school by some >> way >> other than driving a car (in traffic) would you be willing to consider it? >> >> * When was the last time you took a bus or rail transit? >> >> * Used a bike to get to work or school? >> >> * D you think that it might be a good idea for your city to publish >> and maintain a "sustainable transportation webpage" that reports on key >> indicators including traffic deaths and incidents (by gravity and type), >> CO2 >> or other clean air indicators, parametric indicators of infrastructure and >> performance of NMT options, etc. >> >> * Would you be willing to work, say, 20 hours over a period of one >> or >> two months. as a volunteer to support better researched specific projects >> in your neighborhood. >> >> * Etc. >> >> * Etc >> >> * >> >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: >> http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060424/7b57686f/ >> attachment.html >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 4 >> Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 09:44:09 -0400 >> From: "Walter Hook" >> Subject: [sustran] Re: New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A >> Proposal forDiscussion >> To: , "'Asia and the Pacific sustainable >> transport'" , >> , "'Sustran Resource Centre'" >> >> Cc: CarFreeCafe@yahoogroups.com >> Message-ID: <012e01c667a5$2a6eb140$c301a8c0@DFJLYL81> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> >> Eric, >> >> >> >> Paul white and i had a related idea over lunch the other day, and we were >> wondering if this has ever been tried. >> >> >> >> What if all the property owners and permanent tenants living along a block >> of urban street were given the choice by the municipality of whether they >> wanted the space in front of their house dedicated to car parking or >> sidewalk? How many residents would vote for car parking? It might be >> done >> something like this. The department of transport could determine the >> needed >> road capacity, but the parking units would be a function of ultra local >> democracy. What if as a result, each permanent resident or registered >> voter, or even just each property tax payer, on a city block got to >> determine the democratic use of the public space in front of their >> property. >> Since it is currently most of the time dedicated to parking, at least in >> the >> US, even if only 10% voted to get rid of the parking, that would be 10% of >> the parking units we could reclaim. On my block i would guess that maybe >> 50% would opt for a wider sidewalk. Then a block association could be free >> to contract an architect to redesign the street with that same number of >> units of parking. >> >> >> >> I am wondering if there are any successful examples of this sort of ultra >> local democracy? >> >> >> >> Walter >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org >> [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf >> Of Eric Britton >> Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2006 12:34 PM >> To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com; Sustran Resource Centre >> Cc: CarFreeCafe@yahoogroups.com >> Subject: [sustran] New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A Proposal >> forDiscussion >> >> >> >> New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A Proposal for Discussion >> >> >> >> When it comes to creating more viable and fairer transport systems, and >> behind that our real objective: more agreeable and more sustainable cities, >> we have one recurrent problem that we can perhaps deal with if we put our >> heads together. >> >> >> >> As is well known, whenever any given 'soft transport', "public space" or >> some type of "not quite so many cars" initiative is proposed in any given >> place, the first and most striking thing that happens is the howls of >> protest that immediately emerge from all those who claim that their >> democratic entitlements are being threatened by, as they often like to put >> it, some small group of arrogant bike-happy technocrats and their fellow >> eco-travelers. And since the media always likes a good cat fight, these >> righteous citizens often dominate the news. For the rest, for you and me >> and >> others like us, hey! we're the Silent Minority. The absolutely >> disenfranchised. >> >> >> >> Well, it does not always have to be like that and here is one proposal >> concerning which I would like to invite discussions and refinement - all as >> a prelude to giving this idea a couple of trial runs in one or more >> pioneering cities. >> >> >> >> The idea is to carry out an annual open citizen survey of attitudes and >> preferences concerning transport policy and practice (and the investments >> that go with it) in your city. The results should be made widely available >> through old and new media, and brought to the fore of the attention of the >> politicians, administrators and policy makers in your city. Here without >> any >> pretense of it being anything other than a grain of sand to get us going is >> my draft proposal for content for quick mini-survey that can be >> administered >> by phone, email or on any street corner by volunteers: >> >> >> >> Note to the reader: In a first instance, before digging into the details, I >> would like to ask the members of this fine group: (a) is this an idea that >> is worth pursuing; (b) are there some (better)examples that we should be >> looking at and learning from. Then once we have a feel for this as a useful >> activity, we can then start to see how we might together fine tune a good >> questionnaire and routine. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 1, Draft Mini-survey (for comment and . . . ) >> >> All questions where appropriate to be answered simply by a 1 (yes), 0 >> (don't >> know), -or -1 (no), which will facilitate aggregation and overview. >> >> >> >> 1. Name >> >> 2. City of residence >> >> 3. M/F >> >> 4. Age: <15; 15-30; 30-65; >65 >> >> 5. Do you own/drive a car? >> >> 6. My city government has a coherent, announced transportation policy: >> >> 7. I believe that this is a wise and well executed policy. >> >> 8. We need to spend more money to build more roads and more parking as >> a main transport priority. >> >> 9. We need to give much more attention and spend more money on "soft >> transport" and related life quality initiatives (examples: better support >> of >> pedestrians and cyclists, traffic calming, more public transport, new >> forms >> of shared transport, ITC substitutes for displacement.) >> >> 10. It is possible for people to live here well and easily without having >> their own car. >> >> 11. If they want my vote -- all candidates for local public office should >> take a firm stand on their transportation policies, and issue as part of >> their platform a signed personal statement indicating their support of more >> sustainable transport projects and programs. >> >> >> >> Your eventual brief comments or suggestions: ____________________________ >> >> ____________________________________________________________________________ >> ____________________________________________________________________________ >> ____________________________________________________________________________ >> ____________________________________________________ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 2. How to execute - Thoughts on >> >> >> >> * This maybe is pushing it for length. If it can't be administered >> in three minutes, it probably will not do the job. Try it out on a couple >> of >> friends and let us know. >> >> * There is plenty of evidence that people tend to create and >> administrate questionnaires that one way or another tend to elicit their >> favored response. We should meticulously avoid doing this, and in our >> selection of questions - and people to be queried. If it ain't neutral, it >> is not worth a lot. So careful, eh? >> >> * The simple mental model I have for this is an excel table with >> names in columns, etc. All leading to easy sorting and sub-total >> >> * To have a real impact, it will best be administered at some fixed >> time. >> As examples: on Earth Day, in cooperation with any local Car Free Days, >> European Moblity Week, etc.) >> >> * The procedures and information should be fully public so that >> there can be no charges of rigging the returns. (Expect in Belarusia and >> Florida in which it is OK.) >> >> * Also involve schools, various clubs and groups, senior citizens, >> handicapped, pedestrian and cyclist naturally but also take it into >> hospitals, prisons, old people's homes, jails, and the homeless. >> >> * Local media partnerships, and even strong involvement by them, >> will be most useful. >> >> * I would propose that the on-street interviews be carried out on >> one day - but that an entire week be given over to the entire procedures. >> >> * The results should be publicly announced. >> >> * And then all those in local government should be asked to comment >> and give their appreciations of what this means. (Note: Our friends in >> South >> Africa with their first Car Free Days last year did a good job of this >> which >> we might usefully consult) >> >> * We propose that this be an annual exercise. >> >> * And that to the extent possible and sensible, we might want to >> think about questions and formats that are sufficiently parallel to allow >> us >> to aggregate. >> >> * BTW, is there or has there ever been anything like this in your >> city? Neighborhood? That we can learn from? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 3. Parallel in-death Survey >> >> >> >> It may be a good idea to have a more in depth survey for those people >> disposed to spend more time with us on this. >> >> >> >> The trick will be to determine who, how, when, - and how used? >> >> >> >> Here are a few first thoughts on this to get us going: >> >> >> >> * Employment, social status >> >> * Where live/where work >> >> * If it were faster and cheaper to get to work or school by some >> way >> other than driving a car (in traffic) would you be willing to consider it? >> >> * When was the last time you took a bus or rail transit? >> >> * Used a bike to get to work or school? >> >> * D you think that it might be a good idea for your city to publish >> and maintain a "sustainable transportation webpage" that reports on key >> indicators including traffic deaths and incidents (by gravity and type), >> CO2 >> or other clean air indicators, parametric indicators of infrastructure and >> performance of NMT options, etc. >> >> * Would you be willing to work, say, 20 hours over a period of one >> or >> two months. as a volunteer to support better researched specific projects >> in your neighborhood. >> >> * Etc. >> >> * Etc >> >> * >> >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: >> http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060424/7b57686f/ >> attachment-0001.html >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> ================================================================ >> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, >> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries >> (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is >> on urban transport policy in Asia. >> >> End of Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 32, Issue 32 >> *********************************************** > > > > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable > and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global > South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban > transport policy in Asia. From sri at giaspn01.vsnl.net.in Wed Apr 26 13:51:28 2006 From: sri at giaspn01.vsnl.net.in (Prof J G Krishnayya) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 10:21:28 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 32, Issue 32 In-Reply-To: <4cfd20aa0604242306l6ab46d3cudd8f6b1539a855f0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <003a01c668ed$15c556b0$0e01a8c0@JGK> Dear Sujit, I would support your point strongly, and add that the solution to the particular point made in the video is a. Discipline is needed. This can only come about when there is enforcement of traffic rules. E.g. in Delhi there is a minimum 50/ rupee fine if one goes over the double white line at each intersection, but one is srequired to wait behind the lines till the signal changes. Think how much easier it would be to negotiate T junctions when this is enforced. Enforcement does not need to be 100% 24x7. Even if it is done at only 5% of the intersections for 14 hours a day, that would be enough to instill the habit of following the rules. Until the traffic police philosophy comes around to the above conclusion, there is no hope for India, and more and more money will be wasted on capital for overpasses, on repaving of sidewalks, removal of trees, creation of concrete road dividers where a small raised line would have been adequate, etc. We must fight the practice of "solving" everything by throwing money at it. India and Asia in general can easily afford more traffic police. It would be a Good Thing. But the police payroll, housing etc are starved of funds. Sincerely, J G Krishnayya There is also b. Some intelligent road-furniture planning - use of roundabouts, police-man's platforms, use of unmanned sequential timers (less expensive than traffic signals, which are costly) c. Redesign of Busses. Anyone with eyes to see can recognize that our busses are about 1 foot too wide for comfortable maneuverability. For exclusive use on the larger roads, articulated busses would make sense. But at present with chaotic traffic, articulated busses would simply add to the confusion and traffic jams. d. Reducing technology. At major crossings, it is entirely possible for 1 trained policeman (backed up by law enforcement, and possibly 4 assistants who align the traffic) could handle most intersections that are presently run with traffic lights. I do not know if many other Sustran readers will recall that in the 40s and 50s, Flora Fountain, in Mumbai was manned by ONE constable - but he was impressive; he changed signals by raising his feet when turning, and stamping, much like the Indian and Pakistani soldiers at the Wagah border when bringing down the flags in the evening! He was a joy to watch, and had no trouble keeping everyone in line, and even in those days, there was quite a lot of traffic going 5x2 ways. There was only a small circle around the Flora statue, and there was a through road from Churchgate to the Town Hall (not a parking lot in the way as at present). All the roads were two-way. Obviously if one tried something like this today, one would need to select the men carefully for personality, and give them 1 hour on, two hours off shifts, so that each intersection would require three of four men to be assigned every day. I think if there were a ranked set of intersections in each town and city, one could very easily use the duty there as an incentive for traffic policemen to improve their style and performance. Right now they are very largely collection agents for the "officers" who run around on motorcycles fining people on the spot. Prof J G Krishnayya Director, Systems Research Institute, 17-A Gultekdi, PUNE 411037, India www.sripune.org Tel +91-20-2426-0323 jkrishnayya@yahoo.com Res 020-2636-3930 sri@giaspn01.vsnl.net.in Fax +91-20-2444-7902 -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+sri=pn1.vsnl.net.in@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+sri=pn1.vsnl.net.in@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Sujit Patwardhan Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 11:36 AM To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 32, Issue 32 Dear Sudhir, It would have helped if you had elaborated at least to some extent. As an advocacy group (NGO) working on the issue of Urban Traffic and Transportation in Pune since 1998, we too realised quite early that the mainstream thinking, vision and perspective of the decision makers was hopelessly outdated. By presenting data, analysis and through exposure to new and alternative perspectives we have been able to make the authorities "see" this to some extent, but old deeply held beliefs (like superstition) is difficult to dispel through rational arguments alone. So the city administration has embarked on a few good concepts like designing BRT corridors on two or three roads on an "experimental basis", is laying out city-wide bicycle tracks and ensuring adequate footpaths for pedestrians but hasn't given up on the old failed concepts like the flyovers and wider and wider roads!! If this is what you imply by saying: whatever analysis we are doing in India with respect to Traffic is not at all sufficient. We desperately require fresh ideas and research. we agree with you. The video forwarded by Paul shows what the sharply growing number of auto vehicles on the roads is doing to vehicle mobility. Traffic planners with conventional thinking hats will say "See the mess? We need a flyover to relieve the road congestion", when actually the solution would be to get an efficient and reliable public transport in place, that can effectively shift people from personal vehicles to public transport. A flyover will only fuel further demand for personal vehicle use and abstruct the movement of public transport buses. -- Sujit Sujit Patwardhan Parisar/PTTF Pune On 4/25/06, sudhir gota > wrote: Dear Sir, Traffic in India (Paul Barter) The video is only the eyeopener, you should just spend some time in India. This video highlights the fact that whatever analysis we are doing in India with respect to Traffic is not at all sufficient. We desperately require fresh ideas and research. Regards Sudhir >From: sustran-discuss-request@list.jca.apc.org >Reply-To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org >To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org >Subject: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 32, Issue 32 >Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 22:46:10 +0900 (JST) > >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..." > > >####################################################################### # >Sustran-discuss Mailing List Digest > >About this mailing list see: > http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss >####################################################################### # > > > >Today's Topics: > > 1. FW: Traffic in India (Paul Barter) > 2. Re: FW: Traffic in India (Alan Howes) > 3. Re: New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A Proposal > forDiscussion (Walter Hook) > 4. Re: New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A Proposal > forDiscussion (Walter Hook) > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Message: 1 >Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 15:14:18 +0800 >From: "Paul Barter" >Subject: [sustran] FW: Traffic in India >To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" > >Message-ID: > < AB7199D76A15F747A60F2A61D2A0078C1F6CDB@MBX01.stf.nus.edu.sg> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >A wonderful video clip of an Indian intersection working in ways most >traffic engineers would never imagine in their wildest dreams. If you >have never seen traffic in South Asia then this might come as something >of a shock. > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjrEQaG5jPM > > > >Paul > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 2 >Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 09:16:08 +0100 >From: "Alan Howes" < Alan.Howes@cbuchanan.co.uk> >Subject: [sustran] Re: FW: Traffic in India >To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" > < sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org> >Message-ID: > <324DCD7680954F468CF306EE5404F001020A90C3@mail01.cbuchanan.co.uk > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >Though I have to say that after my two weeks in Mumbai recently it came >as no surprise. Our driver thought nothing of driving the wrong way >down a contra-flow bus lane (not many of those in Mumbai), veering off >onto the pavement if he happened to meet a bus. I did not think much of >it either! > >Alan > > >-- >Alan Howes >Associate Transport Planner >Colin Buchanan >4 St Colme Street >Edinburgh EH3 6AA >Scotland >email: alan.howes@cbuchanan.co.uk >tel: (0)131 226 4693 (switchboard) > (0)7952 464335 (mobile) >fax: (0)131 220 0232 >www: http:/www.cbuchanan.co.uk/ >_______________________________ > > >-----Original Message----- >From: >sustran-discuss-bounces+alan.howes=cbuchanan.co.uk@list.jca.apc.org >[mailto: sustran-discuss-bounces+alan.howes=cbuchanan.co.uk@list.jca.apc. >org] On Behalf Of Paul Barter >Sent: 24 April 2006 08:14 >To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport >Subject: [sustran] FW: Traffic in India > >A wonderful video clip of an Indian intersection working in ways most >traffic engineers would never imagine in their wildest dreams. If you >have never seen traffic in South Asia then this might come as something >of a shock. > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjrEQaG5jPM > > > >Paul > > >================================================================ >SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, >equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries >(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus >is on urban transport policy in Asia. > >....................................................................... ........................................................................ ........................................................................ ........................................................................ ........................................................................ ........................................................................ ........................................................................ ........................................................................ ......... >DISCLAIMER > >This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended >solely for the use of the individual or entity to which 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 Colin >Buchanan, 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 do not accept liability for any loss or damage caused by >software viruses. > > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 3 >Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 09:44:09 -0400 >From: "Walter Hook" >Subject: [sustran] Re: New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A > Proposal forDiscussion >To: , "'Asia and the Pacific sustainable > transport'" , > >, "'Sustran Resource Centre'" > >Cc: CarFreeCafe@yahoogroups.com >Message-ID: <012e01c667a5$2a6eb140$c301a8c0@DFJLYL81> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >Eric, > > > >Paul white and i had a related idea over lunch the other day, and we were >wondering if this has ever been tried. > > > >What if all the property owners and permanent tenants living along a block >of urban street were given the choice by the municipality of whether they >wanted the space in front of their house dedicated to car parking or >sidewalk? How many residents would vote for car parking? It might be >done >something like this. The department of transport could determine the >needed >road capacity, but the parking units would be a function of ultra local >democracy. What if as a result, each permanent resident or registered >voter, or even just each property tax payer, on a city block got to >determine the democratic use of the public space in front of their >property. >Since it is currently most of the time dedicated to parking, at least in >the >US, even if only 10% voted to get rid of the parking, that would be 10% of >the parking units we could reclaim. On my block i would guess that maybe >50% would opt for a wider sidewalk. Then a block association could be free >to contract an architect to redesign the street with that same number of >units of parking. > > > >I am wondering if there are any successful examples of this sort of ultra >local democracy? > > > >Walter > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org >[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org ] On Behalf >Of Eric Britton >Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2006 12:34 PM >To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com; Sustran Resource Centre >Cc: CarFreeCafe@yahoogroups.com >Subject: [sustran] New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A Proposal >forDiscussion > > > >New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A Proposal for Discussion > > > >When it comes to creating more viable and fairer transport systems, and >behind that our real objective: more agreeable and more sustainable cities, >we have one recurrent problem that we can perhaps deal with if we put our >heads together. > > > >As is well known, whenever any given 'soft transport', "public space" or >some type of "not quite so many cars" initiative is proposed in any given >place, the first and most striking thing that happens is the howls of >protest that immediately emerge from all those who claim that their >democratic entitlements are being threatened by, as they often like to put >it, some small group of arrogant bike-happy technocrats and their fellow >eco-travelers. And since the media always likes a good cat fight, these >righteous citizens often dominate the news. For the rest, for you and me >and >others like us, hey! we're the Silent Minority. The absolutely >disenfranchised. > > > >Well, it does not always have to be like that and here is one proposal >concerning which I would like to invite discussions and refinement - all as >a prelude to giving this idea a couple of trial runs in one or more >pioneering cities. > > > >The idea is to carry out an annual open citizen survey of attitudes and >preferences concerning transport policy and practice (and the investments >that go with it) in your city. The results should be made widely available >through old and new media, and brought to the fore of the attention of the >politicians, administrators and policy makers in your city. Here without >any >pretense of it being anything other than a grain of sand to get us going is >my draft proposal for content for quick mini-survey that can be >administered >by phone, email or on any street corner by volunteers: > > > >Note to the reader: In a first instance, before digging into the details, I >would like to ask the members of this fine group: (a) is this an idea that >is worth pursuing; (b) are there some (better)examples that we should be >looking at and learning from. Then once we have a feel for this as a useful >activity, we can then start to see how we might together fine tune a good >questionnaire and routine. > > > > > > > > > > > > >1, Draft Mini-survey (for comment and . . . ) > >All questions where appropriate to be answered simply by a 1 (yes), 0 >(don't >know), -or -1 (no), which will facilitate aggregation and overview. > > > >1. Name > >2. City of residence > >3. M/F > >4. Age: <15; 15-30; 30-65; >65 > >5. Do you own/drive a car? > >6. My city government has a coherent, announced transportation policy: > >7. I believe that this is a wise and well executed policy. > >8. We need to spend more money to build more roads and more parking as >a main transport priority. > >9. We need to give much more attention and spend more money on "soft >transport" and related life quality initiatives (examples: better support >of >pedestrians and cyclists, traffic calming, more public transport, new >forms >of shared transport, ITC substitutes for displacement.) > >10. It is possible for people to live here well and easily without having >their own car. > >11. If they want my vote -- all candidates for local public office should >take a firm stand on their transportation policies, and issue as part of >their platform a signed personal statement indicating their support of more >sustainable transport projects and programs. > > > >Your eventual brief comments or suggestions: ____________________________ > >_______________________________________________________________________ _____ >_______________________________________________________________________ _____ >_______________________________________________________________________ _____ >____________________________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > >2. How to execute - Thoughts on > > > >* This maybe is pushing it for length. If it can't be administered >in three minutes, it probably will not do the job. Try it out on a couple >of >friends and let us know. > >* There is plenty of evidence that people tend to create and >administrate questionnaires that one way or another tend to elicit their >favored response. We should meticulously avoid doing this, and in our >selection of questions - and people to be queried. If it ain't neutral, it >is not worth a lot. So careful, eh? > >* The simple mental model I have for this is an excel table with >names in columns, etc. All leading to easy sorting and sub-total > >* To have a real impact, it will best be administered at some fixed >time. >As examples: on Earth Day, in cooperation with any local Car Free Days, >European Moblity Week, etc.) > >* The procedures and information should be fully public so that >there can be no charges of rigging the returns. (Expect in Belarusia and >Florida in which it is OK.) > >* Also involve schools, various clubs and groups, senior citizens, >handicapped, pedestrian and cyclist naturally but also take it into >hospitals, prisons, old people's homes, jails, and the homeless. > >* Local media partnerships, and even strong involvement by them, >will be most useful. > >* I would propose that the on-street interviews be carried out on >one day - but that an entire week be given over to the entire procedures. > >* The results should be publicly announced. > >* And then all those in local government should be asked to comment >and give their appreciations of what this means. (Note: Our friends in >South >Africa with their first Car Free Days last year did a good job of this >which >we might usefully consult) > >* We propose that this be an annual exercise. > >* And that to the extent possible and sensible, we might want to >think about questions and formats that are sufficiently parallel to allow >us >to aggregate. > >* BTW, is there or has there ever been anything like this in your >city? Neighborhood? That we can learn from? > > > > > > > > >3. Parallel in-death Survey > > > >It may be a good idea to have a more in depth survey for those people >disposed to spend more time with us on this. > > > >The trick will be to determine who, how, when, - and how used? > > > >Here are a few first thoughts on this to get us going: > > > >* Employment, social status > >* Where live/where work > >* If it were faster and cheaper to get to work or school by some >way >other than driving a car (in traffic) would you be willing to consider it? > >* When was the last time you took a bus or rail transit? > >* Used a bike to get to work or school? > >* D you think that it might be a good idea for your city to publish >and maintain a "sustainable transportation webpage" that reports on key >indicators including traffic deaths and incidents (by gravity and type), >CO2 >or other clean air indicators, parametric indicators of infrastructure and >performance of NMT options, etc. > >* Would you be willing to work, say, 20 hours over a period of one >or >two months. as a volunteer to support better researched specific projects >in your neighborhood. > >* Etc. > >* Etc > >* > > > >-------------- next part -------------- >An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >URL: >http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060424/7b5 7686f/attachment.html > >------------------------------ > >Message: 4 >Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 09:44:09 -0400 >From: "Walter Hook" >Subject: [sustran] Re: New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A > Proposal forDiscussion >To: , "'Asia and the Pacific sustainable > transport'" < sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org>, > , "'Sustran Resource Centre'" > < sustran-discuss@jca.apc.org > >Cc: CarFreeCafe@yahoogroups.com >Message-ID: <012e01c667a5$2a6eb140$c301a8c0@DFJLYL81> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >Eric, > > > >Paul white and i had a related idea over lunch the other day, and we were >wondering if this has ever been tried. > > > >What if all the property owners and permanent tenants living along a block >of urban street were given the choice by the municipality of whether they >wanted the space in front of their house dedicated to car parking or >sidewalk? How many residents would vote for car parking? It might be >done >something like this. The department of transport could determine the >needed >road capacity, but the parking units would be a function of ultra local >democracy. What if as a result, each permanent resident or registered >voter, or even just each property tax payer, on a city block got to >determine the democratic use of the public space in front of their >property. >Since it is currently most of the time dedicated to parking, at least in >the >US, even if only 10% voted to get rid of the parking, that would be 10% of >the parking units we could reclaim. On my block i would guess that maybe >50% would opt for a wider sidewalk. Then a block association could be free >to contract an architect to redesign the street with that same number of >units of parking. > > > >I am wondering if there are any successful examples of this sort of ultra >local democracy? > > > >Walter > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org >[mailto: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf >Of Eric Britton >Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2006 12:34 PM >To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com; Sustran Resource Centre >Cc: CarFreeCafe@yahoogroups.com >Subject: [sustran] New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A Proposal >forDiscussion > > > >New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A Proposal for Discussion > > > >When it comes to creating more viable and fairer transport systems, and >behind that our real objective: more agreeable and more sustainable cities, >we have one recurrent problem that we can perhaps deal with if we put our >heads together. > > > >As is well known, whenever any given 'soft transport', "public space" or >some type of "not quite so many cars" initiative is proposed in any given >place, the first and most striking thing that happens is the howls of >protest that immediately emerge from all those who claim that their >democratic entitlements are being threatened by, as they often like to put >it, some small group of arrogant bike-happy technocrats and their fellow >eco-travelers. And since the media always likes a good cat fight, these >righteous citizens often dominate the news. For the rest, for you and me >and >others like us, hey! we're the Silent Minority. The absolutely >disenfranchised. > > > >Well, it does not always have to be like that and here is one proposal >concerning which I would like to invite discussions and refinement - all as >a prelude to giving this idea a couple of trial runs in one or more >pioneering cities. > > > >The idea is to carry out an annual open citizen survey of attitudes and >preferences concerning transport policy and practice (and the investments >that go with it) in your city. The results should be made widely available >through old and new media, and brought to the fore of the attention of the >politicians, administrators and policy makers in your city. Here without >any >pretense of it being anything other than a grain of sand to get us going is >my draft proposal for content for quick mini-survey that can be >administered >by phone, email or on any street corner by volunteers: > > > >Note to the reader: In a first instance, before digging into the details, I >would like to ask the members of this fine group: (a) is this an idea that >is worth pursuing; (b) are there some (better)examples that we should be >looking at and learning from. Then once we have a feel for this as a useful >activity, we can then start to see how we might together fine tune a good >questionnaire and routine. > > > > > > > > > > > > >1, Draft Mini-survey (for comment and . . . ) > >All questions where appropriate to be answered simply by a 1 (yes), 0 >(don't >know), -or -1 (no), which will facilitate aggregation and overview. > > > >1. Name > >2. City of residence > >3. M/F > >4. Age: <15; 15-30; 30-65; >65 > >5. Do you own/drive a car? > >6. My city government has a coherent, announced transportation policy: > >7. I believe that this is a wise and well executed policy. > >8. We need to spend more money to build more roads and more parking as >a main transport priority. > >9. We need to give much more attention and spend more money on "soft >transport" and related life quality initiatives (examples: better support >of >pedestrians and cyclists, traffic calming, more public transport, new >forms >of shared transport, ITC substitutes for displacement.) > >10. It is possible for people to live here well and easily without having >their own car. > >11. If they want my vote -- all candidates for local public office should >take a firm stand on their transportation policies, and issue as part of >their platform a signed personal statement indicating their support of more >sustainable transport projects and programs. > > > >Your eventual brief comments or suggestions: ____________________________ > >_______________________________________________________________________ _____ >_______________________________________________________________________ _____ >_______________________________________________________________________ _____ >____________________________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > >2. How to execute - Thoughts on > > > >* This maybe is pushing it for length. If it can't be administered >in three minutes, it probably will not do the job. Try it out on a couple >of >friends and let us know. > >* There is plenty of evidence that people tend to create and >administrate questionnaires that one way or another tend to elicit their >favored response. We should meticulously avoid doing this, and in our >selection of questions - and people to be queried. If it ain't neutral, it >is not worth a lot. So careful, eh? > >* The simple mental model I have for this is an excel table with >names in columns, etc. All leading to easy sorting and sub-total > >* To have a real impact, it will best be administered at some fixed >time. >As examples: on Earth Day, in cooperation with any local Car Free Days, >European Moblity Week, etc.) > >* The procedures and information should be fully public so that >there can be no charges of rigging the returns. (Expect in Belarusia and >Florida in which it is OK.) > >* Also involve schools, various clubs and groups, senior citizens, >handicapped, pedestrian and cyclist naturally but also take it into >hospitals, prisons, old people's homes, jails, and the homeless. > >* Local media partnerships, and even strong involvement by them, >will be most useful. > >* I would propose that the on-street interviews be carried out on >one day - but that an entire week be given over to the entire procedures. > >* The results should be publicly announced. > >* And then all those in local government should be asked to comment >and give their appreciations of what this means. (Note: Our friends in >South >Africa with their first Car Free Days last year did a good job of this >which >we might usefully consult) > >* We propose that this be an annual exercise. > >* And that to the extent possible and sensible, we might want to >think about questions and formats that are sufficiently parallel to allow >us >to aggregate. > >* BTW, is there or has there ever been anything like this in your >city? Neighborhood? That we can learn from? > > > > > > > > >3. Parallel in-death Survey > > > >It may be a good idea to have a more in depth survey for those people >disposed to spend more time with us on this. > > > >The trick will be to determine who, how, when, - and how used? > > > >Here are a few first thoughts on this to get us going: > > > >* Employment, social status > >* Where live/where work > >* If it were faster and cheaper to get to work or school by some >way >other than driving a car (in traffic) would you be willing to consider it? > >* When was the last time you took a bus or rail transit? > >* Used a bike to get to work or school? > >* D you think that it might be a good idea for your city to publish >and maintain a "sustainable transportation webpage" that reports on key >indicators including traffic deaths and incidents (by gravity and type), >CO2 >or other clean air indicators, parametric indicators of infrastructure and >performance of NMT options, etc. > >* Would you be willing to work, say, 20 hours over a period of one >or >two months. as a volunteer to support better researched specific projects >in your neighborhood. > >* Etc. > >* Etc > >* > > > >-------------- next part -------------- >An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >URL: >http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060424/7b5 7686f/attachment-0001.html > >------------------------------ > >================================================================ >SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, >equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries >(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is >on urban transport policy in Asia. > >End of Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 32, Issue 32 >*********************************************** ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. -- ------------------------------------------------------ Sujit Patwardhan sujit@vsnl.com sujitjp@gmail.com "Yamuna", ICS Colony, Ganeshkhind Road, Pune 411 007 India Tel: 25537955 ----------------------------------------------------- Hon. Secretary: Parisar www.parisar.org ------------------------------------------------------ Founder Member: PTTF (Pune Traffic & Transportation Forum) www.pttf.net ------------------------------------------------------ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060426/cdb7599b/attachment-0001.html From sri at giaspn01.vsnl.net.in Wed Apr 26 16:51:26 2006 From: sri at giaspn01.vsnl.net.in (Prof J G Krishnayya) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 13:21:26 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: More about on-street parking In-Reply-To: <1093.62.245.95.24.1145946702.squirrel@mail.smartweb.cz> Message-ID: <004601c66906$3d3e2140$0e01a8c0@JGK> Right on, Todd! Well said. However, you are fighting all the engineers who believe -- who are indoctrinated to think that improving efficiency by 10% is a positive thing. JGK ========= Prof J G Krishnayya Director, Systems Research Institute, 17-A Gultekdi, PUNE 411037, India www.sripune.org Tel +91-20-2426-0323 jkrishnayya@yahoo.com Res 020-2636-3930 sri@giaspn01.vsnl.net.in Fax +91-20-2444-7902 -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+sri=pn1.vsnl.net.in@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+sri=pn1.vsnl.net.in@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Todd Edelman Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 12:02 PM To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport Subject: [sustran] Re: More about on-street parking Hi, I suppose I could admit I am a "carfree fundamentalist" who sees nothing sustainable about cities which allow individually owned and operated cars inside....so I will just mostly ignore this "better car parking" stuff. So just comment: > ... > on-street parking can act as a buffer between pedestrians and a busy > arterial. I have heard this argument before. Arent there better buffers? For example, trees, plants, bikelanes, watercourses, sculptures, vending machines, and so on? In carcities, how about if it was a rule that if you are so close to pedestrians you simply have to drive really, really slow? This is not rocket science. --- This list really confuses me sometimes. Do people want to spend their whole professional lives (and afterwards) regulating parking and trying to get cars to slow down? How many people on this would be perfectly happy to not be able to use a car if their city was designed to provide everything you need without one? To reference a recent thread on this list, are people ready to sacrifice sustainability(!) for peace, quiet, safety and proximity? Thanks, T ------------------------------------------------------ Todd Edelman International Coordinator On the Train Towards the Future! Green Idea Factory Laubova 5 CZ-13000 Praha 3 ++420 605 915 970 edelman@greenidea.info http://www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain Green Idea Factory, a member of World Carfree Network ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. From scott at pedalsong.net Wed Apr 26 18:28:33 2006 From: scott at pedalsong.net (D. Scott TenBrink) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 03:28:33 -0600 Subject: [sustran] On vs off street parking In-Reply-To: <001201c667b9$21e16c70$c301a8c0@DFJLYL81> References: <001201c667b9$21e16c70$c301a8c0@DFJLYL81> Message-ID: <20060426032833.ne5b6za62lcgcwo8@www.pedalsong.net> This is in response to Walter, but may drift to cover other posts on some points. First, I think it is important to note that the promotion of on-street parking in this thread was in the context of choosing between on and off-street parking and not of changing the total parking supply. Therefore, your claim that on-street parking ?consumes public space that otherwise could be used for children to play, people to sit and play dominoes, walk, etc.? does not consider that moving that parking off-street actually would consume more urban space. Granted this may be offered on private property as opposed to public land, but many studies have shown that privately supplied parking is the least efficient manner of parking provision. Overall, off-street parking will consume more resources and create more ?dead space? in the city than the on-street alternative. The promotion of on-street parking should not be confused with the promotion of free parking either. I agree that on-street parking is generally under-priced, at least based on demand. But the subsidization of driving through free parking is hardly limited to on-street supply. Off street parking is much more expensive to provide and is often provided free for the end user. When that cost is absorbed into the cost of products, it is passed on unfairly to those who choose not to drive. As I read him, Prof. Knoflacher is not opposed to on-street parking, but convenient parking, on or off the street. He does not promote parking in the garage of one?s home over parking on the street in front of one?s home. From http://www.transalt.org/press/magazine/046%20Spring/02provocateur.html: ?If the car is parked in front of the house, or in the garage in the house and the public transport stop is several hundred meters away, everybody will use the car.? Further, the argument that transportation systems are biased for cars because public transit doesn?t stop in front of your door seems strange in that if transit did stop in front of everyone?s front door transit trips would take much longer than they currently do. While I understand that the comparison is meant to suggest that convenient parking encourages private vehicles over transit, one should not infer that eliminating convenient parking would speed transit trips to those driving with convenient parking. Also, when you say that on-street parking ?biases modal choice towards private car use?, this can only apply to a preference over transit, and not NMT trips which require no parking, or generally convenient parking of a bicycle. I agree that a street that is safe to cycle on is preferable to separate cycling lanes, especially where those lanes are wide enough to allow bikes to pass auto traffic. Finally, I?d like to point out that in my experience in a small, mid-western town, it is the local merchants and city residents that are the first to cry foul over recommendations to reduce parking, especially on-street parking. While we may argue that reducing (or eliminating) parking would be better for the city in the long run. They are the ones who have to make that decision and live with the results. I know that in Michigan the trend toward reducing State assistance to cities has put the fear of God into downtown retailers who are worried that reducing parking will kill downtown business. Proposing an all-or-nothing approach on parking will get nowhere in this environment. Todd Litman and Dan Schoup have done some great work in providing recommendations on how to manage parking efficiently to fully utilize the supply instead of expanding it, including integration of SOV alternatives. To reiterate, I (and I?m assuming the others promoting on-street parking) am not advocating more parking, free parking, or convenient parking. If I?m advocating any parking it is efficient parking in order to reduce the need for greater supply and to minimize the impact on future development. I am interested in the idea of managing congestion through parking provision. I?ve often wondered if limiting parking would limit drivers. My fear is that it would only limit parkers and not drivers, resulting in a city that people use as a short cut to get to the suburbs on the other side of town. I also like the idea of centralized parking with easy access to local transit to get around town, so that those who need to drive into town can park and transit can provide convenient ?last mile? service. -Scott Quoting Walter Hook : > I admit I am a bit astonished by Todd and Eric?s comments in support of on > street parking. I thought we would all be more or less on the same page on > this. > > > > Eric?s support for on street parking, that it is ugly and therefore will > ultimately one day lead to citizen awareness, does not appear to be borne > out by the facts. Streets in most cities have been clogged with ugly, > undercharged parked cars since the 20s, and it has not led to any > consciousness raising: people just don?t see anything wrong with it because > it is just normal to them. We need some beautifully redesigned streets to > show neighborhoods that they don?t have to live on ugly streets, and see no > justification for us to be encouraging congestion and on street parking in > the hopes it will one day lead to a sustainable mobility revolution. That > is like rejecting the minimum wage because it ameliorates the chances of a > hoped for utopian revolution. > > > > Prof. Hermann Knoflacher of the Univ. of Vienna believes, and I am inclined > to agree, makes a compelling argument that on street parking is THE central > problem with western traffic systems. He goes so far as to say that if we > dealt with the parking issue, we wouldn?t need congestion charging. Maybe. > He argues that total travel times are biased in favor of private car modes > over transit modes largely because society allows people to park their cars > right in front of their houses and right adjacent to their offices, while > the nearest bus stop is likely to be some distance away. Because the > walking trip is taken at very slow speeds, and this has to be added to the > waiting time for the bus, the total trip time is therefore significantly > biased against the transit trip. Therefore, on street parking has several > significant dis-benefits: one, it biases modal choice towards private car > use, two it consumes public space that otherwise could be used for children > to play, people to sit and play dominoes, walk, etc. In addition, on street > parking is generally badly underpriced in terms of land rent, subsidizing > driving. In addition, car parking if removed would also provide the space > for a bike lane that could be physically protected from traffic, although on > a residential street the bike lane isn?t necessary if you can traffic calm > the whole street. > > > > Best > > Walter > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Todd Alexander Litman [mailto:litman@vtpi.org] > Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 11:10 AM > To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com; eric.britton@ecoplan.org; > whook@itdp.org; sustran-discuss@jca.apc.org; > sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org; NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com > Cc: CarFreeCafe@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [NewMobilityCafe] [sustran] Re: New Mobility Citizen Poll for > Your City- A ProposalforDiscussion > > > > > On the other hand, on-street parking is the most efficient type of parking > that can be provided. Most off-street spaces only serve a single destination > and so have low load factors, while on-street spaces serve many destinations > and have high load factors, and so are more efficient overall. Also, > off-street spaces require driveways which use a portion of the curb and > cross sidewalks. For these reasons many urban planners now support the > provision of a maximum number of on-street spaces and a minimum number of > off-street spaces (for discussion of ways to use parking facilities more > efficiently see my new report "Parking Management" > (http://www.vtpi.org/park_man.pdf ) and book "Parking Management Best > Practices" ( http://www.planning.org/bookservice/description.htm?BCODE=APMB > ). > > If the choice is really between sidewalks and on-street parking I would > generally choose providing a sidewalk, but it is desirable to provide > on-street parking where possible. > > > Best wishes, > -Todd Litman > > > At 07:01 AM 4/24/2006, Lee Schipper wrote: > > > > Years ago a good Swedish Transport economist posed the same question. by > measuring how much time people spent walking to where > there was green space, he figured out that providing on-street parking > rather than more green space and broader sidewalks led to a real > economic loss. His advice was to provide parking only in private, commercial > areas (he also looked at how much off-street parking cost). > > One benefit of such an approach * say every other street in NYCity had no > parking...just bays for deliveries here and there * front yards would > reappaear > and children and families could play in the streets more safely! > >>>> whook@itdp.org 4/24/2006 9:44:09 AM >>> > Eric, > > > > Paul white and i had a related idea over lunch the other day, and we were > wondering if this has ever been tried. > > > > What if all the property owners and permanent tenants living along a block > of urban street were given the choice by the municipality of whether they > wanted the space in front of their house dedicated to car parking or > sidewalk? How many residents would vote for car parking? It might be done > something like this. The department of transport could determine the needed > road capacity, but the parking units would be a function of ultra local > democracy. What if as a result, each permanent resident or registered > voter, or even just each property tax payer, on a city block got to > determine the democratic use of the public space in front of their property. > Since it is currently most of the time dedicated to parking, at least in the > US, even if only 10% voted to get rid of the parking, that would be 10% of > the parking units we could reclaim. On my block i would guess that maybe > 50% would opt for a wider sidewalk. Then a block association could be free > to contract an architect to redesign the street with that same number of > units of parking. > > > > I am wondering if there are any successful examples of this sort of ultra > local democracy? > > > > Walter > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org > [ mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org > ] On Behalf > Of Eric Britton > Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2006 12:34 PM > To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com; Sustran Resource Centre > Cc: CarFreeCafe@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [sustran] New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A Proposal > forDiscussion > > > > New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A Proposal for Discussion > > > > When it comes to creating more viable and fairer transport systems, and > behind that our real objective: more agreeable and more sustainable cities, > we have one recurrent problem that we can perhaps deal with if we put our > heads together. > > > > As is well known, whenever any given 'soft transport', "public space" or > some type of "not quite so many cars" initiative is proposed in any given > place, the first and most striking thing that happens is the howls of > protest that immediately emerge from all those who claim that their > democratic entitlements are being threatened by, as they often like to put > it, some small group of arrogant bike-happy technocrats and their fellow > eco-travelers. And since the media always likes a good cat fight, these > righteous citizens often dominate the news. For the rest, for you and me and > others like us, hey! we're the Silent Minority. The absolutely > disenfranchised. > > > > Well, it does not always have to be like that and here is one proposal > concerning which I would like to invite discussions and refinement - all as > a prelude to giving this idea a couple of trial runs in one or more > pioneering cities. > > > > The idea is to carry out an annual open citizen survey of attitudes and > preferences concerning transport policy and practice (and the investments > that go with it) in your city. The results should be made widely available > through old and new media, and brought to the fore of the attention of the > politicians, administrators and policy makers in your city. Here without any > pretense of it being anything other than a grain of sand to get us going is > my draft proposal for content for quick mini-survey that can be administered > by phone, email or on any street corner by volunteers: > > > > Note to the reader: In a first instance, before digging into the details, I > would like to ask the members of this fine group: (a) is this an idea that > is worth pursuing; (b) are there some (better)examples that we should be > looking at and learning from. Then once we have a feel for this as a useful > activity, we can then start to see how we might together fine tune a good > questionnaire and routine. > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1, Draft Mini-survey (for comment and . . . ) > > All questions where appropriate to be answered simply by a 1 (yes), 0 (don't > know), -or -1 (no), which will facilitate aggregation and overview. > > > > 1. Name > > 2. City of residence > > 3. M/F > > 4. Age: <15; 15-30; 30-65; >65 > > 5. Do you own/drive a car? > > 6. My city government has a coherent, announced transportation policy: > > 7. I believe that this is a wise and well executed policy. > > 8. We need to spend more money to build more roads and more parking as > a main transport priority. > > 9. We need to give much more attention and spend more money on "soft > transport" and related life quality initiatives (examples: better support of > pedestrians and cyclists, traffic calming, more public transport, new forms > of shared transport, ITC substitutes for displacement.) > > 10. It is possible for people to live here well and easily without having > their own car. > > 11. If they want my vote -- all candidates for local public office should > take a firm stand on their transportation policies, and issue as part of > their platform a signed personal statement indicating their support of more > sustainable transport projects and programs. > > > > Your eventual brief comments or suggestions: ____________________________ > > ____________________________________________________________________________ > ____________________________________________________________________________ > ____________________________________________________________________________ > ____________________________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > > 2. How to execute - Thoughts on > > > > * This maybe is pushing it for length. If it can't be administered > in three minutes, it probably will not do the job. Try it out on a couple of > friends and let us know. > > * There is plenty of evidence that people tend to create and > administrate questionnaires that one way or another tend to elicit their > favored response. We should meticulously avoid doing this, and in our > selection of questions - and people to be queried. If it ain't neutral, it > is not worth a lot. So careful, eh? > > * The simple mental model I have for this is an excel table with > names in columns, etc. All leading to easy sorting and sub-total > > * To have a real impact, it will best be administered at some fixed > time. > As examples: on Earth Day, in cooperation with any local Car Free Days, > European Moblity Week, etc.) > > * The procedures and information should be fully public so that > there can be no charges of rigging the returns. (Expect in Belarusia and > Florida in which it is OK.) > > * Also involve schools, various clubs and groups, senior citizens, > handicapped, pedestrian and cyclist naturally but also take it into > hospitals, prisons, old people's homes, jails, and the homeless. > > * Local media partnerships, and even strong involvement by them, > will be most useful. > > * I would propose that the on-street interviews be carried out on > one day - but that an entire week be given over to the entire procedures. > > * The results should be publicly announced. > > * And then all those in local government should be asked to comment > and give their appreciations of what this means. (Note: Our friends in South > Africa with their first Car Free Days last year did a good job of this which > we might usefully consult) > > * We propose that this be an annual exercise. > > * And that to the extent possible and sensible, we might want to > think about questions and formats that are sufficiently parallel to allow us > to aggregate. > > * BTW, is there or has there ever been anything like this in your > city? Neighborhood? That we can learn from? > > > > > > > > > 3. Parallel in-death Survey > > > > It may be a good idea to have a more in depth survey for those people > disposed to spend more time with us on this. > > > > The trick will be to determine who, how, when, - and how used? > > > > Here are a few first thoughts on this to get us going: > > > > * Employment, social status > > * Where live/where work > > * If it were faster and cheaper to get to work or school by some way > other than driving a car (in traffic) would you be willing to consider it? > > * When was the last time you took a bus or rail transit? > > * Used a bike to get to work or school? > > * D you think that it might be a good idea for your city to publish > and maintain a "sustainable transportation webpage" that reports on key > indicators including traffic deaths and incidents (by gravity and type), CO2 > or other clean air indicators, parametric indicators of infrastructure and > performance of NMT options, etc. > > * Would you be willing to work, say, 20 hours over a period of one or > two months. as a volunteer to support better researched specific projects > in your neighborhood. > > * Etc. > > * Etc > > * > > > > > > > > Check in here via the homepage at http://www.newmobility.org > > To post message to group: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com > But please think twice before posting to the group as a whole > (It might be that your note is best sent to one person?) > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewMobilityCafe/ > > <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > NewMobilityCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > > Sincerely, > Todd Alexander Litman > Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org) > litman@vtpi.org > Phone & Fax 250-360-1560 > 1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA > ?Efficiency - Equity - Clarity? > > > From litman at vtpi.org Wed Apr 26 22:13:32 2006 From: litman at vtpi.org (Todd Alexander Litman) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 06:13:32 -0700 Subject: [sustran] Re: On vs off street parking In-Reply-To: <20060426032833.ne5b6za62lcgcwo8@www.pedalsong.net> References: <001201c667b9$21e16c70$c301a8c0@DFJLYL81> <20060426032833.ne5b6za62lcgcwo8@www.pedalsong.net> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20060426060016.032b22a0@mail.islandnet.com> Mr. TenBrink raised a number of good questions, including whether reducing parking supply reduces automobile trips and congetion. The answer is that it certainly can, particularly if implemented in conjunction with improved transit service, and improved cycling and walking conditions. Several studies have found a strong negative correlation between downtown parking supply and transit ridership. Conventional parking standards, such as those published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers and the American Planning Association, assume that each destination should have the maximum amount of parking supply that may ever be needed over the facility's life, which results in most destinations having far more parking supply than they usually need. On-street parking is one of the most efficient ways of sharing parking facilities, so each space serves several destinations (homes in the evenings, shops during the day, pubs and restaurants in the evening) so each well-managed on-street space can substitute for three or four off-street spaces. The result is fewer total spaces required, allowing more compact development and encouraging "park-once" trips (motorist parks their car and walks to several destinations, rather than making several short vehicle trips). "Efficient management" includes efficient pricing of parking spaces, which is an excellent form of local revenue (see our new paper "Parking Taxes: Evaluating Options and Impacts" at http://www.vtpi.org/parking_tax.pdf ). Of all the reforms we can make to encourage more efficient transportation, more efficient land use, and more equitable transportation funding, changing parking management practices to encourage efficiency is one of the most effective. For more information see: "Parking Management," a free report at (http://www.vtpi.org/park_man.pdf ). Mott Smith, "Onsite Parking: The Scourge of America's Commercial Districts" (http://www.planetizen.com/node/19246 ). Donald Shoup, "The Price Of Parking On Great Streets" (http://www.planetizen.com/node/19150 ). Todd Litman, "Parking Management: Innovative Solutions To Vehicle Parking Problems" (http://www.planetizen.com/node/19149 ). Best wishes, -Todd Litman At 02:28 AM 4/26/2006, D. Scott TenBrink wrote: >This is in response to Walter, but may drift to cover other posts on some >points. > >First, I think it is important to note that the promotion of on-street parking >in this thread was in the context of choosing between on and off-street >parking >and not of changing the total parking supply. Therefore, your claim that >on-street parking ?consumes public space that otherwise could be used for >children to play, people to sit and play dominoes, walk, etc.? does not >consider that moving that parking off-street actually would consume more urban >space. Granted this may be offered on private property as opposed to public >land, but many studies have shown that privately supplied parking is the least >efficient manner of parking provision. Overall, off-street parking will >consume more resources and create more ?dead space? in the city than the >on-street alternative. > >The promotion of on-street parking should not be confused with the >promotion of >free parking either. I agree that on-street parking is generally >under-priced, >at least based on demand. But the subsidization of driving through >free parking >is hardly limited to on-street supply. Off street parking is much more >expensive to provide and is often provided free for the end user. When that >cost is absorbed into the cost of products, it is passed on unfairly to those >who choose not to drive. > >As I read him, Prof. Knoflacher is not opposed to on-street parking, but >convenient parking, on or off the street. He does not promote parking in the >garage of one?s home over parking on the street in front of one?s home. > > From http://www.transalt.org/press/magazine/046%20Spring/02provocateur.html: > >?If the car is parked in front of the house, or in the garage in the house and >the public transport stop is several hundred meters away, everybody >will use the >car.? > >Further, the argument that transportation systems are biased for cars because >public transit doesn?t stop in front of your door seems strange in that if >transit did stop in front of everyone?s front door transit trips would take >much longer than they currently do. While I understand that the comparison is >meant to suggest that convenient parking encourages private vehicles over >transit, one should not infer that eliminating convenient parking would speed >transit trips to those driving with convenient parking. > >Also, when you say that on-street parking ?biases modal choice towards private >car >use?, this can only apply to a preference over transit, and not NMT trips >which require no parking, or generally convenient parking of a bicycle. > >I agree that a street that is safe to cycle on is preferable to >separate cycling >lanes, especially where those lanes are wide enough to allow bikes to >pass auto >traffic. > >Finally, I?d like to point out that in my experience in a small, mid-western >town, it is the local merchants and city residents that are the first to cry >foul over recommendations to reduce parking, especially on-street >parking. While we may argue that reducing (or eliminating) parking >would be better for >the city in the long run. They are the ones who have to make that >decision and >live with the results. > >I know that in Michigan the trend toward reducing State assistance to cities >has put the fear of God into downtown retailers who are worried that reducing >parking will kill downtown business. Proposing an all-or-nothing approach on >parking will get nowhere in this environment. Todd Litman and Dan Schoup have >done some great work in providing recommendations on how to manage parking >efficiently to fully utilize the supply instead of expanding it, including >integration of SOV alternatives. > >To reiterate, I (and I?m assuming the others promoting on-street parking) am >not advocating more parking, free parking, or convenient parking. If I?m >advocating any parking it is efficient parking in order to reduce the need for >greater supply and to minimize the impact on future development. > >I am interested in the idea of managing congestion through parking >provision. I?ve often wondered if limiting parking would limit drivers. > My fear is that >it would only limit parkers and not drivers, resulting in a city that >people use >as a short cut to get to the suburbs on the other side of town. > >I also like the idea of centralized parking with easy access to local >transit to >get around town, so that those who need to drive into town can park and >transit >can provide convenient ?last mile? service. Sincerely, Todd Alexander Litman Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org) litman@vtpi.org Phone & Fax 250-360-1560 1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060426/0568ba4a/attachment.html From sksunny at gmail.com Wed Apr 26 23:09:41 2006 From: sksunny at gmail.com (Sunny) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 21:09:41 +0700 Subject: [sustran] Reply to Prof. JKG Discipline is needed In-Reply-To: <003a01c668ed$15c556b0$0e01a8c0@JGK> References: <003a01c668ed$15c556b0$0e01a8c0@JGK> Message-ID: <444F7F25.4030106@gmail.com> Dear Prof, Very nice to see ur mail. from my point of view seeing Indian cities Bangkok and other Thai cities where car dependency is much more than India I feel that though strict traffic rules are implemented it might not reduce the traffic growth. If you compare the driving behaviour of Thais and Indians I would say that Thais stick to the rules, while many of us Indians do not care for a traffic signal when the road is clean. Fines would be a great idea but in India the need is more for a much stricter discipline among the police officials in not being corrupt. In my home town,Visakhapatnam, and my capital city, Hyderabad, I have seen traffic police checking motorists in the first and last weeks of the months and many of them usually take a bribe starting from 50 rupees, I say this as I personally experienced this situation, inspite of having all the required documents i was fined because my motorbike did not have a black dot on the headlight. So I feel that enforcing traffic rules would be a great idea for the sake of a policy but for the implementation it will be filling the pockets of the policemen and the constables and people driving usually get a belief that even if the police catches without a drivers license a 200 rupees in the pocket is enough to get away with, when this attitude of the police changes then we might see this present chaos into an "Organised Chaos". To solve this Organised Chaos even I agree with you that contemporary engineering solutions do no good but rather we need a social approach. More technological solutions will only result disadvantaging the vulnerable groups like the pedestrian overpasses that infest Bangkok and I have seen some even on the National Highways in Thailand. Another comment on the countdown signals, I presume that this method of ITS is disadvantageous since it can tend to increase the drivers speed on seeing a smaller number...kindly correct me if i understood it wrong. Coming to the main idea wht I understand from Sujit's comment was the issue of solving the growing need of personal mobility and a new solution for the present problems. I would suggest a solution that incorporates every user except the car user. I would ask Sujit if there is a possibility of introducing shared space in Pune,as I have never been to this wonderful city and have only heard both the good and bad sides of it. Shared space concept was received very well in European countries and it is an idea in which the car user is not given the false idea that they are the kings of the road and everyone else have to give way for them but instead in a shared space cars need to wait for the people....I guess many other members on this forum have personally experienced the merits and demerits of shared space and would be kind enough to throw more light on this area. I guess this idea would be good for developing cities like in India where we can cut the feeling of road ownership of car users at the roots. I would like your and other members comments on the same. Sincerely, Sunny From whook at itdp.org Thu Apr 27 00:35:06 2006 From: whook at itdp.org (Walter Hook) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 11:35:06 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: On vs off street parking or simply reducing on street parking. In-Reply-To: <20060426032833.ne5b6za62lcgcwo8@www.pedalsong.net> Message-ID: <024301c66946$ff1a51e0$c301a8c0@DFJLYL81> This discussion has been helpful, as we are just getting into parking issues and still need to think them through, and it is interesting that we usual suspects are not entirely of one mind. The point is well taken that the on street versus off street issue is fairly context specific. I am sure the issue plays out differently in different situations. I have enjoyed the new material by Shoup and the material of Knoflacher, and am pretty familiar with todd's work. I have been frustrated with Knoflacher's work in that there are almost no real world examples of where anything has been done to implement his general approach, so I am wondering about references to political processes that have worked in implementing parking regimes that have led to good examples of traffic calmed or post traffic calmed streets. Sometimes the streets are visible but often not the process that led to its implementation. I am sure there are good examples in Europe and probably a few in the US, and would be curious if people had info. Transportation Alternatives held this great event in Williamsburg where they bought a curbside parking space and occupied with caf? tables and bike parking for a day, and paid the meter fee. People loved it, as it politicized the issue. I started this discussion with a very specific context in mind. In my neighborhood, (and one always looks out the window first), maybe 1/3 of the people own a car, and a lot of us have kids. There is free curb side parking on both sides of the street, you only have to move the cars on the days the street cleaners come, so there is some day regulation but otherwise it?s free. Usually you can find something within a block or two of your house after cruising around for a while. I guess this situation is typical of residential areas in major cities, not so much in suburbs where a house might have three cars per person or something and plenty of curbside space. In this very specific context, I would think that a purely democratic process to reapportion the street space would lead to a reduction of on-street parking space in favour of more sidewalk space. I proposed a concrete suggestion: what if a mechanism were developed where people could decide, democratically, within parameters set by the city DOT, about the apportionment of the public right of way in front of their houses. Obviously a street has a function that is beyond the interests of the people living there, but some part of the street serves a throughput function, and some part an access function. It is reasonable to have the City DOT do two things: set the speed limit (this was a huge battle in New York to get the city the power to reduce the speed limits on residential streets) and determine the needed throughput on the street. Perhaps the municipality could then have a pilot project where they would give communities a pot of money on a competitive basis the option to redesign the streetscape in a way that conformed to these DOT requirements but better conformed to the specific wishes of that community. There would be on many streets a high degree of flexibility. To get the money, a block association would have to be formed and certified, and the city itself might have an architect able to take in the basic position of the community, and the city would finance the buildout for the best ultimate designs, judged by, i don?t know, the planning commission or something. If such a localized urban design project went forward, I would guess that in some communities it would lead to the reduction of on street parking. Maybe in others it would lead to an increase, who knows. But perhaps the mechanism would get some fresh ideas and approaches out there for people to think about. Anybody ever heard of anything like this being tried? Is it a good idea? Best Walter -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of D. Scott TenBrink Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 5:29 AM To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org Subject: [sustran] On vs off street parking This is in response to Walter, but may drift to cover other posts on some points. First, I think it is important to note that the promotion of on-street parking in this thread was in the context of choosing between on and off-street parking and not of changing the total parking supply. Therefore, your claim that on-street parking ?consumes public space that otherwise could be used for children to play, people to sit and play dominoes, walk, etc.? does not consider that moving that parking off-street actually would consume more urban space. Granted this may be offered on private property as opposed to public land, but many studies have shown that privately supplied parking is the least efficient manner of parking provision. Overall, off-street parking will consume more resources and create more ?dead space? in the city than the on-street alternative. The promotion of on-street parking should not be confused with the promotion of free parking either. I agree that on-street parking is generally under-priced, at least based on demand. But the subsidization of driving through free parking is hardly limited to on-street supply. Off street parking is much more expensive to provide and is often provided free for the end user. When that cost is absorbed into the cost of products, it is passed on unfairly to those who choose not to drive. As I read him, Prof. Knoflacher is not opposed to on-street parking, but convenient parking, on or off the street. He does not promote parking in the garage of one?s home over parking on the street in front of one?s home. From http://www.transalt.org/press/magazine/046%20Spring/02provocateur.html: ?If the car is parked in front of the house, or in the garage in the house and the public transport stop is several hundred meters away, everybody will use the car.? Further, the argument that transportation systems are biased for cars because public transit doesn?t stop in front of your door seems strange in that if transit did stop in front of everyone?s front door transit trips would take much longer than they currently do. While I understand that the comparison is meant to suggest that convenient parking encourages private vehicles over transit, one should not infer that eliminating convenient parking would speed transit trips to those driving with convenient parking. Also, when you say that on-street parking ?biases modal choice towards private car use?, this can only apply to a preference over transit, and not NMT trips which require no parking, or generally convenient parking of a bicycle. I agree that a street that is safe to cycle on is preferable to separate cycling lanes, especially where those lanes are wide enough to allow bikes to pass auto traffic. Finally, I?d like to point out that in my experience in a small, mid-western town, it is the local merchants and city residents that are the first to cry foul over recommendations to reduce parking, especially on-street parking. While we may argue that reducing (or eliminating) parking would be better for the city in the long run. They are the ones who have to make that decision and live with the results. I know that in Michigan the trend toward reducing State assistance to cities has put the fear of God into downtown retailers who are worried that reducing parking will kill downtown business. Proposing an all-or-nothing approach on parking will get nowhere in this environment. Todd Litman and Dan Schoup have done some great work in providing recommendations on how to manage parking efficiently to fully utilize the supply instead of expanding it, including integration of SOV alternatives. To reiterate, I (and I?m assuming the others promoting on-street parking) am not advocating more parking, free parking, or convenient parking. If I?m advocating any parking it is efficient parking in order to reduce the need for greater supply and to minimize the impact on future development. I am interested in the idea of managing congestion through parking provision. I?ve often wondered if limiting parking would limit drivers. My fear is that it would only limit parkers and not drivers, resulting in a city that people use as a short cut to get to the suburbs on the other side of town. I also like the idea of centralized parking with easy access to local transit to get around town, so that those who need to drive into town can park and transit can provide convenient ?last mile? service. -Scott Quoting Walter Hook : > I admit I am a bit astonished by Todd and Eric?s comments in support of on > street parking. I thought we would all be more or less on the same page on > this. > > > > Eric?s support for on street parking, that it is ugly and therefore will > ultimately one day lead to citizen awareness, does not appear to be borne > out by the facts. Streets in most cities have been clogged with ugly, > undercharged parked cars since the 20s, and it has not led to any > consciousness raising: people just don?t see anything wrong with it because > it is just normal to them. We need some beautifully redesigned streets to > show neighborhoods that they don?t have to live on ugly streets, and see no > justification for us to be encouraging congestion and on street parking in > the hopes it will one day lead to a sustainable mobility revolution. That > is like rejecting the minimum wage because it ameliorates the chances of a > hoped for utopian revolution. > > > > Prof. Hermann Knoflacher of the Univ. of Vienna believes, and I am inclined > to agree, makes a compelling argument that on street parking is THE central > problem with western traffic systems. He goes so far as to say that if we > dealt with the parking issue, we wouldn?t need congestion charging. Maybe. > He argues that total travel times are biased in favor of private car modes > over transit modes largely because society allows people to park their cars > right in front of their houses and right adjacent to their offices, while > the nearest bus stop is likely to be some distance away. Because the > walking trip is taken at very slow speeds, and this has to be added to the > waiting time for the bus, the total trip time is therefore significantly > biased against the transit trip. Therefore, on street parking has several > significant dis-benefits: one, it biases modal choice towards private car > use, two it consumes public space that otherwise could be used for children > to play, people to sit and play dominoes, walk, etc. In addition, on street > parking is generally badly underpriced in terms of land rent, subsidizing > driving. In addition, car parking if removed would also provide the space > for a bike lane that could be physically protected from traffic, although on > a residential street the bike lane isn?t necessary if you can traffic calm > the whole street. > > > > Best > > Walter > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Todd Alexander Litman [mailto:litman@vtpi.org] > Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 11:10 AM > To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com; eric.britton@ecoplan.org; > whook@itdp.org; sustran-discuss@jca.apc.org; > sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org; NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com > Cc: CarFreeCafe@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [NewMobilityCafe] [sustran] Re: New Mobility Citizen Poll for > Your City- A ProposalforDiscussion > > > > > On the other hand, on-street parking is the most efficient type of parking > that can be provided. Most off-street spaces only serve a single destination > and so have low load factors, while on-street spaces serve many destinations > and have high load factors, and so are more efficient overall. Also, > off-street spaces require driveways which use a portion of the curb and > cross sidewalks. For these reasons many urban planners now support the > provision of a maximum number of on-street spaces and a minimum number of > off-street spaces (for discussion of ways to use parking facilities more > efficiently see my new report "Parking Management" > (http://www.vtpi.org/park_man.pdf ) and book "Parking Management Best > Practices" ( http://www.planning.org/bookservice/description.htm?BCODE=APMB > ). > > If the choice is really between sidewalks and on-street parking I would > generally choose providing a sidewalk, but it is desirable to provide > on-street parking where possible. > > > Best wishes, > -Todd Litman > > > At 07:01 AM 4/24/2006, Lee Schipper wrote: > > > > Years ago a good Swedish Transport economist posed the same question. by > measuring how much time people spent walking to where > there was green space, he figured out that providing on-street parking > rather than more green space and broader sidewalks led to a real > economic loss. His advice was to provide parking only in private, commercial > areas (he also looked at how much off-street parking cost). > > One benefit of such an approach * say every other street in NYCity had no > parking...just bays for deliveries here and there * front yards would > reappaear > and children and families could play in the streets more safely! > >>>> whook@itdp.org 4/24/2006 9:44:09 AM >>> > Eric, > > > > Paul white and i had a related idea over lunch the other day, and we were > wondering if this has ever been tried. > > > > What if all the property owners and permanent tenants living along a block > of urban street were given the choice by the municipality of whether they > wanted the space in front of their house dedicated to car parking or > sidewalk? How many residents would vote for car parking? It might be done > something like this. The department of transport could determine the needed > road capacity, but the parking units would be a function of ultra local > democracy. What if as a result, each permanent resident or registered > voter, or even just each property tax payer, on a city block got to > determine the democratic use of the public space in front of their property. > Since it is currently most of the time dedicated to parking, at least in the > US, even if only 10% voted to get rid of the parking, that would be 10% of > the parking units we could reclaim. On my block i would guess that maybe > 50% would opt for a wider sidewalk. Then a block association could be free > to contract an architect to redesign the street with that same number of > units of parking. > > > > I am wondering if there are any successful examples of this sort of ultra > local democracy? > > > > Walter > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org > [ mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org > ] On Behalf > Of Eric Britton > Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2006 12:34 PM > To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com; Sustran Resource Centre > Cc: CarFreeCafe@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [sustran] New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A Proposal > forDiscussion > > > > New Mobility Citizen Poll for Your City- A Proposal for Discussion > > > > When it comes to creating more viable and fairer transport systems, and > behind that our real objective: more agreeable and more sustainable cities, > we have one recurrent problem that we can perhaps deal with if we put our > heads together. > > > > As is well known, whenever any given 'soft transport', "public space" or > some type of "not quite so many cars" initiative is proposed in any given > place, the first and most striking thing that happens is the howls of > protest that immediately emerge from all those who claim that their > democratic entitlements are being threatened by, as they often like to put > it, some small group of arrogant bike-happy technocrats and their fellow > eco-travelers. And since the media always likes a good cat fight, these > righteous citizens often dominate the news. For the rest, for you and me and > others like us, hey! we're the Silent Minority. The absolutely > disenfranchised. > > > > Well, it does not always have to be like that and here is one proposal > concerning which I would like to invite discussions and refinement - all as > a prelude to giving this idea a couple of trial runs in one or more > pioneering cities. > > > > The idea is to carry out an annual open citizen survey of attitudes and > preferences concerning transport policy and practice (and the investments > that go with it) in your city. The results should be made widely available > through old and new media, and brought to the fore of the attention of the > politicians, administrators and policy makers in your city. Here without any > pretense of it being anything other than a grain of sand to get us going is > my draft proposal for content for quick mini-survey that can be administered > by phone, email or on any street corner by volunteers: > > > > Note to the reader: In a first instance, before digging into the details, I > would like to ask the members of this fine group: (a) is this an idea that > is worth pursuing; (b) are there some (better)examples that we should be > looking at and learning from. Then once we have a feel for this as a useful > activity, we can then start to see how we might together fine tune a good > questionnaire and routine. > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1, Draft Mini-survey (for comment and . . . ) > > All questions where appropriate to be answered simply by a 1 (yes), 0 (don't > know), -or -1 (no), which will facilitate aggregation and overview. > > > > 1. Name > > 2. City of residence > > 3. M/F > > 4. Age: <15; 15-30; 30-65; >65 > > 5. Do you own/drive a car? > > 6. My city government has a coherent, announced transportation policy: > > 7. I believe that this is a wise and well executed policy. > > 8. We need to spend more money to build more roads and more parking as > a main transport priority. > > 9. We need to give much more attention and spend more money on "soft > transport" and related life quality initiatives (examples: better support of > pedestrians and cyclists, traffic calming, more public transport, new forms > of shared transport, ITC substitutes for displacement.) > > 10. It is possible for people to live here well and easily without having > their own car. > > 11. If they want my vote -- all candidates for local public office should > take a firm stand on their transportation policies, and issue as part of > their platform a signed personal statement indicating their support of more > sustainable transport projects and programs. > > > > Your eventual brief comments or suggestions: ____________________________ > > ____________________________________________________________________________ > ____________________________________________________________________________ > ____________________________________________________________________________ > ____________________________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > > 2. How to execute - Thoughts on > > > > * This maybe is pushing it for length. If it can't be administered > in three minutes, it probably will not do the job. Try it out on a couple of > friends and let us know. > > * There is plenty of evidence that people tend to create and > administrate questionnaires that one way or another tend to elicit their > favored response. We should meticulously avoid doing this, and in our > selection of questions - and people to be queried. If it ain't neutral, it > is not worth a lot. So careful, eh? > > * The simple mental model I have for this is an excel table with > names in columns, etc. All leading to easy sorting and sub-total > > * To have a real impact, it will best be administered at some fixed > time. > As examples: on Earth Day, in cooperation with any local Car Free Days, > European Moblity Week, etc.) > > * The procedures and information should be fully public so that > there can be no charges of rigging the returns. (Expect in Belarusia and > Florida in which it is OK.) > > * Also involve schools, various clubs and groups, senior citizens, > handicapped, pedestrian and cyclist naturally but also take it into > hospitals, prisons, old people's homes, jails, and the homeless. > > * Local media partnerships, and even strong involvement by them, > will be most useful. > > * I would propose that the on-street interviews be carried out on > one day - but that an entire week be given over to the entire procedures. > > * The results should be publicly announced. > > * And then all those in local government should be asked to comment > and give their appreciations of what this means. (Note: Our friends in South > Africa with their first Car Free Days last year did a good job of this which > we might usefully consult) > > * We propose that this be an annual exercise. > > * And that to the extent possible and sensible, we might want to > think about questions and formats that are sufficiently parallel to allow us > to aggregate. > > * BTW, is there or has there ever been anything like this in your > city? Neighborhood? That we can learn from? > > > > > > > > > 3. Parallel in-death Survey > > > > It may be a good idea to have a more in depth survey for those people > disposed to spend more time with us on this. > > > > The trick will be to determine who, how, when, - and how used? > > > > Here are a few first thoughts on this to get us going: > > > > * Employment, social status > > * Where live/where work > > * If it were faster and cheaper to get to work or school by some way > other than driving a car (in traffic) would you be willing to consider it? > > * When was the last time you took a bus or rail transit? > > * Used a bike to get to work or school? > > * D you think that it might be a good idea for your city to publish > and maintain a "sustainable transportation webpage" that reports on key > indicators including traffic deaths and incidents (by gravity and type), CO2 > or other clean air indicators, parametric indicators of infrastructure and > performance of NMT options, etc. > > * Would you be willing to work, say, 20 hours over a period of one or > two months. as a volunteer to support better researched specific projects > in your neighborhood. > > * Etc. > > * Etc > > * > > > > > > > > Check in here via the homepage at http://www.newmobility.org > > To post message to group: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com > But please think twice before posting to the group as a whole > (It might be that your note is best sent to one person?) > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewMobilityCafe/ > > <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > NewMobilityCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > > Sincerely, > Todd Alexander Litman > Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org) > litman@vtpi.org > Phone & Fax 250-360-1560 > 1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA > ?Efficiency - Equity - Clarity? > > > ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. From carlos.pardo at sutp.org Thu Apr 27 01:10:45 2006 From: carlos.pardo at sutp.org (Carlos F. Pardo SUTP) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 11:10:45 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Discipline is needed?? In-Reply-To: <444F7F25.4030106@gmail.com> Message-ID: <200604261610.k3QGAc2o031830@ns-omrbm5.netsolmail.com> The concept of enforcement can be applied, but not as the sole measure of changing driver's behavior. As Sunny notes, people may not even care about these rules. I sometimes think transport planners and engineers think people are cows and should be treated that way when managing transport. But we should expect more of people, and find innovative ways to change their behavior towards more sustainable transport practices. Enforcement is a first step towards awareness of transport users' minds, but we can go further. I love one example from Bogot?: citizens were taught to stop before cebra crossings with the help of a mime who would "push" cars back and allow pedestrians cross safely. In one year the problem was solved, and not one ticket was issued. People get the message... if you know how to convey it. Best regards, Carlos F. Pardo Coordinador de Proyecto GTZ - Proyecto de Transporte Sostenible (SUTP, SUTP-LAC) Cl 125bis # 41-28 of 404 Bogot? D.C., Colombia Tel: ?+57 (1) 215 7812 Fax: +57 (1) 236 2309 Mobile: +57 (3) 15 296 0662 e-mail: carlos.pardo@sutp.org P?gina: www.sutp.org - Visite nuestra nueva secci?n de Latinoam?rica y el Caribe en http://www.sutp.org/esp/espindex.htm - ?nase al grupo de discusi?n de Transporte Sostenible en Latinoam?rica enviando un correo a sutp-lac-subscribe@gruposyahoo.com -----Mensaje original----- De: sustran-discuss-bounces+carlos.pardo=sutp.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+carlos.pardo=sutp.org@list.jca.apc.org] En nombre de Sunny Enviado el: Mi?rcoles, 26 de Abril de 2006 09:10 a.m. Para: sri@giaspn01.vsnl.net.in; Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport Asunto: [sustran] Reply to Prof. JKG Discipline is needed Dear Prof, Very nice to see ur mail. from my point of view seeing Indian cities Bangkok and other Thai cities where car dependency is much more than India I feel that though strict traffic rules are implemented it might not reduce the traffic growth. If you compare the driving behaviour of Thais and Indians I would say that Thais stick to the rules, while many of us Indians do not care for a traffic signal when the road is clean. Fines would be a great idea but in India the need is more for a much stricter discipline among the police officials in not being corrupt. In my home town,Visakhapatnam, and my capital city, Hyderabad, I have seen traffic police checking motorists in the first and last weeks of the months and many of them usually take a bribe starting from 50 rupees, I say this as I personally experienced this situation, inspite of having all the required documents i was fined because my motorbike did not have a black dot on the headlight. So I feel that enforcing traffic rules would be a great idea for the sake of a policy but for the implementation it will be filling the pockets of the policemen and the constables and people driving usually get a belief that even if the police catches without a drivers license a 200 rupees in the pocket is enough to get away with, when this attitude of the police changes then we might see this present chaos into an "Organised Chaos". To solve this Organised Chaos even I agree with you that contemporary engineering solutions do no good but rather we need a social approach. More technological solutions will only result disadvantaging the vulnerable groups like the pedestrian overpasses that infest Bangkok and I have seen some even on the National Highways in Thailand. Another comment on the countdown signals, I presume that this method of ITS is disadvantageous since it can tend to increase the drivers speed on seeing a smaller number...kindly correct me if i understood it wrong. Coming to the main idea wht I understand from Sujit's comment was the issue of solving the growing need of personal mobility and a new solution for the present problems. I would suggest a solution that incorporates every user except the car user. I would ask Sujit if there is a possibility of introducing shared space in Pune,as I have never been to this wonderful city and have only heard both the good and bad sides of it. Shared space concept was received very well in European countries and it is an idea in which the car user is not given the false idea that they are the kings of the road and everyone else have to give way for them but instead in a shared space cars need to wait for the people....I guess many other members on this forum have personally experienced the merits and demerits of shared space and would be kind enough to throw more light on this area. I guess this idea would be good for developing cities like in India where we can cut the feeling of road ownership of car users at the roots. I would like your and other members comments on the same. Sincerely, Sunny ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. From litman at vtpi.org Thu Apr 27 01:49:47 2006 From: litman at vtpi.org (Todd Alexander Litman) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 09:49:47 -0700 Subject: [sustran] Re: On vs off street parking or simply reducing on street parking. In-Reply-To: <024301c66946$ff1a51e0$c301a8c0@DFJLYL81> References: <20060426032833.ne5b6za62lcgcwo8@www.pedalsong.net> <024301c66946$ff1a51e0$c301a8c0@DFJLYL81> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20060426094152.05e6df68@mail.islandnet.com> I think that a better approach is to use pricing to control use of on-street parking and collect revenues that can be used to benefit neighborhoods. Local residents can be offered a discount, for example, a relatively inexpensive monthly pass to park on their street. The number of passes sold and the price of parking set to limit demand to what the community considers optimal, so motorists can virtually always find a space, and traffic volumes are not excessive. Here are a few examples: Austin Parking Benefit District (www.ci.austin.tx.us/parkingdistrict/default.htm) Many neighborhood experience parking spillover problems, including difficulty finding parking for residents and visitors, concerns that public service vehicles cannot pass two lanes of parked vehicles on the street, or that parking on the street reduces neighborhood attractiveness. The city of Austin, Texas is addressing these problems by allowing neighborhoods to establish Parking Benefit Districts (PBDs). A PBD is created by metering the on-street parking (either with pay stations on the periphery of the neighborhood or with the traditional parking meters) and dedicating the net revenue (less costs for maintenance and enforcement) towards neighborhood improvements such as sidewalks, curb ramps, and bicycle lanes. The PMD may be used in conjunction with a Residential Permit Parking program to ensure that parking is available for residents and their visitors. Downtown Pasadena Redevelopment (Kolozsvari and Shoup, 2003) During the 1970s Old Pasadena?s downtown had become run down, with many derelict and abandoned buildings and few customers, in part due to the limited parking available to customers. Curb parking was restricted to two-hour duration but many employees simply parked in the most convenient, on-street spaces and moved their vehicles several times each day. The city proposed pricing on-street parking as a way to increase turnover and make parking available to customers. Many local merchants originally opposed the idea. As a compromise, city officials agreed to dedicate all revenues to public improvements that make the downtown more attractive. A Parking Meter Zone (PMZ) was established within which parking was priced and revenues were invested. This approach of connecting parking revenues directly to added public services and keeping it under local control helped guarantee the program?s success. With this proviso, the merchants agreed to the proposal. They began to see parking meters in a new way: as a way to fund the projects and services that directly benefit their customers and businesses. The city formed a PMZ advisory board consisting of business and property owners, which recommended parking policies and set spending priorities for the meter revenues. Investments included new street furniture and trees, more police patrols, better street lighting, more street and sidewalk cleaning, pedestrian improvements, and marketing (including production of maps showing local attractions and parking facilities). To highlight these benefits to motorists, each parking meter has a small sticker which reads, Your Meter Money Will Make A Difference: Signage, Lighting, Benches, Paving. This created a ?virtuous cycle? in which parking revenue funded community improvements that attracted more visitors which increased the parking revenue, allowing further improvements. This resulted in extensive redevelopment of buildings, new businesses and residential development. Parking is no longer a problem for customers, who can almost always find a convenient space. Local sales tax revenues have increased far faster than in other shopping districts with lower parking rates, and nearby malls that offer free customer parking. This indicates that charging market rate parking (i.e., prices that result in 85-90% peak-period utilization rates) with revenues dedicated to local improvements can be an effective ways to support urban redevelopment. Ashland, Oregon Ashland is a small but rapidly growing city in central Oregon, famous for its Shakespeare Festival which attracts tens of thousands of visitors each year. The city?s downtown is a major destination and activity center, particularly during the summer tourist season. Downtown business people were concerned that existing parking supply was at capacity but feared that pricing parking would have a negative effect on customer traffic. To address these concerns local planners examined the experience of five comparable cities that have recently implemented priced parking. Their research indicated that pricing did not adversely affect visitor demand or use, that it increased turnover, that it generates net revenue, and that newer multi-space meters work well. Using this feedback and information, the planners developed a parking management plan. They divided the downtown into three major parking management zones, described as ?Core,? ?Intermediate,? and ?Periphery.? For each of these zones they developed overall guiding principles, parking management strategies, and an implementation plan with near-, mid- and long-term actions. The plan includes pricing of publicly-owned parking facilities to increase turn-over, shift employee parking to less convenient locations, encourage use of alternative modes, and provide funding to increase parking supply and support alternative modes. The plan describes under what circumstances and how parking will be priced. See: Todd Litman, Parking Taxes: Evaluating Options and Impacts, VTPI (www.vtpi.org/parking_tax.pdf), 2006c. Gabriel Roth, Paying for Parking, Hobart Paper 33 (London), 1965; available at the Victoria Transport Policy Institute website: www.vtpi.org/roth_parking.pdf. Donald Shoup, Curb Parking: An Ideal Source of Public Revenue, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy (www.lincolninst.edu), Presented at ?Analysis of Land Markets and the Impact of Land Market Regulation,? (Code CP02A01), July, 2002 At 08:35 AM 4/26/2006, Walter Hook wrote: >This discussion has been helpful, as we are just getting into parking issues >and still need to think them through, and it is interesting that we usual >suspects are not entirely of one mind. > >The point is well taken that the on street versus off street issue is fairly >context specific. I am sure the issue plays out differently in different >situations. I have enjoyed the new material by Shoup and the material of >Knoflacher, and am pretty familiar with todd's work. > >I have been frustrated with Knoflacher's work in that there are almost no >real world examples of where anything has been done to implement his general >approach, so I am wondering about references to political processes that >have worked in implementing parking regimes that have led to good examples >of traffic calmed or post traffic calmed streets. Sometimes the streets are >visible but often not the process that led to its implementation. I am sure >there are good examples in Europe and probably a few in the US, and would be >curious if people had info. > >Transportation Alternatives held this great event in Williamsburg where they >bought a curbside parking space and occupied with caf? tables and bike >parking for a day, and paid the meter fee. People loved it, as it >politicized the issue. > >I started this discussion with a very specific context in mind. In my >neighborhood, (and one always looks out the window first), maybe 1/3 of the >people own a car, and a lot of us have kids. There is free curb side >parking on both sides of the street, you only have to move the cars on the >days the street cleaners come, so there is some day regulation but otherwise >it?s free. Usually you can find something within a block or two of your >house after cruising around for a while. I guess this situation is typical >of residential areas in major cities, not so much in suburbs where a house >might have three cars per person or something and plenty of curbside space. > >In this very specific context, I would think that a purely democratic >process to reapportion the street space would lead to a reduction of >on-street parking space in favour of more sidewalk space. > >I proposed a concrete suggestion: what if a mechanism were developed where >people could decide, democratically, within parameters set by the city DOT, >about the apportionment of the public right of way in front of their houses. >Obviously a street has a function that is beyond the interests of the people >living there, but some part of the street serves a throughput function, and >some part an access function. It is reasonable to have the City DOT do two >things: set the speed limit (this was a huge battle in New York to get the >city the power to reduce the speed limits on residential streets) and >determine the needed throughput on the street. > >Perhaps the municipality could then have a pilot project where they would >give communities a pot of money on a competitive basis the option to >redesign the streetscape in a way that conformed to these DOT requirements >but better conformed to the specific wishes of that community. There would >be on many streets a high degree of flexibility. To get the money, a block >association would have to be formed and certified, and the city itself might >have an architect able to take in the basic position of the community, and >the city would finance the buildout for the best ultimate designs, judged >by, i don?t know, the planning commission or something. > >If such a localized urban design project went forward, I would guess that in >some communities it would lead to the reduction of on street parking. Maybe >in others it would lead to an increase, who knows. But perhaps the >mechanism would get some fresh ideas and approaches out there for people to >think about. > >Anybody ever heard of anything like this being tried? Is it a good idea? Sincerely, Todd Alexander Litman Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org) litman@vtpi.org Phone & Fax 250-360-1560 1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA ?Efficiency - Equity - Clarity? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060426/033e379d/attachment.html From whook at itdp.org Thu Apr 27 02:49:38 2006 From: whook at itdp.org (Walter Hook) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 13:49:38 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: On vs off street parking or simply reducing on streetparking. In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20060426094152.05e6df68@mail.islandnet.com> Message-ID: <027a01c66959$ca6154e0$c301a8c0@DFJLYL81> Todd, Thanks. These are good approaches, but it does not appear that any of them actually reduced the total amount of parking units or the amount of on street parking, and in fact they would increase the supply of parking by increasing the rotation rate, inducing private motor vehicle demand. w -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Todd Alexander Litman Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 12:50 PM To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport; 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport' Subject: [sustran] Re: On vs off street parking or simply reducing on streetparking. I think that a better approach is to use pricing to control use of on-street parking and collect revenues that can be used to benefit neighborhoods. Local residents can be offered a discount, for example, a relatively inexpensive monthly pass to park on their street. The number of passes sold and the price of parking set to limit demand to what the community considers optimal, so motorists can virtually always find a space, and traffic volumes are not excessive. Here are a few examples: Austin Parking Benefit District ( www.ci.austin.tx.us/parkingdistrict/default.htm) Many neighborhood experience parking spillover problems, including difficulty finding parking for residents and visitors, concerns that public service vehicles cannot pass two lanes of parked vehicles on the street, or that parking on the street reduces neighborhood attractiveness. The city of Austin, Texas is addressing these problems by allowing neighborhoods to establish Parking Benefit Districts (PBDs). A PBD is created by metering the on-street parking (either with pay stations on the periphery of the neighborhood or with the traditional parking meters) and dedicating the net revenue (less costs for maintenance and enforcement) towards neighborhood improvements such as sidewalks, curb ramps, and bicycle lanes. The PMD may be used in conjunction with a Residential Permit Parking program to ensure that parking is available for residents and their visitors. Downtown Pasadena Redevelopment (Kolozsvari and Shoup, 2003) During the 1970s Old Pasadena?s downtown had become run down, with many derelict and abandoned buildings and few customers, in part due to the limited parking available to customers. Curb parking was restricted to two-hour duration but many employees simply parked in the most convenient, on-street spaces and moved their vehicles several times each day. The city proposed pricing on-street parking as a way to increase turnover and make parking available to customers. Many local merchants originally opposed the idea. As a compromise, city officials agreed to dedicate all revenues to public improvements that make the downtown more attractive. A Parking Meter Zone (PMZ) was established within which parking was priced and revenues were invested. This approach of connecting parking revenues directly to added public services and keeping it under local control helped guarantee the program?s success. With this proviso, the merchants agreed to the proposal. They began to see parking meters in a new way: as a way to fund the projects and services that directly benefit their customers and businesses. The city formed a PMZ advisory board consisting of business and property owners, which recommended parking policies and set spending priorities for the meter revenues. Investments included new street furniture and trees, more police patrols, better street lighting, more street and sidewalk cleaning, pedestrian improvements, and marketing (including production of maps showing local attractions and parking facilities). To highlight these benefits to motorists, each parking meter has a small sticker which reads, Your Meter Money Will Make A Difference: Signage, Lighting, Benches, Paving. This created a ?virtuous cycle? in which parking revenue funded community improvements that attracted more visitors which increased the parking revenue, allowing further improvements. This resulted in extensive redevelopment of buildings, new businesses and residential development. Parking is no longer a problem for customers, who can almost always find a convenient space. Local sales tax revenues have increased far faster than in other shopping districts with lower parking rates, and nearby malls that offer free customer parking. This indicates that charging market rate parking (i.e., prices that result in 85-90% peak-period utilization rates) with revenues dedicated to local improvements can be an effective ways to support urban redevelopment. Ashland, Oregon Ashland is a small but rapidly growing city in central Oregon, famous for its Shakespeare Festival which attracts tens of thousands of visitors each year. The city?s downtown is a major destination and activity center, particularly during the summer tourist season. Downtown business people were concerned that existing parking supply was at capacity but feared that pricing parking would have a negative effect on customer traffic. To address these concerns local planners examined the experience of five comparable cities that have recently implemented priced parking. Their research indicated that pricing did not adversely affect visitor demand or use, that it increased turnover, that it generates net revenue, and that newer multi-space meters work well. Using this feedback and information, the planners developed a parking management plan. They divided the downtown into three major parking management zones, described as ?Core,? ?Intermediate,? and ?Periphery.? For each of these zones they developed overall guiding principles, parking management strategies, and an implementation plan with near-, mid- and long-term actions. The plan includes pricing of publicly-owned parking facilities to increase turn-over, shift employee parking to less convenient locations, encourage use of alternative modes, and provide funding to increase parking supply and support alternative modes. The plan describes under what circumstances and how parking will be priced. See: Todd Litman, Parking Taxes: Evaluating Options and Impacts, VTPI ( www.vtpi.org/parking_tax.pdf ), 2006c. Gabriel Roth, Paying for Parking, Hobart Paper 33 (London), 1965; available at the Victoria Transport Policy Institute website: www.vtpi.org/roth_parking.pdf. Donald Shoup, Curb Parking: An Ideal Source of Public Revenue, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy (www.lincolninst.edu ), Presented at ?Analysis of Land Markets and the Impact of Land Market Regulation,? (Code CP02A01), July, 2002 At 08:35 AM 4/26/2006, Walter Hook wrote: This discussion has been helpful, as we are just getting into parking issues and still need to think them through, and it is interesting that we usual suspects are not entirely of one mind. The point is well taken that the on street versus off street issue is fairly context specific. I am sure the issue plays out differently in different situations. I have enjoyed the new material by Shoup and the material of Knoflacher, and am pretty familiar with todd's work. I have been frustrated with Knoflacher's work in that there are almost no real world examples of where anything has been done to implement his general approach, so I am wondering about references to political processes that have worked in implementing parking regimes that have led to good examples of traffic calmed or post traffic calmed streets. Sometimes the streets are visible but often not the process that led to its implementation. I am sure there are good examples in Europe and probably a few in the US, and would be curious if people had info. Transportation Alternatives held this great event in Williamsburg where they bought a curbside parking space and occupied with caf? tables and bike parking for a day, and paid the meter fee. People loved it, as it politicized the issue. I started this discussion with a very specific context in mind. In my neighborhood, (and one always looks out the window first), maybe 1/3 of the people own a car, and a lot of us have kids. There is free curb side parking on both sides of the street, you only have to move the cars on the days the street cleaners come, so there is some day regulation but otherwise it?s free. Usually you can find something within a block or two of your house after cruising around for a while. I guess this situation is typical of residential areas in major cities, not so much in suburbs where a house might have three cars per person or something and plenty of curbside space. In this very specific context, I would think that a purely democratic process to reapportion the street space would lead to a reduction of on-street parking space in favour of more sidewalk space. I proposed a concrete suggestion: what if a mechanism were developed where people could decide, democratically, within parameters set by the city DOT, about the apportionment of the public right of way in front of their houses. Obviously a street has a function that is beyond the interests of the people living there, but some part of the street serves a throughput function, and some part an access function. It is reasonable to have the City DOT do two things: set the speed limit (this was a huge battle in New York to get the city the power to reduce the speed limits on residential streets) and determine the needed throughput on the street. Perhaps the municipality could then have a pilot project where they would give communities a pot of money on a competitive basis the option to redesign the streetscape in a way that conformed to these DOT requirements but better conformed to the specific wishes of that community. There would be on many streets a high degree of flexibility. To get the money, a block association would have to be formed and certified, and the city itself might have an architect able to take in the basic position of the community, and the city would finance the buildout for the best ultimate designs, judged by, i don?t know, the planning commission or something. If such a localized urban design project went forward, I would guess that in some communities it would lead to the reduction of on street parking. Maybe in others it would lead to an increase, who knows. But perhaps the mechanism would get some fresh ideas and approaches out there for people to think about. Anybody ever heard of anything like this being tried? Is it a good idea? Sincerely, Todd Alexander Litman Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org) litman@vtpi.org Phone & Fax 250-360-1560 1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA ?Efficiency - Equity - Clarity? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060426/0ce6f1c3/attachment.html From sksunny at gmail.com Thu Apr 27 03:14:03 2006 From: sksunny at gmail.com (Sunny) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 01:14:03 +0700 Subject: [sustran] On vs off street parking or simply reducing on street parking. In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20060426094152.05e6df68@mail.islandnet.com> References: <20060426032833.ne5b6za62lcgcwo8@www.pedalsong.net> <024301c6694 6$ff1a51e0$c301a8c0@DFJLYL81> <6.2.3.4.2.20060426094152.05e6df68@mail.islandnet.com> Message-ID: <444FB86B.3060305@gmail.com> I really like Todd's idea of pricing the parking but implementing the same is a bit difficult in the developing cities as there is a increasing trend of vehicle ownership. In my opinion initially focussing on limiting the available parking spaces and then going with the pricing would be better as this firstly might control the ridership and then the pricing would have the economic effect. On the other hand I doubt if parking pricing will really reduce the ridership because I presume that parking pricing would make the car user aware of the fact that they are being metered for the time they are spending for shopping and thereby reduce their shopping time which can tend to decrease the sales, yes they might shift to other modes but what if the other modes are not as developed as driving a car like in Bangkok. Secondly, providing priced or timed parking would allow the other car driver to feel that they might get a place to park their car and hence avoid them from shifting to other means. Correct me if I am wrong. Off street parking is the worst case especially when it is free/very very cheap like here in Bangkok and when the price is reducing with time rather than increasing. but even here i have the same doubts mentioned above. I would be glad if someone could clarify me. Sunny From ericbruun at earthlink.net Thu Apr 27 03:53:41 2006 From: ericbruun at earthlink.net (Eric Bruun) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 14:53:41 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [sustran] Yet more on vs off street parking Message-ID: <17404514.1146077621876.JavaMail.root@elwamui-huard.atl.sa.earthlink.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060426/2cfd9f81/attachment.html From edelman at greenidea.info Thu Apr 27 04:54:33 2006 From: edelman at greenidea.info (Todd Edelman) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 21:54:33 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [sustran] Re: Yet more on vs off street parking In-Reply-To: <17404514.1146077621876.JavaMail.root@elwamui-huard.atl.sa.earthlink.n et> References: <17404514.1146077621876.JavaMail.root@elwamui-huard.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <2066.62.245.95.24.1146081273.squirrel@mail.smartweb.cz> Hi, I am not against strategies to increase the cost of parking in order to decrease the amount of parking and driving. My goal might be carfree but I realise that people have to see something before they believe so a street with less cars and less throughputting might encourage people to think beyond that. I think that a desire for (intentional) carfree most often does not come out of nowhere. If we step back a bit conceptually, however, we will see that it is all about access to people in places. These people might be your friends, your family or people to buy stuff from or sell stuff to. The people might be a lack of people (e.g. a quiet park in winter). So isnt a better question for cities "How do we increase access (sustainably and with all costs internalised)?". This means the design and rules for the street, and network of streets, and what lies on them and in between them. Being totally objective, a car could be considered, but it seems like it might lose every time, at least as the final step to the entrance of the home, business, park, neighborhood, city itself, etc. And in addition to the financial criteria, in presentations to city officials, etc we should consider re-defining streets not as transportation corridors, but as places in between buildings where the residents of those people can interact with one another, and where people can visit from nearby streets and vice-versa and so on. Any use which makes this difficult, such as motorised transport, including public transport and even bicycles, should be de-priortised and only let in if it does not significantly alter the atmosphere. There have to be compromises: A good example is 1 - Pedestrians can go everywhere, 2 - Bicycles can go some places, 3 - Public transport is on main corridors, underground or on viaducts (which themselves dont have to be ugly, as they could be placed behind commercial buildings on main corridors, even serving a cargo use. Or in an enclosed tube to minimize noise, but still allow sunlight, which most people want). I define most streets with parking spaces and streets which connect them, etc etc as really a giant, global monofunctional parking lot, NOT as a street, not as a place for life in between buildings. This global parking lot has bypasses in the form of highways, intercity trains, airplanes, and ships sometimes. I think that if what is commonly called a "street" is instead looked at the way I do, it will open up a world of opportunities for realisation of creative ideas. I also know that here in car-crazy Prague, and in many other cities, commercial space on the pedestrian zones commands the highest rents. Access for people coming to shop (or for their purchases to go with them) can be provided by all sorts of methods. There could be final delivery by small, quiet, soft non-polluting vehicles to a space in front of apartment buildings which contains a large sub-divided container with a total volume - and I trying to make a point here - of what would be the cargo space of all of the vehicles owned by people in the building (if they actually owned them). So imagine a building of 16 families, who would normally have 16 cars, and in front of that imagine this container about the size of 16 boots (trunks) of all those cars. The container is sub-divided into cubicles accessed via a SmartCard. This would probably be 10% of the space needed for all those cars, keeping in mind the space cars need to maneuver. (A thought: sliding doors on all cars could probably reduce by half the space they need in between them, but this is only useful if the total amount of space used is decreased, so more cars dont fill up the "freed" space.) So, take that 10% and consider how many people will actually need to use a cubicle in that container at the same time, and you could probably cut this in half. There is no "dead" storage space needed, either on the street or in the form of boots of cars. Sure, this is not just a matter of going to www.logistics.com and ordering a ready-to-go system. BUT - hopefully - we are all going to be on this planet for a VERY long time so we need to think of sustainable solutions even as we manage as best we can our very flawed ones. - T ------------------------------------------------------ Todd Edelman International Coordinator On the Train Towards the Future! Green Idea Factory Laubova 5 CZ-13000 Praha 3 ++420 605 915 970 edelman@greenidea.info http://www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain Green Idea Factory, a member of World Carfree Network From sujit at vsnl.com Thu Apr 27 05:01:06 2006 From: sujit at vsnl.com (Sujit Patwardhan) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 01:31:06 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: Discipline is needed?? In-Reply-To: <200604261610.k3QGAc2o031830@ns-omrbm5.netsolmail.com> References: <444F7F25.4030106@gmail.com> <200604261610.k3QGAc2o031830@ns-omrbm5.netsolmail.com> Message-ID: <4cfd20aa0604261301h7b041277v6ab8f2959b0b319e@mail.gmail.com> The issue of discipline is brought up by all. Carlos's mail makes sensible points. -- Sujit On 4/26/06, Carlos F. Pardo SUTP wrote: > > The concept of enforcement can be applied, but not as the sole measure of > changing driver's behavior. As Sunny notes, people may not even care about > these rules. > > I sometimes think transport planners and engineers think people are cows > and > should be treated that way when managing transport. But we should expect > more of people, and find innovative ways to change their behavior towards > more sustainable transport practices. Enforcement is a first step towards > awareness of transport users' minds, but we can go further. > > I love one example from Bogot?: citizens were taught to stop before cebra > crossings with the help of a mime who would "push" cars back and allow > pedestrians cross safely. In one year the problem was solved, and not one > ticket was issued. People get the message... if you know how to convey it. > > Best regards, > > Carlos F. Pardo > Coordinador de Proyecto > GTZ - Proyecto de Transporte Sostenible (SUTP, SUTP-LAC) > Cl 125bis # 41-28 of 404 > Bogot? D.C., Colombia > Tel: +57 (1) 215 7812 > Fax: +57 (1) 236 2309 > Mobile: +57 (3) 15 296 0662 > e-mail: carlos.pardo@sutp.org > P?gina: www.sutp.org > - Visite nuestra nueva secci?n de Latinoam?rica y el Caribe en > http://www.sutp.org/esp/espindex.htm > - ?nase al grupo de discusi?n de Transporte Sostenible en Latinoam?rica > enviando un correo a sutp-lac-subscribe@gruposyahoo.com > > > > -----Mensaje original----- > De: sustran-discuss-bounces+carlos.pardo=sutp.org@list.jca.apc.org > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+carlos.pardo=sutp.org@list.jca.apc.org] En > nombre de Sunny > Enviado el: Mi?rcoles, 26 de Abril de 2006 09:10 a.m. > Para: sri@giaspn01.vsnl.net.in; Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport > Asunto: [sustran] Reply to Prof. JKG Discipline is needed > > Dear Prof, > > Very nice to see ur mail. from my point of view seeing Indian cities > Bangkok and other Thai cities where car dependency is much more than > India I feel that though strict traffic rules are implemented it might > not reduce the traffic growth. If you compare the driving behaviour of > Thais and Indians I would say that Thais stick to the rules, while many > of us Indians do not care for a traffic signal when the road is clean. > Fines would be a great idea but in India the need is more for a much > stricter discipline among the police officials in not being corrupt. In > my home town,Visakhapatnam, and my capital city, Hyderabad, I have seen > traffic police checking motorists in the first and last weeks of the > months and many of them usually take a bribe starting from 50 rupees, I > say this as I personally experienced this situation, inspite of having > all the required documents i was fined because my motorbike did not have > a black dot on the headlight. > > So I feel that enforcing traffic rules would be a great idea for the > sake of a policy but for the implementation it will be filling the > pockets of the policemen and the constables and people driving usually > get a belief that even if the police catches without a drivers license a > 200 rupees in the pocket is enough to get away with, when this attitude > of the police changes then we might see this present chaos into an > "Organised Chaos". > > To solve this Organised Chaos even I agree with you that contemporary > engineering solutions do no good but rather we need a social approach. > More technological solutions will only result disadvantaging the > vulnerable groups like the pedestrian overpasses that infest Bangkok and > I have seen some even on the National Highways in Thailand. > > Another comment on the countdown signals, I presume that this method of > ITS is disadvantageous since it can tend to increase the drivers speed > on seeing a smaller number...kindly correct me if i understood it wrong. > > Coming to the main idea wht I understand from Sujit's comment was the > issue of solving the growing need of personal mobility and a new > solution for the present problems. I would suggest a solution that > incorporates every user except the car user. I would ask Sujit if there > is a possibility of introducing shared space in Pune,as I have never > been to this wonderful city and have only heard both the good and bad > sides of it. > > Shared space concept was received very well in European countries and it > is an idea in which the car user is not given the false idea that they > are the kings of the road and everyone else have to give way for them > but instead in a shared space cars need to wait for the people....I > guess many other members on this forum have personally experienced the > merits and demerits of shared space and would be kind enough to throw > more light on this area. I guess this idea would be good for developing > cities like in India where we can cut the feeling of road ownership of > car users at the roots. > > I would like your and other members comments on the same. > > Sincerely, > Sunny > > > > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries > (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus > is > on urban transport policy in Asia. > > > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries > (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is > on urban transport policy in Asia. > -- ------------------------------------------------------ Sujit Patwardhan sujit@vsnl.com sujitjp@gmail.com "Yamuna", ICS Colony, Ganeshkhind Road, Pune 411 007 India Tel: 25537955 ----------------------------------------------------- Hon. Secretary: Parisar www.parisar.org ------------------------------------------------------ Founder Member: PTTF (Pune Traffic & Transportation Forum) www.pttf.net ------------------------------------------------------ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060427/3be6a8e2/attachment.html From litman at vtpi.org Thu Apr 27 12:33:47 2006 From: litman at vtpi.org (Todd Alexander Litman) Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 20:33:47 -0700 Subject: [sustran] Re: On vs off street parking or simply reducing on street parking. In-Reply-To: <444FB86B.3060305@gmail.com> References: <20060426032833.ne5b6za62lcgcwo8@www.pedalsong.net> <024301c6694 6$ff1a51e0$c301a8c0@DFJLYL81> <6.2.3.4.2.20060426094152.05e6df68@mail.islandnet.com> <444FB86B.3060305@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20060426194947.05dfa6c0@mail.islandnet.com> There is no doubt that shifting from free to priced parking can reduce vehicle ownership and use. Underpriced parking is the largest subsidy of automobile travel - for each dollar a motorist spends directly on their vehicle, somebody spends about $0.50 to subsidize its parking. In typical situations, shifting from free to cost-recovery priced parking (parking priced to cover its facility and operating costs) reduces automobile ownership by 5-15% if applied to residential parking, and reduces vehicle trips by 10-30% if applied at destinations such as worksite and other commercial destinations. This implies that about 20% of our traffic problems, road and parking costs, traffic accidents, fuel consumption and pollution emissions can be "explained" by vehicle parking underpricing, or described more positively, correcting parking underpricing can significantly improve transportation system efficiency and address problems such as excessive traffic risk and energy consumption. Pricing can even be revenue neutral, for example, by "unbundling" residential parking (parking is sold and rented separately from building space, so for example, rather than renting an apartment for $1,000 per month with two "free" parking spaces, the apartment rents for $800 per month, and each parking space is a separate $100 per month) and "cashing out" subsidized employee parking (commuters can choose between a subsidized parking space or its cash equivalent, such as $100 per month). To be effective parking pricing must be correctly implemented. This means appropriate price structures (preferably hourly and daily fees, with higher rates during peak periods, and minimal exemptions and discounts), effective enforcement, and good travel options (walking and cycling conditions, good ridesharing and public transit services, etc.). To effect vehicle ownership and use (rather than just parking location) pricing must be implemented over an area, so motorists cannot simply park for free nearby. Business people often demand parking subsidies to attract customers, but their efforts are often misdirected. After all, people spend money, not cars. While its true that if two businesses are otherwise equally attractive, the one that offers free parking will tend to attract more customers, there are other more important attributes, and areas which focus only on cheap parking to attract customers often fail. For example, if charging for parking reduces taxes and prices, increases parking turnover, or funds transit services and local street improvements, many people while choose an area where they must pay for parking (see Douglas Kolozsvari and Donald Shoup, "Turning Small Change Into Big Changes," Access 23, University of California Transportation Center (www.uctc.net), Fall 2003, pp. 2-7; www.sppsr.ucla.edu/up/webfiles/SmallChange.pdf ). Similarly, many areas with limited and priced parking are attractive places to live and work, because they have better livability. Described differently, charging for parking improves the quality of customers by weeding out the cheepskates who won't pay a few cents to park, leaving better spenders. This is not anti-car. It recognizes that some trips will be made by automobile and that we need to accommodate their need to park. But charging for parking and using shared, public parking facilities (including on-street and for-profit commercial parking) is far more equitable and efficient, and significantly reduces the total amount of parking supply needed compared with conventional parking planning practices which result in generous amounts of parking at each destination. For more information see: Todd Litman, Parking Management: Strategies, Evaluation and Planning, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org/park_man.pdf), 2006. MRSC, Downtown Parking Solutions, Municipal Research and Service Center of Washington (www.mrsc.org/Subjects/Transpo/Tpark/transsolut.aspx), 2005. Nelson/Nygaard Consulting, Housing Shortage / Parking Surplus, Transportation and Land Use Coalition (www.transcoalition.org/southbay/housing_study/index.html), July 2002. Oregon Downtown Development Association, Parking Management Made Easy: A Guide to Taming the Downtown Parking Beast, Transportation and Growth Management Program, Oregon DOT and Dept. of Environmental Quality (www.lcd.state.or.us/tgm/publications.htm), 2001. Ryan Russo, Planning for Residential Parking: A Guide For Housing Developers and Planners, Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California (www.nonprofithousing.org) and the Berkeley Program on Housing and Urban Policy (http://urbanpolicy.berkeley.edu), 2001. USEPA, Parking Spaces / Community Places: Finding the Balance Through Smart Growth Solutions, Development, Community, and Environment Division (DCED); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/parking.htm), 2006. At 11:14 AM 4/26/2006, Sunny wrote: >I really like Todd's idea of pricing the parking but implementing the >same is a bit difficult in the developing cities as there is a >increasing trend of vehicle ownership. In my opinion initially focussing >on limiting the available parking spaces and then going with the pricing >would be better as this firstly might control the ridership and then the >pricing would have the economic effect. > >On the other hand I doubt if parking pricing will really reduce the >ridership because I presume that parking pricing would make the car user >aware of the fact that they are being metered for the time they are >spending for shopping and thereby reduce their shopping time which can >tend to decrease the sales, yes they might shift to other modes but what >if the other modes are not as developed as driving a car like in >Bangkok. Secondly, providing priced or timed parking would allow the >other car driver to feel that they might get a place to park their car >and hence avoid them from shifting to other means. Correct me if I am wrong. > >Off street parking is the worst case especially when it is free/very >very cheap like here in Bangkok and when the price is reducing with time >rather than increasing. but even here i have the same doubts mentioned >above. I would be glad if someone could clarify me. > >Sunny Sincerely, Todd Alexander Litman Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org) litman@vtpi.org Phone & Fax 250-360-1560 1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060426/8a260e4b/attachment.html From paulbarter at nus.edu.sg Thu Apr 27 13:30:48 2006 From: paulbarter at nus.edu.sg (Paul Barter) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 12:30:48 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Jane Jacobs died Tuesday Message-ID: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-jacobs26apr26, 1,178553.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-california&ctrack=1&cset=true 'Jane Jacobs, an urban theorist and community activist whose books argued for the rehabilitation of neighborhoods on traditional lines, breaking with emerging trends in city development, died Tuesday. She was 89.' ... 'She was internationally known as an advocate of cities with distinct neighborhoods, built to a human scale, mixing commercial and residential space. She was against building highways that cut through city centers and was once arrested at a public hearing after she stormed the podium to express her opposition to a plan for an expressway through lower Manhattan. "Jane Jacobs' thinking about cities was clear and it came from a person who lived in cities," Toronto Mayor David Miller told The Times on Tuesday. "She didn't just write about urban issues. She acted on her convictions." Jacobs' most influential work, 1961's "The Death and Life of Great American Cities," set the stage for a battle that Jacobs waged for decades. Defying popular theories on how to renew city slums by plowing them under and replacing them with uniform housing projects, she pushed for recycled buildings and new structures scaled to the existing neighborhood.' -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060427/3f4ad42e/attachment.html From ranjithsd at sltnet.lk Thu Apr 27 14:30:02 2006 From: ranjithsd at sltnet.lk (Ranjith de Silva) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 11:30:02 +0600 Subject: [sustran] Discipline is needed?? Message-ID: <000001c669bb$a29da8c0$0265a8c0@rangith74aab7d> Hi all, In terms of making people aware of transport discipline in the developing countries the electronic media (e.g. television) can play an effective role either positively or negatively. Examples can be given from Sri Lanka as mentioned below. 1. An advertisement showing a child waving to drivers of vehicles at a pedestrian's crossing to stop by raising his hand and in the background a voice says "communicate and remind the drivers of your rights and cross safely". This was a very effective positive case. 2. A large number of commercial advertisements by Insurance Companies saying that they will not ask for Police reports on accidents and also pay their customers "on the spot" without going through the hassle of going to the traffic police for reports. I think with these advertisements and practices by the insurance companies, have increased the number of accidents and usually they are not recorded in any police station now. Police also encourage drivers to go for the "on the spot" just to evade from the trouble. It has also created indiscipline driving with many minor accidents specially involving three and two wheelers, who try to be "Traffic Breakers" (as shown in one of the Indian motorcycle advertisement how to drive fast in the traffic sneaking though the slow moving vehicles) and create traffic jams and unnecessary delays and burning more fuel and polluting the air for no productive reason. This example below from Sri Lanka shows the Transport Planners are only worried about the existing traffic regulations irrespective of their current relevance to the country situation. 1. In Sri Lanka, one needs neither a riding nor revenue (only a small amount charged by the Local Government bodies) license nor an insurance cover to ride a bicycle as in many other countries. Someone imported the motorised "Moped" (a small motorised scooter run on petrol) and was produced before the authorities for license at it is a motorised mode. The definition by the authorities was a very one. Under the existing laws this "Moped" has been categorized as a "Bicycle" with no revenue license, no insurance cover (at least for third party damage) and NO driving license is required. You may see now these modes rapidly becoming popular in Sri Lanka and also going at speeds of over 30 Kmph. May the god help the poor pedestrians and others if they are hit by these "Mopeds" driven by people who do not even know the Highway Code and have no assured support for the damage to the third party. Ranjith Ranjith de Silva Asia Regional Coordinator International Forum for Rural Transport and Development (IFRTD) C/o: 319/10, Ramanayaka Mawatha, Erawwala, Pannipitiya, Sri Lanka. Phone: +94 11 2842972 Fax: +94 11 2856188 Email: ranjith@ifrtd.org web: www.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/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060427/4859d94a/attachment.html From SCHIPPER at wri.org Thu Apr 27 15:09:12 2006 From: SCHIPPER at wri.org (Lee Schipper) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 02:09:12 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: Discipline is needed?? Message-ID: Arrivng in Hanoi today after only four months absence I was shocked at the thicker swarms of 2 wheelers and cars, the greater numbers of left turns who just cut off on coming traffic, up to 25 mopes per signal period crossing well after the light has turned red against them, the utter inability of people to wait their turn to go around obstacles, which creates even more obstacles! What a mess! >>> ranjithsd@sltnet.lk 4/27/2006 1:30:02 AM >>> Hi all, In terms of making people aware of transport discipline in the developing countries the electronic media (e.g. television) can play an effective role either positively or negatively. Examples can be given from Sri Lanka as mentioned below. 1. An advertisement showing a child waving to drivers of vehicles at a pedestrian's crossing to stop by raising his hand and in the background a voice says "communicate and remind the drivers of your rights and cross safely". This was a very effective positive case. 2. A large number of commercial advertisements by Insurance Companies saying that they will not ask for Police reports on accidents and also pay their customers "on the spot" without going through the hassle of going to the traffic police for reports. I think with these advertisements and practices by the insurance companies, have increased the number of accidents and usually they are not recorded in any police station now. Police also encourage drivers to go for the "on the spot" just to evade from the trouble. It has also created indiscipline driving with many minor accidents specially involving three and two wheelers, who try to be "Traffic Breakers" (as shown in one of the Indian motorcycle advertisement how to drive fast in the traffic sneaking though the slow moving vehicles) and create traffic jams and unnecessary delays and burning more fuel and polluting the air for no productive reason. This example below from Sri Lanka shows the Transport Planners are only worried about the existing traffic regulations irrespective of their current relevance to the country situation. 1. In Sri Lanka, one needs neither a riding nor revenue (only a small amount charged by the Local Government bodies) license nor an insurance cover to ride a bicycle as in many other countries. Someone imported the motorised "Moped" (a small motorised scooter run on petrol) and was produced before the authorities for license at it is a motorised mode. The definition by the authorities was a very one. Under the existing laws this "Moped" has been categorized as a "Bicycle" with no revenue license, no insurance cover (at least for third party damage) and NO driving license is required. You may see now these modes rapidly becoming popular in Sri Lanka and also going at speeds of over 30 Kmph. May the god help the poor pedestrians and others if they are hit by these "Mopeds" driven by people who do not even know the Highway Code and have no assured support for the damage to the third party. Ranjith Ranjith de Silva Asia Regional Coordinator International Forum for Rural Transport and Development (IFRTD) C/o: 319/10, Ramanayaka Mawatha, Erawwala, Pannipitiya, Sri Lanka. Phone: +94 11 2842972 Fax: +94 11 2856188 Email: ranjith@ifrtd.org web: www.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" From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Thu Apr 27 23:29:43 2006 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (Eric Britton) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 16:29:43 +0200 Subject: [sustran] More about on-street parking Message-ID: <070301c66a07$07ed10d0$6401a8c0@Home> As Todd and Todd and Walter and Anzir and others of you make very clearly (and with a tip of the hat of course to Donald Shoup), we, that is the world sustainable transportation policy mafia, have our arms pretty thoroughly around the parking - or at least the paid vs. free - conundrum. And if we are not able to get that message across in every city with at least a modicum of good sense somewhere in its gut, this has to be because we are not yet perhaps quite good enough as communicators and/or leaders. (But the wide-shared knowledge is that important first step in the right direction.) As a generalist on the topic, I tend to maintain a rather primitive model or mindset when it comes to WHERE you park, which I have by all appearances thus far not been able to make my point clear enough for getting at least a modicum of buy-in from some of you. So, and since I really do believe that this is an important point from the policy and practice perspective, let me see if I can give this one last whack. 1. A car, a biggish vehicle that is normally used by people to make their trips that is just standing there on the street doing nothing is an expensive and in fact pretty anti-social proposition (bearing in mind that in most of our cities (where we have egregiously overbuilt our car-caring infrastructures) we need that space for other more important parts of our active everyday lives. . . call it better public spaces.) 2. That said, there will until such time that a totally transformed transportation paradigm comes on line, there will still be a legitimate call for a certain amount of "dead vehicle storage" in our cities. 3. It will be useful and appropriate that some of this be handily located where people can see them and pick them up. The example of "use-efficient" and "space-efficient" city transport comes to mind, for example shared cars, quick-turn-around shared transit vehicles, and bikes. 4. Now as we are seeing, parking is not only, potentially, a superb tool for transport policy and system (and space) rationalization, but it is also an absolutely vital transition tool. The trick here is not to try to "solve" the global problem with an optimal long term parking policy (attractive as that might be in theory) , but rather in this imperfect and resistant world to see how we can use it to edge bit by painful bit toward a more rational set of transportation arrangements in our cities. We thus need to think of it not as a hammer., but more like an escalator. 5. Bringing us to WHERE we put all those cars. a. Well in the near term, we probably have to start on the street where the bulk of them are in most cases. b. For example, is our goal to get the acceptable a maximum of cars out of the targeted parts of the city - for all the many reasons that we will have in each case? Which argues for overall reduction in all types of parking. c. Or is it just to get them off the street, which may be kind of nice in a number of respects as several or you have pointed out -- but which at the end of the day still leaves us with the fundamental strategic problems pretty much intact. d. Let's imagine that the technology is there and that the price is right so that we can all get around in clean cars. That's just great, but it still leaves at least 90% of our fundamental sustainability problems untouched. 6. If you have looked into it at all you have seen that the whole process of underground parking is petty weird, with in many places a hard edge of if not outright criminality and anti-social deal-doing, at the very least a certain amount of under the table political and financial maneuvering which, like the successfully buried cars, prefers to stay out of the harsh light of day. 7. Not only that, what I observe is that once a given city or place has put their problem neatly underground, this serves to legitimize the presence of extensive parking in central areas, which has to be the wrong way to go. 8. All of this leaves us still facing the challenge that Eric Brun has put before us: "getting rid of all on-street parking would mean . . . flight of businesses to the suburbs" Hmm. Yes, no doubt if it were to be done brutally. But the issue is after all one of activity and access, is it not? And there is more to activity and access than parking. Which I guess is why we are all here. Eric Britton PS. By the way, I for one - and of course I am not alone in this - want all that shamefully wasteful parking space both for public spaces but also for reserved street space for "space efficient transportation" (and here the long list follows.) That indeed is the core of the proposed Kyoto 20/20 approach. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060427/4b06de84/attachment.html From whook at itdp.org Fri Apr 28 00:43:38 2006 From: whook at itdp.org (Walter Hook) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 11:43:38 -0400 Subject: [sustran] parking impact on use versus ownership In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20060426194947.05dfa6c0@mail.islandnet.com> Message-ID: <006b01c66a11$5a85bc20$c301a8c0@DFJLYL81> I am having a hard time jiving your statistics with the statistics presented by Don Shoup. He sites a study done in westwood village, California, when they increased the parking charges from very low to market rates in the village, the total number of motor vehicle arrivals per hour increased from 829 to 1410. (p.366) This generated a lot of new daily traffic, not less daily traffic. In Eastern Europe, people used to park their old trabants and wartburgs in front of their apartment buildings and they would sit there for months at a time without use. Shopkeepers would really complain, of course. Maybe this encouraged continued auto ownership but not auto use. The shopkeepers were strong supporters of the charge on parking. This allowed the city to tow a lot of these vehicles. Now, maybe hundreds of cars could share the space previously occupied by a vehicle generating zero trips. Maybe this encouraged use but not ownership. Subsidy or no, use of a motor vehicle and parking of a motor vehicle are different phenomenon. Imagine a theoretical situation: a city and a suburb. City residents own one million cars, occupying all the parking spaces, and they are free. City residents also have a good transit system, so they drive their cars out to the country once a month, and use the transit system to get to work. Suburban residents have lousy transit service, and would love to drive into the city, but they cant because there is no place to park, so they struggle onto commuter trains, take slow buses, etc. Then the parking fees are increased sharply. Half the urban residents sell their cars. Ownership in the city goes down by half. Half the suburban residents can now drive to work every day. Suburban auto ownership stays the same, but auto use measured in terms of vmt increases dramatically. Unquestionably, charging for parking is more efficient, but it seems quite possible that increasing parking charges across the board could induce demand rather than reduce demand, though you may be right that it could depress ownership. -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Todd Alexander Litman Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 11:34 PM To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport; Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport Subject: [sustran] Re: On vs off street parking or simply reducing on streetparking. There is no doubt that shifting from free to priced parking can reduce vehicle ownership and use. Underpriced parking is the largest subsidy of automobile travel - for each dollar a motorist spends directly on their vehicle, somebody spends about $0.50 to subsidize its parking. In typical situations, shifting from free to cost-recovery priced parking (parking priced to cover its facility and operating costs) reduces automobile ownership by 5-15% if applied to residential parking, and reduces vehicle trips by 10-30% if applied at destinations such as worksite and other commercial destinations. This implies that about 20% of our traffic problems, road and parking costs, traffic accidents, fuel consumption and pollution emissions can be "explained" by vehicle parking underpricing, or described more positively, correcting parking underpricing can significantly improve transportation system efficiency and address problems such as excessive traffic risk and energy consumption. Pricing can even be revenue neutral, for example, by "unbundling" residential parking (parking is sold and rented separately from building space, so for example, rather than renting an apartment for $1,000 per month with two "free" parking spaces, the apartment rents for $800 per month, and each parking space is a separate $100 per month) and "cashing out" subsidized employee parking (commuters can choose between a subsidized parking space or its cash equivalent, such as $100 per month). To be effective parking pricing must be correctly implemented. This means appropriate price structures (preferably hourly and daily fees, with higher rates during peak periods, and minimal exemptions and discounts), effective enforcement, and good travel options (walking and cycling conditions, good ridesharing and public transit services, etc.). To effect vehicle ownership and use (rather than just parking location) pricing must be implemented over an area, so motorists cannot simply park for free nearby. Business people often demand parking subsidies to attract customers, but their efforts are often misdirected. After all, people spend money, not cars. While its true that if two businesses are otherwise equally attractive, the one that offers free parking will tend to attract more customers, there are other more important attributes, and areas which focus only on cheap parking to attract customers often fail. For example, if charging for parking reduces taxes and prices, increases parking turnover, or funds transit services and local street improvements, many people while choose an area where they must pay for parking (see Douglas Kolozsvari and Donald Shoup, "Turning Small Change Into Big Changes," Access 23, University of California Transportation Center (www.uctc.net ), Fall 2003, pp. 2-7; www.sppsr.ucla.edu/up/webfiles/SmallChange.pdf ). Similarly, many areas with limited and priced parking are attractive places to live and work, because they have better livability. Described differently, charging for parking improves the quality of customers by weeding out the cheepskates who won't pay a few cents to park, leaving better spenders. This is not anti-car. It recognizes that some trips will be made by automobile and that we need to accommodate their need to park. But charging for parking and using shared, public parking facilities (including on-street and for-profit commercial parking) is far more equitable and efficient, and significantly reduces the total amount of parking supply needed compared with conventional parking planning practices which result in generous amounts of parking at each destination. For more information see: Todd Litman, Parking Management: Strategies, Evaluation and Planning, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org/park_man.pdf ), 2006. MRSC, Downtown Parking Solutions, Municipal Research and Service Center of Washington ( www.mrsc.org/Subjects/Transpo/Tpark/transsolut.aspx), 2005. Nelson/Nygaard Consulting, Housing Shortage / Parking Surplus, Transportation and Land Use Coalition ( www.transcoalition.org/southbay/housing_study/index.html), July 2002. Oregon Downtown Development Association, Parking Management Made Easy: A Guide to Taming the Downtown Parking Beast, Transportation and Growth Management Program, Oregon DOT and Dept. of Environmental Quality ( www.lcd.state.or.us/tgm/publications.htm), 2001. Ryan Russo, Planning for Residential Parking: A Guide For Housing Developers and Planners, Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California (www.nonprofithousing.org ) and the Berkeley Program on Housing and Urban Policy ( http://urbanpolicy.berkeley.edu ), 2001. USEPA, Parking Spaces / Community Places: Finding the Balance Through Smart Growth Solutions, Development, Community, and Environment Division (DCED); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/parking.htm), 2006. At 11:14 AM 4/26/2006, Sunny wrote: I really like Todd's idea of pricing the parking but implementing the same is a bit difficult in the developing cities as there is a increasing trend of vehicle ownership. In my opinion initially focussing on limiting the available parking spaces and then going with the pricing would be better as this firstly might control the ridership and then the pricing would have the economic effect. On the other hand I doubt if parking pricing will really reduce the ridership because I presume that parking pricing would make the car user aware of the fact that they are being metered for the time they are spending for shopping and thereby reduce their shopping time which can tend to decrease the sales, yes they might shift to other modes but what if the other modes are not as developed as driving a car like in Bangkok. Secondly, providing priced or timed parking would allow the other car driver to feel that they might get a place to park their car and hence avoid them from shifting to other means. Correct me if I am wrong. Off street parking is the worst case especially when it is free/very very cheap like here in Bangkok and when the price is reducing with time rather than increasing. but even here i have the same doubts mentioned above. I would be glad if someone could clarify me. Sunny Sincerely, Todd Alexander Litman Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org) litman@vtpi.org Phone & Fax 250-360-1560 1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060427/0a36572b/attachment.html From zvi at inro.ca Fri Apr 28 01:47:36 2006 From: zvi at inro.ca (Zvi Leve) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 12:47:36 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: parking impact on use versus ownership In-Reply-To: <006b01c66a11$5a85bc20$c301a8c0@DFJLYL81> References: <006b01c66a11$5a85bc20$c301a8c0@DFJLYL81> Message-ID: <4450F5A8.1040603@inro.ca> I think that Walter makes a valid point: it is not so much car ownership which is the problem but rather the use of those cars which creates all sorts of negative exernalities. Furthermore, why punish an urban dweller for owning a small car (for the occassional shopping at IKEA) and reward the suburbanite for owning an SUV? In general, the trip from home to work often has a reasonable chance of being well-served by transit, even for someone living in the suburbs - the problem is that few people make such "simple" trips anymore. There are the kids to drop off, the groceries to buy, going out to lunch, etc. In any case, it is no longer certain that central-cities are the primary employment "centers" in a region anymore. Mass transit can also serve disjoint development clusters reasonably well, but as activities become more and more dispersed geographically personal transportation options become the only viable options. Throw in the vast quanities of free parking at shopping malls, and the car looks like a very attractive option indeed. Parking pricing policy is a rather blunt tool to use when trying to internalize the external costs of car usage, but it may be more politically palatable than congestion pricing. Italy for example has a number of quite simple parking policies which I think go some way towards 'rationalizing' car usage while not overly discriminating against urban car owners: Every car registered in Italy receives a little paper hand-clock to place on the wind-screen. There are many places where there is free parking /for up to one hour/ - the driver is responsible for setting his clock properly to indicate when their "time is up" (although it was never clear to me if this was the time when we arrived or when we had to leave). Get caught overstaying your time and it is a stiff fine (something like 100 Euros)! Other places have advanced-pay parking rates which increase with the parking duration: 1st hour=1 euro, 2nd hour=2 euro (ie 1+2=3 euros total for two hours parking), 3rd hour=3 euro (ie 3 hours=1+2+3=6 euros), etc. This payment method recognizes that there is a need for parking spaces while also discouraging long-term parking. Often this type of arrangement is combined with resident-only parking - residents can leave their cars in the parking area indefinitely without paying anything. As long as congested urban areas are "competing with" new growth areas which have essentially free and unlimited parking, the car will remain an attractive option. Best regards, Zvi Walter Hook wrote: > I am having a hard time jiving your statistics with the statistics > presented by Don Shoup. He sites a study done in westwood village, > California, when they increased the parking charges from very low to > market rates in the village, the total number of motor vehicle > arrivals per hour increased from 829 to 1410. (p.366) This generated > a lot of new daily traffic, not less daily traffic. > > > > In Eastern Europe, people used to park their old trabants and > wartburgs in front of their apartment buildings and they would sit > there for months at a time without use. Shopkeepers would really > complain, of course. Maybe this encouraged continued auto ownership > but not auto use. The shopkeepers were strong supporters of the > charge on parking. This allowed the city to tow a lot of these > vehicles. Now, maybe hundreds of cars could share the space > previously occupied by a vehicle generating zero trips. Maybe this > encouraged use but not ownership. Subsidy or no, use of a motor > vehicle and parking of a motor vehicle are different phenomenon. > > > > Imagine a theoretical situation: a city and a suburb. City residents > own one million cars, occupying all the parking spaces, and they are > free. City residents also have a good transit system, so they drive > their cars out to the country once a month, and use the transit system > to get to work. Suburban residents have lousy transit service, and > would love to drive into the city, but they cant because there is no > place to park, so they struggle onto commuter trains, take slow buses, > etc. Then the parking fees are increased sharply. Half the urban > residents sell their cars. Ownership in the city goes down by half. > Half the suburban residents can now drive to work every day. Suburban > auto ownership stays the same, but auto use measured in terms of vmt > increases dramatically. > > > > Unquestionably, charging for parking is more efficient, but it seems > quite possible that increasing parking charges across the board could > induce demand rather than reduce demand, though you may be right that > it could depress ownership. > > > From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Fri Apr 28 02:56:01 2006 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (Eric Britton) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 19:56:01 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Parking - example of how to use our shared database Message-ID: <094d01c66a23$ecd2dec0$6401a8c0@Home> The discussions on parking are (a) lively and interesting and (b) spread out over both the Sustran and the New Mobility Agenda lists. Moreover, if I may make the point, what we have here is not only the ephemeral passage of interesting commentaries, but also each of these enters into its own database. No problem, because you can with only a couple of clicks quickly call up the references that you may find useful, now or later. Here?s the little routine that we have set up for this: 1. Go into the New Mobility Agenda at http://www.newmobility.org (our front door for this)> 2. Click to Talking New Mobility. On left menu. 3. This will bring you to the message libraries for both the New Mobility Caf? and Sustran. You can thus easily click from one to the other, and once inside you can whip down the message lists (themselves configurable for order and style), and do your Searching around a key word or phrase. In addition to all the good references that you have cited, I am sure that most of you have already tried something like this, but if you click to http://www.google.com/search?num=100 &hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&safe=off&rls=GGGL%2CGGGL%3A2005-09%2CGGGL%3Aen&q= parking+strategies&btnG=Search you find some useful references. Finally, when I hear people talking about residential parking strategies and practices, I am not sure about how all this is developing in North America, but if you scratch just a bit in the one or two hundred (or more) cities leading the New Mobility Agenda here in Europe, you will find some very sophisticated thinking and a lot of useful practice in this. Thus, no reason to reinvent the wheel (especially if it is non-moving). Eric Britton -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060427/d25b2aa5/attachment.html From goyotech at yahoo.es Fri Apr 28 09:26:34 2006 From: goyotech at yahoo.es (Gregorio Villacorta Alegria) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 02:26:34 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [sustran] Horses to Motorcycles? - Tibet Transport Message-ID: <20060428002634.63897.qmail@web27005.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> In pictures: Tibetan nomads Evolving transport "Many of my friends have bought motorcycles instead of using horses. They enjoy decorating the cycle with tassels and carpets like we do our horses. "Although my sons want bikes, we will stick to our horses. Besides, we live too far away from the town for the bike and the terrain is much too rocky to get to our usual encampments Source : www.bbc.co.uk --------------------------------- LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo. Llamadas a fijos y m?viles desde 1 c?ntimo por minuto. http://es.voice.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060428/3e7bf64d/attachment.html From robert_cowherd at yahoo.com Thu Apr 27 21:54:36 2006 From: robert_cowherd at yahoo.com (robert cowherd) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 08:54:36 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: On vs off street parking or simply reducing on street parking. In-Reply-To: <444FB86B.3060305@gmail.com> Message-ID: Walter, In the Be-Careful-What-You-Wish-For-Department: Brookline, Massachusetts, the idyllic inner-ring street-car suburb of Boston, has long complemented its relatively compact housing fabric and their extensive light-rail with a prohibition against overnight on-street parking. So far so good. But it is still America, and no on-street parking does not necessarily mean less parking. Wanting to be less like Boston and more like similarly, or more, affluent suburbs further out, Brookline has steadily increased its requirements for residential on-site parking and recently raised it up from 1-1.5 to 2-2.3 per unit. This may work fine for the predominant single-family typology of the outer suburbs but it has made it unlikely that anything resembling the street-car suburb typology of row-houses, and small footprint three- to four-story apartment buildings can be built. Small yards and gardens have been shrinking and disappearing for years in the quest to load every parcel with one more parking space. This is where the relative efficiency of on-street parking (no driveway, shared parking) becomes evident. At the risk of being accused of tolerance for complex realities, I am comfortable keeping the goal of "car-free cities" near the top of my list and still support on-street parking as a preferable alternative to some of the other available options for cities. Robert Cowherd MIT 4/26/2006 From carlos.pardo at sutp.org Fri Apr 28 23:44:28 2006 From: carlos.pardo at sutp.org (Carlos F. Pardo SUTP) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 09:44:28 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Discipline is needed?? In-Reply-To: <000001c669bb$a29da8c0$0265a8c0@rangith74aab7d> Message-ID: <200604281444.k3SEiVRZ013440@omr4.networksolutionsemail.com> Ranjith, Thanks for the illustrative examples. The only problem with mass media is that it is not as effective as work with communities (more focussed work). Also, a tv spot is so expensive that you could do a lot more with the same money by working with groups of people, by transmitting specific messages. Best regards, Carlos F. Pardo Coordinador de Proyecto GTZ - Proyecto de Transporte Sostenible (SUTP, SUTP-LAC) Cl 125bis # 41-28 of 404 Bogot? D.C., Colombia Tel: +57 (1) 215 7812 Fax: +57 (1) 236 2309 Mobile: +57 (3) 15 296 0662 e-mail: carlos.pardo@sutp.org P?gina: www.sutp.org _____ De: sustran-discuss-bounces+carlos.pardo=sutp.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+carlos.pardo=sutp.org@list.jca.apc.org] En nombre de Ranjith de Silva Enviado el: Jueves, 27 de Abril de 2006 12:30 a.m. Para: 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport' Asunto: [sustran] Discipline is needed?? Hi all, In terms of making people aware of transport discipline in the developing countries the electronic media (e.g. television) can play an effective role either positively or negatively. Examples can be given from Sri Lanka as mentioned below. 1. An advertisement showing a child waving to drivers of vehicles at a pedestrian?s crossing to stop by raising his hand and in the background a voice says ?communicate and remind the drivers of your rights and cross safely?. This was a very effective positive case. 2. A large number of commercial advertisements by Insurance Companies saying that they will not ask for Police reports on accidents and also pay their customers ?on the spot? without going through the hassle of going to the traffic police for reports. I think with these advertisements and practices by the insurance companies, have increased the number of accidents and usually they are not recorded in any police station now. Police also encourage drivers to go for the ?on the spot? just to evade from the trouble. It has also created indiscipline driving with many minor accidents specially involving three and two wheelers, who try to be ?Traffic Breakers? (as shown in one of the Indian motorcycle advertisement how to drive fast in the traffic sneaking though the slow moving vehicles) and create traffic jams and unnecessary delays and burning more fuel and polluting the air for no productive reason. This example below from Sri Lanka shows the Transport Planners are only worried about the existing traffic regulations irrespective of their current relevance to the country situation. 1. In Sri Lanka, one needs neither a riding nor revenue (only a small amount charged by the Local Government bodies) license nor an insurance cover to ride a bicycle as in many other countries. Someone imported the motorised ?Moped? (a small motorised scooter run on petrol) and was produced before the authorities for license at it is a motorised mode. The definition by the authorities was a very one. Under the existing laws this ?Moped? has been categorized as a ?Bicycle? with no revenue license, no insurance cover (at least for third party damage) and NO driving license is required. You may see now these modes rapidly becoming popular in Sri Lanka and also going at speeds of over 30 Kmph. May the god help the poor pedestrians and others if they are hit by these ?Mopeds? driven by people who do not even know the Highway Code and have no assured support for the damage to the third party. Ranjith Ranjith de Silva Asia Regional Coordinator International Forum for Rural Transport and Development (IFRTD) C/o: 319/10, Ramanayaka Mawatha, Erawwala, Pannipitiya, Sri Lanka. Phone: +94 11 2842972 Fax: +94 11 2856188 Email: ranjith@ifrtd.org web: www.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/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060428/e2bfcb15/attachment.html From litman at vtpi.org Sat Apr 29 00:35:55 2006 From: litman at vtpi.org (Todd Alexander Litman) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 08:35:55 -0700 Subject: [sustran] Re: parking impact on use versus ownership In-Reply-To: <006b01c66a11$5a85bc20$c301a8c0@DFJLYL81> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20060426194947.05dfa6c0@mail.islandnet.com> <006b01c66a11$5a85bc20$c301a8c0@DFJLYL81> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20060428082353.058149a0@mail.islandnet.com> Parking facilities are a very valuable resource and generally everybody can be better off by pricing them efficiently and capturing the value for the public. If pricing parking reduces city vehicle ownership by half, the total number of parking spaces can be reduced, freeing up land for walkways, greenspace, housing and other beneficial land uses. The starting point is to establish planning objectives, for example, that the most convenient parking spaces will be managed for short-term use rather than for use by residents and commuters, and that the total number of parking spaces will be minimized. That total car trips to the Westwood Village increased after pricing was implemented may seem undesirable from a traffic management perspective, but it probably reflects increased business activity in the area, which is desirable from a economic development perspective. I don't think we want to suggest that traffic and parking management require constraining economic development, we want to emphasize that economic activity can increase without increasing parking supply by managing existing supply more efficiently. Shoup's other example, Old Pasadena, is experiencing significant economic growth and downtown residential development due, in part, to the livability improvements funded by parking pricing revenues. I think that is a real success story. Best wishes, -Todd Litman At 08:43 AM 4/27/2006, Walter Hook wrote: >I am having a hard time jiving your statistics with the statistics >presented by Don Shoup. He sites a study done in westwood village, >California, when they increased the parking charges from very low to >market rates in the village, the total number of motor vehicle >arrivals per hour increased from 829 to 1410. (p.366) This >generated a lot of new daily traffic, not less daily traffic. > >In Eastern Europe, people used to park their old trabants and >wartburgs in front of their apartment buildings and they would sit >there for months at a time without use. Shopkeepers would really >complain, of course. Maybe this encouraged continued auto ownership >but not auto use. The shopkeepers were strong supporters of the >charge on parking. This allowed the city to tow a lot of these >vehicles. Now, maybe hundreds of cars could share the space >previously occupied by a vehicle generating zero trips. Maybe this >encouraged use but not ownership. Subsidy or no, use of a motor >vehicle and parking of a motor vehicle are different phenomenon. > >Imagine a theoretical situation: a city and a suburb. City >residents own one million cars, occupying all the parking spaces, >and they are free. City residents also have a good transit system, >so they drive their cars out to the country once a month, and use >the transit system to get to work. Suburban residents have lousy >transit service, and would love to drive into the city, but they >cant because there is no place to park, so they struggle onto >commuter trains, take slow buses, etc. Then the parking fees are >increased sharply. Half the urban residents sell their >cars. Ownership in the city goes down by half. Half the suburban >residents can now drive to work every day. Suburban auto ownership >stays the same, but auto use measured in terms of vmt increases dramatically. > >Unquestionably, charging for parking is more efficient, but it seems >quite possible that increasing parking charges across the board >could induce demand rather than reduce demand, though you may be >right that it could depress ownership. > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org >[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On >Behalf Of Todd Alexander Litman >Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 11:34 PM >To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport; Asia and the Pacific >sustainable transport >Subject: [sustran] Re: On vs off street parking or simply reducing >on streetparking. > > >There is no doubt that shifting from free to priced parking can >reduce vehicle ownership and use. Underpriced parking is the largest >subsidy of automobile travel - for each dollar a motorist spends >directly on their vehicle, somebody spends about $0.50 to subsidize >its parking. In typical situations, shifting from free to >cost-recovery priced parking (parking priced to cover its facility >and operating costs) reduces automobile ownership by 5-15% if >applied to residential parking, and reduces vehicle trips by 10-30% >if applied at destinations such as worksite and other commercial >destinations. This implies that about 20% of our traffic problems, >road and parking costs, traffic accidents, fuel consumption and >pollution emissions can be "explained" by vehicle parking >underpricing, or described more positively, correcting parking >underpricing can significantly improve transportation system >efficiency and address problems such as excessive traffic risk and >energy consumption. > >Pricing can even be revenue neutral, for example, by "unbundling" >residential parking (parking is sold and rented separately from >building space, so for example, rather than renting an apartment for >$1,000 per month with two "free" parking spaces, the apartment rents >for $800 per month, and each parking space is a separate $100 per >month) and "cashing out" subsidized employee parking (commuters can >choose between a subsidized parking space or its cash equivalent, >such as $100 per month). > >To be effective parking pricing must be correctly implemented. This >means appropriate price structures (preferably hourly and daily >fees, with higher rates during peak periods, and minimal exemptions >and discounts), effective enforcement, and good travel options >(walking and cycling conditions, good ridesharing and public transit >services, etc.). To effect vehicle ownership and use (rather than >just parking location) pricing must be implemented over an area, so >motorists cannot simply park for free nearby. > >Business people often demand parking subsidies to attract customers, >but their efforts are often misdirected. After all, people spend >money, not cars. While its true that if two businesses are otherwise >equally attractive, the one that offers free parking will tend to >attract more customers, there are other more important attributes, >and areas which focus only on cheap parking to attract customers >often fail. For example, if charging for parking reduces taxes and >prices, increases parking turnover, or funds transit services and >local street improvements, many people while choose an area where >they must pay for parking (see Douglas Kolozsvari and Donald Shoup, >"Turning Small Change Into Big Changes," Access 23, University of >California Transportation Center >(www.uctc.net), Fall 2003, pp. 2-7; >www.sppsr.ucla.edu/up/webfiles/SmallChange.pdf >). Similarly, many areas with limited and priced parking are >attractive places to live and work, because they have better >livability. Described differently, charging for parking improves the >quality of customers by weeding out the cheepskates who won't pay a >few cents to park, leaving better spenders. > >This is not anti-car. It recognizes that some trips will be made by >automobile and that we need to accommodate their need to park. But >charging for parking and using shared, public parking facilities >(including on-street and for-profit commercial parking) is far more >equitable and efficient, and significantly reduces the total amount >of parking supply needed compared with conventional parking planning >practices which result in generous amounts of parking at each destination. > >For more information see: > >Todd Litman, Parking Management: Strategies, Evaluation and >Planning, Victoria Transport Policy Institute >(www.vtpi.org/park_man.pdf ), 2006. > >MRSC, Downtown Parking Solutions, Municipal Research and Service >Center of Washington ( >www.mrsc.org/Subjects/Transpo/Tpark/transsolut.aspx), 2005. > >Nelson/Nygaard Consulting, Housing Shortage / Parking Surplus, >Transportation and Land Use Coalition ( >www.transcoalition.org/southbay/housing_study/index.html), July 2002. > >Oregon Downtown Development Association, Parking Management Made >Easy: A Guide to Taming the Downtown Parking Beast, Transportation >and Growth Management Program, Oregon DOT and Dept. of Environmental >Quality ( www.lcd.state.or.us/tgm/publications.htm), 2001. > >Ryan Russo, Planning for Residential Parking: A Guide For Housing >Developers and Planners, Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern >California >(www.nonprofithousing.org) and the >Berkeley Program on Housing and Urban Policy ( >http://urbanpolicy.berkeley.edu), 2001. > >USEPA, Parking Spaces / Community Places: Finding the Balance >Through Smart Growth Solutions, Development, Community, and >Environment Division (DCED); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( >www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/parking.htm), 2006. > > >At 11:14 AM 4/26/2006, Sunny wrote: > >I really like Todd's idea of pricing the parking but implementing the >same is a bit difficult in the developing cities as there is a >increasing trend of vehicle ownership. In my opinion initially focussing >on limiting the available parking spaces and then going with the pricing >would be better as this firstly might control the ridership and then the >pricing would have the economic effect. > >On the other hand I doubt if parking pricing will really reduce the >ridership because I presume that parking pricing would make the car user >aware of the fact that they are being metered for the time they are >spending for shopping and thereby reduce their shopping time which can >tend to decrease the sales, yes they might shift to other modes but what >if the other modes are not as developed as driving a car like in >Bangkok. Secondly, providing priced or timed parking would allow the >other car driver to feel that they might get a place to park their car >and hence avoid them from shifting to other means. Correct me if I am wrong. > >Off street parking is the worst case especially when it is free/very >very cheap like here in Bangkok and when the price is reducing with time >rather than increasing. but even here i have the same doubts mentioned >above. I would be glad if someone could clarify me. > >Sunny > > >Sincerely, >Todd Alexander Litman >Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org) >litman@vtpi.org >Phone & Fax 250-360-1560 >1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA >"Efficiency - Equity - Clarity" > > > >================================================================ >SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, >equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing >countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, >the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. Sincerely, Todd Alexander Litman Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org) litman@vtpi.org Phone & Fax 250-360-1560 1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060428/605fa5b9/attachment.html From ranjithsd at sltnet.lk Sat Apr 29 01:31:57 2006 From: ranjithsd at sltnet.lk (Ranjith de Silva) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 22:31:57 +0600 Subject: [sustran] Re: Discipline is needed?? In-Reply-To: <200604281444.k3SEiVRZ013440@omr4.networksolutionsemail.com> Message-ID: <001f01c66ae1$44e48290$0265a8c0@rangith74aab7d> Hi Carlos Yes, I do agree with you that the direct community involvement is much effective. However, in the process of wider dissemination of the message (it could be showing how a community manages the problem), the TV ads reaches much larger recipients. Regarding the cost, the Ad I referred, was sponsored by an Insurance Company as part of their advertisement campaign. So virtually, it costs nothing for the promoter. Cheers! Ranjith -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060428/570e6944/attachment.html From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Sat Apr 29 19:00:46 2006 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (Eric Britton (Paris)) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 12:00:46 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Our group nominations for the 2006 World Technology Environment Award Message-ID: <006701c66b73$d20ce7b0$6401a8c0@Home> Dear Fair Transport Friends (hmm?), Every year, as a past winner of the World Technology Environment Award (Class of 2002), I and the other past nominees for this prestigious international prize are kindly invited to nominate our candidates for this year's award. And as over the last three years, I would once again like to invite you to share your thoughts and eventual nominations with us for this year's nominations. As you know here at The Commons we do collective intelligence. ;-) Over the last couple of years we have had a number of real successes with our cooperative peer award process and backing, and have thus managed to draw what we regard as a useful spotlight on the work of people likes Hans Monderman and his wonderful street projects, Ken Livingstone and his congestion charging project; the leaders of the carsharing start-ups in Paris, Helsinki and Stockholm; Boris Berenfeld for his innovative work involving young people, education and direct environmental actions and the Stockholm Partnerships for Sustainable Cities for its continuing contributions in the developing world; and Mayor Lee Myung-Bak and the City of Seoul for their Regeneration Technology project. There is one slight wrinkle in this award process that may not be immediately clear to those of us who are accustomed to thinking in terms of sustainable transport per se, and that is that the awards somehow have to acknowledge technological components. In the case of things like road pricing, carsharing and internet based peer support programs, that is pretty evident. But last year we made a major stretch on this in nominating Hans Monderman for his work and, as you may recall, made (stretched?) the point that his entire approach was based on a form of 'technology minimization'. A stretch maybe, but it worked. That's the past, but now the future. Who is it going to be this year? May I suggest that in a first instance you write me privately on this at eric.britton@ecoplan.org - with copies to fekbritton@gmail.com sine I am having terrible spam problems - and then later as appropriate I can efficiently share with the others. Stay tuned. FairTransport??? With all good wishes, Eric Britton The New Mobility Agenda is on line at http://www.newmobility.org Le Frene, 8/10 rue Joseph Bara 75006 Paris, France Tel: +331 4326 1323 Skype: ericbritton E: mobility@ecoplan.org Backup: fekbritton@gmail.com EcoPlan International Innovation consultancy/advisory New Ways to Work in an Information Society: http://www.xWork.org 9440 Readcrest Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210 T. +1 310 601-8468 E: eric.britton@ecoplan.org Skype: xWork-on-line Technology. Economy. Society. Francis Eric Knight Britton Innovation consultancy/advisory The Commons EcoPlan Association 1901 8/10, rue Joseph Bara 75006 Paris, France secretariat@ecoplan.org fekbritton@gmail.com IM: Skype: xwork-on-line www.ecoplan.org tel: tel2: fax: +338 7044 0343 +331 4326 1323 +331 5301 2896 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060429/565d3ffb/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 11542 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060429/565d3ffb/attachment.jpe From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Sun Apr 30 21:24:31 2006 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (Eric Britton (Paris)) Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 14:24:31 +0200 Subject: [sustran] (For comment) Fair Transport: A New Mobility Agenda for a Changing World Message-ID: <005b01c66c51$0a7972c0$6401a8c0@Home> Fair Transport A New Mobility Agenda for a Changing World Note to reader/friends: This is a quick group think exercise for a concept which I really think is worth pursuing. I would be grateful to have your comments and suggestions, for any of what follows as well as your ideas on the concept and eventual next steps more generally. ?Fair Transport? is proposed as a next-generation successor term to the now old and often confusing concept of ?sustainable transport?, but it is more focused and less general. Here to get us going on this is my proposed first cut definition of this new and I hope useful term. And why do we need a new term for all this? Well, above all because good old ?sustainable transport? while it has been around now for decade and a half under quite that name has not succeeded in getting the level of attention needed to make the big policy and impact differences that are needed. It may be that the term has turned out to be hard to explain to people and appears to be just to recondite and abstract. ?Fair? is maybe a term that not only we all can immediately grasp, but also one that has real significance in terms of matters of mobility and our daily lives. PS. May I ask that you send your comments to me privately in a first instance via eric.britton@ecoplan.org? You can be sure that I will them make an effort to bring them all into a single easy to reference piece, so your individual contributions will not go by the wayside. Thanks. ?Fair Transport?: 1. Requires a detailed and mature understanding of how the proposed new, improved or restructured transport investment or policy is going to impact on ?we ordinary people step by step in our daily lives?. 2. Provides full and equal treatment of all forms of mobility (human-powered, public transport, motorized private transport) in the areas of planning, financing and infrastructure provision, maintenance and operation. 3. Places heavy emphasis on concrete and measurable near term improvements (say less than 2-4 years to achievement). 4. Requires that at least 50% of the total investment budget be allocated to small projects. 5. Suggests that any large project (say more than $100k) be carefully inspected to ensure that its most important human and social (this included economic) objectives cannot be better met by one or more small projects or policies. 6. Gives full consideration to critical gender differences and needs at all stages of the planning, etc. process 7. And otherwise incorporates all of the now well established concerns, priorities and solutions brought forward by the sustainable transport movement over the last two decades. Implications: A Fair Transport policy is going to bring about a new and at first possibly quite uncomfortable situation for the many public sector institutions involved in the sector. The sharpest indication of this is that the new policy is going to spawn not small numbers of very large projects? but rather will require a capacity to identify, plan, execute and support relatively large numbers of relatively small projects. This is going to require new attitudes and methods, and uncomfortable though that might be to the present generation of employees, it is the only way that we can make our way to Fair Transport. So we shall all have to learn how to do this. Together. Some notes: * Also can be written: FairTranport, Fair Transportation, Equitable Transport, * Other languages: French: Transport ?quitable. Transports ?quitables. Spanish. Transporte equitativo.?? German? Portuguese? * Note: Fair Transport not only extends to bring in all the precepts, goals and accomplishments of sustainable transport but also incorporates ?safe, clean and affordable transport?. * The only related Google reference found for ?fair transport?? is a 2003 paper by J?rg Haeberli ?Mission Statement on Human-powered Mobility in Switzerland: a Further Step towards a Fair Transport System?. Walk21 IV, Portland, Oregon. * Fair Transport and Fair Trade. Yes. There is definitely something there. But that you already figured out. Eric Britton (who sits here in the rain and awaits with real interest your idea and suggestions.) PS. For more on this, and in the specific context of a group revision of a report on this subject from the World Bank, you may want to have a look at the ideas and discussions that are talking place in http://www.gatnet.net/ - The Gender, Equity and Transport Forum -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060430/1226b913/attachment.html