[sustran] Public transport should be free

[Eric Britton]

Dear Colleagues,

 

There are now going on two hundred New Mobility
<http://www.newmoblitybriefs.org/general/measures.htm>  measures and actions
which we have thus far identified with your help for treatment under the New
Mobility <http://www.newmoblitybriefs.org/>  Advisory/Briefs and while we are
already committed to the Carsharing City
<file:///C:\Web\www\briefs\general\vol1no1-carsharing.htm>  Strategies and BRT
for the first two numbers, the topic of precisely "Public transport should be
free" has over these last days has moved up toward the head of the list for the
planned four first year editions. I mention this to you this morning since it
will, as with just about everything done here, be very much a collaborative
endeavor and is one that just possibly may interest you..

 

However our approach in this particular case will be a bit different from our
usual starting point and method, which is to provide an informed expert view
based on leading edge international experience and knowledge to provide an
informed but neutral appraisal of the measure, so as to inform city government
and local leaders so that they can make a wise decision as to eventual next
steps.  And then to get them started in this proves.

 

In "Public transport should be free" we intend to turn this around a bit. We
shall take the title as a positive statement, a challenge and our leading
premise -- and then investigate and analyze whether in fact this may or may not
make any sense for 21st century cities under duress. And if so, how.

 

I might note that just about all the analyses in the past (see Barbara Post's
biblio of yesterday by way of first example) have started out well in the box of
the existing institutional and financial situation as far as public transport
provision is concerned - and then variously  to wiggle it a bit to see what,
within this quite constraining box, would be likely to happen if the city tried
to do just that. With the results that it should not be terribly difficult to
anticipate in advance.  And since you are well installed in that box, not
surprising that the conclusion is inevitably either (a) it won't work (here and
then come the long list of reasons and justifications) or, at times, (b) we
might give it a try on this bit of the system (specific routes, hours, user
groups). 

 

But since we are dealing here with the politics of transportation and
problem-solving in a heavily charged and troublesome environment, it seems that
the least we can do is step beyond that traditional box and start by setting out
the fundamental considerations that in truth set the stage, a bit along the
lines that Dave Wetzel has done in his yesterday's email to the group. What is
it that we want behind all this? How important are those objectives to the
community? What are the (full) means at our disposal (and we are not talking
about fare boxes or balancing micro-budgets here)? Etc.

 

So the goal of this future New Mobility Advisory will be to take it from the
top. And we very much hope that you will be interested to participate. With your
idea, and perhaps even to join our little editorial group that will be keeping
an eye on all this to ensure its quality and professionalism.

 

Eric Britton 

 

PS. And if anyone wishes to drag in the tired finger-pointing language of left
or right, socialist or whatever to simplify and eventually ridicule these
important considerations, they will I promise lose a start.  And you know how
that can hurt. Measured mentions of sustainable development and social justice,
and better economics for all, will on the other hand certainly have their place
here. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060818/b2cda02a/attachment.html