[sustran] Re: "Highjacking sustainable transport"

Todd Edelman edelman at greenidea.info
Sat May 13 22:27:31 JST 2006


> "Highjacking sustainable transport" - What a great and useful phrase!
> One that we will do well to keep in our sights as proposals and
> propositions that try to associate with the label step forth. Thanks
> Rory.
YES, great.. and I would argue that it is of course hijacking
"sustainability" as well.

>
>
> Which gets me back to Fair Transport and our idea for a set of Jacobs
> Rules "tests" for sustainability and fairness, on which up to now we
> have had no concrete feedback and commentary. So I wonder if I might
> encourage those of you who care about these things enough to take the
> time to work your way down this provisional short list, and then to
> share your comments and suggestions with me and us with a view to
> turning it into a more bullet proof and practically useful working tool.
> I must say that I have been trying to make it shorter, but at the same
> time I think it is important that we make sure there are no huge
> loopholes here.
>
>
>
> So there you have our latest on this. And thanks for giving this your
> time and thought.  Your reward? Well you know that.
>
> org
>
>
>
>
>
> Fair Transport -- and Jacobs Rules

ERIC, in general there is lots of good stuff here. It seems like you are
trying to fill a box for "transport" so it is like apples to my oranges
which is "access", with transport being a tool for access. We simply have
different philosophies, or perhaps partly overlapping ones, and if you are
doing the Jacobs Fairness thing to fill in a box that is on a World Bank
form, so to speak... or a shelf in a mindset (forgive me, my metaphor
programme is not working) of the World Bank, then I understand, but
starting with "transport" is not a sustainable starting point.

Indeed, you take note of it in "Non-transport solutions" and isnt this
really the starting point? So, a flow-chart has question: Access? First
options are non-transport, really meaning "real proximity" via urban
design and "magic proximity" via electronic things. Transport is needed if
non-transport does not provide access.

>
>
> "Fair Transport" targets is a new policy model for the sector, which
> seeks to build on and extend the somewhat abstract and often ambiguous
> concept of sustainable transport or sustainable mobility. The specific
> idea behind Fair Transport is to move beyond generalities and instead
> come up with a number of specific criteria, sign posts and tests to
> guide investments, decisions and actions in the transport field, and in
> particular those that are funded through taxpayer contributions or which
> require public support or authorization.
>
>
>
> The shortlist
THERE needs to be some kind of priority hierarchy here, a "pyramid" of
some sort, which is much better than "pillars" which tends to say that all
supports for a system are not just necessary but equally important.

In the pyramid of urban transport walking is at the top, and I would say
carshare is at the bottom, though it is not the foundation. Individual car
use and ownership is not part of this pyramid (Egyptians knew what they
were doing).

In the pillar metaphor for urban transport bikes, carshare, PT etc all are
pillars holding up the roof. See, the reality is different.

 the that follows, while still provisional and subject to
> review and comment, is our present best-stab at providing such a check
> list. We are convinced that no public or publicly supported projects
> should be carried out without these tests being applied and the results
> made openly and publicly available in time to make, support or
> eventually block or modify the go-ahead decisions that traditionally
> have been made more or less in isolation in central places.
>
>
>
> 1.	Human and social impacts: Requires as the very first priority a
> detailed and mature understanding of how the proposed new, improved or
> restructured transport investment, policy or action is going to impact
> on "we, ordinary people, step by step in our daily lives".
THIS is good priority philosophy, not a technical thing, which goes along
with 2, 13 and 14,below.

 Low income
> groups need as a priority excellent walking, cycling and bus service
> provision and the means to get rural produce to market.
THESE are simply examples for no. 1.

> 2.	Near term improvements: The Fair Transport approach places heavy
> emphasis on projects and policies which lead to measurable near term
> improvements within the electoral cycle of the decision makers in place.
> (say less than 2-4 years to achievement).   All such targeted
> improvements must, however, be within the broader strategic (that is
> long term) policy frame as set out here and mandated by the concepts of
> sustainable development..

> 3.	Non-Transport Solutions: Recognizes that at least a good half of
> the solutions needed to deal with problems or insufficiencies that in a
> first instance are identified with 'transport shortcomings' must in fact
> involve non-transport solutions . This means that the policy and
> decision makers need to have full knowledge of these parts of the
> solution set as well (typical examples being locational and land use
> changes, public spaces, TDM, time management, mobility substitutes,
> etc.)

> 4.	Full Access for All: All projects much provide or lead to full,
> fair and safe access to people of all ages, conditions of health,
> economic situation and in terms of where they live and work. Convenient
> rural accessibility to all services and functions is critical.
THIS would just allow people in suburbs to demand roads to their front
doors. Again, I think it is about access to places, not access to
transport means. "Full Access" is so vague it is not workable. UITP has
"Mobility for All" which is nice but should just be interpreted as a
statement about democracy and fairness rather than a design philosophy.

Someone who has a great personal economic situation might think it is fair
for them to have a big car and drive around in isolation.

This might be the thing: My transport means is good as long as it doesnt
infringe on your transport means. (There would be compromises, e.g. you
have to wait for the bus to pass by, etc)


> 5.	Modal choice: Provides full and fair consideration of all forms
> of mobility (human-powered, public transport, intermediate/shared
> transport forms, motorized private transport) in the areas of planning,
> financing  and infrastructure provision, maintenance and operation - but
> subjecting them to strict consideration of lowest life-cycle CO2
> emissions, least polluting, most equitable, most cost effective, and
> most resource economical. Given the fact that the majority of people are
> not car owner/drivers (or should not be), non "own-car" solutions should
> be heavily favored

DOES "equitable" include safety? IF a carshare car operating on biogas and
filled with five people goes down a street at 50km/h, it still makes life
unequitable for pedestrians, in my opinion.



> 6.	Cost effectiveness: (a) Represents the cheapest way to get the
> (full) job done to the key targeted specifications (those being human)
> while (b) also fully serving non-drivers and lower income groups.
> 7.	Gender, Women and Children: Gives full consideration to critical
> (and heretofore generally neglected) gender differences and needs at all
> stages of the discussion, planning, and decision process.  This can only
> be assured through full representation and participation of female
> leaders and active participants. Thus no project should be allowed to go
> ahead unless there is a strong plurality at least of female
> participation and leadership in the decision stage.
> 8.	Packages of Measures: the Fair Transport paradigm will be
> distinguished from the old ways of planning and making investments by
> the fact that it will in most places be characterized by very large
> numbers of often quite small projects and initiatives. And by many more
> actors and participants. One of the main challenges of an effective Fair
> Transport policy will be to find ways to see these various  measures as
> interactive synergistic and mutually supporting projects within a
> unified greater whole.  This is a significant challenge to our planners
> at all levels.
> 9.	New Actors/Entrepreneurship:  The transport sector has
> traditionally been heavily regulated in ways in which new approaches and
> new actors are more or less actively discouraged or blocked. A Fair
> Transport policy will create a much more open attitude and support
> structure for innovation, from the private and public sectors and from
> volunteer and community groups.
> 10.	Small project strategies and management: On the understanding
> that what is needed is large numbers of small projects each doing their
> own job, requires that at least 50% of the total investment budget be
> allocated to small projects (criteria?).  These projects should be
> generated through local actions and participation.
> 11.	Large projects: Suggests that any large project (say more than
> $100k)
THIS amount should be based on percentage, so it is relative to the
ecomomy of the locality.

 be carefully inspected to ensure that its most important human
> and social (this includes economic and environmental) objectives cannot
> be better met by one or a set of smaller projects or policies.
> 12.	Public spaces and community: Serves to improve quantity,
> quality, and social usefulness of public spaces, thereby reinforcing
> human contacts, sense of community, local and regional culture
> 13.	 New Tools: The traditional toolset (and mindset) of the
> planners and policy makers in the sector need to be dramatically
> expanded and more fully integrated in all project stages. A very
> incomplete list would include direct involvement of behavioral
> psychologists gender specialists, public space experts, and new forms of
> pubic participation and interactive communications. (This list is
> incomplete and intended here only for the purposes of giving a first
> indication.)
THIS IS good, but is kind of a separate though essential thing... I mean
it is part of the process, the form, rather than the content.

> 14.	Open public reporting:  All planning and project information,
> technical analysis, cost information, key parameters, etc. should be
> publicly available in a convenient transparent form which is make
> available both locally and nationally and to the international community
> with expertise and longer term interests in these areas.
AS with 13, good good goodie gumdrops

---

!!! I would also somehow add "full internalisation of costs" complemented
by reduction in income tax.

----

- The non-Canadian Todd

------------------------------------------------------

Todd Edelman
International Coordinator
On the Train Towards the Future!

Green Idea Factory
Laubova 5
CZ-13000 Praha 3

++420 605 915 970

edelman at greenidea.info
http://www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain

Green Idea Factory,
a member of World Carfree Network



More information about the Sustran-discuss mailing list