[sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 36, Issue 27

[Walter Hook]

This will have disastrous social consequences in both cities. I suppose over
time the system will adapt with the increase in paratransit services (also
hardly free from criminal behaviors!) and perhaps bicycles, but in the short
term hundreds of thousands if not millions of people will face longer
commutes and loss of income, and the loss of a valuable asset’s value (the
motorbike itself).  Surely if the problem is crime they should attack the
crime problem, and not intervene in the traffic system.  I am sure criminals
will be able to afford vans next time.

 

w.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org at list.jca.apc.org
[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org at list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf
Of joshua odeleye
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 10:30 AM
To: sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org
Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 36, Issue 27

 

Dear All,

What a coincident?Commercial motorcycles operation which happened to be a
major means of urban transport in Nigerian cities have just been restricted
within the hour of 6.00am-7.00pm in the city of Lagos..This is as a result
of  the nefarious activities of some of the operatives who aid and abbet
crimes,particularly at night.While the enforcement last, majority of people,
i.e the urban poor,who depend largely on this means of transport feel the
pain most.They have resulted to long distance trekking.Could someone tell me
if this approach in addressing an aspect of urban crime is Sustainable?

Regards,

JOSHUA ODELEYE.

NIGERIAN INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORT TECHNOLOGY,

ZARIA,NIGERIA. 

sustran-discuss-request at list.jca.apc.org wrote:

Send Sustran-discuss mailing list submissions to
sustran-discuss at 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 at list.jca.apc.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
sustran-discuss-owner at 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

IMPORTANT NOTE: When replying please do not include the whole digest in your
reply - just include the relevant part of the specific message that you are
responding to. Many thanks. 

About this mailing list see:
http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss
########################################################################



Today's Topics:

1. Motorbike ban - Kigali (Eric Britton)
2. Keep Driving... (Eric Britton)
3. Re: Keep Driving... (chuwa)
4. Re: [LotsLessCars] Keep Driving... (Carlos F. Pardo SUTP)


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

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 09:45:25 +0200
From: "Eric Britton" 
Subject: [sustran] Motorbike ban - Kigali
To: , ,

Cc: oscar_kim2000 at yahoo.co.uk
Message-ID: <010f01c6cb3f$1ff20250$6501a8c0 at Home>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"





Motorbike ban long overdue 

By Oscar Kimanuka 

It is now official. No more commercial motorcyclists, commonly known as boda
boda or "motor," will be allowed in Kigali's city centre. 

The decision was arrived at after consultations between the City Council,
Ministry of Infrastructure, and Local Government and the police. The
decision
has been welcomed by many Kigali residents, who for some time have viewed
the
motorcyclists as a nuisance. 

The cyclists have been blamed for the increasing number of thefts in a city
that
has a reputation for being one of the safest in the region. 

It is hoped that the directive from city authorities will be sustainable and
not
one of those episodic, knee-jerk responses that are soon ignored. 

One of the major reasons advanced by the Kigali city fathers for the ban was
the
sharp rise in accidents, thefts, harassment and other related petty crimes.
Motorcycles are only allowed in designated areas outside the city. 

The motor cycle sector in Kigali has provided employment to many young
people
who have found it easy to operate owing to the reasonably low cost of
investment. A secondhand motorcycle, for example, cost $1,000 or less. 

However, the operator of the motorcycle is not usually the owner. He
acquires
the motorcycle on a loan and raises the money through daily collections to
pay
back pay off the debt. 

The original owner buys another bike, and through this reproductive system,
the
population of "motors" on Kigali streets has grown phenomenally.
Incidentally,
this practice is not confined to Kigali. 

This is common in many African cities, including Kampala, where there are
thousands of boda bodas that have become a convenient mode of transport for
passengers who are tired of the traffic jams on many of the city roads. 

These boda bodas, however, have neither regard for traffic rules nor respect
for
other people. I am not sure of anyone, particularly a car owner who has ever
encountered a disciplined or polite motorcyclist. 

Now what is remaining is the enforcement of this new regulation for the
safety
of residents of Kigali. 

To begin with a "motor" regulatory task-force should be established to
oversee
enforcement of this regulation. 

Oscar Kimanuka is a commentator on social and economic issues based in
Kigali.


Email: oscar_kim2000 at yahoo.co.uk 

Source:
http://www.nationmedia.com/eastafrican/current/Opinion/Opinion2808064.htm



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060829/edbd402f
/attachment-0001.html

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

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 12:11:20 +0200
From: "Eric Britton" 
Subject: [sustran] Keep Driving...
To: ,

Cc: Sustran-discuss at jca.apc.org
Message-ID: <014201c6cb53$7b962780$6501a8c0 at Home>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Anzir Boodoo



On 29 Aug 2006, at 07:02, Jo?o Lacerda wrote:

> I am very curious to know some thoughts of our British friends 

> concerning this issue. (see article below)



Jo?o,



So, it's OK to use your car as much as you want, because it's now 

carbon neutral. So there is no environmental reason to stop using 

your car...



Problems:



1. Carbon emission offsets are no longer considered environmentally 

equivalent to burning less fuel in the first place



2. An average aggregate of CO2 emitted takes no account of whether 

the car burning the fuel is a Prius or a Hummer



3. Likewise, emissions in urban areas with heavy traffic probably 

have much higher direct impacts than in open rural areas where they 

can dissipate quickly. Of course, this is also ignoring the 

interaction between emissions and atmospheric conditions... the 

impact of a unit of CO2 emission can vary depending on where it is 

emitted.



4. This also ignores CO, NOx and SOx. So even if you are carbon 

neutral, CO is not friendly, and NOx and SOx are still not neutral.



5. If a significant number of people signed up to this, would there 

be enough space to plant the trees? GBP 20 a year seems far too low 

to me... I assume saplings (small trees) do not soak up huge amounts 

of CO2, so it will take many years for the full effect of the "carbon 

sink" to work... in this period of years, what happens to the CO2 

that is in the atmosphere, and is it recoverable by the trees in 

10-20 years from now?



6. How does this work in terms of Kyoto? Or is everyone quietly 

forgetting that now (forgive me for being rude and actually being 

bothered about the whole thing...)



7. If everybody is happy to drive their cars when and where they want 

(since it's now "carbon neutral"), will people ignore the effects of 

traffic (not just pollution, but stress and wasted time)?



I think it's an interesting start, but is it starting us in the right 

direction? After all, I assume BP only has a certain amount of fuel, 

which is going to run out soon...





BP Launches Carbon Neutral Scheme for Drivers

> http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=37818



UK: August 24, 2006





LONDON - British motorists will be able to neutralise their CO2 emissions by
paying an average 20 pounds a year towards offsetting their pollution after
oil
company BP launched a new Internet scheme on Wednesday.





Drivers will be able to calculate their annual CO2 emissions using the
www.targetneutral.com Web site and help fund environmental projects like
wind
farms.



An average car, driven 10,000 miles a year, will generate about four tonnes
of
CO2, about enough to fill a medium-sized hot air balloon. To neutralise this
amount of carbon emissions would cost about 20 pounds.



"Targetneutral is a practical and straightforward step that BP is taking to
enable drivers to help the environment," said BP's UK Director Peter Mather.



"BP is taking the lead because our extensive research shows that there is a
huge
consumer demand for such a scheme, but a general feeling from customers that
they 'don't know where to start,'" he added in a statement.



Motorists' money from the targetneutral scheme, excluding VAT and payment
transaction costs, will be used to buy CO2 emission reductions via the
purchase
of carbon credits. BP, which has provided the start-up funding and will pay
for
running costs, will not receive any money.



The company will also make a direct contribution to targetneutral when
motorists
using the scheme buy BP petrol using a Nectar loyalty card.



The money generated from targetneutral will be used for a range of
environmental
projects including alternative and renewable energy -- such as biomass, wind
farms and methane capture schemes.



Offsetting schemes have become increasingly popular in recent years, but
some
environmentalists are critical of them, saying reducing emissions should be
the
top priority.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060829/9a073c30
/attachment-0001.html

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

Message: 3
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 05:03:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: chuwa 
Subject: [sustran] Re: Keep Driving...
To: eric.britton at ecoplan.org, Global 'South' Sustainable Transport

Message-ID: <20060829120335.53740.qmail at web36915.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

I am more than happy to pay 25 pounds or more a year to stop anyone driving
around my house. 
The money should go to improve facilities for non-motorized transport. 



Eric Britton wrote: Anzir Boodoo

On 29 Aug 2006, at 07:02, Jo?o Lacerda wrote:
> I am very curious to know some thoughts of our British friends 
> concerning this issue. (see article below)

Jo?o,

So, it's OK to use your car as much as you want, because it's now 
carbon neutral. So there is no environmental reason to stop using 
your car...

Problems:

1. Carbon emission offsets are no longer considered environmentally 
equivalent to burning less fuel in the first place

2. An average aggregate of CO2 emitted takes no account of whether 
the car burning the fuel is a Prius or a Hummer

3. Likewise, emissions in urban areas with heavy traffic probably 
have much higher direct impacts than in open rural areas where they 
can dissipate quickly. Of course, this is also ignoring the 
interaction between emissions and atmospheric conditions... the 
impact of a unit of CO2 emission can vary depending on where it is 
emitted.

4. This also ignores CO, NOx and SOx. So even if you are carbon 
neutral, CO is not friendly, and NOx and SOx are still not neutral.

5. If a significant number of people signed up to this, would there 
be enough space to plant the trees? GBP 20 a year seems far too low 
to me... I assume saplings (small trees) do not soak up huge amounts 
of CO2, so it will take many years for the full effect of the "carbon 
sink" to work... in this period of years, what happens to the CO2 
that is in the atmosphere, and is it recoverable by the trees in 
10-20 years from now?

6. How does this work in terms of Kyoto? Or is everyone quietly 
forgetting that now (forgive me for being rude and actually being 
bothered about the whole thing...)

7. If everybody is happy to drive their cars when and where they want 
(since it's now "carbon neutral"), will people ignore the effects of 
traffic (not just pollution, but stress and wasted time)?

I think it's an interesting start, but is it starting us in the right 
direction? After all, I assume BP only has a certain amount of fuel, 
which is going to run out soon...


BP Launches Carbon Neutral Scheme for Drivers
> http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=37818

UK: August 24, 2006


LONDON - British motorists will be able to neutralise their CO2 emissions by
paying an average 20 pounds a year towards offsetting their pollution after
oil company BP launched a new Internet scheme on Wednesday.


Drivers will be able to calculate their annual CO2 emissions using the
www.targetneutral.com Web site and help fund environmental projects like
wind farms.

An average car, driven 10,000 miles a year, will generate about four tonnes
of CO2, about enough to fill a medium-sized hot air balloon. To neutralise
this amount of carbon emissions would cost about 20 pounds.

"Targetneutral is a practical and straightforward step that BP is taking to
enable drivers to help the environment," said BP's UK Director Peter Mather.

"BP is taking the lead because our extensive research shows that there is a
huge consumer demand for such a scheme, but a general feeling from customers
that they 'don't know where to start,'" he added in a statement.

Motorists' money from the targetneutral scheme, excluding VAT and payment
transaction costs, will be used to buy CO2 emission reductions via the
purchase of carbon credits. BP, which has provided the start-up funding and
will pay for running costs, will not receive any money.

The company will also make a direct contribution to targetneutral when
motorists using the scheme buy BP petrol using a Nectar loyalty card.

The money generated from targetneutral will be used for a range of
environmental projects including alternative and renewable energy -- such as
biomass, wind farms and methane capture schemes.

Offsetting schemes have become increasingly popular in recent years, but
some environmentalists are critical of them, saying reducing emissions
should be the top priority.


-------------------------------------------------------- 
IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via
YAHOOGROUPS. 

Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join
the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The yahoogroups
version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real
sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can).
Apologies for the confusing arrangement.

================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries
(the 'Global South'). 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060829/0e7336dc
/attachment-0001.html

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

Message: 4
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 17:55:56 -0500
From: "Carlos F. Pardo SUTP" 
Subject: [sustran] Re: [LotsLessCars] Keep Driving...
To: , "'Global 'South' Sustainable
Transport'" ,

Message-ID: <01fc01c6cbbe$4c6db200$0200a8c0 at archibaldo>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

But, from what I understand, the environment is not the only reason to stop
using cars (or to use them less). There?s also accidents, inequity,
excessive use of roadspace, etc. Thus, even if a car is zero-emissions, it
would still pose problems!



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 at sutp.org 
P?gina: www.sutp.org



_____ 

De: LotsLessCars at yahoogroups.com [mailto:LotsLessCars at yahoogroups.com] En
nombre de Anzir Boodoo
Enviado el: Martes, 29 de Agosto de 2006 04:45 a.m.
Para: LotsLessCars at yahoogroups.com
Asunto: Re: [LotsLessCars] Keep Driving...



Jo?o,
On 29 Aug 2006, at 07:02, Jo?o Lacerda wrote:
> I am very curious to know some thoughts of our british friends 
> concerning this issue.
(below)

So, it's OK to use your car as much as you want, because it's now 
carbon neutral. So there is no environmental reason to stop using 
your car...

Problems:

1. Carbon emission offsets are no longer considered environmentally 
equivalent to burning less fuel in the first place

2. An average aggregate of CO2 emitted takes no account of whether 
the car burning the fuel is a Prius or a Hummer

3. Likewise, emissions in urban areas with heavy traffic probably 
have much higher direct impacts than in open rural areas where they 
can dissipate quickly. Of course, this is also ignoring the 
interaction between emissions and atmospheric conditions... the 
impact of a unit of CO2 emission can vary depending on where it is 
emitted.

4. This also ignores CO, NOx and SOx. So even if you are carbon 
neutral, CO is not friendly, and NOx and SOx are still not neutral.

5. If a significant number of people signed up to this, would there 
be enough space to plant the trees? GBP 20 a year seems far too low 
to me... I assume saplings (small trees) do not soak up huge amounts 
of CO2, so it will take many years for the full effect of the "carbon 
sink" to work... in this period of years, what happens to the CO2 
that is in the atmosphere, and is it recoverable by the trees in 
10-20 years from now?

6. How does this work in terms of Kyoto? Or is everyone quietly 
forgetting that now (forgive me for being rude and actually being 
bothered about the whole thing...)

7. If everybody is happy to drive their cars when and where they want 
(since it's now "carbon neutral"), will people ignore the effects of 
traffic (not just pollution, but stress and wasted time)?

I think it's an interesting start, but is it starting us in the right 
direction? After all, I assume BP only has a certain amount of fuel, 
which is going to run out soon...
> BP Launches Carbon Neutral Scheme for Drivers
> http://www.planetar

k.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=37818
>
>
> BP Launches Carbon Neutral Scheme for Drivers
>
> LONDON - British motorists will be able to neutralise their CO2 
> emissions by paying an average 20 pounds a year towards offsetting 
> their pollution after oil company BP launched a new Internet scheme 
> on Wednesday.
>
> Drivers will be able to calculate their annual CO2 emissions using 
> the www.targetneutral.com Web site and help fund environmental 
> projects like wind farms.
>
> An average car, driven 10,000 miles a year, will generate about 
> four tonnes of CO2, about enough to fill a medium-sized hot air 
> balloon. To neutralise this amount of carbon emissions would cost 
> about 20 pounds.
>
> "Targetneutral is a practical and straightforward step that BP is 
> taking to enable drivers to help the environment," said BP's UK 
> Director Peter Mather.
>
> "BP is taking the lead because our extensive research shows that 
> there is a huge consumer demand for such a scheme, but a general 
> feeling from customers that they 'don't know where to start,'" he 
> added in a statement.
>
> Motorists' money from the targetneutral scheme, excluding VAT and 
> payment transaction costs, will be used to buy CO2 emission 
> reductions via the purchase of carbon credits. BP, which has 
> provided the start-up funding and will pay for running costs, will 
> not receive any money.
>
> The company will also make a direct contribution to targetneutral 
> when motorists using the scheme buy BP petrol using a Nectar 
> loyalty card.
>
> The money generated from targetneutral will be used for a range of 
> environmental projects including alternative and renewable energy 
> -- such as biomass, wind farms and methane capture schemes.
>
> Offsetting schemes have become increasingly popular in recent 
> years, but some environmentalists are critical of them, saying 
> reducing emissions should be the top priority.
>
> Story Date: 24/8/2006

__._,_.___ 

Messages
2BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwMjU5MTAEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNjAwNzI0ODc0BG1zZ0lkAzgyMQR
zZWMDZnRyBHNsawN2dHBjBHN0aW1lAzExNTY4NDUzMjAEdHBjSWQDODIw> in this topic
(2)
k3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwMjU5MTAEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNjAwNzI0ODc0BG1zZ0lkAzgyMQRzZWMDZn
RyBHNsawNycGx5BHN0aW1lAzExNTY4NDUzMjA-?act=reply&messageNum=821> Reply (via
web post) | Start
k3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwMjU5MTAEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNjAwNzI0ODc0BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cG

=== message truncated ===





  

  _____  

Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/postman1/*http:/us.rd.yahoo.com/evt
=39663/*http:/voice.yahoo.com>  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/20060906/672dc9c2/attachment.html