From Eric.Britton at ecoplan.org Mon Jan 1 01:10:57 2007 From: Eric.Britton at ecoplan.org (Eric Britton (ChoiceMail)) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 17:10:57 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Why do people speed? Message-ID: <015701c72cf6$43c10a50$6601a8c0@Home> Dear Dave, Lee, Peter and colleagues, As you all know, on the "how to" side this is well plowed terrain -- the rich literature and our best sources are chock full of all kinds of ways and stuff that works quite nicely in this context. Using parked cars to slow down moving vehicles is just one of many. At the leading edge we now have a solid thirty year track record of accomplishment and different ways to achieve this, and it can safely be said that the entire slow-street movement is steadily gaining in momentum and unimpeachable on-street results. But the crux of it all is what I and others keep calling the Politics of Transportation, and right behind that the firm grounding that we have in our multiple records of life experience on the street in many many settings, and right behind that in turn the work of a number of behavioral psychologists how have looked at all this quite cogently and with pretty much unanimous results as to the "why" part of this. My own preference is to take this in deliberate steps. Here is one possible succession: 1. Sell the idea to your highest local political authorities (and civil society who we shall need to have firmly behind us) that indeed this basic thesis is solid, i.e., (a) that drivers as a group will drive as fast as the conditions permit them to and with that (b) that the only way to get them moving at acceptable speeds is by modifying "street architecture" so that they simply cannot go beyond the speed which the community has adapted as safe on their streets. Now this is quite a sale, as you will see if you try it. It goes against the grain of policy and practice in the past, and unlearning is one thing that most people are not very good at. (Though a properly desperate politician or one who wants to win that next election may turn out to be a faster unlearner and hence a better partner for this kind of operation.) 2. Once they bite for that idea, there may be a push here and there to try to demonstrate how technique x or y can get some results. As long as this is done intelligently and with proper professionalism, it is better than nothing -- but for my part I think we need to see if we can possibly in parallel develop all this as part of a more radically revised comprehensive vision of our mobility system and its main components (again the Politics of Transportation, and if you want a bit more on that you might have a look at what I propose under the Philosophy link on the top menu of my recent "Letter to London" at http://www.newmobilityadvisory.org/tfl.htm. ). 3. Please do not take this as a plea for yet more studies and tergiversation. We collectively know what we need to know in this case, and the only thing that is needed here is to make sure that we bring the right people and competences into our demonstration projects. So if you really decided that you wanted to make a convincing high profile demonstration of these principles all you would need would be your couple of good shopping lists, the sense of priority that is need, the bit of budget that it would require, a locality that truly wishes to work with you to make this a success, and you have yourself a sure winner. (And I and others whom you know can help you build these shopping lists and get this process started within days.) To conclude with one quick question and one quick answer: * Question: How much is the life of a single Londoner worth these days? And * Answer: the cost of one cm. of a new metro system runs anywhere from $400 - $1k. Now what? Eric Britton -----Original Message----- From: Lee Schipper [mailto:SCHIPPER@wri.org] Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2006 4:50 PM To: eric.britton@ecoplan.org; eric.britton@free.fr; LotsLessCars@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [LotsLessCars] Why do people speed? This also leads to a speculation of mine Eric, so thanks. Is it possible that in a moped-based city, like Hanoi, that at least in the most crowded areas traffic is kind of self limiting in speed, people are so close to each other that they ARE on guard (despite horrible violations of lane discipline) and the whole things actually works... While in the outer reaches of Hanoi, or in Indian cities, there is so much room for speeding that the system doesn't really work? If I am right about the dense parts of Hanoi and the self-speed limiting nature of motorbike speeds in very dense cities, then not only might slow, low-powered mopes make sense, but electric bikes as well, which cannot go much over 10 km;/hour, could be the "next step" if it could be shown that they provide essential low emissions, low speed, low risk and low footprint mobility in combination with mass transit, and in place of cars? Happy Safe New Year to everyone lee -----Original Message----- From: Wetzel Dave To: 'eric.britton@ecoplan.org' Sent: Sun Dec 31 14:29:37 2006 Peter, Could we conduct an experiment on a road which has no bus routes but a bad safety record? Happy New Year, Best Wishes, Dave Dave Wetzel Vice-Chair TfL Tel: 020 7126 4200 -------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: Wetzel Dave To: 'eric.britton@ecoplan.org' Sent: Sun Dec 31 14:29:37 2006 Subject: Re: Why do people speed? CHEERS Eric, Perhaps we should allow more cars to park at kerbsides - this would reduce road width without any expensive engineering? Or how about lamp standards for street lighting being placed closer together so that drivers gain a feeling of greater speed? Happy New Year ! Best Wishes, Dave Dave Wetzel Vice-Chair TfL Tel: 020 7126 4200 -------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: eric.britton@free.fr To: eric.britton@free.fr Sent: Sun Dec 31 14:00:44 2006 Subject: Why do people speed? Dear Friends, Here is what we have observed on this subject over quite some years in city after city, road after road and study after study, in many places around the world: 1. The simple fact is that we need to understand without equivocation that some no trivial number of drivers (let's perhaps think of them as that dangerous 15% or so - not everyone at a wheel but enough such that we need to make them our protective design target) will drive as fast as they think they can without having an accident or hurting themselves. (This is as true of motorized two wheelers as that car you so love.) 2. This is a simply human condition - and indeed when any of us are behind the wheel, we develop a level of time impatience which is considerably beyond that which we feel in much of the rest of our daily lives. Thus cars by their very nature actually evoke impatience, and with that speed and risk. This you either understand or you do not. It is unequivocal and any responsible community leaders of active citizen must understand this and be prepared to act on it. (Many of us also like to zip right along on our bikes too, which also needs to be taken into account in a well designed street system (as you all know so well.)) 3. We must protect ourselves, our children and our communities from these very human but ultimately very dangerous modes of behaviour. 4. The best way - indeed I think the only way - to accomplish this surely and safely in cities is therefore to design our streets and roads for top speeds that are way way below what the traffic engineers have long worked with. The tools of this are well known and include the full gamut of stuff like undulating streets, no long stretches of straight road ahead, narrow streets, pavement surfaces, proper lighting, plenty of non-car users out there for all to see . . . and the long list goes on. 5. My own personal target for cars on most city streets is a max of 15 kph - a nice cycling speed, which also leads them to a point in which they can safely and civilly share the street with other users. On the other hand I would like to see 6. etc. etc. But if that is true - what do we do with it next? Eric Britton ---- -----Original Message----- From: Michael Wallwork [mailto:mjwallwork@comcast.net] Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 4:21 PM Subject: RE: The 85th Percentile A NEW program??? David Engwicht raised the issue of how people based their vehicle speed on their feel of the road many years ago and was able to demonstrate how drivers drive with a margin of safety irrespective of the posted speed. This is the underlying reason people speed. Michael Wallwork, P.E. President Alternate Street Design, P.A. (904) 269-1851 www.roundabouts.net ---- 85th percentile rule (From Wikipedia) In the United States, traffic engineers may rely on the 85th percentile rule[2] to establish speed limits. The speed limit should be set to the speed that separates the bottom 85% of vehicle speeds from the top 15%. The 85th percentile is slightly greater than a speed that is one standard deviation above the mean of a normal distribution . The theory is that traffic laws that reflect the behavior of the majority of motorists may have better compliance than laws that arbitrarily criminalize the majority of motorists and encourage violations. The latter kinds of laws lack public support and often fail to bring about desirable changes in driving behavior. An example is the federally-mandated 55 mph (90 km/h) speed limit that was scrapped in part because of notoriously low compliance. Traffic engineers observe that the majority of drivers drive in a safe and reasonable manner, as demonstrated by consistently favorable driving records. Studies have shown crash rates are lowest at around the 85th percentile. Vehicles traveling over the 85th percentile speed (or faster than the flow of traffic) have a significantly higher crash risk than vehicles traveling around or modestly below this speed. Most U.S. jurisdictions report using the 85th percentile speed as the basis for their speed limits, so the 85th-percentile speed and speed limits should be closely matched. However, a review of available speed studies demonstrates that the posted speed limit is almost always set well below the 85th-percentile speed by as much as 8 to 12 mph (see p.88) (13 to 19 km/h). Some reasons for this include: * Political or bureaucratic resistance to higher limits. * Statutes that restrict jurisdictions from posting limits higher than an arbitrary number. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20061231/a05bc562/attachment.html From itdpasia at adelphia.net Mon Jan 1 23:48:53 2007 From: itdpasia at adelphia.net (John Ernst) Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 07:48:53 -0700 Subject: [sustran] Re: Why do people speed? In-Reply-To: <015701c72cf6$43c10a50$6601a8c0@Home> References: <015701c72cf6$43c10a50$6601a8c0@Home> Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.0.20070101074026.01cc98a0@adelphia.net> I wonder if the usual traffic calming techniques -- developed, I believe, primarily for car traffic -- will work well in cities with large numbers of motorcycles. We should have a test example in Jakarta within a few months as a traffic calming / pedestrian improvement attempt is now being built at Plaza Fatahillah - 100m north of the Kota BRT terminal. We need to see how it affects motorcycles, though it clearly will not be as effective as on cars -- judging from the fact that motorcycles were driving through the construction zone last month, despite numerous obstacles set out by the construction workers. There is another factor to consider: even low-speed motorcycles, as found in central Hanoi, are extremely hostile to pedestrian activity. It may not be fatal or even a serious injury to be hit by a 20km/hr motorcycle, but it certainly isn't pleasant either... and it's very common to at least be whacked by a mirror (in Jakarta, too). Best, John Ernst www.itdp.org At 09:10 AM 12/31/2006, Eric Britton (ChoiceMail) wrote: >Dear Dave, Lee, Peter and colleagues, > >As you all know, on the "how to" side this is well plowed terrain -- >the rich literature and our best sources are chock full of all kinds >of ways and stuff that works quite nicely in this context. Using >parked cars to slow down moving vehicles is just one of many. At the >leading edge we now have a solid thirty year track record of >accomplishment and different ways to achieve this, and it can safely >be said that the entire slow-street movement is steadily gaining in >momentum and unimpeachable on-street results. >... >Eric Britton > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Lee Schipper [mailto:SCHIPPER@wri.org] >Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2006 4:50 PM >To: eric.britton@ecoplan.org; eric.britton@free.fr; >LotsLessCars@yahoogroups.com >Subject: Re: [LotsLessCars] Why do people speed? > >This also leads to a speculation of mine Eric, so thanks. >Is it possible that in a moped-based city, like Hanoi, that at least in >the most crowded areas traffic is kind of self limiting in speed, >people are so close to each other that they ARE on guard (despite >horrible violations of lane discipline) and the whole things actually >works... > >While in the outer reaches of Hanoi, or in Indian cities, there is so >much room for speeding that the system doesn't really work? > >If I am right about the dense parts of Hanoi and the self-speed >limiting nature of motorbike speeds in very dense cities, then not only >might slow, low-powered mopes make sense, but electric bikes as well, >which cannot go much over 10 km;/hour, could be the "next step" if it >could be shown that they provide essential low emissions, low speed, >low risk and low footprint mobility in combination with mass transit, >and in place of cars? > >Happy Safe New Year to everyone > >lee > ... From sri at giaspn01.vsnl.net.in Mon Jan 1 21:03:03 2007 From: sri at giaspn01.vsnl.net.in (Prof J G Krishnayya) Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 17:33:03 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: Small surprises. Getting messages across - Think about this In-Reply-To: <016b01c72bf6$df0a1e80$6601a8c0@Home> Message-ID: <009401c72d9c$e74e87a0$0e01a8c0@JGK> Dear Eric, What a nice way to start out the New Year! Many thanks, and may 2007 be another Breakthrough year for you and for all of us in Sustran!! I went over to the site, and took a look especially at Brainfood. It was most ingenious how you have incorporated YouTube into the site in a totally seamless manner. How you have made each video short enough to be seen in snatches, and also how you have sequenced the videos (for automatic display) in each department. I was particularly interested in the BRT series, and would like to say that the first one ? about Curitiba, Bogota and Brisbane was just excellent. However, I was less pleased with the lengthy Eindhoven video which appeared really to be too much of a PR job ? even though the technology described was impressive. What intrigued me was the comment from Brisbane that BRT could be built in ?just? three years, allowing for all the detailed planning and coordination with Police, Roads, Transportation authorities, with very strong Political support. Ironically, Pune city has proved that it can be done ? once and for all ? in 6 months, in a manner that will most probably kill off BRT and bring on Rail instead!! Thanks for creating an excellent site, for making full use of available (free) technology, and for your interesting introduction videos. Sincerely, 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 eric.britton@free.fr Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 3:13 PM To: LotsLessCars@yahoogroups.com; NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com; WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com; Sustran-discuss@jca.apc.org Cc: 'Robert St?ssi' Subject: [sustran] Small surprises. Getting messages across - Think about this A civil society ?project?: So our dear friend Robert Stussi goes to Groningen to spend a few ways with Hans Monderman last summer and at one point walks out onto the street, pulls out his ancient video camera, and films ninety seconds of unexpectedly commented street life in that wonderful place that has actually decided what kind of community it wants to be. But what to do with it? Well, Robert modestly pipes it over to me to have a look, and I say, terrific! let?s pop it over to both Google Video and YouTube, and then get out the word and set up a few links on the New Mobility Agenda site (you can check it out if you have not already seen it, via http://www.newmobility.org then Brainfood on the bottom left menu) and see what happens. Well before you can blink your eyes no less than (as of today) 1384 people visit the Google version and 465 from YouTube. Hmm. What?s the point? Well, here is one small almost costless move on the part of, I really think we can call it civil society ? Monderman, all those who he has managed to convince with his work over the years, Stussi, the two guys in the street, all those others out their walking and on their bikes, and even the drivers who nicely become part of a new fabric of society, and you and me -- and I just have to believe that it is going to have its own bit of impact. We have to do this one small step at a time. And here is one great example. Next? Eric Britton -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070101/e77a0eb0/attachment.html From Carlos.Pardo at sutp.org Wed Jan 3 00:36:22 2007 From: Carlos.Pardo at sutp.org (Carlos F. Pardo SUTP) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 10:36:22 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Question about a Bikes on BRT (?) scheme.... In-Reply-To: <24341.194.149.113.177.1167173462.squirrel@mail.smartweb.cz> References: <24341.194.149.113.177.1167173462.squirrel@mail.smartweb.cz> Message-ID: <007c01c72e83$c2327a70$46976f50$@Pardo@sutp.org> The shot is from the Brisbane Busway system. I once asked if this was possible in TransMilenio (Bogot?), and I was told that the stopping time of the bus (26 seconds) wouldn't allow it. Anyway, TransMilenio is betting on free bicycle parking so people can access the station by bicycle and walk when they arrive at the end station. Best regards, 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 Todd Edelman Sent: 26 December 2006 05:51 PM To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org Subject: [sustran] Question about a Bikes on BRT (?) scheme.... Hi, In the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jctlibmCssQ&mode=related&search= at 4:45 - a few seconds after Jaime Lerner says "guts" - there is a shot of a bus with what I think is a front-mounted bicycle rack. If anyone knows where the image was recorded and could provide contacts to the operator etc., it would be great. Being able to put bikes on the front of buses here would be a good thing - it is allowed in North America but EU regulations dont allow it. So, I want to see how it was allowed wherever that shot was taken. Several Czech traffic engineers have told me that the reason why the front racks are not a problem in the USA is because there are no (or fewer) pedestrians there, and so the racks wont make the buses more dangerous. Like a shish kabob. Pretty funny. Even if there were more injuries, I think there would end up being net gains in health because the scheme would encourage more people to ride their bikes (gains through exercise) and get some to not put their bikes on the roofs of their cars (gains through less pollution). Thanks, T Here is a Quicktime video which shows someone putting a bike on a bus in the San Francisco Municipal Railway (MUNI) system: http://www.sfbike.org/download/resources/muni_bikerack.mov ------------------------------------------------------ Todd Edelman Director Green Idea Factory Korunn? 72 CZ-10100 Praha 10 Czech Republic ++420 605 915 970 Skype: toddedelman edelman@greenidea.eu http://www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain Green Idea Factory, a member of World Carfree Network -------------------------------------------------------- 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'). From Carlos.Pardo at sutp.org Wed Jan 3 00:39:59 2007 From: Carlos.Pardo at sutp.org (Carlos F. Pardo SUTP) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 10:39:59 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: [SPAM] [NewMobilityCafe] World's Most Congested Cities - Better, faster, cheaper? In-Reply-To: References: <002b01c72960$03b3c220$d607a8c0@SA152A> Message-ID: <007d01c72e84$43e48900$cbad9b00$@Pardo@sutp.org> Eric, I would add "nicer" to the three adjectives you mention. Aesthetics and a feeling of modernity are one of the greatest factors that make mayors go for the underground or expensive rail systems. The bus is seen as dirty, old fashioned and ugly, whereas rail is seen as strong, clean, modern and beautiful. I think it's mostly because of the great lobby from rail groups and their excellent vehicle designs. BRT is getting there, by the way. Best regards, Carlos F. Pardo From: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of eric.britton@ecoplan.org Sent: 27 December 2006 04:38 AM To: 'Global 'South' Sustainable Transport' Cc: sudhir@secon.in; sujitjp@gmail.com; NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com; WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com Subject: [SPAM] [NewMobilityCafe] World's Most Congested Cities - Better, faster, cheaper? Dear Sudhir and Sujit, "High cost underground metros"? Why not? Sounds great to me. Eh? But one small step first perhaps before spending all that money and necessarily waiting all those years before your 'deus ex machina' kicks in and is finally ready to do those good works. We refer to this necessary step in the planning and policy process as . . . BETTER, FASTER, CHEAPER! That's the modest challenge that needs to be put before the responsible policy maker and their advisors. In public and with public answers. So if we are able to get our hands on all that money and can start to spend it tomorrow, how much of the problem can we take care of . . . starting now. As opposed to waiting the inevitable twenty or whatever years that good metro is going to take. This is the vital question that under the New Mobility Agenda we feel needs to be asked each time. For starters you have to make that long list of the real needs, priority objectives and targets, and then as possible put quantities to them. Then you go to the tools, measures, policies side of the ledger and start to build your packages of measures with an eye to getting at the problems NOW! Now the responses that this approach provides are many and, when you get them right, hugely gratifying and effective. That is if you can bear in mind what the whole thing is indeed all about. Or is that just too simple for all those who are making these decisions, along with those who are urging them on? And perhaps, do they have something else in mind? It's my position that if such an exercise is not run with care and brilliance, and the right decisions are made in the full glare of the media and before the attentive eyes of civil society, then something is rotten in the state of Denmark (or wherever). I think that is along the lines that Sujit is suggesting, but let me leave it to him and to all of you on this. Eric Britton -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Sudhir Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 3:38 AM To: Global 'South' Sustainable Transport Subject: [sustran] Re: [NewMobilityCafe] World's Most Congested Cities Dear Sujit, On one hand you suggest TDM strategies and on other hand you suggest that high cost underground metros not solving problem of congestion. Metro (Underground or overhead) is a viable public transportation mode which has the capacity of attracting the private vehicle users. It is not only flyovers but also RUB/ROB's constructed contribute to induced traffic. Regards Sudhir -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Sujit Patwardhan Sent: Monday, December 25, 2006 9:19 AM To: Global 'South' Sustainable Transport Cc: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com; Eric.britton@free.fr; WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com; Sustran-discuss@jca.apc.org Subject: [Sustran] Re: [NewMobilityCafe] World's Most Congested Cities 25 December 2006 Christmas Haven't read what Eric's written (and I'm sure he wouldn't say that) but in my humble opinion advocating underground (especially Underground Metros) transportation mode as a means of reducing with the traffic congestion on the roads is like an Ostrich burying its head in the sand. Perhaps the same logic was put forward by the pioneers of flyovers (plenty of them hale and hearty in Asian cities) to overcome the problem of crowded streets. What many (not all) advocates of the underground are saying is that we simply can't do anything about the mess we have created on our streets so let's not waste time on locating the "source" of the problem (too many auto vehicles) but get on with building the underground tunnels with their promise of high (overkill levels) capacity, which may de-congest the streets. This of course never happens. Just like flyovers (ones meant to relieve congestion, not the ones meant to cross railway lines etc) constructed at huge cost become magnets inviting even more auto vehicles (cars and two wheelers) to come on the roads, underground metros consume huge finances at the cost of other needs of the city and fail to attract level of ridership projected in the concocted project reports. But by this time the politicians have pocketed their loot, the infrastructure companies their obscenely high profits and the public left high and dry with over-crowded streets, crowded flyovers and underutilised underground metro. If one is really concerned with sustainable transportation and indeed sustainable life on our planet one has to acknowledge that auto vehicles have long crossed the limit in terms of their ecological footprint. NEW faster/high capacity modes, NEW cleaner fuels, we can certainly pursue but let's not lose sight of the REAL problem and see how that can be reduced. Incentives for Public Transport, Non Motorised Modes (Walking and Cycling) and real disincentives for auto vehicles through various TDM measures appropriate for each city. I know I'm not saying anything new but in all the technical discussions of pphpd and cost per Km etc we sometimes miss the most obvious. -- Sujit -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 11838 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070102/492a182b/winmail.bin From ericbruun at earthlink.net Wed Jan 3 05:49:02 2007 From: ericbruun at earthlink.net (Eric Bruun) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 15:49:02 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [sustran] Re: World's Most Congested Cities- Better, faster, cheaper? Message-ID: <25353551.1167770942784.JavaMail.root@elwamui-norfolk.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Two quick comments: 1) Don't confuse construction time with project completion time. I point out that Delhi built the Metro but still hasn't built the promised BRT lines. Despite costing less to construct it can take many years to get public policy changed to priortize the use of road space for buses. I wouldn't automatically blame this on a "rail lobby." Blame it also on the "highway lobby" and the polticians (most of whom probably secretly oppose BRT because they are privileged car users and want to keep it that way.) 2) While congestion doesn't automatically reduce just because you build elevated or underground systems, surely carrying hundreds of thousands or passengers must have some impact. If public policy doesn't prevent cars using the liberated street capacity, surely more intense activity is the result instead. Better along the rail lines than out in the fringes of the city. Eric Bruun -----Original Message----- >From: "Carlos F. Pardo SUTP" >Sent: Jan 2, 2007 10:39 AM >To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com, 'Global 'South' Sustainable Transport' >Cc: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com, sujitjp@gmail.com >Subject: [sustran] Re: [SPAM] [NewMobilityCafe] World's Most Congested Cities - Better, faster, cheaper? > >Eric, > > > >I would add "nicer" to the three adjectives you mention. Aesthetics and a >feeling of modernity are one of the greatest factors that make mayors go for >the underground or expensive rail systems. The bus is seen as dirty, old >fashioned and ugly, whereas rail is seen as strong, clean, modern and >beautiful. I think it's mostly because of the great lobby from rail groups >and their excellent vehicle designs. BRT is getting there, by the way. > > > >Best regards, > > > >Carlos F. Pardo > > > >From: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com >[mailto:NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of >eric.britton@ecoplan.org >Sent: 27 December 2006 04:38 AM >To: 'Global 'South' Sustainable Transport' >Cc: sudhir@secon.in; sujitjp@gmail.com; NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com; >WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com >Subject: [SPAM] [NewMobilityCafe] World's Most Congested Cities - Better, >faster, cheaper? > > > >Dear Sudhir and Sujit, > > > >"High cost underground metros"? Why not? Sounds great to me. Eh? > > > >But one small step first perhaps before spending all that money and >necessarily waiting all those years before your 'deus ex machina' kicks in >and is finally ready to do those good works. We refer to this necessary >step in the planning and policy process as . . . > > > >BETTER, FASTER, CHEAPER! > > > >That's the modest challenge that needs to be put before the responsible >policy maker and their advisors. In public and with public answers. > > > >So if we are able to get our hands on all that money and can start to spend >it tomorrow, how much of the problem can we take care of . . . starting now. >As opposed to waiting the inevitable twenty or whatever years that good >metro is going to take. > > > >This is the vital question that under the New Mobility Agenda we feel needs >to be asked each time. For starters you have to make that long list of the >real needs, priority objectives and targets, and then as possible put >quantities to them. Then you go to the tools, measures, policies side of the >ledger and start to build your packages of measures with an eye to getting >at the problems NOW! > > > >Now the responses that this approach provides are many and, when you get >them right, hugely gratifying and effective. That is if you can bear in >mind what the whole thing is indeed all about. > > > >Or is that just too simple for all those who are making these decisions, >along with those who are urging them on? And perhaps, do they have >something else in mind? > > > >It's my position that if such an exercise is not run with care and >brilliance, and the right decisions are made in the full glare of the media >and before the attentive eyes of civil society, then something is rotten in >the state of Denmark (or wherever). > > > >I think that is along the lines that Sujit is suggesting, but let me leave >it to him and to all of you on this. > > > >Eric Britton > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org@list.jca.apc.org >[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org@list.jca.apc.org] >On Behalf Of Sudhir >Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 3:38 AM >To: Global 'South' Sustainable Transport >Subject: [sustran] Re: [NewMobilityCafe] World's Most Congested Cities > > > >Dear Sujit, > > > >On one hand you suggest TDM strategies and on other hand you suggest that >high cost underground metros not solving problem of congestion. > >Metro (Underground or overhead) is a viable public transportation mode which >has the capacity of attracting the private vehicle users. > > > >It is not only flyovers but also RUB/ROB's constructed contribute to induced >traffic. > > > >Regards > >Sudhir > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org@list.jca.apc.org >[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org@list.jca.apc.org] >On Behalf Of Sujit Patwardhan >Sent: Monday, December 25, 2006 9:19 AM >To: Global 'South' Sustainable Transport >Cc: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com; Eric.britton@free.fr; >WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com; Sustran-discuss@jca.apc.org >Subject: [Sustran] Re: [NewMobilityCafe] World's Most Congested Cities > > > >25 December 2006 >Christmas > > > >Haven't read what Eric's written (and I'm sure he wouldn't say that) but in >my humble opinion advocating underground (especially Underground Metros) >transportation mode as a means of reducing with the traffic congestion on >the roads is like an Ostrich burying its head in the sand. > >Perhaps the same logic was put forward by the pioneers of flyovers (plenty >of them hale and hearty in Asian cities) to overcome the problem of crowded >streets. What many (not all) advocates of the underground are saying is that >we simply can't do anything about the mess we have created on our streets so >let's not waste time on locating the "source" of the problem (too many auto >vehicles) but get on with building the underground tunnels with their >promise of high (overkill levels) capacity, which may de-congest the >streets. > >This of course never happens. Just like flyovers (ones meant to relieve >congestion, not the ones meant to cross railway lines etc) constructed at >huge cost become magnets inviting even more auto vehicles (cars and two >wheelers) to come on the roads, underground metros consume huge finances at >the cost of other needs of the city and fail to attract level of ridership >projected in the concocted project reports. > >But by this time the politicians have pocketed their loot, the >infrastructure companies their obscenely high profits and the public left >high and dry with over-crowded streets, crowded flyovers and underutilised >underground metro. > >If one is really concerned with sustainable transportation and indeed >sustainable life on our planet one has to acknowledge that auto vehicles >have long crossed the limit in terms of their ecological footprint. NEW >faster/high capacity modes, NEW cleaner fuels, we can certainly pursue but >let's not lose sight of the REAL problem and see how that can be reduced. >Incentives for Public Transport, Non Motorised Modes (Walking and Cycling) >and real disincentives for auto vehicles through various TDM measures >appropriate for each city. I know I'm not saying anything new but in all the >technical discussions of pphpd and cost per Km etc we sometimes miss the >most obvious. >-- >Sujit > From czegras at MIT.EDU Wed Jan 3 08:52:19 2007 From: czegras at MIT.EDU (P. Christopher Zegras) Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 18:52:19 -0500 Subject: [sustran] video on seperated bike lanes Message-ID: <459AF033.5040502@mit.edu> New York-focused, but perhaps of interest to a broader audience: http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/01/02/the-case-for-physically-separated-bike-lanes/ From sujit at vsnl.com Wed Jan 3 15:03:11 2007 From: sujit at vsnl.com (Sujit Patwardhan) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 11:33:11 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: World's Most Congested Cities- Better, faster, cheaper? In-Reply-To: <25353551.1167770942784.JavaMail.root@elwamui-norfolk.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <25353551.1167770942784.JavaMail.root@elwamui-norfolk.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <4cfd20aa0701022203x5f524c42jfda554dfa6da5b01@mail.gmail.com> 3 January 2007 Dear Eric, 1) Neither have they constructed cycle tracks or pedestrian sidewalks (costing peanuts) on 40-60 meter plus(ie 130 feet/196 feet) WIDE roads in many places. Whether one blames the "rail" or the "highway" lobby, I thought the real point was to show how much quicker BRT and NMT infrastructure can be put in place if it is given priority -- and not to state the obvious, that political support is often strongest when more expensive (and even unviable) projects are proposed because there's greater scope for kickbacks and also because such projects are assumed to be better simply because they cost more. We feel our task as NGOs is to expose these myths and to demand as loudly and incessantly as possible that we want cheaper, simpler and quicker solutions for a problem that is literally threatening to bulldoze our cities into a "monoculture" of cement and concrete wedded to an auto dominated vision. A vision that has not worked (for solving the pollution, congestion and livability problem) in even ONE city in the whole world !!!!! If we keep showing this reality to our citizens and politicians who ARE indeed privileged car users, people do understand and start asking questions. Questions such as why doesn't the city have better public transport or why aren't there citywide safe cycle tracks (particularly for the school children) or why senior citizens don't have adequate wide and obstruction-free footpaths? Hopefully such focused pressure will create the much needed "political will" to drive and adopt sensible solutions. 2) In contrast the "alternative" solutions albeit adopted rather late in the day for most western cities, are showing wonderful results in more than a dozen cites around the globe (both in the first as well as the third world). As Lloyd Wright's book on NMT/BRT points out can we in Asian cities avoid the auto dominated path and leapfrog directly to the more sustainable alternatives? And the last point before I close my rather long winded response, I question the image of underground metros carrying hundreds of thousands commuters and thus easing the pressure on roads. To my knowledge, other than high rise cities like Hongkong, underground Metros in Asian cities only have high capacity potential. In reality they carry far less people and hence don't really make much of an impact on the extreme congestion on the roads. I also remember someone showing the figures to prove that for the cost of the Metro, Delhi could have had a citywide-FREE BRT system. -- Sujit On 1/3/07, Eric Bruun wrote: > > Two quick comments: > > 1) Don't confuse construction time with project completion time. I point > out that Delhi built the Metro but still hasn't built > the promised BRT lines. Despite costing less to construct it can take many > years to get public policy changed to priortize > the use of road space for buses. I wouldn't automatically blame this on a > "rail lobby." Blame it also on the "highway lobby" and > the polticians (most of whom probably secretly oppose BRT because they are > privileged car users and want to keep it that way.) > > 2) While congestion doesn't automatically reduce just because you build > elevated or underground systems, surely carrying hundreds > of thousands or passengers must have some impact. If public policy doesn't > prevent cars using the liberated street capacity, surely > more intense activity is the result instead. Better along the rail lines > than out in the fringes of the city. > > Eric Bruun > > -----Original Message----- > >From: "Carlos F. Pardo SUTP" > >Sent: Jan 2, 2007 10:39 AM > >To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com, 'Global 'South' Sustainable > Transport' > >Cc: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com, sujitjp@gmail.com > >Subject: [sustran] Re: [SPAM] [NewMobilityCafe] World's Most Congested > Cities - Better, faster, cheaper? > > > >Eric, > > > > > > > >I would add "nicer" to the three adjectives you mention. Aesthetics and a > >feeling of modernity are one of the greatest factors that make mayors go > for > >the underground or expensive rail systems. The bus is seen as dirty, old > >fashioned and ugly, whereas rail is seen as strong, clean, modern and > >beautiful. I think it's mostly because of the great lobby from rail > groups > >and their excellent vehicle designs. BRT is getting there, by the way. > > > > > > > >Best regards, > > > > > > > >Carlos F. Pardo > > > > > > > >From: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com > >[mailto:NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of > >eric.britton@ecoplan.org > >Sent: 27 December 2006 04:38 AM > >To: 'Global 'South' Sustainable Transport' > >Cc: sudhir@secon.in; sujitjp@gmail.com; NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com; > >WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com > >Subject: [SPAM] [NewMobilityCafe] World's Most Congested Cities - Better, > >faster, cheaper? > > > > > > > >Dear Sudhir and Sujit, > > > > > > > >"High cost underground metros"? Why not? Sounds great to me. Eh? > > > > > > > >But one small step first perhaps before spending all that money and > >necessarily waiting all those years before your 'deus ex machina' kicks > in > >and is finally ready to do those good works. We refer to this necessary > >step in the planning and policy process as . . . > > > > > > > >BETTER, FASTER, CHEAPER! > > > > > > > >That's the modest challenge that needs to be put before the responsible > >policy maker and their advisors. In public and with public answers. > > > > > > > >So if we are able to get our hands on all that money and can start to > spend > >it tomorrow, how much of the problem can we take care of . . . starting > now. > >As opposed to waiting the inevitable twenty or whatever years that good > >metro is going to take. > > > > > > > >This is the vital question that under the New Mobility Agenda we feel > needs > >to be asked each time. For starters you have to make that long list of > the > >real needs, priority objectives and targets, and then as possible put > >quantities to them. Then you go to the tools, measures, policies side of > the > >ledger and start to build your packages of measures with an eye to > getting > >at the problems NOW! > > > > > > > >Now the responses that this approach provides are many and, when you get > >them right, hugely gratifying and effective. That is if you can bear in > >mind what the whole thing is indeed all about. > > > > > > > >Or is that just too simple for all those who are making these decisions, > >along with those who are urging them on? And perhaps, do they have > >something else in mind? > > > > > > > >It's my position that if such an exercise is not run with care and > >brilliance, and the right decisions are made in the full glare of the > media > >and before the attentive eyes of civil society, then something is rotten > in > >the state of Denmark (or wherever). > > > > > > > >I think that is along the lines that Sujit is suggesting, but let me > leave > >it to him and to all of you on this. > > > > > > > >Eric Britton > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org@list.jca.apc.org > >[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org@list.jca.apc.org > ] > >On Behalf Of Sudhir > >Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 3:38 AM > >To: Global 'South' Sustainable Transport > >Subject: [sustran] Re: [NewMobilityCafe] World's Most Congested Cities > > > > > > > >Dear Sujit, > > > > > > > >On one hand you suggest TDM strategies and on other hand you suggest that > >high cost underground metros not solving problem of congestion. > > > >Metro (Underground or overhead) is a viable public transportation mode > which > >has the capacity of attracting the private vehicle users. > > > > > > > >It is not only flyovers but also RUB/ROB's constructed contribute to > induced > >traffic. > > > > > > > >Regards > > > >Sudhir > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org@list.jca.apc.org > >[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org@list.jca.apc.org > ] > >On Behalf Of Sujit Patwardhan > >Sent: Monday, December 25, 2006 9:19 AM > >To: Global 'South' Sustainable Transport > >Cc: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com; Eric.britton@free.fr; > >WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com; Sustran-discuss@jca.apc.org > >Subject: [Sustran] Re: [NewMobilityCafe] World's Most Congested Cities > > > > > > > >25 December 2006 > >Christmas > > > > > > > >Haven't read what Eric's written (and I'm sure he wouldn't say that) but > in > >my humble opinion advocating underground (especially Underground Metros) > >transportation mode as a means of reducing with the traffic congestion on > >the roads is like an Ostrich burying its head in the sand. > > > >Perhaps the same logic was put forward by the pioneers of flyovers > (plenty > >of them hale and hearty in Asian cities) to overcome the problem of > crowded > >streets. What many (not all) advocates of the underground are saying is > that > >we simply can't do anything about the mess we have created on our streets > so > >let's not waste time on locating the "source" of the problem (too many > auto > >vehicles) but get on with building the underground tunnels with their > >promise of high (overkill levels) capacity, which may de-congest the > >streets. > > > >This of course never happens. Just like flyovers (ones meant to relieve > >congestion, not the ones meant to cross railway lines etc) constructed at > >huge cost become magnets inviting even more auto vehicles (cars and two > >wheelers) to come on the roads, underground metros consume huge finances > at > >the cost of other needs of the city and fail to attract level of > ridership > >projected in the concocted project reports. > > > >But by this time the politicians have pocketed their loot, the > >infrastructure companies their obscenely high profits and the public left > >high and dry with over-crowded streets, crowded flyovers and > underutilised > >underground metro. > > > >If one is really concerned with sustainable transportation and indeed > >sustainable life on our planet one has to acknowledge that auto vehicles > >have long crossed the limit in terms of their ecological footprint. NEW > >faster/high capacity modes, NEW cleaner fuels, we can certainly pursue > but > >let's not lose sight of the REAL problem and see how that can be reduced. > >Incentives for Public Transport, Non Motorised Modes (Walking and > Cycling) > >and real disincentives for auto vehicles through various TDM measures > >appropriate for each city. I know I'm not saying anything new but in all > the > >technical discussions of pphpd and cost per Km etc we sometimes miss the > >most obvious. > >-- > >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 ------------------------------------------------------ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070103/6f47ebaf/attachment.html From roryer at yahoo.com Thu Jan 4 04:15:35 2007 From: roryer at yahoo.com (Rory McMullan) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 19:15:35 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [sustran] Re: [NewMobilityCafe] Re: World's Most Congested Cities- Better, faster, cheaper? In-Reply-To: <25353551.1167770942784.JavaMail.root@elwamui-norfolk.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <20070103191536.71231.qmail@web31706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I haven't been following this discussion in full but I notice that in debating better, faster, cheaper it has mostly been about trams, buses, metro and rail, while the provision and promotion of an adequate and safe walking and cycling network have hardly been mentioned. I believe that right across the world there is an over-emphasis on gleaming new infrastructure projects, while often the quickest and cheapest way to a sustainable urban transport system is just giving priority to cyclists and pedestrians. I also like the World's most congested cities tag mentioned alongside Better Faster Cheaper, chronic congestion is surely the best TDM tool we have to encourage folk to use a bike or a BRT to get around. Eric Bruun wrote: Two quick comments: 1) Don't confuse construction time with project completion time. I point out that Delhi built the Metro but still hasn't built the promised BRT lines. Despite costing less to construct it can take many years to get public policy changed to priortize the use of road space for buses. I wouldn't automatically blame this on a "rail lobby." Blame it also on the "highway lobby" and the polticians (most of whom probably secretly oppose BRT because they are privileged car users and want to keep it that way.) 2) While congestion doesn't automatically reduce just because you build elevated or underground systems, surely carrying hundreds of thousands or passengers must have some impact. If public policy doesn't prevent cars using the liberated street capacity, surely more intense activity is the result instead. Better along the rail lines than out in the fringes of the city. Eric Bruun -----Original Message----- >From: "Carlos F. Pardo SUTP" >Sent: Jan 2, 2007 10:39 AM >To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com, 'Global 'South' Sustainable Transport' >Cc: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com, sujitjp@gmail.com >Subject: [sustran] Re: [SPAM] [NewMobilityCafe] World's Most Congested Cities - Better, faster, cheaper? > >Eric, > > > >I would add "nicer" to the three adjectives you mention. Aesthetics and a >feeling of modernity are one of the greatest factors that make mayors go for >the underground or expensive rail systems. The bus is seen as dirty, old >fashioned and ugly, whereas rail is seen as strong, clean, modern and >beautiful. I think it's mostly because of the great lobby from rail groups >and their excellent vehicle designs. BRT is getting there, by the way. > > > >Best regards, > > > >Carlos F. Pardo > > > >From: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com >[mailto:NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of >eric.britton@ecoplan.org >Sent: 27 December 2006 04:38 AM >To: 'Global 'South' Sustainable Transport' >Cc: sudhir@secon.in; sujitjp@gmail.com; NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com; >WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com >Subject: [SPAM] [NewMobilityCafe] World's Most Congested Cities - Better, >faster, cheaper? > > > >Dear Sudhir and Sujit, > > > >"High cost underground metros"? Why not? Sounds great to me. Eh? > > > >But one small step first perhaps before spending all that money and >necessarily waiting all those years before your 'deus ex machina' kicks in >and is finally ready to do those good works. We refer to this necessary >step in the planning and policy process as . . . > > > >BETTER, FASTER, CHEAPER! > > > >That's the modest challenge that needs to be put before the responsible >policy maker and their advisors. In public and with public answers. > > > >So if we are able to get our hands on all that money and can start to spend >it tomorrow, how much of the problem can we take care of . . . starting now. >As opposed to waiting the inevitable twenty or whatever years that good >metro is going to take. > > > >This is the vital question that under the New Mobility Agenda we feel needs >to be asked each time. For starters you have to make that long list of the >real needs, priority objectives and targets, and then as possible put >quantities to them. Then you go to the tools, measures, policies side of the >ledger and start to build your packages of measures with an eye to getting >at the problems NOW! > > > >Now the responses that this approach provides are many and, when you get >them right, hugely gratifying and effective. That is if you can bear in >mind what the whole thing is indeed all about. > > > >Or is that just too simple for all those who are making these decisions, >along with those who are urging them on? And perhaps, do they have >something else in mind? > > > >It's my position that if such an exercise is not run with care and >brilliance, and the right decisions are made in the full glare of the media >and before the attentive eyes of civil society, then something is rotten in >the state of Denmark (or wherever). > > > >I think that is along the lines that Sujit is suggesting, but let me leave >it to him and to all of you on this. > > > >Eric Britton > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org@list.jca.apc.org >[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org@list.jca.apc.org] >On Behalf Of Sudhir >Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 3:38 AM >To: Global 'South' Sustainable Transport >Subject: [sustran] Re: [NewMobilityCafe] World's Most Congested Cities > > > >Dear Sujit, > > > >On one hand you suggest TDM strategies and on other hand you suggest that >high cost underground metros not solving problem of congestion. > >Metro (Underground or overhead) is a viable public transportation mode which >has the capacity of attracting the private vehicle users. > > > >It is not only flyovers but also RUB/ROB's constructed contribute to induced >traffic. > > > >Regards > >Sudhir > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org@list.jca.apc.org >[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org@list.jca.apc.org] >On Behalf Of Sujit Patwardhan >Sent: Monday, December 25, 2006 9:19 AM >To: Global 'South' Sustainable Transport >Cc: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com; Eric.britton@free.fr; >WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com; Sustran-discuss@jca.apc.org >Subject: [Sustran] Re: [NewMobilityCafe] World's Most Congested Cities > > > >25 December 2006 >Christmas > > > >Haven't read what Eric's written (and I'm sure he wouldn't say that) but in >my humble opinion advocating underground (especially Underground Metros) >transportation mode as a means of reducing with the traffic congestion on >the roads is like an Ostrich burying its head in the sand. > >Perhaps the same logic was put forward by the pioneers of flyovers (plenty >of them hale and hearty in Asian cities) to overcome the problem of crowded >streets. What many (not all) advocates of the underground are saying is that >we simply can't do anything about the mess we have created on our streets so >let's not waste time on locating the "source" of the problem (too many auto >vehicles) but get on with building the underground tunnels with their >promise of high (overkill levels) capacity, which may de-congest the >streets. > >This of course never happens. Just like flyovers (ones meant to relieve >congestion, not the ones meant to cross railway lines etc) constructed at >huge cost become magnets inviting even more auto vehicles (cars and two >wheelers) to come on the roads, underground metros consume huge finances at >the cost of other needs of the city and fail to attract level of ridership >projected in the concocted project reports. > >But by this time the politicians have pocketed their loot, the >infrastructure companies their obscenely high profits and the public left >high and dry with over-crowded streets, crowded flyovers and underutilised >underground metro. > >If one is really concerned with sustainable transportation and indeed >sustainable life on our planet one has to acknowledge that auto vehicles >have long crossed the limit in terms of their ecological footprint. NEW >faster/high capacity modes, NEW cleaner fuels, we can certainly pursue but >let's not lose sight of the REAL problem and see how that can be reduced. >Incentives for Public Transport, Non Motorised Modes (Walking and Cycling) >and real disincentives for auto vehicles through various TDM measures >appropriate for each city. I know I'm not saying anything new but in all the >technical discussions of pphpd and cost per Km etc we sometimes miss the >most obvious. >-- >Sujit > __._,_.___ Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic Messages | Files | Photos | Links | Database | Polls | Calendar Check in here via the homepage at http://www.newmobility.org To post message to group: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com Please think twice before posting to the group as a whole (It might be that your note is best sent to one person?) Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe Visit Your Group Yahoo! Music Listen to radio 50+ free stations, for all your moods Yahoo! Movies Up for a movie? Check out the new releases. Yahoo! Mail You're invited! Try the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta . __,_._,___ Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070103/d0d3f6f0/attachment.html From ericbruun at earthlink.net Thu Jan 4 06:10:43 2007 From: ericbruun at earthlink.net (Eric Bruun) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 16:10:43 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [sustran] Re: World's Most Congested Cities- Better, faster, cheaper? Message-ID: <8567780.1167858643293.JavaMail.root@elwamui-karabash.atl.sa.earthlink.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070103/c56cb3e5/attachment.html From edelman at greenidea.info Thu Jan 4 06:28:42 2007 From: edelman at greenidea.info (Todd Edelman) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 22:28:42 +0100 (CET) Subject: [sustran] Shared space In-Reply-To: <8567780.1167858643293.JavaMail.root@elwamui-karabash.atl.sa.earthlink .net> References: <8567780.1167858643293.JavaMail.root@elwamui-karabash.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <22937.194.149.113.177.1167859722.squirrel@mail.smartweb.cz> Hi, There was some discussion a number of months ago based on a video which showed an intersection in India (I think) where all users ignored signals and just moved through it using eye-contact, body language and so on and mostly things went okay. This programme in the Netherlands, Germany and UK packages that system quite nicely. It proposes creating intersections and city street spaces with absolutely no signals, signs or even raised curbs... and it mentions important things like making a street safer with more life rather than even the most seemingly progressive traffic calming devices. It really seems like a rediscovery of the way roads used to be, before signals and separated spaces. The main thing I dont like about it is that it allows cars. The best thing about it is that its emphasis on responsibility and communication. http://www.shared-space.org http://www.shared-space.org/files/14445/SharedSpace_Eng.pdf Walking, cycling, no complicated technology... ------------------------------------------------------ Todd Edelman Director Green Idea Factory Korunn? 72 CZ-10100 Praha 10 Czech Republic ++420 605 915 970 Skype: toddedelman edelman@greenidea.eu http://www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain Green Idea Factory, a member of World Carfree Network From sudhir at secon.in Thu Jan 4 11:47:33 2007 From: sudhir at secon.in (Sudhir) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 08:17:33 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: [NewMobilityCafe] Re: World's Most Congested Cities-Better, faster, cheaper? - " Desperate Times require Desperate measures" References: <20070103191536.71231.qmail@web31706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <005b01c72faa$af452ac0$d607a8c0@SA152A> " Desperate Times require Desperate measures" The Problem with Indian cities is that people will use the public transportation if it is cheap and has high Level of Service. One can see people hanging in the overcrowded buses even without having good LOS. The answer to ever multiplying congestion can be any good traffic demand management technique BRT, Metro etc.. Congestion will never on itself attract the masses to public transportation. The government should provide the suitable alternative. Congestion is never in itself a TDM tool, The government should channel the desire of public to escape congestion by offering good sustainable transportation. I had advocated metro in my earlier mail as I firmly believe that in a long run (say 10-15 years down the line) it will push people away from personal automobiles. Other public transportation modes such as buses can augment metro efficiency if properly planned. Metro is not a "magician's wand" which would disappear congestion in a flash. Metro in Delhi may or may not provide profits to the government right now. The government decision making should not be influenced by such short term profits. In long run the metro investment will serve its purpose. It takes time to attract "choice riders" . I don't believe that the person will not walk just because he does not have footpath. Provision of Footpath and other facilities will attract pedestrians no doubt.In India many poor people walk from bus station to work place or to home as they don't have any other alternative. You cannot expect a car owner to cycle around 10km just because government has provided him a cycle track.It may not work in India as a normal one way work trip in Indian metro's is easily more than 5-10km. if you want to attract a person with better alternative than you have to provide even better service. The best answer for any city is provision of cheap public transportation with good level of service . I don't feel that there is any controversy with above statement. I feel the provision of Metro is a step in right direction. BRT may not work for all the corridors. As the land acquisition is a big problem. People in India don't have lane discipline. One can see people driving on footpaths, one ways (opposite direction) and jumping signals. BRT may be a short term improvement measure but It may not work exceedingly well for entire city. Just imagine if any city in world offers free ride in Public transportation with excellent service. Hope this dream becomes a reality. Regards Sudhir -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070104/fd1a9198/attachment.html From SCHIPPER at wri.org Thu Jan 4 19:11:22 2007 From: SCHIPPER at wri.org (Lee Schipper) Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 05:11:22 -0500 Subject: [sustran] [NewMobilityCafe] Re: World's Most Congested Cities- Better, faster, cheaper? Message-ID: in Bangalore, the earliest BRT plans were discussed in the late 1990s, with support from SIDA... Today is 2007! >>> ericbruun@earthlink.net 1/3/2007 4:10:43 PM >>> Sujit: That is a big "if" about buses getting priority. You won't get any argument from me that bus lanes and signal priority would be a very good thing. But how long does one have to wait? It is my understanding that the pollution problems were urgent in Delhi. This alone might have justified the Metro, especially if a less corruption prone model could be used to finance and build the system, and efforts were made to build up industrial and management skills usable elsewhere in India. Thus, I also clearly don't agree that it is "obvious" that Metro is favored ONLY because it is more expensive, has more opportunities for kickbacks, etc. In addition to not requiring street space, it also has a higher travel speed than any BRT system -- this could be very important in very large cities with long travel distances. I didn't claim that building on separate rights-of-way automatically reduces congestion. I claimed that if efforts are not taken to reduce congestion and the liberated bus space from former auto and bus users fills back up, we are still left with the benefit that a higher level of activity can be supported within a given area. This is a good thing from a sustainable development standpoint. If anyone doubts that this is true, then I would recommend reading Yong-Eun Shin's 1997 disseratation from the City and Regional Planning program at the University of Pennsylvania. He made a mathematical model that shows the level of development intensity that can be supported as a function of passenger transport infrastructure. Finally, I don't fully agree with the analysis in Lloyd Wright's NMT/BRT book, but that is a subject for another forum. Eric Bruun -----Original Message----- From: Sujit Patwardhan Sent: Jan 3, 2007 1:03 AM To: Eric Bruun , Global 'South' Sustainable Transport , NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com, WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: World's Most Congested Cities- Better, faster, cheaper? 3 January 2007 Dear Eric, 1) Neither have they constructed cycle tracks or pedestrian sidewalks (costing peanuts) on 40-60 meter plus(ie 130 feet/196 feet) WIDE roads in many places. Whether one blames the "rail" or the "highway" lobby, I thought the real point was to show how much quicker BRT and NMT infrastructure can be put in place if it is given priority -- and not to state the obvious, that political support is often strongest when more expensive (and even unviable) projects are proposed because there's greater scope for kickbacks and also because such projects are assumed to be better simply because they cost more. We feel our task as NGOs is to expose these myths and to demand as loudly and incessantly as possible that we want cheaper, simpler and quicker solutions for a problem that is literally threatening to bulldoze our cities into a "monoculture" of cement and concrete wedded to an auto dominated vision. A vision that has not worked (for solving the pollution, congestion and livability problem) in even ONE city in the whole world !!!!! If we keep showing this reality to our citizens and politicians who ARE indeed privileged car users, people do understand and start asking questions. Questions such as why doesn't the city have better public transport or why aren't there citywide safe cycle tracks (particularly for the school children) or why senior citizens don't have adequate wide and obstruction-free footpaths? Hopefully such focused pressure will create the much needed "political will" to drive and adopt sensible solutions. 2) In contrast the "alternative" solutions albeit adopted rather late in the day for most western cities, are showing wonderful results in more than a dozen cites around the globe (both in the first as well as the third world). As Lloyd Wright's book on NMT/BRT points out can we in Asian cities avoid the auto dominated path and leapfrog directly to the more sustainable alternatives? And the last point before I close my rather long winded response, I question the image of underground metros carrying hundreds of thousands commuters and thus easing the pressure on roads. To my knowledge, other than high rise cities like Hongkong, underground Metros in Asian cities only have high capacity potential. In reality they carry far less people and hence don't really make much of an impact on the extreme congestion on the roads. I also remember someone showing the figures to prove that for the cost of the Metro, Delhi could have had a citywide-FREE BRT system. -- Sujit On 1/3/07, Eric Bruun wrote: Two quick comments: 1) Don't confuse construction time with project completion time. I point out that Delhi built the Metro but still hasn't built the promised BRT lines. Despite costing less to construct it can take many years to get public policy changed to priortize the use of road space for buses. I wouldn't automatically blame this on a "rail lobby." Blame it also on the "highway lobby" and the polticians (most of whom probably secretly oppose BRT because they are privileged car users and want to keep it that way.) 2) While congestion doesn't automatically reduce just because you build elevated or underground systems, surely carrying hundreds of thousands or passengers must have some impact. If public policy doesn't prevent cars using the liberated street capacity, surely more intense activity is the result instead. Better along the rail lines than out in the fringes of the city. Eric Bruun -----Original Message----- >From: "Carlos F. Pardo SUTP" < Carlos.Pardo@sutp.org> >Sent: Jan 2, 2007 10:39 AM >To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com, 'Global 'South' Sustainable Transport' < sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org> >Cc: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com, sujitjp@gmail.com >Subject: [sustran] Re: [SPAM] [NewMobilityCafe] World's Most Congested Cities - Better, faster, cheaper? > >Eric, > > > >I would add "nicer" to the three adjectives you mention. Aesthetics and a >feeling of modernity are one of the greatest factors that make mayors go for >the underground or expensive rail systems. The bus is seen as dirty, old >fashioned and ugly, whereas rail is seen as strong, clean, modern and >beautiful. I think it's mostly because of the great lobby from rail groups >and their excellent vehicle designs. BRT is getting there, by the way. > > > >Best regards, > > > >Carlos F. Pardo > > > >From: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com >[mailto:NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of >eric.britton@ecoplan.org >Sent: 27 December 2006 04:38 AM >To: 'Global 'South' Sustainable Transport' >Cc: sudhir@secon.in; sujitjp@gmail.com ; NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com; >WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com >Subject: [SPAM] [NewMobilityCafe] World's Most Congested Cities - Better, >faster, cheaper? > > > >Dear Sudhir and Sujit, > > > >"High cost underground metros"? Why not? Sounds great to me. Eh? > > > >But one small step first perhaps before spending all that money and >necessarily waiting all those years before your 'deus ex machina' kicks in >and is finally ready to do those good works. We refer to this necessary >step in the planning and policy process as . . . > > > >BETTER, FASTER, CHEAPER! > > > >That's the modest challenge that needs to be put before the responsible >policy maker and their advisors. In public and with public answers. > > > >So if we are able to get our hands on all that money and can start to spend >it tomorrow, how much of the problem can we take care of . . . starting now. >As opposed to waiting the inevitable twenty or whatever years that good >metro is going to take. > > > >This is the vital question that under the New Mobility Agenda we feel needs >to be asked each time. For starters you have to make that long list of the >real needs, priority objectives and targets, and then as possible put >quantities to them. Then you go to the tools, measures, policies side of the >ledger and start to build your packages of measures with an eye to getting >at the problems NOW! > > > >Now the responses that this approach provides are many and, when you get >them right, hugely gratifying and effective. That is if you can bear in >mind what the whole thing is indeed all about. > > > >Or is that just too simple for all those who are making these decisions, >along with those who are urging them on? And perhaps, do they have >something else in mind? > > > >It's my position that if such an exercise is not run with care and >brilliance, and the right decisions are made in the full glare of the media >and before the attentive eyes of civil society, then something is rotten in >the state of Denmark (or wherever). > > > >I think that is along the lines that Sujit is suggesting, but let me leave >it to him and to all of you on this. > > > >Eric Britton > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org@list.jca.apc.org >[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org@list.jca.apc.org] >On Behalf Of Sudhir >Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 3:38 AM >To: Global 'South' Sustainable Transport >Subject: [sustran] Re: [NewMobilityCafe] World's Most Congested Cities > > > >Dear Sujit, > > > >On one hand you suggest TDM strategies and on other hand you suggest that >high cost underground metros not solving problem of congestion. > >Metro (Underground or overhead) is a viable public transportation mode which >has the capacity of attracting the private vehicle users. > > > >It is not only flyovers but also RUB/ROB's constructed contribute to induced >traffic. > > > >Regards > >Sudhir > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org@list.jca.apc.org >[mailto: sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org@list.jca.apc.org] >On Behalf Of Sujit Patwardhan >Sent: Monday, December 25, 2006 9:19 AM >To: Global 'South' Sustainable Transport >Cc: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com; Eric.britton@free.fr; >WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com ; Sustran-discuss@jca.apc.org >Subject: [Sustran] Re: [NewMobilityCafe] World's Most Congested Cities > > > >25 December 2006 >Christmas > > > >Haven't read what Eric's written (and I'm sure he wouldn't say that) but in >my humble opinion advocating underground (especially Underground Metros) >transportation mode as a means of reducing with the traffic congestion on >the roads is like an Ostrich burying its head in the sand. > >Perhaps the same logic was put forward by the pioneers of flyovers (plenty >of them hale and hearty in Asian cities) to overcome the problem of crowded >streets. What many (not all) advocates of the underground are saying is that >we simply can't do anything about the mess we have created on our streets so >let's not waste time on locating the "source" of the problem (too many auto >vehicles) but get on with building the underground tunnels with their >promise of high (overkill levels) capacity, which may de-congest the >streets. > >This of course never happens. Just like flyovers (ones meant to relieve >congestion, not the ones meant to cross railway lines etc) constructed at >huge cost become magnets inviting even more auto vehicles (cars and two >wheelers) to come on the roads, underground metros consume huge finances at >the cost of other needs of the city and fail to attract level of ridership >projected in the concocted project reports. > >But by this time the politicians have pocketed their loot, the >infrastructure companies their obscenely high profits and the public left >high and dry with over-crowded streets, crowded flyovers and underutilised >underground metro. > >If one is really concerned with sustainable transportation and indeed >sustainable life on our planet one has to acknowledge that auto vehicles >have long crossed the limit in terms of their ecological footprint. NEW >faster/high capacity modes, NEW cleaner fuels, we can certainly pursue but >let's not lose sight of the REAL problem and see how that can be reduced. >Incentives for Public Transport, Non Motorised Modes (Walking and Cycling) >and real disincentives for auto vehicles through various TDM measures >appropriate for each city. I know I'm not saying anything new but in all the >technical discussions of pphpd and cost per Km etc we sometimes miss the >most obvious. >-- >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 ------------------------------------------------------ __._,_.___ Messages in this topic (3) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic Messages | Files | Photos | Links | Database | Polls | Calendar Check in here via the homepage at http://www.newmobility.org To post message to group: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com Please think twice before posting to the group as a whole (It might be that your note is best sent to one person?) Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe Recent Activity 1 New Members Visit Your Group Yahoo! Movies Up for a movie? Check out showtimes and buy tickets Yahoo! Music Choose your radio Rock, pop, indie, country, and more. Yahoo! Mail Next gen email? Try the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta. . __,_._,___ From eric.britton at free.fr Thu Jan 4 19:39:11 2007 From: eric.britton at free.fr (eric.britton at free.fr) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 11:39:11 +0100 Subject: [sustran] new clips for the City Cycling Video Library Message-ID: <00d601c72fec$94a35d30$6501a8c0@Home> Thanks so much Sujit and Chris for getting those good cycling videos to us here over the weekend -- and as promised they have been immediately integrated into the City Cycling Video Library. To access it easily, may I suggest that you wander over to the New Mobility Agenda at http://www.newmobility.org and once there click the Video Libraries link under Group Work Tools on the left menu. There you will see the cycling libraries, among others, each with their own short and ugly introduction, and then a series of the latest videos selected in each category. As you will see, they play automatically one after the other. I personally find this wonderfully useful as a mind jogger and resource, and hope that it serves you all well. Eric Britton -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070104/1fcd02de/attachment.html From vivek at cseindia.org Fri Jan 5 20:18:27 2007 From: vivek at cseindia.org (vivek chattopadhyaya) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 16:48:27 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Cost of congestion In-Reply-To: <20061230030112.B0AF12C64E@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> Message-ID: <459E815B.5281.1427982@localhost> Dear All, I wish everyone a happy new year. Pls see the following editorial on congestion issue, you may find it of interest. thanks, Vivek Economics of congestion (December 31, 2006, Down To Earth) The Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers (SIAM) says India produced over 10 million vehicles in 2006. The number of cars was more than one million. As the manufacture and sale of vehicles are important parameters of the national economy, this millionth-vehicle yardstick says the economy?s fundamentals are buoyant. I have no quarrel with this. But I do find this economic assessment rather incomplete and simplistic. Because vehicles require resources to operate, maintain and even park. Where will these resources come from? Who pays? Who does not? These assessments are critical to learn the economics that really matters: what is the cost of this growth, and how should we pay for it? At the very least, five costs have to be added to the price of each vehicle. One, the cost of building a road. Two, the cost of maintaining roads, the cost of policing on the road, the cost of powering the millions of traffic lights. Three, the crippling cost of local air pollution and bad health which requires monitoring, control and regulation. Added to this, is evidence that vehicles are key contributors to pollution, which is feeding climate change and will result in even bigger costs. Four, the cost of congestion, which every motorist on a busy road imposes on fellow travellers?from delays that cost time, to increased fuel consumption that costs money. Five, the cost of space for parking vehicles, at home and at work. We need to ask why economists? the ones who normally rant about markets, the need for full cost pricing and removal of subsidies?never account for these costs in their calculations of growth. After all, the cold logic of the market, repeatedly cited when it comes to the meagre support given to farmers, should apply here as well. Could it be that our economists are so vertically integrated to the market?with mind and matter?that these distortions fail to catch their attention? Take roads. We know that cars on roads are like the proverbial cup that always fills up. Cities invest in roads, but fight the losing battle of the bulge: congestion. The US provides up to four times more road space per capita than most European cities, and up to eight times more road space per capita as compared to the crowded cities of Asia. When more roads fail to solve the problem, governments invest in flyovers and elevated highways. These roads occupy space?real estate?and are costly to build and maintain. It has been estimated that in Western cities dependent on automobiles, it could cost as much as US $260 per capita per year to operate these facilities. But this investment is also not paying off as ever increasing cars fill the ever increasing space. This is why experts say building roads to fit cars is like trying to put out a fire with petrol. Britain?s orbital motorway, something akin to Delhi?s Ring Road that ?bypasses? the city, was built 20 years ago. Since then, it has been expanded at huge costs to 12 lanes. But bumper-to-bumper traffic on it has dubbed it the nation?s biggest car park. Congestion costs the earth, in terms of lost hours spent in traffic; in terms of fuel and in terms of pollution. In the US, the congestion bill for 85 cities totalled to a staggering US $63 billion in 2003. This calculated only the cost of hours lost?some 3.7 billion?and extra fuel consumed, not the loss of opportunity because of missed meetings and other such factors. In the UK, the industry has pegged the figure at US $30 billion. Our part of the world is similarly blessed: Bangkok estimates that it loses 6 per cent of its economic production due to traffic congestion. These costs do not even begin to account for pollution: emissions of hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide are linked with speed and frequent stop and start. The logic of the market tells us that people overuse goods and services that come free. Why, then, should this dictum not be applied to roads? Why should fiscal policy not be designed to reflect the real cost of this public asset? Why not charge for it? The question of who should pay is simple: the user. But what is often not understood is the nature?colour and class?of the ?real? user of the public largess in our economies. While in the Western world, the car has replaced the bus or bicycle, in our world it has only marginalised its space. Therefore, even in a rich city like Delhi, cars and two wheelers carry less than 20 per cent of the city?s commuting passengers. The rest are transported by buses, bicycles or other means. But the operational fact is that these cars and two-wheelers occupy over 90 per cent of the city?s road space. Therefore, it is evident that the user of the public space and the beneficiary of public largess?the road, the flyover or the elevated highway?is the person in the car or the two- wheeler. Cars do not only cost on the road. They also cost when they are parked. Personal vehicles stay parked roughly 90 per cent of the time; the land they occupy costs real estate. Cars occupy more space for parking than what we need to work in our office: 23 sq metres to park a car, against 15 sq metres to park a desk. My colleagues have estimated that the one million-odd cars in Delhi would take up roughly 11 per cent of the city?s urban area. Green spaces in the city take up roughly the same. Ultimately, the issue is not even what it costs. The issue is why we are not computing the costs or estimating its losses. ?Sunita Narain ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). End of Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 40, Issue 21 ********************************************************************************************** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vivek Chattopadhyaya Sr R.A. Centre for Science and Environment 41, Tughlakabad Institutional Area New Delhi: 110062 India Tel: 29955124, 29956110, 29956394, ext: 222, Fax: 29955879 website: www.cseindia.org From edelman at greenidea.info Sun Jan 7 11:06:17 2007 From: edelman at greenidea.info (Todd Edelman) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 03:06:17 +0100 (CET) Subject: [sustran] Vietnam prepares for boom times Message-ID: <14445.194.149.113.177.1168135577.squirrel@mail.smartweb.cz> Vietnam prepares for boom times Vietnam is expected to become a member of the World Trade Organisation next week. The deal will help a country once regarded as a backwater to catch up with its economically successful neighbours. Unqualified terms: Catch up; Boom times Excerpt: "Economists say that soon - maybe as soon as next year - the income of Vietnam's city families will reach the size when they will start to buy cars. And if that happens, then the flow of the hordes of mopeds will be replaced by logjams, and the human scale and amiability of this low-rise city will be shoved aside by angry people in static tin boxes and looming skyscrapers like the other cities of Asia. The authorities have big plans for public transport, and as this is still a centrally directed economy they may be able to get their way [but...." Full story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/6234089.stm ------------------------------------------------------ Todd Edelman Director Green Idea Factory Korunn? 72 CZ-10100 Praha 10 Czech Republic ++420 605 915 970 Skype: toddedelman edelman@greenidea.eu http://www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain Green Idea Factory, a member of World Carfree Network From anirudhsingh1 at gmail.com Sun Jan 7 16:46:57 2007 From: anirudhsingh1 at gmail.com (anirudh singh bais) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 13:16:57 +0530 Subject: [sustran] hi Message-ID: <549e2f6c0701062346y6d8614fev59af1b9ea868233e@mail.gmail.com> Hi, A very Happy New Year to all. Well can somebody help me out to get some information or data regarding Dynamic P.C.U. Value . Thanking you Yours Sincerely Anirudh Singh Bais Transport Planning School Of Planning and Architecture New Delhi Email:anirudhsingh1@gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070107/be898442/attachment.html From eric.britton at free.fr Mon Jan 8 00:18:02 2007 From: eric.britton at free.fr (eric.britton at free.fr) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 16:18:02 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Car Boom Puts Europe on Road to a Smoggy Future Message-ID: <03f601c7326f$0d4f2dc0$6401a8c0@Home> [I think that this states the case and the challenge just about as well as any. But hey, not one mention of the New Mobility Agenda. Hmm. Well, back to work.] Car Boom Puts Europe on Road to a Smoggy Future By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL Published: January 7, 2007 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/07/world/europe/07cars.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&page wanted=all DUBLIN - Rebecca and Emmet O'Connell swear that they are not car people and that they worry about global warming. Indeed, they looked miserable one recent evening as they drove home to suburban Lucan from central Dublin, a crawling 8.5-mile journey that took an hour. Skip to next paragraph Enlarge This Image Eamonn Farrell/Photocall Ireland The evening traffic jam in Dublin. In Ireland, car ownership has more than doubled since 1990, and car engines have grown steadily. Multimedia The Cost of GrowthGraphic The Cost of Growth John McConnico for The International Herald Tribune A father and son with a multipurpose Christiania bike in Copenhagen. Bicycles of all types have helped Denmark to reduce the use of cars. But in this booming city, where the number of cars has doubled in the last 15 years, there is little choice, they said. "Believe me - if there was an alternative we would use it," said Ms. O'Connell, 40, a textile designer. "We care about the environment. It's just hard to follow through here." No trains run to the new suburbs where hundreds of thousands of Dubliners now live, and the few buses going there overflow with people. So nearly everyone drives - to work, to shop, to take their children to school - in what seems like a constant smoggy, traffic jam. Since 1990, emissions from transportation in Ireland have risen about 140 percent, the most in Europe. But Ireland is not alone. Vehicular emissions are rising in nearly every European country, and across the globe. Because of increasing car and truck use, greenhouse-gas emissions are increasing even where pollution from industry is waning. The 23 percent growth in vehicular emissions in Europe since 1990 has "offset" the effect of cleaner factories, according to a recent report by the European Environment Agency. The growth has occurred despite the invention of far more environmentally friendly fuels and cars. "What we gain by hybrid cars and ethanol buses, we more than lose because of sheer numbers of vehicles," said Ronan Uhel, a senior scientist with the European Environment Agency, which is based in Copenhagen. Vehicles, mostly cars, create more than one-fifth of the greenhouse-gas emissions in Europe, where the problem has been extensively studied. The few places that have aggressively sought to fight the trend have taken sometimes draconian measures. Denmark, for example, treats cars the way it treats yachts - as luxury items - imposing purchase taxes that are sometimes 200 percent of the cost of the vehicle. A simple Czech-made Skoda car that costs $18,400 in Italy or Sweden costs more than $34,000 in Denmark. The number of bicycles on Danish streets has increased in recent years, and few people under the age of 30 own cars. Many families have turned to elaborate three-wheeled contraptions. (Beijing, meanwhile, has restricted the use of traditional three-wheeled bikes.) On a recent morning in Copenhagen - which is flat, and has bike lanes - Cristian Eskelund, 35, a government lobbyist, hopped on a clunky bicycle with a big wooden cart attached to the front. The day before, he had used the vehicle, a local contraption called a Christiania bike, to carry a Christmas tree he had bought. This day, he was taking his two children to school, then heading to the hospital, where his wife was in labor. "How many children do I have?" Mr. Eskelund said. "Two, perhaps three." There are high-end options, too. At $2,800, a three-wheeled Nihola bike costs as much as a used car, but many people insist it is far more practical. Sleek, lightweight, with a streamlined enclosed bubble in front, it is good for transporting groceries and children. High taxes on cars or gasoline of the type levied in Copenhagen are effective in curbing traffic, experts say, but they scare voters, making even environmentalist politicians unlikely to propose them. When Britain's chancellor of the exchequer, Gordon Brown, revealed his "green" budget proposal, it included an increase in gas taxes of less than two and a half cents per quart. Other cities have tried variations that require fewer absolute sacrifices from motorists. Rome allows only cars with low emissions ratings into its historic center. In London and Stockholm, drivers must pay a congestion charge to enter the city center. Such programs do reduce traffic and pollution at a city's core, but evidence suggests that car use simply moves to the suburbs. But Dublin is more typical of cities around the world, from Asia to Latin America, where road transport volumes are increasing in tandem with economic growth. Since 1997, Beijing has built a new ring road every two years, each new concentric superhighway giving rise to a host of malls and housing compounds. In Ireland, car ownership has more than doubled since 1990 and car engines have grown steadily larger. Meanwhile, new environmental laws have meant that emissions from electrical plants, a major polluter, have been decreasing since 2001. Urban sprawl and cars are the chicken and egg of the environmental debate. Cars make it easier for people to live and shop outside the center city. As traffic increases, governments build more roads, encouraging people to buy more cars and move yet farther away. In Europe alone, 6,200 miles of motorways were built from 1990 to 2003 and, with the European Union's enlargement, 7,500 more are planned. Government enthusiasm for spending on public transportation, which is costly and takes years to build, generally lags far behind. For instance, Dublin and Beijing are building trams and subways, but they will not reach out to the new commuter communities where so many people now live. The trend is strongest in newly rich societies, where cars are "caught up in the aspirations of the 21st century," said Peder Jensen, lead author of the European Environmental Agency report on traffic. Peter Daley, a Dublin retiree who has five children, said: "We used to be a poor country and all the kids used to leave to find work. Now they stay and they need a car when they're 17. So families that would have had one car 15 years ago, now have three or four." As a result, traffic limps around Dublin's glorious St. Stephen's Green. Just as skiers can check out the snow at St. Moritz on the Internet, drivers can monitor Dublin's traffic through the City Council home page. In the past two years, the city has completed two light-rail lines. During the holidays, the police provide extra officers to direct traffic at all major junctions. But nothing helps much. When the O'Connells returned from London four years ago, and could not afford the prices of Dublin's city center, they bought a wood and brick semi-detached house in one of hundreds of new developments. Today, it seems that every home has two or three cars out front. "No one thought, 'How will all these people get home from work?' " said Mr. O'Connell, an architectural technician, who said the commute took just 20 minutes at first. Ms. O'Connell's job at the National College of Art and Design in downtown Dublin comes with a parking space. So their gray Toyota Yaris is their lifeline. One day a week, Mr. O'Connell does take the bus. But if he does not leave home by 7:30 a.m., the buses are all full and simply speed by his stop. On a recent evening, their 18-year-old daughter, Imogen, missed her art class in town because the bus ride took two hours; when she tried to get home, all the buses were full, leaving her stranded. So they drive. "I complain and I moan, but we continue," Ms. O'Connell said. "I suppose if petrol got really expensive or I lost my free parking, we'd face up to the fact that we shouldn't be driving so much, and try to figure something else out." John MacClain, a cabdriver in Dublin for 20 years, said that on a recent trip to Prague, he liked the architecture just fine. But what really impressed him, he said, was "the tram system." "Now that was beautiful," he said. "I could get everywhere with ease." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070107/e36e09da/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 15735 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070107/e36e09da/attachment.jpe -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 8457 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070107/e36e09da/attachment-0001.jpe -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 15014 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070107/e36e09da/attachment-0002.jpe From zvi.leve at gmail.com Mon Jan 8 13:49:26 2007 From: zvi.leve at gmail.com (Zvi Leve) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 23:49:26 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Hi Message-ID: Anirudh, You might want to take a look at the following paper which contains PCU values in the Indian context: Maini & Khan (1999). Discharge Characteristics of Heterogeneous Traffic at Signalized Intersections- See table 7 for PCU values of different vehicle types from a number of studies. And the dissertation: Patil Gopal (2002) "CAPACITY ANALYSIS OF SIGNALISED INTERSECTION IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES" - See tables 5.3-5.5 in particular. I am not sure if these values were used 'dynamically' (ie the values vary depending on the volume) or not. Dynamic PCU values may cause convergence problems within the context of a traffic assignment procedure, particularly when analyzing intersection capacity. Best regards, ZVi Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 13:16:57 +0530 > From: "anirudh singh bais" > Subject: [sustran] hi > To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org > > Hi, > A very Happy New Year to all. > Well can somebody help me out to get some information or data regarding > Dynamic P.C.U. Value . > Thanking you > > Yours Sincerely > > Anirudh Singh Bais > Transport Planning > School Of Planning and Architecture > New Delhi > Email:anirudhsingh1@gmail.com > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070107/04a9fa96/attachment.html From martincassini at blueyonder.co.uk Thu Jan 4 07:16:17 2007 From: martincassini at blueyonder.co.uk (Martin Cassini) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 22:16:17 -0000 Subject: [sustran] Re: Shared space References: <8567780.1167858643293.JavaMail.root@elwamui-karabash.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <22937.194.149.113.177.1167859722.squirrel@mail.smartweb.cz> Message-ID: <009f01c72f84$ca6c1d20$a7382352@mc> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Todd Edelman" To: "Global 'South' Sustainable Transport" Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 9:28 PM Subject: [sustran] Shared space Hi, There was some discussion a number of months ago based on a video which showed an intersection in India (I think) where all users ignored signals and just moved through it using eye-contact, body language and so on and mostly things went okay. This programme in the Netherlands, Germany and UK packages that system quite nicely. It proposes creating intersections and city street spaces with absolutely no signals, signs or even raised curbs... and it mentions important things like making a street safer with more life rather than even the most seemingly progressive traffic calming devices. It really seems like a rediscovery of the way roads used to be, before signals and separated spaces. The main thing I dont like about it is that it allows cars. The best thing about it is that its emphasis on responsibility and communication. http://www.shared-space.org http://www.shared-space.org/files/14445/SharedSpace_Eng.pdf Walking, cycling, no complicated technology... ------------------------------------------------------ Todd Edelman Director Green Idea Factory Korunn? 72 CZ-10100 Praha 10 Czech Republic ++420 605 915 970 Skype: toddedelman edelman@greenidea.eu http://www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain Green Idea Factory, a member of World Carfree Network -------------------------------------------------------- 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'). From roadnotes at freenet.de Mon Jan 8 22:52:57 2007 From: roadnotes at freenet.de (Robert Bartlett) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 14:52:57 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Dynamic pcu values Message-ID: <45A24CB9.4030801@freenet.de> I understand PCU's may be "pseudo-values" in that they are non-constant and non-definable ... or rather, you'd have to define them so precisely as to have a meaningless result... reb From msholler at itdp.org Mon Jan 8 22:53:08 2007 From: msholler at itdp.org (Matthew Sholler) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 08:53:08 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: RSVP Today for 2007 Sustainable Transport Award Ceremony in DC, Jan 22 In-Reply-To: <20070108030110.E45C42C4DA@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> Message-ID: <200701081353.l08Dr6H5028608@itdp.org> RSVP Today 2007 Sustainable Transport Award Ceremony and Reception in honor of Guayaquil, Ecuador Monday, January 22, 2007 6:00 - 7:30 p.m. The Palladian Room Omni Shoreham Hotel 2500 Calvert St, NW Washington, DC 20008 Jaime Nebot, the Mayor of Guayaquil, Ecuador will be honored with the 2007 Sustainable Transport Award for his leadership in dramatically enhancing Guayaquil's livability through improvements to its mass transportation system and public spaces. In Guayaquil, a city in which 84% of its 2.3 million residents had made trips using private cars or a 20 year-old fleet of buses, Mayor Nebot has opened the Metrovia bus rapid transit system to provide cleaner, higher quality service that reduces travel time in key corridors and that is expected to grow to serve almost half a million passengers daily by 2008. Under his leadership, previously deteriorated public spaces like Guayaquil's waterfront and the Santa Ana district were successfully pedestrianized and revitalized. In addition, Guayaquil celebrated its first Car-Free Sunday in September 2006, closing streets to traffic that allowed thousands of residents to enjoy the city by walking and riding bicycles. Each year, the Sustainable Transport Award is given to a city that provides an international example for enhancing the livability of its community by reducing transport emissions and accidents, increasing access for bicyclists and pedestrians, or improving the mobility of the poor. The 2006 Sustainable Transport Award was given to Mayor Myung-Bak Lee of Seoul, Korea. Cities that will receive Honorable Mention at the 2007 Award ceremony for their sustainable transport initiatives include: Mexico City ? for introducing ultra-low sulfur diesel, for continued improvements in vehicle inspection and maintenance, and for the Metrobus BRT corridor Pereira, Colombia ? for opening a BRT system through its city center, the first city in Colombia to emulate the success of TransMilenio in Bogot? Quito, Ecuador ? for efforts to re-establish exclusive bus priority on its Trolebus BRT system, after initially re-opening lanes to cars and taxis Jakarta, Indonesia ? for extending its TransJakarta BRT system from one to three corridors in 2006, modernizing interchanges and improving corridor sidewalks Beijing, China ? for expanding its BRT system and overcoming some operational challenges, significantly increasing ridership Hangzhou, China ? for opening a near-BRT bus priority system complete with improved facilities for cyclists and pedestrians The award selection and ceremony are organized by ITDP, Environmental Defense, the US Transportation Research Board Committee on Transportation in Developing Countries, the regional Clean Air Initiatives for Asia, Latin America, and Africa; GTZ and the United Nations Centre for Regional Development. Seating for this event is limited. Please RSVP on-line by clicking here: https://app.etapestry.com/hosted/ITDP-InstituteForTransport/OnlineRegistrati on.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Directions from Other TRB Meeting Hotels and Locations: >From Marriott Wardman Park Hotel: walking - exit from lobby level onto Calvert Street, cross the street and turn left, Omni Shoreham will be on the right (5 minutes) >From Hilton Washington Hotel: walking - right on Connecticut Avenue, cross Taft Bridge, left on Calvert Street, Omni Shoreham on left side (approx. 20 minutes); or taxi ($7-8) Nearest Metro stop: Woodley Park/National Zoo, Red Line Access a Google map of the Omni Shoreham Hotel here: http://maps.google.com/maps?q=2500+Calvert+Street+Nw,+Washington,+DC For directions to the Omni Shoreham from points outside the DC area, call 202-756-5141. For additional questions about the award ceremony, call 212-629-8001 or e-mail smayers@itdp.org. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To translate this page: http://babelfish.altavista.com/ or http://www.worldlingo.com/en/websites/url_translator.html Matthew Sholler Director of Development and Communications Institute for Transportation and Development Policy 127 West 26th Street, Suite 1002 New York, NY 10001 USA Tel. (212) 629-8001 Fax (212) 629-8033 Promoting environmentally sustainable and equitable transportation worldwide Visit http://www.itdp.org -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+msholler=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+msholler=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of sustran-discuss-request@list.jca.apc.org Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 10:01 PM To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org Subject: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 41, Issue 8 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 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. hi (anirudh singh bais) 2. Car Boom Puts Europe on Road to a Smoggy Future (eric.britton@free.fr) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 13:16:57 +0530 From: "anirudh singh bais" Subject: [sustran] hi To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org Message-ID: <549e2f6c0701062346y6d8614fev59af1b9ea868233e@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Hi, A very Happy New Year to all. Well can somebody help me out to get some information or data regarding Dynamic P.C.U. Value . Thanking you Yours Sincerely Anirudh Singh Bais Transport Planning School Of Planning and Architecture New Delhi Email:anirudhsingh1@gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070107/be898442 /attachment-0001.html ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 16:18:02 +0100 From: Subject: [sustran] Car Boom Puts Europe on Road to a Smoggy Future To: , Cc: 'Lee Schipper' , 'Roland RIES' Message-ID: <03f601c7326f$0d4f2dc0$6401a8c0@Home> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" [I think that this states the case and the challenge just about as well as any. But hey, not one mention of the New Mobility Agenda. Hmm. Well, back to work.] Car Boom Puts Europe on Road to a Smoggy Future By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL Published: January 7, 2007 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/07/world/europe/07cars.html?_r=1&oref=slogin& page wanted=all DUBLIN - Rebecca and Emmet O'Connell swear that they are not car people and that they worry about global warming. Indeed, they looked miserable one recent evening as they drove home to suburban Lucan from central Dublin, a crawling 8.5-mile journey that took an hour. Skip to next paragraph Enlarge This Image Eamonn Farrell/Photocall Ireland The evening traffic jam in Dublin. In Ireland, car ownership has more than doubled since 1990, and car engines have grown steadily. Multimedia The Cost of GrowthGraphic The Cost of Growth John McConnico for The International Herald Tribune A father and son with a multipurpose Christiania bike in Copenhagen. Bicycles of all types have helped Denmark to reduce the use of cars. But in this booming city, where the number of cars has doubled in the last 15 years, there is little choice, they said. "Believe me - if there was an alternative we would use it," said Ms. O'Connell, 40, a textile designer. "We care about the environment. It's just hard to follow through here." No trains run to the new suburbs where hundreds of thousands of Dubliners now live, and the few buses going there overflow with people. So nearly everyone drives - to work, to shop, to take their children to school - in what seems like a constant smoggy, traffic jam. Since 1990, emissions from transportation in Ireland have risen about 140 percent, the most in Europe. But Ireland is not alone. Vehicular emissions are rising in nearly every European country, and across the globe. Because of increasing car and truck use, greenhouse-gas emissions are increasing even where pollution from industry is waning. The 23 percent growth in vehicular emissions in Europe since 1990 has "offset" the effect of cleaner factories, according to a recent report by the European Environment Agency. The growth has occurred despite the invention of far more environmentally friendly fuels and cars. "What we gain by hybrid cars and ethanol buses, we more than lose because of sheer numbers of vehicles," said Ronan Uhel, a senior scientist with the European Environment Agency, which is based in Copenhagen. Vehicles, mostly cars, create more than one-fifth of the greenhouse-gas emissions in Europe, where the problem has been extensively studied. The few places that have aggressively sought to fight the trend have taken sometimes draconian measures. Denmark, for example, treats cars the way it treats yachts - as luxury items - imposing purchase taxes that are sometimes 200 percent of the cost of the vehicle. A simple Czech-made Skoda car that costs $18,400 in Italy or Sweden costs more than $34,000 in Denmark. The number of bicycles on Danish streets has increased in recent years, and few people under the age of 30 own cars. Many families have turned to elaborate three-wheeled contraptions. (Beijing, meanwhile, has restricted the use of traditional three-wheeled bikes.) On a recent morning in Copenhagen - which is flat, and has bike lanes - Cristian Eskelund, 35, a government lobbyist, hopped on a clunky bicycle with a big wooden cart attached to the front. The day before, he had used the vehicle, a local contraption called a Christiania bike, to carry a Christmas tree he had bought. This day, he was taking his two children to school, then heading to the hospital, where his wife was in labor. "How many children do I have?" Mr. Eskelund said. "Two, perhaps three." There are high-end options, too. At $2,800, a three-wheeled Nihola bike costs as much as a used car, but many people insist it is far more practical. Sleek, lightweight, with a streamlined enclosed bubble in front, it is good for transporting groceries and children. High taxes on cars or gasoline of the type levied in Copenhagen are effective in curbing traffic, experts say, but they scare voters, making even environmentalist politicians unlikely to propose them. When Britain's chancellor of the exchequer, Gordon Brown, revealed his "green" budget proposal, it included an increase in gas taxes of less than two and a half cents per quart. Other cities have tried variations that require fewer absolute sacrifices from motorists. Rome allows only cars with low emissions ratings into its historic center. In London and Stockholm, drivers must pay a congestion charge to enter the city center. Such programs do reduce traffic and pollution at a city's core, but evidence suggests that car use simply moves to the suburbs. But Dublin is more typical of cities around the world, from Asia to Latin America, where road transport volumes are increasing in tandem with economic growth. Since 1997, Beijing has built a new ring road every two years, each new concentric superhighway giving rise to a host of malls and housing compounds. In Ireland, car ownership has more than doubled since 1990 and car engines have grown steadily larger. Meanwhile, new environmental laws have meant that emissions from electrical plants, a major polluter, have been decreasing since 2001. Urban sprawl and cars are the chicken and egg of the environmental debate. Cars make it easier for people to live and shop outside the center city. As traffic increases, governments build more roads, encouraging people to buy more cars and move yet farther away. In Europe alone, 6,200 miles of motorways were built from 1990 to 2003 and, with the European Union's enlargement, 7,500 more are planned. Government enthusiasm for spending on public transportation, which is costly and takes years to build, generally lags far behind. For instance, Dublin and Beijing are building trams and subways, but they will not reach out to the new commuter communities where so many people now live. The trend is strongest in newly rich societies, where cars are "caught up in the aspirations of the 21st century," said Peder Jensen, lead author of the European Environmental Agency report on traffic. Peter Daley, a Dublin retiree who has five children, said: "We used to be a poor country and all the kids used to leave to find work. Now they stay and they need a car when they're 17. So families that would have had one car 15 years ago, now have three or four." As a result, traffic limps around Dublin's glorious St. Stephen's Green. Just as skiers can check out the snow at St. Moritz on the Internet, drivers can monitor Dublin's traffic through the City Council home page. In the past two years, the city has completed two light-rail lines. During the holidays, the police provide extra officers to direct traffic at all major junctions. But nothing helps much. When the O'Connells returned from London four years ago, and could not afford the prices of Dublin's city center, they bought a wood and brick semi-detached house in one of hundreds of new developments. Today, it seems that every home has two or three cars out front. "No one thought, 'How will all these people get home from work?' " said Mr. O'Connell, an architectural technician, who said the commute took just 20 minutes at first. Ms. O'Connell's job at the National College of Art and Design in downtown Dublin comes with a parking space. So their gray Toyota Yaris is their lifeline. One day a week, Mr. O'Connell does take the bus. But if he does not leave home by 7:30 a.m., the buses are all full and simply speed by his stop. On a recent evening, their 18-year-old daughter, Imogen, missed her art class in town because the bus ride took two hours; when she tried to get home, all the buses were full, leaving her stranded. So they drive. "I complain and I moan, but we continue," Ms. O'Connell said. "I suppose if petrol got really expensive or I lost my free parking, we'd face up to the fact that we shouldn't be driving so much, and try to figure something else out." John MacClain, a cabdriver in Dublin for 20 years, said that on a recent trip to Prague, he liked the architecture just fine. But what really impressed him, he said, was "the tram system." "Now that was beautiful," he said. "I could get everywhere with ease." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070107/e36e09da /attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 15735 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070107/e36e09da /attachment-0003.jpe -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 8457 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070107/e36e09da /attachment-0004.jpe -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 15014 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070107/e36e09da /attachment-0005.jpe ------------------------------ ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). End of Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 41, Issue 8 ********************************************** From Eduardo.Kohlberg-Ruiz at hubner-germany.com Mon Jan 8 23:33:28 2007 From: Eduardo.Kohlberg-Ruiz at hubner-germany.com (Eduardo Kohlberg-Ruiz) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 15:33:28 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Antw: Re: RSVP Today for 2007 Sustainable Transport Award Ceremony in DC, Jan 22 In-Reply-To: <200701081353.l08Dr6H5028608@itdp.org> References: <20070108030110.E45C42C4DA@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> <200701081353.l08Dr6H5028608@itdp.org> Message-ID: <45A26447.A697.00AE.0@hubner-germany.com> Thanks for the information Mr Matthew Sholler , even though I wont be able to make it, I am sure there will other opportunities where we can meet. Have you heard of the UITP conference to be held in Bogot?, I will be there so I would be looking forward to seeing you there or in other time. You can find more information on the following link below: http://www.uitp.com/Events/2007/bogota/es/program.cfm Greetings from Germany Eduardo Kohlberg Atentamente / Saludos Cordiales Sincerely/ Greetings MOL Eduardo Kohlberg Ruiz Investigaci?n y Desarrollo / Research and Development H?BNER GmbH Heinrich-Hertz-Str. 2 34123 Kassel Deutschland Telefon +49 561 998-1263 Telefax +49 561 998-1291 Eduardo.Kohlberg-Ruiz@hubner-germany.com www.hubner-germany.com >>> "Matthew Sholler" 01/08/07 2:53 >>> RSVP Today 2007 Sustainable Transport Award Ceremony and Reception in honor of Guayaquil, Ecuador Monday, January 22, 2007 6:00 - 7:30 p.m. The Palladian Room Omni Shoreham Hotel 2500 Calvert St, NW Washington, DC 20008 Jaime Nebot, the Mayor of Guayaquil, Ecuador will be honored with the 2007 Sustainable Transport Award for his leadership in dramatically enhancing Guayaquil's livability through improvements to its mass transportation system and public spaces. In Guayaquil, a city in which 84% of its 2.3 million residents had made trips using private cars or a 20 year-old fleet of buses, Mayor Nebot has opened the Metrovia bus rapid transit system to provide cleaner, higher quality service that reduces travel time in key corridors and that is expected to grow to serve almost half a million passengers daily by 2008. Under his leadership, previously deteriorated public spaces like Guayaquil's waterfront and the Santa Ana district were successfully pedestrianized and revitalized. In addition, Guayaquil celebrated its first Car-Free Sunday in September 2006, closing streets to traffic that allowed thousands of residents to enjoy the city by walking and riding bicycles. Each year, the Sustainable Transport Award is given to a city that provides an international example for enhancing the livability of its community by reducing transport emissions and accidents, increasing access for bicyclists and pedestrians, or improving the mobility of the poor. The 2006 Sustainable Transport Award was given to Mayor Myung-Bak Lee of Seoul, Korea. Cities that will receive Honorable Mention at the 2007 Award ceremony for their sustainable transport initiatives include: Mexico City * for introducing ultra-low sulfur diesel, for continued improvements in vehicle inspection and maintenance, and for the Metrobus BRT corridor Pereira, Colombia * for opening a BRT system through its city center, the first city in Colombia to emulate the success of TransMilenio in Bogot? Quito, Ecuador * for efforts to re-establish exclusive bus priority on its Trolebus BRT system, after initially re-opening lanes to cars and taxis Jakarta, Indonesia * for extending its TransJakarta BRT system from one to three corridors in 2006, modernizing interchanges and improving corridor sidewalks Beijing, China * for expanding its BRT system and overcoming some operational challenges, significantly increasing ridership Hangzhou, China * for opening a near-BRT bus priority system complete with improved facilities for cyclists and pedestrians The award selection and ceremony are organized by ITDP, Environmental Defense, the US Transportation Research Board Committee on Transportation in Developing Countries, the regional Clean Air Initiatives for Asia, Latin America, and Africa; GTZ and the United Nations Centre for Regional Development. Seating for this event is limited. Please RSVP on-line by clicking here: https://app.etapestry.com/hosted/ITDP-InstituteForTransport/OnlineRegistrati on.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Directions from Other TRB Meeting Hotels and Locations: >From Marriott Wardman Park Hotel: walking - exit from lobby level onto Calvert Street, cross the street and turn left, Omni Shoreham will be on the right (5 minutes) >From Hilton Washington Hotel: walking - right on Connecticut Avenue, cross Taft Bridge, left on Calvert Street, Omni Shoreham on left side (approx. 20 minutes); or taxi ($7-8) Nearest Metro stop: Woodley Park/National Zoo, Red Line Access a Google map of the Omni Shoreham Hotel here: http://maps.google.com/maps?q=2500+Calvert+Street+Nw,+Washington,+DC For directions to the Omni Shoreham from points outside the DC area, call 202-756-5141. For additional questions about the award ceremony, call 212-629-8001 or e-mail smayers@itdp.org. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To translate this page: http://babelfish.altavista.com/ or http://www.worldlingo.com/en/websites/url_translator.html Matthew Sholler Director of Development and Communications Institute for Transportation and Development Policy 127 West 26th Street, Suite 1002 New York, NY 10001 USA Tel. (212) 629-8001 Fax (212) 629-8033 Promoting environmentally sustainable and equitable transportation worldwide Visit http://www.itdp.org -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+msholler=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+msholler=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of sustran-discuss-request@list.jca.apc.org Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 10:01 PM To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org Subject: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 41, Issue 8 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 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